Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 4 July 2012 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting opened at 9.00)

2. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

3. Programme of activities of the Cyprus Presidency (debate)

  President. – The first item is the Council and Commission statements on the programme of activities of the Cyprus Presidency.

I should like to welcome most warmly the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Demetris Christofias, to the European Parliament. A very warm welcome to you, Mr President.

  Demetris Christofias, President-in-Office of the Council. − (EL) Mr President of the European Parliament, President of the European Commission, honourable chairs of the political groups in the European Parliament, honourable members of the European Parliament, honourable members of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen and friends, it is a real honour for me to stand here today before you, before plenary of the European Parliament, the bastion of European democracy, in order to share with you our vision for the Union and present the main priorities of the first Cypriot Presidency of the Council.

May I express my profound respect and congratulations to the European Parliament on the role which it plays in defending and promoting the fundamental principles on which the European Union is founded. Allow me to underline my personal satisfaction with the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon allows the European Parliament to legislate jointly, with the Council, on most matters. There can be no doubt that this positive development enhances and broadens democracy in the European Union.

This is Cyprus’s first six-month Presidency of the Council since it acceded to the European Union and it coincides with very difficult conditions for our Union. The global economic crisis is affecting numerous Member States, with the euro area still bearing the brunt of the pressure.

Without doubt, the challenges faced by our Union require an innovative European response. Perhaps the time has come for us to turn for guidance to the starting point of European unification when, in the aftermath of war, nothing was taken for granted. The time has come for us to draw lessons from the courage and foresight of the fathers of the European vision: a vision of peace, democracy, pluralism and social justice. In times of crisis such as this, there is an even more urgent need for us to achieve a more solidarity-based and effective Union, a better Europe. We owe it to the visionaries of European unification and, more importantly, we owe it to our children and grandchildren.

The attainment of a better Europe is a universal demand of the citizens of the Union. We have an obligation to listen to our citizens and to do all we can to achieve a Union that means more to our citizens: a Europe of social cohesion, prosperity, security and growth. We shall work tirelessly within the Council during the current semester, within the scope of our competences, to push forward every legislative initiative that will help to achieve the objective of a social solidarity-based and effective Union: a Europe with more visible benefits in terms of the prosperity of European citizens. This is our general political objective for the six-month Cypriot Presidency and we truly hope that we shall have the support and assistance of all the institutions, especially the European Parliament, in this endeavour.

It is true that the European construct has experienced numerous crises since its foundation. However, it would appear that the on-going social and economic crisis, which stems in large part from the global economic crisis, is, comparatively speaking, the biggest challenge that the European Union has had to face since its foundation. That is because prosperity and social cohesion in the Union have come under serious threat. At the same time, cracks have appeared in the institutional unity of the Union, due in part to the different approaches adopted in terms of the measures that should have been taken, as an immediate priority, in order to stabilise the situation.

I firmly believe that we need to support cohesion and unity between the Member States. Together we can certainly do more.

I am convinced that the European Union will successfully overcome the difficulties it faces. The European Union has no option but to emerge stronger from the current crisis; a crisis which, unfortunately, has seriously shaken the confidence of European citizens in our institutional edifice. However, we shall be able to defeat the challenges if we collectively demonstrate the necessary trust in the common European institutions, in the institutions of the Union. The Community method has proven over the years to be an effective weapon in defending our common interests and must be protected at all costs. Action to deepen the European unification policy based on solidarity and social cohesion is, in my view, the best way of effectively addressing the current social and economic crisis.

I consider that, in order to decide on an effective remedy for the damage caused by the crisis, we must, at the same time, make a correct diagnosis of the causes of it. We must jointly make a bold and in-depth analysis of the essence and scope of the social and economic crisis. In my view, we need to have the courage to engage in self-criticism at national and European level, in order to identify possible political inertia or weaknesses in the policies applied in Europe, especially over the last two decades. It is hard to contest the fact that the policies implemented in previous years, which promoted a model of absolute and dogmatic attachment to the freedom of the market with no social or state control, have failed because, quite simply, a free social market economy is one thing and unaccountable markets, without state supervision or similar safety values for the benefit of society as a whole, is another.

Under no circumstances should we leave our societies at the mercy of the markets and the selfish interests that manipulate them. Events have proven that any measures taken in recent years were ineffective due to the analysis of the crisis, which was based on the standard response that wants us to hold speculators alone and, occasionally, the markets responsible.

The strict austerity policies being applied in order to address the crisis are not only turning out to be unable to resolve the problems; they are exacerbating them. Austerity policies are simply unravelling the social state and immobilising growth. The economy and sustainable growth must serve society. The wealth produced must be distributed more fairly. The approach cannot be to ‘nationalise the losses and privatise the profits’. We cannot use our policies to put the burden of the current crisis on the shoulders of those who are having trouble making ends meet. The man in the street in the Member States of the Union is the last person responsible for the inherent weaknesses which, as we have seen, are hampering the creation of economic and monetary union.

In any event, we have a moral and political responsibility to distribute the burden of the crisis more fairly and we must certainly protect the economically and socially vulnerable sections of society.

Allow me at this point to express the deep concern that I feel every time our television viewers see images of misfortune, with citizens queuing at soup kitchens in order to get food rations, basically survival rations. It is, at the very least, difficult for all of us to accept such a situation in Europe. We cannot remain unmoved when we see poverty resulting in the social exclusion and impoverishment of large sections of society in Europe. I invite my friend the President of the European Commission, from this official tribune, to work together with us, to find ways of using agricultural intervention products to extend and strengthen the Food Distribution Programme for our deprived fellow citizens. I will truly be the happiest of Europeans if, by the end of the Cypriot Presidency, we have managed to bring about tangible results under this programme or by adopting similar actions of equivalent result, based on legislative initiatives by the Commission, thereby further minimising this important social problem which, of course, this alone will not solve.

The major issue, therefore, in my opinion, is the need for fairer redistribution of income produced and a consistent and more citizen-oriented social policy which, in conjunction with support for small and medium-sized enterprises, which form the backbone of the European economy, will result in more employment and the social cohesion sorely needed within our Union.

Without doubt, actions have been promoted, especially over the last year, with the help of all sides, especially the European Commission, to accelerate structural reform and create better conditions of competitiveness and growth in the European economy, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. We expect these actions to increase employment, primarily among young people, in a greener economy. All this is in addition to the priority measures taken to address the debt crisis.

The objective therefore, is to reconcile the approach to budgetary discipline, on the one hand, because it is important to limit wastage and manage our public finances carefully, and the approach in terms of implementing a strong growth and job creation strategy in Europe, on the other.

The Presidency of the Council looks forward to collaborating closely with the Members of the European Parliament, so that, in cooperation with the European Commission, we can promote targeted actions to reduce the social pressure that has arisen in most of the Member States of our Union and which, unfortunately, has mostly affected the young generation, our children, the future of our Europe. More social Europe is what we need, especially under the current difficult economic conditions. That is the only way we can help European citizens regain their belief in the vision of European unification. That is the only way we can reduce the gap dividing European citizens from the faceless and often distant decision-making centres in Brussels.

It is precisely within this framework of efforts to achieve a better Europe that the Cypriot Presidency has set four main priorities:

First priority: Europe, more effective and sustainable.

The Cypriot Presidency will focus on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, in the ultimate aim of finalising negotiations and creating a fair and effective Union budget that will generate growth and employment. The Presidency will seek to achieve progress in negotiations on the legislative framework for common policies in this programming period, such as the common agricultural and fisheries policies, cohesion policy and research and innovation policies. Energy policy, the Connecting Europe Facility and the trans-European networks on transport, telecommunications and energy are high on the agenda and will be vital in boosting the competitiveness and further integration of the European Union. Sustainable development will be an important issue during the Cypriot Presidency, based on the need for an integrated approach to transport, climate change, environmental and energy policies. Particular emphasis will be placed on re-energising the EU integrated maritime policy. A special summit will be held in Limassol, which Commission President José Manuel Barroso will attend, to decide on and approve an announcement.

Second priority: Europe, with a better performing and growth-based economy.

The economic crisis has highlighted the need for more effective Union policies. The Presidency will focus in particular on monitoring the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy. Furthermore, strengthening economic growth and promoting employment opportunities are of major importance to the Cypriot Presidency. Financial services are also an important item in our agenda, as they will help to protect consumers and investors and improve market transparency.

During the Presidency and on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the single market, we shall also give impetus to the deepening of the internal market, in the aim of stimulating the European economy and making social progress and supporting the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers. Without doubt, the single market provides a stable basis for European integration. We need to improve the single market, especially in times of economic crisis, by focussing on the need to strengthen European competitiveness.

Third priority: Europe, more relevant to its citizens, with solidarity and social cohesion.

One of the most important priorities of the Cypriot Presidency is to increase the involvement of the social partners, local authorities and non-governmental organisations in implementing the EU 2020 strategy, especially in respect of targets for employment and combating poverty and social exclusion. We intend to utilise best practices at both national and European level in order to try and map the involvement of civil society in the European Semester process.

Social cohesion is an important aspect of the EU 2020 strategy and an essential objective of efforts to find an effective way out of the crisis, especially for sections of society at risk of poverty and social exclusion.

As part of the Cypriot Presidency priority to improve social cohesion, we shall focus on carrying on work to combat child poverty and promote children’s well-being.

The Cypriot Presidency intends to use the European Year of Active Ageing to highlight the message that active ageing is not confined to employment; it includes participation by elderly persons in social, economic, cultural and political life.

As far as equality is concerned, the Cypriot Presidency will promote work to compile indicators on violence against women and will focus on victim support services. The Presidency will also encourage debate on the problem of the pay gap between the two sexes, by facilitating an exchange of best practices between the Member States.

One of the Presidency’s main objectives will be to create a common European asylum system by the end of 2012, by building up cooperation between Member States in protecting the rights of those in need of international protection.

In the education and culture sector, negotiations on the next generation ‘Erasmus for all’ programme will be high on the agenda, as will the promotion of literacy.

Fourth priority: Europe in the world, closer to its neighbours. The Cypriot Presidency will work closely with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European External Action Service. Within that framework and in light of the important political changes taking place on the south shores of the Mediterranean, we consider that particular attention should be paid to the southern dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy, by enhancing relations between the Union and Mediterranean countries.

For me personally, it goes without saying that the Arab nations neighbouring us to the south, who have rebelled and are demanding democracy and the rule of law, must choose their own regimes, via a free and participatory procedure. It is a strategic mistake, in my opinion, for Europe to try and impose its democratic model on those nations. However, what Europe can and should do is to support the vision of the young people who express the Arab vision, in order to create a pluralistic society of which one fundamental element is respect for human rights.

Furthermore, the Cypriot Presidency will promote the necessary processes relating to the enlargement procedure, which is indeed one of the most successful Union policies.

I would like to close my presentation with a very brief reference to ancient Greek philosophy, which is admittedly a very important pillar of our common European cultural heritage: in Plato’s Republic, Socrates, that important philosopher of ancient times, is asked: ‘What is the meaning of life?’, to which Socrates immediately answers: ‘To be a good Athenian’.

Plato then asks, ‘And what, Socrates, is a good Athenian?’

The answer was simple, but full of timeless meaning and purpose: ‘A good Athenian is a person who leaves Athens a better place than he found it’. Very simple, very proper and very beautiful.

The Athens of Socrates and Plato is, of course, our common achievement today, the European Union. We leaders of Europe have a duty to work tirelessly to make our Europe a better place for all European citizens, especially future generations. With innovations and innovative policies that centre on man and are predicated on reasonable demands, we can achieve sustainable economic growth and social cohesion.

As you have heard from the priorities I just listed, the Cypriot Presidency has prepared what is admittedly an ambitious programme. However, we are aware that these are very difficult times and of the challenges we face at European level. As you well know, my country faces an additional challenge, due to the problem of the anachronistic partition caused by the continuing Turkish occupation of the northern part of the island. However, I should like to categorically assure you that we shall spare no effort and shall not allow any problems that the occupying force may try to create to derail us in our exercise of an entirely European Presidency.

Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, the Cypriot Presidency will do its very best, within its powers, to bring about a better Europe for the benefit of its citizens. In the six months to come, with the help and support of all of you, of the institutions, of civil society and, of course, of the Members of the European Parliament, we shall be able to make an important contribution towards attaining our common objective.

My warmest thanks to you.

  José Manuel Barroso, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me start by expressing to President Christofias and the Cyprus Government my and the Commission’s full support for this Council Presidency. We will work with you in the spirit of full loyalty and we wish you every possible success. This will be in the interest of your country, and in the interest of the EU as a whole.

Holding the Presidency of the Council is always a challenge, for bigger and smaller countries, for older and less old Member States. And it is only natural that this challenge is redoubled when it is for the first time, and taking place in the current economic context.

This being said, I have a lot of confidence in the readiness of Cyprus to take on this great responsibility. Not only was I reassured by President Christofias’s presentation today, by his statements regarding his commitment to the European project and the Community method, I can also tell you that the Cyprus authorities started preparations almost three years ago. In the intervening period the Cyprus authorities and the Commission at political and technical levels have enjoyed a close, fruitful cooperation. Tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, the College of Commissioners will meet the Presidency team in Nicosia, where I will have the opportunity to express my appreciation for their very competent work of preparation.

Immediately after this moment of inauguration, we need to continue our work. I very much appreciate that the Cyprus Presidency correctly grasps the right challenges to tackle and the priorities to work on. The Commission shares the objectives of the Presidency aimed at a stronger, more competitive Europe, based on sustainable growth, solidarity and social inclusion, a Europe which is a major international partner on the global stage as well as in its neighbourhood.

These objectives call for actions, actions which are enshrined in the logic of the three-part approach which the Commission has championed for a long time and which we have to work on for the European Union as a whole – sound public finances, deep structural reforms and targeted investment.

Focusing on these areas and maximising their impact will go a long way towards a successful Cyprus Presidency of the Council. For a successful Presidency it will be very important to focus on those key legislative proposals where tangible results can be achieved by the end of 2012.

First and foremost, we have the multiannual financial framework, one of our primary instruments for value-adding investments at European level and for growth and jobs in Europe.

Let us do our utmost to reach agreement on the MFF by the end of this year. I know it is extremely challenging but it is possible. This would send a clear signal that, when it comes to growth, we are committed to action, not limited to rhetoric. Reaching a deal by the end of the year – not any deal, I mean a good or even a very good deal – would do a great service to the European Union as a whole and it would be a success for the Cyprus Presidency.

In the coming days the Commission will present updated financial figures for our MFF proposal which will include the impact of the accession of Croatia in 2013 and will take account of the latest national and regional statistical data. Whilst these changes will be extremely marginal in overall amounts, they need to be done for the sake of accuracy and transparency and equal treatment. On this basis the Presidency will then be able to prepare serious discussions on figures as from the autumn too.

I can only reiterate what I said earlier. The figures which we proposed last year remain fully valid. They are balanced, appropriate and realistic. They clearly deploy a sense of realism under current circumstances whilst showing the right level of ambition. I therefore urge both Parliament and Member States to recognise that what we have proposed already provides a very good basis for compromise.

Of course the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework are a package. In parallel to the overall framework, negotiations must be brought to an end on the sectoral proposals on the main European common policies. These policies lie at the heart of our efforts to support growth and employment. For this reason we need in parallel to make substantial progress on the next generation of Structural Funds, the reform of the CAP, the common fisheries policy, Horizon 2020 for results and innovation, the Connecting Europe Facility and the relevant trans-European networks. Nor must we neglect our external financial instruments as an important element in our external policy.

With the overall MFF and almost 70 sectoral programmes we have a formidable list of work to accomplish. It will require a great effort on the part of the Council Presidency, an effort which we in the Commission will support to the full.

The multiannual financial framework is just one of our levers for growth and jobs. There are other critically important areas where we must speed up our efforts. I therefore welcome the fact that President Christofias shares my understanding that we must work closer together among all the institutions, including of course the European Parliament, in the coming months. This is the only way to achieve results, to results that are stable and binding and are not hostages to fortune after decisions are announced.

Continuing our work for growth also means pushing ahead in the coming months on the fast-track legislative proposals of the single market, what we have called Single Market Act 1. In addition, the Commission intends putting forward proposals under what we call the new Single Market Act 2, and we hope the Cyprus Presidency will start work on these without delay. Once again thank you for your very strong commitment regarding the need to deepen the single market, President Christofias.

As I said yesterday in front of this House, intensive work will continue towards ensuring stability of the euro area and establishing a genuine economic and monetary union. The Commission will thus swiftly put forward new proposals concerning the first steps to establish what we have been terming a ‘banking union’, namely to create a single financial supervisory mechanism in the euro area, built around the ECB, based on Article 127 of the Treaty. At the same time, we will strive to preserve the overall architecture of the EU 27, soon 28, in particular the architecture of the single market, so as to guarantee the integrity of our Union and naturally the full Treaty rights of the European Parliament.

At the same time there is much to be done to build on the proposals the Commission has already made on deposit guarantee schemes, bank recovery and resolution, stricter rules on credit rating agencies and on capital requirements, on markets in financial instruments and on market abuse. Thus the banking union is very much enriched. We can do it very soon if we fully stand behind it and work hard for it.

There will be a further effort needed to adopt the two-pack initiatives and to make headway on a financial transaction tax through enhanced cooperation. Although formally both files are separate, both are essential. We can only call for greater solidarity if in parallel we are prepared to accept greater responsibility.

I have only mentioned some of the most important areas on which we need to focus in the coming six months. Naturally, I know, the programme of the Presidency is much wider, but I think we should focus on what we can deliver in a relatively short period. I should also mention the Schengen and patent packages. I hope that on both we will eventually come to find better solutions than those which are on the table of the Council today.

I believe for a Council Presidency to have success it needs determination and focus. Six months pass extremely quickly. Yesterday at a meeting with President Christofias and President Schulz, I mentioned that this will be the 17th Council Presidency I have been following closely, and I can tell you the successful presidencies were the ones which were able to focus. Let us use this period in the most productive and effective way. The Commission will help you achieve as much as possible in this endeavour and I am sure the European Parliament will do so also.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, President Christofias, ladies and gentlemen, the Republic of Cyprus is taking over the Council presidency at a decisive moment for Europe. I said here, only yesterday in fact, that the European Council has held 30 meetings on the economic crisis and it is not over yet. Thirty meetings and only last week did we see the start of an action plan.

That is why I am calling this morning on the new Presidency to show courage and determination. I hope that this Presidency will convince its 26 partners to opt for an integrated Europe, a political Europe and, at last, a united and therefore sovereign Europe.

The economic crisis is both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge relates to the competitiveness of our economy and to unemployment, which is breaking records with an average rate of 11%. The opportunity is to do what the countries in the euro area should have done at the outset, in other words implement a common economic policy, a policy of balanced budgets and, above all, a long-term investment policy.

President Christofias, although you and I are from radically opposed political parties, my group supports the priorities of your Presidency. In particular, I heard you use an expression that is very important to me: the Community method. In that respect, I know that I can count on you.

Like you, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) wants the European Union to be more effective, more relevant and more efficient and to experience renewed growth. On that basis, we need to act. We need to take advantage of the 20th anniversary of the single market in the autumn to complete, at last, the work that began under Jacques Delors and implement the Single Market Act as quickly as possible. We need to apply the Services Directive in full. We need to create a genuine digital single market. We also need to reduce the burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. All of these measures will create growth and will thus create jobs. These are the measures that I am asking you, Mr President, to take along with this Parliament and in close cooperation with the Commission.

There is another key aspect of your Presidency: the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework. My group truly hopes that progress is made in this regard during the next six months, in the knowledge that the European budget is an investment budget, a growth budget and an employment budget. We need investment in all 27 Member States in infrastructure, investment in all 27 Member States in energy networks and in education, research and innovation, cohesion policies and food security; you spoke about food aid for the most deprived, I believe, and you also have my support in that regard. That is a credible and tangible response to the crisis, too.

The Cypriot Presidency will find in the European Parliament an active and committed participant when it comes to the financial perspective, as long as the proposed budget is large enough and tailored to our needs. We will be keeping an eye on that, but we will help you to reach the end of the year with a Christmas package for this budget for the multiannual financial framework.

Now, Mr President, President Christofias, ladies and gentlemen – do not laugh, Mr Barroso, the package will be good, you will see – I would like to talk about another issue before you here this morning and that is the worrying political situation that has prevailed for a number of days in one of our Member States, Romania. Yesterday the Vice-President of the European Commission, Viviane Reding, expressed grave concern. I quote: ‘I am seriously concerned about recent attacks on the independence of the Constitutional Court of Romania. For me, a well-functioning, independent judicial system is a precondition for mutual trust in the European area of justice’.

My group shares the Commission’s concerns and last week I, myself, expressed my concerns about the current state of democracy in Romania. This morning, I ask the Commission very sincerely to continue to monitor this issue as it has monitored others, in spite of the summer break.

It is important for us to make progress over the next six months on various issues that are on the table and, President Christofias, we are counting on you. There are a lot of good things that you can do.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I just have one brief comment to make to Mr Daul. I would be happy if you were half as critical of Hungary as you are of Romania. However, as far as breaches of European law are concerned, we support European law and European values, regardless of the country in question.

Mr President, I would like to welcome you very warmly, together with your Minister for Europe who will definitely do a very good job, because he shows the right level of commitment. We cannot promise you that this will be an easy presidency. We can promise you our help in resolving the problems, but nevertheless this will not be an easy presidency. The economic crisis and the banking crisis will still be with us.

I am very grateful to Mr Barroso for making it clear that Parliament will be fully involved in the establishment of the new banking supervisory mechanism, which is something that we have been calling for over a long period. Of course, we need to have specific rules for the euro area. However, we must not forget, and Cyprus is one example of this, that even if a country is not in the euro area, and this is clear in Greece and Romania, massive damage can still be caused. The incidents at Barclays Bank show that there are still many bankers who are speculating with other people’s money and who believe that they can manipulate the market without it being noticed. This must stop. We need an efficient banking supervisory mechanism in Europe, together with greater transparency in all banks, and these things must be put in place over the next few months.

In this context, Mr President, I would, of course, like to mention the financial transaction tax. We have recently adopted Ms Podimata’s report here in Parliament with a large majority. I know that people in your country are sceptical about this, but it is essential for us to introduce a financial transaction tax. Of course, it will not solve all our problems. However, Mr President, you have spoken about the fact that economic and social burdens must be distributed more fairly. The financial transaction tax will make a small but not insignificant contribution to the fairer distribution of the economic burdens and will help to ensure that the financial sector plays its part in overcoming the crisis. I believe that this is essential.

That brings me to the budget. Mr Daul said that there would be a Christmas present. I hope he is right. I hope that it is a present and that we will not be celebrating Christmas with a poor compromise. There are supporters of better spending and supporters of cohesion. If the supporters of better spending think that what is needed is less spending and drastic budget cuts, then they will not have us on their side. This is what Mr Cameron believes and this is being put into practice with great success in the United Kingdom. It clearly has the approval of the population.

If the supporters of cohesion think that they simply need to spend more money and the job will be done, then they will not have us on their side. We in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, and I believe that is the majority in this House, want a budget which is effective, does the job, contributes to growth – that is essential – and, of course, promotes productivity and competitiveness. However, you cannot make cuts and, at the same time, say that we must do more for growth, while reducing funding, except for the funding that is actually needed. If Mr Cameron needs a major institution in his constituency or in the neighbouring constituency, he will, of course, want funding for it. However, when it comes to stimulating growth in the cohesion regions, where we really have work to do and where help is needed, regardless of whether they are in Poland, as the President mentioned in his speech, or in Lithuania or in other countries, then suddenly we want to make big cuts. That is where we have to say ‘No’, because this is inappropriate. We cannot say that we need more investment, more growth, more employment and then focus on reducing spending.

I am very pleased that France is moving away from this simplistic method of making cuts. I am very pleased that Ms Merkel in Germany has recognised, following talks with the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), that the budget needs to be of a certain size in order to stimulate growth and development. Against this background, I am also hoping for a Christmas present, like Mr Daul, not for us, not for Parliament, the Council or the Commission, but for the people of Europe, who urgently need one.

The Cyprus Presidency brings us close to a region which is undergoing a major crisis and that is the Middle East. We will never come as close to it as we do in Cyprus. I know that the Cyprus Presidency has very good relationships with the countries of the Middle East and will make good use of them.

My last comment concerns Turkey. As a friend of Turkey, I very much regret Turkey’s behaviour towards the Cyprus Presidency. This is the presidency of the European Union.

(Applause)

When Turkey boycotts the Cyprus Presidency, then it is boycotting the European Union. We hold on to the vision of a shared Cyprus where Turkish and Greek Cypriots can live together in peace, because all of them are citizens of Europe. This vision will help us to move forwards.

(Applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would say this to President Christofias: your country cannot lead the European Union by size or strength, so you must lead by example.

Lead by example on economic growth: use the EU’s influence to help reunify Cyprus’s people – economists say it would add EUR 12 000 to the prosperity of every family on your island. Lead by example in Europe’s fight against crime – intervene against the intricate intrigue of corrupt Cypriot lawyers and property developers who rob holiday-home buyers of their retirement savings. Lead by example in other areas too, not by letting a fossil fuel find fool you into forgetting your island’s natural wealth of sun and wind. Not by being mortgaged to Moscow, nor by evading engagement with Ankara.

You will take forward the budget talks and the EU’s Road Map 2050: marry them together by investing in renewable energy EU-wide and cutting our dependence on Russian gas. You will oversee EU talks on bank supervision and sovereign debt: use the ECB and the EIB to nurse our weaker nations back to solvency.

You spoke of a better Europe for our children and our grandchildren. You must talk to Turkey, not overlook the plight of our fellow citizens behind the barbed wire. Along with my constituents in Gibraltar they face the fate of being forgotten people, failed by the designated guardians of the EU Treaties who are too timid to take on the tough talkers.

Forty years ago another Mediterranean islander, the songwriter/poet, Georges Moustaki, wrote of ‘les îles barbelés, les murs qui emprisonnent…en Méditerranée’ (the barbed-wire islands, the imprisoning walls… in the Mediterranean). We will not carp if you cannot bring peace or freedom to Syria and the countries of your sea’s southern shore, much as you should try, but you can rid your island of its barbed wire and its prison walls and restore what that poet called ‘un bel été, qui ne craint pas l’automne’ (a fair summer that has no fear of autumn).

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

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE), blue-card question. – Sir Graham, do you not think that by addressing this criticism to a Presidency that has not even started is not objective and fair? Do you not think this to be the case, particularly when the criticism is coming from you, who represents a country that has been a colonial power that bears part of the responsibility of the division of this island, with a policy of divide and rule?

  Graham Watson (ALDE), blue-card answer. – Mr Kasoulides, I am not one who defends everything that was done under colonialism by my country but I do not believe my country can be accused of causing the problems on the island of Cyprus. I am not criticising Cyprus. I am asking the Presidency to use the EU’s influence to sort out some of the serious problems you still face on your island and I hope it will. I think there is a lot to be done and I wish President Christofias every success in this regard.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, as part of our visit to Cyprus with the Conference of Presidents to prepare for the presidency, I spent a day of my own time in Nicosia with the aim of looking around this city which I did not know. On the one hand, I visited the archaeological museum and was struck by the beauty of the island’s cultural heritage. On the other hand, I returned to reality and crossed the border in the old quarter of Nicosia at several of the crossing points and was really shocked by this confrontation and the form it takes in Cyprus today.

I am not as presumptuous as Mr Watson and I will not try to tell you what you should do in the next six months. However, I would like to repeat the wish expressed by many fellow Members in the meetings in Nicosia. The presidency will mean that the eyes of Europe are on Cyprus. We must all work together to help overcome this undignified confrontation which is actually a thing of the past. This is in the interest of all the people of Cyprus, both Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

However, I do, of course, know that the presidency is starting out in a very difficult position. The debate or dispute about the outcome of the summit is still going on and I do not remember a summit during this crisis whose results have had such a short half-life on the market as the most recent one. Interest rates are rising and the burden of interest payments for the crisis countries is higher than it was before the summit. We need to look closely at this.

You are taking over the presidency at a time when the representatives of the Council obviously forget as soon as they return to their own countries that the European Union can only function as a community of responsibility. Many Heads of State or Government and many people who are more like party politicians than Europeans when they are at home are evidently not really aware of this responsibility. I know that you are faced with the major challenge of bringing this back together.

I believe that the disagreements within the Council must be resolved by the time the troika presents its latest report on Greece, which is also an existential moment for Cyprus, for your country, in this crisis. I am very concerned about the influence of this new report and the decisions which will have to be made on the basis of what was decided on thin ice, so to speak, at the last summit. The European Parliament resolution that we will vote on today gives a good indication of what urgently needs to be done during the course of the summer.

I would like to make one last point, Mr Christofias, because I understand that for you, both as a politician and as a person, fairness is a major concern. I believe that in Cyprus, although I am very familiar with the structural problems relating to the large banking and finance sector, work needs to be done in the areas of fair taxation, tax havens, tax evasion and tax avoidance. You will only be able to make good progress in your presidency if you deal with these areas, despite your own problems.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, let me first of all thank President Christofias for his speech today and for the welcome that he gave to my group when we recently visited Cyprus. We greatly appreciated the constructive meetings that we had with him and his government. It is clear that we are not going to have much in common politically, but nevertheless we did appreciate his courtesy and his hospitality. We also agree with the implication in the Presidency’s priorities that the EU is not seen as relevant by many of its citizens, and that it needs to become more effective and more efficient. The position of my group is clear: we do not want to see the EU fail, but if it continues to pursue the agenda of the past then it most surely will.

Let me say a word to President Barroso. I was particularly surprised by his outburst yesterday here in this Chamber. To suggest that somehow we take great delight in the problems facing the euro is, frankly, absurd. Do you honestly believe that we are pleased to see so many people suffer as a result of your political project? I have merely many times set out the options for the eurozone as I see them: either an effective fiscal union or a reduction in the size of the eurozone. At the moment you are trying to move towards a political union without the fiscal union that is really required, and I think that it is entirely reasonable that we should raise the alarm about what this will mean for national democracy in many Member States.

Whether or not the euro survives, what is important for me is that those countries that had the good sense to stay out of it are not hampered by the decision of 17 to go ahead with more integration, if indeed that is what they choose to do. But of course, the one tool that must always remain the equal property of the 27 countries is the single market. It is the one thing that we all support, and I was therefore delighted see that the Cyprus Presidency has said that one of its ambitions is the deepening of that internal market. You will have our full support in that aim.

The Presidency will also conclude negotiations on the Capital Requirements Directive. Yesterday, as part of his criticisms, President Barroso pointed out – correctly – the UK’s significant bank bailout commitments made under our previous, Socialist, government. I agree with him that we should ensure that banks are sufficiently capitalised to present this from ever happening again. So why, then, is the Commission still trying to water down the commitments the EU made in Basel to implement the Capital Requirements Directive? Mr Barroso, my group, and indeed the UK Government, is in favour of more stringent bank regulation than your Commission. We want to make sure that taxpayers never again have to bail out the banks.

Turning very briefly to the multiannual financial framework, it still continues to baffle me how the Commission can enforce austerity on Member States and simultaneously demand more money from them for the EU budget. It seems that everyone has to cut spending, apart from the European Commission. The idea that throwing money at economic problems and hoping it will make them go away is surely a doctrine that was discredited in the 1970s. If the Presidency can truly deliver a budget that genuinely focuses on quality and added value, and on better spending rather than on more spending, you will indeed have our full support.

  Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Christofias, for me and my group, welcoming you here in your role as the President-in-Office of the Council of the European Union represents a very special moment. We are very pleased that for the first time in the history of the European Union a member of our political family is leading the EU. You are taking over the presidency at a time when the European Union is faced with huge challenges. We need to determine whether the European Union will actually have a future or whether it will turn out to be footnote in history, which I would regard as a historic defeat.

After the meetings which we had with you, with the representatives of your government and with the leaders of the groups and parties in your country, I know that you have made very thorough preparations for the presidency and that you are aware of the scope of the task. However, you have made it clear today that you specifically want to focus the attention of those in power on the living conditions of the people. I can tell you after everything I have heard in recent years that this is the first time that a President-in-Office of the European Union has said that he will do precisely that. I have not heard this sort of tone in official speeches before. I have not heard anyone say that this is all about the people, about the ones who are not responsible for the crisis, but have the heaviest burdens to bear.

It will be difficult to put this into practice. However, I believe that you will have achieved a great deal, and I am certain that you will do this, if you can use your presidency to give encouragement to the people, to support their rights and to help to ensure that the Council and the European institutions are aware of what you are doing.

We are constantly talking about the euro and its stability, about how important the euro is for the functioning of the European Union and for the euro area. However, it is an instrument. It is based on political conditions that have been clearly defined. It can never be the objective of the European Union to accept that people in the EU will go hungry, that health care systems will collapse or that local authorities will stop working in order for the euro to continue functioning. Something has gone wrong here. That is not what we see as the objective of the European Union. I very much support your call for social cohesion and solidarity between the individual Member States, but also between all the very different groups of people. The European Union cannot allow itself to be used as an instrument or a speaker for a particular small section of the population or present itself in that way.

I would like to make one final point to emphasise, of course, that all of the priorities you have mentioned are very important to us and that we will support the points which take us in the direction you have just defined. Please help to ensure that people are no longer afraid. Fear is the worst guide for democracies. I think that many of the decisions made in recent weeks and months, in particular during the elections in Greece and the referendum in Ireland, were characterised by fear. If those in power in the European Union are contributing to the fact that people are afraid to make free decisions, this does not bode well for the future of the European Union. I wish you every success in what you have to do.

(Applause)

  Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, may I welcome Mr Christofias to the Presidency and wish him every success. The Cyprus Presidency has started in the midst of huge political changes in the European Union. Following the decisions adopted by the Council in June, the economic, banking and political unification of Europe will need to be promoted during the Cyprus Presidency.

What you may not know, ladies and gentlemen, is that, although it is a small country, Cyprus is a race of rational, disciplined and courageous people. Having seen its neighbour Israel achieve energy independence by finding natural gas, Cyprus has entered into a bold and rational operational alliance with Israel, without disrupting its relations with the Arab world, with a view to making the island energy independent. This is a shining example for all of us, to see how the energy sector can be changed and used as a vehicle for peace and stability. As I stressed earlier, we should exploit the good relations which the Republic of Cyprus entertains with numerous countries in the third world, especially the Arab world.

Good luck, Mr President-in-Office.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, I should like to begin by saying kalimera, President Christofias. It was a delight to meet you when I came to Nicosia in 2009.

Can I pay tribute to your efforts to solve the Cyprus problem; a problem which is way overdue. The ongoing insult given to you by the Turkish Government of not recognising you as the President of Cyprus is something which should be highlighted in this Chamber. I would call on you and the EU to remove the candidate status of Turkey, because they have shown themselves not able to communicate with the European Community.

You talk about this as being a bastion of democracy. However, you were educated in Russia and you would have seen how the Duma was no more a bastion of democracy than this place is in relation to the Politburo, which is probably likened to the Commission led by Mr Barroso, who uses this place as a veil of democracy for its actions.

You are right to highlight that the problem of your Presidency is the plight of workers. In Athens you will find graffiti that says: let us refuse to live as slaves. Your background and your ideology as a Communist will make this very difficult for you. How are you going to protect the workers or stand up for the workers with the austerity that Angela Merkel and the rest of the European Union is pushing forward?

Surely you would agree with me that EU 2020 lacks 20/20 vision? I have no doubt it will be as successful as the Lisbon Strategy, which was meant to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.

You said in an interview on television last night not to expect a mountain from Cyprus. Well, the EU is the Everest of all …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE) . – (EL) Mr President, Cyprus has taken over the Presidency with determination and humility, ready to respond to the challenges of that institution. Mr President of the Republic of Cyprus, you have laid down the priorities for your Presidency: the multiannual financial framework, the common asylum system, agricultural policy, the single maritime policy, energy and so on. The planned summit between Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Member States of the Union and the Arab League bears witness to the massive interest in the ‘Arab Spring’ countries. Your Presidency will also certainly deal with the question of enlargement, including Turkey, which I am sure you will handle fairly and impartially.

We regret Turkey’s attitude to the Presidency. It does not respect the institutions. The Presidency is a Union institution and for six months it is not the country with which Turkey may have any bilateral differences. Traditionally each Presidency leaves aside its national problems and devotes itself to Union problems and you have stated that you will do precisely that, even if Turkey, with its threats against the exclusive economic zone, wants to divert attention from the Presidency objectives.

Cyprus will need to prove, through its Presidency, that it is a serious and reliable partner. At the same time, however, its success will respond to statements made by Mr Erdogan and Mr Bayis that we barely add up to a State, that we are half a State, that we are barely even a race and that we are taking over the Presidency of a pitiful Europe. Their words, not mine.

Unfortunately, the start of the Presidency coincides with the deadline for the recapitalisation of banks throughout Europe. This will take us into a support mechanism. However, the Cypriot economy was destroyed in 1974 by the Turkish invasion and the hard-working Cypriot people created a new economic miracle. They will do so again in coming years.

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

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI), blue-card question to Ioannis Kasoulides. – Mr President, I wish to ask the gentleman why he thought the attack on the United Kingdom was warranted. Let me remind him that my country has backed up EUR 10 billion in IMF guarantees to his country. Our forces are stationed on Cyprus, at costs of tens of millions of pounds every year, to safeguard Cyprus. If it was not for British forces I think that Turkey would have gone a long way further in 1974.

But has this place moved on? I thought this place was about the future. What about the Austro-Hungarian Empire? What about Italian colonialism? What about French colonialism? What about Portuguese colonialism? What about German expansion? Are you moving on or do you want to be part of the past?

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE), blue-card answer to Nicole Sinclaire. – Because of the presence of British bases in Cyprus, relations between the UK and Cyprus should be, and they are, the best relations. Comments coming from representatives of the British people should leave the things of the past in the past and not be reminiscing about the policy of divide and rule for the division of Cyprus for which they bear part of the responsibility.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, I too should like to take my turn in welcoming the Presidency of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Parliament. May I say that the stand taken by Mr Christofias on the programme that Cyprus intends to implement during its six-month Presidency is a progressive stand which highlights the important problems facing the Union, especially the serious economic crisis, to which it is taking a progressive and democratic approach.

This means, in short, that it does not accept that a policy of strict austerity is the only way out of the economic crisis; it also talks of combatting unemployment, in order to use growth to create a new fabric within the Union, which does indeed bode well for economic recovery and an end to the recession.

Secondly, it demonstrates respect for the Union principles of equality, democracy, solidarity and social cohesion, the very principles that have brought the President of the Republic of Cyprus here today as the President-in-Office of the entire European Union. Thus we are all fighting to establish a family of our own. We are all fighting for more Europe. That is the thrust of the policy expounded by the President of the Republic of Cyprus.

The President quite rightly did not mention the island’s specific problem, the Cyprus problem. However, it is a fact that dozens, if not hundreds, of visits by MEPs to the Republic of Cyprus see the reality today, see the divided capital, Nicosia, the only divided capital in the world. They see the strong presence of the Turkish occupying forces. The 45 000 strong Turkish occupying army there to ‘protect’ in inverted commas, a Turkish-Cypriot community of 100 000 people.

We more than anyone are fighting for the Turkish-Cypriot community, because we believe that it is through that community that we can resolve the Cyprus problem. By contrast, Turkey is not fighting for the Republic of Cyprus; it does not recognise, as we speak, the Presidency of the European Union itself. The only thing that concerns it to gradually colonise the island and change the demographic of the island. There are currently 700 000 colonists in the occupied areas. It would be a paradox and it is a paradox to have members of parliament and/or chairs of political groups, such as Mr Watson, approaching the Cyprus problem as if the Cypriots had caused it.

I shall close with an academic question: will Turkey’s path to accession remain unobstructed during the Cypriot Presidency?

(Applause)

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, Cyprus now has an intelligent and well-balanced programme for its Presidency, and I really wish you well with its implementation. I would like to remind everyone that the EU institutions have promised citizens that the common European asylum system will be in place before the end of this year.

Cyprus now has a huge responsibility, and the entire development of this lies in its hands. I have an enormous amount of faith in the ability of the Cyprus Presidency to succeed in this, but it will require us to step up our cooperation immediately. I am rapporteur for the Dublin II Regulation, and we are very close to an agreement, but I would ask that we continue our intensive cooperation negotiations now so that we can actually implement what we have promised our citizens.

With regard to other important matters where we are close to historic agreements, I would also like to mention the European patent. After almost four decades of negotiations, we are a hair’s breadth away from being able to offer Europe’s innovators and inventors a lower-cost EU patent that can be defended in a single court. There are just a few issues that remain to be resolved, and I believe that this will require imagination, resolve and flexibility from all parties.

If, during its Presidency, Cyprus now succeeds in putting in place cornerstones that are important for Europe, we will in future think of Cyprus as a small, but important, country that was very important for Europe during a critical and important period.

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I should like to say welcome to President Christofias. President Christofias, I will address you as one of the 27, the 27 members of the European Council. When I listened to you and to Mr van Rompuy yesterday, and then when I looked at the day-to-day actions of the Council, I had the impression that we have a case of split personality here at best, and at worst, a case of duplicity.

For instance, when the Council says: ‘we want a budget union’, it then fights tooth and nail against a serious budget with own resources for its own Commission. When the Council says: ‘we want a fiscal union’, I then see the Council every day fighting tooth and nail against every form of tax harmonisation. The dogma of tax competition is still very much there, and at the same time the Council still pays lip service to the fight against tax havens.

Last week I witnessed the Council stubbornly refusing any serious restrictions on venture capital funds being domiciled or investing in tax havens – and that was last week. Probably the fact that a number of Member States are tax havens or harbour tax havens must have something to do with that. The situation is similar when the Council stresses the need for more democracy and democratic accountability. Look at Mr von Rompuy’s paper of last week, saying that we need to bridge the democratic gap in Europe. Yes, good – and you are all full of praise for Parliament. But when I see your actions, every single action tries to circumvent the European Parliament.

When you set up a rescue fund, it is intergovernmental – Parliament has nothing to do with that. When we work on economic governance, you produce a fiscal compact that circumvents the European Parliament. When you want to set up a banking union, it is again done in a way that circumvents the powers of the European Parliament. So my question to you is: which face of the Council are we going to see in the next six months – Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde?

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, President Christofias, our countries joined the EU at the same time, and I am therefore delighted that we have another new Member State presiding over the EU, and, moreover, a country that is in many ways highly specific and geographically different.

We recently had the opportunity to visit Cyprus, and to meet with you and your Finance Minister, Foreign Minister and Interior Minister. We gained a very good impression from this, from their professional preparedness and their enthusiasm for the issue, and I would like to thank you additionally once again for the visit and for all of the care we received.

We certainly do not always agree. You spoke of political union, but we are very sceptical about political union, and we do not believe it is the answer. We believe it is a mistake, and I do not agree either with Mr Barroso or with the majority in this Parliament, who unfortunately still believe that it is the answer and that it would bring some good.

You also spoke about the principle of solidarity. Here we must take care that this principle is not perverted into a reshaping of the EU into a transfer Union, a redistributive Union, which would only make the one dependent on the other, thereby also exacerbating the tension between nations. I think this must also become apparent in preparing the multiannual financial framework, which is another task that you face.

On the other hand, although you are, of course, well to the left politically, you are also a realist and a pragmatist, which was clear, for example, from your views on tax competition or on the problems of the financial sector. You can count on our support here - we do not need an ideological solution and we do not need any tax on international financial transactions. There is no need to eliminate tax competition in the EU - we need to preserve it so that the European economy remains functional. I would therefore like to wish you much success, and I hope that your Presidency will be crowned with success.

  Takis Hatzigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, I too should like to start by welcoming the President of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Parliament.

Cyprus is a small EU Member State, several dozen times smaller than almost any other EU Member State, with a population equivalent to one-quarter of the population of Berlin and one-tenth – if I am not mistaken – of the population of London. At the same time, it is a state of which one-third of its territory is occupied by a country seeking accession to the European Union.

However, only if such a state is unanimously supported by the other 26 Member States and by every Member of the House can we prove that the Union sees itself as a league of neighbours of equality- and solidarity-based states and nations. Cyprus, a small country under semi-occupation, needs the defence of the European Parliament’s shield.

We call on the European Union to respond in a clear and official manner to Turkey, which never tires of repeating that it will have nothing to do with the Cypriot Presidency. The only response is that the Commission and the Council should have nothing to do with Turkey until such time as it recognises the Presidency of the Union.

We are currently in the grip of a crisis which is literally bleeding households dry. The so-called markets are operating with impunity and the complete lack of supervision in the financial sector is causing sovereign debt to rise and pushing the workers into poverty and humiliation.

We call on the European Parliament and the Union to support the priorities of the Cypriot Presidency and its social message of eliminating poverty, especially child poverty, promoting peace in the Mediterranean and completing the common asylum policy.

(Applause)

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to wish the incoming Cypriot Presidency all the very best; the circumstances are not easy, neither from a financial nor from a political point of view. I can guarantee it will have the full support of me and my party in staving off any Turkish pressure, as has been the case in the recent past.

Europe – perhaps out of wretched self-interest – is pretending not to see what is still happening in Cyprus. I visited you several months ago and was able to see first hand the historical, cultural and religious destruction wrought by the Turkish invaders in the north of the island. Cyprus has requested financial support to overcome this crisis.

Meanwhile, between 2007 and 2013 the EU gave some EUR 5 billion to Turkey, a country with strong economic growth to which the European Investment Bank last year also granted loans in excess of EUR 2 billion. Perhaps Europe – the European Union – should first think about its own Member States, rather than help those that actually threaten them.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Mr President, kalimera to President Christofias and may I congratulate him and his team on an excellent preparation for Cyprus’s first presidency.

President Christofias, in your history it is certainly another milestone. One of the smallest and one of the youngest EU Member States is taking up such a big challenge in these extremely difficult economic times in the European Union. Two parts of your programme are of the utmost importance: the focus on citizens and the multiannual financial framework. In these difficult and really tight times we need to put EU citizens first in order to have a strong Union able to compete in the world.

Regarding the Turkish threats to your Presidency, the EU has to stay united and speak with one voice on the issue. We have to make it very clear that all UN resolutions have to be fulfilled and EU laws and values have to be respected. It should be condemned by all of us that a candidate country is knocking on Europe’s doors with weapons. Please let us all work together and support our Presidency.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, the next six months are of paramount importance to the future of Europe. You have a difficult task and a great responsibility. At the same time, you may end up with an extremely positive assessment at the end of 2012.

In terms of legislation, the most important projects are the MFF and horizontal European policies. You have not inherited a wealthy legacy from the Danish Presidency. There is no idea about the total size of the budget. The European Council has discussed growth and jobs, but has not said anything definite about the budget, even though this is the main factor affecting exactly what we want: economic growth and jobs. On the other hand, the Danish Presidency was concerned about the important aspects of the horizontal policies which come under the codecision procedure. The Cypriot Presidency has a duty to return to the basic treaty and initiate the discussions with Parliament if we are to have any hope of a budget this year.

It is the Cypriot Presidency’s task to mediate in the dispute between Parliament and the Council over the Schengen regulation. The existing situation must not be tolerated. Member States which obviously have weak points in their external borders are refusing to follow a coordinated approach on evaluating Schengen, while also blocking access to the Schengen area for other Member States which have invested in and have an extremely high level of security at their external borders. You have the difficult task of resolving both disputes.

I do not understand why Mr Swoboda is mentioning Hungary when Romania is being discussed. He is the leader of a democratic group in Parliament and should be very well aware of the significance of democratic values and how they need to be defended. In Romania and in Hungary, and in Austria.

Mr President, there is no political struggle going on in Romania. What has happened in recent weeks and will continue to happen is an attack on democracy. Non-compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional Court and the High Court of Cassation and Justice, changing the heads of institutions while flouting the regulations or in order to influence the justice system, and the attack on judges are actions which blatantly run counter to democracy. Please analyse the situation very clearly and take action in defence of European Union values.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you have a very tough semester ahead of you, Mr Christofias, but one which has a clear priority: growth. Financial stability is helpful and important, but by itself it is not an adequate answer for millions of European citizens who live in precarious conditions and might well see their situation worsen.

Growth, meanwhile, can only be achieved through robust, targeted investment in sectors that can generate work and jobs while also stimulating development. As such, while it will be important to give the Union a multiannual financial framework, it will also be especially important to find additional resources for it.

Forget your concerns over the Tobin tax or Eurobonds, Mr Christofias; in order to achieve the things you have suggested are your priorities for the semester, we need resources that are currently not there. We have all got to work together to find them. If we really want to make the changes you suggested to energy and transport networks, then the funding currently available will help get the process started but they are not enough to achieve it in the timescale the EU has set. Alongside growth, therefore, we also need to develop ideas on resources to boost the EU’s ordinary budget.

I should like to say one more thing: do not worry or think about what can objectively be achieved in six months. Of course, any final judgment will be based on what you have managed to get done, but it is also important – and is an act of generosity and political foresight – to get the ball rolling on processes that can be finished later on, thereby helping those that come after you. We need to really press on with institutional and political integration. I implore you to tackle this issue with the courage and daring that can sometimes come more easily to a small country than to a big one.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, President Christofias, these are difficult times to be taking over the Presidency. Our European community is in a state of flux. Our economic cooperation has been called into question, and nationalism and protectionism are growing strong. President Christofias, you have a lot of important matters to deal with by Christmas, in particular in the area of finance. The EU’s citizens must regain their trust in the banks and the financial sector in general, but we need a balanced view, Mr President. Your one-sided condemnation of the market economy is not something I share. Instead, you ought to direct your bulls of excommunication at irresponsible politicians around Europe – there may perhaps even be some here.

The key danger in the Europe that is currently in the process of being formed is that we will have an A team and a B team: those who have the common currency and those who do not have the euro. Europe was fragmented for decades by an iron curtain.

Mr President, let us not now create a divided Europe again. We know what this can lead to, as Mr Barroso reminded us yesterday. History has hopefully taught us something. President Christofias, in closing I would like to say that I think it is unfortunate that half of Cyprus is not represented here today. The EU wants to see a united Cyprus, and in this regard, Mr President, you have a great deal of responsibility.

  François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as a Corsican MEP I very much welcome your Presidency, which will have both an island and a Mediterranean dimension.

At this time of crisis, it is important that the expectations of that crucial area for Europe’s future be heard. The crisis has hit the European side of the Mediterranean hard and all of us, in Cyprus, in Greece, in Italy, in Spain and in southern France, are linked by a community of destiny. We are also linked by a duty: to meet the expectations of all of the citizens of the countries surrounding the European Union who in spring 2011 expressed their hope for a better life and their desire for genuine democracy and fruitful relations with Europe through ties that, for as long as we can remember, have bound together all of the people of the Mediterranean.

Yesterday the European Parliament adopted by a majority of more than 90% a report that I presented, recommending the establishment of macro-regional strategies in the Mediterranean. This new form of European territorial cooperation has been proven in the Baltic region to improve the effectiveness of the EU’s various development policies. It is therefore important to provide a structure for it in the Mediterranean, too, from the start of the new 2014-2020 programming, so that it can be effective and operational.

It is time to send the suffering Mediterranean region a positive sign and to take responsibility for its future with pro-active initiatives. Along with more than 50 other MEPs who voted for the report yesterday, I hope that Cyprus takes advantage of its six-month Presidency to consolidate the first initiatives to establish the future macro-regional strategies in the Mediterranean.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, the Presidency of the European Union is passing to Cyprus at a time when the social economic situation in Europe is quite difficult.

The six months during which the Cyprus Government, in addition to its national duties, will coordinate the operation of several European institutions will therefore certainly be difficult for the Cypriot administration. The ambitious programme of the Cyprus Presidency, which President Christofias presented to us today, indicates that Cyprus has prepared for its new obligations towards the European Union in a responsible manner, and that it is determined to play its part in the consolidation of economic and social life in the EU.

However, the unique location of the country in a dynamically changing region of the Middle East and the Mediterranean could also prove to be a bonus for forthcoming European policy. I firmly believe that – with a good knowledge of the local situation and the appropriate sensitivity in communications with the surrounding countries – Cyprus, as the representative of the European Union, will contribute significantly to strengthening the position of Cyprus and of the whole EU in this area.

I wish you, President Christofias, every success in the next six months.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I welcome the Cypriot Presidency of the Council, particularly in light of the specific geographical and historical significance of the island.

This deserves its turn at being emphasised here. Cyprus is the only Member State of the European Union whose territory is partially militarily occupied by a candidate State, namely Turkey. Turkey refuses even to recognise the Republic of Cyprus and to honour the obligations it is required to fulfil within the framework of the customs union with the EU.

Ships and aircraft from Cyprus are still turned away at Turkish ports and airports, in spite of the provisions of the Ankara Protocol. This is a major scandal, not only on Turkey’s part, but also on the part of the European Union itself, which has always led its citizens to believe that it would shelve the negotiations on Turkey’s accession if it became apparent that Turkey was manifestly failing to live up to its obligations.

Really, what more has to happen before action is taken? The Turkish Prime Minister has already let it be known that he will not recognise the Cypriot Presidency of the EU, and that he will himself put the accession negotiations on ice. If the EU does not now take the initiative itself to put a stop to Turkey’s impudence, all that will do is prove that the EU, in its present form, no longer has any credibility at all, nor does it earn any respect among its citizens.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to draw the attention of the President-in-Office to the fact that, although Cyprus acceded to the European Union at the same time as Poland, the term ‘new Member State’ is never used with regard to Cyprus. New Member States seem to be the ones from behind the Berlin Wall. You are part of the same group, but you are never treated as being new, and this offers an opportunity to create a kind of bridge between old members and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe. This is a very important political issue and we are looking to you for some degree of sensitivity in dealing with it.

With regard to your statements concerning the issue of European cohesion, I would like, as the author of a report on one of the funds, for these declarations to be translated into negotiation concerning the multiannual financial framework. We are counting on the Cypriot Presidency preventing Member States from dividing into those who are friends of cohesion and those who are friends of better spending. Those who are friends of cohesion are at the same time friends of better spending. There is no contradiction here; this is just an artificial division that is best avoided. In fact we should all be friends of better spending. This means, inter alia, greater interdependence and mutual support, complementarity of European policies to avoid duplication, not creating additional administration and not repeating certain ideas. This is better spending. In this context I am counting on the Cypriot Presidency to be a friend to cohesion and, by so doing, be a friend of better spending.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, every Council Presidency faces one big challenge. Your Presidency, during this critical half of 2012, is crucial, mainly due to the important decisions which the Union needs to adopt in order to get out of the crisis.

I wish to raise four points. Firstly, the economic crisis itself. You have repeatedly stressed the need for us to prove to the citizens of Europe that we can and want to get out of the crisis and to restore the hopes of thousands of young people who see a bleak future for themselves inside the Union. Growth and action to combat unemployment and create jobs are the points we all need to focus on and I am certain that you will do so with an acute sense of responsibility.

Secondly, relations with our neighbours. Your geostrategic position and close relations with the Arab world give you an important role, Mr President. With the unstable situation in Europe’s southern neighbourhood, the bloodshed in Syria and the tensions in the Middle East, you will need to act as an honest broker, a channel for communication and a better understanding of the needs of those countries.

Thirdly, the new budgetary framework. No one in Europe today should disregard the need to bring negotiations on the new budgetary framework, that will determine the future of the European Union, to a successful conclusion.

Fourthly, Schengen. You face a complication created in Schengen by the Danish Presidency and we all need to work to safeguard one of the greatest achievements and acquis in our history. Your role of mediator on the question of ‘where we are going’ will be crucial.

Finally, before wishing you every success, I too wish to take my turn in underlining the unacceptable stand taken by a candidate country, namely Turkey, towards the Cypriot Presidency in its statements and circulars about freezing relations between Turkey and this Presidency. Turkey needs to accept the reality of Europe and understand that, whether it likes it or not, it cannot bypass the Cypriot Presidency if it honestly wants to join the European family. The ball is in its court.

Again, I wish you every success.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, the Cyprus Presidency will endeavour to get the framework for the EU budget for 2013-2020 adopted during the next six months, and I wish the Cyprus Presidency the best of luck with that task. You will need it. It will be no easy task. There is a group of countries that wants a smaller budget, there is a group of countries that wants more money, and each country has a right of veto, so there will indeed be a need for diplomatic abilities on the part of whoever is sitting at the head of the table.

The framework for the EU’s agricultural policy and the framework for aid for poor regions are to be established. Together these make up 80 % of the budget. The Commission has presented a reasonable proposal, which both restrains expenditure and enables us to focus in a more proactive way on joint research, investment in transport and energy networks and in education. In short, it is a budget that supports the common strategy for economic growth, improved competitiveness and reduced dependency on fossil fuels.

It is without doubt traditional for negotiations on the EU’s financial framework to end in a dog fight or an oriental bazaar with everyone fighting against everyone else, as everyone wants to come out the winner. But why does it have to be like that? Now, however, we need to stand together. Parliament, with its new powers, needs to endeavour to ensure that we have a dignified and open process and a good result for everyone, and I would like to thank the Cyprus Presidency for indicating that it will involve Parliament in accordance with the rules.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, Mr President of unified Cyprus, your small country will need to manage a particularly demanding Presidency of the European Union, given the current economic recession and the serious priorities to which you referred in your speech.

Growth and employment must be basic priorities in a strong, more competitive Europe.

At the same time, geopolitical developments are taking place in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East in general, on which there is a great deal of strain, that may change the situation in that area and in the European Union: developments in Iran and Syria, escalating conflicts and its relations with Turkey may spill over into the Mediterranean.

At the same time, the Cypriot Presidency will need to address the insulting and undermining attitude of Turkey, which I roundly condemn and call on the European Union to do likewise. I also disapprove of the fact that part of Cyprus, an EU Member State, is occupied by a third state, by Turkish troops.

The Republic of Cyprus is no stranger to adversity and we all wish it every success.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - Mr President, the values of personal freedom – open societies and open markets – are the grounds for prosperity but also for the stability and growth we need. I think that wherever this has been neglected we have seen failures or disasters. This must be the common point of departure for the work of the Presidency of Cyprus.

I think it is important to state that, where we have had a market economy, we have seen an increase in prosperity all over the world and in Europe. You can certainly say one thing about the crisis economies in Europe: increased spending and deficits have not helped. If that had been the solution, we would have no problems. That is one thing. The other is that they are certainly not suffering from too much market economy – it is bureaucracy, regulations, monopolies and licences that are hindering growth. I think it is one of our most important tasks and duties to ensure that we can now achieve a fully-organised internal market opening up to entrepreneurship, investments and new jobs. That is the political course that can make Europe stronger again, and that must be the task for your Presidency.

This means that we need to push forward the reform of the internal market, which we have not achieved as we should have done. The European Union is the world’s biggest economy but still not the world’s biggest market. We need to proceed with the clarity and stability of banks, and with enlargement. That is the main task for this Presidency. I look forward to seeing the results.

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

  Pervenche Berès (S&D), blue-card question. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Hökmark, have you read the Treaty on European Union? It does not talk about a market economy, but about a social market economy. Of all the Union’s values, you only mentioned values and democracy. However, the latter must be enshrined in its social dimension, in social protection, in social dialogue and in collective bargaining, which you clearly seem to be completely ignoring.

When you talk about monopolies, are you also thinking about the private monopolies that can bring countries to their knees, such as Goldman Sachs in Greece?

When you talk about the internal market, do you have an overall vision of the internal market, a vision of the internal market that we need, that is to say, an internal market that also comprises fiscal and social harmonisation?

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for giving me the opportunity to develop my message. First of all, monopolies of any kind are bad and harmful to the economy – I hope you agree with me on that – all monopolies, public monopolies as well as private monopolies. One of the main aims of a good and well functioning market economy is to get rid of that and open up opportunities for everyone, to offer new alternatives.

My second important point is that the market economy is social, because everywhere you get investments, new growth, new jobs, you will see social security. That is exactly what Ludwig Erhard once said and that is the way we should proceed.

  Göran Färm (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, President Christofias, welcome to the European Parliament. We are very much looking forward to the Cyprus Presidency. As leader of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament in the Committee on Budgets, I am, like Ms Jensen, primarily interested in the Presidency’s plans for the negotiations on the EU’s forthcoming long-term budget, the multiannual financial framework.

It is becoming increasingly evident that certain strong net contributors have formed a pact in order to reduce the EU budget in the future. Their ideas on economic policy appear to be based on austerity as the only way out of the crisis. They believe that wealthier Member States should not support poorer countries with problems via the EU budget, as it is believed that they are mismanaging their economies.

On the other hand, there are also a number of Member States with a perspective that is closer to my own. They realise that the EU budget cannot be compared with national budgets that are dominated by public consumption, such as social transfers and the salaries of public sector workers, etc.

The EU budget is a budget for solidarity and investments, a necessary strategic part of a common European road to [...] a strategically crucial role for linking Europe together and completing the single market in areas such as research, innovation and infrastructure.

My question to you, Mr President, is therefore: what is your strategy for getting these Member States, with such different perspectives, to agree on a proactive approach to the EU for the future and to thereby create a basis for an agreement with the European Parliament?

IN THE CHAIR: OTHMAR KARAS
Vice-President

  Chris Davies (ALDE). - Mr President, I would like to raise just one specific point with the President of the Council. Essential to proposals to reform the common fisheries policy is the establishment of long-term management plans, giving every fishery clear objectives for the recovery of fish stocks.

Three of these have already been approved by Parliament but they are frozen by the Council. The Council has refused to take them further. The Council and Parliament disagree over the interpretation of the Treaty, and there are fair arguments on both sides. These can only be resolved through negotiations, but negotiations are not taking place and the current impasse puts at risk all that we are trying to achieve through the reform of the common fisheries policy.

I know that our President, Martin Schulz, has already raised this. I ask you now, Mr President of the Council, to take this opportunity to give us an undertaking to lift the freeze and to start the negotiations between the Council and Parliament. I do not ask the Cyprus Presidency to find a solution to the problem. I just ask you to start the negotiations which can achieve that solution.

  Mario Mauro (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, Mr Christofias, ladies and gentlemen, the press in my country has asked me: ‘Will you support Cyprus, even though the president is a Communist?’ I replied that we will support Cyprus precisely because the president is a Communist, who has been democratically elected by his people, since democracy is the core value of a Europe that is proud of its democratically elected presidents.

You took a big step, Mr Christofias, in asking the European Union not to export its model of democracy. I totally agree with you. We do not intend to export democracy, rather we want to promote democracy and I think we are doing that by reminding Turkey that the military occupation of northern Cyprus is an injustice and that it must be up to the Cypriot people to find the best way forward for themselves.

We promote democracy when we remind those now taking power in the southern Mediterranean – such as in Egypt – that it would be an injustice to enforce Sharia law on 10 million Coptic Christians, and that it would be an injustice to return to female genital mutilation with a law that has no grounding in reality.

Mr Christofias, these are the reasons why I think you are facing six months of serious and strange contradictions; as a Communist you will want to help workers, and to do so you will find yourself having to support banks, which have no doubt also had a negative impact in some phases of our crisis. I think that by the end of these six months, we will all be a little more Cypriot and you might be a little less Communist.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I want to begin by thanking you because you have made a public commitment to support Romania and Bulgaria in their attempt to join the Schengen area.

Secondly, Europe is going through an extremely tough period and we need more Europe. What we really need is solidarity, a financial transaction tax, Eurobonds and a multiannual financial framework advocating economic growth, cutting youth unemployment and creating jobs. However, during this difficult time for Europe, we also need more democracy and greater attention to be focused on respecting European values and respecting democracy in Europe.

There has been an air of general hysteria in Parliament for about two days to do with democracy in Romania. You have also seen the interventions during today’s plenary. However, I have been present when the discussion was about Berlusconi, about press freedom in Italy and in Hungary, and about the deviations from democracy committed by Orbán, Borissov and so on. The same colleagues from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) supported then the measures taken by Berlusconi, Borissov and Orbán. I say that it is also your duty and you also have the tools you need to check and monitor that democracy is being respected in Europe. I firmly believe that you will discover very important measures that have been taken by the Ponta government, including on press freedom. As of two weeks ago, the press has stopped posing a threat to national security in Romania, which is extremely important for Romania and Europe.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Mr President, let me wish the President-in-Office, Mr Cristofias, insight in fulfilling the priorities of the Cyprus Presidency, which include enhancing relations with the neighbours of the European Union. I hope that the close ties between Cyprus and Russia will not become an obstacle to addressing the deterioration of human rights and the rule of law just across the border from the European Union.

As a rapporteur on the proposal for a recommendation to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case, I would like to call on the Cyprus Presidency to take our recommendation aboard and engage in combating corruption and impunity in Russia. Good neighbourly relations should not be based on discreet and submissive silence when witnessing such serious breaches of domestic and international law.

You have the opportunity of engaging in frank and constructive dialogue with the Kremlin and emphasise the paramount importance of human rights and the rule of law in relations with the European Union.

  András Gyürk (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Prime Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the speeches made in the past few minutes indicate that the most difficult debates of the Cyprus Presidency will be about the long-term budget for the period 2014–2020. We can expect tough debates, because we are still far from an agreement. We need only think of the budgetary plans for cohesion policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me be perfectly clear. A significant reduction of Cohesion Fund support is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because cohesion policy is one of the most important pillars of European cooperation. And the criteria based on which it was created are now more valid than ever before. We must not allow developmental disparities to undermine European cooperation. We must not support a solution where short-term considerations of accountancy overrule long-term solidarity. We must not support it because today, when the EU is going through one of the most serious crises of its history, it is vital to maintain solidarity between Member States.

Ladies and gentlemen, the current plans related to Cohesion Fund resources still contain serious imbalances, and it is therefore unacceptable that it is countries such as Hungary – which will probably not reach 75% of the EU development level even by the end of the next cycle – whose support is being cut significantly. At the same time there are other considerations that speak against the withdrawal of Cohesion Fund support. As mentioned countless times in this House, crisis management requires tools that do not cause an increase in debt but contribute to job creation. Cohesion policy meets both of these criteria. Managing to protect it would therefore represent the clear success of the Cyprus Presidency. I therefore ask the Prime Minister, but also the Commission and my fellow Members, to stand up for cohesion policy and stand up for the principle of solidarity.

  Ismail Ertug (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to congratulate you on taking over the presidency and wish you every success in the job you have to do in these difficult times.

You will need to be fully committed, Mr Christofias, when it comes to stimulating growth and creating jobs in the European Union. We are very interested in the specific solutions that you propose for combating youth unemployment You will have the support of Parliament if you take on this problem.

The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework naturally have a high priority. You have rightly recognised, and I congratulate you on this, that the financing of the Trans-European Networks will bring significant added value to Europe. I would like to call on you to make a strong commitment to push through in the Council the approach to financing called for by the Commission. Your country will benefit from this, Mr Christofias. For example, the port of Limassol is part of the core transport network, as is Larnaka airport and the road project linking Limassol and Nicosia, which could receive European funding.

When we talk about Cyprus, we are, of course, also referring to an unresolved problem which has already been mentioned several times today. Mr Christofias, what sort of scenario should the European Union expect if there is no solution for Cyprus, which after 38 years of unsuccessful negotiations seems more likely than ever?

  Wim van de Camp (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, as a Dutch Christian Democrat, I would like to wish the President of Cyprus a great deal of success in this difficult task. You come from a small country. I, too, come from a small country, and it is always a major challenge to provide leadership between the big beasts of the European Union, Chancellor Merkel, and Presidents Hollande and Schulz.

I very much agree with President Barroso that you should focus on the most important issues. Your period in office is very short and an extraordinary large number of things need to be done. I also note the absence of the word subsidiarity in Parliament today. There are many things that should be done in the Member States themselves, while the European Union should restrict itself to the main issues. Obviously, there is the management of the crisis, and we have discussed that. There is the deepening of the internal market, and we have discussed that. There is the multiannual financial framework, and we have discussed that. However, as you said in your introductory remarks, the cuts also affect Europe’s ordinary citizens, and that means this House has a major responsibility to act carefully in respect of major increases in the budget.

My fellow Members from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe said it already, but you hope to bring a positive conclusion to the asylum policy over the next six months.

Mr President, I also ask for consideration for Parliament’s position. We have, of course, had a couple of serious clashes with the Council in relation to Schengen and the European patent, and I hope that you, as President-in-Office of the Council, will respect and even extend the position of the European Parliament.

Mr President, much has already been said this morning about Turkey. The situation is complex, including in connection with the relationship between Cyprus and Turkey. In this dossier, too, I wish you all the best, courage and, to channel Socrates, leave the Union better than you found it.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Christofias on the clear and ambitious agenda and bold statement regarding the need for growth, and solidarity with the poorest citizens of our Union. We can assure you that the European Socialists will back all your efforts to achieve these goals. I also thank you for your support for membership of the Schengen area for Bulgaria and Romania, something which is very important to us.

I see a certain symbolism in the Cyprus Presidency. At the centre of EU policy will be a country which in geographical terms is possibly the furthest away, at the periphery of the European Union. A second issue is that one of the smallest Member States will lead the Union of 500 million. I think this shows the unique nature of our Union, and it should be used in the next six months to show our citizens what we achieved with one of the last enlargements of the European Union.

I think there is another issue. Your proximity to the southern Mediterranean will once again underline the need for support for the countries in that region – support for the development of their democracies, their economies and their social development, which is key to the success of our approach towards them.

There is one more issue. A divided country should unite the EU Member States behind the multiannual budget, which has to pave the way to the future: no small ambition. Finally, Mr Christofias, let us do our best to achieve a successful enlargement in the next multiannual framework, and I hope constructive negotiations will be held on the instrument for pre-accession.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I would also like to welcome President Christofias and thank him for his presentation. The Cyprus Presidency presented its fourth priority, entitled Europe in the world, closer to its neighbours. It will thus focus on the countries of the southern partnership and strive to strengthen relations with partners in the Mediterranean area. This focus logically follows the geographic location of Cyprus.

However, I would like to call on the Cyprus Presidency also to build on the results of the Danish Presidency in the EU enlargement process and to ensure continuity in this area. It is important that the countries of the Western Balkans make smooth progress in the further stages of the accession process.

In this regard, Cyprus should also focus on issues related to the reform processes, in particular the fight against corruption and organised crime. The Western Balkan countries still have many shortcomings in these areas, and their elimination would also help to ensure a better Europe, which is another of the priorities of the Cyprus Presidency.

I would just like to mention, because we do not always realise it, that the reform processes in the Western Balkans have a direct impact on the security of the European Union.

It is worth noting that the opening of accession negotiations with Montenegro, the granting of candidate status to Serbia, Commissioner Füle’s negotiations in Brussels with the political leaders of Bosnia-Herzegovina and, not least, the rapid progress made by Iceland in the accession negotiations are all good foundations on which to continue building and moving forward in the enlargement process. It will therefore certainly be worthwhile for the Cyprus Presidency to invest in this process, because its suspension could have negative, irreversible consequences.

To conclude, I would also like to wish the Cyprus Presidency every success in achieving its ambitious plans.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Cyprus has known numerous conquerors during the course of its long history. However, it withstood subjugation and acquired independence in 1960. In 2004, it became a member of the biggest European family on its own merits and, in 2008, it joined the euro area. Today, Cyprus has the Presidency of the Council. Although small in size and divided by the Turkish invaders, Cyprus is ready and prepared for anything that may happen on the European stage. It is ready to address numerous adversities, the economic crisis, the debt crisis and the crisis in values. We have no doubt that Cyprus will succeed in doing so, because it has fighting-fit human resources, because it works hard and because it has a vision of a Europe of nations and values, a Europe of growth, employment and solidarity.

Cyprus is more than ready to promote the European agenda unpretentiously, decisively and honestly. We also expect more solidarity from the European Union in Cyprus. We expect it to recognise the geostrategic role of Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean. We expect it to exert greater pressure on occupying Turkey to end the occupation and its appropriation of property and illegal colonisation. If Turkey does not do so, then its accession prospects should end. We Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are entitled to live in a unified homeland.

  Eleni Theocharous (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, I am very proud that my country has taken over the Presidency of the European Council. My congratulations to the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Demetris Christofias, on his inspired speech, which clearly set out the objectives of the Cypriot Presidency, from the most grandiose – that of the multiannual financial framework – to the most human – that of food aid for the hungry.

Cyprus may be divided, but it is not half a state, as Mr Bayis would have us believe; even though it is divided, the barbed wire on the island was put up by the colonising force, Great Britain, which, unfortunately, maintains a presence on our island in the form of the anachronistic British military bases. Most of the hardships which Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are currently suffering are the responsibility of the Turkish occupying army, which has followed up its colonisation by keeping the island divided.

May I express my gratitude to Mr Schulz for raising the matter of the provocative Turkish stand and of the insults and abuse directed at the Republic of Cyprus from Ankara in a decisive, consistent and fair manner, for reminding Turkey of its responsibilities, not only in terms of its attitude towards the Cypriot Presidency, but also towards Cyprus as a whole, towards the Republic of Cyprus, over the years.

That is why I too would remind the European Parliament of its responsibilities; we too must adopt a decision to immediately suspend accession talks with Turkey if it fails to comply.

(Applause)

  Alejandro Cercas (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I wish you great success in your Presidency and in your aims to work for a more integrated and fairer Europe. I agree with the points of view you expressed in your speech because we do indeed need a healthier economy, but also a healthy society. There will be no healthy economies if we have societies that are sick; sick due to injustice, lack of social integration and lack of solidarity. In this sense, therefore, we are facing an historic moment in Europe, in that this Presidency of a small country could be a great Presidency, which is what I wish for you, Mr Christofias.

I would like to remind you that you have some very important matters on the table: emigration, the transfer of workers from some countries to others, the Posted Workers Directive, transfers of staff within groups, the Temporary and Agency Workers Directive and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. There are thousands of workers in Europe who cannot be left to deal alone with globalisation and structural change. These issues are with the Council and I hope that you will launch them with all the energy and commitment that you have expressed to us today.

Thank you very much and I wish you every success.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, for me Cyprus is the embodiment of a historic and cultural miracle. Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Phoenicians, Turks and British have dominated the island, yet Cypriots have survived and retained not only their identity but also openness, friendliness and creativity.

At the start of this historic Presidency it is good to remember President Barroso’s words: we can only succeed together; not blaming each other but concnetrating on our common tasks.

One of the first tasks of the Cyprus Presidency should be rebuilding the trust between the European Parliament and the Council. Just recently Parliament has been excluded from the decision-making on Schengen. Last week the Council sought to unilaterally change vital aspects of the European patents system. How can we credibly speak about the need for ‘more Europe’ if one of the institutions seeks to rock the institutional balance?

Your second task is to complete the European single market. It will become 20 years old soon; old enough not to need any more custodians and limitations by nation-state godfathers and godmothers.

I call on the Cyprus Presidency not just to continue with the deepening of the single market but to come forward with a concrete programme for completing the single market with a binding calendar to remove all the remaining obstacles.

We must also not only promote the digital single market but use it as a key to unlock Europe’s growth and employment potential.

Lastly I would remind us all that it is an abnormal situation to have troops of a candidate country on the territory of a Presidency country. Our common task and common responsibility must be to end this situation.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I would like to join my other colleagues in welcoming you to the European Parliament. I wish your country a pleasant presidency, and I am using this opportunity since I believe that open discussion is a good path to good relations.

I would like to ask you, Mr President—since a large part of your programme focuses on combating the crisis and the effects of the crisis—how does your country view the two important instruments in the fight against the economic and financial crisis, which are in particular the abolition of tax-advantaged countries, and tax consolidation?

I ask this question also because your country is expecting financial assistance from the EMS, and our Member States will have to give their consent. Since I come from a country where the average wage of the population is less than EUR 800, I will have to explain to our citizens why it is important for us to support such assistance, and whether your country will be willing to inform us about the Slovak entrepreneurs who use the enterprise system in Cyprus.

  Reimer Böge (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, President Christofias, I wish the Cyprus Presidency a successful term in the interests of the European Union and of Cyprus itself. Smaller countries are often more honest brokers in this European business than large ones and are also more favourably disposed towards Parliament. In this regard, I would like to add that the first talks with Mr Mavroyiannis and his staff in relation to the multiannual financial framework were very promising. I expressly welcome the document issued by the Cyprus Presidency on Monday, which refers precisely to this close cooperation with Parliament in the development of a financial framework – also with strict respect for Parliament’s privileges as granted in the Treaty of Lisbon. We very much welcome this.

I would also like to add that the report by the special committee still constitutes the basis for us in this debate. We need appropriate funding in conjunction with better use of the funding and efficiency as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. We need own resources that are worthy of the name so that we can at last meet the requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon in this regard. We insist on the unity of the budget, and we are prepared to enter into truly intensive negotiations before we obtain a proposal for a multiannual financial framework, as we want a result that we can agree on; we do not want something put on the table that we might have to say ‘no’ to at the end of the year. For that reason, I am counting on close cooperation based on trust.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Christofias, I wish you the greatest success for the Cypriot Presidency; we all need you to have it. I am rapporteur for the revision of the Maternity Leave Directive, which the European Parliament adopted in October 2010. To date, despite the flexibility demonstrated by Parliament, the Council has not responded to our proposals or expressed interest in even opening an informal dialogue so as to reach a balanced solution that benefits European families.

The crisis has been serving as an excuse for those who consider maternity an issue of lesser importance and do not want to reach decisions. There is money for the banks, but there is no money for people. However, the demographic crisis is as serious as the financial crisis. Europe has an old population, which jeopardises social security systems and also economic growth itself. We hope the Cypriot Presidency will be able to break the deadlock on this issue and lead the Council to respond to Parliament.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, a former colleague, who has now passed away, from your own political group – the MEP Miguel Portas – and I, as the budgetary spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) did not agree on many things, but on one thing we did agree: that the Structural Funds and the European Social Fund are the driving force behind growth in Europe.

The Council now agrees and has released EUR 55 billion from the Structural Funds that can be reallocated and has included these funds in what is called the ‘growth package’. However, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, there are no Structural Funds and there is not going to be a growth fund without sufficient payment appropriations, and currently there are not enough payment appropriations in the EU budget in order to move forward with this reallocation of resources from the Structural Funds. This is because, in November 2011, we failed in the budgetary conciliation process between the Council and Parliament in this area.

For the 2013 budget, things are even worse, given that the Commission is asking for a 6.8% increase and you are offering 2.9%.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we think that small is beautiful, but we would like to know how you hope, under your Presidency, to reconcile two subjects that are so disparate as the request from the Commission and Parliament and the resistance of the Member States to increasing payment appropriations.

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

  Paul Rübig (PPE), blue-card question. – (DE) I would like to thank Mr Garriga Polledo, because the question of what happens with the EU budget from now on is of crucial importance to us. Mr Garriga Polledo, with regard to the budget, which, as we know, increases in the Member States every year and in a few it is reduced, do you believe that the average increase could actually be a target for the European Union? What is your opinion on that?

  Salvador Garriga Polledo, blue-card question. – (ES) Mr Rübig, you know as well as I do that the position of the Council regarding the 2013 budget and that of Parliament are currently very different.

Like me, you know that, without sufficient payment appropriations, it is going to be impossible even to fulfil the commitments that the Council adopted as part of the growth package. We therefore feel that the Cyprus Presidency has a fundamental role to play, not only with regard to the financial perspectives, as Mr Böge said, but also in terms of the 2013 budget. Unless that budget is released, there will be no growth package.

That is why the Presidency has such a great responsibility.

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, we now come to the catch-the-eye procedure. I have to tell you that there are currently more than ten people who have asked for the floor. Unfortunately, I am not able to accommodate all of these due to time constraints, because we still have one more agenda item to get through before the vote. I would ask for your understanding on this.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, Mr President of the Republic of Cyprus, the assumption of the European Council is historically, politically and symbolically a crowning moment for the Republic of Cyprus.

It will be a real challenge for the Presidency to exercise what are bound to be demanding duties over the course of this semester, given the deep recession and widespread crisis. Europe needs to unite on a basis of solidarity in order to set its pace, touch base with its values and restore confidence among European citizens.

The Cyprus Presidency will need to make a decisive contribution towards the attainment of this ambitious objective, without being distracted by the usual, unacceptable challenges to the European institutional order and fundamental European principles by a candidate country.

Do not allow yourself to be drawn in, Mr President. Leave that country in the European solitude that it has chosen for itself.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, I am very confident in the Cyprus Presidency, although it will be facing an extremely difficult task with the multiannual budget. I would like to draw attention to a major problem that is extremely important for the new Member States, namely the reduction of cohesion policy sums spent on allowing these countries to catch up with the rest of the EU. There is a particular problem that especially affects my home country: Hungary is at the risk of losing 20%, or maybe even 30% of its cohesion policy funding. It would therefore be very important for the Cyprus Presidency to establish a minimum level in addition to the GDP-related maximum. The Danish Presidency made progress in setting up a safety net, but that progress was not enough. I therefore ask the Cyprus Presidency to do what the Danish Presidency did not do, namely to record in a presidential communication that Hungary finds a 20–30% cut in cohesion policy funding unacceptable. An equitable solution should be found for my home country. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - (SL) Mr President, thank you for your address and for your words of wisdom, including your comment that we should not be exporting our understanding of the crisis or our recipes for its solution.

Of course, we expect a lot from Cyprus when it comes to the Middle East crisis region. You are situated close to it and you understand it better than we do. Cyprus has excellent diplomacy. For a while, it was led by Mr Kasoulides, a distinguished colleague from my own group, Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who responded a little too harshly and unfairly, I would say, to the speech of the group leader, Mr Graham Watson.

Mr President, I assure you that we do not approve of Turkey’s actions or position with regard to the Cyprus Presidency but Turkey, too, would probably hold more rational views if we were more open to it.

Finally, I would just like to ask you the following: as a small country, do something during your presidential term for a European future for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, Cyprus keeps the tradition of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas alive, and that is reason enough for us to be sympathetic towards you. Moreover, the bullying Turkish occupation of a considerable part of your island makes us inclined to support you.

However, Cyprus must not wander off towards Russia. The fact, President Christofias, that you studied in Moscow must not result in too great a dependence on Mr Putin. You must be well aware that if you give him an inch he will take a mile.

Let Cyprus turn to Europe, above all for financial assistance, and, of course, let it get its own house in order first of all. The pressing question, after all, is what supervision did Cyprus perform on the banks operating there? How was it possible for various banks in Cyprus to get in so much trouble? That cannot simply be explained by the deep ties with Greece.

In closing, I would like to wish you good luck and hope that you enjoyed a blessed Presidency.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Cyprus is the thorn in the side of Europe – a Europe that, purely for its own commercial interests, has not only not forced Turkey to relinquish northern Cyprus, which it invaded in 1974, but even lends it money. The people of northern Cyprus have seen their homes, jobs and religious freedom taken away.

Your primate was even prevented from celebrating Christmas in the occupied area, because he is Christian, and more than 500 religious buildings have been destroyed and left to ruin. I hope the semester of the Cypriot Presidency will lead the European Union to take some strong stances against the invaders and finally act in the interests of its citizens and not of a few economic powers with commercial ties to Turkey. Mr Christofias, I wholeheartedly hope that you can succeed in doing something for your land and your people, who deserve once again to be masters in their own house.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, talking about growth and employment will not be enough to secure them. The single greatest cause of unemployment in southern Europe is the euro. It is overvalued for them and, rather than being helped to stay in it, they need to be rescued from it.

Globalism and trade agreements with emergent economies are destroying our manufacturing basis and throwing European workers out of their jobs. The new Presidency refers to demographic change in the form of ageing populations and mentions the necessary responses to that phenomenon. I wonder what those might be. Well, you have got it: a forward-looking and comprehensive immigration policy and better integration of third country nationals of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

So the third world young will be replacement Europeans for unborn European babies, except that they will not. They will bring the third world with them and transform parts of Europe into the third world. Distinctive peoples are not the product of distinctive cultures. Distinctive cultures are the product of distinctive peoples.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, Cyprus is taking over the presidency at a time when many discussions that are vital for Europe are entering a decisive stage. The most serious challenge is to bring negotiations concerning the new multiannual financial framework to a successful conclusion. I fully agree with the Presidency’s view that the aim of these negotiations should be the adoption of a fair and effective budget that will support growth and employment, especially youth employment. What is needed to achieve this is appropriate funding for policies that will stimulate economic growth and competitiveness, particularly cohesion policy and policies to encourage research and innovation. As a representative of a coastal region, it is very encouraging to hear of the Presidency’s ambitious plans to develop an integrated maritime policy. Finally, I would like to express my hope that the Cypriot Presidency experiences an unbroken series of successes.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, ‘towards a better Europe’ is the motto of the Cypriot Presidency, which will last six months. Every EU citizen is hoping for a better Europe. However, citizens are concerned about the severe financial crisis, whose worse stages, according to the President of the Council, should be behind us. Unfortunately the reality seems to dispute this and I am afraid that, as in the case of previous presidencies, most of the priorities put forward by Cyprus will be overshadowed by the need to save countries that are going bankrupt. We want to believe the assurances of the spokesman for the Cyprus Presidency that the problems of Cypriot banks will not influence the presidency. This turbulence could, however, make it more difficult to reach agreement on the EU’s multiannual budget for 2014-2020.

I think that the Cypriot authorities were right to weave their national priority of development of a maritime policy and safety at sea into the agenda. We understand this clearly, since there are now 27 countries floating on the EU raft; these countries are united by a common destiny and, if the raft should overturn, everyone will get wet and some will drown. For this reason, we all have an interest in the stability of the Cypriot Presidency.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, Mr Barroso told us yesterday that the bank recapitalisation in the United Kingdom was EUR 82.9 billion or 4.9% of GDP, that the asset relief programme in the UK was EUR 40.4 billion, and that EUR 158 billion in guarantees to the banks have been given since 2008. What that indicates is that the kettle should not be calling the pot black.

We are in this together, not just the eurozone and the United Kingdom but the whole of the European Union, and we need to help each other and to support each other and I hope that the Cyprus Presidency – because between now and the end of this Parliament there will not be any large Member State in the Presidency – will work with the upcoming presidencies to work against intergovermentalism and also to try and remind ourselves that in the first half of the last century 60 million Europeans killed each other.

The Berlin Wall has come down; those ten Member States that came in have changed Europe. If we can get through this crisis we can add those three things together and say it was a golden era. Do not lose sight of that fight against intergovernmentalism.

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

  Vicky Ford (ECR), blue-card question. – I am sure you agree with me that it is extremely important that the Commission gives clear statements to this House. So just on the comments that President Barroso made yesterday about the GBP 64 billion of British taxpayers’ money paid by the Socialist government at the time into British banks, may I remind you that GBP 30 billion of that – i.e. nearly half of it – went on bailing out Irish and Dutch banks – money from the British taxpayer – and that the UK actually intends to implement the global agreements on bank reform, but the Commission’s proposals dumb those down, especially for French and German banks. Furthermore, the UK plans even stronger protection for taxpayers, splitting retail and investment banks, but the Commission’s proposals would make that almost impossible. Does he agree with me that we need to make strong bank reform a priority of the upcoming Presidency?

  Gay Mitchell (PPE), blue-card answer. – Mr President, I certainly do agree that that is necessary, and I am sure that the speaker will also recall that the United Kingdom exports more to the small country of the Republic of Ireland than it does to Latin America and Japan added together. All of which indicates that we need each other and that the kettle should not be calling the pot black.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, this debate clearly demonstrated that the programme presented by the President-in-office, Mr Christofias, is very ambitious and very welcome, and also that your Presidency, Mr Christofias, would also face several challenges on the economic and political front.

From this debate it was quite clear that the top priorities will be multiannual financial framework (MFF) negotiations, work on anti-crisis measures, including measures for boosting growth and jobs, deepening of the economic and monetary union, advancing the work on a banking union and, of course, harvesting the potential of the single market.

I would just like to make a couple of remarks on the top priorities. With regard to the discussion on the multiannual financial framework, I think that, after listening to this debate, we have to remind everybody that this is not a budget for Brussels or Strasbourg, but one which brings clear European added value to European citizens, regions and European communities.

The smart spending principle is clearly reflected in the fact that more than 94% of the MFF and of each annual EU budget goes back to the Member States, regions and EU citizens with clear added value from the European Union. This is not always achievable in the national budgeting processes. So we can see that it is the best investment tool the EU has in order to boost smart growth and sustainable jobs.

As regards smart spending, we cannot pass budgets which do not allow the European Union and the Commission to meet their legal obligation and to pay for successfully completed cohesion projects, especially during the current harsh economic crisis.

As regards the importance of the EU 27 – very soon the EU 28 – approach, we cannot advance proposals which would favour decisions or policies at the expense of cohesion, which is so important for all new – and many old – Member States going through economic difficulties.

I think that the current crisis has clearly shown that we need more Europe, we need deeper economic and monetary union and we need to charter the way towards political union.

The Commission wants to proceed first with the banking union because it is the most pressing, it is achievable in a short period of time and we do not require a treaty change. It is also crucial for restoring confidence in the euro and the EU economy. We need this despite the fact that the EU has done the most in comparison with other G20 members as regards capital requirements for the banks – which have been discussed so much today – and the new banking regulations.

As regards the single market, we have a lot to do. Removing the barriers will bring thousands of jobs and billions of euros to our GDP. We need to act fast and with determination.

We have high hopes that the Cyprus Presidency will achieve agreement by the end of this year on proposals concerning public procurement, professional qualifications and the other growth-enhancing measures that were identified in the annual growth survey for this year.

I would like to highlight that in your overall approach, as regards the MFF negotiations, the single market legislative work and the deepening of the EMU, it will be the Community method and respect for the communitarian principle which will guide the way for your Presidency. This is really appreciated from our side. After listening to honourable Members Mr Mitchell and Mr Callanan, this is how we can clearly demonstrate that we want to succeed and succeed together.

