Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2012/2056(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Select a document :

Texts tabled :

A7-0205/2012

Debates :

PV 02/07/2012 - 24
CRE 02/07/2012 - 24

Votes :

PV 03/07/2012 - 6.9
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2012)0274

Verbatim report of proceedings
Tuesday, 3 July 2012 - Strasbourg OJ edition

7. Explanations of vote
Video of the speeches
Minutes
 

Oral explanations of vote

 
  
  

Report: François Alfonsi (A7-0219/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Guido Milana (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is the fourth time I have had to give an explanation of vote – which does not happen very often – under these conditions. The report by Mr Alfonsi that we have adopted today is of particular importance, especially for the Adriatic region in our country. The macro-regional strategy has a considerable impact both on European planning and on its implementing acts.

I believe regional strategies will be extremely important for the implementation of these rules, not least for the sector that I personally am involved with – fisheries – during the revision of our fisheries policies. Unfortunately, this sector is not given due coverage in this report, although that does not make it any less important. Besides, the constraints of the Mediterranean are well known; these constraints in both the management and the implementation of certain policies often jeopardise Europe’s comprehensive strategies. I do not think I can say anything else in all this uproar.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE).(RO) Mr President, I voted for the report on the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies because its aim is to open up a new area for the cohesion policy in Europe with a very clear objective: territorial development. We are aware that macro-regional strategies need to be based on multi-level governance, which therefore involves the local and regional levels right from the pre-legislative stage.

Both the Commission and Council are expected to give further support to the approach taken with the Danube basin, which must be evaluated regularly and receive suitable financial resources. Last but not least, I support the idea that both the Commission and Member States should consider a process of reflection and consultation for the future macro-regional strategies, so that we ensure that they will really produce substantial added value in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the macro-region as a form of cooperation is useful because it strengthens the consistency and coordination of actions, streamlines the use of financial resources, and enhances the role of local bodies by amply involving civil society.

To give an example, the Adriatic-Ionian macro-region involves eight EU and non-EU countries, has the added value of focusing attention on the western Balkans and helping pre-accession countries join the European Union, gives the regions a chance to promote themselves, and speeds up the European integration process. The EU’s recognition of the macro-regional strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian area is an invaluable opportunity to share policies and to draw Europe’s attention to its south-eastern flank.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, the EU has a strategy for the Baltic, a strategy for the Danube and now this report calls for a strategy for the Mediterranean. Soon there will not be a single European body of water without its own strategy. The economies of the Mediterranean from Cyprus to Portugal are in trouble, but are we fools if we believe another strategy will solve the problem? EU regional funding is simply another layer of bureaucracy which is preventing, not promoting, growth in the economy. EU funds are about compliance, not performance, and many regions, including those in the Mediterranean, have been failing to deliver results year after year. And what does the Commission want to do? It wants to increase the budget for regional funds by 8%. There is no value added in this and the main strategy should be to realise the full potential of the single market.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Caronna (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for this report and I would like to congratulate Mr Alfonsi once again, because I believe macro-regional strategies can be a tool for creating added value for the whole of Europe. That is why it is important to continue along this path, though subject to certain specific conditions.

Macro-regional strategies have to be developed around a well-defined geographical area with specific, uniform characteristics. In addition, strategies must be functional and stakeholders must be willing to push forward the integration process. Essentially, the regional approach should guide local communities towards integration at a higher level in order to address and overcome challenges that they would be unable to tackle otherwise, if they did not cooperate.

With regard to the Mediterranean area, I think it is important that the report envisages one strategy for the western Mediterranean and another for the eastern basins, in other words, the Adriatic and Ionian Seas. In particular, it is significant that there is already a very high degree of coordination in the Adriatic and Ionian region. I therefore believe the Commission and the Council should follow up this important report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, until now, the Commission has been financing programmes such as MED 2007-2013 and the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument for cross-border cooperation in the Mediterranean Sea basin.

Now that the 2007-2013 financial programming period is coming to an end, I think we need to ask the Commission to start a process of dialogue and consultation in order to define future macro-regional strategies. Priority areas to be targeted by future support still have to be identified, and that must be done while taking into account the need to strengthen existing cooperation, particularly between areas of Europe belonging to different Member States but sharing the same services and working area.

I voted for Mr Alfonsi’s motion for a resolution because I consider the Mediterranean to be a coherent whole, a single cultural and environmental area in which joint priorities such as crops, renewable energy sources and tourism can be shared.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against this report on the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies, with particular reference to the Mediterranean. Not because I have any particular problem with the Mediterranean and those countries working together if they should wish, but I fundamentally object to being required to make decisions based on an attempted evaluation where insufficient evidence is provided.

I oppose the report’s suggestion that regions should be forced to use some of their Structural Funds to fund any macro-regional strategy. This should most definitely be a decision left to Member States. If joint work between Member States and joint funding is appropriate, then good. Go ahead. But they should make that decision bilaterally.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubt that a report on the evolution of macro-regional strategies is extremely important because the frame of reference is certainly not just Africa, but all the continents that look out over this crucial area.

It is an area that needs resources, infrastructure, partnership and cooperation, through an integration policy that must be developed further in light of what has happened in the area bordering on southern Europe – the so-called Arab Spring, with all the undeniably genuine freedom movements that have not always led to what we would have wished.

Lasting stability is still required, however, and could be achieved through a partnership aimed more at young people. Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes with a Euro-Mediterranean focus will provide those areas with a further opportunity for growth and enable many young people to develop work there.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, now that the European Union’s first two macro-regional strategies in the Baltic and Danube regions have materialised, there has been growing interest in this aspect of development. A macro-regional strategy ensures better cooperation among the EU’s various intervention mechanisms, going beyond the appropriations allocated to cohesion policy.

I believe that the regions of the Mediterranean basin that share the same natural environment and the same history and culture have every interest in cooperating in this way. Significant opportunities exist in southern Europe, which can best be seized with the coordination and overview permitted by the definition of a macro-regional strategy. I am referring to the proposal for an Adriatic-Ionian macro-region in particular.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Bielan (ECR).(PL) Mr President, the successfully operating Baltic Sea macro-region and the related EU strategy are a source of tangible benefits to the entire Union. This is because of the cooperation taking place between partners at national, regional and local levels, which allows clear priorities to be defined and effectively implemented. This cooperation creates a series of opportunities in the area of cohesion policy, and this, in turn, contributes to the success of action taken in the area of services and on work-related issues. Built in this way, the strategy has often allowed greater complementary funding of investments to be achieved, and this has stimulated macro-regional growth. Similarly, enormous opportunities exist in the countries of the Mediterranean. However, the large geographical size of the area means that in order to make use of these opportunities, all the parties involved need to coordinate their policy. The dynamics of development of such a macro-region could be the ideal driving force for the European economy.

My endorsement of the resolution means I support the incorporation of macro-regional strategies into the process of planning the budget. I think that measures not covered by cohesion policy are of particular importance here, such as cooperation with non-EU countries. The experience gained from the Baltic macro-region gives us a formula for the development of similar initiatives.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Mediterranean area has always played a major geopolitical role in European history. The latest example, the Arab Spring, has highlighted the strategic potential of the social and political links between the two sides of the Mediterranean. I therefore consider it right to support the implementation of a macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean basin as the best way of addressing common challenges and encouraging development and integration among its peoples. Although I think the macro-regional strategies need better alignment of funding and more efficient utilisation of existing resources, they are undeniably an essential tool for Europe’s cohesion policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Scurria (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report on macro-regional strategies, especially with regard to the Mediterranean. Macro-regions have given a good account of themselves, which is why, at an historic time such as this, the Mediterranean, too, needs to be given a major development boost. The Mediterranean can become a place where culture, education, training, tourism, trade, environmental protection, transport and fishing can all come together to make this area take off, in conjunction with the ensuing Arab Spring.

Tourism brings wealth, as does trade; education brings democracy and job creation; while culture, with its artists, shows us how we are all united and gives us a view of what we could become. All these factors make the Mediterranean important, particularly for all the other areas of Europe and the Middle East in general.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE).(RO) Mr President, I support this resolution. Implementing a well-devised macro-regional strategy offers a number of benefits, including coordinated investments and greater involvement from the EU’s intervention mechanisms. Consultations establishing the problems on the ground must be used for devising macro-regional strategies.

I am in favour of drawing up a road map for European macro-regions and I believe that the funding must come from the territorial cooperation area of the cohesion policy. We certainly need to ensure, at the same time, that the money is not lost through fraud and corruption. I would like the successful strategies which have been deployed in the Baltic macro-region and which are now being devised for the Mediterranean to be implemented in the Danube macro-region, too, which also includes my country, Romania.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE).(GA) Mr President, I was happy to back this report as well. It stands to reason that there should be cooperation between regions where conditions are similar.

Mr President, my esteemed colleague, Ms Yannakoudakis, expressed her disapproval at the fact that there is a Baltic strategy, a Danube strategy and now a Mediterranean strategy. I am sorry to disappoint her, but we hope to have an Atlantic strategy soon as well.

For me, it makes sense, because if there are shared synergies, then there should be shared policies. This way, we can coordinate better and get better results for our people, particularly in relation to the sea, and not just in terms of fishing. We are also looking at the potential of marine energy – which is very important – and the growth of marine tourism, which is a great opportunity for us to get out of the economic crisis and to grow jobs, etc., within the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Giancarlo Scottà (EFD).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report we have adopted today proposes the creation of a single working and services area for the maritime, mountain and lake areas of the Mediterranean basin, with the participation of national governments and, above all, local and regional authorities.

This project rekindles the political ideal of a Europe of the regions, in line with the founding fathers’ original vision for Europe. To highlight the importance of macro-regions, I would like to highlight and bring to your attention an initiative that came about, in part, as a result of the work and ideas of my party’s representatives. It is the agreement to create the macro-region of the Alps, signed in St Gallen, Switzerland, on 29 June by regions belonging to France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. The leaders of the three northern Italian regions of Veneto, Lombardy and Piedmont took part in the meeting.

I hope this initiative will soon come to fruition, not least in this Chamber, thereby helping Europe evolve towards a genuine Europe of the people and of the regions. That is the only way to overcome the current financial crisis, to add value to our regions and their special quality products, to revive the economy in real terms, and to fully implement the principle of subsidiarity. That is why I voted for Mr Alfonsi’s report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). (LT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report and, in this context, I would like to welcome the success of the strategy for the Baltic Sea, the idea for which was born a few years ago in the European Parliament, and which, in spite of three ‘noes’, has managed to live up to expectations. Today, this strategy is one of those examples of how it is possible to cooperate successfully in a macro-economic context. The success of such strategies is firstly based on the initiative of stakeholders themselves, and the need for closer cooperation among the European Union countries concerned. The main common goal is to increase European Union growth and competitiveness and to enhance the European Union’s internal market. As for the Baltic Sea strategy, at this stage, when priority areas are clearly defined and needs and specific projects are set, the Commission should draw up a list of recommended European Union programmes and indicate which programmes will be eligible in the new multiannual financial framework. I believe that a European Union macro-regional strategy coordinator would be a useful consolidating factor, ensuring coordination and visibility. I would also like to stress that these macro-regional strategies do not represent a requirement to obtain more money. They represent a requirement and need for enhanced mutual cooperation.

 
  
  

Recommendation for second reading: Debora Serracchiani (A7-0196/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement reached with the Council has resulted in some significant improvements. I am thinking of the establishment of strong, independent national regulators to guarantee fair and non-discriminatory access to the market, which is one of the key points of the recast; the minimum five-year term for contracts between Member States and infrastructure managers, which will allow for better long-term investment planning; and the major focus on safety, both in terms of rolling stock maintenance, an important distinction being made between light and heavy maintenance, and in terms of the technological modernisation of infrastructure and trains to improve safety (particularly through the European Rail Traffic Management System).

In short, the net outcome is positive overall, although one crucial point for the completion of the single rail market remains unresolved, which is the opening up of national rail passenger traffic. I hope the Commission will keep up the momentum it developed a few months ago and will put forward a new proposal in that respect by the end of the year.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after long and difficult negotiations, an agreement has been reached that provides Europe’s rail infrastructure with the right balance between financial transparency and the flexibility needed to secure adequate investment. In particular, the minimum five-year term for contracts between Member States and network managers guarantees the medium- and long-term investment planning that is vital for the rail sector. I would, however, have thought it worthwhile to include measures on the opening up of the national rail passenger market so as to complete the European single market and not to penalise those companies that already operate in open markets.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hubert Pirker (PPE).(DE) Mr President, I am convinced that in creating a single European railway area, we will achieve the following: firstly, a better service for customers; secondly, optimal utilisation of the European corridors; and thirdly, an increase in the competitiveness of the railways. To do this, however, we need a strong regulatory authority that ensures greater competition and makes decisions swiftly. To achieve that, we need to open up the market for national passenger rail transport, and for that we need, above all, technical harmonisation in the areas of power supply, safety equipment and track gauges. On the whole, this is a very positive report that I am happy to support.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with Ms Serracchiani on ensuring financial transparency and the separation of accounts between rail transport companies and rail network managers, and then liberalising rail services to achieve a truly open and competitive market with better and more extensive freight and passenger transport services.

The rail system still cannot match other means of transport, partly because many Member States have neglected railway funding. We should consider the fact that freight transport by road has risen to 45.9%, with a resulting increase in traffic and, of course, in road accidents as well. The fact is that lorries can cross borders without difficulty, whereas trains encounter technical and legal obstacles that have to be removed. In conclusion, we should ensure fair and non-discriminatory access to the market, while planning investment to modernise and create quality infrastructure and services.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter Jahr (PPE).(DE) Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of this report because reform of the railways is a logical part of the internal market. I would just like to make two comments. Firstly, it is, of course, important that the national regulatory authorities are networked with each other and that a European regulatory authority also emerges. I would simply like to raise the point that this does not have to take the form of setting up additional new authorities; instead, we can simply network the existing authorities better with each other, because we have enough authorities already.

Secondly, I should like to point out – as the previous speaker also emphasised – that we need to get serious about the internal market, and we also need to get serious about cross-border rail transport between the Member States. It is high time that we started getting rid of apparent obstacles. The issue of technical standards is generally brought up, and the railways – and thus also our goods and citizens – are not able to move about as freely as they ought to be allowed to.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the creation of a single European railway area provides a major opportunity to support economic recovery and make the single market more competitive.

The variety of national railway systems hampers this process: numerous legislative barriers slow down development in the sector and limit the competitiveness of rail transport. We should establish transparent rules on access to rail-related services and service facilities, such as freight terminals, maintenance facilities and marshalling yards. Ms Serracchiani’s report is a step in that direction, and that is why I voted for it.

The Council is calling for too long a period – up to 36 months – for this new directive to enter into force. Accordingly, I endorse the rapporteur’s request to set a period of 12 months for the transposition of the entire directive.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the proposal on a single European railway area. It seems to be quite apposite to consolidate existing directives on European rail policy while moving towards a necessary further liberalisation.

Current international services in Europe are still often run by complex joint ventures formed for this purpose and requiring unnecessary expenses and delays. A free market in rail services will surely be a boon to the European traveller and haulier. A gradualist model of strengthening national independent rail regulators, with a view to the establishment of a pan-European regulator, is the right approach. I must also say, as a London MEP, that my constituents are eager to see Deutsche Bahn run their ICE 3 through the Channel Tunnel, ferrying passengers from London to Cologne and Frankfurt. They have been disappointed at the bureaucratic delay to this project.

I am a great supporter of the rail sector and of new infrastructure building, such as the new High Speed 2 set to be constructed in the UK. Anything that can be done at European level to establish proper funding models and set high standards on issues like noise emissions is very welcome.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, the recast of the railway package represents a further step towards the full liberalisation of European railways. I stand with European rail workers in opposing this because it is all about developing the railways into a nice profitable treat for the private sector to gobble up. It runs against the interests of both workers and consumers.

The so-called rail maintenance facility, for instance, will lead to further privatisation and outsourcing of maintenance in many EU countries. This will lead to further redundancies and further attacks on workers’ wages and conditions. But it will also be a serious threat to safety, as the pressure to keep profits high overshadows any concern for safety. Nevertheless, the EU has been spearheading this drive like an oncoming train, disregarding all legitimate opposition. This is something that the activists of the ‘No TAV’ movement in Italy know about all too well. Thousands upon thousands of people in the Val di Susa have opposed the destruction of their beautiful valley solely in the interests of profits with no benefit for the people in the area. Their movement has been met with massive oppression. One year ago, two thousand policemen attacked a peaceful protest camp, injuring many people. There have been many other incidences of repression since.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against this report as I find the notion of a single European railway area a ridiculous, unnecessary and unwelcome intrusion into domestic affairs. There is no need for Fritz the Tank Engine or for a single EU Fat Controller for our railways.

It is true that international, rather than regional, agreements are valuable for air and maritime transport, as are single market measures for rail suppliers. But the United Kingdom is a large island with only one rail connection with continental Europe and it has no road connections at all. So for road and rail, it does not work.

I think this proposal does nothing but confuse priorities and drive up costs. In East Anglia, my constituency, hard-pressed rail users do not stand on platforms demanding a single European railway area. They need better services, less crowding and reasonable ticket prices. This is a silly single rail area proposal and it should not be allowed. It should not leave the station.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, it may, outside the portals of this institution, strike people as odd, given what is happening, that we are devoting all this time to discussing a single European railway area, but then again there is, I think, an appropriateness in this topic, both literally and figuratively; literally because it is precisely such harmonisation, such uniformity, such micro-management that led Europe to its present discontent, and figuratively because the train is the ultimate European metaphor.

When the euro was launched, we were forever being told that we would miss the train and that this was a terrible danger, and we can now see exactly where the train that we missed has ended up. It is hurtling out of control under its own momentum: bailout-and-borrow, bailout-and-borrow, bailout-and-borrow. As we look, we can see that there is still theoretically time to throw the switches. You could still deflect it on to a different course. You could allow an orderly dismantling of the eurozone and countries to export their way back into the market, but the terrible grisly truth dawning on us is that there is no one in the engine. It is out of control and it is going to hit the buffers and, when it does, the shockwaves will be felt around the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, I have to say, having listened to the previous colleagues, that this should have been a priority in the first place.

We should have been looking at completing the single market rather than focusing on trying to complete a eurozone without actually getting it right in the first place. Having one currency, 17 different spending decisions, and one set of interest rates was a project that was always going to get into trouble: it would either be derailed or actually hit the buffers. That is what we were going to find that project.

What we are finding with the single European railway area is a drive towards more competition, and this is what we want to see. We want to see more competition so that passengers benefit from this; they can have a choice of carrier. We should also encourage open-access carriers as much as possible, so that we do not see monopolies of carriers on the same piece of track.

It is interesting when we look at this that we are asking for more competition in a single market. Yet when it comes to the eurozone, we are saying no competition when it comes to currencies because if you have a market, you have to have the same currency. We have to get the message right.

 
  
  

Report: Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (A7-0195/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the text we have adopted today provides a good basis for starting negotiations with the Council. I am certain that this innovative instrument will lead to improvements in road safety, drivers’ working conditions and competition in the sector.

I am particularly pleased regarding the amendment that I tabled on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on joint liability. I believe it should be possible to hold any operator in the transport sector liable for infringements of the regulation in question, and not just road haulage companies and their drivers.

The text also calls for smart tachographs to be fitted to all vehicles, old and new, by 2020. This requirement will certainly entail a major effort by companies in the sector, but it is equally important to remain ambitious and gradually install digital tachographs even in those vehicles that use analogue ones.

A final critical point is, I believe, the definition of ‘daily working period’. In my view, it is not consistent with other definitions given in existing legislation, particularly with regard to a driver’s rest periods or breaks, which would remain part of the working period according to this definition.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hubert Pirker (PPE).(DE) Mr President, I am convinced that the smart tachograph will result in greater safety and a reduction in red tape and administrative costs. It will improve safety because driving times will be adhered to and this can also be checked remotely, which will undoubtedly reduce accidents; and it will also improve safety because it will help prevent thefts or enable goods vehicles to be found again by providing location information. I am also convinced that red tape and administrative costs will be reduced precisely because it allows external control and therefore goods vehicles do not have to stop if they are complying with the rules.

I am very pleased that there will be exemptions for reasons of practicality, namely, that handicraft businesses will be exempt from the obligation to use a tachograph within a radius of 100 kilometres, and likewise that transport of materials to and from building sites is exempted. This is a practical solution in the interests of the construction sector. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have been legislating in Europe since the late 1960s to improve the situation of our roads and hauliers’ working conditions. The situation has deteriorated drastically in recent years, however, as there is an ever increasing number of companies that infringe the regulations in force. In particular, failing to comply with minimum rest periods and maximum driving times results in driver fatigue and potentially greater risks for road safety.

I therefore voted in favour of Ms Ţicău’s report as I think it may improve the implementation of social legislation and ensure fair competition among haulage companies.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I want to pay a special tribute to Ms Silvia Ţicău and her staff, including Elena Podariu, together with the secretariat, especially Elvira Ramírez Pineda, who have worked so hard behind the scenes to ensure that we put this report before plenary today. I have pleasure in voting for it.

There were two problems. The first is in relation to the social rules that have been breached. According to data provided by the Commission, on average, 9% of the controlled vehicles are found breaching the social rules. Roughly a quarter of them are found breaching the tachograph regulations in particular. Secondly, on average, at any one point in time, around 45 000 vehicles are in breach of EU tachograph rules. Non-respect of the minimum breaks, rest periods and the maximum driving times can lead to fatigue for drivers and cause a potential risk to road safety. Heavy goods vehicles are potentially lethal weapons.

Finally, professional drivers and transport companies operate in a highly fragmented market and a fiercely competitive environment. What we need to do is tighten up. That is exactly what this tachograph report does today.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against this report on recording equipment in road transport with particular reference to tachographs. I know how important tachographs are. I think we can all agree that they have road safety benefits and transport operators use them without complaint these days.

New technology should, of course, be embraced, particularly when it is aimed at combating fraud, but I cannot agree with the suggestions in this report that extra expenses should be imposed on European transport operators by agreeing to mandatory introduction of new technology without a clear cost-benefit analysis, and by that I do not mean an analysis of people not complying. I mean an analysis of the results of people not complying, which seem to be significantly missing. I am particularly concerned about the extra cost to transport operators of the requirement to retrofit into vehicles new technology by 2020, which seems to be an unnecessary expense and one which will disadvantage many in the transport sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter Jahr (PPE).(DE) Mr President, I struggled for a long time over how to vote on this proposal, but in the end I abstained. On the one hand, I quite understand the notion that drivers should abide by the rules on driving and rest times. I am also aware that this has to happen on an EU-wide basis, and that there must be no distortion of competition as a result.

On the other hand, however, I am always mindful of proportionality and practicality. Everything that we do must also be proportional, and we must not constantly impose new constraints on regional business, on the little man, on small and medium-sized enterprises – which essentially we want to support – and hinder them in their work. It is precisely this second aspect that I feel has not been given anywhere near sufficient consideration in this report. It is simply a matter of transport undertakings that operate regionally also needing protection. They do not need tachographs, they do not need evidence – they simply want to do a job. In future, we should allow them to do so, so that they can continue to secure jobs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by improving the harmonised control of driving time and rest periods, digital tachographs can play a vital role in ensuring that the internal road haulage market functions properly, which will greatly benefit road safety.

A number of recent police reports from certain Member States have shown that fraudulent use of these devices has risen, and therefore a change to the regulation in force is urgently required. According to the Commission, the increased cost of purchasing a new tachograph is expected to be around EUR 5 per vehicle, which is negligible compared with the potential benefits that could accrue.

I voted in favour of Ms Ţicău’s proposal because I believe tachographs and vehicle satellite tracking systems should be synchronised to make services more efficient and more reliable. The ability to transmit tachograph data remotely will also lead to better control and a substantial improvement in road safety.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against the proposal on recording equipment, namely tachographs, in road transport. I am concerned that this proposal violates the principle of national subsidiarity. I am in broad agreement with the Commission’s goals in formulating the policy generally, especially the attempt to reduce the administrative burden of manual checks, and indeed the safety principles on which previous directives and regulations are based.

While, in general, I am unafraid of surveillance measures, this proposal raises serious privacy concerns that are surely best dealt with at national level. The prospect of a remote surveillance organ for the whole of the EU, accountable only to the EU institutions, is a step too far in my view. The Commission’s assurances on data protection are also insufficient, and – as has been pointed out – fraud is an increasing problem. I appreciate that in the field of road transport, some European harmonisation is necessary. However, complete harmonisation goes far too far.

Another pressing concern is the requirement to retrofit vehicles by 2020. This will be very expensive and will be an additional burden on a road haulage industry already suffering in the current economic crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, when I speak to road hauliers in my own constituency, they tell me two things. Firstly, the economic situation has left their business on edge and they are often working simply to cover costs. Secondly, they are weighed down by levels of bureaucracy and red tape. Many have genuine concerns for the viability and sustainability of their business.

Hauliers are responsible people and this Parliament should treat them as such. Yet some of what is suggested here seems to treat them with mistrust. The intrusive level of monitoring with the proposal for satellite tracking of vehicles is something I cannot agree with.

I also oppose the merging of tachograph records and driving licences. Furthermore, by seeking to bring more vehicles into the remit of these requirements, we would close small businesses, and therefore weight thresholds should not be altered.

We ought to be working to ensure our haulage industry survives these difficult times, not to add to their costs and regulation just because we can.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE).(GA) Mr President, may I first commend the rapporteur, Ms Silvia Ţicău, for her good work and, in particular, my own colleague, the Quaestor Jim Higgins, who did a fine job on behalf of my group. There can be no doubt that more people than ever are travelling across Europe and more goods are being transported. Therefore, there is a need for common rules across Europe. Tachographs help here. They were introduced in 1970, we had to amend them in 1985 because of the analogue tachograph, and now we have smart tachographs which hopefully will be fitted to all vehicles by 2020. To use them correctly, however, proper training must be given to the officials who will be in charge of implementing these rules, and that must be done without increasing the red tape one finds all over Europe. If we succeed in doing so, it will be of great help in this matter and as regards road safety.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Kastler (PPE).(DE) Mr President, there is a German rhyme: Ein kleines Dorf im Frankenland ist durch sein gutes Bier bekannt, which tells of regional pride in a brewery, and this demonstrates a problem that we have created today. If this brewery or its distributor is 107 kilometres away from where I live, then in future, it will no longer be able to supply me with its products unless it buys a new tachograph and complies with new red tape. That is why I voted against this resolution today, because in my view, we should not be overburdening our small and medium-sized enterprises.

There are many points that we have managed to incorporate which were positive. After all, it was planned that a radius of just 50 kilometres should be accepted for regional suppliers. The Commission was being quite absurd there. A distance of 100 kilometres may be just about feasible. However, what if the distance is more than this? I therefore consider it to be excessive.

One final aspect: as a representative of an employees’ organisation in the German CSU party, I would also say that this regulation represents complete control of workers. Why? It is because the entire working day of those distributing construction materials or drinks from the breweries is completely controlled via GPS. For data protection reasons, too, therefore, I feel that what we have decided today is highly questionable, and I emphasise once again why I voted against it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Albert Deß (PPE).(DE) Mr President, as one of the few people in this Chamber to have actually been a lorry driver myself, I voted against this today, even though Mr Higgins has done some good work. There were two main reasons for this. Firstly, it was because Parliament voted in favour of Amendment 134, which lowered the tonnage limit of the vehicles from 3.5 tonnes to 2.8 tonnes. I consider that excessive; it was not necessary.

Above all, in the end I voted against the motion because Amendment 129 was rejected. This amendment called for the radius for approved exemptions to be extended to 150 kilometres. I am from the Upper Palatinate. Munich is 130 kilometres away. My tradesmen work in Munich a great deal, and now they have to install tachographs because they work in Munich. I am particularly annoyed that the only other Member from the Upper Palatinate region, Ismail Ertug, voted against the interests of tradesmen in our region on these two points. I have great hopes that this will be corrected again at second reading, so that tradesmen who work in areas some distance away from their own will not be disadvantaged.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – Mr President, I just want to explain why the ALDE Group could not support this motion, despite the fact that we are very much in favour of the introduction of digital tachographs.

We put forward a lot of amendments to reduce the burden on small businesses, including the one which Mr Deß has just referred to on increasing the exemption area. None of these amendments were passed. We also had some destructive amendments from elsewhere which actually made the burdens greater. Therefore, we were unable to support this motion as a whole.

There were also some issues from the Greens – which thankfully were rejected – which would have brought the weight down to 1.5 tonnes. This would have included all farmers’ pick-up trucks. Thankfully, that did not go through.

Overall, we are in favour of the digital tachograph but we need to make sure that it is not a great burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, we did not support this report.

 
  
  

Report: Jürgen Creutzmann (A7-0046/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, it is a great pleasure to actually support this draft proposal. I think the six things that it sets out to do are sensible.

It sets out, first of all, to broaden the scope of the existing regulation, which needed to be broadened. Secondly, it seeks to maintain the ability for customs to have control, for the purpose of enforcement of intellectual property rights, in all situations where goods are under supervision. Thirdly, it introduces procedures to have goods which have been abandoned destroyed without having to undergo formal or costly legal proceedings. It simplifies the procedure for dealing with IPR infringing goods sold on the Internet and it sets out very clear rules in respect of actions by both rights holders and owners of the goods.

Finally, it clarifies the position in respect of goods in transit: customs should only act if it is likely that the goods are destined for the EU market. So the new regulation is good. It provides stronger, clearer and modernised legislation which customs administration can implement as part of their role to help cope with IPR infringements on borders.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, intellectual property right infringements and the global trade in counterfeit goods are an ever growing concern, in terms of both the economic consequences for Europe’s industry and the risks to consumers’ health and safety.

Parliament has, for some time, been speaking out on the need to regulate the flow of goods from third countries, which, in the absence of efficient, harmonised customs control, is liable to be the unwitting channel for the traffic in products that are harmful to consumers and prejudicial to fair competition in the market.

For some time, I have been calling for the customs systems to be harmonised to make Europe more competitive, a subject that today, at last, lies at the heart of the political debate, together with tax setting. We welcome the Creutzmann report because it simplifies the existing regulatory framework and strengthens the measures used to counter unfair competition.

In the Committee on International Trade, we are working on the reform of the customs code in order to provide operators with greater certainty on the destination of goods in transit and to allow for swift action on false statements of origin, a problem that would have been resolved already if the Council had adopted the regulation that this House adopted in October two years ago.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Bielan (ECR).(PL) Mr President, innovation and the unhindered development of new technologies are possible on the basis of respect for intellectual property rights. Appropriate protection for these rights is essential to be able to compete effectively in world markets and for European products to be able to compete with their foreign counterparts. The cost of piracy – only in financial terms – being borne by European businesses is estimated at over EUR 0.25 billion a year and calls for a determined reaction.

In addition, serious consequences to the public may be caused by the sale of counterfeit food items, toiletries and medicines. Recently, we were appalled by the case of industrial salt being used in food products. The report recognises that counterfeit goods intended for private use also break the law. In this context, the measures proposed in relation to small consignments are of crucial importance. The clarifications provided with regard to the treatment of suspect goods from third countries engender hope that a more effective policy will also be adopted when these controversial issues are discussed at the WTO. I support the resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I have always supported strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and I welcome this overdue Commission proposal. My country, the UK, is particularly strong in this area. Tolerating the siphoning off of the profits of European wealth creators and inventors defeats the logic of the single market. I hope that the measures proposed will go some way towards furthering the stalled EU 2020 strategy. In particular, I am pleased with the prospective new capacities for involved third parties, such as carriers, to receive compensation from law breakers.

It is also necessary to increase the legal pressure on copyright violators. Of course, I share the concerns of some Members of this House with regard to generic medicines, but let us not forget the profit motive, on the basis of which most medical advancements are made in Europe by our pharmaceutical companies. My group has previously expressed concerns that additional responsibilities placed on already strained national customs authorities should not be too onerous, so therefore I would hope that any forthcoming amendments will avoid encumbering them more than is necessary.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE).(GA) Mr President, my colleague, Jim Higgins, has explained what these proposals involve, so it surprises me that 259 Members voted against them, although 397 Members voted in favour. But be that as it may, I was happy to vote with the latter.

When one considers that counterfeited goods, piracy, etc. are costing the European Union billions and billions every year, costing us thousands and thousands of jobs, and damaging the health and safety of our adults and children, it is quite clear that we need to take firm action, particularly in dealing with IPR, and at border control. It is far easier to deal with this as goods come into the European Union than trying to do it within the European Union on the borders of Member States. For that reason, I welcome the proposals here. The sooner we can put a stop to this terrible injustice, the better for our economy and for our people.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, I consider the issue of intellectual property to be one of the most finely balanced that we have to deal with in this Chamber. It is not as clear as Left or Right; free market or dirigiste; Europhile or Eurosceptic. In all of the areas which come under this broad heading – patenting, trademarking, copyrighting – you have to strike a balance between competition and the rights of creators, and between diversity and property. The more difficult it becomes to define what you mean by property, the harder it is to strike that balance.

I would just say two things. First of all, I am very disappointed that, on the strength of what seems to have been simply a reaction in principle against what was seen as a concession to David Cameron, we have withdrawn the vote that was scheduled to be held tomorrow on the European patent. Secondly, in its current form I think that the ACTA proposal is, on balance, disproportionate and I intend to oppose it.

 
  
  

Report: Richard Seeber (A7-0192/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, water is life; water is a precious public asset that we have a duty and an interest in conserving and managing sustainably in order to safeguard ecosystems and the very survival of the human race. This important report takes stock of the implementation status of EU water legislation ahead of the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, which the Commission has announced for this autumn.

Much has been done in the 12 years since the Water Framework Directive entered into force, but there is still a huge amount left to do, especially in many southern European countries such as Italy, which is to appear before the Court of Justice because of delays in implementing the directive.

We have to ensure sufficient availability of good-quality water, bearing in mind that water resources in Europe are distributed unevenly, and consequently we must mainstream this issue in all European policy areas. It is unacceptable that as much as 70% of the water supplied to our communities may be lost through leakage due to the poor state of repair of our water systems. We must reach the target of a green economy and equip ourselves with locally developed water plans that strictly combat waste and encourage water saving, reuse and recycling, whether for irrigation or for domestic use, and across all sectors of the economy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ewald Stadler (NI).(DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of Mr Seeber’s report. However, I would like to say that the report does, of course, highlight the fact that some Member States have been slow to transpose the Water Framework Directive, which has already been in force for 12 years. Mr Seeber’s and my own home country of Austria should have changed its charging schemes a long time ago. This is clear, in particular, from paragraph 37 and paragraph 15. I believe that it is an appalling anachronism that in his own native country, of all countries, in the majority of provinces, the charges for water and wastewater are still being calculated on the basis of a property’s floor area. This method of charging has nothing to do with saving water.

Therefore, I am calling on the Commission and, in particular, on Mr Seeber himself to ensure that Austria finally complies with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive and changes its charging scheme to a system that promotes water-saving measures. Overall, I welcome this report. I hope that it applies additional pressure to ensure that this unfair charging system, which also, of course, encourages people to use water wastefully and produce larger quantities of wastewater, is finally changed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Patrizia Toia (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, water is increasingly being seen as a public asset, a precious resource for the whole of humankind. It is vital, therefore, to develop an integrated, efficient strategy for the wise use of this finite resource.

Measures at EU level must address our continent’s current and future water challenges, and therefore the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’ to be published in November is more important than ever to ensure – as has been said – sufficient availability of good-quality water for sustainable and equitable use. I regard this as an important aspect of the EU 2020 strategy.

Water is linked to food or, rather, water is part of food, and a small amount of food contains a huge amount of water, so a water strategy is also a strategy to ensure food security for Europe and the world. Water can lead to wars, but it can also be a factor for development and peace; I therefore strongly support the proposal contained in the report to devote 1%, for example, of water tariffs to decentralised cooperation measures and growth projects around the world. I hope this legislation, which already exists in some Member States, will spread like good practice to other countries to become law in all the Member States of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Seeber’s report is Parliament’s contribution to the preparation of the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, in which the Commission will be taking stock of what has been achieved since the Water Framework Directive, which has been one of the main pillars of European water policy since 2000.

