Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 11 September 2012 - Strasbourg

11. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Claude Turmes (A7-0265/2012)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, the current global economic and environmental crisis requires us to make choices to save resources.

With the Energy Efficiency Directive adopted today, we can achieve important goals, such as tackling the problem of climate change and the scarcity of fossil fuels, including coal and oil; cutting the annual cost of buying fuel, which amounts to EUR 400 billion, by making a potential saving of EUR 50 billion per year; reducing Europe’s dependency on Russia and OPEC countries, from which we import gas and oil; reducing air pollution, which, in some regions of Europe, currently poses an unfortunately unresolved threat to the health of millions of European citizens; creating new jobs and benefits for small and medium-sized enterprises, including installers and the building sector, which is currently going through a very serious crisis.

I therefore welcome the rules introduced for the renovation of public buildings and for four-yearly energy audits, which are compulsory for all large enterprises. This is one of the many steps Europe needs to take. However, we need to do more: we must set ourselves more ambitious targets and take measures that are more binding on all Member States.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Turmes’s report, which paves the way for adoption of a directive that will finally make it possible to overcome the differences between Member States with regard to energy efficiency.

Though it does not change the non-binding nature of the goal of energy efficiency set by the climate and energy package of 2008, the directive imposes on suppliers and distributors compulsory annual saving schemes in terms of final consumption.

According to the Commission’s figures, the measure will bring about a total saving of around EUR 20 billion in the costs of investment in energy generation and distribution. This is vitally important and will help reaffirm the Union as a global player, since the future geopolitical balance will be primarily decided by policies on the supply and use of energy resources.

  Markus Pieper (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I should like to make a comment on the voting procedure for the minutes. The proceedings have clearly given rise to some confusion as regards the German translation – the rapporteur has also become involved in this – which is contrary to the spirit of the negotiations. The text was negotiated in English. On behalf of the PPE Group, I should therefore like to make it clear that the terms ‘cost effective’ and ‘cost efficient’ are to be used in the sense of the German word ‘kosteneffizient’. The term used by the language service, ‘kostenwirksam’, does not correspond to the spirit of the negotiations, nor is it sufficiently clearly defined. We therefore expect that, as in the case of the Buildings Directive, the terms ‘cost effective’ and ‘cost efficient’ will be uniformly translated by ‘kosteneffizient’. Should this not be the case, we urgently call for this to be changed in the translation. I should like to refer to a letter to the Tabling Office signed by all German-speaking members of the PPE Group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and also the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe – in other words, a clear majority of the German-speaking Members. They cannot all have misunderstood it.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this dossier because I believe that the issue of energy efficiency, together with sustainability and competitiveness, can certainly be an essential instrument in a particularly difficult process, such as this one.

We need sustainable growth that has to involve small and medium-sized enterprises and that can be used as a virtuous cycle, including through innovative green technology. All this must be achieved through a culture of design that makes the best use of these resources, channelling them towards building refurbishment, which, in particular, requires the full and appropriate use of EU cohesion funds. One third of buildings in Europe were built after 1973, which is clearly significant.

It is possible to act within this context, including by means of better training and design that is consistent with the aims of the provision.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, energy efficiency is one of the pillars of EU climate policy. That is why today’s vote is particularly important. It is the result of a satisfactory and timely agreement in terms of the content, in that it obliges the Member States to prepare a strategy based on indicative national targets that take account of EU objectives and, at the same time, enables energy companies to comply with energy saving requirements in accordance with the principle of reasonable flexibility.

The goal of a 20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020 is therefore within reach. I believe that credit is due, above all, to this House, because if the most disruptive Member States within the Council have at last accepted this good compromise, that is due to the tenacity with which Parliament’s negotiators, starting with the rapporteur, safeguarded these goals. This is an important step for the creation of green jobs and, ultimately, to boost competitiveness and sustainability.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of the motion, although I have certain qualms about doing so. In the end, however, I was won over by the conviction that, firstly, it is necessary, and secondly, that our resolution opens up the possibility of putting cost efficiency at the heart of things. It is not about saving energy at any cost, but rather it is, above all, about the whole thing adding up. If it adds up, if we create the necessary framework conditions with as little red tape as possible, then we will have the famous win-win situation in which the economy takes a leap forward and we create new job opportunities in what is known as the green economy. Let me repeat, however, that we need an alliance with the economy so that the whole thing is worthwhile and sensible.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, an excellent compromise has been achieved which puts Europe on the right track to achieve the goals of the climate package.

One of the successes is having maintained the target of 3% in relation to the energy efficiency of public buildings, an ambitious target at a time of economic crisis, which has great environmental value and will act as a lever for the EU’s economic growth.

The directive lays the foundations for redesigning energy saving strategies, for which both private and public operators will need to call on experts in the sector, without whom the established goals will be difficult to achieve. That therefore paves the way for encouraging national training programmes for audit and energy saving experts.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, the Energy Efficiency Directive had good intentions, but the final outcome is unfair. Once again, the Member States are being treated on an unequal basis, as no attention is being paid to what has already been done. In practice, the countries that have already sorted out their problems properly are being penalised by ever more stringent targets, while the estimated targets are the same, whichever point you start from.

I represent here today the country that is footing the bill for this directive, Finland. Finland is facing a bill of hundreds of millions of euro a year, for both consumers and businesses. Since we are ahead in measures taken to ensure efficiency, continued attempts at efficiency will be even more expensive.

At the risk of sounding cynical, the decision that has now been taken will, in fact, encourage those who have sorted out their problems properly to end their current action to boost energy efficiency and to resume again at the start of 2014. This does not reflect the spirit of good legislation and, for that reason, my country’s parliament also proposed a notification regarding the directive.

For all these reasons, I found it impossible to support this proposal for a directive. I also hope that this House will consider at what point we actually have to resort to the undemocratic first reading agreement short cut procedure.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, in the European Union, we all recognise that efficient consumption of energy contributes to combating climate change and to environmental conservation. However, it is very important that this area brings undoubted benefits for the economy.

In order to make our buildings highly energy efficient, new jobs are created and commissions increase in the construction sector. Most importantly, the money saved due to the reduction in energy consumed can be transferred to other sectors.

The text of the document proposed by the Commission was rather ambitious – above all, in the sense of binding energy saving targets. I understand that the situation varies across the Member States and perhaps Member States need flexibility as proposed by the European Parliament. However, the so-called compromise that has now been reached with Member States to make these targets simply indicative shows that Member States lack political will or, for other reasons, do not want to adopt common agreements. This is particularly typical of the large European Union Member States.

Often, Member States need a push to achieve certain objectives – that is exactly how binding energy targets could have been set. Unfortunately, so far we are going round in circles.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report as the consumption of energy must be reduced. This has to be done to tackle the challenges and restrict dependency on fossil fuels.

My country has set itself the aim of cutting primary energy consumption by 19% by 2020. However, this is a highly ambitious target, while also being very difficult to achieve. The main thrust of action is aimed at making the system of producing and distributing energy more efficient, as well as informing the public. The Structural Funds have an important contribution to make in this regard, and monitoring progress ensures that the project is implemented correctly and consistently, and meets the specified indicators.

I think that priority access should continue to be given to renewable energy and investments in this area. Romania is increasingly encouraging this form of energy and intends to continue to promote renewable energy sources by using the green certificates.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, no business needs to be told to look for energy efficiency, nor does any householder need to be told to keep his bills down. There is a wonderful mechanism for driving energy efficiency already and it is called the market. What we are doing in this House when we talk about energy efficiency is precisely the opposite. We are intervening through subsidies and other market distortions, thereby creating not only a financial crisis but an energy crisis, because we are intervening in the natural flow of supply and demand.

Why are we doing it? Not in response to an identified crisis but in order to flaunt our virtue. The difficulty, as so often, is that MEPs cannot resist meddling, cannot resist scratching at something in order to show how very concerned they are. I have observed before that Shakespeare has something to say about every subject, including MEPs who cannot help legislating in energy policy: ‘What’s the matter, you dissentious rogues, that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, Make yourselves scabs?’.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, I welcome the fact that in looking at the whole debate on climate change and energy production, we are also looking at energy efficiency. Quite often, this is the forgotten element of this whole debate – this wider debate – on climate change and alternative sources of energy.

We do need to incentivise businesses, customers and others towards energy efficiency. That is absolutely right. But, as my colleague said previously, do we need to do this through taxpayer subsidy? Do we need to do it in this way or should we rely on the crucial elements of the market which will drive people naturally towards this? We should be encouraging insulation, smart metering and regeneration technologies but, at the same time, we should not meddle where it causes more problems.

The EU is telling the British Government that it has to increase its VAT on insulation products. So, while on the one hand we are discussing energy efficiency and claiming that we are promoting energy efficiency, by what we actually do through taxation policy we are reducing the incentives for energy efficiency.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, cooperation and coordination in energy efficiency policies could actually bring added value, provided they are not binding on the Member States. But this is an area where you could bring financial savings to the consumer by making things cheaper. I agree with Mr Hannan that the market is important.

There would be less environmental pollution, with the emission of certain toxic noxious gases, if the power stations could be more efficient. There could also be fewer greenhouse gas emissions, but I also think that there is a danger sometimes of being over-reactive, as with the abolition of the incandescent light bulb. The imposition of mandatory CFL light bulbs is something that irritated me no end. They cannot be dimmed, so you cannot make them more efficient. They give off UV light, which potentially causes cancer in people with certain conditions of the skin, and they release toxic mercury into the environment. This was like using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut, because you could have actually used the market – made them cheap and available – and people would therefore have switched to them on a voluntary basis. But to make it mandatory was something that made the EU very unpopular in my constituency of London.

Report: Hélène Flautre (A7-0266/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, on several occasions, Parliament has asked that the fight against international terrorism be conducted with full respect for human dignity and fundamental freedoms. The EU’s policies on security and the fight against terrorism are based on police cooperation and on effective intelligence.

That is why I think it is right to call on the Member States to investigate whether there are any secret detention centres or any human rights violations on their territory, provided that these investigations are based on sound legal grounds and not on media and public speculation.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, apologies – I had mixed up two cards. More than a decade has passed since the terrorist attack on New York in 2001, which triggered the war against international terrorism. The CIA’s programme of secrecy has meant that more than 3 000 terror suspects have been abducted and, on the grounds of extraordinary rendition, flown to secret prisons, often to be tortured.

Unfortunately, however, we in Europe are just as guilty. It is a contradiction that, while the European Union heavily criticises the United States for its secret transportation of prisoners by air, for the prison camps at Guantánamo, and for the brutal interrogation practices employed with terror suspects, it has been unwilling to investigate its own role in this. This is by no means a trivial matter.

The report also calls on Finland to disclose all necessary information on all suspect planes associated with the CIA and its air transportation programme. I doubt if any very murky secrets about CIA flights would be found in the archives of the EU countries. I do, however, wonder greatly why Europe lacks the will to clean up its own back yard.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I wanted to take the floor to explain why I voted for this report, because it is one of the few balanced, realistic reports on a subject which has been debated not only by politicians, but by civil society as well.

We carried out a parliamentary inquiry in my country, Romania, and, based on the evidence available at that time, we excluded the existence of detention centres, but we did not exclude that transfers went on. In this context, I welcome the option relating to the need to review the Chicago Convention on civil aviation and the Tokyo Convention on criminal offences committed on board aircraft. There are several obsolete international legal mechanisms which did not allow Member States to carry out effective inquiries and which will probably cast doubt on the replies received as part of the inquiries already completed.

Apart from this, there is still the need for a European counter-terrorism mechanism to be approved by all Member States.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Mr President, I naturally voted in favour of the report, which essentially reveals that the United States is on the rampage against fundamental human rights under the pretext of the war on terror, with the involvement of several European countries. I have experience with the bizarre and terrifying results this can have, including in Hungary. I am referring to the case of Mr Budaházy, which I have often mentioned here in the past. Mr Budaházy is a well-known opposition leader in Hungary. His criminal trial has been going on for more than four years, with gross violations of fundamental procedural guarantees. He had been on remand for two and a half years, which the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg found to be unlawful, requiring the Hungarian State to pay compensation to Mr Budaházy.

Yet this member of the opposition is still being held under house arrest. And on what grounds? The threat of terrorism! We must obviously reject this completely and put an end to the rampage.

Report: Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (A7-0048/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when migration flows are most often mixed, including migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, a tangible commitment to ensuring that asylum policies are effective and efficient is essential.

The harmonisation of standards of protection, effective practical cooperation and increased solidarity, not only between EU Member States, but also between the EU and non-EU countries, are therefore key to creating an area of protection wherein the rights of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection are duly respected and promoted. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, whom I thank for the excellent quality of his work and for his valuable suggestions.

Despite the ongoing harmonisation of standards of protection and asylum, we still have a long way to go before creating that concept of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities enshrined in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Indeed, the Dublin system places disproportionate expectations on those Member States constituting entry points into the EU.

I therefore agree with the priorities identified by the rapporteur on practical cooperation, technical assistance and financial solidarity. On this latter issue, I think it is absolutely necessary to make the best use of the complementarities between the different EU funds available, in order to translate solidarity into concrete action, including financial incentives for relocating beneficiaries of international protection.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, today, the Swedish delegation voted in favour of the report on intra-EU solidarity because we do support burden sharing and mutual assistance among all Member States.

However, the compromise reached is not balanced. First of all, our work on asylum has to be based on correct facts. Although the report is based on a notion that only countries on the external border are subject to extreme pressure and that they are the ones receiving the largest number of asylum seekers, this is not the reality. Asylum seekers enter Europe not only by sea, and second-line countries – where their final destination is – should also be taken into account.

I would just like to take an example. In Sweden, we are now receiving a thousand people from Syria every week and, of course, we feel enormous solidarity towards them. So external borders and absolute numbers cannot be the only criteria for receiving support and financial aid. It should also be clearly stated that relocation should be on a voluntary basis for the Member States who want to participate in the programmes and, of course, the people concerned should be asked for their views.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, it was reported over the summer that the United Kingdom was drawing up contingency plans to close its borders in the event of a refugee crisis caused by a sudden collapse of the single currency. Journalists are addicted to this story; they deal in drama, so they love the idea that the crisis has to be presented as a choice between some cataclysmic fall and a solution. But I suggest that there is a third option.

What if people simply carry on becoming gradually poorer? This is not some fanciful theory of mine, indeed it has already started. Our constituents are worse off than they were a year ago; they were worse off then than the year before. We could be in for years and years of progressive dilapidation. When you go to the southern countries in the eurozone, the signs are that much clearer. It need not be a catastrophe. It need not be the end of Atlantis. It could simply be the end of Atlas Shrugged: a shabby, miserable, demoralising slide into darkness. This is the way the West ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, one of the constant criticisms we have of EU policies is that, whatever the problem, the solution always tends to be more Europe. When we look at an issue, such as the highly emotive one of asylum, an issue where people facing persecution seek refuge in our lands, why are we playing politics and continuing this one-size-fits-all idea and playing with people’s lives?

We should look at and understand the individual policies of individual governments. Governments themselves and local communities have to consider the impact of new people coming into the country on existing community cohesion, including the impact on existing immigrant communities. So, when the UK Government, or any other elected government, says that it has a policy and that it has decided on what is a sustainable number of people to allow in, considering the impact on local communities, it should be allowed to continue that policy and should certainly not be told by the EU, or any other body, that it should allow more room. We should depend on the wise decisions of the national elected governments.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, I voted for this report in view of the important commitment made by the European Union in setting up a common asylum procedure and status for people who have been granted international protection. The establishment of a common European asylum system will increase the solidarity and also the accountability of Member States and non-EU countries in the harmonisation of protection standards.

We are committed to offering a safe environment to vulnerable people, but this cannot be achieved without practical cooperation and effective allocation of responsibilities between Member States, complemented by financial solidarity. I want to stress that solidarity and responsibility go hand in hand if we want to offer real protection, international protection, to those vulnerable people.

Report: Lara Comi (A7-0069/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the compromise reached between the Council and Parliament, after a year of tough negotiations, is a starting point to help boost the revival of the internal market. Indeed, the use of standards will help European businesses to obtain certificates of conformity and safety for their products and services more quickly and more cheaply than at present.

The simplifications envisaged will be particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), given that Member States will have to facilitate the participation of SMEs on standardisation committees and SME access to the standards.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Ms Comi for her work and for the excellent quality of her report.

Standardisation is one of the twelve levers to boost the internal market and will play a key role in helping to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Indeed, the new regulation will enable European businesses to obtain certificates of conformity and safety for their products and services more quickly, using a technically updated, flexible and effective system. This will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular, enabling them to reduce production costs and administrative burdens, and raising their profiles in the single European market.

That said, we will need to continue encouraging voluntary consultations between industry, public authorities and other stakeholders, so as to ensure that the development of standards and regulations is transparent and can be updated over time.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, this regulation is the result of the resolution adopted by Parliament two years ago on the future of European standardisation. It underscores the role of standards as the driving force of innovation, and also their role in ensuring that the single market provides a high level of consumer protection. An important feature is the inclusion of a number of significant amendments which make it possible to enhance the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in standardisation work. Furthermore, increasing the participation of national public authorities and societal stakeholders, including consumers’ organisations, will facilitate the standards development process and improve the clarity of standards. The inclusion of service standards in the legal framework of European standardisation will contribute to a significant improvement in the quality and security of this sector of the economy, and will also contribute to its harmonisation, transparency and competitiveness, with clear benefits for consumers. The report includes the proposals from the public consultation conducted by my committee, so I endorsed it with complete conviction.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this satisfactory compromise leads to a technical upgrade of the European standardisation system, bringing in one that is more balanced, effective and relevant to the real needs of businesses.

Dealing with the slowness of the standard-setting process and the issue of under-representation of small and medium-sized enterprises is a worthy achievement. We should also highlight the creation of a notification system, by which businesses will be informed in advance of the Commission’s intention to introduce significant standards and the extension of the scope of the regulation to these standards, with regard to all those services that account for 70% of EU GDP.

We voted in favour because it is an important policy instrument that ensures the proper functioning of the internal market of products for the protection of consumers and the environment, for innovation and for social inclusion.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, today we have approved an important step towards the completion of the single market. This is the most effective way to promote growth in Europe at a time of economic crisis, so we should not underestimate the importance of this legislation. Although technical, it is crucial for our companies and consumers in their daily lives. In a rapidly changing world, standards must ensure interoperability and keep pace with technological developments. We also need to have effective tools to drive innovation and boost the competitiveness of European companies in global markets.

I therefore welcome the fact that standards will continue to be bottom-up, market driven and voluntary. We have adopted a framework that will help develop European standards. We have been pressing hard for better, more flexible regulation, and we are removing unnecessary administrative burdens and increasing transparency. I think it is important that this will really facilitate the participation of SMEs and ensure access to user-friendly standards for all. I hope we will continue to work together to implement all the aspects of the Single Market Act effectively.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report as reviewing the European standardisation system must resolve the current problems and consolidate EU policy in this area.

Standardisation has a strong impact on economic activity and influences growth and productivity. It is one of the measures proposed for revitalising the single market. This is why it is important to provide clear, easy-to-use standards so as to make it easier for all operators to participate. More attention needs to be paid to SMEs in particular, who should have greater involvement in this process. In this regard, I welcome the rapporteur’s proposals for improving SMEs’ participation in, and access to, the standardisation process.

Introducing standardisation in the services sector will also facilitate international trade, competitiveness and innovation. At the same time, I welcome the standards for services because they will reduce trade barriers and afford consumers greater protection.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, just before the vote, my friend and colleague, Chris Davies, said that I had to read Niall Ferguson’s book ‘Civilisations’. It is actually a book I had already read, and the thesis in it is not especially new. The idea that Europe flourished because it was a diverse, competing plurality of states rather than a single empire on the oriental model has been well-rehearsed by historians, by Alan Macfarlane, by Paul Kennedy, by Eric Jones, indeed by Adam Smith. It is a pretty old theory. Or, if you think I am being too Anglocentric about this, also by Montesquieu and Tocqueville, both of whom understood that the stasis inherent in uniformity, as it existed in the great ancient monarchies, is bad for growth and bad ultimately, therefore, for living standards.

Now I am sure you can tell where I am going with this argument. In trying to get on top of wars, the founders of the European Union also smothered the competition, the diversity, that had been the basis of the greatness of European civilisation. Our generation is living through a tragic reversal whereby just as China and India learned the virtues of the dispersal of power, Europe is going down this Ming, Mogul, and Ottoman road towards uniformity, taxation and decline. Our mistake and our tragedy.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Hannan. Your disquisitions get ever more elaborate.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, it is important, when we look at the idea of standards, that we understand what we are trying to achieve. Of course it is often good for the consumer, and often good for industry, to be able to have the certainty to produce the standards that others can work towards. But with standards, there is also the other side of the issue: What does it do to innovation? How do we come up with those standards? We have to be wary of those who lobby loudest for their particular standards in order to stifle the competition and to crowd others out of the marketplace. We have to be careful of the rent-seeking behind this.

We also have to be careful that we are not so keen on our own standards that, when it comes to global agreements and trade practices, one man’s standard becomes another’s non-tariff barrier or technical barrier. Surely the best way for most of these products to be developed is to allow the market to provide the standards and then allow the best standards to win out. Then the bodies can agree after negotiation on the best standard, rather than imposing it too early and crowding out the players that you do not want to flourish.

Report: Sophie Auconie (A7-0199/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, food safety is, without doubt, one of the main concerns of European citizens.

In 1997, after the spread of mad cow disease, the EU had adopted strict rules on the identification and traceability of cattle. The text we are debating today would amend the legislation in force, even though it does present limits as regards provisions relating to voluntary labelling. It would make it possible to obtain more reliable data through a system of electronic identification of bovine animals and enhance its traceability system.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, removing voluntary beef labelling in Europe means arbitrarily choosing to go against safety and quality for our products.

In an effort to simplify, we must not cut down on useful information to the detriment not only of consumers who buy the meat, but also of those European farmers who use labelling to differentiate and market their products. For some time now, we have been arguing that origin must be marked in order to defend production and purchasing power.

We therefore oppose a proposal that would bring us back to the status quo prior to this labelling, which has made it possible today to achieve excellent results both in organisational terms for the entire value chain of the industry, and in terms of communication to the end consumer of the meat.

We want a safer Europe, more attentive to the needs of consumers, to quality, to food safety and to rural development.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, as you so aptly put it, this report concerns cows. ‘How can he get wisdom that holdeth the plough, and that glorieth in the goad, that driveth oxen, and is occupied in their labours, and whose talk is of bullocks? He giveth his mind to make furrows; and is diligent to give the kine fodder’. It is perhaps appropriate that I pause at this stage and thank the interpreters who have been very patient with my flights into Jacobean English over many years. What a tragedy that now, the descendent of that honest man giveth his mind to fill in forms and is diligent to meet the latest directives coming out of the common agricultural policy.

As the rural year comes to revolve around bureaucracy rather than the natural seasons, we have seen not just a rise in prices for consumers and a rise in taxes to sustain the system but also, bizarrely, a depreciation of output in the countryside. A system designed to help stimulate food production has ended up damaging both the farmer and the consumer. Here you have a microcosm. What is wrong with state control? The sooner we get out of the common agricultural policy and design a policy tailored to meet the needs of our countryside, the better for all concerned.

  President. – Was that The Bible? The King James version?

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because food safety is particularly important and the safety of consumers is crucial in this respect. The electronic identification of bovine animals is of vital importance and helps improve them.

I endorse the amendment to the current legislation to better reflect the most recent technological advances. At the same time, adapting the legislation will strengthen the traceability system, which will become faster and more accurate.

I also think that the labelling of beef should be simplified. This will remove the administrative burden and make the procedure easier. I also believe that electronic identification should not be imposed on livestock farmers, but should remain voluntary. Therefore, consumers will be protected and small farmers will avoid unfair formalities. The proposal will also boost the sector’s competitiveness and improve its commercial prospects.

Report: Linda McAvan (A7-0165/2012)

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, public health is an issue which affects every citizen of the Union, and is an area of work in which the European institutions should be involved. The worrying information which appears from time to time about problems connected with the operations of pharmaceutical firms makes it necessary to provide constant clarification of the principles of pharmacovigilance and of the rules governing the cooperation of all Member States on this matter, particularly because the review carried out by the Commission revealed significant flaws in the current legal system.

Public interest leads me to support the proposed amendments, in particular, the increase in the number of cases requiring the automatic procedure when a Member State considers suspending or withdrawing a pharmaceutical product from sale. Furthermore, provisions making the actions of drug producers more transparent and the longer list of medicines subject to additional post-authorisation monitoring are essential today. I hope that the new legislation will help improve the safety of patients, and this hope was expressed in the common position of all the parliamentary groups. I voted to adopt the report.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my appreciation for the adoption of this report that, once again, draws the attention of the European Union to the protection of health and to the protection of citizens.