Many speakers have already shown their appreciation of your thorough preparation for the Presidency and your declared determination to succeed. The Commission will do its utmost to help you to achieve your goals because this would be the best news for European citizens. Therefore I would like to wish you lots of luck and success with your Presidency.

  Demetris Christofias, President-in-Office of the Council. – (EL) Mr President, firstly may I warmly thank the chairs of the political groups for their kind words about the Cypriot Presidency and our country’s preparations to assume the duties of Presidency of the Council.

Please be assured that, for us, this is very important and encouraging, because we represent a small country which aims to serve the Union impartially, without any national interest, without wanting to promote its interests, for the simple reason that it is a small country and a new member of the Union and, as various speakers said, the Cypriots are decent and humane and want to honour both their country and the Union.

Serious problems exist. I noted, of course, some complaints. That is no coincidence. The complaints stem from the serious problems we face, primarily the economic and social problems, as a Union and as individual countries.

How can we address them? We need to take a unified approach. The Union institutions need to cooperate very closely. What I said in my introduction were not figures of speech. Without agreement and daily contact between the institutions, we shall achieve nothing whatsoever. We shall continue to hold debates and apportion blame; some will blame the Council, some will blame the Commission, some will say that the European Parliament is not being straight and, as I am sure realise, we shall have zero results.

The European Union is a Union of compromises, whether we like it or not, because we represent different countries, sometimes with different interests. We, as an honest and objective mediator, will try to intervene in order to reconcile positions, views and policies. We shall try something new: to ‘marry’ budgetary discipline with growth and social cohesion. I would like to believe that this is something new. Let us try, because the methods we have tried so far have taken us deeper into recession. That does the Union no honour.

The people expect a lot from the European Union. When we unanimously decided that our country should join the European Union, the Cypriot people celebrated and breathed a sigh of relief at the thought of joining this large family. They saw a better future ahead. At present, no one, neither the man in the street nor nations as a whole, sees a better future ahead and this should concern us.

We do not advocate communist policies. I make a point of that, because various things have been said, such as ‘the communist president’ and so forth. I am who I am and I am very proud of what I am. I lead a party that has served the Cypriot nation and democracy for 90 years, a party that took part en masse in the war against fascism and numbered many victims, that defended democracy following the coup d’état and used peaceful means to obtain independence from its colonial rulers. My party is at the vanguard here. That is why, regardless of what happened in the Soviet Union or in any other country, I can talk about the Progressive Party for the Working People (AKEL), I can talk about Cyprus and about myself as fighters for democracy. I think that the five years during which we have governed the country are proof positive of that.

Have Mr Kasoulides or Mr Mavronikolas or Ms Theocharous ever felt that the democratic rights of the Cypriot people were being cut or abused during my presidency? Did my friends feel, during the seven years that Christofias presided over the House of Representatives, that their rights were being cut and did they see any abuse of their rights on the benches? On the contrary, democracy is alive and well in Cyprus and we are all proud of that.

Therefore, please do not worry that the communist will harm Europe. The communist will strive for a better Europe, with more social justice. This is my manifesto and I shall fight for it within the framework of the institutions of the European Union. I shall not be leading a revolution, do not fear.

As far as Cyprus and the Cyprus problem are concerned, may I say to Mr Watson, with whom we have discussed the Cyprus problem for years, because I am a member of the Turkish-Cypriot contact group, that he should not be coming to me with calls to talk to Turkey. You should be calling on Turkey, Mr Watson, and telling them to ‘talk to Christofias’, because they refuse to talk to Christofias. Here too, Turkey is to blame for reasons of principle.

I have said to Mr Erdogan: ‘Prime Minister, please agree to talks, because I have a vision that I want to explain to you that concerns both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and which, at the end of the day, is also in Turkey’s interests’. I do not entertain any feelings of hostility towards the Turkish people. On the contrary, I am ready to fight side by side with the Turkish man in the street fighting for his democratic rights even now, in a Turkey of change and modernisation, because there are serious problems of abuse of the human rights of Turks, Kurds and various other communities in Turkey.

Turkey is an occupying force and I wish to emphasise that. As a body and for reasons of principle, the European Union should, in my opinion, condemn any action by Turkey which undermines the role of the Republic of Cyprus as a state, not simply as a Member State of the Union, but also as a member of all the international organisations, starting with the United Nations. We cannot allow Turkey to act in this way.

I am fully prepared. My five years in the president’s office have been years of continuous, unremitting, tireless effort to instigate dialogue and resolve the Cyprus problem. At the end of the day, when I decided to fight my friend Giannakis for the president’s office, I made a clear statement that the first or even the sole reason I was seeking election as president of the Republic of Cyprus was to work hard, on the basis of my good relations with numerous Turkish Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriot political parties, to work hard and tirelessly to unify my homeland.

I am absolutely in favour of peaceful coexistence and brotherly cooperation between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Cyprus belongs to the Cypriots, be they Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots or Maronites or Armenians or Roman Catholics. You see, we are a multicultural country and because I am also a little internationalist – as communists tend to be – I want us all to work together for the good of our country, as the bosses of our homeland. The British have no place in Cyprus, the Turks have no place in Cyprus and our brothers the Greeks, in the bad sense, have no place in Cyprus.

We need to be left free and you can be sure that then we shall have privileged relations both with Turkey and with Britain and, of course, with Greece. Privileged and very close and very good relations.

That is my promise to the Cypriot people, which I confirm before the European Parliament, this wonderful chamber of the European Union.

I have given my very best. There has been no response from Turkey, because Turkey has expansionist policies towards Cyprus and expansionist plans. I am sorry to have to say so, but those are the facts.

I shall persist until the end of my term of office. I know that, once my term of office ends, I shall not seek re-election as president of the Republic; however, until my term of office ends, up to the very last moment, I shall continue to fight tirelessly to restore my homeland and, of course, for a Union which is a Union for its citizens, for the nations of Europe.

We have a hot potato in our hands: the multiannual financial framework. We shall do our very best to find compromise solutions, but we shall insist on growth and social cohesion.

Freedom of the markets is one thing; unaccountability of the markets is another. I am opposed to the unaccountability of the markets and I say so frankly. The governments elected by the people to govern them need to intervene. We cannot be governed by the markets. The governments democratically elected by the people must govern.

I give my word that all the matters raised have been noted. Of course, I do not want to comment on everything; very important suggestions and proposals have been made and will be taken into serious consideration; in cooperation with President Schulz, with the European Parliament and with President Barroso, we shall try to find solutions which will best serve a collective approach to the Union’s problems.

Thank you so much for listening and thank you so much, once again, for your opinions and comments, which will be taken into serious consideration.

(Applause)

  President. − Mr President, we thank you and wish you the best of luck with your responsibility in Europe, and we look forward to successful cooperation.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I think that the priorities which have been set out highlight the serious commitment undertaken by the Presidency to help achieve the European Union’s objectives of durable growth, social cohesion and creating jobs. I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Cypriot Presidency every success in fulfilling the ambitious programme which has been outlined.

From this point, I would like to mention the environmental aspect of the action programme. On the subject of biodiversity policy, I urge the Cypriot Presidency, as part of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity or during the meetings on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to encourage parties to make serious commitments and implement the most practical measures possible. I also think that the Presidency should support the integration of the funding for the biodiversity policy into all future financing lines of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

Turning now to water policy, it is my view that the Presidency needs to demonstrate ambition in conducting the negotiations on the review of the Directive on priority substances in the field of water policy, and also to ensure that it will be possible to achieve the objective of investing in sustainable water management via the future EU budget.

  Richard Falbr (S&D), in writing. − (CS) Cyprus assumed the Presidency of the European Union on 1 July. The circumstances of the start to this Presidency are more than intriguing. A Member State facing bankruptcy, the largest tax haven, which steals from other Member States by inviting to its shores businesses who pay virtually no tax after arriving in this island state. I simply cannot understand how it is possible that 47 countries have concluded agreements prohibiting double taxation with Cyprus. I would be interested to know how many European firms have moved to Cyprus in order to avoid paying anything to state treasuries. This paragon of iniquity is now trying to get money from the other Member States in order to plug the holes in the ‘Turkish style’ Cypriot banks. I would not give them one euro until Cyprus stops acting like an immoral tax haven. Few people know, perhaps, that tax havens do not exist only in the Antilles. It is high time that Member State citizens understood that Cyprus, the country holding the Presidency, carries on in such a shameful manner.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – I welcome that Cyprus specifies the promotion of the European Union's social agenda as a key point of its agenda and the protection of children as one of its priorities. Poverty is becoming a more pressing issue in the EU and most countries, extreme poverty and deprivation are concentrated in marginalized communities, such as the Roma, and children represent a large share of these populations, who are particularly vulnerable to deprivation. Targeted and complex policy measures are needed to safeguard the institution of family in Europe, to address the socio-demographic changes affecting family structures, to combat child poverty, and to change the employment patterns. Eliminating child poverty however, is inseparable from the efforts to improve the situation of the families and we need immediate action to stop families falling behind, and rebuild our social and territorial cohesion, because it would be an unforgivable sin to loose further generations. It must be ensured that consolidation measures will not have further negative impacts on people at risk of social exclusion. Marginalized communities demand a special focus, since they constitute a huge reserve of idle workforce and are disproportionately overrepresented among those living in poverty.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) It must be obvious to everyone that Cyprus is taking over the EU presidency at a particularly difficult time. It is doubly difficult – both for the EU and also for Cyprus. Nicosia recently requested financial assistance to save the banking system in Cyprus. It is yet another euro area country in economic difficulties. Despite the fact that a mechanism was created at the last European Council summit to stabilise the currency union, the threat of bankruptcy in yet more countries is still very real. This is particularly significant, as Cypriot politicians now have the role of mediators in negotiations concerning future multiannual financial frameworks. Even though Nicosia has joined the so-called friends of cohesion group, there may be some concern whether, due to the aid given, it will not be more susceptible to the arguments of net contributor countries. For this reason, I would like to call on Cypriot politicians to play a truly neutral mediation role despite their own internal problems. The future of the European Union will depend on the nature of the 2014-2020 budget. If we allow national interests to dominate our thinking in the European Union, then we will not survive this crisis. It is only by acting together and by investing common funds wisely that we will be able to maintain our present position in the global economy. This responsibility now rests in the hands of politicians from a small Mediterranean island and for this reason we should all wish them luck.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. – (FI) I would like to welcome Cyprus as a country holding the EU Presidency for the first time. The Cyprus Presidency promises to be a difficult and challenging one. It will encounter challenges, not least in connection with the recession and financial crisis that are shaking Europe. Cyprus has demonstrated ambition in setting itself the goal during its Presidency of returning the EU economy to a path of growth and making the work of the European Union more effective for the benefit of its citizens.

Unfortunately, the Cyprus Presidency will probably hit a sandbank right at the start of its journey. As a country that requires economic support, Cyprus is in an awkward situation when the debate turns to the subjects of the direction Europe that should take and support for the countries in crisis. It must be legally disqualified, though at the same time, it must represent the interests of its own country.

During the Cyprus Presidency, the EU countries must learn to strike a balance between public sector belt-tightening and the requirements for growth. The European Union is at a historic crossroads, where it will either find cooperation and promote it, or break up and fail. At the same time, we must not forget the general public, who must have the ultimate say in what direction Europe takes. They must be kept informed, openly and honestly.

I am sincerely optimistic about the latter part of 2012, and I wish Cyprus luck during its EU Presidency.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) ‘Towards a better Europe’ is the excellent motto of the Cyprus Presidency. It fits perfectly into the EU agenda and creates a foundation for the European Year of Citizens 2013. The European Union’s continued development depends on its acceptance by its citizens. The European Union is a union of Europe’s citizens, a fact that, unfortunately, is sometimes forgotten. In this context the implementation of that part of the Europe 2020 strategy that relates to social issues and dealing with social challenges will be of key importance for achieving socially-inclusive development. In this context, the preparation and implementation of measures relating to youth employment as well as measures that have a direct impact on the everyday life of citizens is very important.

Over half of all EU citizens are women. Equality of the sexes is one of the basic principles of the European Union. Unfortunately, progress in achieving gender equality has been exceptionally slow. There are still significant differences between the incomes and employment opportunities of men and women. On the labour market, women are second-class citizens. Women are more affected by poverty. I hope that the Cypriot Presidency will focus on these problems. One of the priorities of the Polish, Danish and Cypriot presidencies is violence against women. I hope that the Cyprus Presidency will make up for the lack of attention this has received so far and will help to draw up an EU-wide strategy for combating violence against women, as well as supporting the European Parliament in its efforts to make 2015 the European Year of Combating Violence Against Women.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D), in writing. – (DE) As rapporteur for the Programme for Social Change and Innovation, which integrates the three programmes EURES, Progress and the European Progress Microfinance Facility, I would like to draw attention to two specific matters. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs rejected the Commission proposal to finance the cross-border partnerships through the European Social Fund (ESF) from 2014 onwards. If the financing of these partnerships were only to be possible within the framework of the ESF, each participating Member State would have to include this in its operational programme for the ESF. In view of the many priority areas for subsidies that is unlikely to happen. Cross-border partnerships for mobility-related advice must also be financed via the EURES axis. This call is supported across the groups and across the Member States, and I am hoping for the support of the Council. It is a question of facilitating mobility and of providing the associated advice. With a broad consensus and the support of all of the groups, we have introduced a fourth axis for a Youth Initiative. This is about financing specific projects for combating youth unemployment. The Youth Initiative will only be integrated into the programme if additional financing is secured via the multiannual financial framework. The Commission and the Council are always saying that something has to be done to combat youth unemployment, but there is a lack of projects. If combating youth unemployment really is a priority for the Council then this is the opportunity to prove it.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Cyprus is assuming the Presidency of the Council at a time of great importance for the European Union over the next few years. It comes at the time when the financial perspective for the next programming period is being prepared and at the time that interinstitutional negotiations on future cohesion policy are taking place. As the Presidency’s programme of activities mentions, the major focus will be on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, with a view to concluding negotiations by the end of this year, and reaching agreement on a budget that can truly and effectively contribute to growth and job creation in the European Union. Cohesion policy should not, however, be given less emphasis, since it is the EU’s main development policy, offering significant financial instruments to reduce differences between regions, and to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion by means of solidarity. We need effective dialogue between the Council and the European Parliament, which is a co-legislator on this issue for the first time.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Cypriot Presidency of the Council has committed itself through its work programme to promote social cohesion, social and economic development and job creation, especially for young people. I would like to wish the Cypriot Presidency every success and I welcome its commitment to extend the Schengen area to include Romania and Bulgaria. I welcome the Cypriot Presidency’s transport programme and, as Parliament rapporteur on the digital tachograph regulation, I would like to assure the Presidency of the Council of Parliament’s readiness to make progress in this dossier in the period ahead. Parliament adopted its position at first reading on Tuesday, 3 July, and the first meeting between Parliament’s team of rapporteurs and the Presidency of the Council has already been arranged for 9-12 July. Furthermore, given the importance of the trans-European infrastructure for transport, energy and communication, I welcome the priority given by the Cypriot Presidency to adopting the Connecting Europe Facility. Last but not least, as rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for the ‘Erasmus for All’ and ‘Creative Europe’ programmes, I call on the Cypriot Presidency to support the introduction in the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme of the EU’s industrial policy and of the mobility of young entrepreneurs for educational purposes.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) On 1 July, Cyprus took over the Presidency of the Council and, in doing so, completed the Poland – Denmark – Cyprus trio. ‘Towards a better Europe’ is the aspiration of this presidency. This means, as Cyprus President Demetris Chistofias explained, moving to a European Union that will be more important for its citizens and for the world. We have to be aware that this will be a difficult period for this small country, in view of the challenges it faces.

The most important priorities for this presidency include the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020, the cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy, economic management in this time of crisis, a common European asylum system, the single market and the EU enlargement package. There will no doubt be numerous disputes during the current presidency between, for example, net contributors and recipients or concerning the cohesion direction of EU expenditure. Finalising an agreement on the EU budget for the next seven years would certainly be a success for the Cypriot Presidency.

While on this subject, we cannot forget about the difficult relations between Cyprus and Turkey, which is applying for European Union membership. Relations between these two countries have been very difficult since Turkey took over the northern part of Cyprus by force and oversaw the declaration of independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I wish Cyprus all success and would like to repeat the words of Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, who has said that Cyprus can count on assistance from Poland and from the Polish experts who coordinated the Polish Presidency in the second half of 2011.

4. Preparation of the Commission Work Programme 2013 (debate)

  President. − The next item is the statement by the Commission on the preparation of the Commission work programme 2013.

I must remind all Members that there is no catch-the-eye procedure for this agenda item, only speakers on behalf of the groups.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, I welcome today’s debate because it is taking place at a very important juncture. We have to remind ourselves that only two years remain of this legislature. We know that the coming years will continue to be a critical time for Europeans, for their jobs and for their communities. But it will also be a crucial moment for pursuing reforms to renew and secure the resilience of our economic and social model.

In the past few years, the European Union has proven to be an indispensible player in the struggle to tackle the crisis. Together, we have provided targeted solutions to immediate urgencies, and we have kept the focus on Europe’s long-term challenges. We have also put in place a new economic governance, reshaped our whole system of financial regulation and supervision, and kept jobs at the core of our work.

The close partnership between our institutions has already delivered results. Now we have to drive ahead, with the right balance between sound public finances, structural reforms and targeted investment. In this context, your efforts to secure an ambitious agreement on the multiannual financial framework are crucial in order to leverage the strategic investment in growth and jobs at European level.

These elements form a solid foundation as we set out to define the EU’s political priorities for the coming years. We have results to build on. The individual motions for resolutions put forward by the groups underline the existence of a broad-based consensus across the political spectrum and across institutions as to how the EU dimension can make a real difference at a time of great economic pressure. It is also an important indication of our converging priorities that a considerable number of initiatives upon which Parliament and its committees have been reflecting are being actively worked on by the Commission, and their adoption by the Commission is already anticipated for later this year.

In the State of the Union debate, which is scheduled for 12 September, President Barroso will set out the main directions for the coming year. Our focus will clearly remain on fostering a job-rich and sustainable economic recovery based on the Europe 2020 strategy. During the European semesters, we have seen more and more mainstreaming of EU 2020 strategy principles and headline goals in the country-specific recommendations and in the national reform programmes.

As you know very well, we have just concluded the second European semester, and the country-specific recommendations provide clear guidance to Member States in pursuing national reforms to generate jobs and growth in the short, medium and long term. Action at European level in the coming years should aim to enhance and complement these efforts, where the case for the Union added value is strong. Following the European Council last week, the EU can now move forward with determination towards an ambitious new phase in economic and monetary union. This is clearly the right choice for the EU, and an encouraging step in the face of today’s unprecedented challenges. Needless to say, for this work to be successful, it should rest first and foremost on laws passed under the Community method with the full involvement of this Parliament.

At the same time, we should maintain momentum in the continuous process of deepening the single market by creating conditions for thriving network industries and services; completing the digital agenda; ensuring sustainability and resource efficiency; delivering a modern industrial policy; empowering people through skills and education; protecting citizens’ rights; and promoting a strong Europe that makes its positive mark on the world. As always, it is through concrete results that Europe is built.

As we have agreed in our framework agreement, the State of the Union debate will launch an intensive phase in our ongoing structured dialogue on the future political priorities. The Commission looks forward to these discussions and to the clear convergence of views that they can foster. The meeting between the Conference of Committee Chairs and the College, planned for 2 October, will be an important opportunity to take stock of the dialogue ahead of the adoption of the work programme.

Ultimately, the success of our political agenda relies on constructive cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission; on swift progress in political deliberations; and on consistent implementation of legislation on the ground in the Member States. Only when we act jointly and with determination can Europe deliver the solutions that our citizens, our companies and our businesses need. Today’s debate is an important step in this direction.

  József Szájer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I am glad to see Vice-President Šefčovič in the Chamber.

The message of the EPP in discussing the 2013 work programme is loud and clear: what we want to leave for the next generation of Europeans is not debt, but job opportunities and the chance to go forward. As has been said, Europe has been living on debts for too long. It is the easiest way to spend the money and resources of future generations. I think that we should stop doing this in Europe. In order to provide prosperity for future generations Europe should again be based not on debt but on work and the possibility of work.

In that framework, job opportunities and the chance for the next generation to enter the labour market are among the most important measures in the Commission’s work programme. But I would like to stress clearly, on behalf of the EPP, that this should be the number one priority. We have to fight against youth unemployment. Imagine people who are starting out in life with no prospect or possibility of working. This cannot go on.

In order to provide opportunities and work for young people, we have to use all the instruments the European Union has at hand, namely support for small and medium-sized enterprises, and micro-enterprises. We have to put in place – and we expect this from the Commission’s legislative programme – clear targets and timetables in the areas of youth mobility, language skills and youth entrepreneurship.

We have to use the full potential of the European Union. We know that this is mostly the job of the Member States, but the European Union with its legislation has to help. We often congratulate ourselves on the freedom of movement of goods, services, persons and capital, but very often we overlook the very many obstacles which still prevent the chance to have this kind of freedom, especially in the area of services.

The EPP also calls for the completion of the digital single market. We have to create and enhance trust between consumers and businesses. In that area there are also many new possibilities. Another of our major jobs is to reduce red tape. We should set a good example to Member States but also do it at European level. We have to remove the administrative burden from citizens and businesses, as has been seen in the work programme, and our proposal is for a figure of 25% by 2015.

Year after year we discuss the Commission’s work programme. Sometimes we feel – and I come back to this every year – that it is a vain enterprise and exercise because, according to studies, normally fewer than 50% of the goals which have been set in the Commission work programme appear in the next year’s Commission proposals.

I would propose that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs draw up an own-initiative report on how we can enhance this figure. I am not against flexibility. Especially at a time of crisis we should react quickly, but a plan is only worth anything if it is fulfilled. If it is not fulfilled, or less than half fulfilled, it is not an optimal result. In that sense I think that we have to work together in order to improve this figure.

I trust in the Commission being a force for stability in the institutional structures of the European Union. We expect that from the Commission. Very often the European institutions are accused of not acting until after the event. The Commission has the potential and the capacity, the administrative resources and all the instruments to lead this process and, even in times of crisis, not just to point to the future but also to be a clear point of reference and stability.

On behalf of the EPP, my party, and on behalf of the European Parliament, I think we should support this kind of activity and enhance cooperation between these two institutions. We are not jealous if relations with other institutions like the Council are also better. Yesterday Rebecca Harms criticised the Commission, and seemed to be jealous about that, but we are happy if relations between the Council and the Commission are good as well.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, in the sitting yesterday, we had an experience that is unusual in this House. There was intense, prolonged and widespread applause for the President of the Commission. It was intense because it was not in any way formal or conventional, prolonged because it lasted for a long time, and widespread because almost the whole House applauded the President of the Commission based on two considerations: firstly, his attitude of defending the general interests of the Union in the Council meeting last week in response to the defence of the individual interests of some or many Heads of State or Government.

This attitude was acknowledged by the President of Parliament, Mr Schulz, and is appreciated by Parliament, which not in vain represents the vast majority: all Europeans. However, there was also applause for a common concern of the Commission and Parliament for the deterioration of the situation of the European Union, caused by the economic crisis, which is damaging the lives of Europeans and their conditions, and is creating poverty in the Union. It is a concern for the growth of euro-scepticism and of extremist options in various countries of the Union, and also a common concern regarding the deterioration of institutional relations within the Union.

The Commission and Parliament are seeing part of our competences being taken away by growing intergovernmentalism and the lack of Community method in many of the important decisions that are being taken. There was therefore an awareness in Parliament that we needed to work together, in order to defend these interests of Europeans.

I think that we also need to work in Parliament towards a joint resolution expressing a position that is broadly shared of making requirements of the Commission and also supporting the Commission when it does what Parliament asks of it.

My group wants an ambitious Commission work programme that stimulates growth, employment and quality of life, that re-establishes confidence among Europeans, and that seeks greater economic governance, a good multiannual financial framework, the creation of a European amortisation fund, a route map for stability bonds, improved anti-fraud measures, the strengthening of the European semester, the development of bonds and the right level of payment appropriations for 2013.

I would like to point out to the President that the majority of groups have decided to postpone voting until September, in order to allow more time to reach a joint resolution that finally speaks with one voice from Parliament on making requirements of and supporting the Commission.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this is a rich programme for 2013 and it is suitable for the last full year of this legislative mandate. The Commission has reached cruising speed, and we even have passion. The applause for Mr Barroso yesterday was clearly genuine and appropriate, and it confounds the critics who consistently accuse the Commission of being non-elected technocrats.

Liberals believe that a strong Commission is always a political Commission. Of course there can be improvements, across the board, in its functions. There are several functions and sometimes some are disguised too much.

First the Commission is the public face of Europe. Secondly it is the administration, which must be tight and efficient and rigorous in putting into effect Union law. Thirdly it ought to be the intellectual powerhouse, the think tank for the Union.

It should also search out and articulate the common interest of the states and citizens, thereby exploiting to the full its right of legislative and political initiative, especially now as a counterparty to the European Council.

The Commission is at its weakest when it becomes defensive, when it becomes complicit in closeted deals between one, two or three prime ministers. It is strongest when it sticks to the general interest, so we welcome the unprecedented paper of the four Presidents that proposes the blueprint and road map to banking, fiscal and political union.

  Emilie Turunen, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, it is absolutely clear to the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament that the crisis policies and the road out of the crisis must remain our priorities in 2013, because if we do not succeed in implementing the necessary reforms, at best we will be paralysed and at worst the Union will be on the verge of falling apart. Therefore it is not only the short-term economic and financial reforms that we consider to have top priority; the more long-term institutional reforms have high priority too.

At the same time, it is clear to us that the relationship between the crisis and the Commission’s work programme must be dynamic in nature, because the crisis means that there is not only a need to propose policies and make adjustments on an annual basis, but also on a monthly and a weekly basis. For example, we cannot wait until 2013 to get moving on Mr Van Rompuy’s four building blocks. We must make a start on these immediately.

The fact that we are focusing strongly on the crisis policies does not mean that they are the only things that we should concern ourselves with. For us Greens it is also important for the social and environmental aspects of our social development to be given high priority. In fact, we believe that a more holistic approach to the crisis is the only sustainable way out of it. In specific terms, we would like to see the Commission be particularly active in relation to a debt redemption fund and a road map for Eurobonds, a banking union, including more straightforward requirements for banks receiving public aid, more balanced access to consolidation, the progressive implementation of the scoreboard for macroeconomic imbalances, addressing both surplus and deficit countries, and a comprehensive and concrete plan for tax evasion and tax havens. We would like to see the Commission taking an active role in relation to the continuing work on a financial transaction tax, and we would like a more socially balanced approach to be taken in the Annual Growth Survey and in the national reform programmes, so that all of the 2020 objectives are taken into account. We would like to see the implementation of the European youth guarantee and constant pressure being put on the Member States to provide a future for Europe’s young people.

We have many more priorities. They are stated in our specific motion for a resolution, submitted on behalf of our group. I would like to say to the Commission that we want to see an active 2012 and an even more active 2013, and perhaps also a courageous one, because this is make or break for the European Union.

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I think it is indispensable that this work programme is seen as the Commission giving leadership in the whole area of growth policies. That is what we put out in our resolution. I am delighted to hear what József Szájer said because I think he is very much in support of that. Indeed I am disappointed, because I think we were close to getting agreement on a resolution that focused on the growth policies. But I agree with József Szájer that part of the problem with the way that the work programme is presented – and I say this to the Commissioner – is that it does not actually give us a clear focus on the growth policies and on the targets.

The Commission has been highly responsive to what my committee in the European Parliament has asked for in giving priority to the completion of the single market. The Single Market Act is actually the growth programme for next year – I notice it was not mentioned in your speech, but we have the targets there, we have the holistic policies that Ms Turunen was asking for, and so what we want from you, Commissioner, is a much clearer lead on the growth policies.

If you look at the Council statement – because clearly the single market will not be delivered simply by the Commission’s policies but by implementation in the Member States – what we need to see in the 2013 programme is a framework where Member States can sign up and show clear commitments to delivering on their single market commitments. It is now in the Council statement that the Commission will monitor performance, and we will have an annual report in the framework of the semester.

That is a new initiative that has to come forward as a result of the work programme, but the other thing I also want to emphasise – and again I am in agreement with what Mr Szájer said – is that the Commission is on the hook for a reduction in the regulatory burden, and Member States are as well. It is a shared agenda. It says here that you are going to present us with a communication at the end of this year about further steps in smart regulation, but what we want to see is some delivery of those in 2013.

Moreover we need to have a complete look at the way that we are pushing policy through, to have more pre-legislative work done in this Parliament, more analysis, better impact assessments – those are the things we expect to see in your growth agenda.

In conclusion, the lead issue we want to see emerging from this is delivery of jobs and growth by completing what we have on the table. As József Szájer said, the growth is going to come from small enterprises in the service sector. We have the Services Directive. You, we and the Member States, working together, as our Socialist colleague said, have to deliver those jobs and that growth.

  Martina Anderson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, Liam Mellows said of another treaty that it had passed not because of the will of the people, but because of the fear of the people. Engendering fear seems to be the response of the EU’s institutions to the ever-growing resistance – expressed in votes and in protests – to the failed policies of austerity. The Commission’s work programme therefore needs to come up with a radically new approach, putting people’s needs before profits and recognising that austerity measures are particularly detrimental to women and children.

The programme needs to foster public investment in growth and jobs. It needs to support SMEs and adapt to the particular needs of each Member State, and this must be the basis of any credible crisis resolution strategy. Time restricts what I am able to propose, but let me say that we need a well funded, flexible CAP; we need a new Peace IV programme; we need to reject the microeconomic conditionality for access to cohesion policy and regional development funds; we need a binding youth guarantee for decent jobs and training; an EU road map on equality for LGBT persons; a comprehensive EU strategy on violence against women; and the implementation of the Barcelona targets on childcare provision.

  Frank Vanhecke, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Mr President, clearly this is a very idealistic wish, but in its work programme for 2013, the Commission should, first and foremost, have shown a great degree of modesty and here and there even thrown in a mea culpa. This is because the financial and economic crisis that is very specifically hitting our continent – harder than other continents – is a reality that consigns to the wastepaper bin all the fairy tales and self-congratulation about – and I quote – ‘organising the best performing economy in the world’, or the land of milk and honey, that the euro was supposed to create.

The fact that, in these circumstances, the Commission has let it be known that there will have to be a discernible increase in the EU budget in 2013 is unacceptable, in reality. All of us here know dozens or hundreds of examples of the total waste of taxpayers’ money by the European institutions themselves, quite apart from the fact that European money is, by definition, always less well spent. Examples include completely useless advisory bodies and agencies, policy areas where Europe actually offers no added value, a subsidy policy that is full of abuse, massive sums, crazy Europhile propaganda and, not to forget, the enormous amount of waste in European development aid policy.

Let the Commission at long last bring forward a work programme where we move towards the essence of things and where ballast is jettisoned, where we simply focus on creating circumstances that make possible economic growth and real competitiveness on the part of our European businesses.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, I quote: ‘Overall the European Union is in mild recession’. This must count as the most outrageous and misleading understatement since the minor cleric in the cartoon remarked to his bishop that parts of his decidedly rotten egg were good.

In Spain and Greece youth unemployment is around 50%. They have already exported their jobs. Now they are exporting their skilled workers too. The eurozone prevents these countries from competing effectively by allowing their currency values to fall. They can compete only by austerity programmes that drive down their wage rates. And they expect countries with reduced incomes to get out of debt!

Freedom of movement of workers between countries with greatly differing wage levels has left semi- and unskilled workers in the West in permanent unemployment and underemployment. In the UK they are forced to sign up to slave labour, wageless work schemes for the benefit of corporate balance sheets. Meanwhile, countries in the East have been deprived of their most able and motivated workers.

The greatest threat to any drive for growth and employment is globalism and trade agreements with emergent economies with which we cannot compete. The EU talks about achieving a single European market. Its real goal is the single world market in which emergent economy wage levels will be imposed on all workers.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers who spoke on behalf of the political groups. I think the debate very clearly highlighted a very strong convergence between the Commission’s work programme plans for 2013 and the priorities of this House and of the political groups. I think that we would all agree with what Mr Szájer said, and we should not leave our next generation with debts, but with sustainable jobs. This is exactly what we are proposing, and the measures we are putting in place should deliver those results. Therefore, the Commission would always advocate smart consolidation where we realise we have to liberate our Member States from an excessive debt burden and we have to do it in a way which would not harm pro-growth policies, policies which create jobs and growth. I think that it was very much reflected in the discussions we had with the Member States under the new umbrella of economic governance and in our country-specific recommendations.

Another priority which was clearly highlighted by all speakers was unemployment, and especially youth unemployment, where unfortunately we have crossed the threshold of 7.5 million so-called NEETs, which means young people who are not in employment, education or training. Therefore, we started the pilot project with eight Member States, and this project has already given concrete results. We managed to reallocate more than EUR 7 billion of EU funds precisely for the purpose of creating new jobs, and we believe that this reallocation will help us to create 460 000 new jobs for young unemployed people in Europe.

We want to learn from this experience and probably expand this programme to other Member States which might be facing similar problems. On top of this, by the end of this year we will be coming to you with a proposal for a common framework on a youth guarantee to help young people to find their first employment.

I very much agree with all of the speakers who have been pleading for the acceleration of work on the digital single market. It is very clear that this is an instrument for job creation and for increasing the GDP of the European Union. Our modest expectation is that, if we manage to fulfil all our goals in this area, we will increase the EU budget by 4% of GDP by as early as 2020.

Speaking of red tape, I think that we have to work on this together. We are greatly encouraged by the very positive developments in our negotiations on the financial regulations. As you know very well, we delivered on our promise to reduce the administrative burden by more than 30% this year, and we now have to work very closely with the Member States in order that they implement this new approach and actually get rid of gold-plating and proceed with a simplification as well.

I agree with Andrew and Enrique, who said that the European citizens must see that the European institutions are here for them, that we are here to defend European citizens, and that we do so by respecting the Community method and by progressing with our political plans for the establishment of a clear banking, fiscal and political union. We will do it as was suggested by our colleague from the Green Party: by a holistic approach aimed at sustainable development.

Concerning the financial transaction tax: I think it was clearly established at the last Ecofin meeting that we will not get unanimity for the proposal. Therefore, the Commission will proceed and make a proposal to introduce the FTT through the enhanced cooperation mechanism. I think that I have to thank Mr Harbour for highlighting the importance of Single Market Act I and of our plans for Single Market Act II, because it is quite obvious that the single market is the best instrument that we have for creating new job opportunities and new economic growth.

As you know both of our institutions – the Commission and the European Parliament – wanted to proceed with better planning on how to achieve the Single Market Act faster through interinstitutional agreements, which would help us to work better on our timetables and which would guarantee the fast adoption of the good proposals. Now we know that this proposal was not welcomed with the same enthusiasm on the Council’s side, but we will continue the discussion with them on how we can deliver on this Single Market Act much faster than before.

I think that, concerning the last two points mentioned, we have already discussed the importance of a good multiannual financial framework and of the importance of the EU budget, both of which are our very important investment tools. Concerning the trade policies, I believe that Europe is a very good trading partner. We are a major trading block. We did not yield to other trading partners, for example the United States and Japan, and I think that we have to look to the emerging economies for additional growth and to increase our trade volume, and this must, of course, be based on fair and mutually acceptable principles.

  President. − To wind up the debate, six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ have been tabled under Rule 110(2). We must then vote on the postponement of the vote until September, as announced.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12.30.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

(1) See Minutes

5. General budget for 2013 (deadline for tabling amendments): see Minutes

6. Statement by the President

  President. –I would also like to make a statement on behalf of the President.

As you know, ladies and gentlemen, in the Autonomous Community of Valencia in Spain, since last week there has been one of the worst forest fires in the last 20 years.

More than 48 000 hectares of forest have been reduced to ashes in the areas of Andilla and Cortes de Pallás.

These fires have unfortunately cost the life of a helicopter pilot who was taking part in the work to put out the fires.

On behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to express our most sincere condolences to the pilot’s family and our recognition of the self-sacrificial work of all those fighting the fire.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). - Mr President, of course we are very sorry about what has happened in Spain, but if I may, I would like to draw your attention to a declaration which seems has been made by the Prime Minister of Britain. I would ask my colleagues from Britain perhaps to look into that. Many of us saw reports that the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, had said that, if Greece were to leave the eurozone, he would introduce particular border controls against Greek people. I am sorry to hear some applause for that.

Maybe this declaration is not true. But if it is true, I would like – because I know there are many responsible Conservative colleagues here – to ask the Prime Minister to refrain from such declarations. We do not need this kind of declaration or this kind of action against certain citizens of the European Union. Therefore, this is my request to colleagues.

(Applause)

  Martin Callanan (ECR). - Mr President, I do not want to provoke a big row about this, but David Cameron did not say that. He said, when asked at a parliamentary committee, that there are lots of contingency plans to deal with all sorts of eventualities, and this may be one of them in the event of a particular event happening. I think that if Hannes reads the detailed press coverage and the comments about it, he will find that the reports that he has read are not true.

7. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

– Before the vote:

  Paolo De Castro, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to direct your attention to the six legislative reports on alignment with the Treaty of Lisbon that we are about to vote on. They do not just address agricultural issues, but affect all of Parliament. Indeed, we risk losing the new powers that the Treaty of Lisbon has given us.

The Council systematically opposes delegated acts, replacing them with implementing acts that exclude Parliament from the decision-making process. We must press on to defend Parliament’s powers. Hence, I would ask you to lend your vigorous support to the decision already reached by a huge majority in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

7.1. Common rules for direct support schemes for farmers (A7-0158/2011 - Paolo De Castro) (vote)

7.2. Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (A7-0161/2011 - Paolo De Castro) (vote)

7.3. Common organisation of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products (A7-0322/2011 - Paolo De Castro) (vote)

7.4. Financing of the common agricultural policy (A7-0209/2011 - Giovanni La Via) (vote)

7.5. Organic production and labelling of organic products (A7-0215/2011 - Martin Häusling) (vote)

7.6. System of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (A7-0204/2011 - Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos) (vote)

7.7. EU-Russia Agreement on the preservation of commitments on trade in services (A7-0176/2012 - Gianluca Susta) (vote)

7.8. EU-Russia agreement on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles (A7-0175/2012 - Paweł Zalewski) (vote)

7.9. EU-Russia Agreement on the introduction or increase by the Russian Federation of export duties on raw materials (A7-0178/2012 - Inese Vaidere) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Inese Vaidere, rapporteur. − Mr President, this bilateral agreement is very necessary although not perfect.

By joining the WTO, Russia has committed to gradually reducing or eliminating its existing export duties on a list of raw materials. However, not all the essential goods are covered. For that reason, the EU has negotiated this agreement. A key achievement is Russia’s commitment not to impose new or additional export duties. In the event it would like to do so, Russia should consult the European Commission at least two months in advance.

There are also a few shortcomings. Firstly, the wording in the agreement does not make it binding enough. Secondly, no bilateral dispute settlement mechanism is foreseen. There are not too many tools for the EU to enforce this agreement if Russia does not fulfil its commitments. Therefore, this agreement should be seen as a temporary solution until it is replaced by a legally binding agreement included in the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

Let me conclude by saying that the agreement is an important step towards stabilising the trade relationship between the EU and Russia. It does not eliminate unpredictable behaviour from Russia, but nevertheless will improve trade relations. I call on you, dear colleagues, to support the agreement by voting in favour of it.

7.10. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA (A7-0204/2012 - David Martin) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). - Mr President, under Rule 175(2) of the Rules of Procedure I would like, on behalf of the EPP Group, to refer this back to the Committee on International Trade.

The reason is quite obvious and should be considered by anybody who wants to treat this agreement seriously. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which gives us international cooperation to fight piracy, counterfeit and other IPR infringements is currently being evaluated by the Court of Justice of the European Union. As much of the criticism against this agreement relates to fundamental rights – exactly what the Court has been asked by the Commission to look into and assess – we would not like to take the final vote in plenary before we have had their view on this important topic.

Therefore the EPP Group would like to refer this back to the Committee on International Trade.

  Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am now speaking here on behalf of my group, and I would like to express support for the motion put forward by Mr Fjellner. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have a lot of raw materials in Europe. The raw materials that we have here are our brains and our creativity. That means that we need to deal carefully with the subject of intellectual property rights. The Commission has sent the proposal that has been put to us to the Court of Justice of the European Union with a request for its opinion in order to clarify some outstanding questions. We simply need to show respect for the supreme court of the European Union and wait for this decision. There is absolutely no objective reason why we should make this decision today. No one will be prevented from voting against it once the court has submitted its decision and its opinion. When we then make our decision, however, we will be making it with a different awareness and a different insight than would be the case today. Those travelling in the wrong direction on the Internet motorway should not be the ones to decide our policies. I therefore ask you to support this motion.

(Applause)

  David Martin (S&D). - Mr President, ACTA has now been rejected by five parliamentary committees. It has been killed so many times that in fact it now only exists thanks to the EPP life support machine.

(Applause)

No emergency surgery, no transplant, no long period of recuperation is going to save ACTA. It is time to give it its last rites. It is time to allow its friends to mourn and for the rest of us to get on with our lives.

(Applause)

(Parliament rejected the proposal by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats))

– After the vote:

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, after this vote I would just like to refer once again to what has already been said in the plenary by my colleague, Commissioner De Gucht.

He underlined the importance of ACTA for creativity, innovation and economic potential in the European Union and how important this Agreement is for the external competitiveness of the EU’s economy.

I would like to inform honourable Members that the Commission will maintain its request to the Court of Justice of the European Union for an opinion on whether ACTA is compatible with the treaties and, in particular, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. After that we will study the Court’s opinion closely and the Commission will discuss this matter with the other signatories of ACTA and with the European Parliament. It will then consider what further steps to take.

7.11. Direct payments to farmers (A7-0163/2012 - Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos) (vote)

7.12. 2013 budget - mandate for trilogue (A7-0215/2012 - Giovanni La Via) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have just one question for our Legal Service. I would ask the Legal Service to get someone to check whether it is possible to table an amendment that is meaningless, because Amendment 20 calls for Parliament to have a single seat. Please read the Treaty: there has been a single seat for a long time, and that seat is Strasbourg. We can concentrate the work here without the Council – that has been in the Treaty for a long time. On that basis, the amendment is unlawful.

  President. – Mr Posselt, the services have examined this amendment and the result is reflected in the order of voting that we are going to follow.

– Before the vote on paragraph 88:

  Giovanni La Via, rapporteur. − Mr President, I want to add an oral amendment to paragraph 88. The text of the oral amendment is: ‘a sufficient level of payments to allow for the 2012 June European Council commitment to mobilise EU budget funds for fast-acting growth measures to be implemented without any delay and within the current MFF’.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

7.13. Strategy for the protection and welfare of animals (A7-0216/2012 - Marit Paulsen) (vote)

7.14. Establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals (B7-0341/2012) (vote)

7.15. Conclusions of the European Council meeting (28-29 June 2012) (B7-0407/2012, B7-0408/2012, B7-0409/2012, B7-0410/2012) (vote)

7.16. Access to basic banking services (A7-0197/2012 - Jürgen Klute) (vote)

7.17. Preparation of the Commission Work Programme 2013 (B7-0345/2012) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, this morning we had the debate on the resolution on the Commission work programme, but several political groups that represent a very large majority in this House have decided to ask for the vote on the resolution to be postponed until September, in order to take into account the agreements reached in the Council meeting and the resolution that we have just adopted on that meeting, and also in order to take more time to perfect a joint resolution that expresses Parliament’s view regarding the work of the Commission in the last period of its mandate.

(Parliament decided to postpone the vote until September)

  President. – That concludes the vote.

8. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (A7-0190/2012)

  Vicky Ford (ECR). - Mr President, I opposed the report on the attractiveness of investing in Europe. Investment is key to our economic growth. To be competitive we need investment, but unless we are competitive we lose it. To help our small businesses become competitive, I have campaigned urgently for them to be excluded from large bits of EU legislation, but that is not in this text.

I am also concerned that larger long-term investors like pension funds and insurance companies face unintended burdens from some of Europe’s legislation on the financial sector. The Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy agreed with me, but this did not make it into the text.

Instead, this text calls for further coordination of employment and social policies. We know that when we coordinate at EU level our policies become even more restrictive and not less. The only investor that will be left in Europe is the state, and the state has run out of money.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to add my voice to the plaudits this report has garnered from the House in relation to the need to strengthen the European Union’s standing as a place where it is possible to invest, produce, and produce in line with our conception of an economy that is inclusive as well as socially and environmentally sustainable.

I think a number of parts of this measure are really helpful, while others could be added. I do think it is important to grasp this opportunity and work even harder to enhance our attractiveness through regional marketing policies and openness, which represent the region’s proposition for a productive, industrial, manufacturing and services economy that, as it originates in the region, is respectful of the environment. This regional approach together with EU policies along the same lines are what we need to attract investment and growth.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, attracting investment in Europe requires concrete measures and courageous reforms. We need to ensure free and fair competition between enterprises. In a globalised and crisis-hit economy as we have at present the main thing we need to do is make businesses more competitive and increase their capacity for growth and job creation; jobs are the most important thing of all. Europe must once again become an attractive place in which to invest and work. The current crisis is a global one, and Europe must play its part to make business stronger, more competitive and above all more attractive.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union must address its weaknesses and accentuate its strengths in order to attract local and international investment, driving growth and cohesion.

The European Union is the largest trading area in the world and receives significant foreign investment, although less than before, due above all to investors becoming discouraged not only by problems related to the crisis, but also by the many issues affecting the EU market.

I therefore share Ms Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou’s call for a Commission communication on promoting the attractiveness of investing in Europe. The objectives are: to improve the functioning of the single market; to use the Structural Funds; to maximise the advantages of cohesion policy; to ensure stability; to improve access to financing; to promote project bonds; and to bring about greater research into innovation.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, we need to take advantage of the single market in order to attract more investment in the EU. All too often the only kind of investment which the EU wants is to promote public investment.

EU funds do not necessarily increase our global competitiveness. The EU already has a high-quality human capital and a predictable business environment. As a former businesswoman I know that is not enough to attract new ventures. We need to give businesses what they want, namely less red tape and lower taxes. This report recognises that high taxation is damaging the EU’s competitiveness but, if we are serious about attracting foreign direct investment, then what we must really do is liberate the economy from excessive bureaucracy.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, as we strive for economic recovery in Northern Ireland, we face the challenge of attempting to rebalance our local economy by moving away from a reliance on the public sector for employment. It is, therefore, vital that Northern Ireland PLC can offer incentives to foreign companies to attract them to set up in the province and to bring with them investment and job creation in the private sector.

It is, therefore, deeply concerning that the Commission is proposing quite radical changes to the rules surrounding these incentives, as part of the post-2013 regional aid guidelines. Of particular concern is the size of FDI companies eligible for regional aid funding. This situation is compounded in Northern Ireland by the fact that my constituency is the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land border with a euro zone country, and one which has a corporation tax rate of 50% less than the UK one. In recent times in Northern Ireland, we have seen companies like the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup come to Belfast. Under the post-2013 rules, these companies could not have come.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to attract investment, the European Union must set up a political and legal framework based on objectives for sustainable growth, as per the Europe 2020 strategy. High-quality products and a strong propensity for research and innovation are the strong points of our economy; if they are to play a more important role then they need a true internal market, where businesses can compete openly.

The Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs 2014-2020 must provide a real opportunity for small and medium-sized enterprises. We need to create a new energy model that is not conditioned by the rising price of oil and can offer European businesses affordable energy access. The creation, as set out in paragraph 16, of a European observatory capable of monitoring the reduction of tax and bureaucratic barriers, and the implementation of cohesion policies, is an interesting idea.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, I think the key word here is attractiveness and from my discussions with companies and business outside the European Union they are finding it less and less attractive to come into the European Union because of over-regulation and lack of consistency across the states in applying regulation.

Having said that, they said the first way to deal with a problem is to recognise it. At least we are addressing that today and there are some very good proposals in this document especially as regards utilising our banks – the EIB and ECB – as well as macro-regions and the potential for more research and development and innovation.

(GA) But, enough said. I have serious doubts about one proposal, the CCCTB (common consolidated corporate tax base). My country can not be satisfied with that, because it will further disadvantage us as we remain in trouble.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, it is very obvious why people are not investing in Europe: our costs are too high, our labour market is too rigid, our taxes are too high. We are witnessing an epochal shift in power and wealth. We still look at these old maps which have Europe at the middle, we do not realise the extent to which the centre of gravity has shifted to the Pacific.

And the reason it has happened is very easily identified. For 500 years the secret of Europe’s success was our diversity, our variety, our pluralism, the fact that instead of becoming a single empire we remained a plurality of competing states, each trialling new ideas, each striving to outdo its competitors.

The tragedy of our generation is that, just as the great civilisations of Asia have learnt the secret of decentralisation, we in Europe are going in the opposite direction. We are following the Ming, Mogul, Ottoman path towards more uniformity, more bureaucracy, more taxation and more harmonisation. There is nothing inevitable about this. We are the authors of our own poverty. ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.’

Report: Miloslav Ransdorf (A7-0183/2012)

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, enlargement of the free trade area by means of association agreements is a priority for European Union policy. The growing importance of Eastern Partnership countries makes it particularly important for us to focus attention on this area, even more so when, in the light of events in Northern Africa, we have been placing greater emphasis recently on relations with the South.

For these countries, free trade is the principal tool for integration with Europe and it also provides a stimulus to undertake economic reforms that are often difficult. In supporting this resolution, I declare my support for increasing EU activity in its relations with our eastern neighbours. Trade integration requires enormous efforts both from ourselves and from the associated countries but, over the long term, this will bring measurable benefits to everyone. Another important factor is the influence that this will have on the growth of civil society and on raising the standard of living in this part of Europe. An issue whose importance for security cannot be overstated is the accession of Ukraine and Moldova to the Energy Community Treaty.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. It is vitally important that the Eastern Neighbourhood Partnership (ENP) remains effective for these five countries in our eastern neighbourhood.

It is clear to me that the EU must continue to advertise its free market liberal economic model to the east, lest more retrograde economic forces prevail there. DCFTAs will not only encourage trade flows between the EU and Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, but will also force a necessary liberalisation of their internal economies and, hopefully, more democracy.

I specifically welcome the report’s conclusions that the Arab Spring has diverted our attention from eastern partner countries whose exact economic and geopolitical situation continues to change in ways in which we must be aware of now, such as the growing influence of China in that region and also the competition posed by the Eurasian Economic Community with Central Asia.

It is especially important to keep Ukraine on board as the general political drift in that country is not favourable to western interests. Ukraine’s record on human rights and democracy, already sullied by the Tymoshenko incarceration case, is set to deteriorate further if the proposed ban on discussing LGBT issues takes place.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, I believe the EU is primarily a commercial block and we should be trading as effectively as possible with our global partners, which is why I supported this report. However, it groups together a number of different countries at various stages of economic and political development and I have yet to be convinced of the added value of the Eastern Partnership.

Since their liberation from Communist oppression the former Soviet states have embraced democracy and the free market with differing degrees of success. We cannot possibly compare Georgia, which has one of the most progressive and liberal economies in the world, with Belarus which is lumbered with a Soviet-style command economy. Even countries like Ukraine, once considered a promising partner for the EU, has political problems and is undermining economic growth.

I support more trade with the countries of the Eastern Partnership. However, we must be cautious that the one-size-fits-all approach does not work for six extremely different countries.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, it is a truth rarely admitted in this Chamber that the European Union can be a remarkably uncomfortable trading neighbour. The countries of the former Soviet Union now find themselves in the position in which a number of ex-Warsaw Pact states found themselves in the 1990s, where they are squeezed between two large dirigiste trading blocks.

When you talk about partnership agreements with countries in the Caucasus, or in the Balkans, we are remarkably reluctant to open our markets to the things that they do best: coal, steel, textiles and above all agriculture. Instead of offering them a straightforward free trade deal, we try to draw them into the euro-nexus of subsidies and support and regulation. This is the last thing they need; these are countries with educated and industrious work forces, with a relatively low cost of living and with the opportunity to export their way into the market through cheaper exports. All they need is the ability to sell freely and without hindrance.

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0158/2011)

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for and have supported this measure, because I think it is in line with the overall strategy to develop a sector that is still really struggling and is affected by huge market volatility, environmental challenges and the need to ensure environmental safety.

I would say that the limit on aid to individual farmers is right, that the incentives for greening to help these new processes develop and inject competitiveness into the sector are good, and that so is the support for young people. This is an important, meaningful programme that also affects small entrepreneurs. What we really need is development.

Simplified, leaner procedures that ensure direct payment are vital, to ensure that a sector that finds itself in great difficulty has a chance for real development. That is why I voted in favour and why I have supported an intervention that also allows for direct payments to young farmers to give them a chance and an opportunity to take the initiative and develop their business, which could bring significant results in terms of employment that the European Union cannot ignore.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report, because it is important for Parliament to adapt the common agricultural policy to the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon. I hope that, when the administrative burden on the Member States is lightened as a result of the reforms proposed in this report, more attention will be given to the real issues.

One of the critical questions in agriculture is the age crisis that the sector is facing. Agricultural entrepreneurs under the age of 35 account for just 6% of the total in Europe, and one in three is over 65. The ageing population of agricultural producers is a threat, not only to food production in Europe, but also to the sector’s profile as a profession for those of all ages. It is not just about the production of food: it is also a matter of policy on land use and employment.

We need to show support for agricultural entrepreneurs, especially those who are young and just starting out, for, without them, European agriculture has no future. We need to do more to ensure that measures are taken in all Member States to support young farmers. They should not have unequal status simply because of where they live.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). - Mr President, the economic picture across Europe is very bleak. Most Member States, including the United Kingdom, are increasing taxes and cutting expenditure. They are doing this to reduce debt.

In Britain the coalition government inherited an annual deficit of GBP 160 billion when we came to office in 2010. In the last two years we have cut this by a quarter. My constituents do not enjoy the harsh medicine, but they understand it is necessary after 13 years of Labour taxing, spending and borrowing too much.

The European Union must act responsibly when we set our budget for next year. Our spending should be subject to the same discipline that we expect from the Member States. Taxpayers will not understand the demand from the Commission that the EU increase its expenditure by 7% at a time when expenditure is being cut at home. Calls by this Parliament for Europe to have more money whilst we face austerity at home will reduce further the reputation of the EU in my constituency.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, the common agricultural policy is the European Union in microcosm.

We have created a system where any market mechanism was deliberately suppressed; a system based on subvention, on state support, on guaranteed prices; a system which penalises us all as taxpayers – we are forced to pay for the production of food for which there is no market – and penalises us all over again as consumers by driving up food prices; a system that makes harder the settlement of a general global free trade deal, but that fails to deliver for farmers. The slowest growing part of the European economy, and that is saying something these days, is agriculture, because enterprise has been overtaken by a system which encourages people to look to the state for every rise in life.

But of course it has succeeded in one objective: it has created a corpus of people who see themselves as dependent on Brussels, and that is why I say it is the European Union in microcosm. The system has become a racket. It has become a way of redistributing money from everybody else to the people who, one way or another, are earning their livelihood from it.

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0161/2011)

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, speaking as a representative of a key region for the Polish agricultural sector, I support any measure to stimulate development in rural areas. This report will provide the basis for next year’s negotiations concerning reforms to the common agricultural policy. A coherent approach by Parliament will also help to ensure that delegated acts in the area of agriculture will be used in all possible instances.

The Regulation gives the Commission executive powers for the presentation and approval of rural area development programmes. It also introduces some significant simplifications that will reduce administrative burdens, for example reducing the number of annual reports on the progress of work as well as joint reports relating to rural area development. Proposals have also been made to simplify mutual compliance controls, and rules for using advisory services have been modified. In addition, I fully agree with the rapporteur’s negative opinion of the attempt by the Commission to remove support for producer groups in the fruit and vegetable sector.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this measure also falls within a wider context of a joint strategic framework on agriculture. It is an important intervention that ties in with the others also adopted in today’s sitting.

We have, however, observed – including in light of the information provided by Mr De Castro – that the Council’s stance on opposing delegated acts constitutes an unwarranted removal of Parliament’s competences and powers. Inter-institutional dialogue would, instead, force the Council to take a more flexible stance.

Simplification on EU funds and the possible use of the Structural Funds are important issues, as are the preservation of ecosystems, better organisation of the agri-food sector, improved attractiveness of farmers for investment and better development of skills tied to the results achieved.

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0322/2011)

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, decisions concerning the criteria for granting aid to European farmers and concerning export refunds and minimum export prices for agricultural products must no longer be made behind closed doors. The Council can no longer take decisions on Commission proposals on its own, as it did in the past. All matters relating to agriculture must be decided on in a proper legislative procedure. This has been the law since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and must also be taken into account in the adaptation of the old comitology procedure to the new distribution of powers in agricultural policy. That is also what the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is demanding. With this package of reports by our committee chair, we have ultimately taken a good decision, and Parliament is also ensuring that we are not only asserting the powers that have been bestowed upon us by the Treaty of Lisbon, we are also defending them.

Report: Giovanni La Via (A7-0209/2011)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr La Via’s text on the financing of the common agricultural policy aims to streamline the complex European bureaucracy in the agricultural sector. In particular, the amendments on the expenses to be funded by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the recovery proceedings do offer simplification, by eliminating two Council regulations and hence cutting the administrative burdens faced by the Member States. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – (ES) Mr President, there has not been a single bailout package whose consequences have, in principle, justified it. Despite this, the response of the European bureaucrats always ends up being a bigger bailout package.

Ladies and gentlemen, a debt crisis cannot be resolved with more debt. The recent bailout package has not solved the Spanish debt crisis but rather aggravated it, adding up to EUR 100 billion more to the country’s liabilities.

The harsh truth is that we have witnessed the damaging consequences of a fever for artificially cheap credit. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but we are rectifying the disastrous consequences of that fever and, once we have finished, we will be able to return to growth, following the path of good, common sense.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because of its legal, financial and operational importance. In order to implement the Treaty of Lisbon, the categories of specific acts need to be defined clearly for each situation. I am thinking in particular of delegated acts.

At the same time, we must not forget that the common agricultural policy is the most important chapter in the EU budget. Therefore, any changes must be aimed at making the system simpler and efficient. This will enable us to provide support to farmers, while cutting red tape and removing complicated procedures. In this context, I support the amendments tabled by Mr La Via on the expenditure to be financed by the EAGF and the recovery procedure. I hope that both the Commission and Council will adopt a constructive attitude to come up with an agreement.

Report: Martin Häusling (A7-0215/2011)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, discussing delicate issues like the authorisation of products and substances for use in organic production is really the same as talking about protecting the health of European citizens. Indeed, it is important to meet consumer expectations on the quality of organic products on the European market, just as it is important to ensure adequate application of rules by the authorities, bodies and operators concerned. That is why I voted in favour of the report by Mr Häusling.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, although I opposed the Treaty of Lisbon it is now clear that European Union law must conform, albeit reluctantly, with its contents, so in the case of organic products and the regulation of such products, along with my political group I accept the use of delegated acts and therefore voted in favour of this proposal. The committee should of course include representatives from Member State governments and technical experts.

It is quite appropriate that technical prescription of organic labelling should be handled by the Commission. I welcomed Amendment 4 in particular, which specifically stated that the process of alignment of the Treaty of Lisbon should unburden organic farmers of excessive red tape through the simplification of the EU law in this area.

It is to be hoped that the Commission will take this opportunity now to support organic farmers, as I do every day I do my shopping in my local supermarket.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the legitimate interests and expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products require the adequate application of rules by the state organisations, private organisations and operators concerned. However, the current rules are not sufficiently clear, and so consumers often find themselves in situations that may threaten or harm their health and may even lead to epidemics.

The reliable functioning of the single market and trade therefore requires that clear rules be adopted and conditions be established for the application of regulations on organic production and the labelling of organic products. I agree that it is necessary to clearly define the substances for use in organic production, the production methods for processed food, and the conditions of application of the prohibition on the use of GMOs and products produced from or with the aid of GMOs.

In the interests of legal certainty for consumers, the labelling rules, and the requirements and specific criteria as regards presentation, composition, labelling size, and logo design for organic products in the European Union should be unified.

Recommendation: David Martin (A7-0204/012)

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I feel an urgent need to clarify the fact that, following the application for referral back to committee and the motion for deferral, a certain amount of confusion has arisen. I heard from your announcement that we would vote on the agreement itself, which is why my colleagues and I voted against it, because we are firmly convinced that we should not conclude this agreement. Numerous reasons for this have, of course, already been given.

The report by Mr Martin, however, provides for Parliament’s refusal to agree to the conclusion of the agreement. In other words, we would have to support the report. I therefore feel the need to clarify the fact that I have rejected this Commission draft and the draft of the Council on the conclusion of a trade agreement – I reject ACTA – and therefore I would have supported the Martin report itself had it been put to the vote.

  Joseph Cuschieri (S&D). - (MT) Mr President, I would like to refer to the report of a colleague of mine, David Martin, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade regarding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

I voted in favour of the rapporteur’s recommendation, that is, against ACTA, because I believe that in light of the agreement that was drawn up, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection to European citizens. To fight against counterfeiting and to strengthen Intellectual Property Rights, namely trademarks, patents and copyrights, is laudable, however not if it is done in the way that is being advocated through ACTA. I condemn the process that led to the signing of this agreement. Transparency was lacking from the very start of the negotiations and no consultations took place with civil society. A number of recommendations that were tabled by the European Parliament were rejected. I agree with the conclusions of David Martin’s report and I too believe that this agreement needs to be rejected by this Parliament.

I firmly believe that the European Commission needs to come up with new proposals and replace ACTA with a new agreement, one which will above all guarantee that the privacy and human rights of our European citizens are respected and not infringed upon.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ACTA represents more than just the agreement itself; it is an example of a wrong and unprofessional policy from which we should all learn. The legitimate concern of protecting European industry from product piracy is one that should in principle be supported, as our competitive advantage does not lie in low unit labour costs, but instead is knowledge-based. In order to have achieved this, however, we would also have had to involve China and India in such an agreement and, above all, we should not have overloaded it with demands from the music and entertainment industries. Most importantly, we should not have allowed Internet service providers to be turned into some kind of deputy sheriffs. The question of copyright is too important to be regulated by means of a trade agreement. This was an attempt to solve the problems of the 21st century using the methods of the 19th century. In particular, the Commissioner responsible has failed. He totally disregarded Parliament in an outdated cabinet policy style. Mr De Gucht should draw the appropriate conclusions from this and step down from the office that is clearly too much for him.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It is symbolically apt that the path that ACTA has taken should end at this plenary in Strasbourg, since the European Parliament, of course, represents 500 million citizens and consumers, as well as their interests. It is important to remember that the ACTA Treaty, which has now been rejected, nevertheless addressed problems that were found to exist. In the solutions that it proposed, however, there was scope for improvement and clarification. The Treaty had muddled two completely separate issues.

Since ACTA has failed, it is vitally important to propose alternative European solutions both for counterfeit products and intellectual property rights (IPRs). This is ultimately about European jobs and European competitiveness, which counterfeiting and IPR violations undermine. In my opinion, today Parliament sent a strong message that not just anything goes.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, above all we need to guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens, democracy, freedom of expression and free access to the Internet. However, we must not ignore the commitment – which must be strong – to combat counterfeiting, piracy and the violation of intellectual property. One only need think of the enormous turnover in fake medicines, which can be lethal for citizens’ health.

I abstained, because it would have been better to vote after the pronouncement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and because the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has many weaknesses. First of all, China, India, Russia and Brazil – where many counterfeit goods come from – are not party to the agreement, while ACTA also provides for unclear processes and excessive sanctions which could impose restrictive measures on citizens’ freedom on the Internet, thereby violating fundamental rights.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, like most of my Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe here in the European Parliament, I voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposal. Of course, that does not mean that protecting intellectual property is not one of the cornerstones of liberal doctrine; on the contrary. However, the main error of those who initially proposed the ACTA was to think ‘global’: clearly, we do not protect a song or film from illegal downloading in the same way as we protect citizens from counterfeit medicines, for example.

In my view, there are three lessons here for the future, because we believe that an international anti-counterfeiting agreement is essential. Saying no to the proposal today, as we have done, means listening to the position of civil society and calling for greater cooperation between the Commission and Parliament, which has been reiterated many times. Saying no to the proposal today also means asking the European Union to speak with a single voice to ensure that creators receive fair recompense. Must we point out again that five Member States, including Germany and the Netherlands, have not signed this agreement? Finally, saying no today means calling for negotiations with China and India that are as transparent and broad as possible: they are the countries responsible for most counterfeit products, and need I remind you that this counterfeiting costs Europe 100 000 jobs every year?

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, I would like to say to those 15 000 plus Bulgarian citizens who wrote to me about the ACTA that my colleagues and I from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament voted against this anti-counterfeiting agreement.

I want to be clear: intellectual property and copyright must be protected. However, this cannot happen at the expense of restricting freedom on the Internet, the only place where everyone is equal. I am pleased that the Bulgarian Socialist Party and the S&D Group adopted a clear stance against the ACTA from day one. The European right also showed today how little they are interested in the citizens’ voice and how divided they are on this key issue.

I am surprised at the Commission’s persistence in continuing to defend the ACTA in spite of the clear opposing stance adopted by Parliament and the mass turnouts at the protests across Europe in dozens of European cities.

Ladies and gentlemen, the ACTA is dead. Admit your own mistakes in the negotiations and start the whole thing from scratch, the right way this time.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, the ACTA file, for me personally, has been a very difficult one on which to come to a decision. My preferred route would have been to refer it back to the committee until the judgement of the ECJ was available, but this was rejected democratically, and I therefore reluctantly abstained.

I would like to make it clear that I do support rigorous, defensive intellectual property. I also deplore the proliferation of counterfeiting, particularly in safety-critical areas such as medicines and car parts. It is regrettable that these two issues have been conflated in the ACTA regulation.

But I also have considerable misgivings about the level of powers proposed for various authorities and the level of intrusion into citizens’ lives that could be possible, depending on the interpretation of the report. So I therefore find it impossible to support the complete rejection and I find it impossible to support the complete embracing of this report. I think that it needs further work, but it is not a case of it being completely dead. Maybe the ACTA is dead, but we still have to go out there and find ways of promoting and supporting our intellectual property in Europe.

  Edward Scicluna (S&D). - Mr President, I voted to reject the ACTA treaty and for victory for freedom on the internet.

ACTA has been flawed from the start. It was negotiated in secret and we only learned of it through Wikileaks nearly three years into the talks. It is also clear from the minutes of the negotiating meetings that the Commission did not take a strong stance on behalf of the EU.

But the main problem with ACTA is its ambiguity. The sanctions are draconian and it is unclear how they would be applied. Accountable internet service providers would have sweeping new powers to monitor our internet use. People could lose their internet connection and face criminal prosecution for sharing downloaded music with their friends.

Intellectual property is one of the most valuable commodities of the European economy and we need to have clear rules to protect the rights of authors and performers alongside data privacy. ACTA does not do this. The Commission must go back to the drawing board.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Mr President, I voted today to postpone the vote until the court has issued its opinion. The majority did not want to do this. I was then forced to vote in favour of ACTA. I do not think that the agreement is perfect, and I do not think that it restricts freedom on the Internet, but European undertakings lose an enormous amount of money every year and a huge number of jobs are lost as a result of counterfeiting and illegal copies of products. We adopted the Creutzmann report yesterday in respect of taking action within the EU’s borders to stop copies and counterfeits, but that is not enough. Crime must be stopped at source, and we need international regulations that enable us to enforce legal protection by means of customs control, injunctions and the possibility of applying civil liability. India and China are not involved in ACTA, and it is now becoming even more difficult to exert pressure on these countries in international trade agreements. I have to say that these days they are laughing all the way from New Delhi to Beijing.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, Europe’s comparative advantages cannot just be in manufacturing or natural resources but also in the marketing of proprietary information and intellectual property. This is the core of our economic model and I strongly support measures against counterfeit products.

However, there are many aspects of this ACTA resolution which gave grounds for concern. It was a shame that the US drafters conflated physical goods, e.g. counterfeit medicines and car parts, with digital content, since the latter is so much more difficult to protect from copyright theft and requires a different approach from the former.

There are also civil liberty concerns and questions regarding the draconian measures envisaged in this resolution. The ECJ was reviewing these at the time, which is why I was in favour of referring it back to committee.

The other issue which gave me a lot of concern was the fact that it is not a global thing, bringing on board China and India which are the source of much counterfeit in the world. So overall, like all other Conservatives, I abstained.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, as a representative of the Bulgarian National Democratic Party, I voted against adopting ACTA. This was obviously prompted by the fact that our citizens actually hugely opposed this agreement, protested against it and expressed their desire for it not to come into force.

However, this is also down to the way in which the actual proposal was basically agreed: in secret, behind closed doors, without providing sufficient information. The basic conclusion which can be drawn is that the United States attempted to impose the US police state in Europe. However, Europe’s citizens rebelled against this and, thankfully, their reaction was also reflected in our decision today.

However, what actually concerns me the most is that, if our citizens had not come out onto the streets, would all of us now speaking out against adopting this agreement have had the same opinion? We should look at these issues more seriously and not go along with everything that the Commission tells us because this is why we were elected: to control the Commission and always do the right thing, and not only when there is public discontent.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, like Julie Girling and Charles Tannock, I voted first for this report to be cancelled and, when that was not accepted, I abstained at the final vote because I feel it is right and proper to wait until the Court of Justice of the European Union comes to a decision before we come to a decision here.

Having said that, one thing I could not understand about this agreement is that it is supposed to be dealing with counterfeit goods, and as 95% of these goods are coming from China, and to a lesser extent India, and those countries are not a party to this agreement, I just wonder how effective it would have been anyway.

When I asked this question I was told this was a ‘coalition of the willing’. I would say more a ‘coalition of the innocent’, and the guilty are let off scot-free.

So now that we have a chance to go back to the drawing board we should first deal with China, and to a lesser extent India, in the area of counterfeit goods, which are costing us EUR 250 billion and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and then move on to other matters.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I abstained from voting on this report because we ought to have waited for the judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union before voting. I surf the Internet a lot and I would not like my access to the online service to be restricted. I too would like my rights to be defended, and my personal data to be protected appropriately. Therefore, I understand the concerns which ACTA has raised for many citizens. However, perhaps they have also been raised by a lack of information because, at the same time, we are bombarded by counterfeit products. They have an impact on our finances, pose a danger to our health and provide unfair competition for European manufacturers. Therefore, we need an international treaty to combat counterfeiting. This is why I regard today’s decision as being hasty.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, this is a rather different explanation of vote, because I would like to explain why I did not vote at all. I did not even abstain, because I am unhappy with the entire process for dealing with the issue of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

I did have an opinion on the matter: that, whatever the case, we need protection against piracy. We need an international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to protect intellectual property rights. This House, I believe, made itself look ridiculous by adopting a position on ACTA before its unanswered questions had been dealt with by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The decision should have been deferred to allow us to take a decision based on facts. Now our email inboxes have become full with a lobbying campaign spreading the wrong information.

I would now like to correct a few factual errors. ACTA does not regulate use or freedom of the Internet. ACTA will not lead to border checks on computers carried by airline passengers or to control of the Internet. ACTA will not result in the adoption of a ‘three strikes’ penalty for online infringements. ACTA will not prevent poor countries from purchasing cheap medicines. All the safeguard clauses and derogations under EU legislation or the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) will remain fully in place, and so on. The list could well go on, but my time has run out.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, I would like to explain why it was a good thing that the European Parliament did not wait for the statement of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, we have the power to judge whether any international agreement complies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) failed that test – this was said in all of the committees – due to the insufficient guarantees resulting from the ambiguous wording of the obligations, the poor guarantee of the right to a fair trial, the lack of transparency and the consequent violation of the right to the proper administration of public affairs, and the risk of a violation of the right to the protection of privacy and communications. Generally, however, it was mainly due to the considerable legal uncertainty it created with regard to the scope of its key provisions, where even the leading academic experts in Europe were unable to agree on their impact.

Waiting for the Court would prolong the uncertainty in this area, and would also undermine public confidence in the fact that the European Parliament represents European citizens and is an independent body. The Court of Justice of the European Union cannot replace the role of the European Parliament.

After the Court of Justice of the European Union had expressed its opinion, moreover, the ACTA would surely produce greater fragmentation of the market and of national laws as far as human rights are concerned. It would have a negative impact on European citizens and businesses, rather than on professional counterfeiters. There were many such reasons in favour of rejection, but the fight against counterfeits goes on, of course, and we must take a very strong line, particularly when it comes to negotiating the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive.

Report: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (A7-0163/012)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Council Regulation No 73/2009, which provides the rules for the current system of direct payments to farmers, will be superseded by other proposals under the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform for 2014-2020 In its proposals for the multiannual financial framework and the CAP for 2014-2020, the Commission is proposing to make use of a new crisis reserve to address additional financing needs resulting from unexpected agricultural crises.

The net ceiling in 2013 for EU Member States would be equal to the value of the net ceiling in 2012, with the adjustments deriving from grubbing-up in 2012 and the appraised transfer of the wine envelopes to the single payment scheme.

I agree with the solution contained in the report and therefore I voted in favour of Mr Capoulas Santos’s proposal, because I think we need to maintain the current financial structure for 2013 in order to ensure continued levels of payments and to support agricultural development in an effective way.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, you might imagine the horror which British MEPs felt when we first saw the Commission’s proposals for what looks like a very routine adjustment for one year, only to discover that the voluntary modulation mechanism, much used in the UK, and indeed only necessary because of the appalling settlement on Pillar 2 in the last CAP, had been left out.

So I very much welcome the pragmatic support by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for reasserting this right for the UK for the last year of the financial framework. Without it we would not be able to deliver what are, I think, fairly uniformly recognised in the European Parliament as good – in many cases exemplary – agri-environment schemes delivering biodiversity and environmental benefits across the UK.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, for the majority of farmers in Northern Ireland, direct payments account for a large percentage of business income and are key to maintaining adequate cash flows. The smooth transition to the new CAP post-2013 is key, and it is important that farmers’ incomes are sustained. Rural development spending must also be maintained in the transition period, especially for spending which has been earmarked for countryside management and less-favoured area payments.

A lack of investment and support for the farming community over a short period of time will have a negative impact on rural communities and businesses. The Commission must allow for Member States to take the appropriate action to prevent this from taking place.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, what Ms Dodds said about Northern Ireland applies equally to Southern Ireland, and I concur with her. Direct payments are crucial for the development of agriculture, and particularly for the maintenance of the family farm. Any transition has to be done on a gradual basis. Above all, we have to think of the long-term consequences. We are in a position where the world population is now seven billion, and likely to go to nine billion over the next 20 or 30 years. There is not going to be any more land created in that time, so we have to ensure that our policies firstly preserve family farms and – in particular – that productivity is rewarded and encouraged. If we move too quickly away from that, then we are going to be damaging European agriculture and also inhibiting our hopes of ending poverty in the world.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I think that it is important for the current financial structure also to be maintained for next year. Establishing net ceilings will ensure continuity in the levels of payments for farmers, while the adjustment mechanism similar to modulation will help achieve this objective. In my view, we also need to take into account the consequences arising from phasing in the direct payments in the new Member States. This is why it is good that there will be no adjustments for Romania because the process is still not complete in my country. At the same time, the value of the net ceilings for Romania will not change either next year. I think that a transition mechanism for 2013 would be beneficial and could ensure an easy switch to the future reformed system.

Report: Giovanni La Via (A7-0215/2012)

  George Lyon (ALDE). - Mr President, I did not vote for the budget mandate for 2013 in today’s vote. The Commission’s proposal for a 6.8% increase is based on the forecast from Member States of the amount of EU expenditure they think they will need for 2013. Of course the majority of the budget – 94% of the EU budget – is spent in the Member States’ own backyards, yet many in the Council are now saying that the forecast for the increased spending is too high. They are disputing their own figures supplied by their own managing authorities.

If we are to have a serious discussion on how much EU spending is needed for 2013 then we need to clarify Member States’ forecasts and agree between the institutions what the right figures are. We also need to examine whether there is scope for savings in the budget and agree various options to be put on the table. It is also important that this Parliament makes a contribution towards finding savings, and I am sure that the working group looking into this will come forward with some concrete suggestions.

I hope that the Commission, the Council and Parliament’s Committee on Budgets can work together to bottom out the Member States’ estimates so that we can have a robust set of options on the table which will allow us to make an informed decision on the spending levels needed for 2013.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, the EU budget is EUR 130 billion. That is 13 followed by ten zeros. It is a number so large that it is almost incomprehensible. Yet, for the Commission this colossal figure is simply not enough. The Commission, like Oliver Twist, would like to ask for more. But, like Oliver Twist, the Commission is in the poorhouse.

Many Member States are tightening their belts and reining in public spending. So why should the Commission be immune to austerity when it so quickly imposes it on others? We need regular evaluation of the EU budget to ensure that all spending is achieving its desired outcome. A 6.8% increase is simply not acceptable. We need to freeze the EU budget and to look to make cuts where possible.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I voted against this report as I do not believe that Parliament should be giving a mandate for negotiation at trilogue of a budget with these levels of increased spending. At a time when national governments all over Europe are having to take drastic and sometimes socially divisive decisions to reduce public spending, it is impossible to support an increase in spending across the EU via this budget.

We are missing a golden opportunity to review the way in which budgets are put together. We need to be more flexible in looking at Member States’ needs and looking for ways to save money. All kinds of innovative programmes are coming through Member States, but they never seem to permeate through to this level.

We here in the European Parliament could achieve a real increase in public support and we could really make inroads into public perception of our activities if we were simply to grasp this nettle and get on with delivering a budget that the people of Europe could support.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, the budget negotiations provide an opportunity for this Parliament and EU leaders to restore some degree of credibility against the backdrop of the continuing economic crisis which engulfs the eurozone and the rest of Europe. A modicum of credibility can be restored if we, as MEPs, accept that we too must exercise budgetary restraint.

I have said this often in this House but I will repeat it once again: it is simply not realistic, it is not sensible and it is not equitable that, while Member State governments exercise economic prudence at home, Brussels argues for the right for greater budgets. Where is the responsibility? Where is the leadership and the example that the EU can show at this time?

In the United Kingdom confidence in the EU is at an all-time low. While we persist with vanity projects like the European House of History or the waste of travelling between two places of work, Strasbourg and Brussels, then that will not change.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, British Conservatives have consistently called for the EU to do less, but do it better. Therefore I could not vote for this resolution, giving a mandate to take to the budgetary trilogue which would have endorsed the Commission’s unrealistically inflated and actually unfounded budgetary proposals.

The draft budget for 2013 astonishingly calls for a 6.8% increase on the figure of GBP 100 billion a year, a figure that looks totally incongruous set against the current climate of EU-wide austerity. In a time of widespread fiscal consolidation by Member States, it makes no sense to propose anything other than a spending freeze, if not a reduction. This will be widely interpreted as the institutions living in a parallel universe of their own fashioning.

My constituents in London should not have to endure the prospects of more EU spending and largesse whilst every other tier of national government in my country makes cuts to its budgets, resulting in many jobs being cut in public services. I agree with Ms Dodds that perhaps we should close down the Strasbourg parliament. That would be a huge saving to the budget, if only we could get consent for this from France and Germany.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, my explanation of vote concerns the La Via report on the 2013 budget and, specifically, the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 draft budget. I wish to refer specifically to the amendment tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left to paragraph 20 about a single seat for the European Parliament.

I voted against that amendment, because we need to respect the institutional order as set out in the EU Treaties. At the same time, however, we need to state that the economic environment, the economic difficulties faced by Europe as a whole and, more importantly, by its citizens, make this a very important matter politically and we must clearly review it. We cannot spend a lot of money when a large number of European citizens are suffering daily from the economic situation. We therefore need to reconsider this. At this stage, of course, we have respected our institutional obligations.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, I was unable to support this report. Europe is currently facing a serious financial and budgetary crisis. It is time we realised that EU resources must be used as efficiently and effectively as possible.

A total sum of EUR 748 million has been earmarked for decentralised agencies in 2013. The total contribution has thus increased by 3.2% or EUR 24 million compared to 2012. Even though this increase is logically connected with the start-up of eight new agencies and also with an expansion in the activities of seven agencies, I believe there should be no general increase in the contribution to these agencies.

The main reason is that research aimed at identifying areas of duplication and overlapping activities of existing agencies has not yet been completed. Personally, I firmly believe that there a number of agencies that, based on the similarity of their activities, could be merged, particularly in a period when we cannot allow further wastage of the EU's budgetary resources.

Report: Marit Paulsen (A7-0216/2012)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report on the welfare of animals because it introduces important concepts for a better future for animals and European citizens. Issues including a new directive to protect dogs and cats, the violation of the directives on zoos and laying hens by many Member States, and maintaining the March 2013 deadline for cosmetics tested on animals must be addressed urgently and as a matter of priority.

We also need to provide for mandatory labelling for meat from animals barbarically slaughtered without being stunned. We must adopt an EU law on animal welfare and set up a body that monitors whether the Member States enforce the rules on the industry.

We can and we must, however, do much more for animal welfare. Modern, civilised Europe can no longer tolerate barbaric, uncivilised and backwards practices such as vivisection, hunting or bullfighting. Let us renounce these absurd activities right now, for a Europe that is more respectful of animals and more respectful of the views of its citizens, who are often much more far-sighted, caring and sensitive than national and EU authorities.

  George Lyon (ALDE). - Mr President, I was pleased to support Marit Paulsen’s report. I think that she deserves credit for producing a very balanced report that deals with some very sensitive issues where there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. I welcome her emphasis on enforcement rather than on the need for more rules. I also welcome her suggestion of legally enforced milestones for new EU legislation in the future, because our experience of both the egg ban and the ban on battery cages, which was introduced last year, was that the Commission was utterly powerless when faced with a situation where many Member States appeared to be dragging their feet in enforcing that legislation. We are about to see a rerun of that same fiasco again with the ban on sow stalls and tethers for pregnant pigs.

We need to give the Commission more teeth to be able to step in earlier and enforce legally enforced milestones to ensure that Member States do comply in future with deadlines for introducing bans relating to animal welfare.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, the report by Marit Paulsen on the Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals seems to have struck a balance and takes into account the needs of agricultural production. I therefore voted in favour despite being somewhat reluctant at the start.

For many years, livestock farmers have been improving their practices in order to respond to consumer demands. This resolution puts forward some very interesting proposals to give this animal welfare policy added value for animal protection but also, and above all, for European production. It advocates a new approach to our trade policy, putting the emphasis on promoting the high standards met by our farmers. In terms of consumer negotiations and information, the quality of our production must be highlighted in order to combat distortions of competition.

This report also emphasises the need to align the animal welfare strategy with the desire to safeguard productivity. Animal welfare must be protected, but on the basis of sound scientific proof, and it must not lead to an unnecessary increase in what is already an extremely heavy regulatory burden.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, because animal welfare must figure in everything that we do. Financial considerations should not take priority over humane treatment.

Legislation on animal welfare must be simplified and harmonised. Furthermore, it must be based on researched data. What is most important for the practical implementation of animal welfare, however, is the effective enforcement of legislation. Even good legislation is of no importance if it is just a dead letter.

In addition to supervising legislation effectively, the Member States must ensure that there are appropriate sanctions for violations. This is especially important in animal transport, another area where there is where often non-compliance with existing legislation.

The European Union is a community of values, and animal welfare has intrinsic value. The legislation should also be extended to pets and stray animals.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, animal welfare is both an ethical and a public health objective, because more specific rules on animal health can help avoid the spread of disease under the ‘One Health’ principle, and therefore also ensure greater food safety, which goes hand in hand with product quality and with boosting the competiveness of European agriculture, even if there is also the issue of unfair competition. Indeed, we need to ensure equal conditions for European farmers and to protect the EU agri-food industry from unfair competition from third countries by demanding the same standards for imported products and animals. In conclusion, I say ‘stop’ to the indiscriminate and barbaric use of animals as test subjects and massacres of strays.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, protecting animal welfare standards is part of and complementary to sustainable development policy. European institutions, as signatories to the agreement on sustainable development, must do all they can to ensure these standards are adequate. The deterioration in the state of health of wild animals could result in an increased spread of contagious diseases to domestic animals and, at the same time, have an adverse effect on public health;

I voted in favour of Ms Paulsen’s proposal, since I think the current regulations need to be better enforced, with special focus on the animal transport sector. I welcome the inclusion in the strategy of a European animal welfare framework law and join in Ms Paulsen’s call for this law to be clearly formulated, followed by a consultation with all relevant parties.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, regrettably I was not able to support this report.

There are many welcome aspects, particularly the call for a new regime to deal with compliance with animal welfare advances, such as the rules on sow stalls which come into force at the end of this year. It is vital to devise a system that allows us to take action to expedite compliance before a deadline is reached. The debacle of this year’s Laying Hens Directive must simply not be repeated. I welcome Ms Paulsen’s attempts to come up with a strategy for that. I also welcome the call for equivalent welfare standards on all imported animal products as a significant step forward for livestock farmers and human health.

However, I regret the inclusion in this report of a call to extend the scope of Europe’s animal welfare strategy to pets and wild animals. I believe that these are Member State issues and will not benefit from European interference. If you look at the way in which we have put into place the European Zoos Directive and the complete lack of enforcement in Member States, I have no confidence at all that wild animals and pets will get any more attention.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, supporting and encouraging meaningful animal welfare advances is important to both the consumer and the producer. I think it is important to note from a purely production point of view that a well cared-for animal is a more productive animal. There is always a need for safeguards and updating of legislation as a result of developments in science, but equally important is the need for adequate monitoring and surveillance of the current legislation.

In Europe we must have a level playing field for all producers. We are all aware of animal welfare standards which have been put in place where some Member States have blatantly been non-compliant and little action has been taken in the form of punishment or redress. This has been recently demonstrated in the debacle over the continued use of battery cages for hens, and is facing us again in relation to sow stalls. This puts those Member States and producers that have complied at a competitive disadvantage, which is unacceptable in the single market.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the Paulsen report as a firm supporter generally of animal welfare across the Union. It is vital that the EU should have a cohesive and effective science-based strategy in defending and advancing animal welfare. I agree with the report’s conclusion that lack of compliance and non-harmonised standards across Member States not only distort farming competition, for example over the laying hens issue and the sow stalls issue, but also put animal welfare generally at risk and make our WTO demands for third countries to fall into line much less credible.

It is disappointing to learn that the enforcement of existing rules has remained lax. It is, however, heartening that this report envisages future legislation to fill in the rather large gaps in EU animal welfare law, most notably in the field of dairy cows. I would also like to take this opporunity to register my support for the maximum journey time of eight hours and 500 km for the transport of live animals, with some derogations, and for the general principle of ‘on the hook’ rather than ‘on the hoof’. However, I agree with my colleague that the issue of managing stray dogs is far better left to the Member States to legislate on.

Motions for resolutions: B7-0407/2012, B7-0408/2012, B7-0409/2012, B7-0410/2012

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the initial comments on the European Council, now the time for simplistic interpretation has begun, which is a mistake because important progress was made. For example, the destructive link between banks and public debts has been broken and we have a plan – albeit a weak one – on employment and jobs. The European institutions seem once again to be infused with a spirit of resurgence and renewed progress towards political unity, after so much slowness and dragging of feet, and a desire for real progress towards greater integration.

In this vein, yesterday saw a display of real unity between Parliament and the Commission. There were no winners or losers, but an undeniable, new institutional and political vitality compared to the diarchy of the past, which was the negation – the very antithesis – of the European spirit. Many countries showed initiative and a desire to act, not to create new, exclusive alliances, but to build a shared consensus that is respectful of all Member States. This is the path towards political unity, without which any form of banking, fiscal or monetary unity will be totally inadequate.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I have rejected all of the motions for resolutions, except the one tabled by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, which I supported. I would like to explain why I did this, further to the comments I made yesterday regarding the Council document.

Let me reiterate: with all of these proposals, which I already criticised yesterday, this gang of four is attempting to use the crisis in Europe to establish a European superstate by the back door. However, this Council meeting was the 19th meeting of cluelessness. I come now to further proof that this European Union is simply a fair weather programme and it cannot cope with crises: the proof is this proposal for banking supervision. Why should banking supervision work when the supervision of the Member States by the European Union in respect of compliance with the Maastricht criteria is already not working? Who would share this optimism? In other words, the next failure is already on the cards. All of this is intended to serve to ensure that in future, circumventing the Treaty establishing the ESM, the banks will be financed directly. We only need to consider the fact that, during the current ratification procedure, the Council itself is already breaking the rules with its own proposals for direct financing of the banks. That is outrageous.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, amid the continuing crisis, yet another summit, yet another set of short-term fudges that buoy the market for a moment and then begin to unravel soon after. At the same time the people of Europe continue to suffer.

In Italy in May, 36.2% of young people were out of work. In Spain, that number is 51.1%. In all of this summitry, the fundamental issue of the lack of competitiveness has not been answered. Significantly – and very worryingly – in this whole process, the importance of national democracy has been diminished. In this House this week, we have heard demands for people to be quiet after a summit. Surely this House, being directly elected by citizens, should recognise that national governments – having pursued the proper ratification of ESM – have the right to raise questions when those rules are changed. I fear that we will soon be discussing another spike in this continuing crisis.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, last week the Irish Taoiseach arrived home from the summit proclaiming a tremendous victory for the Irish people. The Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore said that the deal lifts the bank debt burden from Irish taxpayers. They were both very long on rhetoric and very short on detail, and when you read the detail it is not very enlightening. There is one sentence dealing with Ireland in the statement, which simply says that the Euro Group will examine the situation of the Irish financial sector.