We voted for this report, which casts light on the challenges to be faced and the gaps to be filled, particularly in relation to the target of sustainability in terms of ecological, chemical and quantitative ‘good status’, which the framework directive says must be achieved by 2015.

Among the measures suggested are the mainstreaming of water issues in all EU policy areas; the development of a holistic approach that examines all water uses and their implications; promotion and support for efficiency and sustainability in the management of this basic asset; and the achievement of water supply security, not only regionally but also internationally.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome the recognition that water is a public good, that access to water constitutes a fundamental and universal right and that there has to be a strong social dimension to water pricing. I also welcome the emphasis on water conservation in this report which, alarmingly, points out that 70% of water supplied to cities across Europe is lost through leakages. Indeed, in my own constituency, Dublin, around 100 million litres – or 30% per day – is lost through leakages. A European-funded replacement programme throughout our older cities could be part of a stimulus package, and would create much needed employment and replace infrastructure that is over a hundred years old.

As water is a fundamental right, I believe that it is important that water utilities remain in public ownership, and that income from charges levied must be ring-fenced for the upgrading of the infrastructure. Moreover, in order to ensure that the vulnerable and less well-off are protected, there should be a quota for households for basic use before charges are applied. This would be in keeping with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

Finally, I welcome the call to raise awareness of the importance of water conservation among the general public, and I would emphasise the role of local and regional authorities in this matter.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, water is central to ecosystems and climate and is decisive for the growth and development of many sectors of the economy. Today, we are witnessing ecosystems becoming unbalanced because of indiscriminate water use. The water exploitation rate sometimes exceeds 40%, resulting in high levels of water stress.

I agree with Mr Seeber: we should establish strict European water legislation that supports the green economy based, in part, on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, with transparent and effective pricing schemes, as well as incentives and investment for the use of treated wastewater, grey water and rainwater; we should also implement a quality audit on the state of the European water network to prevent as much as 70% of the water supplied to European cities from being lost as a result of leaks in the water system.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, I welcome this report on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. The results of implementation across Europe are, of course, varied. I am not one of those in this place who express dismay, disgust or even surprise at this. Member States progress at different rates, in slightly different ways. That is the whole point of it being a directive, so if it were all uniform, I would be most surprised. Yes, water is a precious resource; yes, we need to make efficiency gains; yes, we should look at Member States cooperating across their borders.

There is all good stuff in this report, but let us keep it simple. Let us not complicate the issue discussing shale gas and most particularly let us not complicate the issue with amendments on soil directives. As ever, a simple report on implementation was turned into a rambling wish-list by Members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and, for this reason, I have had to abstain.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Pirillo (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, water is an essential and vital public good, which must be protected by means of an holistic approach to preserve it and rationalise its use.

Improving efficiency and sustainability is a duty that we must not shirk, not least in view of the challenges of climate change. The target that we have set ourselves of achieving ecological and chemical ‘good status’ for our water by 2015 is a sine qua non of Europe’s environmental policy and a commitment to be strictly monitored.

The European Union’s water legislation needs to be enforced and stricter penalty measures should be introduced. Some 20% of water in Europe is lost due to obsolete infrastructure, which it is crucial to improve if we want efficient water resource use and sustainable water management that can address the problems of water shortages and drought.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, an environmental disaster is waiting to happen in Aughanish, County Limerick, Ireland. The Rusal Alumina plant refinery produces alumina powder, in a chemical process which leaves behind toxic waste.

The company and the Irish Government have incredibly classified this as non-hazardous, despite the fact that, when a similar plant had a serious breach in Hungary in 2010, it released highly toxic caustic sludge. Between 20 million and 50 million tonnes of this hazardous waste sit in an area of over 250 acres on the banks of the Shannon estuary in a pond which has never been properly lined. This waste has already become airborne, damaging the health of people in the region and damaging the farmland. If there is a major spillage, it would see the water, air, soil and livestock of the area destroyed.

Ordinary farmers in the region are being forced to pay thousands of euro to install new septic tanks at their homes. Yet we have the biggest septic tank in all of Europe sitting there, without proper regard to the massive environmental dangers it poses.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, water policy is one of the areas in which EU coordination can be highly beneficial for our consumers if done properly. Water security and environmental standards, e.g. the ‘polluter pays’ principle, key goals of the Water Framework Directive, must be preserved and furthered, and this report, unfortunately, casts light on the slow progress of the directive. That many EU water bodies will not have achieved good status by 2015 is, of course, a disappointment and it is distressing to read that even the basic information on European water quality and quantity, which we evaluate our progress from, still remains poor.

I welcome, however, the conclusion that the regional dimension must be addressed more closely and that water policy should be mainstreamed into all policy areas. I am in favour, however, of acting at international global level wherever possible, and the report notes correctly that there needs to be more focus on the international angle. Europe is not an island and water scarcity in the rest of the world will inevitably cause problems for all of us in the future, not least with regard to conflicts, displaced persons and mass migration.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, water is a precious commodity that we should not take for granted. Therefore, it is essential that mechanisms are in place throughout each individual Member State to safeguard this vital resource. I am pleased to report that in my own constituency of Northern Ireland, water quality standards are improving year on year. In 2011, standards at the tap were 99.8% compliant; with regard to wastewater quality in 2010, our targets were exceeded, with 88.6% of works compliant with current regulations.

I would also like to draw attention to the impact of EU water legislation on the agricultural sector in Northern Ireland, where concerns have been raised in relation to the Soil Framework Directive. Although farmers in Northern Ireland are very much in support of the need for action, in order to maintain their land in good condition ensuring long-term fertility and productivity, the challenges faced in protecting agricultural soils vary across Europe. Therefore, I believe that a harmonised approach is not the best way to safeguard resources. Any further interference by Europe will only result in increasing costs and red tape while reducing the productivity of the agricultural sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anna Záborská (PPE). (SK) Mr President, the quality of drinking water cannot be taken lightly. As a doctor, for many years I have been monitoring how laboratories have been finding that water for daily use is indirectly enriched with hormones which are hazardous to human health, and particularly to fertility in women and men.

This finding is also explicitly stated in the report on which we voted, and which I supported, for which I congratulate my colleague, Mr Seeber. In its resolution, Parliament calls upon the Commission to continue to monitor this issue. We note that residues of antibiotics, other drugs and hormones from birth control pills are found in the water.

Permitting the pollution of water by the presence of hormones is a criminal act. The European Commission should ensure that controls be intensified, thus ensuring that substances that not only pollute the water and endanger health, but also have a direct effect on the worsening demographic situation, are eliminated from our water.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). (LT) Mr President, without doubt, water is fundamental and the most important thing in all our lives and today, I voted in favour of the legislative proposal on water and the assessment; in other words, I voted in favour of this report. This document is very broad and comprehensive, discussing not just water quality, but resources and their proper management. It is important for all citizens in the European Union to have access to water and that means suitable infrastructure. In some Member States, we currently face the situation where being connected is not enough. I have in mind both plumbing and wastewater pipe trunk systems. Sustainable use of water is another important aspect. The situation varies considerably across the European Union. In some places, there is a surplus of water, in others, there are shortages. However, here we have to think not just about saving water, but about saving resources and money, and at this point it is very important to talk about innovation and investment in innovation, and in terms of technology we could draw from the experience of the most advanced countries in these areas of innovation, such as Israel for example.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, I think we all agree that water is an essential resource and I have heard a number of speakers say that today, but we have to remember that, despite what many on the Left say, water is not free. The water that ends up in our home and in our workplaces is not free. The water that comes from the sky may be free, but it has to be collected, it has to be stored, filtered and pumped to homes, offices and other places. All that costs money. So it is essential that we have the right legislative framework in place to allow companies to do that, to provide us with clean running water, and to make sure that they can actually provide what we as consumers want at the end of the day.

Recently – well in fact a couple of years ago – we had a problem in my constituency of London with Thames Water not fixing enough of their broken and leaking pipes. When I challenged them about this and asked why they were not spending more resources on it, one of the reasons they gave – not the only reason, but one of the reasons they gave – was that they were spending too much time adhering to EU directives rather than actually fixing the problems they wanted to fix. An EU regulation like this can sometimes allow companies to take their eye off the ball and we have to ensure that they concentrate on providing clean running water to our constituents.

 
  
  

Report: Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Olga Sehnalová (A7-0205/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the health and safety of European citizens is one of the main objectives of our work and action. I believe the report we have adopted this morning is very important. Of course, eCall does not anticipate accidents or reduce them, but it does provide much more rapid response procedures. Once activated, they can ensure an appropriate response to ease victims’ suffering or even save their lives, and all this is very important.

Proper, consistent implementation by all stakeholders, the Member States, companies and the system managers will now be decisive, but I think it will be very important to move on from a voluntary, experimental phase, such as we have already had, to this new mandatory regulation. We have introduced a measure that can mitigate many people’s suffering and save the lives of many others.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I come from Ireland and I dread turning on my radio station on a Monday morning because I hear that three young people or two young people have died in single-car accidents, where they hit a tree, a wall or a river, particularly in rural and remote areas.

Essentially, the situation is that they die in the early hours of the morning probably because of speeding, sometimes because of alcohol. In such a situation, particularly with a single-car accident, time is of the essence. The sooner the police, the medical services and fire services arrive on the scene, the sooner we have a life saved.

For many of those people who are found dead on a Saturday morning, a Sunday morning or the early hours of a Monday morning, they would have been saved had the fire services, the police services or the medical services got to them in time.

This is what this eCall system is doing. It will coordinate, it will identify the location and it will get all of the emergency rescue services to the scene in time. We need it on a pan-European level. We have a Europe now without borders and this certainly will save lives. I want to, in particular, compliment Dieter Koch who has put a lot of work into this over a ten-year period.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Mr President, I, too, fully support this resolution urging the Commission to draft legislation requiring car manufacturers to fit the eCall device in all new cars from 2015, and to require Member States to ensure that their emergency services are able to handle the eCall system.

The technology has been available for a number of years, but so far less than 1% of cars in the EU are fitted with it, and these are normally at the higher end of the market. It is now clear that mandatory legislation is required.

When a serious road accident occurs, every minute is crucial. The driver or passengers may be unconscious or unable to call emergency services due to a language barrier. They may be travelling in a country or in a terrain they are completely unfamiliar with. A car fitted with the device would be able to make an automatic emergency call and transmit data about the location and time of the crash to the nearest emergency response unit.

It is estimated that, when the system is rolled out, emergency teams would make it to the scene 40% quicker in urban areas, 50% in rural areas. This could result in saving 2 500 lives across Europe, approximately 25 lives in Ireland. No doubt serious injury would be averted in many instances as well. I welcome the resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, back in 2002, road safety experts regarded an EU-wide eCall service available in all vehicles as a priority, because after an accident, the people involved may be in a state of shock, may not know their location or may simply be unable to communicate it.

Particularly in accidents, the speed of the emergency response is crucial for saving lives. Based on the 112 call platform, the eCall system cuts emergency response times to the accident scene, thereby saving up to 2 500 lives a year and reducing the severity of injuries by up to 15%. eCall can cut emergency response times by about 50% in rural areas and up to 40% in urban areas, and can also help reduce the congestion caused by road traffic accidents by up to 20%.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this proposal.

The eCall system builds substantially on the EU’s previous decision to establish the common emergency telephone number of 112 of which I remain a supporter. This is alongside the existing national systems, such as the 999 dialling in the UK. The implanting of emergency services’ telecommunications devices within the private motor vehicle has the potential to save thousands of lives by automatically relaying the information about accidents and their whereabouts.

Although I realise that a voluntary approach to implementing this has largely failed, I am still worried that moving to a mandatory approach may impose significant, although unknown, costs on the Member States. I accept that this should not be a prime concern when human lives are at stake.

I was, however, pleased at the committee stage that the ECR Group was successful in guaranteeing a technology-neutral approach whereby private eCall systems can compete with a public eCall, as this is most in accordance with the principles of a single market and also competition.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ewald Stadler (NI).(DE) Mr President, I have, of course, also voted in favour of the Koch report. No sensible person would have any fundamental objection to an eCall system which, in the event of a serious accident, automatically notifies the emergency services.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a problem with another emergency number. On the basis of a recommendation by the Council of Europe, a proposal has been drawn up for all the members of the Council of Europe to introduce a standardised Europe-wide emergency number for children who are the victims of abuse and violence. There are still some countries which have not yet implemented this emergency number, including Austria, unfortunately. Therefore, I am calling on all the Members of this House to remind their governments about this emergency number, which will prevent violence and help children who are the victims of violence and abuse, so that we can finally resolve this problem.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, we hear all too often about the tragic loss of life on our roads and quite rightly, in the wake of these tragedies, it is often asked whether anything could have been done to save that life which was lost. I have no doubt that the eCall system has a great deal of merit and has the potential to save many lives, and from this perspective I can, of course, support it.

However, I do have concerns and would like to see this remain optional rather than mandatory. I believe that Member States should focus their attention very much on the attempts to educate driver behaviour and so try to minimise road deaths in this way as well. It is a terrible scourge in my constituency – we have lost many young lives to deaths on our roads – but we must also look at the impact of speed, the impact of alcohol and drugs and of driver behaviour, as well as at these kinds of measures.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). (SK) Mr President, with regard to the eCall system and the new 112 service for citizens, it should be said that 40 000 people die in road accidents each year and 150 000 people suffer permanent disability. Integrating the eCall system in on-board computers in cars can save up to 2 500 lives annually and reduce the severity of injuries by 10 to 15 percent.

As this concerns the saving of human lives, I believe that eCall should be free of charge and the system should be easy to use, accessible to all EU citizens, irrespective of social status, and regardless of whether such services are covered by private services or other state emergency services.

I urge automobile manufacturers to include a system capable of triggering eCall during production so that mobile network operators can transmit the eCalls to emergency call response centres.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, when my constituents discover that I am a Member of the European Parliament, they respond in many and varied ways. Some of the things they say are not suitable for repetition in this Chamber. But one thing that they have never said, in the 13 years that I have been doing this job, is that they want a common European number to dial in emergencies.

Once again, though, there seems to be a metaphorical aptness in what we are discussing. The emergency has been caused by precisely such harmonisation as this. If people were to dial their national emergency number – 999 in the case of the UK – they would at least find a responsive national mechanism on the other end that might do something about it. But if they dial a common number expecting the fire brigade, they will instead find the arsonists.

Europe is the problem and not the solution. The earlier we recognise that, the better for everybody.

 
  
  

Written explanations of vote

 
  
  

Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on establishing a European social mark

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – It is imperative that the EU does not seek to create a one size fits all social policy. The UK does not want EU involvement on social matters. The idea of creating a new social mark in order to promote ‘social aspects’ of the EU would only serve to make Member States more attractive to illegal immigrants and allow people coming from poorer EU countries to move to the UK to take advantage of a more generous UK social security system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), founded in 1957, is a consultative body of the three EU institutions – the Commission, the Council and Parliament – to which it provides its opinions on legislative proposals. According to Rule 124 of the Rules of Procedure, where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for consultation of the EESC, the President shall, without prior discussion, initiate the consultation procedure and inform Parliament thereof. In view of this, I voted for the request to consult the EESC on creating a European social market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) Parliament has welcomed the request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on establishing a European social mark. This mark will let consumers know that the product or service they are purchasing is part of an investment intended to improve the social model. I supported this request, which was accepted by all of my fellow Members, and I welcome that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on establishing a European social mark.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – According to rule 124 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, parliamentary committees may request to organise debates with the European Economic and Social Committee on general and specific issues. Such requests are approved by the European Parliament without debates. I voted in favour.

 
  
  

Report: Sharon Bowles (A7-0198/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this proposal, as I believe that in order for there to be a stable system, it is necessary to ensure conditions for the effective protection of citizens’ rights and for cases to be processed swiftly. In my view, postponing transposition of the directive until October 2013 is completely justified, given that if we want the Solvency II package to be effective, it is necessary to ensure that the Solvency I package is properly adapted and implemented. Otherwise, we will be taking a step backwards in terms of all the work that the EU has already carried out in this area, which is of vital interest to the European public.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) We are regulating the world of insurance and reinsurance as we did for the banks. The Solvency II Directive, currently under review in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), of which I am a member, aims to ensure that the own funds that insurance and reinsurance companies must hold are better adapted to the risks they face in their activities. We must ensure that companies are well managed, that they are able to calculate and stay in control of their risks and that they are well capitalised. I have supported the postponement of this report to January 2014, as recommended by the Chair of the ECON Committee, Sharon Bowles, as it gives Member States more time to transpose the directive into our national legislation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report. This proposal amends Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) in order to adapt it to the new supervisory architecture for insurance and namely, the establishment of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority. The proposal also amends the deadline for transposition of the directive, postponing it to 30 June 2013 and setting a later date for its application. A new date of repeal of the existing insurance and reinsurance directives collectively referred to as Solvency I is also set accordingly, being postponed until 1 January 2014. This has been done in order to ensure the legal continuity of the provisions of the current Solvency I Directive until the Solvency II Directive is in place. I welcome this proposal because we need to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime and avoid legal uncertainty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I welcome the proposal tabled by the Commission concerning a risk-based, state of the art system for regulating and monitoring European insurance and reinsurance companies. I also think that these new rules and regulations are needed in the current climate to be able to guarantee greater security for the insurance sector. This means that the whole economy will gain because the long-term investments will provide the sector with greater stability. At the same time, I would like to stress that the Commission’s proposal is sufficient as the modification must also take into account the new framework for monitoring the insurance sector. I should highlight the need for coordinated actions between EU institutions so that the new regulation is implemented efficiently and without delay.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. (PT) Directive 2009/138/EC, Solvency II, establishes regulation and monitoring of the business of insurance and reinsurance in the European Union. This new legislation is essential in order to ensure robustness and security in the insurance sector. The directive’s transposition deadline is 30 October 2012. Nonetheless, the Commission recently proposed an amendment to the directive with the aim of adopting a new design for monitoring the insurance sector, also proposing an extension of the initially set deadlines for transposition, repeal and application. The proposal to extend the deadline until 30 June 2013 is essential, given that other legislation will enter into force prior to this directive, and that it is not certain that these deadlines can be met, as is the case with the Omnibus II Directive. Bearing in mind that supervisory authorities and (re)insurance companies need time to prepare for the implementation of new legislation, an extension is also proposed for the start date of the Solvency II package until 1 January 2014. I voted for this report as I agree with the proposed measures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the Bowles report in that it deals with amending Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) as regards the deadline for its transposition, postponed from 31 October 2012 to 30 June 2013 in order to prevent a legal vacuum.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because this proposal is aimed at amending Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) in order to postpone the date for transposition of the directive until 30 June 2013, instead of 31 October 2012, and the date of application until 1 January 2014. As current negotiations on the Omnibus II Regulation relating to the common commercial policy, which would have an impact on the new supervisory structure of Solvency II, are still ongoing, the implementation of measures for Solvency II cannot be tabled. It is therefore necessary to extend the deadline for the transposition of Solvency II in order to ensure the legal continuity of the Solvency I Directive until the full application of Solvency II. This proposal does not provide for any amendments to the content of the directive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report on insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II). The insurance sector is currently experiencing legal uncertainty as a result of the discrepancy between the legal system of the European Union (Solvency II) and that of the Member States (Solvency I). This report is in line with a desire to regulate and monitor European insurance companies. Thus, the establishment of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority would enable us to improve the solidity of this sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – This is a purely technical postponement of the expiry date of existing insurance legislation pending the entry into force of a replacement Solvency II ‘quick fix’ directive in order to extend the deadline for the implementation of the new Solvency II regime, which is still being debated almost 15 years later. However, micro-management of the insurance sector is an unwelcome power grab by Brussels and renders the industry uncompetitive. In my opinion, existant legislation should be removed, rather than extended, while the Council and Commission debate further additions to its remit.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) as I support the proposal to amend Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II). It seeks to extend the deadline for transposition until 30 June 2013, instead of 31 October 2012, and to extend the start date until 1 January 2014. I believe the deadline for the transposition of Solvency II needs to be extended, in order to ensure the legal continuity of Solvency I until Solvency II has been implemented in full. Doing nothing at this stage would create a situation of legal uncertainty for the insurance sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/138/EC as regards the dates of its transposition and application and the date of repeal of certain directives. The date of 31 October 2012 marks the deadline for the transposition of this directive, which sets out new rules for regulating and monitoring insurance and reinsurance companies within Europe, in order to ensure the soundness and security of this sector, granting it greater stability and strengthening consumer confidence. In January 2011, the Commission adopted an amendment to the aforementioned directive, specifically regarding the creation of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, as well as the extension of the deadline for transposition, repeal and application, taking into account the need for prior approval of the Omnibus II Directive. I voted in favour of postponing the transposition of Directive 2009/138/EC until 30 June 2013, and of postponing the entry into force of the Solvency II package until 1 January 2014, thereby avoiding a legal vacuum from 31 October 2012 and ensuring timely preparation for its operation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report aims to propose a directive postponing the transposition dates of Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) and the repeal of the directives currently in force in the area of insurance and reinsurance, scheduled for 31 October 2012. This is because, in January 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend Directive 2009/138/EC ‘in order to take into account the new supervisory architecture for insurance and namely the setting up of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)’, called ‘Omnibus II’. As the trialogue on Omnibus II is still ongoing, the Commission believes the entry into force of Directive 2009/138/EC, without the ‘important adaptations foreseen in Omnibus II’, could place a heavy burden on the Member States. It also considers those rules important for a smooth transition to the new system. In order to become operational, Solvency II requires the inclusion of delegated and implementing acts by the Commission. The report therefore calls for the transposition of Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) to be postponed and the directives to be repealed until 1 January 2014. The content of this report is therefore highly technical. In view of our critical position on the EIOPA, we abstained.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 2009 on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) provides a modern, risk-based system for the regulation and supervision of European insurance and reinsurance undertakings. These new rules are essential in order to ensure a safe and solid insurance sector that can provide sustainable insurance products and support the real economy through long-term investments and additional stability. In January 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend Directive 2009/138/EC in order to take into account the new supervisory architecture for insurance, namely, the setting up of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) (Omnibus II). This proposal also includes provisions to extend the transposition, repeal and application dates set out in the directive. In order to avoid overly burdensome legislative obligations for Member States under the directive and later on under the new architecture envisaged by the ‘Omnibus II’ proposal, it is appropriate to extend the transposition deadline for the directive. At the same time, given the very short period of time left before the expiry of the deadlines laid down in the directive, this directive should enter into force without delay.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – I voted in favour of this Solvency II ‘quick fix’ directive in order to extend the deadline for the implementation of the new Solvency II regime which we are still debating in trialogue. This is an extremely important piece of legislation that has been almost 15 years in the making, and we must get it right. The original Solvency I regime comes to an end on 31 October 2012. Therefore, in order to avoid a legislative vacuum, we have decided to extend the Solvency I regime to 1 January 2014. The extension should allow Parliament and the Council sufficient time to reach a compromise that protects policy holders and strengthens our prudential regime, and also keeps our insurance industry globally competitive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – I support this report and the commendable work undertaken by my colleague, Sharon Bowles. The report should prove a tangible step towards a more sustainably efficient European insurance sector, particularly through an increased emphasis on long-term investment. While I believe that these proposals make sense at the current point of negotiations on Omnibus II, I do not think that they should be brought into full legal force until EU agreement has been reached on this package. I wish the Cypriot Presidency every success in ensuring a smooth and timely implementation of these rules in the coming months.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this document because Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) provides a modern, risk-based system for the regulation and supervision of European insurance and reinsurance undertakings. These new rules are essential in order to ensure a safe and solid insurance sector. The deadline for the transposition of the directive into national law was 31 October 2012. However, in order to take into account the new supervisory architecture for insurance, namely, the setting up of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, it is very important to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime. In order to become fully operational, the Solvency II regime also requires a high number of delegated and implementing acts by the Commission, providing important details on different technical matters. It is therefore proposed that the transposition date of Directive 2009/138/EC be extended to 30 June 2013.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) Parliament and the Council have already adopted Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II), which establishes a modern, risk-based system for regulating and monitoring European insurance and reinsurance companies. This report aims to postpone the transposition deadline and the entry into force of the directive to 31 December 2012. This postponement is entirely justified, given the need to ensure the legal continuity of the provisions of the Solvency I Directive until the implementation of the entire Solvency II package. I voted in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this amendment of Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Solvency II is an EU directive that codifies and harmonises the regulation of insurance in the EU. When the Omnibus II Directive is approved by the European Parliament, Solvency II will come into effect on 1 January 2014. Solvency II will significantly reduce the risk of insolvency of insurance companies. Therefore, I voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) The share crisis of 2001 to 2003 gave a boost to so-called risk-free capital investments, in other words, government bonds. The interest rate on government bonds was used to assess whether or not an insurance company had sufficient funds to meet its liabilities to its customers. In the recession which followed, when the interest on 10-year federal bonds could no longer compensate and the value of liabilities went through the roof, because they were being offset against bonds with a very low interest rate, various attempts were made to rectify the system. The Commission is now concerned that the current crisis, together with the new solvency rules, could prevent the insurance industry from acting as a long-term investor and guarantor. Therefore, it wants the old regulations from Solvency I to continue to apply to existing insurance contracts (after eight years of negotiations on new rules for capital adequacy and the regulation of the industry, which are referred to as Solvency II). As some questions have not yet been fully answered in this area, for example, whether the old rules will turn the insurance companies into investors again, I have abstained from voting.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing.(PL) Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance provides a common regulatory framework for the whole European Union, suitable for modern financial markets, for the management of risk and the supervision of insurance and reinsurance undertakings. It is an important directive from the point of view of the security and stability of the financial system because it strengthens the supervisory framework for the insurance sector. In addition, it introduces mechanisms which mean that the insurance sector will offer better support to a real area of the real economy by encouraging long-term investments. However, in January 2011, it became necessary to revise the directive as a result of changes to the institutional structure of European supervision. In relation to this, provisions concerning postponement of the transposition deadline and the date of first application of the 2009 directive were included in Omnibus II. The complicated nature of the Omnibus II proposal, however, means that the legislative process will not end before the date of first application of Directive 2009/138/EC. I support the proposal to change the transposition date of the Solvency II Directive because it will allow us to avoid excessive legislative responsibilities for Member States and will enable better preparation of the new system provided for in the Omnibus II proposal. The complex nature and the economic importance of the legislation being drafted additionally require that the supervisory bodies and insurance and reinsurance undertakings are allowed a sufficiently long period of time to prepare to operate under the new regulatory regime.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. (ET) I supported the speedy amendment of Directive 2009/138/EC, which extended the deadlines for transposition into domestic law in order to ensure a smooth transition to the new system and avoid a legal vacuum. The amendment of the directive is also important in connection with the European Commission’s proposal of 19 January to take the creation, on 1 January 2011, of the new supervisory system for insurance – the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) – into consideration in drafting legislation. I think that it is totally reasonable that Solvency II, a modern, risk-based system for the regulation and supervision of European insurance and reinsurance undertakings, should only be launched from 1 January 2014, in order to guarantee high-quality drafting and implementation of the legislation. The new guidelines are an important step towards establishing a strong and secure insurance sector that can offer sustainable insurance products and support the real economy through long-term investments and added stability.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcome this resolution. The new rules enshrined in the Solvency II Directive will ensure that the insurance sector functions safely and solidly. Given the negative consequences of the economic crisis and the importance of this directive, I believe that it is right to postpone the deadline for transposition of the directive to 30 June 2013. All Member States must make every effort to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime preventing market distortion. Furthermore, it is very important for the Commission to also contribute to its implementation by adopting delegated and implementing acts, which would allow the implementation of a phasing in/phasing out process.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) establishes regulation and monitoring of insurance and reinsurance companies in the European Union. The Commission recently proposed an amendment to the directive aimed at adopting a new design for monitoring the insurance sector, also proposing an extension of the initially set deadlines for transposition, repeal and application. This new legislation is considered essential to ensuring robustness and security in the insurance sector. I voted for this report because I broadly agree with its proposed measures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) This directive establishes a new and modern solvency regime for insurers and reinsurers in the European Union. It provides for an economic risk-based approach which provides incentives for insurance and reinsurance undertakings to properly measure and manage their risks. These new rules are essential in order to ensure a safe and solid insurance sector. The proposal to amend Directive 2009/138/EC ensures a smooth transition to the new regime. Given the very short time before the expiry of the previous regime and, hence, the need to avoid a legal vacuum, I voted in favour of the proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) establishes regulation and monitoring of insurance and reinsurance companies in the European Union. This new legislation is essential in order to ensure robustness and security in the insurance sector. The directive’s transposition deadline is 30 October 2012. Nonetheless, the Commission recently proposed an amendment to the directive with the aim of adopting a new design for monitoring the insurance sector, also proposing an extension of the initially set deadlines for transposition, repeal and application. The proposal to extend the deadline until 30 June 2013 is essential, considering that other legislation will enter into force prior to this directive and it is not certain that these deadlines can be met, as is the case with the Omnibus II Directive. Bearing in mind that supervisory authorities and (re)insurance companies need time to prepare for the implementation of the new legislation, an extension is also proposed for the start date of the Solvency II package until 1 January 2014. For these reasons, I voted for this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This is a purely technical postponement of the expiry date of existing insurance legislation pending the entry into force of a replacement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) The Commission has tabled a new directive on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II), in particular, as regards the dates of its transposition and application, and the date of repeal of certain directives. The aim of this directive is to create a new design for monitoring the insurance sector, establish the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and propose the extension of the transposition deadline for the Solvency II Directive until 31 December 2012. I agree with this draft legislative resolution, which adopts Parliament’s position at first reading, adopting the Commission’s proposal, which may be subject to amendments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted for the report on amending Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) as regards the dates of its transposition and application and the date of repeal of certain directives. Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) provides for a risk-based, state of the art system for regulating and monitoring European insurance and reinsurance companies. The deadline for transposing this directive is 31 October 2012, while the existing directives on the insurance and reinsurance sector, which are known as the Solvency I package, will be repealed from 1 November 2012. Based on the amendments tabled and approved, the deadline for transposing Directive 2009/138/EC is being changed from 31 October 2012 to 30 June 2013, and the date for repealing the Solvency I package from 1 November 2012 to 1 January 2014. These amendments were necessary in order to take into account the new supervisory framework in the insurance sector and, specifically, for creating the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), to enable the Solvency II system to become fully operational and ensure a trouble-free transition to the new system, and to prevent a legislative vacuum occurring after 31 October 2012.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing.(PL) I welcome the European Parliament directive on the taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance. These rules are essential for the safe and reliable performance of the insurance sector. It is important that insurance undertakings and the bodies which supervise them adopt this package, which guarantees the solvency of insurers. This will give both the public and business a greater sense of legal certainty. We cannot, however, keep moving the date when the new EU directive on this matter comes into force. In my opinion, the directive should finally come into force on 1 January 2014, bringing an end to its temporary character.

 
  
  

Report: Maurice Ponga (A7-0169/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this proposal, which changes the status of Saint-Barthélemy from that of an outermost region to that of a country or territory associated with the European Union. I agree with the proposal’s objective, as it aims to maximise economic and social development in this remote region of the European Union by consolidating its relations with regional players, including the Caribbean’s other overseas countries and territories, and its outermost regions. It will thus help to disseminate the European model and European values.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) Saint-Barthélemy, a French island in the Lesser Antilles, was dependent on the overseas department (DOM) of Guadeloupe until 1 January 2012, when the island officially became an overseas collectivity (COM). The French Republic had been expecting this change in status and asked the European Council to adopt a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy, in order to change its status from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union (PTOM). Following the change in status at national level, it was consistent to review the European status of this French COM. By adopting the status of a country and territory associated with the European Union, the island will now enter into a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union that suits its specific characteristics without prejudicing its membership of the European family. PTOM nationals are European citizens, but they are not part of the European Union and are not bound by European law. The island will keep the euro as its currency and its citizens will remain European citizens. Its bonds with the European Union will therefore remain intact.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The proposal’s objective is to change the status of the French island of Saint-Barthélemy from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the EU. As the Commission’s proposal satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the island without prejudicing the interests of the EU, and as Saint-Barthélemy will be able to help disseminate the European model and European values, I welcome the proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted for this resolution because it ensures that the decision adopted by the Council on 29 October 2010 is implemented, whereby, following the request made by France, the French collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy changed its status from an outermost region to an overseas country and territory associated with the European Union from 1 January 2012. I think that this change of status will benefit Saint-Barthélemy, according to its specific characteristics and needs.