With this report, we have, in fact, re-addressed the issue of surveillance of medicinal products, following the adoption of Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 amending the directives on pharmacovigilance.

Since the so-called Mediator case, indeed, there has been a need to address the shortcomings identified by the tests conducted in this regard, and to refine the existing system, especially with regard to information requirements and notification of stakeholders and to the list of medicinal products subject to strengthened pharmacovigilance.

The amendments introduced, although modest in their scope, complement and reinforce the legal framework outlined previously in favour of greater transparency and efficiency and improved product safety standards, thus benefiting the health of European citizens.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, freedom also means the opportunity to make the wrong decision. Unfortunately, we often unreasonably restrict it when we adopt draft legislation that hinders business and constrains the economy and the market. But laws and regulations are sometimes justified. For example, the State must guarantee food and drug safety, otherwise irreparable damage can be done to health and lives.

I am glad that we are able to quickly correct legislation that was not strict enough. At the same time, however, I am filled with indignation that there exist companies and people who, for the sake of profit, sacrifice the lives of patients who trust them. In the case of Servier, there could be 500, or even 2 000, victims. Unfortunately, we can do nothing to save these people now, but I believe that we can save thousands of others.

Report: Linda McAvan (A7-0164/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, as a medical doctor, I support these measures strongly. In 2010, it was decided that EU rules governing pharmacovigilance had to be revised and a stress test was carried out on the legislation which demonstrated weaknesses in the system, which now need addressing.

These current proposed changes aim to close dangerous loopholes to protect our patients in Europe. In particular, they seek to meet the need for an automatic, urgent EU-wide procedure in cases where a Member State or the Commission considers that serious adverse side effects have occurred and therefore, there is a need to prohibit the supply of a particular medicine. They also seek to clarify the transparency obligations on pharmaceutical companies, namely, that companies are obliged to inform the European Medicines Agency, which is a very successful agency based in my own region of London, when a medicinal product is deemed to be harmful and this agency is then, in turn, obliged to inform all Member States without undue delay. So pharmacovigilance is a good thing and it is something which can be done well at EU level.

Report: Satu Hassi (A7-0038/2012)

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I could not support this report because of its unfair treatment of shipowners from the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel, requiring them to use fuels with a maximum sulphur content of 0.1% from 2015. Shipowners from countries which are part of Sulphur Emission Control Areas have appealed for Parliament to postpone the date for the introduction of these provisions until 2019, when, in other parts of the world, ships sailing outside SECAs will be able to use fuel containing no more than 0.5% sulphur. The proposed legislation will cause the price of marine fuel to rise by 70%. This will mean vessels operating in short sea shipping will be completely unprofitable. The sulphur content of marine fuels does have to come down, but a reasonable date should be chosen for this to happen. These reductions could lead to bankruptcies among shipowners and cause the loss of a great many jobs.

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today is a very important day for the health of European citizens. Indeed, this is, without doubt, one of the most important reforms of the entire parliamentary term when one considers the beneficial impact it will have on the health of European citizens.

From today, the EU has stricter regulations and is establishing new upper limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels, which contain air pollutants that are estimated to cause as many as 50 000 premature deaths in Europe.

For Northern European countries – the so-called Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) – a maximum sulphur content in fuels of below 0.1% comes into force from 2015 while, for all other countries, the limit will be 0.5% from 2020.

We should no doubt have aimed higher; these new limits should have applied across the whole of the European Union. What price life, though? That is what thousands of European citizens are wondering in cities with major ports like that of my beautiful mistreated Venice, whose inhabitants and whose works of art are constantly being poisoned by smoke from the stacks of great ships. Well, thanks to Europe, that smoke will now be a little less black.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, I am opposed to the proposal for a directive because, once again, the European Union, in relation to the environment and the climate, wants to be top of the class. Unfortunately, this attitude leaves us in a position of clear competitive disadvantage in the global market, while the environmental benefits are of negligible impact.

The text, which is the product of the trialogue, is better than the one approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), but it goes beyond the requirements laid down by the Marpol convention (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships): the detention of a vessel in the event of infringements has not been transposed; in other words, it is for the vessel to demonstrate good faith regarding the acquisition of fuel; it is impossible to understand why open sea ferries are subject to more stringent limits than those set internationally; in addition, the ban on selling fuel with a sulphur content of over 3.5% in the EU amounts to a competitive disadvantage for European suppliers.

Why does the Commission not act consistently and apply duties to the goods of those third countries which use fuel with a high sulphur content, damaging the environment as a whole? Does it not realise that continuing to impose restrictions on our enterprises favours unfair competition?

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I voted to adopt the report on the proposal for a directive on the sulphur content of marine fuels because I think that in its present form, it is a balanced document which takes account of key environmental questions as well as the importance of maintaining the competitiveness of European shipping. I support the view that air quality standards should be the same throughout the European Union, and I am pleased that this view is reflected in the report.

I think, too, that allowing inbound vessels from countries outside the European Union to use fuel with a higher sulphur content only until 2020 is a good step towards maintaining competitive conditions. I think it is very important to ensure that the Member States have access to training and programmes which help people understand emission abatement methods, and also to monitor the risk of a shift from sea- to land-based transport.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. It is my view that, given the harmful effects of sulphur dioxide emissions, not only to respiratory health in humans but also to the environment, the sulphur content of marine fuels must continue to be closely monitored at EU level.

Whilst various measures have already been taken internationally to reduce the sulphur content for marine fuels, for instance, those done through the IMO, the new directive goes further by ensuring that the Commission is able to assess the impact of enforcing the 0.1% limit for all EU waters, as well as committing to a reduction of the current 4.5% limit outside EU SECAs to only 0.5% by 2020. Furthermore, the new directive now imposes fines on those who surpass the limits. I believe that this is indeed a positive step forward and it is in keeping with my party’s environmental policy to protect the environment for future generations and to improve our own quality of life and well-being.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, it could be said that the Sulphur Directive is fundamentally an issue of health versus industry. It is absolutely right, in itself, to lower sulphur emissions, but health and environmental protection should not be introduced at any cost.

I could have cast my vote for or against, but this time the disastrous consequences of emission limits for Finnish industry carried more weight. The directive also treats the Member States of the EU unequally and distorts competition in the internal market. The rules on transition with respect to emission limits should be the same for all the sea areas of Europe and, for that reason, I voted against the report.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I voted against this report. Obviously, we all think that the environment must be looked after and that sulphur limits should be lowered. However, this must take place in all European sea areas at one and the same time, and preferably globally, of course. At present, it only concerns the Baltic Sea.

We know about the problems of the Baltic Sea, and we know that eutrophication is a huge problem there. It is not actually due to sulphur now, but, of course, this decision will result in a dramatic weakening of the competitiveness of Finnish industry. This will distort competition within the European Union. That is why I would have liked the scope of this directive to extend to the whole of Europe at the same time, and so the deferment until 2020 would have been good, because it is not fair from the perspective of the internal market either that some countries should pay far more for their exports than others. In this sense, fairness could be achieved by including the whole of the European Union within the scope of the Sulphur Directive at one and the same time.

As has already been said, this will mean a bill to Finnish industry of more than EUR 800 million a year. Finland is an economy that is dependent on exports, and, in this respect, I would have liked the scope of this directive to extend to the whole of the European Union at the same time. For that reason, I voted against it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because it will allow us to gain important benefits for both our health and the environment. Air quality standards can be achieved by reducing sulphur emissions from ships. Restricting atmospheric pollution could also help prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. Maritime transport has a significant impact on air quality and can help provide an effective solution to the problems relating to pollution.

The benefits to public health will greatly outweigh the estimated costs. The directive will also help ensure a level playing field in terms of competition and foster innovation and resource efficiency. I should stress that reducing marine emissions will also provide great economic benefit.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0346/2012

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this resolution because I think it is important in view of the current challenging situation for both the Commission’s agenda and Parliament’s agenda. I think that the Commission’s future concerns, particularly relating to the economy, are vital for the EU’s future.

If we want more Europe and greater cohesion, the Commission has a chance of achieving this next year in the legislative and decision-making projects it has also set out only by working alongside Parliament. I supported, in particular, the amendments calling on the Commission to involve Parliament more in implementing next year’s agenda, as failure in the projects envisaged by the Commission could be crucial to the EU’s well-being and, in particular, it could create, if you like, a deficit of democratic dialogue not only between citizens and the bodies of the European Union, but also between the Commission and Parliament.

Report: Marina Yannakoudakis (A7-0223/2012)

  Rebecca Taylor, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, while acknowledging the efforts of the rapporteur to take a balanced line, the ALDE Group felt obliged to abstain in the final vote today due to conservative and religious views dominating the final report to the detriment of patients who face shortages of tissues and cells in many Member States.

Currently, in many Member States, there are too few donors and too many people waiting for tissues and cells, particularly spinal marrow, gametes, cornea and skin. This report was an ideal opportunity to address this serious health problem, but the focus on other issues means it has sadly fallen short in this respect.

A number of provisions were adopted today that threaten the already insufficient supply of tissues and cells in many Member States, including calling on Member Sates to require that donors be anonymous except in the case of a donation from a living person to a relative, thus potentially preventing, for example, an EU citizen from choosing to donate to a friend in need. The ALDE Group does not see the need to further restrict donation rules when we have shortages of tissues and cells in over half the Member States.

Another point was calling on Member States to promote only public cord blood banks, thus ignoring the existence of well regulated private cord blood banks in some Member States, awareness of which should also be promoted in the interests of promoting the donation of cord blood for the benefit of patients.

As regards the call for European standards and requirements for private stem cell banks but not for public cell banks, the ALDE Group believes that all stem cell banks should be required to meet the same high standards of safety and quality and that imposing higher standards only on private banks could further hinder access to much-needed tissues and cells. Calling for the Commission to revise Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 to guarantee the application of the principle of unpaid donation, the ALDE Group believes that in order to avoid undermining the quality and safety of donated tissues and cells, it is vital to encourage various models of donation developed by both public and private sectors and to ensure reasonable reimbursement of donors. This vote does not send the right message to scientists or patients.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, having in mind the more than 60 000 people awaiting transplants and the 10 people, on average, who die every day because they have not managed to get an organ, I voted for this report. I believe that the initiative being put forward by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), supported by the work of Ms Yannakoudakis, is more relevant than ever.

At the very difficult times we are currently experiencing both in Europe and worldwide, many desperate people are fuelling the deplorable practice of the commercialisation of organs. We increasingly hear reports of European citizens who, in order to cope with the serious problems of everyday life, put their own organs up for sale on the Internet or through other channels.

Through this report, the European Union is setting out to combat an extremely difficult situation, a sort of unsustainable Wild West. Once again, we are saying ‘enough’ – because, unfortunately, the laws making this trade illegal are not sufficient – once again, we are saying ‘enough’ to trafficking in organs and the illegal market and instead, we are seeking to promote life and health among citizens.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, as a doctor, I am particularly enthusiastic about the proposals to break down the barriers to sharing donor registries across the European Union, which will, of course, contribute to the fight against cancer and other life-threatening diseases. I am also pleased with the emphasis placed by the rapporteur – who happens to be my London colleague Marina Yannakoudakis – on the ethics of donation, taking the view that the human body should not be a source of financial gain. The report thus rightly rejects the practice of an open market for tissues and cells, but importantly, it goes on to stress that donors across the Union deserve fair and reasonable compensation for their efforts.

There is also emphasis on the requirement for greater traceability and transparency in the donation process across the EU. The report equally encourages Member States to build on existing examples of best practice in those countries, for example, the renowned cord blood collection scheme in the UK run by NHS Blood and Transplant and the famous Anthony Nolan Trust. I am also pleased to say that the final report crucially resisted calls for a ban on private storage clinics anywhere in the European Union.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I abstained from voting on this report, even though I think it is important and marks progress compared to the old directive. However, I do not believe that it offers the best solutions. The report takes a unilateral approach based on a certain type of ethics which advocates donation. However, for religious reasons and from a perspective which I would consider deeply religious, these ethics are not compatible with valuing human life.

I believe that the discriminatory schemes which it introduces and the double standards with regard to private and public donation schemes are not right and tend, in actual fact, to hamper the purpose of this directive, which means the attempt by some of us to save other human lives with their organs. I believe that identical standards were required for both state and private schemes.

I believe that unpaid donations must be favoured, but we cannot discourage either these donations made in return for payment when this does not affect the moral good and the principles of good. I also believe that we need to encourage the concepts of presumed consent, with Member States being free to try different options, and we should not impose a standard option on Member States.

Report: Mikael Gustafsson (A7-0235/2012)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to take the floor to present the voting option for this report for which I was shadow rapporteur. I would like to highlight two points. Apart from this being a subject which did not add very many new insights to this own-initiative report, I believe that it contains several recommendations which I feel are extremely important in terms of the option we have to involve women in the green economy, which is a hypothetical one because, unfortunately, the green economy is not the norm, nor is the presence of women in this economy the norm either.

However, the appeal to the Commission to promote gender equality in the rules for accessing European funds, the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund is, in my view, one of the solutions for promoting women in this kind of economy. Ongoing professional training along with an environmental aspect would also provide the second solution. Lastly, the gender aspect when implementing European directives ought to be taken into account when Member States are implementing this option in their own legislation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I think that the transition to a green economy is one of the EU’s main objectives. Unfortunately, the way in which this transition is achieved fails to take into account the gender aspect. Adapting environmental policies to the gender aspect must take into account the fact that women generally develop a more environmentally friendly attitude. There must also be some recognition that women and men have unequal access to certain resources. I believe that we need to improve how women access the business technologies needed to gain high-skilled jobs in the green economy.

All the programmes and projects launched should feature indicators to assess their gender-specific impact. I call on the Commission and Member States to devise such indicators.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, although I support gender equality in all areas, and I therefore oppose any form of discrimination, I was unable to support this report. In my opinion, it contains several declarations that are insufficiently substantiated, such as the statements on the difference between women and men when it comes to consumption or the use of public transport and private means of transport.

The report also calls for objectives to be addressed or regulated at national level, including education or health care, for example. Just as in other reports, however, I did vote in favour of the points relating to sexual and reproductive health rights.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, we need more jobs and we need greener energy. I hope the green economy can help drive economic growth.

We must ensure that both men and women benefit from this growth. But what does this report call for? An improvement in women’s transport opportunities, among other things. What nonsense. I do not see women abandoned on the streets of Strasbourg, forsaken by men-only buses and trams. Perhaps the rapporteur thinks that women need improved transport because, according to the report, women do not affect the environment in the same way as men. Again, what nonsense.

Time after time, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality tries to turn everything into a feminist issue. This is bad for women and it hurts the reputation of both the committee and the EU. I call on my fellow members of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality to stop the nonsense once and for all. Not everything is a male plot to do a woman down.

Report: Iratxe Garía Pérez (A7-0246/2012)

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for this report. I welcomed the work done by Ms García Pérez and I supported the request for an own-initiative report by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) because I believe – as I have had occasion to say several times in this Chamber – that it is important to work on the process of cultural growth in order to counter the disparities that still exist in our social fabric between men and women.

This report analyses, in particular, the gap between the two genders in the tertiary sector and takes a step forward which I believe is important and which convinced me to vote for the report. The step it takes is to call upon Member States, trade unions and employers to adopt a uniform evaluation grid that will finally make it possible to overcome, or at least to restrict, the pay gap between men and women.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I, too, supported this report, but for completely different reasons to my colleague. I feel that this is one of the serious analyses of the gender inequality which persists on the labour market, and specifically in the services market.

Women are employed in 10% of the 130 professions considered accessible to everyone on the labour market, generally in those with low qualifications, which I feel sounds an alarm bell in terms of access and creating a certain type of poverty among women in the labour market. I also consider it significant that the wage gaps which persist in this sector are highlighted.

However, what is certain, apart from these observations, is that not only the solutions advocated in the report, but also those advocated in the Commission’s options are not the ones to provide a response in terms of solving this problem. I believe that, by adopting such reports, we will only end up sounding the alarm bells about real situations which have existed for a very long time. This may hinder both our approach and that of the Commission on this matter.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, the EU likes to claim that it is a fort for progress in relation to women’s rights. However, it is EU-led austerity programmes and neoliberal policies that are disproportionately increasing hardship for women workers. These programmes are resulting in mass job losses, together with attacks on wages and conditions in the service sector, particularly in retail. A majority of the unemployed workers in the EU are now women. Women are also disproportionately hit by savage budget cuts, targeting vital public services and social welfare. We have seen this in Ireland with the scandalous cuts to single parent allowances, to home helps and the threatened cuts to child benefit.

Women workers in the service sector have been one of the most active sections of workers taking action against redundancies and attacks on their conditions. In Ireland, we have seen this with the recent strikes and occupations in La Senza, Thomas Cook, EBS and Laura Ashley. The trade union movement must now organise in the service sector to fight against low pay and job losses, and for decent working conditions with improved maternity and paternity leave and decent public services.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, this report states that gender stereotypes are impeding women from realising their full potential. It is possible for women to be CEOs, brain surgeons, concert pianists and even MEPs. It is also possible for women to stay at home and raise a family, perhaps picking up a part-time job in the service sector along the way. This report looks down its nose at the service industry and insults all the women and men who work in this sector. This report also suggests that women are treated differently by employers because they are more likely to interrupt their careers in order to have children. Well, regrettably, this may be true to an extent. If it is true, though, why does the rapporteur call for the Council to unblock the Maternity Leave Directive? Twenty weeks’ fully paid compulsory leave will reduce young women’s chances of getting a job.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Bendt Bendtsen (A7-0232/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because the workers from the shipyard have been made redundant, and because their specialised technical experience makes it hard for them to apply for jobs in other industries. As these 550 workers will run into great difficulties finding work, I consider it essential to provide them with personalised measures supported by the submitted sum from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). These situations jeopardise the European public’s social and economic well-being, and we should take that into account. The EGF does not just use compensatory measures to adapt our economy to the global economy, but, above all, it protects citizens and businesses in difficulties, which should be taken into account in times of crisis. As such, the EGF goes some way to attenuating some of the harmful consequences of the current economic, financial and social crisis taking place in Europe, in response to which it falls to us to act.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) aims to help towards the reintegration of workers who have lost their job due to changes in world trade patterns. In 2009, its scope was broadened to include victims of the financial crisis. This request, put forward by Denmark, is intended to help 550 people recently made redundant and meets the European criteria. I therefore voted in favour of this request.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the mobilisation of support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support will be mobilised for 550 workers made redundant at the Odense Steel Shipyard. The shipbuilding workforce in Europe declined by 23% over the past three years. The aim of the EGF is to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global economic crisis. I therefore welcome the proposal to mobilise the sum of EUR 6.455 million from the EGF reserve in order to support workers made redundant in the Danish shipbuilding sector.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I think it is a good decision to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Denmark. This means that workers made redundant in the wake of the global economic and financial crisis will be supported in the process involving their reintegration into the labour market. I welcome the additional support provided to them as a result of the structural changes in global trade patterns. I should stress that the global shipbuilding market has been particularly hard hit by the economic crisis, reflected in a significant decrease in the workforce in this sector. The employment situation in Denmark has also deteriorated considerably, while the unemployment rate has reached extremely high levels. In this climate, I believe that mobilising the fund with the aim of boosting the economy is a more than welcome step.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers affected by the consequences of significant changes in the structure of international trade and to assist in their reintegration into the labour market. Since 1 May 2009, the scope of the EGF has been expanded to include support for workers made redundant as a direct consequence of the economic, financial and social crisis. As we are currently facing a serious financial, economic and social crisis, one of the most important consequences of which has been increased unemployment, the EU must respond using all means available to it, particularly as regards supporting people who are out of work. I therefore voted for this report, which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 6 445 104 from the EGF for Denmark, with a view to supporting the 550 eligible workers out of the 981 made redundant from Odense Steel Shipyard, in its capacity as the primary enterprise, and from four downstream suppliers and producers.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to support European workers who have lost their job. It enables them to reintegrate into the labour market. Exceptionally, the financial and economic crisis has been deemed sufficient grounds for a Member State to submit an application for assistance. The crisis-hit shipbuilding sector in Denmark has seen one wave of redundancies after another. In an effort of solidarity towards this sector, we have released EUR 6.4 million of assistance.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report as it means mobilising funds which will help Denmark in relation to 981 redundancies, 550 of which are to be the recipients of this aid, from the Odense Steel Shipyard and four of its suppliers. The general employment situation in Denmark declined sharply between 2009 and 2010 and this aid from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is seeking to help that company.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the motion for a resolution by Mr Bendtsen because I support the allocation from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) of EUR 6 455 104 requested by Denmark, with reference to the four-month period from May to August 2011. This is for 981 Danish workers made redundant by the shipbuilding enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard, 550 of whom will be able to benefit from the EGF.

The Danish application fulfils the EGF criteria since it demonstrates the correlation between the structural changes in progress in the abovementioned enterprise as a result of the current financial crisis and the redundancies carried out.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). The fund was created with the aim of providing additional support to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in global trade patterns. I therefore support the mobilisation of EUR 1.12 million for the creation of a knowledge base, administrative and technical support, and a final assessment of the EGF.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I regret that in Denmark, 981 workers have been made redundant with some 550 targeted for assistance in relation to the Odense Steel Shipyard and in four suppliers and downstream producers related to the primary enterprise. Redundancy is challenging on any individual and their family and rising unemployment is changing the face of society and breeding levels of poverty unacceptable in 21st century Europe. Yet it is EU fiscal policy, including austerity demands and the inept handling of the euro crisis, that is part author of this script. It is thus suspect that while with one hand, Brussels continues to undermine and weaken national economies through flawed single currency policy, they are, with the other, willing to provide hand outs to those stricken by its effects. It should be the priority and prerogative of national governments, with the optional aid of sympathetic third countries, to deal with the major structural challenges many countries are currently facing in the wake of the global financial crisis. To continue to endorse the mobilisation of the Adjustment Fund is to permit the perpetuation of Brussels undermining national economies.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, because the conditions for EGF mobilisation have been met. It concerns application EGF/2011/008 DK/Odense Steel Shipyard, Denmark.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I support the way the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has been mobilised to help the workers made redundant from Odense Steel Shipyard in Denmark. This is the fourth mobilisation of the EGF in 2012. In recent decades, the European shipbuilding industry has been losing a significant amount of market share to Asia. This sector is being rocked by the global economic and financial crisis, and has seen the number of people employed there decline by 23% over the last three years. I also regret that Denmark is one of the countries compromising negotiations on the EGF after 2013, since it has applied for mobilisation of the fund several times. Finally, I would re-emphasise that the EGF was born out of a 2005 Commission communication: European values in a globalised world. It was against that backdrop that President Barroso sent a letter to the EU Heads of State or Government and to Parliament, proposing the creation of the EGF. Seven years later, the effects of the crisis are not just still with us, but are getting worse, which clearly demonstrates the importance of a Europe of solidarity and with effective resource redistribution between Member States. It is a shame that these examples are not replicated in other European mechanisms.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an instrument for supporting workers who have fallen victim to the crisis and changes in the world economy. The global market for shipbuilding is one of the main areas that has been hit hard by the crisis. It declined by 20% between 2008 and 2009. European shipbuilders have, for several years, had to face increasingly strong competition from Asia in particular. Therefore, the European Union will mobilise EUR 6.5 million to help 550 Danish shipyard workers who have been made redundant. These funds will be used, in particular, to finance new professional training and support programmes for entrepreneurship.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which grants the Danish town of Odense European financial assistance in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of 981 workers made redundant in the shipbuilding sector. This decision illustrates the major role that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) can play in supporting economic sectors in crisis. A strong European Union is one that, above all, protects its citizens when they are faced with life’s uncertainties.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the vote that was passed on Tuesday in favour of an intervention by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Danish workers. An estimated EUR 6.4 million will be devoted to assistance and training programmes for 550 Danish workers who were made redundant from the shipbuilding company Odense Steel Shipyard and four of its suppliers and downstream producers. This sector has been hit hard by competition from Asian countries. Cofinancing from local authorities, an operational obligation of the EGF, will total EUR 3.4 million.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on ‘mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund’ because I believe Denmark meets the application conditions, in view of the 585 redundancies in Odense shipyard because of relocations to lower-cost non-EU countries.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is the second time that Parliament has approved the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for this same company: Odense Steel Shipyard, from the shipbuilding sector. The aim is to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant in the Danish city of Odense as a result of the global economic and financial crisis. In October 2010, 1 356 workers were made redundant. This time, the closure of the shipyard has led to the redundancy of 981 workers.