It is as clear as mud. The summit has not provided any solution for the crisis. It does not deal with the unsustainable debt facing the Irish people, the Greek people, the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian people, and it does not tackle the collapse of private-sector investment that has taken place across Europe of EUR 300 billion in the course of the crisis. At the same time, the profits are going up and the richest corporations are hoarding EUR 3 trillion in liquid assets.

Radical socialist measures are needed to deal with the crisis. That means repudiating the debt. It means a capital tax on those uninvested profits, public investment to create jobs and, crucially, taking the key sections of the economy into democratic public ownership in order to be able to plan a way out of this crisis and redevelop the economies in a sustainable way.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, this week there has been intense and profound discussion on the achievements of last week’s EU Summit. There have even been doubts expressed in the press and among the Members here as to whether anything of any real import was actually achieved at the meeting in the end. I would like to believe that something was achieved, but Europe needs to promote closer cooperation. We either sink together or we steer the European ship towards a better future. In any case, we already have what is a kind of two-speed Europe. Those countries that want to develop and strengthen their cooperation must be allowed to do so.

It is a regrettable fact that several Member States see the Summit as a contest in which to further their own interests, and nothing more. National interests are in this way taking priority over European cooperation. This is an unfortunate, dangerous phenomenon. The European Union is facing what is perhaps the most serious crisis in its history. Now the crisis is about its very existence.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must acknowledge that the European Council of 28 June represented an important political step forward, finally bucking the trend of years of repatriation of EU policies and delays in the process of strengthening and completing the Union’s institutional and economic framework to accompany the single currency.

It is now irresponsible of certain governments or political groups to question or threaten to veto the decisions that have been taken, which I hope will be confirmed and fleshed out at the next Ecofin Council meeting. Such behaviour also risks negating Parliament’s efforts to push ahead with common objectives, namely boosting own resources, investment, jobs and growth.

Thanks above all to the efforts of our political group and the work of the Italian and French Governments – together with the Spanish Government – the ‘golden rule’ and the Tobin Tax are now on the agenda, but a renewed push for greater political and economic integration in the European Union should be there as well.

Report: Jürgen Klute (A7-0197/2012)

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I have just voted in favour of the report on access to basic banking services. Although the use of cash is rapidly diminishing, some 7% of the adult population of the EU still do not have a bank account. The reason why around six to seven million of these 30 million consumers do not have a bank account is that the banks have not agreed to let them have one.

Not having a bank account gives rise to basic problems for people in their everyday lives, when, for example, they go shopping, have to pay bills or enter into accommodation agreements. Furthermore, it is incredible that some banks are unwilling to open a bank account for a consumer even when they are presented with a currently valid contract of employment. In some cases, this is a serious problem, especially for employees from a migrant background.

We must rid ourselves of such discrimination and also persuade the banking sector to assume some social responsibility. For this reason, I enthusiastically support this report, which promotes the status of EU citizens and the internal market.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, this report was prepared in reaction to the problems experienced by citizens trying to open a bank account in another Member State. The objective, which is sensible, is to standardise the rules and to make it easier to use banking services. However, the solutions presented diverge from the initial concept, which focused on improving access to basic payment services in the European Union. First of all, the report recommends that the Commission should not begin work – which is planned for the beginning of next year – on a draft directive for this service sector. Many other recommendations contained in the report will in reality constitute a direct or indirect threat to the Union’s banking sector. One issue that requires discussion is whether the suppliers of payment services should bear the cost of an information campaign to raise awareness about the right of access to the new product, especially in view of the fact that they will incur considerable costs for employee training. For this reason, I voted against this report.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I fully endorse this resolution. I believe that every European citizen should have access to a basic bank account, for free or for a modest charge, because:

1. the annual opportunity cost of not having access to a payment account is estimated at roughly EUR 250 per consumer;

2. access to basic payment services is, in particular, a prerequisite for access to jobs, for health-care services and housing.

Furthermore, factors such as level or regularity of income, employment, credit history, level of indebtedness, individual situation regarding bankruptcy or turnover should not be taken into account for opening a basic payment account. In particular, access should in no way be conditional upon purchasing other products or services, such as insurance or an additional account.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, thank you for your great patience today.

I am sure that for many of my UK colleagues – and particularly those other UK MEPs representing Northern Ireland in this House – the timing of this report is rather ironic in light of the banking failures of the RBS Group and the particular plight of Ulster Bank customers in my own constituency.

The technical problems that have consequently affected so many Ulster Bank clients, with no access to bank accounts for several weeks and problems with direct debit facilities, serve to highlight how important simple banking transactions have become to our everyday lives. The situation in my constituency has caused great anger, particularly since in Great Britain customers of RBS have had these problems resolved, whilst Ulster Bank customers will have to endure further weeks of misery.

Tellingly too, it has also served to highlight how banks seek patience from their clients at all times, even when they are at fault. But when clients default on their responsibility, even slightly, those penalties are severe and entirely disproportionate. It is time for the banks to regain trust from their customers and ethical banking will do much to help this.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I want to congratulate you for your perseverance and hope that you have not been too hungry during this time.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0158/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because I support the alignment process suggested to tackle financial provisions for 2013 for the Member States that have acceded to the EU since 2004. I am happy with the way direct payments are to be gradually introduced: it is suitable for enabling those Member States to grant – in a non-detrimental way – Commission permission for transition and national support for farmers in 2013. As such, this report represents the real interests of its beneficiaries.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In order to prevent European Union legislation from becoming too complicated and technical, the Treaty of Lisbon modernised the system for delegating certain powers to the European Commission in the case of minor legislative changes. This enables us to avoid a full-text revision that would involve repeating the whole legislative process. As regards the common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, I voted in favour of certain adjustments and approved the simplifications that will benefit farmers. Our aim was to reduce the administrative burden and give Member States the option to exempt farmers not applying for area-related payments and declaring only small areas from the requirement of an area declaration.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I believe that current legislation needs to be brought into line with the new legal reality. I should stress in particular the need to establish some common rules for the direct support schemes for farmers. At the same time, I think that any amendments must be aimed at simplifying the system to reduce the administrative burden on Member States. Indeed, the fact that states will be able to grant farmers certain exemptions will provide greater clarity and legal certainty. The common agricultural policy is the most important section in the EU budget. This is why I think that establishing an agreement should be a priority and, in this regard, both the Commission and Council should adopt a constructive attitude.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 providing the rules for the current system of direct payments to farmers should be superseded by the CAP reform proposals for 2014-2020, which are due to apply as from 1 January 2014. While Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 continues to apply in 2013, there are some financial provisions, which only run until 2012. In addition, calendar year 2013 corresponds to financial year 2014, and therefore falls under the new multi-annual financial framework of 2014-2020. This proposal has been produced to deal with the financial provisions for the 2013 transitional period. The main purpose of the proposal is to set net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013 by establishing an adjustment mechanism similar to modulation, so as to ensure continuity in payment levels while taking into account the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States and the cessation of voluntary modulation. In order to safeguard the continuity of support for farmers in 2013, this act must enter into force by 1 January 2013. It should also be borne in mind that the Commission proposal has been prepared on the premise that the alignment proposal COM(2010) 539 would be adopted first. Account should therefore be taken of this on-going procedure, possibly through additional amendments, at the time of adopting this report.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The comitology system, which was based on the classic comitology procedures and the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, has been abolished by the Treaty of Lisbon. The new system is made up of a two-tier structure consisting of delegated and implementing acts, which enables the Commission to exercise its implementing and execution powers.

The Commission’s proposal is properly drafted in terms of its content, and given the new legal reality, I think that the current legislation must be brought into line. This is why I support this report.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal for a regulation because I consider it consistent with the overall development strategy for a sector that is still in trouble; a sector dominated by great market volatility, by environmental challenges and by the need for environmental security. Simplified and functional procedures that guarantee direct delivery, to ensure support – which is in great difficulties at the moment – capable of real development: that is why I voted in favour. That is the reasoned argument that enables direct payments to young farmers, to give them a chance and an opportunity for the entrepreneurial spirit and development that could have a significant impact on employment levels.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − The establishment of support schemes for farmers under the CAP is important for ensuring adequate standards of living for farmers as well as good food quality and fair prices for consumers. Given changes to the EU's comitology system, I am in favour of these amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that adapting the current legislation to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon is of paramount importance, particularly in the areas where the relevant legislation was not adopted using the codecision procedure, which also means agriculture.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which tangibly implements the Treaty of Lisbon in the important case of aid to farmers and strengthens the powers of European citizens, who, through their representatives in Parliament, will be able to express their position through the drafting and monitoring of European regulations. The text also seeks to simplify procedures and reduce administrative costs so that the strengthening of European law is no longer synonymous with complexity and additional expenditure.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘common rules for direct support schemes for farmers’ because it includes measures aimed at updating agricultural legislation to the new provisions, thereby ensuring greater legal clarity and certainty, and aligning this Regulation with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There have been various amendments to existing legislation aimed at adapting it to the Treaty of Lisbon since the latter came into force. Agricultural matters were bound to undergo such revisions and incorporate the drafting considered most suitable and compliant, not just with the letter, but also with the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon. I hope issues relating to competences and the division thereof between the European institutions will not cut them off from the need to act together so as best to serve the public. I also hope the envisaged simplification will translate to concrete events that will improve the lives of farmers and reduce the – not always reasonable – bureaucratic burden weighing down on them.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Paolo De Castro concerns a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers. The Treaty of Lisbon has changed the old comitology system, thereby increasing the powers of Parliament, which now has the right to veto delegated acts. That system has been replaced by a two-tier system of delegated acts and implementing acts, so there needs to be an alignment with the existing body of legislation. Since the Commission proposals are balanced, in view of the report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development demanding delegated acts in direct payments to farmers, and given that the current proposal provides for simplification of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, particularly as regards the legislative environment and reducing the administrative burden on the Member States, I voted for this report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report forms part of the ‘Joint Debate – Alignment with the Treaty of Lisbon’, involving a series of reports by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which amends the legislative text from the old comitology system using the two-tier structure imposed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which consists of delegated acts and implementing acts, enabling the Commission to exercise implementing powers without consulting Parliament. The report aims to amend the proposal for a Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers: ‘the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009’. The three issues arising here are the use of delegated acts to amend annexes to the Regulation, when rights are conferred on farmers, or when there could be negative consequences whenever there is a need to preserve the consistency of a legal text. The intention is to simplify the Regulation and some aspects of that simplification could be positive, particularly exempting farmers from area declarations when the areas are smaller than one hectare. However, we are concerned that some decision levels handed to the Commission will not benefit small farmers.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the old comitology system, which was based on the classic comitology procedures (advisory, management, regulatory) and the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. This system is now replaced with a two tier structure, consisting of delegated and implementing acts (the former including Parliament’s right of veto), which enable the Commission to exert powers in implementation and execution. Thus, the existing body of legislation has to be aligned to this new legal reality. One of the first proposals is the alignment of the present proposal for a regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers. The proposal contains modifications in terms of alignment, but also provides for simplification of the Regulation. The proposal also includes a number of provisions aimed at simplifying the current legislative environment and easing the administrative burden for Member States. I would like to express support for the proposed modifications in order to achieve better legal clarity and certainty.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal because the existing body of legislation is thus aligned with this new legal reality. One of the first proposals is the alignment of the present proposal for a regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers. The proposal contains modifications in terms of alignment, but also provides for the simplification of Regulation 73/2009. The proposal also includes a number of provisions aimed at simplifying the current legislative environment and easing the administrative burden for Member States. These amendments concern cross compliance, as well as the possibility for Member States to exempt farmers not applying for area-related payments and declaring only small areas (less than 1 hectare) from the requirement of an area declaration. They will mainly concern livestock producers without any eligible land to apply for area-related payments. It is judged that the number of farmers who could be affected is difficult to predict, but it can be assumed that it will be limited, bearing in mind the continued decoupling of livestock payments and transfer to area-related payments. This amendment represents a cut in the administrative burden for certain Member States. It should help achieve better legal clarity and certainty.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The rules on direct support for farmers must be updated with regard to the Commission’s delegated and implementing powers. As a result, in an emergency the Commission will be able to use delegated acts to amend the annexes to the Regulation and adopt new measures. It will also be able to use implementing acts to grant specific targeted support for Member States. The European Parliament adopted this report by a very large majority and I welcome that.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. As part of a package of four technical dossiers aligning the existing CAP rules with the Treaty of Lisbon, this dossier deals with the rural development programme of the CAP and is significant because it focuses on the issue of delegated or implementing acts and how they should be applied to the different provisions included in the existing regulation. As with most agriculture dossiers I am satisfied that the European Parliament has sought to ensure that delegated acts and therefore the ordinary legislative procedure are used in as many cases as possible.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD), in writing. − I was pleased to see the large majority with which this vote passed. One common market should see truly common rules in agriculture. In keeping with the spirit of equality and solidarity, the product of the labour of one farmer should be held in the same esteem as that of another. I call upon all actors in the European Union to accelerate progress towards the equal treatment of EU workers in the agricultural sector and look forward keenly to the day when disparities in treatment across the Union will be eliminated.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In recent years, Member States have called for the number of reports submitted to the Commission to be reduced. According to the current regulations, the summary reports must be submitted every two years, which gives a total of three reports. Consequently, the new proposal takes into account the recommendations made by Member States and restricts the number of reports to two. I think that, apart from the simplifications on reporting, the amendments relating to cross-compliance and the use of counselling services are a particularly important simplification, which will help considerably ease the administrative burden for Member States.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal on common rules for direct support schemes for farmers.

The Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the old comitology system, which was based on the classic comitology procedures (advisory, management, regulatory) and the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. This system is now replaced with a two-tier structure, consisting of delegated and implementing acts (the former including Parliament’s right of veto), which enable the Commission to exert powers in implementation and execution. Thus, the existing body of legislation has to be aligned to this new legal reality.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This week the decision on payments to farmers of the Latvian Republic for the year 2012 was taken. Neither the European Commission nor the majority of Members of European Parliament are concerned about the fact that the issue remains unsolved and it is still very far from the tangible fairness. Declaring the perfection of democracy and transparency of approaches to the problem of discrimination of farmers is pure populism. Meanwhile Netherlands' farmers receive in average three times higher direct payments than Latvian. I am sure that such practice of double standards can lead to social explosion and mass protests from Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian farmers' side. I call on the Commission and the European Parliament to equalise the level of direct payments to all farmers in all EU Member States.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which has two objectives: on the one hand, to adapt the existing legislation to the new Treaty provisions on the Commission’s implementing powers, and on the other hand, to simplify the current procedures by reducing the administrative burden on Member States. This proposal will thus help to strengthen legal clarity and certainty, thereby consolidating the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon and benefiting European farmers and citizens in general.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution. Given the new comitology system provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon it is appropriate to grant the Commission the right, by means of implementing acts, to adopt a mechanism for allocating certain specific support. I therefore welcome the proposal that the Commission should be able to decide, without the assistance of the Committee for Direct Payments, which Member States fulfil certain conditions regarding the suckler cow premium and which do not, and also authorise new Member States to complement, subject to certain conditions, any direct payments.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) As a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers attributed to the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 should be aligned with Article 290 and Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As such, I voted for the report on the alignment of common rules for direct support schemes for farmers.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers conferred on the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 must be aligned with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Said alignment is set out in this proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers. I have voted in favour, in order to simplify the current legal framework, reduce the administrative burden for Member States and ensure greater legal clarity and certainty.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) With this report, we are showing that Europe can react quickly. Legal specifications must remain the tools of our policy, rather than becoming insurmountable obstacles. It was absolutely crucial to align the legislation, particularly for the agricultural sector, which has suffered a great deal in recent years. It is time for Europe to lead the way by regulating agricultural markets so that excessive fluctuations do not further damage their financial situation. The CAP reform already offers a new framework, notably through the use of contracts.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the alignment of this proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy, and also simplifying that Regulation. Fundamentally, the intention is to align the existing body of legislation with the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon concerning the exercise of the Commission’s implementing powers. The proposal also includes a set of provisions aimed at simplifying the current legislative environment and easing the administrative burden for Member States. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The rapporteur considered that the procedure defined in Article 11 of Regulation No 73/2009 (financial discipline mechanism) may no longer be applied without the involvement of the European Parliament, in light of the Treaty of Lisbon provisions on the CAP and the budgetary procedure. These amendments which concern cross-compliance, as well as the possibility for Member States to exempt farmers not applying for area-related payments and declaring only small areas (less than 1 hectare) from the requirement of an area declaration, will mainly concern livestock producers without any eligible land to apply for area-related payments. The amendment reduces slightly the administrative burden for a few Member States.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I am also in favour of this report, since it makes changes in terms of alignment and simplification. The Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the old comitology system and replaces it with delegated acts and implementing acts. One of the first proposals for alignment establishes common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishes support schemes for them. The report looks at the Commission’s proposal and proposes recourse to delegated acts only in specific cases. In terms of simplification, the proposal includes a series of provisions on the current legal framework and a reduction in the administrative burden for Member States, such as the possibility of exempting farmers who do not submit applications for area payments or only declare areas of less than a hectare from having to declare their areas.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − Ι voted in favour of this proposal because it establishes common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and certain support schemes for farmers. It also includes a number of provisions aimed at simplifying the current legislative environment and easing the administrative burden for Member States.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) This votes sees the adoption of a series of measures designed to simplify the current legal framework and reduce the administrative burden faced by Member States. The changes mostly affect farmers whose land is not eligible to receive area payments. The new proposal includes changes in terms of alignment and also simplifies the regulation. Although it is hard to predict how many farmers will be affected by this change, we can presume that it will not be very many, if we bear in mind the increasingly marked tendency to move away from payments per animal and towards area payments. In any case, the change brings a reduction in red tape for some Member States.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In September 2010, the European Commission tabled a proposal for a regulation intended to lay down common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy. I am voting for this report because I support the set of provisions aimed at simplifying the current legislative environment and easing the administrative burden for Member States. These amendments concern cross compliance, as well as the possibility for Member States to exempt farmers not applying for area-related payments and declaring only small areas – less than one hectare – from the requirement of an area declaration. Finally, I believe the European Commission should adopt acts pursuant to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, but should consult experts during the preparatory work.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) 2013 is a transitional year of preparation and adaptation to the new CAP 2014-2020, which will have even more catastrophic consequences for small and medium-sized holdings and agricultural production, by boosting large capitalist agricultural undertakings. The proposed transitional provisions contained in the Commission regulation and the European Parliament report for the transition to the new CAP do nothing in essence to change the anti-farming policy of the CAP. There is barely even a feasible facility for transitional national support for countries with a large public debt and deficit, in order to provide farmers with national resources. As a result, inequality within the EU is increasing, in keeping with the capitalist growth model, poor farmers are being ousted more quickly and further support is being given to large-scale farmers, thereby paving the way for the ‘new’, even more anti-farming CAP.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − In the European Commission’s legislative proposals on the new CAP, it was proposed that direct payments should be better targeted, including specifically to young farmers through an annual top-up of direct payments representing up to 2% of the national envelope for the first five years after installation. I support both the mandatory aspect of the young farmer top-up in Pillar I of the new CAP and the higher co-financing ratio and improved measures for the Pillar II sub-programme including young farmers.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr De Castro’s text, which brings in a series of measures designed to simplify the current legal framework and reduce the administrative burden faced by Member States. Among other things, the changes relate to cross-compliance and the possibility for Member States to exempt farmers who declare less than a hectare of land from the area declaration obligation. Lastly, I would like to point out the decision of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which, in the absence of an agreement with the Council, has decided with today’s vote to send a strong message ahead of the forthcoming negotiations on reform of the common agricultural policy.

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0161/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since the Commission is proposing to extend the current funding possibilities to all Member States to support the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups, but this proposal considers it discriminatory to exclude support for producer groups in the fruit and vegetable sector, and I clearly agree with that. In order to avoid different interpretations of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, it seems useful to allow Member States that have opted for regional programs to calculate the automatic cancellation of financial resources at Member State level. In order to harmonise European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Regional Development Fund, I also agree with the suggestion that the VAT for non taxable persons – that is, public institutions – be made eligible for an EAFRD contribution, which could certainly be very helpful for Europeans living in rural areas.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Regarding the report on the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, I approved the wish to improve its efficient and targeted use with regard to the treatment of beneficiaries, through delegated acts. In general, the requirements to qualify for this aid have been lowered. At times, the European Union seems too complicated, so we need to simplify procedures. Here, the number of annual progress and summary reports under Rural Development is reduced, Cross Compliance controls are facilitated and the rules for the use of advisory services are changed. These elements should contribute to ease the administrative burden for the Member States and simplify the lives of beneficiaries.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this agreement because it is particularly important for this regulation to be brought into line with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A clear distinction needs to be made between implementing acts and measures, on the one hand, and delegated acts, on the other. I support the Commission’s proposal as, in my view, its aim is to make effective, constructive use of the available funds. They must be properly targeted at the beneficiaries who are eligible.

I also welcome the measures and regulations on simplification, aimed at ensuring that the scheme runs better. Indeed, harmonising EAFRD and ERDF is particularly important in this context. I would also like to stress the need to reinforce governance in this area, thereby enabling all the stakeholders to take an active part in the decision-making process.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr De Castro’s report because I approve of the simplifications to the current regulation, which aims to partly relieve Member States from the administrative burden relating to the process of aligning Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, to the new rules brought in by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the current Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (as one of the first proposals) has to be aligned based on the principle of distinguishing between measures of an implementing nature and measures of a delegated nature of the Commission’s current implementing powers which were adopted on the basis of Regulations (EC) No 1974/2006 and No 1975/2006. The Commission proposal suggests ensuring efficient and targeted use of funds, establishing a level playing field for beneficiaries, and this is mostly covered in the proposal by delegated acts. Other provisions regarding concrete details of programmes, measures and rules are covered in the proposal by implementing acts, which are to be adopted by Member States. It is essential to ensure that the current funding possibilities to support the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups are extended to all Member States, without discriminating against producer groups in the fruit and vegetables sector. Also in order to avoid different interpretations of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, it seems useful to allow - for Member States, which have opted for regional programs - the calculation of the automatic cancellation of financial resources at Member State level.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Food security is an issue which has always been a global concern, and agriculture is the only branch of production which can guarantee food security for mankind, reserves for export and supplementary domestic stocks. The Commission’s proposal ensures efficient and targeted use of the funds with regard to the treatment of beneficiaries.

I welcome the introduction in the current regulation of some elements of simplification which provide for the extension of Natura 2000 support to the areas referred to in Article 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC, and the reduction in the number of annual progress and summary reports on rural development.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) With this report, we are showing that Europe can react quickly. The legal specifications must continue to be the tools of the policy that we implement rather than becoming insurmountable obstacles. It was absolutely crucial to align the legislation, particularly for the agricultural sector, which has suffered a great deal in recent years. It is time for Europe to show the way by regulating the agricultural markets so that excessive fluctuations do not further damage their financial situation. The common agricultural policy (CAP) reform already offers a new framework, notably through contractualisation.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which includes the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon for the specific case of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and increases the powers of the European public, whose position is being defended via the development and monitoring of European regulations by their representatives in Parliament. The text also ensures the simplification of procedures and the reduction of administrative costs: no more will increased European legislation be synonymous with complexity and cost.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − It is important to make the appropriation of funding fair amongst different sectors of rural development. I am in agreement with the opinion of the Rapporteur on these matters and therefore have voted in favour of the proposal.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) It is important for Parliament that in the new open legislative context of the Treaty of Lisbon, the new provisions concerning the Commission’s powers of execution and implementation must be adapted to the Treaty’s text.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which consolidates the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon for the specific case of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and strengthens the powers of European citizens, who, through their representatives in Parliament, will be able to express their position on the preparation and control of European regulations. The text also seeks to simplify procedures and reduce administrative costs so that the strengthening of European law is no longer synonymous with complexity and additional expenditure.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development’ because I think there is a need to update agricultural legislation to the new provisions, particularly as regards delegated acts, which are necessary for the proper functioning of the system established by the legislator, and implementing acts, in order to ensure a uniform application of the regime in the Member States and prevent unfair competition.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Parliament should set out a robust common position on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. This position should be brought closer to that advocated by the European Commission. That is the only way it will be possible to make sustained progress in negotiations with the Council.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Paolo De Castro concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The Treaty of Lisbon has changed the old comitology system, thereby increasing the powers of Parliament, which now has the right to veto delegated acts. That system has been replaced by a two-tier system of delegated acts and implementing acts, so there needs to be an alignment with the existing body of legislation. In order for the institutions to run more smoothly, the Council and Parliament can delegate the implementation of certain acts to the Commission, for a five-year period and notwithstanding the right to revoke that delegation. Given that the Commission proposal ensures efficient and targeted use of EAFRD funds and that certain simplification measures – such as extending Natura 2000 support to the areas referred to in Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) – are being introduced, and in view of the report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I voted for this report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As regards alignment with the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission is proposing, in general terms, to ensure efficient and targeted use of funds with regard to the treatment of beneficiaries, which is mostly covered in the proposal by delegated acts. Other provisions regarding concrete details of programmes, measures and rules are covered in the proposal by implementing acts which are to be adopted by Member States. As regards simplification, the proposal makes several positive suggestions, particularly extending Natura 2000 support to areas referred to in Article 10 of the Habitats Directive, reducing the number of annual progress and summary reports concerning rural development, and facilitating cross-compliance controls. The rules for the use of advisory services are also changed. Furthermore, it extends to all Member States the funding possibilities to support the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups, harmonises the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Regional Development Fund, and proposes that the VAT for non taxable persons – that is, public institutions – be made eligible for an EAFRD contribution.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 confers powers upon the Commission to implement some of the provisions of that Regulation. As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers conferred upon the Commission under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 need to be aligned to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Pursuant to Article 290 of the Treaty (delegated acts), the legislator may, where appropriate, delegate to the Commission the power to adopt generally applicable non-legislative acts that supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. With regard to Article 291 of the Treaty (implementing acts), the legislator confers upon the Commission the power to adopt uniform conditions for implementing legally binding acts of the European Union. In addition, certain simplifying elements are being introduced to the current Regulation; support under the Natura 2000 system is being extended to the areas referred to in Article 10 of the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; and, similarly, in the rural development programme, the number of annual progress reports and summary reports is being reduced, controls of cross-compliance are being simplified, and the rules for using consultancy services are being simplified. These elements should help reduce the administrative burden on Member States.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the proposal because some elements of simplification are introduced in the current Regulation, Natura 2000 support is extended to areas referred to in Article 10 of Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) (these are legal elements of the proposal), the number of annual progress and summary reports under Rural Development is also reduced, cross compliance controls are facilitated and the rules for the use of advisory services are changed (these elements should help ease the administrative burden for the Member States). Besides this, as a (legal) element of simplification an incentive element should be introduced for measures approved under Article 43 of the Treaty (cofinanced measures within RD).

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Regulations on rural development by the European Agricultural Fund should be clarified in the light of the introduction of implementing acts and delegated acts by the Treaty of Lisbon. The conditions for exercising the delegation of power must therefore be specified. Moreover, aid to support rural development should only be granted to farmers or associations who devote an essential part of their working time to agricultural activities and derive from them a significant part of their income. I voted in favour of this report, which was adopted by Parliament by 645 votes in the July part-session.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − My group was in favour of the committee's approach of supporting the use of delegated acts in as many instances as possible. As we know, the recent trilogues were inconclusive with no agreement possible, largely due to a number of horizontal issues which crossed through all four main pieces of legislation. For this reason, the Rapporteur decided to go to plenary to highlight Parliament's position and outstanding issues will be negotiated as part of the full CAP reform trilogues that will take place next year. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal as according to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the current Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (as one of the first proposals) has to be aligned based on the principle of sorting the current Commission implementing powers which were adopted on the basis of Regulations (EC) No 1974/2006 and No 1975/2006 between measures of implementing nature and measures of delegated nature.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which has two objectives: on the one hand, adapting the existing legislation to the new Treaty provisions on the Commission’s implementing powers, and on the other hand, simplifying the current regulations (reducing the number of annual progress and summary reports required under Rural Development, simplifying Cross Compliance controls and the rules for the use of advisory services …). This proposal strengthens legal clarity and certainty, thereby consolidating the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon and benefiting citizens, and will enable more efficient and targeted funding.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) By voting in favour of the various reports on the common agricultural policy (CAP) presented today in this Chamber, we want to reaffirm the importance for Parliament of moving ahead with the alignment of the legislative procedures set out in Article 290 of the Treaty, giving the Commission the power to adopt delegated acts on reforming the CAP, which had been blocked on several occasions by the Council. This procedure is an essential part of the attempt to boost rural development and farming in our territory.

We therefore welcome Mr De Castro’s proposal, which aims at an effective, targeted use of funds from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the various beneficiaries. We are, however, sorry to see that, in the extension of funding opportunities for producer groups to all Member States, the fruit and vegetables sector has been left out, because it plays a key role in European agriculture and the health of our consumers. We would point out that the fruit and vegetables sector contributes to preservation of the environment, economic growth and the creation of many direct and indirect jobs that, in many areas of the Union, have suffered as a result of the current economic crisis. We hope the Commission can resolve this problem and add the fruit and vegetables sector to the EAFRD beneficiaries.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) It is very important to establish a mechanism, which would ensure that no producer groups are discriminated against and that all of them can take advantage of the support provided under equitable conditions. Furthermore, following a thorough analysis a compromise must be found to prevent disharmony between environmental provisions and local development. The proper use of these funds would swiftly and effectively help address issues of economic investment and environmental protection.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report on aligning the scheme for support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development with the Treaty of Lisbon, pursuant to Article 290 and Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union makes a distinction between the powers delegated to the Commission to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act and the Commission’s power to adopt uniform conditions for implementing legally binding Union acts. I voted in favour of the proposal in order to ensure effective and targeted use of funds in terms of the treatment of beneficiaries, while also giving the Commission the task of making further changes to ensure the correct functioning of the system proposed by the legislature.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Fundamentally, the intention is to align this text with the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon concerning the exercise of the Commission’s implementing powers. It also proposes to extend to all Member States the current funding possibilities to support the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Natura 2000 support is extended to areas referred to in Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC); also the number of annual progress and summary reports under RD is reduced; cross-compliance controls are facilitated and the rules for the use of advisory services are changed.

Besides this as a (legal) element of simplification, an incentive element should be introduced for measures approved under Art.43 TFEU (cofinanced measures within RD). That means that aid which is granted retroactively in respect of activities which have already been undertaken by the beneficiary and miss the incentive element would therefore be prohibited and a starting date of eligibility should be provided.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) With regard to the current regulation, the Commission can adopt delegated acts in order to introduce exceptions to the rule that no rural development support should be granted to schemes eligible for support under common market organisations. I am in favour of Mr De Castro’s report, which suggests ensuring effective and targeted use of funds in terms of the treatment of beneficiaries covered by delegated acts. The regulation brings in simplifying measures, which need to be accompanied by an incentive element for measures approved under Article 43 of the Treaty (cofinanced measures on rural development). The Commission rightly proposes to extend to all Member States the current funding possibilities to support the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups. The report considers it discriminatory to exclude support for producer groups in the fruit and vegetables sector.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because it proposes to extend to all Member States the current funding possibilities to support the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) This vote proposes to extend to all Member States the current funding possibilities to support the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups, but the rapporteur, Mr De Castro, considers it discriminatory to exclude support for producer groups in the fruit and vegetables sector. The goal is to ensure efficient and targeted use of funds with regard to the treatment of beneficiaries, which is mostly covered in the proposal by delegated acts. Other provisions regarding concrete details of programmes, measures and rules are covered in the proposal by implementing acts which are to be adopted by Member States. In order to harmonise the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Regional Development Fund, VAT for non-taxable persons such as public institutions is made eligible for an EAFRD contribution.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The goal of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is to make the agricultural and forestry, environmental, and landscape sectors more competitive, to improve quality of life in rural areas, and to diversify the rural economy. The EAFRD is intended to complement national, regional and local activities contributing to EU priorities. It is the European Commission and the Member States that oversee the EAFRD’s coherence and compatibility with EU support measures. I am voting for this report because I agree that the aid to which this article refers should only apply to farmers or farmers’ associations that devote an essential part of their working time to agricultural activities and derive from them a significant part of their income. So as to ensure greater consistency and uniformity in the application of EAFRD rules, I very much support the suggestion that each Member State should establish a national rural network involving regional and local representatives. However, the European Commission should lay down rules concerning the establishment and operation of those networks.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 is intended to extend the scope of the measure on producer groups, reduce the number of summary reports and simplify their content as part of strategic monitoring, facilitate the use of advisory services in a more personalised manner, and monitor the cases failing to respect cross-compliance. According to this regulation, the advisory service to farmers will cover at least one or more of the statutory management requirements and good agricultural and environmental conditions provided for in Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and, where relevant, one or more of the occupational safety standards based on EU legislation. Parliament has requested that work carried out on a time and materials basis as part of rural development measures by the ultimate beneficiaries using the manpower, materials and equipment which a firm has available should also be eligible for EAFRD contributions.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − If we are to keep producing locally-grown, high-quality food for European citizens then generational renewal in the sector must be secured and the downward trend in young farmer numbers must be reversed. That is why it is crucial that the top-up in Pillar I stays mandatory for all Member States, just as the co-financing ratio in Pillar II stays favourable: the future of the Common Agriculture Policy is dependent on an effective Common Installation Policy.

Today’s reports have given the European Parliament an opportunity to back important measures to promote generational renewal in the sector, and the young farmers of Europe are counting on other MEPs to mirror Mr Capoulas Santos’ support for measures to enhance demographic sustainability as well as to encourage Member States to endorse such a crucial policy for generational renewal in European agriculture.

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0322/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report and would stress, from the outset, that the adoption of this regulation is particularly urgent. The upcoming substantial reform of the single common market organisation, within the framework of the general common agricultural policy reform, would be unreasonably burdened if the Commission alignment proposal were still open. The guiding principle is that a balance should be achieved between the need for the Commission to act efficiently and expediently and the powers Parliament and the Council have under the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the legislative process. I am also voting for the various cross-cutting amendments intended to reflect the common understanding reached between the institutions on the use of delegated acts, as well as the recent entry into force of the Regulation laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union has established common rules regarding agricultural markets. These rules relate in particular to public interventions on markets, quota and aid schemes, marketing and production standards as well as trade with third countries. Over and above the legal changes that need to be implemented, I approved the rapporteur’s recommendations stressing the importance of early adoption of the new common market organisation (CMO) regulation to ensure stability of the markets and an adequate standard of living for the farmers that we need to support here in Parliament, every day.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that updating this regulation is of paramount importance. This will allow a clear distinction to be made between delegated powers granted to the Commission for adopting non-legislative acts and those granted for adopting implementing acts. At the same time, the Single Common Market Organisation must take into account the current differences between the Commission’s delegated and implementing powers.

In my view, the new regulation should be adopted as quickly as possible to address the urgent problems and disquiet about the Single Common Market Organisation. In this context, the general reform of the common agricultural policy should progress as normal and should not be obstructed or hindered by other additional problems. I believe that there must be a balance and effective cooperation between the Commission and Parliament so that the legislative process runs under optimum conditions.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I am in favour of the report by Mr De Castro on establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and establishing specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation). This vote is a matter of responsibility to ensure that we do not bog down the major reform of the single common market organisation with an unwarranted burden in the event that negotiations are still ongoing over the Commission’s alignment proposal, all the while bearing in mind that there is still a great deal of work to do on this issue.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is essential to align Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the single common organisation of agricultural markets with the new distinction between delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This proposal includes, for the sake of completeness, the proposals for modifications of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 already separately submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The proposed alignment of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 with the new requirements is based on the Commission’s classification of its existing powers as ‘delegated’ and ‘implementing’ under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 against the background of the implementing measures adopted by the Commission on the basis of its current powers. In order to ensure a balance between the need for the Commission to act efficiently and expediently and the powers Parliament and Council have under the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the legislative process, the new regulation needs to be adopted as soon as possible. The upcoming substantial reform of the Single CMO (in the framework of the general CAP Reform) would not thus be unreasonably burdened with a still open negotiation on the Commission alignment proposal still under consideration.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) It should be remembered that we need to align Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a single common market organisation with the new distinction between delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; the proposal confers the right to legislate and the power to set out the key elements of the common organisation of agricultural markets. The legislator retains the power to set out the conditions and criteria for determining aid, export refunds and the minimum export price. I am voting for the proposal.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − I am in agreement with the Commission's proposals with regard to the common organisation of agricultural markets but I also believe that they need to consider the distinction between delegated and implemented acts. Therefore I support the Rapporteur's conclusions and am in favour of these amendments.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that in a situation where Parliament and the Council are on an equal footing with regard to the common agricultural policy, it is important that delegated acts are the preferred procedure, provided, of course, that the technical conditions are met for them.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which consolidates the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon for the specific case of common rules regarding agricultural markets. Strengthening Parliament’s supervisory powers on European regulations enables European citizens to express their position through their representatives in Parliament.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural product’ because I think current agricultural legislation needs to be updated to the new provisions, pursuant to the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) With the Treaty of Lisbon, Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on a single common market organisation (Single CMO Regulation) needs to be adapted to the distinction between delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 290 enables the legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. Article 291 of the TFEU enables the Member States to adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding EU acts. The proposal on which we are currently voting is to adapt the Single CMO Regulation, including several amendments intended to make it more comprehensible and effective.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All alignment exercises are fundamentally technical, but they include a certain political sensitivity and always elicit some controversy. I therefore welcome the fact that this issue has been debated in the European Parliament before the debate on reforming the common agricultural policy. The Treaty of Lisbon has changed the old comitology system, thereby increasing the powers of Parliament, which now has the right to veto delegated acts. That system has been replaced by a two-tier system of delegated acts and implementing acts, so there needs to be an alignment with the existing body of legislation. This report, by Paolo De Castro, concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products. I voted for this report which advocates increasing the competences conferred on Parliament by the Treaty of Lisbon and urges the Council to share responsibilities to a greater extent, from which the public as a whole will benefit.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Part of the ‘Joint Debate – Alignment with the Treaty of Lisbon’, which consists of adopting delegated acts and implementing acts, enabling the Commission to exercise implementing powers without consulting Parliament, this report is an element of updating the Regulation ‘establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products’. As such, the legislator fixes the objectives of market-intervention measures, production-limitation systems and aid schemes. Similarly, the legislator lays down the principle of establishing a system of import and export licences, the fundamental elements of the rules concerning marketing and production and the principle of application of sanctions, reductions and exclusions. Although the content of the report focuses on a technical adaptation, the rapporteur tackles important and positive issues: the facilitation of cross-compliance controls, thereby alleviating the administrative burden on the Member States; the rejection of discrimination against fruit and vegetable producers; and VAT eligibility for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

  Monika Flašíková-Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The objective of the Commission’s proposal is to align Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the Single Common Market Organisation with the new differentiation between delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In addition, this proposal includes for the sake of completeness the proposals for modifications of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 already separately submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Articles 290 and 291 TFEU establish a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the powers delegated to the Commission to adopt non-legislative acts and, on the other, the powers conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing acts. The proposed alignment of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the new requirements is based on the definition of the existing Commission powers as ‘delegated’ and ‘implementing’ based on the implementing measures adopted by the Commission on the basis of its current powers. The proposal therefore gives the legislator the power to define the essentials of the common organisation of markets. I believe that it is necessary and important to achieve a balance between the need for the Commission to act effectively and efficiently, and the powers available to the Council and Parliament under the Treaty of Lisbon in the context of the legislative process.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal because the Commission proposal aims to align Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the Single Common Market Organisation (CMO) with the new distinction between delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In addition, this proposal includes, for the sake of completeness, the proposals for modifications of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 already separately submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The proposal provides the legislator with the power to define the framework of the CMO. For example, the objectives of the market intervention measures, of the systems of production limitation and of the aid schemes are fixed by the legislator. Similarly, the legislator lays down the principle of establishing a system of import and export licences, the fundamental elements of the rules concerning marketing and production and the principle of application of sanctions, reductions and exclusions. The legislator also provides for the existence of specific provisions for individual sectors. The guiding principle is that a balance should be achieved between the need for the Commission to act efficiently and expediently and the powers Parliament and Council have under the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the legislative process.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report aims to align the existing regulation with the regime of delegated acts and implementing acts. Delegated acts and implementing acts are powers granted to the Commission by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This update is not intended to affect the powers originally provided for. In effect, the Commission is given the power to determine the amounts through implementing acts, while the legislator is still responsible for defining the conditions and criteria for setting the amounts of aid, export refunds and minimum prices. I voted in favour of this report, which was adopted by Parliament by a large majority in the July part-session.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal which strikes the right balance between the need for the Commission to act efficiently and expediently, on one hand, and the powers Parliament and the Council have under the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the legislative process, on the other.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report which aims to adapt the Council Regulation to the new Treaty provisions on the implementing powers of the Commission. This proposal strengthens legal clarity and certainty, thereby consolidating the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, and will make the single common market organisation more accessible to all stakeholders.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) It is very important for legislation on the single common organisation of agricultural markets to be made simple, transparent and as clear as possible for citizens. Furthermore, in every case the decision to adopt delegated acts must be taken carefully and only in specific and limited cases. We must stop any abuse of this right. I believe that in order to guarantee the necessary quality of delegated acts and the opportunity to implement them, the Commission must constantly consult experts in the Member States and take due account of their opinion.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for adapting Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a single common market organisation with the new distinction between delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I would point out the need to align Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the Single Common Market Organisation (CMO) with the new distinction between delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The proposal provides the legislator with the power to define the essentials of the CMO. I am voting in favour of the proposal, so that the powers over defining conditions and criteria for fixing aid amounts, export refunds and minimum export prices remain with the legislator.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The goal of this European Commission proposal is to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the single common market organisation (CMO) to the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon concerning the exercise of the Commission’s implementing powers. Fundamentally, the guiding principle is that a balance should be achieved between the need for the Commission to act efficiently and expediently, on the one hand, and the powers Parliament and the Council have under the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the legislative process, on the other. It should be noted that the adoption of this Regulation is particularly urgent. In fact, it is important to bear in mind that the upcoming substantial reform of the single CMO, within the framework of the general common agricultural policy reform, would be unreasonably burdened if the Commission alignment proposal were still open.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The rapporteur, and the AGRI Committee voting in favour, consider that the Commission proposal on the Single CMO has not respected the principle that Article 43(3) TFEU needs to be interpreted restrictively. They consider that defining conditions and criteria for fixing aid amounts, export refunds and minimum export prices should remain with the legislators, leaving to the Commission only the fixing of amounts through implementing acts.

Therefore in the report he deleted all provisions related to Article 43(3) TFEU and replaced them by the respective content laid down in the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation (which reproduces the corresponding provisions of the existing Single CMO Regulation No 1234/2007). This approach is more pragmatic and also sensible from a procedural point of view (lege artis).

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal as a reform of the single CMO is important. I strongly believe that a balance will be achieved between the need for the Commission to act efficiently and expediently, on one hand, and the powers Parliament and Council have under the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the legislative process.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) At a time when economic uncertainty and market volatility are dictating everything, the support of the EU is essential for reviving the competitiveness of our agricultural sector on a global scale. Even despite the economic crisis that has been dragging on since 2008, Europe remains the largest trading bloc in the world and therefore the EU must intervene to accentuate its strengths. I voted in favour to show my support for the need to achieve some fundamental goals, namely improving the functioning of the single market, ensuring wise use of the Structural Funds, maximising the benefits of cohesion policy, ensuring stability and improving access to funding. All of this must be brought about by cutting back the procedures that make the law and the red tape faced by Member States so unwieldy and only serve to dissuade investment by farmers.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The goal of the European Commission proposal is to establish a single common market organisation, aimed at clarifying the Commission’s current ‘delegated powers’ and ‘implementing powers’. This proposal provides the legislator with the essentials of market-intervention measures, such as production-limitation systems and aid schemes, fixed by the legislator. I am voting for this report because I believe the legislator needs to define the key elements of the common agricultural policy and of taking the political decisions that shape its structure, instruments and effects. The intention is thereby to describe specific rules for certain agricultural products, such as beef or butter. So as to ensure the smooth running of the scheme established by this Regulation, due attention should be paid to regional and local authorities, island, sparsely populated and mountainous regions, and the outermost regions, so as not to aggravate the constraints that such regions already face.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation). The proposal aims to update Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the Single Common Market Organisation (CMO) to take into account the distinction between the delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In addition, the new proposal for a regulation also includes the proposals for amending Regulation No 1234/2007 to make the Single CMO clearer and more accessible to all the stakeholders. This regulation covers all the fundamental elements of the Single CMO. In certain cases, setting prices, levies, aids and quantitative limitations is inextricably linked with these fundamental elements. In order to stabilise the markets and provide the population in agricultural areas with a fair standard of living, a system was devised for supporting prices, differentiated according to sectors, along with the introduction of direct support schemes. This procedure allows, on the one hand, the various needs of each sector and, on the other hand, the interdependencies between sectors to be taken into account.

Report: Giovanni La Via (A7-0209/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since I agree with some amendments concerning delegation conditions: period of delegation, timeframe for objecting to a delegated act, extension of that period, committee procedure, etc. I would stress the importance of the amendments being introduced, but especially those relating to the expenditure to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the recovery procedure, because replacing two Council Regulations and decreasing the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States constitutes a simplification. These amendments contribute to more efficient and swifter funding for beneficiaries. I would fervently restate that the European Union should move towards increasing simplification as regards EAGF funds: let us not forget that the regions need that, since they normally wait long periods before being able to put their funding to use and implement the necessary measures.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In order to prevent EU legislation from becoming too complicated and technical, the Treaty of Lisbon modernised the system for delegating certain powers to the Commission in the case of minor legislative changes. That enables us to avoid revising a text entirely by going through the whole legislative process. Should all existing legislation then be adapted to this new legal reality? I approved the proposed amendments which once again aim to decrease the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States. Europe must be more accessible and I work there every day!

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in accordance with the Common Understanding on practical arrangements for the use of delegated acts approved by the Conference of Presidents on 3 March 2011 and Regulation No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council, laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, some amendments should be introduced as regards the conditions of the delegation (period of delegation, timeframe for objecting to a delegated act, extension of that period, committee procedure and so on). Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the harmonisation of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 with the new rules contained in the Treaty is based on the classification of the provisions adopted by the Commission as delegated powers and implementing powers pursuant to that Regulation. The amendments relating to the expenditure to be financed by the EAGF and the recovery procedure constitute a simplification in that they replace two Council regulations and result in a decrease in the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the financing of the common agricultural policy (CAP). I support the proposals to amend the conditions of the delegation (period of delegation, timeframe for objecting to a delegated act, extension of that period, committee procedure and so on.). This report aims to simplify the regulation on the financing of the common agricultural policy by classifying the provisions into delegated powers and implementing powers. The amendments relating to the expenditure to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the recovery procedure also constitute a simplification in that they replace two Council regulations and result in a decrease in the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States. With this in mind, I think it is important to prepare for the reform of the European common agricultural policy.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This text concerns the funding of the common agricultural policy and aims to rationalise the complex bureaucracy of the European farming sector. In particular, the amendments relating to the costs to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund so as to guarantee the recovery procedure constitute a simplification, since they scrap two Council Regulations, thereby decreasing the administrative burden on Member States. I therefore voted in favour.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I agree with the importance of switching to the new system and of Parliament’s prerogative to control the Commission’s initiatives using delegated acts.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which consolidates the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon for the specific case of our important common agricultural policy (CAP) and strengthens the powers of European citizens, who, through their representatives in Parliament, will be able to express their position on the drawing up and control of European regulations. The text also seeks to simplify procedures and reduce administrative costs so that the strengthening of European law is no longer synonymous with complexity and additional expenditure.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘the financing of the common agricultural policy’ because I believe the amendments tabled concerning the expenditure to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the recovery procedure represent a simplification, since they replace two Council Regulations and decrease the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States, thereby aligning this Regulation with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 aim to adapt it to the Treaty of Lisbon and fully to set out the scope and limits of the powers enjoyed by the Commission, thereby enabling it to ensure the proper functioning of the scheme laid down therein. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has been eliciting doubts in relation to the scope of delegated acts and how they are used, and to Parliament’s intervention. I believe everyone would win if the delegation conditions were clear and enabled adequate monitoring, translating into more transparent processes and decisions and into increased monitoring, not least by Parliament. The common agricultural policy accounts for too great a share of the EU budget for it to be any other way.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We could say that farmers, particularly small-scale farmers, are the poor relations of our society. Despite their immeasurable contribution to creating and maintaining a healthy environment by preserving ecosystems, the truth is that farming is very unprofitable and not at all attractive. Only 6% of Europe’s population works in agriculture and a third of those are aged over 60. Without the involvement of young people, farming has no future. We therefore have to step up the stimuli for rural areas within the framework of the common agricultural policy. The Treaty of Lisbon has changed the old comitology system, thereby increasing the powers of Parliament, which now has the right to veto delegated acts. That system has been replaced by a two-tier system of delegated acts and implementing acts, so there needs to be an alignment with the existing body of legislation. This report has been much-debated and agreement on horizontal alignment is impossible because a majority in the Council can always block an implementing act. Nevertheless, Parliament cannot renounce its prerogatives in areas as sensitive as these, so I voted for this report.

  Monika Flašíková-Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the harmonisation of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 with the new rules contained in the Treaty is based on a classification into delegated powers and implementing powers of the provisions adopted by the Commission for the application of that Regulation. Based on the criteria defined in Articles 290 and 291 for each type of act respectively, the rapporteur carefully scrutinised the Commission’s proposal and identified areas where the conditions for delegated acts were met. Consequently, the proposal was scrutinised on the conditions of implementing acts. It is appropriate to amend and supplement the conditions of the delegation in accordance with the Common Understanding on practical arrangements for the use of delegated acts approved by the Conference of Presidents in March last year and Regulation 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. The simplification will be reflected in the repeal of two Council regulations and a decrease in the number of administrative tasks incumbent on Member States.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal because under the Treaty of Lisbon, the harmonisation of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 with the new rules contained in the Treaty is based on the classification of the provisions adopted by the Commission as delegated powers and implementing powers pursuant to that Regulation. The Committee carefully scrutinised the Commission proposal and identified areas where the conditions for delegated acts were met. Consequently, the conditions for implementing acts were scrutinised. The rapporteur proposed some amendments as regards the conditions of the delegation (period of delegation, timeframe for objecting to a delegated act, extension of that period, committee procedure, etc.) in accordance with the Common Understanding on practical arrangements for the use of delegated acts approved by the Conference of Presidents on 3 March 2011 and Regulation No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council, laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. The amendments relating to the expenditure to be financed by the EAGF and the recovery procedure constitute a simplification in that they replace two Council regulations and result in a decrease in the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report aims to align the existing regulation with the regime of delegated acts and implementing acts, which are powers granted to the Commission by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This update is not intended to affect the essential provisions originally provided for. The report provides amendments to the Regulation exclusively regarding the conditions of the delegation, namely the period of delegation, the timeframe for objecting to a delegated act, the extension of that period and the committee procedure. I voted in favour of this report, which was adopted by a very large majority by Parliament.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. The amendments relating to the expenditure to be financed by the EAGGF and the recovery procedure constitute a simplification in that they replace two Council regulations and result in a decrease in the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because it is above all very important to ensure that legislation on the financing of the common agricultural policy is clear and comprehensible to citizens. The principle of legal clarity and certainty must be properly implemented, while constantly taking account of legitimate expectations. Furthermore, the implementation of legislation should not cause an additional administrative burden for the Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report on aligning the scheme for financing the common agricultural policy with the Treaty of Lisbon for each type of act, on the basis of the criteria set out in Articles 290 and 291.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the alignment of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 with the new rules contained in the Treaty is based on classifying into delegated powers and implementing powers the provisions adopted by the Commission pursuant to that Regulation. Considering the amendments on delegation conditions and the resulting simplification and reduction in the red tape faced by Member States, I have voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the Treaty of Lisbon, there was a need to align Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 with the new provisions concerning the exercise of the Commission’s implementing powers. In this context, a number of amendments have been tabled concerning delegation conditions, including period of delegation, timeframe for objecting to a delegated act, extension of that period and committee procedure; these are in line with the common understanding on practical arrangements for the use of delegated acts approved by the Conference of Presidents on 3 March 2011 and with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. Amendments are also intended, relating to the expenditure to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, which themselves constitute a simplification, since they replace two Council Regulations and decrease the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States. I voted in favour.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal because the amendments relating to the expenditure to be financed by the EAGF and the recovery procedure constitute a simplification in that they replace two Council regulations and result in a decrease in the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The adoption of this text is of the utmost importance because it encapsulates our agriculture policy – the most important heading in the EU budget. The amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 aim for simplification and efficiency, which translates into genuine help for farmers and reduced bureaucracy, eliminating complex and burdensome procedures for Member States. In the hope that both the Commission and the Council will take a constructive approach, so that an agreement may be found, I have voted in favour of the amendments proposed by Mr La Via.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The goal of the European Commission proposal is to identify the delegated powers and define the implementing competences conferred on the Commission by Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, and to establish the correct procedure for adopting the acts in question. I am voting for this report because I believe the European Commission should have powers to ensure the existence of uniform conditions for applying the common agricultural policy (CAP) Regulations. Moreover, the amendments relating to the expenditure to be financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the recovery procedure constitute a simplification in that they replace two Council Regulations and decrease the administrative tasks incumbent on Member States. In the next EU budget programming period 2014-2020, the CAP is aiming to make the farming sector more competitive and ensure healthier and better-quality food for the European public.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − It is not by chance that a policy to which an important part of the EU budget is allocated is the one that regulates the rural development of large areas of the EU and guarantees that farmers can continue producing in compliance with certain requirements that are designed to protect consumers and the environment.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) At a time when the financial framework of the European Union has not been decided, it is difficult to speak about financing the common agricultural policy. It is not difficult to see that we are discussing the future of the common agricultural policy without knowing the future budget of the Union. This has not stopped us from creating new challenges for farmers. We are giving them additional responsibilities, such as the obligation to look after the environment, without paying any attention to the fact that we still do not know how much money farmers will receive to meet these challenges.

In order to be able to plan agricultural policy sensibly, we have to know the European Union’s budget. The present discussions are not about a real common agricultural policy, they are just empty words. In all the complexity of this situation, what is particularly important is to finance the common agricultural policy, and this is an indisputable fact. For this reason I decided to support this document by voting in favour.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The common agricultural policy is an ineffective and harmful tool that serves primarily to subsidise large and wealthy farms. For years its rules have breached the Union’s fundamental law, which speaks about the equality of Member States. For this reason, the basic rule according to which rich farmers from the West receive more than twice the level of subsidy received by their colleagues in Central and Eastern Europe should be changed. Making payments equal would be a breakthrough for which millions of citizens are waiting and it would be a new opening that would make it possible to use available funds better and more effectively. I too am waiting for these changes.

Report: Martin Häusling (A7-0215/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it aims, above all, to update current legislation in line with the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which accorded Parliament new powers. This proposal will contribute to the smoother running of the market and aims to prevent unfair competition.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report regarding organic production and labelling of organic products. We, Members of the European Parliament, encouraged the Commission to adopt specific rules, measures and conditions necessary for the application of this Regulation in order to better take account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and to ensure the adequate application of rules by the authorities, bodies and operators concerned and the proper functioning of the single market and trade. It is very important that all Member States adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement the regulation and to ensure high quality of organic products.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In order to prevent EU legislation from becoming too complicated and technical, the Treaty of Lisbon modernised the system for delegating certain powers to the Commission in the case of minor legislative changes. That enables us to avoid revising a text entirely by going through the whole legislative process. Amendments may be needed in order to take account of scientific or technical advances, a new fact, or to adapt quantitative data. Here we are talking about organic production and the labelling of organic products. As the rapporteur points out, delegated acts will ‘better take account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and ensure the adequate application of rules by the authorities, bodies and operators concerned and the proper functioning of the single market and trade’.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on the alignment of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products. The aim of the proposed alignment is to better take account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and to ensure the adequate application of rules by the authorities and operators concerned and the proper functioning of the single market and trade. It is essential to relieve organic farmers of the burden of unnecessary red tape.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I support that this regulation must be brought properly into line with the Treaty’s provisions as soon as possible so as to take into account the differences between implementing measures, on the one hand, and delegated acts, on the other. This adjustment is particularly important, especially with regard to organic and green products, with the aim of paying more attention to consumer’s expectations in terms of the relevant products’ quality.

This means that the rules, measures and conditions required to implement the regulation effectively will be adopted by the Commission using delegated acts. I think that this can ensure the single market will function properly and make trade more efficient. I would like to stress the importance of applying this regulation uniformly across the whole EU so as to prevent any problems or discrepancies arising.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I decided to support the report by Mr Häusling because it embraces and develops a number of principles that I think are essential in terms of organic production and labelling of organic products: taking account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products, ensuring the adequate application of rules by the authorities, bodies and operators concerned, and safeguarding the proper functioning of the single market and trade.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in order to take better account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and to ensure the adequate application of rules by the authorities, bodies and operators concerned and the proper functioning of the single market and trade, it is necessary, by means of delegated acts, to adopt specific rules, measures and conditions applicable to this Regulation (for example, the authorisation of products and substances for use in organic production, their inclusion in a restricted list or the withdrawal from that list for the purposes of Articles 16 and 21; the processing methods for processed food; the conditions of application of the prohibition on the use of GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs; the labelling rules and other aspects). No amendments concerning the proposal for the Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products linked to the classification of delegated and implementing acts are proposed. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the current Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 has to be aligned based on the principle of distinguishing between measures of an implementing nature and measures of a delegated nature. This proposal is one of several Commission proposals for the approximation of legislation in order to adapt agricultural legislation to new provisions, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Organic farming is a dynamic sector and, in the country I come from, it has enjoyed steady growth in recent years, both in the crop and animal production sectors. One of the prerequisites for developing organic farming is to promote the green concept so as to make consumers aware of the benefits of eating organic products so that they will pay a higher price for fresh products whose quality is guaranteed by an inspection and certification system.

In order to achieve this, I think that we need to give greater consideration to consumers’ expectations about the quality of organic products and also ensure that the rules are applied by all the operators involved and, last but not least, that the single market and trade are functioning properly.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the adoption of this text, which incorporates the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon as regards the specific case of the production and labelling of organic products. It enhances Parliament’s supervisory powers over European legislation, thereby enabling the public to express their opinions through their representatives.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − To serve the expectations and health of consumers, the quality of organic products must be regulated. Ensuring the quality of organic products cannot be achieved without the application of necessary rules, which must be implemented by the designated authorities. I support the Rapporteur's additions to promote and facilitate this and therefore am in favour of this report.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that we need to take into account consumers’ expectations about the quality of organic products to ensure that the rules are applied properly by the relevant authorities, agencies and operators, and that the single market and trade are functioning properly.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which consolidates the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon for the specific case of the production and labelling of organic products. Strengthening the supervisory powers of Parliament on European regulations enables European citizens to express their position through their representatives in Parliament.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘organic production and labelling of organic products’ because it includes measures that guarantee the quality of organic products and adequately apply the rules for the entities, bodies and operators in question, thereby ensuring that the internal market and trade work properly.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) sets out the distinction between delegated powers and implementing powers. Article 290 enables the legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. Article 291 of the TFEU enables the Member States to adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding EU acts. In the proposal we have just adopted, the Commission performed a rigorous repartition between the more general provisions of Article 290, establishing additional elements, and the more technical elements of Article 291, which are very much connected with the discretion that Member States enjoy in implementing this measure. For this very reason, no amendments are proposed to the drafting of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products as regards the classification of delegated and implementing acts.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The main concern of Members of this House is public health and well-being. When we debate delicate issues in the field of organic production, what is at stake is protecting European consumers as regards the products in circulation in the EU. Since it has come into force, all legislation has had to be aligned with the Treaty of Lisbon, which involves changing the old comitology system, which has now been replaced by a two-tier system: delegated acts and implementing acts. This report by Mr Häusling concerns a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on organic production and labelling of organic products. Although we are adapting legislation to the Treaty of Lisbon, it is essential not to disappoint consumers of organic products: we must create clear labelling conditions that enlighten and inform people, but that free these products from all unnecessary bureaucracy. I voted for this report and I hope that the Commission will soon table a proposal to improve the Organic Farming Regulation as regards the substances that may be used for this type of farming.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to align this regulation with the Treaty of Lisbon. The legislative text from the old comitology system is now being aligned using the two-tier structure imposed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which consists of delegated acts and implementing acts, enabling the Commission to exercise implementing powers without consulting Parliament. According to the rapporteur, so as better to take into account consumer expectations regarding the quality of organic products, the Commission uses delegated acts to adopt the specific rules, measures and conditions necessary for applying this regulation. These include the authorisation of products and substances for use in organic production; the processing methods for processed food; the conditions of application of the prohibition on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products produced from or by GMOs; and the labelling rules, requirements and specific criteria as regards presentation, composition, size and design of the EU organic logo as well as the conditions and rights of its use. As experience has borne out, particularly as regards GMOs, these are areas in which the Commission has been defending the rights of corporations rather than those of the public and consumers.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In order to better take account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and to ensure the adequate application of rules by the state organisations, private organisations and operators concerned and the proper functioning of the single market and trade, the Commission will, by means of delegated acts, adopt the specific rules, measures and conditions necessary for the uniform application of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 in all Member States. It should be empowered to adopt implementing acts in accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty and, similarly, it should be empowered to adopt implementing acts regarding the attribution of code numbers under the control regime, the indication of origin for the products and uniform rules on the exchange of information to be sent by Member States, third countries, state control authorities and private control agencies or made available by the Commission, or the publication of that information, as well as for the recognition of third countries and state control authorities and private control agencies for the purposes of equivalence and compliance. For the sake of clarity, the wording of the references to the European standard EN 45011 or ISO Guide 65 should be harmonised with other relevant EU acts. I therefore consider it justified to amend and supplement Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 accordingly.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the proposal because according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the current Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 has to be aligned based on the principle of distinguishing between measures of an implementing nature and measures of a delegated nature. Article 290 of the TFEU allows the legislator to ‘delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act’. Legal acts adopted by the Commission in this way are referred to in the terminology used by the Treaty as ‘delegated acts’ (Article 290(3)). In order to take better account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and to ensure the adequate application of rules by the authorities, bodies and operators concerned and the proper functioning of the single market and trade, the Commission will, by means of delegated acts, adopt specific rules, measures and conditions necessary for the application of this Regulation (for example, the authorisation of products and substances for use in organic production, their inclusion in a restricted list or the withdrawal from that list for the purposes of Articles 16 and 21; the processing methods for processed food; the conditions of application of the prohibition on the use of GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs; the labelling rules, requirements and specific criteria as regards presentation, composition, size and design of the organic logo of the European Union as well as the conditions and rights of its use, in accordance with Title IV and so on).

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report aims to align the existing regulation with the regime of delegated acts and implementing acts, which are powers granted to the Commission by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This update is not intended to affect the essential provisions originally provided for. In order to better take account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and to ensure the proper functioning of the single market and trade, the Commission shall adopt the measures necessary for the application of this regulation. These measures include in particular the authorisation of products and substances for use in organic production and the labelling rules. I voted in favour of this report, which was adopted by a very large majority by Parliament.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − As we well know, the issue on how decisions authorising certain products and substances are taken (by means of delegated or implementing acts) is a horizontal one. In case of organic farming products the authorisation procedure is even more general, because there is no application by individual operators. Authorisations are done in a general manner by the Commission upon a request of a Member State. The Commission has proposed in Article 16(1) and 21(1) to authorise these substances by means of delegated acts. Although Parliament supported this position, the Council has changed these provisions to implementing acts. The position of the European Parliament in the third reading on Art. 16 and 21 was to move the list of substances into annexes of the basic act which will then be modified by the ordinary legislative procedure. The ECR is in favour of the committee's approach of supporting the use of delegated acts in as many instances as possible. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), this report calls for the alignment of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, based on the principle of sorting between measures of implementing nature and measures of delegated nature. In order to better take account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products, the Commission has adopted specific rules for the application of this regulation Accordingly, the Commission has drawn a clear line between the provisions and I am therefore voting in favour of the resolution.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The regulation being discussed, albeit technical, is particularly important as organic production accounts for 5% of the agricultural area of the EU and for sales worth EUR 18 billion (certified organic products). The amendments made to the previous regulation relate to the requirements for producers and the authorisation of certain products, the EU organic logo and aspects relating to the audit carried out by the control bodies and authorities. However, I believe that this revision of the regulation is aimed at purely administrative aspects. We need to continue in the future to take far-reaching action to simplify the regulations for the benefit of farmers and producers in the organic production sector.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal and share the point of view of the rapporteur on this proposal. The Commission has drawn an accurate distinction between more general provisions, establishing additional elements (Article 290) and more technical elements that are very much connected with the discretion that Member States enjoy in implementing this measure (Article 291).

Therefore no amendments on the classification of delegated and implementing acts are proposed to the proposal for a regulation to amend Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution. For reasons of legal certainty and clarity the regulation currently in force must be aligned based on the principle of distinguishing between measures of an implementing nature and measures of a delegated nature. The expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products will thus be better taken into account. Furthermore, the authorities and other operators concerned will be able to apply the rules more effectively and favourable conditions will be created for the smooth functioning of the single market and trade. I believe that it is appropriate to entrust the Commission to adopt, by means of delegated acts, specific rules, measures and conditions necessary for the application of this regulation.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) This regulation seeks to introduce special rules to safeguard the quality of organic products, the proper application of the rules by the relevant authorities, operators and undertakings, the seamless operation of the single market and trade and proper information for consumers. There has, in fact, been an abundance of complaints, including in Greece, about non-organic products being labelled as organic, and this is duping consumers and distorting the market. In this report, which I supported, the European Parliament ratifies the Commission’s executive powers to safeguard uniform conditions for the measures taken by the Member States in order to safeguard proper labelling of organic products.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the current Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 should be aligned on the basis of the principle of distinction between implementing acts and delegated acts. I therefore voted for this report, which aligns the aforementioned Regulation with Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the current Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 has to be aligned based on the principle of sorting between measures of implementing nature and measures of delegated nature. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt the necessary provisions aiming at reaching a uniform application of this Regulation in the Union, in particular relating, for example, to details and specifications regarding the content, form and way of notification, submission and exchange of information. Considering that the Commission has done an accurate repartition between provisions, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. – (SL) I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products because I support the Commission’s intention to introduce clearer rules for both producers and consumers. On the basis of these rules, consumers will find it easier to assess the quality of products and produce.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the current Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 should be aligned on the basis of the principle of distinction between implementing acts and delegated acts. In this proposal, the Commission performed a rigorous repartition between the more general provisions of Article 290, establishing additional elements, and the more technical elements of Article 291, which are very much connected with the discretion that Member States enjoy in implementing this measure. Therefore, no amendments are proposed to the drafting of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products as regards the classification of delegated and implementing acts. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. In order to better take account of the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and to ensure the adequate application of rules by the authorities, bodies and operators concerned and the proper functioning of the single market and trade, the Commission shall, by means of delegated acts, adopt specific rules, measures and conditions necessary for the application of this Regulation (e.g. the authorisation of products and substances for use in organic production, their inclusion in a restricted list or the withdrawal from that list for the purposes of Articles 16 and 21; the processing methods for processed food; the conditions of application of the prohibition on the use of GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs; the labelling rules, requirements and specific criteria as regards presentation, composition, size and design of the organic logo of the European Union as well as the conditions and rights of its use, in accordance with Title IV etc.)

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of the proposal because it takes into account the expectations of consumers regarding the quality of organic products and it ensures the adequate application of rules by the authorities throughout the European Union.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since it has been impossible for the Council and Parliament to reach an agreement on cross-cutting issues (which are connected in various dossiers on alignment) during informal trilogues, all files on alignment in the agricultural sector, which we have discussed in this Chamber, will no longer be dealt with individually, but will instead be covered under the process to reform the CAP and the four legislative packages that we are amending in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. These negotiations have not resulted in an agreement primarily because of the Council’s reluctance to accept application of Article 290 on delegated acts, in accordance with the Commission’s proposal. In the Committee on Agriculture, we therefore decided to vote on all the reports in plenary separately, so as to confirm the position adopted in committee. I hope my and my colleagues’ vote in favour will send a strong signal to the Council ahead of the forthcoming negotiations on reform of the CAP.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) lays down that the current Organic Farming Regulation should be aligned on the basis of the principle of distinction between implementing measures and delegated measures. According to Article 290 of the TFEU, the legislator should ‘delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act’. I am voting for this report, since I believe delegated acts set out by the Commission aim to improve consumer expectations of organic products, to ensure the entities, bodies and operators in question properly apply the rules, and to guarantee that the internal market and trade work properly. I also consider it crucial that the Commission’s preparatory work for implementing acts continue to involve reference to consultative groups, so that the voices of stakeholders and NGOs can be heard in a regular and structured way.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on organic production and labelling organic products. I think that operators need to comply with the production regulations established at EU level, as well as with the measures and conditions required to implement them. To implement this regulation, the Commission needs to have the authorisation to adopt implementing acts for assigning code numbers under the control scheme, indicating the origin of products and providing uniform rules on the exchange of information to be sent by Member States, third countries, control authorities and control bodies. It is important to publish this information and the information about recognising third countries, control authorities and control bodies for the purposes of equivalence and compliance. I think that the European Union organic production logo can be used for labelling, presenting and advertising products which fulfil the requirements stipulated by this regulation. This regulation must be applied uniformly in the EU, especially the methods and conditions which need to be taken into account for online certification, with the aim of ensuring transparency by exchanging information quickly, efficiently, accurately and cost-effectively.

Report: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (A7-0204/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since it is essentially a legislative-alignment proposal resulting from the requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon, which gave Parliament codecision powers on agricultural legislation. I therefore support the Commission being able to use implementing acts, so as to prevent unfair competition in the market.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In order to prevent EU legislation from becoming too complicated and technical, the Treaty of Lisbon modernised the system for delegating certain powers to the Commission in the case of minor legislative changes. Here, the proposal is limited to only the amendments needed for this adaptation and I approved this alignment.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I believe that current legislation needs to be adapted as quickly as possible to the new legal reality. Therefore, the regulation on the scrutiny carried out by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund also needs to be modified appropriately. In this regard, I support the Commission’s proposal aimed at the consistent use of the provisions on delegated acts and implementing acts. I should stress, at the same time, the importance of aligning this regulation with the provisions of the Treaty regarding implementing powers. I should highlight the importance of this adjustment in the current context, against the background of the forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy, which should be carried out under optimum conditions.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because this proposal is one of several Commission proposals for the approximation of legislation in order to adapt agricultural legislation to new provisions, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. The alignment procedure concerns Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In order to update existing provisions, taking into account the legal reality, it is essential to check the provisions of the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. Based on the criteria defined for each type of act, the Commission proposal was carefully scrutinised and areas were identified where the conditions for delegated acts were met. Consequently, the conditions for implementing acts were scrutinised. Inconsistencies were not observed. The use of delegated and implementing act provisions in these articles is appropriate. However, parts of the wording of articles relating to delegation do not correspond to neither the standard wording for these articles agreed in the draft Common Understanding, nor to formulation agreed upon by the institutions in Regulation No 438/2010, and these therefore need to be amended.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 lays down rules for the current system of direct payments to farmers, which will be replaced by other proposals in the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2014-2020. In its suggestions for the CAP multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, the Commission proposes using a crisis reserve to tackle the need for additional funding due to sudden farming crises. I am voting for the solution included in the report, so I voted for the proposal by Mr Capoulas Santos because I believe we need to retain the existing financial structure to be used in 2013, so as to ensure continuity of payments and levels of support for effective agricultural development.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − Changes to the EU's comitology system render certain parts of Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 out of date. It is important that legislation concerning the European Agricultural Guarantee be modified to ensure the efficiency of the system's financing. With this in mind, I support the Rapporteur's proposals and am thus in favour of these amendments.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that this new system with a two-tier structure consisting of delegated and implementing acts (the former including Parliament’s right of veto), which enables the Commission to exercise its implementing powers, is excellent.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal for ‘transition’ between the financial provisions for 2013 concerning Member States who have acceded to the EU since 2004 because I believe we should prevent a cut in support in 2013 for any sectors benefiting until 2012 from additional direct national payments, since such a possibility is not available for 2013.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Issues pertaining to EU legislative acts, chiefly their delimitation, have occupied a significant proportion of this sitting. I understand why that is and that we are attempting systematically to make the EU legal system consistent and sufficiently comprehensible. It is an essentially formal process, but it has to be done because of the extent to which the material consequences of a potential failure in adaptation could harm the balance of power within the EU and, more seriously, jeopardise the public’s rights.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I should like to start by congratulating Mr Capoulas Santos on his excellent report on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. The Treaty of Lisbon has changed the old comitology system, thereby increasing the powers of Parliament, which now has the right to veto delegated acts. That system has been replaced by a two-tier system of delegated acts and implementing acts, so there needs to be an alignment with the existing body of legislation. All alignment exercises are fundamentally technical, but they include a certain political sensitivity and always elicit some controversy. I therefore welcome the fact that this issue has been debated in the European Parliament before the debate on reforming the common agricultural policy. I voted for this report and I am of the same view as that expressed in almost all the speeches regarding the need for Parliament to adopt a firm and cohesive stance on defending its role of scrutinising comitology, in line with its new status of co-legislator.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the old comitology system, which was based on the classic comitology procedures (advisory, management, regulatory) and the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. This system is now replaced with a two tier structure, consisting of delegated and implementing acts (delegated acts include Parliament’s right of veto), which enables the Commission to exert powers in the implementation and execution of acts. The valid legislation must therefore be aligned to this new legal reality.

One of the first proposals is the alignment of this proposal for a regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. The proposal is limited to modifications required for alignment only. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers conferred upon the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 485/2009 need to be aligned to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which distinguishes between two types of Commission acts—delegated acts and implementing acts. Parts of the wording of the articles relating to the delegation do not correspond to the standard text for these articles, as agreed approved in the Common Understanding, or to the formula agreed by the institutions in Regulation 438/2010, so I believe that they should be amended and supplemented.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal because the proposal amends Regulation No 485/2008 by including one provision on delegated acts (Article 1(2) - establishment of a list of measures to which the regulation does not apply). The first sentence of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 485/2008 contains a reference to Regulation No 1782/2003, which is no longer in force and has been replaced by Regulation No 73/2009, and as this provision has not been modified by the proposal, an amendment is necessary. The Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the old comitology system, which was based on classic comitology procedures (advisory, management, regulatory) and the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. This system has now been replaced with a two-tier structure, consisting of delegated and implementing acts (the former including Parliament’s right of veto), which enable the Commission to exert powers in implementation and execution. Thus, the existing body of legislation has to be aligned to this new legal reality. One of the first proposals is the alignment of this proposal for a regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. The proposal is limited to modifications for the purpose of alignment only.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report aims to align the existing regulation with the regime of delegated acts and implementing acts, which are powers granted to the Commission by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This update is not intended to affect the essential provisions originally provided for. In addition, the report provides a clarification of the text with regard to the conditions of delegation of acts. I supported this report, which was adopted by Parliament by 654 votes in the July part-session.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD), in writing. − I note the near consensus (95%) with which this vote passed. I cannot but conclude that European deputies share my strong support for European agriculture and wish to see the sector continue to thrive.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this proposal. The Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the old comitology system, which was based on the classic comitology procedures (advisory, management, regulatory) and the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. This system is now replaced with a two-tier structure, consisting of delegated and implementing acts (the former including Parliament’s right of veto), which enable the Commission to exert powers in implementation and execution. Thus, the existing body of legislation has to be aligned to this new legal reality.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report. It supports the Commission proposal, which limits itself solely to the amendments needed to align the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers conferred upon the Commission need to be aligned with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), based on distinguishing between delegated powers and implementing powers. Given that some of the wording of the articles on delegation does not correspond to the standard wording for these articles agreed in the draft Common Understanding, nor to the wording that was agreed upon by the institutions in Regulation (EC) No 438/2010, and therefore needs amending, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. Fundamentally, the intention is to align this text with the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon concerning the exercise of the Commission’s implementing powers. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In December 2010, the Commission tabled a proposal for a regulation on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). This proposal aims to identify the Commission’s delegated powers and implementing powers conferred under the aforementioned regulation and to establish the correct procedure for adopting the acts in question. I am voting for the report tabled by Mr Capoulas Santos, which ensures uniform application of rules and provisions common to all EU Member States, thereby preventing market disparities in terms of EAGF funding.

Reports: Paolo De Castro (A7-0158/2011, A7-0161/2011 and A7-0322/2011), Giovanni La Via (A7-0209/2011), Martin Häusling (A7-0215/2011) and Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (A7-0204/2011)

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I abstained on the Agriculture reports on alignment. These reports align the existing body of agricultural legislation to the new legal reality, which is the system of delegated and implementing acts. Reports which use delegated acts are those on which the parliament has a right of veto.

Although I am opposed to the Common Agricultural Policy, I recognise that the principle of protecting Parliament’s right of veto, where it has been legally given (in the Treaty of Lisbon), is a principle that needs to be protected. This principle will go beyond agricultural reports. Because of this, because I do not wish the Commission to make decisions in which Parliament should co-legislate, I abstained on these reports.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The huge delays in adapting the package of basic regulations on the common agricultural policy (CAP) to the Treaty of Lisbon are down to the Council’s intransigence and the deferral of the Polish Presidency, which prevented us from finalising the agreements that had earlier been made. Today, we once again find ourselves faced not just with the old regulations in the package, but also with new texts on the CAP and with voting on alignment to the Treaty of Lisbon, as approved in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in April 2011. The changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon – abolishing the old comitology system, allowing the Commission to exercise implementation and enforcement powers that amend the role of the Council, which, acting on a proposal by the Commission, can adopt measures to set prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations – show us the important role of Parliament even more. Accordingly, we need to align the body of laws to the new framework, bringing in an alternative system that is in keeping with Articles 290 and 291 and allows Parliament to act to protect farmers, land, products and agricultural markets.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I abstained on the agriculture reports on alignment. These reports align the existing body of agricultural legislation to the new legal reality, which is the system of delegated and implementing acts. Reports which use delegated acts are those on which the parliament has a right of veto. Although I am opposed to the Common Agricultural Policy, I recognise that the principle of protecting Parliament’s right of veto, where it has been legally given (in the Treaty of Lisbon), is a principle that needs to be protected. This principle will reach beyond agricultural reports. Because of this, because I do not wish the Commission to make decisions in which Parliament should co-legislate, I abstained on this report.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Once the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, the legislative procedure used to date, namely comitology, was replaced by a system comprising delegated acts and implementing acts. Under delegated acts, the European Commission can adopt non-legislative documents of lesser importance that add to or modify already existing laws. However, implementing acts are used for legislation that must be introduced in all Member States on the same conditions.

For us, as Members of the European Parliament, the most important issue is the participation of the European Parliament in decision making and in monitoring the implementation of legislation. In this regard it is the delegated acts that give us greater powers; here we can specify conditions according to which the European Commission can introduce laws (in the case of implementing acts, the European Parliament is in a certain sense removed from any further work once the decision has been taken). For this reason, too, I believe that we should move in the direction of classifying as many dossiers as possible as delegated acts, which will give us greater ability to review and inspect projects that have been adopted. Of course this brings with it greater administrative involvement and it may be necessary for the European Parliament to increase its ‘processing’ power, meaning the employment of legal experts and other staff that can assist in adapting our everyday work to the new procedures.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is one of several Commission proposals on alignment aiming to update the actual agricultural legislation to the new provisions as foreseen in the Treaty of Lisbon. I voted in favour.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted, along with the overwhelming majority of my colleagues, for the whole package proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development regarding alignment with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. This package is not only important because of the provisions it contains, but especially because it defends our new powers as codecision-maker in the area of agriculture and rural development, granted by the Treaty. Parliament must defend these powers it has and exercise them according to the mandate given by the electorate, especially now when the major debates on the future of the CAP are going on.

Recommendation: Gianluca Susta (A7-0176/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it aims to ensure the preservation of commitments previously made as regards EU-Russia trade. This is a partnership that should also be viewed in the light of the new legal framework arising from Russia’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on EU-Russia agreement on the preservation of commitments on trade in services. This EU-Russia agreement contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement must be viewed in the light of the new legal framework arising from Russia’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation. As a result of that accession, Russia will become a country that is relatively open to foreign services. Although Russia has agreed to lower its barriers to trade and investment and to grant more favourable treatment than it did previously to foreign service providers in 11 sectors covering professional services, IT services, construction, postal services, telecommunications, media, transport, distribution, tourism and travel, and financial services, we, Members of the EP, urge the Russian Government to make major adjustments in the Russian law, in particular trade and competition law and customs regulations, in order to be able to implement those concessions. The EP and all European community expect that the commitments made by Russia would not only provide new business opportunities for EU firms; they would also improve the business environment – not least as regards non-discrimination and free competition – for EU exporters and investors already working with Russia.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Negotiations about Russia joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have been going on for almost two decades. It is almost a done deal; all that remains now is for the Russian Parliament to vote on approval of WTO membership before the end of July. This week, I approved several agreements which are more advantageous to the European Union than those resulting from WTO rules. EU firms should have more favourable arrangements under this agreement which will improve the conditions of service providers who establish themselves in that country.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on the conclusion of the new bilateral Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Russia on trade in services replacing the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement concluded in 1994. With Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation and according to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), trade in services will be liberalised and foreign service providers will have substantially greater access to the Russian market. It is important for the EU and Russia to update the bilateral commitments entered into almost 20 years ago so that the EU secures additional trade concessions over and above those available under the multilateral regime, and preserves the current commitments on access to the Russian market for EU service providers in the maritime trade and the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes sectors.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because concluding the EU-Russia agreement on preserving the commitments on trade in services is part of the new legal framework produced by Russia joining the WTO, enabling the Russian market to become more open to services from the European Union and better conditions for European economic operators already present on the Russian services markets, thanks to the provisions on non-discrimination and free competition. European service providers will gain substantial benefits at a time when exports in this area generated a turnover of EUR 22.6 billion in 2010, accounting for 20% of the EU’s total exports in Russia.

In addition, the bilateral agreement will allow European investors to continue to enjoy a more favourable preferential scheme than that offered by the multilateral trade scheme in two areas (maritime trade and the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes) where the current commitments to the EU under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed in 1994 are stricter than those Russia is also going to adopt after officially joining the WTO.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation offers new possibilities in relations between the European Union and Russia. However it also means that existing bilateral agreements may be subject to change, since Russia now becomes a country that is much more open as regards the international exchange of services. Thus service providers in European Union countries have greater opportunities to access the Russian market, which has a significant impact on Poland, as an immediate neighbour. It is encouraging to hear the undertaking of the Russian Government to reduce trade barriers as well as barriers to investment in key service sectors which, as an example, means full access for computer or construction services. Services relating to land and water-borne transport have also been opened to foreigners. Another important issue is the simplification of movement of persons between companies. I support both this and other resolutions concerning the multilateral package regulating the accession of Russia to the WTO. At the same time I am counting on full liberalisation of the Russian market in the future.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Susta’s recommendation as the Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organisation requires it to commit to amending trade agreements with other countries that subscribe to the principles of free trade. The agreement to ease restrictions in the Russian services sector will bring great benefits for the European Union in a sector that now represents 20% of European exports to the Russian Federation.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the EU-Russia agreements on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. By becoming a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Russia has committed to implement a more open economic liberalism through bilateral trade agreements with the European Union. These agreements represent real progress in the sense of greater openness in certain sectors to foreign suppliers. Russia has also committed to promoting a wider range of services and a higher quality of service. It should be noted that these structural changes require adjustments to Russian law, in particular in commercial law and competition law. Through this report, the European Union wants to send a strong signal of support to Russia in pursuit of these reforms, which bode well for a strengthening of trade relations.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report which calls for the preservation of a more favourable EU-Russia bilateral regime than the one adopted at international level. As a result of its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Russia has agreed to liberalise its trade system in numerous service sectors. However, in the areas of maritime trade and the temporary movement of employees for business purposes, Russia’s commitments do not go as far as those it made in the existing bilateral agreement with the European Union. I therefore welcome the adoption of this report, which is a step further in the defence of our interests.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the adoption of this agreement because it represents a new stage in trade cooperation with Russia since it joined the World Trade Organisation. The opening up of the Russian services market – telecommunications, insurance, tourism, transport, etc. – to foreign competition is a genuine challenge, both for Russian consumers, who benefit from a wider range of improved services, and for EU businesses, which will find new markets.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this agreement, which represents a new chapter in trade cooperation with Russia once it joins the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The opening up of the Russian services market (telecommunications, insurance, tourism, transport, etc.) to foreign competition poses a real challenge, both for Russian consumers, who will benefit from an increase in supply and better quality services, and for our European businesses, which will have new opportunities.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Considering the fact that the relations between Hungary and Russia will have a long-term influence on both the economic development of the region and, if these relations are further deepened, the region’s political stability, I support the report and commend Russia for agreeing to eliminate barriers to trade and investment, and to grant more favourable treatment to service providers in 11 sectors. Hungary is among the eastern regions of the European Union, and its geographical position is one of the reasons why it has a stake in an agreement with Russia. In the trade-related sections of the ‘New Agreement’ between the European Union and Russia that is currently being negotiated and will replace the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement concluded in 1994, the conditions of the bilateral commitments entered into nearly 20 years ago should be updated, in particular in order to secure additional commitments from Russia in modes 3 and 4 under the chapter on trade in services and the right of establishment. That chapter should also consolidate the rights of EU service providers setting up operations in Russia. If these conditions are met, then I can do nothing but support this report.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the EU-Russia agreement on the preservation of commitments on trade in services because I believe this partnership and cooperation agreement should be seen in the light of the new legal framework resulting from Russia’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation, specifically through the ‘new bilateral agreement’ aimed at obtaining additional commitments giving firmer guarantees to European service providers when they set up in Russia.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The opening up of the Russian market is always a good sign for the European Union. Its accession to the World Trade Organisation is good news, as well as an important opportunity for Europe. Despite the multiple issues that remain and the informal obstacles to increased liberalisation of trade with Russia, I think this is another step in the right direction. We can now clearly see, not only Europe’s great dependence on Russian energy, but also the prospects of success for European services companies in Russia. Despite the natural suspicions held throughout so many years in a climate of confrontation, I believe we will benefit if we manage to promote greater integration between the two parties and if the EU is able to make Russia into a strategic partner of the first order. Both the EU and Russia currently face major geostrategic challenges that would be more easily overcome if both opted to harmonise their positions.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), in view of Russia’s application for membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Russia is a strategic partner of the EU that, by joining the WTO, is opening itself up to foreign services after around 20 years of timid reforms to privatise and liberalise its national economy. Although gradual, this opening up will enable foreign service providers to invest in sectors like construction, IT, professional services, telecommunications, transport, postal services, the media, distribution, tourism and travel, and financial services. I welcome Russia’s accession to the WTO and the resulting benefits, as well as the fact that, under this new agreement, which will replace the PCA of 1994, the EU will still benefit from a more favourable system as regards maritime trade and the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The conclusion of this agreement is a long-awaited step forward for big business in the major EU powers. The process of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation involves a process of liberalisations and privatisations in a number of areas, particularly services, thereby opening up its market to foreign investment. Russia’s services market started developing only in the 1990s after the end of the Soviet Union, following the victory of the counterrevolution, which dismantled a major state-owned services sector.