At the same time, its link with the European Union is maintained, thanks as well to the euro currency continuing to be used, and its inhabitants will retain their status as European citizens. The decision does not prejudice the interests of the European Union and incorporates relations with Saint-Barthélemy into a new partnership and cooperation framework. At the same time, the new status will allow the collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy to develop its relations with other regional players. Amending Annex IA to Council Decision 2001/822/EC by inserting a new indent to include Saint-Barthélemy in the list of overseas countries and territories is the natural consequence of changing the status of the French collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) I voted for the Ponga report, which seeks to change the status of the island of Saint-Barthélemy from that of an outermost region to that of an overseas country and territory. This change in status has already been passed unanimously by the European Council and will benefit this territory by enabling it to consolidate its relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states and outermost regions in the Caribbean.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, pursuant to Article 355(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), by letter of 30 June 2010, the French Republic requested that the European Council, after consulting the Commission, unanimously adopt a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy, in order to change its status from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. Pursuant to the TFEU, the European Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned, adopt such a decision that would make Saint-Barthélemy the 26th country and territory associated with the European Union. Furthermore, by adopting the status of overseas country and territory, Saint-Barthélemy would enter into a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union that suits its specific characteristics without prejudicing its membership of the European family. Saint-Barthélemy would keep the euro as its currency and its citizens would remain European citizens. Saint-Barthélemy’s bonds with the European Union would therefore remain intact. This change in status would enable Saint-Barthélemy to consolidate its relations with regional players, including the other overseas countries and territories, ACP countries and outermost regions of the Caribbean, thus helping to disseminate the European model and European values.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of Mr Ponga’s report on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community. This report follows on from the letter of the French Republic addressed to the Council requesting that it change the status of the island of Saint-Barthélemy from that of an outermost region to that of an overseas country and territory associated with the European Union. This new association framework would enable Saint-Barthélemy to enter into a more reciprocal and lasting partnership which would take better account of its specific characteristics.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Changing the status of Saint-Barthélemy from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union would make the 26th country and territory enter into a new reciprocal partnership with the European Union and force Saint-Barthélemy to consolidate its relations with regional players, including the other overseas countries and territories, ACP countries and outermost regions of the Caribbean. The most significant motive for this decision is in order to channel more money to the French colony and grant Brussels autonomous powers over a territory that currently is under French control.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing.(FR) I support the change in status of the island of Saint-Barthélemy. By becoming an overseas country and territory (PTOM) associated with the European Union, the island of Saint-Barthélemy will have a framework that is better suited to its specific characteristics. This new partnership with the European Union will allow for greater flexibility in the implementation of Community standards. I am pleased with the adoption of this report as it endorses the decision taken by the Council in October 2010.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I am voting for the amendment of Annex IA to Council Decision 2001/822/EC to include a new indent adding Saint-Barthélemy to the list of overseas countries and territories, changing the island of Saint-Barthélemy’s status from that of an outermost region to that of a country or territory associated with the European Union, with effect from 1 January 2012. This change in status satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy, without prejudicing the interests of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted in favour of the decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community. This makes Saint-Barthélemy the 26th country and territory associated with the European Union. By adopting the status of overseas country and territory, Saint-Barthélemy is entering into a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union which suits its specific characteristics, without prejudicing its membership of the European family. In actual fact, Saint-Barthélemy will keep the euro as its currency and its citizens will remain European citizens. This will maintain its bonds with the European Union. This change in status will enable the collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy to strengthen its relations with regional players, especially with overseas countries and territories, ACP countries and outermost regions of the Caribbean, thereby helping to disseminate the European model and European values more effectively.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. (RO) I concur with this amendment because I think that it suits the needs and specific characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy without jeopardising the EU’s interests.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this text, which takes note of the change in status of the French island of Saint-Barthélemy, which, in 2010, became the 26th country and territory associated with the European Union. This new status will enable our overseas territory to renew its relations with other EU territories and consolidate its relations with its immediate neighbours in the Caribbean, while holding on to the euro and European values.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on the ‘association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community’ to welcome the Council and the Commission’s decision to change the status of Saint-Barthélemy island from an outermost region to that of a country or territory associated with the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) Pursuant to Article 355(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and on the initiative of the Member State concerned, in this case, the Republic of France, the European Council was requested to adopt such a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy, in order to change its status from that of an outermost region to that of a country or territory associated with the European Union. Consequently, to give effect to that decision, the Council must, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting Parliament, amend its decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Union. I therefore believe that this change in status satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy, without prejudicing the interests of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision 2001/822/EC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community, following the request made by the French Republic. Pursuant to Article 355(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and by letter of 30 June 2010, the French Republic has requested that the European Council adopt such a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy, in order to change its status from that of an ‘outermost region’ to that of a ‘country and territory associated with the European Union’. According to the rapporteur, this change in status will ‘satisfy the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy without prejudicing the interests of the European Union’, keeping the euro as its currency and its citizens remaining European citizens. Saint-Barthélemy has become the 26th country and territory associated with the European Union. I voted for this proposal as it corresponds to the legitimate aspirations of the inhabitants of Saint-Barthélemy, allowing it to strengthen partnerships with its neighbouring states – countries belonging to the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, and outermost regions of the Caribbean – without prejudicing the interests of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned and acting unanimously, amend the status, with regard to the European Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory. As such, France has requested that the Council change the status of the island of Saint-Barthélemy, changing it from that of an outermost region to that of a ‘country and territory associated with the European Union’. Consulting Parliament is a necessary step in this process. As the rapporteur says, this change in status satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy. We respect the wishes and the legitimate and sovereign choices of the peoples of these territories. The struggle against European colonialism, in which many are engaged today, should not be forgotten, and it is a struggle that we support. It is a struggle for the possibility to decide their own destinies in a free and sovereign manner.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) The Council Decision of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community establishes the legal framework for promoting the economic and social development of the overseas countries and territories and for enhancing economic relations between them and the European Union. This decision applies until 31 December 2013. Annex IA of that decision must therefore be amended to take account of the change of status with regard to the European Union of the island of Saint-Barthélemy, which became an overseas country or territory as of 1 January 2012. I believe that this change in status satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy without prejudicing the interests of the European Union. I therefore consider it reasonable to approve the Commission’s proposal. This change in status will enable Saint-Barthélemy to consolidate its relations with regional players, including the other overseas countries and territories, ACP countries and outermost regions of the Caribbean, and will thus help to disseminate the European model and European values.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing.(FR) On Tuesday, 3 July, Parliament recognised the change in status of Saint-Barthélemy, which would make it the 26th overseas country and territory (PTOM). I am pleased with this decision, which was enacted during the conclusions of the European Council of 27 October 2010. Saint-Barthélemy, which was previously considered an outermost region, will now enter into a new and renewed relationship with the European Union but also with the other PTOM in the region. This change in status will better satisfy the needs and special characteristics of the island. In addition, this change in status will have no impact on two aspects which are essential for the proper functioning of the island: Saint-Barthélemy will keep the euro as its currency and its inhabitants will remain European citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour because in 2010, the French Republic requested that the European Council adopt a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy in order to change its status from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. The European Council therefore adopted Decision 2010/718/EU amending the status of the French collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy, with effect from 1 January 2012. In this case, Saint-Barthélemy is added to the list of overseas countries and territories, making it the 26th country and territory associated with the European Union. By adopting the status of overseas country and territory, Saint-Barthélemy would enter into a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union that suits its specific characteristics without prejudicing its membership of the European family. Saint-Barthélemy will keep the euro as its currency and its citizens will remain European citizens. Its bonds with the European Union will therefore remain intact. This change in status will enable Saint-Barthélemy to consolidate its relations with regional players, including the other overseas countries and territories, ACP countries and outermost regions of the Caribbean, and will thus help to disseminate European values.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) The French Republic requested that the European Council adopt a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy, in order to replace its current status of an outermost region with that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. By adopting this status, the island would enter into a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union. This partnership would take account of its specific characteristics without prejudicing its membership of the European family. I supported Mr Ponga’s report, which was adopted by a large majority, and I welcome that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing.(PL) I voted to endorse the Commission proposal for Saint-Barthélemy to become the 26th country and territory associated with the European Union. I share the opinion that the change of status will enable the island of Saint-Barthélemy to consolidate its relations with regional partners and the ACP countries, and will thus help disseminate the European model and European values. I am certain that by adopting the status of overseas country and territory, Saint-Barthélemy will enter into a new reciprocal partnership with the European Union. Saint-Barthélemy will keep the euro as its currency and its citizens will remain European citizens. It is very important that its bonds with the European Union remain intact.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted for this resolution, which will include the French Caribbean territory of Saint-Barthélemy among the overseas countries and territories. This change will have obvious structural and economic benefits for this territory. A higher level of political and institutional relations, such as that provided by the status of overseas territory, will allow for greater attention to be given to Saint-Barthélemy’s needs at all levels of the economy and local representation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal as I believe that this change in status satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy without prejudicing the interests of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report on the change in status of the territory of the French collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy. It approves the Commission’s proposal to give effect to the change in status from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union from 1 January 2012. The European Union’s influence in the region could therefore be strengthened.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Pursuant to Article 355(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), France requested that the Council, after consulting the Commission, adopt a decision amending the status of the island of Saint-Barthélemy from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. This change will have effect from 1 January 2012. To give effect to that European Council decision, the Council must, under Article 203 TFEU, act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and, after consulting the European Parliament, amend its decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcome the proposal to grant the island of Saint-Barthélemy the status of a country and territory associated with the EU. This would form the basis of a new mutual and strong partnership and close economic relationship between this island and the EU. Furthermore, it will give Saint-Barthélemy an excellent opportunity to further develop and consolidate its relations with regional players and improve economic and social development.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) The French Republic has requested that the Council adopt a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy, changing its status from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. This status satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy without prejudicing the interests of the European Union. By adopting the status of overseas country and territory, Saint-Barthélemy is entering into a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union that suits its specific characteristics without prejudicing its membership of the European family. I therefore voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) By letter of 30 June 2010, the French Republic requested that the European Council adopt such a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy, in order to change its status from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. To give effect to that decision, it is therefore proposed that Annex IA to Council Decision 2001/822/EC be amended to include a new indent adding Saint-Barthélemy to the list of overseas countries and territories. I voted for the proposal in order to consolidate relations with the overseas territories and to help to disseminate European values.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report was drafted following a request made by the French Republic to the Council to change the status of the island of Saint-Barthélemy from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. Saint-Barthélemy thus becomes the 26th country and territory associated with the European Union. By adopting the status of associated overseas country and territory, Saint-Barthélemy is entering into a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union that suits its specific characteristics without prejudicing its membership of the European family. Saint-Barthélemy will keep the euro as its currency and its citizens will remain European citizens. Its bonds with the European Union will therefore remain intact. I voted for this report as it aims to consolidate Saint-Barthélemy’s relations with regional players, in particular, the other overseas countries and territories, the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the outermost regions of the Caribbean, as well as contributing to the better dissemination of the European model and European values.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Pursuant to Article 355(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned and acting unanimously after consulting the Commission, adopt a decision amending the status, with regard to the Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 355.

By letter of 30 June 2010, the French Republic requested that the European Council adopt such a decision with regard to the island of Saint-Barthélemy, in order to change its status from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. (IT) By adopting the status of overseas country and territory, Saint-Barthélemy is starting a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union, a choice that will enable it to meet its specific needs while fully complying with international law.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) By means of Decision 2010/718/EU of 29 October 2010, the European Council agreed to change the status of the French collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. That decision will take effect when the Council, under Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, amends its decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Union. By voting in favour, this House agrees to amend Annex IA to Council Decision 2001/822/EC to make Saint-Barthélemy the 26th overseas country and territory associated with the European Union. This will enable the aforementioned island to consolidate its relations with the other overseas countries and will help to disseminate European values and expand European trade.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing.(FR) As long as there is no threat to the interests of the Union and this change in status satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy, and provided the bonds with the European Union remain intact, there is not the slightest reason to reject the rapporteur’s text. Furthermore, this change in status will enable Saint-Barthélemy to consolidate its relations with regional players, including the other overseas countries and territories, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the outermost regions of the Caribbean, and will thus help to disseminate the European model and European values.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) Pursuant to Article 355(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned, adopt a decision amending the status with regard to the EU of a country or territory referred to in this article. The French Republic has requested that the Council adopt a decision to this effect with regard to the status of the island of Saint-Barthélemy, changing its status from that of an outermost region to that of a country and territory associated with the European Union. I agree that these territories should have the possibility of choosing to become outermost regions or overseas countries and territories, choosing the most appropriate status for them. I therefore voted for Parliament’s position.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – I believe that this change in status satisfies the needs and special characteristics of the territory of Saint-Barthélemy without prejudicing the interests of the European Union, and therefore I supported it with my vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing.(PL) I fully agree with the decision to amend the status of the French collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy. The change is the right one in view of the needs and specific nature of the island. Saint-Barthélemy will thus become the 26th country and territory associated with the European Union. By adopting the status of overseas country and territory, the island will enter a new reciprocal and lasting partnership with the European Union. It will keep the euro as its currency, its citizens will remain European citizens and its bonds with the European Union will remain intact.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – This report recommends the change of status of Saint-Barthélemy from an outermost region to a territory associated with the European Union. This means that Saint-Barthélemy will join the eleven British territories associated with the European Union, including the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands.

Saint Barthélemy, like the Falkland Islands and other British territories in the South Atlantic, traces its ties with Europe back to the seventeenth century. While not part of the EU, these territories are indivisibly linked to Europe. This report is about providing support to the various territories associated with the EU. I certainly support the Falkland Islanders in the face of recent aggressive threats from Argentina, and as we mark the thirtieth anniversary of repelling an Argentine invasion, it is vital that we continue to defend the overseas countries and territories that have constitutional ties with our Member States, including the Falklands.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. (IT) Today’s vote has made the Caribbean island of Saint-Barthélemy the 26th overseas territory associated with the European Union; however, the euro remains its official currency and its citizens will continue to be Europeans. The change in status will bring economic and political benefits in particular, enabling Saint-Barthélemy to consolidate its relations with the other overseas countries and territories, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and outermost regions of the Caribbean, and will thus help to disseminate the European model and European values.

 
  
  

Report: François Alfonsi (A7-0219/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this report as I believe that macro-regional strategies can bring enormous benefits for the regions. This also involves a number of Member States and their respective regions, the strategies for the Danube and the Baltic Sea being good examples. I believe that this type of strategy undoubtedly brings results. However, the European Union should strengthen multi-level governance in all institutional procedures, not only as part of the strategies, but in all areas of political action, in order to facilitate the creation of new macro-regional strategies, as is the case with the possible strategy for the Atlantic, which will bring enormous benefits to the regions. In the specific case of the Mediterranean, as the rapporteur states, the fact that several Member States and regions share the same basin and natural environment, and that their shores are connected by the same history and culture, could bring great benefits to the synergies to be created not only between the Member States and the European Union, but also with neighbouring states.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) The Greek Communist Party voted against the European Parliament report on the development of macro-regional strategies in the Mediterranean, because it moves in the reactionary direction of support for euro-unifying monopolies in the Mediterranean basin. The proposal to create an Adriatic-Ionian macro-regional cooperation zone does not relate to ‘financing actions’ to meet the grassroots needs of workers in the area; it is designed to deepen the single capitalist market on the islands and strengthen large business groups with hot money from Community funds, by which I mean workers’ money. It reinforces political and economic intervention by the EU in the Western Balkans and North Africa, on the pretext of democracy and human rights. The report, which is faithful to EU policy, does not propose aid with additional resources; it proposes targeted channelling of financing to projects which are highly profitable for capital, involving limited numbers of temporary jobs which are lost on completion of the project. Once again, the winners will be the large monopoly groups and the losers will be the workers, who are being called upon to make sacrifices to support and augment the profits of the plutocracy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE), in writing. (IT) Macro-regional strategies put together a coherent approach to territorial cooperation and meet territory-based investment needs in Europe in a new way. They help to restore links and cooperation. The report is in favour of macro-regional strategies based on the principle of multi-level governance in order to ensure collaboration between local, regional and national bodies. It calls for greater coordination among the various funds and calls on the Commission to conduct a dialogue on the future of a macro-regional approach in Europe so as to identify the priority areas that should be involved in the new strategies, especially where there is a lack of cooperation between neighbouring territories, which is evident in several of the Member States. In that respect, I welcome the implementation of a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean basin.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution to sustain the great opportunity represented by the EU macro-regional strategies. First of all, macro-regional strategies frame the EU’s neighbourhood policies in a way that encourages renewed dialogue and new prospects for territorial cooperation projects supported by cohesion policy. The Baltic Sea strategy is a perfect example of that. When it comes to the Mediterranean, we must consider that the entire basin shares the same natural environment, and its shores are connected by the same history and culture. In terms of developing potential, maritime traffic must be placed at the heart of a transport strategy for the whole area, particularly for goods. A macro-regional strategy can provide tailored responses to these objectives. The Mediterranean, due to its 500 million inhabitants (less than one third of whom live within the European Union), represents the main ‘neighbourhood prospect’ for Europe. For this reason, I believe that a development dynamic based around the Mediterranean could drive forward the whole European economy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) Some regions bring together countries that share the same natural environment and the same history and culture. Europe has therefore defined macro-regional strategies which offer new prospects for territorial cooperation projects. These strategies are also supported by cohesion policy, one of the European Union’s finest tools. I therefore approved the strategies in this report, which can contribute towards achieving EU objectives and ensure better coordination between regional programmes and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies offering new prospects for territorial cooperation projects. The creation of regional policy is essential for addressing economic and environmental problems and achieving the goals set by Europe 2020 through strategic measures. I welcome the Commission’s proposal to use a macro-regional approach to create a strategy for the Mediterranean and agree that the macro-regional strategy for the Baltic Sea adopted in 2009 is an excellent example of how to do this. The Mediterranean represents the main neighbourhood prospect for Europe, due to its 500 million inhabitants, a third of whom live within the EU, but cooperation between the EU and this region remains rather poor. I welcome the proposal to establish a macro-regional strategy for this region because a development dynamic based around the region could drive forward the whole European economy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing.(FR) Looking at the Baltic Sea and Danube examples, it seems clear that macro-regional strategies, new forms of territorial cooperation, have contributed to improving the effectiveness of the EU’s regional development policies and to enhancing synergies between regions and Member States. The EU must urgently offer such prospects for the Mediterranean, an area vital to Europe’s future. The implementation of a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean basin would enable us to offer common prospects for addressing the challenges facing the Mediterranean countries and to give structure to this key area for Europe’s development and integration. After the failure of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), it is high time we sent a message of hope to the Mediterranean area as a whole, which is currently feeling the effects of the crisis, but which is also being turned upside down as a result of the successive revolutions on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. Given that Parliament has strongly expressed its support for this initiative in the Mediterranean and intends to make it a political priority, it is now up to the Commission to lend its support and it is up to Cyprus to take advantage of its Presidency to make progress in this area and to lay the foundations for this strategy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) I am voting in favour of Mr Alfonsi’s report. It acknowledges and highlights the undeniable existence of a web of historical and cultural factors linking the Mediterranean countries together. On this basis, it seeks to establish a common political and services infrastructure subdivided into macro-regions (western Mediterranean, central Mediterranean and eastern Mediterranean), which would create synergies providing a new, enhanced input to the coordination among Member States and more effective resource distribution and reinvestment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because macro-regional strategies offer new prospects for territorial cooperation projects supported by cohesion policy. Several macro-region projects are at a fairly advanced stage. The macro-regional strategy for the Baltic Sea was adopted in 2009 and, when discussing this strategy, the Commission has stressed ‘the value of this new way of cooperating’. The Union for the Mediterranean is currently being developed and its potential as a catalyst in the region is increasing. The Mediterranean has played a major geopolitical role in European history. However, within the EU, the Mediterranean area is unstructured. Its performance in terms of cooperation and interconnection is very poor. Outside the EU, those populations living in the Mediterranean region have very low standards of living at all levels: economic, social, environmental and political. The development of these societies is essential for them, and an opportunity for Europe to capitalise on greater security, more sustainable control of immigration flows and direct participation in this growth area. This would positively impact on the performance of its own economy. A macro-regional approach would thus enable an overall project to be set out in this area vital to the EU’s future, with a view to emerging from the present crisis and responding to the expectations of all its neighbours, particularly those in the southern Mediterranean.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) Macro-regional strategies play an important role in the EU since they offer new prospects for territorial cooperation projects funded by the cohesion policy. To avoid projects which fail to make any important contribution to macro-regional development, I think that strategies need to be developed based on wide-ranging consultations, defining as clearly as possible the problems identified on the ground.

The pre-development phase is an important stage, when the main strategic areas will be identified and the bases for future governance will be defined. If we fail to attach greater importance to this stage, there is a chance that future projects will not resolve the problems identified and it will be difficult to implement them. In addition to the Baltic Sea macro-region, another macro-region whose strategy will help improve the living and working conditions of millions of European citizens is the Danube macro-region. This strategy will establish a genuine platform for dialogue between the 14 countries bordering this river.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report on ‘the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean’. I believe that European macro-regional strategies offer good prospects for cooperation projects with the territories surrounding the Baltic Sea. This report highlights the EU’s interest in pursuing the cohesion policy strategy, particularly in the field of inter-sectoral cooperation. Furthermore, I believe that it is important to have a more precise definition of the projects that satisfy the local needs of the Baltic people.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The creation of new ‘macro-regions’ to establish macro-regional identity equates to ‘social and financial engineering.’ It allows Brussels to increase funding for regions who are unable to comply, or spend/invest responsibly and would include funding for Maghreb countries, which are already benefiting from EU Neighbourhood Policy and the EU Mediterranean Association pact and who, in my opinion, should not become automatic recipients of EU funding derived from EU taxpayers during times of such financial difficulty. It enables the EU to spread its scope and power via handouts, not passed by the public. In the light of these proposals, we are likely to expect an Atlantic strategy, Carpathian strategy, Balkan strategy, and so on, representing a large cost to EU Member States without prior consultation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted for the adoption of this report, which highlights the need to develop macro-regional strategies at EU level. As rapporteur on the Atlantic strategy for the European Parliament, I share the rapporteur’s vision on the need to follow a multi-sectoral approach. In my view, it is important to support and develop territorial cooperation projects. These projects are relevant as they enable us to respond to local problems more effectively. I also support the initiative to develop a macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean. This is a welcome development following the ‘Arab Spring’ and the democratic transition in the countries along the southern shores of the Mediterranean.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for this report as I believe that the implementation of a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean basin should be supported in order to offer an action plan for addressing the common and problematic challenges facing the Mediterranean countries and regions. I also believe that the major areas of intervention for a Mediterranean macro-region should include energy networks, scientific cooperation and innovation, networks for culture, education and training, environmental protection, sustainable maritime transport, maritime security and safety and the protection of the marine environment against pollution, overfishing and illegal fishing through the creation of an integrated network of reporting and surveillance systems for maritime activities, the strengthening of good governance and effective public administration, so as to foster job creation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – Macro-regional strategies promote development based on groups of territorial location. This is logical because states in the same region share certain historical and cultural bonds that can be instrumental for cooperation. Because macro-regional strategies are to the mutual benefit of all parties implicated and the Mediterranean would profit greatly from such a scheme, in regards to the economy as well as social and environmental issues, I have voted in favour of this resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. (IT) The entire Mediterranean basin shares the same natural environment, and its shores are connected by the same history and culture. Significant opportunities exist in southern Europe, which cannot be seized without coordination or vision. The ‘Mediterranean climate’ results in similar ecotypes: the same types of agricultural product are produced and form a single, albeit diverse, range of products. Likewise, environmental problems are the same all over. Mediterranean biodiversity is particularly abundant, but also under serious threat. Appropriate, synergistic responses are called for. Within the EU, the Mediterranean area is unstructured and its performance in terms of cooperation and interconnection is very poor. Moreover, outside the gates of the EU, those populations living in the Mediterranean region have very low standards of living, despite last year’s events. The development of these societies is an essential requirement for them, and an opportunity for Europe as it could capitalise on greater security, more ‘sustainable’ control of immigration flows and direct participation in this growth area. This would positively impact on the performance of its own economy. For these and many other reasons, it is important to support the establishment of a Mediterranean macro-region.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted in favour because, outside the EU, the populations living in the Mediterranean region have very low standards of living at all levels: economic, social, environmental and political. The development of these societies is an essential requirement for them and an opportunity for Europe, as it could result in greater security, more ‘sustainable’ control of immigration flows and direct participation in this growth area. All these aspects would positively impact on the performance of its own economy. This means that the events of spring last year which took place along the southern shores of the Mediterranean provide a powerful incentive for developing new, active neighbourhood policies. By incorporating them, at least in part, into a macro-regional strategy, they could take on a specific territorial dimension ensuring greater effectiveness. EU Member States and regions in the Mediterranean area must commit to a reinforced cooperation approach, which must be opened up to all partners in this area that is essential to the future of Europe. The macro-regional strategy is the best way of achieving this objective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. (PT) It was with satisfaction that I noted that this own-initiative report on the part of the Committee on Regional Development fits perfectly within the strategy previously set out by this Parliament for the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), for which I was the rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Whilst highlighting the importance of the Mediterranean as a decentralised area of cooperation, and more broadly in terms of strengthening cross-regional decision making and the sharing of good practices, the report proposes the development of a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean basin – similar to the strategy for the Baltic, for example – as part of a broader framework which includes the western Mediterranean, the Adriatic-Ionian and the eastern Mediterranean. The report takes the view that an overall policy for the whole Mediterranean basin can be implemented that is in synergy with the priorities set out by regional and international organisations, in particular, those defined by the European Union for the Mediterranean, and best practices that can contribute towards achieving the objectives of EU strategies can also be implemented. I consider emphasis on civil society participation, on the principles/areas of activity to develop and deepen, and on updating the approach to migration in view of the ‘Arab Spring’ excellent additions to the two reports on the ENP for which I was Parliament’s rapporteur.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing.(FR) I supported this text, which encourages the development of so-called ‘macro-regional’ strategies to coordinate the efforts of several territories in order to address common challenges. While there is strength in numbers, Parliament will ensure respect for the responsible management of European funds, preventing these macro-regional strategies from becoming ‘high-spending contraptions’, as the rapporteur puts it. Let us hope that the principle of responsibility, seen here as a ‘three noes rule’ (no more money, no more institutions, no more regulation) and a ‘three yeses rule’ (more complementary funding, more institutional coordination and more new projects), will now apply to all EU policies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament support the report on the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean. We have a positive view of macro-regional strategies as a tool for promoting the EU’s territorial cohesion and development. However, we do not support the wording concerning increasing the threshold for de minimis aid for islands, nor do we believe that the scope of the de minimis aid should be extended within the transport sector, or to also include the agriculture and fisheries sectors.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) Macro-regions, of which the Baltic is the first, are a logical consequence of countries’ increasing interdependence and their similar or common characteristics, with a sense of belonging to a given geographical and cultural space, which transcends borders but still continues to be delimited by borders. A macro-regional approach allows common problems to be addressed and shared, problems tackled, cohesion promoted and solutions sought which are able to benefit all stakeholders. It also gives the European Union an overall view which enables action to be taken in the most appropriate way. I believe that this option, if well managed and adeptly coordinated with the Member States, respecting their sovereignty and promoting and respecting their specific characteristics, could be successfully replicated in various areas. The turbulent times it is experiencing mean the Mediterranean deserves smart involvement by the EU and the seeking of stabilising solutions involving both its shores.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) Like the macro-regional strategies for other geographical areas of Europe, such as the Danube basin and the Baltic Sea, macro-regional strategies are now being put forward for the Mediterranean or, more specifically, for the area of the Adriatic and Ionian. The experience with implementing the Baltic macro-region demonstrates that this is a good initiative which enhances development for the peoples of these regions. EU economic policy is based on regional cooperation. Therefore, especially in the wake of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, it is clearly of interest to maintain good relations with the peoples of the southern Mediterranean, and to enhance the development of trade and tourism by utilising existing resources, in particular, maritime traffic and sustainable energies. Moreover, it is an excellent opportunity to promote interregional cohesion and strengthen relations between peoples. I voted for Mr Alfonsi’s report on EU macro-regional strategies for the Mediterranean and I hope that, with the support of the next multiannual financial framework, the EU will continue to collaborate in democratisation processes in the African countries of the Mediterranean basin, so as to achieve greater stability and economic growth in the region.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We consider it crucial to promote policies encouraging effective economic and social cohesion in the European Union, especially in a situation of profound structural crisis, huge social inequalities and regional asymmetries. Promoting cohesion can, and must, involve cooperation between countries and regions with differing affinities, which includes intervention aimed at preserving ecological balance and promoting fair, balanced and sustainable development. This vision is, in part, included in the report and in the approach to drawing up macro-regional strategies. However, the EU often subverts the concept of cohesion, in particular, through the ‘renationalisation’ of the costs of EU polices, a lack of funds for cohesion or by imposing conditions, tying countries to strategies, such as the Europe 2020 strategy, whose aims and objectives run counter to the desired cohesion. We appreciate the number of good intentions found in this report, but we cannot fail to express our concern about some of these points. Moreover, we have serious reservations about some of the points in the report, which are similar to the EU’s vision as a hegemonic power in the Mediterranean region, revealing undisguised imperialist ambitions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) The Baltic Sea macro-region created in 2009 brings together a coherent set of territories that wish to cooperate in order to find better solutions to the economic and environmental problems facing them. This cooperation has taken the form of a macro-regional strategy designed to coordinate the existing extensive sectoral cooperation and based on four pillars – environment, prosperity, accessibility and security – and an action plan setting out 15 priority areas and 80 flagship projects. Macro-regional strategies offer new prospects for territorial cooperation projects supported by cohesion policy. They can assist the broad EU strategies, such as trans-European transport networks or the integrated maritime policy. They can ensure better coordination between regional programmes and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The Mediterranean basin shares the same natural environment, and its shores are connected by the same history and culture. Significant opportunities exist in southern Europe, which cannot be seized without the coordination and overview permitted by the definition of a macro-regional strategy. A development dynamic based around the Mediterranean could drive forward the whole European economy. I believe that the EU Member States and regions in the Mediterranean area must commit to a reinforced cooperation approach. This must be opened up to all partners in this area which is essential to the future of Europe. A macro-regional strategy is the best way of achieving this goal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. (IT) Macro-regions meet the criteria of simplification and coordination which have always inspired the EU’s regional policy. United by their geographical proximity, Member States, regions and local bodies see macro-regions as the ideal institutional framework in which they can interact to solve their common problems and implement shared policies. Operators in the Mediterranean basin deserve to be given a similar opportunity, given that the area is obviously important for tourism, trade and the economy. Unfortunately, within the EU, the Mediterranean area is not structured effectively enough, with the result that its performance in terms of cooperation and interconnection is very poor. Subdividing the Mediterranean into three large macro-regions (western, Adriatic-Ionian and eastern) would not only make our Mediterranean policies more consistent and operational, but would also encourage greater coordination between the various intervention instruments available to the EU. Establishing a Mediterranean macro-region would therefore be an opportunity for the entire Mediterranean area to adopt coordinated policies aimed at development and growth. It would be a mistake for the European Union not to grant that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing.(FR) This is the latest hare-brained scheme to come from Brussels: the European macro-region. Well, it is certainly ‘macro’, but we will have to see about the ‘European’ part. For the macro-region aims to bring together regions (not states) around a common project (a sea, a river, etc.), even if those regions do not belong to a Member State of the EU. The aim is clearly to encourage us to bypass nation states and to promote the blurring of external borders. On the basis that one cannot leave the creation of such entities to spontaneous initiatives, one then asks the Commission to come up with a list of all of the macro-regions that it can imagine and, of course, to encourage their creation. As a result, Mr Alfonsi’s report proposes two macro-regions in the Mediterranean, bringing together areas to the north and south of this sea. This is a precursor to these countries, which are today, for the most part, threatened by Muslim fundamentalism, being included in the European single market and the free movement of people between the two shores. What next? An Atlantic ‘macro-region’ to promote the implementation of a vast transatlantic market? We must put a stop to this madness!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing.(FR) On Tuesday, 3 July, Parliament approved, by a large majority, the report on EU macro-regional strategies. This unique form of cooperation has already proven its mettle in the Baltic Sea, which will, from now on, serve as a reference framework for other initiatives, such as the strategy launched last year in the Danube or the plans for a strategy at Mediterranean level. This strategy breaks away from traditional cooperation at national or regional level as it brings together all of the institutional actors and partners, such as universities, research centres and regional organisations, from a wider area which are facing the same territorial challenges in terms of the environment, the economy, migration and culture. Defining a strategy in the Mediterranean is entirely justified because of the existence of common characteristics and problems, and European policies could be implemented more effectively at this level. This report proposes useful recommendations for future strategies by drawing on the experience gained in the Baltic Sea. We have an interesting mechanism to use here and that is why I decided to support this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this document because macro-regional strategies offer new prospects for territorial cooperation projects supported by cohesion policy. They can assist the broad EU strategies, such as trans-European transport networks or the integrated maritime policy. They can ensure better coordination between regional programmes and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. Within the EU, the Mediterranean area is unstructured. Its performance in terms of cooperation and interconnection is very poor. The EU Member States and regions in the Mediterranean area must commit to a reinforced cooperation approach. This must be opened up to all partners in this area, which is essential to the future of Europe. Macro-regional strategy is the best way of achieving this goal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has adopted Mr Alfonsi’s report by a large majority and I welcome this. This report aims to take stock of present practice within the framework of EU macro-regional strategies in order to define the prospects of such strategies. In this context, we must provide a reference framework relevant to cohesion policy and encourage inter-sectoral cooperation. The macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean has a great deal of potential, not only because of the shared natural environment, but also because of a shared history and culture. For that reason, a point of honour must be made to boost the southern dimension of the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy, guaranteeing greater management of migration flows.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing.(PL) Macro-regional strategies offer new prospects for territorial cooperation projects supported by cohesion policy, while also offering more effective solutions to the economic and environmental problems facing the region concerned. The beneficial effects of this kind of strategy can be seen in the Baltic Sea macro-region, which was launched in 2009. I think that a similar situation should also exist in southern Europe. We should bear in mind that the Mediterranean area has 500 million inhabitants, less than one third of whom live within the European Union. Therefore, while not forgetting the importance of the Baltic Sea macro-region, we must also support a macro-regional strategy in the south, because this is what will do most to foster cooperation between the countries surrounding the Mediterranean. I think a development dynamic based around the Mediterranean could drive forward the whole European economy. This is why I voted in favour of the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) The implementation of the EU’s macro-regional strategies has resulted in positive outcomes – as in the Baltic – and certainly ranks among Europe’s best practices in the field of interinstitutional cooperation. I voted in favour of Mr Alfonsi’s report, which aims to develop that strategy further and implement it in those regions where cooperation has shown signs of failing. Application of the macro-regional strategy to the Mediterranean basin is certainly functional, since it fills the communication gap at the various institutional levels and is designed to improve the participatory process so as to raise the level of development in the area it covers. We must therefore work hard to make these strategies more and more effective and efficient in their planned application.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. (RO) The strategies which have already been developed, such as those for the Baltic Sea or Danube, have been important because they have provided both an integrated framework for tackling the challenges and opportunities present in the relevant region and pilot projects for future macro-regional strategies. Given their success, I think that the European Union can use these models to develop future strategies. Apart from the Mediterranean region mentioned in this report, I would also like to give the example of the Black Sea region, which is well-known for its strategic importance deriving from its great wealth of natural resources and a potential market of more than 350 million consumers.

Unfortunately, Black Sea cooperation plays a fairly modest role in the European Union’s current plans, but I think that the EU should play a significant role in this region by devising a European strategy for the Black Sea. Any strategy will generate major benefits, not only for the states in the Black Sea basin, but also for the whole EU, thereby establishing a real bridge between Europe and Asia.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing.(PL) The adoption of macro-regional strategies creates many opportunities. They promote faster territorial-based development, increase social and economic cohesion, concentrate on the challenges and problems of the region concerned and emphasise the role of links between urban and rural areas.

They are also an innovative form of inter-regional and supranational European cooperation, and they contribute to greater cohesion and better coordination of policy in a variety of sectors, as well as supporting job creation and ensuring sustainable growth. Finally, macro-regional strategies enable the establishment of fruitful and constructive relations in EU Neighbourhood Policy, the exchange of good practices and progress built on territorial-based development.

I am a very strong supporter of creating new macro-regional strategies, and I hope that new macro-regions will be established in the near future, including a Carpathian macro-region. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the Alfonsi report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. Macro-regional strategies offer new prospects for territorial cooperation projects supported by cohesion policy. They can assist the broad EU strategies such as trans-European transport networks or the integrated maritime policy. They can ensure better coordination between regional programmes and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report on ‘the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean’, which recognises the added value of the macro-regional strategy for the Baltic Sea and of these strategies in general. Macro-regional strategies enable the competent authorities from several Member States to come together in order to define similar frameworks for the same mountain range, maritime area, and so on. Thanks to these strategies, investments can be shared between the various actors, priorities can be coordinated and regional funding can be developed using an integrated approach.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. (RO) Macro-regional strategies provide new platforms for territorial cooperation supported by the EU’s cohesion policy. Although there is no standard definition for macro-regions at the moment, they include territories from several countries or administrative regions which have one or more characteristics in common. Macro-regional strategies were launched three years ago with the strategy for the Baltic Sea macro-region, which set as its objective to target cooperation between the regions in the states around the Baltic Sea in the following areas: environment, prosperity, accessibility and security. This was followed by the strategy for the Danube macro-region, which covers the regions in the Danube basin, with a population of more than 100 million inhabitants and extending over a fifth of the EU’s area.