The annual report of the Community of European Shipyards’ Associations shows that labour in Europe’s shipbuilding industry has declined by 23% in the last three years. This is the result of capitalist globalisation and the policies that have been supporting it, imposing competition between workers and the general devaluation of the workforce. More and more people are being made redundant as the social and economic crisis deepens, particularly, but not exclusively, in productive sectors. That is why we still advocate extending the ‘crisis derogation’, which increased the rate of EU cofinancing to 65%.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) On 4 June 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Denmark in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. This is the fourth request to be reviewed within the framework of the 2012 budget, and relates to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 6 455 104 from the EGF for Denmark. It concerns 981 redundancies, of which 550 are targeted for assistance. The Commission has concluded that the application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF as set out in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, and was submitted within the deadline of 10 weeks referred to in Article 5 of that regulation. The interinstitutional agreement allows the mobilisation of the fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with application EGF/2011/008 DK/Odense Steel Shipyard from Denmark. Pursuant to Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, EGF money should support the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment. EGF assistance can only cofinance active labour market measures which lead to long-term employment. Assistance from the EGF must not replace either actions, which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, or measures restructuring companies or sectors. The industrial structure of the local economy is characterised by a high share of employment in manufacturing, particularly in metallurgy. Many jobs in this industry have already been lost to other countries with lower wages. The shipyard workers being dismissed have great technical expertise, which is difficult to apply in other industries in Funen or even across Denmark. Many of them have worked in the shipyard all their lives and their parents may have worked there too. I therefore welcome the fact that, in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the Danish authorities decided to embark on implementation of the measures ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Denmark argues that shipyards in Europe over the past decades have been losing substantial market shares to Asia. Assisting workers impacted by the closure of the Odense Steel Shipyard therefore falls well within its remit.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established in 2006 as a support system for workers impacted by global structural change in trade patterns. Denmark’s application in respect of the Odense Steel Shipyard notes that the country’s workforce is highly concentrated in manufacturing and metallurgy, but has lost business because many global market shares have been transferred to Asia. By mobilising the EGF with an amount of EUR 6 455 104, workers will be helped to return to the labour market, which is especially important because these employees have highly specialised training in their field which it is nearly impossible to apply in other industries. For these reasons, I voted in favour of Mr Bendtsen’s report.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Denmark following 981 redundancies in the shipbuilding sector. The EUR 6.5 million of assistance for 550 workers will help them to find work in other sectors.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am abstaining out of consideration for the Danish workers who have been sacrificed on the altar of globalisation. Given the situation into which they have been plunged as a result of the neoliberal policies advocated by the European Union and the derisory amount of this handout, one might be inclined to vote against. However, the little that is being given may help to ease their suffering.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Denmark submitted an application for mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) on 28 October 2011. It concerns 981 redundancies (of which 550 are targeted for support) that occurred in the company Odense Steel Shipyard, as the main enterprise, and in four subcontractors and downstream manufacturers in Denmark during the four-month reference period from 1 May 2011 to 31 August 2011. The application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contribution as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise the amount of EUR 6 455 104. In the spirit of active European solidarity, the EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Denmark. I therefore voted in favour of the application.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a very important European Union instrument. Set up to try to resolve controversial economic issues, it offers enterprises experiencing difficulties the possibility of recovery, or at least of protecting their employees and, as a result, their employees’ families. In the case of the Odense Steel Shipyard, the EUR 6.5 million to be sent to Denmark, due in part to my vote, will cover 1 000 redundancies issued by the firm as a result of dismissals resulting from the worldwide decline in shipbuilding, the major structural changes in world trade patterns and the financial crisis.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 4 June 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Denmark, with the aim of supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis. This is the fourth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 6 455 104 from the EGF for Denmark. It concerns 981 redundancies, 550 of which are targeted for assistance, from the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard, in its capacity as the primary enterprise, and from four downstream suppliers and producers in Denmark, during the four-month reference period from 1 May 2011 to 31 August 2011. Given that this case has been examined by all the stakeholders, especially the Commission, and that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs supports mobilising the EGF for Denmark, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission’s application, the fourth to be examined under the 2012 budget, refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 6 455 104 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Denmark, and concerns 981 redundancies, of which 550 are targeted for assistance, in Odense Steel Shipyard, in its capacity as the primary enterprise, and four suppliers and downstream producers in Denmark during the four-month reference period from 1 May 2011 to 31 August 2011. The proposal therefore meets the conditions for deploying the EGF as set out in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, and was submitted within the deadline of 10 weeks referred to in Article 5 of that regulation. I would also like to emphasise the importance of ensuring a fast procedure, in accordance with the interinstitutional agreement, on adopting decisions relating to the mobilisation of the fund, and so I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As the global shipbuilding industry has been hit hard by the crisis (it declined by 20% between 2008 and 2009), and European shipbuilders have been losing market share to their Asian competitors for decades, the workers in this sector find themselves in a difficult situation. To cope with this, and to help the 550 workers made redundant by the Odense Steel shipbuilder or their suppliers, Denmark has applied for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). Convinced of the usefulness and the need for assistance from the EGF for these unemployed workers, I supported the release of EUR 6.5 million. This sum, supplemented by the Danish Government, will fund programmes that will help them to find employment in other sectors. Although I support EGF assistance for redundant workers, I deplore the fact that the Danish authorities are among those that are threatening the future of the EGF after 2013, when this country has already benefited from this fund on several occasions. I hope that the fund can be extended beyond what is currently planned. I call on the Council and the Commission to act on this matter.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. According to the provisions of point 28 of the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1) and of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006(2), the fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million, drawn from any margin under the global expenditure ceiling from the previous year, and/or from the cancelled commitment appropriations from the previous two years, excluding those related to Heading 1b. The appropriate amounts are entered into the budget as a provision as soon as the sufficient margins and/or cancelled commitments have been identified. As concerns the procedure, in order to activate the fund, the Commission, in case of a positive assessment of an application, presents the budgetary authority with a proposal for mobilisation of the fund and, at the same time, a corresponding request for transfer. In parallel, a trialogue could be organised in order to reach an agreement on the use of the fund and the amounts required. The trialogue can take a simplified form.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Denmark, in order to provide support for 550 people made redundant from the Odense shipyards and from the four suppliers and downstream producers. These redundancies were caused by globalisation of the economy and the relocation of shipyard activities to Asia. Clearly, the adverse impact of globalisation highlights even more the added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund as an instrument of EU social policy. The targeted financial support which it provides under retraining and reintegration programmes for workers hit by mass redundancies is especially important. Furthermore, the support which it provides is a real expression of EU solidarity. Finally, the case of Denmark illustrates in the best possible way that this financing instrument is not limited to countries facing economic and budgetary challenges and can be equally useful in helping to reintegrate people made redundant into the labour market even in economically robust countries. This, in turn, underlines the importance of this fund and proves the need to maintain it during the forthcoming multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) I voted today in favour of two reports on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Since 2009, I have, as a rule, abstained or voted against all proposals for the mobilisation of this fund because I believe that the fund is not the right instrument to use to help workers affected by structural changes. The fund has now grown, developed and made an impact. It exists and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. From now on, I will adopt a position in each individual case in relation to whether they meet the very strict requirements made of the applicants with regard to cofinancing and long-term employment measures, something which these two cases do. Thus, it is a case of making the best of the situation.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. It is normal to make our financial contribution following the direct redundancies at Odense Steel Shipyard. These redundancies represent 2% of the local workforce. The closure of a shipbuilder, which has just added to indirect job losses, is another economic tragedy, but it is also and, above all, a social tragedy.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) with the aim of supporting workers who have lost their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. I agree with the request for mobilisation of the EGF made by Denmark in relation to 981 redundancies, 550 of whom are potential beneficiaries of aid, from the company Odense Steel Shipyard and from four suppliers and producers. I believe that the Commission should mobilise EUR 6 455 104 to help these workers from Danish shipbuilding enterprises back into work. The financial package just adopted should be channelled into supporting assistance measures in the areas of vocational guidance, individual training and general information provision through specific employment channels.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for the Odense Steel Shipyard in Denmark. The application concerns 981 redundancies in the Odense Steel Shipyard as the primary beneficiary and in four other suppliers and producers in Denmark in the period from May to August 2011.

The Danish authorities argue that shipyards in Europe, over recent decades, have been losing substantial market share to Asian companies. The global financial and economic crisis then adversely affected the situation in the global shipbuilding market so that, according to the Community of European Shipyards’ Associations (CESA), European companies saw their order books decline between 2008 and 2009. According to Eurostat, the general employment situation deteriorated sharply in Denmark during 2009 and 2010. Unemployment rose from an unusually low rate of 3.4% in 2008 to 7.6% in 2010. I therefore think that it is important to mobilise the EGF for Denmark in order to facilitate the redundant workers’ reintegration into the labour market.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – I voted for the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Denmark in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is there to provide additional support to workers who are suffering the effects of globalisation and to help reintegrate them into the labour market. The application from Denmark has been reviewed. It concerns 981 redundancies. The general employment situation in Denmark worsened greatly in 2009 and 2010. It meets all the requirements and therefore it was right to vote in favour of the report.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) This is not Denmark’s first application for mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Several previous applications have been successful, under both trade-related and crisis-related criteria. However, Denmark is among the countries undermining the future of the EGF after 2013. These countries are blocking the extension of the crisis derogation and decreasing the financial allocation to the Commission for the EGF for 2012 while, at the same time, Denmark is proposing a relatively expensive package of personalised services amounting to EUR 11 737 of EGF support per worker. This led me to vote against the proposal.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The crisis that has affected Europe has not spared the countries of northern Europe: in Denmark, the general employment situation has deteriorated significantly and unemployment rose from a record low of 3% for the year 2008 to a high of 7% in 2010, with serious repercussions, particularly in the steel sector.

The shipyard workers being dismissed have a high level of technical expertise, which is difficult to apply in other sectors. Without significant retraining, it will therefore be very hard for them to find new employment. For these reasons, I voted for the application on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark.

Report: Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (A7-0233/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since the construction sector in Europe is facing great difficulties, particularly in Spain, where the property boom had damaging economic consequences for the country, for its citizens and for its companies, at a time of economic crisis. The case put forward in this report concerns 836 redundancies from 377 companies in the construction sector between January and October 2011, leaving 320 workers facing great difficulties in finding work. I am voting for this report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund since it should serve for the very purpose of alleviating the economic and social consequences of the crisis.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) aims to help towards the reintegration of workers who have lost their job due to changes in global trade patterns. In 2009, its scope was broadened to include victims of the financial crisis. This request, put forward by Spain, is intended to help 320 people recently made redundant and meets the European criteria. I therefore voted in favour of this request.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the mobilisation of support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support will be mobilised for 836 workers made redundant in the Aragón region of Spain. There is a decline in demand for construction in Spain: the number of building permits granted in Spain decreased by 75.6% in 2009 and 82.8% in 2010 compared with 2007. The aim of the fund is to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global economic crisis. I therefore welcome the proposal to mobilise the sum of EUR 1.3 million from the EGF reserve in order to support workers made redundant in the Spanish construction sector.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I think it is a good and necessary decision to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Spain in the current context. The aim of mobilising this fund is to provide additional support to facilitate the reintegration into the labour market of the workers who have lost their jobs due to the financial and economic crisis which has had a global impact.

In Spain, the construction industry has been particularly severely affected by the crisis, and the loans granted to this sector have decreased sharply. There has also been a fall in demand for new houses due to a lack of consumer confidence and liquidity. Indeed, there has also been a huge rise in unemployment. Against this background, I believe that the fund needs to be further mobilised to tackle the decline facing the sector.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers affected by the consequences of significant changes in the structure of international trade and to assist in their reintegration into the labour market. Since 1 May 2009, the scope of the EGF has been expanded to include support for workers made redundant as a direct consequence of the economic, financial and social crisis. As we are currently facing a serious financial, economic and social crisis, one of the most important consequences of which has been increased unemployment, the EU must respond using all means available to it, particularly as regards supporting people who are out of work. That is why I voted for this report concerning the mobilisation of EUR 13 000 000 from the EGF for Spain, with the aim of supporting the 320 eligible workers out of the 836 made redundant by 377 enterprises operating in the construction sector in the region of Aragón.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing.– (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to support European workers who have lost their jobs. It enables them to reintegrate into the labour market. Exceptionally, the financial and economic crisis has been deemed sufficient grounds for a Member State to submit an application for assistance. The crisis-hit construction sector in the Spanish region of Aragón has seen one wave of redundancies after another. In an effort of solidarity towards this sector, we have released EUR 1.3 million of assistance.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I supported this report, which brings European Globalisation Adjustment Fund aid to Aragón Construction in order to deal with 836 redundancies, 320 of which are targeted for assistance. Due to the low density of the population in the majority of the area affected by this application and due to the risk of depopulation, the redundancies have an extremely negative impact on the region and could jeopardise the efforts made to encourage the population to stay in the area.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this application for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) since it does not present any critical issues and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down.

The amount involved is EUR 1 300 000 requested by Spain to provide support to the 836 workers made redundant, of which 320 are targeted for assistance from the EGF, who were working in the building industry for the firm Aragón Construction in Spain.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was originally established for the duration of the 2007-2013 programming period by Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. It has annual resources of EUR 500 million. The aim of the fund is to help workers who have been laid off due to the major changes in the structure of world trade brought about by globalisation. Through cofinancing, an effort is made to facilitate their return to employment. Since 2009, the scope of the EGF has been extended to help workers laid off as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. I therefore voted in favour of releasing funds for the company concerned in Spain.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I regret that in Spain, 528 workers have been made redundant by 323 construction firms. Redundancy is challenging for any individual and their family, and rising unemployment is changing the face of society in Spain and breeding levels of poverty that are totally unacceptable in 21st century Europe. Yet it is EU fiscal policy, including austerity demands and the inept handling of the euro crisis, that is part-author of this script. It is thus suspect that while, on the one hand, Brussels continues to undermine and weaken the Spanish economy through flawed single currency policy, it is, on the other hand, willing to provide hand-outs to those stricken by its effects. In essence, policy making in Brussels is crushing domestic ability to provide pastoral care for its peoples, in terms of jobs, social provisions and welfare, yet allows the EU to step in to subsume these roles. It should be the priority and prerogative of national governments, with the optional aid of sympathetic third countries, to deal with the major structural challenges many countries are currently facing in the wake of the global financial crisis. To continue to endorse the mobilisation of the Adjustment Fund is to permit the perpetuation of Brussels’ undermining of national economies.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, because the conditions for mobilisation laid down in the EGF Regulation have been met. It is application EGF/2011/017 ES/Aragón.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the light of the structural changes in international trade, it is vital that the European economy be able to implement effectively instruments to support workers affected in this way, and to retrain them with a view to assisting their swift reintegration into the labour market. As the Commission acknowledges in its plan to relaunch the European economy, the crisis has caused an abrupt decline in the construction sector, and there is clearly a positive correlation between increased numbers of redundancies and changes in the patterns of world trade. I therefore voted to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for the region of Aragón, Spain. However, I would re-emphasise that mobilising funds via the EGF cannot replace measures that are the responsibility of firms under national legislation or collective bargaining agreements, and that, since they are aimed at helping workers, these funds should not be allocated to restructuring companies or sectors of economic activity.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which grants the Spanish region of Aragón European financial assistance to support the reintegration into the labour market of 836 workers made redundant in the construction sector. This decision illustrates the major role that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) can play in supporting economic sectors in crisis. A strong European Union is one that, above all, protects its citizens when they are faced with life’s uncertainties.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has endorsed assistance for Spanish workers from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). Following the opinion of the Commission (June 2012) and that of the Committee on Budgets of the European Parliament (July 2012), we have approved this assistance, which amounts to more than EUR 7.7 million, by a very large majority. At the end of 2011, Spain asked for support from the EGF for 320 workers made redundant from small construction companies in the Aragón region. The reason: this sector had been particularly hard hit by the financial crisis and the recession that followed. The Aragón region, for its part, will contribute EUR 700 000 to support programmes for new jobs. I welcome this.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report proposing the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Spain. This application concerns workers made redundant from the construction sector and includes measures intended to reintegrate 320 workers into the labour market.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is the third time that Spain has requested support for the Aragón region from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). The previous occasions related to supporting the motor-vehicle and retail sectors, and their stated aim was to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis. It should be noted that unemployment has risen sharply in Aragón and that, at the end of 2011, the number of people registered for state unemployment benefit was around 100 000. A tormented region in a country being savaged by the austerity decreed by the centres of power of an EU whose policies do nothing more than pile crisis on crisis and unemployment on unemployment. In this context, we can once again only lament the Council’s decision not to extend the ‘crisis derogation’, which increased the EU cofinancing rate to 65%. This means that the countries with the greatest economic and social difficulties – those where the most companies have gone bankrupt and where there is the most unemployment – are those that will least be able to make use of the EGF. We continue to advocate increased cofinancing for the EGF, particularly for countries in a fragile economic state such as Portugal, in order to ensure that the national contribution does not exceed 5% of the total funds provided for.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) On 18 June 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Spain in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. This is the fifth request to be reviewed within the framework of the 2012 budget. It relates to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 1 300 000 from the EGF for Spain. It concerns 836 redundancies, of which 320 are targeted for assistance. The Commission has concluded that the application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF as set out in Article 2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, and was submitted within the deadline of 10 weeks referred to in Article 5 of that regulation. Due to the low population density in most areas covered by the application, and because of the risk of depopulation, redundancies have a very negative impact on the region.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with application EGF/2011/017 ES/Aragón Construction from Spain. The Commission has already recognised in its Economic Recovery Plan that the construction industry in the EU had seen demand plummet as a result of the crisis. Available data confirms the significant downturn in the construction sector, which fell in the EU27 for eight consecutive quarters from the start of 2009, compared with the same period of the previous year, mainly due to the decrease in private investment in the residential sector. In 2009, construction output in Spain followed the same negative trend as the EU27 average. However, in 2010 and the first half of 2011, the downturn in the Spanish construction sector was further exacerbated. Due to the low population density in most of the territory concerned by this application and the risk of depopulation, layoffs have a highly negative impact on this region and might jeopardise the efforts made to encourage the population to remain in this region. Furthermore, the EGF has already intervened in five cases of dismissals in the construction sector.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal. The Commission concluded that the application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF. One of the criteria for the Commission’s assessment was the evaluation of the link between the redundancies and major structural changes in world trade patterns or the financial crisis. Spanish authorities argue that the construction sector has been severely affected by the crisis. Loans to the construction sector and to individuals have been drastically reduced and the demand for new houses has decreased due to declining consumer confidence and the lack of liquidity. The Commission has recognised in its Economic Recovery Plan that the construction industry in the EU had seen demand plummet as a result of the crisis. The arguments presented in previous cases concerning the construction of buildings sector, and in which the redundancies were a direct result of the crisis, remain valid. The territory concerned by the redundancies is the autonomous community of Aragón.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – Spain’s application for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for the construction sector in the NUTS II region of Aragón addresses redundancies caused by the current economic crisis. The financial and economic crisis has greatly impacted Spain’s construction industry due to a lack of demand for new construction. This trend is in line with the falling demand for new construction that exists throughout Europe, but the condition of the housing market has degraded at an even more rapid pace in Spain. A mobilisation of the EGF for an amount of EUR 1 300 000 will allow workers that had been employed in construction to diversify their skills, which will alleviate some of the burden of unemployment in Aragón. I voted in favour of Mr Escobar’s report for these reasons.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Spain in order to help 320 workers made redundant by small construction companies to find new jobs. The amount of European assistance is EUR 1.3 million.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am abstaining out of respect for the Spanish workers who have been ill-treated by globalisation and budget cuts. Given the situation into which they have been plunged as a result of the austerity and ultraliberal policies advocated by the European Union, one could feel entitled to vote against the derisory handout that Eurocracy is reluctantly granting them. However, the little that is being given may relieve their suffering.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report even though I believe this mechanism to be clearly insufficient in the face of the defenceless position of millions of Spaniards with regard to the tragedy of unemployment. It is nothing more than a palliative measure, which does not in any way solve the serious consequences of the redundancies that are taking place under the pretext of the economic fraud that we are experiencing. Disguised under the umbrella of the crisis, this is being used to justify an unprecedented step backwards in terms of workers’ rights, as demonstrated by the fact that companies are being allowed to make redundancies even when they are still making profits.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Spain submitted an application for financial assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) on 28 December 2011 as a result of redundancies in 377 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (building construction) in a NUTS II region, namely, in the region of Aragón (ES24), and supplemented this application with additional information by 23 March 2012. The application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contribution as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise the amount of EUR 1 300 000. In the spirit of active European solidarity, the EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain. I therefore voted in favour of the application.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 18 June 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Spain with the aim of supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis. This is the fifth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 300 000 from the EGF for Spain. The application relates to 836 redundancies, 320 of which are targeted for assistance, which occurred in 377 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (building construction) in the NUTS II region of Aragón (ES24), during the nine-month reference period from 31 January 2011 to 31 October 2011. Given that this case has been examined by all the stakeholders, including the Commission, and that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is associated with and supports mobilising the EGF for Spain, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission’s application, the fifth to be examined under the 2012 budget, refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 300 000 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Spain, and concerns 836 redundancies, of which 320 are targeted for assistance, in 377 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (building construction) in the NUTS II region of Aragón (ES24) during the nine-month reference period from 31 January 2011 to 31 October 2011. The proposal therefore meets the conditions for deploying the EGF as set out in Article 2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 and was submitted within the deadline of 10 weeks referred to in Article 5 of that regulation. In view of the fact that during the years 2008 and 2009, unemployment increased dramatically in Aragón, and continued its upwards trend in subsequent years, I voted for the proposal.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Unemployment has increased dramatically in Aragón in recent years: the region had 40 000 unemployed people in 2008 and around 100 000 in 2011. Of these, 15% were workers made redundant in the construction sector. In December 2011, Spain applied for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in order to address this situation and to help workers who had been made redundant by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in this sector in Aragón to find work. I supported the release of such assistance to help these workers who found themselves in difficulty. This EUR 1.3 million, supplemented by the Spanish Government, will help to finance a number of activities, including training, advice and job-search assistance. As the economic crisis continues, I strongly condemn the Council’s decision not to extend the exemption that allows the EGF to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis. The EGF is normally reserved for those who lose their jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns. I call on the Council to reconsider its decision as quickly as possible.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Commission has presented a transfer request in order to enter specific commitment appropriations in the 2011 budget, as required in point 28 of the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006. The trialogue on the Commission’s proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF could take a simplified form, as provided for in Article 12(5) of the legal base, unless there is no agreement between Parliament and the Council. According to an internal agreement, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) should be associated with the process, in order to provide constructive support and contribute to the assessment of applications from the fund. EMPL has decided to table amendments to the report, as well as the traditional letter of opinion, which reflect their position and constructive input. The Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, has confirmed the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect to the interinstitutional agreement for the adoption of decisions on the mobilisation of the fund.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Spain, in order to support 320 people made redundant from 377 enterprises in the construction sector in the region of Aragón. The economy in this particular region has been hard hit, as the globalisation of the market has had an adverse impact on important sectors of the economy, such as construction. This situation, in conjunction with the problems faced by the automotive sector in that region, has made Aragón one of the most economically fragile regions in Spain. The adverse impact of globalisation, in conjunction with the economic crisis that continues to grip Spain, illustrates even more the added value of the EGF as an instrument of EU social policy. The targeted financial support which it provides under retraining and reintegration programmes for workers hit by mass redundancies is especially important. Furthermore, the support which it provides is a real expression of EU solidarity. The Spanish regions are in the process of rationalisation and drastic cutbacks. EGF support will help in the fight against unemployment, without putting any significant pressure on efforts to restructure under the Spanish national budget or the region’s budget.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. Unemployment has increased dramatically in Aragón. By the end of 2011, the number of workers registered in the public labour offices was close to 100 000, of which 15% were workers made redundant in the construction sector. In addition to this, Aragón had been hit hard in the past by mass dismissals. Europe’s role is to support, where possible, the victims of the crisis, of whom there are still too many.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) with the aim of supporting workers who have lost their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. Spain has submitted a request for mobilisation of the EGF for 836 workers made redundant, 320 of whom are eligible, from 377 enterprises in the building construction sector in the Spanish region of Aragón. I support the mobilisation of EUR 1 300 000, in order to help the reintegration of these workers into the labour market. In particular, I support measures for vocational training which seek to create high-added value jobs within the footwear sector, thereby avoiding the loss of acquired expertise in this sector. It is also important to stress that the EGF should not be a substitute for the legal and financial responsibilities of the Spanish firms, but rather an additional support granted by the EU in order to mitigate the social difficulties that these workers will face.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for the Aragón region in Spain. Spain submitted an application to mobilise the EGF for 836 redundancies in 377 enterprises in the building construction sector in the Aragón region, in the period January-October 2011.