With this agreement, Russia is giving up part of its sovereignty and undertaking to bring an end to almost all preferential national treatment, so as to enable EU big business to access its services market. The beneficiaries of this agreement concluded by the EU are the same as ever: big companies in the major EU powers, for which it creates ‘new business opportunities’ in an area in which they will have a competitive advantage. Those who gain nothing and lose everything from this agreement are the same as ever: the workers in this sector threatened with redundancy, the small and medium-sized enterprises threatened by competition from the sector’s major monopolies, and working-class consumers who are seeing higher prices and lower quality. For all these reasons, we are compelled to vote against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The EU-Russia agreement regarding the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement must be viewed in the light of the new legal framework arising from Russia’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation. The schedules for the liberalisation of trade in services included in Russia’s multilateral WTO accession package will give foreign service providers substantially greater access to the Russian market. Russia has agreed to lower its barriers to trade and investment and to grant more favourable treatment than it did previously to foreign service providers in 11 sectors covering professional services, IT services, construction, postal services, telecommunications, media, transport, distribution, tourism and travel, and financial services. Currently, trade in services accounts for approximately 20% of EU exports to Russia. The commitments made by Russia will not only provide new business opportunities for European firms; they will also improve the environment for exporters and investors from the EU already working in Russia, not least as regards non-discrimination and free competition. Greater competition should increase the supply and raise the quality of services in Russia in a large number of sectors, which could make it easier for all European companies established in Russia to do business. I think it is right for Parliament to approve this agreement.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the conclusion of the agreement because the EU has to conclude a bilateral agreement with Russia in order to secure additional bilateral trade concessions over and above those available under the multilateral regime. In many service sectors, the trade liberalisation commitments made by Russia go further than the arrangements that have applied to date to EU firms under the terms of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed in 1994 and implemented since 1997. The European Union would continue to enjoy more favourable arrangements and greater preferences than available under the multilateral regime. This bilateral agreement details the preferential treatment that is to be granted exclusively to the EU. The agreement does not require the European Union to make any new commitments. This agreement should also consolidate the rights of EU service providers setting up operations in Russia.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a result of its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Russia has made a number of commitments to the General Agreement on Trade in Services. However, at multilateral level, Russia has achieved case-by-case liberalisation in some sectors. This case-by-case approach to the commitment is not feasible within the framework of EU-Russia relations. The purpose of this agreement is therefore to maintain a more balanced bilateral regime than the one adopted at multilateral level and one which favours the interests of the European Union. Parliament has adopted this report and I welcome it.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − Hopefully, as a result of accession to the WTO, Russia will become a country that is relatively open to foreign services; nevertheless, today major restrictions on imports of services and the establishment of foreign service providers remain in place in Russia. The EU-Russia agreement regarding the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement should be viewed in the light of the new legal framework arising from Russia’s recent accession to the WTO. Russia's commitments to reduce market access restrictions and put an end to almost all national treatment may have potential benefits for the European Union. For this reason, the EU should continue to monitor how Russia improves its business environment. I voted in favour of this recommendation.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The accession of Russia to the World Trade Organisation and the resulting framework conditions will provide more opportunities for European business. The new version of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will not only improve access for businesses, it will also improve the position of those businesses that are already established in Russia. I welcome this agreement, as I see it as additional means for improving the position of Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises in Russia.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal which should help improve access for EU companies to the Russian market for services. The Russian market remains very restrictive and is not in line with their new obligations since becoming WTO members.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As I have already said before, Russia is one of the EU’s most important partners in many regards. The numerous political and economic agreements that have been signed with our Russian neighbour are proof that the EU considers it to be a key partner on the international stage. Russia is also the EU’s third biggest trading partner. We have just approved three resolutions on trade agreements with Russia which favour EU firms. Russia’s imminent accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which will improve access to the Russian market, has played a huge part in these agreements. By becoming a member of the WTO, Russia will reduce its tariffs, which currently average 9.5%, to about 6% by 2015.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The EU-Russia agreement regarding the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement must be viewed in the light of the new legal framework arising from Russia’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation. I am in favour.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because I want bilateral cooperation between the European Union and Russia that is fairer, whereas at multilateral level Russia has achieved case-by-case liberalisation in some sectors. Russia has agreed to liberalise its trade system as part of its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This agreement underlines the scope of its commitments that will not only improve the situation of Russian consumers, who will benefit from better services, it will also provide new business opportunities for EU firms, and for EU exporters and investors already working with Russia. I therefore welcome the fact that Parliament has adopted this report.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (SK) As a result of the recent accession of Russia to the World Trade Organisation, it is necessary to establish a new legal framework for relations between the EU and Russia regarding the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation. Russia is one of the largest economies in the world, a country full of new opportunities and challenges. For this reason, therefore, I consider the reciprocal bilateral agreements will contribute not only to the interlinking of the EU and Russian economies but will also ensure the balanced economic growth of both contracting parties. Liberalisation of trade in services was one of the conditions for the accession process of Russia to the WTO. I therefore firmly believe that the strengthening of mutual cooperation between the EU and Russia will help to improve the perceptions of foreign service providers and facilitate access to the Russian market for European companies. What is crucial in this collaboration will equally benefit the Russian Federation. The agreement must, however, be concluded on the basis of common interests and awareness of mutual rights and obligations. The creation of such a stable business environment by means of the new Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the EU and Russia will help to gain further additional concessions. Compared to the multilateral system based on bilateral agreements, the rights of European service providers should be clearly confirmed.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report consenting to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

With its accession to the World Trade Organisation, Russia has made a commitment to reduce market access restrictions in many areas and put an end to favouring national companies over foreign companies. On the one hand I would like to see prompt and effective implementation of those reforms, yet on the other hand I would hope that successful liberalisation of the economy spills over into liberalisation of society. Improving the access of European companies to the Russian market will hopefully pave the way to European business culture.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this agreement on further commitments on trade in services, thanks to which the European Union will continue to enjoy more favourable arrangements. Trade liberalisation will give many services sectors more rights. I believe that it is appropriate and essential for the EU to conclude a bilateral agreement with Russia because more trade concessions will be given than available under the multilateral regime. It should be noted that it is important for the current commitments on access to the Russian market for EU service providers to be preserved in the services sectors of maritime trade and the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since it is a consensual agreement, I voted for Parliament’s legislative resolution of 4 July 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) By becoming a member of the World Trade Organisation, Russia will become a country that is relatively open to foreign services, giving foreign service providers substantially greater access to the market. The commitments made by Russia will not only provide new business opportunities for EU firms; they will also improve the business environment – not least as regards non-discrimination and free competition – for EU exporters and investors already working with Russia. So that the EU may continue to enjoy more favourable arrangements than those available under the multilateral regime, I voted in favour of the conclusion of the ‘new bilateral agreement’ between the European Union and Russia.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Russia agreement regarding the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement must be viewed in the light of the new legal framework arising from Russia’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The process of liberalising the trade in services included in Russia’s multilateral WTO accession package will give foreign service providers substantially greater access to the Russian market, in particular telecommunications, tourism, transport and the financial sector itself. I voted in favour because I believe this will not only provide new business opportunities for EU firms, but will also improve the business environment – not least as regards non-discrimination and free competition – for EU exporters and investors already working with Russia.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − With the accession of Russia to the WTO in December 2011, the EU needs to align specific rules it maintained bilaterally within the framework of the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the prevailing WTO law. This dossier carries out this alignment in the field of trade in services.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour because the inclusion of Russia in the WTO will allow the opening of the Russian market to foreign services. In this case Russia will grant more favourable treatment to foreign suppliers than it did before, and the EU has the greatest interest in signing this Agreement as one of Russia's largest trading partners.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Susta’s report. These openings by Russia, even if due to its imminent accession to the World Trade Organisation, are clearly good news. Russia is a very important market for our companies. Reciprocity, in the name of reciprocal development, must be guaranteed and I believe it will yield good results.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) means the country will gradually open up to foreign services. Russia has thus agreed to lower its barriers to trade and investment and to grant more favourable treatment than it did previously to foreign service providers in 11 sectors, covering professional services, IT services, construction, postal services, telecommunications, media, transport, distribution, tourism and travel, and financial services. The most noteworthy commitments include the concessions granted in the telecommunications sector, with the phasing out over a four-year period of the current 49% limit on foreign participation in the share capital of telecommunications groups and the decision to apply the terms of the Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services. In the financial sector, the commercial presence of foreign insurance firms on the Russian market will be authorised, subject to a number of restrictions, nine years after Russia’s accession to the WTO. This vote thus approves the agreement between the European Union and Russia relating to the preservation of commitments on trade in services.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) My vote on Mr Susta’s text was a ‘yes … but’. This was because EU firms should have more favourable arrangements under this agreement. It is one of three trade agreements that do not prejudice the EU’s new commitments and which should even improve conditions for producers who rely on raw materials coming from Russia. The agreement on trade in services offers new opportunities for EU shipping agencies trying to establish themselves in Russia. It also grants preferential access to employees of European service companies going to work in Russia with a view to starting up a business there. It provides for a minimum quota of 16 000 work permits a year for this purpose. However, it is important that Russia keeps its commitments and ensures that workers’ rights are respected: the credibility of the European Union is at stake.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Russia agreement regarding the preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement must be viewed in the light of the new legal framework arising from Russia’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation. Officially, in a large number of service areas, Russia has also undertaken to reduce market access restrictions and put an end to almost all national preferential treatment, so as not to discriminate against foreign operators. The most noteworthy commitments include the concessions in the telecommunications sector, the authorisation of the commercial presence of foreign insurance firms on the Russian market nine years after accession, and the opening up of transport services – in particular maritime, road and inland waterway services – to foreigners. I voted for this recommendation for these reasons.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − The inclusion of Russia in the WTO will allow the opening of the Russian market to foreign services; Russia will grant more favourable treatment than before to foreign suppliers in eleven sectors covering, inter alia, professional services, construction, telecommunications and financial services. We must not forget that currently trade in services represents approximately 20% of European exports to Russia.

This means that the EU has a special interest in signing this Agreement to keep the commitments that the EU is already enjoying; Russia’s commitments will not only create additional business opportunities for European companies, but will also improve the situation of European exporters and investors currently working with Russia.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the agreement whereby the EU and Russia commit to the reciprocal liberalisation of services. In particular, with this agreement Russia undertakes to amend its national legislation to bring its laws in many sectors in line with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and its status as a member of the WTO. In the trade-related sections of the agreement that is currently being negotiated and will replace the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement concluded in 1994, it will be vital for the bilateral commitments to be updated, in order to secure additional commitments from Russia.

Recommendation: Pawel Zalewski (A7-0175/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour. The European Union has negotiated this bilateral agreement to have a mechanism for compensating car-component manufacturers if EU exports decline because of that agreement. As this agreement is also associated with commitments to the World Trade Organisation, the EU must support it.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on EU-Russia agreement on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles. The EU has negotiated this bilateral agreement to have a compensation mechanism for the EU car components producers if the risk of falling EU exports of such products to Russia materialises as a result of the application of Russia's automobile investment programme until 2018. The EU must adopt this agreement because it is tied to its WTO commitments. To ensure that the scheme benefits its producers immediately, it must do so before the Russian Federation joins WTO. I support the position of the rapporteur that the survival of trade-distorting measures in Russia after its WTO accession is regretful, but it is important to stress that the EU producers of automobile components will benefit from a compensation scheme in case their exports to Russia fall significantly. We, members of the EP, call for a close monitoring of the evolution of the trade relation in vehicles and their components between the EU and Russia and, if necessary, for renegotiating the terms of the compensation scheme.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Negotiations about Russia joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have been going on for almost two decades. It is almost a done deal; all that remains now is for the Russian Parliament to vote on approval of WTO membership before the end of July. This week, I approved several agreements which are more advantageous to the European Union than those resulting from WTO rules. EU firms should have more favourable arrangements under this agreement which will improve the conditions of automobile parts manufacturers in the EU.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) Following the Russian Federation’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation it is essential for the EU and Russia to conclude bilateral agreements to secure additional and complementary bilateral trade concessions for the European Union. The bilateral agreement would be beneficial to both parties as an incentive for useful trade and investment. However, there is concern that Russia’s accession package condones the existence of some trade-distorting measures, such as Russia’s automobile package, which prescribes localisation of automobile manufacturers in Russia (resulting in discriminatory treatment of imported auto parts and components and restriction of imports). It is essential to ensure that such measures are removed in future.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because the EU-Russia agreement on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles is tied to its WTO commitments. In addition, it offers a compensation mechanism for car component manufacturers in the European Union if the export of these products to Russia is likely to fall due to the implementation of the Russian investment programme in this area until 2018. If this risk becomes a reality, it is important to be able to preserve the preferential terms for European exporters, especially as, at the moment, it is difficult to assess how the trade in cars and car components is going to develop between the EU and Russia in the coming years.

Apart from the measures implemented as part of the investment programme, additional factors may cause the volume of trade in this sector to rise or fall, including both the global growth in demand for cars and the development of the infrastructure in Russia. This is why I endorse the approval of this compensation mechanism, which will support car and car component manufacturers in the EU in the event of significant falls in exports in this area.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Zalewski’s recommendation as it is up to the European Union to counter the practice of relocation where this damages the productive fabric of the Member States in favour of a third country, in this case the Russian Federation. I therefore agree with the need to protect European automobile manufacturers from the obligation to sign agreements with Russia that are unfavourable to the European Union and provide for the production of a high number of automobiles in Russia, since that would lead to a significant fall in exports from the European Union to Russia and, as a result, a major economic loss for the Member States.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the agreement between the European Union and Russia on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles. This agreement establishes a safety mechanism for the European Union in the event of falling EU exports of automobile components to Russia. In effect, this safeguard will lead to further tariff reductions should the Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) in place in Russia to support local companies in the automotive industry until 2018 result in falling EU exports.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the adoption of this text which follows Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). However, the European Union should demand that our Russian partner comply as quickly as possible with the own-capital rules issued by the WTO, so that mutual benefits and restrictions can be applied to this trading partner in the end.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text following Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). However, the European Union must demand that our Russian partner complies as quickly as possible with the rules of equity laid down by the Organisation, so that we can finally demand reciprocal benefits and restrictions from this business partner

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Hungary considers car manufacturing to be a high-priority strategic industry; this is one of the reasons why I support this report, as it illustrates the importance of the matter extremely well. Over the past few years several major automotive companies have moved their production to Hungary, creating several jobs. I for one recognise the generally positive effect of the Russian Federation’s joining the World Trade Organisation, because it further contributes to the legal securing of bilateral trade concessions. At the same time I find it regrettable that Russia’s accession package condones the existence of some trade-distorting measures, such as Russia’s automobile trade-related investment measures package, which are very largely prohibited under the WTO TRIMs Agreement. Indeed these trade-related investment measures prescribe the localisation of automobile manufacturers in Russia (resulting in discriminatory treatment of imported auto parts and components and restriction of imports) while linking this obligation to investment-related special privileges for the import of automobile components (reduction or abolition of import duties). Maintaining such mechanism is detrimental to both the EU and Russia. For the EU the stakes are extremely high, as its automobile industry represents 2.3 million jobs for car manufacturing and 10.3 million indirect jobs. Besides, easier access to this market would be very beneficial to EU producers, including Hungary, as Russia is a fast-growing market in the sales of automobiles.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Current forecasts for the opening up of the Russian market following its accession to the World Trade Organisation are contradictory. The motor-vehicle industry as a whole is expected to gain, on the one hand, but the exports of parts and components are expected to decline, on the other. Distortions in the market for motor-vehicle parts and components introduced by the Russian authorities are just cause for concern, not just for the EU sector, but also for political decision makers. Providing for a mechanism to compensate for a potential drop in exports to Russia could turn out to be, not just advisable, but necessary. It falls to the EU to monitor the implementation of this agreement clearly and in detail.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The slow and gradual opening up of the Russian Federation’s economy over the last few years has fostered above-average economic growth, placing Russia in the group of emerging economies, alongside Brazil, India and China. This growth led Russia to apply for World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership. Russia’s WTO accession conditions, approved by the Council, were agreed in November 2011 and provide for a special system, favourable to the Russian Federation until 1 July 2018. There is a real risk to the European motor-vehicle industry, which accounts for 2.3 million jobs directly and 10.3 million indirectly. Although the Russian motor-vehicle market is expanding rapidly and could be an excellent business opportunity for the companies of the European sector, there is no guarantee of that. I voted for this recommendation on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the bilateral EU-Russia agreement on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles, since it includes a mechanism for compensating EU producers of motor-vehicle components if their exports to Russia decrease significantly.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This agreement is yet another example of the contradictory process of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). With this agreement, Russia is ensuring that the EU trade in motor-vehicle parts and components in Russian territory does not jeopardise the industry existing in certain regions of the country. To that end, it aims to ensure the retention of the current system for the motor-vehicle industry, continuing to restrict motor-vehicle and component manufacturers’ access to the Russian market beyond the needs of its domestic market. For its part, the EU is applying pressure by invoking Russia’s accession to the WTO and is demanding compensation mechanisms, so as not to jeopardise the profits of major exporters. For the immediate future, it remains positive that Russia is attempting to establish and defend this industry in regions where it has traditionally been established, by maintaining production and retaining jobs until at least 2018. At the end of this period, its national production will be exposed to foreign competition – in particular, EU production – whose installed production capacity may be at an advantage, thereby threatening the loss of jobs and the end of production in many regions.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Russian Government has, for several years, sought to attract foreign producers of motor cars and related components to its territory to compensate for the decline of its own car industry and to provide jobs for the workforce in this sector. According to the terms of Russia’s accession to the WTO, agreed in November 2011 and approved by the European Council, its automobile investment programme will be exempt from the obligation of ensuring that all laws, regulations and other measures related to trade and investment applicable in the Russian Federation are consistent with the provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, until 1 July 2018. The EU must adopt this agreement because it relates to its WTO commitments. Russia’s entry into the WTO will, among other things, entail implementing other commitments brought by membership, such as reforms in related regulatory areas and customs tariff reductions, which would bring considerable benefits to the EU producers. Finally, external worldwide factors such as global demand for automobiles and world growth, as well as domestic aspects in Russia such as the evolution of infrastructures and the business climate, may all have an impact on the growth of trade in automobiles and vehicle components between EU and Russia that is positive or negative and difficult to estimate.

  Adam Gierek (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The EU exports about USD 9 billion of car parts to Russia. Investors who are involved in infant industries in the automobile sector in Russia are exempted for a transition period from the general WTO rules because of high start-up costs and lack of competitiveness. This means that Russia, which is joining the WTO, can apply temporary protective customs duties. However, extending this period excessively and/or the use of returns to scale by Russian producers, for example by extending markets to Kazakhstan and Belarus, could result in a decrease of imports from the EU and in effect a delocalisation of production.

In order to avoid this eventuality, the agreement provides for a transition compensation mechanism by which Russia, when importing these parts and assemblies from the EU, will reduce the customs tariff by the amount of any reduction in these imports, once this reaches 3% of certain thresholds. On the other hand, companies in that country were or may still be subsidised by the state, which could increase their competitiveness artificially. For this reason a compensation mechanism is required. This is also a signal to EU producers to invest in innovation during the transition period or for example to increase returns to scale. The agreement is beneficial for EU industry and for this reason I voted in favour. It would be good if the Union’s customs zone learned from the Russian example and defended the EU’s economy more effectively.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the conclusion of the agreement because the EU has negotiated this bilateral agreement to have a compensation mechanism for EU car components producers if the risk of falling EU exports of such products to Russia materialises as a result of the application of Russia’s automobile investment programme until 2018. The EU must adopt this agreement because it is tied to its WTO commitments. In order to ensure that the scheme benefits its producers immediately, the EU must do so before the Russian Federation joins the WTO. The assumption behind this agreement is that there is a risk of falling EU exports of automobile components to Russia. However, the European Commission argues that the EU car sector in general will gain substantially more business opportunities in Russia after WTO accession. The conclusion of such a safety mechanism indicates a paradox: stakeholders, including EU negotiators, do not have a clear picture of the future trends of the bilateral trade relations in cars and automobile components.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a result of its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Russia is exempt until 2018 from the obligation to apply all the measures set out in the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs). These exemptions could impact negatively on the competitiveness of European manufacturers of parts and components of motor vehicles in favour of those based in Russia. In this context, the agreement calls for mechanisms that will ensure reduced tariffs to European exporters. These mechanisms will be triggered in the event of any fall in European exports. I voted for this report, which was adopted in plenary by a large majority and I welcome this.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) This agreement between Russia and the EU will support the European automotive sector in the event of a reduction in EU exports to Russia as a result of the application of Russia’s automobile investment programme. I am therefore in favour of this agreement.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. While regretting the survival of trade-distorting measures in Russia after its WTO accession, I appreciate that the EU producers of automobile components will benefit from a compensation scheme in case their exports to Russia fall significantly. The rapporteur also calls for a close monitoring of the evolution of trade relations in vehicles and their components between the EU and Russia and, if necessary, for renegotiating the terms of the compensation scheme before the end of the phasing out of the TRIMs.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The EU has negotiated this bilateral agreement to have a compensation mechanism for the EU car components producers if the risk of falling EU exports of such products to Russia materialises as a result of the application of Russia's automobile investment programme until 2018. I am in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I believe that it is appropriate and beneficial for the EU to conclude an agreement with Russia on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles. Above all, it is one of the EU’s WTO commitments. Furthermore, the compensation mechanism set out in it will ensure that the application of the automobile investment regime does not lead to a fall in imports of parts and components of motor vehicles from the Union to the Russian Federation. The application of the agreement will therefore be of undoubted benefit to the manufacturers of these and will provide substantially more business opportunities in Russia.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I have no objection to the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles between the European Union and the Russian Federation, so I voted in favour.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Russia’s accession package condones the existence of some trade-distorting measures, such as Russia’s automobile Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) package, which are very largely prohibited under the World Trade Organisation’s TRIMs Agreement. Indeed these TRIMs prescribe localisation of automobile manufacturers in Russia (resulting in discriminatory treatment of imported auto parts and components and restriction of imports) while linking them to investment-related special privileges for the import of automobile components (reduction or abolition of import duties). Maintaining such mechanisms is detrimental to the EU and to Russia. In order to encourage the growth of trade in cars and automobile components between the EU and Russia, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has a very positive effect, since it establishes a regulated system of multilateral trade. However, its scheme for foreign investments in the motor-vehicle sector, initiated in 2005 (‘TRIMs 1’) and extended to car components in 2006, was made more stringent in 2010 (‘TRIMs 2’), to the point that it would have been, upon Russia’s accession to the WTO, declared contrary to the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures. This made it necessary to conclude bilateral agreements with Russia to secure legally additional and complementary bilateral trade concessions. As such, the EU has negotiated this bilateral agreement to have a compensation mechanism for EU car-component manufacturers if the risk of falling EU exports of such products to Russia materialises as a result of Russia applying its motor-vehicle investment programme until 2018. I voted for this report for the aforementioned reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The Russian Government has, for several years, sought to attract foreign producers of cars and car components to set up shop on Russia’s territory to compensate for the decline of its own car industry and to provide jobs for the workforce in this sector. Its regime for foreign investments in the automotive sector – initiated in 2005 and extended to car components in 2006 – was made more stringent in 2010, to the point that, upon Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization, it would have been declared contrary to the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs). However, according to the WTO accession protocol, Russia has until July 2018 to bring these measures into conformity with WTO rules.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour because the EU car sector in general is supposed to gain substantially higher business opportunities in Russia after the WTO accession.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This agreement with Russia is positive and I wholeheartedly voted in favour. I hope, though, that these events help the Commission understand that the Union must consider providing at least the same level of protection for its own industrial system as our international partners do. This agreement is positive, but it does not resolve the difficulties that our companies in the sector have faced and are still facing in order to be able to continue production in Europe. The Commission must listen to their needs and safeguard jobs in the 27 Member States of the Union.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Russian Government has for several years sought to attract foreign producers of automobiles and related components on its territory to compensate for the decline of its own car industry and to provide jobs for the workforce in this sector. Russia is a fast-growing market of sales of automobiles to which easier access would be very beneficial to EU producers. Currently Russia represents just 8% of EU total exports of these products. I voted in favour of the agreement with the Russian Federation on automobile components. The whole EU automobile industry, which represents 2.3 million jobs for car manufacturing and 10.3 million indirect jobs, will benefit significantly from it.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) My vote on Mr Zalewski’s text was a ‘yes … but’. This was because EU firms should have more favourable arrangements under this agreement. It is one of three trade agreements that do not prejudice the EU’s new commitments and which should even improve conditions for producers who rely on raw materials coming from Russia. The agreement on automotive components protects European auto parts manufacturers affected by the Russian measures still in force, even after Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). These measures provide foreign car manufacturers with incentives to relocate to Russia and could put Russian imports of foreign auto parts at a disadvantage. According to the agreement, if EU exports of automobile parts fall below the threshold of 3% per year, Russia will reduce its import duties on these components by a proportional amount. However, it is important that Russia keeps its commitments and ensures that workers’ rights are respected. The Union’s credibility is at stake.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I welcome the agreement on trade with spare parts for cars. Anyone who has experience with Russian cars, knows well that they demand spare parts all the time. I do hope that in the context of this agreement, Russian military people will understand that "Mistral" ships provided to them by the French Government, are actually meant for delivering spare parts to the customers, if needed - quickly by helicopters, not for creating tensions with Russia's neighbours on the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Russian Government has for several years sought to attract foreign producers of motor vehicles and related components on its territory to compensate for the decline of its own car industry and to provide jobs for the workforce in this sector. The Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) made it possible to declare this investment contrary to the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, which forbids any investment measures in goods production with trade-restrictive and distorting effects. However, according to the terms of Russia’s accession to the WTO, its motor-vehicle investment programme will be exempt from the obligation to ensure that all laws, regulations and other measures related to trade and investment and applied in the Russian Federation are consistent with WTO provisions. As such, the EU has negotiated this bilateral agreement to have a compensation mechanism for EU car-component manufacturers if the risk of falling EU exports of such products to Russia materialises as a result of Russia applying its motor-vehicle investment programme until 2018. I voted for this agreement in Parliament for the aforementioned reasons.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the conclusion of the Agreement between the EU and Russian Government on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles. The EU has negotiated this bilateral agreement to have a compensation mechanism for car component manufacturers if EU exports of such products to Russia decline as a result of the implementation of the Russian car investment programme until 2018. Triggering the compensation mechanism (Article 5) entails that, if EU exports of some car parts and components to Russia fall by 3% during a 12-month period compared to a benchmark calculated on the basis of EU exports to Russia in 2010, Russia must allow the import of parts and components of EU origin at reduced import customs duties in quantities equal to the decrease in EU exports. The compensation mechanism is applied for a minimum period of 12 months and is subsequently reviewed once every 12 months. In exceptional economic circumstances, measured by a significant fall in the total number of new car sales in Russia in the year when the mechanism was triggered, compared to the preceding year, as defined in the agreement, the compensation mechanism does not apply. Russia will administer the compensation quotas by means of an import licensing system.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − The fact of Russia joining the World Trade Organization has not prevented the maintenance of some trade-distorting measures, among them the requirement that foreign car manufacturers are located in Russia, encouraging job creation, in return for privileges related to the importation of car parts – a situation that certainly hurts European industry. Although the deadline to remove this measure is July 2018, the EU has negotiated a bilateral agreement to provide a mechanism for compensating EU producers or automotive components that are affected by a possible decline in exports to Russia.

Recommendation: Inese Vaidere (A7-0178/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since it concerns adaptation to the rules to which the Russian Federation committed as part of its accession to the World Trade Organisation. The proposal has already been unanimously adopted in committee, making it consensual, since it merely concerns adaptation to a new legislative framework.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on EU-Russia agreement on the introduction or increase by the Russian Federation of export duties on raw materials. The Agreement is an important step in stabilising the trade relationship between the EU and Russia, which might serve as a substantial improvement in trade relations. Russia exports numerous raw materials for which there is a high demand in the EU. In the context of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the country has committed itself to gradually reducing or eliminating its existing export duties. However, not all the essential goods are covered by Russia's commitments in the WTO accession. For this reason, the EU has negotiated a separate agreement to ensure that no additional export duties are applied on raw materials important for the EU. I support the rapporteur that despite this step forward, the agreement has several important shortcomings and has to be considered as a temporary solution until it is replaced by an adequately strong Treaty.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Negotiations about Russia joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have been going on for almost two decades. It is almost a done deal; all that remains now is for the Russian Parliament to vote on approval of WTO membership before the end of July. This week, I approved several agreements which are more advantageous to the European Union than those resulting from WTO rules. EU firms should have more favourable arrangements under this agreement which will improve the conditions of manufacturers that rely on raw materials coming from Russia.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this agreement between the EU and Russia on the export duties for raw materials introduced or increased by the Russian Federation. The EU has a major import interest in these raw materials for which there is a risk of tension in global supplies. As the EU is Russia’s biggest trading partner and investor, it is essential to reach an agreement on further trade aspects, by applying the principle of reciprocity and the commitments made by Russia during WTO accession. It is important to ensure that a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement is guaranteed in the longer term, establishing strict and binding bilateral trade principles.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because the EU-Russia agreement on the introduction or increase by the Russian Federation of export duties on raw materials is sufficient to protect the EU against additional restrictions in terms of export duties. At a time when the Russian Federation thinks that it can apply new export duties or additional ones to products not included in the WTO Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods, it is important for the EU to obtain guarantees bilaterally that increased duties will not be introduced on raw materials which are of major existing or potential interest. This applies particularly to raw materials for which Russia has more than 10% of global production or exports, and for which there is a risk of tension relating to global supplies.

Although the rapporteur noted a number of shortcomings with regard to the commitments made by the Russian Federation through this Agreement, it is still useful as a stop-gap until a stricter treaty on trade in raw materials is concluded with the Russian Federation.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Vaidere’s recommendation as this agreement will guarantee that duties on wood exports enforced up to now by the Russian Federation will be reduced. European businesses in the sector will benefit from this agreement, although Russia can continue to apply high rates for certain kinds of wood.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) While I welcome Russia’s commitment to gradually reduce or eliminate export duties on certain raw materials, I see that Russia is nevertheless allowed to introduce new tariffs on any products not listed in the schedule to its protocol of accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). That is why I voted for this bilateral agreement which introduces an additional list of raw materials, with the same commitments as those in the WTO list. I notice that this list includes certain agricultural products, minerals or derivatives from animal products, which are a major cause for concern to the EU.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because it demonstrates a common desire to reinforce and rebalance our partnership with Russia. However, the EU and Russia should now respect their commitments, thereby promoting the establishment of fair conditions for trade with the EU, particularly as regards trade in raw materials.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this agreement, which expresses our shared desire to strengthen and rebalance our partnership with Russia, when it joins the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Russia must now honour the commitments made and therefore support the introduction of fair trading conditions with the EU for our raw materials supply.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I consider the agreement discussed in the report as temporary, and I am looking forward to the new, sufficiently solid agreement on trade in raw materials between the EU and the Russian Federation to replace it.

The list in the Schedule that, in the understanding of Russia, does not preclude any new or additional export duties on any of the very important raw materials that are not included in the Schedule – for which the EU, not incidentally, has major import interests either existing or potential, and for which there may be a risk of problems with international supplies – is not suitable.

At the same time I would like to stress that neither the language nor the wording of the agreement is sufficiently precise, and they could give rise to misunderstandings on certain points.

In case Russia, despite its ‘best efforts’, applies new or additional export duties on any of the raw materials listed in the agreement and does not accept any solutions proposed by the EU during the consultations with the European Commission, there are not many tools for the EU to enforce this agreement and protect the EU’s interests. Following the spread of the Schmallenberg and Bluetongue viruses, Russia imposed an import ban on livestock products from all EU Member States, even though such a ban is in a clear breach of the rules of the World Trade Organisation.

This ban signals that not much has changed in Russia’s approach despite its accession to the WTO. I support the report, because it highlights the importance of the issue.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur has rightly expressed her concern about this agreement’s lack of legal certainty and the absence of dispute-resolution mechanisms; this situation allows Russia free reign in interpreting what it covers and limit’s the EU’s ability to assert its interests if Russia increases its export duties on raw materials. Despite this warning, the rapporteur believes – rightly, in my view – that the Chamber should adopt this agreement. After its adoption, we should closely monitor its application, in the hope that the caveats I have set out will not be borne out by reality and that Russia will show itself faithful to the spirit of the agreement.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although political relations between the EU and the Russian Government are sometimes fairly troubled in relation to human rights violations, and although this Parliament has adopted motions for resolutions condemning those violations, the truth is that Russia is a very important partner for the EU, whose accession the World Trade Organisation (WTO) will contribute significantly to improving institutional and trade relations therewith. Inese Vaidere’s proposal for a recommendation concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the EU and the Russian Government relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials to which Russia committed during its WTO-accession negotiations. In view of the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade, and since it is crucial that this agreement be concluded before Russia ratifies the WTO accession agreement, I voted for this recommendation because I believe that, although it is a temporary agreement, it will improve and stabilise EU-Russia trade relations.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In view of Russia’s domestic struggle and the need for convergence between the interests of the country’s various economic interest groups, its government is seeking to postpone the future impact of the ‘obligatory’ liberalisation of important sectors of the economy as part of the process of its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This agreement enables Russia to maintain, by means that are not entirely clear, its sovereignty over setting the export duties currently applied to raw materials.

The report states that this agreement is not enough and needs to go further; the intention is clear. Russia has more than 10% of global production of these raw materials, or more than 10% of global exports. The EU has major import interests, either existing or potential. A binding agreement or the guarantee of a faster liberalisation process could be more beneficial to the EU’s big companies, whose costs for importing products that are often crucial to the industry of many EU countries would thereby be reduced. We advocate the inalienable right of Russia or any other country to exercise sovereignty over their resources, in particular natural resources, and to levy whatever export duties it considers in the country’s best interests, regardless of WTO rules.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In the context of its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation has committed to gradually reduce or eliminate its existing export duties on a list of raw materials. These commitments regarding export duty rates have been included in Russia’s Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods. The urgency and importance of a legally binding agreement on raw materials is strongly supported by the recent ban on import of livestock from all the EU Member States imposed by Russia, following the spread of the Schmallenberg and Bluetongue viruses, despite the fact that such a ban is a clear breach of the rules of the World Trade Organisation. This ban signals that not much has changed in Russia’s approach, even after its accession to the WTO. Without a strong, legally binding bilateral agreement on raw materials, the EU will have no certainty that similar protectionist measures will not be employed in the future. The EU is Russia’s biggest trading partner and investor. An appropriately serious commitment to the implementation, without delay, of the reforms required by the accession to the WTO, reciprocity and a commitment in negotiations towards a mutually beneficial new agreement are therefore expected, particularly in the fields of energy, trade and investment. I am of the opinion that Parliament should give its consent to the conclusion of the Agreement.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the conclusion of the agreement because under this bilateral agreement, the Russian Government commits to ‘make its best efforts not to introduce or increase export duties for the raw materials listed’ in the agreement. If it wishes to apply export duties on these products, Russia will have to consult the European Commission at least two months in advance with a view to arriving at a solution taking into account the interests of both sides. The EU is Russia’s biggest trading partner and investor. An appropriately serious commitment to urgent reforms required by accession to the WTO, and reciprocity and commitment in negotiations towards a mutually beneficial new agreement are therefore expected, particularly in the fields of energy, trade and investment. This agreement should therefore be seen as a temporary solution to be replaced by an adequately strong treaty on trade in raw materials between the EU and the Russian Federation, possibly as part of the new agreement, which is currently under negotiation.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Within the framework of its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Russia has committed to gradually reduce or eliminate the export duties that it currently applies to certain raw materials, as listed in the schedule to its protocol of accession. However, certain raw materials fall outside the scope of these commitments. That is why Ms Vaidere’s report provides an additional list of raw materials that will now become an integral part of the commitments between the EU and Russia. I voted in favour of this report adopted in plenary in July 2012.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) With this agreement, Russia has made a commitment not to levy any new or additional export duties on raw materials. This commitment applies to a number of raw materials, which are listed in the agreement. This will clearly be beneficial for European small and medium-sized enterprises. Greater attention must be paid to any subsequent agreement, however. I am in favour of this agreement and have therefore voted accordingly.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation provides numerous benefits for the European Union, especially with regard to the import of raw materials to Member States. However, the issue of export duties applied by Russia is an obstacle preventing optimum relations being established in terms of economic cooperation. If Russia were to give certain assurances about removing import duties on the widest range possible of raw materials from the largest number possible of sectors of activity, it would strengthen economic relations between both sides, and the EU would reinforce its role as the main investor in this country’s market. This is why I think that the emphasis needs to be placed on observing the principle of reciprocity in trade relations between the EU and Russia through regulation and implementing specific measures benefiting both sides, especially in vital sectors of activity such as energy or mineral resources.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal.

The urgency and importance of a legally binding agreement on raw materials is strongly supported by the recent ban on imports of livestock from all the EU Member States imposed by Russia, following the spread of Schmallenberg and Bluetongue viruses, despite the fact that such a ban is in a clear breach of the rules of the World Trade Organisation.

The European Commission has already demanded immediate lifting of the restrictions by Russia, but finds itself rather limited in its capacity to protect EU consumers’ and producers’ interests and respect for the WTO regulations. This ban signals that not much has changed in Russia’s approach, regardless of its accession to the WTO. Without a strong, legally binding bilateral agreement on raw materials, the EU will have no insurance against similar protectionist measures in the future.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − In the context of the process of its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation has agreed to reduce its currently applied export duty rates on raw materials, including wood products. There is no achievement from Mrs. Vaidere. Empty speech, many epithets, lack of sense. I abstained.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this agreement following Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Russia has committed to gradually reduce or remove the export duties that it currently applies to a list of raw materials. Raw materials not included on this list could still be subject to new restrictions. This report therefore provides an additional list, encouraging the introduction of fairer trading conditions between the EU and Russia with regard to the supply of raw materials.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report that covers raw materials, which are not listed in the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods in connection with Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that this agreement is only intended to serve as a temporary measure before the conclusion of the new EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The future agreement should include an extensive and watertight chapter on trade in raw materials. Explicit treaties, just like strong fences, make good neighbours.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome the conclusion of this agreement on the export duties for raw materials introduced or increased by the Russian Federation. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the agreement provides a comprehensive list of raw materials for which the EU has a major import interest. It is therefore very important for Russia, the EU’s biggest trading partner and investor, not to introduce or increase export duties for these raw materials for which there is a risk of tension in global supplies. However, given some of the agreement’s shortcomings, I believe that it should only be seen and applied as a temporary solution to be replaced as soon as possible by a strong, comprehensive and clear treaty on trade in raw materials between the EU and the Russia.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials, because it is a measure considered beneficial to the EU economy.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the context of its accession to the World Trade Organisation, the Russian Federation has agreed to reduce its existing export duties on raw materials, including wood products. For certain types of wood, namely some coniferous wood species, Russia has introduced tariff-rate quotas. A specific quota share has been allocated to exports to the EU. In order to avoid further consecutive increases of wood export duties applied by Russia and in order to be able to manage provisions on the application of tariff-rate quotas, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation was negotiated within the framework of its process of accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In this context, the Russian Federation has committed to reduce gradually or eliminate its existing export duties. Under the bilateral agreement, the Russian Government commits to make its best efforts not to introduce or increase export duties for the raw materials listed in the agreement, since they are commodities in which the EU has major import interest, either existing or potential, and over which there is a risk of tension in global supplies. Therefore, if it wishes to apply export duties to these products, Russia is obliged to consult the Commission at least two months in advance, with a view to reaching a solution that takes into account the interests of both sides. We therefore expect an appropriately serious commitment to the reforms required by accession to the WTO, without delay, to reciprocity and to negotiations towards a mutually beneficial new agreement, particularly as regards energy, trade and investment.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation was negotiated in the framework of the process of the Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organization. It was submitted to Parliament for consent, which is a prerequisite for the official conclusion of the agreement by the Council.

In the context of its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation has committed to reducing gradually or eliminating its existing export duties on a list of raw materials. These commitments regarding export duty rates have been included in Russia’s Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods. However, the Russian understanding is that the list in the schedule does not preclude any new or additional export duties on any raw materials not included therein. It is in order to prevent such new export duty restrictions that the EU negotiated this agreement with Russia.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour because this bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation was negotiated in the framework of its accession process to the World Trade Organization. It is important that the European Parliament has been seized for consent, which is a prerequisite for the Council to officially conclude the agreement.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Raw materials are one of the most sensitive issues. It is a good thing for the EU to negotiate with Russia, one of the largest holders of natural raw materials, in order to guarantee vital procurement for our industry. Similar agreements should also be concluded with countries such as China. I voted in favour of Ms Vaidere’s report.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the context of its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Russian Federation has committed to gradually reduce or eliminate its existing export duties on a list of raw materials. These commitments regarding export duty rates have been included in Russia’s Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods. Numerous products are not listed in Russia’s Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods. The list contained in this agreement is thus considerably long, covering very important raw materials. Those are raw materials, which are not listed in Russia’s WTO Schedule on Goods, for which Russia has more than 10% of global production or more than 10% of global exports, for which the EU has major import interest. With these comments on the matter, I voted in favour of the agreement for the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) My vote on Ms Vaidere’s text was a ‘yes … but’. This was because EU firms should have more favourable arrangements under this agreement. It is one of three trade agreements that do not prejudice the EU’s new commitments and which should even improve conditions for producers who rely on raw materials coming from Russia. During its negotiations for accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Russia agreed to restrictive export duties for 80% of the raw materials that it exports. According to the agreement, Russia shall consult the European Union at least two months in advance and negotiate with it before increasing its export duties on many products. The agreement provides the best temporary solution for imports of raw materials that EU manufacturers need the most. However, I deeply regret that the commitments made by Russia in this agreement do not go far enough. It should therefore be replaced in the short term by a binding treaty on trade in raw materials.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation was negotiated as part of is process of accession to the World Trade Organisation, in the context of which the Russian Federation has committed to reduce gradually or eliminate the export duties it currently applies. This commitment regarding export duty rates have been included in Russia’s schedule of concessions and commitments on goods. Numerous products are not listed in this schedule and this agreement includes a fairly long list, covering very important raw materials that are not listed in the aforementioned schedule, but for which Russia has more than 10% of global production or more than 10% of global exports. These are raw materials for which the EU has major import interest and for which there is a risk of tension in global supplies. They include, inter alia, agricultural products and seeds, numerous chemical, ferrous and energy products, minerals, cotton derivatives, and animal products. They are raw materials in relation to which the Russian Government commits to make its best efforts not to introduce or increase export duties. I voted for this agreement for these reasons.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the EU and the Russian Federation relating to the introduction or increase of export duties on raw materials. The bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation was negotiated as part of the process of its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and can be officially concluded after Parliament has given its approval. As part of its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation has committed to gradually reduce or eliminate its export duties on a list of raw materials. These commitments regarding export duty rates have been included in the Russian Federation’s Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods. Numerous products and raw materials for which the Russian Federation has more than 10% of global production or more than 10% of global exports are not included in this schedule. Under the bilateral agreement, the Russian Federation commits to make its best efforts not to introduce or increase export duties for the raw materials listed in the agreement. If it intends to apply export duties on these products, the Russia Federation will consult the Commission at least two months in advance ‘with a view to arriving at a solution taking into account the interests of both sides’.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE), in writing. − (LV) The main benefit is Russia’s pledge that export duties shall not be established or increased for these raw materials. In the event that Russia would like to do so, it must consult the Commission at least two months in advance.

At the same time, the EP report contains also some criticism of the agreement. Firstly, Russia only commits to ‘make its best efforts’ and to ‘consult’ the Commission. Such wording is not binding enough. Secondly, no bilateral dispute-settlement mechanism is foreseen in the agreement. Therefore, the agreement should be seen as a temporary solution. A more legally binding agreement must be concluded; it must be included in the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and the EU.

Although the agreement does not fully eliminate the possibility of unpredictable behaviour from Russian partners, it is an important guarantee that economic relationships with Russia will become more stable and predictable.

As the EP rapporteur, I urged my colleagues to support the agreement and myself voted in its favour. I believe it is a positive temporary solution until a more legally binding agreement is concluded.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − In the context of its accession to the World Trade Organization, the Russian Federation has pledged to reduce or phase out its current export duties for a list of raw materials. However, the list does not prevent the establishment of export duties on new or additional materials not included on it. Among such materials are agricultural products and seeds, tobacco, chemicals, ferrous metals and energy minerals, etcetera – all materials very important for EU. The EU has negotiated this agreement with Russia to avoid the establishment of new restrictions on export duties. Under the bilateral agreement the Russian Government is committed to doing everything possible not to introduce or increase export duties for raw materials listed in the agreement; in this way, if Russia wants to apply export duties on such products, it will consult the Commission.

Recommendation: David Martin (A7-0204/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting against this draft agreement, above all for reasons linked inter alia to the definition of ‘commercial-scale’, to the use of criminal penalties under the terms suggested by the agreement, to the excessive policing of the Internet, to potential breaches of privacy and to civil liberties. However, I believe that other measures protecting intellectual property will have to be adopted.

  Eric Andrieu (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We Socialists have always denounced the lack of transparency in the negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and our fight to refuse this agreement has steadily been gaining ground in Parliament, where five parliamentary committees have rejected it. There was therefore only one responsible answer that we could give to citizens regarding the ACTA: for Parliament to reject it in plenary. Despite the numerous delaying tactics by the right, and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) in particular, that is exactly what we have done here today and I am delighted. Parliament therefore remains at the forefront of protecting the most stringent European standards on fundamental rights. I wish, in this respect, to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, Kader Arif. The ACTA was the worst possible response to what is a real problem: an agreement that has no effect in beating the scourge of counterfeiting, but, what is more, a potentially dangerous agreement for the fundamental freedoms of European citizens with its massive legal uncertainties. In addition, many other concerns were raised about neutrality, about open access to the Internet, about access to generic drugs or about the protection of geographical indications. Clearly, it did not come up to scratch.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I supported the proposal to postpone the vote until the Court of Justice of the European Union gives its legal assessment, requested by the Commission. I regret that majority of the EP rejected ACTA. Rejecting ACTA without trying to address concrete concerns, after years of negotiations, does nothing to handle serious threats to European jobs and enterprises ACTA intended to solve. Large-scale infringements of intellectual property rights cost Europeans hundreds of thousands of jobs and many millions in lost revenues. Vote against ACTA also diminished possibilities to fight counterfeit medicines which pose serious threats to the health of European patients. European Union does not have many natural resources which could bring substantial revenues. Our main resource is our people and intellectual products created by them, which must be protected. With regard to our citizens, ACTA was an instrument to protect their intellectual property rights and I regret that the European Parliament rejected it.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I am against this agreement and therefore I support this resolution. I believe the main problem of this text is its vagueness and the uncertainty over its interpretation. As a Member of the European Parliament I have the duty to guarantee adequate protection for citizens’ rights. I totally agree on the need for an international agreement to step up the fight against counterfeit products. The debate is whether ACTA is the right vehicle to do that. And my answer is not. I also would like to stress that the presumed primary beneficiaries of the agreement, the artistic communities and software creators, seem particularly divided on the potential benefits of the agreement. In addition we must condemn the total lack of transparency throughout the negotiations on ACTA. The Commission could have done a lot more to keep Parliament informed about ongoing negotiations and this mistake is for us unacceptable.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I decided to abstain from the vote on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) for two reasons. Firstly, as proceedings are still pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union, I think I should wait for its conclusion before I make my mind up. This is not just common sense; it is also out of respect for the rule of law and for effective collaboration between institutions. Secondly, while ACTA does not provide a perfect solution to counterfeiting, it is still a constructive proposal that aims to protect innovation, jobs and our businesses. By defending intellectual property rights, ACTA is also protecting us. I should remind you that counterfeiting destroys 30 to 40 000 jobs each year in France and close to 100 000 in Europe. That is why, in the absence of any certainty as to the compatibility or incompatibility of the agreement with Community law, and with the current crisis, I felt that I could not make an informed decision without full knowledge of the facts and that is why I chose to abstain.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) There have been heated debates recently about certain new provisions of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement regarding online piracy. This is because many believe that these rules violate the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom of information. The Hungarian delegation to the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) believes that a satisfactory and reassuring answer must be given to these concerns of citizens and civil organisations, and we therefore supported the European Commission’s decision to have the Court of Justice of the European Union issue an independent legal opinion on the compatibility of this international agreement with EU law and on the matter of the violation of liberties. In line with this, the group of Hungarian Members within the PPE Group supported that the European Parliament postpone its decision until said opinion is issued. The Hungarian delegation to the PPE Group believes that we should pay attention to the complaints expressed by numerous citizens and civil organisations in connection with the agreement. Since these could not be settled, the delegation made the responsible choice in light of these concerns and legal uncertainty, and voted against the conclusion of the agreement. The Hungarian delegation to the PPE Group is of the opinion that to treat the fight against piracy and the fight against counterfeiting together was a flawed concept from the beginning. Our delegation continues to urge action against counterfeiting. Due to the influx of counterfeit foreign goods, tens of thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, and counterfeit drugs are endangering the health of citizens.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a new international agreement aimed at establishing a general international framework to combat counterfeiting and piracy. The problems which ACTA seeks to address are real and growing: cases relating to intellectual property rights have been costing European companies EUR 250 billion and destroying 185 000 jobs, every year. Nevertheless, the text of ACTA has unwanted consequences and the rapporteur concludes that the text is not sufficiently precise with regard to individual criminalisation, to the definition of ‘commercial-scale’, to the role of Internet service providers or to the possible interruption of the transit of generic medicines. Moreover, if ACTA aims to combat piracy and counterfeiting, its negotiations should and must include countries like India, China and Brazil, where the most serious breaches of intellectual property rights occur. This means the intended benefits of ACTA are clearly outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. I voted for this report recommending the rejection of ACTA for the aforementioned reasons and because Parliament cannot ensure adequate protection for the rights of European citizens.

  Zoltán Bagó, Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, Béla Glattfelder, András Gyürk and Csaba Őry (PPE), in writing. − (HU) There have been heated debates recently about certain new provisions of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement regarding online piracy. This is because many believe that these rules violate the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom of information. The Hungarian delegation to the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) believes that a satisfactory and reassuring answer must be given to these concerns of citizens and civil organisations, and we therefore supported the European Commission’s decision to have the Court of Justice of the European Union issue an independent legal opinion on the compatibility of this international agreement with EU law and on the matter of the violation of liberties. In line with this, the group of Hungarian Members within the PPE Group supported that the European Parliament postpone its decision until said opinion is issued. The Hungarian delegation to the PPE Group believes that we should pay attention to the complaints expressed by numerous citizens and civil organisations in connection with the agreement. Since these could not be settled, the delegation made the responsible choice in light of these concerns and legal uncertainty, and voted against the conclusion of the agreement. The Hungarian delegation to the PPE Group is of the opinion that to treat the fight against piracy and the fight against counterfeiting together was a flawed concept from the beginning. Our delegation continues to urge action against counterfeiting. Due to the influx of counterfeit foreign goods, tens of thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, and counterfeit drugs are endangering the health of citizens.

  Ivo Belet (PPE), in writing. – (NL) Counterfeit goods do terrible damage to our economy. The European economy suffers EUR 8 billion worth of damage from such goods every year. Sadly, it is a problem that is also growing exponentially. Online, on the Internet, too, we need to join battle to put a stop to piracy.

Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of concern and confusion about this. Many Internet users fear that their Internet access could be cut off if they download a film or an album in what has become known as the ‘informal economy’, yet that is absolutely not on the agenda. The perception is different, however. The fear is widespread, and we therefore need to provide an answer to it.

Today, I still do not understand why we are not awaiting the judgement of the highest court in Europe in order to obtain a definitive answer. This, I am sad to say, is a missed opportunity. We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The biggest victim of this situation is the creative sector itself. We are now just leaving it to its fate.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), an international agreement negotiated with a certain lack of transparency with such a vast scope and such uncertain legal consequences that it provoked an unprecedented reaction from citizens. There is no doubt that the engagement of millions of European citizens - more than 2.5 million signed the petition against ACTA – played an important part in the changing political debate on this issue and in its rejection by Parliament. This is a point scored for European democracy and we should applaud those citizens who rallied round: when they take hold of an issue, no matter how difficult, they are contributing to democratic debate and influencing the final result. ACTA was problematic both in form and in content. First of all, it was astonishing that an agreement of this kind on the fight against counterfeiting and intellectual property rights could be entered into without China. We should not forget the method used, namely negotiations conducted by the Commission, which largely overlooked the public debate. Finally, there are still many concerns about its content, notably respect for individual liberties: for instance, there was talk of forcing Internet service providers to disclose the identity of Internet users suspected of illegal downloading.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) for several reasons: first of all, I do not believe it is an effective solution to the fight against counterfeiting because the signatory countries as a whole account for just 5% of global counterfeiting, while it will not cover emerging economic powers like Brazil, Russia, India and China, where there is very considerable counterfeiting; secondly, there is no reference to geographical indications and so the Italian and European quality agri-food sector will not be protected, thus providing no benefit for ‘Made in Italy’. These are the main considerations that led me not to support the ACTA Trade Agreement in plenary.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report aimed at rejecting the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on behalf of the EU. The ACTA is an important trade agreement which addresses commercial-scale counterfeiting and online piracy by coordinating global enforcement of existing copyright violation laws. However, the ACTA text is insufficiently precise as regards the measures to be introduced against individuals, the definition of ‘commercial-scale’, the role of Internet service providers and the possible interruption of the transit of generic medicines. The benefits of this future international agreement are therefore far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I decided to abstain from the vote on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) for two reasons. Firstly, as proceedings are still pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union, I think I should wait for its conclusion before I make my mind up. This is not just common sense; it is also out of respect for the rule of law and for effective collaboration between institutions. Secondly, while ACTA does not provide a perfect solution to counterfeiting, it is still a constructive proposal that aims to protect innovation, jobs and our businesses. By defending intellectual property rights, ACTA is also protecting them. I should remind you that counterfeiting destroys 30 to 40 000 jobs each year in France and close to 100 000 in Europe. That is why, in the absence of any certainty as to the compatibility or incompatibility of the agreement with Community law, and with the current crisis, I felt that I could not make an informed decision without full knowledge of the facts and that is why I chose to abstain.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this useless and dangerous text, whose only worth is that it has instigated pan-European debate and highlighted the democratic checks in place in Europe to tackle the relentless lobbying of some of the large multinationals. Today, not only have we voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), we have actually voted for European democracy. Showing little regard for the EU’s Treaties, citizens and democratic principles, the Commission has been negotiating the ACTA behind Parliament’s back since 2007. The exploitation of the Court of Justice of the European Union is just the latest blatant disregard for the democratic balance which we at the European Parliament uphold. The European Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, must now take responsibility, responsibility for his failings, his words and his method of working.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I rejected ACTA because I believed that the advantages of the agreement were far outweighed by potential threats to civil and individual liberties that it contained. I had problems with ACTA in relation to both the substantive matter and procedural issues. ACTA deals with both physical goods, like Manchester United strips, and virtual goods, like digital music. I think that an instrument that deals with both physical goods and virtual goods is too broad to effectively tackle the issue of counterfeit. ACTA in its current format is like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Procedurally, the European Commission dealt with ACTA badly. As a parliament, we could have raised these issues with the Commission had we been consulted. Unfortunately we weren’t given this chance. With regard to intellectual property rights, I have huge sympathy with the artists and their representative bodies, who are very concerned about online piracy. I believe that the European Commission should now seek to draw up legislation related to intellectual property because I believe that for Europe to remain competitive it has to protect its intellectual capital. But I think that ACTA was the wrong way to go about doing that.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. − (CS) An Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement should protect intellectual property, save jobs, encourage research and at the same time develop and strengthen European exports. I would like to point out that intellectual property rights protection and the fight against counterfeiting are of fundamental social importance, in my opinion, and it is therefore necessary to provide the appropriate legal measures. At the same time, however, I would like to say that I unequivocally reject a restriction on Internet freedom and free access to information, except for the transmission of child pornography, which must be severely punished. I take a critical view of the long regime of secrecy shrouding the actual process of creating the agreement, and of the open questions that remained unresolved at the time of voting. For example, there is the basic option of customs intervention in small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature transported in passengers’ personal baggage. The relatively ambiguous text of the agreement is another critical point. The interventions in question might occur, of course, on the territory of other signatory states based on the agreement. I consider this to be in conflict with civil rights, according to which such interventions should be possible only on the basis of a court order. As a result of these factors, I did not support the agreement in the sitting.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree that we need a new international agreement to combat counterfeiting and piracy. Breaches of intellectual property rights are estimated to cost EUR 250 million and destroy 185 000 jobs per year in Europe alone. By trying to cover everything, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) confuses goods and products with the free movement of information on the Internet. According to the rapporteur, this has unwanted consequences as regards individual criminalisation, the definition of ‘commercial-scale’, the role of Internet service providers and the possible interruption of the transit of generic medicines. If ACTA aims to combat piracy and counterfeiting, its negotiations should and must include countries like India, China and Brazil, where the most serious breaches of intellectual property rights occur. This means the intended benefits of ACTA are clearly outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. For these reasons, and because I am convinced that this is the best way to defend the rights of the European public, I am voting for the Martin report, which recommends rejecting ACTA.

  Michel Dantin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) After an amazing campaign of misinformation, Parliament has rejected the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Just one article concerned Internet users. The prime purpose of the text was to protect us against counterfeiting, in particular intellectual property. By rejecting it, we have paved the way for the relocation of jobs outside Europe and for an upsurge in the black economy, child labour and other forms of exploitation. Congratulations to those responsible for this failure.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This agreement reflects the need for greater protection of intellectual property rights on a global scale: it is an essential tool for innovation and growth in Europe. The fears expressed by many citizens have focused on the risks that this agreement poses to fundamental rights. To respond to these fears, it was important to ask the Court of Justice of the EU to rule on the compatibility of the agreement with the European Treaties, and in particular with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Pending this decision, postponement of the vote would have been the right decision. As this postponement was rejected, I preferred to abstain from approving the agreement.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) seeks to solve real problems that have been worsening in recent years: the international trade in pirated and counterfeit goods is estimated to be worth over EUR 250 billion. However, there have been some doubts about ACTA’s scope, in particular as regards offences in the digital environment and the role of Internet service providers in identifying these offences. The rapporteur highlights some of these doubts, adding that ACTA will have to include countries like India, China and Brazil, where the most serious breaches of intellectual property rights currently occur. I voted against ACTA and for the report. However, I think it is absolutely necessary immediately to launch a wide-raging debate about a new agreement, involving so-called ‘civil society’. This should use the ACTA text as its basis, but should obviously revise the part about protecting intellectual property rights in the digital environment, as the only way of protecting our most innovative industrial sector. Why not spilt ACTA into two and immediately start the legal process of debating and adopting the chapters other than the ‘digital environment’? We would save a lot in terms of time and efficiency.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament rejected the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposal by a large majority. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe played a key role in this decisive vote, which should be the kiss of death for the ratification process. I welcome this logical result. How could we have been satisfied with an agreement that is supposed to combat counterfeiting but is not signed by the two biggest producers of counterfeit goods in the world, China and India? It is essential to protect intellectual property rights if we want to revitalise the creation, research and innovation of European companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. The Commission must adopt an offensive position and put in place, without delay, a mechanism for a new agreement within the framework of the World Trade Organisation in conjunction with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), including China and India. Indeed, there are signs that those countries want to be more involved in the fight against counterfeiting, for example, on 26 June the members of WIPO, including China, signed the Beijing Treaty. It is inconceivable that in the future this type of international agreement would not be negotiated in complete transparency by informing and consulting all stakeholders, starting with citizens and their representatives.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), signed by the Union with 10 of its partners, has for a number of months had considerable media and political coverage, given the issues involved in the fight against counterfeiting, but also the impact it could have on online practices. I therefore hope that the European Parliament can make its decision calmly and in full knowledge of the facts, once the Court of Justice of the European Union has given its legal opinion on the text. That is why I abstained in the vote, which should have been held after the Court had ruled.

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. – (FR) Our old francs used to display the following line: ‘Forgers will be punished by hard labour for life’.

Forged notes, like fake and pirated products, damage the entire economy.

The protection of intellectual property rights drives technical innovation and represents fair recompense for researchers and artistic creation. It is absolutely essential to defend intellectual property.

This anti-counterfeiting agreement negotiated by the European Commission is unsatisfactory in many respects. It deals largely with border controls, but the EU has done away with its internal controls and has not really strengthened its external controls.

Moreover, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) focuses on the spread of counterfeiting and clearly does not put enough emphasis on the counterfeiters themselves. In any event, it happens without them.

In short, ACTA’s legitimate objective is overshadowed by a poor method, a lack of clarity, overly diverse goals and, thus, uncertainty as to its effectiveness and consequences.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of Parliament’s recommendation to reject ACTA, because I believe it is not a suitable tool for the European Union in responding to the tasks for which it was called.

Despite the central need to protect our market and our customers from counterfeit goods from outside the Union accessing the market, the need to defend the Intellectual Property Rights regime, also in the digital environment, and the fundamental need for a global approach on this matter, ACTA unfortunately raised more perplexities than guarantees. The European Union will have to find better instruments to address the surely basic issues touched upon by the agreement.

Not only did the European Data Protection Supervisor publish a very negative opinion on the agreement but also, and more importantly, the opinions expressed by four parliamentary committees (ITRE, DEVE, LIBE, JURI), state their evident concerns about ACTA.

Finally, I strongly believe that the unprecedented public campaign against the agreement, which ended up in a petition containing more than 2.4 million signatures, cannot be left unheard by the democratically elected body of the European Union. The European Parliament represents the interests of the citizens of Europe.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The struggle against counterfeiting is a priority, and international cooperation is key to achieving that objective. However, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been eliciting significant doubts about potential breaches of fundamental rights and threats to civil liberties, which cannot and must not be discounted. As such, and since the Commission has submitted ACTA to the Court of Justice to assess the agreement’s compatibility with the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I think it is appropriate that Parliament await the Court of Justice’s judgment before voting on whether to adopt or reject ACTA. I abstained from the vote on ACTA for that reason and out of respect for jurisdictional decisions.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This recommendation by David Martin concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America. Although preserving intellectual property rights – the basis of many Europeans’ livelihoods – is essential, and while combating piracy and counterfeit products originating mainly in emerging economies is a priority, this proposal should be criticised for breaching fundamental rights of access to the Internet. I believe the EU should have reviewed the Intellectual Property Rights Directive and adapted EU Internet law before negotiating this agreement. It is noteworthy that, while ACTA aims to combat piracy and counterfeiting, its negotiations have not included countries like India, China and Brazil, where the most serious breaches of intellectual property rights occur. I therefore voted against ACTA.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This brings to a close – for now – the rocky road followed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This process has mobilised a considerable body of public opinion throughout Europe, and elsewhere, prompting public debate about ACTA and reporting some of its dangers and consequences. This mobilisation and these debates were all the more important, since the Commission has spent the entire process avoiding democratic debate and scrutiny, and conducting negotiations with great secrecy; that alone is reason enough for our mistrust of ACTA’s content. We believe counterfeiting needs to be combated, in particular the counterfeiting which has been going on in the EU of products such as Port wine – and other wines – or textile products, which hits Portugal so hard, and which is inextricably bound up with the policies of the EU itself in relation to, for example, farming and trade. However, we cannot support – and we stoutly condemn – an agreement establishing measures to monitor and spy on the public, ranging from monitoring of computer data through Internet service providers to checking personal baggage. This is an unacceptable breach of the public’s privacy, which violates the free movement of information and knowledge. Furthermore, this agreement could have implications for areas as varied as access to medicine and seeds.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement began in June 2008 and concluded in November 2010 after 11 rounds of negotiations. As with all international agreements, the European Commission, acting on a mandate from the Council, was the negotiator on behalf of the European Union. As the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a ‘mixed agreement’ covering competences at both EU and Member State level, the Member States were represented at the negotiations by the rotating presidencies. The Agreement was concluded between the European Union, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the US. The Agreement, as defined by the negotiators, is a trade agreement that addresses counterfeiting for commercial purposes and online piracy by coordinating the global enforcement of existing copyright violation laws. The problems that it seeks to address are real and growing. Counterfeiting and piracy have increased substantially, and continue to do so. The intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the text and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens’ rights in the future, after the Agreement enters force. This is one reason why it is not recommended that the European Parliament consents to its conclusion.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I have spoken in Parliament about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on several occasions, primarily to condemn the lack of transparency in the negotiations, and thus the Commission’s methods, which indeed it often uses when negotiating international agreements that are harmful for European nations. I will, of course, vote against this agreement, but it has not been the only attempt at European level to quash the freedom of the Internet, under the guise of respect for intellectual property rights or the fight against cybercrime. In the first case, we give in to certain industrial lobbies that are fond of their excessive profits, and in the second, we confuse real crimes (terrorism, human trafficking, paedophilia) with downloading some mp3 files. These persistent attacks on the Internet, the last place where we have freedom of expression and information on this continent, is not just suspect; it is symptomatic of the Soviet-style aspect of the Europe of Brussels, which seeks to control not only our food and our behaviour, but also our thoughts and our opinions.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I voted against consenting to the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). I am committed to offering innovators and rights-holders appropriate protection – indeed, a resolution I voted for in November 2010 highlighted this very point – however, we must also have appropriate safeguards to guarantee citizens’ privacy and fundamental rights. In addition, the negotiations on ACTA were carried out without any real transparency, and repeated calls to involve MEPs and civil society organisations more closely were largely ignored. Furthermore, we should not require internet service providers to be the ‘sheriffs’ of the internet. This would be akin to asking Post Offices to monitor or filter letters on behalf of rights-holders.

Given the huge groundswell of opposition from citizens and civil society, I carefully considered how the ACTA agreement would impact on Malta’s citizens, consumers and SMEs before I voted. Unfortunately, as it stands, the agreement simply leaves too many gray areas open to interpretation. Given the ambiguity in the text, this is far from ‘smart’ regulation. It is not clear how the agreement would affect citizens in areas such as privacy and freedom of expression.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted resolutely against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) because the Agreement contained too many uncertainties and posed too many serious risks to the fundamental rights of Europeans. The benefit of ACTA, however, was that it tackled some real challenges: protecting intellectual property rights against counterfeiting and piracy, and setting out some real issues for enterprises, creation and intellectual property rights in Europe and in the world, which are essential. However, the negotiations on the agreement did not reconcile these requirements with the protection of citizens’ individual freedoms and fundamental rights. The outcome of the vote could not have been any different. It is an historic vote because it is the first time that the European Parliament has rejected an international trade agreement since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I regret that today, without even waiting for the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Parliament refused to endorse an international instrument that aims to combat counterfeiting more effectively. This Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) does not seek to redefine the scope of protection of intellectual property rights, such as patents and trademarks, but to coordinate the mechanisms for protecting those rights to make the fight against counterfeiting more successful. I would point out that international trade in counterfeit goods totalled around USD 250 billion in 2009. The number of cases identified in Europe has increased by 920% in 10 years. That probably represents a loss of around 2.5 million jobs. As for pirating, in Europe there are 1.4 million SMEs (out of a total of 22 million) that work in the film, music and book industry. Contrary to popular belief, the idea was never to restrict citizens’ access to the Internet, and it certainly was not to put individuals under surveillance. The aim was to create a coherent global framework and to ensure that in our countries we have proper protection for intellectual property in order to preserve our businesses and our jobs.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) because it became very clear during the discussions that the Agreement was incompatible with the values and rules of European law, which I defend as a Member of the European Parliament. As regards the form, it was impossible to support the outcome of extremely opaque negotiations when the rights of European citizens are at stake. As regards the substance, the Agreement is contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights because some of its articles pave the way for surveillance of Internet users, including innocent users, which would be an infringement of the law.

With numerous instances of vague wording, it did not offer the legal certainty required to prosecute cases of intellectual property rights violations. Although combating counterfeiting is a legitimate goal, we still need an instrument that is truly effective in that area; ACTA does not offer us that given the absence of important partners such as China and India. Above all, we must defend the fundamental freedom of our citizens to express themselves.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Like 38 of my fellow MEPs, I chose to support the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the main goals of which – creating a framework for the fight against counterfeiting, safeguarding thousands of jobs and protecting our SMEs – were obscured due to the reinforcement of fears, fuelled by well-organised networks, regarding the threat of violation of our citizens’ fundamental freedoms. Although I understand those concerns, I regret that they were exploited politically. Parliament’s Legal Service confirmed on two occasions that the Agreement was compatible with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Treaties and the Community acquis. The European Ombudsman stated that the negotiations had proceeded normally. The Commission had referred the matter to the EU Court of Justice to enable it to rule on the Agreement’s compatibility with the Treaties. That ruling has not yet been handed down, yet Parliament has buckled under the pressure of its detractors. This Agreement did not seek to criminalise Internet users or enforce surveillance by Internet access providers. It sought to protect jobs, 40 000 of which are lost each year, and protect SMEs, which are threatened by this unfair practice.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this agreement because unintended consequences of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) text are a serious concern. The benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the text and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens’ rights in the future under the ACTA. I do not therefore welcome the conclusion of the ACTA. It should be noted that not only the Committee on International Trade, but four other parliamentary committees, which prepared an opinion on this issue, refused to consent to this agreement.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The only acceptable way in which we can respond to citizens’ concerns is to reject the agreement. The agreement arouses numerous suspicions about the effects of implementing it, with the majority of them relating to the way in which ACTA could result in censorship of the Internet and the violation of the rights guaranteeing the confidentiality of personal data and freedom of expression. As long as there is even the slightest suspicion that ACTA could pave the way for the violation of citizens’ fundamental rights, the agreement must be stopped and reconsidered.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The debate concerning ACTA has dominated the media and Internet landscape throughout Europe for a long time. Rarely has a subject got the public as agitated as the current discussion on copyright has. The goal of our discussions in Parliament was to have a comprehensive, public and, above all, factual debate. In my view, this should also have included waiting for the assessment of the Court of Justice of the European Union before making a final decision. I therefore abstained in today’s vote. One thing should not be forgotten, however: counterfeiting results in considerable losses for European industry every year. I therefore support an agreement that aims to prevent these criminal activities. Therefore, we need to make another attempt at reaching an international agreement, but one which clearly must be compatible with European standards.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. − (PL) There is no doubt that the ACTA agreement attempts to resolve real problems in the global economy. The scale of breaches of copyright is immense and no one can deny this. European companies are losing out on this too and, to be frank, no one is able to estimate the real costs. However, I voted against the ACTA, as this agreement is not a good solution for this problem. The potential threat to civil rights significantly exceeds the planned benefits accruing from its conclusion. No one knows how individual provisions would be interpreted and no one can guarantee that these would not impact on individual Internet users. This is a sufficiently important issue that the European Parliament should act to defend citizens’ rights and freedoms. This is something that we should bear in mind when voting on this agreement. If the European Commission and the governments of certain Member States believe that it is necessary to protect the interests of European businesses, then they should find a new instrument. First of all, however, they should make sure that in future negotiations there is real participation by the European Parliament as well as by public stakeholders. It should be remembered that the main source of failure in this agreement is the method in which it was prepared. If, right from the beginning, an attempt had been made to work out a compromise that took into account the interests of all parties, then today we would have had a global understanding to protect our economy and not a Europe-wide discussion about threats to civil liberties.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The fight against counterfeiting is a priority. Europe’s economy and the health of its consumers is at stake. The Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to rule on the Agreement’s compatibility with citizens’ rights, so I believe that it was entirely senseless to reject it so hastily. That is why I voted for the report, first and foremost. Unfortunately, it was rejected by a large majority of 420 votes. Secondly, I chose to support the Agreement because, after a detailed analysis, I felt that it respected the fundamental rights of our fellow citizens. The vote provoked aggressive reactions towards MEPs who voted yes, including me. That aggressiveness, through intimidation and anonymity, is unacceptable. I would therefore ask my critics to examine the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement properly from the point of view of the protection of intellectual property but also the protection of individual freedoms. Finally, I would like to reiterate, on the one hand, that the very essence of democracy is freedom of thought and expression and to state, on the other, that votes are never imperative.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. − (LV) I voted to postpone this matter. As a majority in Parliament found it necessary to decide the matter immediately, I abstained in the vote on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, as I believe that, before taking the decision, it is necessary to review all legal aspects associated with the enforcement of this agreement with regard to freedom of speech. The European Union and Latvia wish to see intellectual-property rights protected in a way that ensures revenue and secure trade conditions for our entrepreneurs in other countries of the world. The legislation must be made such as to ensure both preservation of the freedom of speech and efficient protection of property rights. As there are those in society that have concerns that this agreement may restrict freedom of speech, its compliance with European Union law should be reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

  Martin Kastler (PPE), in writing. − (DE) Along with a large majority in Parliament, I have voted against the ACTA. Today it is a case of ACTA ad acta. Tomorrow it will be a new start for increased market protection. In its current form, the ACTA was beset with too many errors and a lack of clarity. It confused people and resulted in a large amount of public pressure in the social networks and new media, the latter being something positive. I also still find it annoying that for years the ACTA was kept secret and was only made public at a late stage following intensive pressure from the European Parliament. We MEPs were expected to rubber stamp everything in a fast-track procedure. That is not acceptable. Many mistakes were made that we can only correct by making a completely new start. The clear ‘no’ to ACTA is, for me, an unqualified ‘yes’ to global protection against ‘commercial-scale counterfeiting and piracy’, which is actually the key concern of the agreement. Without effective, global coordination of copyright protection, Europe has a great deal to lose. Intellectual property is Europe’s most valuable raw material. Our decision today clears the way for the development of a new, better and transparent agreement under European leadership. This process can and must take place in dialogue with all ‘stakeholders’ – with the focus on people and ethics.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I voted in favour of postponing the vote on the ACTA and have thereby abstained. The Commission has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union for an opinion on the ACTA. I would have liked to have waited for this opinion, as it could have shed some light on a few things that were unclear. Many question remained unanswered to the end. However, decisions should only be made once all the facts are on the table. That was not the case with the ACTA, however. That is for the reason for my abstention.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD), in writing. − I am proud of the result of the vote of the European Parliament to reject ACTA. Coming from a country that has known only too well the brutal tyranny of state oppression, censorship and control I well appreciate the vital importance and beauty of free speech. The internet serves as a wonderful forum to promote free speech. By facilitating the exchange of opinions between citizens, the internet promotes debate and brings us closer to the ideal of a democratic society of citizens who feel their voice is heard. It is for this reason that dictatorial regimes around the world fear it so and try to limit its advance. Few other issues in recent years have provoked as much indignation among European citizens as this attempt to limit their hard-won right to speak freely. For the first time, Parliament has stood up and blocked an international agreement negotiated by the Commission and the Member States. I can think of no better or more appropriate role for Parliament than to act as an instrument of democratic control over a frequently faceless and distant executive. Long may Parliament continue to be responsive to European citizens and to defend their freedoms.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I supported the Rapporteur today in his proposal to reject ACTA. The Greens have been an integral part of the campaign to raise awareness of the problems we see within this Treaty, for individual rights and the protection of some of those most in need.

Concerns about the draconian and disproportionate penalties linked to copyright infringement in the proposed Treaty are well-known. I am deeply concerned that governments and the Commission have put themselves in the position where ACTA is the subject of an ECJ ruling concerning its compatibility with Fundamental Human Rights. I am also concerned at the potential problems arising for generic medicines – essential for improved healthcare for some of the world’s poorest people. I look forward to future Treaties being given the same rigorous scrutiny as ACTA has received.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which seeks to protect Europe’s internal market from counterfeit products. Although this text was not approved by Parliament, I defended the importance of such an international agreement for Europe in terms of safeguarding competitiveness, innovation and jobs. Counterfeiting today is responsible for the loss of EUR 6 billion for our businesses and 40 000 jobs, and it poses significant risks to the health and safety of our citizens. At this time of crisis, the Agreement offers real protection for our economy. I also regret that Parliament went ahead with its vote before hearing the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was asked to rule on the Agreement’s compatibility with the Treaties and fundamental rights. That is why I had initially voted in favour of the report on the ACTA. The protection of our Community space is a major issue that we have to acknowledge.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Before voting on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Parliament should have waited for the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to which the Commission had referred the matter. Unfortunately, a large majority of MEPs did not support this reasonable proposal by my political group.

It was therefore with regret that I abstained during on the vote on this Agreement, which I support in principle. A binding agreement among 31 parties against the illegal production and distribution of physical or virtual products subject to copyright would undoubtedly be a vital legal instrument in ensuring better protection and promoting our innovative businesses in the area of intellectual property.

I acknowledge that some articles require more precise wording, for example, in the definition of an offence involving an act on a commercial scale or the definition of a wilful act.

The populist arguments about respect for privacy and disclosure of information, however, only confirm my belief that they are not based on a full understanding of the text of the Agreement.

In conclusion, this Parliament has again missed an opportunity to behave like an informed and reasonable legislator, giving in to a campaign of disinformation the like of which I have never witnessed in my political career.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. − (DE) Following many conversations with Internet users, artists, publishers and media representatives in recent weeks, I have just voted against the ratification of the current proposal for the ACTA Agreement. In my view, the following objections raised by citizens are justified: the potential intensive monitoring of users by Internet service providers, the powers of competent authorities in ratifying states being too far-reaching and the risk posed to healthcare provision, in particular in developing countries, by the restriction of trade in generic medicines. An examination of the ACTA Agreement by the Court of Justice of the European Union to check its compatibility with fundamental rights prior to the final vote in Parliament was, unfortunately, rejected. I am very definitely in favour of a detailed clarification by this Court. My vote against ACTA today is directed solely at the vagueness of numerous passages and the lack of sincerity, transparency and readiness to engage in dialogue of many of the people involved in the legislative process over recent months. I expressly support the core idea of ensuring the protection of copyright and the safeguarding of innovative, high quality products. However, when a large proportion of EU citizens are so strongly opposed to a law, politicians must meet these concerns with a high degree of openness and due diligence. I therefore welcome the majority decision of the European Parliament.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, I voted against ACTA as I believe that the Agreement created an imbalance between the rights of creators and producers and the rights of Internet users. It is important that people who share files for private purposes or with their acquaintances do not feel threatened or have concerns about the consequences of such sharing. I also believe that, at the level of the European Parliament, we should react decisively against any attempts to pass measures of this kind.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the rejection of ACTA by the European Parliament. I hope the Commission will draw lessons from this rejection and seek to involve Parliament fully in the early stage of trade negotiations. Agreements struck behind close doors are always likely to be bad deals. Openness and transparency must be the Commission’s Leitmotif for future talks.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (CS) I firmly believe that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) does not represent progress in the area of intellectual property rights (IPR), but, on the contrary, preserves the current dismal state of affairs. We need to realise that IPR protection must be viewed in future through a completely different lens, and that the protection of these rights must be balanced with the public interest in intellectual property being accessible to as many people as possible at a reasonable price. We cannot be satisfied only with protection and repression, without at the same time building a future system for distributing or sharing intellectual property that is acceptable, particularly financially, so that there is no brake on the development of society in all of the areas affected through an unreasonable and overly broad protection of IPR. In this context, the ACTA is a wholly deficient and one-sided product. The second reason for rejecting the ACTA is the possibility of it being misused for the development and clandestine preparation of environments for criminalising users, especially of the Internet. No form of protection of private rights should become a basis for interfering in a right that is far more important, such as the possibility of disseminating and obtaining information, including access to e-government, since we are already witnessing this form of repression in some EU states. Last but not least, we should not overlook the public opposition, since we must not ignore the opinion of EU citizens in approving legislation that may have long-term and entirely unforeseen effects.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I abstained from the vote on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). I abstained because the Court of Justice of the European Union, following the European Commission’s request for a ruling on the compatibility of the agreement with the EU Treaties and citizens’ fundamental rights, has still not given a ruling. It will be between 14 and 20 months before the Court gives its ruling. I feel it is important that a body like the Court of Justice of the European Union has its say on issues that involve workers’ rights and international trade. However, I agree that adopting this kind of agreement can be important for guaranteeing innovation, creativity and for protecting European workers. The sale of counterfeit drugs or fake fashion products is unacceptable as they create disadvantages and unfair competition for businesses in the sector as well as being hazardous to citizens’ safety, since they are often produced with materials and production techniques that do not comply with European safety standards.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome our citizens’ interest in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and I listened carefully to all of their concerns and worries, but as a Member of the European Parliament, I am obliged, first and foremost, to serve the general interest. The general interest means combating counterfeiting, which in France costs thousands of jobs, reduces the turnover of our businesses by several billion euros and deprives the state of millions of euros of tax revenue. Counterfeit goods also pose a real threat to the health of European consumers. In the current context of economic crisis, and in light of these arguments, the decision by some of my colleagues to reject ACTA so hastily, without waiting for the verdict of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is, in my view, completely unreasonable. I agree with the analysis of the legal opinions of Parliament’s Legal Service and firmly believe that we could implement ACTA while respecting the fundamental rights of our fellow citizens. That is why I voted in favour of this Agreement, as I did in my previous votes.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Providing better protection for the intellectual property rights belonging to European producers involved in global trade is of paramount importance. Eliminating counterfeiting in the commercial sector and online piracy will enable us to help boost economic activity. At the same time, it will reduce the risks to people’s health posed by the consumption of counterfeit medicines, for example.

However, the way in which the ACTA aims to protect copyright raises some doubts, especially as the negotiations on this agreement have been conducted in a far from transparent manner. The benefits which the text will produce appear to be far less than the potential dangers to civil liberties. The vagueness of certain aspects of the agreement and the uncertainty about its interpretation, which may lead to abuses committed by the authorities, must give us food for thought.

In these circumstances, as representatives of Europe’s citizens, we cannot guarantee suitable protection for fundamental rights based on ACTA, and many of the agreement’s terms need to be clarified. Consequently, the ACTA text can only receive Parliament’s vote when the grey areas on the agreement’s scope and the protection of personal freedoms are cleared up in order to avoid any undesirable interpretations.

  Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) ACTA is not an instrument aimed at abolishing freedom on the Internet or at criminalising Internet users. These and similar claims have been made in thousands of serial emails that I have received recently. It is instead a trade agreement that serves to protect intellectual property not only in the EU, but also in 10 other states, including the United States and Japan. I nevertheless voted against ACTA, because the copyright laws on which the agreement is based are outdated and do not take sufficient account of the development of the Internet. I am in favour of protecting intellectual property and of combating counterfeiting and piracy, as the European economy is based primarily on inventions, creativity, brand exclusivity and a technological edge and, therefore, on intellectual property. We should, however, hold a debate on the European intellectual property laws first in order to reform these. The broad discussions on ACTA have shown that this subject should be discussed in depth. I see an opportunity here to bring about a consensus through the provision of comprehensive information. If it can be made clear to people that jobs and the development of our economy are dependent on the protection of intellectual property, including and in particular on the Internet, then citizens will understand that this protection is necessary and needs to be exported to other states.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) Since a postponement of the vote on the ACTA in order to be able to evaluate and take into account the pending ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union was not possible, I abstained from voting. With regard to tackling product piracy and strengthening copyright, ACTA is something that I could support. Nevertheless, the fears and concerns of a section of the population, which feels its freedoms will be restricted by ACTA, must be taken into account. For that reason, the decision of the Court of Justice would have been an important decision-making criterion for me.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The protection of intellectual property is, in advanced democratic societies, one of the recognised rights of authors, and the state has an interest in protecting rights that lead to the development of science and art, as well as research and development. Unless the appropriate measures are adopted to protect intellectual property rights, Europe, and therefore its citizens, will lose more than EUR 8 billion per year. The European economy focusing on the creation of new, innovative solutions is suffering from an influx of counterfeit goods from abroad, where companies do not hesitate to copy European products and then send their poor substitutes onto the European market. The hysteria surrounding the ACTA that we have witnessed in recent months, however, was based on a large number of untruths and attempts to deliberately mislead citizens about the true content of the Agreement. In my opinion, the protection of intellectual property is the protection of the competitiveness of the European economy and, at the same time, the protection of the jobs of people working in research and innovation. Organised groups of a commercial nature profit from counterfeiting, and this Agreement is therefore directed against them. On the other hand, ordinary citizens suffer from the fact that the state budgets do not receive billions of euro in duties and taxes, which could for example be used in healthcare and education.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) is a multinational treaty aimed at establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement. The agreement aims to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the internet. It was signed in Tokyo in January by the EU and its Member States. In May, the Commission referred ACTA to the Court of Justice of EU for a legal opinion. The controversies surrounding ACTA are well known as MEPs have faced an enormous amount of lobbying. From the outset our group has fully acknowledged the many serious concerns that EU citizens and civil society have expressed about rhe ACTA. However, due to the vagueness of the ACTA text I cannot support it. The are the following doubts on the text: the definition of "commercial-scale", the related use of criminal sanctions, the role of Internet Service Providers in 'policing' the internet, the potential infringement on civil liberties and online privacy, potential impact on the transit of generic medicines, the treatment of counterfeited goods and piracy in the same way (both need to be tackled, but with appreciation of the differences between the two copyright violations).

  Gay Mitchell, Mairead McGuinness, Jim Higgins and Sean Kelly (PPE), in writing. − Fine Gael MEPs abstained on the vote of the ACTA agreement in view of the decision pending at the Court of Justice of the European Union assessing whether the ACTA is incompatible with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms. We prefer to give ourselves the opportunity to consider the outcome of the Court ruling before voting on the agreement.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Protection of intellectual property is a justified concern, particularly as in this case it also concerns Europe’s competitiveness. With the ACTA, the participating nations and confederations of states want to establish international standards in the fight against product piracy and copyright infringements. However, there is a concern that this could also severely restrict the freedom of individuals on the Internet. As things stand, too many vague wordings are creating legal uncertainty for citizens. Internet service providers would de facto be obliged to monitor their customers’ data traffic and to notify any misdemeanours immediately. I voted against the ACTA agreement, as it is as yet unclear how privacy can be ensured. In addition, there is a danger of severe restrictions on the freedom of information on the Internet. Furthermore, it is unacceptable for a matter that will in reality affect each and every citizen to have been negotiated behind closed doors. The ACTA agreement has a lot of inbuilt pitfalls, as a result of the large number of vague provisions for example, which leave the agreement wide open to abuse.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) As the adjournment has been rejected, I voted in line with my belief in relation to the merits of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) – which gives an essential international dimension to protecting intellectual property rights – and to the groundlessness of objections to ACTA on the basis of civil liberties. First, intellectual property rights are themselves fundamental rights, protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Second, no matter how much freedom the Internet may give, that does not include freedom to commit piracy and to counterfeit goods. Third, ACTA does not affect the freedom of Internet users, but only the freedom to provide commercial-scale pirated content or counterfeit goods. Finally, ACTA is not self-executing, does not confer rights or impose obligations on anyone, and does not criminalise anything: it can only be implemented with domestic legislation.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The fight against commercial counterfeiting and computer piracy is certainly an important challenge, but we need to be very careful as to how this is implemented and interpreted. Firstly, I am perplexed that an agreement of this scope does not cover those countries where most infringements of rights and commercial safeguards are committed, namely China, India and Pakistan. Moreover, Russia and Brazil are also not included in this agreement, yet these are places which cannot really be overlooked in many ways. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has also raised serious doubts because it is potentially harmful to individual rights and freedoms, as well as curbing free access to the Internet. For all these reasons, I therefore voted in favour of the report, while rejecting the text of the agreement. However, I hope that negotiations can soon resume to find a more broadly supported solution to combat the scourge of counterfeiting, without repeating the errors and the shortcomings of ACTA.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of postponing the vote on the ACTA Agreement, thinking that it would have been useful to have a sensible, serious debate on this subject, as well as find out the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Given that the request to postpone the vote was rejected by plenary, I voted against the Agreement as a result of the particularly large number of views against it which I received during the last few months from citizens in Romania and other EU Member States. I do not believe that ACTA is a bad agreement. I do not believe either that it is a good agreement. However, I believe that we need to be concerned about the fears expressed by people about the possible violation of their rights and freedoms.

  Angelika Niebler (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I abstained in today’s vote on the ACTA agreement, because I believe that we should wait for the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ACTA. The intention is for the Court to carry out a definitive examination of whether the agreement changes existing European law. I have read the agreement myself and I believe that this is not the case. In 2010, the EU seized 103 million products at its external borders that were most probably counterfeit products. For the first time the estimated value of the equivalent genuine products was also quoted, this being more than EUR 1 billion. In view of these incredible figures, I believe that we urgently need to work even more intensively to combat product piracy in order to safeguard the competitiveness of our European industry. A global agreement on the protection of intellectual property is therefore essential.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. − (PL) The trade agreement aimed at combating the trade in counterfeit products aroused controversy right from the start. The final agreement contains many vague clauses, formulated in a very general manner, allowing for a broad interpretation. ACTA was created in a way that differed from standard democratic legislative procedure. The aim of the agreement was to bring about better enforcement of intellectual property rights at international level, but the agreement in the form proposed by the European Commission arouses serious concerns regarding respect for civil liberties. This agreement creates a threat to consumers’ privacy, weakens innovation and slows down the flow of information. I am not opposed to the concept of protection for intellectual property, but the system for protecting this property should take into account the interests of both creators and consumers in a more balanced way. In my opinion, ACTA is not an appropriate solution to the problem and for this reason I voted against the agreement.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The ACTA issue is one of the watershed moments in the history of the European Parliament. For the first time in history, young citizens understood just how important is the institution of the European Parliament. The spontaneous grass-roots protest movement against ACTA is a generational event that has breathed new life into democracy. Its participants understood that ACTA could only be blocked on the European level. They understood that the blocking of ACTA on the level of any of the Member States would not de facto stop the provisions of this agreement from coming into force. This decision could only be taken effectively on the level of the European Parliament.

Appropriate lessons should be learned from the ACTA issue. First of all, I fully agree with David Martin, the ACTA rapporteur, that ‘law negotiated and pushed through in secret is generally bad law’. For this reason future negotiations should be completely transparent. Secondly, copyright needs to be adapted to the age of the Internet. A law that a whole generation cannot understand will certainly fail sooner or later. It would be just as well for this to happen sooner and, when creating a new solution, attention should be given both to the creators and the consumers of culture. As a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I have been opposed to ACTA right from the start. In the light of the above I have also voted against the ratification of this agreement.