The Commission was initially reluctant to support these initiatives on the grounds that it would put a strain on the administrative structure, increase costs and be ineffective. However, I think that macro-regions provide European added value and can help implement trans-European energy and transport projects. I supported this report because territorial cooperation between macro-regions can bring benefits to the initiatives from the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs), thereby ensuring the involvement of local and regional authorities, in addition to representatives of civil society, in making decisions aimed at utilising their joint potential efficiently.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this report because it establishes the basic principles that should guide the EU’s territorial policy process. The criteria established for the Mediterranean region must be the same as those governing the creation of an Atlantic macro-region. Of the population living in the coastal areas of Europe, 60% live on the Atlantic coast. This region is made up of five Member States and more than 35 sub-state entities, with varying levels of political autonomy. It is also a source of wealth, growth and diversity. We should propose the same thing as is happening with the Mediterranean coast for the Atlantic coast, in its maritime dimension as well as its territorial dimension, which, up until recently, was regrettably not part of the Commission’s communication. Consequently, including this region in the development of major European policies regarding infrastructure, such as the trans-European transport network, and maritime policy will generate significant benefits for European citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour because I believe that reinforced cooperation in the Mediterranean area, opened to all partners through a comprehensive macro-regional strategy, is essential for the best use of Structural and Cohesion Funds with more added value for all regions as well as Europe as a whole.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) The aim of the Baltic Sea macro-region, which was established in 2009, is to provide better solutions for the economic and environmental problems in this area. On the basis of the experiences acquired here, similar frameworks have been created jointly for different macro-regions in Europe which have common features, such as maritime areas, mountain ranges or river basins, in order to open up new opportunities for territorial cooperation projects as part of cohesion policy. Macro-regional projects may, in principle, have a positive impact on EU Neighbourhood Policy, but a separate macro-regional strategy does not appear to be necessary. There is the risk that the result will simply be to create a large and inefficient system which turns into a bottomless money pit. The argument that an intergovernmental solution should definitely be avoided when organising the macro-regions is hard to understand. I prefer the spontaneous forms of cooperation that we have seen in the past, for example, in the Danube region, to bureaucratic solutions that are set in stone. Therefore, I have voted against the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of this report, not so much because of its Mediterranean Sea dimension, although that is important, but because of the underlying idea of going beyond the now anachronistic divisions associated with the nation states. Reality clearly shows that there are areas and peoples that have all kinds of affinities with one another, even though they belong to different countries. The Baltic experience is typical of what can be a useful process of European integration from the bottom up, in other words, a process initiated in order to share common interests and feelings and not one imposed from above, which, unfortunately, has happened all too often in Europe’s recent history. To refer to the Italian dimension, we have southern Italy, for example, which can and should be included in a Mediterranean macro-regional dimension, and northern Italy, which naturally looks towards the Alps as its frame of reference for development. In that regard, the Presidents of the Alpine regions of Italy, Switzerland, France, Germany and Austria met on 29 June in St Gallen, where they laid the foundations for what could become the future macro-region of the Alps. The peoples of Europe, who are all too often sidelined in the European decision-making process, should play a leading role in this macro-region.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. (DE) In principle, the creation of macro-regions based on common geographic features, such as maritime areas, mountain ranges or river basins, can bring about synergies and valuable improvements in cooperation between neighbouring countries across national borders. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is necessary to establish a separate, institutionalised macro-regional strategy. We must oppose new bureaucratic structures, not least because they involve additional costs and administration. Instead, we should continue to allow macro-regions to form where this seems sensible and, in particular, we should enable the Member States to take the initiative themselves. For this reason, I have voted against this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. I believe that EU macro-regional strategies are an excellent example, helping to address issues that are relevant for the entire region, particularly those related to harmonious and sustainable development, implement cohesion and EU Neighbourhood Policy territorial cooperation projects and use EU funds more effectively. Only by coordinating the positions of the Member States is it possible to exploit the region’s full development potential. I am pleased that the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region launched this process, during which the projects being implemented will not only help to reduce physical distances between people, but will promote creativity, the mobility of ideas and a common regional identity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. (EL) As territorial cooperation programmes supported by cohesion policy, macro-regional strategies have generated important economic and development benefits for numerous Member States, including Greece. We must not forget that this type of cooperation helped, among other things, to modernise and reconfigure our national road networks and to develop an integrated maritime policy. Obviously, Greece wishes these strategies to continue with maximum support. This report, which I voted in favour of, is a move in that direction and places particular emphasis on the geographical area of the Mediterranean, by proposing, among other things, a clearer macro-regional mechanism than the existing mechanisms, the creation of which is something that our country should pursue, as it harbours important opportunities for economic growth and job creation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I agree with the idea that macro-regional strategies must be developed through wide-ranging consultations that can define the problems on the ground in order to avoid projects that are vague or simply based on immediate or opportunistic political considerations. I voted for this report, as I agree that a ‘pre-development phase’, which organises a round table between the partners involved, identifies the main strategic areas and defines the bases for future governance, is essential for each macro-region, as the rapporteur states.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing.(FR) The innovation that macro-regional strategies represent is interesting and the initial results in the Baltic Sea and the Danube are encouraging. I am in favour of this text as it shows Europe’s interest in looking towards the South, the region in which I myself was elected. However, I should like to point out that developing a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean will be much more difficult than for the rest of the European regions, as the Mediterranean region is a very distinctive area. It is a meeting point, but it is also a border. It is a border for people who share a history, culture, sometimes even the same origins, but whose average income per inhabitant is five times higher in the north than in the south. That is the most marked discrepancy across borders anywhere in the world. It is a border for countries that do not share the same characteristics. Some countries in the south are experiencing a return to democracy with the Arab Spring while others are confined to autocracy. So yes, we must develop a macro-regional strategy. However, we must do it in stages, starting with our closest partners, using culture, tourism, biodiversity, entrepreneurship and so on, and by aligning various existing instruments, such as the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) and the European Neighbourhood Policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies, in particular in the Mediterranean, advocating a macro-regional approach which would enable an overall project to be set out in this area vital to the EU’s future, with a view to emerging from the present crisis and responding to the expectations of all its neighbours, particularly those in the southern Mediterranean. In my opinion, this approach makes perfect sense, since the Mediterranean is a coherent whole, constituting a single cultural and environmental area, and sharing several common characteristics and priorities: the same crops, abundant renewable energy sources, particularly solar energy, the importance of tourism, the same natural disaster risks, including fires, floods, earthquakes and water shortages, and risks from human activity, in particular, maritime pollution. A development dynamic based around the Mediterranean could drive forward the whole European economy, a powerful incentive to develop new and active neighbourhood policies, as the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ has highlighted the strategic potential of the geographic, political and economic links between the two sides of the Mediterranean.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean Roatta (PPE), in writing.(FR) Launched in 2009, the Baltic Sea macro-region brings together a coherent set of territories that want to cooperate in order to find better solutions to the economic and environmental problems facing them. This cooperation has taken the form of a ‘macro-regional strategy’, designed to coordinate the existing extensive sectoral cooperation and based on four pillars – environment, prosperity, accessibility and security – and an action plan setting out 15 priority areas and 80 flagship projects. The entire Mediterranean basin shares the same natural environment, and its shores are connected by the same history and culture. Significant opportunities exist in southern Europe, which cannot be seized without the coordination and overview permitted by the definition of a macro-regional strategy. In terms of developing potential, maritime traffic must be placed at the heart of a transport strategy for the whole area, particularly for goods. The report also underlines the possibility of boosting the southern dimension of the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy, taking on a concrete territorial dimension which would guarantee greater management of migration flows and impact positively on the performance of the economies of the countries concerned.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Launched in 2009, the Baltic Sea macro-region brings together a coherent set of territories that want to cooperate in order to find better solutions to the economic and environmental problems facing them.

This cooperation has taken the form of a ‘macro-regional strategy’, designed to coordinate the existing extensive sectoral cooperation and based on four pillars – environment, prosperity, accessibility and security – and an action plan setting out 15 priority areas and 80 flagship projects.

This experience has inspired other projects. One of these – the Danube macro-region – has taken its first steps. Further projects are envisaged. The institutions concerned, Member States, regions and local authorities are working together to define similar frameworks for other European macro-regions that share common traits: same maritime area, same mountain range, same river basin, etc.

Macro-regional strategies offer new prospects for territorial cooperation projects supported by cohesion policy. They can assist the broad EU strategies, such as trans-European transport networks or the integrated maritime policy. They can ensure better coordination between regional programmes and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. (IT) Macro-regional strategies offer new prospects for territorial cooperation, which is the basis for the trans-European transport networks and the integrated maritime policy, by providing a reference framework relevant to cohesion policy. Such a framework can influence the respective priorities of every regional development plan, ensuring greater involvement and better cooperation among the EU’s various intervention mechanisms. Macro-regional strategies also pool the resources of regions and Member States through multi-level governance, the only mechanism that can ensure the complementarity of Europe’s regional development policies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – A macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean as a whole, or in sub-regional areas as the Ionian Adriatic region, is important for the development of these regions and for the implementation of adequate tools and measures to create European added value.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing.(FR) The macro-regional strategies in the Baltic Sea and the Danube have proven the usefulness of coordinating policies at functional territory level. In the wake of the Arab Spring, rebuilding our relations with the countries of the Mediterranean is an historic necessity. Yet, experience has clearly shown that multilateral relations at local and regional level have just as much impact as broad bilateral agreements. Let us use European experience to help these regions in their democratic transition. There are various advantages to a macro-regional approach: addressing common challenges, linking neighbourhood policy with regional development policy and rethinking multi-level governance and subsidiarity in the Mediterranean area. Consolidating an area of peace, democracy and prosperity around the Mediterranean is the next challenge for the European Union. We must meet the expectations raised during the Arab Spring to revive a Euro-Mediterranean partnership of proximity and projects.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) The macro-regional strategy for the Baltic Sea was adopted in 2009 and was clearly of interest to the Commission, because this new way of cooperating aims to open up a new area for cohesion policy in Europe, the goal being territorial-based development. This strategy seeks to heal the divisions historically created by borders, thereby furthering the integration of new Member States and their regions. Such a macro-regional approach would enable an overall project of Union cooperation to be set out with a view to emerging from the present crisis and offering a concrete response to our neighbours, particularly those in the southern Mediterranean. By voting in favour, therefore, I uphold the importance of territorial cooperation projects, as they would enhance synergies with the major EU strategies, such as the trans-European transport network or the integrated maritime policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. (EL) I voted in favour of the report on macro-regional strategies, which help to promote cooperation, enhance synergies with major social Community policies and create real European added value. These strategies should be based on the principle of multi-level governance, in order to safeguard cooperation between local, regional and national authorities. Establishing a macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean could help the participating states to improve the way in which they address problems caused by the characteristics of certain areas, such as drought, maritime pollution and the development of tourism. As far as the islands are concerned, the Commission should apply a strategic plan to address the structural weaknesses of island territories and make island territories as competitive as mainland territories, so as to reduce the gap between different levels of development among European regions and ensure their effective integration in the single market. This could best be ensured through the allocation of appropriate resources and the adoption of an integrated approach in the fields of transport and energy. We must also hope that the Commission will take a positive stand when considering State aid which constitutes legal compensation with respect to the handicaps of insularity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for this report as I support the macro-regional approach to territorial cooperation policies between territories belonging to a services and working area. I believe that macro-regional strategies have opened a new chapter in European territorial cooperation by applying a bottom-up approach and spreading cooperation to more and more areas. I also maintain that, in view of their clear European added value, macro-regional strategies should receive more attention within the framework of European territorial cooperation from 2014 to 2020.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean, because I think that macro-regions provide a framework that is conducive to pooling existing initiatives and optimising the use of resources. Parliament’s own-initiative report mentions the status of the current macro-regional strategies, such as the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea and for the Danube region, identifies the priority areas for future macro-regional strategies, and makes recommendations for an EU macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean. We should emphasise that major areas of intervention for a Mediterranean macro-region should target appropriate sub-regional levels for cooperation on specific projects. The major areas of intervention should include energy grids, scientific cooperation and innovation, cultural networks, education and training, tourism, trade, environmental protection, sustainable maritime transport, maritime security and safety and the protection of the marine environment against pollution, overfishing and illegal fishing, strengthening of good governance and effective public administration for encouraging job creation. I think that a macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean must coordinate existing EU funds, particularly those in relation to the neighbourhood policy, cohesion policy and territorial cooperation policy in order to implement projects addressing common challenges.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE), in writing. (IT) As rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I actively assisted in drafting the macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean. I see it as a territorial cooperation tool that will achieve greater synergy between the various intervention instruments through multi-level governance. In this respect, the strategy for the Mediterranean may hinge on the need to develop an integrated maritime transport system covering the whole Mediterranean basin and the development of renewable energy.

A fundamental issue that I have worked for in this dossier is to address the island question at a European level and to ask the EU institutions to implement Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by adopting an ad hoc strategy that takes account of the handicaps faced by islands.

Another feature of the dossier is the provision that the Commission, in collaboration with the forthcoming Cypriot Presidency of the EU, will adopt a strategic plan for islands that creates the conditions for economic growth in these territories while ensuring their full territorial continuity. A particularly significant point is the call for the Commission to adopt measures, such as increasing the threshold for de minimis aid for islands in the transport, agriculture and fishery sectors, which will make the islands equally competitive with the mainland territories.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I support this report, which calls for the economic and environmental problems facing EU regions to be addressed through macro-regional strategies with multi-level governance. These strategies, involving local, regional and national authorities working together, can create new ways of using cohesion policy towards territorial cooperation projects.

This can help work towards broad EU strategies such as trans-European transport networks or integrated maritime policy. It is vitally important that the economic needs of regions are addressed and I hope that these strategies, following on from successful strategies in the Baltic Sea and Danube areas, can bring together territories to find solutions to the problems they face.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) The Committee on Culture and Education communicated its opinion on the macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean to the Committee on Regional Development. I particularly welcome the adoption of my amendment, included in the text adopted in plenary, on the need to facilitate mobility of artists and the arts in the Mediterranean area by simplifying procedures for granting visas and by optimising programmes of free movement and support for cultural actors, as well as on the importance of the implementation and mutual recognition of the status of artists.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), in writing.(CS) I abstained from the report on macro-regional strategies in the Mediterranean. The main reason was the proposed breaking of the ‘three noes rule’, which is essential, in respect of implementation, for avoiding increases in European bureaucracy and the European budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – I acknowledge that macro-regional strategies put together a cohesive approach for territorial cooperation, meeting the demand for investing in Europe on a territorial basis in this new way. Macro-regional strategies also help in rebuilding links and cooperating in a new fashion. In this regard, the rapporteur supports that macro-regional strategies should be based on the principle of multi-level governance, in order to ensure collaboration among local, regional and national bodies. However, he also recognised that macro-regional strategies are a complex structure in terms of governance and harder to coordinate and facilitate cooperation with. I agree and therefore I supported this report with my vote. I support the implementation of a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean basin, in order to structure this essential space for the future of Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing.(PL) I think that the EU Member States and regions in the Mediterranean area must commit to a reinforced cooperation approach, and that this must be opened up to all partners in this area which is essential to the future of Europe. Macro-regional strategy is the best way of achieving this goal. The entire Mediterranean basin shares the same natural environment, and its shores are connected by the same history and culture. Significant opportunities exist in southern Europe, which cannot be seized without the coordination and overview permitted by the definition of a macro-regional strategy.

Within the EU, the Mediterranean area is unstructured. Its performance in terms of cooperation and interconnection is very poor. The challenges that must be tackled by the Mediterranean’s political authorities could be better identified within a comprehensive plan and consultation.

 
  
  

Recommendation for second reading: Debora Serracchiani (A7-0196/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I am voting for and I welcome this report, as it highlights the scope of the negotiations between Parliament and the Council which have achieved fundamental changes, in particular, regarding rail sector services, specifically relating to their modernisation and interconnection. More important still is the proposal’s final aim, which is the opening of the domestic rail passenger market and the separation of transport operation management infrastructure, which would undoubtedly not only bring everyone in Europe closer together, but also consolidate the principle of freedom of movement for people in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on the single European railway area. This proposal for a directive establishing a single European railway area is a merger of three directives in force and contains provisions regarding the adequate financing of and charging for rail infrastructures, the conditions of competition on the railway market, and the organisational reforms needed to ensure appropriate supervision of the market. I support an adequate, transparent and sustainable funding of the infrastructure, better predictability of the infrastructure development and access conditions, as well as the improvement of the competitiveness of rail operators vis-à-vis other transport modes. It is important that a strong and independent national regulatory body would be established which would exchange information within a network with other national regulatory bodies. Finally, for the successful liberalisation of the railway market, it is necessary to introduce transparent rules for the calculation of track access charges and promote technical harmonisation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) Adopted in 2001, the first railway package aimed to improve the attractiveness of rail transport. That reform did not come about. Ten years later, the rail transport sector still has not managed to catch up with other forms of transport. This failure stems primarily from differences between national regulations and the fact that the Member States failed to implement the first railway package. I therefore voted in favour of the recast version of the European railway package, which aims to create a single European railway area. As the fruit of two 10-year periods of bitter negotiations, I particularly supported non-discriminatory access to the railway network, fair competition between railway undertakings, the merging of technical standards, and additional harmonisation in the area of national and cross-border rail transport.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report. In order to boost investment in the rail sector, there need to be long-term strategies and multiannual contractual agreements between the state and infrastructure managers so that it is easier for market players to predict how infrastructure will be developed. To attract investments in greener technologies, new charging rules need to be applied and charges need to be differentiated according to the noise emission characteristics of the train for European Train Control System-equipped trains. I agree that we should extend the competence of national regulators, strengthen their powers in areas such as sanctions, audits and investigations carried out on the institution’s initiative, and ensure their independence from other public authorities. It is also important to enhance competition in the rail market through more transparent market access conditions and by providing easier access. I agree with the proposals set out that there should be improved access to services such as maintenance facilities, terminals, passenger information and ticketing facilities, etc., and that explicit rules on conflicts of interest and discriminatory practices should be established.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted for this report because I think that the regulatory framework for the railway sector in Europe needs to be modified to make it simpler and clearer. This will boost competitiveness, improve the conditions for investment and tighten supervision of the market. I should emphasise that greater transparency regarding the conditions for accessing the market will lead to fair competition for railway companies. At the same time, cooperation between national regulatory authorities will help remove the remaining obstacles preventing access to railway services. This will enable the market to function more efficiently, making it easier for passengers and goods to cross borders.

We must still consider developing the sector with a view to establishing a single European railway area. Railway transport retains its potential for development. However, I believe that the regulations ought to be tightened and harmonised to make it even more attractive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. (PT) Since January 2012, a delegation from Parliament has been in informal negotiations with the Council and the Commission to prepare an agreement at second reading on a single European railway area. This recommendation supports the amendments adopted at first reading in plenary, in order to defend Parliament’s position in the ongoing trialogues with the Council, which was adopted with a large majority. It advocates the need for independent regulators to establish a level playing field between large and small railway companies. It proposes that, in the long run, a European regulatory body should be established to oversee cross-border transport. It rejects the Council’s proposals to reduce the duration of the multiannual contractual agreement to three years, and suggests that a duration of seven years should be proposed instead. It advocates the need for transparent rules on access to rail-related services and service facilities to ensure that transport operators can operate their services. I voted for this recommendation for the aforementioned reasons.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing.(FR) Last November, in the vote at first reading, I voted against this recast of the railway package. I still believe that, while progress has been made in terms of transparency, strengthened cooperation between national authorities and multi-year programming of infrastructure projects, these are not enough for me to support this second reading. My main reason for not supporting this package is the commitment it makes to continuing down the path of liberalisation, particularly the repeated, sustained commitment to opening up passenger transport to competition. In this package, the Commission and Parliament have also committed themselves to continuing with plans to separate infrastructure managers and transport services, while in our respective countries, particularly in France, we have seen that this separation causes many problems, and that we ought to go back to the drawing board in order, perhaps, to envisage something other than ever increasing liberalisation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Phil Bennion (ALDE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the second reading agreement on the recast of the first railway package as I was convinced that this recast will contribute to improving the functioning of the internal railway market. Establishing a single European railway area has always been an ambitious goal of the European Union, and remains a key instrument of the internal market and the reduction of C02 emissions while remaining an important challenge given the disparities between Member States. Establishing a single railway area requires, in particular, strong and independent national regulators to establish a level playing field between big and small railway companies but also a European regulatory body to ensure a more integrated regulatory oversight of international services. I hope that the European Commission will soon come up with proposals on the fourth railway package that I hope will help us move forward in establishing this single European railway market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. (IT) The various national railway systems leave the sector hampered by national boundaries which considerably limit the development of the sector and the competitiveness of rail transport vis-à-vis other modes of transport. In light of that, I would argue that establishing a single European railway area should be one of the European Union’s top priorities. Independent regulators are, in my view, crucial for furthering the construction of a single European railway area and establishing a level playing field for both large and small railway companies. Ultimately, national regulatory bodies should become entities whose decisions are reliable and timely. I agree with the rapporteur that in the longer run, a European regulatory body should be established to oversee cross-border transport effectively. Lastly, I welcome the fact that Parliament has adopted changes to the original text of the proposal to increase the transparency of financial flows, particularly in integrated undertakings that provide rail transport services and infrastructure management.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) A single European railway area should continue to be our objective since having more than 20 national signalling and speed-control systems, which are not compatible with each other, greatly restricts the sector’s development and railway transport’s competitiveness vis-à-vis other means of transport.

To achieve this single area, I believe that two elements are vital. I am referring in this case to the regulatory body and to the key functions of the infrastructure manager. In the long term, I think that a European regulatory body should be created to supervise cross-border transport. To lay the foundations for such a body, a network of national regulatory bodies needs to be set up which must become trusted entities that can take quick, effective decisions. With regard to the infrastructure manager, this person’s key duties should also include the development of the network as he or she is more familiar with the requirements of the entire sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the Serracchiani report on a single European railway area. At a time when the Union’s railway area is being divided up, it is vital to legislate by moving towards greater convergence of national regulations. Adopted in 2001, the first railway package aimed to improve the attractiveness of rail transport, but, 10 years later, we find it has not been implemented. In order to compensate for the inadequate development and maintenance of infrastructures, this report proposes to make rail transport – the main mode of transport – an economic vehicle for developing the European territory. Indeed, these structural reforms aim to boost private and public investment so that new operators can enter a more ‘open’ railway market. It is also necessary to safeguard the rules of a fair and non-discriminatory railway market. In addition, fair competition should be guaranteed between rail companies, as should access to reliable, safe and efficient services. I believe that railway transport can be a showcase for European technology around the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing.(PL) The establishment of a single European railway area undoubtedly creates many opportunities throughout the EU due to the harmonisation of Member States’ legislation. I would therefore like to thank all those involved in drafting Parliament’s position.

With respect to the amendment to Article 2(2)(a), which I support, I would like to point out that creating derogations from a general rule is not necessarily inconsistent with European interest. All the EU institutions highlight the need to create jobs, help small and medium-sized enterprises and create special conditions for areas of reduced competitiveness and outermost areas. It is against this background that I would like to justify the way I voted on this report and the amendment to which I refer. This is particularly the case because I do not understand why the idea of establishing a single railway area should mean ending the operations of a smaller firm – a profitable firm, and one which provides numerous jobs in four regions of high unemployment in Poland.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The proposed legislation fails to take into account real practicalities like variances in track size between Member States. In the UK, the high speed networks in St Pancras and Euston also would not match. It would also involve establishing unpopular EU controlled regulatory bodies to enforce the rules. The privatisation of railways in the UK caused many problems and users still suffer from higher prices while operators suffer from delays due to issues regarding track maintenance. This legislation, in effect, would put control of UK rail networks into the hands of Brussels, making services even less accountable to users, despite Brussels arguing the opposite. Whilst it is important that industry is aided by a strong transport network across Europe, Member States should have the freedom to control their own railway networks and work in cooperation with one another.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. (RO) I supported the adoption of the new directive on the single European railway area because the technical incompatibilities between states are a major obstacle hampering the rapidly growing rail freight market where cross-border traffic offers the best potential. They are also hindering the development of a broader European transport network. Increasing interoperability will mean that trains have to be able to operate throughout the whole trans-European network and will help cut operating costs significantly. I strongly support the vision presented by this directive on a European research and innovation policy for transport based on joint efforts striving towards a competitive, resource-efficient transport system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. (IT) During last month’s part-session, the subject of strengthening the single market was amply debated and this Chamber agreed that the operation of the internal market needed to be expanded and implemented by ensuring that the Member States transposed European legislation promptly and in full.

In line with this aim, yesterday, we discussed the recommendation for second reading of the report on the single European railway area. In my view, however, that is just a small step towards creating a genuine European railway market. For too long, we have been hearing about the potential positive effect that fully establishing the single market could have on the EU economy, but then we all dig in behind nationally advantageous positions whenever the chance arises to carry out sectoral reforms to fully establish it.

Without going into detail on the individual provisions, I would point out that we are still prolonging the life of the recast text while awaiting a Commission position that could really lead to full liberalisation of the market, which would, in any case, be impossible today, not to mention the fact that we have given ourselves a good 30 months to transpose the legislation. That is time we can ill afford if we want the internal market to get us out of the crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) The existence of independent regulators is crucial for establishing a level playing field between large and small railway companies. The decisions of regulatory bodies should be reliable and timely. In the long run, a European regulatory body should be established to oversee cross-border transport. Meanwhile, regulatory bodies should operate in networks. Parliament has adopted changes to increase the transparency of financial flows, in particular, in integrated undertakings that provide rail transport services and infrastructure management. The wording of the legislation currently in force has led to major differences in interpretation and, consequently, to a number of pending cases at the European Court of Auditors. The need to improve the text on this point to ensure greater clarity is therefore obvious. As I agree with the aforementioned points and with Parliament’s other proposals referred to in this document, I voted for this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – I am in agreement with the rapporteur that a single European railway area would be beneficial to our Union. It is important that neither national boundaries nor lack of development impede this goal. Due to the fact that they will lead to a strengthening of the overall infrastructure of the EU, for example, by calling for timely implementation and security of funding for these measures, I have voted in favour of these amendments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) I voted against the report because I disagree totally with the attempt by the European Council and all the political groups in the European Parliament, with the exception of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, to privatise the European railways. I categorically disagree with parameters that create a framework for redundancies and for private companies to assume responsibility for the safety and maintenance of the railways. The privatisation process, especially a process moving in a common European direction, will deprive the Member States of the potential to rationalise, modernise and upgrade public rail networks, so as to improve services to the public and increase public revenue. The complete liberalisation of the railways, especially under the indirect guidance of the European institutions, will do nothing to ensure that they are upgraded. On the contrary, competition between private undertakings will increase the risks still further and, ultimately, society itself will pay the cost of any malfunctions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing.(PL) I support the idea of a single European railway area. However, both in the Committee on Transport and Tourism (I was deputising for one of its members) and at today’s sitting, I voted for adoption of the special derogation for the Broad Gauge Metallurgical Railway Line in Poland. Despite the efforts of the Polish delegation, this provision was rejected by the majority in Parliament. Stimulating competition in a particular area cannot be done without taking account of disparities between particular countries and regions or without reference to prevailing social conditions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. (RO) In a Europe where citizens are travelling ever more frequently, both for personal enjoyment, whether on holiday or visiting family or friends, and for business, the provision of railway transport services via the European infrastructure should enable railway companies to offer better services to all users, whether dealing with freight or passenger transport.

Therefore, it is vital not only that all partners are given non-discriminatory access to the relevant infrastructures, but also that the most uniform charging scheme possible is devised. I think that the European executive should carry out a study on the method for calculating the charges applied in Member States with the aim of defining a standard calculation method in order to establish an affordable charging system at EU level.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing.(FR) At a time of free movement of goods, capital and people within the European Union, it is only natural that harmonised rules on the use of railway networks should be established at European level. This will improve transparency in the allocation and management of slots and will promote transnational coordination at all levels: available capacities, investments, infrastructure works, operational management and so forth. The creation of a one-stop shop should also allow companies to deal with a single contact, symbolising rail corridor management placed in a European perspective. This regulation is therefore a strong signal in favour of a real European transport and infrastructure policy. It is an essential step towards quicker and more reliable rail freight, and therefore a credible and ecological alternative to long-distance road transport. A real European approach was all the more necessary, as it is on this scale that the rail freight market is relevant.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this text, which seeks to improve the mobility of our citizens by ensuring the creation of a more efficient, more competitive and safer railway network across the EU. Parliament is therefore committed to encouraging the development of modern infrastructures and quieter, safer trains that will carry passengers to the four corners of the EU at competitive prices.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on a ‘single European railway area’, which reflects the positive outcomes of negotiations with the Council and the commitments reached, namely, in the area of access to rail transport services, such as the creation of an independent national network of regulatory bodies and an increase in the transparency of financial flows between the infrastructure manager and rail transport companies in integrated undertakings.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have a positive view of investing in rail transport in order to make it simpler and faster to travel by train in Europe. However, we do not believe that a single railway area based simply on deregulation and competition can solve the problems that we are facing. Bad examples of overly severe deregulation of railways in Sweden and other countries, for example, demonstrate this. We do not believe that a further opening up of the domestic rail passenger market, for example, will benefit Europe.

What Sweden and other European countries need are increased investments in infrastructure and a common approach to travellers. In order to deal with the cross-border capacity problems, new tracks, reduced vulnerability to disruption and more up-to-date electrification using new technology are needed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The need to establish a single European railway area stems from a decline in rail transport and aims to reverse this trend and to promote this mode of transport for people and goods, which is quick, safe and less polluting than those running on fossil fuels, particularly air transport. The Member States should closely monitor the implementation of the European railway area and promote the use of this mode of transport domestically, as well as encouraging connectivity between the railway lines of the various Member States. A Europe with a single railway area will be more environmentally friendly and better supplied with goods and services. Following many months of discussion, it has now been possible to reach an agreement with the Council and I would congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs on their work on this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) Ms Serracchiani has presented us with a recommendation for second reading, following the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council which establishes a single European railway area. The construction of a single market at EU level implies a broad set of uniform standards, which often require the elimination of technical barriers, as is the case with rail infrastructure. The need to change carriages at specific borders when travelling between the Member States puts people off and is one reason why this type of transport is underused. It is therefore urgent to standardise the railway gauges of European rail networks. I welcome the fact that, after long and difficult negotiations, it has been possible to reach an agreement on the creation of a single European railway area. Rail service liberalisation will benefit European citizens and companies. I welcome the adoption of this report, as it is a proposal that enhances the functioning of the single market and will bring huge benefits for citizens and companies. Moreover, it constitutes an excellent alternative to road traffic, with huge benefits in terms of energy and the environment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This directive is yet another episode in the ongoing attack on public rail transport services. The intention is clear: to privatise the profitable areas and leave to the state areas that require significant finance, like building and maintaining infrastructure. The proposed fragmentation is tailored to the sector’s multinationals, which are taking over railway transport and colonising related service markets in various countries. Those who today endorsed this directive will tomorrow be answerable to the workers who lose their jobs, and to those whose working conditions will be downgraded, wages reduced and working hours increased. They will also be responsible for populations deprived of services considered less lucrative, who will pay more for a service of poorer quality. Finally, they will have to respond to worrying threats to the safety of rail travel, because this directive requires the safety standards set out by national authorities to be subject to competition rules.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing.(SK) After enjoying great prosperity during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the railway sector fell into decline due to the increasing popularity of road and air travel and is now becoming less and less popular. In order to curb this decline, the European Union has adopted a number of legislative measures aimed at reviving the railways by gradually creating a single European railway area. In recent years, it has introduced several packages and guidelines by which it has signalled its desire to reform the regulatory framework to ensure the railway sector’s integration at European level and to enable it to face up to the competition from other transport modes on the best possible terms. The transport policy of the European Union has set itself the goal of building an internal market, in particular, by developing common policies in order to achieve competitiveness in the transport sector as well. I firmly believe that it is desirable to make the necessary effort to build a comprehensive and integrated European railway area. In my opinion, the common interests of the EU as a whole – if we are talking about the railway sector – should take precedence over the interests of individual Member States. We need to build a true European railway area in which we should not forget to comply with safety requirements, and this should play a greater role in the licensing of railway undertakings.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. (IT) Developing the European railway sector to the full is an essential step towards completing the single market across the continent. Maximum freedom of movement and the ability to ship goods without barriers can make the difference between an operational, expanding economic system and a chaotic one that just limps along. At the same time, this process of development needs to be guided by the same principles that regulate the single market, in other words, free competition and transparency. The measures adopted are on the right track in this respect because they aim to stimulate the provision of freight and passenger transport services and ensure fair competition. Establishing strong, independent national regulators coordinated by the European Commission so as to encourage mutual collaboration is the best way to ensure the rules are properly applied, while the requirement for railway companies and infrastructure managers to draw up separate, transparent accounts should prevent any illegal transfers of public funds between these two kinds of body. At the same time, the separation of managers’ and companies’ accounts should stimulate competition, providing the necessary balance between transparency and flexibility to ensure adequate investment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing.(FR) After many months of negotiations, we have at last adopted the recast of the European railway legislation. Although it does not regulate everything, it nevertheless allows rail transport to be strengthened in the EU, particularly by clarifying the roles of the various actors in the rail transport sector. The flagship measures include strengthening the independence of the national regulators and establishing a European network of regulators in order for there to be a uniform interpretation and application of the legislation. Another vital aspect of this recast is the clarification of financial flows between the infrastructure manager and railway undertaking. This vote does not signal the end of the reform of the European railway market. Indeed, next year, the Commission should present new legislative proposals, particularly on the thorny issue of the liberalisation of national passenger transport and on the separation between the infrastructure management and transport operations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) Officially, it is stated that the amendments to the directive proposed by the European Commission came about in order to develop the rail sector system and establish a single transport market. However, there is concern that some of the proposed provisions may have very negative consequences or be damaging to the Lithuanian rail system. In Lithuania, as in the other Baltic States, the situation in the rail sector is specific due to rail track that does not conform to European standards, and which is largely still integrated into the market of the CIS countries. In this project being discussed, compromises that would be more favourable to Lithuania are put forward. The requirement to separate rail infrastructure from the carriage of passengers and freight, which caused most dissatisfaction, has gone. However, other requirements on guaranteeing the independence of freight terminals, stations, refuelling, route allocation, etc., remain and these cause Lithuanian rail workers just as much concern. Consequently, there may be major problems in future because guaranteeing the independence of these divisions within one undertaking will be practically impossible and then the EU may begin to demand their separation. There are also many doubts about the proposal to make it possible to impose a higher infrastructure levy for the transportation of freight from third countries. It is not clear how this provision would be implemented in practice, especially as there is no doubt that the Commission will demand that levies be reduced and the difference covered by the state budget. The European Parliament will debate the Rail Directive again in the autumn. I hope that it will be possible to find convincing arguments, which lead to wording in the directive that is favourable to Lithuania and guarantees the continued functioning of its rail system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) The establishment of a single European railway area has the aim of improving rail services by increasing competition, strengthening the powers of national regulators and enhancing the framework for investments in this sector. In this perspective, it is vital to guarantee, on the one hand, non-discriminatory access to train paths and service facilities and, on the other, transparency of prices set by independent national regulators. It is also necessary to separate and control accounts so as to ensure that railway undertakings, structurally linked to infrastructure managers, do not have an advantage over their competitors. I supported this report at second reading of the ordinary legislative procedure.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – I am disappointed that the Parliament has rejected Amendment 12 (Article 2 – paragraph 2a (new)). Although this amendment had initially been supported by the EP, it was dropped in the trialogue. This may have negative consequences for the Polish LHS (Linia Hutnicza Szerokotorowa). This paragraph would have allowed the exemption of the LHS from certain provisions of the directive. The LHS operates a 400-kilometre long broad-gauge railway from the terminal in Sławków in Silesia to the Polish-Ukrainian border. Without this amendment, the directive may be detrimental to the line’s operations. This issue cannot be ignored in the new directive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing.(SK) The EP encourages ambitious proposals with a view to establishing a single European railway area. National railway systems separated by national borders severely restrict the development and competitiveness of the sector compared to other modes of transport. The Council has weakened these proposals in its text. However, the proposed text reinforces the role and powers of national regulatory bodies. The creation of a European regulatory body to oversee cross-border traffic is proposed in the long-term. This would be preceded by a network of national regulators. The EP also calls for the creation of conditions for greater stability in the financing of rail infrastructure and also to increase the transparency of financial flows, particularly in integrated undertakings that provide services and also infrastructure management. I support Parliament’s position.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Ms Serracchiani, on establishing a single European railway area. This agreement, designed to optimise the supply and quality of transport services for freight and international travellers, is another step towards integrating rail transport. We have reached an agreement that ensures better use of public funds by monitoring financial flows. In addition, the directive provides for the establishment of independent national regulators so as to make sure that the rules are applied in the Member States. This is therefore another step towards creating a single European rail area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – I strongly supported the directive on establishing a single European railway area (recast). Unfortunately, however, the vote on the derogation for the Polish Linia Hutnicza Szerokotorowa line (LHS) was not in favour. The LHS is a 400-kilometre long broad-gauge railway from the terminal in Sławkow in the Upper Silesian Basin to the Polish-Ukrainian border. Having a gauge other than the EU standard one, it constitutes a special case for which the general provisions of the directive do not fit. Since 6% of the entire Polish railway transport performance in 2011 (54 billion tonne-kilometres) were transported on the LHS, the lack of support from the Members of the European Parliament shown today will seriously harm its performance and thus weaken the second largest rail freight market in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report and welcome the fact that Parliament has insisted from the beginning on establishing a compulsory mechanism to reduce railway noise emissions caused by trains. Noisy trains have negative effects on people’s health and therefore on their acceptance of rail transport and are ultimately harmful to the development of the sector. An effective noise reduction scheme should therefore be found.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. (IT) The establishment of a single European railway area should still be our main objective because the various national railway systems leave the sector hampered by national boundaries which heavily limit the development of the sector and the competitiveness of rail transport vis-à-vis other modes of transport.