The Commission has recognised in its Economic Recovery Plan that the construction industry in the EU had seen demand plummet as a result of the economic and financial crisis. The number of building permits granted in Spain decreased by 75.6% in 2009 and by 82.8% in 2010 compared with 2007, while the number of buildings started decreased by 52.2% in 2009 compared with 2008 and by 76.7% compared with 2007. The Spanish authorities argue that the redundancies in the construction sector will aggravate the unemployment situation, which has already deteriorated as a result of the financial and economic crisis in recent years.

During 2008 and 2009, the unemployment rate increased dramatically in Aragón, from 40 000 unemployed to 80 000. I support the mobilisation of the EGF with the aim of reintegrating into the labour market the workers made redundant in the construction sector in the Spanish region of Aragón.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – The construction sector has been severely affected by the crisis in Spain, but also in many other EU Member States. The main reason for this is that loans have been drastically reduced, thus creating a sudden drop in demand for new houses. Furthermore, I voted on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Spain in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) There is no doubt that the crisis has done great harm to the construction sector in the European Union. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was established to provide additional support to workers made redundant as a direct result of the crisis. EGF support should be allocated primarily to training and job search activities as well as to training programmes. It should not be used to improve unemployment benefits. However, in the coordinated package prepared by Spain, this is precisely the nature of the financial incentives to be offered to encourage participation. Unemployment benefits are the responsibility of national, not EU institutions. I therefore voted against the report.

Reports: Bendt Bendtsen (A7-0232/2012), Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (A7-0233/2012)

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We voted today in favour of two reports on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Ever since the fund was set up in 2006, we have always abstained from voting because we were opposed to the fund from the outset, as we do not believe that this fund is the right instrument to use to help workers affected by structural changes. The fund has now grown, developed and has its own impact. It exists and it is not going to disappear in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we will now adopt a position in each individual case in relation to whether they meet the very strict requirements made of the applicants with regard to cofinancing and long-term employment measures. In both of these cases, we believe that the applications meet these requirements. Within the framework of the work on the 2013 budget and the long-term budget, we will continue to support more effective and longer-term instruments to increase employment, cope with structural changes and increase flexibility on the labour market.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – This fund costs the taxpayer EUR 500 million every year. This EUR 500 million comes from our Member States and, more importantly, our constituents. While some of the applications to this fund may be worthy, more could be achieved if this money were returned to the Member States. The process for this fund is too bureaucratic. A company has to submit an application to the national government, which then, in turn, applies to the Commission, which judges whether the application is worthy or not. If it is deemed worthy, the Commission submits the application to the budgetary authority, and then finally we are required to vote on something we are far, far removed from. National governments and local authorities are better placed to decide on whether they need to use such funds, and how they should be applied. They are also accountable to their citizens for the taxes they levy to pay for such expenditure. I therefore voted against this report.

Report: Claude Turmes (A7-0265/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I think that investing in innovative energy technologies capable of providing jobs, wealth, sustainability and autonomy compared with importing fossil fuels is an important strategy for the European economy’s recovery. Although the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has steadfastly advocated reducing investments, my group has been able to do work whose results are reflected in this report: a strong directive aimed at helping towards a 20% cut in energy consumption by 2020, as set out by the Commission in the Europe 2020 strategy as a path towards green, smart and sustainable growth, and aimed at tackling the lack of energy sources by creating jobs with a view to economic growth in the EU.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The EU has set ambitious standards in terms of energy efficiency. However, according to the assessments made, the extraordinary potential for energy savings and efficiency is not sufficiently utilised. The measures already adopted by Member States have proven to be inadequate in terms of removing the obstacles still hampering the market and regulation. This is why the Energy Efficiency Directive is so important, because it establishes a common framework for promoting energy efficiency in the EU by 2020 and beyond.

I wish to commend, in particular, the provisions on the long-term building renovation strategy and those on the funding schemes for energy efficiency measures. We perhaps wanted, of course, an even more ambitious directive so that the 20% target could actually be achieved by 2020. However, we must also realise that adopting this directive marks a major step on the part of the European Union and we have the chance to turn it into a valuable economic opportunity.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By adopting this directive on energy efficiency, Parliament has sought to strengthen its commitment to the fight against climate change. Ensuring that Member States improve energy efficiency by 20% is crucial if the EU is to remain a leader on environmental issues. I supported this text, the main measures of which are to insulate public buildings, carry out energy audits and mobilise funds to facilitate this transition. Together with the development of renewable energies and the reduction in CO2 emissions, energy efficiency represents one of the areas with the greatest potential for progress in the fight against climate change.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on energy efficiency. The EU spends around EUR 400 billion a year on energy imports. We therefore need to take all the measures necessary to enable us to promote efficient and sustainable energy use and contribute to guaranteeing energy security and reducing energy dependence on third countries. I welcome the directive’s binding targets at EU and national level to achieve a 20% energy efficiency target by 2020, which would help improve not just the Union’s energy security, but would also contribute to the EU’s economic recovery. I agree that energy saving systems should be established in the Member States to achieve energy efficiency and public bodies should be obliged to purchase energy-efficient buildings. The provisions included in this directive on the introduction of smart meters will help to better protect EU consumers against unreasonable energy price increases and will raise consumer awareness of actual energy consumption and energy prices.

  Ivo Belet (PPE), in writing. – (NL) With this new directive, we are taking a big step forwards in terms of achieving the Europe 2020 climate targets. This is not only good in terms of further reducing CO2 emissions; investments in energy efficiency will also promote jobs and energy costs for businesses and consumers will decrease. By providing better information on the energy bill and through initiatives undertaken by energy suppliers to save 1.5% in energy each year, we will all be encouraged to consume energy in a more conscious way.

Member States should set the example. Every year, 3% of central government buildings will need to be renovated in order to make them more energy efficient. This will undoubtedly provide an impetus for employment. The long-term strategies for the renovation of residential and commercial buildings which Member States need to draw up will undoubtedly contribute to this.

Admittedly, this Energy Efficiency Directive could have been more ambitious. It is a compromise and there is certainly still work to be done. However, it is clear that we are on the right track in order to ensure a better environment, more jobs and reduced energy dependence.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Finally, we have binding measures for energy efficiency. We should welcome this. Indeed, we are not in a position to achieve the targets that we have set for ourselves at present. There are exemptions of course, and some measures are still voluntary, but even so, the agreement reached at first reading enables us to turn certain elements of the Energy Efficiency Plan into binding measures. Energy companies will have to reduce their sales to industrial and domestic consumers by at least 1.5% per year. Each Member State will have to ensure that 3% of the floor area of government buildings is renovated every year, in accordance with the directive on the energy performance of buildings. Finally, EU countries will have to submit an action plan at regular intervals. While Parliament would have liked to go further on these issues, we should remember that it is the Council and therefore the Member States that have made this text less ambitious. The text remains, all in all, resolutely positive in the current context of energy transition.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the Turmes report on energy efficiency. Having previously been a purely political matter, the target of a 20% reduction in the EU’s energy consumption by 2020 is now binding. It adds to the targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% and of increasing the share of renewable energies in energy consumption to 20%. The directive thus makes provision for a 3% renovation rate for public buildings, energy saving programmes for public services and energy audits for large companies. The report also proposes that Member States should submit national targets to the Commission next May.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The European Union’s Member States spend over EUR 400 billion on energy imports every year, creating significant dependence on foreign suppliers. I welcome all measures intended to increase energy efficiency, save resources and reduce this high level of dependence. Support for enterprises in the EU which produce energy is fully justified because it helps increase Europe’s competitiveness in the world, and inside the EU it helps develop this and other branches of the economy and creates jobs. In view of steadily rising energy prices, it is in the interests of European consumers to ensure that these costs are kept under control. The objective stated in the directive of achieving an absolute reduction in energy consumption must therefore be incorporated in strategies for the management of energy. I hope that well thought-out and effective economy measures will mean that during the crisis, we will be able to protect household budgets, which are currently under great strain. I support the report.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report because I entirely support the establishment of a joint framework of measures for promoting energy efficiency within the EU in order to ensure that we achieve the headline energy efficiency target for the Union of 20% savings by 2020 and to pave the way for further improvements in energy efficiency beyond that date.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is increasingly exposed to instability and rising prices on the global energy markets, as well as to the consequences of the situation where the oil and gas reserves are gradually ending up being monopolised by a limited number of owners. Competition between energy suppliers will not be enough to keep energy costs in check.

Another important aspect is the situation regarding residential and industrial buildings which account for more than 40% of primary energy consumption in Europe. Increasing energy efficiency in buildings is an absolute must in order to achieve the important environmental protection targets, on the one hand, and to reduce the ever rising energy costs for the users of the buildings, on the other. This is why I think that the policies and measures adopted must result in a complete reduction in energy consumption, which will lead to a decrease in the overall cost of energy for consumers, thereby freeing up income for the EU’s citizens and businesses and cutting public sector expenditure.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the main objective of EU environmental policy is to reduce the amount of dangerous and harmful gas emissions and other emissions. Promoting energy efficiency is the best means of doing this. Energy efficiency may help to bring costs for efficient products and services down and increase the business opportunities for the industries involved. The decision adopted by the Heads of State in 2007 set the target of increasing energy efficiency by 20% and this is a key element of the 2050 Low Carbon Road map. In order to achieve this target, the Member States should deliver national action plans, which are decisive and specific, and the Commission must have the right to assess and amend them. A European methodology should also be laid down based on a model allowing the different situation in the Member States to be assessed. A correction factor linked to the economic situation of the country should also be applied to avoid a situation where the model is difficult to implement for some countries and not decisive enough for others. It is worth mentioning that the objective of energy efficiency is not only inseparable from the regulation of the activities of every citizen and SME, but from the provision of incentives, such as the creation of an energy saving support system. However, national incentives need to be clearly defined so that they are not seen as illegal State aid.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is easy to find points of convergence with a report as complex as this, and I would like to say right away that I voted for it.

Many of the recommendations seem to be convincing in terms of not ‘wasting’ the crisis, or, in other words, interpreting energy efficiency as one aspect of a structured response to the crisis. Therefore, it is an excellent idea to make legislative thinking, individual incentives, the promotion of competition and excellence in the construction and facilities industries all converge on the aim of efficient buildings.

Promoting a redevelopment of significant proportions of the building stock, both private and public, through the involvement of and support for economic forces and enterprise, a concrete commitment on the part of the public authorities and the participation of families, produces many results: in environmental terms, it contributes to achieving the targets as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy; it could be a factor helping to revitalise our economies, because it is based on values of know-how and the quality of enterprises; it helps families and consumers, affected by the pervasive and knock-on effects of the fuel price rises or increases in tax on resources; it promotes research and development, without indulging in attractive but dangerous utopias of negative growth; it contributes to security and stability, easing energy dependence on supplies that are located, for the most part, in politically volatile areas.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the directive on energy efficiency. As the 20% energy saving targets set by the Commission and adopted by Member States as part of the EU 2020 strategy appear to have run out of steam, it was necessary to reassess and adapt them to more suitable feasibility criteria. These new measures aim to make additional savings and, at the same time, highlight the need for energy efficiency. Binding measures have thus been drawn up to get Member States more closely involved: cost-effective approaches to building renovations are required, and energy efficiency should become a key factor when awarding contracts. I also support the move to make regular energy audits compulsory for large companies.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC contains an analysis of several key questions which are going to decide the future of Europe. The EU faces the huge challenge of its growing demand for electricity, among other reasons, because of the way the new Member States are developing. According to the International Energy Agency, in 15 years, Poland will need 50% more energy that it is currently able to produce. Rigorous EU standards on CO2 emissions and the need to implement renewable energy technologies make it difficult to produce energy in such amounts.

Europe also faces the challenge of increasing its energy efficiency by 20% by the end of 2020 (conclusions of the European Council of 4 February 2011). Unfortunately, achievement of this objective is not made easy by numerous internal and external factors, including the economic crisis and the competition facing Europe on every side in the field of transport or heavy industry. We currently face a challenge which is forcing us to grow faster while doing less damage to the environment, which is not easy to do. Outdated infrastructure and technologies are causing huge losses and contributing to high levels of emissions, but to change this situation, it is necessary to invest. Apart from this, consideration should also be given to creating instruments which would help the citizens reduce their energy consumption.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The proposals lean towards increasingly centralised and punitive measures that would essentially burden the taxpayer, indirectly and directly, to fund energy efficiency targets stipulated by the EU. While energy efficiency is paramount in the light of decreasing resources and increasing fuel prices, with energy deficit seeing many European countries depend upon fuel importation that undermines and weakens national economies, creating a pan-European policy is only likely to backfire and see the burden of cost passed onto the public via legislation that fails to appreciate and accommodate specifics of particular industries or regions. Costs enforced upon utility companies will simply be passed down to the consumer, as will the results from energy audits on large enterprises if not handled effectively. While the rapporteur acknowledges the need to protect consumers against unjustified price rises, and the role of local governance in actuating energy efficiency, these principles stand in direct contradiction to the proposition of centralised targets and to the identification that ‘levies or obligations on all customers or retailers can raise substantial and constant funding’. I would not trust Brussels to forge a centralised energy efficiency strategy that would avoid deep and divisive consequences.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the proposal for an Energy Efficiency Directive, presented by Mr Turmes. I fully support the aim of closing the gap in order to meet the 20% reduction target of energy consumption by 2020 by laying down a common framework for energy efficiency, without setting binding targets. I am convinced that the provisions in this measure will significantly contribute to tackling the economic crisis, creating more opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the construction sector and an increase in jobs. The main benefits will include lower CO2 emissions and a resulting reduction in waste, and investment and innovations designed to achieve the targets will be encouraged. I would particularly like to emphasise that this agreement is the fruit of a good compromise which, when transposed by Member States, will make it possible to achieve the targets already set, leading to greater efficiency, more innovation and a reduction in costs, including for public administrations. I would like to voice my appreciation of the fruitful negotiations that resulted in constraints being laid down while leaving a certain degree of flexibility to Member States in terms of application. The Commission will have a monitoring role and, with its assessment report on the application of the directive in 2014, will check on the state of progress.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe there is a need to adopt ambitious policies combating climate change and resource scarcity. Energy efficiency has been proving to be the cheapest and fastest way of reducing CO2 emissions. I also consider it essential to adopt measures aimed at reducing the EU’s external debt in relation to energy, at increasing its geopolitical independence and energy security, and at keeping energy costs under control and achieving sustainable growth in the EU.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has today approved a directive on energy efficiency that should enable us to aim for energy savings of 20% by 2020, which represents considerable progress. I particularly welcome the fact that the directive specifies a series of compulsory measures that contribute to the goal of energy efficiency. These include renovating public buildings, a strategy to encourage investment in renovating housing stock and commercial premises, cogeneration, energy saving certificates, and so on. The Commission has also agreed to publish a list of additional sectoral initiatives in order to ensure that the overall target of 20% energy savings by 2020 is really achieved. The course has been set; it is now up to Member States to implement this directive as quickly as possible.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) Negotiations on energy efficiency measures are proving increasingly difficult and complex, particularly because of some large Member States which are not always fully prepared to support ambitious agreements and perspectives which, in the short term, may give rise to costs and negative effects on their competitiveness. In this case too, despite some improvements, we are faced with a directive which, although it contributes to achieving the 20% energy efficiency target by 2020, will not be sufficient in itself (a result between 15 and 17% is estimated). In our view, there will thus have to be an increased commitment to ensuring that long-term perspectives and requirements find a way to establish themselves in the face of the selfish interests which, in the short-term, can have a strong influence on Member States’ governments and, in particular, at a time of acute economic crisis. A structural and lasting solution to this crisis must instead be sought in measures that address and solve the roots of the serious issue of energy poverty. We need to think afresh about the way out of this situation. It is not possible to return to the production and consumption models that preceded the crisis and therefore we need to be ambitious and courageous in order to create new opportunities and new jobs.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I abstained in the vote on the directive on energy efficiency. On the one hand, legitimate objectives were presented in terms of reducing the costs of energy. On the other hand, a system of ‘energy-efficient public procurement’ is being created, for which a very high price will ultimately be paid by the taxpayer.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think it is beneficial that Member States are encouraged to use cogeneration more, as the potential of this process still remains untapped at its real level across the European Union. On the other hand, Member States must encourage long-term investments aimed at renovating residential and commercial buildings – belonging both to public and private sector institutions – by using cost-effective renovation solutions and taking into account the different building types and climate zone they belong to.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union has set itself the target of reducing its carbon emissions and energy consumption by 20% by 2020. In order to achieve this target, it is essential that concrete measures are implemented, such as renovating public buildings, developing energy saving programmes or enforcing regular compulsory energy audits for large companies. If these measures are properly implemented, the European Union will achieve savings of EUR 50 billion each year. Increased energy efficiency will not only enable us to protect the environment, but it will also help to boost the economy and create new jobs by stimulating the research and innovation sectors.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report, which responds to a real recognition by EU citizens of the need to adapt our societies in order to significantly reduce energy waste, in accordance with our past commitments.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, a very large majority voted in favour of a directive that should enable Europe to improve its energy efficiency by roughly 15% between now and the end of the decade. The stakes were high. The text, which should be transposed into the law of the Member States by early 2014 at the latest, forces Member States to renovate 3% of public buildings each year, with a view to increasing their energy efficiency. It is worth noting, however, that as a result of pressure from several countries, and given the current state of public finances in Europe, local and regional administrative buildings – which represent 12% of offices in Europe – will not be subject to this requirement. On the other hand, European energy suppliers will have to take measures to reduce their customers’ energy consumption by 1.5% each year between 2014 and 2020. The directive also forces Member States to adopt national energy efficiency plans, which will be submitted to the Commission. If these plans are not sufficiently ambitious, then the Commission will be able to impose binding measures on them from 2014.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that the new directive on energy efficiency marks important progress towards achieving the Europe 2020 strategy targets, both in the energy sector and for reducing pollution. It is vital that new investments in energy efficiency are economically sustainable and do not give rise to undesirable spin-offs, such as increasing energy costs for end consumers.

In addition, I think that it is important for these investments also to cover the private housing sector as in many Member States, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, this causes huge energy losses. The same also applies to the production infrastructure and the transportation of energy, which need to be modernised to restrict collateral losses.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This directive constitutes an opportunity for Europe to honour the energy and climate commitments made by the Heads of State or Government in March 2007 and February 2011. The objective is to increase energy efficiency in the EU by 20%, which will lead to a saving of 368 million tonnes of oil equivalent against the trend by 2020. I believe the EU cannot fail to hit its energy efficiency target: if it does, it will also fail as regards climate change, energy security, environmentally friendly growth and social protection. The renovation, every year, of 3% of the total floor area of heated and/or cooled buildings owned by the state or occupied by the central government, as well as the installation of smart meters that help consumers to improve their behaviour as regards energy efficiency, are some examples of things this directive aims to introduce with a view to increasing energy efficiency. I would stress that this directive encourages the Member States and the regions to use the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to invest in energy efficiency measures.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We argue that it is imperative to take significant steps to increase energy efficiency and, in general, to rationalise energy consumption. This requires profound changes to take hold, first and foremost, by changing the dominant economic model at international level. Continuing with the same principles that have been guiding EU energy policy, such as liberalising the energy markets, will not have the desired effect. The goal in the so-called ‘market economy’ is to produce and sell, increasing supply and inducing demand; this underlies unsustainable energy consumption. This explains, in part, why efficiency is the poor relation of European energy policy. There are a number of positive aspects of the report, particularly its statement that energy efficiency is ‘a major element in ensuring the sustainability of the use of energy resources’, and its mention of smart meters, of energy-efficient buildings, and of concern for small and medium-sized enterprises. Nonetheless, it is missing the crucial element: a break with neoliberal policies to enable energy efficiency that does not try to paper over the crisis and the ever greater energy poverty in Europe.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Energy efficiency is the most cost-efficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other emissions related to fossil fuels. It makes us less dependent on energy imports, for which the EU currently pays more than EUR 400 billion per year. By investing in energy efficiency, the EU is reducing its dependence on Russia and the OPEC states and investing in European industries. Small and medium-sized businesses in particular – including installation and construction companies – would benefit. This directive is Europe’s chance to honour the Heads of State’s energy and climate commitment of March 2007 and 2011: realising a 20% rise in the EU’s energy efficiency will lead to a reduction against the trend of 368 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) by 2020. A common EU approach is necessary to reinforce energy savings, energy efficiency and innovation, achieve economies of scale and reduce the bureaucratic burden in all Member States. EU energy efficiency policy will build on existing and well-functioning regional and national policies while leaving the necessary flexibility to take account of local and national specificities.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The political agreement reached is ambitious. The legislative proposal is an important instrument which, although of a non-binding nature, introduces energy efficiency measures which ought to allow the European targets in the energy and climate package to be attained in terms of reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020. In addition, we hope that the package will make it possible to stimulate economic growth, increase the competitiveness of enterprises and create jobs. I welcome the fact that this package incorporates the concerns imposed by the economic crisis in terms of budget constraints by introducing a level of flexibility which is well adapted to certain contexts such as the Italian situation, without forgetting environmental sustainability.

  Adam Gierek (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The Commission did consider the impact on the market and finally decided quite rightly to take action to improve energy efficiency, but the report has, in fact, failed to address this subject properly. Objective criteria are needed for measuring the real gross efficiency of the Member States, both at micro-economic and macro-economic levels. The macro-economic aspect should be examined by looking at the rate of growth, calculated as the year-on-year difference in primary energy consumption per unit of GDP per capita for each country, divided by baseline consumption per unit of GDP per capita and expressed as a percentage. Energy policy, as it was defined when the Member States adopted the very worthy 20-20-20 objectives in 2007, has been distorted by the Climate and Energy Package, which introduces unfair competition by discriminating against countries whose energy mix is dominated by coal as a source of primary energy. The Climate and Energy Package represents a departure from economic realities: the Member States are being forced to pursue different objectives at the same time. We do not have an optimal, step-by-step, economically advantageous route to achieving the 20-20-20 objectives. If, alongside responsibility for developing the energy mix, policy objectives are also put in the hands of the Member States, it will result in greater squandering of primary energy and in higher emissions of CO2 than could otherwise realistically be achieved. It is, however, a question of confidence, and a crisis of confidence is where we find ourselves today. For these reasons, I did not endorse the report.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I did not vote in favour of the Turmes report because the compromise between the Council and the rapporteur was reached with no regard for the democratic rules that should govern the European Parliament. Based solely on the vote held in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the rapporteur and the rapporteurs for the opinion of the various committees have negotiated a compromise that is far removed from Mr Turmes’ initial ambitions. More importantly, however, neither individual Members nor Parliament as a whole were able to exercise their right of amendment in order to improve the directive. Parliament had no choice but to vote for or against the proposed text as a whole. I voted against it, all the more so since I believe that the directive could have been improved had the rapporteur not chosen to negotiate behind closed doors and with a complete lack of transparency.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As we know, Europe has been trapped in a crisis for more than four years and is implementing all possible measures and mechanisms in order to put an end to it. However, the crisis should not overshadow other priorities, such as energy issues. The European Union had committed to achieving a target of 20% energy efficiency by 2020. This is an ambitious but not unattainable target, provided that we invest more in sectoral energy efficiency measures. That is why I welcome the adoption at first reading of the directive on energy efficiency, which, once implemented by Member States, will help to stimulate green growth and employment and to fight against waste. In practical terms, public buildings will have to be adapted in order to improve their energy performance, large companies will have to carry out energy audits, energy suppliers will be required to encourage their customers to make savings and so forth. Finally, the directive encourages the development of cogeneration in inaccessible or rural areas. Cogeneration is a technique that enables the production of heat as well as electricity using different energy sources (such as natural gas, coal or biomass).