  Doris Pack (PPE), in writing. − (DE) Like many of my fellow Members, I, too, was unable to vote in favour of the agreement, at least not at the present time. Unfortunately, the pragmatic course of action proposed by my group was not supported by the majority in the House and postponement of the plenary decision was rejected on feeble grounds. In my view, this is not an appropriate way to establish policies. The opportunity to create an agreement about which no doubts remain from a text with parts that are in need of clarification, and one that even I could have supported, has been blithely squandered. We should have let the Court of Justice of the European Union do its job and then – if necessary – pressed for legal clarifications. In this way, we would have been able to ensure legal certainty for all EU citizens. Thus, after many years of intensive efforts and negotiations, we are right back where we started. The arguments of most of the opponents of the agreement fluctuated between hysteria and – partly deliberate – disinformation of the general public. The scare stories often – and sometimes even when the person concerned knew better – referred to things that were never part of the agreement or that had long since been removed. We should have urgent need of such an agreement. Since the remaining points of criticism relating to the chapter on the Internet can no longer be cleared up, however, the only option left for me in the end was to abstain.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted against such an agreement because combating piracy and copyright and the document before us aimed at legalising total spying on citizens, trampling on personal rights and freedoms, are two different things and have nothing in common. With the entry into force of such an agreement there will be restrictions on Internet freedom and citizens’ personal rights, as well as interference in their private lives and I am convinced that there is a very real basis for such fears of theirs. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the lack of a judicial decision and legal guarantees that the ACTA does not infringe any treaties or fundamental human rights is another very serious argument for not voting in favour of such a treaty.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was concluded to protect intellectual property from counterfeiters and illegal distribution because it may restrict Internet freedom. I also took this decision because of the thousands of emails I received urging me to vote against the ACTA. I feel that the decision on the ACTA is a political issue. I therefore agree with my colleagues in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats who resisted the proposal from Members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) to postpone the vote until receipt of the conclusions of Court of Justice of the European Union evaluating the consequences of the ACTA. I agree with rapporteur David Martin from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, who noted that certain provisions of the ACTA are at odds with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union because they do not fully guarantee rights to a private life and the protection of personal information. Although it is important to combat counterfeiting and piracy, Internet service providers should not play a policing role. We have to protect artists and their work but we cannot allow Internet freedom to be violated. Such opposition should not mark the end but mean the beginning of a general debate on how to defend intellectual property in the European Union.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) ‘Piracy’ and counterfeiting cause considerable financial loss and distress to creators and clearly need to be combatted at international level. At the same time, however, efforts to address this problem should not restrict fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, the promotion and exchange of ideas and property rights, a position which I have repeatedly supported in the European Parliament. Bearing that in mind and the fact that the Court of Justice of the European Union has not yet considered and ruled on the compatibility of the agreement with the fundamental freedoms and rights enshrined in Union legislation and given that it was not feasible to adjourn the vote in plenary, I voted against the ACTA, so that it would come back with the necessary improvements and amendments, especially regarding protection of freedom of expression on the internet. I therefore await a ruling by the Court of Justice, once the agreement has been referred to it by the College of Commissioners, and look forward to further initiatives and proposals from the Commission to protect copyright and intellectual property.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Before the vote on this report, one of my colleagues suggested returning this document to the Commission because he thought it needed to be improved, but that idea was rejected. This document includes two issues that should be separated: the serious problem of counterfeiting and the issue of online piracy. Since the original document should have been structured differently, I voted in favour of returning it. I abstained on principle from the final vote on the serious problem of counterfeiting, which has been costing European companies EUR 250 billion and destroying 185 000 jobs, every year.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) I voted against ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), because it is too vague, because it allows widely different interpretations of the implications of its adoption and because it does not address the main sources of counterfeiting. We need to address the issue of protecting intellectual property, which is extremely important for the European Union, in a different way.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from the vote on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement because I think that, first and foremost, we should have allowed the Court of Justice of the European Union to give its opinion on the legality of the Agreement.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome our citizens’ interest in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and I listened carefully to all of their concerns and worries, but as a Member of the European Parliament, I am obliged, first and foremost, to serve the general interest. The general interest means combating counterfeiting, which in Europe costs more than 100 000 jobs every year, robs our businesses of EUR 230 billion and deprives the states of millions of euros of tax revenue.

Counterfeit goods also pose a real threat to the health of European consumers. In the current context of economic crisis, and in light of these arguments, the decision by some of my colleagues to reject ACTA so hastily, without waiting for the verdict of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is, in my view, completely unreasonable. I agree with the analysis of the legal opinions of Parliament’s Legal Service and firmly believe that we could implement ACTA while respecting the fundamental rights of our fellow citizens. That is why I voted in favour of this Agreement, as I did in my previous votes.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) addresses commercial-scale counterfeiting and online piracy by coordinating global enforcement of existing copyright violation laws. Counterfeiting and piracy have increased substantially and continue to do so. The consequences of the growth in these illegal activities range from economic losses to health and safety dangers. The European Union has much to lose without efficient and enforced global coordination in copyright protection. However, the intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the text and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens’ rights in the future under ACTA. Furthermore, if ACTA aims to combat piracy and counterfeiting, its negotiations should and must include countries like India, China and Brazil, where the most serious breaches of intellectual property rights occur. I therefore voted for this report, which recommends rejecting ACTA.

  Herbert Reul (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The German conservative group (CDU/CSU) believes that ACTA is, in principle, appropriate. However, the Commission has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union about this. Consequently, we need to wait for the Court’s response before we can make a final decision as to whether to vote for or against the agreement. We therefore voted in favour of postponing the vote on the agreement and we abstained in the vote on the report.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In Europe, creation, research and innovation are being held back. A major factor in promoting growth is restoring confidence among all of the parties concerned and, in that respect, it is obviously vital to protect intellectual property rights. However, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (a trade agreement negotiated by the EU and its Member States, the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland to improve the implementation of anti-counterfeiting laws at global level) is not the solution. This Agreement was drawn up outside the multilateral bodies such as the WTO and the supposed counterfeiting countries are not party to it (85% of goods that infringe intellectual property rights come from China and it is not a signatory). Moreover, there are many ambiguities in the definitions in the text, which leads us to fear that respect for privacy and protection of personal data are not guaranteed, and that is unacceptable. These are the reasons why I refused to support the conclusion of this Agreement. I am pleased that, following Parliament’s rejection, neither the EU nor any of its Member States will be able to sign up to the Agreement.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has today been consigned to history. The Greens/EFA Group has been voicing its concerns about this agreement since the outset of the shadowy negotiations, along with an ever-growing number of citizens. We welcome the support of a decisive majority of MEPs for rejecting ACTA today: this is the just and democratic response to the mass mobilisation against the agreement by citizens across Europe.

In addition to concerns about data protection and internet freedom, there were equally legitimate concerns about the potentially far-reaching implications of ACTA for fundamental rights, freedom of establishment and access to vital medicines. We welcome the fact that we can now move on from this sorry chapter. This vote is a milestone for European democracy and for the political debate on intellectual property protection in the digital age.

The EU must now begin an honest debate on intellectual property rights. A good start would be to recognise that there can be no sweeping, once-size-fits-all approach to intellectual property enforcement. Instead, there is a need to assess the different challenges facing different economic sectors and different aspects of intellectual property, and to develop individual solutions for these sectors. At EU-level, one of the priorities to that end should be finally tackling the much-needed reform of EU copyright law.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) should have been an agreement capable of tackling counterfeiting and piracy without limiting citizens’ freedoms; it should not simply have prevented unfair competition for industry and protected intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, the text examined by the Commission and Parliament did not cover the issues most deeply felt in Italy, namely protection of the protected designation of origin and of geographical indications, or the main counterfeiting countries: China, Brazil and India. The text was so inconsistent that the competent committees, the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, rejected it, just as a favourable report was rejected in the Committee on Legal Affairs and an unfavourable report was approved in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. Clearly, in such a negative situation, this measure, which, to be valid, needs to be approved both by the EU Member States and by third countries, could not be adopted in plenary. I decided to abstain because, although I believe the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement protects our businesses and companies, I believe the text in question harms human freedoms and is not suitable for attacking counterfeit markets. This is partly because it does not cover categories of products such as agricultural products, which I think should be protected.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I decided to abstain from the vote on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) for two reasons. Firstly, as proceedings are still pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union, I think that I should wait for them to be concluded before I make a final decision. This is not just common sense, it is also out of respect for the rule of law and for effective collaboration between institutions.

Secondly, while ACTA does not provide a perfect solution to counterfeiting, it is still a constructive proposal, which aims to protect innovation, jobs and our businesses. By defending intellectual property rights, ACTA is also protecting them. I should remind you that counterfeiting destroys 30 to 40 000 jobs each year in France and almost 100 000 in Europe. That is why, in the absence of any certainty as to the compatibility or incompatibility of the Agreement with Community law, and given the current crisis, I felt that I could not make an informed decision without full knowledge of the facts and I chose to abstain.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). One of those most responsible for this blow to the Union’s credibility is Commissioner De Gucht. I believe that, instead of insisting on this agreement, he should have resigned. On several occasions, Parliament asked to have the issue of geographical indications included in ACTA, but Commissioner De Gucht was not able to negotiate this with his counterparts. The doubts over the infringement of fundamental rights are too serious to approve such an agreement. The fight against counterfeiting deserves bespoke measures and above all the involvement of those countries, particularly Asian countries, which bear the most responsibility for this huge disaster for our businesses.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In 2005, global trade in counterfeit goods totalled USD 200 billion, not including digital products, according to OECD estimates. For the first time, on 1 October 2011, 22 Member States signed an Agreement with eight countries from the United States to Morocco, including Japan and South Korea, to put an end to trade in counterfeit goods, which threatens the economic viability of businesses and consumer safety.

We need to be aware of the historic importance of this Agreement. However, concerns were raised about respect for the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It would have been sensible to wait for the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is the most appropriate authority for dealing with this issue. It was with this in mind that I voted to postpone the vote. Unfortunately, the other political groups felt that the Court’s opinion was not needed to decide the fate of the text. In this context, I decided to base my vote on the positive opinions of Parliament’s Legal Service and to vote in favour of greater protection for intellectual property in global trade.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − ACTA has rightly been the subject of a lengthy debate here in the European Parliament. It is our duty, as the single directly elected European institution, to ensure that fundamental rights such as the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression are safeguarded.

In the course of our discussions we came to the conclusion that the concerns about ACTA, expressed in a series of protests and campaigns across the globe, were entirely justified. This is why my group voted to reject the agreement. We must find an alternative way to address the challenges of digital piracy and counterfeit products which does not infringe the fundamental rights of the individual and which follows an open, transparent public debate.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) today, for several reasons. Firstly, no additional and serious efforts were made before the ACTA negotiations to thoroughly consult with all of the stakeholders and take their opinions into consideration. In addition, I cannot support administrative conduct that does not observe the European Union’s strict requirements regarding transparency and good governance. Secondly, it does not measure up to the principle of legal clarity, because it leaves great opportunities for interpretation, and as a result the terms and conditions of the agreement may differ greatly from one country to another. At the same time, some clauses of the agreement seek to regulate domestic matters to an excessive degree. Thirdly, in the area of Internet availability, this is a fundamental right, and Internet service providers should not have control over the Internet. Internet freedom must be guaranteed, and I certainly do not approve of any gathering and saving of customer data and activity habits by Internet service providers. While I am indeed against all manner of piracy and theft of intellectual property and recognise that there are now many problems in this area, this agreement is unfortunately not something that would improve the situation, but would indeed make it worse.

  Birgit Schnieber-Jastram (PPE), in writing. − (DE) In my opinion, the most sensible thing to do in order to resolve the problems with the ACTA in its current form, particularly from the point of view of development policy, would be to postpone the vote. As this was not supported by the majority, I decided to abstain from voting. This is intended, on the one hand, to make it clear that I support the legitimate goals of the agreement and, on the other, to take account of the concerns that exist, for example with regard to simplified seizure procedures for generic medicines at border controls, which have not been dispelled by the Commission’s informal promises. Involvement of the developing countries in the negotiation process would also have been desirable.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I voted against the ACTA because this agreement restricts the right to individual freedom. It is incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, ACTA is much too drastic a method for enforcing property rights, leaving aside the right to online freedom. In my opinion, piracy should not be supported but the way that the ACTA draft is written raises many concerns. There are many general provisions, little that is specific, an unclear message – this is what lawyers themselves say. This project is a form of silent control over Internet users, in effect a breach of the right to free speech. Blocking valuable and legal content on the Internet is no guarantee against piracy. The ACTA clauses can be interpreted in different ways and, for this reason, they have created a great deal of controversy. People are describing it as a kind of surveillance of the Internet and its users.

The virtual world has always been a location for free exchange of ideas and the ACTA wants to put limits on this right. The ACTA does not just mean controls over the Internet but also poses a threat to our economy by restricting the development of creativity not just online but also in science and technology. If the ACTA were adopted, we would have thousands of persons suspected of illegal online activity, many of whom would be innocent and unnecessarily investigated. Loss of the independence that the Internet provides would be harmful to the creativity of society. I would call for a balanced policy to safeguard copyright and to combat the trade in counterfeit goods, which also takes into account the right to civil liberties.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) because I believed that it was foolish to vote before the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the ACTA’s respect for fundamental rights. The negotiations lacked transparency, some parts of the text are controversial and it is not sufficiently clear that the individual rights of Internet users are respected. Nevertheless, I support the fight against counterfeiting, which in France costs thousands of jobs and deprives the state of millions of euros of tax revenue. Counterfeit goods also pose a real threat to the health of European consumers. It is therefore essential to come up with a new legal framework and to negotiate it in complete transparency, with civil society in particular.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) At lunchtime today in Strasbourg, the Members of the European Parliament rejected the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) by a large majority of 478 votes to 39. The death of this anti-freedom and highly toxic Agreement is a victory of democracy over the lobbies, of truth over manipulation. It is the last nail in ACTA’s coffin: ‘Alea ACTA est!’ It made no sense to sign an international agreement on counterfeiting that did not include China or India: it would be like countries with no access to the sea signing a maritime agreement.

Finally, it was unacceptable to support a vague Agreement from which the authors deliberately excluded all democratic bodies and thus the citizens of Europe, too. From that point of view, this issue will have had the benefit of highlighting the European Parliament’s crucial role in defending citizens’ interests.

However, it is important to note that, although it gave the wrong answers, ACTA asked the right questions. On the one hand, we now need to work on reforming EU laws to combat this scourge of counterfeiting, which harms consumers, the economy and job creation. On the other hand, we need to update the legislation on intellectual property.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a new international agreement aimed at establishing a general international framework to combat counterfeiting and piracy. The problems that the ACTA seeks to tackle are real and growing, and have resulted in high costs for European companies and the destruction of many jobs in Europe. Nevertheless, the text of the agreement has unwanted consequences and the rapporteur concludes that the text is not sufficiently precise with regard to individual criminalisation, to the definition of ‘commercial-scale’, to the role of Internet service providers or to the possible interruption of the transit of generic medicines. Furthermore, if the ACTA aims to combat piracy and counterfeiting, its negotiations should include countries like India, China and Brazil, where the most serious breaches of intellectual property rights occur. This means the intended benefits of the ACTA are clearly outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. I voted against the ACTA for the aforementioned reasons and because Parliament cannot ensure adequate protection for the rights of European citizens.

  Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) We, the Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament, chose to abstain with regard to the ACTA. We recognise the need to protect copyright and to combat piracy, but we could not support the ACTA in its current form. For one thing, there are a number of unclear and imprecise elements in the agreement, for example how enforcement will work in practice, particularly in relation to the Internet. For another, the agreement will entail significant legal amendments for many EU Member States and therefore for a large number of European citizens. Moreover, the lack of involvement of Parliament in the preparation of the agreement itself means that we have not had the opportunity to table amendments. We therefore believe that ACTA, in its current form, is not a usable tool.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America. The EU is firmly committed in the fight against counterfeiting and has one of the must up-to-date legislations, fully in line with the specific international agreements in the area of protection of intellectual property and copyright in the information society. However, the ACTA text contains provisions which may lead to interpretations possibly resulting in the violation of some of European citizens’ fundamental rights. This is why we cannot vote for ACTA in its current form. Rejecting ACTA does not signify that the EU is weakening in its commitment either to protecting intellectual property or to combating counterfeiting. In rejecting ACTA, Parliament is stressing that any possible future global anti-counterfeiting agreement signed by the EU must guarantee respect for European citizens’ fundamental rights. We hope that, if the Commission is going to table in the future a new text for such an agreement, Parliament will be consulted prior to signing the agreement, and that the final text will also include the amendment proposals tabled by Parliament.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − I voted against ACTA because I am not comfortable with all the possibilities that this treaty opens up. Particularly concerning the fundamental rights of Internet users, I think that ACTA was too ambiguous in this regard. While awaiting the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, I am also concerned on how ACTA would fit into the multilateral framework of the WTO.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I abstained in the vote, as I would have liked to have heard and discussed further the response from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The whole way of working on the part of all sides needs to be discussed – polemics and false information have demolished the subject and, regrettably, not solved the problem. In our continued discussions of this matter, counterfeiting and intellectual property ought to be dealt with in two separate procedures. However, the question then arises as to whether individual global agreements are possible to achieve. Within the EU, we have to continue to discuss copyright, the Internet, fees such as those imposed by GEMA and free access and to find a viable approach to the problem. It reminds me very much of the rejected software patents, which at the time I voted against.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report, which recommended to reject the ACTA treaty due to its vague nature and the fact that it was open to misinterpretation.

Negotiations on the ACTA have been carried out without full disclosure and the European Commission should have updated Parliament on the ongoing negotiations, in accordance with previous Parliamentary resolutions. EU citizens and civil society have expressed serious concerns about the ACTA and, although I firmly believe that Intellectual Property Right infringement must be tackled at an international level, I cannot agree with this treaty as it stands. The ACTA was intended to bring numerous benefits and curb piracy; however, these benefits are outweighed by the potential threats to online freedoms. Other measures must now be looked at to protect Intellectual Property Rights.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament gave in and rejected the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which has been much discussed by the general public. Although we should welcome the fact that European citizens participated in the debate, it is unfortunate that the discussions were polluted by the spread of incorrect information. To clear up any misunderstandings and confirm the legality of this long-negotiated Agreement, I voted to postpone the vote in the belief that we should wait for the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Some political forces felt the need to bypass this procedure, which would, however, have enabled us to continue the debate on a sound basis. Intellectual property has always been protected by States and must now be protected at international level in a context of globalisation and digital data sharing. This is essential if we want to prevent the destruction of some 100 000 jobs and put an end to the EUR 250 billion dead loss generated by counterfeiting. That is why I supported this Agreement; the situation warranted a strong, coordinated reaction. A calmer, fairer debate would obviously have been preferable. I look forward to the Court’s decision and call on the Commission to take the necessary steps to initiate new negotiations.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − ACTA is a plurilateral agreement negotiated between the EU, the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland aiming at preventing trade in counterfeit physical and digital goods by enforcing IPR.

Opposition to ACTA: - few positive effects because the countries in most counterfeit goods originate (China) are not a party; - goes beyond EU acquis and breaks the balance between IPR protection and fundamental rights such as right to information and education, freedom of expression, rights accessible healthcare, protection of privacy and data protection, etc. To that end, the agreement introduces the possibility for states to introduce laws forcing ISPs to disclose information about subscribers with a simple allegation by a right-holder for such disclosure. Moreover, the agreement introduces criminal sanctions for ‘commercial scale’ infringements and this without a proper definition of the term ‘commercial’. The agreement could also compromise the export of generic medicines to poorer countries.

INTA, which led Parliament’s scrutiny of ACTA, and 4 other committees (Civil Liberties, Industry, Legal Affairs and Development) recommended that Parliament should reject the agreement. Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EP should give its consent to international agreements.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I abstained in the vote on the ACTA because I am in favour of further discussion following the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The motion put forward by my group to postpone the vote would have been the right step to take. Once the Court of Justice of the European Union had issued its ruling, justified concerns could have been dispelled by means of subsequent negotiations – for example, concerning wordings that allegedly entail monitoring of the Internet. Unfortunately, my fellow Members in the other groups seem to be unaware of the consequences of their decision, as there is considerably more to the ACTA. I would like to bring up another point that is also important for the region where I live on the border between Saxony and the Czech Republic and Saxony and Poland: counterfeiting. Customs in the Free State of Saxony recorded a dramatic rise in product piracy in 2011 – in the last year more than a million counterfeit products such as sports clothing, electronic items and technology were seized by customs officers, with a value of EUR 9.1 million. The economic losses have tripled within a year. This is an area in which we could and should act. The blanket rejection of the ACTA will jeopardise not only jobs, but also the safety of consumers in Saxony.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The ACTA is a highly controversial international agreement. The objections against this agreement, which we have been hearing for some months, are based solely on concerns about attempts to introduce Internet censorship. Concerns about the agreement are motivated primarily by fears that there is a risk of ‘filtering’ freedom and democracy on line. It is worth noting that, on the one hand, the ACTA is meant to protect intellectual property rights while, on the other, this agreement would severely restrict freedom on the Internet. For this reason, I decided to vote against in today’s vote.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The EU loses hundreds of billions of euro every year as a result of the counterfeiting of various types of goods. The ACTA should enable more effective protection. Thanks in part to the interest of citizens, however, certain doubts have arisen about some of the instruments and procedures used in the protection of intellectual property. I am pleased that the Commission has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg to interpret whether the provisions of this Agreement are in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. That is to say, no economic interest should be elevated above basic human rights. In the Group of the European People’s Party, we have adopted a recommendation to abstain from voting in the sitting: most of us firmly believe that Parliament should wait for the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The ACTA agreement is another attempt to introduce surveillance over European society, to gag people and to reduce freedom. I do not agree with the clauses it contains. I believe that they are an attempt to regulate our everyday lives that goes much too far. In Article 27.4, the ACTA imposes on Internet providers the obligation to block the accounts of persons breaching the provisions of the agreement and to hand over details of these persons to the police. Similar provisions appear in Article 23.1, where the term ‘commercial’, which has not been defined earlier, is used. We cannot allow such a wide-ranging agreement that restricts people’s rights to such a great extent to come into force. Similarly, I disagree with the argument concerning combating counterfeit goods. The main sources of these today are China, India and Pakistan. The irony is that these countries have not subscribed to the ACTA. For this reason, I voted today in favour of Internet freedom, I voted to uphold the freedom of speech of European citizens and I voted against the ACTA. Five parliamentary committees came to unfavourable conclusions about the agreement and today this overwhelming majority against it is not just a confirmation of those earlier decisions but also marks the total failure of the agreement.

Report: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (A7-0163/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it is another alignment proposal, specifically to adapt matters relating to direct payments to the new Member States that have joined the EU since 2004. These Member States had permission to give complementary aid in addition to EU direct payments and that will cease to be possible from 2013. It is important that this proposal come into force on 1 January 2013.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. This report lays down the provisions for 2013 and covers the ‘gap’ in legislation while we wait for the CAP. I welcome this as a positive first step, which I hope will set a precedent for a smooth transition to the reformed payment scheme.

In Ireland, our farming industry and rural communities, as well as being fundamental to our society, are some of our greatest assets. They have already seen their share of crises and we must ensure that the reformed CAP looks after these areas, ensuring nobody is left out in the cold.

I am particularly pleased to see the special provisions put in place to ensure there is no drop in funds as a result of the end of voluntary modulation. This method of manageable, step-by-step transition should be at the heart of the CAP reform.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 4 July, the European Parliament amended slightly the Commission proposal on the application of the direct payment system for the year 2013, which falls under the 2014-2020 financial framework currently being negotiated. The long-term goal is to reduce inequalities in direct payments to farmers in different parts of the European Union. However, as emphasised by Michel Dantin, an expert on the common agricultural policy, in some Member States ‘rapid reduction of support would lead to closure of farms’. We therefore need a balanced approach that takes the new EU Member States into account while safeguarding the agricultural sectors of other countries.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) With the current delay in discussing and finalising the CAP budget under the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and conflicts regarding reform of the CAP, farmers need some assurance about direct payments for year 2013. As year 2013 accounts will come under the 2014 financial year and, therefore, under the new MFF, there was always a risk of delay; I welcome, however, what the Commission is doing to ensure continuity of payments to farmers for year 2013. Under the Commission’s proposal, the reduced level of direct payments for year 2013 would be set at the level that applies to compulsory modulation for year 2012. The Commission’s proposal sets out the maximum amount of direct payments which each Member State is permitted to distribute in 2013. By and large, the 2013 net ceilings are to be carried forward, with some adjustments for the effects of phasing-in and voluntary modulation. I welcome the recommendations of the rapporteur for continuing in year 2013 with the existing financial structure to ensure continuity in the level of payments.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The main purpose of the proposal is to set net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013 by establishing an adjustment mechanism similar to modulation, so as to ensure continuity in payment levels, while taking into account the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States and the cessation of voluntary modulation.

I welcome the Commission’s decision not to apply adjustments to Bulgaria and Romania as it is well known that in these Member States direct payments are still not phased in.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation on direct payments to farmers. This proposal relates to the year 2013, which falls under the next multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020, and the amount of rural development aid to be retained. Its main objective is to set net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013 by establishing an adjustment mechanism similar to modulation so as to ensure continuity in payment levels while taking into account the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States and the cessation of voluntary modulation. It is therefore important to maintain the amount of direct support in 2013 and beyond on a level similar to that of 2012 and to establish a transitional mechanism for 2013 in order to avoid market distortions created due to different manners of implementing recent reforms of the common agricultural policy in different Member States.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which proposes extending certain financial provisions of the Regulation on direct payments to the end of 2013. In my opinion, it is important to ensure continuity in payment levels pending the implementation of the revised common agricultural policy from 2014. I welcome the idea of creating a reserve fund to address financing needs in the event of an agricultural crisis.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Direct Payments Regulation is in force until the end of 2013. However, some of the financial measures provided for therein expire before then. For the sake of consistency, this report amends the Regulation, extending these measures until the end of the financial year 2013. I welcome the fact that Parliament has adopted this report by an overwhelming majority.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 contains certain financial provisions that expire in 2012, although its policies continue to apply afterwards. The application of direct payments to farmers is an important part of this legislation. I therefore approve of this proposal to deal with the financial provisions for the 2013 transitional period and to ensure the consistency of direct payment to farmers.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) Although we are still fighting to abolish the EU’s agricultural aid, we voted in favour of the report on direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013, as the reform of the EU’s agricultural policy by 2020 will necessitate transitional arrangements. This must not be seen as a general expression of support for the common agricultural policy’s goals and means, however.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Following long discussions and negotiations concerning payments to farmers, it is encouraging to see a series of compromise solutions that allow continued direct support for farmers. I am however sorry about the failure so far to reach an agreement on achieving equality in the amounts of payments in different European Union countries. Existing discrepancies in direct payments could become even wider in the new financial perspective after 2013.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Parliament must therefore strive also to be on an equal footing when it comes to delegated and implementing acts. Both Parliament and the Council must have the option of lodging objections against such proposals.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘direct payments to farmers’, because I consider it positive that the proposal sets net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013, so as to ensure continuity in payment levels while taking into account the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States and the cessation of voluntary modulation.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) From 2014, new systems of support for farmers will be applied, as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy 2014-2020. This report concerns a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013, the last year during which the present system will apply. This proposal is intended to set net ceilings for direct payments for 2013, which must take into account the obligatory modulation applied in 2012. Furthermore, some financial measures only run until the end of 2012 and the calendar year 2013 corresponds to the financial year 2014. Direct payments to farmers must be made by 31 October each year. However, the budget allocated to rural development was frozen and the deadlock needed to be broken on this, since the sector is in crisis and faces a lack of Member State support. I voted for this report and I welcome its adoption because, without this compromise, some farmers would receive around 20% less.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report lays down rules for the current system of direct payments to farmers for 2013, since certain financial measures are restricted to 2012. On the other hand, the next common agricultural policy, reform of which for 2014-2020 is currently being discussed, only comes into force in January 2014. That means there is a need for additional legislation providing for direct payments during this hiatus. This proposal sets net ceilings for direct payments by means of an adjustment mechanism similar to the obligatory modulation applied in 2012. Regardless of the technical basis of the proposal, we abstained because we disagree with the current system of direct payments. This system allocates support on the basis of historical values – with enormous inequalities between producers, products and countries – and without a production requirement. There is no change to the intensity of the modulation, now going by the name of adjustment: a 10% reduction has been set for amounts between EUR 5 000 and EUR 300 000, a 14% reduction for amounts in excess of EUR 300 000. We need a mechanism whose maximum value is well below that proposed. We need to support those who actually produce, linking direct payments to production and balancing out the current unfair distribution of aid.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Commission proposal for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the common agricultural policy (CAP). A common theme (in the inter-institutional debate and in the stakeholder consultations) that has emerged throughout this process is the need to promote resource efficiency with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for EU agriculture and rural areas in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, keeping the structure of the CAP around two pillars that use complementary instruments in pursuit of the same objectives. Pillar I covers direct payments and market measures providing a basic annual income support to EU farmers and support in case of specific market disturbances. Pillar II covers rural development where Member States draw up and cofinance multiannual programmes under a common framework, Direct payments should promote sustainable production by assigning 30% of their budgetary envelope to mandatory measures that are beneficial to climate and the environment. Rural development should be included in a Common Strategic Framework with other EU shared management funds. I also believe that it is appropriate to reinforce the financing of the CAP. This should be done using two instruments: 1) an emergency reserve to react to crisis situations, and 2) the extension of the scope of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy will be significant in economic terms and particularly in terms of the development of European agriculture and the protection of rural areas. Giving farmers the opportunity to receive direct payments for the transitional year 2013 as well is a very important decision. I voted in favour of Mr Capoulas Santos’s report, although the total removal of aid for tobacco arouses concern in the areas affected – such as the area I come from, Verona – where production activities are linked to this crop.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted against this document because I do not agree that the amount of direct payments due to be allocated to farmers in the calendar year 2013 should generally be reduced.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Regulation on direct payments to farmers will remain in force until the end of 2013. However, some of its financial provisions will expire before that date. This report aims to make the Regulation more coherent by amending it to extend the application of those financial provisions to the end of 2013. The European Parliament adopted this report by a large majority and I welcome that.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this very important report. I especially welcome that one of the amendments, tabled by my group, the EPP, ensures that a transitional mechanism is established for 2013 making the direct payments comply with Regulation No 73/2009, a framework of EU direct payments and complementary national direct payments to be applicable in the new Member States.

The latter has led to the consequence that, during the last years from 2009 until 2011, total receipts of direct payments for farmers in several new Member States in all farming sectors have reached the levels of direct payments received by farmers in the Member States applying the historical single payment scheme (SPS). To avoid market distortions created due to the different manner of implementation of recent CAP reforms in different Member States, it is necessary to provide the possibility to the new Member States to grant transitional national support in 2013, while direct payments will be introduced uniformly in all Member States. In order to provide a smooth transition from the current to the reformed and uniformly implemented direct payment system it is crucial to have a transitional mechanism for 2013.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The ongoing reform of CAP has established a stronger link between agriculture and the European market, while also providing producers with welcome support. However, this reform process has produced certain demands in terms of distributing the support better among Member States and within regions, and of targeting better the problems relating to the environment and the market’s high level of volatility. According to estimates, farmers’ incomes will continue to be squeezed, as they face up to rising production costs, a slowdown in the productivity growth rate and a slump in profits.

Given that a powerful agricultural sector is vital for food security and the European Union’s economy, I think that it is imperative to offer assistance providing a substantial income and to strengthen the existing instruments promoting better management in the event of a crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this resolution.

The current financial discipline provision requires all farmers’ direct payments to be scaled back if the Pillar I budget minus a EUR 300 million margin is forecast to be exceeded. In the current financial perspective, the purpose of the margin is to provide for a ‘safety net’ in case of any unforeseen need for additional financing.

In its proposals for the multiannual financial framework and the CAP for 2014-2020, the Commission is proposing to make use of a new crisis reserve to address additional financing needs resulting from an unexpected agricultural crisis. In line with these proposals, the draft regulation removes the EUR 300 million margin for the financial year 2014.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − After trilogue negotiations, Council and EP have reached a first reading agreement on this report. It's one of the reports included in the CAP reform package and the first to be adopted. This "transitional" proposal has been set up to deal with financial provisions for 2013 concerning Member States that joined the Union after 2004. Indeed, the new Member States were allowed to grant complementary national direct payments as a consequence of the phasing-in of direct payments in those Member States. Such possibility will no longer be available in 2013. For that reason, and in order to avoid a sudden and substantial decrease of support in 2013 in those sectors benefiting until 2012 from complementary national direct payments it is appropriate to provide in those Member States for the possibility to grant, subject to authorisation by the Commission, transitional national aids to farmers in 2013. In order to ensure the continuity of the level of support to farmers in 2013, this piece of legislation must enter into force by 1 January 2013. We have been fighting for these amendments for a long time. I am totally unsatisfied with the decision but as a compromise it is a step forward. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) This proposal is intended to establish the financial provisions for the transitional year 2013 and thereby set net ceilings for the direct payments for the 2013 calendar year. This will ensure continuity of payments during the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States and the cessation of voluntary modulation. As the special situation of the outermost regions has been taken into account, which is, of course, extremely important for Austrian farmers in mountainous regions, there is nothing preventing me from voting in favour of this proposal. At the same time, it should be mentioned once again that we are not going to achieve the desired results by, on the one hand, making available funds for rural development while, on the other, depleting rural areas of their infrastructure (schools, post offices and so on).

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (BG) I voted for the report on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013 because it marks a step forward towards achieving the main objective in the EU agricultural sector, which is a flexible, fair and competitive common agricultural policy. I think that Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 needs to continue to provide the basis for supporting farmers’ incomes in the calendar year 2013 in view of the new support schemes which will apply from 1 January 2014. This helps strengthen agricultural policy in the EU, ensure continuity in direct payment levels, while also providing a smooth transition from the currently applied direct payment system to the reformed and uniformly implemented direct payment system. Although this is a technical report which does not concern every Member State, I think that its importance lies particularly in the fact that we managed to defend the interests of some of the smallest and newest Member States. I also hope that compromise, equality and fairness are the main features of the other reports on CAP reform, just as in this report.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) As we also stated during yesterday’s sitting , the proposal for a regulation provides the legal framework required at the moment, and the regulations put forward for Bulgaria and Romania are fair. We will shortly be debating the reports from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and every topic will be dealt with at the appropriate time. However, I would like to stress that it will be important for us to examine together how we can create a fair direct payments system, for instance, how we will ensure that Romania and Bulgaria, which are still having direct payments phased in, are able to achieve this already from 2014.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) In order to ensure continuity of payments during the phasing-in of the direct payments in the new Member States, this report establishes the financial provisions for the transitional year 2013 and thereby sets the net ceilings for the direct payments for the 2013 calendar year. It is important for me, as an Austrian, that the special situation of the high-altitude alpine area, as outermost regions, is sufficiently taken into account. This is the case, and therefore I have nothing against the report.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported this regulation, which enables EU Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 the opportunity to increase direct agricultural support voluntarily. The raising of the net ceiling offers Member States that acceded to the EU later a voluntary opportunity to improve the competitiveness of their agricultural sector. What is most important, however, is the harmonisation of direct agricultural support within the EU, that is, the ending of discrimination against agricultural producers from Central and Eastern Europe. The harmonisation of direct support is not within the sphere of competence of the above-mentioned regulation, but this is nonetheless a positive step which will give new Member States the opportunity to reduce the great disparity with Western European producers by equalising conditions for agricultural producers.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I am opposed to this resolution. I believe that setting net ceilings for direct payments will have negative consequences. Above all, farmers will be allocated lower payments. As a result of the current economic crisis and its negative impact, farmers will be at serious risk. Their competitive power, productivity and efficiency will decline. Ultimately, this will have a negative impact on end consumers.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) This report is particularly important for farmers in new EU Member States, including Lithuania, because it provides for direct payment conditions for the 2013 transitional period. The new EU Member States are given the opportunity to be admitted to the framework of complementary direct payments, under which their farmers could receive payments that are up to 20% higher. This will encourage greater European integration because currently the size of payments to farmers in some Member States is several times greater than in others. This is wrong given that the costs of farming are similar across the EU. I voted in favour of this report because it is a good example of a compromise achieved through difficult negotiations. It offers hope that in other difficult negotiations on the financial perspective 2014-2020 of agriculture policy it will be possible to achieve greater justice in the area of direct payments for all farmers in EU Member States. This is particularly relevant for farmers in the three Baltic States because the payments they currently receive are the lowest in the EU.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the content of this document. I therefore voted for this European Parliament legislative resolution, of 4 July 2012, on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In view of the need to avoid market distortions due to the different ways the recent common agricultural policy (CAP) reforms are implemented in different Member States, we need to give the new Member States the possibility of granting transitional national support in 2013 while direct payments will be introduced uniformly in all Member States. In order set net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013, so as to ensure continuity in payment levels while taking into account the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States and the cessation of voluntary modulation, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 lays down rules for the current system of direct payments to farmers. That Regulation is expected to be superseded by the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform proposals for 2014-2020, which are due to apply as from 1 January 2014. The main purpose of the proposal is to set net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013 by establishing an adjustment mechanism similar to modulation, so as to ensure continuity in payment levels while taking into account the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States and the cessation of voluntary modulation. In addition, in its proposals for the multiannual financial framework and the CAP 2014-2020, the Commission suggests making use of a new crisis reserve to address additional financing needs resulting from an unexpected agricultural crisis. I voted in favour of this report for all the above reasons.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in plenary we adopted Mr Capoulas Santos’s report on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013, which aims to rebalance national envelopes between ‘old’ Member States and those that have more recently joined the EU. For the former, the level of adjustment in 2013 would be equal to 0% for amounts between EUR 5 000 and EUR 300 000 and to 4% for amounts over EUR 300 000, whereas for the latter it would remain equal to the level of compulsory modulation in 2012, which is currently fixed at 10% for amounts between EUR 5 000 and EUR 300 000 and 14% for amounts over EUR 300 000. The draft changes the total amount of direct payments each Member State can grant in 2013: for EU-15 Member States, barring some exceptions, the value of the net ceiling in 2013 would be equal to the value of the net ceiling in 2012, adapted in order to take into account the estimates on grubbing-up in 2012; for EU-10 Member States, the value of the net ceiling in 2013 is adjusted to the amounts committed for financing the specific support.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Capoulas report on the regulation on direct payments after 2013. The regulation is intended to set net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013 by establishing an adjustment mechanism similar to modulation. No adjustments are provided for Bulgaria and Romania since, in these Member States, direct payments are still not fully phased in. Unfortunately, the transition process for direct payments in Romania is due to end in 2016, which automatically means that our country will receive direct payments below the European average and after the reform of the common agricultural policy. I hope that the deadline by which Romania and Bulgaria receive 100% direct payments can be brought forward to be able to ensure that they are fairly allocated among Member States.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Rules in force for the system of direct payments to farmers are expected to be superseded by the future common agricultural policy (CAP) reform proposals for 2014-2020. This proposal deals with the financial provisions for the 2013 transitional period. The main purpose of the proposal is to set net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013 by establishing an adjustment mechanism similar to modulation. We must ensure continuity in payment levels while taking into account the phasing-in of direct payments in the new Member States and the cessation of voluntary modulation. During the first and only trilogue, the Council accepted the position that, together with our colleagues, we wanted to put forward as Parliament. The Council asked for a new article on the legal basis to be added, which was approved by Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs. I believe that the rules laid down for direct payments for 2013 effectively fill a gap, and that is why I voted favour. This period will prepare farmers for the new CAP rules after 2014.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Ensuring continuity in direct payments between the current common agricultural policy (CAP) and the revised CAP is vital, and this was achieved, inter alia, as a result of the huge efforts of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. For the 2013 transitional year, we have introduced special provisions for specific cases, including for the new Member States, and the payments will therefore also be guaranteed. Farmers will thus receive their payments in good time, which is a relief.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 lays down rules for the current system of direct payments to farmers, which are to be replaced in 2014-2020 by other proposals in the reform of the common agricultural policy. The main strategic purpose of this regulation is to set net ceilings for direct payments for the calendar year 2013 by establishing an adjustment mechanism similar to modulation. I agree with the rapporteur that it is important to ensure continuity of funding for the commitments in rural-development expenditure for the financial year 2014 and to ensure that the amount of direct payments in the calendar year 2013 is maintained at a similar level to that of 2012. Farming is a key pillar of development in Europe’s regions, so I think it is essential to strengthen rural-development policy in certain Member States.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − As the negotiation of the future of the CAP is ongoing, and a lot of changes are expected, I think it is important to give a strong message to the beneficiaries of direct payments. It is important that we are coherent and consistent in defending what we had agreed upon.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − This report focuses on the successive reforms of the CAP which have increased market orientation for agriculture while providing income support to producers, so that now the same reform process has raised demands for a better distribution of support among and within Member States, as well as calls for a better targeting of measures aiming at addressing environmental challenges and better addressing increased market volatility.

As for young farmers this report suggests that Member States should stick to the 25% increase in the direct payments that the Commission is proposing but the rapporteur is also suggesting that there should be a limit on this increase of 50ha for all EU farmers, with which I agree and therefore I supported this report with my vote.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The rules in force for the system of direct payments to farmers are expected to be superseded by the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform proposals for 2014-2020. Mr Capoulas Santos’s report, for which I voted, concerns the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 73 of 2009 on the level of reductions to be applied to farmers’ direct payments in 2013, rebalancing both the natural envelopes between old Member States and those that have more recently joined the EU.

Report: Giovanni La Via (A7-0215/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. It should be remembered that the EU budget is playing a key role in helping the EU to recover from the current economic crisis. This same budget should be focused on supporting the promotion of competitiveness, growth and jobs, particularly by supporting young people and small and medium-sized enterprises. With the suggestions by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament adopted, the budget is no longer built around ideas of austerity: despite everything, it is always possible to go further.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on 2013 budget - mandate for trilogue. The Commission and the EU Council must ensure that inter-institutional cooperation is fruitful because, without a common starting base, it will not be possible to have a joint vision on the real needs. The European Parliament must lead the fight for payments because funds are needed for commitments made over the last years and no one can ignore that today, with a level of outstanding commitments amounting to EUR 207 billion, there are still many bills to be paid. In particular, the need for payments focuses on those sections that are more related to development and economic growth and this is why it is important to conduct this battle. It is important to stress that the EU budget for the year 2013 is the last one of the current financial framework. For this reason, an increase in the level of due payments at the end of the programming period is expected. That is why it will be even more important to avoid a dangerous shift of payments from 2012 to 2013.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This week I called on the governments to negotiate the 2013 budget in a responsible manner. We gave Parliament’s negotiating team, led by the rapporteur, Giovanni La Via, a fellow member of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), a mandate to prevent an impasse in the budget negotiations with the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. The Commission’s attitude is very questionable and our spokesperson should have all our support to lead the charge: ‘budget cuts in one programme to benefit another, a freeze in real terms in commitment appropriations, the European Commission’s strategy is unacceptable’, said the rapporteur.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report. It is important for investment to be concentrated on the priority areas set by Europe 2020, taking into account challenging economic circumstances and the burden on national budgets. I welcome the proposal to increase payments by 6.8% in order to boost economic growth and job creation in the EU, as well as the proposal to increase commitments by 2% by limiting the current rate of inflation. I welcome the increase in payments for Framework Programmes for Research, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, Structural and Cohesion Funds, as well as the Lifelong Learning Programme. I believe that resources must be concentrated on areas where the EU budget delivers added value, and reduced in areas which are experiencing delays and low absorption. I welcome the calls for the Commission to present its amending budget proposal on the corresponding additional appropriations as soon as the Act of Accession has been ratified by all Member States.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The parliamentary mandate for the first negotiation on the 2013 budget was approved in plenary with an overwhelming majority, and I, too, supported it. Under the mandate given to the EP negotiating delegation, the European Commission’s proposal to increase payment levels by 6.8% compared to 2012 is viewed as the first positive step towards realistic and responsible budgetary planning. The 2013 budget can only be successful if it makes a meaningful and effective contribution to solving Europe’s problems. An essential aspect of this is the reduction of unemployment and the increase of production, for which the best means that have proven to be effective are cohesion programmes under the EU budget.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the La Via report on the mandate for Parliament’s team negotiating next year’s budget. While the European Council has just reached agreement on a growth pact, we need to retain the means of implementing that pact; otherwise, the approach would be incoherent. More than that, I believe that it is high time for the States to commit to increasing the European budget above 1.24% of European GDP as we have the opportunity do so, thereby enabling us to finance a real growth and investment pact. However, we are still far from that because once again this year we are getting into a power struggle with the Council at the risk of blocking the budgetary procedure. I supported the amendments by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance on ITER – I oppose additional funding for this project – and I believe that it is time to diversify research spending in order to concentrate on something other than nuclear power (be it fusion or fission). We talk about more than EUR 1 billion extra for ITER, but that is no small amount.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because Europe is faced with a severe economic, financial and budget crisis, and because all measures need to be taken to use the EU budget in the most efficient way possible with a view to economic recovery. One of the most challenging tasks in the current difficult situation is to encourage growth and create jobs, in particular for young people. The collection of VAT and customs duties directly affects both the economies of the Member States and the European Union budget. Financial responsibility is therefore of the utmost importance, particularly in a period of crisis. Furthermore, in order to allow the European Union to play an active role in world markets, sufficient funds need to be provided in the European Union budget. The Union’s budget should therefore take into account the priorities defined for the common commercial policy as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. The EU and the Member States must take seriously their partnership with developing countries. The question of outstanding commitments should be dealt with thoroughly in the 2013 budget and in the negotiations on the next multi-annual financial framework in order to ensure that the budget is implemented as efficiently and effectively as possible. Different types of income also have different adverse effects, and the possibility of covering the costs of revenue collection from other sources of income should also be considered.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget. As Members of the European Parliament, we believe that the EU budget is a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is essential to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States. We therefore strongly defend an adequate level of resources for the budgets for the years ahead, especially for policies delivering growth and employment. Moreover, we stress that the EU budget should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level. We must concentrate on promoting growth, competitiveness and employment, particularly for SMEs and young people.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution, which sets out the European Parliament’s budgetary priorities with a view to preparing the European Union’s budget for 2013. This resolution forms part of the budgetary procedure, in which Parliament is involved. It is important for Parliament to speak with one voice, in the knowledge that the discussions with the Council are likely to be difficult. I am pleased with the budgetary priorities that have been adopted, focusing on growth, competitiveness and employment.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, for which I voted, concerns starting the second stage of the budget and sets out Parliament’s position. The main objective for the 2013 budget is to advocate an adequate level of own resources that enables the EU to meet commitments made in previous years and, at the same time, continued investment to support the competitiveness of European companies at a time of severe economic crisis.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the ‘mandate for the trilogue’ because it sets out a balanced approach and rejects ‘austerity’ as a sole methodology. The report includes measures to encourage new investments to implement the Europe 2020 strategy, particularly by means of programmes fostering growth, combating youth unemployment, making strategic investments in the internal market and in infrastructure.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The fact that the EU is currently experiencing a deep crisis and seeking a stable and consistent way of articulating its economic and financial life is bound to be reflected in the budgets it implements. It is advisable to consider fund choices and moderation of expenditure, in such a way that does not jeopardise the ‘health’ of its public accounts, whilst not calling into question the sustained continuation of EU activity and the stimuli that it gives to growth. This consolidation should be planned in a smart way and should seek to cut spending in a way that is not just not blind but is well aware of realities and specific needs, and that does not jeopardise commitments made to outside partners. What would appear, at first glance, to be squaring the circle must not simply be tried but must be successful. An EU with consolidated and balanced accounts will be more capable of tackling the challenges of the future and will send the right signal to the Member States and the markets.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union budget that we propose for 2013 has been increased by 6.8% in comparison to 2012 regarding expenditure, reaching almost EUR 138 billion. I hope that this increase will be enough to deal with the commitments taken on by the EU, where I highlight the investments that each Member State is making, in particular regarding cohesion policy. It should be remembered that the Structural Funds resources for the current multiannual financial framework 2007-2013 are already working at full capacity and we are expecting significant implementation next year. I recall that, at the end of 2011, the Commission was unable to reimburse some EUR 11 billion, corresponding to legitimate payment claims because of the insufficient level of payment appropriations. This occurred because of the Council which uncompromisingly acted against its own interests. Finally, I would congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work. Like him, I advocate the promotion of growth and jobs, support for small and medium-size enterprises and young people, and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as priorities for the 2013 budget.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report makes the myth that is ‘the promotion of growth and jobs’ its central priority, in line with the so-called ‘Europe 2020 strategy’, the results of which are plain to see: low rates of economic growth, historic levels of unemployment, precarious and poorly paid jobs, and increased poverty and consequently social exclusion. I repeat: the EU budget gives no response to the need for economic and social cohesion; that is, it fails to make people and the serious problems they face central to its concerns, and offers even less response to the veritable economic and social disaster we face.

This report does the complete opposite. It states that ‘the EU budget has had a real economic impact and has thus far successfully complemented Member States’ recovery policies’. It would be hard to be more out of step with reality. It also says that the EU budget ‘should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level’. It would be hard to be more faithful to the rhetoric of the German directorate. It also says that we need to be ‘making savings on lines where problems have arisen in implementation’. Dangerously, this avoids the reasons why many headings are under-implemented. It also has many other negative aspects, such as those relating to the deepening of the internal market. Those are reason enough for us to vote against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In April 2012, the European Commission presented the draft EU budget for 2013. Subsequently, on 9 July 2012, a trilogue will be held on this topic with the Council and the Commission. The EU budget is an effective tool that plays an important role in the efforts of the Member States to overcome the current crisis. It is important to focus on three key areas: growth, employment and competitiveness. In this regard, I consider the fight against youth unemployment and support for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the driving force of the European economy, to be crucial. At the same time, we must focus financial resources on policies and programmes that are essential for achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. We must also focus on strategic investments in the internal market and on the EU’s priorities regarding its external relations. In order to prevent and combat crime effectively, we need adequate funds.

I am equally concerned by the very small increase in funding for the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme. I am aware of the continuing budget constraints at national level, but I consider crime prevention, the promotion and protection of fundamental civil rights, and the fight against discrimination to be such important issues that, in my opinion, a reduction in funding for these areas would be very dangerous!

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) With its ‘six-pack’, ‘two-pack’ and budget treaty, the Commission is seeking to impose on the Member States not only the reduction of their budgets, but also the way in which they use their taxpayers’ money, yet it makes sure that it does not have to lose anything itself. For next year, it is demanding a 7% increase in its own spending. Easy enough for the Commission: the money it spends comes from the coffers of the Member States and the pockets of European citizens. The European budget cannot be in deficit: if it ever were, the governments would have to pay for the incompetence of Brussels. What is this increase supposed to finance? The same old ineffective, damaging policies: a common agricultural policy that ruins farmers, pandering, disjointed Structural Funds, systematically under-used and not just because of the crisis, an active immigration policy in a Union that already has 25 million people out of work, a Lady Bountiful foreign policy, and so on. That Europe does not have any added value, and it is increasingly a handicap for the Member States.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour because the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is particularly needed at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States. Despite its limited size, not exceeding 2% of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact and has thus far successfully complemented Member States’ recovery policies. We should therefore defend an adequate level of resources for next year’s budget, as defined in the draft budget, and oppose any attempt to cut resources, especially for policies delivering growth and employment. In a period of crisis financial responsibility is of the utmost importance and resources must be concentrated on those areas where the EU budget can deliver added value, while they could be reduced in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays and low absorption, with a view to making savings on lines where problems have arisen in implementation.

  Kent Johansson, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) We have chosen to support this report, as we believe the proposed increase in the EU’s payments over the next year to be reasonable in relation to the EU’s existing commitments. To turn a blind eye to these and to the challenges that the Union is facing would be irresponsible. The habit of always carrying over the payments into the following year’s budget must be broken. At the same time, however, we also supported the amendment demanding that Parliament’s work be based at a single location, and the amendment calling for a thorough examination of the European added value in each investment that is made. This is particularly important at the current time when several countries are in economic crisis. We believe, however, that these times more than ever require initiatives from the EU, and that the EU must therefore be given sufficient funds to be able to meet its commitments. To instead choose, at EU level, to pull out of a difficult situation would not be the right way to go.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The mandate is the second stage of the budgetary procedure for the European Parliament. Mr La Via’s report outlines the main priorities and concerns of Parliament for the trilogue on the budget due to take place on 9 July 2012. This report strongly calls for an adequate level of budgetary resources to be made available for the years to come, particularly for policies to create growth and jobs. My fellow MEPs and I are calling most particularly for resources to be targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and young people. This report was adopted in Parliament in plenary by a large majority and I welcome this.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report and I am particularly happy about the fact that we have noted the proposal to increase appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument. It is absolutely imperative that we address the needs of countries facing major political and economic changes in our neighbourhood. I welcome the focus on the Eastern Partnership. I agree with colleagues that the Commission’s reporting on the application of the ‘more for more’ principle is somewhat insufficient. The EC should indeed develop clear criteria for how this policy is to be implemented.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The draft budget for 2013 presented by the Commission assumes a growth in commitment appropriations of 2% and a growth in payment appropriations of 6.8% compared to 2012. The increases in payments are concentrated in the areas of competitiveness and cohesion, which is right. However, funds remain inadequate, which may lead to the cancellation of billions in commitment appropriations, in particular in cohesion policy. According to current draft, the overall level of payments for the period 2007-13 would be around EUR 859 billion, which is EUR 66 billion less than it was in the multiannual financial framework ceilings. This cumulative lag in payments may also be illustrated by the fact that unpaid commitments amounting to EUR 207 billion were recorded at the end of 2011, and this figure may continue to grow substantially. With regard to commitment appropriations, the margin for 2013 is EUR 2.4 billion. I have supported the EP’s position.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am delighted at the adoption, by a large majority, of my report, because this sends out an important signal of cohesion in Parliament ahead of the forthcoming trilogue on 9 July. We have emphatically stressed the need for a real and concrete commitment on the part of the Council, another branch of the budgetary authority, through the appropriation of all the resources that will be necessary to see through the EU projects and actions approved in recent years and to invest in Europe’s growth and development. Our requests are in line with the statements recently made at the important summit held in Brussels on 28 to 29 June, in which the Heads of State or Government clearly showed that the solution to the crisis is more Europe and not less Europe. We would like to continue to work in this direction, calling on the Council, with the support of the Commission, not to freeze Europe but, on the contrary, to invest in it.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this Resolution as I do not feel any significant increase in the budget can be justified in the present financial crisis.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget as I fully agree with the priorities that the report identifies for the 2013 budget, in particular the focus on small and medium-sized enterprises and youth employment as drivers for boosting growth. However, I believe that in order to give force to the priorities identified and to enable Member States to benefit from European added value, a level of commitments above the 2% proposed by the draft budget is required. This increase merely corresponds to an adjustment to the level of inflation and does not account for growth needs at a clearly difficult time. That is why I also consider it essential that the Council does not compromise the force of the 2013 budget but, by means of an amending budget, covers payment needs, without shifting them to the 2013 budget, as was the case last year.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I supported this report which approved the negotiating mandate for the trilogue with the Council and European Commission on the 2013 EU budget. The EU Budget for the year 2013 is the last one of the current financial framework. For this reason, an increase in the level of payments due at the end of the programming period is expected. Europe requires a budget that is sufficient for meeting the real needs of European economic recovery. However, I support those who call for the Commission to budget "realistically", and ensure that the utmost be done to examine the European added value of all current EU programmes.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The EU budget has a key role to play as a leverage tool to help EU Member States to recover from the current economic and social crisis. The centre of priorities is the promotion of competitiveness, growth and jobs, especially in support of young people and small and medium sized enterprises. We need to concentrate resources in policies and programmes that are proven to be instrumental in achieving those objectives, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The report deals with the Commission’s annual general guidelines for the 2013 budget. The provision of appropriate funding is clearly very important, but where it is possible and necessary to make savings, these saving must actually be made. As a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I must, unfortunately, note that there are massive cuts to the Development Cooperation Instrument’s geographical programmes for Asia, Central Asia, Iraq, Iran and Yemen. In this area we should be continuing to enhance the results we are trying to achieve in terms of poverty alleviation, democracy and human rights, not weaken them. The next multiannual financial framework must be examined carefully in order to ensure that the budget is implemented as efficiently and effectively as possible. In addition, the European Court of Auditors found in 2010 that the outstanding commitments had increased by nearly 10 % to EUR 194 billion, representing nearly three years of spending at the current rate. I fundamentally believe that the EU budget should be capped. At a time of crisis, an increase is out of the question as far as I am concerned. For these reasons, I voted against this motion for a resolution.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 budget. In my view the right priorities have been identified, such as that of allocating the necessary resources and instruments to honour commitments, and so payments, already undertaken in previous agreements and which are now outstanding. This can certainly prove very beneficial for boosting the economy, and in particular for helping small and medium-sized enterprises, which are in dire need of these appropriations. The need to minimise EU bureaucratic and administrative expenditure was also emphasised, and in this sense the latest call for a single seat of the European Parliament should also be viewed positively. A moderate and responsible EU budget can help in a difficult situation such as the current one. It is, then, up to the recipients of funds to use them as best they can, and not to do as they unfortunately did all too often in the past. I am referring in particular to the southern regions of Italy, which have been chronically unable to absorb these funds, which often end up being embezzled, to the detriment of the EU, as in the recent case of Salerno-Reggio Calabria.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) It is very important for the 2013 budget to be realistic and for resources to be concentrated on areas where the EU budget can deliver added value. It is also very important for the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy to be implemented in a cost-efficient manner. The green economy is a crucial factor for ensuring the EU’s competitiveness and strength in future, and more resources should therefore be allocated to promoting it. Although it is faced with difficult economic conditions, the EU cannot freeze its budget because this would cause enormous damage not just to individual Member States, but the European Union as a whole. Such a strategy is neither acceptable nor justifiable. Given the severe austerity policies being implemented by the Member States, I believe that the EU must behave more responsibly and take decisive action, and above all should establish a single site for Parliament.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this European Parliament resolution of 4 July 2012, which sets the conditions for the mandate for the trilogue on the draft budget for the financial year 2013.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The mandate for this trilogue includes an evaluation of the draft budget adopted by the Commission on 25 April and sets out Parliament’s positions for the trilogue planned for 9 July 2012 and for the upcoming negotiations on the EU budget from 2013. The trilogue essentially focuses on competitiveness, growth and jobs, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises and for young people. There follows a list of the points that the rapporteur considers of specific interest for the trilogue. First, providing for a sufficient level of payment appropriations to cover the increasing needs of running projects. Second, tackling the problem of outstanding commitments. Third, providing for an amending budget for 2012, in order to cover past and current payment needs and avoid shifting 2012 payments to 2013 as was the case this year. Fourth, providing for a sufficient level of commitment appropriations, because times of crisis require more Europe. Fifth, setting out an interinstitutional meeting on payments. Sixth, financing ITER from the 2013 budget. Finally, resolving the discrepancy between financial programming and the draft budget 2013 in the case of Heading 4. I voted for this report because I agree with this approach.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mr La Via on his work. By adopting this report, having regard to the draft budget for the financial year 2013, which the Commission adopted on 25 April 2012 (SEC(2012)270), and Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Parliament calls for the budget to concentrate on growth and employment and for Parliament to have a single seat. In particular, the latter call is perfectly in line with the current austerity policies, as, in order to cut costs, the EU should show that it is responsible and take concrete and immediate measures to establish a single seat of Parliament. Lastly, Parliament calls on the governments of Member States with doubts about the Commission’s estimated expenditure to overcome them, in order to avoid sticking points during negotiations.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Concerning the volume of the budget proposal (+2% in commitments to a level of EUR 151 billion, + 6.8 % in payments to a level of EUR 138 billion) we believe that the proposed level of payments is necessary in order to pay for a large amount of outstanding commitments from previous years, especially for structural funds reimbursements to Member States.

These outstanding commitments – EUR 168 billion alone for structural funds – are due to the fact that the current structural funds programmes could only be launched with a delay resulting in under-execution of the EU budget and cumulated returns to Member States of EUR 11 billion during the last years.

The budget increase may look huge but this is in fact misleading, as the payments level are necessary to cover outstanding commitments from previous years. The proposed increase is even EUR 14 billion below estimated needs for reimbursements calculated by Member States’ administrations.

The commitments level is an indicator for new EU action and its level is clearly below inflation. So in fact, this budget amounts to a freeze compared to 2011. The proposed payments level will probably lead to certain delays in reimbursements to Member States.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today’s vote shows how Parliament wants, for 2013, the utmost commitment to boosting growth and how this should be done by tackling unemployment. All Member States with doubts about the Commission’s expenditure estimates need to ask for them to be explained, so as to avoid difficulties during negotiations. EUR 151 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 138 million in payment appropriations have formed a solid basis for taking effective action on the European economy, despite the crisis that is affecting the Member States and their budgets.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The mandate for the trilogue contains an assessment of the draft budget, adopted by the Commission on 25 April, and establishes Parliament’s position for the trilogue of 9 July and for the forthcoming negotiations on the EU budget, from autumn 2013. With a level of payment appropriations that has increased by 6.8% from compared with the 2012 budget, I believe that the draft budget is a positive step towards a realistic budget and a responsible financial year, but with room for improvement still required, particularly in the areas of cohesion and agriculture, to avoid a lack of funds in 2013. As regards commitments, there is still some concern about the fact that the proposed increase (+2%) would practically freeze commitments at EU level and about a forecast rate of inflation that would not allow EU priorities to be clearly identified.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report, whose main political message is that the EU budget needs to play an important role in getting us out of the current economic and social crisis, in promoting growth and in creating jobs. As far as cohesion policy is concerned, the problem of late payments that arose at the end of 2011 should be addressed by making adequate payment appropriations available in 2012, so that shortfalls do not get any worse in 2013, when application of cohesion policy programmes is expected to speed up. That is why the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council need to conduct an immediate analysis and evaluation of resources and needs, so as not to jeopardise the application of programmes in 2013. I also call on the Council and the Commission to carefully evaluate real payment needs under Heading 1b and not to make cuts that are unrealistic and unfounded and that conflict with the forecasts provided by the Member States, which are useful as a basis for preparing the draft budget. Otherwise, the European Parliament will have to oppose any possible reduction at payment appropriation level compared with those needs.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In anticipation of the trilogue with the Council and the Commission on the EU 2013 budget, we mandated, with this vote, our negotiation team. Normally, the Council should have decided a joint position, at least at a technical level, before working as three, on 9 July. However, I should like to make it perfectly clear that we are utterly scandalised by the Commission’s proposal to freeze in real terms its commitment appropriations in 2013, in order to solve the problem of spiralling outstanding commitments (RALs). Furthermore, the additional EUR 360 million set aside in the 2013 budget for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), without raising the multiannual financial framework (MFF) ceilings, is largely financed at the expense of the European research programmes under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). The Commission justifies these cuts on the grounds of the underperformance of these programmes.

  Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I did not support the vote to approve Parliament’s resolution on the 2013 EU Budget.

Although there were measures within the budget I did support, the overall budget’s net increase of 6.8% over the 2012 levels at a time when states all over the EU are imposing austerity measures is something I cannot condone.

I have previously voted to limit additional Member State contributions to the rate of inflation, and suggest a reappraisal of spending priorities for specific budget lines with any unspent money reallocated.

Such funds could also be used to meet extra commitments resulting from new post-Treaty of Lisbon measures. A favourite area for funding cuts is the billions of euros spent on the ITER nuclear fusion budget. I believe this selective approach to be a more appropriate method for directing spending in times of financial hardship, rather than approving across-the-board blanket percentage increases.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 2013 budget estimates expenditure of EUR 150.9317 billion in commitment appropriations, or 2% more than in the 2012 budget, and EUR 137.9244 billion in payment appropriations, which is 6.8% more than in the 2012 budget. On 14 March 2012, Parliament made the promotion of economic growth and jobs central to its priorities, and laid down that this should be in line with the implementation of the flagship initiatives and objectives enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy. I am voting for this report establishing the 2013 budget, since it steps up the activities of the Seventh Framework Programme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Progress Programme, thereby giving decisive support to companies’ efforts to become more globally competitive. However, I regret the reduced financial contribution to the ‘Youth on the Move’ flagship programme, which demonstrates that the Commission does not attach enough value to the various programmes made available to new generations.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the European Parliament Resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget. I voted against Amendments 3 and 19 which did not support the increases in the 2013 EU budget proposed by the Commission, amounting to EUR 150 931.7 million in commitment appropriations (CA) (+2% compared to the 2012 budget) and EUR 137 924.4 million in payment appropriations (PA) (+6.8% compared to 2012 budget). These increases amount to 1.13% and 1.03% respectively of the EU’s forecast gross national income for 2013, and the multiannual financial framework (MFF) provides for ceilings of EUR 152 502 million for CA and EUR 143 911 million for PA at current prices. I voted to include the payment appropriations of EUR 50 million for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), given the impact of the crisis during this period and to avoid transfers from other budget lines used for other purposes. I voted to ensure an adequate staffing level for the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and developing Fusion for Energy, so as to ensure the careful management and proper use of Europe’s contribution to the ITER project.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − I support this resolution. I think that it is of great importance to ensure that Parliament is heard during the drafting of the budget as it is the only elected institution involved. I particularly welcome the increase in spending for research and TEN-T, as well as the focus on SMEs and youth.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 4 July, Parliament adopted a position on the European Union 2013 budget. I clearly showed, with my vote, my desire to make a strong response appropriate to the crisis facing the continent. I believe that we must put at the heart of our concerns future investment in supporting future growth, a growth which some people have said was not a concern of ours. On 14 March, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) supported a resolution which referred to this need, and I fully supported it. We call for investment in sectors where there is potential for growth: we must support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as drivers of our economy, and we must introduce a youth policy to provide training for those players who will revitalise Europe in the future. If we want growth, we also have to support major up-and-coming projects such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Parliament, by reintegrating this project into the EU budget, will provide Europe with the strategic energy of the future, while guaranteeing democratic control. I therefore supported this optimistic and reasonable draft budget in order to boost our economy by concrete, smart measures and prepare for the future. It is now up to the Commission and the Council to rally to our position, given that in budgetary matters, Parliament has the last word.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report which I voted in favour of today concerns the opening of the second phase of the budgetary procedure and establishes Parliament’s position ahead of the forthcoming trilogue scheduled for July. The main objective of the 2013 budget is to defend an adequate level of resources making it possible to pay the commitments made in previous years and to guarantee, at the same time, continuity of investments to support the competitiveness of European businesses at a time of serious economic crisis.

Report: Marit Paulsen (A7-0216/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it stresses the need for a holistic approach to animal welfare. As such, the necessary connection between animal and public health should be made, the progress made with the measures just taken should be measured, legislation on zoo animals should be toughened up, and attention should be paid to quality criteria for imported animals.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), I am particularly interested in the report on the Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals. Animal welfare is closely linked to public health and related legislation must be fully implemented throughout the European Union, in particular to prevent the spread of animal-related diseases. I am particularly concerned about these issues as my report on the electronic tagging of cattle, currently under discussion, raises similar issues.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal on the new Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015, the implementation of which is based on experience gained, and legislation that is easy to understand and control. A high level of animal welfare is inseparable from sustainable development, and it is therefore not only important to achieve the goals set in the new strategy but to complete those in the 2006-2010 strategy by allocating additional funding. I believe that the new strategy should harmonise the guarantee of animal welfare at EU level and also contribute to improving animal and public health. It is important for due attention to be paid to animal welfare issues in trade policy and bilateral and international trade agreements. I believe that meeting the objectives of the new animal welfare strategy would help guarantee the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock sector in Europe.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) As a Member of the delegation of the Fidesz party to the European Parliament I, too, rejected the 2012–2015 animal welfare strategy at today’s European Parliament vote in Strasbourg. Compared to the European Commission Communication on which it is based, Parliament’s report contains more references to the introduction of new unnecessary mandatory animal welfare measures. These measures are contrary to farmers’ interests, because they result in additional costs and additional energy use, further deepening the competitive disadvantage of European producers to imports, and they are also unfavourable for consumers, because they cause food price increases.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the Commission Communication on the Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 is much needed, especially as it contains many aspects of Parliament’s Resolution of 5 May 2010. The state of health of wild animals is deteriorating, while their numbers in the majority of Member States are increasing. This could increase the spread of contagious diseases to domestic animals and, at the same time, have an adverse effect on public health. The complexity and differing interpretations of EU and national rules on animal welfare create legal uncertainty. This can put producers in certain Member States at a serious competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, with regard to the implementation of EU law, non-compliance with set requirements, and the absence of harmonised standards and interim targets approved by legislation distorts competition and it is impossible to guarantee a level playing field for all market participants. Animal health standards are of vital importance for developing livestock farming in Europe, and this has an ever-increasing impact on the competitiveness of agricultural holdings. In addition, rules on animal welfare must not be contrary to the principles of the EU single market. If we use this Communication on the Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 properly, we will be able to achieve a clear and uniform level of animal welfare throughout the European Union.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015, which provides for a two-prong approach: an extensive legislative proposal on animal welfare and consolidation of current actions. I think that the legislation being proposed should foster an innovative approach, focusing on specific results on animal welfare, as well as on the education and professional training of all stakeholders. With the aim of improving the communication of information, I believe that a coordinated network of European animal welfare centres could be a real success.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals. It prioritises better implementation, in the Member States, of current animal welfare legislation. The 1999 Welfare of Laying Hens Directive is not, for example, implemented uniformly in all Member States: that gives rise to distortions of competition between European producers. To counteract these negative effects, the 2011-2015 action plan aims to monitor the enforcement of current legislation and to link animal health more systematically to public health. If increased resources are given to the European Food and Veterinary Office, there could be more active control. Furthermore, major issues remain to be explored: legislation on animal transport, regulations on the identification of pet animals and the prohibition of illegal shelters.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Paulsen Report. I welcome the introduction of a European legal framework for animal welfare. First and foremost, I think it is important to apply existing legislation and ensure that third countries respect European standards. I note the need to have one single definition of ‘animal welfare’. I support the idea of creating a European network in order to exchange best practices ultimately to create a European strategy in this area.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. I think animal welfare constitutes a core element of sustainable development and is essential for protecting animal and human health. This proposal is essential to making the primary sector more productive and competitive. The new law lays down general conditions for creating a common and clear European network for coordinating animal welfare jointly. This will help to increase the competitiveness of the domestic market and of trade with third countries, and to increase the quality and safety of products.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − The welfare of animals is important for moral and economic reasons. There are problems within national laws regarding animal welfare as well as lack of compliance. A modern and scientific approach is needed, one which promotes animal health and sustainable development. For these reasons I support the Rapporteur's conclusions and therefore have voted in favour of the report.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. − (SV) I voted in favour of this report, as I think that animal protection is important. It goes without saying that we should treat our animals with respect. We should show consideration for producers and small businesses and not create additional red tape and administrative costs. Swedish producers must be able to compete on equal terms, and we need a common regulatory framework and high standards throughout Europe. It is important that we have clear common rules that do not mislead producers. This report is important because we need to reduce the use of antibiotics in our animal husbandry. In the United States, for example, more antibiotics are used on animals than on people. If we can provide tolerable conditions for our animals, we can also reduce the spread of infection and, in the long term, reduce our dependence on antibiotics. I hope that we will start to realise the seriousness of these issues in future, and I am therefore pleased that the report addresses the link between animal protection, the spread of infection and transmissible diseases. I am also pleased that the report emphasises the need for the implementation of existing legislation rather than the creation of new rules. Many countries have still not managed to introduce the rules that already exist, and this creates different conditions for competition on our single market.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on the Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals (2012-15), in response to the January 2012 European Commission Communication on this subject. In particular I welcome the calls on the EU and all Member States to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals and to give effect to its provisions through national legislation. The recent improvements in equine welfare at the Smithfield market in my Dublin constituency further emphasises how legislation for such provisions, and their subsequent enforcement by local authorities, can prove hugely beneficial. I look forward to further EU cooperation in this field.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that EU Member States must ensure that breaches of EU animal welfare rules are penalised in an effective and proportionate manner, and that each sanction is accompanied by ample information and guidance from the competent authorities, as well as by appropriate corrective measures.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals’ because it includes measures setting out conditions for a European Animal Welfare Network, particularly by implementing the link between animal health and public health, applying legislation on zoo animals, and new labelling rules to prevent abuses and inform consumers about agricultural methods that guarantee equal conditions for EU farmers.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We voted in favour of the alternative resolution on the protection and welfare of animals, as we support the petition for a maximum of eight hours for animal transport. However, we are opposed to the wordings in the alternative resolution, as well as in the report from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, that demand equivalent welfare standards for imported animals and products from third countries as for European products, and that conditions to this effect are laid down in future free trade agreements.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Animal welfare and the conditions in which they are treated, fed and transported deserve the fullest focus of EU policy. There is a direct link between animal health and human health, and it is therefore imperative that the former receive full health and welfare care so that this can be reflected in the healthiness of every European’s food. It is essential that, at the EU-policy level, agriculture and commerce be firmly linked so that the same level of animal health care can be required for animals from countries from which we import the meat we eat in the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Marit Paulsen concerns the EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. Although we are most concerned about people, we cannot forget how animals – domestic, wild or stray – are treated. We have all been taken aback by shocking images of the treatment of animals that we have been shown in person, via the media or online. Even animals destined for the slaughterhouse should be treated with the minimum suffering possible: it has long been said that cattle should not have to see the killing blow coming. We therefore need to update the legislation, which has been in force for 40 years: it needs to be simplified, on the one hand, and provided with new rules meeting the requirements of modern society and in line with the positions advocated by the World Organisation for Animal Health. I voted for this report because I think there is still much to do regarding animal protection and welfare, such as limiting the length of transportation for slaughter, stunning before death, transportation conditions, protecting certain species, and banning products originating from cloning and their derivatives.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) A high level of animal welfare is important, not just for protecting animal health, but also to ensure the protection of people and their health in particular. This report takes important steps in that area and its approach to this issue is fundamentally correct. We agree that the approach to the animal-welfare field should be based on sound scientific evidence and the best knowledge of science. We regret, however, that the final report did not include the draft amendments tabled by our group, particularly as regards rejecting the bringing to market of cloned or similar animals, which is a subject not touched on by this report. The same is true for the proposals relating to certain animal-transportation rules. We also regret the comments about the single market: the rapporteur thinks animal welfare too will have to be subject to its rules.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) A high level of animal welfare is very important. It is part of sustainable development and is significant in terms of the protection of animal health and public health and ensuring productivity and competitiveness. The existing national rules at and rules at EU level are too complex and, together with inadequate information and differing legal interpretations, create a state of legal uncertainty. The fact that there is still a severe lack of compliance regarding certain laws is dangerous. Standards that are not harmonised and the lack of legal arrangements distort competition and result in an uneven playing field. I firmly believe that it is necessary to act in accordance with the latest scientific knowledge and proven experience. The Commission did not, however, present any new legislative proposals in the strategy! Better enforcement of legislation is important, but without new rules, we will not improve animal welfare. The deterioration in the state of health of wild animals, whose numbers are increasing, could result in an increased spread of contagious diseases to domestic animals. Another negative seems to be the lack of a connection between animal health and public health. Equally striking is the fact that no financial support, which Parliament requested back in 2010, has been allocated to the strategy. I firmly believe that these shortcomings must be eliminated and this issue must be better and more coherently integrated into other EU policies.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Ms Paulsen’s own-initiative report is important and balanced. The fact that it was supported by a large majority of votes in plenary is significant. Just as significant is the fact that compliance with the principle of equivalence of standards will be safeguarded for imports of animals from third countries, with stricter related controls. The reference to abuse of the derogations for un-stunned slaughtering in the EU, as is often the case in slaughter according to religious rites, is vital.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this resolution which makes recommendations for improving animal welfare in Europe. Despite the fact that unfortunately it does not call clearly for a reduction in transport time, it does limit the duration of transport of live animals to eight hours as requested in a recent petition on this matter. Similarly, the text calls for the inclusion of animal welfare standards in trade agreements signed by the EU. Although this resolution is not perfect, it is a first encouraging sign which, I hope, will lead to a genuine proposal for a regulation from the Commission.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text because a high level of animal welfare plays an essential role in preserving public health and guaranteeing our productivity and competitiveness. The link between the well-being of animals and public health is clear, whether through our food or through mere contact. Good living conditions for all animals, including domestic pets, reduce the spread of diseases in animals and antimicrobial resistance. The Commission must ensure that these issues are taken into account in trade relations. Animal welfare in third countries must be encouraged, within reason, without harming our economy, by means of rules of reciprocity. Framework legislation on animal welfare is likely to increase our competitiveness and improve the quality of animal products. That could make it easier for the EU to demand that imports from third countries respect equivalent standards. At the same time, the Horizon 2020 research programme must foresee adequate opportunities for research in the fields of biodiversity conservation, wildlife trade, the development and validation of non-animal alternatives and the impact of emerging technologies.

  Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) In addition to supporting the ‘eight hours’ campaign, the alternative resolution also contains a call for a legislative proposal introducing a ban on cloning. On balance, I decided to support the alternative resolution, despite the call for a ban on cloning, as limiting the transport time for farmed animals to eight hours is something that takes absolute priority. For one thing, the European Parliament has supported a written declaration in this regard. In addition, more than 1 000 000 people throughout the EU have put their signature to the ‘eight hours’ campaign. It is therefore only logical that the demand of the majority in Parliament and one of the first citizens’ initiatives should be reflected in the EU Animal Welfare Strategy.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal because the Commission Communication on the Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 is much needed. Currently there are countless diverging national legal requirements in force. There are no shared definitions and the complex sets of rules and requirements impede the understanding of good animal husbandry or practice for the individual animal handler or owner. As a consequence, animal welfare conditions, in the EU today, vary greatly between countries. If we use this Communication properly, we will be able to achieve a clear and uniform level of animal welfare throughout the EU. A high level of animal welfare, which is inseparable from sustainable development, is important for protecting animal health, public health and the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock sector in Europe. In its Communication the Commission included Parliament’s proposal for a European Animal Welfare Framework Law. The basic principles of such a law are clarity, simplification and practical implementation on a scientific basis. Today European and national rules on animal welfare are complex and there is a lack of information about them, which leads to legal uncertainty, while non-compliance and the lack of legal measures distort competition. There is therefore a need for a new approach to animal welfare, which is based on science and experience acquired in recent years, and where the legislation is easy to understand and control.

  Dan Jørgensen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) I support the initiatives contained in the own-initiative report on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals, in particular those parts relating to the prohibition of animal testing in cosmetics and the labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning. However, I preferred the alternative motion for a resolution on animal welfare tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, which contained the same wording as the original report except that it also included a call for reduced transport times for animals sent to slaughter and a prohibition of the sale of meat from cloned animals. I therefore voted in favour of the alternative motion for a resolution and against the original report.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament adopted Mr Paulsen’s report by a very large majority. This report follows on from the Commission’s presentation of the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. It stresses that current legislation should be better implemented by the Member States. It authorises the Commission to intervene before the deadline for implementation to ensure the full implementation of the legislation. It also calls for more importance to be accorded to the link between animal health, animal welfare and public health. I voted in favour of this report in plenary.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) According to the World Organisation for Animal Health, an animal is in ‘a good state of welfare if it is healthy, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and if it is not suffering from (…) pain, fear and distress’. The people who look after animals in the context of a business activity are mostly farmers. In order to ensure that animals have appropriate conditions, it is necessary to take many requirements into account, such as veterinary care, appropriate shelter, nutrition, humane treatment and humane slaughter/killing. For those involved in a business some compromise has to be found between animal welfare on the one hand and productivity and profitability on the other. In this context there is also the issue of ecological nutrition, or organic food, where compliance with animal welfare requirements constitutes a condition for the production of healthy and high quality products that are created with respect for the natural environment.

In EU legislation there are still very different regulations on the level of individual Member States, which results in differences in levels of animal welfare. To improve the present situation we must bring about a consolidation of internal EU regulations and ensure compliance with similar regulations by the third countries from which we import products of animal origin. Also, the European Commission does not take into account in its conclusions the effect that animal welfare has on public health, as proper care over animals could help in, for example, reducing the spread of diseases.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. I firmly believe that every living being deserves dignified treatment. I welcome that this report also clearly acknowledges the link between animal health, animal well-being and human health.

Further, it is very important to underline the need to enforce the implementation of existing EU legislation on animal welfare in the Member States. EU directives are meant to be implemented, and that without delay.

Thirdly, it is equally important to anchor the aspect of animal welfare also in our trade policies. In order to ensure fair competition, and in general animal welfare outside the EU too, we have to oblige third countries to comply with the EU standards in this matter.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD), in writing. − Many of my constituents contact me on a regular basis to share their concerns about animal welfare. I am pleased to see Parliament responding to their concerns and fulfilling its role as the embodiment of the will of the people. I hope to see the furthering of the humane treatment of animals in the two years which remain of this mandate.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Guaranteeing the protection and welfare of animals is in line with practices to improve the sustainability of our agricultural and food production. This report establishes a strategy on the issue, for the three-year period 2012-2014, with the specific intention of strengthening the protection of animals and, consequently, of consumers. Animal welfare is a complex, multi-faceted issue with repercussions both for the policies of individual Member States and internationally. Decisions on the issue, such as the one we have adopted, are therefore never straightforward to deal with and require a great deal of deliberation. Moreover, I am convinced that greater protection of animal health is necessary also for consumer and environmental protection. However, I think it should be emphasised that, while on the one hand it is good that animal welfare is protected, on the other we should avoid turning excessive legislation on the issue into yet another obstacle to activities in the agri-food sector.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I regret that the alternative motion for a resolution was not passed as it contained strong guarantees in relation to cloning and transport times for live animals. However, I supported the resolution which was eventually passed as it is a positive step forward. The EU urgently needs to address the effective implementation of existing legislation, not least with regard to the Zoos Directive, and Member States need to increase their rate and standard of inspection in relation animal welfare.

It seems that many of my colleagues believe that high welfare standards reduce competitiveness: it is true that those producers who cut costs by cutting standards are a problem: they need to be tackled by making sure rules are kept, where they exist. But we also need to address the rules of international trade, so that methods of production can be made explicit and also used to ban low-welfare imports.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The measures aimed at ensuring the protection and welfare of animals at EU level are essential at a time when there has been an exponential rise in recent years in the destruction of natural habitats in order to develop urban areas, as well as in the production of food products derived from animals, accompanied by trade globalisation, causing significant harm to the fauna in Member States. However, I am also concerned about the situation of animals used in laboratory experiments which have not been mentioned at all in the report’s provisions and are worthy of attention. Furthermore, I think that a detailed analysis must also be conducted in the future at EU level on the situation of endangered wild animals, as well as on those in nature reserves and in captivity, which require urgent measures to be adopted with the aim of preserving the EU’s animal population.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this Resolution as the final text weakened our commitment to animal welfare.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the proposal of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development by the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. I believe that a controlled, high level of animal welfare is a fundamental cornerstone of sustainable development and that it is essential in order to protect animal health and human health. The proposal is vital in order to increase productivity and competitiveness in the primary sector. The new Framework Law lays down the conditions for creating a clear and shared European network for the joint coordination of animal welfare. That will help increase competitiveness both on the internal market and in trading with third countries, and increase the quality and safety of products. I also think the new proposals regarding the rights of farm livestock are very important and that these animals are entitled to good food, medical care and living conditions that are not stressful and harsh.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. I welcome this report because it stresses that existing animal welfare legislation should be better implemented and insists on compliance with reciprocity in the case of imported products. While the European Union has the highest animal welfare standards in the world, these should not penalise European producers’ trade policy.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The treatment of animals varies from one farm to the next, from one Member State to the next. We had already been alerted to this issue by the issue of laying hens. Given that some Member States are not applying EU legislation in force on animal welfare correctly, we must urgently demand not only greater vigilance for a better implementation of the legislation in force but also general legislation (a framework law) guaranteeing animal welfare. Existing loopholes must be filled and criminals sanctioned. Over and above animal welfare, public health is at stake: by preventing the spread of diseases in animals and improving antimicrobial resistance, we can protect the health of consumers. Finally, in economic terms, this resolution will promote fair competition between producers and greater transparency.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Animal welfare comes under the concept of sustainable development and is important for the protection of animals and public health, and in terms of ensuring productivity and competitiveness. I personally believe that the link between animal welfare and public health should be examined more closely. Good husbandry of farm animals and pets is a means of reducing the spread of diseases, epidemics, and antimicrobial and antibiotic resistance. Another important step is to ensure effective controls of animal welfare, including at the level of the EU, which would monitor whether the Member States are performing their own inspections. Such a measure would, however, require additional funding for the Food and Veterinary Office, which would monitor and penalise non-compliance with the rules. I consider positive aspects of the report to be its clarity, pragmatism, and the fact that it focuses on increasing competitiveness and the quality of products on the internal market and those being traded with third countries.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The most important steps towards a European animal framework can be summarised as follows: enforcement of the link between animal health and public health. According to AGRI-committee the "One health" approach should also apply to the animal strategy since good husbandry of animals is a tool to reduce the spread of diseases and antimicrobial resistance. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Animal welfare has now become a very palpable topic in our society. On the one hand, people are concerned about the welfare of farmed animals and, on the other, there is also the consideration of human health. After all, as science proved long ago, the consumption of animals that have had a short journey to the slaughterhouse and are slaughtered as quickly as possible is distinctly healthier. For other reasons too, a few animal protection issues have been dealt with in laws at national level and directives at EU level. I voted in favour of the report, as I agree with the rapporteur when she says that considerably more attention needs to be paid to compliance with existing animal welfare provisions. The Commission needs to be in a position to impose penalties on any Member States that do not comply with the directives that have been adopted. It must also be ensured that legislation adopted at national level – for the good of the health of both animals and people – is complied with.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I wanted to support this report on the European Union strategy in support of the welfare of animals. Among the stated objectives there are some issues I am particularly sensitive to. For example, I am referring to a serious campaign to combat and prevent stray animals, through concrete and effective measures that, first and foremost, protect animals and that, of course, also limit the risks for the human population. Another important point is the reference to un-stunned slaughter, which is typical of certain religious rituals, such as the Islamic halal preparation of meat. This is unnecessary brutality which cannot be accepted simply on the basis of traditional religious teaching, and which, moreover, is very far removed from our culture and our society. A European legislative framework can certainly be useful to establish common rules and principles for respecting and protecting the welfare of animals, without, of course, imposing absurd rules that may penalise, for example, producers and traders in this sector.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report which aims to improve further animal welfare in the European Union as problems remain in this area in several Member States. Europe needs a global approach and a comprehensive legislative framework on animal welfare to achieve maximum coherence between the policies of the different Member States. Furthermore, this new strategy is based on proven experience and recent scientific and technological progress. By voting for this report, I support Europe’s desire to reconcile economic realities with animal welfare better.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the Commission Communication on an EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals, which we helped to improve. A high level of animal welfare is part of sustainable development and is thus vital for protecting public health and the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock sector in Europe. We must therefore guarantee a new, uniform and harmonised approach in all Member States where there is currently a lack of compliance with some national laws on animal welfare. We note the continued abuse of derogations established for the un-stunned slaughter of animals for religious or ritualistic purposes, turning a blind eye to the unnecessary suffering of animals and misleading of consumers. We allow some Member States to exterminate stray animals through urban cleaning policies, ignoring the state’s responsibility for abandoned animals, including stray animals, and we allow kennels to be established without licences and without checks on the staff and the premises. We believe a framework law is vital to harmonise national laws on animal welfare, requiring the Member States to produce an annual report on the implementation of European legislation, and enabling the Commission to take effective action against non-compliance with obligations. Only in this way will we have a world that is fairer, including for animals.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because we need to guarantee a high level of animal welfare at EU level. We need to establish a uniform, broad and systematic approach to the protection of animals. It is very important not to forget that the welfare of animals is linked to the welfare of producers. It is therefore crucial for the Commission and the Member States to try through joint efforts to invest in projects aimed at researching and finding methods to promote welfare among producers and to reduce the administrative burden. Furthermore, it is very important for rules on animal welfare not to be contrary to the principles of the EU single market.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is important that the EU have a Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals, so I voted for this resolution.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report for the protection and welfare of animals as I believe animal welfare is a multidimensional issue, rooted in today’s society. It is also an issue which demands increased priority and financial backing, as previously requested. There is currently no EU legislation regarding pet animal welfare, something which needs to be addressed, taking into account the increased cat and dog population. Through increased support for compliant farmers and stringent regulations regarding the importing of animal products we can vastly improve upon animal welfare on both a European and international level. We must reinforce the importance of the link between animal health and public health. Good husbandry of animals will help to reduce the spread of diseases and antimicrobial resistance. Legislation regarding animal welfare must be enforced and complied with. We need to keep improving rules on labelling in order to better inform consumers about farming methods and animal welfare. We also need to introduce equivalent welfare standards for all imported animals and products to ensure equal opportunities for EU farmers as well as comparable quality standards for EU consumers.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report advocates a new EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015, since a high level of animal welfare is a part of sustainable development and important to protect animal health, public health and the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock sector in Europe. However, the complex European and national rules on animal welfare, together with the lack of information regarding these, create legal uncertainty while the lack of compliance and of ‘legal milestones’ distorts competition. Therefore, Commission Communication COM(2012)0006 on an EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 should be applauded, since it advocates a new approach in the field of animal welfare, based on scientific foundations and proven experience acquired over recent years, and where the legislation is easy to understand and easy to control. For example, in that regard, more attention should be paid to animal welfare in EU consumer policy, in the framework research programmes and in the common agricultural policy. However, it is essential to create a budget adequate for the measures listed. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Paulsen report on a European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. In a modern, peaceful society, no one can remain indifferent to the fate of animals. We should note in particular the clear message sent by MEPs about the importance of animal health and the link between animal health and public health, and the ratification by the European Union of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. I therefore regret that our Parliament has now succumbed to the fashion for labelling for prior stunning (paragraph 49 of the resolution). Currently, only two Member States, Sweden and Austria, impose stunning prior to the slaughter of an animal, in circumstances where other Member States have opted for dialogue with Muslim and Jewish religious authorities. The defence of freedoms is also the defence of the freedom of worship and ancestral traditions. If the issue is really one of reducing animal suffering, these self-righteous people would do better to worry about the fate of these animals when they are alive. If the issue is one of health security, then it is controls in the abattoirs that we should be strengthening and not the labelling of pre-packed meats.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This was a very satisfactory report, with strong messages on implementation of existing legislation, incorporating animal welfare into trade issues, establishing a framework law, providing farming method labelling and many other issues.