We believe independent regulators are crucial for establishing a level playing field for large and small railway companies. We should continue our efforts to achieve a more stable funding situation for railway infrastructure and to increase the transparency of financial flows, in particular, in integrated undertakings that provide rail transport services and infrastructure management.

We therefore insist on establishing a compulsory mechanism to reduce noise emissions caused by trains. Noisy trains have negative effects on people’s health and, therefore, on their acceptance of rail transport and are ultimately harmful for the development of the sector. To increase the role and responsibility of the infrastructure manager is another important goal so that network management can focus more on free competition in the sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of new rules to increase transparency in the financing of rail infrastructures. The aim is to make the railway area more open to competition and thus offer better services to passengers and freight users. It is necessary to specify the methods of financing this infrastructure, the conditions of competition and the rules for monitoring the market. This is why the national and independent regulatory bodies, which have been given more wide-ranging powers, should exchange information within a European network of regulators. Similarly, the prohibition on transferring public funds from one area of activity to another should ensure healthier competition.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report covers the following changes: 1. the national regulatory body will be much stronger and more independent and there will be a network of national regulatory bodies to coordinate their decision making: 6 weeks maximum for an ordinary complaint procedure. 2. A future European regulatory oversight is envisaged. 3. Another important point is the agreement on stable financing of the infrastructure manager. The multiannual contractual agreement has a minimum duration of 5 years (instead of 3 years) and there is a provision making it compulsory for Member States to balance the infrastructure manager’s accounts over a period of a maximum of 5 years. 4. A major opening of the market of rail-related services compared to the Council’s intention was achieved.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for Ms Serracchiani’s report on recasting EU rail transport legislation because it consolidates two key objectives: (i) to make progress in creating a cross-border European railway market, without which a true internal market cannot exist; (ii) to strengthen conditions for rail transport efficiency and enable competition with road and air transport, which do not internalise their extra environmental costs. I also believe that a single European-level railway market cannot be effectively regulated in a fragmented way between national regulators. The creation of a pan-European regulator is therefore required. Hence, the solution put forward of a Board of National Regulators, chaired by the Commission, must be seen as an intermediate solution, as a step towards the creation of a future EU railway regulator, without harming national regulators as decentralised bodies at national level.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) The establishment of a single railway area is an important step towards further EU integration, not just generally improving rail travel in future, but hopefully leading to lower rates for carrying freight and passengers. It is regrettable that the second reading did not take into account those Member States which, in all areas of infrastructure – electricity, gas transmission, rail travel – remain part of the system of the former Soviet Union. The document adopted does not take into account the broad-gauge track used in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, or important provisions regarding the fact that they need additional funds in order to become full members of the single railway area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing.(PL) Adopting the recast of the first railway package will improve international rail transport. It is extremely important to begin regulating the railway market efficiently. Passengers and businesses involved in the transportation of goods and people should benefit from this.

However, the rejection of the amendment excluding Poland’s Broad Gauge Metallurgical Railway Line from some of the directive’s provisions is worrying. This line is the longest broad-gauge railway in the European Union. It runs 400 km from Poland’s border with Ukraine at Hrubieszów to Sławków railway station in Upper Silesia. This non-electrified single-track route, which uses a Russian broad-gauge track, is one of only a few broad-gauge railways anywhere in the Union, and the general provisions of the package do not take this kind of railway into account.

I regret that the majority of fellow Members did not demonstrate an appreciation of the specific nature of this railway. The final text of the recast railway package may be detrimental to the operation of the line, which has 1 300 employees. However, in view of the package’s other provisions, which I welcome, I decided to vote for its adoption. It is a document which will help develop the international railway transportation market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) The implementation of this directive will cause many serious problems, not just for Lithuania, but for the other Baltic countries as well. I believe that the implementation of the provisions on the separation of infrastructure and infrastructure charges will cause a lot of confusion. Above all, this directive does not set out specific requirements for the separation of infrastructure. In order to ensure the development of competition, continued investment and the cost effectiveness of service provision, I believe that different divisions or entities within the same undertaking should manage infrastructure and transport services. It should be noted that the exception provided for in the directive regarding the possibility of imposing a higher levy for the carriage of cargo from third countries is doubtful and difficult to implement in practice. The Commission should, as a matter of urgency, prepare a comparative analysis of the methods for setting the amounts of the levies in the Member States in order to establish a uniform method of calculation to determine the amount of the levies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. (LT) This report is another important step towards a common EU rail system. The document sets out the areas of responsibility and financial liabilities of the managers of the transport systems of the EU and its Member States. I voted in favour of this report because it makes it easier to create greater competition in this sector, promotes increased investment in environmentally friendly rail transport programmes and creates more transparent procedures for financial accounting in the sector. There should be a detailed discussion on whether rail infrastructure managers should be separated from operators. This would also give rail companies from third countries a presence in the EU rail market, whose interests may not necessarily coincide with the goals of EU transport policy. In some EU Member States, it would pose a certain threat to security. Furthermore, when considering the issue of a single European railway area, we should effectively continue to strive to reduce the specific characteristics of the rail systems of certain EU Member States. Rail track in the Baltic States, for example, does not match the standard used in many EU Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. (EL) It is a fact that the relatively slow progress in negotiations between Parliament and the Council to reach agreement on this particular directive is delaying an important EU reform initiative which will potentially generate economic benefits for numerous Member States, including Greece. However, Parliament has no intention of adopting a text which waters down the basic targets of the directive in question, such as access to rail transport-related services, infrastructure financing, infrastructure charges and the powers of the regulatory body.

It is a fact that Parliament and the Commission have adopted a more ambitious political stand and want the directive to be transposed promptly into the national laws of the Member States (within 12 months), compared with the Council, which wants most provisions of the new directive to enter into force within 36 months. The European Parliament therefore decided not to cede on these crucial points. I supported that position by voting in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) The rapporteur’s draft recommendation at second reading largely reiterates Parliament’s position at first reading, with the exception of minor amendments made by the Council to the Commission proposal. Given that interinstitutional discussion on key issues will continue, the rapporteur proposes that, in the ongoing negotiations with the Council, Parliament’s delegation advocates Parliament’s position at first reading, which was adopted by a large majority. I voted for this report as I agree with this position.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) Parliament is putting forward ambitious proposals for the creation of a single European railway area. The establishment of such an area should still be our objective, because the various national railway systems leave the sector hampered by national boundaries, which heavily limit the development of the sector and the competitiveness of rail transport vis-à-vis other modes of transport. Parliament must continue the efforts made to achieve a more stable funding situation for railway infrastructure, as well as an improvement in the transparency of financial flows. Although the final text is the product of various compromises, and I am convinced that some points could be improved, I believe that it is right to vote for this proposal with a view to strengthening the common rules and standards for infrastructure and improving access to rail services.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) This proposal for a directive establishing a single European railway area merges three existing directives on adequate funding for rail infrastructure, on fair competition for rail infrastructure, and on the necessary organisational reforms to ensure adequate supervision of the market. In very general terms, this recasting was conceived to ensure improvements in the rail sector investment framework and guarantee better transport and freight services, increasing competitiveness within the rail sector and strengthening the authority and the competences of national regulators. I therefore voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. (IT) In order to encourage better use of the EU’s rail networks, through the vote held today, we have clarified the rules on competition between railway undertakings and infrastructure managers. The rules approved are designed to stimulate the supply of international freight and passenger transport services and to improve their quality. Independent regulatory authorities will ensure fair competition. From now on, separate and transparent reporting by the railway undertakings and by the infrastructure managers ought to avoid any illegal transfer of public funds between these two entities, even where they belong to the same holding company. The prices charged for granting train paths will include bonus-malus incentives to reduce noise pollution and equip trains with the European Train Control System (ETCS) for maximum safety.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing.(FR) I welcome today’s adoption at second reading of our position on the single European railway area. Indeed, I am certain that European integration will be achieved through the development of efficient, high-quality cross-border rail links. Our action today will ensure fairer competition by ensuring the transparency of financial flows between rail operators and network management companies. This directive will also have the effect of strengthening the competitiveness of the European railway sector. Incentives linked to the allocation of train paths, taking into account train safety and noise pollution, will be implemented for this purpose, thus encouraging the sector to modernise its rolling stock and infrastructures. Finally, I approve of the establishment of regulatory bodies with greater powers, also called national railway regulators, which will ensure proper compliance with the rules contained in this legislative measure.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing.(FR) Adopted at second reading. However, although Parliament and the Council had finally managed to agree to postpone (that is, until the fourth railway package, forecast for the end of this year) any changes in applicable legislation in terms of vertical separation between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, we recently found that the Commission took advantage of this recast to sneak through changes to the scope of the ‘essential functions’, in violation of the rules applicable to recasting (interinstitutional agreement of 2001), which stipulate that any amendment to existing legislation must be clearly identified in the recast proposal and duly justified in the explanatory statement. This sets a dangerous precedent.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. (IT) The aim of this vote is to encourage better use of European rail networks through clearer rules on competition between railway undertakings and infrastructure managers. There is an urgent need to stimulate the supply of international freight and passenger rail services, improving their quality. For this reason, incentives for the installation of technologies to reduce noise pollution, and to equip trains with the European Train Control System (ETCS) for maximum safety, will be included in the prices charged for granting train paths.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. (LV) Parliament approved at second reading a new railway directive that envisages improvements to the current EU rail transport legislation. One of the successes, especially from the viewpoint of the Baltic countries, is the inclusion of a reference in the directive to implementation of the principle of reciprocity between EU and third-country rail freight operators. This principle envisages that EU freight operators in non-EU markets will have the same rights as domestic undertakings. The directive also covers the activities of third-country companies in the EU market and their access to the EU rail infrastructure. Unfortunately, the necessary number of votes for the incorporation of the amendments in the final text of the directive was not achieved, even though the amendments were supported by Parliament at first reading.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing.(FR) The European Union has established a single currency, a common area of free movement and a single market. The four freedoms of movement – of goods, people, capital and services – are purely theoretical if we do not have the infrastructure to safeguard those freedoms. Europe has therefore committed itself to implementing an integrated European transport network and a single railway area. We currently have more than 20 national signalling systems and speed control systems, which are not always compatible. Moreover, the lack of real competition, inadequate regulatory monitoring, weak public and private investment, missing links in border regions and bottlenecks are all slowing down the growth of the freight and passenger transport market. This report will guarantee the independence of regulatory bodies, and will be the first step towards the liberalisation of railway transport, thereby providing the EU with a common area of fast, safe, economical and sustainable transport.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. (IT) Within the context of the process of European integration, the creation of a single railway area is of fundamental importance. One need only recall the fact that one of the four fundamental freedoms on which the European Union is based is the free movement of persons throughout the territory of the EU. For this reason, I have wholeheartedly supported Ms Serracchiani’s recommendation. There are two aspects within it which I would like to emphasise. The first relates to the creation of a network of fully independent national regulators with greater powers, coordinated by the Commission, with the possibility, in the future, of establishing a single European regulator. The second concerns the change of duration of the contract between Member State and infrastructure manager from three to five years. This change will make it possible to have better medium- and long-term guarantees for investment plans. A single railway area will permit non-discriminatory access to the market and will make our railway network stronger, healthier and more competitive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. (ET) In today’s vote, I supported the adoption of the newly formulated first railway package as agreed upon in the trilateral meetings between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. I am glad to see that concrete steps are finally being taken to implement the legislation that was adopted more than ten years ago. Unfortunately, many of the Member States have still not transposed all of the directives of the first railway package into national law, even though that should have been done by 15 March 2003. The Commission postponed initiating infringement proceedings against Member States for improper or incomplete implementation of the first railway package until June 2008. Infringement proceedings were initiated against 22 Member States, which shows that the creation of a single European railway area is still a long way off. A free and accessible transportation market is one of the pillars of the single European common market. The free movement of goods and persons must be guaranteed, and it is especially important to safeguard this using a more environmentally friendly mode of transport. An increase in the use of railways can only be ensured through the establishment and development of a single infrastructure and a single system of rules. I am therefore glad to see that the adoption of this report was supported by the majority of Members, myself included.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) High-quality, reliable, safe and efficient rail transport services can only be guaranteed through a common policy designed to facilitate the sustainable development of the European economy. To this end, Parliament adopted its position at first reading on 11 November 2011. Subsequently, the Council reached a political agreement and a position at first reading on 8 March 2012, by a qualified majority. Since January 2012, Parliament, the Council and the Commission have been holding informal negotiations designed to reach an agreement at second reading. The excessively long periods requested by the Council for the entry into force of this new directive, which are generally 36 months, and 60 months for the establishment of the regulatory body, are too long for the implementation of such an urgent plan. Therefore, in voting for the recommendation, I am endorsing the call for a reduction in the deadline for the transposition of the directive as a whole from 36 to 12 months.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brian Simpson (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because it became apparent at an early stage that we needed to get agreement on the recast before we could get down to the real issue of the fourth railway package which the Commission will come forward with later in the year.

All through the passage of this report, it has become very apparent that certain Member States are more interested in protecting their own national railways and thus took a nationalistic view rather than thinking on a pan-European basis.


The rapporteur and the shadows have done a good job in getting the message across that we expect regulators to be independent, and we expect infrastructure managers to be transparent in all their actions. This hard fought agreement with Council is not perfect. But it does give us a sound basis for the next move in regard to railway policy; namely, the fourth railway package. Who knows, one day we may see rail services crossing borders unhindered. Every now and then, miracles do happen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing.(FR) This new directive, the result of two years of difficult negotiations with the Member States, aims to create a ‘global and integrated’ European railway area, both for freight and international passenger transportation. Ultimately, the goal is to increase the share of rail in freight transport and bring down prices for passengers. The new rules provide that transport operators and infrastructure managers must necessarily have separate accounts to ensure transparency of any transfers of public funds between the two entities, even if they are in a holding company, and so avoid disadvantaging potential private operators. All operators, whether public or private, should enjoy the same tariffs and conditions of access to a given network, both in terms of train paths and service facilities (maintenance workshops, stations). Finally, allocation of train paths to operators will include incentives to modernise bonus-malus type equipment with a view to reducing noise and equipping trains with the European Train Control System (ETCS) for maximum safety. The text does not deal with Member States’ internal relations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) The creation of a single railway area depends on consistent, transparent and simplified legislation which encourages a competitive business environment. Following the trialogue negotiations, the Council proposal significantly reduced the ambitions of the proposal tabled by the Commission and by Parliament. As such the rapporteur’s recommendation aims to strengthen the objectives already debated and adopted by Parliament, in order to reach an agreement at second reading. The points that the rapporteur aims to strengthen are access to rail-related services, infrastructure financing, rates of infrastructure use, strengthening the powers of the regulatory body, total network management independence and financial transparency. Nonetheless, Parliament is aiming for a European regulatory body to be established in the long run, to be able to oversee cross-border transport. To this end, it is calling for a network of national regulatory bodies to be formed. I am voting for this recommendation, as I consider the simplification of the existing legislation to be essential in order to achieve the objectives included in the Transport White Paper Horizon 2050.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted for the proposal for a directive establishing a single European railway area. In view of the international aspect of European railway transport, it is important to set out at EU level general principles for issuing licences to railway companies and coordinating Member States’ systems which regulate the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charges for using it. The new directive obliges Member States to adopt and publish an indicative strategy, which covers a minimum period of five years and is renewable, for developing the railway infrastructure in order to meet future mobility needs, and for maintaining, renewing and developing the infrastructure based on sustainable financing of the railway system. Transparent rules on access to rail-related services and service infrastructures (freight terminals, maintenance facilities, train formation facilities and so on) are crucial to the sector’s competitiveness. To ensure the railway system’s development and efficient operation, the provision of transport services and operation of the infrastructure will be managed separately and must have separate accounts. Member States can also stipulate that this separation will require the organisation of distinct divisions within the same company or that the infrastructure and transport services will be managed by separate entities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) The report on the recast directive on a single European railway area promotes faster privatisation of public rail transport in all the EU Member States, so that they can be handed over to large business groups trading in that sector. The so-called ‘third EU package’ on rail transport completed the break-up of rail transport by dividing the infrastructure network from primary rail transport operations. This facilitated privatisation, as the profitable part of transport operations has been sold off, while the infrastructure network and concomitant costs have remained in the public sector. The aim of the recast ‘third package’ is to remove all (administrative and technical) obstacles to privatisation, so as to complete the interconnection of rail networks in all the Member States and promote the takeover of state railways by monopoly groups, especially in the strong capitalist EU Member States. This will provoke a wave of redundancies and exacerbate working conditions, send passenger fares and freight tariffs through the roof and reduce the standard of transport services and safety of the railways. This policy has already been consistently applied by the New Democracy and PASOK capitalist governments in Greece and by the previous and present coalition.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome the approval of this technical but important dossier in order to complete the single European railway area.

The aim has always been to introduce a level and open playing field to develop a genuine European railway area comparable to what the EU is trying to achieve in the air with the Single European Sky. The challenge was to open up markets, limit discrimination practices, and remove both regulatory barriers and physical bottlenecks to competition across the EU Member States.

Today, Member States receive a clear message: implement this directive fully and stop the status quo in Europe. By the end of 2012, Commissioner Kallas will present the fourth railway package, which will include a requirement for more separation, the opening of the market and hopefully, the European regulatory body.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. (DE) Following the vote after the second reading, this report is now largely fit for purpose. Sufficient consideration has been given to fundamental issues such as coordinating European regulation and opening up the rail market even further. Now it is important to establish a viable, fair pricing system and to take into account the factors specific to each country, such as the frequency with which lines are used. The question of mixed traffic on rail lines also needs to be acknowledged. My main hope is that rail transport will become faster, more efficient and cheaper for the citizens of Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – Europe needs a high performance rail network. I support incentives to modernise trains and expand the rail network across the EU. Rail currently lags behind other modes of transport and underinvestment in rail needs to be addressed if we are to meet important environmental and climate change goals.

Furthermore, I support the creation of an EU network of national regulators, which leaves the door open to the establishment of an EU rail regulator in the future. I also support calls to improve rail-related services and to provide financial incentives to encourage noise reduction by operators.

Finally, providing non-discriminatory access to various services and infrastructures, such as freight terminals, should be promoted.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The EP voted today on the adoption of its second reading position. The proposal was launched due to the hard situation of the railway sector in Europe. Every Member State has a different level of infrastructure investments and there is a true lack of competitiveness in the railway sector. The Council position at first reading slows the ambitious goal of the Commission and EP; that is why the EP is committed at the second reading to foster the competitiveness and transparency, to create independent regulatory bodies and, of course, to achieve the single European railway area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing.(PL) At today’s vote, I endorsed this document, although I very much regret the rejection of the amendment to Article 2(2), which was tabled by four political groups: the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, on excluding broad-gauge railway lines from the scope of the recast first railway package. In working to ensure free competition in the market for railway services, we must remember that in some Member States, there are self-financing railway lines in operation which are not connected to national and European networks, are of regional importance and have a gauge which is different from the dominant network within the Member State concerned. The need to apply all the provisions of the directive to these self-contained railways will impose a disproportionate and irrational burden and will interfere with and distort the objective for which they were built. In speaking, on the one hand, about deregulation and facilitating a Europe of growth, we must not, at the same time, hinder the operation of successful enterprises by badly thought-out implementation of legislation, because these firms represent the real and often the only added value in poor regions of the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing.(PL) I spoke during the debate in plenary to voice my reservations about the recommendations on the single European railway area. Unfortunately, my words, and also the words of several other fellow Members from Poland, did not secure the support of the majority in Parliament. The recommendations which were adopted represent – in my opinion – an attempt at a somewhat mechanical form of control of the railway market in Europe. I think it is a mistake not to take account of the specific features of countries such as Poland, where universal access to competition in the railway market could, as a result, bring about the collapse of the national railway operator, Polskie Koleje Państwowe. We need more time and more money to adapt to modern methods in railway transport. We can and should promote competition, but this should be done when all enterprises operating in the market have similar opportunities to compete. Where there are continuing disparities, particularly in the quality of rolling stock, the weaker partner will always lose.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing.(PL) The Broad Gauge Metallurgical Railway Line, which is owned by the Polish national railway operator Polskie Koleje Państwowe, is part of the rail transport industry and is responsible for almost 400 km of broad-gauge railway line. Between 2001 and 2010, the company invested PLN 386.3 million in its operations. In the same period, the company also spent PLN 421.8 million on repairs and renovation. This money came from the company’s own funds and has enabled the company to adapt successfully to changing market conditions. The line itself is directly connected with countries from outside the EU and with their broad-gauge transport system, and should be excluded from the rules concerning the single railway area. I support the retention of Amendment 12 to Article 2, which was adopted in November last year, and, in connection with this, I also hope the company will be able to continue operating on its current basis. The amendment was adopted by a ratio of 2 votes to 1 in Parliament, and in Committee was also adopted by the same proportion. Unfortunately, Parliament has succumbed to pressure from the Commission and the Council and rejected the amendment. I am therefore opposed to the entire report, which has the potential to exacerbate the collapse which has occurred in railway transport in some of the EU’s Member States.

 
  
  

Report: Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (A7-0195/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this report, as I believe that it signifies extraordinary progress not only in technology, but also in improvements to rail safety and working conditions, at the same time as safeguarding citizens’ private lives. If well implemented, this new technology could bring significant results by improving safety on Europe’s roads, provided that the protection of individual privacy is respected, the ultimate objective being to monitor and prevent disasters and negative consequences for rail transport users.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on recording equipment in road transport. I believe that professional drivers will enjoy safer working conditions with the introduction of more efficient recording equipment in road transport as endorsed by the European Parliament today. We have given our backing to a review of the Tachograph Regulation, which dates back to 1985. The revision aims to combat fraud, enforce better working conditions for professional drivers and save European transport companies up to EUR 515 million per year by reducing administrative burdens. The European Commission has found that up to 45 000 vehicles were in breach of EU tachograph rules at least once. Breaches include not adhering to minimum rest periods or maximum driving times, resulting in fatigued drivers and increased road safety risks. With this latest proposal, Parliament is seeking to support the transport industry by easing the burden on companies and clarifying tachograph laws. However, road safety is of paramount importance, and transport companies operating in Europe and their drivers must obey the safety rules.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) The work of professional drivers is already highly regulated. Driving times and rest periods, however, are not always respected and this increases the risk of accidents. I therefore voted in favour of installing tachographs in all vehicles over 2.8 tonnes by 2020. The tachograph is a piece of equipment that records the driving and rest times of drivers, and the new generation of these instruments will include satellite technology. This means that vehicles already in use will have to be ‘retrofitted’. Despite the virulent objections of the International Road Transport Union (IRU), the arguments supporting safety and prevention have gained the upper hand, and I welcome that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report. In order to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions, while also ensuring fair competition among transport companies, it is very important to use the latest technologies and tachographs in particular. The data on driving, working and rest times recorded by the tachograph will help transport companies to comply with social rules, namely, minimum breaks and rest periods and maximum driving times. It is particularly important for the EU Member States to comply with the Tachograph Regulation and apply social rules to transport companies because companies which do not comply with the legislation will gain a sizeable competitive advantage by cutting prices, as staff costs account for up to 50% of a transport company’s total operating costs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. (PT) Since 1969, the European Union has laid down social legislation in the field of road transport to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions, and to ensure fair competition among transport companies. This revision of the Tachograph Regulation aims to make fraud more difficult, to enforce social rules better, and to reduce the administrative burden by making full use of new technologies and introducing a number of new regulatory measures. This report, for which I voted, proposes two important measures: to encourage the development of an application providing interpretation and guidance to drivers through the harmonised interface of the tachograph, and to introduce type approval of the software used by control officers to interpret the data stored by the tachograph. Neither of the proposal’s objectives will be achieved if Member States do not commit to improving the level of enforcement of this regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Existing social legislation in the area of road transport is still too often violated, and the tachograph monitoring system, a box that records drivers’ driving and rest times, lacks efficiency. Non-respect of the minimum rest periods and of the maximum driving times can lead to more fatigued drivers with a greater potential risk for road safety. A revision of existing legislation is also needed. The aim of the new regulation is to make fraud more difficult and to better enforce social rules, chiefly through ‘smart tachographs’ that make full use of new technologies. These innovative and more efficient devices will allow the control authorities to directly target vehicles that commit infringements and better monitor the driving and rest times of drivers. I therefore supported this text, which is a step towards improving the working conditions of drivers and making the roads safer for everyone.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Phil Bennion (ALDE), in writing. – I abstained on the final vote of the report as I believed that the report as adopted did not strike a good balance between road safety and reducing administrative burdens on small and medium enterprises. Lib Dems are leading the fight to improve road safety across Europe, but we also want to ensure that the rules for transport safety are proportionate and sensible. I particularly strongly opposed one amendment from the Greens which would have forced all vehicles over 1.5 tonnes used for carrying goods to install digital tachographs. This amendment was happily defeated but an amendment from the S&D Group succeeded in including vehicles over 2.8 tonnes rather than the current 3.5 tonnes in the regulation; this will mean a potentially bigger administrative burden for many larger vans.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. (IT) Since 1969, the European Union has laid down legislation in the field of road transport to improve road safety, drivers’ working conditions and to ensure fair competition among transport companies. According to data provided by the Commission, on average, 9% of controlled vehicles are found to be breaching the social rules and roughly one quarter of them are found to be breaching the Tachograph Regulation. In view of these data, the Commission presented a proposal for a revision of the Tachograph Regulation, which aims to better enforce the social rules and to reduce the administrative burden by making use of new technologies and introducing a number of new regulatory measures. These include measures which will widen the functionalities of the digital tachograph, with the advent of a new type called the smart tachograph. I welcome the proposal, support its main points and back the introduction of the smart tachograph, because I believe it will help to improve enforcement of the legislation and will be a means to reduce the level of administrative burden related to tachograph obligations for companies that comply with the rules. Furthermore, a harmonised interface with ITS applications should help to facilitate the integration of the different systems and prevent the multiplication of independent items of equipment on board vehicles.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) I have expressed my clear opposition to the report by Ms Ţicău on the proposal amending the current Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport (tachographs) and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council. Firstly, I would argue that the nature of the tachograph departs from/does not relate to/does not fall within the definition of what a ‘work period’ is: on this point, I note that my proposal to use the term ‘control’ instead of ‘work’ was not taken into consideration/evaluated by my fellow Members. This may have a negative effect on the autonomy of every firm in relation to managing the working hours of its employees. Secondly, the practice of retrofitting will give rise to huge expenditure for firms, of dubious value (even the Commission has said as much). Retrofitting is the requirement in the rapporteur’s proposal for all vehicles to install, by 2020, the new ‘smart tachograph’ in the name of greater safety, without any preliminary study which confirms the usefulness of this. According to road transport bodies, it has been approved to benefit the lobbies that produce these devices.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the European Union’s main objective in the field of transport is to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions, and to ensure fair competition among transport companies. However, the provisions of social road transport legislation adopted by the European Union, where the basis for control is simply the data on driving, working and rest times recorded by the tachograph, are not being implemented sufficiently. Two main problems have been identified – social rules are still breached too often and the tachograph system is not sufficiently efficient. According to data provided by the Commission, on average, 9% of controlled vehicles are found to be breaching the social rules. Roughly a quarter of them are found to be breaching the Tachograph Regulation in particular. Furthermore, the tachograph system has been designed and has functioned thus far primarily as a policing tool, but not as a labour saving device. Therefore, in order to better enforce social rules and reduce the administrative burden by making full use of new technologies and introducing a number of new regulatory measures, existing social legislation needs to be reviewed. However, none of the objectives of the proposal will be achieved if Member States do not commit themselves to improving the implementation of this regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) Tachographs play a crucial role in checking that professional road transport drivers comply with the driving and rest time regulations, thereby helping improve road safety, drivers’ working conditions and fair competition between road transport companies. Making the use of tachographs more cost effective is one of the key elements in the Commission’s strategy for further integrating the road freight transport market and making road transport safer, more efficient and competitive, as outlined in the White Paper on transport of 28 March 2011.

Given the current situation regarding road safety in the goods transport sector, tachographs have to be capable of supplying reliable, trustworthy data to allow effective checks to be carried out on drivers’ driving times and rest periods. The security of the tachograph system is crucial to preventing fraud and unlawful manipulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the Ţicău report on recording equipment in road transport. Indeed, I support the implementation of an efficient tool to combat the lack of road safety: the tachograph. This device will make it possible to combat non-compliance with rules on drivers’ driving times and rest periods. Moreover, this tool promotes greater productivity in terms of control and improved working conditions for drivers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – A number of amendments have raised serious concerns inside the British freight industry. Amendment 136 seeks to broaden the reach of the legislation by altering the weight threshold for vehicles subject to regulation, in some cases bringing it down to 1.5 tonnes. This brings millions of vans into the remit without any recourse to an impact assessment. It would bankrupt small businesses up and down the UK reliant upon such vehicles that do not have the resources to accommodate such regulation. Similarly, Amendment 134 alters the weight limit down to 2.8 tonnes. Whilst companies in Germany operate under such limits, the UK does not. It broadens the scope of the legislation enormously – again without adequate justification. Many representatives of the UK freight and haulage industry strongly opposed plans to prevent operators carrying out their own tachograph calibration. It is right that this amendment be lifted and I hope that it stays out of future proposals. Today’s proposals establish far reaching surveillance that goes beyond anything anticipated or justified. I fear that permitting these amendments could pave the way for Brussels to roll out similar levels of monitoring and enforcement for other road users and in other industries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the Ţicău report on improving the tachograph system in road transport. I believe that drivers’ compliance with driving times and rest periods is a precondition for improving road safety in Europe. I also approve of the use of a global positioning system (GPS) to reduce cases of fraud. This report proposes sensible measures and I welcome its adoption.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted for the text proposed by the rapporteur because I think that she has done an excellent job, together with the Commission and the shadow rapporteurs, in bringing to a conclusion a complex intervention in a particularly problematic sector. The new digital tachograph will have a direct impact on the current state of measurements of data relating to driving, speed and drivers’ rest periods, having an effect on the method of control and associated compliance with the regulations in force. I particularly support the deadlines laid down for the mandatory entry into force of the digital tachograph, setting an adaptation period ending in 2020. This will be the deadline by which all Member States will have to adapt, by adopting this new measurement instrument. On the other hand, I do not feel able to support the option for derogations from these rules, since that would permit a fragmentation of the market which would create competitive disadvantages for producers and, above all, for small and medium-sized enterprises.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) Since 1969, the European Union has laid down social legislation in the field of road transport to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions, and to ensure fair competition among transport companies. The EU developed a comprehensive policy on inspecting and checking compliance, relying on two main pillars: Directive 2006/22/EC, which lays down a minimum level of checks at the roadside and at the premises of the undertakings, to be carried out by the Member States; and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tachograph Regulation’. Two main problems which need to be tackled at EU level have been identified by the Commission. The first problem is that social rules are still too often breached: on average, 9% of controlled vehicles are found breaching the social rules. The second problem is that the tachograph system is not sufficiently efficient: there is room to make tachographs easier to operate, especially digital tachographs and their additional functionalities, so as to facilitate drivers’ work and make the transport system more efficient. I voted for the amendments to the regulation because I believe that they will contribute to solving the problems that have been identified.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – Concerning Amendment 6: Tachograph requirements are important for ensuring the welfare of bus drivers as well as general road safety. I am in agreement with the rapporteur that the implementation of these rules is of high importance and thus have voted in favour of this amendment.

Concerning Amendment 21: In relation to tachograph requirements and the importance of road safety, it is important that the ’daily working period’ is clearly defined, to ensure the welfare of bus drivers and others on the road. Therefore, I have voted in favour of this amendment.

Concerning Amendment 38: It is important to set specific goals for fitting international transport vehicles with smart tachographs. Due to the high percentage of vehicles still utilising analogue tachographs, I am in favour of the addition of this amendment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. (DA) In connection with the regulation on recording equipment in road transport (Silvia-Adriana Ţicău), I voted against an amendment stating that recording equipment should be used to ensure compliance with the maximum transport times for live animals in consideration of animal welfare. The purpose of the regulation on recording equipment in road transport is to monitor the drivers’ driving/rest times using tachographs, and it should be reserved for that purpose. If we use tachographs to monitor compliance with the maximum transport times for live animals, we will, in my opinion, be using the recording equipment for a different purpose from that set out in the regulation. Even though I support better animal welfare and monitoring of maximum transport times for live animals, I do not believe it should be regulated in this regulation. It should instead be regulated by means of separate, sector-specific legislation for this area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. (IT) The adoption of this regulation sends a clear signal of support for the safety of the millions of European workers and citizens who travel every day on Europe’s roads. Thanks to Parliament’s hard work, significant amendments have been made to meet the demands voiced on many occasions by trade unions, workers and many small enterprises: the introduction of tachographs for all heavy goods vehicles weighing in excess of 2.8 tonnes and the introduction of weight sensors are two clear examples of the good work done during recent months within the committee and then in the Chamber. Too often, the needs of the market and strong competition between operators adversely affect working and health conditions for lorry drivers, and also seriously jeopardise the safety of the millions of European citizens on the EU’s roads and motorways. The balance that has been achieved in this regulation between the needs for security and control and the flexibility to be given to self-employed workers and small enterprises is an excellent outcome, and has therefore been broadly supported by the majority of MEPs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council. The measures will substantially expand the functionality of the digital tachograph, leading to a new type of digital tachograph (called ‘smart tachographs’), which will facilitate remote communication from the tachograph for control purposes, the automated recording of the precise location and the integration of the digital tachograph with other Intelligent Transport Systems applications.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. (RO) I welcome a website and an EU-wide hotline telephone number being set up which can be called free of charge and anonymously by any drivers or other concerned parties wishing to report an incidence of fraud which falls under the scope of this regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing.(FR) Ensuring that drivers respect their driving and rest times is imperative for health and safety, not only for them, but also for all road users. I supported this report because the tools it introduces will enable easier control of compliance with relevant legislation. Indeed, thanks to the tachograph, it will be easier to monitor compliance with the law by drivers and transport undertakings. Above all, however, Parliament has provided an exemption to small enterprises whose main activity does not involve driving heavy goods vehicles: it was essential to protect small business owners from these additional costs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing.(FR) At a time when millions of Europeans are about to take to the roads for their holidays, we should be providing concrete answers to the question of road safety. The in-depth revision of legislation on the tachograph, a mandatory control device installed in trucks, is part of that. Indeed, drivers’ non-compliance with labour legislation, often under pressure from employers, is a practice which, unfortunately, is too widespread in Europe: stress and fatigue among drivers are responsible for around 20% of road accidents. This new version of the tachograph will apply to heavy goods vehicles of 2.8 tonnes or more (and no longer 3.5 tonnes or more), and to vehicles transporting nine persons or more. We have also paved the way for electronic use of the device, replacing manual use, which heralds the introduction of the ‘smart tachograph’ by 2020, which should enable road transport undertakings to save the equivalent of EUR 515 million in administrative costs per year, as well as prevent fraud.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this reform, which enhances respect for drivers’ social rights by extending the rules on on-board instruments used to record their driving and rest times. It is crucial to verify compliance with our social legislation on road transport, not only to ensure fair competition within the industry, but also to protect those working in the industry and, more broadly, to improve road safety by combating tiredness at the wheel.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. (CS) Traffic accidents account for the greatest number of transport-related deaths in the EU. We hear about tragic accidents involving coaches ever more often. The heaviest vehicles, in other words. lorries and coaches, present the greatest danger, of course. Significant attention therefore needs to be paid to the working conditions of professional drivers and to their compliance with regulations. The European policy of checks and inspections in road transport is based on Directive 2006/22/EC on the minimum level of checks at the roadside and at the premises of transport businesses, and on Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport. At present, analogue tachographs are in use in vehicles registered before 1 May 2006, and digital tachographs in vehicles registered after that date. The problem is that the conditions laid down by these regulations are breached. Honest transport operators who stick to the rules are thereby ‘penalised’. Businesses that do not stick to the rules gain an unacceptable competitive advantage on the market, and can offer transport at lower prices. The second problem is inefficient tachographs. The tachographs in use do not evaluate whether there has been a breach of the rules on the number of hours of driving and rest for drivers, but only record data on driving. In view of the possibilities of digital networks and satellites, I would like to call for the future linking up of digital tachographs with checkpoints. I welcome the report overall, and I voted for its adoption.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport because it contains fundamental provisions concerning the transport sector in the EU, which will significantly improve the safety of our roads and will provide stronger protection against fraud in the area of transport legislation.