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal because energy efficiency is the most cost-efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other emissions related to fossil fuels. Energy efficiency also makes us less dependent on energy imports, for which the EU currently pays more than EUR 400 billion per year. By investing in energy efficiency, the EU will reduce its dependence on Russia and the OPEC States and, in such a case, will be able to invest more in European industries. Energy efficiency is a central objective for 2020. It is key to achieving our long-term energy and climate goals and also the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, improve energy security and competitiveness and keep energy costs down. The energy challenge is one of the greatest tests faced by Europe today. Not only do rising energy prices and increasing dependence on energy imports have a negative impact on consumers, they also jeopardise our security and competitiveness. Key decisions have to be taken as a matter of urgency to slash spending on energy and emissions and mitigate climate change.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) Achieving an energy saving of 20% will require the EU to invest EUR 800-1 200 billion in the next decade. The pay-back period of the investments is usually between four and eight years and they will create numerous jobs and trigger innovation. It is possible to involve EU funding sources, as well as private sources, including on the basis of revolving funds. Other resources of around EUR 400 billion may be achieved by 2020 directly from energy savings. An important source of savings may be the renovation of buildings which account for 40% of the EU’s energy consumption. The estimated annual rate of building renovations of 2% would have to increase to 3% if the target of a 1.5% yearly end-use energy saving obligation in the EU is to be achieved. I fully support all measures aimed at saving energy in the EU.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The efforts made on energy saving, according to the data available to us, are not yet sufficient to achieve the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% by 2050, as compared with 1990. The report does well to highlight this problem and to set out solutions to try to implement an energy plan that is sustainable and has measurable targets. In this regard, all productive sectors, not just the private sector, are identified as agents for greater energy efficiency. Public buildings, for example, play a fundamental role from this perspective and they should be renovated in order to meet the minimum energy performance requirements and to move closer to the gas emissions reduction targets.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which is particularly important with regard to the proper use of our energy resources. Indeed, this European directive imposes binding energy saving measures, particularly through the renovation of public buildings and energy audits for all large companies. This 20% reduction in energy consumption will enable the European Union to save EUR 50 billion each year. The adoption of this text is a step in the right direction. In France’s case, it will enable us to step up our efforts, initiated by the previous government, to reduce energy costs and to promote renewable energies. This text was adopted by 632 votes to 25, with 19 abstentions.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) We voted in favour of the directive on energy efficiency by a large majority. On 8 March 2011, the Commission presented a new Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP) that specifies measures for achieving additional savings in energy supply and use, while establishing a common framework for promoting energy efficiency within the EU for 2020 and beyond. This directive requires that Member States set energy efficiency targets that take into account the overall target of 20%. However, while energy efficiency is a real prerequisite for economic efficiency, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) felt that it was also necessary to take into account the realities facing our companies and encouraged the rapporteur to accept the compromise proposed by the Council. Member States, industry and public bodies have been given greater flexibility. Member States should nonetheless put incentives in place for citizens and companies. We therefore support a gradual transition and flexible measures so that Member States can adapt in a way that suits their industrial structure and economy.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union needs to take action as soon as possible to secure its future energy provision and protect its interests in this area. Energy efficiency measures play a crucial role in achieving this by guaranteeing that the climate and energy targets set are achieved at the lowest possible cost.

I think that additional pressure needs to be applied to local and regional representatives to get them to comply with the EU guidelines set out and, at the same time, we must provide considerable financial support to devise projects. The smart use of EU funds for the forthcoming 2014-2020 programming period will enable us to achieve the 20% energy efficiency target and, by extension, the European Union’s objectives on sustainability and competitiveness. Furthermore, decreasing consumption through energy efficiency is the most sustainable way of reducing dependency on fossil fuels and will enable us to bring about a significant drop in imports of approximately 25%.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report and agree with the rapporteur that a common EU approach is necessary to reinforce energy savings, energy efficiency and innovation, achieve economies of scale and reduce the bureaucratic burden in all Member States. I agree also that an EU efficiency policy will build on existing and well-functioning regional and national policies while leaving the necessary flexibility to take account of local and national specificities.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the directive on energy efficiency, in order to achieve the European target of a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020. The measures adopted are varied and include a range of mechanisms relating to building renovations, standards applicable to public procurement, energy saving requirements, transport and distribution. In setting national indicative targets, Member States should demonstrate their commitment and choose the most effective measures in order to contribute towards this joint European effort.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Setting targets for a 20% cut in carbon emissions by the end of this decade entails not only effort but also numerous benefits. Energy efficiency is beneficial in terms of reducing energy consumption costs significantly. At the moment, the EU retains its role as global leader for energy efficiency, but, in order to compete successfully with the emerging economies, it will reinforce this position by supporting European companies operating in the green technologies sector.

The aim of the EU’s energy efficiency policy must be to utilise efficiently the energy potential offered by EU regions. Consequently, Member States have the task of submitting action plans as part of their national development strategies. The Structural Funds and national contributions which are intended to finance energy efficiency projects should be a priority of the cohesion policy.

Supporting SMEs with the aim of enhancing sustainable technologies brings immediate benefits by cutting costs significantly. The role of local and regional initiatives is to promote investment in green technologies and to attract private investment. Innovative financial instruments can help boost private capital with a view to trading emissions.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report. I agree with the clarification of the fact that the EU is spending more than EUR 400 billion per year to import energy. Realising the minimum 20% energy savings target will not only enhance our energy security but also reduce by at least EUR 50 billion per year the wealth transfer from EU economies to energy producing countries.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Turmes because I believe that one of the most important areas to encourage, at both European and national levels, is that of energy efficiency. Against this background, I very much appreciated the excellent work done by my fellow Members, which has made it possible to identify priority areas for encouragement. The difficulty in achieving the targets set by the Commission for 2020 means that the EU and all the Member States must be able to fully commit themselves to setting an example and seeking solutions capable of making energy consumption efficient. In addition, I believe it is right to lay down the required regular audits in order to intervene where and when necessary. This is both in order to optimise the present and to look to future goals with renewed vigour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The only progress contained in this report is the introduction of binding energy efficiency targets. Unfortunately, this progress is made meaningless by the narrow and unrealistic vision of energy efficiency proposed in the text. It does away with the requirement to factor into energy efficiency calculations the total amount of primary energy consumed by each product or service and its impact on the planet. Worse still, it exempts nuclear power stations from energy efficiency analyses. Add to this the validation of the carbon market and that of free competition between energy companies, and you get a high environmental cost for our ecosystem. I voted against.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of the adoption of this report on energy efficiency because I think we need to redouble our efforts to achieve more efficient energy systems as, alongside orienting energy policy towards renewable energy sources, energy efficiency is one more way to increase security of supply and reduce CO2 emissions. This resolution will represent a positive step towards achieving the target, which, in itself, is insufficient, of reducing energy consumption in EU Member States by 20%. For these reasons, I supported the report, while taking into account the fact that seeking energy efficiency must go hand in hand with other energy measures, such as, for example, a radical change in energy production, including the gradual closure of all nuclear power stations.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The European Union and all its Member States face challenges arising from the limited energy resources in the EU, and therefore also from a dependence on energy imports from outside Europe. Energy efficiency is not only a valuable means of mitigating the negative effects of climate change through the cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but also a way of increasing energy security and moving towards a competitive, energy-efficient economy. I believe, therefore, that EU programmes such as Horizon 2020 for science and research should pay attention to innovative technological solutions in the sectors related to energy efficiency. In this way, we would also manage to create new skilled jobs. I agree with the approach that, when setting indicative national energy efficiency targets, the Member States should be able to take account of national circumstances and adapt specific incentives to improve energy efficiency to them.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This essential legislation is not only crucial for achieving our energy security and climate goals; it will also give a real boost to the economy and create jobs. Crucially, it will reduce the sizeable and growing cost of our dependence on energy imports – EUR 488 billion in 2011 or 3.9% of EU GDP – which is particularly stark in crisis-hit countries. Policy at EU and national level must now be reoriented with a view to swiftly implementing and fully maximising the benefits of these new rules, which are a concrete tool for responding to the economic crisis. This includes mobilising European funds to support energy efficiency and savings, as well as creating training programmes – notably with a youth focus – with a view to creating employment in the sector and tackling unemployment. This is essential legislation, and I voted in favour of it.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Energy efficiency is a key element of the flagship initiative ‘A resource-efficient Europe’, which was announced within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. As the Commission’s communication ‘Road map for moving to a competitive low carbon economy by 2050’ shows, energy efficiency is one of the aspects of a low carbon economy that can help create new jobs in the short and medium term, through more intensive training, through further education and through programmes for better acceptance of new technologies, as well as through R&D and entrepreneurship. This proposed directive emphasises that the switch to a more energy-efficient economy will also improve the competitiveness of industry in the Union, thereby promoting economic growth and creating high-quality jobs in a number of sectors related to energy efficiency. That is obviously to be welcomed. Nonetheless, the fundamental question arises here as to whether global warming can actually be mitigated or limited by the planned measures. In view of the fact that this is primarily a natural phenomenon, it must be assumed that the proposed measures will mean substantial additional costs for public budgets and for companies which, in the end, will have no effect. All this at a time of crisis. I therefore voted against the proposed directive.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report, which I feel is particularly important, especially at the moment with the rising price of oil and heated debates about the use of agricultural products for producing energy. I regard in particular the provisions on developing efficient power grids and promoting cogeneration as important because this provides a future solution for meeting local heating and electricity needs. This solution is extremely suitable for rural areas where large resources of timber are available. The report marks progress in terms of European energy saving policy, which is a measure we must continue.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Increasing energy efficiency is one of the best methods for combating climate warming. I think the measures currently being taken to improve the energy efficiency of residential buildings are extremely beneficial. In Poland’s case, the financial assistance being made available for insulating buildings and replacing windows has produced one of the most visible signs of Poland’s membership in the European Union. Public opinion is unequivocal in its approval. So I welcome the proposal for a directive on energy efficiency, which includes a requirement that each year, the Member States renovate 3% of the total floor area of heated and/or cooled buildings owned and occupied by government institutions.

I regret that Parliament did not manage to push through its proposal for the renovation of all public buildings and not just central government buildings. On the other hand, the approach which has been adopted is an important step towards achieving the objectives on greenhouse gas reductions. An extremely important feature is that the directive reduces the gap preventing us from reaching the objective of a 20% saving in energy by 2020. We can now guarantee that we will be able to reduce energy consumption by 15%. If the former rules were still in force, only a 9% reduction could realistically be expected. This is a result which falls far short of expectations and needs. For these reasons, I decided to endorse the report on energy efficiency.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The report on energy efficiency is one of the EP’s most significant tasks in the current parliamentary term. It is a very important piece of legislation for EU citizens and companies, helping to combat the economic crisis and unemployment. The EU does not have direct measures to reduce global oil and gas prices, but it can help to reduce energy consumption. This directive will also create two million jobs for small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in the construction sector. This is also crucial for young people. Energy efficiency not only saves money, but also protects the environment leading to fewer emissions. I voted in favour of this report because it is particularly important for EU citizens living through difficult times. An increase in the price of energy resources has a particularly painful impact on EU Member States that are still in a difficult economic situation and the weakest layers of their societies. It is important that this directive is not just seen as a document promoting energy efficiency. It is also important to save energy resources in everyday life.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The text that has just been adopted repeals a directive from eight years ago which, in the sphere of research and development, industry and energy, means that it is an old and obsolete piece of regulation. In line with the EU 2020 targets, the proposal for a new directive seeks to reduce the European Union’s energy use by 20%. Energy saving, environmental protection and sustainable growth will be safeguarded by specific provisions that will channel energy companies towards better control, partly through the use of new technologies. This will limit firms’ wastage without constraining individual Member States too much. Energy efficiency means savings on energy costs, an increase in security and specialisation and development of industries and, for these reasons, we can only back these targets.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is widely accepted that policies for combating climate change and resource scarcity are needed. I agree with the objective of keeping energy costs under control and achieving sustainable growth for the EU, so I voted for this report. In fact, specialists consider energy efficiency one of the most effective and least burdensome ways of reducing CO2 emissions. I therefore think this policy is important, as is the adoption of measures increasing the EU’s energy independence and reducing its external debt in relation to energy.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is vital to achieve the European Union energy efficiency targets, since, in the event of failure, the EU would also fall short in terms of its targets on climate change, energy security, green growth and social protection. A common EU approach is therefore necessary to reinforce energy savings, energy efficiency and innovation, achieve economies of scale and reduce the bureaucratic burden in all Member States. In addition, in view of the fact that EU efficiency policy will build on existing and well-functioning regional and national policies while leaving the necessary flexibility to take account of local and national specificities, basing itself on pre-financing of efficiency measures and triggering technological, financial and social innovation, I voted for the proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. – (SL) Finally, we are seeing signs of binding measures that, together with mandatory austerity measures, will help improve the outlook on energy in the European Union. I am pleased that the directive is also binding on public institutions that are large consumers of energy. I will therefore be voting in favour of the strategic objective of energy conservation.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The European Union spends over EUR 400 billion every year on importing energy and, in many cases, Member States are dependent on a single source, particularly in the case of gas. Therefore, I fully support the proposal to reduce energy consumption by using it more efficiently, which will lead to reduced dependence on third countries and deliver benefits to ordinary citizens. This is a very important matter for all the Member States, because not only can it generate substantial financial savings, it can also reduce the use of natural resources. For these reasons, I decided to endorse the EU directive on energy efficiency.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) Energy efficiency is one of the most affordable ways of increasing our energy security. This directive will firstly create jobs, the majority of which will be in the construction sector, which has suffered enormously in terms of jobs as a result of the current economic crisis. Moreover, we are talking about jobs with very significant local roots.

Secondly, this directive will help to combat the energy poverty that many homes are currently facing. Thirdly, it will help save on energy imports and therefore, at the same time, it will reduce our external energy dependency. There is no need to point out the impact of that dependency on our trade balances.

Finally, it is significant that it will act as a considerable incentive to research and innovation in the area of efficiency and will encourage our businesses to be more competitive in a context in which there is to be major global competition for increasingly scarce energy resources.

These are the reasons why I voted in favour of a directive which, nevertheless, could have gone much further in using the public authorities as an example and demanding a greater commitment from them to increase the energy efficiency of their buildings.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. As my colleague and rapporteur, Mr Turmes, has said, this essential legislation is not only crucial to achieving our energy security and climate goals, it will also give a real boost to the economy and create jobs. Crucially, it will reduce the sizeable and growing cost of our dependence on energy imports – EUR 488 billion in 2011 or 3.9% of EU GDP – which is particularly stark in crisis-hit countries. Policy at EU and national level must now be reoriented with a view to swiftly implementing and fully maximising the benefits of these new rules, which are a concrete tool for responding to the economic crisis. This includes mobilising European Union funds – such as the Structural Funds, project bonds and European Investment Bank funds – to support energy efficiency and savings, as well as creating training programmes – notably with a youth focus – with a view to creating employment in the sector and tackling unemployment.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this document because I am convinced that a net reduction of 20% in energy consumption in the EU could save EUR 50 billion per year.

This ambitious target can be achieved only through new mandatory measures to save energy, such as measures to renovate public buildings, energy saving plans for public enterprises and energy audits for all large enterprises. This decision is doubly important: not only is it fundamental in order to achieve our energy security and climate targets, but it will also give a strong boost to the economy and create new jobs.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This directive, to which we were strongly opposed at the beginning of the legislative process, so much so that we submitted an alternative resolution, asking the Commission to withdraw its proposal and to reformulate it because it impacted on the right of individual Member States to decide upon the conditions for using their energy sources, has been significantly amended.

The changes made in the trialogues with regard to the texts produced by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) increase the level of flexibility for Member States, industry and public bodies, considerably lowering the level at which sights had been set. The rapporteur, who was strongly opposed to the changes, has accepted the compromise, despite the fact that the attainment of the 20% energy efficiency target cannot be fully guaranteed, because a more ambitious position would have jeopardised the agreement.

Since what we were asking for in our alternative resolution has, in fact, been granted, we voted for the report, even though we continue to have doubts regarding the application of the directive.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome this report, which advocates compulsory measures to reduce energy consumption in all Member States. Energy efficiency, in addition to its environmental benefits, is an incredible booster for growth and employment and is crucial to our energy independence. The directive will enable us to reduce the increasing cost of our dependence on energy imports –EUR 488 billion in 2011 – which weighs down our trade balance, penalises our companies and erodes households’ purchasing power. Member States should set an example and implement a 3% annual renovation rate for buildings of public bodies. As for large companies, they will be required to carry out energy audits. Structural Funds and other EU financial instruments will be of precious help towards financing this energy efficiency. It is vital that we make this a priority area of future operational programmes.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The text we adopted this morning proposes a further reinforcement of the measures submitted by the Commission, inserting them within the viewpoint of European energy policy in 2050, and also granting demands regarding financial support for programmes/investments for efficiency measures. I believe that the sections of the proposal that are particularly worthy of support are where it pays special attention to the identification of energy efficiency targets, the exemplary role of the public sector, mandatory schemes for energy efficiency and the promotion of efficient heating and cooling systems, with particular reference to cogeneration and efficiency in the transmission and distribution of energy. Finally, according to the Commission’s estimates, in the face of an increase in costs of approximately EUR 24 billion per year for investments in the energy efficiency sector, the legislative proposal would lead to an overall reduction in the costs of investing in energy generation and distribution and the costs of the ‘energy bill’, amounting to approximately EUR 20 billion for the 2011-2020 period. For all these reasons, I voted in favour of the directive.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. We fought, in particular, on three main ideas: 1. All measures to ensure the achievement of the Union’s target of 20% must be binding, unless all Member States were to impose national binding targets of at least 20% – and, in this case, Member States would be allowed more flexibility in designing measures. 2. All Member States must establish ‘2050 building road maps’, addressing, inter alia, the issues of social housing and reducing energy poverty. 3. An extensive renovation rate of 2.5% per year must be implemented for all publicly owned buildings (representing energy savings of at least 70%).

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has tabled the ‘Energy 2020’ initiative, placing energy efficiency at the core of the EU energy strategy for 2020. The communication also outlines the need for a new energy efficiency strategy that will enable all Member States to decouple energy use from economic growth. The EU has been playing a leading role in the international-level negotiations on improving energy efficiency, since all actions and measures adopted will have an impact on climate change, on energy security, on environmentally friendly growth and on social protection. I am voting for this report because I believe the EU should adopt a common approach, increasing energy saving and energy efficiency, whilst investing in new products and innovative services, in inter-company economies of scale, and in cutting the red tape present in all Member States. I would also argue that European efficiency policy will be based on existing regional and national policies that have been meeting with success, since there should be enough flexibility to adapt to the needs and specific situations of the Member States and regions.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union objective of increasing energy efficiency by 20% is one of the five headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. Energy efficiency is also one of the key priorities of the European Union’s energy policy for the coming years as it is the most viable and quickest way of increasing supply security and an effective way of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for climate change.

Achieving the energy efficiency targets will boost the competitiveness of European industries, contribute to economic growth and create jobs. Energy efficiency may also mean lower energy bills for ordinary citizens, as well as a reduction in energy poverty, which can be achieved by adopting and funding measures for improving energy efficiency.

I support the need for Member States to use and increase the funds allocated to energy efficiency, especially through the Cohesion Fund, Structural Funds and the European Regional Development Fund, as well as through specific European financial instruments such as the European Energy Efficiency Fund. Furthermore, I think that it is useful for Member States to set up a national energy efficiency fund with the aim of supporting national energy efficiency initiatives.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the report, but with gritted teeth. Dirigiste measures are mentioned here that are more appropriate to a communist system than to a system of democratic authority. The basic idea is correct and, through substantial efforts, Mr Pieper, the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), has been able to prevent something even worse. We will see where this is leading when it is implemented.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution, which will implement a number of significant energy-saving measures. Thanks to this directive, energy consumption will be reduced by 15%, representing an improvement on current legislation, under which a reduction of only 9% would be possible. Not only will this resolution ensure that energy efficiency targets are more likely to be met, it will also boost jobs and economic growth in Member States, with the mandatory renovation of 3% of central government buildings set to create millions of jobs all over Europe. This resolution, which has my full support, will also help to reduce energy costs for citizens. This is particularly important at a time when many are going without heating or electricity owing to the effects of the economic crisis.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) High energy costs, pollution and climate change are just a few of the many reasons for us to support strong initiatives to ensure energy efficiency in our social and industrial models. This does not mean going back to the time of candles or initiating a trend of decline; instead, it means adopting modern methods and concrete objectives to rationalise our consumption, both individually and collectively. That is precisely the aim of this regulation, which I supported, and which sets objectives for Member States to achieve by 2020. This recommendation is in keeping with the idea of the energy and climate package, that is, to achieve energy savings of 20% over the next eight years. Achieving energy efficiency, in my view, involves encouraging the small everyday efforts, such as opting to use public transport over cars or keeping an eye on household energy use. However, it also requires public authorities to implement an extensive programme to ensure the implementation of insulation and environmental standards in buildings: that is where the main potential for improvement can be found. We have the required technology and know-how; the only thing missing is political will. That is how the EU will continue to set an example and, above all, that is how we will truly achieve a new form of green growth.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) Energy efficiency fundamentally also concerns the areas of climate change, energy supply, green growth and social protection. If we are to limit global warming, we need ambitious measures – and energy efficiency can make a beneficial and speedy contribution to this. Moreover, energy efficiency can also have a positive impact on the economy.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – The directive will set binding measures to ensure we are sticking to our 2011 Energy Efficiency Plan, which will enable the EU to reduce energy consumption by 15% by 2020, bringing us closer to our 20% target. Better energy efficiency in the EU will help to lower both emissions and the cost of energy for consumers, as well as reducing the EU's reliance on foreign imports of gas and oil. Ensuring that 3% of central government buildings will have to be renovated every year will not only improve the energy efficiency of those buildings but also help to boost the construction industry and create jobs. The directive also places an obligation on energy companies to make savings of 1.5% annually until 2020. The final directive did not go as far as we Socialists and Democrats would have liked – for example, we were pushing for annual renovation targets on all public buildings – but is nevertheless a good start.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I feel that this directive is a classic case of ‘We have prevented something worse, but it is not good’. The European Commission’s proposal on energy efficiency had very strong traits of the planned economy about it: I find the idea of annual energy saving targets for energy companies – in this case, savings of 1.5% of their energy sales to end customers year on year, without exceptions or substitution measures – very reminiscent of our former East German planned economy under communism. Nonetheless, we as the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) were able to prevent the worst of it, as in the case of the energy saving target. Nonetheless, there is a more flexible catalogue of measures that could be used to achieve this aim, such as tax relief for investments in energy efficiency. In addition, initially, only central governments must renovate 3% of their public building stock, not all of public administration – which would include the local authorities, for example. I stand by my criticism of both the content and the process. The main thing we must ensure at the moment is that our enterprises and our citizens have affordable electricity available and that we do not wave through the next do-gooder directive in a knee-jerk process – a directive that was already fully negotiated before Parliament as a whole could do anything with it. For these reasons, I voted against this report, even though I am very grateful for the work and efforts put in by my colleague, Markus Pieper.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – Energy efficiency is important, not least because our citizens are facing rising power bills. I supported this report because ultimately, it was balanced and did not introduce burdensome requirements on business which would have driven companies out of the EU and cost jobs. We need incentives to encourage more energy efficiency, not draconian penalties. This is why I am aghast at the Commission’s decision to threaten the UK with legal action in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over reduced VAT on energy saving materials. VAT was reduced to 5% on energy efficiency products in the UK in order to tackle fuel poverty and reduce carbon emissions. This is exactly the kind of spur we need to encourage the installation of energy efficiency measures such as double-glazing or loft insulation. The Commission’s challenge is not only muddle-headed, but also mistaken: the reduced VAT rate is beyond the scope of the EU’s VAT Directive. If the EU really wishes to embrace energy efficiency, it should – rather than penalise Britain – encourage other Member States to introduce similar schemes.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr Turmes’s report introduces a raft of energy saving measures – including obligations for retraining, constructing public buildings and the development of cogeneration technology – which the Member States will have to implement in order to achieve the energy efficiency targets for 2020.

Considering not only the difficult economic situation that Europe is in, but also the efforts already made by European businesses in the field of energy efficiency, I think the text adopted today is a good compromise. The measures laid down should make it possible to meet commitments under the climate package. I therefore voted in favour.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The report on energy efficiency, which was debated earlier today, is one of few parts of the Europe 2020 strategy which does not have a detrimental effect on the economy. However, as with other features of the strategy, reducing energy consumption by 20% is also very expensive for the Member States, particularly during an economic crisis. Therefore, the increase in energy efficiency should principally be a matter of better efficiency in insulating residential buildings and of increasing energy efficiency in industry, including an improvement in the efficiency of energy transmission.

Deployment of smart grids and modernisation of existing ones is a strategic and exceptionally expensive exercise. In Poland, most power lines are over 30 years old, so their modernisation, essential to comply with the requirements of the directive, is an extremely expensive exercise, and the provisions of the directive we have voted on do not include sufficient funding for such work. Furthermore, they do not make any concessions to the EU’s new Member States. Implementing this directive may therefore prove to be problematic and far more expensive than is assumed in the EU’s analysis.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We agree with the general objective of increasing energy efficiency. However, it is regrettable that the much-ballyhooed target of 20% by 2020 – one of the five core objectives of the failed Europe 2020 strategy – is far from being achieved. The same principles – liberalisation of the energy market, and subsidised private production from renewable energy sources – are still guiding EU energy policy, so it is no surprise that the target is unlikely to be hit because so-called market rules rarely result in energy efficiency. The neoliberal workings of the economy involve producing and selling, increasing supply and inducing demand; the effect of that is not to reduce consumption of the good produced. There are several positive aspects of the report: smart meters, energy-efficient buildings, and the concern for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, were the intention a measure to help consumers in a period of crisis, we would need to regulate the prices charged by the companies supplying energy services, which make large profits. The report does not meddle with the interests of these monopolistic companies, placing the onus for energy efficiency exclusively on the consumer.