For the first time, Parliament has called for stronger action against non-enforcement of animal welfare legislation through a system of comprehensive early intervention by the Commission to identify member states likely to fail to meet deadlines, and the creation of legal milestones throughout the transition period to ensure that deadlines are met.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report on the protection of animal welfare, though it does not deal with the issue of reducing animal transport to eight hours – an issue for which I have fought – since it will be dealt with in an appropriate document at a later stage, is balanced on the whole and so I voted in favour. Particular attention has been paid to abuses of derogations to allow un-stunned slaughter in the EU, a practice that I find unacceptable in civilised countries, as does the note calling on the Commission to accelerate its evaluation on the labelling of meat obtained from these animals. The Commission is also called upon to improve the welfare of farm animals and to ensure that good animal husbandry is adopted in the knowledge that a better quality of life for animals often leads to a better quality of the product that ends up on consumers’ tables. Classic examples of this are cattle led to pasture instead of being shut up in cattlesheds or free-range laying hens instead of battery hens. I also agree with the section on researching alternatives to animal testing, as such testing is technically unnecessary and more expensive.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Unfortunately there is not always compliance with animal welfare rules in Europe. Breaches of these rules, with animals as their first victims, go against the interests of consumers and cause distortions of competition between producers.

For all these reasons, I share the conclusions of this report, which encourage legislators at all levels of governance to improve animal welfare by implementing and complying with existing legislation, particularly in the case of animal imports from third countries.

By voting for this resolution, we have, on the one hand, called on the Member States to contract more inspectors and, on the other, called for the European Food and Veterinary Office to be given increased powers. We cannot continue to allow unnecessary animal suffering. Nevertheless, this protection should not be overzealous or bureaucratic, or jeopardise research, cultural traditions such as hunting, or companies which already comply with the law.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the report on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. It is good that we have adopted such an important document, which creates a basis for the protection and improved welfare of animals. Now the issue of animal welfare should be included in other areas of EU policy, namely consumer policy, research programmes and the common agricultural policy.

Unfortunately the agricultural budget after 2013 offers little scope. Rural area development programmes for 2014-2020 must include significant sums for animal welfare. Without sufficient financial support there will not be effective implementation. I call on the Commission to put forward proposals to limit the time for which breeding animals can be transported when being taken for slaughter to eight hours. Over a million EU citizens signed a petition on this subject.

The welfare of domestic animals is also important. Despite the fact that estimates put the EU’s cat and dog population at around 100 million, there are no EU regulations concerning their welfare. Following the Council’s conclusions in 2010 concerning the welfare of cats and dogs and the adoption of today’s resolution, I would like to emphasise the importance of promoting the welfare of domestic animals by ensuring minimum standards for their treatment, protection, compulsory registration and electronic identification. In this context it is also vital that the EU and its Member States ratify the European Convention on the Protection of Pet Animals.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Animal welfare is generally accepted by society in the EU Member States. Similarly, European farmers do everything they can to provide good living conditions for animals that are their property and their income. In Europe, breaches of this rule are the exception. It is worth noting that, on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union describes animals as sentient beings and calls for animal welfare to be respected in EU law.

When improving animal welfare standards in Europe, we should also pay attention to the fact that we often import products of animal origin from third countries without checking whether animal welfare rules have been respected. Thus we cannot allow a situation to develop where, whilst having the highest standards in the world, we lose global competitiveness. This is particularly important in the light of growing trade liberalisation. An example of the negative effect of animal welfare measures that were insufficiently thought through is the drastic increase in the price of eggs in Europe as a result of the introduction of enriched cages for laying hens. In future, more consideration should also be given to the costs of new regulations in this area.

It is essential to develop a new approach to the issue of animal welfare in Europe. What is needed is information, education and training in respect for animals. With this in mind, better enforcement of legal regulations in this area is essential. Similarly, a reformed common agricultural policy must support animal welfare to a greater degree, in compliance with the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) A high level of animal welfare is part of sustainable development and is important to protect animal health, public health and the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock sector in Europe. However, the complex European and national rules on animal welfare, together with the lack of information regarding these, create legal uncertainty while the lack of compliance and of ‘legal milestones’ distorts competition. Therefore, there is a need for a new approach to animal welfare, one which must be based on the science and proven experience which has been acquired over the last years, and where the legislation is easy to understand and easy to control. An essential element for accomplishing a uniform animal welfare standard within the EU is to provide exact, concrete and comprehensible training, information and guidelines which reach the persons who handle animals on a daily basis. This vote highlights the need for a European Animal Welfare Framework Law. The basic concepts of such a law will be clarity, simplification and practical applicability, on a scientific base.

  Brian Simpson (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this report because it became apparent that yet again animal welfare was to play second fiddle to agricultural profit.

For Parliament to vote against the introduction of an eight hour travel time limit for livestock is outrageous. To add to this derogations for certain regions to ignore welfare standards is at best cruel and at worst immoral.

The Paulsen report is a blot on Parliament’s reputation and proves yet again that the vested interest that is the European agriculture industry wins the day over the need for proper animal welfare standards.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) There are positive aspects of the EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals, such as: providing concrete, rigorous and intelligible training, information and guidelines that will easily reach those dealing with animals every day. The level of information that must be adapted and made available at regional and local level is also positive. A coordinated European network of animal-welfare centres could play a key role in this regard. It welcomes the inclusion of a European Animal Welfare Framework Law in the strategy, provided that this type of legal framework does not dilute the already-existing national regulations, and that a careful analysis of the principle of subsidiarity be made. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is the largest group in the European Parliament, and due to our numbers the position of our group is critical in the various Committee and plenary votes. As Vice-President of the PPE Group I have been responsible for the legislative work of the group since 2009; this work involves legislative coordination, consultation, as well as the establishment of the legislative working programme and strategy. Furthermore, as ‘Chief Whip’ it is my responsibility to ensure group discipline at votes, which consists in my showing the entire PPE Group the position to be represented at plenary votes. The aim of the PPE Group is to create European unity that is based on common European values, traditions and culture, and carries decisive political weight. However, since the Hungarian delegation to the PPE Group is working actively to promote the interests of our home country, we represent our own national interests in the European Parliament as well, and it can therefore happen that the position of the Hungarian Fidesz–KDNP delegation differs from the position of the PPE Group. In order to avoid contradicting myself due to my obligations stemming from my position as Vice-President, I do not directly participate in recorded votes cast by pressing buttons where the group votes differently than the Hungarian Members. This means that I do not press the voting button, but indicate the previously agreed position to the PPE Group by raising my hand.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) There is not sufficient pressure on the Member States to ensure that they implement European regulations on animal welfare. That is why we needed a joint strategy for animal welfare for the 27 Member States. Only one in three Member States behaves well. The majority adopt attitudes which vary from one farm to the next. Unfortunately, the system still depends on the use of antibiotics. This means that we appear to need a real definition of animal welfare, insofar as free trade is increasingly important in agriculture and we, in Europe, are at the forefront of the debate on animal welfare, alongside the United States, Canada and Australia.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has issued a communication entitled EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015, the objective of which is to reinforce some actions already taken and establish a legislative framework that tackles some animal-related problems in a different and holistic way. I should like to stress that, in the last 14 years, the EU has dedicated around EUR 70 million per year to animal welfare, 71% of which is awarded to farmers as animal welfare-related payments under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. I am voting for this report because I think the Commission needs to provide robust support for farmers who respect the standards and good practices for animal husbandry and who invest in better farming facilities. I also consider it important to set out appropriate regulations that contribute to improving animal welfare, to protecting animal health and public health, and to making Europe’s livestock sector more productive and competitive.

  Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) I support the initiatives contained in the own-initiative report on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals, in particular those parts relating to the prohibition of animal testing in cosmetics and the labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning. However, I preferred the alternative motion for a resolution on animal welfare tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, which contained the same wording as the original report except that it also included a call for reduced transport times for animals sent to slaughter and a prohibition of the sale of meat from cloned animals. I therefore voted in favour of the alternative motion for a resolution and against the original report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals. The Commission and Member States must ensure that the Horizon 2020 research programme provides for adequate opportunities for research in the fields of biodiversity conservation, wildlife trade, the development and validation of non-animal alternatives, and the impact of emerging technologies. I call on Member States to make more effective use of the opportunities for assistance offered by EU rural development funds, as well as by the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013), in order to promote applied research and invest in innovative, modern animal welfare solutions. I also urge Member States and the Commission to increase financial investments in research and development of new animal welfare techniques and technologies. I regret that the strategy fails to reflect the importance of animal health to the well-being of animals and the link between animal health and public health. We call on the Commission to apply the ‘One Health’ principle to this strategy and to ensure efficient coordination with the Animal Health Strategy, as good animal husbandry, among other factors, helps prevent the spread of diseases and antibiotic resistance.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report as I am one of those who think that better protection as regards animal welfare is necessary at European level. It is necessary to develop this policy at EU level in order to avoid unfair competition and having different standards within the EU, and also to have a strong tool for control and monitoring.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − The Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 (Commission communication) can be seen as an open door, leading to a clear and equivalent animal welfare level within the EU, and it is much welcomed as far as it contains so many aspects of Parliament’s Resolution of 5 May 2010.

A high level of animal welfare is a part of sustainable development and is important to protect animal health, public health and the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock sector in Europe. Complex European and national rules on animal welfare, and lack of compliance and enforcement regarding certain pieces of animal welfare legislation, create legal uncertainty and distort competition. There is a need for a new approach to animal welfare based on the science and proven experience which has been acquired over the last years, and where the legislation is easy to understand and easy to control.

The new Strategy presents a broader approach calling for policy coherence (animal welfare should be given greater attention in the EU’s Consumer Policy, in the Framework Programmes for research and in the CAP) and coordination of financial resources (proper budget for actions listed).

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Complicated regulations concerning animal welfare result in legal uncertainty. Only healthy animal husbandry can prevent the spread of diseases. On 19 June the European Commission adopted a resolution emphasising that legislation concerning animal welfare should be introduced, with strict compliance, throughout the European Union. It is extremely important that the law in this area should be regulated as quickly as possible. This is the reason that, in the vote, I decided to support the animal protection and welfare strategy.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0341/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, because it calls on the Commission to put forward the necessary legal framework, specifically one relating to the protection of pets and stray animals. This includes important matters, such as identifying and registering animals; stray animal-management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes; measures to promote responsible ownership; prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters; prohibition of the killing of stray animals without medical indication; information and educational programmes in schools; and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The protection of pet and stray animals was the subject of a motion for a resolution from the Committee on Petitions (PETI) this week. We must harmonise rules for the identification and registration of animals, introduce management strategies for stray animals including vaccination and sterilisation programmes, introduce measures to promote responsible pet ownership, prohibit illegal kennels and shelters, prohibit the slaughtering of stray animals without medical advice, and introduce information and education programmes on animal welfare into schools.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because I am a great animal lover and I think that an EU-level legal framework would help provide better protection for pets and stray animals. As a member of the Committee on Petitions, I am aware of the concerns which European citizens have about the bad treatment these animals receive in some cases across the European Union. There is usually adequate legislative provision at national level. However, local authorities, which are mainly responsible for managing these issues, encounter difficulties in implementing it, including due to the lack of necessary funds.

This is why I feel that a European legal framework would not only help harmonise measures and practices at Member State level, but it should also provide a way of supporting the efforts of the responsible authorities regionally and locally.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU’s pet population is estimated at over 100 million, many of which are victims of mistreatment and cruelty in many Member States. There is no legislation protecting these animals in the EU. Furthermore, the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals has not yet been signed by many Member States. As such, and given the large number of petitions mainly submitted in southern and eastern Europe, the authors of this proposal call on the European Union and the Member States to ratify the aforementioned convention and to transpose its provisions into national legal systems. It also calls on the Commission to put forward a legal framework to protect these animals, including rules for identifying and registering animals, stray animal-management strategies, measures to promote responsible ownership, prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters, prohibition of the killing of stray animals without medical indication, information and educational programmes in schools, and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules. I believe these measures will contribute to protecting European animals and citizens, so I am voting for this resolution.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because so far there is no European Union legislation for the protection of pets and stray animals, despite the fact that the European Union’s pet population is estimated at over 100 million. The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals has not yet been signed by all Member States and in many Members States pets and stray animals often become victims of mistreatment and cruelty. In view of Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union and the Member States must pay full regard to animal welfare requirements. The European Union and the Member States therefore need to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals and to transpose its provisions into national legal systems. The most important steps in the European Union’s system for the protection of animals may include the strengthening of the link between animal and public health, full compliance with and enforcement of legislation, the implementation of a European animal system, and the establishment of equal welfare standards for all imported animals and products, etc.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution by the European Parliament on the introduction of a European framework for the protection of domestic and stray animals. As a member of the Committee on Petitions (PETI), I am notified on a daily basis of the concerns of European citizens about animal well-being. It is, I believe, very important to take account of these grievances and to act as quickly as possible. That is why I support the ratification by the EU and its Member States of the European Convention for the Protection of Pets. The Commission has been invited to draw up, as soon as possible, a legal framework with rules for the identification and registration of animals, vaccination and preventive vaccination programmes and, amongst other things, sanctions to be imposed on any State which does not comply with the regulations in force.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU’s pet population is estimated at over 100 million, many of which are victims of mistreatment and cruelty in many Member States. There is no legislation protecting these animals in the EU. Furthermore, the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals has not yet been signed by many Member States. As such, and given the large number of petitions mainly submitted in southern and eastern Europe, the authors of this proposal call on the European Union and the Member States to ratify the aforementioned convention and to transpose its provisions into national legal systems. It also calls on the Commission to put forward a legal framework to protect these animals, including rules for identifying and registering animals, stray animal-management strategies, measures to promote responsible ownership, prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters, prohibition of the killing of stray animals without medical indication, information and educational programmes in schools, and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules. I believe these measures will contribute to protecting European animals and citizens, so I am voting for this resolution.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. − Mr President, according to a recent study, my own constituency of Northern Ireland has the highest rate of stray and abandoned animals in the United Kingdom, with 9 000 stray dogs found across Northern Ireland in 2011 and 1 615 of these being destroyed. This equates to approximately one in six of the dogs in pounds – a much higher proportion than the UK average. In order to help tackle these high statistics, the Northern Ireland Executive has introduced new legislation under which all dogs will have to be micro-chipped when their licence is renewed. It is our hope that making micro-chipping compulsory will reduce the number of strays on the streets and mean fewer healthy animals have to be put to sleep. I voted against this report. I believe that the proactive stance taken in Northern Ireland on the issue is a good model and one that can easily be taken at Member State level.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution because I am in favour of an EU-level legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals, specifically by means of rules for identifying and registering animals, prohibition of the killing of stray animals without medical indication, information and educational programmes in schools, measures to promote responsible ownership, and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats believe that animal protection is important, but we nevertheless voted against the resolution on pets and stray animals, as we believe that the report goes too far in its demands for common EU rules.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution was tabled by Erminia Mazzoni on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, pursuant to Rule 202(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and concerns the establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals. According to the rapporteur, many Europeans have requested the creation of this legal framework since there is no EU legislation protecting pets and strays, despite the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union considering them sentient beings. Despite the rules in force in many Member States, there is still room for improvement, particularly with regard to the identification and registration of animals to reduce the number of strays, to managing programmes to vaccinate them, sterilise them and put them down, and to awareness-raising campaigns and the application of penalties for anyone abandoning an animal. I voted for this motion for a resolution because it contributes to improving public health, and to animal protection and welfare.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution results from a Committee on Petitions initiative and is based on a public petition on the protection of pets and stray animals. The resolution includes a range of concerns and recommendations expressed by petitioners, which we support: it calls on the European Union and the Member States to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals and to transpose its provisions into national legal systems.

It also calls on the Commission to put forward an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals, including rules for identifying and registering animals; stray animal-management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes; measures to promote responsible ownership; prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters; prohibition of the killing of stray animals without medical indication; and information and educational programmes in schools on animal welfare. We generally agree with these topics, which unquestionably represent animal-protection guidelines to follow. It falls to the Member States to incorporate these principles into their national legal systems in the way that will enable the most effective pursuit of the protection objectives set out, in line with their unique characteristics and specific situation in this regard, and taking into account the diversity of existing situations.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Article 13 of the TFEU stipulates that, since animals are sentient beings, the EU and the Member States must pay full regard to their welfare requirements. Despite the fact that the EU’s pet population is estimated at over 100 million, there is no EU legislation for the protection of pets and stray animals. Pets and stray animals are frequently victims of mistreatment and cruelty in many Member States. In this context, I consider it essential that the Member States ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals and transpose its provisions into their national legal systems. It is necessary to put forward a legal framework that would encompass rules for the identification and registration of animals, stray animal management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes, and the prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters, and that would enable severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State that fails to comply with the rules.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because animals are sentient beings, and the Union and the Member States must therefore pay full regard to animal welfare requirements. So far there is no EU legislation for the protection of pets and stray animals. Furthermore, the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals has not yet been signed by all Member States. In many Members States pets and stray animals are victims of mistreatment and cruelty. The European Union and the Member States are therefore urged to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals and to transpose its provisions into national legal systems. In turn the Commission is urged to put forward an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals, including rules for the identification and registration of animals, stray animal management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes, measures to promote responsible ownership, the prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters, the prohibition of the killing of stray animals without medical indication, information and educational programmes in schools on animal welfare, and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Member States experience difficulties in terms of the risks to European citizens posed by stray animals in the EU’s southern and eastern Member States. In order to ensure the safety of the European people, and in compliance with animal protection, the resolution invites the Commission to take the necessary measures. I voted in favour of this resolution, which was adopted by a large majority by Parliament.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution on pets and stray animals which calls on the Commission to put forward an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals, including: rules for the identification and registration of animals; stray animal management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes; measures to promote responsible ownership; the prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters; the prohibition of the killing of stray animals without medical indication; information and educational programmes in schools on animal welfare; and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the establishment of a new EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals. This resolution is intended to establish new rules for the identification and registration of animals and which set out stray animal management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes, measures to promote responsible ownership, the prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters and the prohibition of killing stray animals without medical indication. I also welcome the proposal to establish information and educational programmes in schools on animal welfare to raise public awareness of the issue, and I welcome the proposal for severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules set out in the new motion.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − European Parliament calls on the Commission to propose a legal framework on protection of pets and stray animals. That's great, then we can deal with insects and plants. I abstained.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Stray dogs are a huge problem in large parts of the EU. In the countries in the south in particular there are numerous dogs living on the streets. This is something that is dealt with differently from country to country – in some cases they are tolerated and sterilised and in others they are destroyed. In the countries in the east, such as Hungary, street dogs, as well as dogs that have become surplus to requirements, are destroyed in an animal slaughtering process in which most, as it is cheap, are brutally beaten to death. Another problem in the countries in the east is the dog trade. Many breeds, particularly those that are popular in the West, are bred on a large scale so that they can then be sold lucratively along the border. The consequence of this dog trade is a surplus of animals which, on the one hand, are unwanted and, on the other, are very sick. I abstained from voting, as I believe that the resolution pays too little attention to the animal trade, particularly that coming from the countries in the east. Dogs are produced there en masse under the most appalling conditions in order to then sell them for a profit in the west. This is frequently carried out under the guise of animal welfare, but it is a most brutal trade, which can also result in animal diseases that have long been eradicated here being brought back in again.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution because we need to establish a legal framework at European Union level, which would guarantee full implementation of animal welfare requirements from an ethical, social and economic point of view. We need to use effective measures to stop illegal activities linked to the breeding, slaughter, and killing of animals or other cruel behaviour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution ‘on the establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals’ because the measures set out therein will contribute to protecting European animals and citizens.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I support this report on the establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals. There is currently no EU legislation for the protection of pets and stray animals, yet the EU’s pet population is estimated at over one hundred million. Pets and stray animals fall victim to incredible cruelty and mistreatment. The European Union and Member States must ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals so as more can be done to better animal welfare. There need to be increased management strategies for stray animals, including both vaccination and sterilisation along with informative and educational programmes in schools regarding the welfare of animals. We need to do more to promote responsible ownership of animals. This can be achieved through more stringent rules regarding the identification and registration of animals and through the prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters. We must also prohibit the killing of stray animals without medical indication. Therefore, I welcome the establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU’s pet population is estimated at over 100 million, many of which are victims of mistreatment and cruelty in many Member States. Not only is there no legal framework for the protection of these animals, but the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals has not yet been signed by many Member States. As such, and in view of the large numbers of petitions submitted, particularly in countries of southern and eastern Europe, the intention is for the EU and the Member States to ratify the convention. We therefore call on the Commission to put forward a legal framework to protect these animals, including rules for identifying and registering animals, stray animal-management strategies, measures to promote responsible ownership, prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters, prohibition of the killing of stray animals without medical indication, information and educational programmes in schools, and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. There is a need to take concrete action in order to end widespread abuse and maltreatment of pet and stray animals in some Member States, in particular through setting up rules for the identification and registration of animals, the prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters and the drawing up of reasonable, humane stray animals management strategies. Besides calling on the Commission and Council to work to get Member States to sign the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, the resolution calls on the Commission to propose a legal framework at EU level for the protection of pets and stray animals, including: rules for the identification and registration of animals, stray animal management strategies, including vaccination and castration programmes, promotion of responsible ownership, prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters, prohibition of killing of stray animals without medical indication, information and education programmes in schools on animal welfare, and severe sanctions against any Member State which fails to comply with the rules.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, Parliament wanted to stress that the rules on animal welfare must be applied scrupulously, with more severe penalties for offenders. Only in this way will it be possible to protect human health, preventing the spread of diseases related to animals and to antimicrobial resistance. The current national rules and regulations in the area need to be recast into a single European text that can protect farm animals and domestic animals, as well as stray dogs and cats, which are not currently protected by any European law.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution because there is a need to end the widespread abuse and maltreatment of pets and stray animals throughout the European Union and because it proposes a legal framework at EU level. In order to protect pets and stray animals, this framework must establish and enforce, amongst others, animal management strategies, promotion of responsible ownership and establish information and education programmes in schools on animal welfare.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − I supported this resolution tabled by the Committee on Petitions. It reflects the concerns raised by many citizens and repeats the calls for action we made in our written declaration on this subject last year. I am disappointed that the European Commission has not responded more positively to our written declaration, to which a large majority of members of this House gave their support. The Commission must consider what options are available at EU level and determine which measures would best enable us to improve the situation regarding stray animals. The animal welfare and public health issues that arise from the problem of strays are common to several Member States, and EU action is both appropriate and necessary.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) There is currently no EU legislation for the protection of pets and stray animals, despite the fact that the EU’s pet population is estimated at over 100 million. These animals are often victims of mistreatment and cruelty in many Member States, and too often petitioners mainly refer to Member States in southern and eastern Europe. This vote is intended to establish an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals. The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals therefore needs to be ratified and its provisions transposed into national legal systems. Measures are required such as rules for the identification and registration of animals, the prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters, as well as stray animal management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes, and measures to promote responsible ownership.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) This resolution has a praiseworthy objective, and it advocates the better implementation of regulations on the well-being of animals. Existing loopholes must be filled and criminals sanctioned. These regulations also protect human health by preventing the spread of diseases and antimicrobial resistance.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There is no pet-protection legislation in the EU. Moreover, the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals has not yet been signed by many Member States. As such, and in view of the large numbers of petitions submitted, particularly in countries of southern and eastern Europe, this resolution calls on the EU and the Member States to ratify the convention. It also calls on the Commission to put forward a legal framework to protect these animals, including rules for identifying and registering animals, stray animal-management strategies, measures to promote responsible ownership, and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules. I voted for this resolution of the European Parliament for these reasons.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on establishing an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals. At the moment, there is no EU legislation for the protection of pets and stray animals, despite the fact that the EU’s pet population is estimated at more than 100 million. Some pets and stray animals are victims of aggressive acts in many Members States, and petitioners mainly refer to Member States in southern and eastern Europe. I call on the European Union and Member States to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals and to transpose its provisions into national legal systems. We call on the Commission to table proposals for an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals, including rules for identifying and registering animals; stray animal management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes; measures to promote responsible ownership; a ban on unlicensed kennels and shelters; a ban on killing stray animals without medical indication; information and educational programmes in schools on animal welfare, and tough sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − In the run-up to Euro 2012, I received a number of letters about dogs in Ukraine. My constituents were concerned about the inhumane methods used to reduce the country’s population of stray animals. This resolution on stray animals has been proposed by the Committee on Petitions. It is important that we listen to the issues which are of most concern to our citizens. Nevertheless, I was not able to support this resolution.

This is not because I do not care for the welfare of animals. I am a firm supporter of animal welfare and I recently signed the written declaration on dog population management in the European Union. Yet there was a difference between the written declaration and this resolution. The declaration called for Member States to adopt dog control and anti-cruelty laws. The resolution wants to introduce an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals. There is no legal basis for such a framework and I cannot support new rules on strays at the EU level.

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), in writing. – (IT) In the resolution on the establishment of an EU legal framework for the protection of pets and stray animals, it is reiterated that the European Union is based on sharing different principles and values. Millions of European citizens attach a special sentimental value to animals and in particular to pets, such as dogs and cats. There are more than 100 million pets in Europe, but despite the large number, the EU still does not have an EU framework law to protect our pets and stray animals. With today’s vote, Parliament is giving a voice to thousands of European citizens and is urging the EU to establish a framework law to protect animals and in particular to lay down: rules for the identification and registration of animals; stray animal management strategies, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes; measures to promote responsible ownership; the prohibition of unlicensed kennels and shelters; the prohibition of killing of stray animals without medical indication; information and educational programmes in schools on animal welfare; and severe sanctions to be imposed on any Member State which fails to comply with the rules.

Motions for resolutions: B7-0407/2012, B7-0408/2012, B7-0409/2012, B7-0410/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this motion for a resolution, but I would highlight point 9, which states that much legislative work still remains to be done in order to deliver a global, structural and comprehensive response to the crisis, and that the Commission should be called on to table a package of legislative proposals by September 2012, in line with the Community method, on the basis of these four building blocks.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This week, we debated the conclusions of the European Council meeting. Even though progress has been made in these decisions, all they really do is save us a little time. They do not provide any truly innovative solution. First of all, contrary to what François Hollande has spent months endeavouring to have us believe, France will not call into question the Treaty that has already been ratified by numerous European countries, and just as well. Mr Hollande has ended up with a Compact for Growth and Jobs as an addition to this Treaty. Nevertheless, are the terms of the Treaty any different to those accepted by his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy? They certainly are not. Furthermore, François Hollande has now finally accepted the cornerstone of the budgetary treaty, the famous golden rule, wanted by Nicolas Sarkozy. He has also gone along with Eurobonds. As for the agreements passed as part of the compromise package, these are issues which have been under examination within the European institutions for months. In other words, there is nothing new. What François Hollande has done is to hold up the ratification of the Treaty only to end up accepting what we have been proposing since the start of the crisis.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because the European Council of 28 and 29 June adopted vitally important decisions aimed at tackling the crisis in the euro area, fiscal consolidation, boosting economic growth, as well as promoting governance of the internal market. Unfortunately, Romania missed the opportunity to adopt a strong position and have its say when these subjects, which are crucial to the future of the whole EU, were discussed. Prime Minister Ponta decided unilaterally to attend the European Council without having a mandate from the country’s president. This meant that he ignored the judgment of the Constitutional Court issued on 27 June.

According to this, in exercising his constitutional powers, the President of Romania attends European Council meetings as Head of State. The power may be delegated explicitly by the President of Romania to the prime minister. This did not happen last week. Prime Minister Ponta prevented the President of Romania from attending the European Council, thereby breaching the constitutional prerogatives. As a result of his action and other attacks against State institutions, he is in danger of pushing Romania into an unprecedented political and legal crisis.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As the best is often the enemy of the good, we should remain cautious. While I believe, like other people, that this European Council meeting has enabled us to move in the right direction, I would like to point out that it will not provide any way of ‘making up lost ground’ with our citizens and public opinion, still smarting from the disregard of the ‘no’ votes in the referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TECE). A real growth policy must go hand in hand with the austerity introduced throughout Europe. The Compact for Growth and Jobs is a first step, but we must go further: Member States must now realise that it is time to increase the EU budget to 1.24% of GDP as we are now able to do. Finally, the resolution reminds us, rightly, that an agreement on own-resources is essential to any global agreement on the next multiannual financial framework.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the measures taken so far by the Council to manage the economic and financial crisis have been unsuccessful. The current economic and social crisis is the result of the European Union’s neoliberal policies of promoting deregulated financial markets, liberalising markets in products and services and increasing the role of financial markets in the economy as well as reducing public investment and removing regulation of labour relationships. Democratic structures have been severely disrupted due to the excessive focus on austerity and so-called ‘market discipline’ imposed by the Troika. Unprecedented bailouts of financial institutions have taken place, which have led to a massive socialisation of losses and high public deficits. Socio-economic inequalities have significantly increased due to the continuous redistribution from wages to capital. This time, after more than 20 European Council meetings since the beginning of the crisis, it is clearly recognised that a combination of policies for both fiscal consolidation and growth need to be pursued in order to overcome the crisis. In this respect, this summit was a key step towards changing the policy of the European Council to address the challenges Europe faces today, namely the transition to a more balanced, cost effective and more socially just anti-crisis agenda.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the resolution and I explicitly welcome the Council’s decision. I would highlight a number of measures that I consider really positive, such as the Compact for Growth and Jobs, which should take national- and EU-level measures as part of the strategy for fostering employment and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; a package of EUR 120 billion has been made available to promote investment and growth in Europe. This is complemented by the creation of a banking union and a common banking supervisor, which aims to break the vicious cycle between banks and public debt, and by the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union. I regret that some equally important points have fallen somewhat short of expectations and that important details have apparently not been made clear or have been left to be decided later. We need greater democratic accountability and the starting point for any new initiative should be the Community method, with the involvement of all the EU institutions.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Compact for Growth and Jobs is of paramount importance, especially the decision to mobilise EUR 120 billion to stimulate investment, economic growth and employment, and the call for differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, which gives due consideration to the role of investment. This is a step towards the necessary revitalisation of sustainable economic growth-orientated public and private investment in Europe, particularly geared towards achieving the Europe 2020 strategy targets.

I voted to support the measures which need to be adopted to ensure financial stability, especially in the euro area, and to minimise the cost of bank failures to European citizens; to ensure sound fiscal policy-making at national and European level; to ensure that national and European policies are in place which promote sustainable growth, employment and competitiveness, and are compatible with the smooth functioning of EMU, and to ensure the democratic legitimacy and necessary accountability of decision-making within EMU, based on the joint exercise of sovereignty for common policies and solidarity.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This was the Council par excellence, dedicated to seeking solutions to tackle the economic and financial crisis that has been devastating the EU. It sought to adopt and combine a whole range of short-, medium- and long-term measures so as to stabilise the financial markets, foster growth and sustainable development, and strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). I would highlight a number of measures that I consider really positive, such as the Compact for Growth and Jobs, which should take national- and EU-level measures as part of the strategy for fostering employment and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; a package of EUR 120 billion has been made available to promote investment and growth in Europe. This is complemented by the creation of a banking union and a common banking supervisor, which aims to break the vicious cycle between banks and public debt, and by the deepening of the EMU. I regret that some equally important points have fallen somewhat short of expectations and that important details have apparently not been made clear or have been left to be decided later. We need greater democratic accountability and the starting point for any new initiative should be the Community method, with the involvement of all the EU institutions.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on the conclusions of the 28-29 June European Council meeting. I very much welcome the Summit's decision to unshackle banking debt from sovereign debt. Ireland has borne a disproportionate burden arising from the collapse of our banking system. The decision taken at the summit on Ireland's bank debt does have the potential to help Ireland emerge successfully from the Troika programme next year as planned, which is not just in Ireland's interests but all of Europe's interests. This particular decision now needs to be followed through and fleshed out over the coming months. I also welcome the new emphasis on growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, including the extra funding for the EIB, the agreement on project bonds and, very importantly, the emphasis on public investment. The EU should now consider a Social Investment Pact to help us reconcile fiscal consolidation with the EU2020 targets and the achievement of the goal of a fairer and just society.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on the conclusions of the European Council of 28 and 29 June 2012 because I positively welcome the measures agreed upon by the Council to solve the eurozone crisis. These measures are not only based on fiscal consolidation, but they also take into account the urgent need for economic growth.

Sure enough, the decision should have called for further work on the development of a roadmap for genuine economic and monetary union, with Parliament fully involved as an equal partner in this task beyond its role as co-legislator and where the community method would prevail as the general law-making approach, even on decisions concerning fiscal policy.

I particularly welcome the Compact for Growth and Jobs, in particular the agreement to mobilise EUR 120 billion to stimulate investment, growth and jobs, which is an important step towards the re-launch of the economic recovery of Europe, keeping in mind the citizens’ needs and going beyond the ‘quasi-dogmatic’ approach of economic austerity.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats chose to abstain in the vote on the resolution on last week’s summit, because the text of the resolution contains both positive and negative elements.

On the one hand, we have a positive view of the change to the way the European crisis is being dealt with that took place at the summit. The counterproductive austerity policy was definitively replaced by a more balanced political line, combining budgetary discipline with an offensive strategy for growth and jobs – something that we demanded very strongly. The new growth pact in particular – with the capital injection by the European Investment Bank, the redistribution of remaining structural fund resources and the pilot phase of the project bonds – is an important step in the right direction. The new political course will now create opportunities to develop a long-term, sustainable solution to the crisis.

On the other hand, we object to the passages concerning Mr Van Rompuy’s report on the Economic and Monetary Union that was discussed during the summit. A number of the reforms that are identified in the report could be valuable in the efforts of the euro area Member States to support the common currency, but some of the other reforms are dubious. Neither do we believe that approval of a new long-term budget should be made conditional upon a reform of the system of own resources.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The most recent Council, held last week, had a significant impact on the markets, since it made specific proposals for the EU’s future that ensure adequate measures for stabilising the euro, demonstrate renewed desire to deepen economic governance and indicate that, in the future, we will be moving towards the much-needed banking union. All these are positive signs that the EU is committed to finding ways out of the sovereign-debt crisis and the crisis in the banking sector, and to strengthening solidarity and economic, fiscal and financial integration. As I have always argued, I do not believe in economic growth without balanced books, which is why it is so important that Portugal continue its enormous budgetary-consolidation efforts, so that we will be able to live in times of sustainable economic growth as soon as possible.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Council of 28 and 29 June 2012, held against a backdrop of great concern about the economic and financial crisis, took some important steps in combating the euro crisis, covering not just budgetary consolidation but also economic growth, and bringing an end to the vicious cycle between Member States’ banks and sovereign debts leading to their having lower rates. I welcome the adoption of the Compact for Growth and Jobs, particularly the mobilisation of EUR 120 billion to stimulate investment, growth and jobs. This Council took important steps towards economic recovery and brought a new institutional and political vitality towards an EU that is stronger and more united in economic and monetary terms. This also constitutes an important step towards establishing a full EU banking union. I believe this was a positive Council, with a direct impact on economic growth, on jobs for young people and on support for small and medium-sized enterprises. I therefore voted against the motion for a resolution that has been tabled, pursuant to Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This Council was yet another restatement of the objectives of ‘economic governance’, the ‘Euro Plus Pact’, the ‘Europe 2020 strategy’ and the ‘Stability and Growth Pact’. It was the restatement of the same policies that led to the present tragic social situation, which are deepening it by increasing unemployment, by reducing wages, by scaling back the welfare state and by abolishing public services. The fiscal compact and the European Stability Mechanism treaty constitute an unacceptable assault on the sovereignty of the Member States, which are losing the capacity for sovereign decisions on budgetary matters, so paving the way for the establishment of colonial-type relationships in the EU, in which big business rules, alongside the major powers, such as Germany.

It once again includes the inevitable and standard statements of those who always welcome the results of these summits. However, they cannot hide that summit follows summit – there have already been three dozen held under the shadow of the ‘euro crisis’ – whilst the crisis spreads and deepens. Clearly, we voted against a resolution that emerged from this Council, which welcomes these instruments and policies, and which requests from the Commission legislative proposals that make a veritable declaration of war on the workers and peoples.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The summer summit of the European Council took place on 28/29 June 2012. During these meetings, the Council focused in particular on the issue of growth, which is undoubtedly crucial to the future development of the European Union. It is vital, however, that we move on quickly from discussions and statements to deeds and adopt specific measures. We must look at the issue from the long-term perspective: we urgently need a real strategy that will genuinely promote growth and help create new jobs. I also support steps towards closer integration. Our only hope for overcoming the current crisis is to work together. I think it must again be emphasised that anti-crisis measures should be adopted in a spirit of mutual solidarity. I do not agree with the budget cuts affecting the EU citizens who are perhaps the hardest hit by the consequences of the crisis. I support measures such as the introduction of the financial transaction tax. That is to say, I think it is time for financial institutions to accept their share of the blame for the current situation. I likewise support the introduction of project bonds, strengthening the lending capacity of the EIB, and the concept of European bonds − provided that these measures do not result in a reduction in financial responsibility and discipline in other countries. While I am on the subject of mutual solidarity, I want to express my satisfaction that, at the June summit, mutual solidarity prevailed over strict austerity policies which, ultimately, do not lead to the expected results.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of the ECR resolution which welcomed the Summit Conclusions, including several new programmes or compacts dealing with responses to the present crisis. The first of these relates to the report concerning deeper financial integration to strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union. The second concerns future measures to improve growth and competitiveness, named the Compact for Growth and Jobs.

We can all agree that overcoming the crisis in the euro zone is the overwhelming political priority of the foreseeable future. The financial crisis has now been ongoing for four years, yet the European Union risks being the last significant economic region to emerge from it. I support the efforts of members of the euro zone to address the structural shortcomings that the financial crisis has revealed and welcome the acknowledgement that specific differentiations exist between euro zone and non-euro zone Member States. This must be respected for any new framework specifically relating to the functioning of the monetary union, rather than to the single market.

All institutions should now work tirelessly to deepen the single market and move towards completion of the Single Market Act. Further improvements to the single market will also be necessary to boost jobs and growth.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) This European Summit has been characterised above all by hypocrisy and lies. It has allowed Mr Hollande to impose the scandalous ‘fiscal compact’, an intolerable budgetary straitjacket, by having us believe that it now has a counterpart in the form of a ‘Compact for Growth and Jobs’. However, this is no more than an eclectic list of measures which had in any case been planned ages ago, and the figures have been manipulated. We are a long way off the promised 1% of GDP. The sums to be mobilised are derisory: EUR 120 billion, admittedly, but over two years. Only EUR 40 billion are public funds, and the remainder consists of a series of loans and guarantees. The funds are to be spread thinly over the 27 and not targeted at emergencies or priorities. If we want to help the Member States, we may as well return their share of the billions of unused regional funds to them, as that would ease the strain on their budgets. As for the other measures, Mr Hollande will have to explain what he has agreed to accept. I shall simply mention some of them: the full implementation of the Bolkenstein Directive, greater flexibility of the labour code in particular in respect of redundancies, the end of regulated professions, the opening up of public procurement to international (Chinese?) competition, and … the ‘reactivation of older workers’, a rather worrying choice of words. His electorate will appreciate that.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) The Council conclusions are mixed. Symbolically, they point towards greater solidarity and integration, the only means of tackling this interminable economic crisis, which is a good thing. However, only around 10 billion of the 120 initially promised by the Compact for Growth and Jobs are genuinely new and additional funds. Furthermore, the conclusions still have ‘growth’ as their leitmotiv. This is seen as the sole remedy to all our economic ills. This rhetoric is unacceptable as far as we, as ecologists, are concerned. What we should be questioning is our model of development as a whole and we should bear in mind the fact that resources are finite. The conclusions of the Summit do not do this, or do it very little. Given these mixed findings, I abstained from voting on this resolution.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) This joint motion from the main political groups in Parliament highlights the progress made at the last Council meeting, and in particular the more flexible use of the funds and the solidarity mechanism for tackling the crisis and the creation of the Compact for Growth and Jobs with funding of EUR 120 billion. However, these efforts must be maintained. We must further develop budgetary and financial integration and, thereby, reinforce the role of Parliament, particularly in the vote on the financial perspectives and the supervision of the mechanisms of budgetary control.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Conservatives and Christian Democrats voted today in favour of the resolution to wind up the debate on statements by the Council and the Commission on the conclusions of the European Council of 28 and 29 June 2012. The resolution calls attention to the importance of strong frameworks for the Member States’ public finances and to the fact that measures ought to be taken for the full achievement of the single market. These are the two single most important components that will enable Europe to overcome the current crisis. I therefore voted in favour of the resolution. At the same time, we remain opposed to the proposals for own resources and various forms of joint debt issuance which also appear in the text of the resolution.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) Although I welcome the efforts as regards economic growth and job creation throughout the European Union, particularly the provision to concentrate financial resources on investments to boost economic growth and job creation, I abstained from voting on this document because I believe that much remains to be done to come up with a global, structural and comprehensive solution to the crisis. Our citizens have long been waiting for answers, which we are unable to give them.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) A meeting of the European Council was held on 28 and 29 June. Parliament’s resolution, at the end of this Summit, gives a favourable welcome to the concrete steps taken to face up to the euro crisis. Parliament welcomes, in particular, the idea of a response that addresses both fiscal consolidation and growth. Furthermore, Parliament welcomes the commitment of the Council and the Commission to making the EU budget a tool for growth. Parliament must be put on an even footing, beyond its role as co-legislator, in the task of drawing up a road map for a genuine economic and monetary union. I supported this resolution, which was adopted by a majority and I welcome that.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this Resolution which among other things calls on the Member States to distribute wealth evenly in the European Union by fighting tax evasion, by introducing taxes on wealth, by increasing income taxes for those on the highest incomes, and by taxing the financial sector and their speculative financial products.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The measures taken at the European Council meeting are heading in the right direction. I welcome the significant progress that has been made on banking union and the assistance given to Italy and Spain. I do, however, fear that the growth measures are not yet sufficient. I also welcome the transfer of the supervision of the banks in the euro area to the European Central Bank (ECB). We had to take this step towards banking union. However, I regret that no progress has been made on the question of pooling debt. No progress on Eurobonds. Yet I believe that part of the solution is to be found in creating Eurobonds. The European Union, unlike the Member States, is not in debt. That being the case, investors would have liked to see a Community debt replacing national public debts. The creation of these long-term bonds refused by Angela Merkel, much as she refuses ‘euro bills’ (short-term bonds), would have helped the Member States to boost growth.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I think that EU policy of strict economy failed and I support any steps of reversing it. Measures offered by the Council are totally inefficient for crisis management and transformation of EU into democratic and open society for the benefit of all citizens. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The decisions made at the most recent EU summit in the fight to combat the euro debt crisis represent the definitive manifestation of the united indebted states of Europe. There is a danger that the European Stability Mechanism will drag us into the abyss. Even to Germany it is now clear that it is being coerced by other countries. In the long term this will not create a good European ethos. Unlike Austria, the Netherlands and Finland do not want to go along with all of the decisions. The ‘last resort’ has therefore already begun. The crisis has so far shown us that the disaster is progressing faster than all of the decisions we are making. This will also be evident in Greece. I therefore rejected this motion for a resolution in the strongest possible terms.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This 25th Summit has proved to be yet another failure, and absolutely nothing has changed for Italy. Now we can understand why Prime Minister Monti has said he does not want to ask for the ‘anti-spread’ mechanism for our country: simply because, as things stand, without a banking licence, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is completely ineffective. There are also still many controversial points, from banking supervision being assigned to the European Central Bank (ECB), for which the Treaties would be amended, to the conditions in which several countries can block use of the ESM, the request for intervention of which subjects national governments to invasive inspection by Europe, depending on an assessment by the European Commission and the ECB. Moreover, if the agreement on the ‘anti-spread’ mechanism, as the Council and Commission have reiterated in this House, really was unanimous, I wonder why the Netherlands and Finland have backtracked: we will now have to carefully assess the consequences of this choice. The leaders of the European institutions do not know how to answer these questions, despite this House clamouring for clarifications. On the contrary, they see fit to leave the details of what has been established up to now until future bilateral meetings and Eurogroups, when it will probably be too late.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I believe that in this difficult situation at present, time is not our ally. It is more likely that it is a merciless enemy, which can undermine even the best ideas and agreements unless they are implemented as quickly as possible. Some good ideas and thoughts were put forward at the European Council meeting. However, if decisions on their implementation are slow, we may as well deposit even the best ideas in the historical archive. It is therefore essential to take real and immediate action to promote investment, economic growth and the creation of new jobs.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the conclusions of the European Council of 28 and 29 June 2012 because I welcome the short- and long-term decisions made with a view to strengthening our economic and monetary union. In particular, I think the short-term actions are positive, which were formulated to ensure greater financial stability to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereign debts. A ‘single supervisory mechanism’ has been laid down which, by means of the European Stability Mechanism and the participation of the European Central Bank, can directly finance the banks. Furthermore, the so-called ‘anti-spread mechanism’ provides for the use of the bailout fund for the most virtuous countries in order to reassure the markets and lower the level of interest rates. In terms of long-term measures, the decisions taken by the Council with regard to growth and jobs are welcome. This involves mobilisation of EUR 120 billion intended for new investments and an increase of EUR 10 billion in the capital of the European Investment Bank. To that end, the forthcoming multiannual financial framework must be consistent with the objectives of growth and jobs. However, there is still much to do from the point of view of completing economic and monetary union.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the joint resolution. The European Parliament welcomes the progress made and the measures taken by the European Council in order to address the crisis in the euro area. What is important is that, on this agenda, growth no longer lags behind austerity. The Council’s undertaking to break the vicious cycle between banks and government debt and to close the gap between yields on government bonds in the euro area is a move in the right direction and an important step towards banking union in the EU as a whole. However, these decisions require a rapid implementation programme (integrated financial framework, integrated fiscal framework, integrated economic policy framework and the necessary democratic credentials and accountability for decision taking within EMU). Based on these four points, the European Parliament also expects a coordinated programme of targeted investments at national level from the Council and the Commission in order to stimulate the European economy.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for Parliament’s resolution on the Council of 28 and 29 June 2012 because I agree with it on the whole.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) First of all, it should be stressed that the agreement reached at the last Council summit on significant and substantial measures is important for breaking the vicious cycle between banks and sovereign debt, and for reducing the differences between sovereign debt interest rates in the euro area. An integrated financial framework is therefore also being advocated, intended to ensure financial stability, particularly in the euro area, and to minimise the cost to the European public resulting from the potential collapse of banks. In view of the challenges faced by Europe, this report should be welcomed, since it presupposes an anti-crisis agenda that is more balanced, more economically effective and socially fairer.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The text refers to Eurobonds. The communitarisation of debts in the EU is the wrong approach to take. The German Free Democratic Party has clearly expressed its opposition to shared liability for the sovereign debt of the individual members of the euro area.

  Herbert Reul (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I and many of my fellow Members in the German conservative group (CDU/CSU) have voted in favour of the resolution, as we expressly welcome the decisions of the European Council. Unfortunately, however, the text of the resolution also contains elements that we do not support. We continue to reject the idea of the communitarisation of sovereign and bank debt, as careful budget management must not be exploited by those in debt. We are also opposed to the passages of the resolution that call for common mechanisms to resolve banks and guarantee customer deposits as well as steps towards common debt issuance.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Among other things, the resolution welcomes the concrete steps taken by the European Council to face up to the euro zone crisis and its recognition of the need for a response that addresses both fiscal consolidation and growth; believes that the summit reflects the European Council’s approach to the challenges Europe faces, aimed at a more balanced, economically effective and socially fair anti-crisis agenda. It also underlines the significance of the euro zone’s agreement on important and substantial measures to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereign debt and to narrow the spreads among euro zone sovereign debt yields; and welcomes, in this connection, the flexible and efficient use that could be made of the existing EFSF/ESM instruments for Member States meeting their Country-Specific Recommendations and their other commitments, including the European Semester and the Stability and Growth Pact.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Council has drawn up a four-point platform for the recovery of the euro. First of all, with the ‘anti-spread mechanism’ the European Financial Stability Facility and the European Stability Mechanism will be able to be used in the most flexible way to buy government bonds on the primary and secondary market. Next, it is intended to create banking union, in which banking supervision will be up to the European Central Bank, and economic union. Within the year, the Council of the European Union will present a road map to strengthen economic integration between Member States and create a budgetary union. The last aspect concerns growth with a EUR 120 billion plan based on recapitalisation of the European Investment Bank (EIB), new project bonds, reorientation of the structural funds and more efficient use of the EU budget. With this ambitious programme we can hope for a prompt recovery of the euro and the European economy.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Europe’s leaders have taken a significant series of decisions intended to promote greater economic solidity and sustained growth in Europe. In the context of the sovereign debt crisis and of ever-more pronounced weaknesses in the financial sectors of various European countries, we need to continue controlling the existing macroeconomic imbalances, and to stimulate growth and job creation. I would congratulate the Council on the decisions taken, especially because it set out some new conditions for European financial-stabilisation funds, particularly the possibility of buying public debt directly from secondary markets, replacing the European Central Bank for short-term transactions and directly recapitalising banks. I also consider the adoption of the Compact for Growth and Jobs very positive, along with the setting out of a road map towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, comprising actions to be taken at national and European level in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the motion for a resolution on the June 2012 European Council meeting. We welcome the Council’s acknowledgement of the need to adopt measures aimed at economic growth. We should stress the significance of the agreement reached by the leaders of the euro area on important and substantial measures to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereign debt, and to narrow the spreads among euro area sovereign debt yields. We also welcome the Compact for Growth and Jobs, especially the decision to mobilise EUR 120 billion to stimulate investment, economic growth and employment, and the call for differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, which gives due consideration to the role of investment. This pact is a step towards the necessary revitalisation of sustainable economic growth-orientated public and private investment in Europe, particularly geared towards achieving the Europe 2020 strategy targets, and in particular towards resource efficiency and sustainability, as well as completion of the internal market. Given that the EU budget ought to become a tool for economic growth, we call on the Commission and Member States to make tangible progress towards an agreement on the future multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − Though there is still a lot of legislative work to do in the structural response to the crisis, this European Council meeting has been positive because it has set down the basis for fiscal consolidation and growth. In my opinion, the proposals regarding the establishment of an integrated financial framework and European banking supervisor are also positive because that will bring stability for European banking in the future. I also support the statement by Heads of State on reinforcing single market governance. I welcome the draft proposal for an Economic and Monetary Union, presented by Presidents Van Rompuy, Juncker, Barroso and Draghi, and I hope that they move on from ideas to action, in order to make Europe stronger. For all these reasons I will vote in favour of this resolution.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I abstained from voting because, unnecessarily and with no good reason, reference is being made here once again to the communitarisation of the debts of the Member States and the introduction of Eurobonds.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Council meeting in June will simply have been a case of wool being pulled over the eyes of the citizens of Europe. The so-called Growth Pact and banking union have made precious little progress. The former is basically merely a reallocation of funds, and the latter allows solidarity to flow once again along a one-way track between the European institutions and the banks: those very banks which have still never been made to face up to their responsibilities. We always respond to the crisis of global capitalism by another dose of capitalism.

Social Europe and the green economy have been banished to the outer reaches of the realms of possibility in a complete lack of transparency and utter hypocrisy. Counter to what we have been told, it is still the same old story with this Council, we are caught up in the same vicious circle dictated by the financial markets. If you remain in any doubt about this, all you need do is read the resolution submitted and adopted by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialist and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the Green/European Free Alliance. Once again those who have everything to lose are those who live from the fruits of their own labours in Europe. I therefore voted against this resolution.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I am opposed to the latest ideas for combating the crisis in the euro area. Their common theme is acceleration of the tempo of integration, whether political, in terms of German federalist ideas, or economic, in terms of Eurobonds, a banking union and so on. What is at the heart of these concepts is not a realistic assessment of the causes and course of the crisis, but doctrinaire enthusiasm for European integration. The anti-crisis measures adopted so far have only postponed what is inevitable, namely the collapse of the Euro area. Proof of this can be seen in the situation in Greece. Anti-crisis measures have resulted in a huge increase in Greek indebtedness and an economic recession. The enormous amounts weighing on the Greek balance sheet can be found in large part in the private banks that ran a disastrous credit policy. Doctrinaire proposals to deepen integration will, in effect, only accelerate the culmination of the crisis and will bring about an uncontrolled catastrophe in the euro area, which will threaten the very basis of European integration. Once again we call on the Commission and the Council to prepare a realistic anti-crisis strategy.

Report: Jürgen Klute (A7-0197/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I agree with the recommendations of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, since all Europeans should have access to the normal transactions necessary for everyday life, regardless of factors such as financial situation, employment situation, credit history or place of residence in the EU.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report takes it upon itself to present the servicing of banking capital from new bank accounts opened by those – few – who do not have a bank account, allegedly in order to service the needs of the ‘citizens’ and protect their alleged right to a bank account. The main issue that interests the rapporteur is the development of the internal capitalist market of the EU and of e-commerce, for the benefit of financial capital. The empty words about everyone’s right to access a bank account and about not allowing discrimination by the banks merely serve to conceal the real purpose, which is to serve the interests of banking capital. The wish list contained in the report cannot conceal the fact that banking capital uses access to bank accounts held by the workers/depositors to sell them various other ‘services’ (credit cards, micro loans, overdrafts and so on), thereby causing them to rack up excessive debts, taking advantage of the fact that the capitalist system cannot satisfy grassroots needs and thus forcing the workers to take recourse to extortionate banking capital. The report recognises the right of the banks to charge a ‘reasonable’ cost for bank accounts, which they can also use to squeeze small depositors dry, leaving to one side the legal scandals of banks imposing excessive charges on small depositors on various pretexts and with various excuses.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the draft resolution on banking services for all. Here in Parliament we are calling for the Commission to submit a proposal along these lines. I believe that people should have a right to open a bank account in Europe today. The banks should provide these services at cost to the 10% of our fellow citizens who are denied an account, particularly the homeless, people on very low incomes, students, people with no credit history and expatriate workers. Nowadays, daily life is vastly more complex if you do not have a debit card. The European Union must combat financial exclusion, and the first step is to provide access to basic banking services.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. − (GA) Exclusion from basic banking services leads to an increase in social exclusion and isolation. Effective measures must, therefore, be implemented to ensure that everyone has access to basic banking services. Since 7% of Europeans, 30 million people, do not have a bank account and 6.4m of them have had their right to a bank account withdrawn, I voted in favour of this important Report. Basic banking services are essential for access to eCommerce, and often now one needs a bank account for employment, health care and housing. A recent study carried out in Ireland found that some banks refused people bank accounts because their income was very low, though the official explanation blamed the lack of identity documents such as passport, driving license or utility bills. I support the rapporteur’s recommendations on the implementation of legislation in order to ensure that the consumer has the right to open and use a basic account to carry out basic payment transactions, receive income, pay bills or tax, and purchase goods and services.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Member States must guarantee access to basic payment services for their citizens, and a basic payment account needs to be straightforward to open. Access to payment services is one of the conditions for consumers to benefit from the internal market, notably from freedom of movement, money transfer, the purchase of goods and services and e-commerce. I agree that the Commission and the Member States should ensure that consumers are very well informed about access to these services. I believe that use of a basic payment account should be free or that costs should be reasonable and agree that Member States should establish an upper limit for the total annual fees related to opening and using a basic payment account. Member States need to designate competent authorities to ensure effective compliance with requirements and must establish effective complaints procedures. I agree that legislation to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorists should be applied in a proportional manner and should not be used to reject commercially less attractive consumers.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Access to basic payment services is one of the preconditions for consumers to benefit from, inter alia, the internal market, particularly freedom of movement, the purchase of goods and services, and the use of e-commerce. As such, Parliament has drafted this own-initiative report, which makes recommendations to the Commission and requests that it evaluate the current situation in the Member States as regards accessing basic banking services, as well as a proposal for a Directive on this issue by January 2013. Access to basic payment services is also key to social inclusion in terms of accessing jobs, health care and housing. Around 7% of the European population – 30 million people – do not have access to any bank account. It is crucial that the EU take concrete steps to change this situation and contribute to bringing an end to this form of social exclusion. That being the case, and since I agree that the current situation could be an obstacle to the European public’s full social integration, I am voting for this report.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is alarming to see that some 30 million European citizens do not currently have a bank account, the majority of whom include the homeless, students abroad and expatriate workers. Access to basic banking services must urgently be recognised as a fundamental right of all European citizens. All persons legally residing in the Union should effectively be able to open a bank account and carry out simple transactions such as receiving wages, paying bills and withdrawing money, free of charge or at reasonable cost. It is abhorrent to see that low income, employment and level of indebtedness remain grounds for the denial of a bank account. Banks must provide services for the most vulnerable and stop focusing only on the most attractive consumers. Social inclusion is also at issue: access to a bank account is effectively often a prerequisite for access to employment, health care and housing. In spite of the recommendations previously drawn up by Commission on this matter, too many Member States do not comply with them. It must therefore tackle this financial exclusion and submit the relevant measures quickly.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Klute’s report because I agree with the proposal to ensure access to basic banking services to all European citizens residing in the Member States. The right to open and use a basic payment account at a bank in a Member State should be safeguarded, and such an account should be provided free of charge or at a cost that is accessible to all European consumers.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because access to basic payment services is one of the preconditions for consumers to benefit from the internal market, notably from freedom of movement, money transfer and the purchase of goods and services at reasonable transaction costs. Basic payment services are essential for consumers to reap the benefits of e-commerce. The annual opportunity cost of not having access to a payment account is estimated at between EUR 185 to EUR 365 per consumer. Access to basic payment services is, in particular, increasingly becoming a prerequisite for social inclusion in terms of access to employment, healthcare and housing. The Commission has estimated that currently around 30 million of the European Union’s adult population do not have a bank account, and that an estimated 6.4 million of them have been deprived of or do not dare ask for a bank account. Consumers throughout the Union should be guaranteed access to payment services and should be able to take full advantage of the internal market.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) At present, access to a bank account has become for every European citizen a prerequisite for participating fully in economic and social life, and the use of cash is rapidly declining. Nowadays, not having access to a basic bank account makes everyday life difficult and more expensive. This means that paying utility bills or receiving income may become problematic. Not to mention e-commerce, which therefore becomes inaccessible. Based on what has been stated above, I strongly support the right of every European citizen, regardless of their financial situation, to open and use a basic payment account, including in a Member State other than the one where they permanently reside.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Access to banking services largely determines whether European consumers can benefit from the goods and services offered by the single market, travel or work within it. The facts are alarming: the right to access to basic banking services is still not guaranteed at the level of the Union to the point where seven million citizens are excluded from the traditional banking system. This report seeks to address this situation by providing European citizens with the effective provision of basic payment services: the ability to open an account, deposit and withdraw money, transfer funds from one account to another and receive account statements. This initiative, by promoting better financial and social inclusion, aims to bring the single market closer to the consumer.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report. Access to basic banking services is essential because it determines the access of European citizens to employment, health and housing. Given that basic banking services are essential for social integration, I am pleased to see that Parliament has voted for a text which facilitates access to them. I further welcome the initiative of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) to obtain a legislative proposal from the Commission and not make do with a recommendation.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I fully support this resolution. I think any European should have access to a basic bank account for free or for a moderate sum. Furthermore, factors such as income level, employment, credit history or individual insolvency situation in relation to amount of business should not be taken into consideration when opening a basic payment account. As such, under no circumstances should access be subject to acquisition of other products or services, such as insurance or an additional account.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the resolution urging the Commission to prepare, by next January, draft EU legislation on the provision of an untied, low-cost, basic bank account that enables everyone to carry out everyday banking transactions. Having access to a bank account is a requirement of modern living. Not having one especially affects the homeless, people on low incomes or with no credit record, students and expatriate workers. In their 2009 submission to the Commission’s consultation on this issue, the Irish charity The Society of St. Vincent De Paul (SVP) rightly emphasised that accessing a basic account is a starting point to addressing and preventing financial exclusion. Guaranteed bank access would also help save funds for the Dept of Social Protection by facilitating the electronic payment of all state benefits. I welcome the Irish Government’s decision to begin testing the provision of a basic bank account in a number of locations this year, including in Tallaght. EU legislation is now needed because last year’s Commission recommendations on this issue have only been implemented in full in a handful of Member States, and not at all in many.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) One in 10 European citizens is currently without a bank account while the use of a bank account is virtually indispensable for carrying out basic transactions such as receiving wages or paying a bill. The homeless, people on very low income, students and certain expatriate workers are occasionally excluded from using banking services on the grounds of what some banks consider to be too low an income or excessively burdensome administrative paperwork. It should be a right for all Europeans to have guaranteed access to basic banking services. That is why the banks should allow unconditionally all European citizens who wish to do so to open a basic banking account, whatever their level of income or credit history. Banks are undoubtedly indispensable for financing the economy but they also have a duty not to exclude European citizens from participating in society.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing.– (FR) Seven per cent of the adult population of the EU, namely around 30 million people, still do not have a bank account in 2012. I voted for this text, in which Parliament calls for the universal right of European citizens to have a basic bank account to be recognised, in order to address this issue. Every individual should effectively be able to open an account and carry out banking transactions, albeit simple ones such as the payment of wages into an account or the withdrawal of money. These transactions have now become an essential part of our daily lives and of the way our economy works.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘access to basic banking services’ because its objective is to establish the right of all EU consumers to open and use a basic payment account, thereby enabling anyone to make payments and effect transactions; in particular, to receive their wages or benefits, to pay bills and taxes, and to acquire goods and services.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There are around 30 million people in Europe – 7% of the adult population – who do not have any form of bank account, running counter to the idea of the social market economy. That is the case despite the EU supporting banks with major financial packages, as happened recently with the Spanish banks. For some time, the EU has been expressing great concern about the disadvantaged, not just by supporting the Millennium Development Goals, but also by including in the Europe 2020 strategy ambitious objectives relating to social issues, as shown by the ‘inclusive growth’ aspect: increased rate of participation in the labour market, acquisition of qualifications and combating poverty. I voted for this report draft by Mr Klute, which includes recommendations to the Commission regarding access to basic banking services, because we urgently need to put a stop to practices that exclude members of the public. Our banking system is inclusive for those with money but exclusive for those with little, and this financial exclusion translates into social exclusion. Everyone should have the right to open a bank account for free or for a moderate price. What is at stake is equal treatment.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Their low incomes and the banks’ discriminatory criteria mean that a large number of people are, in practice, cut off from using banks and plastic cards. This prevents them from taking advantage of the various ways that these cards can be used in daily life, and also constitutes a factor in their social exclusion and stigmatisation. It is therefore entirely justified to adopt measures aimed at facilitating access to ownership of a basic bank account and a debit card for the use thereof through the intervention of the Member States in creating conditions that guarantee the public the opportunity to use so-called ‘basic banking services’.

This report seeks to take some positive steps in that direction, which we acknowledge and welcome. However, it would have been better if the report went further, given the specific situation today and the banks’ high profits, an increasing proportion of which come from the multiplicity of fees and charges levied on depositors, particularly the poorer ones. Regrettably, the initial proposal has been weakened by provisions that continue to permit the banks discretionary action, which is to the benefit of their own profits and at the expense of their depositors’ interests.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Access to basic payment services is one of the preconditions for consumers to benefit from the internal market, notably from freedom of movement, money transfer and the purchase of goods and services at reasonable transaction costs. Basic payment services are essential for consumers to reap the benefits of e-commerce. Similarly, access to basic payment services is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for social inclusion in terms of access to employment, healthcare and housing. Not all Member States have taken adequate action as required by the Commission in its recommendations on access to a basic payment account, and too many Member States still have no legal or voluntary rules for providers requiring them to offer basic payment services. In order to be effective, in my opinion, it must be easy to open a basic payment account (free of charge or for a reasonable fee) so that a specified range of core services can be provided. Last but not least, the legislation on the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism should be applied in a proportional manner and should never be used as an unfounded pretext for rejecting commercially less attractive consumers. Often it is the existing requirements of payment service providers regarding the opening basic payment accounts that are restrictive and may hinder cross-border mobility within the EU.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − I welcome the Commission’s decision to limit its proposals on access to a basic bank account to a recommendation; I believe that the Member States have the capability to act alone to improve consumer access. Despite basic bank accounts being voluntary in the UK, there are 16 different basic accounts available. A legal right to such an account would therefore have little impact in terms of consumer access to finance. For that reason I am unable to support Parliament’s report. It departs from the Commission’s initial proposal by calling for a legislative proposal that would require all banks and other payment service providers to offer such a service – this is unnecessary and conflicts with the freedom to contract. The report is far too prescriptive with regard to account features and pricing. It is important that national authorities are given the discretion to ensure that any measures have a proportionate impact on their market. Otherwise costs will rise, thereby jeopardising existing provision for consumers. I urge the Commission to ensure that all policy options are carefully considered before bringing forward any future legislative proposal, taking the principles of subsidiarity and necessity fully into account.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (SV) I abstained in the vote. The report pleads for guaranteed access to basic payment services for all consumers legally residing in the Union. This is a demand that I support. However, I am opposed to this being decided on by the EU at a supranational level by means of a directive. In this situation, I am opting to abstain.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution with recommendations to the Commission on Access to Basic Banking Services because the smooth functioning of the internal market and development of a modern, social market economy depends, inter alia, on the universal provision of affordable and easily accessible basic payment services and of a socially responsible banking sector. Self-regulation instruments have had positive or mixed results and have, for the time being, not guaranteed access to basic payment services in all Member States. I believe that Member States should prevent any potential charges for basic payment services from becoming a barrier preventing financially excluded consumers from having access to basic payment services. The Commission is therefore asked to put forward a detailed assessment of the state of play in all Member States by September 2012, and to submit to Parliament, no later than January 2013, a proposal for a directive ensuring access to basic payment services for all consumers legally residing in the EU, unless that detailed assessment demonstrates that there is no need for such a proposal.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) Access to basic payment services is a precondition for benefiting from the internal market, especially from freedom of movement, money transfer and the purchase of goods and services. The annual costs resulting from lack of access to a payment account are estimated to be in the range from EUR 185 to EUR 635 per consumer. At present, 7% of the adult population, or 30 million people, do not have a bank account, while in Bulgaria and Romania, this figure is up to 50% of the adult population. In Finland and Denmark, close to 100% of the population uses payment services. In order to be effective, a basic payment account must be straightforward to open. It is necessary to ensure that understandable information is available to consumers. The EP is calling for the situation in the Member States to be assessed in detail and for a directive to be prepared that ensures access to basic payment services for all consumers, with which I have expressed my agreement.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With this report we are calling on the European Commission to provide a general overview of the accessibility of banking services to European citizens. An overview of this kind is necessary in order to be able to take the necessary steps to implement these services. Today, basic banking services are an essential requirement for all EU citizens and are also a litmus test of the social framework of a country. Access to banking services is vital to access health care, to benefit from the internal market and to be able to access employment pathways. We call upon the Commission to spread and extend basic banking services to as many EU citizens as possible, formalising our call for concrete and prompt action in this area.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I welcome today’s resolution on basic bank accounts, and the Commission’s response during the debate, as being important steps towards greater social inclusion. An estimated 30 million European citizens do not have a bank account and approximately 7 million have been refused access to one.

While some may choose not to be within the banking system (and, given current events, who can be surprised at their decision?), many others do not have a choice. They then find it difficult to take out contracts for housing or other essential services, and may find themselves paying higher prices for domestic utilities as companies effectively charge a premium for what they view as ‘high-risk’ groups: the poorest are often hit hardest. I look forward to the Commission’s proposal on legislation later this year.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report calling for universal access to banking services.

If you prevent people from being able to hold a bank account you are in effect excluding them from the ability to benefit from financial products and services, deals and discounts and, perhaps most importantly, certain jobs which require access to a bank account. It creates an unnecessary social divide between those who hold bank accounts and those who don’t.

In the UK the move towards universal benefits payments means that bank accounts are going to become an increasingly important way for people on benefits or with low incomes to manage their money. Credit Unions are ahead of the game and are already helping people to manage their monthly payments and ensure that they have enough money at the end of the month; banks too should be playing their part,

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Access to basic payment services is one of the preconditions for European consumers to benefit from the internal market, from freedom of movement, money transfer and the purchase of goods and services at reasonable transaction costs. Access to basic payment services is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for social inclusion in terms of access to employment, health care and housing. General economic and social development contribute to high bank account penetration: legislative approaches have had satisfactory results in many European countries, where the number of unbanked citizens has dropped considerably as a result of the implementation of legislative initiatives. Considering that not all Member States have taken adequate action required by the Commission Recommendation on access to a basic payment account, and too many Member States still have no legal requirement for providers to offer basic payment services, we request that the Commission put forward a detailed assessment of the state of play in all Member States and present us with a proposal for a directive ensuring access to basic payment services to all consumers legally residing in the Union.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the text on access to banking services in order to call on the Commission to submit legislation enabling all European citizens to have access to a bank account. Seven per cent of the adult population of the EU, namely around 30 million people, currently do not have a bank account. The most deprived are those who suffer from this restriction of not having access to basic banking services. Moreover, access to a bank account is essential for the social inclusion of all and the access of all to employment, health care and housing.

  Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) We agree that a basic account should be provided free of charge or at a reasonable cost. However, we should be realistic: we cannot make it obligatory for banks to provide accounts free of charge. This must apply in particular if, from the basic account, an account is created that includes remote payment procedures, in other words Internet and telebanking. Telebanking is not a basic option that should be made available to every consumer free of charge. If this was a basic facility, everyone would set up such a ‘basic account’ in future and there would be no need for other accounts. However, a majority has agreed today that remote payment procedures should be part of a basic account, in which case we can no longer expect an account that is free of charge. Moreover, a basic account should not be provided with an overdraft facility, not even a small one, as this is not a basic facility either. What is more important in my view is that the consumers for whom this account is intended – in other words the vulnerable members of society and students – should not be able to fall into debt. The risk of not being able to get out of debt again is high and that cannot be the intention here. Although the report mentions the fact that such an overdraft should only be a buffer to cover temporary negative balances, I would, however, expressly warn against going down this route.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Commission must adopt without further ado legislation to tackle the problem of financial exclusion in order enable all the citizens of Europe to participate in social and economic life. This exclusion currently affects 10% of Europeans. It particularly affects the homeless, people on very low incomes, students, people with no credit history and, finally, expatriate workers. We sought with this resolution to introduce the idea of genuine legal rights insofar as equal opportunities and non-discrimination are overarching principles in our democracies. We also sought with this measure to bring our citizens closer to the single market by allowing them to benefit fully from its advantages. Now everyone will have access to a basic bank account. Providers can no longer deny granting one on the grounds of low income, employment or level of indebtedness. This basic account should enable all citizens to carry out all essential payment transactions such as having wages paid into this account, paying bills and withdrawing cash. This resolution is a major step forward towards non-discrimination, equality of opportunity and greater social integration.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I fully support the recommendation from the report. Everyone should have access to the standard transactions of everyday life, regardless of factors such as financial situation, employment status, credit history or place of residence in the Union. I voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Access to basic banking services has now become vital for every citizen and it must therefore be guaranteed that this principle is respected. The adopted report calls for European citizens to be given the opportunity to be able to use, free of charge or at a reasonable cost, facilities such as access to a basic current account and standard payment services. It is right for banks to make this service available to the broadest segment of the population, but the fees associated with managing a current account, which are often very substantial, cannot be permitted. However, there must also be the necessary guarantees and that is why I thought it was rash, and perhaps an exercise in propaganda, to want to extend this possibility to those with no fixed address: it is not the case that we want to deny those citizens this opportunity, but there are objective difficulties, chiefly the traceability of the account holder, which may also lead to a widespread lack of transparency. Despite this last point, I nonetheless voted in favour of the text in question, as I believe that we should extend the use of these services to as many citizens as possible.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In the EU countries, clients of European banks encounter various approaches to the provision of banking services. What is more, when assessing applicants for access to a basic bank account, a certain form of discrimination takes place. The result is a refusal to provide these services. It is hugely important to clarify the provision of banking services and to ensure that every consumer has the right to establish a basic payment account. It is also necessary to establish clear rules for payment service providers, which would also take into account the individual needs of socially disadvantaged sections of the population. When introducing future legislation, we must, in particular, not forget affordability, and ensure price conditions that are as low as possible. Harmonisation of European legislation concerning the provision of banking services will, in my opinion, be of clear benefit for the strengthening of the internal market and, at the same time, will contribute to the development of cross-border trade. It will also enhance the efficiency of banking services, and the European citizen will thus integrate into the European labour market more easily and quickly.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) Freedom of movement is the fundamental freedom that our citizens enjoy. Access to basic banking services is therefore of the utmost importance. The greatest problem is the fact that banks deprive consumers who are of less economic interest to them – in other words, those who earn less – of many product options. The smooth functioning of the single market is also hindered by banks’ mistrust of those who are not resident in the country in which they wish to open an account. Despite the above, one must consider that all consumers are entitled not to have a payment account or a basic payment account, and to conduct their business in cash, and those people should not be discriminated against. I do not concur with the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection that using cash is always more expensive for the consumer. On the contrary – various service providers have to pay banks quite high service charges (this is also the case in my home country, Estonia), and this is reflected in the price, making payment by card or bank transfer more costly. It is important to improve supervision over financial services to ensure that banks do not engage in ‘usury’, thereby hindering economic development or increasing the black market’s role in the economy. Europe needs a socially responsible banking sector. I supported the report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this motion for a resolution. Above all, greater attention needs to be paid to financial education. We cannot force every person to have a payment account but we can offer information about the opportunities and benefits an account provides. We need to ensure that all consumers have the right to use a basic payment account regardless of their financial situation. Only then will consumers be able to properly participate in the main financial services market and obtain essential goods and services. Furthermore, it is very important for basic banking services to be accessible to all. I believe that legislation should be adopted at EU level guaranteeing all EU consumers the opportunity to use basic payment services.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Consumers are entitled to access to basic payment services so that they can enjoy the benefits of the internal market, notably from freedom of movement, money transfer and the purchase of goods and services at non-discriminatory transaction costs. However, over and above that, access to basic payment services is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for social inclusion in terms of access to employment, healthcare and housing. Therefore, it should be guaranteed to all EU citizens, regardless of their social status and the remoteness of the area in which they live. The fact that the opportunity cost of not having access to a payment account is estimated at between EUR 185 and 365 per consumer reveals the importance of this particular service. In this report, which I supported, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to put forward a detailed assessment of the state of play in all the Member States by September 2012, so that the necessary measures can be taken.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution because I agree with most of the recommendations to the Commission regarding access to basic banking services.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Considering that access to basic payment services is one of the preconditions for consumers to benefit from the internal market, notably from freedom of movement, money transfer and the purchase of goods and services at reasonable transaction costs, that basic payment services are essential for consumers to reap the benefits of e-commerce, and that access to basic payment services is, in particular, increasingly becoming a prerequisite for social inclusion in terms of access to employment, health care and housing, I voted in favour of the proposal and of the recommendations as to the content of the proposal, in order to ensure access to basic payment services to all consumers legally residing in the EU.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Access to basic payment services is one of the preconditions for consumers to benefit from, inter alia, the internal market, particularly freedom of movement, the purchase of goods and services, and the use of e-commerce. As such, Parliament has drafted this own-initiative report, which makes recommendations to the Commission and requests that it evaluate the current situation in the Member States as regards accessing basic banking services, and that it draft a proposal for a Directive on this issue by January 2013. Access to basic payment services is also key to social inclusion in terms of accessing jobs, health care and housing. Given that around 7% of Europe’s population – 30 million people – have no access to a bank account and that many of these people have been deprived of access to this service, it is essential that the EU take concrete steps to change this situation and contribute to ending this form of social exclusion. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In today’s sitting in Strasbourg we adopted the report by Mr Klute. The non-legislative resolution adopted today asserts that the 10% of EU citizens who are currently not entitled to basic banking services should be entitled to them; accordingly, Parliament called on the Commission to present a legislative proposal by January next year to rectify this financial exclusion. Legislation is required at EU level because the Commission’s simple recommendations have had the desired effects only in some countries and banks naturally tend to target only customers from whom they can make money. According to the resolution, a basic payment account should always be more convenient that any alternative offered by a given financial institution. It goes on to say that access to a basic payment account should under no circumstances be made conditional on the purchase of other products or services. The basic account would enable a person to make any essential payment transactions such as receiving income or benefits, paying bills or taxes and purchasing goods and services, making cash withdrawals and printing account statements.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is essential to have a bank account to receive income or benefits, pay bills or taxes, purchase goods and services, withdraw cash, and print account statements. One in 10 European citizens does not have access to banking services: the homeless, people on very low incomes, students, expatriate workers … All these individuals should have the right to have access to basic banking services. By supporting this resolution, I call on the Commission to submit legislation by 2013 with a view to putting an end to this financial exclusion that I find unacceptable. The text stipulates that payment account providers must not deny these on the grounds of low income, employment situation, credit history or level of indebtedness. Furthermore, the text makes it clear that the basic banking account should always be less expensive than any other product offered by a provider, and that it should not be made conditional on the purchase of other products or services. I now eagerly await the Commission’s proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The text requests that the Commission put forward a detailed assessment of the state of play in all Member States by September 2012; requests the Commission to submit, by January 2013, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a directive ensuring access to basic payment services to all consumers legally residing in the Union, unless that detailed assessment demonstrates that there is no need for such a proposal, following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex hereto; but it also confirms that the recommendations respect fundamental rights and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and considers that the requested proposal does not have any financial implications for the budget of the European Union.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Commission should immediately submit a legislative proposal to make basic banking services a right for European citizens. The basic current account should make it possible to carry out all the main transactions, such as receiving income, paying bills or taxes, purchasing goods and services and withdrawing cash. This opportunity should be given to everyone, including the homeless, students, those on a low income and migrant workers, because banks should have a responsibility to society and should not always be guided by profit.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The smooth functioning of the internal market and development of a modern, social market economy depends on the universal provision of affordable and easily accessible basic payment services and on a socially responsible banking sector. Access to basic payment services is also one of the preconditions for consumers to benefit from the internal market, freedom of movement, money transfer and the purchase of goods and services at reasonable transaction costs. On average, basic payment services cost between EUR 185 and EUR 365 per consumer per year. With this vote, we are requesting that the Commission put forward a detailed assessment of the state of play in all Member States by September 2012, and requesting the Commission to submit, by January 2013, a proposal for a directive ensuring access to basic payment services to all consumers legally residing in the Union.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. – (ES) I am abstaining because two issues are being combined that require different treatment; incidentally, the same thing is occurring with other documents by this Parliament.

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. − I voted against this report. While I appreciate the fact that 7 % of the EU’s adult population does not have a bank account is a troubling statistic, a wholesale imposition of an obligation on financial services providers to provide free or low cost basic payment accounts is unacceptable. This will present a significant cost to the industry, especially since the report in Recommendation 4 proposes that banks must take on the task of marketing BPAs themselves on their websites and in branches. Moreover, quite simply I do not agree that consumers should have an enforceable right to a basic payment account. What about the right of banks to choose their customers? This report – by dictating to private enterprise – essentially goes against the most basic principles of the free market which has brought so many tangible and dramatic benefits to European citizens, especially in the post-Communist countries that are so well represented in my group. I would point to the Commission’s original proposal as a far better and certainly more pragmatic solution.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report by Parliament. We are therefore calling on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive by January 2013, on the basis of a detailed report of the situation in the Member States. We believe that the forthcoming directive should allow all consumers legally resident in the Union access to a bank account to make any essential payment transactions, such as receiving income or benefits, paying bills or taxes and purchasing goods and services via both physical and remote channels. We should also like these accounts to be free of charge or to be offered at a reasonable cost. Every Member State should establish an upper limit for the total annual fees relating to opening and using an account and any additional fees should be transparent. Finally, we are proposing that Member States should be obliged to specify principles for sanctions to be imposed on providers for non-compliance with the basic payment accounts framework.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that ‘the European Parliament may [...] request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Union act is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties’. I consider the smooth running of the internal market and the development of the social market economy directly related to the provision of a universal, high-quality banking service. I am voting for this report, which argues that all Europeans should have access to basic banking services, thereby contributing to solving the problem that 7% of the adult population – around 30 million people – do not have any service of this type.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on recommendations to the Commission on Access to Basic Banking Services. I voted in favour of a basic payment account being effective, straightforward to open and providing a specified range of basic services. I voted for efficient measures to be introduced for effective supervision and settlement of conflicts, as well as for facilitating access to such an account for consumers with no fixed address. I think that the legislation on anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing should be applied in a balanced manner and should never be used as an unfounded pretext for rejecting commercially less attractive consumers. In addition, the Commission should explore the need for consumers to have a link to the Member State in order to be eligible for a basic payment account. We call on the Commission to submit a detailed assessment of the state of play in all Member States by September 2012, and to table, by January 2013, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a directive ensuring access to basic payment services to all consumers legally residing in the EU.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − I welcome this resolution as a way to put forward concerns at the fact that 30 million people still do not have access to bank accounts. This service should be provided in the cheapest way to those people at risk of exclusion, but always taking into account its costs.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − Consumers across Europe should be able to open and run basic bank accounts.

Currently, there are around 30 million people in Europe who do not have access to a bank account. Having a basic bank account is a consumer right – without a bank account citizens are excluded from carrying out essential payment transactions, such as bill payments, making cash withdrawals and receiving income or benefits.

I support calls for rules to ensure that banks cannot refuse to give accounts to those with low incomes or a certain type of job. I hope that the Commission will come forward with strong proposals to protect consumers and to tackle financial exclusion.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Seven per cent of the population of the EU (around 30 million people) do not have a bank account. Of these, 6.4 million people have either been denied an account or have not dared to open one. Banking exclusion goes hand in hand with social exclusion, can aggravate it and makes opportunities for social reintegration difficult. Moreover, leaving aside the situation of vulnerable persons, EU citizens may face a number of difficulties when they want to carry out banking operations outside their country of residence. As the report notes, the fight against money-laundering and terrorist financing is sometimes used as a pretext for rejecting consumers. Some States have already adopted legislative approaches to guarantee access to basic banking services and 100% of households benefit from this: that is the case in Finland and the Netherlands. The report by my fellow MEP, Mr Klute of Die Linke, is a compromise report which calls on the Commission to submit a directive guaranteeing access to basic banking services and which makes a number of recommendations regarding the contents of this directive. I therefore chose to vote in favour.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − It is estimated that 7% of the adult population of the Union (about 30 million people) have no bank account. The resolution calls on the Commission to promote new standards by January next year to end financial exclusion. The payment service providers must provide access to a basic payment account for free or at reasonable cost.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is now clear that the smooth functioning of the internal market and development of a modern, social market economy depends, inter alia, on the universal provision of affordable and easily accessible basic payment services: in this way, European consumers can benefit from the internal market, notably from freedom of movement, money transfer and the purchase of goods and services at reasonable transaction costs. I therefore voted in favour of Mr Klute’s report, so that the European institutions can set about taking regulatory measures to ensure access to basic banking services to the most EU citizens possible.

9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

  President. − That concludes the explanations of vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 14.55 and resumed at 15.05)

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

10. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes

11. Financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A7-0150/2012) by Göran Färm, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (COM(2011)0659 – C7-0372/2011 – 2011/0301(COD)).

I would like to welcome Mr Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank, and Mr Mavroyiannis, who I think is making his first appearance before us for the Cyprus Presidency.

  Göran Färm, rapporteur. – (SV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this title relating to investments in trans-European networks and so on actually conceals a very interesting report on project bonds. The title should perhaps have reflected this, but it does not really do that.

Europe’s economic future is not just about measures to deal with the acute crisis. It is just as much about boosting the sustainable development of the economy and jobs in the long term and, above all, increasing those investments that will promote growth – both private and public.

This is where the role of the EU is crucial. In order to bring together the different parts of Europe and to exploit the potential inherent in the fact that we, in fact, comprise 500 million people in a common internal market, it is necessary for us to be able to make strategic investments – in transport, in a modern infrastructure, in the energy sector, in the digital sector, and so on. This is absolutely crucial in order for us to succeed in our goals of smart and sustainable growth for everyone.

The economic crisis is not merely a consequence of the collapse in the banking and financial sector; it is also a result of the fact that, for a long time, the level of European investments has been inadequate. The need for investments is therefore enormous now. In the transport, energy and IT sectors, the Commission estimates that there is a need for EUR 1 500 billion up to 2020. That is an enormous amount of money that the EU cannot mobilise on its own. Therefore, the majority of it will, of course, be financed by the private sector, but also by national, regional and local authorities.

However, with the current tight restrictions on public budgets and the increased capital adequacy requirements for banks and so on., we need to find new ways to move forward. One of these ways is the development of innovative financial instruments which, with a certain amount of budgetary support from the EU, should be able to attract additional capital.

Project bonds are just such an instrument. The proposal involves enabling project companies, by means of loans from the European Investment Bank, guaranteed by the EU budget, to issue bonds which will then be more secure and more attractive on the market. The EU’s contribution should be able to raise the credit rating of these projects, which will make them something that pension funds, for example, would be interested in investing in. It is important to emphasise, however, that these are private bonds from project companies and not public EU bonds.

The Commission’s proposal, which is supported by the Committee on Budgets, involves us redistributing EUR 230 million within the EU budget for the project bonds for 2012-2013. That is not a great deal of money, but the Commission is counting on this money being able to mobilise perhaps 15 to 20 times that sum from other players. Then it becomes significant. That portion of the contribution is capped to the guaranteed amount that is set aside in the budget. There will therefore be no increase in the EU’s expenditure. If all goes well, the costs will be zero, but we will be helping to boost growth in Europe.

We must remember, however, that project bonds are just one piece in this investment puzzle in which they need to be evaluated. My hope is that it will be possible to develop them further along the lines suggested in recent weeks by the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, and also mentioned at the EU summit and the G20, for example.

I would also like to draw attention to other ideas. I think that, in our analyses and evaluations, we ought to examine whether, by improving this proposal, we can reach new types of investors. Can we reach small and medium-sized projects by means of project portfolios, for example? Can we help to create a more liquid bond market in Europe? Could we perhaps even give some thought to the question of so-called Delors bonds – European project bonds guaranteed by the EU budget? I think at the very least we need to discuss this matter.

Finally, I would like to say a big thank you to everyone who has helped to chisel out this important solution: my colleagues in the Committee on Budgets, in particular the shadow rapporteurs, the European Commission, the European Investment Bank and, last but not least, the Danish Presidency. We hope now that the Cyprus Presidency can finally bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I very much welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and I look forward to the vote on this issue tomorrow.

It is particularly encouraging that the proposal for a pilot phase of the project bond initiative has been brought to a successful and timely conclusion. In this regard I am very pleased to acknowledge that this was fully taken into account by the European Council in its conclusions last week. Stimulating investment in infrastructure is a key element in supporting growth and creating jobs.

At a time when national budgets are under considerable pressure, it is essential to look for new and innovative ways to boost economic growth throughout the Union. Access to finance has become more difficult in the wake of the financial crisis. In the current challenging economic environment, we need to ensure that long-term investment in the fields of transport, energy and information technology can be maintained.

The project bond initiative is designed to help attract and facilitate private financing of priority projects. The European Union contribution to the project bond instrument should help leverage large volumes of investment. If we can achieve high multiplier effects, initiatives such as the Project Bond Instrument will help ensure that scarce budgetary resources are used as effectively as possible. Provided that the experience of the project phase is positive, the volume of such financial instruments could be developed further in the future.

The agreement reached with Parliament is therefore particularly welcome. It specifically addresses several elements that are important to the Council, including the need to launch the initiative as soon as possible. It also provides for appropriate reporting during the critical first phase and for an independent evaluation at the end of the pilot phase to allow us to assess the impact and effectiveness of the instrument.

Many of these concerns were shared by Parliament. This helped us make rapid progress, for which I would like to express my thanks to the Danish Presidency for the particularly efficient way in which it conducted the negotiation. Thanks are also due to both Parliament and the Commission for their openness and willingness to secure an agreement as soon as possible. I would, in particular, like to express our gratitude to Göran Färm for the excellent way in which he has handled this important dossier and the constructive manner in which he approached the negotiation.

More than ever, we need to stimulate smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU. A wide range of instruments and policies have to be used in order to achieve this. I am therefore pleased that by working closely with the European Parliament and the Commission we have been able to deliver on the project bond initiative. It will make an important contribution to supporting investment in infrastructure and will thereby help boost economic growth and create jobs. I am sure that is something that all of us will welcome.

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur Göran Färm, the co-rapporteurs, Mr Langen and Mr Cancian, and their shadows for their very substantive reports and the many constructive proposals they have made in these reports.

I would also like to thank the European Investment Bank and President Hoyer for excellent cooperation in the preparation of this initiative.

Firstly, allow me to put the project bonds initiative in the broader context of our growth agenda: boosting the lending capacity of the EIB; launching the first phase of project bonds; and redirecting a certain amount of Structural Funds towards supporting in particular small and medium-sized enterprises and young unemployed people.

These important initiatives are finally being decided and implemented. I am glad to see that the initiatives the Commission has long been advocating are now turning into reality.

This is definitely necessary as the European Union, especially the eurozone, finds itself at a decisive juncture, not only in its three-year-old debt crisis but in its thirteen-year-old history. The two are of course closely intertwined.

The short-term symptoms of this crisis have their roots in long-term ailments, both structural and systemic. We need to relieve the short-term pain of market pressure to create breathing space for countries to adopt the game-changing reforms that are essential for long-term gain.

On both fronts we are now moving forward convincingly. Last week’s euro area summit agreed to measures that should finally allow us to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereign debt which has done so much to undermine confidence.

Once a single banking supervisory mechanism is in place the new European stability mechanism will be given the power to recapitalise banks directly without its loans adding to the debt burden of countries already under intensive market pressure.

There is no time to lose. That is why the Commission is already working on its proposal for this single banking supervisory mechanism involving the European Central Bank, together with some other proposals it considers to be an essential element of the future banking union Europe is now committed to put in place. We also count on your support in that regard.

The Commission proposed the Europe 2020 project bonds last October as an effective and efficient way of using the EU budget to leverage private investment.