I truly believe that more efficient and innovative tools have to be put in place for guaranteeing the highest standards of social rules, such as drivers’ working conditions, minimum number of breaks and maximum driving times; this is very much a matter of public safety, and the report efficiently addresses this problem.

I welcome the fact that the report underlines the importance of improving the use of advanced digital tachographs, which will not only reduce administrative burdens, but will also greatly enhance the possibility of monitoring compliance with rules in the European transport sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on ‘recording equipment in road transport’ as I believe that the new regulation will improve the functions of the digital tachograph, applying stricter regulations on driving and rest times, and making a positive contribution to protecting drivers and road safety.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) Road safety is a major concern for the European Union, and so legislation has been developed to lay down harmonised maximum daily and weekly driving times and minimum daily and weekly rest periods for drivers. These rules aim to guarantee road safety and protect workers, ensuring fair competition between businesses in the sector. To this end, the Tachograph Regulation, on equipment for recording data on driving, working and rest times for each operator and each driver, was adopted in 1985. It is this regulation that the Commission now wants to revise and update, in order to make fraud more difficult, to better enforce social rules, and to reduce the administrative burden by making full use of the new technologies available.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) Road freight transport that does not have well-defined rules and rigorous control of drivers’ rest times increases the likelihood of accidents. This can sometimes have very serious consequences, whether personal injuries or material and environmental damage. Ms Ţicău’s report concerns a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 3821/85, which makes recording equipment for road transport obligatory, as well as Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council. The new proposal for a regulation, monitoring the development of new technologies, provides for the introduction of recording equipment – namely the digital tachograph – in all new heavy vehicles from the year 2015 and for them to be in all heavy vehicles by 2020. The new equipment, equipped with GPS transmission, will enable faster and more efficient control. It will also be extended to other functionalities beyond speed control and rest time, thereby contributing to reducing bureaucracy and growing the economy, as data can be transmitted at zero cost.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing.(SK) The European Union has laid down social legislation in the field of road transport to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions, and to ensure fair competition among transport companies. The regulation lays down maximum daily and weekly driving times and minimum daily and weekly rest periods for drivers. The EU has also developed a comprehensive policy on inspecting and checking compliance with social road transport legislation. This policy relies on two main pillars – one is a directive laying down minimum levels of roadside checks and checks at the premises of undertakings to be carried out by Member States, and the second is the Tachograph Regulation.

Under the current system, the Commission found two issues that need to be addressed at EU level – social rules are too often breached and the tachograph system is not sufficiently efficient. Last July, the European Commission presented a proposal for a revision of the Tachograph Regulation; the aim of the revision is to make fraud more difficult, to better enforce social rules and to reduce the administrative burden by making full use of new technologies and introducing a number of new regulatory measures. I firmly believe that none of the objectives of this proposal will be easy to meet if the Member States fail to undertake to improve the enforcement of this regulation, which needs to be amended and supplemented accordingly.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR), in writing. – As ever increasing amounts of goods are transported by road, it is important that regulations relating to the use of tachographs and the consequent data is updated. While I agree that Europe’s roads need to be safer and harmonisation is beneficial in this instance due to the cross-border nature of the industry, this report goes too far. My main concerns relate to the lengths this regulation goes to regarding enforcement, remote communication and retrofitting. Strengthening enforcement requirements should not undermine those Member States which already have stringent methods in place. The same also goes for the mandatory use of remote equipment, which is already used in the UK; it should be up to individual Member States to decide if this is a beneficial tool as their effectiveness is dependent upon the existing enforcement regime. Although the technical details of remote access are not yet clear, compulsory provision will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, a cost which would be passed on to industry. I cannot and will not give my support to anything that could damage British industry at a time when we should be fostering economic growth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing.(FR) Better working conditions and greater compliance with legislation on driving and rest times for drivers in Europe: these are the reasons why I have decided to vote in favour of this text. It is also about creating greater transparency in an industry that is still very opaque. It is too easy to manipulate the tachographs currently in use and they do not provide the necessary guarantees to ensure that drivers’ driving and rest times are recorded efficiently in Europe. That is why it was crucial to adopt a text which lays the foundations for the use of new digital tachographs that will enable more effective checks which are also less restrictive for drivers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing.(FR) Road safety and social protection are not opposable. This is what Parliament wanted to demonstrate by adopting the report on improving tachograph systems, which were first introduced in 1985. Parliament has called for the implementation of ‘smart tachographs’ by 2020, which incorporate technological innovations in order to improve checks on goods and passenger vehicles and to minimise misuse. There is still a long way to go before the rules on driving times are respected in Europe. We have found that tachographs are manipulated in order to increase the amount of time drivers spend at the wheel. This irresponsible behaviour represents a real threat to safety on our roads and calls for suitable penalties. I am well aware that our transport companies are subject to competition as a result of the increase in fraud. That is why, in my view, any initiative that would minimise fraud – which itself is fuelled by profound differences in social legislation, particularly with regard to rest period requirements – deserves our support.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Conservatives voted against the report on recording equipment in road transport today. Digital recording equipment has been mandatory in all new heavy goods vehicles since 2006, but this proposal calls for the legislation to be extended with the addition of provisions that are far too far-reaching in respect of the automatic recording of location data using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS). From the point of view of privacy, we would question the benefit of being able to pinpoint the location of drivers all over Europe. The proposal also contains provisions to the effect that undertakings in Europe should use the same type of technology. There are currently many undertakings that have come up with a good design of their own for recording equipment, and we are concerned about the EU chaining itself to any one particular type of technology, with the result that the product development carried out by the undertakings will have been costly work that was carried out needlessly. We are also opposed to the proposal to create a driving licence with an integral driver card chip for connecting to recording equipment. This would be a needlessly expensive and bureaucratic amendment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I abstained from voting on this document because I believe that there should not be an additional financial burden for checking hauliers, etc. (as was attempted with GPS, namely, hauliers will have to pay). I also believe that the tachograph system must not only monitor the driver, but help warn him about the end of working time, rest required, etc. I also think that information from the tachograph must only go to the company and not to other third parties.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) Tachographs are devices that record drivers’ driving and rest times. They play a key role in transport safety within the European Union and ensure that drivers’ social rights are respected. In view of the latest technological innovations, it is vital that we adapt earlier regulations. Ms Ţicău’s report calls for the use of digital tachographs, known as ‘smart tachographs’. They will enable control authorities to directly target fraudulent vehicles and to improve checks. Finally, the report calls for the training of police services to be harmonised. I supported this report, which was adopted by Parliament in plenary.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing.(PL) On average, at any point in time, around 45 000 vehicles are in breach of EU tachograph rules. It is easy to imagine what the consequences of this state of affairs can be. Failure to respect the minimum breaks and rest periods and the maximum driving times leads to more fatigued drivers and constitutes a road safety risk.

I think that effective measures should be identified at EU level and in the Member States. The Member States should commit themselves to ensuring tighter enforcement of this regulation. At EU level, I think it is very important to harmonise the training control officers receive throughout Europe and to certify acquisition of the appropriate technical skills by an examination. I support this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. (SK) Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 lays down a common set of maximum daily and weekly driving times and minimum daily and weekly rest periods for drivers. These rules apply to all drivers engaged in the transport of goods with vehicles of 3.5 tonnes laden mass or more and for drivers engaged in the transport of passengers with vehicles for 9 or more persons. According to data provided by the Commission, on average, 9% of controlled vehicles are found to be in breach of the social rules. Roughly one quarter of them are found to be in breach of the Tachograph Regulation. On average, at any point in time, around 45 000 vehicles are in breach of EU tachograph rules. Firms which do not comply with the legislation can gain a sizeable competitive advantage as personnel costs represent 30 to 50% of total operating costs. Therefore, I support the position of the EP and the harmonisation of systems, and the introduction of smart tachographs in order to reduce the administrative burden and increase the efficiency of these systems.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report but agree with the rapporteur who regrets the fact that in the current regulation, the standards and specifications are limited to the description of the vehicle unit as a black box recording driver activity data. The technical design of the downloading and interpretation tools is the responsibility of the Member State. The tachograph is not supposed to evaluate whether there are infringements of the drivers’ hours regulation. It is only supposed to record data, not to interpret data. The main consequence of this fact is the large disparities among Member States regarding the capacity and efficiency of enforcers’ instruments for roadside and company checks and the limitation of the tachograph to support, for the benefit of the driver, the application of the social legislation with interpreted data.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the draft report on recording equipment in road transport. It is indeed necessary to use the most advanced technology in order to improve road safety by legislating on how professional drivers are monitored. From now on, recording equipment, or tachographs, will be more efficient and reliable and will incorporate the latest technological innovations. This will enable more stringent checks to be carried out on drivers’ driving and rest times. In addition to improving road safety, this text will enable us to combat unfair competition within the road transport industry.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) Given the growing volume of traffic on Europe’s roads, it is essential for us to take measures to increase road safety. Greater control is needed over transit traffic in particular, in order to reduce the risk of accidents. The risk is particularly high in this case because the drivers are often put under time pressure by the haulage companies and, therefore, overtiredness is a frequent problem. Recording devices are available in the form of mandatory analogue and digital tachographs, but it is still possible to manipulate these devices. Excessively long journeys with breaks that are too few in number and too short significantly increase the risk of accidents occurring. I have abstained because, while I agree with the rapporteur on the one hand that the introduction of intelligent tachographs can have a positive impact on the working life of truck drivers, on the other hand, I do not share her opinion that EU-wide regulations concerning the monitoring of tachographs are needed, as the Commission is proposing. The regulatory bodies in the individual countries should continue to investigate and assess the situation on their own roads.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this report, which aims to make recording equipment in road transport more efficient and reliable and thus improve road safety. Tachographs play a key role in road safety as they ensure compliance with regulations on drivers’ driving and rest times and also guarantee fair competition between operators. I fully support this proposal, which improves the safety of the device and makes checks more productive, in particular, by incorporating the latest technological innovations and by tackling the training of police services.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. (DE) Unfortunately, serious accidents are occurring on Europe’s roads because of overtired drivers employed by transport and haulage companies. The drivers are generally under considerable time pressure, which is why they are failing to take the necessary breaks. Intelligent tachographs used as recording devices could help to resolve this problem. However, I have abstained, because this sensible idea should be decided on by the individual Member States, depending on the transport situation in each country.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) Given the difficult situation hauliers are in, they should not have to shoulder an additional financial burden. The hurried and incorrect implementation of the regulation’s provisions may have very significant negative consequences for this sector. Consequently, I believe that it should only be compulsory to install smart tachographs in vehicles registered for the first time since the entry into force of this regulation. The new tachograph system should not only monitor drivers but help them improve their working conditions by providing required and comprehensive information. Furthermore, it is very important for the information provided by the tachograph to only be transferred to the company and not to third, unrelated parties.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) The rapporteur proposes two important measures: to encourage the development of an application providing interpretation and guidance to drivers through the harmonised interface of the tachograph, and to introduce type approval of the software used by control officers to interpret data stored by the tachograph. I agree that these measures will benefit drivers and transport efficiency, so I voted for this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) According to data provided by the Commission, on average, 9% of controlled vehicles are found to be breaching the social rules, and specifically roughly one quarter of them are found to be breaching the Tachograph Regulation. On average, at any point in time, around 45 000 vehicles are in breach of EU tachograph rules. Failure to comply with the minimum breaks and rest periods and the maximum driving times can lead to more fatigued drivers, with a potential risk for road safety. I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work she has done on this proposal for a regulation, and confirm that I voted for the report, with a view to improving road safety and drivers’ working conditions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Since 1969, the European Union has laid down social legislation in the field of road transport to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions, and to ensure fair competition among transport companies. Framed within the EU comprehensive policy on inspecting and checking compliance with social road transport legislation, this proposal aims, by introducing new technological developments, to strengthen the existing legal framework and expand substantially the functionalities of the digital tachograph, leading to a new type of digital tachograph: the so-called ‘smart tachograph’. The Member States will also have to commit to improving the level of enforcement of this regulation, so as to harmonise the training control officers receive throughout Europe and to certify the acquisition of the appropriate technical skills by an examination, as well as to provide control officers with the appropriate equipment and type-approved software to make the best use of the new possibilities that the smart tachograph will offer for improving checks.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. (IT) I applaud Ms Ţicău for her work. By adopting this text, in view of the proposal submitted to Parliament and the Council by the Commission, and in view of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 7 December 2011, Parliament wishes to ensure that the efficiency of tachographs is improved through a global navigation satellite system that records the beginnings and ends of journeys.

Parliament is thus proposing that lorries, whether new or used, should be equipped with smart tachographs by 2020. These will constitute a generalised and rapid method of checking on the journeys taken by the lorries. Wireless data transmission capability will also make it possible for the authorities to monitor vehicles without having to stop them, and to focus on suspect vehicles, which will be subject to specific, in-depth checks. Parliament, however, hopes that lorries used within a radius of 100 km by persons who do not drive the lorries as their main activity will be exempt from the use of a tachograph, since otherwise, categories such as craftspeople would experience serious difficulty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing.(FR) In order to guarantee optimum road safety for all road users and acceptable working conditions for drivers, we have introduced strict standards for working and rest times and made digital tachographs (instruments that record data on drivers’ behaviour) compulsory for new vehicles weighing over 2.8 tonnes. In order to ensure greater compliance with current regulations and to avoid an increase in unnecessary checks, we should introduce new technical standards for tachographs (particularly with regard to remote controls). That is the gist of the Commission’s proposal, which, on the whole, I support. However, in order to ensure maximum safety, in my view, it is crucial to record the vehicle’s speed and weight as well as the driver’s working and rest times, as these are often contributing factors in accidents. Furthermore, to avoid imposing unnecessary administrative burdens on self-employed craftsmen, I am in favour of an exemption for vehicles used within a 100 km radius by drivers whose main occupation is not driving. I therefore supported the amendments to this effect in the vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In July 2011, the Commission proposed to revise the existing tachograph regulation. Tachographs play a crucial role in checking compliance by professional road transport drivers with the rules on driving time and rest periods. They contribute to improving road safety, drivers’ working conditions and fair competition between road transport companies. Breaches of existing rules and fraud are widespread and need to be addressed. For further information, see http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/index_en.htm" .

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. (IT) Every day, around 45 000 vehicles travel in Europe with illegally modified tachographs. Today’s vote seeks to revise the current regulation in order to clamp down on all attempted fraud, reducing the administrative burden through the most recent technologies available. The new digital tachographs will be easier to use and, with their new features, will facilitate the work of drivers by promoting the efficiency of European transport.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. (IT) Roads are currently the main mode of transport within the European Union, for both passengers and freight. Freight transport by road accounts for more than two-thirds of the total tonnage. It is for that reason that I decided to vote for and support the report by Ms Ţicău, to amend the regulation on recording equipment in road transport. Tachographs have a concrete impact on the daily lives of drivers, and because of that it is vitally important to make them more efficient in order to improve road safety, drivers’ working conditions and to ensure fair competition among transport companies. Improving safety on Europe’s roads is a duty which the European Union cannot ignore. The establishment of statutory obligations for manufacturers of tachographs, authorities, transport operators and drivers, as contained in the report, does precisely this. These aspects, together with the introduction of the latest technologies, make the report an excellent point of departure for raising the level of safety on our roads.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. (ET) With its regulation, the European Union has set maximum driving periods for a 24-hour period and for a week and minimum periods of rest for a 24-hour period and for a week. These rules apply to all drivers who transport goods using vehicles with a laden weight of over 3.5 tonnes, and also to drivers who transport passengers in vehicles with 9 or more seats. In addition, directives to regulate the inspection to be performed by Member States and the use of analogue and digital tachographs are also in force. The amendments to this regulation arise from the fact that the provisions of social law are frequently contravened, while the system of tachographs is not as effective as it should be. I essentially support the Commission’s proposals for improving this regulation, as well as the majority of the rapporteur’s amendments, and I also approve of the fact that this regulation does not apply to vehicles whose principal activity is not transport services and whose area of activity does not exceed 100 km from its company’s place of business. For that reason, I did not vote against this regulation. Unfortunately, I was unable to support the regulation and abstained, since the scope of the regulation was extended from the previous 3.5-tonne laden weight to 2.8-tonne laden weight, which is not justified under current market conditions. I also believe that Member States could permit the radius of vehicles’ area of activity to be extended to 150 km instead of the 100 km offered by the Commission, but unfortunately, this did not find favour at the plenary session of Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), in writing. (DE) I fundamentally welcome the report on digital tachographs in trucks. However, I believe that the principles of the directive should only be applied to trucks (with an unladen weight of more than 3.5 tonnes).

In contrast, tradesmen who only occasionally transport materials should not be covered by the directive, because it is not aimed at them, but at commercial transport companies. This ultimately concerns the different types of tradesmen who work on building sites. However, certain forms of transport (for example, perishable goods such as milk, food or concrete) should be subject to special regulations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) Directive 2006/22/EC, which lays down a minimum level of checks at the roadside and at the premises of undertakings to be carried out by Member States, and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, known as the ‘Tachograph Regulation’, are the two main pillars of the comprehensive policy on inspecting and checking compliance with the EU’s social road transport legislation. In July 2011, the Commission presented a proposal for a revision of the Tachograph Regulation, which dates back to 1985. By voting for the report, I am supporting the call for a revision, which aims to make fraud more difficult in relation to the use of non-digital tachographs, to better enforce social rules, and to reduce the administrative burden by making full use of new technologies and introducing a number of new regulatory measures. The aim is for regulatory harmonisation on this issue to be more rigorous than is currently the case.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the legislative resolution that aims to radically revise the legislation on tachographs in order to prevent fraud, improve working conditions for professional drivers, and consequently ensure better road safety. In doing so, we are paving the way for the use of electronic, rather than manual, devices, with the introduction of so-called ‘smart tachographs’ by 2020. Members have approved significant changes that apply to heavy goods vehicles weighing over 2.8 tonnes (rather than 3.5 tonnes, as was previously the case) and to vehicles carrying more than nine people, as well as a tachograph exemption for vehicles used within a 100 km radius (rather than 50 km, as was previously the case) by drivers whose main occupation is not driving. Thanks to satellite technology, it will be possible to carry out remote controls and to target suspect vehicles. Smart tachographs should enable road transport companies to save the equivalent of EUR 515 million a year in administrative burdens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning tachographs aims to reinforce road safety and therefore establishes a set of technical standards and rules on the use, type approval, installation and inspection of tachographs, which are obligatory for manufacturers and the authorities, but also for transport operators and drivers. These rules apply to the driving, working and rest times recorded for vehicles of 2.8 tonnes or more laden mass that are transporting goods, and for drivers that are transporting passengers in vehicles for nine or more persons. This revision of the regulation, which dates back to 1985, aims to reinforce control of fraud, to enforce better social rules and to reduce the administrative burden of technological progress. The emphasis will be on widening the functionalities of the digital tachograph, the so-called ‘smart tachograph’, which will allow remote communication from the tachograph for control purposes, the automated recording of precise location, and the integration of digital tachographs with other Intelligent Transport Systems applications. The rapporteur also wants this system to help and provide guidance to drivers in relation to the legislation, and for smart tachograph data interpretation software to be approved for control officers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. (RO) Tachographs play a crucial role in checking that professional road transport drivers comply with the driving and rest time regulations, thereby helping improve road safety, drivers’ working conditions and fair competition between road transport companies. Any vehicle being put into service for the first time 24 months after the technical specifications come into force must be fitted with a smart tachograph capable of supplying data to the relevant authorities while the vehicle is in motion. I voted for Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 to apply to all vehicles, including vehicles with trailers or semi-trailers, intended for transporting goods by road, with a maximum authorised mass of 2.8 tonnes (and which are not subject to the exemptions which may be granted by Member States). I think that these improvements to the regulation will help increase road safety and provide better working conditions for professional drivers. I think that the regulation on the social conditions applicable to professional drivers must contain as few exemptions as possible. This is why I did not support Amendment 129, which extended certain exemptions up to a distance of 150 km from the company’s head office, or Amendment 120 either, which introduces an exemption for the construction sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. (DE) I have voted against the report because it does not provide adequate exemption for the fringe groups which are covered by the directive. The idea was to offer a far-reaching exemption for those groups of people whose main business is not driving, but who travel with materials or employees to their workplace. These groups will be put at too great a disadvantage by the current regulations. As these are primarily tradesmen with small or medium-sized businesses, this puts an excessive burden on one of Germany’s most important value-added sectors. I am strongly opposed to this.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. (FR) This amendment of the Council regulation, with a view to reducing fraud and achieving a better application of social legislation concerning road hauliers, promises to be useful, since it focuses on the compulsory installation of a new generation of tachographs in all road haulage vehicles.

Indeed, the systematic and compulsory use of this new technology should facilitate the recording of speed and, above all, driving times. It is therefore an important measure in terms of road safety, but also for the working conditions of road haulage drivers. However, the use of these new tachographs leads to risk relating to data protection, which were previously highlighted by the European Data Protection Supervisor and to which this proposal does not provide a solution, particularly in terms of data storage and access. Moreover, certain restrictions, such as the recording of departure and arrival locations, do not go far enough.

I therefore abstained on this vote: I acknowledge the useful nature of this new regulation, but I have reservations, particularly with regard to the protection of European citizens’ fundamental rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – In my opinion, two important measures should be taken after the adoption of this report: the development of an application to provide interpretation and guidance to drivers through the harmonised interface of the tachograph should be encouraged, and the type approval of the software used by control officers should be introduced. Both measures will ensure safety in road transport.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing.(PL) Since 1969, the European Union has laid down social legislation in the field of road transport to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions, and to ensure fair competition among transport companies. In parallel, the EU has developed a comprehensive policy on inspecting and checking compliance with social road transport legislation. However, social rules are still too often breached, and the tachograph system is not sufficiently efficient. So I agree with the rapporteur that the Commission should put forward a harmonised interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and the necessary technical specifications, in order to make the tachograph not only a policing tool, but also a device helping drivers and transport operators to comply with the legislation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – I have voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0451 – C7-0205/2011 – 2011/0196(COD)). In doing so, I hope to continue and even improve upon the safety for travellers on the road. As we all know, road transportation is a vital asset to the European market and allows all of us to move freely from one Member State to the next. It is important that we address any or all safety issues that may infringe on transportation. I feel that a revised training programme for the Member States, as well as the use of technology to enforce the driving time provisions, will allow for safer and more efficient transport. The unfair gains made by those who violate the driving time provision due to the lack of technology need to stop. I support the rapporteur in her statement, that without complete cooperation by the Member States, this regulation, too, will fall short of its goal of protecting road safety.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. (LV) Even though the initial aim of the Commission’s proposal to revise the Tachograph Regulation is to make fraud more difficult, better enforce social regulations and reduce the administrative burden on both transport companies and controlling authorities by making use of new technologies, Parliament’s position adopted today is not sufficiently thought-out and balanced. Technologies are rapidly advancing in all fields, and the introduction of a new type of smart digital tachograph, known as ‘smart’, should be welcomed – it will facilitate remote communication between the tachograph and control equipment for the purposes of control, allow for automatic recording of the exact location with the help of GNSS, and thereby make control simpler and easier. However, in my opinion, the requirement to install tachographs from now on in smaller goods vehicles weighing up to 2.8 tonnes, instead of the current 3.5 tonnes, is ill-considered. These are vans. It is doubtful whether the benefits with regard to traffic safety and control will justify the additional expenses that this will cause to small and medium-sized enterprises. Secondly, the amendment included in the report which states that the individual employment contracts of drivers of vehicles engaged in international transport are to be regulated by the legislation of the country in which or from which the driver makes the most journeys runs directly counter to international regulations (the so-called Rome Convention) and EU regulations on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Essentially, this sets a dangerous precedent for interfering with the fundamental principles and legal framework of the market in order to address social regulations. I therefore cannot support Parliament’s report on tachographs in its entirety.

 
  
  

Report: Jürgen Creutzmann (A7-0046/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this report as I believe that intellectual property has become a very important factor in European competitiveness in a globalised economy. Protecting knowledge is about protecting Europe’s investment in research, innovation and jobs. At the same time, intellectual property right (IPR) infringements and the resulting global trade in counterfeit goods are an ever growing concern, both in terms of the economic consequences for Europe’s industry as well as the risks to its consumers’ health and safety. As customs rules and practices play a vital role in effective action, I welcome the Commission’s proposal to revise the existing border enforcement Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, with the aim of enhancing IPR enforcement while streamlining customs procedures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are fundamental to innovation, which is a key priority of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Given the increase of IPR infringements and international trade in infringing goods, large parts of economic growth and jobs in the EU depend on the effective enforcement of IPR. It is estimated that piracy and counterfeiting cost European businesses EUR 250 billion each year. The customs authorities are in a comparatively good position to enforce IPRs effectively at the EU’s external borders, before the goods enter the internal market. Once the goods spread across different Member States, it becomes much more difficult and costly to trace them and to initiate proceedings. I support the position of the rapporteur that the proposed regulation should only lay down the procedures enabling the customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods which are suspected of infringing IPR.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) The European Union legislates in many fields. It is therefore our role as MEPs to ensure that legislative measures are in accordance with developments in society. For example, the 2003 legislation concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights is now obsolete due to strong growth in e-commerce. One of the key measures of the revised regulation is to introduce a simplified procedure for small consignments. Online sales did indeed cause a spectacular increase of detentions in postal traffic by 200%. In response to this, the Commission plans to enable ‘small consignments’ suspected of being counterfeit goods to be destroyed without the agreement of the rights holder, thus reducing costs and the administrative burden for customs. For greater legal certainty and to avoid any confusion, we have submitted an amendment aimed at extending the scope of these measures to include patents. The text was therefore adopted despite the changing opinions of the socialists who allowed themselves to be influenced by lobbies at the last minute.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Intellectual property is a factor of European competitiveness and it is therefore particularly important to protect it. Intellectual property right (IPR) infringements and the global trade in counterfeit goods have a negative impact on EU industry as well as consumers’ health and safety. At EU borders, customs authorities are both in the frontline of the fight against counterfeiting and the illegal entry of goods into the EU and I therefore welcome the proposal to revise the existing border enforcement regulation, with the aim of protecting IPR while streamlining customs procedures. I agree that procedures should be laid down enabling the customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods which infringe IPR. The principle that fake goods also constitute infringements of IPR when they are for private use should also be recognised. I believe that the simplified investigation procedure should be applicable not only to counterfeit and pirated goods, but to all IPR infringements. I agree that rights holders should obtain access to information about the goods destroyed and that they should be entitled to seek compensation from the consignees.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) I supported the report by Mr Creutzmann, since I am in favour of strengthening the regulation concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights in order to ensure the health and safety of consumers, who would be further protected from the risk of acquiring counterfeit goods. With the development of e-commerce, these goods are constantly increasing through the use of small consignments. Making the rules to protect intellectual property rights more stringent would provide the system that is required in order for European firms to organise their manufacturing base in line with the safety rules for goods transit laid down by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), to which the EU makes reference.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) The EU’s economic well-being relies on sustained creativity, cultural diversity and innovation, as these are the driving forces in an evolving knowledge society. This means that the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) is beneficial to business, innovators, consumers and those involved in producing creative cultural works. Customs authorities must play an important role in enforcing IPRs effectively at the EU’s external borders as, once the goods move around Member States, it is much more difficult and costly to trace them and initiate the necessary proceedings.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing.(FR) In the EU, counterfeit goods cost European businesses EUR 250 billion each year. This report extends the scope of customs enforcement to a greater range of intellectual property rights. With regard to the checking of in-transit medicines by customs, this will only be carried out where there are sufficient grounds to suspect that the medicines are intended for sale in the Union. Therefore, this report in no way prevents medicines from being marketed, but encourages vigilance where counterfeiting is concerned.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The vagueness of the term ‘property’ could allow these proposals to potentially incorporate an unprecedented range of items that would become subject to intrusive searches. It is essential to protect our personal rights and possessions. These proposals pave the way for ACTA, which was resolutely rejected by a large majority in this very Parliament due to its encroachment upon civil liberties.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. (RO) I voted in favour of adopting this regulation, given that the practice of selling goods infringing intellectual property rights causes considerable harm to rights holders and law-abiding manufacturers and retailers. Counterfeit goods also mislead consumers and may endanger their health and safety. Consequently, such goods should be prevented, as far as possible, from entering the customs territory and being placed on the market. I think that customs authorities should be able to inspect goods which are or should have been subject to customs supervision in the customs territory of the EU, including goods placed under a suspensive procedure, aimed at enforcing intellectual property rights. Last but not least, I think that Member States should allocate sufficient resources to enable customs authorities to carry out their extended responsibilities and provide appropriate training for customs officials. The Commission and Member States should adopt guidelines to ensure the correct and uniform implementation of customs controls for the different types of rights infringements covered by this regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) Intellectual property rights (IPR) are vital for innovation, making them a key priority of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Given the increase in IPR violations and the international trade in fake goods, economic growth and jobs largely depend on effective monitoring of the enforcement of IPR legislation. The customs authorities are in a comparatively good position to monitor the enforcement of IPR legislation effectively at the EU’s external borders, before the goods enter the internal market. Once the goods spread across the various Member States, it becomes much more difficult and costly to trace them and to initiate proceedings. I voted for this report, as I agree with the Commission’s proposal to revise Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 in order to strengthen monitoring of the enforcement of IPR legislation by customs authorities, and also because I agree with the rapporteur’s recommendations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – The protection of intellectual property rights is essential for innovation and sustainable economic growth. Infringement of IPR is harmful because of the costs incurred by businesses and the threat posed to consumer health. Given the increase of IPR violations in recent years, I am in agreement with the rapporteur and have thus voted in favour of these amendments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. (SV) I welcome the fact that Parliament has voted in favour of simplifying the procedures for customs authorities and strengthening customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. It is important to promote trade but, at the same time, we ought to ensure that dangerous goods do not enter the EU market. Counterfeit and pirated goods also cost EU companies an enormous amount every year. I therefore welcome the fact that issues such as the cost of storage and destruction, handling of goods in transit and simplified procedures for small packages are being clarified. Above all, it is important to emphasise that we succeeded in making it clear that the regulation should not be applied to non-commercial goods that are part of a traveller’s personal luggage.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. (FR) Counterfeit and pirated goods continue to pass through our external borders too often and pose a threat to European businesses and growth. Customs authorities must be given the means to tackle such fraud effectively. This text, for which I voted, does that. I particularly welcome the fact that the strengthened protection which the report offers for European businesses does not jeopardise the health of citizens in third countries. Parliament has ensured that generic medicines in transit through the European Union en route to third countries will not be subject to unjustified hold ups. I support these measures, as they are both necessary and fair.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which steps up the fight against counterfeiting by improving and strengthening customs enforcement in this area. Indeed, we can no longer tolerate the way that piracy and counterfeiting cause European businesses to lose EUR 250 billion each year, nor how they jeopardise our fellow citizens’ safety (through counterfeit toys, for example) and health (through falsified medicines).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights because it is a fundamental step for the implementation of the EU strategy on IPR.

Beyond a doubt, the construction of a knowledge-based economy is of paramount importance for the European Union’s growth and innovation strategy. An adequate and fair level of IPR enforcement constitutes the prerequisite and the necessary environment for its realisation.

I welcome, in particular, the adequate stress on the need for IPR infringements to be exclusively based on the EU substantive IP legislation or the national laws of the EU Member States. This constitutes, in my view, a balanced approach to IPR enforcement legislation, one of the most criticised aspects of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, as demonstrated by the positions of all the Parliament’s committees which have been called for their opinion on that international agreement.

The EU possesses all the instruments to elaborate valuable tools for the protection of IPRs, whilst keeping in mind the crucial importance of a coordinated approach, at the global level, in this field.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) Artistic, scientific, industrial and cultural creations deserve protection, and for that very reason, there are internationally recognised intellectual property rights (IPR). They guarantee the integrity of the creation or invention and are intended to protect it from counterfeiting and piracy. Modern technologies, however, in particular the Internet, have made piracy and counterfeiting easier and more accessible. For that very reason, adequate and effective protection of IPR is increasingly essential for protecting industries, in particular, the creative industries, and it is a key part of the Europe 2020 strategy for innovation and entrepreneurship. Piracy and counterfeiting are estimated to cost European businesses EUR 250 billion each year. It is therefore vitally important to establish and activate the most effective mechanisms for combating piracy and counterfeiting.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The economic and financial crisis has reinforced the need for a strong commitment to economic growth and job creation. All possibilities for jobs that are essentially based in small and medium-sized enterprises should be explored. As such, combating parallel trade, especially tax evasion and counterfeiting, is of prime importance. Transactions involving counterfeit goods on European markets account for losses of EUR 250 billion every year and have a negative impact on labour markets, affecting 185 000 jobs. Moreover, consumer protection and the quality of the traded products are also at risk, as well as the protection of intellectual property rights. I voted for this proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights by customs authorities because it will enable the strengthening of existing legislation, improve legal clarity and provide better protection for the economy and the rights of European consumers, as health and well-being are at stake, with health products, foods, and technological and industrial goods affected, among others. It also meets the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, namely, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report is based on a proposal for a regulation that seeks to give customs authorities a greater role in the ‘war’ against counterfeiting, pirated goods, violation of trademark or copyright, and other such infringements. We are not opposed to greater surveillance and monitoring of this type of goods, and it seems consistent to establish the requirement for the customs authorities to exercise a more active role in this area once the decision has been taken. However, the report raises some issues that we cannot support. The rapporteur goes further than what has been proposed by the Commission by seeking to include all violations of intellectual property rights, generic medicines and non-commercial imports in this regulation. He also proposes that ‘small consignments’ be defined; we strongly doubt that this can be taken as universally valid.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Intellectual property rights (IPR) are fundamental for innovation as a key priority of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It is estimated that piracy and counterfeiting cost European businesses EUR 250 billion each year. In addition to the negative implications for businesses, violations of these rights can also pose a serious threat to the health and safety of consumers. In 2010, 14.5% of the total amount of detained articles were products for daily use and products that would be potentially dangerous to the health and safety of consumers. Although the customs authorities are in a comparatively good position to enforce IPRs effectively at the EU’s external borders before the goods enter the internal market, once the goods spread across different Member States, it becomes much more difficult and costly to trace them and to initiate proceedings. In this context, I find it important to emphasise that the proposed regulation would establish procedures to enable the customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods that are suspected of infringing IPR. The determination of IPR infringements itself will be exclusively based on the EU’s substantive intellectual property legislation or the national laws of the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Creutzmann report on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The rapporteur worked constructively with all the shadow rapporteurs, including from the ECR Group, and produced acceptable compromises which addressed many of our concerns. These included: the obligations of customs authorities when goods are suspected as copies or imitations; the circumstances in which goods can be destroyed; the importance of tackling counterfeit medicines; instances when compensation may be sought from an infringer; and the increased role of enhanced risk management technologies in detecting counterfeit goods. We have struck the right balance in this report, prioritising the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the face of calls from the Socialist and Green groups to water them down. We have also ensured that we respect national customs authorities and have avoided placing additional burdens on them, which is vitally important at this time of austerity and fiscal discipline.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing.(PL) Intellectual property rights have recently become a hot topic as a priority of the Europe 2020 strategy. On 24 May 2011, the Commission adopted a communication entitled ‘A single market for intellectual property rights’. It embarked on a number of initiatives, as part of which the new regulation on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights is to take the place of the existing regulation – 1383/2003/EC – before the end of the year. It is an important subject, and in the light of the problems over ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, it has become very popular with the public.

The fight against fake goods is becoming increasingly difficult. It is estimated that piracy and counterfeiting cost European businesses EUR 250 billion each year. From 2009 to 2010, cases of fake goods registered by customs at the EU’s borders doubled from 43 572 to 79 112. A particular rise in illegal postal traffic, as high as 200%, was recorded in relation to online sales, and over 69% of this traffic contained counterfeit medicines, which are so dangerous to consumers’ health. The problem is a real one, and it should be tackled at the border itself, so that these goods do not reach the European market.