Report: Cecilia Wikström (A7-0230/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it falls solely to Parliament to decide whether or not to waive immunity, and because Parliament can take into account the position of the Member in question when deciding whether or not to waive his immunity. As such, and given that the facts of the case, as manifested in the submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the alleged activities do not have a direct connection with Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa’s performance of his duties as a Member of this Parliament, meaning that he was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member, I support the decision to waive Mr Wałęsa’s parliamentary immunity.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa as he was not acting in the performance of his duties when he was involved in the traffic accident of September 2011, which is the reason for the waiver request. The Member himself put forward this request to allow the swift completion of investigations into the incident.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) On 20 April 2012, the Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic forwarded a request for a waiver of the immunity of Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa in connection with criminal proceedings concerning an alleged offence under the Polish Act of 20 May 1971 establishing a Code of Offences and the Road Traffic Act of 20 June 1997. These related to a traffic accident on 2 September 2011 in Poland in which Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa was involved and in which he was severely injured. Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa declined to be heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs, but has indicated that he prefers a quick conclusion of this issue and is of the opinion that his immunity should be waived. The facts of the case as presented in the submissions indicate that the alleged activities do not have a direct, obvious connection with Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. In the case in question, therefore, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa was not performing his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I followed the rapporteur’s recommendation on the waiver of Mr Wałęsa’s immunity.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of waiving the immunity of Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, as requested by Mr Wałęsa himself. Immunity must ensure freedom of political action, not prevent the proper functioning of the justice system in the event of common law proceedings. I would ask for mine to be waived, if it were necessary.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Parliament has been asked to waive the parliamentary immunity of our fellow Member, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, in connection with legal action concerning an alleged offence under the Road Traffic Act in relation to a traffic accident. Given that the facts of the case, as manifested in the submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the alleged activities do not have a direct connection with Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa’s performance of his duties as a Member of this Parliament, it has been decided to waive his parliamentary immunity. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, forwarded on 20 April 2012 by the Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic in connection with legal action concerning an alleged offence and announced in plenary on 23 May 2012, and whereas the Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, in connection with legal action concerning an alleged offence, and Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa declined to be heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs, but has indicated that he prefers a quick conclusion of this issue and is of the opinion that his immunity should be waived, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The request relates to a traffic accident in which Mr Wałęsa was severely injured. Mr Wałęsa has indicated that he would prefer a quick conclusion to this issue and is of the opinion that his immunity should be waived.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the waiver of immunity. The Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic made this request following an alleged offence under the Polish Act of 20 May 1971 establishing a Code of Offences and the Road Traffic Act of 20 June 1997 in relation to a traffic accident on 2 September 2011 in Poland, in which Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa was involved and in which he was severely injured. Wishing to settle the issue, Mr Wałęsa himself expressed his wish to see his immunity waived.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Public Prosecutor of the Polish Republic has requested that Parliament waive the parliamentary immunity of our fellow Member, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, in connection with legal action concerning an alleged offence. In view of the position of the Committee on Legal Affairs and since the facts of the case, as manifested in the submissions to the committee, indicate that the activities do not have a direct connection with the performance of his duties as a Member of this Parliament, I voted in favour.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) In this particular case, I did not have a moment’s hesitation in voting to waive the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament. Opinion is united that this decision will help speed up the process of clarifying the circumstances of the accident and enable the guilty party to be identified. Another fact which had great bearing on this decision is that the matter concerns activities which are not connected with Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.

Report: Francesco Enrico Speroni (A7-0229/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because, as with the other report for this sitting, it falls solely to Parliament to decide whether or not to waive immunity, and because Parliament can take into account the position of the Member in question when deciding whether or not to waive his immunity. As such, and given that the facts of the case, as manifested in the submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the alleged activities do not have a direct connection with Birgit Collin-Langen’s performance of her duties as a Member of this Parliament, meaning that she was not acting in the performance of her duties as a Member, I support the decision to waive Ms Collin-Langen’s parliamentary immunity.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the request to waive the parliamentary immunity of Birgit Collin-Langen because, at the time of the events giving rise to the request, she was not yet a Member of the European Parliament and the Committee on Legal Affairs has thus not found any direct links with her role in the European Parliament.

The Member herself requested the waiver with the aim of enabling the authorities to conduct the investigation into the use of public funds and procurement for a flower show in 2008 in Bingen, Germany, where the Member was mayor, more swiftly.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The request by the Senior Prosecutor relates to proceedings concerning an alleged offence under Section 331 of the German Criminal Code, which states that ‘A public official or a person entrusted with special public service functions who demands, allows himself to be promised or accepts a benefit for himself or for a third person for the discharge of an official duty shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine’. Birgit Collin-Langen has been heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs, where she asked for a quick conclusion of this issue and declared that her immunity should be waived. The facts of the case date back to 2006-2008 and the alleged activities do not have a direct, obvious connection with Birgit Collin-Langen’s performance of her duties as a Member of the European Parliament. Birgit Collin-Langen was therefore not acting in the performance of her duties as a Member of the European Parliament, and the facts set out in the explanatory statement do not constitute a case of fumus persecutionis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I followed the rapporteur’s proposal on the waiver of Brigit Collin-Langen’s immunity.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of waiving the immunity of Birgit Collin-Langen. My vote is consistent with the desire expressed by Ms Collin-Langen to see that justice is done. Immunity must ensure freedom of political action, not prevent the proper functioning of the justice system in the event of investigations concerning alleged offences in relation to a previous office.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Parliament has been asked to waive the parliamentary immunity of a Member of this House, Birgit Collin-Langen, in connection with legal action relating to an alleged offence. Ms Collin-Langen has had a hearing, at which she asked for a quick conclusion of this issue. It has therefore been decided to waive her parliamentary immunity. I voted in favour.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At the sitting of 14 June 2012, the President announced, under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a request dated 27 April 2012 from the Senior German Prosecutor in Koblenz concerning the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Birgit Collin-Langen with reference to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union. The President referred this request to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 6(2). Birgit Collin-Langen was heard by the Committee on 10 July 2012, in accordance with Rule 7(3). On the basis of the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs to waive the parliamentary immunity of Birgit Collin-Langen, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. As the facts of the case date back to 2006-2008, when Birgit Collin-Langen was not acting in the performance of her duties as a Member of the European Parliament, the Committee on Legal Affairs agreed to waive the immunity.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We voted in favour of waiving the immunity of Birgit Collin-Langen. The waiver was, in fact, requested by the Senior Prosecutor in relation to proceedings concerning an alleged offence. Ms Collin-Langen does not oppose this request, as she wishes for a quick conclusion to the issue.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Parliament has been asked to waive the parliamentary immunity of a Member of this House, Birgit Collin-Langen, in connection with legal action. In view of the position of the Committee on Legal Affairs, and given that the alleged activities do not have a direct connection with the performance of her duties as a Member, I voted to waive her immunity.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) With regard to my decision to endorse the request for waiver of the immunity of Birgit Collin-Langen, I think that since the matter concerns events which took place several years ago, it is in the interests of Parliament’s work and the transparency of our rules to allow the German authorities to conduct an objective and fair investigation. Furthermore, the Member herself has said she would like to bring about a quick conclusion of this issue, and the only way to do this is for her to be present when the case is heard in court.

Report: Hélène Flautre (A7-0266/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report. I would re-emphasise that anti-terrorist strategies can be effective if conducted in strict conformity with human rights obligations, particularly the right to a fair and equitable trial. Even considering the extremely sensitive nature of anti-terrorism policies, I think that only genuine reasons of national security can justify secrecy. Under no circumstances can state secrecy supersede fundamental and inalienable rights, so it will never be possible for arguments based on such a situation to limit states’ legal obligation to investigate serious breaches of human rights. There also needs to be provision for guarantees to prevent the Member States from disrespecting human rights when implementing their anti-terrorist policies, despite having declared their desire to comply with international law. Not all the Member States have yet met their obligation to investigate serious breaches of human rights relating to the CIA programme. The report regrets the delays with completely clearing up this case, so as to give the victims full and rapid redress, including the offer of apologies and the provision of compensation, where appropriate.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report is a blatant attempt to deceive the people. It refuses to condemn the governments of certain countries, including Greece, which demonstrably had an active role and cooperated with the CIA and the US in the abduction, illegal detention and torture of ‘terrorist suspects’ and in maintaining secret prisons in their territory. It even goes so far as to call on the bourgeois governments involved in the crimes to investigate themselves, supposedly in order to get to the truth, which has been proven and is known to everyone except the European Parliament. The Greek Communist Party reaffirms its position that the European Parliament committee in question and the reports which it has drafted are hypocritical and are aimed essentially at defusing popular disapproval and covering up the responsibilities of the governments of the EU Member States. The real aim of the so-called ‘fight against terrorism’, led by the EU and the US and various secret services, is to strike at the class movement that questions the exploitative capitalist system and the way in which grassroots freedoms and democratic rights are being reduced and trampled underfoot.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report because I believe that any counter-terrorism strategy should be conducted in strict compliance with human rights obligations. This Parliament has repeatedly and strongly condemned ‘extraordinary rendition’, detention without trial, secret prisons and torture. I believe that the EU commitment to human rights must be reflected in all policy areas in order to be credible. For this reason, with this text, we call on Member States to investigate whether there are secret prisons on their territory or whether operations have taken place whereby people have been detained under the CIA programme in facilities on their territory. With regard to ‘state secrecy’, I strongly believe that only genuine national security reasons can justify secrecy, which is, in any case, overridden by fundamental rights obligations that cannot be derogated from, such as the absolute prohibition on torture.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has called for EU Member States to investigate their involvement in illegal extraditions of suspected terrorists carried out by the CIA between 2002 and 2004. As I myself am convinced that the EU should be a model for transparency, I voted in favour of this report, which calls for light to be shed on these possible violations of fundamental rights. Without questioning our support for our allies, it is our duty to make sure that the European Union remains a model with regard to the protection of human rights.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Following on from Parliament’s inquiry into illegal flights operated by the CIA, which fall outside of any framework capable of ensuring minimum fundamental rights, MEPs are, with this report, calling for the necessary conclusions to be drawn both politically and legally. Fundamental rights are a cornerstone of our collective project here in Europe. Yet, from 2001 to 2005, the CIA carried out no less than 1 000 illegal flights in which 12 Member States were directly involved. We must see this task of achieving transparency through and urgently fill in the legal vacuums which allowed such abuses to occur. I therefore supported this report, which aims to give legitimacy back to the EU’s discourse on human rights.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I abstained from the vote on the report by Ms Flautre because I believe that, despite the results achieved by collecting various data on the location of sites where prisoners were illegally detained by the CIA in Europe, there is a great deal of inconsistency in the EU on the issue. Many Member States are not seriously investigating human rights violations connected with CIA operations within the EU, in terms of the transportation and detention of prisoners. I regret the lack of communication, transparency and implementation of investigative methods on the part of certain Member States.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Through the adoption of this report, which I supported, it was our intention to send a strong signal to Member States, so that we in the European Union can make progress towards a more effective area of security, justice and freedom that is closer to European citizens. There is no longer any justification for the European Union to participate in CIA-led anti-terrorism programmes as it did in the wake of the attacks of 11 September 2001, nor for the transfer and detention of persons suspected by the CIA of terrorism to be allowed in Member States. The fight against terrorism must be a priority for the European Union, but this fight must in no way be carried out at the expense of respect for human rights, which is one of the inalienable values of the EU.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Whilst UKIP stands against the illegal transportation and detention of prisoners by third countries, we cannot vote in favour of this report, as to do so would endorse in numerous ways the authority of the EU in foreign affairs and human rights, where such powers should not be granted. It also would lead to general oversight of matters by the EU if followed through in its entirety. It is the prerogative of national judicial authorities to open independent inquiries into alleged CIA secret detention sites and flight connections and conduct criminal investigations into such matters, but it should not be within the scope of the EU to demand the disclosure of the findings or command that investigations take place.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I consider rigorous and transparent proceedings, scrupulous compliance with EU rules and full respect for international agreements essential.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted ‘in favour’ of the report because I consider that it exerts the necessary pressure both on the EU institutions and on each individual Member State to continue with investigations to ascertain the level of illegal abduction, secret detention and torture by the American secret services (CIA), with the assistance and acceptance of European states, in breach of every concept of international law and respect for human rights. The motion for a resolution expresses in the clearest possible way the wish of the European Parliament that human rights should not be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism, that terrorist suspects should not be tried under a special judicial procedure, that the US administration should close the Guantánamo base immediately and that UN resolutions on human dignity in general should be respected. It also calls on the European Council to acknowledge the very obvious fact that European Treaties were violated during illegal transfers of detainees by the CIA via European territories, to investigate the cases in question, and to ensure that they do not reoccur. Finally, it rightly urges the Temporary Committee of the European Parliament to take action to further investigate cases in the event of unnecessary delay on the part of the European Council.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) As we all know, half the countries of Europe allowed the CIA to use their airspace to carry out secret operations in the European Union. We are talking here about Member States such as Germany, Spain, Portugal, Finland and Poland. This does not and must not allow us to conclude that these countries have no regard for the humanitarian achievements of international law or do not respect human rights standards. In particular, the governments of individual countries had to make decisions after the terrorist attacks in New York, London and Madrid. The use of special measures seemed at that time to be essential. The suggestion made in the report that those suspected of being the leaders of terrorist organisations should have been given the same legal privileges as are enjoyed by suspects in our own criminal cases is mistaken.

Furthermore, the report makes an unfair evaluation of those decisions but does not say what should have been done instead. We all respect the universal nature and indivisibility of human rights, but we also have to know the difference between a common criminal and a terrorist who plans and carries out a suicide attack on a military target or innocent civilians. For this reason, I could not endorse this report.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On this occasion of the painful 11th anniversary of the attacks on New York’s Twin Towers, Parliament took a new look into the issue of the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in certain European countries by the CIA (with a particular focus on Lithuania, Poland and Romania), and called on these Member States to shed as much light as possible on secret detention programmes implemented by the CIA in Europe in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001, and on human rights violations committed in this context. In other words, this is about investigating in order to establish the possible existence in these countries of secret prisons or facilities, where persons may have been detained under a secret CIA rendition programme. It is indeed quite clear that there are still some grey areas with regard to this matter. The resolution approved in this sense calls for the Commission to create a framework, by the end of 2012, allowing full light to be shed on these activities.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Eleven years on from the events of 11 September 2001 and the United States’ declaration of war on terrorism, there are still many grey areas with regard to the issue of secret CIA prisons in Europe. The fight against terrorism requires a determined commitment from the European Union and its main international partners. It is vital that the 27 Member States implement effective measures to improve the everyday security of EU citizens, and that they conduct investigations to rule out any risk of an attack. This process must be transparent and must not violate human rights. The European Union is an area in which the law is fully applicable and in which Member States cannot be involved in illegal activities. Secret detention must only be possible on the grounds of national security, and acts of torture must not be allowed on EU territory.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I abstained from voting on this report because, although I fully endorse the principle that the protection of human rights should not be jeopardised for any kind of security reason, even relating to counter-terrorism, I still think that the report exceeds the strict scope of the legitimacy which Parliament can assume, by accusing certain Member States directly of collaborating illegally with the CIA without providing in return any objective evidence and arguments.

Investigations into possible secret CIA flights and detentions must be carried out in Member States which have not already done so, while investigations already carried out in countries such as Romania, and the conclusions drawn by them, must be acknowledged. Furthermore, Parliament must not replace the authorities in investigating and enforcing the law, but should see to it that the latter legally fulfil the duties incumbent upon them.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it argues that anti-terrorist strategies can be effective if conducted in strict conformity with human rights obligations, particularly the right to a fair and equitable trial. The investigations currently being conducted by the Member States must be guided by robust, legal evidence, and by respect for national legal systems and EU legislation, not just by information provided by the media or by public opinion.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report has the virtue of drawing attention to the heinous fact, now irrefutable, that the CIA used the territory of a number of EU countries to transport people who, without any charge or arrest warrant, were transported to the US military base in Guantánamo and to various countries, where they were tortured and, according to some reports, murdered in some cases. This fact is all the more serious because there is a dense web of silence and complicity surrounding the bilateral agreements between the Council, the Member States, the US, NATO and the CIA. They all involved illegal and arbitrary detention, torture, and the mistreatment and forced disappearance of hundreds of people as part of the supposed War on Terror. While we support this report, we do not share the federalist perspective that shapes it, seeking to set up the Council as judge of the Member States and involving the Commission in ensuring ‘accountability for human rights violations committed in the context of the CIA programme’. Nor do we agree with the uncritical approach to NATO – which is in this up to its neck – and its role as an organisation whose history demonstrates its links to terrorism, particularly state terrorism.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The resolution on the alleged transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA focuses on an issue that continues to cause controversy, including in Italy. Collating flight data managed by Eurocontrol suggests that there is an illegal system that has led to suspicious disappearances, which is unacceptable. All responsibilities need to be established so that there is no recurrence of similar cases in the future. The fight against terrorism in the EU should be conducted in compliance with EU law and the sovereignty of the Member States, which have the right and the duty to prosecute those suspected of terrorism and bring them to trial.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union is founded on a commitment to democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity and international law, not only in its internal policies, but also in its external dimension. The EU’s commitment to human rights, reinforced by the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the process of accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, must be reflected in all policy areas in order to make EU human rights policy effective and credible. The instruments governing the EU’s common foreign and security policy mandate an absolute ban on torture and also entail an express obligation to investigate allegations of torture and to provide remedies and reparation. EU guidelines on torture provide the framework for the EU’s efforts to prevent and eradicate torture and ill-treatment in all parts of the world. Secret detention, which is a form of enforced disappearance, may amount, if widely or systematically practised, to a crime against humanity.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted firmly in favour of this report, which, once again, strongly condemns the inadmissible practices of ‘extraordinary rendition’, secret prisons and torture, and, above all, EU Member States’ complicity in these CIA ‘programmes’. We have been demanding, for years now, that Member States involved in such activities conduct thorough, impartial and independent inquiries into the failings and abuses which occurred, and demanding that the European Union bring its action in line with its values. In this new report, we restate these demands. More detailed enquiries must be carried out and responsibility must be determined. The adoption of this report is a new step towards remedying these inadmissible practices. However, much work still remains to be done in order to establish the truth and acknowledge all of the violations which were committed.

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), in writing. – The ECR believe that human rights are universal for all and that torture is unacceptable in all circumstances.

However, whilst we support the full and independent inquiry into the alleged involvement of Member States in the detention and transportation of prisoners in European countries by the CIA, we believe that it is for Member States to first carry out their own investigations before judgment is made by the European Union or the European Parliament. Equally, we do not believe that it is for the European Union to make recommendations on the functioning of Member States’ security services.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It has now been five years since Parliament adopted its final report on the illegal activities of the CIA in Europe. However, Member States are still reluctant to the idea of revealing what happened. This lack of transparency is preventing us from shedding light on alleged human rights violations. The idea that secret detention, without trial, took place on EU territory undermines the founding principles and moral authority of our institution. I voted in favour so that the situation can be clarified, but also to reiterate that respect for human rights is one of the founding principles of the European Union, which no one may violate.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution, which rightly stresses the need to provide guarantees in order to avoid, in the future, any infringement of fundamental rights when anti-terrorism policies are implemented.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report condemning extraordinary rendition, secret prisons and torture, which breach the rights to liberty, security and humane treatment. Thus, Member States faced with credible allegations should make every effort to provide the necessary clarification and determine responsibility where necessary.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Full application of the human rights clauses of agreements with third countries is fundamental in relations between the EU and its Member States and those countries. We need to review the way in which governments cooperate with dictatorships’ apparatus of repression in the name of countering terrorism. Security sector reform must ensure a clear separation between intelligence and law enforcement functions.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This text calls for an end to the US special services’ interference in the European Union. It recalls that the systematic use of secret detention constitutes a crime against humanity for which the United States and complicit governments may be tried. It deplores NATO’s role in secret detentions carried out on EU territory. It calls for an end to special procedures for persons suspected of terrorism and calls on the US authorities to repeal the power of indefinite detention for suspicion of ‘terrorism’. It recalls that state secrecy does not prevail over fundamental rights. It is for all of these reasons that I endorsed this text, even though I regret that it does not more strongly condemn NATO and the US authorities’ interference in European affairs in general.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I believe this resolution to be very important, not only because it is continuing to stress the need for an effective and independent investigation into the CIA programme of flights, detentions and secret prisons, but also because it establishes clear foundations in terms of EU foreign affairs. I agree with the resolution’s recognition of the value of transparency for the democratic control of governments when it states that ‘in no circumstance does state secrecy take priority over inalienable fundamental rights’ and that therefore ‘arguments based on state secrecy can never be employed to limit states’ legal obligations to investigate serious human rights violations’. The resolution also rightly raises the need for human rights to be strictly respected at all times in the fight against terrorism, which I support, as under no circumstances and under no pretext can the fight against terrorism be conducted, as it was in this case, outside the international legal framework, nor can it violate human rights in any way. For all these reasons, I voted in favour of this resolution.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which demands that EU Member States open independent investigations and sends a strong signal that calls for independent investigations into these secret prisons will not go away until the full truth comes to light. As an MEP from Galicia, which is deeply compromised in the area of human rights, I am very concerned that European countries may have assisted in the extra-judicial detention and transportation of detainees. This is particularly worrying if it turns out to be the case that these people were transported on to third countries where they faced torture. EU governments have obligations under international law and EU law. There is a political, a legal and also a moral responsibility to uncover the truth about any collusion in extraordinary rendition. We cannot expect the rest of the world to take us seriously on human rights unless we are willing to practise what we preach.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is scandalous that we have still not taken all the necessary steps resulting from the participation of some EU Member States in the illegal prisoner transports and the operation of secret prisons by the CIA, the US foreign intelligence service. While the EU plays the role of head teacher when it comes to human rights elsewhere in the world, it applies extremely low standards to itself. In any case, the participation of EU Member States, such as Poland and Romania, in CIA practices which violate human rights casts a gloomy light on the EU’s self-styled community of values. The scandal surrounding the CIA flights and secret prisons shows that, when a choice has to be made between the two, cosying up to the US is apparently more important to us than respect for fundamental human rights. By adopting this attitude, the European Union is making itself complicit in human rights abuses by the US, which are carried out under the supposed mantle of fighting terrorism. For this reason, I voted in favour of the report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Violations of human rights cannot be tolerated or justified. I therefore congratulate those countries which have investigated this issue seriously and welcome the fact that the European Parliament has devoted significant attention to it. Both facts and rumours surrounding the transportation and illegal detention of suspects, which took place or may have taken place, weaken the efforts of the fight against terrorism and the Member States’ prestige. It is important that the search for the truth is based purely on the facts, not assumptions. I believe that if new facts should come to light at any point, even those investigations that have now been completed should be relaunched. Nevertheless, at some point, we should have all the answers in this affair and a line should be drawn under it.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against this resolution because some of the conclusions are superficial and risky to say the least. I am totally in favour of guaranteeing human rights and personal freedoms for all citizens, even for those suspected of committing crimes. However, the statements about the alleged incidents must be based on truthful information from credible sources and cannot be based on simple allegations.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Respect for fundamental human rights is a top priority for me and combating terrorism can only be effective if it is carried out in strict compliance with human rights commitments and, in particular, the principle of a fair trial. The ‘extraordinary renditions’ mentioned in the report, which possibly included abductions, transportations, detention without trial, disappearances or secret incarceration and torture, must therefore be condemned. Extensive investigations into the exact extent of participation by some EU Member States in the practices of the United States authorities and, in particular, those of the CIA which have taken place within the territory of the EU are absolutely necessary. It is scandalous that we have still not taken all the necessary steps resulting from the participation of some EU Member States in the illegal prisoner transports and operation of secret prisons by the CIA. I welcome the fact that Parliament has called on the governments of the EU Member States to launch investigations and have voted in favour of the report.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) In this report, the European Parliament expresses its opinion on allegations based on certain testimonies: illegal CIA flights were apparently operated and Guantánamo detainees accused of terrorism were imprisoned without due process in nine EU Member States. Rapporteur Hélène Flautre of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats states that when preparing the report, certain EU Member States obstructed free and independent investigations by MEP delegations, which aim to guarantee justice for victims. She says that those Member States are covering up crimes in the name of the need to keep state secrets. Violations of EU law should not be justified by the fight against terrorism. After all, the world sees the European Union as the greatest defender of human rights. I agree with the rapporteur that the EU Member States not only have to investigate matters fully, but also have to facilitate additional independent inquiries by EU institutions. It is important for those persons responsible to be identified and for compensation to be paid for damage suffered. I voted in favour of this report because it calls for judicial cooperation among EU Member States to be improved in criminal cases and for the European Commission to ensure that cooperation is pursued.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I think the EU should ensure full compliance with its international obligations and proper implementation of its policies and external policy instruments, such as guidelines on torture and human rights dialogues.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular, Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 21 thereof, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18 and 19 thereof, and the European Convention on Human Rights and the protocols thereto, as well as the relevant UN human rights instruments, and whereas Parliament has condemned the US-led CIA rendition and secret detention programme involving multiple human rights violations, including unlawful and arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment, violations of the non-refoulement principle and enforced disappearance, and it has repeatedly and strongly condemned illegal practices including ‘extraordinary rendition’, abduction, detention without trial, disappearance, secret prisons and torture, I voted in favour of the motion.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour. As my colleague and rapporteur, Hélène Flautre, said, today’s vote is a victory for Parliament. It upholds Parliament’s demand for truth over denial and oversight. It ensures that the democratic founding principles of the European Union prevail over nationalist and partisan considerations. The report supports the existence of an extensive secret and illegal system responsible for acts of torture and enforced disappearances. It builds on new evidence, generated in particular by flight data provided by Eurocontrol.