To test the concept of project bonds and demonstrate to the markets and our citizens that it works, the Commission proposed a pilot phase. This is the proposal before you now. I encourage you to adopt this proposal, in order to support the recovery of the European economy, investment, growth and job creation.

  Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank. − Mr President, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to participate in this debate on project bonds. Allow me first of all to thank Parliament for its support of this initiative, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Göran Färm, for his constructive and pragmatic approach which has hopefully helped to reach a compromise acceptable to all.

As we all know, there will be huge investment needs all over Europe in the coming years, so the test phase of the project bond initiative comes not a moment too soon. We are faced with an urgent need to restart our economies, to stop the rise in unemployment, in order to preserve the EU’s role and position in the world, and the project bond initiative will be one more element among others in our toolbox to raise private money on the financial markets. It is not an alternative to the instruments in our toolbox; it is an addition to them.

At last week’s summit, leaders committed to an ambitious Growth and Jobs Compact. Long-term investment will be a crucial component of this plan. Importantly for the taxpayer, the project bond initiative does not impose an additional burden on domestic budgets, sovereign debt or contingent liabilities. On the contrary, it relies on a small EU budget contribution redirected from existing programmes, coupled with an EIB guarantee or loan. Together, these two elements will improve the quality of debt raised by project promoters, allow institutional investors to buy this debt, and support considerable investment throughout Europe.

The multiplier effect can be significant. With a EUR 230 million guarantee from the EU budget and an EIB contribution, we will be able to support up to EUR 4.3 billion of investment in this pilot phase. This is the rationale for using public money as risk capital in times of crisis. A careful scaling of the EU guarantee and EIB loan element will allow for a more efficient use of EU budgetary resources. The project bond initiative is therefore another fine example of synergy between the EIB and the Commission and I thank Commissioner Rehn for his excellent cooperation.

As the EIB has traditionally worked on three pillars – lending, blending and advising – we are optimistic that we can offer our help and experience to make this pilot phase a success, and it must become a success. Building on its experience and developing joint instruments, the EIB has been working on identifying projects suitable for the start-up period. The first pilot projects will most likely be situated in some of the more advanced project-financed markets of the EU, and will focus on a handful of clearly bankable deals where relatively small amounts of public money can help underpin relatively large volumes of investment. The clear objective, however, is to support access to long-term finance for infrastructure throughout Europe.

Investment in energy networks to promote energy security, in digital access, and in sustainable transfer infrastructure is crucial for the success of the Europe 2020 strategy and the continent’s long-term growth prospects. I hope that project bonds will increase appetite for private-sector financing of vital projects.

  Werner Langen, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (DE) Mr President, I have the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy to present to you. The Industry Committee unanimously adopted 28 amendments. The Committee on Budgets accepted most of them. For us it was important to put reporting obligations in place and to underline the seriousness of this pilot phase: an independent final evaluation, an interim report, the fact that is being carried out under the full responsibility of the European Investment Bank (EIB), including the technical expertise, and does not merely represent an extended arm of the Commission, even though budget resources are being made available.

We want to mobilise private capital for large infrastructure projects, for the provision of broadband networks, for energy networks – for all of these challenges. My request to you, President Hoyer, is that when the selection phase takes place, the EIB does not allow itself to be influenced by anyone. We cannot have a situation where, during the pilot phase, only simple projects are carried out and then afterwards the model and the result are transferred to difficult projects where failure could potentially be waiting for us. Thus, honest assessment, selection and evaluation – that is what the Industry Committee is concerned about, because we support project bonds in general as a way of mobilising private capital.

  Antonio Cancian, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, of course I am absolutely in favour of this pilot phase for project bonds, because the principle of using European resources while utilising the European Investment Bank’s experience to create this leverage effect to carry out quality projects of European interest, is currently urgent and valid. The budget for this pilot project does not work. EUR 230 million is truly too little, and in particular the EUR 10 million for the energy sector and the EUR 20 million for telecommunications appear to be a token allocation. This instrument needs to be allocated a serious budget in future.

What is really missing? We have to have the courage to guide the economic recovery from here, from the European Union. We are lacking the courage to implement an initiative for the direct issuance of bonds by the Union in a public-private partnership (PPP) system, in order to participate directly in investments in infrastructure which we consider to be a priority and to pull the economy out of the quagmire it is in. I am not referring to the past, to debt mutualisation and so on, but to future development, and hence we must start again together. That is the only way to immediate growth, to create jobs and the competiveness we deserve.

  Dominique Riquet, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to commend the extremely productive work of Mr Färm on this issue. Thanks to this work and cooperation with the Council under the Danish Presidency and now under the Cypriot Presidency, we can expect this initiative to enter into force this summer.

It should be supported for two main reasons. First of all, this innovative financial instrument is based on a smart use of resources that are known to be limited: the redeployment of existing budget lines, on the one hand, and leverage effects on other investments, on the other. Budgetary stability policies will only bear fruit if they are accompanied by measures for economic recovery. The bonds designed for financing projects (‘project bonds’) are targeted precisely at areas likely to create jobs, namely transport, energy and broadband infrastructures.

I further believe that the text which has emerged from the trilogue and on which we shall vote significantly improves the Commission’s proposals by defining the instrument more precisely, by strengthening the tools for its monitoring, by introducing regulatory changes if uptake is unsuccessful without discouraging the markets and by introducing the possibility of reusing interest and other revenue generated.

Finally, the opportunity to consolidate the trust account of the Loan Guarantee Facility for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) (LGTT), the current loan guarantee instrument for transport infrastructures, with the ‘project bonds’ account enables better financial management.

Finally, Mr President, let me just say that we may be witnessing the beginning of what could be called a ‘semi-public financial economy’, between Europe, its institutions, and the European Investment Bank (EIB) as such with its expertise. This semi-public financial economy will aim to set up a genuine market for our projects and our tools in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) as the mechanism for connecting Europe.

  Inés Ayala Sender, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, it is indeed true that the European public expects something more than bad news from the European Union.

I therefore think that, this afternoon especially, we should congratulate not only the rapporteur, of course, Mr Färm, whose tenacity and intelligence have enabled him to bring us all to an agreement, but also the institutions: the Commission, the Council, Parliament and also the financial entity that is the European Investment Bank, which has so far been appearing and reappearing – a little like the Guadiana river – and which we need to be present.

The presence of that entity is necessary precisely at this time of propping-up of scarce public resources that need to draw on private resources, precisely in order to ensure that infrastructure and this area of communication, connection and mobility of people, goods and services are realised.

This does not only apply to traditional infrastructure but more so to infrastructure that will be innovative, smart and of the future; which will connect us together and also connect Europe to the rest of the world. Above all, it will create employment, development and wealth within Europe because, of course, with other regions growing at a tremendous rate, we need these smart instruments that Europe has been able to utilise on other occasions. We need them right now, in order to draw on our development and continue to be as competitive as we are, leading the way in aspects of engineering, public works, development and communications, as we have been doing to date.

I do of course welcome this proposal and Regulation, and in the two short years that are left, I urge the Commission to give us the best results.

I find that information every six months is also a valid tool for ensuring that Parliament and Europeans commit better to this project and, of course, as co-rapporteur on the Connecting Europe Facility, I warmly welcome the step forward that will be represented by what the Europe of smart infrastructure will become.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe I would also like to say that we support this project and we believe that it is very good that we have got it off the ground and that we will be able to get it up and running quickly. I would also like to thank Mr Färm for his excellent contribution to finding a solution for this pilot project.

In Denmark, where I come from, the idea of project bonds is, in reality, not a particularly strange one, as we have invested in many of our fixed connections – the bridge that links the country together and the bridge with Sweden – with loans taken out on the private market by the undertaking that built the bridge. The loans are subsequently paid back via contributions from the people who use the bridge.

Thus, it is a way of raising capital in order to invest in infrastructure, and we all know very well – and it has been said here many times today – that it will probably be many years before the state purses will, in all seriousness, be able to afford to meet our investment needs.

We have seen this sort of market for bonds used to finance infrastructure in the United States, and we hear from the private sector that, with the work we will be doing over the next 10 years, we will easily be able to get this sort of market for bonds off the ground. In other words, we will therefore perhaps be in a situation one day where it will be something that can in fact manage on its own, almost without any support from the EU budget.

We need to provide support in the first instance, however. We need to borrow the confidence that exists in the European Investment Bank, so that investors in the form of pension funds and insurance companies can have the confidence to invest in serious projects. We need that in order to get this off the ground.

I would also like to say that it is important for us to obtain an agreement on how we follow up on the experience gained in connection with this project, so that we can take this further and have a much greater focus on it in the future.

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

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI), blue-card question. – (DE) Ms Jensen, you spoke about experiences in Denmark. With regard to the project bonds, you said that problems can, of course, arise in connection with the issuing of guarantees. Are you not also concerned that, as a result of the fact that security has to be provided first, ultimately pension funds will once again be able to profit indirectly via the public purse? What would you suggest as a way to truly counter this? Examples could be limiting the issuing of guarantees or appropriate capping.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE), blue-card answer. – (DA) Clearly pension funds and insurance companies that buy such securities need to weigh up whether there is adequate security for the investors’ money, for pensioners’ money. However, we are in a situation right now where there is a serious latent problem for everyone operating on the financial markets. Not even government bonds are particularly safe at the moment. We also really need to establish the sort of market that can provide a very high level of security and a payment profile that matches the needs of these investors with long-term profiles, so that they can ensure that the money is there when they come to pay out their pensions. At a fundamental level, this is also about the fact that, with these bonds, we can invest in a society that, when Mr Martin and I are older and retire, will actually be a properly functioning one.

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, it is true, and I am not the first to say so, that the state of the European Union’s public finances is such that we must obviously use every available instrument to promote a number of essential investments at European level, in the areas of transport, energy and broadband. Project bonds are an objective that we are particularly keen to support as they are very useful in this respect.

This is a pilot phase, and that is why I think that we should clearly set the criteria governing the evaluation of this pilot phase.

I should just like to draw everyone’s attention to two points. The first concerns the choice of projects. We have, and I thank the rapporteur, really tried to introduce greater sustainability criteria into the framework for selecting the projects, because not all infrastructure building is necessarily beneficial to the European Union and may indeed increase an ecological debt that we shall have to repay at some future time. We should therefore, in any case, pay close attention to the quality of the projects that we support.

My second point concerns risks. Objectively speaking, there is a financial risk. We have, of course, tried to minimise it in the case of public authorities, but it does exist. In this respect, I think that we should pay very close attention, during the evaluation phrase, to assessing the best ways of minimising financial risk to public finances, while guaranteeing revenues for any private investor who has invested resources in this project.

I truly believe that, while it is good, useful and necessary to launch this initiative, it is equally important to set in advance the criteria by which the pilot phase is to be evaluated, before rolling out the initiative. I think that it is an important instrument, and that it deserves our closest attention, particularly in the initial stages.

  Richard Ashworth, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I welcome the rapporteur’s proposals, particularly for investments that will help stimulate the European economy, but I want to add a word of caution that it must be investment which adds real value. Things like research and development, cross-border connectivity of energy and transport and broadband are really adding European value, whereas a lot of the previous investment in infrastructure has been of questionable value.

I also agree with the rapporteur’s approach to funding. But I stress that, this being a pilot project, it is strictly time limited and at the end of that period it will be subject to independent analysis. It is important for that analysis to be taken seriously because it is not a rubber-stamp exercise. The outcome must be respected and, in respecting that, the key must be to protect the interests and exposure of the European taxpayer.

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, it is a very good thing for the European Union to take measures to provide our continent with infrastructure in the areas of transport, energy and digital networks. It would be an even better thing still if it led to European public ownership of these infrastructures and if they were to be operated by major European transport, energy and digital network public services, thereby increasing security and respect for public money.

It is time to put an end to a type of competition which, while enabling a minority to levy fair profits, is a source of waste, inefficiency, regional inequalities, corruption, and exorbitant prices paid by users, who have become customers despite themselves.

Did you know that, thanks to your competition dogma, a sizeable proportion of the lorries that travel through Europe do so empty? That more energy is sold than is produced, with the costs that this entails for families and companies?

If Europe wants to enter the 21st century and not end up back in the 19th century, we must say ‘no’ to sterile competition and ‘yes’ to cooperation and complementarity.

The funding system for these essential infrastructures that you are presenting to us today is just another one of those convoluted schemes that lead to crises. In short, we socialise risk and privatise profit to the great delight of the pension funds and other harmful financial funds.

I myself have an innovative solution to offer you which does respond to the general interests of the citizens of Europe: the direct funding of these infrastructures by the European Central Bank, under the same conditions as those for the private banks that are currently being refinanced by the ECB.

This solution would let us partly release the stranglehold that the financial markets have on European democracy.

  Claudio Morganti, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the proposal to establish project bonds to finance development of the European infrastructure network is positive. The allocated figure of EUR 230 million is somewhat low in relation to actual needs, but it should be borne in mind that this is an experimental phase, and considering the chronic scarcity of resources I think the result achieved is a good compromise.

With these funds it will be possible to fund around 10 projects at most, but this is a useful exercise to understand whether this instrument can be a driver to attract the necessary investments to improve transport, energy networks and telecommunications in Europe. However, I hope that the projects that will benefit from this new initiative are chosen carefully, and that above all the effectiveness of these proposals is closely scrutinised. We absolutely cannot allow ourselves to invest public money in risky operations with uncertain returns.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all our attention is focused on the banks, and time and again people say that they are the lifeblood of society. That image is probably right, but let us take into account that any body is held up by a backbone and joints. Well, the backbone and joints of the society that we call Europe are its transport networks and energy infrastructure.

It is essential, as is being said this evening in Parliament, that we mobilise private funding and, where appropriate, public funding. This is also an opportunity to promote the issuance of private debt, backed by the European institutions, specifically aimed at achieving these aims fairly, and also open to any investor.

I would congratulate the rapporteurs on their work and also the Commission on its clear impetus behind these projects.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as being a spokesperson on budgets for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Göran Färm is a very professional MEP who works very hard on his reports, and the one that we are discussing now is a good example of that.

At a time of very harsh budgetary restrictions, the use of these innovative financial instruments is highly important. In the debates of the Special Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Resources for a Sustainable European Union after 2013 that took place last year, Parliament agreed on the need to introduce these new financial instruments, in order to compensate for the possible insufficiency of the traditional budget. Essential investments in transport, energy and telecommunications need to be financed. These needs are evaluated at EUR 1.5 billion between 2010 and 2020.

Taking into account how difficult it currently is to secure a private investor for large infrastructure projects from which it is difficult to make a profit in the short term, the project bond initiative takes on even greater importance. The Council’s express acknowledgement of the future use of project bonds and their relationship to the Connecting Europe Facility makes this report even more important. It is a fully European project that brings new funding to projects that incorporate high added value for the EU.

What is most important is that the majority of the amendments suggested by the rapporteur have been adopted by the Council in two different trilogues, and that this is going to enable us to reach a swift agreement at first reading so that the project can begin immediately.

Concluding with the subject of evaluation, it is very important that, as a Parliament, we demand that the Commission presents its provisional report in mid-2013 and that therefore, if the market has not positively received project bonds, we will be in a position to improve the project, in order to implement it in the second half of 2013.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur and all those involved in this dossier. We are discussing something that was often in the news and that was announced far in advance, the famous project bonds. I believe that we need to support these bonds, as they represent a good attempt to also enable more private funds that are present in the economy to give rise to real investment projects that, of course, also directly and indirectly contribute to economic growth. I also fear, a little, that if we want to realise our ambitions in order, for example, to bring about a trans-European transport network, we will need a mix of funding streams, and this should be one of them.

At the same time, we also need to keep modest. We have now made available EUR 230 million with which we will be able to support maybe two or three projects. That is a good thing, and every little helps. However – to cite just one example – if we want to realise the trans-European transport network by 2030, we will need to find at least EUR 500 billion to make that a reality.

This kind of funding instruments must not – and this is also important – be used as an excuse to fail to make any real credit available for investments. We thus need to keep an eye on this to check that, along with this kind of instrument, there is also sufficient credit such as for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), so that the authorities at various levels, too, can live up to their responsibility. However, let us give this our backing in every respect.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). - Mr President, I am glad that growth, one of the core concepts we have always defended, has reached the frontline of the debate. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that growth is created by markets – not by institutions or legislators – so, if we want growth, we should support the market.

If we want to speed up the development of infrastructure in order to complete the internal market and boost competitiveness, we must use our shrunk budgets to attract private finance dedicated to long-term investments. The new mechanisms, like the Connecting Europe Facility, should primarily rely on these financial instruments to develop energy and telecom infrastructure in a stable and transparent framework which will not distort markets and which will attract private investors, rather than crowding them out by creating an uneven competition between public and private money.

Yes, we need project bonds to work and, yes, we need them to be assessed and improved after their pilot phase. What we also need is for our institutions to support the real stakeholders: banks and institutional investors. We need to develop this new asset class which should bypass current uncertainty and debt driven constraints and that will help to complete and expand markets.

Being part of the solution requires leverage for each euro spent by the public sector. For this, the time is gone when we could rely on grants alone.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Hoyer, I think environmental criteria are important during this pilot phase because we need to stop creating infrastructure that takes us further away from our climate targets, as well as from our energy targets.

One specific weakness that I can see, for example, is the fact that we do not actually have any large projects to do with renewable energy sources in the pipeline at the moment. Even in connection with the ‘Connecting Europe Facility’, we are only talking about infrastructure and not about renewable energy sources, and it is also not clear how this pilot phase will carry on later. The Danish energy company Dong recently sold a large wind farm to Danish pension funds. This means that there really are opportunities to get the first phase of large renewable energy projects set up by specialists who are able to carry out risk management and then, in a second phase, to hand it over to other investors, thereby creating new opportunities for those who know the business.

I hope that, in the next budget, we in Parliament and the Commission will also make funds available for this from the EU budget.

  Hynek Fajmon (ECR). − (CS) Mr President, the report we are now debating recommends introducing a new financial instrument supporting the use of bonds to fund infrastructure projects.

I am generally sceptical about such initiatives, as they increase the debt burden of states and of the other investors who construct transport, energy and other public infrastructures. These entities are already heavily indebted, and some are even over-indebted, and to help them by facilitating the implementation of public investment through additional debt is not, in my opinion, the right way to go.

I would also like to comment on the amendment tabled in respect of the original text, requiring that newly built transport infrastructure take account of issues related to climate change. I confess I have no idea how this could be achieved. Transport infrastructure has nothing to do with climate change related problems as far as I can see, and an additional, poorly-defined term like this should not be added to the text.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, as always when Mr Turmes speaks, his words are very intelligent, and I wish that what he said had much more influence on European policy. I just wanted to follow on from what he said. Of course, these project bonds are sensible, but only if they are set up in a sustainable way and if we establish a political basis to support them. By providing guarantees, we run the risk of providing cover for risks that we have no political control over.

Specific examples include the switch to sustainable energy in Germany: a 3 800 kilometre network would be necessary, but only 100 kilometres of the corresponding transmission networks have been built, as this is also being thwarted by resistance from citizens – and, incidentally, very environmentally minded citizens. We need to think of a political solution to this. One idea might be for us to establish shared trans-European network corridors, not just combining the high-speed routes for railways and broadband networks, but also perhaps constructing the relevant distribution networks above or even alongside motorways. That does require much more extensive planning than has been carried out up to now, but I would at least like to take this opportunity to put it forward as a suggestion.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). - (LT) First of all, I would like to thank my colleague, rapporteur Göran Färm for doing a really great job, and, of course, the Commission for listening to the European Parliament’s calls for proposals on project bonds, which are important for the development of the European Union’s infrastructure. The Europe 2020 strategy sets ambitious targets, but with the current transport, energy or information technology infrastructure it will be impossible to make any significant progress in the decade ahead. Addressing today’s problems, such as traffic congestion, outdated energy systems, missing transport and energy links and undeveloped information technology infrastructure will require huge investment, which the public sector cannot provide. We therefore have to rely on private sector investment, but the unfavourable economic situation in the European Union and projects that are not commercially viable will not attract the funding we lack. Although a comparatively small amount, EUR 230 million, will be allocated in this pilot phase, we should expect this phase to provide greater guarantees and security for potential investors and to help assess the functioning of the European Union market. The introduction of the bonds is very welcome and it must help move forward and promote the development of crucial infrastructure that provides added value to the whole of the European Union, infrastructure which is vitally important for isolated regions and without which the European Union internal market cannot and will not be able to function effectively.

  Philippe De Backer (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I think we all know that our European transport network is far from complete, and I believe that is important to continue to invest in these transport networks in the forthcoming period via the trans-European networks and also the connecting Europe facility (CEF). The project bonds, as presented here, form one element of that funding, and an important one at that.

We all know that Member States are finding it harder and harder to fund major infrastructure projects. We also all know that there is now a great deal of dormant capital on the sidelines that makes it very difficult to mobilise capital in order to invest in the real economy. The project bonds could help to direct that private capital into sound infrastructure projects, providing European added value.

The EUR 230 million that is now available is, of course, just a beginning, but it does make it possible to finance a number of smaller projects and, at the same time, also to look for answers to a number of technical issues that still exist for many investors, including for rating agencies, in order to work this way and in order to properly be able to make investments in a subsequent policy period, including via these project bonds. My group thus fully supports this proposal.

  Riikka Manner (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, as has been said here on many occasions, it is very important that we in Europe invest in a viable infrastructure. It is also especially important for our economic success.

It is very important that, in the future, we are also able to make more use of both private and public funding for these projects, as well as the EU’s various instruments, of course. One potentially major financing element in the future, in addition to this ‘Connecting Europe Facility’ (CEF), will be regional development funds, and in the forthcoming term infrastructure projects are also bound to carry more weight than before in the context of these funds.

It is important that we also take a comprehensive look at Europe when we are developing the infrastructure. At present, the focus is often largely on central Europe, but the needs of northern Europe also need to be taken into account.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the launch of project bonds is an important first phase of the Growth Pact. This is a pilot project, perhaps accompanied by excessive caution and a budget that is far too symbolic – less than EUR 5 billion for the 27 Member States – but it is still a welcome sign of practicality. It opens the way to new instruments to raise private funds to be used in strategic infrastructure investments, also to make the European economy competitive and to create new jobs.

I agree with those who called for rigour in the assessments, for projects to be of high quality and reliable, and for results to be measurable, but after the first experimental phase let us be open to more ambitious projects, which allow a real and strategic phase of development and growth in Europe.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning we have heard how the Cypriot President is relying on the construction of both energy and telecommunications networks, and transport networks, but the construction of such networks requires a great deal of funding. The funds allocated today are not enough!

Building networks is worthwhile if done properly, to give a concrete idea of compatible growth and, moreover, to help this part of the world attract major investments. They are therefore an instrument for sustainable growth on the one hand, and for job creation on the other.

For that reason, I believe the priority is to find the resources to achieve these objectives. Moreover, nobody will invest if they do not see an extraordinary effort, particularly on the part of the Member States and the public authorities. This is our chance and that is our task, which I consider to be crucial for development policies.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Färm on a very interesting report. I agree with the rapporteur that multimodal transport corridors are vital for economic development and economic contact with external partners. However, because of the high cost of energy and transport infrastructure, support for greater private sector involvement and the use of reversible instruments are of fundamental importance in this area. For this reason, the concept of project bonds looks interesting and worth investigating in greater depth. I am convinced that a pilot project for this solution will bring much additional information concerning, in particular, the reaction of the private sector.

I hope that these new investment possibilities will help to reduce disparities between European regions which, in my view, is of key importance for the economic growth and competitiveness of the European Union.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the pilot phase of the Europe 2020 project bond initiative should be launched in preparation for the Connecting Europe Facility, as we would like it to take place as quickly as possible. The pilot phase should be funded in 2012 and 2013 by budget redeployment from the current programmes in the transport, energy and telecommunications sectors. Therefore, up to EUR 200 million could be redeployed from the TEN-T budget for this initiative, up to EUR 20 million from the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme budget, and up to EUR 10 million from the TEN-E budget.

The European Investment Bank should request budgetary funds on the basis of a range of projects which the bank deems suitable and feasible. However, it is important for Member States to submit these applications by 31 December 2013 and, only as part of highly complex infrastructure projects, by 31 December 2014. Therefore, now is the time for us to prepare for good absorption in the future multiannual financial framework.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, there is no doubt that the European economy needs an effective stimulus to break through the persistent stagnation. The assumption that innovative forms of financing meaningful trans-European transport and energy network projects will bring about the faster implementation of these projects, technological advances and increased employment opportunities in the EU will only become a reality if the funds used are managed very well.

The testing of new mechanisms in the pilot phase is certainly a manifestation of a certain caution in implementing this idea. And therefore, right from the outset, the European Investment Bank and the European Commission should have been collaborating with independent expert institutes in order to set up, already at that stage, the proposed system at a level that is sustainable and effective in the long run with minimum risks.

In any case, the main objective of the new forms of investment should not be merely to obtain funds, but in particular to implement important investments with proven good returns.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, there is an urgent need at the moment to boost investment in infrastructure in the transport, energy and information and communications technology sectors. I think that the Europe 2020 project bond initiative will mobilise resources from the private sector on a more consistent basis. This must be done as soon as possible to help the European economic recovery.

The pilot phase is useful because it will familiarise investors with the structure of the bonds and how they work. It will also provide the opportunity to assess the instrument before it is implemented. The contribution from the EU and EIB will make the bonds safer, thereby reducing the risks assumed by investors. In recent years the EIB has granted support to my country to the tune of more than EUR 3.8 billion for infrastructure projects.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank. − Mr President, honourable Members, I should like to thank you for the broad consensus and support you gave to this initiative and also to our Bank which will play an important role in the implementation of this initiative.

It is going to be a very ambitious project and the work is going to start now. We have to deal with this with diligence and resolve at the same time, and we have to be ready to subject the outcome of all this to an objective test and to scrutiny and evaluation. I can assure you that the Bank is going to be ready to participate in this critical and honest review of what has been achieved within a relatively short period of time.

We do not want to discredit this new instrument; we want it to be a success. That means that we have to play with open cards and with very precise and clear criteria that will be the benchmark for the evaluation of success of this instrument.

One of the advantages of the European Investment Bank is that it is not only a Bank with lots of highly-qualified capital market personnel, but it is also a Bank which can do its work on the basis of deep knowledge and expertise in engineering and science.

This is what is needed here in many cases, because if we want to be loyal to our principles it is necessary to test the submitted projects critically in view of technology and technical viability and also from the financial point of view. This is what the EIB is going to guarantee in this process. Then we will come back and report to you.

(DE) Mr Turmes is, of course, right to say that the financing of energy production is not possible at the moment under the project bond guarantee. This is something that I, too, regret to a certain extent. In this case, we need to talk about whether, in future, the programming of resources from the Structural Funds and other EU funds can be reorganised to make it more straightforward so that we can act more quickly. In many of the activities that we are currently carrying out in Greece, for example, it would be good if we were able to act more quickly. However, that is a matter that Parliament, the Council and the Commission need to get to grips with together in collaboration with the bank. In any case, the bank will continue to remain very active in the area of wind energy in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and in many other places – in this regard we will not allow ourselves to be outdone by anyone.

I have one last point concerning risk, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President, under the project bonds initiative, the EIB will guarantee only up to 20% of the senior debt. We will not remove the risk from equity. The private sector that has equity will pay a market premium for credit enhancement. This is, therefore, very important, because credit enhancement is not a 100% guarantee for the private sector.

Private-sector risk remains the best means of ensuring that the projects selected are economically and financially sound. So EIB due diligence and independent decision-taking is going to be a key part of the success story of the project bond initiative.

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to join President Hoyer and thank you for a very substantive and constructive debate. I would also like to thank you for your very strong support for the Europe 2020 project bond initiative, the basic idea of which is to stimulate private investment through public risk-sharing investment by the Commission and the EIB, to be used for large-scale investment in infrastructure.

It is important to get concrete on this once it has been adopted. The Commission and the EIB will sign a cooperation agreement as soon as possible after the final adoption of the proposal by the Council in July. As regards concrete projects, my understanding is that the EIB is already receiving expressions of interest and has started assessing a number of potential projects in the three sectors – transport, energy and communications – in order to start seeing signatures soon for these projects.

Of course we know that the pilot phase has a budget of only EUR 230 million. This means that we must use this pilot phase in order to make the case for increased funding on investment and growth in the next multifinancial framework for communication and transport, for energy, security and green growth. Indeed this pilot phase must pave the way for a reinforced contribution from the EU budget as well for these important objectives. We regard the project bonds as an integral part of the Connecting Europe Facility from 2014 onwards, which is an important example of the focus on growth and investment in the next multifinancial framework.

The commitments made by EU Member States and the Union as a whole to address the current crisis and to mobilise growth and jobs are very substantial. They have to be, because the well-being of every European citizen depends on the well-being of Europe as a whole. In the middle of difficult national debates on the necessary policy measures, it is of crucial importance that we can demonstrate the benefits of Europe in very concrete terms to our citizens and do so as soon as possible. This is a further reason why the project bond initiative plays an important part in our overall European growth agenda.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, with full respect to some dissenting voices, I believe that this is one of these rare moments where we have an exceptionally broad consensus on an innovative idea. I would like to thank you all for this very constructive debate.

Some have said that the figure of EUR 230 million is rather low, but, as I said at the outset, this figure is intended to act as a lever for many larger volumes of investment in the future. Several of you have underlined the need to carefully choose the projects, and I very much agree. Some have also said that we need to ensure long-term added-value at the European level. I believe that both the President of the EIB and Commissioner Rehn have provided the necessary reassurances in this regard. I agree also with those who emphasised the importance of the evaluations.

Now, of course, the next steps will be key. Once Parliament and the Council have approved the text, we will be able to launch the implementation of the pilot phase. We want to see projects being financed as soon as possible and to assess how the initiative is received by market participants. It will also be important that the Commission and the EIB maintain close dialogue, both with the European Parliament and the Council at this early stage, and that lessons from the pilot phase are properly taken into account for the second phase.

  Göran Färm, rapporteur. − Mr President, colleagues, thank you very much for this enlightening debate. Let me just conclude with a few comments.

First, on the need for the instrument. Insufficient levels of investment are a major problem for Europe. This is a structural rather than temporary problem, and the present crisis has made it much more difficult to deal with and to change the situation. That is why we need new additional instruments.

What kind of projects will be financed? I agree with Mr Hoyer; to begin with the focus will probably be on more developed markets. I warmly thank President Hoyer for pointing out that a wider perspective may be possible in the future, when the instrument will be able to target other things as well. That is also very important.

On criteria, Mr Turmes and some others have raised the idea of having other kinds of projects, such as renewable energy projects. I am quite open to that. Let us have a discussion for the coming multiannual financial framework on a more permanent phase for the financial instruments and project bonds. I am quite open to this idea with regard to the evaluation of this pilot phase.

I would say that the main discussion here has been about the risks. I know that some Member States, including my own, have been reluctant to accept this initiative but I hope that this debate has reduced their worries. We are not taking any unreasonable risks with taxpayers’ money and we really need this additional effort.

Do we socialise risk and privatise profits? I would say that with these guarantees we will be able to mobilise resources which otherwise would stay in the coffers or end up in the speculative markets. It is taxpayers who gain the most from such an approach.

The risk is strictly limited. There are no contingent liabilities. If we are given a choice between using EUR 230 million for grants, which will lead to investments of only EUR 230 million, and using EUR 230 million as an innovative financial instrument which might mobilise billions, then we will see that the way we are taking now is quite good.

I began by thanking colleagues; let me also say a big ‘thank you’ to the Committee on Budgets. The secretariat there has done a fantastic job, and so has my own office.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 5 July 2012).

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) To make full use of its potential, the European internal market needs an efficient and extensive transport and energy infrastructure network. The report in question focuses on project bonds, designed by the European Commission to attract more private investments from 2014, and, in particular, on the pilot phase in 2012-2013, intended to check that they work and to test the market. In my view, all the necessary control and management mechanisms should be activated to ensure that the pilot phase successfully gets under way as quickly as possible. Furthermore, given that over EUR 1.5 trillion is required to build infrastructure (for the period 2010-2020) along with investment by Member States of between 0.5 and 2% of GDP, the level of funding needs to be increased considerably and existing and planned sources of funding need to be included. On that basis, I believe that EUR 230 million is clearly not enough to implement projects with medium- to long-term returns. Finally, the Member States should start, complete or implement reforms to promote private investments, starting by simplifying and streamlining bureaucratic procedures.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (CS) The EU works with 1.05% of the GDP of the individual Member States as a spending limit in a seven-year period. Unsurprisingly, this is rather too little for infrastructure investments. It is logical that, under these circumstances, efforts are made to find additional resources for funding the trans-European transport and energy networks. The draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council is one such effort. A pilot phase of the project is now to be developed, and in the next planning period this initiative for project bonds within the framework of the Connecting Europe Facility should also generate a sufficient volume of resources from private investors. As these are reference bonds – in the repayment of various bonds they are rated immediately after World Bank bonds – this is a secure instrument for institutional investors, such as various funds. In the pilot phase of the project it has been specified that EUR 200 million should be earmarked for the trans-European transport network in 2012-2013, EUR 10 million for the energy network and up to EUR 20 million for the framework programme for competitiveness and innovation and ICT projects and broadband services. It has also been specified that resources obtained in this way will comprise a relatively small part of the investment capital for individual actions. A multiplier effect is expected with a ratio of 15 to 20. As this involves support for infrastructure investments, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left supports the regulation.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) ‘Project bonds’ meet investment needs in Europe and that is why I welcome the launch of a pilot phase of bonds. The European Investment Bank’s guarantee of EUR 230 million will increase the mobilisation of private capital and therefore exercise a leveraging function. This is a particularly opportune instrument in circumstances where banks are wary about providing finance. Bonds will meet investment needs in the areas of transport, energy and information technology infrastructures. This pilot phase will have to be evaluated to assess how suited it is to realities on the ground.

12. Breaches of Schengen rules (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on breaches of Schengen rules (2012/2700(RSP)).

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by saying that this is one of our toxic assets so I hope that you will bear with me and accept at least my commitment to do my utmost – to do together our utmost – to find a satisfactory way forward for all of us.

I am well aware that the issue of controls in and around internal borders in the Schengen area is a matter on which this Parliament has strong views and which Parliament is following very closely. I also know that many of you have questions and concerns. Specific cases concerning the reintroduction of border controls are a matter for the Commission which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of EU law. I would, however, like to make a number of points concerning recent developments in the Schengen area, including the issue of internal border controls.

At its meeting on 7 and 8 June, the Justice and Home Affairs Council discussed this matter on the basis of the Commission’s first biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area. That discussion focused in particular on the issues of secondary movements by third country nationals within the Schengen area and of readmission and visa policy, but we also took note of the comments in the Commission report on the issue of ensuring the absence of internal border controls. I want to assure this Parliament that the Council took full account of the importance of the absence of internal border controls during its negotiation on the Schengen governance package.

In June 2011 the European Council underlined that the free movement of persons is one of the most tangible and successful achievements of European integration. The European Council called for improved cooperation within the Schengen area in order to enhance mutual trust between Member States. This is essential if we are to protect the principle of free movement.

The European Council specifically called for a strengthening of common rules through the Schengen evaluation mechanism and for the establishment of a mechanism to respond to exceptional circumstances which might put the overall functioning of Schengen cooperation at risk. In response the Commission submitted the legislative package last September which included both an amended proposal on the establishment of an evaluation and monetary mechanism and a proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code.

As you will be aware, at its meeting on 7 and 8 June, the Council reached a political agreement on these two proposals. This followed difficult discussions within the Council as well as extensive contacts with the European Parliament. The texts as they now stand represent a clear improvement in the governance of the Schengen area. The Schengen evaluation mechanism is substantially improved, ensuring a stronger role for the Commission and a more efficient follow-up to evaluation reports and monitoring.

The Schengen Borders Code includes new provisions to address situations where Member States are not fully implementing the Schengen acquis. The proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code is of course subject to ordinary legislative procedure. This Parliament will therefore be fully involved in deciding on the provisions which will govern the reintroduction of controls at internal borders.

As far as the Schengen evaluation mechanism proposal is concerned, the Council took the decision to change the legal basis from Article 77 to Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I am of course well aware of the sensitivity of this decision for Parliament. I want to assure you that this decision was taken for legal reasons, even if its consequences may be felt by Members here to be political.

The Council was not in any way motivated by a wish to exclude Parliament from the process. On the contrary we want Parliament to be fully involved. That is why the Council agreed that when it consults Parliament your opinion, in all its aspects, will to the fullest extent possible be taken into consideration by the Council before the adoption of the final text.

I should also point out that the Council also agreed, again for legal reasons and as part of the overall agreement, to transfer several provisions in the Schengen evaluation mechanism proposal to the Schengen Borders Code proposal.

The Cyprus Presidency is ready to work constructively with the European Parliament on both the Schengen evaluation mechanism proposal and the Schengen Borders Code proposal. We therefore very much hope that a way can be found which will enable Parliament to reconsider its decision to suspend its work on the Schengen governance package. This would enable us to work together to reach agreement on this very important matter as soon as possible.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me assure you that the Commission is willing to help ‘detox’ this file if you would so like.

The possibility to travel within Schengen without being subject to border control is of course one of the most valuable rights for European citizens. It is one of the most tangible effects of European integration for citizens and it is the role of the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to make sure that this will still be the case. We will not hesitate to initiate infringement procedures if appropriate.

My services are currently investigating a number of possible violations of the relevant EU legislation, including the Schengen Borders Code. These cases cover both obstacles to fluid traffic flow at internal land borders and police checks that might have an effect equivalent to border controls.

From last November to April, we investigated 11 different cases involving 10 different Member States. You have highlighted in your questions here two of these cases: the German authorities’ controls on passengers on Czech buses and mobile surveillance by the Dutch authorities at their borders with Belgium and Germany. The Commission is aware of both.

In the German-Czech case, the Commission has repeatedly requested information from the German authorities on the frequency of controls and their justification. However, the information we have received so far from the German and Czech authorities has not provided sufficient details to fully assess whether the controls were equivalent to border checks and whether they are in breach of the Schengen Borders Code.

We have not let the matter rest here. In May, we asked three major Czech bus companies to assist us with more information over a longer period. We hope to have additional facts by October, which would enable us to carry out a more thorough analysis of the situation at that border. I am of course ready to come back to you and report on these results.

Regarding the Dutch mobile surveillance, there have been several recent cases in various Dutch courts, questioning whether it is compatible with the Schengen Borders Code. In addition to the decision that you have highlighted, Dutch courts have referred two similar cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. The basic question is whether Dutch mobile surveillance contravenes the prohibition of border checks or their equivalent laid down in the Schengen Borders Code.

The Schengen Borders Code specifies that the abolition of border controls does not affect the use of police powers under national law, as long as they do not have an effect equivalent to border checks. This is valid in particular, but not only, if these police checks do not have border control as an objective – they are based on general police information and experience – and if they are carried out in a manner clearly distinct from border checks and on the basis of spot-checks.

In both of the cases referred to the Court of Justice, the Commission’s view is that the Dutch mobile surveillance has neither the same purpose nor the same modalities as a border check. The surveillance is targeted on the fight against illegal residence and is subject to limitations, for example on the frequency of checks.

The legal analysis conducted by the Commission led to the conclusion that the Dutch mobile surveillance does not contravene the Schengen Borders Code or the case law from the Melki case. We await of course the Court of Justice ruling in this matter.

On a broader note, as I have said repeatedly, the Commission will make use of our prerogatives to keep defending the rights of citizens to travel within the Schengen area without controls. That commitment is also reflected in our proposal for a new Schengen monitoring and evaluation mechanism which included the verification of absence of controls at internal borders.

I still believe that a truly effective mechanism implies a stronger role for the Commission based on Article 77 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I am also convinced that the political legitimacy of that proposal would benefit from the European Parliament acting as co-legislator.

From the Commission’s side we naturally reserve the right to take whatever legal action we may deem necessary to safeguard the integrity of the roles that the Treaties have defined for each of the Union’s institutions, but at this moment let us not speculate on legal action.

No final decision has been taken so let us take some time for reflection and discussion and seize the opportunity to sit down to see if we can improve the text during the Cyprus Presidency and make sure that we have a balanced, good Schengen governance that all three institutions can support. The Commission is certainly willing to do everything it can to support such an outcome.

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the discussion of Schengen has generated a lot of headlines in Europe in recent weeks. For that reason, it is good that we are discussing this matter in Parliament today. I would like to start by indicating the support of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) for the Commissioner in respect of the examination of the very specific detailed accusations in the European Union, and if it is found that offences have been committed at European internal borders, they should be properly investigated by the Commission, because the PPE Group wants a strong European authority that will monitor Schengen status in future.

That brings us to the real debate, which is one that, ultimately, concerns us all. With its decision on the Schengen rules, the Council was itself probably not altogether clear on what it was hoping to achieve, because it has not only set out on a path that we consider to be dubious in terms of content, it has also, by choosing a new legal basis, departed from the path of cooperation with Members of this House. The Council has also interfered in one of Europe’s most important achievements, namely the open borders.

For us, Schengen means freedom in place of borders, cooperation in place of egoism and working together instead of working against one another. The freedom to travel in Europe is the PPE Group’s top priority. The people, the economy and indeed the whole of Europe will benefit from this. We do not want the open borders, which are a visible feature of European cooperation, to be disproportionately restricted, particularly at a time when more European spirit is needed.

As the PPE Group, we want the Member States to stop doing secret deals with each other on how essential rights of their citizens are to be dealt with. This method has failed; we must focus on the Community method.

The PPE Group wants the decision making to come out of the diplomatic backrooms and the decisions on these new legal bases to be made by the elected bodies in which citizens are represented.

The PPE Group will fight to retain these rights in Europe. As far as the content is concerned, we do not see any insurmountable obstacles. The question is whether we will actually find a way forward in this process together. I have to say, Mr Mavroyiannis, that this is not the way for family members to treat each other. It destroys the spirit of European cooperation. We therefore ask the Council to return to the path of cooperation, and – as you said yourself today – more intensive contact is not enough for the European Parliament. We are legislators and we are involved in the decision, and for that reason I would ask you to withdraw your decision on the legal basis and involve Parliament as an equal legislator.

  Sylvie Guillaume, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I personally am very pleased with this debate that we are having again today on this new Schengen governance in the broadest sense of the term. It means that we can reiterate our concerns about protecting the free movement of persons, a formidable EU body of legislation.

Cases of breaches of Schengen rules, alluded to by the Commission in its first Schengen bill of health, invite us, Commissioner, to request you to shed as much light as possible on these matters, as you indicated when you first spoke.

We first urge the Member States to adopt greater transparency. This transparency must be part of a mechanism to strengthen mutual trust between Member States, and to enable them to implement all the Schengen provisions effectively. However, we also need to be able to rely on a courageous European Commission which does not hesitate to draw on its powers, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that Community law is appropriately implemented, and all the more so in the case of the fundamental right, and I will come back to that, of the freedom of movement of our fellow citizens.

More than ever before, the examples that have been mentioned, whether Germany or the Netherlands, although we could think back to older examples such as Italy and France, and the border at Ventimiglia, are sufficient argument for us to make further calls for the introduction of a European Schengen evaluation mechanism, a Community-based one in which Parliament would have a full role to play.

The new Cypriot Presidency will have the onerous task of trying to find a positive outcome to the conflict that sets us apart on this issue. Furthermore, I must admit, President-in-Office of the Council, that I did not fully recognise in what you were saying either what had been said or the outcome of our previous discussions, although this is undoubtedly due to a misunderstanding on my part.

I would like to remind you that the system which had been applied in certain areas was an intergovernmental system. It is no longer suitable for the European Union as it is developing now, particularly if we want to put the support of the European people for our common project on a permanent footing.

In the absence of a shared view of these situations at the borders, it is highly likely that the same party-political arguments and their populist slant will remain the order of the day, and that, frankly, is toxic to our European democracy.

I shall conclude by reaffirming that the only weapon we can use to respond to the challenge posed by the structural fragility of certain borders, a fragility which clearly concerns us all, is that of European solidarity and a Community approach.

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, we have heard again and again from the Council, from the Member States, but also from you, Commissioner, that the implementation of the Schengen Agreement has been very good, almost perfect. Allow me please to at least partially disagree.

It is true that for several years no one has challenged how Member States implement the Schengen rules. Border controls have been reintroduced for limited periods of time, but no one complained. However, in the last 18 months there have been way too many attempts to apply Schengen rules in a much more personalised and dangerous manner. The joy of the Arab Spring was over-shadowed by Italy’s reaction and France’s decision to reintroduce border control.

Denmark considered that its domestic political problems could be solved by reintroducing border control as an alleged way of combating trans-border crime. For more than one year – one year – the Netherlands has had an initiative which was considered by a Dutch court as having the same effects as border controls. For several months another attempt to curtail free movement has taken place in Germany, where on a systematic basis more than 55% of Czech buses are checked. I cannot help wondering how long the Commission will keep pretending that things are OK within the Schengen governance. They are not. This is why the Commission in fact came up with a legislative package to improve it.

If the Commission continues with only half-measures, never daring to start infringement procedures, I am afraid we will wake up one morning realising that free movement no longer exists.

I am addressing you, Commissioner, because I have full confidence in your commitment to the defence of free movement. I am not addressing the Council at this stage, waiting for a better time to enlighten the Member States and make them understand what the real interests of European citizens are.

IN THE CHAIR: OLDŘICH VLASÁK
Vice-President

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, do our national leaders have doubts about the benefits of the freedom of movement? Do they no longer see the freedom that it offers European citizens? Do they, similarly, no longer see the economic benefits of freedom of movement? Do our Heads of State or Government doubt their counterparts? Do they doubt the willingness of other Member States to properly control and protect our external borders? It looks very much like it.

I believe that those doubts – that distrust, even – of other Member States, is symptomatic of what is happening in the European Union. Together we are strong. Together we will get out of the crisis. Our Heads of State or Government are not giving the impression that they have confidence in cooperation. That mutual distrust between Member States has led Parliament to state that the control and delivery of the freedom of movement should be the responsibility of the Commission, as that is an institution that has European interests in mind.

For me, that freedom of movement is one of the greatest commodities that the European Union provides. It therefore amazes me to hear that the Commission, in the shape of Ms Malmström, is now saying that the Dutch Government’s so-called ‘mobile surveillance of aliens’ is permissible. My reaction would be that, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. If you proceed to permit this now, when various Dutch courts have already thrown it out, I am convinced that the same will happen within a short while at the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, once again we find ourselves debating the Schengen system and its implementation – in this case by Germany and the Netherlands, but it is becoming increasingly impossible to have a discussion on Schengen separated from a discussion on the security of borders generally. The Schengen area is not just an area administered by the EU, it is the territories and borders of individual Member States, and yet Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union states that national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

Increasingly this House wants Member States to have less control over their borders, and concerns about this are not reactionary or short-term but a belief by states that they themselves are best placed to deal with the unique security situation that they face. Instead this debate has so far been dominated by a rather petty squabbling with other institutions. Perhaps the European Council and Member States would feel less urgency to regain powers if this Parliament acted more responsibly and understood the security pressures which we all face.

In the fight against cross-border crime we need to join together to do that, but we should not be allowing ourselves to be held to ransom on topics such as my own EU PNR proposals, which were removed from our agenda at an important moment. It is important that we should conduct our business in future in a different, more considered and balanced way.

  Cornelia Ernst, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, we really ought to speak plainly and clearly today, and this plain-speaking includes the fact that we cannot turn the clock back, and nor do we want to. As Parliament, we have the right under the Treaty to be involved in decisions on all matters relating to Schengen and not just to be casually consulted. That is something that I would like to make clear at the start.

I would also like to say that this EU law simply must not be left to the arbitrariness of political freebooters – and that is how I would describe it. Politically motivated contravention – and that is also the term I would choose to use – using the Schengen agreement as a kind of muscle-flexing in election campaigns, is totally unacceptable, and also has nothing to do with EU law. These problems do not only include arbitrary border closures, which we had for a time and which, of course, violate EU law, they also include the installation of cameras at 15 border crossings between Germany and the Netherlands and Belgium. If these do not also constitute border controls, then what are they? Furthermore, all that nonsense from a German interior minister concerning the reintroduction of border controls is obviously dangerous. It is dangerous not just because of the problems with Schengen, but also because it represents the arguments of the extreme right, and not just in Germany. Equally unacceptable is the fact that, at the border between Germany and the Czech Republic, which is, incidentally, where I live, buses are constantly being checked. We must not tolerate this. It is not only buses from the Czech Republic that are being checked, but people who look a bit different in some way, for example those who have slightly darker skin, are also being checked. This is also part of the problem.

Let us make it very clear that this is not acceptable. We do not want this, because it contravenes the law and because, as Parliament, we do not want this sort of policy. We therefore also express our criticism of the Council’s action in the strongest possible terms. After all, this is not merely a contravention of the law; it is also undemocratic. I therefore suggest that the Council discusses four things with us:

Firstly, we ought to be in agreement that there must be no arbitrariness in the way that the Schengen Agreement is implemented. That is something I would like to discuss. Secondly, we want to increase free movement. We want to talk about this. Thirdly, in the event of contraventions of the Schengen Agreement, we want the Commission, with the involvement of the Council, to draw the necessary conclusions. Lastly, as Parliament, we want to be fully involved in all matters, and that includes decision making.

  Mara Bizzotto, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 7 June, the Council’s decision to give the Member States the option to reintroduce border controls created a new Europe, a courageous Europe that satisfied its citizens’ desire for greater safety, ultimately rooted in a more mature interpretation of the concept of solidarity based on the defence of its people’s rights above all else.

Even though he is not here, I would say to President Schulz that this historic decision does not constitute an interinstitutional incident; rather it represents the wishes of citizens being respected and not the wishes of Eurocrats, who for years have pretended not to understand what is really going on outside their glass palace. I am not talking about any imaginary influx of illegal immigrants, President Schulz, but a 35% increase in illegal immigrants in 2011, according to Frontex’s own data.

I only regret that the scenes of political hysteria in this House during the last plenary sitting took time away from a more useful and constructive activity, to ask ourselves why it was the Member States and not us that defended the interests of our fellow citizens. If Parliament cannot find the heart and the courage to oppose the political correctness and banal platitudes on which it has got by for too long, it will continue to be a follower and not a leader in the construction of the European project.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the fact that there are problems that result from Schengen cannot be said here often enough. After all, the Europhiles in this House are blind when they can see, deaf when they can hear, and do not want to understand. Schengen is the cause of the massive relocation of crime and nuisance. Now that the Member States are finally recognising that these problems need to be tackled, this House is setting itself against the solution. However, the border controls need to be restored, and the Member States need to ensure security.

These border controls disappeared as a result of naive idealism. That idealism has not ensured that countries and peoples in Europe have got closer, as was hoped, but instead has actually led to them drifting apart. It is a divisive factor. The choices that Brussels makes do not offer any solutions. Brussels chooses to back the failed euro experiment at the expense of its citizens. Brussels chooses rising budgets at the expense of its taxpayers. When it comes to Schengen, Brussels chooses the free movement of criminals at the expense of security.

Mr President, the European Parliament backs these bad choices. I therefore now address Mr Van Rompuy, as President of the European Council, through the representative of the Council here today. He is not a fan of freedom, he is not a fan of participation or of national democracy. He likes centralisation, obsessive regulation and Japanese poetry. I therefore have a special haiku for him.

Schengen. Crime on tour. The border has been crossed. Winter in Brussels.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, listening to the speakers, we are all – with the exception of a couple from the far right – in agreement. We all agree that freedom of movement is one of the European Union’s greatest achievements. We all agree it needs to be strengthened. We all believe an area without border checks is essential to the internal market and that it brings benefits to the Member States and the public. We all agree with the need to improve governance of Schengen, and we even all agree that Schengen’s current evaluation system is inadequate and that we need a system guaranteeing a transparent, effective and consistent Schengen system.

Why, then, do we need to bring specific cases into the Chamber? Commissioner Malmström said that, as well as those mentioned by Parliament in the oral question, she is currently investigating some 11 cases. These 11 cases prove that there are systematic breaches of freedom of movement under Schengen. These 11 cases prove that the European institutions were unable to stop them. These 11 cases prove that Schengen’s current evaluation system is not working and that is the key issue.

The President-in-Office of the Council said the reasons were just legal, but that is not true. The Cypriot Presidency is getting off on the wrong foot by trying to pull the wool over Parliament’s eyes on this, because the reasons are political: the Council wants to continue covering up breaches of the Schengen Agreement, which is what it has systematically been doing with its peer-to-peer evaluation system. We need a genuine evaluation system; an EU-level system, led by the European Commission and subject to the codecision procedure, voted on by the Council and by Parliament. We think that is how we will defend Schengen, will defend freedom of movement, and will defend what is one of the best guarantees and the greatest successes of European integration.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the recent debates on the Schengen Agreement have focused too much on the interinstitutional war between the Council and Parliament and too little on the real heart of the problem. This is why I believe that this debate provides a good opportunity to revisit arguments which justify the radical reform of the Schengen area.

Unfortunately, I must say that the current Schengen system has major problems, mainly due to a general trend towards renationalising the Schengen area. This trend has become evident in recent years through cases which are already well known of internal border controls being illegally reintroduced. However, what is less well known and publicised in the media are the hidden internal border controls which are in place in no fewer than 11 Member States, as the Commission highlighted in its biannual report in May, a situation also confirmed by the Commissioner responsible for the Schengen area and by Mr Coelho here before us. The refusal to admit Romania and Bulgaria is another example of the Schengen rules being misinterpreted. I hope that this autumn the accession of Romania and Bulgaria will mark the first step towards establishing a normal situation in terms of compliance with these rules.

In Romania, even at the moment, the national parliament and the Ponta government are making efforts to introduce the rule of law and get rid of the presidential dictatorship which has been imposed in recent years. Therefore, Romania is in the process of returning to normal after a long period of democratic abuses and violations. This will ensure that the problems relating to administration and justice which have delayed Romania’s admission to the Schengen area will disappear, never to occur again.

The European Union urgently needs to reform Schengen governance and have Parliament involved, while the Commission needs to adopt the role of an impartial arbitrator both in assessing the application of the Schengen acquis and in the measures adopted to resolve the problems which have occurred, if necessary.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Mr President, I would say to my domestic coalition partner, Mr Kirkhope, if he were here, that internal border controls do not play a major role in catching major criminals, or even terrorists, and nor would PNR collection on internal EU flights do that. What is needed for that purpose is not populist moves designed to impress voters that irregular migration is being curbed, but strongly cooperative intelligence-led policing.

In addition we do need better managed external borders. I speak, of course, as a Brit who does not enjoy free movement travelling between London and Brussels or Strasbourg. Indeed, on a Brussels–London Eurostar journey I have my passport checked three times at present and my ticket twice. I acknowledge there is an issue on that route because people can buy a ticket to Lille but continue to London, but please be grateful that most of you do not have to endure these checks in Schengen and please preserve internal free movement so that even we Brits can join one day.

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, I would be happy to acknowledge the right of every Member State to control, in justified cases, its own external borders, for security reasons. I respect that, but it must be done in justified cases and it must never be done in order to harass.

It is simply not normal that every other coach coming from the Czech Republic is checked on the Czech-German border. There is no justification for this, because the Czech Republic presents no security risk for Germany, and nor does it present any risk in terms of illegal migration, and if ordinary tourist coaches are being checked then this is completely beyond me. I travel to Strasbourg from Prague by car and I well know that immediately after Rozvadov on the Czech-German border, the German or Bavarian police are lurking, and they deliberately go for cars with foreign number plates.

I think it is a kind of bureaucratic procedure, and that someone perhaps is ticking boxes in an office somewhere for the number of checks carried out, but it has to stop. The Treaty must have the final word here, and European law must be adhered to, just as in other cases.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, in recent years, the Schengen rules have become a central dogma among EU apologists for this new, secular EU alternative religion. We are now witnessing another dogma collapsing before our eyes. Ministers who attacked Denmark’s imposition of extra checks two years ago are now forced to admit that they can no longer manage without additional border controls, particularly in relation to illegal migration at the border between Turkey and Greece.

For this reason, I welcome the decisions taken by the interior ministers. I also appeal to them not to back-track, but rather to consider whether they might need more stringent measures if the economic situation further deteriorates, as seems likely at present. To all those who currently crassly ignore the problems of the victims of crime I would like to say that this is a cynical way to deal with these wronged citizens.

Finally, I would like to make the following appeal: I would call on you not to relax visa requirements for Turkey as this would send out the wrong signal to this country. It is particularly important now that we should make it clear to Turkey that it is obliged to ensure that we do not have a massive wave of illegal migration into the Schengen area.

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

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL), blue-card question. – (DE) I should like you to explain what this has to do with Turkey. As far as I am aware, Turkey is not a Member of the EU. We are supposed to be discussing the EU’s internal borders. Are you aware of this?

  Ewald Stadler (NI), blue-card answer. – (DE) I am not sure if my colleague has noticed that there is a border between Turkey and Greece, that this border has been increasingly used for illegal migration in recent months, that, as a further consequence, there have been several migratory movements from Greece into the European Union, and that not all of those who come are genuine refugees but also include criminal elements. I am not sure whether she has noticed this. It has not, however, gone unnoticed by the many members of the public who have fallen foul of this criminality.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). - (MT) Mr President, each time our external borders are placed under pressure a large number of Member States have got into the habit of reacting in the wrong way. Instead of trying to find ways of cooperating in order to strengthen the external borders, they are reintroducing internal ones between the European countries. What they fail to realise is that by putting up these internal borders they are leaving out European citizens whilst locking in their own citizens, and they are undermining freedom of movement, which is the European Union’s biggest achievement. In other words, they are placing all that we have built together under threat. We face two problems here. The first being that the Council is excluding the European Parliament when it comes to Schengen based decisions and, as a consequence, decisions related to freedom of movement.

Today, however, it is has emerged more clearly than ever that it is the European Parliament that is fully defending the freedom of movement of citizens. We want the European Commission to join us in this defence.

The second problem is that we are not simply talking about the risk of a potential threat to freedom of movement, but a real threat that is actually taking place. As we have heard, one country after another is now setting up internal borders between Schengen countries where they should not exist. The Parliament has appealed for this debate to reaffirm the importance of Schengen, to reiterate the importance of freedom of movement, and to send out a clear message to the Council that European citizens can still enjoy freedom of movement and that we are ready to defend this freedom. I would also like the European Commission to be on our side in our fight in favour of freedom of movement.

  Tanja Fajon (S&D). - (SL) Mr President, the Slovene press is full of headlines asking whether we might once more have to travel with passports. People are worried that we might lose our freedom of movement. The crisis has seriously shaken our citizens’ confidence.

For decades, we have worked to make the Union an area of free movement. The Council’s decision to exclude Parliament from decision making on the temporary introduction of controls within the Schengen area is unacceptable, regardless of any explanations. Any change to European border controls requires decision-making at a European level. A handful of people cannot decide on this behind closed doors without democratic control.

How do we ensure the governments of Member States do not bow to right-wing populism? Our record to date has not been good on that account.

Every year, more than a billion of us travel across the Union as tourists. We visit friends or relatives without needing a passport. Schengen is a symbol of Europe and I expect the Commission to firmly check any Schengen violations and the Cyprus Presidency to understand the sensitivity of the Schengen debate. We are at a very dangerous crossroads: truly, the confidence of our citizens is at stake.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I would just like to respond to my fellow Member from the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), who said, a little bit disdainfully that Schengen is something that was dreamt up by idealists. My late grandfather had a one-man business for the import of office supplies and travelled from the Netherlands to Brussels and Paris every fortnight, by bicycle at first, in order to collect his products. Recently, I discovered from his old passports the evidence of what Europe looked like before Schengen. His passports were full of stamps – evidence of long waiting times, the requirement to declare foreign currency and the need to change money. He would have embraced Schengen, as it would have made his life so much easier. Talk about idealism!

Commissioner, the Commission needs to supervise compliance with the Schengen Code, not only in terms of the letter of the law, but also in terms of the spirit, and if there are eleven problem situations in Europe, then it is clear that the spirit of Schengen is under pressure. It is the core of the European project. If you are telling us that the situation in the Netherlands is not problematic, then I am surprised, as the fight against crime is not something that we only do in border regions, Ms Malmström, it is something we do right across the Netherlands. So, to agree with my fellow Member from the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, if they look like border controls, that is probably what they are.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the Council’s decision of 8 June to change the legal basis of the regulation on the evaluation of the Schengen area may have adverse consequences on the Schengen area’s operation. If we really want to have a higher degree of transparency and democratic and judicial accountability in the way in which the Schengen rules are implemented and applied by Member States, we need to return to the basic treaty, and the discussion with Parliament needs to start again. In addition, it is difficult to accept that Member States which have weak points in their external borders are refusing to adopt a coordinated approach to evaluating the Schengen mechanism, while also blocking access to the Schengen area to Member States which, after the efforts they have made, have managed to achieve an extremely high level of security at their external borders.

By refusing the codecision procedure for the Schengen dossier, the Council is intending to retain a Schengen evaluation system which has proved at the moment to be ineffective at identifying non-compliance with the Schengen rules. This means that the EU prefers to tolerate illegal controls at internal borders or irregularities at external borders. Some Member States think that introducing internal borders will contribute to citizens’ security and help control the influx of migrants. Unfortunately, they are on the wrong track. The EU needs to focus on consolidating Schengen governance and on harmonising the security level at the external borders of all Member States.

Parliament wants to avoid a decline in current external border standards which are stipulated by European legislation. The current Schengen rules need to be revised to establish uniform external border standards, and this must also be legislated by Parliament as colegislator.

  Birgit Sippel (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, let me state quite plainly from the start that freedom of movement within the EU is not a national right and thus cannot be restricted solely on a national basis. As the only elected European institution, the European Parliament must be fully consulted and given a say on all questions, whether relating to changes in the Schengen area or violations of Schengen rules.

The reference to serious deficiencies at our external borders is dubious and factually incorrect. That is because the issue at stake is not just border controls, but also the excessive demands on some states immediately to investigate the legal status of every single refugee, thereby establishing clear perspectives for them. As Europeans, we must meet these challenges together, rather than sowing the seeds of uncertainty among our citizens with a crassly populist approach. This joint approach would be effective for our countries and our citizens, as well as for the refugees themselves. We should not regress to a parochial standpoint, because the fact is we need more Europe, not less.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, we submitted another question to the Commission because, in the area of Schengen and visas, it has failed to fulfil its role sufficiently as guardian of the founding Treaties in recent years.

It is striking that it has tolerated systematic and frequent checks within Schengen for years, where more than half of Czech coaches are checked by the Bavarian police, without us knowing why. It also affects us MEPs, as we are checked on the way to Strasbourg. Despite all the warnings, including my own interventions, we have seen no strong reaction from the Commission. A year ago, the Netherlands constitutional court identified similar checks as a breach of Union law. Why does the Commission remain silent? Why does it not begin an investigation of countries that are in breach of community law?

The second problem is the non-functionality of Schengen’s external dimension, the joint visa policy. Many Member States today face unilateral visa obligations from third countries and cannot themselves respond reciprocally, since exclusive competence in this area rests with the Commission, which is again inactive. The unilateral imposition of Canadian visas for Czech citizens is now marking its dismal third anniversary, since the Commission is failing to fight for the rights of its citizens. On the contrary, the Commission is now fighting against the full involvement of the European Parliament in the regulation on visas granted by third countries and other regulations. This all undermines the trust of citizens in a European institution that is failing to protect one of the four key freedoms of the EU, the freedom of movement.

I must state in all seriousness that the Commission is entirely responsible for the current problems in this area, and so are you, Commissioner. You are reaping what you sowed. The seed you sowed may not trouble you, but it is indigestible for tens of millions of European citizens.

  Carmen Romero López (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, despite what we have heard from some Members, internal mobility has been our great triumph. Now people want to portray external border control as a huge failure, which is in their interests. The anti-foreigner populism that is invading our countries is now becoming hostile to our own people.

Before they were criminals or self-seeking immigrants who were coming to Europe to steal the fruits of our labours, or asylum seekers who were fraudsters because they were abusing our asylum system or, in reality, they were people traffickers disguised as asylum seekers. Now this knock-on effect, this contagion of populism that is invading us, has reached our internal borders.

We are seen as self-seeking or fraudsters by each other. Now it will be the Greeks in the United Kingdom. Otherwise we are members of organised mafias when our buses are stopped at borders that do not exist and officers get on to enforce customs rules that do not exist in order to see whether we are trading in illicit goods or trafficking people. Everything is contagious. The cancer that is eating away at us and the genuine failure in the 17 years of application of the Schengen Agreement is the populism of the parties that are governing in the Member States and the cowardice of those who are not defending the founding texts.

We cannot stop worrying, Ms Malmström. How can we not worry? Internal mobility is not a threat, it is our opportunity, and mobility with our neighbouring countries will be our solution. Do we need to organise that solution? Yes we do. Will populism achieve that? No, it will not. Does the problem lie in mobility, in the desire for adventure? Fortunately, it does not. Does the problem lie among those who are fleeing wars? No, it does not. Our real failure is when we do not face up to populism and do not provide solutions.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, we have recently given into an endless exchange of accusations on the question of the Schengen area. Sometimes we say that the state asking for internal border controls is to blame and sometimes we say that some other state is to blame, where the external borders of that state, which are also external borders of the Union, do not have adequate and secure border control as required for the Schengen area. I think that, whenever we give into such accusations, we lose direction. When the ‘fathers’ of the European Union founded our Union, they started from a basic assumption: that we are all to blame for failed policies. They said that we are all to blame and they arrived at a joint finding. Only if we all pull in the same direction can we resolve any problems that arise, because solidarity means taking joint responsibility. It does not just mean helping someone who may be in a weak position; it means jointly taking responsibility.

Within this framework, therefore, you will understand that it is very difficult for all of us, and for the public following us, to understand what happened last year between France and Italy or what is happening in terms of controls of Czech buses on the German borders or in similar cases on the Dutch borders. How, therefore, can we say that Greece is not acting as it should on its external borders, when Frontex itself admits that, without assistance from its partners and without assistance from Turkey, Greece cannot secure the borders on its own.

To close, please can we focus on that, Commissioner? I call on you, because we expect a great deal of the Commission. At this time, the Member States, with whose various representatives I have discussed the subject, are taking a fearful approach to the question of the assessment and changes that we have in the regulations and are taking the view that it is better for us to handle these matters and that we do not need anyone else. No, we want the Community method, we want Schengen to operate at a higher level, we want future generations to know that, at this time, we responded with more Europe, not less Europe and back-peddling on the subject.

  Wim van de Camp (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, the principle of the free movement of people, goods, services and capital is one of the cornerstones of the European Union. Thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, the Schengen Agreements are now a key element of the European Union.

In times of growing nationalism and even populism, but also of rising crime and illegality, we need to very carefully monitor the Schengen Agreements and really keep our finger on the pulse when it comes to the interpretation of the agreements.

Personally, I support a broad interpretation of Schengen border controls – the Commissioner is well aware of this – but also supervision at Union level. That is what we agreed among ourselves, and it is a key element of European constitutional law. In light of that, I, too, am shocked by the decision of the European Council of 7 and 8 June to abandon, or to restrict, that supervision at Union level, the Community method. I am also pleased with the undertaking on the part of the President of the European Council that he wants to remedy that situation. We will judge him by his actions, however. This House, and I agree in this respect with all those who spoke before me, cannot be sidelined here.

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

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – (NL) I have here a letter from the Dutch Minister for Immigration, a member of Mr Van de Camp’s party, dated 3 July 2012, stating that, as of 1 August, he will be intensifying the mobile surveillance of aliens or mobile security supervision – they keep changing the name somewhat. Is that the kind of broad interpretation of Schengen that Mr Van de Camp would like to see?

  Wim van de Camp (PPE), blue-card answer. – (NL) Unless I misunderstood, the Commissioner said this afternoon that an initial assessment of the mobile surveillance of aliens by the Commission concluded that it is not in contravention of the Schengen Agreements. If that mobile surveillance of aliens were to be abused in order to impede free movement for European citizens, then we would be on the wrong track.

As the Dutch minister says, however, it is precisely because of these problems relating to illegal activity that I was able to justify the mobile surveillance of aliens despite being aware that there are Dutch judges who have difficulties with it, and it seems to me that the Dutch minister can go ahead, but, once again, under supervision at Union level.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, unfortunately we must recognise the increasing frequency with which the Schengen Agreement is violated and we also know that not all external borders are monitored to the same high standards. We are aware that the Council clearly wants to decide for itself whether or not border controls are to be reintroduced for up to two years. This would be like the players in a football match deciding for themselves whether someone had committed a foul and whether or not there should be a penalty awarded. The majority in the European Parliament wants to avoid endangering our major achievement, namely freedom to travel without border controls, and we shall do all we can to ensure that this does not happen.

What does the European Parliament want? Naturally the European Parliament is in favour of introducing short-term border checks in emergency situations. If serious problems arise, we also require a decision to be taken about whether border controls are to be introduced and for how long. However, this must take place at European level following an objective examination by the Commission and, naturally, we also demand evaluation mechanisms, but also involving a subsequent decision at European level. The European Parliament and, I am sure, the majority of those here will vehemently support the continued assurance of security and freedom to travel – as guaranteed by the Schengen Agreement – so that actions with populist backing, such as those witnessed in Denmark, do not happen in the future.

Finally, I would call on the Council to do all it can to ensure that the interior ministers return to the path of common sense and cooperation.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, the new Cyprus Presidency – we wish you success in your work – ladies and gentlemen, what we have heard today has made it very clear that there is a vast gulf between the position of the Council, which considers the Schengen issue we are discussing today simply to be a legal issue, and, on the other hand, the clear and coherent position of the Commission, which suggests quickly returning to the codecision procedure. The Council deprived us of our say on 6 and 7 June and we are relying on the Council recalling its sense of joint responsibility in this particular case.

Schengen is a product of civilisation, a real and, we would say, inalienable achievement: 40 000 km of land borders, almost 800 km of maritime borders, 25 countries involved and 400 million citizens. Citing the supposed problem of public safety is not enough to call into question something that remains an extremely valuable achievement.

Schengen, like the single market, is among the few accomplishments of the European Union which we can now say is responsible for there being even partial European citizenship. What is needed is more cooperation, more cooperation in policing and judicial terms, responsibility and solidarity. Parliament wants an open and integrated Europe, where everyone fully plays their part and that is another challenge that we want to achieve with the decisive contribution of the Commission and with a Council that restores solidarity in its relations with Parliament.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, I come from a country that acceded to the European Union only recently, just in 2004. At that time, in a referendum, Poles spoke decisively in favour of European unity, in favour of membership of the European Union, just like the nations of all the other countries that were joining the European Union, as most of them took the decision by a general vote of this nature. In our countries and in particular in Poland there is still a high level of acceptance for the European Union, much higher than in the countries of the old Union. One of the principal reasons for this acceptance – and also the reason why the referendum decided in favour of joining the European Union – was the possibility of free movement throughout a Europe without borders, without passports, all of which became a reality through the Schengen Agreement.

Our role as representatives of our societies, as persons chosen in direct elections, is to protect those values that are dear to people, those issues regarding the European Union that are really important to them. The European Parliament must be involved in any decision concerning the future of Schengen and any return to internal frontiers. These are matters that are important to our electors and it is our responsibility to protect and defend those values that are dear to them. The role of governments is to ensure safety without affecting those basic values that are important for the citizens of Europe.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Schengen is an asset to Europe. Breaking down barriers between Member States was the first sign of something new that was starting to take shape: no more barriers but unity; no more controls but solidarity between states, which are no longer divided but united in a single great Union. That is why it is odd to hold this debate today. We seem to have taken a step backwards and it appears that we are abandoning the foundations of our fine Union.

If Schengen fails, the European Union fails, but if Schengen is so important it should be protected, as precious things are. It should be protected from a Council that thinks it can bypass Parliament’s prerogatives, but it should also be protected from anything that can call Schengen itself into question. External border control should therefore be strengthened with all the legislative and technological instruments we have because, if our borders are at risk of becoming porous, this automatically makes our Member States less flexible, and they could call for stricter control, even within our borders, to prevent the entry of illegal immigrants. We cannot allow that and for that I thank Commissioner Malmström for all her work and her future collaboration on this issue.

  Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that Schengen is one of the greatest achievements in the European Union, however I am also aware that our Member States are sensitive of their borders and are likely to remain so. I am aware that the problems that exist between the Member States in relation to Schengen cannot simply be ignored. These problems are many and varied. Ignoring these problems does not make them any better or easier to resolve.

I live near the border with the Czech Republic and no one on our side would ever dream of simply closing the border again when problems are encountered. I would also call on the Commission to offer support in this area, rather than restrictions and rebukes. Dragnet controls were incorporated because we wish to ensure security while still allowing freedom to travel. If we are to be successful in implementing dragnet controls at locations that are frequent crossing points for drug dealers, such as the Czech border in particular, then I believe it is best for the German and Czech interior ministers to sit down together to find a joint solution to the problems that exist at the border. The Commission should not adopt a regulatory role here, but rather a positive supporting role.

We wish to rein in the populists, but also to resolve the real problems in a concerted approach. That is why I am also calling on the Council to seek a solution together with Parliament, so that we can successfully conclude the Schengen dossier, upholding freedom to travel while also ensuring the security of our citizens.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the choice made by the Council on 7 June does not just concern European internal policy; as you can imagine, it also has an impact outside Europe. Everyone here has said that the free movement of people is one of the greatest European achievements in a Europe that is defined by it. However, restricting that free movement actually implies and portrays a feeling of mistrust that the Council is trying to distil among European countries and into European public opinion, which risks destroying the European project.

For some time we have been calling for innovative and modern European governance on the migration issue. What you are doing, though, renationalises immigration policy. You are making rights and freedoms take a backward step, but these choices are likely to have a negative impact on another front, in that they reveal a certain schizophrenia in the action taken by Europe in its various policies.

Together we have decided that one of the pillars of the new neighbourhood policy is mobility, a core element of the new European approach, for example towards a changing area such as the Mediterranean. What message are we sending out to these countries, apart from a message of distrust and lack of credibility?

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, I would like to ask Ms Malmström to announce a ‘Zero tolerance for Schengen non-compliance’ programme. What we have been seeing over the past 18 months is a gradual undermining of the Schengen provisions, which represent the cornerstone of the European Union. Various countries, under various pretexts, are beginning to introduce temporary, transitional, hidden or open controls while we are focusing primarily on fiscal union, talking about the Euro, the crisis, a banking union and, in my opinion, we are not paying sufficient attention to these successive steps taken by various countries. I would therefore strongly encourage a ‘Zero tolerance for Schengen non-compliance’ programme, as it is only in this way that we can avoid further erosion of the Schengen system.

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the cases of disproportionate border checks listed by Parliament in its question also show why the Council is seeking to exclude Parliament with regard to Schengen. The fact is that the Council wants to continue to undermine freedom to travel without involving Parliament in the decision-making process, without any form of parliamentary control or public debate. It is hardly surprising, then, that it would prefer to avoid awkward questions and withdraw to backrooms where its members can pat themselves on the back. We should not be surprised that the German Government wants to prevent an evaluation of the internal borders and is unwilling to consider just how much freedom to travel is restricted. However, Schengen does not belong to the governments, but rather to the people of Europe and therefore it also belongs in the European Parliament.

  Monika Flašíková-Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, the establishment of the Schengen area is, according to the inhabitants of the EU Member States, one of our greatest successes. Up to 62% of EU Member State citizens stated in a survey that they considered it to be the greatest common European success and benefit.

Yet it is right now, at a time when we need to show our citizens that we are prepared to cooperate more closely, and that closer cooperation will strengthen the EU and move us further forward, right now that the Council comes up with a proposal that is absolutely unacceptable to us.

The controls that it will be possible to introduce for a period of six months and, moreover, that it will be possible to renew so that they potentially last for up to two years, are simply unacceptable to us. We cannot agree with this decision. Furthermore, we believe that it will be counterproductive since it is a direct attack on the guarantee of free travel and freedom of movement.

In conclusion, I would just like to add that, more and more, and ever more often, the Council takes decisions of this type without collaborating with the European Parliament, and without properly collaborating with the European Commission.

Commissioner, let us join forces – Parliament and the Commission – and hold the mirror up to the Council!

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I welcome this debate and regard it as being useful for two reasons. This is because it is a debate about the institutional relations between the three European institutions and it is the first time that the Council is taking the liberty to ignore one of the institutions which has the legitimacy required to meet the aspirations and scrutiny of European citizens. The Council must realise that Parliament is the only European institution which has increased democratic legitimacy. We are elected here by popular vote and represent the interests of Europe’s citizens. Greater cohesion is in the interest of Europe’s citizens, and greater cohesion means more space and greater freedom of movement.

I do not believe that, if we have governments unable to provide suitable solutions to the crisis and resorting to populist measures, we need to return to feudalism which was not, not even during the feudal period, characteristic of Europe because the freedom of movement is taken for granted and was not created by the European Union. Europe’s citizens have understood very clearly that this is what unites them in terms of culture and civilisation.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, we need to recognise that the removal of border controls has not just brought us advantages, such as convenient travel. These open borders have also naturally resulted in illegal immigration, while also making it child’s play for international criminal organisations to operate throughout Europe. You will all be aware of the undesirable side-effects: homes have been burgled, houses stripped bare, cars stolen, people trafficked, while we in this House seem almost oblivious. The situation has been worsened by the permeable Turkish-Greek border: in 2011 alone, 300 000 illegal aliens entered the European Union. Against this background, it was high time for the interior ministers to take action, which is why I find it impossible to understand the hysterical outcry in this House.

Let me turn to the Commissioner: Ms Malmström, when you claim that the waves of refugees entering Europe do not represent a threat to public security, despite 300 000 illegal immigrants from south-eastern Europe alone, then I do not know if you are living in the real world or ever talk to real people. Let me extend an invitation to you: come to the regions, for example my homeland, Austria. There you will meet with members of the public who are affected by this problem, who are anything but populists but who have justified concerns.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, it is a difficult discussion. I hope that nobody really questions the intentions of the Cyprus Presidency.

The Council firmly believes that the new arrangements for Schengen governance, which are already in place, provide a solid basis for ensuring greater oversight of developments in the Schengen area, including by the European Parliament. Please allow me in this intervention to limit myself to the issue at hand and not comment on external borders, although we all know that the two questions are interlinked.

The Council very much wants Parliament to be involved in the ongoing process on the legislative aspects of the new Schengen governance arrangements. That includes not only the proposal for amending the Schengen Borders Code, which remains – as many of you very rightly mentioned – subject to the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision) but also the Schengen evaluation mechanism proposal. And in saying this I really weigh my words.

My plea to all of you is that we at least agree now to define, confine and circumscribe the disagreement that indeed exists between the European Parliament and the Council to one question, and that is the question of evaluation.

The honourable rapporteur, Mr Coelho, will allow me to say and to insist that there is also a fundamentally legal question and, please do not get me wrong, I am not doing away with the political sensitivities and political aspects of this. But when it comes to evaluation there is an issue on whether, under the Treaty, evaluation remains a peer review or whether it is a competence which has been transferred to the Community level. And somewhere there is agreement there. We should not have a very passionate debate on this – let us talk and let us find a way forward! But please do not consider that it is about lowering existing standards and guarantees.

The Council is already publicly committed to ensuring that the view of the European Parliament will, to the fullest extent possible, be taken into consideration in all its aspects before the adoption of the final text.

We have, of course, also taken very good note of all the comments and, I assure you, all the criticisms you addressed to the Council and be assured that we do not take it badly and we will convey the ‘heat’ we received to the Council and to the Member States.

Based on this, we will try our utmost to find a satisfactory way forward and we hope that we can come to a mutually satisfactory understanding as to how that can be given a practical expression, thus enabling work on these proposals to be brought to a successful conclusion in the very near future.

Let me conclude by saying that we remain as committed as all of you to preserving and strengthening the free movement of persons, as one of the most tangible and successful achievements of European integration.

We firmly believe in a European Union as a space of freedom, including the fundamental issue of freedom of movement, to which Schengen makes an outstanding contribution.

Of course we will fully respect the Treaty and the framework of the Treaty, but we of course stand ready to discuss, and see what improvements we can bring.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, as part of strengthening the Schengen governance, the Commission also proposed that we would have regular discussions on the state of play – the health check – of Schengen. This would be an opportunity to discuss among Ministers the shortcomings and challenges of Schengen on a regular basis. It would take place twice a year based on a report issued by the Commission. The first debate took place last June, and I immediately sent the report to the European Parliament as well, and I am of course willing to discuss with you how we can involve the European Parliament even more in those discussions.

In that report we identified 11 cases that we had been investigating for the last six months. Some of them could very well lead to infringement proceedings but, as I tried to explain on the two cases that you brought up in your oral questions, it is sometimes very difficult to get information and that is why we are now working very hard with Germany and the Czech Republic, including with the Czech bus companies, to see if we can get more information, so they have enough evidence to really bring the issue forward. Moreover, we are also issuing guidelines to the Member States, the first concerning travel documents, because of the background of the discussion between France and Italy on the travel documents of Tunisians, and we are also in regular contact with the Member States to see if there are other issues where we would need guidelines.

So, Ms Weber, everything is not shiny and rosy in Schengen. There are problems, and it is because of this that we proposed a strengthening of the evaluation mechanism, so that we would have the possibility of identifying possible shortcomings very early on and working with the member countries, using all the tools that we have at our disposal to hopefully remedy the shortcomings at our borders.

Mr President-in-Office, that is why we proposed to move from a peer-to-peer-based review to a Commission-led review. It is not because the Commission needs more powers per se, it is because we need an independent European-based system so that we can make sure that we have a compulsory action plan by the relevant Member States and that we can also avoid possible domestic pressures – populism, etc. – which could lead to a reinstallation of internal borders that is not in line with the acquis. That would imply a change of the legal base, also involving the European Parliament.

We maintain that view from the Commission side. Schengen is a European achievement, and that is why we need a European-based governance of Schengen. I hope that after the well-deserved summer break for everybody, we can sit together and see whether there is a way to find a good solution that all institutions can approve.

  President. - The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) European citizens regard the freedom of movement as part of the main practical benefits delivered by European integration. At the same time, it consolidates the formation of a single area of freedom, security and justice. Any decision intent on restricting this right must be well justified, be adopted after careful consideration, and be an exceptional measure with a strictly defined time limit. Clear criteria and conditions need to be established for situations where internal border controls can be applied, and Parliament is entitled to be closely involved in devising and monitoring them. The unjustified delay in Romania’s accession to Schengen is already a de facto act of discrimination against millions of European citizens. If internal border controls are going to be applied illegally on top of this, this will threaten one of the foundations of European integration. I appeal to all European leaders not to give in to populist temptations and to defend the freedom of movement. I also call on the Commission to monitor closely Member States’ compliance with the Schengen acquis and to take a prompt stance in the event of any abuse. Last but not least, I call for a clear decision to be adopted in September, along with a precise timetable for Romania’s accession to Schengen.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Creating the Schengen area plays an important role in the process of consolidating and strengthening the European Union. This area has provided benefits for all Member States, both in economic terms as a result of the free movement of goods between internal borders, and for European citizens who can travel freely without being checked every time they cross an internal border.

Thanks to the actions of opportunist politicians, motivated by their desire to attract populist votes, the Schengen system has been repeatedly attacked, with it being used as a kind of scapegoat to increase their popularity at the ballot box. This can also be noticed in the case of Bulgaria and Romania where, although they have fulfilled all the criteria required to join the Schengen area, the final decision is still pending.

  Kinga Gál (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Today’s debate is once again about the Community’s carefully guarded asset, which to European citizens is the most important of the EU acquis, not to mention young people, nearly 90% of whom agree with the importance of the freedom of movement according to a survey by the European Youth Parliament. Cracks have begun to form in this Community acquis as a result of a practice applied by the old Member States, namely the increasingly frequent controls of travellers and buses from new Member States. In the midst of the economic and financial crisis, where there is an increasingly urgent need for Community trust, some Member States are thereby reinforcing mistrust. This shakes the very foundations of the system. We could see a similar loss of trust when the Council adopted its decision in early July. I therefore request the Council to do everything within its power to enable us to move forward from the deadlock between Parliament and the Council as soon as possible and to develop Schengen governance together. I am also asking this so that in September we can welcome the two Member States awaiting accession, Romania and Bulgaria, with trust into the Schengen Area.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) The Commission’s report on breaches of Schengen rules states that 75% of illegal immigrants entered the Schengen area via the Greek-Turkish border. The question of illegal immigration should be addressed overall at European level and particular measures need to be taken for the Member States that lie on the EU borders, as they are under the greatest pressure at this difficult time of economic crisis. I consider that the Dublin II Regulation needs to be revised and reviewed, because it places a disproportionate burden, in terms of managing illegal immigration, on the countries via which illegal immigrants enter. The restoration of controls on the external borders of the area proposed by the Commission and the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council does not address the problem on the ground and highlights the political isolation of individual Member States.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Schengen Agreement, which was concluded 27 years ago, is one of the key achievements of our Union and one that particularly affects EU citizens. Ease of travel is exceptionally important for the citizens of our continent and it is enormously appreciated. For this reason, under no circumstances should the right to free movement of persons be restricted, nor should there be any exceptions to compliance. Likewise the views of the European Parliament concerning the future of the Agreement should not be ignored since the European Parliament represents European citizens, 62% of whom consider the Schengen Agreement to be the greatest achievement of the European Union. We cannot destroy the soul of the Union, especially at a time when people are raising questions about European unity. Open frontiers are a symbol that we should defend. Instances of traffic controls at the border between the Netherlands and Belgium or Czech buses at the German border are the best argument in favour of furthering and deepening work to develop Schengen area regulations. These activities should be carried out with the cooperation of all European Union institutions. In this regard, the Council should return to the path of cooperation with MEPs and the European Commission concerning regulations regarding a new mechanism to evaluate Schengen. In my opinion this is the only way to ensure proper functioning of the Schengen area and to respect citizens’ rights in this regard.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), in writing. – (DE) Freedom to travel is one of the greatest achievements in Europe, alongside the common currency, the euro. Both of these are being sacrificed to short-term interests. Such policies will not achieve the successes hoped for by the populists, nor will they provide an answer to the problems of the world awaiting a solution. Nonetheless, the practice of pursuing symbolic policies is becoming increasingly prevalent, suggesting a willingness to take action, while actually avoiding a genuine solution to the problem. For many years, Europe’s interior ministers have been unable to agree on the fair distribution of refugees, Europe has failed in terms of neighbourhood policy and is pulling back from development cooperation. These elementary issues must be resolved as a priority, however, as otherwise even Schengen will not really work. Suspending the Schengen mechanism will not solve the problems. This must only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, if at all. Any decision reached in this regard must not be affected by populist influences. It must be taken at European level with the involvement of the European Parliament.

13. Temporary judges of the European Union civil service tribunal - Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (debate)

  President. – The agenda includes a joint debate on:

- the report (A7-0184/2012) by Alexandra Thein on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to temporary judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (01923/2011 – C7-0091/2011 – 2011/0902(COD)) and

- the report (A7-0185/2012) by Alexandra Thein on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto (02074/2011 – C7-0090/2011 – 2011/0901A(COD))

  Alexandra Thein, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg is overstretched. Tomorrow’s decision may seem technical and non-political at first glance, relating to the internal reorganisation of the three courts that comprise the Court of Justice of the European Union; however there is more to it than that.

The European Union has been, and continues to be, invested with more and more powers and responsibilities, most recently through the Treaty of Lisbon. Accordingly, the responsibilities of the Court of Justice of the European Union have also gradually expanded. Thus, the excessive workload cannot be attributed solely to the increasing number of cases – in common with many Member States – quite apart from the accession of 12 new Member States. In fact, the number of cases concluded has lagged behind the number of newly received cases for many years. In this context, it becomes clear that the reform of the internal organisation of the Court of Justice will have a major impact on the functioning or the European Union as a whole and, in the final analysis, on the lives of Europe’s citizens.

For this reason it was important for me that all of the participating legislative bodies – including the Court of Justice, which we included in the trilogue negotiations – should cooperate from the start and find practical compromises. We have only partly succeeded in doing this. Let me begin with the part for which we have actually found reasonable compromises, which make the work of the Court more efficient and which will reduce the length of court proceedings.

The key points are as follows: the office of Vice-President is to be established at the suggestion of the Court itself. In future, the Vice-President will relieve the President of some of the burden involved in representing and administering the Court and will attend all Grand Chamber sessions. In addition, personnel structures are to be changed in the Chambers and in the Grand Chamber, which is to consist of 15 judges, so that the Presidents of the Chambers with five judges will also have their workload reduced and it will be possible to share the workload of all judges more evenly.

The proposals in relation to the Civil Service Tribunal are also easy to explain. This Tribunal has always had seven judges. The small number of judges means that, in the event that a judge is absent, for example, due to lengthy illness, the Tribunal as a whole is seriously impaired in its judicial functions. In order to prevent this, an option is to be established whereby judges can be appointed to this technical tribunal on an interim basis. The judges in question are former members of the Court of Justice and they are to be appointed from a list in a particular order, so as to satisfy the requirements in relation to legally eligible judges. These judges can then replace individual judges should they be unable to fulfil their duties. So much for the positive and rational compromises which we have hammered out together and for which I wish to thank all those involved.

As was stated at the outset, however, we have not been able to bring all the necessary proposals to a conclusion. I wish to emphasise clearly that the reason for this lies not with the European Parliament, but with the Council and the national vanity of the individual Member States. It was suggested that the number of judges in the Court of First Instance should be increased by 12, rising from 27 to 39 judges. This is the right decision in view of the increasing workload of the judges, although the precise number of additional judges required might be open to debate. Parliament is certainly convinced that increasing the number of judges will, in the final analysis, contribute to better jurisprudence for individual citizens and businesses alike.