I support the concept of an accelerated procedure enabling the customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods which they suspect are fake, with the proviso, however, that these rules will not be applied to consumers, passengers or their luggage or to packages for exclusive personal use and weighing not more than two kilogrammes. Consumers should be protected, but they should also be able to have free access to commercial proposals without fear of accidentally infringing the law. The Commission proposal is a good first step towards protecting European intellectual property and is a sensible alternative to ACTA.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing.(FR) It is clear that piracy, counterfeiting, parallel trade, and so on, are scourges for our economy and, in many cases, a menace to citizens. It is also clear that firm action must be taken to tackle such unfair practices. However, this report merely notes the dismantling of services and the lack of resources in the customs field, which no one for that matter is proposing to strengthen. Whose fault is that? Where is the strengthening of external border controls which was promised in exchange for the dismantling of EU internal border controls? The explosion in imports of counterfeit goods is the direct consequence of the EU’s ultra free market policies and, in particular, of it having accepted China, the world’s greatest counterfeiter, into the WTO. The first action that should be taken is to restore real custom-controlled borders, providing real commercial protection at European and national level. Otherwise, what the EU is proposing will be more like stopgap measures than a real solution. Moreover, in this report, the consequences for everyday citizens are, in my view, both unclear and excessive. That is why, although tempted to do so, I did not vote in favour of the Creutzmann report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this proposed EU regulation. This new text strengthens procedures enabling customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods which they suspect of infringing intellectual property rights. Due to a lack of resources, enforcement of the EU’s external borders is often insufficient. When enforcement at external borders is ineffective, the damage has already been done. It seems that intellectual property rights enforcement within the internal market is extremely difficult and costly once the goods spread across different Member States. Counterfeiting is a real menace which costs European businesses EUR 250 billion each year. Large parts of economic growth and jobs in the EU depend on the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights. Some counterfeit goods can pose a real threat to the health and safety of consumers. I was, as it happens, rapporteur for a directive on preventing the entry of falsified medicines into the EU, in 2010. I invested a great deal of effort in tackling these crimes, which constitute deliberate acts of poisoning, that is to say, genuine attempts at premeditated murder.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – Sensibly enforcing intellectual property rights (IPR) is a task which grows increasingly difficult in today’s hyper-connected global marketplace. As such, the Creutzmann report correctly attempts to introduce simplification in a number of areas, notably for dealing with IPR-infringing items sold on the Internet, clearer descriptions of the rights and responsibilities of both rights holders and owners of goods, and mechanisms allowing for speedier and more cost-efficient destruction of IPR-infringing goods. It is vital that customs administrations – i.e. those men and women charged with protecting which goods enter and exit European territory – have as many clear and understandable tools as possible at their disposal, and this regulation should support this. In a time of economic difficulty, all measures which aim for simplification, increased efficiency, better value for money and reduced administrative burden for EU administrations and citizens alike are to be warmly welcomed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I abstained from voting on this document because this practice is liable to cause serious economic harm to rights holders. However, the regulation must ensure that the action of customs authorities is effective and swift while limiting the risk of hampering legitimate trade. Economic operators who regularly carry out customs formalities have an excellent knowledge of customs procedures. It is therefore important to avoid setting up cumbersome administrative procedures that prevent swift and effective action from being taken by the relevant customs authority. End consumers are not acquainted with customs formalities and need more protection.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. (FR) Economic growth and employment in the EU partly depend on the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights. As well as having an economic impact, counterfeit goods can pose a real threat to the health and safety of EU consumers. In order to tackle this phenomenon, customs authorities are in a comparatively good position to enforce intellectual property rights at external borders, before the goods enter the internal market. This is why I supported the Creutzmann report. It establishes procedures enabling customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods which they suspect of infringing intellectual property rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing.(SK) Intellectual property rights (IPR) are fundamental for innovation as a key priority of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It is estimated that piracy and counterfeiting cost European businesses EUR 250 billion each year. Between 2009-2010, the number of cases of counterfeiting and piracy almost doubled. A 200% increase in such goods was recorded in online sales, most of which concerned clothing, electrical goods and pharmaceuticals. The customs authorities are in a good position to enforce intellectual property rights effectively at the EU’s external borders. A revision of the EU regulation is proposed in order to strengthen the implementation of these rights and I support the positive opinion of the EP in relation to the text.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) The trade in counterfeit goods, which infringes intellectual property rights, is causing losses to European companies amounting to around EUR 250 billion. It is therefore necessary to strengthen the checks by customs authorities on the nature of goods transiting the European Union in order to protect both consumers and producers. Counterfeit goods threaten the health of consumers and also damage their purchasing capacities. Reinforced regulation on this issue is a step towards policies to improve our commercial potential and the quality of our products. However, I am bound to share with you one observation. I would argue, in fact, that, while the introduction of a reinforced system of checks is necessary, it should not constitute a bureaucratic obstacle; it would be completely contradictory were it to damage the competitiveness or schedules of our commercial operators.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. (FR) I voted in favour of Jürgen Creutzmann’s report on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights in order to tackle counterfeit goods in the EU. In concrete terms, this is about giving customs authorities at the EU’s external borders greater resources for detecting intellectual property rights infringements, such as counterfeiting or trading in pirated goods. I am glad that the European Parliament voted positively on this regulation which is, in my view, a necessary step towards the protection of EU know-how and competitiveness. It is vital that the European Union arms itself with solid measures to curb counterfeiting and protect our economy and our businesses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. (RO) Against the background of the rising volume of counterfeit or pirated goods in transit throughout the EU, a standard regulation on guaranteeing the enforcement of intellectual property rights by customs authorities is an absolute must, especially as these goods may also affect end consumers’ health. Given that the decisions to suspend the release from customs or to retain goods likely to infringe an intellectual property right must be taken by specialist staff, references have been omitted to ongoing training for customs officials on pirated or counterfeit goods which need to be easily identified. This is why I propose that the focus be placed at Member State level on customs officials continuing to specialise so that they are as efficient as possible in correctly and quickly detecting goods in transit suspected of being imitations or copies of products protected in the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are fundamental to innovation, which is a key priority of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Given the increase in IPR infringements and international trade in infringing goods, large parts of economic growth and jobs in the EU depend on the effective enforcement of IPR.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Emma McClarkin (ECR), in writing. – This report was adopted by a large majority in the IMCO Committee in February and it is a shame progress has not been made sooner with Council.

I welcome the rapporteur’s decision to vote now and I hope we will be able to reach a deal with the Council soon on this important issue. My approach on this important report has been to further strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights in customs, against attempts by the S&D Group and the Greens/EFA Group to water it down.

Intellectual property rights are fundamental for innovation, jobs and growth in Europe and it is of great importance that we ensure the correct mechanisms are in place.

I tabled amendments stressing that national customs authorities have limited resources and that it was therefore important to ensure that no new additional burdens were placed on them. I also focused on improving efficiency by stressing the importance of using risk management technologies in identifying infringements.

I support the rapporteur’s view on including parallel trade in the scope. However, I disagree with the approach of reversing the burden of proof to the holder or declarant concerning goods in transit. I am happy to vote in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The aim of the regulation proposal is to lay down the procedures enabling the customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods which they suspect of infringing intellectual property rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) Product piracy is an increasingly common occurrence. The global network has made it easy for vendors to supply a worldwide market and the result has been a huge increase in counterfeit and pirated products. The number of registered cases of counterfeiting and piracy in 2010 was double the figure for 2009 and amounts to 79 112 cases. There was an increase of 200% in online sales. The estimated annual cost of counterfeiting and piracy for European businesses is EUR 250 billion. A total of 85% of the items that breach intellectual property rights come from China and there is a large market for them in Europe. It is therefore the responsibility of the European customs authorities to scrutinise goods which come from the Far East in particular with very great care. As I am of the opinion that the new regulation does not get to the root of the problem and that consumers could be turned into criminals from the start instead of being educated, I have abstained.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report by Mr Creutzmann on customs protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), as I agree that protecting these rights in external trade relations is vital to the European economy, the competitiveness of which is based on innovation and the differentiation guaranteed by trademarks, patents, copyright and designations of geographical origin. In the first instance, it falls to the EU’s customs authorities to prevent pirated or counterfeit products from entering the internal market.

I also agree that goods in transit should not be excluded from customs control, at least in cases where it may be suspected that these are intended for the internal market. Furthermore, I believe that it makes no sense to prevent the EU from seizing goods which infringe intellectual property rights that are protected within the EU, such as European trademarks, simply because they are intended for other markets, as no less damage is caused to the European companies that hold those rights. The case of generic medicines in transit to developing countries, under the relevant derogation clause of the World Trade Organisation’s intellectual property (TRIPS) agreement, is not at issue here because there is no infringement of the IPR of European pharmaceutical companies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. (DE) Intellectual property rights are of fundamental importance for innovation and, therefore, for growth, because businesses must be able to rely on receiving a financial return on the investment that they make in developing and manufacturing a new or improved product. The growing number of violations of the law and the increase in international trade in products that infringe intellectual property rights mean that a large proportion of the economic growth and jobs in the EU depend on intellectual property rights being properly enforced. The estimated annual cost of counterfeiting and piracy for European businesses is around EUR 250 billion. Alongside the negative consequences for businesses and their employees, there is also a significant risk to the health and safety of consumers. In 2010, a total of 14.5% of the items that were confiscated were goods that represented a potential danger for the health and safety of consumers, such as foods, toiletries, medicines, household electrical goods and toys. The customs authorities are in a relatively strong position when it comes to confiscating counterfeit products before they reach the internal market. However, once these products are inside the European Union, it becomes much more difficult and more expensive to remove them from the market. From a consumer perspective, the report is too stringent. It would be better to focus on effective education in this area rather than turning consumers into criminals right from the start. Therefore, I have abstained from voting.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) Customs authorities have a special role to play in properly protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) by combating the illegal entry of goods and counterfeit products into the single market. Consequently, every effort must be made to enhance customs authorities’ intellectual property rights enforcement procedures, properly protect traders’ interests and stop abuse and piracy. It is very important for measures to combat IPR infringements at the EU’s external borders to be combined with targeted efforts at source. Provisions on intellectual property rights should also be included in trade agreements. I believe that in order to properly protect IPR, this regulation should also apply to goods in transit through the customs territory of the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. (EL) Intellectual property rights are the most valuable instrument at the EU’s disposal for supporting innovation, which, in turn, is a basic priority in the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Piracy and counterfeiting are expected to cost European businesses EUR 250 billion a year, which naturally has a massive impact on jobs and growth in the Member States. This proposal for a recast regulation, which I supported, attempts to improve legislation on intellectual property rights, especially the application of Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, in line with new challenges, such as online sales of imitation goods.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for this report as I consider intellectual property rights vital for innovation and a key priority for the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. As I have said, it is important to combat piracy and counterfeiting, which are already estimated to cost European businesses EUR 250 billion each year.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) In a globalised economy, intellectual property has become a major factor of European competitiveness. The proposal for a regulation lays down procedures enabling customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods which they suspect of infringing intellectual property rights. With the wish to extend the scope to all types of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements contemplated by the EU’s substantive legislation, and with the aim of strengthening the enforcement of IPR by customs authorities as well as improving legal certainty, by adapting the provisions of the regulation to new developments, I voted for the proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Given the increase in violations of intellectual property rights (IPR) and the international trade in counterfeit goods, economic growth and jobs largely depend on effective monitoring of the application of IPR legislation. In order to reverse this situation, this report provides for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 in order to step up enforcement of IPR legislation by customs authorities, and to increase legal clarity by adapting the provisions of the regulation to new developments. It essentially aims to strengthen the role of the customs authorities in both monitoring and enforcing IPR legislation at the EU’s external borders, before the goods enter the internal market. Once the goods spread across the different Member States, it becomes much more difficult and costly to trace them and initiate proceedings. I voted in favour, as I consider IPR vital for innovation and a key priority for the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE), in writing. (CS) I welcome the modernisation of customs regulations concerning intellectual property rights. The uniform application of these regulations and the resulting effective supervision of the internal market is needed for maintaining the competitiveness of European firms. Counterfeits from third countries cost our businesses about EUR 250 billion annually, and the number of counterfeits has doubled in recent years, reducing the opportunities for growth and job creation in the European economy. I am concerned that, instead of effective approaches such as increasing the resources of customs bodies in particular, efforts are put into negotiating an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which will be ineffective in practice due to the absence of China and other states. Last but not least, any instruments for the better enforcement of intellectual property rights must, at the same time, respect the freedoms contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The biggest criticisms we have: the scope is much too wide; for us it should be limited to real counterfeited trademarks and not cover other IPRs such as patents, plant variety, etc.; it is not up to the customs officials to enforce those rights, it is the responsibility of rights holders to proceed; goods in transit should not be concerned; developing countries have legitimate concerns regarding the interception of goods, in particular medicines, which are in transit and not intended for marketing in the EU: such interceptions interrupt the supply of generic medicines which these countries need; parallel trade should be allowed: it is allowed under the TRIPS agreement and therefore, there must be a derogation for parallel trade, in particular, because it can contribute to lowering the cost of medicines in developing countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. (IT) The number of cases of counterfeiting and piracy in Europe almost doubled from 2009 to 2010 and, for this reason, it is necessary to take prompt action to put the brakes on this phenomenon, by improving the tools to protect intellectual property rights that are available to customs authorities. The increase in international trade in counterfeit goods is jeopardising economic growth and the availability of jobs in the European Union, since piracy and counterfeiting, by themselves, account for an annual cost to European businesses of approximately EUR 250 billion.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Creutzmann. I believe that it is necessary for the customs checks system to be equipped with rules that are up to date with the current situation and new problems. Combating counterfeiting is an extremely important element for the protection and promotion of employment, creativity and consumer protection in Europe. In my view, the many amendments tabled by the left, seeking to reduce the rigour necessary for a customs system that will protect our economy, were very negative.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. (IT) The safety of EU citizens is one of the European Union’s main concerns. In addition to negative effects caused by failure to respect intellectual property rights having an impact on Europe’s economy, counterfeiting and piracy cost European businesses nearly EUR 250 billion annually, and damage and jeopardise the health and safety of the residents of the EU’s 27 states. I voted for the report by Mr Creutzmann because it deals precisely and clearly with an extremely important issue, by seeking to simplify the regulatory framework that currently exists, so as to make measures to combat counterfeiting more effective and rigorous. Consumer protection, facilitation of the work of customs authorities, protection of intellectual property rights and combating fraud are the keystones on which European policy in this sector must rest. We will only be able to achieve protection of the health and defence of European citizens and the EU economy through vigorous and decisive protection of intellectual property rights, and this report is an important step towards attaining this goal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing.(PL) It is high time substantial action was taken to protect the intellectual property rights associated with trademarks. We already have a lot of legislation in this area, so the proposed amendments need to take account of the complicated nature of the current situation. Protection of intellectual property rights takes on special significance in view of the very far-reaching effects of opening up the European market and the recognition of innovation as the main way to achieve economic growth.

Counterfeit goods are a result of the grey market – they are not subject to customs controls and do not meet applicable standards in terms of established quality norms, and so do not meet health and safety criteria. Protecting intellectual property rights and reducing the inflow of counterfeit goods will help create fairer conditions for competition and encourage growth in jobs, while also helping to increase tax revenues. Special measures are required for international postal traffic involving medicines. Intellectual property also has a broader aspect, which is hard to understand in terms of the free single market. Further action and measures are needed in this area. Protecting intellectual property rights is not just a matter of combating the problem of counterfeit goods – the whole area needs to be made the subject of a public information campaign.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) Intellectual property is a major factor of European competitiveness. Intellectual property right infringements and the resulting global trade in counterfeit goods is an ever growing concern. Customs authorities play a vital role at the borders in taking action against counterfeiting and the illegal entry of goods into the EU, thereby ensuring the competitiveness of the European trade environment. As customs formalities have direct implications on international trade, it is of the utmost importance that enforcement measures do not themselves become a barrier to legitimate trade. Therefore, by voting for the report, I am supporting the call for rules designed to simplify trade as well as improved safeguards against abuse and increased legal certainty on the issue, also bearing in mind the commitment made by the EU towards consumers and consumer protection.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. (FR) Although some of this text’s objectives are of interest, it is not acceptable that two of its essential amendments were quite simply thrown out. It is our duty to represent citizens as best as possible. Therefore, rejecting this report was a straightforward choice.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) Intellectual property rights (IPR) are vital for innovation and a key priority of the Europe 2020 strategy. Given the increase in violations of these rights and the international trade in counterfeit goods, economic growth and jobs are largely dependent on effective monitoring of the enforcement of IPR legislation. Procedures should therefore be established to enable the customs authorities to prevent the movement of goods which they suspect of infringing IPR. I voted for this document in Parliament for the aforementioned reasons.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. (RO) The proposal for a regulation concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights relates to the commercial aspects of intellectual property rights, insofar as they take into account measures allowing the customs authorities to enforce intellectual property rights at the border for goods which are subject to international trade. This regulation will replace Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. Article 3(1) stipulates the European Union’s exclusive competence in the area of the common commercial policy. I voted for Amendment 5, which stipulates that Member States should allocate sufficient resources to enable customs authorities to carry out their extended responsibilities and provide appropriate training for customs officials. The Commission and Member States should adopt guidelines to ensure the correct and uniform implementation of customs controls for the different types of rights infringements covered by this regulation. I voted for Amendment 6, which states that, when fully implemented, this regulation must contribute, to a larger extent, to creating a single market which ensures more effective protection for rights holders, fuels creativity and innovation, and provides consumers with reliable, high-quality products, which should, in turn, help strengthen cross-border transactions between consumers, businesses and retailers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) This proposal aims to strengthen the EU customs system to cope with the current rise in counterfeit goods entering the EU. Under the guise of protecting intellectual property and promoting innovation, this proposal is only meaningful within the context of the EU’s breakneck dash for competitiveness at any price. The EU is once again seeking to strengthen the law enforcement system, while at the same time imposing restrictions on citizens’ freedoms. This text, in some aspects, brings to mind the battle which was fought against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The amendments tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left were, for the most part, rejected. The distinction between ‘evidence’ and ‘adequate indications on the basis of the applicable legal procedures’ would have been essential to the acceptability of this proposal, but it was rejected at the vote. The only satisfying aspect of this text lies in the references made to falsified medicines, which represent a major health issue for everyone. I therefore voted against this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – I firmly believe that Europe needs to toughen up its customs legislation so that it can prevent counterfeit products from entering the internal market. European customs authorities should be able to detain counterfeit goods in transit through the EU unless the importer proves that their final destination lies outside the EU. Along with other measures, reversing the burden of proof from customs will help to undermine the global trade in illegal pesticides.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. (IT) The report by Mr Creutzmann relates to the terms and procedures for action by the customs authorities when goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights (particularly pirated or counterfeit goods) arrive on European Union territory. I particularly endorse the need to require better safeguards regarding the destination of goods in transit. While I support the efforts made to simplify the existing regulatory framework and to combat counterfeiting more effectively, I also hope that excessive attention to protecting intellectual property rights will not give rise to undesirable red tape in the release of goods that comply with the rules.

 
  
  

Report: Richard Seeber (A7-0192/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on the implementation of EU water legislation. Europe as a whole extracts only around 13 per cent of its total available water, but the geographic distribution of resources is very uneven and many European countries and regions are subject to heavy water stress. There can be no ‘one size fits all’ solution: the regional and local dimension should be strengthened, local stakeholders and communities should be involved in a participatory process at all stages of policy design and implementation, and the Commission should foster capacity building and design clear guidelines for implementation. I support the position of the rapporteur that regional water consumption data must be considered when setting new rules. The biggest water consumers by far are the energy production and agriculture sectors. Here, we can find a huge potential to increase the efficiency of water consumption. It is important to stress that all existing rules need to be fully implemented in the EU Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) The Greek Communist Party group in the European Parliament voted against the report because it promotes the commercialisation of water, which will have drastic consequences on grassroots households and poor farmers with medium-sized holdings, who will pay through the nose for water for domestic use and irrigation. The commercialisation of water has always been a basic concern in European directives and a source of profit to euro-unifying business groups and this is not reversed by any hypocritical references in the report to water as a public good. The report avoids any reference to the criminal insistence of the EU institutions on maintaining fatal concentrations of hexavalent chromium in drinking water (maximum limit 50 μgr/lt), which is a very serious health and environmental problem. On the question of access to drinking water, the report ‘welcomes the early achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal on sustainable access to safe drinking water’, despite the fact that the exploitative capitalist system deprives millions of people of the self-evident right to drinking water, with more than 2.5 million children a year losing their lives and 800 million people a year still drinking unsafe water.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report as it is a good analysis of the EU water legislation implementation across Member States. It also identifies important policy gaps that will need to be bridged. The Europe 2020 strategy stipulates a more efficient use of resources, but the current trends in water use are often unsustainable due to bad practices. Equitable water management plays a vital role in the preservation of the world’s natural capital and ecosystem services. For this reason, decisive action at EU level is needed to address current and future water challenges faced by our continent. In particular, the Commission should incorporate the policy recommendations contained in this report into the formulation of the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’ as an important contribution towards a more effective and better integrated water policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this report, since a holistic approach to the protection of water resources is needed. The protection of water resources, in particular drinking water, should be addressed from a global perspective, taking into account all ecosystem services supported by water. It is crucial that pollution be controlled at its source, in order to prevent hazardous substances from entering the environment and to reduce the burden on wastewater treatment. Climate change mitigation and adaptation policies should always take account of the impact on water resources, and the EU should adopt a holistic approach to water scarcity and droughts. It is possible and desirable to make significant gains in the efficiency of water resources. Resource efficiency is a flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 strategy, and water efficiency plays a central part in that strategy. In addition, water quantity and quality are inextricably linked.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. (FR) As you are aware, I was spokesperson for the European Parliament at the World Water Forum, held in Marseille, in March 2012, and I witnessed how much is expected of the European Union around the world with respect to water issues. With this text on the challenges facing the European Union in the field of water, we are backing an ambitious and comprehensive policy, which aims to 1. reduce water wastage, which is a real priority; 2. encourage infrastructure investment in order to address the problem of leaks in the water system; 3. ensure that pricing schemes are transparent and based on the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘user pays’ principles. In November 2012, the European Commission will also publish its proposals for improving water management in Europe. For me, these issues of water access are very important. I have therefore decided to get involved at all levels: 1. at local level as municipal councillor; 2. at national level as co-president of the Cercle Français de l’Eau (French Water Circle); 3. at European level as a Member of the Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety; and 4. at worldwide level having been elected governor of the World Water Council in Doha, last week.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report. In order to protect and restore clean water and to ensure its long-term, sustainable use, as well as achieve good ecological and chemical status by 2015, the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the Member States needs to be improved. Since, in many places in Europe, water abstraction is going beyond sustainable levels, threatening wildlife and the safety of supply to society, the proposed measures need to be taken. I agree that it is important to collect reliable data about water availability, reinforce the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) and encourage innovation and research in the area of water protection and availability. I welcome the proposal to regulate in EU legislation the reuse and recycling of water, taking into account technological advances, and to remove inconsistencies among the WFD, the Nitrates Directive and the REACH Regulation, as well as Natura 2000, and reinforce international commitments on sustainable development.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted for this report because water is vital for life, and its efficient management is particularly important for our health, the economy and the society in which we live. Improving access to water is a fundamental aspect of enhancing people’s quality of life. This is why I think that resources need to be protected as securely as possible against the risks which they are exposed to, such as population growth, urbanisation, pollution, over consumption or climate change.

At the same time, I would like to highlight the need for specific actions and a comprehensive approach to overcome the current challenges and achieve a more effective policy in this area. I therefore believe that greater consideration should be given to the issue of water and it should be incorporated into every policy area. The efficient use of water plays a key role in the Europe 2020 strategy. In this respect, reducing consumption should be a priority for all EU citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. (PT) Water is undoubtedly the most important of all public goods. The adoption of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000 means the EU has a solid framework for sustainable and efficient management of water resources. However, the pace at which the WFD has been implemented in EU Member States and regions has been very slow. In November 2012, the Commission will table a plan to preserve Europe’s water resources, with the aim of addressing current and future challenges to water resources. This report, which is Parliament’s contribution to the Commission’s plan, advocates strengthening the regional and local dimension, and involving local communities and stakeholders, participating actively at all stages in the process of setting out and implementing policy. It also advocates a holistic approach to protecting water resources, in particular, drinking water. As such, the water issue should be integrated into all policy areas at EU, national and regional level. I voted for this report for those reasons.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. (IT) Water is the most important of all public goods for human life. However, European and global freshwater resources are at risk: urbanisation, population growth, over consumption, biological and chemical pollution and hydromorphological alterations are putting increasing pressure on the availability and quality of safe and secure water. Although the existing water legislation provides a robust framework for efficient water management, the rate of implementation of the legislation in Member States has been slow and the results differ greatly from region to region. In this context, I believe that Parliament must make an active contribution to the process leading to the establishment of the future direction of European water policy. Decisive action at EU level is needed to address current and future water challenges faced by our continent. I therefore call upon the Commission to make sufficient funding available to research projects for rainwater systems, metering technologies, methods to monitor and remove sources of pollution and chemical and biological pollutants, as well as technologies for water saving and efficiency in urban and rural areas.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Seeber since I agree with him on the huge importance of the regional dimension of water resources, where there are considerable disparities between the various European regions. Local communities should play an active part in water policy design and implementation. For successful recovery of costs and monitoring of waste, transparent pricing schemes should be introduced and we need to aim to reuse water for agricultural and domestic purposes. Sound management of water resources is based on collecting reliable data, not just on quality, but, above all, on the quantity of water available. This becomes possible through the integration of water-related objectives at all legislative levels, in EU and local spheres. Metering and ecodesign will help to bring about the efficiency of public and industrial water systems and, in general, all ecosystem services supported by water.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because water is arguably the most important of all public goods. Equitable water management is essential for ensuring that all ecosystems receive a sufficient quantity of good quality water to function properly and provide essential services to our society and economy. Current trends in water use are often unsustainable due to inefficient practices resulting in water wastage. Water infrastructure systems are often outdated, whether in the most developed regions or in the less developed regions. There is also a lack of information about actual performance and losses. Furthermore, inadequately cleaned wastewater continues to pollute the seas around the shores of the EU, so that it is essential to speed up the development of sewage treatment infrastructure in the Member States. The Europe 2020 strategy stipulates a more responsible use of resources. The future of industry in Europe depends on finding effective responses to the current water challenges and on managing existing water resources, which directly affect human health, energy production, agriculture and food security, both responsibly and efficiently.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) The problems of dwindling drinking water resources and expanding deserts, which were more likely in the past to be issues affecting Africa and Asia, are now also encountered in Europe. In southern Spain, the desert is extending by one kilometre every year. Oltenia in Romania is exposed to a similar process, but it is progressing at a slower rate, while drinking water resources in other regions of the world have become grounds for conflict between states. Protecting water resources, especially drinking water, must be tackled from a global perspective, taking into account all the ecosystem services supported by water. It is important that pollution is controlled at source, in order to prevent hazardous substances from entering the environment and reduce the strain placed on wastewater treatment. In view of the abovementioned problems, I think that the sustainable use of water is as much an economic as an environmental necessity, which would require more transparent water pricing schemes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of EU water legislation. I believe that access to water should constitute a fundamental and universal right. More transparent pricing schemes and better management of wastewater must therefore be developed. Today, as much as 70% of the water supplied to European cities is lost as a result of leaks in the water system. By November, the Commission will have published its ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’. We must, from then on, act quickly to tackle the wastage of our most precious resource.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – While the provision of safe water is essential, too much focus has been placed on building new reservoirs and pipelines from new sources, thus disregarding existing networks which may see current water supplies degrade. The policy derives from the UN’s global socialist position that the world’s water supply is a collective responsibility and poses it as a ‘human rights’ as opposed to a ‘civil rights’ issue. There are inherent dangers to forging an almost Communist stance on the supply of such a vital commodity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing.(FR) Water scarcity has become a major problem in Europe. I welcome the adoption of this report to which I lent my support. I note that problems have been experienced with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and that we must continue our efforts to improve the existing schemes. I believe that we must now ensure that existing legislation is implemented and prepare future measures to optimise our use of water.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) Water is a resource that belongs to all humanity, so access to it should be universal and should be a fundamental right. The sustainable use of water is an environmental and health necessity, and it plays a pivotal role in the climate regulation cycle. I voted for this report, as I believe that particular attention should be given to the specific objectives and activities of the Horizon 2020 framework programme in terms of better, sustainable management of water resources and aquatic environments in the EU and its neighbouring countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – Europe’s water resources are endangered by unsustainable practices including population growth, pollution and over consumption. Present legislation addresses these issues, but it needs to improve in certain areas, and should also emulate examples of success to ensure a better overall EU-wide policy. I am in favour of the rapporteur’s recommendations which call for a more efficient and comprehensive water policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing.(FR) Water is an essential public good for citizens and businesses alike. With this text, Parliament is proposing to assess European management of water resources and is envisaging new ways of improving this management. I particularly welcome the inclusion in this text of a section on knowledge and innovation. This section especially underlines the need to improve the collection of water-related data and stresses that the GMES tool could play an essential role in this respect.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. (FR) It cannot be said often enough that water is a scarce resource which we must protect, but to which we must also ensure access for all. That is why water should constitute a fundamental and universal right. Water pricing should also be as transparent as possible so that no unfair profit be made on this shared resource of humankind. The adoption of a lifestyle which uses less water should be a priority for European citizens in order to protect this finite resource. However, the water networks supplying European cities must also be renewed and monitored so that losses of unused water, which currently accounts for 20% of the total volume, be reduced as much as possible. Finally, tackling water pollution in the natural environment and the recycling of wastewater are a necessity at a time when access to drinking water is far from a reality in all regions of the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing.(SK) Water is essential for life. It is arguably the most important of all public goods. Urbanisation, population growth, over consumption, biological and chemical pollution, hydromorphological alterations and climate change put an ever increasing pressure on the availability and quality of safe and secure water. Future economic growth cannot be sustained unless it is decoupled from adverse environmental impacts on water. The existing water legislation provides a robust framework for sustainable and efficient water management. In particular, the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which was adopted in 2000, can be considered a milestone of European water policy. The rate of implementation of the WFD has been slow across European countries and regions, with highly diversified results. I believe it is important to mainstream the issue of water into all policy areas. Protection of water resources, with particular reference to drinking water, needs to be addressed from a global perspective, taking into account all the ecosystem services supported by water. Also, climate change mitigation and adaptation policies need to always take into account the impact on water resources and the EU should adopt a holistic approach when addressing this issue. I firmly believe that decisive action at EU level is needed to address current and future water challenges faced by Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) Water-related issues are a matter of just concern for European policy makers. Our ideas about water quality and quantity should not distract us from the fact that desertification is affecting ever more European regions. Taking water resources for granted, without protecting them or seeking to preserve them, is the first step towards losing them. If there is an issue that is bound up in our very survival and that touches upon many aspects of our existence, it is water. The EU therefore needs to tackle it in a comprehensive, smart and effective way. I hope that Europeans will become truly conscious of the need to safeguard the water supply and its reasonable use by the public, and that the legislation adopted will reinforce the need to preserve it, thereby ensuring the survival of future generations and European ecosystems.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The maxim ‘water is life’ has never been as pertinent as it is today. Indeed, water could just as easily be a cause of wars as well as it could help to bring about peace. As such, some say that the next world war will be caused by the fight for the possession and control of water resources. This is an essential resource for all of humankind, as it is used for human consumption, agriculture and industry, so all necessary measures should be taken to protect it. In view of this, in 2000, the EU approved the Water Framework Directive, which established a reasonable framework for its protection and use. Twelve years later, it is important to improve various aspects, both in relation to quality controls and with regard to management at regional and, in certain cases, macro-regional level. Another aspect that requires urgent attention from the responsible bodies is optimising supply systems, given that it is estimated that 70% of water supplied is lost. I voted for this report, which seeks to preserve and improve the quality of our water resources, and urges that the Commission include investment in the optimisation of water treatment and supply systems in the Cohesion Fund under the next multiannual financial framework.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report puts forward very serious proposals, such as including water in the internal market, marking a clear change in position from previous resolutions by Parliament, which took the view that ‘the management of water resources should not be subject to internal market rules’, a position advocated by countless organisations and unions, including the European Federation of Public Service Unions.

Now Parliament refers to ‘the need to adapt internal market rules to the distinctive characteristics of the water sector’, an approach that marks another step towards the privatisation of the water sector and water services. We regret the rejection of the alternative motion for a resolution that we tabled; a resolution focused on protecting the right to water and the public management, possession and ownership of this precious common good and the associated services. Instead, this report opens the door to the interests of transnational water companies and to the privatisation and commoditisation of this unique and irreplaceable resource. Those are the interests that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament are defending. Naturally, we voted against.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – I voted in favour of the EU water report by Mr Seeber, which examined the effectiveness of the Water Framework Directive. The rate of implementation by some Member States has been slow, and many EU water bodies will not achieve ‘good status’ by 2015. The report identifies many challenges and gaps in the existing legislation. Specifically, emphasis should be put on the regional dimension; reliable data is needed, in particular, on water quantity; water protection requires a holistic approach; major water efficiency gains can and should be made; and research and innovation should be further promoted. This report should feed into the Commission’s ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, which will be published in November 2012. Following publication of the blueprint, we will hopefully be able to assess what steps are necessary in order to bring water quality within the European Union up to an acceptable standard.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this text because water is the most vital and most important of public goods. Managing it sustainably is vital to ensure that all ecosystems receive a sufficient quantity of good quality water, enabling our society and economy to function properly. The EU’s water strategy has enabled enormous progress to been made, but improvements are still possible. Data collection should thus continue to be encouraged and improved if we want to achieve a better understanding of how water circulates within our ecosystem. Furthermore, the issue of water should be mainstreamed into all EU policy areas. Finally, it is essential that we include water-related topics (rainwater systems, water pollution, water saving and metering technologies, monitoring, and so on), among the areas in which research and innovation are strongly encouraged.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour because water is an inalienable public asset which is essential for life and equitable water management plays a vital role in the preservation of the world’s natural capital and ecosystem services as well as in all aspects of resource use and economic production. The future of industry in Europe depends on finding effective responses to the current water challenges and on managing existing water resources, which directly affect human health, energy production, agriculture and food security, both responsibly and efficiently. Europe and the world’s freshwater resources are at risk if we manage them beyond the boundaries of sustainability. Urbanisation, population growth, over consumption, biological and chemical pollution, hydromorphological alterations and climate change put an ever increasing pressure on the availability and quality of safe and secure water. The targets for sustainability in terms of the ecological, chemical and qualitative ‘good status’ to be reached by European water bodies by 2015 are a milestone of European water policy. It is also essential to speed up the development of sewage treatment infrastructure in the Member States. There must be an EU policy response to current and future water challenges, with the objective of ensuring sufficient availability of good quality water for sustainable and equitable use, not just by us, but by future generations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. (DE) I believe that we all agree that water is a shared resource and a public good. Therefore, access to water is a fundamental right which everyone should have. Water must not be a source of profit. For these reasons, I welcome the new measures to reduce water consumption in the EU. I would simply like to ask everyone to bear in mind that implementing and enforcing the Water Framework Directive represents a problem in some Member States. Therefore, we should first of all press for these regulations to be consistently implemented before we begin thinking about new ones. In addition, the new regulations must be practical, as the rapporteur has already said. This means that they must be adapted to the situation in the Member States and meet the needs of the various different sectors, such as agriculture.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) The Water Framework Directive, adopted in 2000, concerning the sustainability of water resources, has unfortunately suffered from slow and uneven implementation. The implementation report by Richard Seeber helps to introduce a ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’. The main objective of this report is to assess the implementation of existing European legislation, in order to identify the challenges being faced. Water, which is precious and essential to human life, must be used efficiently and its consumption must be reduced. Moreover, this report calls on Member States to apply existing regulations appropriately. I supported this report in plenary.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing.(PL) Water is a natural asset, and in the future it may be that the strength of a country will be measured in terms of the amount of water it possesses. Resources of freshwater are limited, and today there are already a great many people who do not have adequate access to it – and water is, of course, essential both for the life and growth of any society. The European Union should therefore make every effort to ensure that the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’ will be as effective as possible. A policy for the judicious management of these resources is the key to the continent’s sustainable development and food security.