The report urges Member States to start genuine legal proceedings of a thorough and transparent nature. Every Member State has its share of responsibility and everyone involved holds a piece of the truth. The Commission and the Council must create momentum for justice at pan-European level. The Council must acknowledge the facts. The Commission must draw up a clear and concerted plan for monitoring national inquiries. This report was awaited by victims, their lawyers, international organisations for the protection of human rights, NGOs and journalists who have continually provided evidence of and documented crimes committed in the name of our security.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that the EU Member States must conduct full investigations into whether there were secret prisons or facilities on their territory where people were held under the CIA’s secret rendition and detention programme in the early years of this century.

Only genuine national security reasons can justify secrecy. That it is why it is necessary to resume national investigations in order to shed light on this affair.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Some EU Member States allegedly allowed the transportation and detention of prisoners by the CIA on their territory, under a secret programme. Faced with such serious allegations, national parliamentary inquiries were initiated. However, strong political and diplomatic pressure prevented politicians from working in a fully independent manner and from making progress with their investigations. I am convinced that transatlantic cooperation between security and intelligence services is essential, particularly in the fight against terrorism. However, nothing justifies human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law being flouted with impunity. Therefore, in plenary, I voted in favour of the resolution calling for the Member States concerned to assume their responsibilities and give their support to the independent inquiries as quickly as possible. The territorial integrity of the EU and the coherence of our action with regard to human rights and democracy are at stake.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We voted in favour of this text. We in Parliament have, once again, condemned the US-led CIA rendition and secret detention programme. Indeed, multiple human rights violations have been reported, including unlawful and arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment, violations of the non-refoulement principle, and enforced disappearance.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Five years have already passed since Parliament’s Temporary Committee on the Alleged use of European Countries by the CIA for the Transportation and Illegal Detention of Prisoners concluded its work without determining who is responsible. The committee calls on the Member States involved to conduct independent investigations and disseminate all the necessary information. Combating terrorism and global insecurity cannot violate respect for human dignity and the democratic values on which our society is based.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) This report is an important one and correct in its content, so I voted in favour of it. Although combating terrorism is important, we expect the United States to show respect for human rights and to behave appropriately towards its allies and other friendly nations. These issues need to be cleared up beyond ambiguity once more. Human rights are not negotiable, either.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – This report addresses the alleged involvement of some EU Member States in the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA. I voted against the report as I do not agree with the thrust of the text, including calls for greater involvement of EU institutions in national investigations, and the opportunity it provides to snipe at our closest ally, the United States. I fully believe that countries should respect the international body of law to which they are a member. However, calls for the European Council to issue declarations; hold hearings with so-called ‘EU security agencies’; and ‘to give its full support to the truth-finding and accountability processes in the Member States by formally addressing the issue at JHA meetings, sharing all information, [and] providing assistance to inquiries’ are wholly misplaced. Both counter-terrorism policy and the oversight of security services, are – and should remain – strictly a matter for national authorities, not the EU.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The report by Hélène Flautre is a very good follow-up to the 2007 report, which provides information on the status of the European Union and Member States which may have been involved in this programme, with regard to acknowledging human rights violations of an unprecedented level. Despite the pressure exerted by certain Member States and by some of their MEPs, the report reviews new allegations of Member State involvement which we were not aware of in 2007, as well as the true situation regarding inquiries conducted in Member States and the obstacles encountered by them. Human rights violations can never be tolerated, especially when they are committed by EU Member States that like to give lessons to the rest of the world in this field. No political realism is valid in this area, and even the fight against terrorism does not justify such abuses. The credibility of the European Union and its Member States is at stake. Much work still remains to be done in order to establish the truth about this programme and acknowledge the multiple violations which have been committed.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I would like to draw attention to the fact that the report contains a number of inaccuracies. This may mean that European Union Member States and their partners which have said they will host former Guantánamo detainees will not fully comply with what has been agreed about affording rapid and professional support in terms of living conditions, health and facilitating access to documents, and, in particular, about enabling families to be reunited and the exercise of the rights attributed to people who have been granted political asylum.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report has the virtue of drawing attention to the heinous and irrefutable facts that the CIA used the territory of a number of EU countries to transport people who, without any charge or arrest warrant, were transported to Guantánamo and various countries, where they were tortured and even murdered. These facts are still being obscured by a web of silence and complicity surrounding the bilateral and multilateral agreements concluded between the Council, the Member States, the US, NATO and the CIA, concerning illegal and arbitrary detention, torture, and the mistreatment and forced disappearance of hundreds of people as part of the supposed War on Terror. While we support this report, we do not share the federalist perspective that shapes it, seeking to set up the Council as judge of the Member States and involving the Commission in ensuring ‘accountability for human rights violations committed in the context of the CIA programme’. Nor do we agree with the uncritical approach to NATO and its role as an organisation whose history demonstrates its links to terrorism, particularly state terrorism. For our part, we have been warning about this issue since 2005 and demanding explanations from the Portuguese Government in relation to it. We will carry on in that vein.

Report: Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (A7-0248/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I would re-emphasise that the EU has undertaken to complete the creation of a common European asylum system (CEAS) in 2012 by establishing a common area of protection and solidarity, based on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted international protection. I consider the CEAS an evolutionary step in European policy, which will bring harmonisation of standards of protection, which is under way through the modification of Member States’ legislation and practical cooperation enhanced through the European Asylum Support Office. It is now important to tackle head on the third pillar of the CEAS by giving substance to the notion of solidarity and responsibility sharing, enshrined in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which constitutes an essential horizontal component of the CEAS. In other words, the CEAS is important specifically because it aims to be a comprehensive solidarity framework wherein Member States are assisted in improving the quality of their asylum systems with a view to ensuring the full respect of asylum seekers’ rights, which would ensure, by the same token, proper implementation of the asylum acquis.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I supported report A7-0248/2012 on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum because it contains an important critique of the current EU asylum system and stresses the need for change. However, my vote in favour of the report should not be seen as support to the report’s call for further harmonisation at EU level within the field of asylum.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Clearly, the humanitarian crisis happening in the Middle East will have serious repercussions for Europe and, in particular, those Member States bordering the Mediterranean, such as Italy. Effective action is required to improve coordination between Member States, through appropriate sharing of responsibilities to ensure that their own asylum systems meet both European and international standards and, in addition, through the fair distribution of asylum seekers. According to the latest Eurostat estimates, Italy received 2 210 new requests for asylum in the first quarter of 2012 alone. On average, asylum seekers are very young, 67.2% being between the ages of 18 and 34 and 17.9% being minors. I welcome the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the creation, as from 2014, of the Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF). These are very useful tools for taking targeted action to support states that bear huge burdens and responsibilities, and to support asylum seekers and the international protection that they hope for in a better future.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – With this text, we reiterate that the right to international protection is a fundamental right enshrined in international and EU law and complemented by a series of additional rights and principles, such as the principle of non-refoulement, the right to dignity, the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. For this reason, Member States must ensure that fair and efficient asylum systems are put in place in order to respond to varying asylum flows. Member States also have the obligation to oppose with all means the rise of xenophobia and racism in Europe. A first step to fight the negative and misinformed assumptions about asylum seekers and refugees could be enhanced through the organisation of awareness raising campaigns on the actual situation of beneficiaries of international protection.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) EU Member States are some of the countries which grant asylum the most often to those in need of international protection. By voting in favour of this resolution, Parliament intends to allocate more resources to this policy. The implementation of joint processing of asylum applications and the strengthening of the European Asylum Support Office are needed. This should help to address the need for solidarity between Member States and thus encourage them to cooperate more closely.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report setting out proposals on enhancing intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum and improving EU asylum policy. One of the EU’s main priorities in establishing a common European asylum system (CEAS) is to provide assistance to Member States facing high numbers of asylum applicants. In 2011, the EU received more than 300 000 asylum applications – 16.2% more than in 2010. I agree that we need to support those Member States whose asylum systems have a very large caseload of applicants by introducing an instrument to relocate asylum applicants or asylum beneficiaries from Member States facing a particular burden to other EU Member States. I agree that we need to inform Member States and civil society about EU funds for asylum policy and provide information related to eligibility criteria and application formalities. It is important to regularly and frequently evaluate Member States’ asylum systems in order to rectify their deficiencies and it is important for the European Asylum Support Office to provide Member States with practical support on this issue.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU committed to completing the common European asylum system (CEAS) in 2012, which will be underpinned by three pillars: harmonisation of standards of protection, by further aligning the Member States’ asylum legislation, effective and well-supported practical cooperation, and increased solidarity and a sense of responsibility, not only among EU Member States, but also between the EU and third countries. Ensuring the good functioning of the CEAS is particularly important when migration flows are most often mixed, including migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and vulnerable persons. In this regard, this report argues that Member States, local authorities and civil society should be informed about the different EU funds which can be used for asylum purposes. Member States’ asylum systems should be regularly and frequently evaluated to identify best practices as well as deficiencies. Member States should demonstrate solidarity towards one another and share responsibility, including through measures such as joint processing of asylum applications and the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection. I voted for this report for those reasons.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the European Union is committed to completing by the end of this year the establishment of a common European asylum system (CEAS), setting up a common area of protection and solidarity. The CEAS is underpinned by three pillars, and we now need to tackle one of them head on, i.e. implement the notion of solidarity and responsibility sharing. This solidarity framework aims to guarantee that the rights of asylum seekers are fully taken into account and to help Member States improve their asylum systems and thus ensure the proper functioning of the CEAS and implementation of the asylum acquis. In an efficient CEAS, Member States, authorities and citizens should be informed about the different EU funds which can be used for asylum purposes. Furthermore, information on eligibility criteria and legal formalities is also very important. Member States’ asylum systems could be regularly evaluated to identify best practices as well as deficiencies and to facilitate the elaboration of specific solutions. Solidarity and the sharing of responsibility among Member States are also very valuable, particularly as regards the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection and the processing of asylum applications. It is very important to make the best use of the EU funds available because only then will solidarity turn into action and we therefore need to introduce financial incentives for relocating beneficiaries of international protection.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union would like to be an area of democracy. This is why I think that a common policy on the right of asylum is required. This policy is in line with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 on the status of refugees, as well as with other treaties in this area. This common system enables EU Member States to undertake to guarantee people seeking to obtain refugee status in the EU a level of protection based on high standards and in keeping with these obligations. EU Member States will provide asylum seekers, beneficiaries of international protection and members of their families with access to a form of protection, justice, social integration and the labour market, in full compliance with the principle of non-discrimination.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Experience in this field teaches us that loosening the constraints of responsibility and solidarity between the Member States invariably leads to a losing game, in which occasionally an individual country, often a country bordering the Mediterranean, cannot cope with a sharp rise in flows of refugees and is held up as a bad example.

The ensuing emotional climate is a breeding ground for opposing rhetoric and for displays of that particular kind of residual egotism, inherited from an age in which European countries clashed with each other rather than worked together.

I therefore welcome the report which, with exemplary clarity, tackles unresolved issues regarding the common European asylum system (CEAS). In particular, I would point out the recommendations in point 47, which, if turned into specific measures, would make it possible to unite the Member States in an effective obligation of shared responsibility and mutual solidarity, ensuring – and this is the fundamental goal – that the tragic situation of asylum seekers is dealt with on an appropriate scale, with humanity, reason and realism.

It also would not be inappropriate to reconsider aspects of legislative alignment on legal immigration, a closely related issue, whose problems have direct repercussions on the reception and asylum system.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum. I particularly encourage Member States to make use of the possibilities available under the European Refugee Fund in terms of undertaking targeted actions for the improvement of their asylum systems.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The prospect of enhancing what is confusingly called intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum is essentially a move to centralise decision making on the placement of asylum seekers which contravenes domestic prerogative on immigration and settlement policy. While it is essential all countries play their part in the accommodation of genuine asylum seekers and the international community must work together to protect vulnerable persons, I greatly fear placing the power to relocate asylum seekers in the hands of the European Union. The forging of tighter cooperation between countries on the management of refugees should happen between national governments or by international supranational bodies and charities that are already endorsed to deal with such matters. The establishment of a permanent intra-EU relocation mechanism would create a precedent allowing the European Commission to essentially determine who lives where, representing a gross infringement upon sovereignty. While certain countries are under greater pressures than others to accommodate asylum seekers and there is sense in promoting burden sharing between nations, the processing of applications for residency must continue to be done solely at Member State level and should never become the preserve of the unelected European Commission.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which aims to complete the establishment of a common European asylum system (CEAS) by giving substance to the notion of solidarity and responsibility sharing. Indeed, it is, in my view, important that the European Union has resources to support Member States facing disproportionate pressures and costs in the field of asylum. I support the report’s four areas of focus, which are practical cooperation and technical assistance, financial solidarity, the allocation of responsibilities and mutual trust at the heart of a renewed governance system. Moreover, I agree with the idea of identifying potential shortcomings in Member States’ asylum systems in order to ensure the full respect of asylum seekers’ rights.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The common European asylum system (CEAS), which the EU committed to completing in 2012, is underpinned by three pillars: harmonisation of standards of protection, by further aligning the Member States’ asylum legislation; effective and well-supported practical cooperation; as well as increased solidarity and a sense of responsibility, not only among EU Member States, but also between the EU and third countries. Harmonisation of standards of protection is under way through the modification of Member States’ legislation and practical cooperation is to be enhanced through the European Asylum Support Office. It is now important to tackle head on the third pillar of the CEAS, by giving substance to the notion of solidarity and responsibility sharing. I voted for this report because it aims to establish a genuine area of protection, wherein the rights of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection are duly respected and promoted.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We urgently need a common solution that guarantees uniform respect for asylum seekers and promotes their fundamental rights, whilst also enabling a response to the problems resulting from the disproportionate pressures and costs to which some Member States are subjected because of, above all, their geographic location. This will only be possible through shared responsibility, with equitable and just sharing of the benefits and burdens.

Genuine solidarity among the Member States requires implementation of a series of measures, based around four axes: practical cooperation and technical assistance, financial solidarity, attribution of responsibility, and improved instruments of governance. It is important, however, not to forget that there can be no solidarity without responsibility: it falls to each Member State to put its house in order, so as to prevent repercussions in other Member States. It is essential that there be a climate of reciprocal trust. That is why it is so important to change Schengen governance, so as to ensure proper application of the Schengen acquis and to increase trust in the EU’s ability to tackle jointly and in a spirit of solidarity the problems relating to border checks. This will contribute decisively to facilitating Member State participation in initiatives of solidarity as regards asylum.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – We voted today in favour of the Triantaphyllides report on intra-EU solidarity because we support burden sharing and mutual assistance among all Member States in the field of asylum. However, the compromise reached could be more balanced. While the report is based on the notion that only countries on the external border are subject to extreme pressure and that they receive the largest number of asylum seekers, this is not the reality. Asylum seekers enter Europe not only by sea; countries of final destination – like Sweden – should be taken into account as well. The external borders and absolute numbers of asylum seekers should not be the only criteria in order to receive more support and financial aid. Relocation among Member States should be voluntary for Member States and should concern only people that have already been granted asylum, with their consent, and not asylum seekers. As we work together to achieve a common asylum system by 2012, it is important that we base our legislative work on facts with a balanced and inclusive approach.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I support the motion for a resolution on enhanced solidarity in the field of asylum and on the translation of solidarity and responsibility sharing into concrete measures. A common area of protection and solidarity based on a common asylum procedure and uniform status for people who have been granted international protection must be given effective support by aligning further Member States’ legislation, practical cooperation and increased solidarity and responsibility.

The commitment made by the EU to establish a common European asylum system (CEAS) this year is especially important as the migratory flows are increasing, triggered by the economic crisis, climate change and, above all, by the impact of the Arab Spring. There are states in the Mediterranean region facing the strain of migration which they cannot cope with without support from EU Member States and whose duty it is to share their challenges with regard to asylum.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We are homing in again on the solidarity aspects of the asylum policy in the wake of recent events, such as the serious socio-economic crisis in several EU Member States which are hosting waves of asylum seekers and are in the position of being unable to manage this problem as efficiently as they would like. All these aspects obviously require major changes to be made to asylum policy at European Union level. A common approach in this area must be added, and there must be a consistent show of solidarity on asylum policy among Member States and between them and the EU’s agencies.

Finally, improvements in this regard need to be made as soon as possible and in every area, but especially in terms of harmonising legislation, both by making better use of budget resources and by improving the allocation of powers among Member States.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, we voted in favour of a non-legislative motion for a resolution on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum. This resolution concerns future measures for the resettlement of refugees in the EU and the strengthening of EU resources allocated to asylum policy. We called, in particular, for the Commission to take into consideration, in its upcoming legislative proposal for a permanent and effective intra-EU relocation mechanism, the use of an EU distribution key for the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection. The system would take better account of beneficiaries’ best interest and integration prospects, as well as objective indicators, such as Member States’ GDP, population and surface area. This EU distribution key could help Member States which are facing disproportionate pressures on their national asylum systems or during emergency situations. We also called for the Commission to investigate the feasibility of developing an EU system for relocating asylum seekers as well as for enhanced financial solidarity in this sensitive area and more resources for the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), located in Malta.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum’ because I am in favour of creating a common European asylum system (CEAS). I welcome the creation of an inclusive area of protection and solidarity based on the CEAS, wherein the rights of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection are duly respected and promoted.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report draws attention to the extremely serious problems faced by immigrants today. Even in doing so, it falls far short of a true description of the enormous gravity of the situation. Asylum applications in EU Member States are still increasing and there are very few positive responses. The Dublin Regulation is far from meeting the needs of a more humanist approach to this issue. The EU still ignores the situation of many millions of human beings who are fleeing hunger and war, and seeking dignified lives and work for themselves and their families. Millions of human beings are coming up against the EU’s repressive policies, one of the expressions of which is the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex). They are fleeing chronic poverty. They are fleeing a political and economic situation that is often tragic and to which EU policy has been contributing. To ignore this situation or pretend not to see it is to be complicit. The EU – and the majority in Parliament – is and has been complicit.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) 2012 is the year during which the European Union has committed to completing the establishment of a common European asylum system (CEAS), setting up a common area of protection and solidarity based on a common asylum procedure and uniform status for people who have been granted international protection. Ensuring the good functioning of the CEAS is particularly important in times when migration flows are most often mixed, including migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied minors. Flows of asylum seekers and migrants have their own specificities which cannot, under any circumstances, be neglected or amalgamated. Establishing a solidarity framework will not absolve Member States from complying with their international as well as their European obligations in terms of asylum, but it will equip the CEAS with specific instruments and procedures aimed at supporting and assisting those Member States facing disproportionate pressures and costs in the field of asylum, mainly due to their geographical or demographical situation.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I am in favour of this dossier as I believe that it strengthens both the common European asylum system (CEAS), as well as the Dublin II Regulation. While the Dublin II Regulation works at avoiding situations where asylum seekers are sent from country to country and other abuses, I believe this report gives further substance to the notion of solidarity and responsibility sharing between Member States which would work to ensure Member States across the Union step up and comply with their international and EU obligations in terms of asylum. Furthermore, such an initiative ensures Member States would be equipped to improve the quality of their asylum procedures and have in place an adequate framework to ensure asylum seekers’ rights are fully respected. However, if Europe wants a holistic asylum system, it must understand that very often, asylum seekers are victims of political repression, of organised crime or of economic poverty. Thus, initiatives must also involve the countries from which these immigrants depart, and must address the problems, especially economic problems, of the immigrants’ countries of origin. The more serious the situation becomes, the greater the citizens’ loss of faith in European institutions.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) By adopting this own-initiative report, we wanted to send a clear message – separately from the negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council on the asylum package – that the Dublin II system, whose faults and limitations have become clear, needs to be reformed. Our message is twofold: it emphasises both responsibility and solidarity. This is because it is fundamentally necessary to increase solidarity among European states in the area of asylum, as has become clear following the recent migratory flows following the events in Tunisia, then in Libya and now in Syria. More than ever, Europe needs a genuine common European asylum system, and there is an urgent need to implement European directives on asylum in order to make our European asylum system credible and efficient.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum. It was important to send out a clear message to the Member States and to the Commission concerning the approach that Parliament now wants to take in this area. Although the principle of solidarity is not a new one, we have struggled to give it a concrete implementation. The Union’s inability to respond in a consistent and efficient manner to the consequences of the Arab Spring has further underscored the lack of mutual trust among the Member States. In this context, there can – and must – be a multi-faceted approach to solidarity, based on enhanced practical cooperation, targeted financial aid and a fair division of responsibilities. In addition to solidarity, however, we need to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of their responsibilities. Mutual trust – the driving force behind solidarity – cannot be revived and stimulated unless each country fulfils its responsibilities and obligations in the area of asylum. That is the kind of approach that we are arguing for: an approach based on both solidarity and responsibility.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I supported report A7-0248/2012 on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum because it contains an important critique of the current EU asylum system and stresses the need for change. However, my vote in favour of the report should not be seen as support to the report’s call for further harmonisation at EU level within the field of asylum.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has adopted a resolution with the aim of taking into account the interests of asylum seekers as well as the needs of Member States in terms of solidarity. This resolution complements previous mechanisms and allocates more resources to this reinforcement. Furthermore, the European Asylum Support Office will also be granted wider powers so that it can promote closer cooperation between the countries of the European Union. By adopting this report, the Members of this Parliament have understood their responsibilities on this topic, which I welcome. I voted in favour of this report, which adheres to the spirit of developing joint projects between the Member States. In addition to this device, a sufficient level of resources will be made available to the Asylum and Migration Fund.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the rapporteur that establishing a solidarity framework will not absolve Member States from complying with their international as well as their EU obligations in terms of asylum, but that rather it will equip the CEAS with specific instruments and procedures aimed at supporting and assisting those Member States facing disproportionate pressures and costs in the field of asylum, mainly due to their geographical or demographical situation. In other words, a comprehensive solidarity framework wherein Member States would be assisted to improve the quality of their asylum systems in order to ensure the full respect of asylum seekers’ rights would ensure, by the same token, the proper implementation of the asylum acquis and therefore the very functioning of the CEAS.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Ensuring the good functioning of the common European asylum system (CEAS) is particularly important in times when migration flows are most often mixed, including migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied minors. It is right to stress that asylum and migration flows have respective specificities which cannot, under any circumstances, be neglected or amalgamated. I voted in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report denounces the logic of the Dublin Regulation. It argues in favour of distributing asylum seekers and the beneficiaries of international protection. It emphasises that distributing people in this way is one of the most concrete expressions of the solidarity that is supposed to be at the heart of European integration. I support the proposal contained in the report to introduce a key for distributing refugees on the basis of objective criteria and to make all transfers to another State conditional on the agreement of the refugees concerned. I also support the emphasis on ensuring that Frontex adheres to the UN principle of non-refoulement. I am disappointed, however, that this report does not revisit the concept of ‘country of origin’ and proposes to apply dubious criteria for the allocation of additional funds. I will vote in favour, as I agree with the central ideas of the report.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report because I believe it highlights the need for a change in the current logic underlying the common European asylum system, clearly demonstrating the need for asylum within the EU to be governed by real and effective principles of solidarity. I also consider this resolution to be important because it sets the Commission and the Member States straight about the erroneous way in which their asylum policies are currently designed. I also voted in favour of this resolution because, among other points, it clearly highlights the need for the Member States to respect and fully accept their responsibility for ensuring compliance with international and European asylum rules and goes one step further in supporting effective and uniform application of the Union acquis in this area in order to ensure high levels of protection across the EU.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The common European asylum system in its present form is moving in a worrying direction. As long as the Union refuses to finally admit that it cannot accommodate every single economic migrant from every corner of the world, hundreds of thousands more will continue to hit the road. When we pass measures such as a mass amnesty for illegal immigrants or the Schengen Treaty, whose weakness was most recently demonstrated by the abuse of tourist visas, the inevitable result is tens of thousands more refugees. This is putting the entire Schengen system at risk of collapse. Greece, Italy and Malta are obviously not capable of securing the EU’s external borders and Schengen newcomers often fall short in their efforts once admitted to the zone. Other Member States are then forced to pay the price – in the name of internal solidarity within the Union. The EU actually needs to upgrade Frontex into an effective border management agency. As this report completely ignores the reality, all I can do is reject it.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum. The report makes a number of relevant points and observations on the failures and insufficiencies of the Dublin Regulation. I also support the rapporteur’s view that any relocation of refugees within the European Union can only take place on the basis of respecting asylum seekers’ rights and the need for their consent. A rights-based approach and the defence of people’s rights to asylum, a life in dignity and without fear of repression must be the priority of any asylum policy. I also support the view that gender-based reasons for seeking asylum must get greater priority. However, I fundamentally disagree with the call for sufficient resources for border protection in paragraph 22 of the report. I continue to defend the position that the root causes that force people to leave their home countries need to be addressed and fought, not the refugees themselves.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The development of a common European asylum system has posed significant challenges for the European Union. Europe is unable to accommodate all the economic migrants that come here and Mediterranean countries like Italy, Greece and Malta are unable to secure their external borders effectively. Therefore, steps must be taken to ensure that Frontex finally becomes a well-functioning border control agency. The asylum system in Europe should not be allowed to become a vehicle for mass immigration and it is clear that there need to be strict principles in EU asylum laws which protect, above all, the legitimate interests of EU citizens. Furthermore, it needs to be a system that analyses the causes of migration in a global context. Most migrants leave their home countries mainly because of the lack of opportunities there and the EU would be well advised to analyse these factors and to do more to encourage the refugees’ countries of origin to establish a fairer economic system. As long as we in Europe fail to recognise that, thousands of refugees who have no right to asylum under existing law will continue to pour into Europe. I did not support the report because it fails to take account of all of these considerations.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as I support establishing a genuine area of protection, wherein the rights of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection are duly respected and promoted.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In 2012, the European Union has committed to complete the establishment of a common European asylum system (CEAS), underpinned by three pillars: harmonisation of standards of protection, by further aligning the Member States’ asylum legislation; effective and well-supported practical cooperation; as well as increased solidarity and a sense of responsibility, not only among EU Member States, but also between the EU and non-EU countries. Considering that harmonisation of standards of protection is under way through the modification of Member States’ legislation and practical cooperation is to be enhanced through the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), it is now important to tackle head on the third pillar of the CEAS by giving substance to the notion of solidarity and responsibility sharing, enshrined in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and that is why I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. I agree with the rapporteur’s approach and so co-signed five of the rapporteur’s amendments. In addition, four more amendments were submitted that were taken aboard by the rapporteur and included, apart from the one regarding climate change that was not adopted; climate change will become the biggest driver for population displacement in the coming years, due to sudden or gradual alterations in the natural environment related to sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and drought and water scarcity; therefore, our group expressed concern with the growing link between climate change and conflict, while emphasising the need to address the issue of climate refugees in the context of EU relocation and resettlement schemes as well.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document because the relocation of internationally protected persons within the European Union should take account of their best interests and the need for solidarity between Member States.