From which the Member States the additional judges are drawn should not really matter and appointments should be made solely on the basis of qualifications. After all, the principle of impartiality among judges also applies in the European Union. This, however, is something for the future. We have proposed a fair system for the appointment of judges, with numerous suggestions for how they could be selected. The Member States however, were unwilling and unable to agree to any of these solutions in the Council, which is why we shall not have an agreement to increase the number of judges for the foreseeable future. The motives behind this are purely national in character and cannot be justified in objective terms. I find this extremely unsatisfactory.

In the future too it will be necessary to ensure that European jurisprudence follows a reasonable timescale. Our citizens and businesses are entitled to that. Excessively long cases, sometimes lasting over five-and-a-half years, represent a violation of our Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. That is why it is vital that, in view of the present, well-balanced proposals in relation to the selection of additional judges, Member States should finally consider their position and avoid any loss of confidence in the European legal system.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, honourable Members, I am very grateful to Parliament for having organised this joint debate on the two reports by Ms Alexandra Thein concerning the proposed amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice and the draft regulation relating to temporary judges of the Civil Service Tribunal.

Let me begin by extending my thanks to the rapporteur for her constructive and positive approach to these negotiations. I would also like to pay tribute to the Danish Presidency which was instrumental in ensuring swift progress within the Council as well as the discussion between the two institutions. The good cooperation between the Council and Parliament on these important dossiers has led to a rapid agreement at first reading.

This is an important issue indeed. The aim of these two proposals is to increase the efficiency of the work of the Court of Justice as a whole and in particular to allow it to address the increasing volume of cases and accumulated backlog. This is important if we are to ensure legal certainty and reliability.

I am, of course, fully aware that further work is needed on one important issue. This concerns an increase in the number of judges of the General Court. However, both our institutions are ready to work to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to address this issue by September 2013.

Let me now turn now to the various elements of the compromise package on which you will be voting tomorrow. The Statute amendments will introduce measures to improve efficiency in the work of the three courts which make up the Court of Justice of the European Union. Over recent years the Court has undergone significant changes in both the volume and the nature of litigation. This is due both to developments in EU law in a range of policy areas and to the enlargement of the European Union. The measures contained in this legislation will enable the Court to cope better with the increasing volume of litigation and improve the efficiency of its work.

I would like to draw attention to three elements in particular: firstly, the establishment of the post of Vice-President in both the Court of Justice and the General Court who will assist the Presidents of each Court in their responsibilities; secondly, the modification of the composition of the Grand Chamber of the Court; and thirdly, the possibility of attaching temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal in order to cover for the absence of judges prevented from participating in judicial business for health reasons.

As for the other elements of the proposal related to the increase in the number of judges at the General Court, I can assure you that the Council is fully aware of the need to address this issue urgently. Nevertheless it is a matter of some sensitivity within the Council. The Cyprus Presidency is determined to find a solution, but we would need to do so in a way which takes full account of the full range of views within the Council.

I am pleased that we can look forward to the adoption of the two proposals which are the subject of our debate this afternoon. I look forward to continuing the excellent cooperation with Parliament on the outstanding elements of the Court’s proposal and I am certain that we can reach an early and acceptable solution.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her constructive approach to the proposals of the Court of Justice.

The Commission regrets that a decision on additional judges at the General Court is postponed. The backlog of cases at the General Court remains a source of concern. However, we welcome the compromise reached today by the institutions on all the other elements of the reform. The Commission is pleased to see that most of the changes it suggested in its opinion in September 2011 have been taken on board by Parliament and the Council.

We also take note of Parliament’s intention to hold a debate in the near future on the merits of introducing the possibility of issuing dissenting opinions at the Court of Justice. We have some reservation vis-à-vis the introduction of such a system at the Court, but we will of course participate constructively in all the discussions.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) Mr President, this debate about reform of the Court of Justice of the European Union should provide a unique opportunity to take a wider view of the problems with which the European justice system has been dealing. We should not finish this today. Instead, we should open the debate on this subject. When starting work on proposals from the Court of Justice and the European Commission we certainly had higher hopes and expectations. We also believed that this work would be relatively straightforward and that there would not be any differences between institutions. Changes to the Court of Justice work practices and the appointment of temporary judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal are certainly steps in the direction of increased output by EU courts. However, a key element of this reform was supposed to have been a proposal to increase the number of judges in the general court. Exclusion of this issue from the dossier makes it possible for us to implement all the non-controversial changes, but I believe that this basic issue will soon return. The Council cannot duck this matter, it will have to consider it again and take a decision with the European Parliament to resolve this key issue. It is, after all, no secret that proceedings before EU courts are becoming unworkably long, principally because of the disproportionate increase in the number of cases in relation to the staffing structure of EU courts. We are creating laws in an ever wider area, new countries become members of the European Union, we are thinking about acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights as a Union – all of this will further increase the number of cases.

We should remember that the right for a dispute to be resolved within a reasonable time is the right of every citizen and is now guaranteed in every Member State. We must provide EU courts with the instruments and human resources that are appropriate to the actual requirements. At present, increasing expenditure on EU administration is highly unpopular in Member States – of course we understand this. However, if the Union is faced with paying large amounts of compensation for cases that take too long, then this will certainly cost the European taxpayer and European institutions more than a few judges. Despite everything I am pleased that we reached a compromise and I would like to thank Alexandra Thein for her excellent work on this dossier.

  Evelyn Regner, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Secretary of State, Commissioner, firstly, my sincere thanks go to the rapporteur for her constructive work. The Court of Justice of the European Union is permanently overstretched. This is due partly to the fact that the European Union has been enlarged to include 12 new Member States and partly to the continuous extension of the Court’s powers and responsibilities. In order to enable the effective administration of justice, the code of procedure has been changed so that it is possible to arbitrate in legal cases relating to intellectual property without requiring an oral hearing. Our citizens are entitled to sound procedures that are administered as quickly as possible. The President of the Court of Justice can allocate cases to chambers that have already dealt with similar legal issues.

I believe that the more effective version of the two possible reform proposals has been chosen. The addition of new judges at the Court of Justice will be achieved by changing the statutes according to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. The reasons for my preference are linked to the effectiveness of the proposed solution, the urgency of the situation, the flexibility of the planned measures and the coherence of European Union law. The Court of Justice considers it necessary to increase the number of judges by 12 to a total of 39. Like the rapporteur, Ms Thein, I do not have any empirical investigations to support the Court’s decision in relation to this specific number. I am fundamentally in agreement with the Court of Justice, however. The nomination of judges is a matter for the Member States. The matter is of such importance, however, that it is necessary to ensure that it is the task of the directly elected Parliament, in other words the European Parliament, to achieve the best possible solution in the interests of our citizens. It is for this reason that the Committee on Legal Affairs should be involved to the appropriate degree in the appointment of judges. It seems inappropriate, however, for the Court of Justice to be required to establish two specialist chambers. It would seem to make more sense to authorise the Court to establish such bodies under its own code of procedure.

  Gerald Häfner, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Community law is expanding and with it the need for jurisprudence and judicial decisions. If you will permit me to wax poetical on such a dry matter, the law and the way in which we frame it is perhaps the most valuable substance from which this Community is woven. The law protects the weak from the attacks of others, from claims to power and from violence. The law regulates the relations between people and institutions, protects freedom, democracy and solidarity. However, access to the law is also key. The law must also be upheld as necessary, by a court of law in cases of doubt.

The Court of Justice of the European Union is increasingly having to deal with larger case numbers. This is hardly surprising in view of the expansion of Community law. Parliament has not closed its ears to the call to increase the number of judges. We have made a number of reasonable proposals for reducing the number of cases, increasing the number of judges and improving the modus operandi of the Court. The proposals have already been outlined by my colleagues.

I must say, however, that there is one thing I fail to grasp: Parliament responds to this call and listens closely to what the public and judges have to say, draws up a solution in the trilogue with the Council and Commission, reaches an agreement and, in the end, nothing, absolutely nothing, happens. Why is that? It is because the Member States are unable to agree on how to appoint the judges. I find this unacceptable in this common Europe. I expect a little European responsibility from the Council too.

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, may I firstly welcome the reforms contained within the report by my colleague, Mrs Thein. I believe they represent a good first step towards improving the functioning of the Court.

The introduction of the Treaty of Lisbon and enlargement have all contributed to the increasing backlog that we hear so much about, particularly in the General Court. Also, the economic difficulties are adding to the workload. We find an 11% increase in commercial and business-related disputes in 2011 alone. Tax disputes increased by 37 % and intellectual property cases by some 18%. It is essential that the ultimate arbiter of European law works effectively and efficiently in order to provide our citizens and businesses with the utmost legal certainty when transacting across borders. We must bear in mind that, although procedural reforms are able to alleviate some of the delays, it is difficult to deny that structural reforms are necessary in order to properly resolve the burden of cases still outstanding before the Court.

Finally, there have been some rumours circulating that the United Kingdom is in fact blocking this matter going to a vote. That is not the case. We are working on a very speedy basis, moving domestic legislation to allow this to proceed through our Houses of Parliament, so that we can move this here in time for the appointment of the new judges in October this year.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Mr President, I rarely find myself in dispute with Tadeusz Zwiefka, but this is an exception. I would first like to thank the rapporteur for the work he has done.

As was correctly stated in the discussion on both drafts, the number of lawsuits is increasing sharply, and in my opinion this is due, among other things, to EU expansion. It is also correctly anticipated that in future the number of cases submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union for consideration will grow due to legislative changes.

For this reason, I consider it quite right that we are responding to these trends. I particularly welcome the reform of the Court of Justice, which, among other things, includes the introduction of an urgent procedure for accelerated preliminary proceedings. In my opinion, establishment of the post of temporary judges is also a step in the right direction, making it possible to avoid unnecessary delays when there is a surge in the caseload. This is one of few possibilities for reducing the costs and losses to the parties attending the court, if proceedings are extended due to a shortage of judges.

For the same reason, I consider the decision to establish the office of Vice-President of the Court of Justice to be correct, in the hope that this reinforcement will also allow quicker decision making by the judicial institutions.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, since we are discussing justice I would like to raise a disturbing issue that has come to my attention today.

Mr Roger Hayes has been summarily sentenced to 21 days in Liverpool prison following a cursory appearance before a magistrate on Monday. Mr Hayes was arrested at 8.30 a.m., taken to court, sentenced and locked up by 6 p.m. that evening. No members of the public or witnesses were reportedly allowed at his hearing. Mr Hayes’ family have reportedly been refused any direct access to him.

Mr Hayes is the founder of the British Constitution Group and is a prominent tax protestor. His case arises from his withholding of Council tax on a legally-based objection that the revenue is being illegally used.

Mr Hayes’ imprisonment may well be illegal under English common law. Mr Hayes must be freed without delay and the issues behind it widely publicised. I hope this helps.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, all that I can say about the proposed reform is that I will maintain a sceptical attitude to it for the following reasons. I am sorry, but appointing additional temporary judges because the permanent team of judges fall ill too often reeks to me of malingering and an abuse of rights. Why do these principal judges fall ill so often that additional judges need to be appointed?

While on the subject of expanding the General Court, let us not forget, colleagues, that the judges in the Court of Justice of the European Union are the highest paid officials in the whole European Union. In addition, every Member State has one judge each, which is not because of any misguided nationalism, but is down to the need to have an expert familiar with the relevant national law. Increasing the number by 12 means that the burden on some of the judges will increase (those who are still the only judge from a Member State), unlike for the rest.

Concluding what I said about judges being the highest paid officials, I feel that an increase can only be made in this crisis situation in connection with an overall reduction in the salaries in the Court so that the final bill is the same.

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOS
Vice-President

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I should first of all like to welcome the effort we are currently making to reform the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, so as to make them more efficient. I should particularly like to welcome the creation of the office of Vice-President of the Court of Justice, the amendment of the rules relating to the composition of the Grand Chamber, and the possibility of using temporary judges where the president and vice-president are unable to attend.

However, I have to say that we should – and this is a very important issue – have seized this opportunity to reform the Statute of the Court of Justice to increase its democratic legitimacy. In practice, under the EU legal system, under the European legal system, the courts have the role of setting precedents. It is a role characteristic of common law. They are the builders of European law. That is why we should be concerned about their democratic legitimacy. To that end, I would draw your attention to the fact that it would be very beneficial to allow the publication of dissenting opinions. The mention of examination of this issue is positive, but it is a shame that this proposal – which I made in committee, as a matter of fact – did not include acceptance that there should be transparency on publication of the votes of the Court of Justice, as happens with the supreme courts and constitutional courts of many Member States.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I welcome the new Presidency. I am a veteran member of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was led by your country, and which has a strong desire for Cyprus to be unified as opposed to under military occupation.

Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps we should take this opportunity for a broader reform of the Court of Justice of the European Union, but the aspirations of the Commission and the rapporteur are very positive and must be unanimously supported as they were in our committee. The flexibility and smooth running of the Court of Justice are crucial, and I question those qualities in the light of the new jurisdiction on patents, which has now been delayed.

Congratulations to the rapporteur, and let us move forward with the reform of the Court of Justice.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, the Court of Justice of the European Union has for a long time been drawing attention to the fact that the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal do not work as they should. Therefore, we urgently need to find a solution that will ensure the proper functioning of all three courts. In line with this objective, it is necessary for us to amend its Statute.

In relation to the Court of Justice, it should be borne in mind that the current structure of its Grand Chamber and its rules of operation stem from amendments introduced by the Treaty of Nice back in 2003, that is, nine years ago. Since then, many changes have taken place, including, for example, the accession of 12 new Member States.

The number of cases brought is constantly increasing. Although the productivity of the Court of Justice has improved substantially, the number of pending cases is growing constantly. The Court of Justice clearly lacks the capacity needed to carry out its activities effectively.

We will clearly agree on the fact that we need to increase the number of judges as quickly as possible, but we must also agree on the means of their appointment. In this respect, therefore, I appeal to the Council in particular to address this issue as a matter of priority.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, we have of course taken very good note of everything which has been said in this debate. I am extremely happy that this compromise, where we all agree, is now on the table. While not wishing to minimise the difficulties on the remaining issues, we are of course willing to cooperate as constructively as possible with Parliament and the Council on this extremely important file.

  President. – I should like to take this opportunity, if I may, to wish the Cypriot Presidency bon courage and every success.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – (EL) Mr President, it is a great honour and pleasure for me to speak in this debate chaired by you. I look forward to very constructive cooperation and thank you for your kind words.

Before concluding let me just say a few words on the question which was raised concerning how the Council is considering dealing with the question of the enlargement of the composition of the General Court. You know that on 20 June, Coreper gave a mandate to the Friends of the Presidency group to continue reflections with a view to identifying possible solutions and reporting back to Coreper by the end of the year.

It is a shared objective of the European Parliament and the Council to put in place appropriate measures to deal with the General Court’s backlog by the time of the General Court's partial renewal in December 2013, but we all need to understand that this question is really very complicated and we need some innovative thinking because we need to ensure, on the one hand, the quality of the appointees and consistency with the existing system of Article 255, but we also need to somehow ensure the equal footing, or the equal status, of those new judges with the others. Just imagine that we opt for an equal rotation. Who are those who are going to rotate? Only those twelve, let us say, or all of them? When it comes to any one country, do they have one judge for sure, who is already there, and the new one has to rotate, and his mandate will not be renewable? I am just sharing with you some of the possible questions which we need to find a way to address.

On behalf of the Council, let me just thank again the rapporteur and all the MEPs on the constructive debate on the reform of the Court of Justice of the European Union and assure you that we are looking forward to the introduction of the new rules this autumn. I am also optimistic that this constructive cooperation with Parliament will continue so that we can find a timely solution to the challenges facing the General Court. It is in the interests of all us to have a properly working Court of Justice in the European Union.

  Alexandra Thein, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank all my colleagues and I am particularly pleased that we have cross-group agreement that the number of judges must be increased, as Ms Regner has also indicated how many there will eventually be. This still has to be discussed.

The third estate is often neglected because it is unable to make its voice sufficiently heard in politics. It is reticent by nature. It is essentially important, however. Mr Häfner has underlined its importance for the public at large, while Mr Karim has explained its significance for the business community. I hope that the friendship group established by the Council will not only deal with further internal reforms of the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly because it has already achieved a major reform that has also contributed to a drop in case numbers and concluded cases. It is extremely important that the principle of the separation of powers should be followed here, and the system as a whole must not be overburdened. The work on the two dossiers has shown that some questions remain outstanding and that we must take a closer look at the Court of Justice in our Committee on Legal Affairs when it comes to the issue of divergent opinions, even though these are not required by the Court, or the establishment of special chambers and technical tribunals.

A number of questions have arisen during the negotiations and need to be clarified. We were under considerable time pressure because 14 new judges must be appointed in October and I hope that we will have concluded the negotiations on the additional new judges to be appointed before the next appointment of 13 new judges in September 2013.

Mr President, as we have saved some time because a number of colleagues have failed to attend, please permit me to present once again the various options for appointing the additional judges. We tabled a cross-group resolution that was never adopted, despite unanimous support, because Parliament changed its Rules of Procedure in the interim. The following proposals are on the table:

Firstly, the selection takes place in strict rotation and involves all 27 Member States. The second option: six judges are drawn from the most populous Member States, while the remaining six are drawn from the other 21 Member States in strict rotation. Alternatively: six judges are drawn from the most populous Member States, while the remaining six are drawn from the medium-sized Member States in strict rotation. Yet another option: six judges are drawn from the most populous Member States, while the remaining six are selected using the same system as that used to appoint advocates-general. Another possible interim solution would be to appoint temporary judges for approximately five or six years, as suggested by the Danish Presidency of the Council. Thus, there are plenty of solutions available, but the Council needs to agree.

  President. - The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 5 July 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Similarly to the objectives of the reform of the judiciary in Hungary, the essence of the draft amendment requested by the Court of Justice of the European Union is to improve the efficiency of the bodies constituting the Court, and as a result reduce the duration of proceedings. As with Hungary, this is not about a one-time change but about establishing the flexible operation of the organisation, in addition to solving current problems, in order to allow it to adapt to new challenges in the future. The changes primarily concern the following: the composition of the Grand Chamber, the creation of the post of Vice-President of the Court of Justice, the increase of the number of Judges in the General Court from 27 to 29, and the option to appoint temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal. We are all aware that an urgent structural solution is needed to rapidly reduce the number of cases pending before the General Court and to limit the duration of assessing cases. In order to ensure the efficient functioning of the justice system, some of the changes need to be brought into effect as soon as possible, before the partial restructuring in autumn.

14. Situation in Georgia (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission on the situation in Georgia.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak at the opening of this debate on behalf of the High Representative, Vice-President Ashton.

This House, in its resolution of 17 November last year, gave strong support to Georgia’s territorial integrity and to the process of political association and economic integration with the European Union. It also recognised the importance of the Geneva Process and gave its backing to the work of the European Union’s special representative for the South Caucasus and to the EU monitoring mission. These were important signals of commitment to Georgia and to the region.

Members of this House have also been in the vanguard of supporting the deepening of human rights and democracy in Georgia. At the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly held in Baku in April a resolution was passed underlining the indispensable role of independent civil society in strengthening democracy and stressing the importance in this context of freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, including in the press and the media.

In addition, I am aware that a number of honourable Members have submitted parliamentary questions concerning the treatment of the political opposition, respect for human rights, labour relations and other related issues. These issues are all extremely relevant as the EU looks at Georgia preparing for elections in the autumn, and as we support Georgia’s reform drive built on the basis of consensus.

President Van Rompuy is in Georgia today. His visit is an opportunity to demonstrate the top-level commitment of the European Union to the deepening of our relations with Georgia and to the peaceful development of the South Caucasus region as a whole. I will not anticipate President Van Rompuy’s messages to Georgia here, but I would like to signal before the debate is open a number of critical issues for us at this time.

We are making good progress with our Association Agreement and with Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area negotiations. We will also soon begin concrete work on a visa liberalisation action plan preparing for mobility and stronger people-to-people contacts. All this is very positive news, but it is essential that Georgia makes every effort already to live within the spirit of association. We will provide Georgia with every possible support in meeting this objective, bearing in mind its great potential to benefit from the ‘more for more’ principle enshrined in the European Neighbourhood Policy.

In this context, President Barroso and Commissioner Füle as well as, obviously, High Representative/Vice-President Ashton, have emphasised to President Saakashvili in their recent meetings in Brussels the need to ensure fair political competition and the legitimacy of elections. Parliamentary elections in October must meet international democratic standards. Public trust in the election process will be crucial. Pluralistic elections require a strong, credible and serious opposition that takes part in the election process in a way that respects the constitution and the law.

We have noted with concern the perception that the government is trying to hinder the participation of opposition leader Ivanishvili, that resources are being deployed against him and that laws on party finance and vote-buying are being applied in a one-sided way. We must insist that the laws are correctly and transparently applied to leave no possible doubt that due process has been followed.

On the other hand, there is also a perception that Mr Ivanishvili is using his unequalled financial assets for electoral gain and this is a legitimate concern. Again we must insist that there is a level playing field for democratic competition and that votes cannot be bought.

We have focused in particular on equal access to media outlets. It is well established that the two main pro-government channels have enjoyed wider penetration than more critical channels, so we are encouraged by the recent decision by Parliament to enforce the so-called ‘must-carry/must-offer’ rules in the pre-election period and by the President’s strong statements on this issue, though we will wish to discuss further the enforcement of these rules.

Finally, I should of course underline that the EU remains committed to conflict resolution efforts in Georgia through strong support to Georgia’s territorial integrity, through our contribution to security and stability by the deployment of the EU monitoring mission, and through our leading role as co-chairs in the Geneva international discussions.

The conflict over Abkhazia and South Ossetia remains high on our agenda and we will continue to spare no effort to help find solutions. This commitment was strongly reflected in the Council conclusions of 27 February 2012.

I very much look forward to hearing the views of honourable Members on this very important issue.

  Krzysztof Lisek, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) Mr President, Minister, over the last year and a half I have had the pleasure of working on a report for the European Parliament concerning an association agreement between the European Union and Georgia. I have visited Georgia several times and taken part in dozens of meetings with representatives of both the government and opposition parties, with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, with media representatives, with representatives of non-governmental organisations – both those that work closely with the government and those that work closely with the present opposition, whether inside or outside parliament. I would like therefore to present my view, while reminding you at the start about two sections from our November resolution, a resolution that was adopted by over 90% of the European Parliament. In point M of the preamble we wrote: ‘welcome the significant progress made by Georgia in the areas of democratic reforms, including strengthening democratic institutions, particularly the Ombudsman's Office, the fight against corruption and the reform of the judiciary, as well as of economic reforms and liberalisation; congratulate Georgia on reducing overall and especially serious crime rates in the country’ and a bit further on in point O of the preamble we wrote: ‘call for the Georgian Government to enter more extensively into a constructive political dialogue with opposition forces and further develop a democratic environment for freedom of speech, especially the accessibility of public media for all political parties’.

I believe that today we would all put our signatures to this type of statement. Georgia has been praised, not just by us politicians, but also by non-governmental organisations such as Transparency International for its fight against corruption and for building a democratic structure. The last elections that took place in Georgia, which were local government elections, were very well viewed by all observers. Even the opposition said that there was no great tension and that the elections took place in accordance with international standards.

Today we are returning to this discussion. The question is: what has happened to make us have to return to discussing Georgia? In my opinion, one thing has happened, which the Minister has kindly discussed. One could say that we have a new entity or rather a new leader of the opposition in Georgia, a person who has billions of dollars at his disposal, whose budget and money exceed the entire budget of the Georgian state. Unfortunately, these monies are not being used properly.

I could speak of my experiences over the past months, but I think that most of us have had the same experience. For some months now we have been bombarded, several times a week, by something that goes by the name of Georgia Media Tracker, which gives information showing that President Saakashvili is a demon and that everything that the ruling party is doing in Georgia is improper, unacceptable, etc, etc. I took the liberty of investigating this situation to find out why this is happening. It turns out that Mr Ivanishvili has hired 18 American, British, German and French lobbying companies to work for him. I think that one thing needs to be emphasised, based on our democratic experience: the presence and functioning of oligarchs in politics does not end well. This I would like to dedicate to the Georgian opposition.

  Libor Rouček, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, as Mr Mavroyiannis has already mentioned, today President Van Rompuy is in Georgia. Last week, Commissioner Füle was in Georgia – so it just shows the great importance we accord to that country and to that region.

It is our wish, and it is also the wish of the Social Democrats, that Georgia is successful: that Georgia is successful in political and economic reforms; that Georgia is successful in preserving its territorial integrity; and of course that Georgia is successful in negotiations as far as the EU-Georgia Association Agreement is concerned; and also that we can make speedy progress in the dialogue on visa liberalisation – of course with a view to ending the visa requirement for Georgia.

So that is very positive, and we also acknowledge the reforms that have been made in the past few months and years in Georgia. However, as has already been said, there will soon be elections – in October the parliamentary elections, and then in 2013 the presidential elections, and we can see and feel that the political tension in Georgia is rising.

So I would like to say what our Georgian friends need – both in the government camp and in opposition – to calm down the situation. Georgia needs free and fair elections, Georgia needs to create free and fair pre-election conditions, so that all political groups, all political parties, including the opposition coalition, have free access to the media.

These elections will be very crucial for Georgia to preserve the fairness and openness of the elections, and of course they will be very crucial for progress in the negotiations on the Association Agreement and visa liberalisation. So on behalf of the Social Democratic Group I wish our Georgian friends success in this endeavour.

  Norica Nicolai, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (RO) Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I wish to state that we support and have always supported a democratic Georgia, a prosperous Georgia, a Georgia implementing European standards alongside us. I do not believe that today’s debate is one between left and right, between opposition and government. When you are in power, you do not need to let yourself be concerned by the situation of the opposition. I notice that President Saakashvili is more than concerned by the fact that he has, for the first time, a united and strong opposition to deal with in Georgia.

We have, of course, heard numerous allegations from both sides. I do not know how many of these allegations have been proven. However, I would like to point out on behalf of my group that democracy does not mean war with satellite aerials, and it does not mean war with the mass media either. It is great that there are several television channels expressing different points of view because we know very well, not only in Eastern Europe but also in that region, that this temptation to monopolise the absolute truth is extremely dangerous, and can cause democratic abuses.

I believe that the argument put forward that the opposition is currently led by a very wealthy person is not an argument at all which does justice to a democratic approach to the rule of law. Ladies and gentlemen, wealth or poverty is not a virtue per se. They cannot in themselves cast any doubt on the probity of those who are in such situations.

I believe that we must expect Georgia to initiate a debate on ideas, programmes and visions, and not a petty debate launched at the whims of either side. I believe, as Commissioner Füle emphasised, that this tension surrounding Georgia may be extremely dangerous in the future. The government which is ruling at the moment through the governing party must ensure that these elections are held in full compliance with European and democratic standards because this is the only way to guarantee a free future for Georgia.

  Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I think the debate we are having here shows exactly why we need one.

We have had many visitors here in the last few days from various levels of Georgian society – government, opposition, the new united opposition that is going to run – and we are hearing lots of different things. I think it is not for us to come down on one side. It is for us to define what we think is necessary for a democratic modern country to do.

What we are really concerned about and what I am concerned about – and what our debate should be about – is to warn Georgians, be it government, opposition or citizens, that a war of words and non-transparent conditions for elections is something that is harming, or could harm, the image of Georgia, not just in this Parliament but in Europe and in Georgia itself.

A statement by the National Democratic Institute says that it is ‘concerned about growing political polarization in the country and a dearth of civil discourse among political leaders’. Therefore, what I think we should do is make it very clear that a war of words is not helpful, that there is a need for transparency on campaign financing and on party financing for everyone, whether government or opposition.

I personally do not like oligarchs in politics – how much money you have should not be the criterion for whether or not you should be elected. It is about visions as the previous speaker has said. It is about improving and having the political will to improve human rights, the economic situation and democracy in the country.

There has been one positive development, and that was an amendment to media laws prescribing that every cable network has to transmit all TV stations in the pre-election period. I think that was a very positive thing.

One thing I am really concerned about is the situation of the over-crowded prisons in the country. Yes, the crime rate has been reduced. However, two political activists were recently sentenced to respectively 35 and 45 days imprisonment for petty hooliganism. This is something, especially in a pre-election period, that should not happen.

I call again on the authorities to ask the government and the opposition, everybody who wants to run, to calm down and ensure transparency for the elections. Hopefully we will have free and fair elections in a democratic country.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, I have thought for a long time about why it is that this debate in the European Parliament is taking place today. It was only quite recently that we adopted the excellent report by Mr Lisek, in which we praised the determined and consistent work in introducing democratic standards in Georgia and I am wondering what has happened since that time. In my view nothing has happened. On the contrary, the Georgian authorities are still reforming the country, they are introducing democratic reforms, they have reformed media law and electoral law. Georgia is high in ‘doing business’ rankings as far as openness to business and the fight against corruption is concerned.

Let us all consider for a moment why it is that we have organised this debate today. What we should be doing is helping Georgia, providing support and encouragement to the Georgian authorities in what they are doing in their own country as regards coming closer to the European Union, because this is the kind of Georgia that we, as the European Union, need. At the same time let us look at the behaviour of the opposition and consider whether it is in the opposition’s interests for there to be a proud and independent sovereign Georgian nation or a country that is under Russian influence.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I believe that it is necessary to assist all of these countries in the Eastern Neighbourhood Policy, so that the relevant rules are upheld in relation to democracy, the rule of law, fair elections, etc. I believe that this is necessary in the context of our neighbourhood policy and the assistance we can offer, as well as in cooperation with the Council of Europe and the OSCE. That is why I welcome the fact that the Georgian Government has invited us to send as many election observers as we like for as long as we like, so that it really will be possible to check that procedure is adhered to.

I consider this to be a relatively positive development. While hooligans may find themselves imprisoned for 45 days in Georgia, a similar misdemeanour may be punished with seven years in jail in Ukraine, a fact that underlines the differences between these countries. We must, however, ensure that freedom of assembly is upheld, that free elections are guaranteed and that independent media are permitted. When I note that there are several different television companies in the country and that it was possible to pass a carry-all law on 29 June, then I realise that we have a better situation in Georgia than in most countries and greater differentiation than in some European countries, including some Member States of the European Union.

However, when I witness television sets being distributed alongside campaign shirts in support of the party of the wealthy Ivanishvili, as a kind of party funding exercise, all the rules for party funding being broken, a lack of transparency in relation to private funding from a person who earned EUR 6 billion in Russia, then I start to become a little sceptical and to wonder whether we need to investigate both sides to ensure that all the rules have been obeyed. When I see evidence that votes are being bought, when I see that the opposition clearly has 20 times more money at its disposal in this election campaign than the governing party, then it seems necessary to me to perform a thorough examination that also involves the opposition, so that we achieve a fair assessment.

I do not believe that the use of 18 consultancies, most of them following the American model, should influence how we decide on European neighbourhood policy.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - Mr President, I do not think that such debates show any kind of mistrust to any country. I think this debate is necessary.

Nobody can deny the fact that Georgia was making good progress in many areas. It was an encouraging and exemplary development. Georgia’s Members of Parliament play a very active and constructive role in the work of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly that I have the honour to chair. But I have stated on many occasions that the real test for the eastern partners of the European Union are the elections. They show how stable and sustainable the democracy is and they show the maturity of the political system.

I ask my colleagues not to exaggerate, but also not to downplay, the recent developments in Georgia. My impression is that a political war is under way and both sides are making full use of the weapons that they possess. On one side, that of the ruling parties, they have the administrative and legal resources, while on the other side they have financial resources.

If you listen to the explanations from both sides on the situation of Georgia you would think that it is about two completely different countries. This already signals a problem. This situation has to stop and the political process should be brought back to normal.

I ask the Council and the Commission to use all their powers to help Georgia. There are different means available and possible. You know them best; just use them now. If you want to help Georgia in holding free and fair elections, the time is now and not on the day of the elections.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, in view of the Kremlin’s policy of confrontation toward Tbilisi, our involvement is essential in order to keep Georgia on the path of a transformation that is directed towards economic development and peaceful coexistence. We appreciate the work by the authorities to strengthen democracy and, in particular, the constitutional changes liberalising electoral law. It is in the interest of the European Union to protect this country against growing Russian infiltration and to stop attempts by Moscow to interfere in its internal affairs by, for example, financing pro-Russian opposition groups.

Georgian policy demonstrates a continuing, strong and decisive pro-West direction. Some months ago we adopted a resolution calling on Brussels to start work immediately on the creation of a free trade area and to maintain the tempo of association negotiations. I am decidedly in favour of strengthening such activity. The question of relaxing the visa policy for Eastern Partnership countries should also be given urgent consideration.

Russian occupation of part of Georgian territory continues to be a problem. In addition, the Russians have moved their annual military manoeuvres from July to the end of September/beginning of October, which is when elections in Georgia are taking place. For this reason, our diplomatic involvement with Tbilisi is essential. We must also make every effort to make Russia withdraw from occupied territories.

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE). - Mr President, I have some concerns about the situation in and around Georgia.

Three factors related to the upcoming parliamentary elections may destabilise Georgia, even threatening a new bloody intervention from abroad.

The first factor is the ongoing intervention of enormous amounts of Russian money to get corrupted politicians and a sufficient number of poor people engaged in the task of moving Georgia’s European politics back into a pro-Russian stance. The efforts of the Georgian parliament and government to prevent this totally fraudulent electoral campaign are being pre-empted by oligarchic and Kremlin lobbyist propaganda, claiming alleged limitations of freedom. And indeed there are restrictions on the freedom to promote ongoing Nazi- and fascist-type attacks against the current ‘non-ethnic Georgian, non-Orthodox, pro-minorities’, etc. government. Strangely such hate texts are appreciated by blundering European liberals. Let Russian money win in Georgia! That is the goal.

The second factor is the excessively powerful military exercises, just beyond the Georgian border, being postponed precisely for the time of the elections, maybe in the hope of any pre-planned street clashes.

The third and most immediate danger is the current Russian financial decline and emerging social crisis, which may lead the ruling group to try to turn people’s attention towards the external enemy by a renewed victorious Caucasian war. What we need here is boldness.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). - Mr President, free elections involve campaigning free of intimidation. It is right that we raise in advance questions about the reports of arrests, impounding of assets and restricted access to media in advance of these elections. Indeed for cable TV packages to exclude the opposition-leaning TV channels certainly appears indefensible. I also express my deep concern at the violent breaking up of the country’s first Pride March on the International Day against Homophobia in May earlier this year.

Nevertheless, Georgia is welcoming 400 OSCE election observers, has established a multi-party agency to rule on violations, there is a civil society ‘This Affects You’ campaign which we should support, and I understand that the European Union has started media monitoring, so all involved in the elections must know that we are watching.

Like my colleagues, I stress that these questions are put in a spirit of friendship to the country and its people. Having visited the EU observation mission at the administrative borderline of the occupied territories, I want to use this debate to also invite the Presidency to join me in expressing concern that the head of our mission has been declared persona non grata by the proxy authorities.

Finally, to my EPP colleagues, I place on record our objection that you blocked our oral amendment to the Eastern Partnership report this week, removing an appeal to Georgia to combat child labour, when UNICEF says that there are 2 500 working children on its streets. I understand that your party is about to hold an event in Batumi which could be interpreted as seeking to help Mr Saakashvili’s party. Our role in this Parliament should be to promote functioning democracy, and we do not do so best if it appears that we are scrutinising one party in an election in a third country to a different standard from any other.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I must say I am quite surprised to see Georgia being discussed today. Sure, as has been pointed out, there are visits by eminent public figures. Sure, there are elections to be held in October. However, this is not the only country where there are important visits and elections.

We all know why we are talking about Georgia today. We are talking about Georgia today because a certain oligarch has decided to take part in the elections – which is his right - and because he has flooded the coffers of lobbyists in Washington and Brussels with dollars and euros, which has obviously paid off as we have placed Georgia on our agenda, not to talk about the Russian occupation, or about Russia’s violation of cease-fire agreements or about Russian military manoeuvres during October, in the midst of elections, but about the electoral process in Georgia.

You have pointed out a number of resolutions in which we voted for an independent civil society, for a strong and credible opposition. An oligarch’s millions of dollars do not make a strong and credible opposition, nor do they create an independent civil society.

Of course, we should not be giving a blank cheque to Mr Saakashvili. Yet I think that giving a blank cheque to this oligarch who has gone into politics is much more dangerous.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Mr President, elections are a challenging time in any democratic country, therefore I share the view of some of my colleagues of not understanding why we have this debate on the agenda at all.

However, truly free and fair elections are not only about respecting provisions and the spirit of the electoral process and results, but also about honest competition and avoiding hate speech. We strongly hope that all political forces in Georgia will refrain from taking politics to the streets, which might lead to violent clashes.

Moreover, the Russian army will be conducting military exercises in the region and, at the time of the elections, a part of the country is still occupied by Russian troops.

Georgia is a young democracy that needs support in her aspirations to integrate further with the European and transatlantic institutions. We need to help the government to continue to carry out reforms. By reassuring Georgia about her prospects, we contribute to the consolidation of democracy and to a stable and reliable partnership with the European Union.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, President Saakashvili is a great political survivor. He has presided over two successful terms of office despite the loss of two provinces to Russia in 2008.

The President has succeeded in bringing his country closer to the EU, via Association Agreement negotiations, and also to NATO, and he has a strong track record of fighting corruption and encouraging free-market economics. He has wisely appointed as Prime Minister the experienced Vano Merabishvili, who must continue now with the sweeping reforms and westward-looking policies of the current administration.

But I do hope there will be a level playing field between billionaire opposition leader Bidzina Ivanishvili, of the Georgian Dream party, and his opponents in the imminent October presidential election. My group, the ECR, has links with the opposition Christian Democratic Party. Democracy is a hard won privilege and must be supported in a small Caucasian country in our EU Eastern Partnership.

I also hope there will be a significant long-term EU observation mission presence to ensure free and fair elections in that beautiful country.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, the October elections will certainly be a test case for Georgia’s democratic progress. In a way, they will also be a test of EU policies on Georgia.

Now that Georgia has really moved close to the EU, it would be naive to expect that there would be no outside influence trying to turn Georgia back from the European road. The emergence of new populist and nationalist forces is a cause of legitimate concern. Their leader, Mr Ivanishvili, just happens to be the largest individual shareholder in both Lukoil and Gazprom. I think no further recommendation is needed in order to know whose side he is on.

What the EU could do is to insist upon the Moscow Agreement and insist that EU monitors be allowed to monitor the occupied territories. This would demonstrate the Union’s credibility in the region.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, as well as being of great religious and cultural importance to us, Georgia is also a strategically important partner for the EU. President Mikheil Saakashvili is a controversial figure, however, and in May alone 80 000 people demonstrated against him. Democracy is formally assured by free and secret ballots, however political and civil rights and control of state powers are often limited. Shortly before his second and last term of office comes to an end, Mr Saakashvili has strengthened the position of the premier, so that political analysts suspect he is preparing for a legal bid for power. Clearly some lessons have been learned from Georgia’s unpopular neighbours in the Kremlin, in other words Russia. Thus, we need to take care here to ensure that these infant democracies, which are eyeing the financial resources of the EU with interest – I would remind you that Georgia subscribes to the European Neighbourhood Policy – also play by the democratic rules; after all neither covert dictators nor the oligarchs mentioned have any place in our value system. We need to make this clear to them.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, I sincerely thank all honourable Members who expressed their views on this important issue.

Let me start with a general statement. The European Union is not accepting instrumentalisation of the democratic process in pursuit of other agendas or in order to falsify popular will – anywhere or by anybody.

The European Union believes in free and fair elections and that fair competition and genuine participation in the upcoming elections will be fundamental in achieving the legitimacy of election results. The European Union stresses that politically motivated persecution, direct or indirect, by law enforcement agencies or the use of selective justice against political contenders are not compatible with democratic values.

In this regard the European Union is monitoring and will continue to monitor the situation in Georgia leading up to the elections. It will also monitor the conduct of those elections. The High Representative Baroness Ashton met last week with President Saakashvili. Her services have met with representatives of the Georgian Dream Coalition. Both sides have asked for increased EU involvement, in particular to ensure increased transparency.

The European External Action Service is already doing a lot with the organisation of security and cooperation in Europe, including media monitoring – to which many of you referred during the debate.

However, the European External Action Service is also looking at how it can provide further support to ensure maximum transparency. This could include further monitoring of polling, exit-polling and supporting independent civil society organisations. The European Union embassies have set up a special on-the-spot taskforce led by the EU delegation. So we are watching and we are helping.

Overall our position on Georgia is very clear. We welcome strong European Union-Georgia relations. We have seen good progress on the Eastern Partnership Agenda and on the Association Agreement negotiations and we are delighted that steps towards visa liberalisation are now moving ahead.

There are other strategic interests too. The EU recognises the increasing importance of Georgia as an energy-transit country and appreciates its cooperation in developing the Southern Energy Corridor. The EU also recognises Georgia’s significant contribution to peacekeeping efforts around the globe.

We have seen a lot of positive changes since the Rose Revolution but we need to keep up momentum. This means consolidating democracy, broadening and deepening reform efforts, in particular in the judiciary, the economy and the social sphere, and spreading the benefits of development to marginalised groups. But above all, regional security and democratic evolution are key to securing all the benefits which our association can offer.

  President. – The debate is closed.

15. Situation in Syria (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission on the situation in Syria.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, it is my pleasure to present to you the EU’s position and latest activities on Syria on behalf of the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, Catherine Ashton.

The situation in Syria continues to gravely concern the European Union. Violence has increased and the numbers of casualties have reached unimaginable levels. The risk of civil war has become more real and there are already signs of increasing sectarian conflict.

Human rights abuses continue. Any further militarisation of the conflict would have a serious impact not only on the Syrian people but on the region as a whole. In response, the European Union stepped up its activities on Syria with the aim of urgently bringing about an end to the violence and finding a solution to allow for a Syrian-led political transition to take place.

This week is particularly busy as efforts take place at international level to consolidate, unify and strengthen the international community’s response to the Syrian conflict. This is exactly what the High Representative/Vice-President presented in this Chamber during the last plenary session: the need for a road map to support Kofi Annan, strengthen international pressure and make diplomatic efforts more united and robust, including the call for UN Security Council action and the involvement of Russia and China.

The High Representative/Vice-President Catherine Ashton participated in the meeting of the Action Group for Syria in Geneva convened by Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan on Saturday. As you know, the participants in the meeting, the United Nations, the League of Arab States, the European Union, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Turkey, Iraq and Kuwait, agreed on the principles and guidelines for a Syrian-led transition which includes the establishment of a transitional government body exercising full executive powers. The transitional governing body could include members of the present government on the basis of mutual agreement.

The Action Group also reiterated its full support to Kofi Annan in his six-point plan, as well as for the United Nations observation mission in Syria giving the Special Envoy’s activities a new unified momentum. Furthermore, the group committed to opposing any further militarisation of the conflict.

There is now a path for a Syrian-led transition and a mandate for Kofi Annan to take this forward even if implementation is the biggest challenge. These are steps forward and we will have to collectively ensure that they are followed up. The European Union is committed to doing everything possible to help this process.

Further to the Action Group in Geneva, the Friends of Syria group will meet on Friday in Paris. The High Representative will attend the meeting with an expected number of up to 100 countries. It is our hope that the Friends of Syria meeting will endorse the outcome of the Action Group to ensure a unified response by the international community.

The challenge is now to implement the agreed principles and guidelines for transition. Key issues to be addressed include the appointment of an effective and empowered interlocutor by the Syrian Government which is also acceptable to the opposition. Many components of the opposition have been quick to reject this very notion that, without a partner to negotiate with, a political solution is difficult to achieve. The effective implementation also requires a coherent and representative opposition.

Yesterday’s opposition meeting in Cairo, organised by the League of Arab States and with European Union participation, was another step in trying to unite the different groups. We must help to bridge the gap between the views of the opposition inside Syria and those outside Syria.

On the initiative of the High Representative/Vice-President Ashton, the European Union continues to meet with representatives of different groups. It has most recently supported and financed opposition seminars in Brussels from the Instrument for Stability, organised by Syrians for Syrians on transition issues. The first seminar, which took place on 24 and 25 June in Brussels, gathered a broad range of opposition figures to discuss issues related to the transition process, including supranational and constitutional principles, democratic principles, economic and social issues and, last but not least, minority rights. These are issues which you, the Members of the European Parliament, have drawn our attention to on several occasions. The message of those present was that Syria is for all Syrians. Inclusiveness and respect for minorities are essential. The second EU funded seminar will take place in Cairo in mid-July.

These opposition seminars aim to contribute to the political process of ensuring a representative opposition. Through this process the European Union continues to facilitate Syrian-led inclusive dialogue actions. In parallel the European Union continues to call for united action by the UN Security Council to add more robust and effective pressure.

The Syrian regime holds great responsibility for the violence perpetrated. Massacres continue while international efforts to solve the crisis are ongoing. This is unacceptable and those responsible for crimes during the current conflict must be held accountable.

The European Union’s response is not limited to diplomacy and political engagement at all levels. The European Union will continue to step up sanctions as long as the repression continues. The sanctions are targeted towards the Syrian regime to deprive it of its sources for repression with minimal impact on the civilian population.

On 25 June foreign ministers agreed on the 16th round of sanctions since May 2011. We must now continue to reach out to partners to ensure effective implementation and hope to increase international pressure in the Friends of Syria meeting.

Whilst bilateral aid is suspended the European Union has stepped up assistance to a number of human rights organisations and activists. On 8 June the European Union approved a EUR 23 million special measure to support both civil society within Syria and Syrian refugees in the neighbouring countries in areas affected by an influx of Syrian refugees.

Humanitarian access remains a concern and the European Union continues to monitor the implementation of the agreement between the Syrian Government and the United Nations closely. To date the European Union has allocated over EUR 44.6 million to address humanitarian needs inside Syria and in neighbouring countries.

Finally, the European Union supports the United Nations observation mission with EUR 8.2 million. The funds are used to finance 25 armoured vehicles, logistics and support for placing air ambulance capability if requested. Further initiatives that facilitate Syrian-led and inclusive dialogue that could help lead to a political solution can also be funded.

I can assure you that the European Union will continue to do its utmost to support the Syrian people in their struggle for peace and freedom and to facilitate a peaceful transition process.

IN THE CHAIR: RAINER WIELAND
Vice-President

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, of course we support the EU policy led in particular by Baroness Ashton. However, I now wonder what we can do with the limited means we have at our disposal. As has been said, all this is ‘high politics’, you talk about it in the highest circles, but what about us, what more can we do?

Three weeks ago, I met Mr al Labwani, a longstanding Syrian opposition leader who was imprisoned five years ago. On leaving the confines of Parliament at the time, he returned to Damascus and was immediately imprisoned. What is more, this was not for the first time. Together in my office, five years ago, we discussed conditions inside Bashar al-Assad’s prisons and we talked about the temptation of suicide. He said to me, ‘It is terrible!’ When asked if he was frightened, he replied, ‘No, I will not kill myself!’ What really touched me when I met him again was when he said to me, ‘See, Ms De Keyser, I did not kill myself and I am now the happiest I have been in my life. I could never have imagined this. Despite the massacres we are now seeing, I had never in my life imagined that I would see this day in Syria’.

In other words, beyond the massacres, beyond the horrors that are occurring – and I will talk about that – there is now hope among the civilian population in Syria, and therefore we cannot let them down. This message went straight to my heart and I said, ‘What can we do?’

I have here the reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. I have all the preliminary statistics on crimes against humanity, on torture in Syria today and I do not even dare, Mr President, to read out any of these stories because they are beyond comprehension.

What I would like to say to you is that we need to prepare for what comes after Bashar al-Assad. We must now set out the arguments and gather the evidence. What is more, I am asking you, and the European Union, because …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it has been six weeks since the gruesome videos of the Hula massacre found their way to the Internet. Murdered children were considered a ‘tipping-point’ by many but, just like the words ‘never again’, this phrase sounds terribly hollow.

Even as the Assad regime continues its all-out war against the Syrian population, numerous brave Syrians are still willing to pay the highest price when protesting peacefully for freedom and respect for their rights and dignity. Defected military personnel speak of the ‘blessing’ of dying through government forced lethal injection in preference to bleeding to death after torture. We must tell, but more importantly show, the Syrian population we will not forget them. What does responsibility to protect even mean at this point?

Sadly solutions in Syria are not easy. The new action group for Syria identified steps to ensure full implementation of Kofi Annan’s six-point plan and the Security Council resolution must come forward as soon as possible. But let us not be distracted. And in that respect I welcome the restraint in Turkey’s response – despite the clear provocation by Syria in shooting down the fighter jet and killing the air force pilots. My thoughts go out to the families of these two pilots that lost their lives.

We welcome the participation of China and Russia in the action group but regret the cynical choice, thus far, of putting interests before the lives of people. Yet we have to acknowledge that Russia must be a part of the solution to the crisis, however hard that may be.

In the EU, and especially during the Cyprus Presidency, we also bear huge responsibility, and should lead an open and transparent investigation into how a Russian ship carrying weapons could reach Syrian shores after docking in a Cyprus port and being identified by the Cyprus authorities.

This Parliament has urged Catherine Ashton to start a full investigation but so far no real assurances have been given. When unenforced, EU sanctions are merely a paper reality and that does nothing to help the Syrian people.

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Ms Schaake has raised a very relevant issue with the Presidency of the Council. I am sure its representative will endeavour to provide a response to it.

The situation on the ground, as described, has peaked, reaching new levels of apocalyptic violence and horror – with 800 deaths last week. The Human Rights Watch report, systematic torture in one of the 27 detention centres and the witness reports given are quite unbearable.

At the same time, for just over a week now, I think, we have seen fresh diplomatic initiatives which are maybe precursors of the wind of change needed to find a solution. I think, even so, that the meeting held in Geneva made a start – albeit limited and not totally satisfactorily – towards the proposal for a transitional government of national unity, obviously without Assad and his torturers, but including some among its numbers.

This has two benefits. In this situation, just because we feel that a solution is possible does not necessarily mean there will be less violence on the ground. Quite the contrary. We could see an escalation of violence by the regime. From this point of view, this proposal both encourages the mass desertions seen among soldiers of the regular army but must also enable acceptance of members of the Assad regime and the Baath Party as part of this interim solution. As things stand, I believe that this is extremely important.

I hope that this prospect, which was encouraged by the meeting of all the components of the Syrian opposition, by the Arab League this week, by the meetings of the Russian Foreign Minister with the Syrian opposition, marks a turning point in this situation which offers a glimmer of hope. Moreover, I think that the EU should fully exploit this glimmer of hope, especially at the meeting of the Friends of the Syrian people in Paris at the end of the week.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, sadly we are only too aware of the atrocities and the human cost of the repression taking place in Syria, and the dreadful impact on the Syrian people.

I want to focus very briefly on the wider implications for regional security. Syria, of course, has long been unapologetically close to the regime in Iran. It has hosted terrorist organisations rejected elsewhere and has promoted terrorism in other countries. Only recently, Hamas shifted its HQ from Damascus. A few months ago the anti-Turkish PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) was welcomed back by Assad, and Syria has long been the logistics base for Hezbollah and other movements with terrorist affiliates.

This is in keeping with Syria’s longstanding opposition to peace with Israel. Under Assad’s regime, Israel’s borders are under constant threat from Syrian and Iranian-sponsored attacks.

Turkey and Israel share a strategic interest in the transparency and stability of Syria, with a view to ensuring that it is no longer a sanctuary for terrorists and other hostile movements, and we should give both countries every possible support in the difficulties they face in dealing with the consequences of Assad’s violence.

  Giancarlo Scottà, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as we have heard and as has been said, I am concerned about what is happening in Syria, where the conflict is continuing with increasing loss of human life. Neither of the two sides can win via the military approach and the only possible solution is a political one, supported by the government and the opposition. Europe must work to this end.

The dangers to avoid are a takeover by Islamic extremism or the Balkanisation of the country along ethnic and religious lines. I hope that Europe adopts a serious and practical stance – which, as we have already heard, it is working on – and I therefore hope for an excellent outcome to put an end to these civilian and military deaths, and everything else.

  Elmar Brok, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, there are a few comments I should like to make. I believe that the work carried out by the foreign ministers in the last week and the conclusions of the European Council are highly significant. However, the conference of the Friends of Syria has shown how fractured the opposition is. I believe that is one of the main problems.

We do not need to discuss our condemnation of Assad, the need to remove him from office and the unacceptable nature of the violence he practises against his own people. The decisive point is that the opposition is not able to agree on a shared position regarding democracy and the rule of law in which the religious and ethnic minorities can play a role, as these minorities are still fearful that things will be worse for them under an Islamic regime than at present. That is one of the key problems that we face.

We must recognise that one point that we must judge in a sober way is the role of the financial backing provided by Qatar and Saudi Arabia; these countries are clearly taking this opportunity to support Salafists and Islamists, which is a huge problem. Nonetheless, I would like to state that I have a great deal of sympathy for the efforts and performance of Turkey. The Turkish Government is taking up a lot of the burden and is directly affected by the situation. I believe that it is quite clear that the shooting down of the plane is unacceptable and that we stand in solidarity with Turkey, as our partner and, significantly in this case, our NATO ally.

Once again I would urge that the Assad regime should be brought to an end – I know that the President-in-Office of the Council and the High Representative agree with me on this point – while at the same time a solution needs to be found that will not completely split the government and make the situation in the region even more difficult. I would ask that we continue to focus great attention on this issue, however this will only be possible if the Western community remains united and if we work together with the Arab League and other forces in Turkey. The Arabs cannot be absolved of responsibility here in finding a peaceful solution under the rule of law in which the minorities also have a place.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). - Mr President, I would like to ask the President-in-Office about his statement that those responsible for crimes must be held accountable.

I would ask you, President-in-Office, why you and your fellow foreign ministers dropped the reference to support for a reference to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity committed in Syria from the draft text of the conclusions of the last Foreign Affairs Council, and why you withdrew from tabling the text on Syria at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva this week? Is it because in reality you do not support such a reference despite the repeated calls by the UN High Commissioner for this to take place?

Like many colleagues in this debate we have read the Human Rights Watch report this week detailing the torture inflicted by the Syrian authorities, including beating by baton and wire, electrocution, burning with battery acid, sexual assault, the pulling of fingernails and mock execution.

Elias, one detainee, described how he had been hung by his wrists for eight days and denied sleep. He said: ‘My brain stopped working. I was imagining things. ... It was excruciating. I screamed that I needed to go to a hospital, but the guards just laughed at me.’

Why do you not support a reference to the International Criminal Court and today will you commit the European Union …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, developments in Syria are marked by escalating violence and aggression on the part of the Assad government, which has been bombing the towns of Homs and Doum. Many – over 4 000 – lives have been lost over the past eight months. At the same time, the ghosts of political and religious conflicts and ethnic differences have been resurrected.

At the same time, tension is increasing on the Turkish border and there is a risk of a military episode – voluntary or involuntary – at any moment. Anyone who has read Davutoglu’s book entitled ‘Strategic Depth’ will understand why Turkey is offering support to the Syrian opposition and is hosting numerous opposition groups in its territory, as the Minister noted in his first speech.

Christians in the area feel insecure. On the international diplomacy front, the conflict between Russia and the West remains and Moscow is refusing to attend the summit of the Friends of the Syrian People next Friday. A global crisis is lying in ambush and we need to keep our wits about us.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL) . – (EL) Mr President, we condemn the decisions adopted by the European Council on Syria and Iran on 29 June, because they signal an escalation in imperialist intervention by the European Union, the USA and NATO in the area, an area of harsh infighting between the capitalist forces of Russia, China and India, and strengthen threats by the USA and NATO, as well as by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel, in the area.

As we speak, US aeroplanes are massing in the area and the base in Souda, Greece, has been mobilised. Consideration is being given to the imposition of a no-fly zone, on the pretext of responsibility for civilian protection, the same pretext as that used in other imperialist interventions. The United States, NATO and the European Union and states in the area are interfering in the internal affairs of Syria, engaging in disinformation activities and using the conflict to justify a new imperialist war. Developments in Syria come in the wake of the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

We also condemn the decisions by NATO which, on the pretext of NATO solidarity with Turkey, is leading the imperialist armada against Syria, in the aim of striking a strategic blow against Iran. Sanctions are being stepped up and the European Union is threatening open military intervention if they imperialist plans to overturn the Syrian Government are not passed.

As we all know, decisions to impose an embargo on Iranian oil took effect on 1 July and will have horrendous consequences. Developments in Syria are a matter for the Syrian people. Nations need to oppose intervention by the European Union and NATO and overturn these imperialist plans.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, there is just no end to the horrors in Syria, and the international community seems to be watching on powerlessly.

I do not know whether we should regard the meeting in Geneva last weekend as a success. Trying to reach some kind of transitional arrangement with representatives of the current regime and the opposition would seem to be the only real option, as the alternative, clearly, is a bloody civil war. However, the casualness of the statements about this is disturbing. We need to find a way to get the regime and the opposition around the table.

I also agree 100% with Mr Brok when he says that it is obviously an essential prerequisite for success, and for the opposition to succeed, that it must speak with one voice, be able to describe one vision of the future of Syria and also be able to come across as reassuring to those who are still wavering in their support for the regime.

I would thus like to ask that we continue to apply pressure so that real talks can take place.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the situation in Syria is deteriorating, in spite of the international efforts to achieve a negotiated solution, acceptable to the conflicting parties. The tension is likely to be heightened further following the shooting down of a Turkish military aircraft by Syria’s air defence system. Innocent people are dying every day, victims of an actual civil war, of unimaginable atrocities which no longer have anything to do with the desire of Syrians to live in democracy and freedom. Supplying arms to the sides involved makes the situation even more dangerous. I feel obliged to mention the persecution of the members of the Christian community, which gives the conflict a gruesome dimension. Unfortunately, Russia and China are maintaining an inflexible position. They do not accept any solution which would be tantamount to a change of political regime, and I agree with what has been said in this Chamber, the idea that it is vital for us to fulfil our responsibility of protecting the victims.

I welcome the firm, principled position adopted by the European Union, which is taking coherent action in order to find peaceful solutions. No effort must be spared in promoting direct negotiations between the government and opposition, against the background of an end to hostilities.

  Carmen Romero López (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, one of the points in Kofi Annan’s plan is the withdrawal of the army to its barracks. Indeed, the line of demilitarising the conflict is the line that all countries are now following, with the intention of avoiding the war that is now happening.

It is true that we need to work to ensure that the opposition is unified. Here in Parliament we have hosted members of the Syrian National Council, to whom we conveyed the need for a united strategy. It is very important, however, that the pressure from the European Union regarding the prohibition of weapons and military equipment should be a reality.

How is this being monitored, President-in-Office of the Council? What information does the European Union have about compliance with that ban? What arsenal does Bashar al Assad currently have stored away?

It is true that Russian ships may be transporting weapons, because it is difficult to negotiate with Russia. It is therefore very important that, as well as being sure that the army will really return to its barracks, we also know exactly what weapons it has.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). - (PL) Mr President, we are all shocked by what is happening in Syria. The key to a solution and to avoiding further bloodshed is, of course, action under the aegis of the UN Security Council. It therefore has to be stated clearly that the current impasse is due to Russia and China blocking any effective action. It would appear to me that European Union efforts should focus on this issue. We cannot ignore the fact that it is the authorities in Moscow that could bring about an immediate end to the massacre of civilians. So far these efforts have been unsuccessful. The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs is going through the motions of doing something, he makes references to the situation in Libya. For this reason, international pressure on Moscow is the only method that can be effective in making Russia take concrete steps to prevent murder in Syria.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, although each and every one of us may have doubts about whether or not we can resolve the issue through diplomacy or politics, we must obviously do everything in our power to resolve it and to ensure that, hopefully, the Geneva Agreement is implemented.

Meanwhile, we must support the Syrian opposition, do everything that we can for its unity, its union and its togetherness, act in response to the humanitarian crisis – which is what you are doing – and shed light, full light on what is happening in Syria, as was rightly requested and demanded by the UN High Commissioner.

Following the shocking findings of the NGOs – you have all read the report ‘Torture Archipelago’ – I think we really need to think about how the UN Security Council works. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to condemning crimes against humanity, there should be no right of veto or block, and it should be done straight away.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, Syrian opposition leaders now claim that 15 000 people have lost their lives in this tragic conflict, which has dragged on for nearly a year and a half now. Recent defections from Assad’s armed forces testify to the regime’s continuing loss of support, even sometimes from the Alawite component.

The Syrian National Council, with its Islamist components and other strictly secular opposition groups, must now show a fully united front against the brutal repression of the Baathist Assad regime, as this would aid in ceasing the conflict, which is fast taking on the characteristics of an all-out civil war. The High Representative of the EU must give her full backing for the agreement reached at Geneva to allow for a transitional national unity government, minus President Assad, which will pave the way for democratic elections.

The Annan Plan may yet prove to be a success. I take this opportunity also to thank Turkey for all its help with the refugees and I send my condolences to the family of the pilot who was lost, shot down by the Syrian air defence system.

This is a tragedy. We must do all we can to bring about the end of that ghastly regime in Damascus.

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

  Richard Howitt (S&D), blue-card question. – I know the honourable gentleman made his statement in all sincerity but can I ask him why the government of our country, led by his party, has not joined the Czechs, the Estonians, the Finns, the Germans, the Irish and the Slovenians, in specifically calling for that reference to the International Criminal Court?

It could be argued that delay creates a space for a negotiated solution. However, it has not: it has created a vacuum for continued and intensified violations. Why has Britain not made that call?

  Charles Tannock (ECR), blue-card answer. – Mr Howitt knows full well that I do not speak for the British Government. It is a coalition government and I am not accountable for the actions of the British Foreign Office or the British Prime Minister.

All I can say is that I would be very happy to see President Assad tried before the International Criminal Court, but it may well be an expedient thing to give Assad some ‘wriggle room’ to leave office. If he knows he is about to be tried and arraigned before the ICC he may be tempted to stay in power and cause even further bloodshed.

So I suspect the reason – I have no prior knowledge – is to actually give some possible way out for Assad to leave Damascus and go into exile. I am only guessing though.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). – (NL) Mr President, I would like to put two points to the Council, the representatives of the High Representative, against the dramatic backdrop of the situation in Syria. I would like to ask for European support for the peaceful local popular movement Musalaha, which means reconciliation, reconciliation from below, interreligious, interethnic. I hope that this also obtains the support and the attention of the EU delegation in Damascus. That was my first point.

My second point is that, in a previous debate about Syria in plenary, I asked for European eyes and minds to be focused on the extraordinarily perilous situation of Syrian Christians. If you have been reading about what is currently happening in Homs, where hundreds of Christians are like rats in a trap, along with a similar number of Sunnis, you may also have been reading – and I am getting more and more reports – about kidnappings for exorbitant ransoms and then more cold-blooded death squads targeting Christians, and I am sure you understand that we are talking about a truly critical and dramatic situation. I hope that the European Union is also alive to this, above all within Syria, and does not concentrate too much of its attention on the opposition in exile.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, for months we have been hearing the horrific reports of torture, murder and killings and it would seem that there is still no solution in prospect. Humanitarian aid is important and helpful; however this is not a solution in itself. The regime is not the only problem, however. Radical Islamist forces have taken control of the clearly fractured opposition and, sponsored by ultra-conservative groups in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are obviously steering politics in this direction. It is no coincidence that the opposition only met yesterday with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I understand the fear among the minorities and also the fear of the 15% Christian population in Syria. For this reason, we must come to the assistance of the Syrian people quickly. I believe that an orderly transition will be impossible without the intensive inclusion of Russia, in particular. Above all, I would warn against trying to find a solution with a policy of tanks and bombs. The chaos in Iraq and Libya should warn against this.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Mr President, I would like to welcome the outcome of the meeting of the Action Group for Syria and its support for the Kofi Annan peace plan. A disastrous civil war, which will affect the whole region, is not an alternative to diplomacy. I hope that all the members of the Action Group dedicate their efforts to implementing the final communiqué. The fighting parties must stop all violence so that negotiations about the future of the people of Syria can start. The Syrian opposition parties must have a mutual understanding and a sense of responsibility towards the Syrian people in order to be able to start the process of forming a transitional government.

I therefore encourage the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European External Action Service to insist that all Syrian opposition movements, representing the various religious, ethnic and political groups, are invited to the negotiations so that a sustainable regime transition can take place.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, many speakers made reference to respect for minorities, in particular religious, and more particularly, Christian minorities. I want to assure you that we support all groups which are working for peace and we are closely watching the situation of each and every one of the several communities that exist in Syria, which of course also means Christian communities.

There is also no doubt that human rights are being violated in Syria.

I think we all know how important the International Criminal Court is, that it is an achievement of the international community and how much we believe in accountability, but it is true that the reference to the International Criminal Court has been made both in Geneva and New York, where discussions on the drafting of a new resolution are ongoing. This question was at the centre of a debate among Member States on the opportunity and the timing of such a reference.

At the moment, as we are all trying to give new momentum to Kofi Annan’s mission and to secure Russia and China’s support for the new action group and its new road map, we have all agreed to avoid at this stage – I underline, at this stage – any controversial issue, but we will certainly have to come back to the issue of the International Criminal Court.

We have listened with great interest to this very important debate – my good friend the Executive Secretary-General of the European External Action Service, Pierre Vimont, and I – and we will report back to High Representative/Vice-President Ashton.

We look forward to further discussions on the situation in Syria in the weeks and months to come, as the transition process unfolds. We will keep you updated on EU action in this regard. With your support we hope that the international actions will bear fruit and stop the repression and violence in Syria and allow for a peaceful and democratic transition.

Honourable Members, I would like to thank you for your support, questions and concerns. They all contribute to defining EU policies in response to the Syrian crisis. We invite you to remain engaged so that all our resources and ideas are used to the maximum.

I was asked a question relating to my national capacity as the representative of the Government of Cyprus on the issue of sanctions and the specific issue of the vessel Chariot. I would like to say – and I say this in my national capacity, not on behalf of the High Representative – that Cyprus respects and fully implements the arms embargo in place against Syria and other sanctioned countries. It further stresses the importance of cooperation between Member States for a more effective implementation of the arms embargo and demonstrates its readiness to initiate the relevant discussion in the appropriate fora to determine the best practices.

As far as the case that has arisen with the vessel Chariot is concerned, I should like to point out the following. The port authorities of Cyprus had received reassurances from the captain of the ship and from the ship-owning company that the final destination of the cargo was İskenderun in Turkey and not Syria. We all know what happened afterwards.

Following this event both the port police of Cyprus and the customs authorities issued new circulars reminding all their personnel and all ship-owning companies of the existing restrictive measures and sanctions against third countries, in particular, Syria and Iran, and warning them of legal consequences in case of non-compliance.

The Cyprus port authority has already given instructions to its lawyers to instigate criminal proceedings against the ship-owning company and the captain of the ship Chariot.

The Republic of Cyprus stresses its full commitment to the enforcement of European Union measures and of Security Council sanctions against third countries. We remain vigilant and alert to fully implement the European Union arms embargo in place for Syria and other authoritarian regimes.

In so doing, Cyprus looks forward to the constructive cooperation of our European Union partners by sharing information, knowledge and experience and affirms its readiness to contribute to the collective international efforts of enhancing the non-proliferation of arms in dual-use goods and technologies, as well as promoting peace, security and stability in the wider region.

This becomes all the more important, bearing in mind that Cyprus’s geographic proximity to the current turbulent region of the Middle East and North Africa, as well as our position as a shipping hub, necessitates enhanced surveillance in the efforts to enforce EU restrictive measures and Security Council sanctions.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – The Action Group for Syria is committed to ensuring full implementation of the six-point plan and Security Council resolutions 2042 and 2043. However, the key to breakthrough is Russia. The EU should ask Russia to unconditionally halt any arms export to Syria. It is unacceptable in principle that a strategic partner of the EU continues to block any serious action towards a peaceful settlement and continues exporting arms to a regime that has been systematically murdering its own citizens for more than one year.

It is ironic that Russia claims to accept only peaceful international intervention, whereas it uses brutal force in Chechnya and against peaceful manifestations of internal opposition.

May I add a piece of practical advice? The EU could strengthen its position on Syria if it first made Mr Putin honour fully the August 2008 agreement on Georgia by insisting that there will be no further progress in mutual relations until Moscow admits EU observers to the occupied Georgian territories. Instead of timidly begging Mr Putin for almost four years to comply with his own commitments the EU has more than enough power to say: no further progress until you behave according to international law.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Under the Geneva agreement, Russia too has accepted the need for a compromise based on a transition process agreed by the government and by the rebels, whereby the opposition and Mr Assad’s regime would have to share power. At this point it is important to ensure opposition unity on a shared political platform, at least on some key points. We must avoid the Balkanisation of the conflict and its degeneration into combat between ethnic or religious groups.

The future must bring a secular, democratic and tolerant Syrian society. Unfortunately, however, there has been recent news of attacks on the Christian community, which fuels fears of possible persecution by a new theocratic and Islamic fundamentalist regime in Syria. Europe must do everything it can to ensure that what happens in Egypt with the Coptic Christian community or in Libya between the various clans also happens in Syria.

16. Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

17. Situation in Egypt (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Egypt.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, for the first time ever Egyptians have been able to express their will in choosing peacefully the person and the project carrying their hopes and answering their expectations.

The Foreign Affairs Council of 25 June praised the peaceful conduct of the electoral process which marks an important step in Egypt’s democratic transition. President Van Rompuy, as well as President Barroso, Catherine Ashton and many European leaders congratulated the Egyptians and the new President on this impressive, historic change.

The European Union Electoral Expert Mission and the accredited international civil society organisations have not reported any major and systemic violation which could have changed the outcome of the elections. The European Union delegation played a very useful role in coordinating the witnessing of the elections by its international presence in Cairo.

It is of extreme importance that under President Morsi’s leadership all Egyptians should be able to enjoy their full democratic rights and fundamental freedoms and that an independent and active civil society should flourish. We also welcome all the statements made by the Egyptian authorities and President Morsi regarding their will to uphold Egypt’s international agreements.

The peace and stability of the whole region, our common neighbourhood, is a shared goal by the European Union and Egypt. The peace treaty with Israel plays a fundamental role. The Supreme Court of the Armed Forces has guaranteed that the treaty will remain valid and we trust that the new Egyptian leadership will continue to stick to this principle. We are also confident that the new Egyptian authorities will continue to play a constructive role in addressing the challenges facing the region, including the promotion of Palestinian reconciliation. The transition will continue.

The road towards a deep and sustainable democracy that will meet the aspirations and demands of all Egyptians is still a long one, but Egypt will never be the same. There is no going back.

The addendum to the Constitutional Declaration issued on 17 June by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and its decision to dissolve the entire Lower House of the parliament, is worrying. With this decree the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has assumed legislative powers and has significantly curtailed the powers of the democratically elected President. The Foreign Affairs Council of 25 June expressed its serious concerns regarding this matter. The Vice-President/High Representative Catherine Ashton remains in close contact with the Egyptian authorities.

All parties must find a solution allowing the complete transfer of power to democratically elected civilian rule as swiftly as possible. In this context the announced intention of President Morsi to appoint an inclusive cabinet representative of all forces in Egypt is a very welcome development. It can substantially contribute to the emergence of a national consensus, which is needed during the delicate transitory phase.

The coming months will have a huge impact on Egypt’s future, with the adoption of a new constitution and the likely organisation of new elections. An essential aspect of democratic transition consists in ensuring that everyone can take part in social and political life without fear, regardless of political affiliation, gender, religion or belief. By its very nature a constitution is a founding agreement which must be consensual and inclusive to become a legitimate and durable reference for all citizens.

Therefore we expect that the provisions of the new constitution will: firstly, protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all citizens; secondly, place the army and the police under the control of democratically elected civilian authorities; and thirdly, guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

Egypt can count on the European Union’s strong support in addressing the complex political and socio-economic challenges which lie ahead. We are looking forward to engaging and establishing a close and fruitful working relationship with the new President and with the future government, with the aim to further deepen our bilateral relations.

In order to do so the former dialogues between the European Union and Egypt should be resumed as soon as possible. One of our priorities is the drafting of a new action plan reflecting the objectives of the new neighbourhood policy as defined in the March and May 2011 communications.

In this context the meeting of the task force with Egypt scheduled for this autumn will be a unique opportunity to show the European Union’s commitments to Egypt’s democratic transition. The Vice-President/High Representative will welcome the European Parliament’s involvement and constructive input in the task force.

Ultimately the responsibility for Egypt’s democratic transformation in future will be in the hands of the Egyptians themselves. But the European Union will continue to do its utmost in helping them to achieve this great endeavour.

  Hans-Gert Pöttering, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, a new president has been elected in Egypt in a peaceful election campaign. This is something to be welcomed as a very remarkable process for Egypt. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) would like to extend its good wishes to the new President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, and to express the hope that a positive period of cooperation will ensue.

The first statements by the new president have been very encouraging. His words regarding his relationship with minorities, in particular the Christians, specifically the Copts, could become a template for the Arab and Muslim world. President Morsi has indicated that he could even envisage a Copt being appointed as Vice-President, in other words as his deputy, which is quite a contrast with other statements from the Arab world, e.g. the statement made by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah, on 12 March 2012, which has surprisingly elicited no public reaction in Europe or the rest of the world, when he said that all the churches on the Arabian peninsula should be destroyed and no new ones built.

If Egypt now takes a different tack and shows that religion and politics are not mutual exclusives, then this would be a completely new example of how Muslim faith and politics can be reconciled. As a Christian, I would like to make it clear that there is no such thing as Christian politics, however politics can be guided by Christian responsibility. Likewise, there can be no such thing as Islamist politics, however politics can be guided by the Muslim faith. If the focus is on human beings and human life, then this is something that we can all support.

It is also a positive signal that President Morsi recognises international agreements, including the Camp David Agreement between President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin – dating back I believe to 1980. I would be pleased if Mr Mavroyiannis would listen to what I have to say. Mr Mavroyiannis, Minister Mavroyiannis, I would be grateful to you if you could listen to me and I would ask that this time should be deducted from my speaking time. If Israel is now recognised and remains so, then this is a positive sign. We would, however, also call on Israel to do all it can to ensure that a two-state arrangement is implemented and that the settlement policy is halted.

I have one final comment: we can see that civil society in Egypt is unable to develop freely. A court case has been initiated against non-governmental organisations and international foundations, including the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, for alleged illegal activities. The case resumed today and we are calling on the Egyptian authorities to put a stop to these cases, so that the work of people from Europe and the rest of the world who campaign for civil society in Egypt is recognised and so that civil society in Egypt can make its contribution to democracy and free development.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at long last we can say that the official announcement of the appointment of Mr Morsi, leader of the Justice and Freedom Party, has brought this first phase of the Egyptian political saga to a close; it was never a given, with two highly controversial judgments of the Constitutional Court sending out shockwaves in the days before the results were announced.

The first judgment saw the supreme court declare the political isolation law under which Mr Shafiq was made ineligible to stand in the presidential elections as unconstitutional. The second judgment ruled that the electoral law used for the general elections was unconstitutional, thereby dissolving parliament, which could also have consequences for the constituent assembly. Just to complicate matters, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces also issued amendments to the constitution, severely weakening the president’s powers and abolishing autonomous legislative power until a new constitution has been approved.

In his first speech as president, Mr Morsi sent what was, for us, a cheering message of unity and conciliation, as he sought to mollify the various sections of Egyptian society. In terms of foreign policy, he affirmed that he would make good on existing international obligations.

Now we will have to see whether he is as good as his word. In any case, after a period of extreme uncertainty and instability, the election of a new president could finally open the way to a new phase that might, on the one hand, spur Egypt on to quickly consolidate democracy and rights and, on the other hand, enable efforts to be made to revive the economy and put an end to the ongoing financial crisis.

We need, in this area, to make the role of the European Union clearer and more visible, including via the EU-Egypt task force. The EU must be ready to work with the new president to strengthen bilateral relations, to support and see through the transition to democracy, and to overcome the economic and financial problems that could jeopardise the country’s stability.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the Egyptian people have been joined by us and many across the world in celebrating the historic moment of the election of the first President to be elected democratically and, most importantly, as a non-military President. Or, so it seems.

As the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces dissolved Parliament and extended its own powers – reaching into the sphere of legislative and executive powers – we also stand with the Egyptian people in understanding that there is a long way to go before Egypt is truly democratic. The question is what President Morsi will be able to change, given that the essential elements of a democracy, such as a separation of powers and the rule of law, are not in place. Effectively Egyptians are still living under military rule.

We ask the new President to abolish immediately military trials for civilians and martial law. It is unacceptable that so many people are still in prison for their political convictions, and it is even more unacceptable that today people are still being sentenced without a proper trial. Egypt will only be able to claim to be democratic if these military trials come to an absolute end, and if the human rights of all Egyptians are respected.

The EU, led by Vice-President/High Representative Ashton, should engage with the Egyptians and pressure all those in power to respect the rights of all Egyptians. Elections should be free and should lead to a parliament which truly represents the people and which is equipped with legislative powers.

We will give President Morsi the benefit of the doubt, while confirming that the EU’s ‘more for more’ principle of granting more market access in return for more respect for human rights, democracy and minority rights – specifically those of women – will be respected. We will judge old and new powers in Egypt on their actions, and will remain ready to help ensure that this difficult but important transitional period brings an actual improvement worthy of the word ‘revolution’ – a turning point from repression to freedom.

  Malika Benarab-Attou , on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ever since President Mubarak’s fall in February 2011, Egypt has been run by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which gave itself the powers to legislate and to draft the Constitution. How can we not be worried?

It was against this backdrop that Mohamed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, was elected on 24 June. For many Egyptian women, Mohamed Morsi's election jeopardises women’s rights. It should be pointed out that Islamist MPs had previously proposed reforming a provision that allows women to divorce without their husband’s consent. Similarly, they tried to pass a law banning women from seeking a divorce.

Women must be listened to and their demands heard. Without them, democracy in Egypt will not be possible. They call for the provisions of the Charter on Women's Rights to be implemented in Egypt, a charter established last year by more than a thousand women and approved by half a million Egyptian citizens, men and women alike. This document sanctions fundamental rights such as the right to participate in political and economic life, representation in government and equality before the law. The Egyptian legal system must protect women against all forms of violence.

We absolutely must support these demands, demands which are legitimate. Will Baroness Ashton support them? What steps will she consider to support Egypt on the road to democracy? How can we, as Europeans, respond to the concerns of these young people and women who fear that the arrival of the Islamists …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, President Morsi is Egypt’s first democratically elected President of the post-Mubarak era. Whilst free and fair democratic elections are a great step forward for Egypt’s people, I believe it is also essential for Morsi to keep two vital manifesto promises. Firstly, he must uphold the longstanding peace treaty with Israel to prevent regional destabilisation, and he should recommit himself strongly to help find a lasting peace deal for the Arab-Israeli conflict with a two-state solution. Secondly, he must protect the rights of the sizeable Christian Coptic community, another non-Muslim minority in this country, and protect them from the persecution perpetrated against them by Salafi extremists.

I therefore welcome President Morsi’s pledge to include Christians and women in his new government. He should now also publicly distance the Muslim Brotherhood from the extremist elements who wish forcibly to include a Saudi Wahabi-style Sharia clause in the constitution, which would lead to disastrous Iran-style isolation for Egypt and possibly to a mass exodus of Christians and ultimately to the collapse of the Egyptian economy.

  Marisa Matias, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, the election of the new Egyptian President in the post-Mubarak era is good news, but we cannot delude ourselves: this presidential election in no way concludes the transition process under way in Egypt.

It has rightly been mentioned that the dissolution of the parliament, days before the presidential elections, has caused several threats to come to the fore. In this case, the power concentrated in the hands of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is excessive, to say the least: it has legislative power, it has reduced the president’s power and, furthermore, it still has the power to draft the constitution. We think all this is a cause for concern. It should be a cause for concern because Egyptians run the risk of becoming hostages to military power and of returning to the past; they lack a key element, which is a democratically elected parliament.

It does not fall to us to make the change in Egypt: it falls to the Egyptian people. However, I think we Europeans must be on the side of any changes proposing the restoration of democratic legitimacy and a democratically elected parliament.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Mr President, my contact with the Christians in Egypt informed me yesterday that they are very worried about the current situation in their country.

The reassuring words and gestures of the new President and Muslim Brother, Mohammed Mursi, at least remove their fear of eventually being denied their living space by Islamic forces. In the final analysis, the Muslim Brotherhood has broken its promises at crucial moments at least three times since the fall of the Mubarak regime. I therefore strongly urge the High Representative to also take an interest in the social rights situation of the Christian minority when the EU is in contact with the Egyptian authorities.

A second point that I ask the High Representative to bring up with Cairo relates to the enforcement of what has become an ice cold peace treaty with neighbouring Israel. The European Union therefore needs to demand of the Egyptian military leadership that it remedies the security situation in the Sinai Desert and thus at the same time effectively protects and guarantees the border it shares with southern Israel.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, many Egyptian Christians fear that the election of their new president, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, will finally transform the country into an Islamic state, which would make their everyday lives hell. The Copts make up about 10 to 20 % of Egypt’s population, in other words about 10 million people. Not all of them have the courage to admit their faith. They are accustomed to economic suppression and a disregard for their religious needs. In an Islamic society, however, they would lose all their rights in practice. Islamic supremacy in the region is nothing new, however it was resisted by the state in the past, while now it is simply synonymous with the state. The violent attacks on Christians speak volumes – there is no sign of the Arab Spring here.

Baroness Ashton needs to dispatch a delegation immediately to assess the plight of Christians on the ground. The EU should also link all payments to Egypt with the observation of human rights.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I welcome the fact that the recent presidential elections in Egypt took place without any major problems and that the results have been accepted, but I think it is clear that those elections and the unexpected decisions taken by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces a few days before demonstrate that, in reality, there is a dual power structure in Egypt.

These are delicate times. I believe it is essential that these two centres of power have dialogue and cooperate during this phase and launch an ordered transition towards normal democracy. I welcome the fact that it appears that the government soon to be elected by President Morsi will be a broad government representing broad sectors of the plural society that Egypt has.

It will also be important to draw up a new constitution. I trust that it will establish a multi-party democratic system that respects human rights, including the rights of minorities. We cannot forget, as other speakers have said, the importance of the Christian minority, whose rights must be fully respected without discrimination.

Egypt, ladies and gentlemen, is a key country in the Arab world and the whole region. What happens there will have repercussions on the rest of the Muslim world. Egypt can set an example, as Mr Pöttering said. It is also very important for the Egyptian political leaders to be aware of the need for their decisions not to destabilise the region, which has suffered numerous conflicts. I welcome the fact that the current international commitments are going to be honoured.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union cannot be removed from what is happening in Egypt. I repeat, it is a very important country, in our Mediterranean neighbourhood. We must support this transition and try to help where we can, without, of course, failing to defend our values and interests.

Finally, I would like to express my support for the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which has been suffering a difficult situation in Egypt for months.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, recent months have been interesting times in Egypt, with much drama and a great deal of tension. There were presidential elections running in parallel with a discussion about a new constitution and thus about the powers of that President, and there was a Parliament that was dissolved.

Now, the conclusion is that an opponent of the military regime has won the elections, but that, at the same time, the military are keeping hold of the reins in many areas. I personally believe that, despite the difficulties, we need to see the positive in these developments. It is now up to the European Union to contribute to the success of the transition to democracy.

One particularly important challenge will be to get the country on its feet again from an economic point of view. Tourism has practically collapsed, foreign investors are staying away and the coffers are empty. Consequently, I would like to ask what initiative the High Representative intends to take in order to quickly contribute to a restarting of the economy in Egypt, which is also a prerequisite for a successful transition to democracy.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Mr President, I have recently returned from a visit to Egypt along with other colleagues. It was before the presidential elections and quite clearly there was a very difficult situation: a power struggle taking place with SCAF, the constitution still in a state of flux. Parliament was still constituted at that time.

We had an opportunity to have a dialogue with the elected Members whilst we were there, and I have to confess to this House that I was left less than confident that those Members would lead to an agenda of openness and liberalisation. I have real concerns for the rights of religious minorities and women.

But what is the EU agenda to support the Egypt that we have in front of us today? We have to support it, but not in such a way that those in power can nullify those with an alternative view. Our support must be for those elected representatives who wish to develop a society built on fundamental freedoms and human rights, on shared values.

Mr Pöttering speaks as a Christian. I respond as a Muslim. We speak the same language – one of basic humanity, and we have to weave that into the basic society of the Egypt that is developing today.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - Mr President, from the very beginning we knew that the Egyptian transition would be a long one with ups and downs. We have many reasons to be worried about Egypt: the institutional uncertainty, the economic and social crisis, the continued control by the military, and the strong support for Islamist parties, moderate and less moderate.

Despite all the difficulties, the Presidential elections were organised and held in an acceptable way. They showed that secular and moderate democratic forces have a majority in Egypt. The only problem was that they were divided among several candidates, and I think they have learned their lessons.

The new President Morsi appears to be a reliable person who understands the enormous responsibility to keep the nation united, to protect minorities and to secure the peaceful continuation of the transition process in Egypt. I ask that we give him a chance, that we recognise that he is an element of stability in the country, and that we do our best to encourage his first promising steps.

Now we have to concentrate on the next parliamentary elections, to try to support the liberal and secular parties in order to avoid a new crushing victory by the Islamists, especially their Salafist branch. The other task we have is to increase the pressure on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces so that they prepare their exit from power.

Power should be in the hands of the people, and that should be the task we have to achieve together: the Council, the Commission, our new revised neighbourhood policy should be directed in support of this transition for the social and economic development of the country, and we should not be distracted by the fact that the President of the country now represents the Muslim Brotherhood. We have to judge him and any political party in power by its deeds and not by our expectations, the political background and their history.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Richard Howitt (S&D). - Mr President, many of us feared that the delay in the presentation of the presidential election results in Egypt was cover for some form of rigging or manipulation of the votes. So, like other colleagues who have contributed to this debate, I think it is now clear that a transition has taken place in that country, and that is something we should welcome without, of course, endorsing one political party or another.

There was a prospect of the whole Arab Spring actually being stopped in its tracks if this election had failed, so I believe that some hope is retained following what has happened in Egypt today.

With some other Members of this House, I met representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo. They told us that they are committed to pluralist democracy and to women’s and minority rights. I do not think that we should take the sort of aggressive stance about political Islam that we sometimes hear from the other side of this House. Nor do I think that we should be naive. But I do think we should hold the Muslim Brotherhood to the pledges they have made to us, and that should inform the European Union’s continuing relations with Egypt and our continuing support for the Arab Spring.

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, I actually have a request of you. We have seen the elections in Egypt. We should count ourselves lucky that, in Mohammed Mursi, we have Egypt’s first freely elected president. He does not have it easy, however, as before he has even begun, the army has removed a number of powers from him. I would like to propose that this House should act quickly to invite President Mursi to come and address us, thus sending a signal to Egypt that we talk to fairly and freely elected representatives of the people and presidents and that we see him as our point of contact, rather than the army.

That is my request of you, and I believe that, if this Parliament grants a request of this kind, we will be giving the Egyptian people and their president a shot in the arm.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, let me just say a few words about some of the remarks that were made by distinguished Members of the European Parliament.

Firstly, the crackdown on NGOs receiving foreign funding is a cause of great concern. NGOs are an important element in all modern democratic societies. As you know, support for civil society is a component of our new European Neighbourhood Policy. The European External Action Service has followed this issue very closely. High Representative/Vice-President Ashton has expressed her deep concern about the restrictions on civil society organisation in Egypt in two statements and before this Parliament. The issue has also been addressed in the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council of 27 February 2012.

Finally, when charges were upheld against NGO employees an EU demarche was carried out at the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 21 February 2012 to reiterate our concerns and to request the postponement of the investigations until a new NGO law is adopted. As you know, the trial has been postponed to April 2013 and the travel ban imposed on the NGO workers has been lifted. However, charges have not been dropped. This is why the European External Action Service will continue to give the highest attention to this issue and will keep close contact with the Egyptian authorities, the Member States, our American partners and NGOs to follow up on the forthcoming developments.

Some of you also underlined the importance of upholding the bilateral agreement between Egypt and Israel. The High Representative/Vice-President is certainly keeping a close watch on this issue but, as you have seen, the new Egyptian President has indicated in no uncertain terms his intention to stick to this agreement. Of course we need to remain vigilant but we must recognise the importance of that statement.

I would like to conclude by thanking honourable Members for this fruitful exchange of views about the opportunities and challenges that Egypt is facing in the aftermath of the election of President Morsi. In this respect the forthcoming developments after the dissolution of Parliament and the constitutional addendum on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces will require special attention.

Honourable Members I believe, as you do, that the European Parliament has a special role in supporting the promotion of human rights and democracy around the world. In this regard, Egypt is a case in point. The utmost should be achieved to support the democratic transition, and the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country should continue to be carefully assessed. In that context, as Mr Pöttering rightly said – and I present my highest respects to you, Mr Pöttering, and also my apologies for what was perceived as a moment of distraction, but as a matter of fact we are trying to see how to take your comments into account – special attention must be paid to the freedom of religion and belief, not forgetting women’s rights.

On behalf of High Representative/Vice-President Ashton, I assure you that the European Union will continue to pay the greatest attention to Egypt. We are looking forward to engaging with the new President and the forthcoming government.

  President. – The debate is closed.

18. Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes

19. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 20.20.)