Investment in new technologies for abstracting and reclaiming water are also investments in peace in different parts of the world, because water may, unfortunately, prove to be yet another resource which causes the outbreak of war. It is equally important to include the issues of saving water and care for water resources in the standard educational curriculum of European citizens from their earliest years. The European Union should not, therefore, economise on this matter, and should support all investments and initiatives intended to ensure that we have sufficient water.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing.(PL) Water is undoubtedly the most important of all public goods, and despite the fact that Europe abstracts only around 13% of its total available water, the geographical distribution of resources is very uneven and many European countries and regions are subject to heavy water stress.

The freshwater resources of Europe and the world are at risk if we manage them beyond the boundaries of sustainability. Factors such as urbanisation, population growth, over consumption and biological and chemical pollution are having an adverse effect on the availability and quality of safe and secure water. I support publication of the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, planned for November 2012. I think Europe should also adopt a clear position on this matter in view of the upcoming Rio+20 conference on sustainable development. We need to remember that over 800 million people still use unsafe drinking water.

However, I voted against this report because of the part which speaks of a serious risk to both surface and groundwater posed by exploration for, and extraction of, shale gas. I do not agree with this view.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. Water is essential for life. Managing it sustainably is vital to ensure that all ecosystems receive a sufficient quantity of good-quality water to function properly and provide essential services to food security and safety, to our health, and to our society and economy. Water is arguably the most important of all public goods. However, Europe’s and the world’s freshwater resources are at risk if we manage them beyond the boundaries of sustainability: urbanisation, population growth, over consumption, biological and chemical pollution, hydromorphological alterations and climate change put ever increasing pressure on the availability and quality of safe and secure water. Future economic growth cannot be sustained unless it is decoupled from adverse environmental impacts on water.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. (IT) Without a doubt, water is the most important of all public goods for the human race. However, European and global freshwater resources are at risk because of management beyond the boundaries of sustainability. The Water Framework Directive (WFD), adopted in 2000, can be considered a milestone of European water policy, but the rate of implementation has been slow across European countries and regions, with highly diversified results. We therefore support the Commission’s new blueprint, which aims to be the EU policy response to current and future water challenges, with the objective of ensuring sufficient availability of good-quality water for sustainable and equitable water use.

We believe that Parliament must make a fundamental contribution to the process leading to the establishment of the future direction of European water policy via the blueprint. The most effective way forward is, without a doubt, to focus on implementation of the measures; the regional and local dimension should be strengthened and local stakeholders and communities should be involved in a participatory process at all stages of policy design and implementation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of EU water legislation with a view to improving European water legislation. Indeed, water is a shared resource of humankind, and in acknowledging that access to water should constitute a fundamental and universal right, we must take responsibility for ensuring that water resources are properly managed at European level. That is why the largest water users such as the energy and agriculture sectors should be particularly responsible and adopt an approach involving rational water use.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report considers water ‘an inalienable public asset which is essential for life’, and takes the view that it is ‘a shared resource of mankind’ and that ‘access to water should constitute a fundamental and universal right’. It also proposes measures to ensure that everyone can use this ‘public and essential asset’ better and more efficiently. At a time when attempts are being made to turn water into an object of commercial profit, this is an important position for Parliament. I therefore voted in favour, as I consider water a human right and a public good. However, I am opposed to an internal market of water technology. I advocate investment and public awareness in the area of water, as well as the effective transfer and sharing of that knowledge with people all over the world. This is a matter of preventing water from being controlled by the few, and making it instead a resource owned by everyone, for everyone. I also believe that it is a resource that should be at the service of the community and the whole planet.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Linda McAvan (S&D), in writing. – Labour MEPs supported this report as it makes many important recommendations on meeting our target of ‘good’ water status for our rivers and lakes by 2015. However, we have reservations about the call for universal water metering, as this is a decision best left to individual Member States, which are better able to assess the full impact of such a measure in terms of cost and impact on consumers. We believe that individual countries should be able to adopt anti-poverty measures such as social tariffs and similar schemes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – A sustainable supply of water is vital for life, the effective management of which is essential to ensuring that all ecosystems receive a sufficient quantity of good quality water in order to function properly and provide essential services. I support the concept of water as a ‘public good’ and that there is a cost associated with water that needs to be charged. I am, as yet, uncertain about the inclusion of the WFD into the scope of cross compliance for farmers. I voted in favour of this report, which predates the Commission’s ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, the EU policy response to current and future water challenges, due to be published in November 2012.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this report because water is a public good that should be protected by governments. Water is also a public good that is useful for productive sectors such as fisheries and agriculture, and should be offered to consumers at a fair price. The effective implementation of the Water Framework Directive should therefore be firm and uniform for all EU Member States.

In my country, Galicia, there are a high number of cases of failure to implement the rules on water, such as the dam on the River Umia, the Conchas Dam and other failures in the purification of our rivers. It is also very important to point out that management of water policy needs to be undertaken at government and decision-making level, involving the respective territories and their peoples. It should therefore support direct management, as in the case of the Hydrographic Confederation of Minho-Sil (CHMS). Water management must be undertaken by governments, but it must be brought closer to the public, with the aim of addressing the needs of the people through its management, thereby protecting them from more powerful private interests.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Obviously, water is a shared resource of humankind and a public good. Access to water should constitute a fundamental and universal right. Certainly, I am in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) To get straight to the heart of the matter: water is essential for our survival. We must use water sustainably, so that enough high-quality water is available for all our ecosystems. This is the only way in which they can function effectively and provide important services for food security, health, society and the economy. We urgently need to monitor the state of the European water network in order to assess its quality, deterioration and interconnectivity, given the possibility that as much as 70% of the water supplied to European cities is wasted as a result of leaks in the water system. Therefore, it is also important to ensure that the quality of water across all the EU countries is roughly the same. However, I am opposed to interfering with the Member States’ control over their own water supplies. It will, of course, be important to take measures to improve water efficiency in buildings, for example, so that water is not wasted unnecessarily. We also need to take agriculture into consideration, which requires large volumes of water, so we must promote water-saving processes and technologies as far as possible. It would also be beneficial to run campaigns to explain to citizens where and how they can effectively save water. As I believe in improving the legislation on water and I am assuming that there will be successful results in the near future, I have voted in favour of the motion.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. (IT) Water is a precious and unique resource, which is vital for the very existence of life: it is therefore clear that it is advisable to take a joint European approach to the protection and defence of this asset. Firstly, in the knowledge that this is a resource that is scarce, we need to endeavour to ensure that its use is optimised and wastage is reduced as far as possible: it is not acceptable, for example, for an obsolete transport and distribution system to lead to the waste of enormous quantities of water. In Tuscany this spring, there was a serious drought: unfortunately, droughts have been experienced many times in recent years, and are primarily caused by mismanagement of the water network. The report also stresses the importance of water reuse and recycling, and the need to ensure that pollution does not compromise water quality, and thus the ecosystem as a whole. Unfortunately, there are still many cases today of negligence and inexperience, which might lead to the complete destruction of natural areas: Massaciuccoli Lake is a dramatic example of this, since its valuable habitat is in serious danger, as the Commission itself emphasised to me in reply to a recent question I put to it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted for this report and I think that both the problems outlined and the solutions proposed are consistent. However, I feel obliged to mention one inconsistency. In the text of the report, agriculture is mentioned in at least 10 paragraphs as a major water consumer, but also as a possible part of the solution through a more efficient use of resources. However, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of this Parliament has not had the opportunity to express its point of view by means of an opinion. European farmers are open to discussing the difficulties in this area and implementing the solutions needed for better water management, but their opinions must be heard and taken into account. Agriculture is indeed a major water consumer, but it uses water to provide consumers with sufficient, good-quality food.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcome this resolution. Water is a shared resource of humankind and a public good. Water must be used sustainably and water protection therefore needs a holistic approach. It is very important for internal market rules to be adapted to the distinctive characteristics of the water sector, not the other way round. In order to encourage research and innovation, both the Member States and the Commission must support and implement the European Innovation Partnership on Water. Environmentally harmful subsidies should be phased out before 2020. Furthermore, a proportion of the tariffs collected from users for the supply of water and sanitation services should be devoted to the implementation of decentralised cooperation measures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. (EL) Sustainable management of water ensures, on the one hand, that ecosystems in the Member States receive enough high-quality water to sustain them and, on the other, that everyone has safe access to food and water. This particular debate is vitally important to Greece, which faces problems of over-irrigation, climate change and periodic drought. Clearly, future economic growth will only be sustainable if it is uncoupled from the adverse environmental impact of water. However, the action taken to date by the EU and the Member States does not suffice. The ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, which the Commission is to publish in November 2012, aims to create a European strategy on water which will overcome any birthing difficulties and omissions that have arisen to date. The European Parliament welcomes the adoption of a more aggressive strategy in this sector in this report, which I supported.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for this report, as I consider decisive action at EU level necessary in order to address the current and future challenges in terms of water resources that our continent is facing. I agree with the rapporteur’s request that the Commission incorporate the strategic recommendations contained in this report into the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, as an important contribution to a more effective and better integrated water policy, and to the promotion of a level playing field for its implementation at international level.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) In view of the current status of implementation of EU water legislation across all Member States, and taking into account both the successes as well as the main challenges that need to be overcome to improve it, important gaps can be seen that will need to be bridged by new legislation. Urbanisation, population growth, over consumption, biological and chemical pollution, hydromorphological alterations and climate change are putting ever increasing pressure on the availability and quality of safe and secure water. In this context, it is important to support the Resource Efficiency road map in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. With the aim of ensuring sufficient availability of good-quality water for sustainable and equitable water use, I voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Managing the sustainability of water resources is vital in order to ensure that all ecosystems receive an adequate level of good-quality water so that they can function properly and can provide essential services in terms of food security and quality, health and the economy. The Water Framework Directive of 2000 sets out the aim of achieving an ecological, chemical and quantitative ‘good status’ for European water bodies by 2015. However, the rate of implementation of the directive has been slow and uneven across European countries and regions. Although the main concern should be the implementation of the current legislation in the water sector, there are specific gaps that need to be filled, both in terms of adapting existing legislation to the water priorities and by drafting new legislation in order to address the impact of specific activities or sectors. This should take into consideration the importance of cooperation between the various economic operators and other stakeholders in order to ensure the sustainable management of water resources. I voted in favour, as I consider it necessary to move towards a more effective and integrated water policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. (IT) Today in plenary in Strasbourg, we adopted Richard Seeber’s report on the implementation of EU water legislation. Urbanisation, population growth, over consumption, pollution and climate change are putting pressure on the availability and quality of safe and secure water. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD), adopted in 2000, sets a target for sustainability in terms of the ecological, chemical and quantitative ‘good status’ to be reached by European water bodies by 2015. However, the rate of implementation of the WFD has been slow across European countries and it is clear that a significant number of EU water bodies will not reach ‘good status’ by 2015. Decisive action at EU level is thus needed to address the water challenges faced by our continent. In this context, the Commission has launched a ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, to be published in November 2012, with the objective of ensuring sufficient availability of good-quality water for sustainable and equitable water use. The rapporteur appreciates the Commission’s initiative, believing that Parliament must make a fundamental contribution to this process through policies to safeguard water that may be enforced by Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing.(FR) With this resolution, which I fully support, we are proposing several measures to protect the quality of water in Europe and ensure its rational use. The recurring problem of the proliferation of green algae, which we experience in Brittany for example, is proof that we must take action along these lines. The resolution focuses, in particular, on the use of incentive schemes such as the application of the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘user pays’ principles and the implementation of transparent and effective pricing schemes that would internalise both wastewater treatment and environmental costs. It is important to remember, however, that this must not result in ill-considered increases in water prices. The text also mentions proposals with respect to shale gas exploration and extraction, which is a problem that particularly concerns France given that it has large quantities of the resource underground. With this in mind, we are calling for the Commission to undertake research assessing the negative impact of the extraction of this type of gas on groundwater quality.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The ENVI report makes a connection to the resource efficiency agenda and transition to green economy, and recognises that water is a shared resource of humankind and a public good and that access to water should constitute a fundamental and universal right. The report also, inter alia: reiterates the need to adapt internal market rules to the distinctive characteristics of the water sector; acknowledges that the WFD is a solid and ambitious legislative base, but that implementation needs to be improved significantly; recognises that specific gaps need to be filled by adapting existing legislation and by new legislation to address the impact of specific sectors and activities; calls for legislation on water shortages, droughts and adapting to climate change; and urges the Commission to take determined action to bring Member States’ infringements to an end.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. (IT) The geographic distribution of water resources in Europe is very uneven across Member States, many of which routinely experience very high levels of water stress in summer. Water is an asset which is essential for life, and in order to ensure that all ecosystems receive good-quality water, and a fair quantity of it, it is essential to set up sustainable water management. It is necessary for individual local entities to be involved in water management decision-making processes so that the solutions can reflect the specific needs of each individual community.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) Water is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, which could lead to a decline in the quantity and quality of available water – particularly drinking water – as well as to a rise in the frequency and intensity of floods and droughts.

European and global freshwater resources are at risk if we manage them beyond the boundaries of sustainability: urbanisation, population growth, over consumption, biological and chemical pollution, hydromorphological alterations and climate change are putting ever increasing pressure on the availability and quality of safe and secure water. We must therefore recognise that water is a shared resource of humankind and a public good and that access to water should constitute a fundamental and universal right. This vote incentivises the sustainable use of water, an environmental and health necessity. It is thus necessary to adapt internal market rules to the distinctive characteristics of the water sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing.(SK) The need for a comprehensive approach to European issues in the water sector is highly topical. Water is the foundation of any ecosystem, and its efficient use and protection must be a priority also in European legislation. Annual flooding, fluctuating weather conditions, extreme drought and landslides are just the result of poor water management and the inefficient use of the energy and agriculture sectors which are the largest water users. Soil conservation is a key element in maintaining quality and also sufficient water provision. In terms of biodiversity, rapid afforestation is necessary in areas of each Member State where, in recent years, there has been frequent flooding. We know the causes of poor water management, but we do little to preserve it. This is why I voted in favour of the text of the resolution in order that decisive action in this field might contribute to water protection and biodiversity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing.(FR) It was important to vote in favour of this text in order to take responsibility for our model of consumption. It is now clear that a significant number of EU water bodies will not achieve ‘good status’ by 2015, due to long-standing and emerging challenges. I should remind you that a directive adopted in 2000 included a ‘framework’ for the regulation of water management and set sustainability objectives to be attained by 2015. The report seeks to assess the current implementation status of European legislation by highlighting the achievements that have been made, but also the main problems which must be overcome in order to improve this implementation. I am pleased to note that many of my fellow Members reacted favourably to this text.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) Water is a public good, and we need to protect it and ensure that it is used properly. More than 800 million people still do not have access to drinking water, and the United Nations’ objectives in terms of basic sanitation remain a long way from being achieved. This report therefore examines and identifies the challenges and obstacles relating to the proper implementation of the Water Framework Directive of 2000 in the Member States, in particular, with regard to the ecological, chemical and quantitative ‘good status’ to be reached by European water bodies by 2015. I am voting for this report, which sets out several ideas to be included in the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’, to be published this year. I would like to highlight some key ideas. The effective participation of the regions is important in defining policies, as there is no one single policy. The issue of water should be ‘mainstreamed’ into all EU policies, with a holistic approach to all water resources. There should be an EU policy on water reuse and recycling. Research and innovation should be further promoted, in particular, in regions that are subject to water shortages. Finally, there should be international cooperation on ensuring the sustainable development of water resources.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted for the report on the implementation of EU water legislation. I think that water is a public asset which is essential for life, and its appropriate management plays a key role in protecting the world’s natural assets and existing ecosystems. Europe currently abstracts around 13% of its total available freshwater, which is already an indication of some water stress. In many places in Europe, water abstraction is going below sustainable levels, threatening wildlife and water supply security for society, while in some regions of southern Europe, the water exploitation index has risen above 40%. The future of industry in Europe depends on finding effective responses to the current water challenges and on managing existing water resources, which directly affect human health, energy production, agriculture and food security, in a responsible, efficient manner. I should point out the link between energy production, energy efficiency and water security. I should stress that strategies need to be adopted at EU level to ensure that the ever increasing demand for energy does not pose a risk to the security and sustainable availability of water.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – In performing my duties as MEP, I have always been consistent on pushing to have strong and clear European legislation on maters that affect European citizens as regards independence, whichever state or nation they live in.

I am among those who agree that what happens in EU waters could have a spillover effect on other territories; whether we refer to them as nations or states. Therefore, it is important to have an EU water legislation in order to avoid these problems and in order to protect one of the most important resources on earth and to have the best policy-making practices in that regard.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. (DE) I voted in favour of the report. The rapporteur, Mr Seeber, has done a careful and thorough job. Reducing the consumption of water is an important European objective and we need to take a number of different measures to achieve it. Water shortages are already a problem in many Member States and must be taken seriously. Equally important is connecting the entire population of Europe to a well-functioning wastewater system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – Excessive consumption of clean tap water and the consequences of global climate change are reasons for the EU to develop a ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources’. The recommendation includes concrete projects for water recycling which also involve territorial classifications of the EU, and a request for an integral approach to water protection. I agree with the proposals concerning the protection of water for the public good and therefore, I voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. (IT) Water is perhaps the most important of all public goods, since it is essential for life. It is therefore vital to ensure that all ecosystems receive water of sufficient quality to provide services that are essential for food security and for the health of European citizens. Unfortunately, urbanisation, population growth, over consumption and biological and chemical pollution have resulted in ever greater problems concerning the availability of safe water tables. I therefore believe we must step up all actions required to ensure sustainable, effective water management.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing.(PL) In recent years, water has become a strategic asset, and access to sources of water has taken on geostrategic significance. We cannot rule out the possibility that in the future, disputes over water in some regions of the world may lead to war. Tensions in this area are already being felt between Israel and Palestine and between Turkey and Syria, for example. Therefore, I welcome the European Parliament resolution on water. The scientific advice is that many regions in Poland are going to have problems with water, so it is very important that we manage our water well. I hope this resolution will persuade the Commission to agree to allocate more funds to hydrotechnical projects, and particularly to dual-purpose projects.

 
  
  

Report: Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Olga Sehnalová (A7-0205/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I am voting for this report, as I believe that the major benefit of the eCall system will be to reduce the number of fatalities and mitigate the severity of injuries caused by road accidents, because the emergency services will reach the scene of the accident faster. Rescue teams, police and towing firms arriving faster will enable the quicker clearing of the accident scene. The eCall service will thus reduce the congestion time, and will contribute to the efficiency of road transportation in Europe and to reduced external costs. As far as the public authorities are concerned, the benefits of eCall are mostly shown to be reducing the medical consequences of a crash, the risk of further accident on the scene, and the impact of an accident on traffic. It is also worth remembering that, for the car industry, the mandatory introduction of a public EU-wide eCall system in all new type-approved vehicles is going to open up new opportunities for deploying other beneficial services using the eCall telematics platform.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on eCall: a new 112 service for citizens. I support the introduction of a mandatory electronic system of emergency – eCall – in all new car models. The satellite-based electronic notification system shall be programmed to send automatically a signal to the nearest emergency call centre when a serious accident happens. It will transmit data, such as the exact location, vehicle ID and the time of the accident. eCall should be activated via the existing pan-European emergency number 112. This has two advantages: first, in case of accidents, the severely injured would be given priority, and second, abuse can be prevented by the automatic recall of the rescue coordination centre. I also fully support the opinion that the mandatory deployment of a public eCall should be a public emergency call service, free of charge, for the benefit of any driver in Europe, independently of his car brand.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) Road safety is a major issue for society and a vital aspect of EU-level transport policy. The harmonised implementation of an interoperable pan-European in-vehicle emergency call system has been on the Commission’s agenda since 2005, but has only become a priority now. According to the official statistics about eCall, it is estimated that the system’s complete integration into cars in EU Member States will save roughly 2 500 lives every year, while also reducing the severity of injuries by 10-15%.

The eCall system will be a great help to road users who are unfamiliar with the roads and their exact location in the case of an accident. It will also allow emergency calls to be made without language difficulties, based on the digital data enclosed in the Minimum Set of Data (MSD) message format, which should reduce misunderstandings. I think that every effort needs to be made so that the implementation of eCall is made compulsory in every Member State and it becomes a reliable, high-quality, affordable and easy-to-use service across the whole of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) Road safety regulation can and must continue to be improved. I therefore call for the eCall emergency call system to be made compulsory in cars. These eCall systems should be installed free of charge in all new cars by 2015 with a view to notifying the emergency services of road accidents automatically, via a 112 emergency call. In addition to seatbelts and airbags, eCall would reduce the consequences of road accidents by automatically informing emergency services in the event of a collision. The accident location could therefore be immediately communicated and emergency services could intervene quicker. Naturally, vehicles would only be localised in the event of an accident and not at other times.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. (GA) I voted in favour of this report and what it says about improving the system for eCall and the emergency services.

I support the rapporteur’s recommendation that eCall be provided in the form of an emergency public service available free to all drivers in Europe, regardless of their type of car.

The main advantage of the eCall service is the resulting reduction in road traffic deaths and severity of injuries thanks to a faster response from the emergency services in case of accidents. It is clear that more people could be saved, and the consequences of accidents lessened, if the emergency response time could be reduced.

The eCall service would also help to clear accident sites faster, reducing the risk of further accidents on the same site.

Since there are very significant benefits associated with this service, Member States and national authorities must do their best to ensure the widespread roll-out and use of the service.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The deployment of an eCall service available in all vehicles throughout the EU is a major priority for the EU in the context of road safety. This system is very important for improving the effectiveness of emergency services, European road safety and helping to reduce the number of people killed or injured in road traffic accidents. I agree that the Member States should upgrade their emergency response service infrastructures by 2015 so that these services could introduce appropriate equipment enabling them to handle eCalls. I agree that the system should be free of charge and that a public eCall service could coexist with private emergency services. However, it is also important to protect data relating to drivers so that only data which is necessary and relevant for the specific purposes is used.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted for this report because I think that installing an eCall service will improve road safety and provide considerable benefits for the whole of society. Its introduction is especially important as the number of victims of road accidents continues to rise. An emergency call from the system will ensure that assistance is provided more quickly in the event of a serious accident, while also reducing the severity of the injuries. It would also have a positive impact on handling incidents by helping prevent secondary accidents or reducing traffic congestion. I should highlight that the system’s complete integration into cars will save roughly 2 500 lives a year.

In this context, I should emphasise how important it is to develop a reliable, affordable and easy-to-use service for all road users. Since its positive impact has already been proven by numerous studies, I think that the eCall system should be made compulsory.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. (PT) From 2015, all cars sold in the EU should have an emergency call system in case of a serious accident. The system will automatically transfer data about the location of the vehicle and the time of the accident to the nearest emergency service. By adopting this report, we will be helping because the emergency services will reach the scene of the accident faster. Owing to the faster arrival of assistance, we will also see a reduction in the medical consequences of a crash, the mitigation of the risk of further accidents at the scene, and reduced traffic congestion. I would stress that any added in-vehicle application based on the eCall telematics platform should comply fully with the relevant data protection and privacy regulations. I voted for this report for those reasons.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Phil Bennion (ALDE), in writing. – I extend a cautious welcome to the call for the European Commission to compel all new cars from 2015 to be fitted with the eCall system, which automatically alerts emergency services to serious road crashes when airbags are deployed. The United States are currently leading in the deployment of telematics of this kind, with 50% of cars sold now fitted. In the EU, most manufacturers do not include them. Therefore, the mandatory introduction of eCall seems necessary for large-scale deployment in Europe. However, the whole rescue chain has to be ‘eCall ready’ by 2015 from mobile phone systems to emergency control centres. On top of that, I strongly opposed extending the scope of eCall deployment to motorbikes, tractors and industrial vehicles. Motorbikes do not have airbags and are almost always separated from their riders in an accident. As for tractors and industrial vehicles, the purpose of the vehicle is to bump into things, I do not see how it is possible to install eCall on these type of vehicles without triggering false alarms to emergency response teams. The ALDE Group’s efforts to remove these categories from the recommendation were not successful at this time, but I will try to ensure that if any legislation follows, these vehicles will stay out of the scope. The ALDE Group also asked for a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of eCall, which we are still awaiting.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. (IT) Private in-vehicle emergency call services were introduced in Europe in the late 90s. Despite the fact that these services have fully demonstrated their usefulness, deployment in Europe is below 0.4% of the vehicle fleet. In addition, private emergency call services do not cover all countries in Europe: when vehicles travel into countries where the service is not provided by the private party, the service is discontinued. In view of this, the Commission decided to take legislative action to introduce a mandatory eCall. The benefits of introducing such systems for citizens are clear: a reduction in the number of fatalities and the mitigation of the severity of injuries caused by road accidents due to faster arrival of the emergency services on the accident scene and shorter rescue times, which will enable the accident scene to be cleared more quickly, lessening the impact of accidents on traffic and reducing the risk of further accidents at the scene. I welcome the introduction of eCall, provided that any added in-vehicle application based on the eCall platform complies with the regulations on data protection and privacy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing.(PL) The 112 service is a very good tool in emergencies. It is available, or at least should be available, from all telephone equipment and in every Member State. However, people who have been injured in road accidents are very often not able themselves to report this to the emergency services. This led to the design of the eCall system, in which vehicles are fitted with special equipment which automatically reports involvement in a road accident. Unfortunately, work on implementing the system, which has been going on for nearly a decade, has still not brought results. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support acceleration of this work, both in terms of administration of the system and in terms of the technology involved, in order to make a full eCall service available throughout the Union as soon as possible. I am sure that this will have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the rescue services, and will reduce the risk of loss of life and health of those caught up in accidents. It will also allow the efficient reorganisation of traffic at places where accidents have occurred. The service must be free, must be a public service and must be available in all vehicles regardless of their manufacturer. The system will also provide administrative benefits in the form of a reduction in the medical costs associated with accidents and a lower risk of secondary accidents and the resultant congestion. I support the resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the report presented by Mr Koch and Ms Sehnalová calling on the Commission to propose legislation to introduce the eCall system in all type-approved cars in the EU as from 2015. This system makes an automatic call for help throughout Europe in the event of an accident and where the driver is prevented from doing so. I agree with the statement in the report that eCall will facilitate a significant reduction in the number of fatalities caused by road accidents. Moreover, I share the view that, as the Commission has amply demonstrated, the reasons against its introduction advanced by the United Kingdom, France and Poland are unfounded. These reasons concerned the fear of a breach of privacy, its effective functioning in all European countries and protecting the interests of car manufacturers already offering comparable private systems.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the deployment of an EU-wide eCall service available in all vehicles and in all countries has been a major priority for the Union in the context of road safety since 2002. The major benefit of eCall will be a reduction in the number of fatalities and the mitigation of the severity of injuries caused by road accidents due to the speedier arrival of the emergency services at the accident scene. According to official statistical data on eCall, it is estimated that the full introduction of the system in cars in EU Member States would save 2 500 lives annually, while reducing the severity of injuries by 10-15%. However, the mandatory deployment of a public eCall should not be based or made conditional on the existence of a positive business case for the standalone eCall service. Its benefits for society as a whole should also be considered. eCall should be a public emergency call service, free of charge, for the benefit of any driver in Europe regardless of his make of car. A mandatory public eCall could be the enabler for the take-off of many other commercial services, which are ready for the market but still need a killer application to be successful. Therefore, eCall could support additional public or private telematic services providing further safety and economic benefits.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) According to estimates, the upshot of the eCall system, which is triggered automatically as soon as the in-vehicle sensors detect a serious accident, will be to speed up the arrival of the rescue teams by around 40% in urban areas and by 50% in rural areas. If it is used on a large scale, the eCall service will help save hundreds of lives in Europe every year and reduce the severity of the injuries and trauma in tens of thousands of cases. Based on what has been said above, I support this report and I think that eCall must be a public emergency call service provided free for the benefit of any driver in Europe, no matter what make of car they drive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the eCall system: a new ‘112’ service for citizens. This system constitutes a genuine technological advance: it enables an emergency call to be automatically triggered, whether the car is damaged or not, whilst sending out a message including key information about the accident, such as time, accurate location, driving direction, vehicle description and whether the passengers are conscious or not. This system, which can also be activated manually, functions on the basis of the single European emergency number 112 combined with the vehicle’s satellite positioning. According to estimations, the implementation of such a system in cars should save the lives of 2 500 EU citizens annually and reduce the severity of injuries by 10 to 15% due to better responsiveness from emergency services. The eCall system is dormant until an emergency call is triggered. The principles of privacy and protection of personal data are therefore fully respected, this being an essential condition for the system’s adoption. Furthermore, technological neutrality is guaranteed with eCall so that car manufacturers can remain free to choose the system they install in their vehicles.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. (RO) The reason why I voted in favour of introducing the eCall system is the need to speed up the arrival of the emergency services, save lives and reduce the injuries caused by road accidents. According to estimates, the eCall system could save up to 2 500 lives a year. The required technology is already available at EU level, and the Commission is making Member States update their response systems so that they can handle eCall calls by 2015. My view is that eCall should be a free public emergency call service for the benefit of every passenger in Europe, no matter what make of car they drive. The faster arrival of rescue teams, the police and recovery firms allows the accident scene to be cleared more quickly, thereby reducing external costs. The benefits of eCall for public authorities lie in the reduction of the medical consequences of an accident, of the risk of a further accident at the same location and of the impact of an accident on traffic. Similarly, in the case of the car industry, introducing an eCall service on a compulsory basis in every new type-approved vehicle will open up new opportunities for implementing additional services offering added value.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing.(FR) I welcome the European Parliament’s adoption of the Koch-Sehnalová report. This new eCall system for EU citizens could save up to 2 500 lives annually. Indeed, this new 112 service will, in particular, enable road accidents to be handled more efficiently due to the faster arrival of emergency services at the accident scene. Furthermore, I feel that the compulsory nature of this measure is a good thing, as a voluntary approach has not achieved significant progress to date. It would be wise to extend this system to all new vehicles in the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) The eCall service automatically triggers an emergency call in the event of a severe road accident. In order for this to happen, the vehicle must be equipped with the eCall service. eCall does not prevent accidents, but it does make the emergency services more effective. I voted for this report, as I believe that installing the eCall service should be mandatory and should not be based or made conditional on the existence of a positive business case for the standalone eCall service, as its benefits for society as a whole should also be considered.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing.(FR) Earlier today, we voted in favour of the general introduction of eCall, an in-vehicle emergency call system. This system, which is public and open, could contribute significantly to reducing the road death toll. That is why we have been advocating it since 2003. Unfortunately, for commercial reasons, car manufacturing lobbies want to impose private optional systems, which was supported by France’s former government which did not wish to invest in the scheme, and by several French MEPs from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). Saving a life does indeed have a financial cost, but it is our duty as European law makers to show that, with a high-performance safety system, the EU can and must protect citizens. We are now waiting for the Commission to propose legislation quickly so that the system can become operational throughout the European Union by 2015.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. (PT) The deployment of the eCall service, based on the 112 emergency number, should ensure the automatic notification of the emergency services in the event of a serious accident. As such, it will make a key contribution to reducing the number of fatalities on European roads, as well as mitigating the consequences of injuries due to faster, qualified and properly equipped assistance. This pan-European emergency call service from vehicles should operate in all Member States and European countries associated with this initiative, and should be available in any vehicle, irrespective of make, country or actual location of the vehicle. Initially, this service was expected to be completely operational by 2009. Unfortunately, progress has been too slow, and the roll-out of the pan-European eCall service has been further delayed. It is therefore imperative to ensure that this system, which is considered one of the most efficient yet low-cost as regards road safety, can be deployed in a timely and streamlined manner across Europe, as is indeed desired by 80% of citizens surveyed. I support this initiative, which enables the establishment of a regulatory framework for rolling out this service, and which will speed up the process and make the installation of eCall devices obligatory in all new type-approved vehicles in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. (RO) Member States have set their sights on reducing the number of fatalities and traffic congestion during such incidents, and on improving the way events of this kind are handled. I think that the eCall service can make a significant contribution to doing this, especially when it comes to reducing the period of time taken by the specialist emergency service call-out teams to arrive on the scene.

The confidence that European citizens have in these services is important when they are travelling in other Member States. This is why it is beneficial to incorporate the eCall service in every vehicle, no matter what make it is, in which country or where its current location is, as well as to implement the eCall in-vehicle components quickly without any intermediate stages.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing.(FR) I gave my full support to this text, which proposes the integration of an automatic emergency call system in all EU vehicles. I voted in its favour not only because it could save lives, but also because it makes this system a springboard for technological innovation in Europe. Indeed, the report recalls the need to link eCall with existing satellite navigation systems (EGNOS, Galileo, and so on), and encourages the future integration of innovative in-vehicle services.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing.(FR) Although in-vehicle automatic emergency call systems are a good initiative to enable faster responses in the event of road accidents, I chose to abstain from voting on this text, which aims to implement a pan-EU system, called eCall, which would be compulsory for all vehicles. It is indeed my understanding that road safety is the responsibility of Member States. While our Member States are committed to ensuring stringent and sound management of public finances, they cannot take on the financing of this European scheme as well.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on eCall: a new 112 service for citizens, because it will greatly improve the effectiveness of emergency services on our roads.

eCall represents an innovative and technologically advanced tool to promptly notify car accidents through satellite technology. This own-initiative report, by stressing its countless benefits, clearly explains the European added value of the service, urging therefore the Commission to submit a proposal within the framework of Directive 2007/46/EC in order to ensure the deployment of a public, 112-based eCall system by 2015 in all new, type-approved cars and in all Member States.

I fully share the opinion that the service must be simple, affordable, operational and accessible to everybody throughout the EU, regardless of the vehicle and its location and, imperatively, free of charge and obligatory.

The report also adequately stresses the need for data protection standards, in order to prevent the system from being used as a tool for tracing the journey of a vehicle.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on ‘eCall: a new 112 service for citizens’, as I am in favour of introducing an accessible and reliable emergency call system which can work in an integrated way throughout Europe, enabling a significant reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries on Europe’s roads.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) In Portugal, we have a proverb along the lines that it is better to lose a minute of your life than to lose your life in a minute; I presume that other countries have similar sayings. However, this calm and prudent advice is often overridden by the need to act quickly, particularly in emergency situations. In such cases, a minute can make all the difference between life and death. The eCall service seeks to address that need with regard to road accidents. At a time when mobile phones are widespread, it is incomprehensible that studies are not being carried out or assistance-alert solutions being applied that take the existence of mobile technology into account and take advantage of its full potential. The automatic nature of the service’s activation raises some doubts in my mind as to the privacy of the occupants of vehicles and the traceability of their journeys. However, these doubts do not detract from my overall favourable view of this initiative, nor my desire that its application will actually help to save lives. Unfortunately, my country has a high rate of road accidents. I hope that eCall will reduce this scourge.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The active and passive safety of motorists has improved significantly over recent decades, with safety belts, airbags, energy-absorbing crumple zones, sensors, lights, and other such features. Everything that can be done to safeguard human life should be done. This report by Mr Koch and Ms Sehnalová concerns the regulation introducing the eCall service. The aim of this measure is to save human lives, and it makes installing an alert system in motor vehicles obligatory. In the event of an accident, and similar to what already happens in certain high-end vehicles, this system triggers an emergency call and transmits the coordinates of the damaged vehicle’s location. How many people might survive if they were attended to at the time of the accident? How many people have been trapped, often in inhospitable and/or undisclosed places, bleeding and unable to ask for help? I voted for this report, as I believe that eCall will be of benefit, and will allow many lives and many resources to be saved from 2015. As such, it should be seen as a public service accessible to all.