That is why more appropriations are required for asylum policy, for the joint processing of asylum applications, and for a stronger role to be played by the European Asylum Support Office.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are facing an historic moment in which migration flows are mixed and we have to deal with asylum applications by land and by sea. I voted in favour of the report on enhanced solidarity in the field of asylum as it is a concrete commitment to guarantee suitable and effective asylum policies. The report outlines better harmonisation of protection and asylum standards and increased solidarity between Member States, which is to say, mutual assistance and responsibility sharing between Member States in order to ensure rights are promoted and respected. I agree with the priorities identified by the rapporteur: practical cooperation, technical assistance and financial solidarity, and I also believe it is necessary to make use of the complementarity of EU funds.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I supported report A7-0248/2012 on enhancing intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum because it contains an important critique of the current EU asylum system and stresses the need for change. However, my vote in favour of the report should not be seen as support for its call for further harmonisation at EU level within the field of asylum.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) Today, Parliament voted on an own-initiative report on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum. The aim is to be able to provide additional assistance in those countries that need extra help at the moment. It is also important to emphasise the responsibility of the individual countries.

For many people, Europe represents the dream of a life in peace, freedom and safety. Thus, when we discuss asylum policy, we are talking about people’s desire to realise these fundamental values. It is therefore regrettable that these people are repeatedly referred to as problems and ‘burdens’, as in this report. It is also important to emphasise that every single country, for purely humanitarian reasons, must have the right to show radical solidarity, and that the talk of harmonisation should not mean that a country steps aside or does not feel motivated to show human kindness. We ought to urge all countries to pursue an asylum policy that entails respect for human rights and freedoms. Despite certain problematic wordings, I chose to vote in favour of the report.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. Solidarity is an essential component – in fact, the essential component – of the common European asylum system (CEAS). It is a fundamental principle of Union law according to which the Member States must share both advantages and burdens in a fair and equitable manner. Without solidarity, Europe no longer has any meaning. This solidarity, however, must go hand in hand with responsibility, and the Member States must ensure that their asylum systems are able to meet the standards established by international and European law.

The provision of support for implementing the asylum procedures in a spirit of solidarity and shared responsibility must be seen as a way of helping the Member States to respect their obligation to provide international protection to those who need it, as well as to help third countries that receive the greatest number of refugees, with the aim of enhancing the common area of protection in general.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to complement the common European asylum system as regards greater responsibility sharing and increased solidarity, among the Member States, and between the EU and third countries. The objective of this instrument, created in 2012, is to create a common area of protection and solidarity, with a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted international protection. The asylum-related activities of the European Asylum Support Office play a predominant role in harmonising European standards and identifying the failings of the Member States’ asylum systems. More technical support, more coordination between existing funds, more training, identification of shortcomings and sharing of best practices are essential for a genuine common asylum policy.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum because I think that solidarity is one of the European Union’s fundamental values. The basic principle of the common European asylum policy is enshrined in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

I support the creation from 2014 of a simpler and more flexible Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF) and the need to allocate sufficient resources to support the protection of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. I also consider it necessary, in the context of reforming the allocation of funds in the internal affairs area for the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, to allocate sufficient resources for border protection in order to achieve greater solidarity in this area too. Laying solid foundations for mutual trust among Member States is especially important as it is a quintessential link between mutual trust, the development of the common European asylum system and genuine, practical solidarity.

I think that the early warning mechanisms introduced to detect and resolve potential problems before they trigger a crisis may provide a valuable tool.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – I voted against the Triantaphyllides report on EU ‘solidarity’ on asylum. The report is another mistaken step taken by Brussels in the direction of setting up a common European asylum system. I do not support such a system, which is a further step in empowering the EU, would make it more difficult for the UK to refuse bogus asylum claims, and lead to further abuse of the asylum system. I have always said that immigration and asylum policy must remain a UK Government competency, and I strongly oppose any move towards further EU interference, which will only make matters worse.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The report by my colleague, Mr Triantaphyllides, has been adopted by a large majority. This report comes at an opportune moment in the laborious discussions on asylum policy and the creation of a common European asylum system, discussions which have been going on for years. It sends a clear message to the Commission and the Member States by giving them concrete guidelines for achieving genuine solidarity on asylum in the European Union. The report argues that the relocation process must take the interests of asylum seekers into account when they are distributed among the Member States. During the debates on this report, the Commission stated that the number of asylum seekers had been falling for ten years, basing this on the fall in the number of asylum seekers arriving on European territory. We know all too well what is going on here and how ‘Fortress Europe’ is being constructed to the detriment of migrants’ rights and the international obligations of the EU Member States. This report also allows us to stigmatise the ‘upping the ante’ approach of certain Member States. Let us hope that the Commission will hear this message and rapidly bring forward a legislative proposal that will put an end to the political games of which asylum seekers are bearing the brunt.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The report on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum contains sentiments which are close to my own. I decided, however, to abstain from voting because I am certain that particular Member States have lacked sufficient determination to strengthen their own asylum systems, counting instead on the European Parliament to do this for them. Solidarity must go together with responsibility, but after reading this report, I am not sure that this is happening.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The resolution on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum is an expression of efforts to harmonise standards of international protection by further adaptation of Member States’ legislation and encouraging the Member States to engage in more effective cooperation. I agree with the report on setting up a common European asylum system. This is particularly important in view of the growing size of migration flows and the fact that they are composed of mixed groups, including migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied minors.

These proposals, however, require introduction of the resolution’s recommendations on the work of the European Asylum Support Office. This will enable effective resolution of problems experienced by Member States at the Union’s external borders, which arise when there are disproportionate numbers of people applying for asylum, for example. It will also allow efforts to be concentrated on long-term preventive objectives and on exchange of information and experience.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report restricts itself to describing the situation of immigrants, which is enormously serious. Asylum applications in EU Member States are still increasing and there are very few positive responses, since the Dublin Regulation is far from meeting the needs of a more humanist approach to this issue. The EU still ignores the situation of many millions of human beings who are fleeing hunger and war, and seeking dignified lives and work for themselves and their families. They are coming up against the EU’s repressive policies, one of the expressions of which is the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex). They are fleeing chronic poverty and seeking what is denied by politicians with a common thread in their countries and the EU: exploitation. They are fleeing a political and economic situation that is often tragic and to which EU policy has been contributing. To ignore this situation or pretend not to see it is to be complicit. The EU – and the majority in Parliament – is complicit when using the historical relationships of dependence on peripheral countries to impose free trade agreements, when this promotes interference and war that leads to the destruction of these countries.

Report: Lara Comi (A7-0069/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because I think this proposal aimed at revising and replacing the existing legal framework for European standardisation strengthens Europe’s commitment to products and services. The benefit of this proposal, recast during negotiations with Parliament, is that it has increased the involvement of social partners and other stakeholders in improving the proposal for a regulation. In my opinion, it is of critical importance that two key issues have been introduced relating to union involvement and to limiting European standardisation in the area of services, in which the Commission cannot confer the right to negotiate, conclude or implement collective agreements in the standardisation mandate. The standardisation of products and services in the EU needs to be transparent and based on the involvement of key players, so as to achieve innovation and competitiveness in the market, at the same time as protecting fundamental social principles.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Standardisation is one of the 12 levers of the Single Market Act and plays a central role in the proper functioning of the European market. It guarantees the protection of consumers and of the environment and, at the same time, the competitiveness and innovation of our enterprises. I welcome the work done by Ms Comi and the compromise reached between Parliament and the Council after a year of negotiations, and so voted in favour. At last, enterprises and national bodies will have a transparent and effective instrument with a reduced administrative burden. Enterprises represent 99.9% of the productive fabric in Italy alone, and will finally be able to: participate in standardisation committees; use standards to obtain conformity and safety certificates for products and services quicker and at less cost; be informed in advance, by means of a notification system, when the Commission intends to submit standards.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Continuing the efforts in terms of institutional cooperation on standardisation is one of the tools which the European Union can use to boost the economic competitiveness of the operators in its territory, as well as technological progress and innovative capacity. Similarly, thanks to its indirect positive influence on reducing prices and enhancing the quality of European products, the standardisation process helps achieve a high level of consumer satisfaction.

Support for the standardisation process can make a positive contribution to the European Union’s efforts to combat the impact of climate change and to bolstering the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises in Member States, which form the largest group of economic operators on the continent. National and European authorities must remember that, in promoting their efforts to enforce standards, consideration must also be given to the benefits of creating an inclusive society.

For these reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Standardisation has proved to be an invaluable tool both within the European Union and in relation to our international trading partners. In such a rapidly changing market as the new technologies market, it was therefore crucial to enable clear and firm rules to be established for businesses: for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular, but also for all businesses involved in the market. By reaching an agreement with the Council on this report within a year, Parliament is allowing for the unification of the single market, making it more consistent and more stable for the economic actors of the Union.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the establishment of the European standardisation system. Standardisation is particularly important for building a common internal market, ensuring the business competitiveness of both the EU and individual Member States, removing trade obstacles and ensuring appropriate health protection and market access for safe products. We need to remove existing deficiencies which currently prevent us from ensuring product safety and which create different levels of consumer protection in different Member States. The laying down of uniform standards at European level is especially important in the field of rapidly developing technologies and innovations. I welcome the proposals to encourage the involvement of SMEs and Member States’ public authorities in the standards development process. Standards need to be comprehensible and easy to use. I agree that standards need to be harmonised in the services sector, where there is a lack of standards.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I believe that the compromise reached between the Council and Parliament, after more than a year of negotiations, is a decisive step forward towards a more balanced and effective European system of standardisation that corresponds to the real needs of European enterprises.

The impact caused by the new regulation can only be fully understood if we consider that standards are an instrument for the competitiveness of all enterprises and, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which, by using them, can obtain conformity and safety certificates for products and services quicker and at less cost.

In particular, I welcome two aspects of the new proposal: the creation of a new notification system through which European enterprises will be informed in advance when the Commission intends to submit standards, and the extension of the scope of the regulation in question to standards concerning all services, which account for more than 70% of EU GDP.

Another positive element is the fact that the new legislation will oblige Member States to facilitate the participation of SMEs in standardisation committees and their access to standards.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of adopting the new standardisation rules that are needed to relaunch the single market. These new rules, which make up one of 12 pillars of the Single Market Act, will allow us to respond to three problems: the slow process for the adoption of standards, the under-representation of the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and civil society actors, and the prevalence of standards adopted by non-European organisations in information and communication technologies.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the review of European standardisation will attempt to preserve its various existing successful elements, remedy its deficiencies, and strike a balance between the European, national and international dimensions. Given the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for the European economy, we need to strengthen the involvement of SMEs in standardisation and facilitate their access to standards, which should be comprehensible and easy for them to use. I believe that it is very important for European standards to be developed within a reasonable period of time, in particular, in those areas where standards are needed quickly in order to meet the requirements of public policies and rapidly changing market conditions. Member States should therefore send representatives to take part in all national technical committees because standardisation is an important tool of EU legislation and public policies and only then can we ensure the proper functioning of legislation in the areas covered by the new approach. The services sector, for instance, is very important economically and has a lot of potential, but there is still a lack of standards in this area. Their development would promote harmonisation in the services sector, increase the competitiveness, quality and transparency of European services and promote consumer protection and innovation.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Standardisation plays a key role in the smooth functioning of the internal market. Having harmonised European standards helps ensure the free movement of goods within the internal market, while also boosting companies’ level of competitiveness within the European Union. Although standards help improve the quality and safety of goods considerably, great progress has not been made in the services sector. I think that devising European standards for services will bring greater harmonisation in this sector, resulting in more transparent, higher quality and more competitive services in Europe.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission has tackled an issue that has historically been a cornerstone of European integration and the report acknowledges that importance. I therefore voted in favour and I congratulate Ms Comi for effectively summing up such a sensitive issue.

I should point out the urgency of bringing the standardisation times of the European institutions into line with those of industry and, in a broader sense, of society. Innovation in this field, resulting from agreements within sectors including through forums, is certainly a sign of life, but this activity cannot be left to an entirely private process: without an institutional stimulus, it would be difficult to overcome technical and regulatory obstacles and market fragmentation.

Moreover, a rather disorganised network of standards arising from trade relations, negotiated beyond the sphere of action of the European standardisation organisations (ESOs), could cause market distortions. The impetus for standardisation naturally comes from society and from the market and meets requirements in terms of development, reduced costs for businesses, and increased value of products and services, which are very clear to consumers. It would be rather strange if the European institutions were to marginalise themselves in this area.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Standardisation is an engine of growth: it simplifies the administrative burden that businesses face, lowers their production costs, and puts their innovative products onto the market more quickly. That is why I voted in favour of this report, which simplifies the system at an administrative and financial level while guaranteeing a high level of transparency. We want to involve small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as representatives of environmental organisations, consumers and civil society in the development of these standards, so that we can guarantee that the opinions of end users, in particular, those with specific needs such as disabled and elderly people, are taken into account and that products respond to their needs. These new rules will also permit increased compatibility with the international standardisation system, thus stimulating the competitiveness of European businesses on the world stage. From 1 January 2013, these new rules will apply directly to the Member States.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The proposal to standardise goods and services across the EU equates to a raft of regulation that would certainly impact on small businesses in ways that is unprecedented. While certain areas of standardisation, such as creating standard fit phone chargers, may seem logical, bearing in mind the difference between the three-pin UK socket and common European two-pin socket, it becomes apparent that even what may appear rational standardisation would face many hurdles that would prove to be both costly and almost impossible to enforce. It also opens up other sectors to regulation that do not need to come under the remit of such a broad-reaching effort to centralise all services and manufacturing under one European umbrella jurisdiction.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – I support this first reading agreement which is an important step forward for the EU standardisation system. I particularly favour the introduction of rules aimed at facilitating the involvement of SMEs in standardisation activities, especially taking into account the fact that SMEs provide a vital contribution to the EU economy. Moreover, I commend the fact that the rapporteur has fully understood the importance of enhancing the degree to which both public authorities in Member States and social stakeholders participate in European standardisation, since I believe it is of the utmost importance that all interests be equally represented in such a relevant field. Also, I fully support the proposal of a consultation phase between the Commission, the ESOs and the relevant stakeholders prior to issuing the mandate, as it will considerably accelerate the standard-setting process while, at the same time, ensuring that the market relevance of the standard is maintained. I also favour the proposed performance-based simplification of the current EU funding system in support of standardisation, as I believe it will help reduce the irrational waste of resources caused by the current lump sums-based system.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Comi report on the proposal for a regulation on European standardisation. I believe that standardisation is an essential tool for ensuring, among other things, the proper functioning of the single market for goods, a higher level of protection for consumers and the environment, and an increase in innovation and social inclusion. I think it is important that the modernisation of the ‘standardisation package’ preserves the many fruitful aspects of this system, remedies its deficiencies and finds a fair balance between the national, European and international dimensions.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Comi’s report on European standardisation as I believe that it brings significant benefits for the European Union and the Member States. The provisions of the regulation are aimed at achieving the goals of greater efficiency, competitiveness of the market and swiftness in drafting European standards with greater transparency and applicability. In particular, the regulation focuses on social inclusion, on participation and consultation of stakeholders, and on services, paying particular attention to the role of small and medium-sized enterprises. In this regard, I believe it is appropriate to place special emphasis on the fact that standards are important for the competitiveness of enterprises, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, and they are vital for development. This regulation will enable small and medium-sized enterprises to cut costs and to increase their competitiveness on the European market, thus increasing their participation in and access to standards, allowing them to have a say in establishing standards. Finally, this regulation will bring about the following main benefits: better interaction between markets; more transparency; improved standards; facilitation and simplification of the work of enterprises and an improved quality of life for consumers. It will play a vital role in the completion of the internal market and in achieving genuine economic and monetary union.

  Lara Comi (PPE) , in writing. – (IT) In order to be able to use a telephone’s battery charger somewhere other than where we normally live, the plug socket needs to be compatible. A train that wants to travel beyond its own state has to be able to run on suitable rails.

These examples show how standards are a vital part of our everyday lives and that it is important to guarantee the interoperability of different technologies so that they can be used to their best effect. This regulation, for which I was rapporteur, makes the standardisation system more efficient, improves citizens’ quality of life, and makes our businesses more competitive, thus strengthening the whole European market.

I really am very pleased with the result achieved in a short space of time and through complex negotiation between the various stakeholders and, above all, that it has received such broad support in Parliament. I am certain that this new instrument will have a significant effect on reviving the market and promoting our businesses.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European standardisation system must take into account the ever growing number of small businesses in Europe, especially craft and micro-enterprises, which form the basis of the economy in many European states. On the other hand, it is important to be able to take the views of these enterprises and micro-enterprises into account when devising standards and adapting them to current developments in every area. I also think that it is beneficial to adapt the provisions in this area in an appropriate manner so that all these players can implement European standards properly.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This standardisation process was the first of 12 measures launched by the Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier, as part of his strategy for relaunching the single market. I consider European standardisation a prerequisite for the smooth running of any European market that aims to be single. A single market that is transparent and uniform as regards rules and the standardisation of the products sold therein was one of the main objectives of the EU’s founding countries, when they created the European Coal and Steel Community and then the European Economic Community. For too long, we have had British, German French, Spanish, Italian or Swedish standards for industrial products, for example, competing with each other and – surprisingly – with the very European standards created for the entire EU. It is also surprising that, within a ‘single market’, the imperial system coexists with the metric system. I therefore favour any legislative initiative that leads to the creation of common market rules. That is the only way that we will move towards the intended Union of peoples and states, without any form of barrier, technical or otherwise.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which calls for increased harmonisation of the standards in force within the European Union. By adopting these measures, we are once again helping our entrepreneurs by simplifying exports of products manufactured on our territory. The return to growth can only take place if we give real support to those who make up the economic fabric of our countries.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the European standardisation system because it is aimed at tackling pivotal issues requiring profound analysis, thereby facilitating debates with the Commission, as well as at striking the right balance between the national, European and international dimensions.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur argues that standardisation ‘helps to boost the competitiveness of enterprises by facilitating, in particular, the free movement of goods and services’ and increases ‘competition and lower output and sales costs’. As such, standardisation is considered a step towards consolidating the single market, free competition and, that being the case, the divergences and asymmetries resulting therefrom. Another issue we are concerned about is the intention of developing European standards in the service sector, as provided for in the Services Directive, which the report states ‘should generate further harmonisation in the service sector, increasing the transparency, quality and competitiveness of European services’. This idea is intrinsically bound up with the intention of liberalising the service sector. This liberalisation of services is, in turn, intrinsically bound up with the assault on public services and the social functions of the state, and it could have serious implications for various countries, specifically those with weaker social situations, thus exacerbating the crisis that we are currently experiencing, not least in Portugal. Naturally, we acknowledge the importance of standardising products and processes in contemporary economies and societies. However, the commercial philosophy underlying this report worries and concerns us.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council aims to increase the positive effect of European standards on the functioning of the market, economic growth, innovation and the competitiveness of firms. Standardisation contributes to many aspects of economic activity, particularly in terms of growth, productivity and the opening of markets. Among other things, the proposal seeks to shorten the standardisation process in cases where standards are drafted at the request of the Commission, to ensure that SMEs and societal stakeholders are properly represented in the standardisation process, and to make the application of information and communication technology standards more widespread, thereby improving interoperability and increasing the number of standards on innovative and rapidly developing production technologies, such as nanotechnology, biotechnology and nuclear technology, and also stepping up the consolidation of existing legislative frameworks. New legislation should be drafted that will consolidate previously introduced directives on standardisation policy and update these directives. The proposal will consolidate existing EU standardisation policy and introduce new elements to take account of new challenges.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). in writing. – (HU) Considering the rapid advances in technology and innovation, the establishment of uniform standards at European level is particularly important. In order to ensure the competitiveness of the European Union and that safe products are placed on the market, these uniform standards must be valid and applicable in all Member States. I agree with the acceleration of standardisation, but it should be a fundamental criterion that this process should by no means come at the cost of quality. The primary aim should be accelerating the process in terms of administration; measures in this regard should be implemented jointly by the standardisation bodies and the Commission. There is much potential in European standardisation in respect of supporting both legislation and public policies. I appreciate that the report recognises this potential and stresses that the development of standards should move towards new areas, such as services. As Ms Comi mentioned, the new European model must facilitate European innovation and sustainable development. I completely agree with this. As we can see, standardisation, coupled with the principle of mutual recognition, plays a central part in the proper functioning of the internal market. Additionally, it contributes to the protection of the health and safety of European consumers, and to environmental protection. These are some of the reasons why it is important that we support this report, and I for one did so with my positive vote.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I fully support the report on European standardisation, aimed at revising and replacing the existing legal framework on European standardisation by simplifying rules and accelerating the standard-setting processes, especially in the fast-developing ICT sector. However, alongside the process, we need to ensure cooperation and balanced representation of all stakeholders in the system at national and EU levels, so as to ensure transparency, clear division of responsibilities and consistency of the standards across Europe. Improving transparency, consultation and involvement of the relevant parties in the process are crucial elements needed to guarantee that standards are useful and truly market-driven tools preserving fundamental and social principles. The focal point of the standardisation process should be the involvement of SMEs in the standardisation activities, particularly in the work of national standardisation bodies. National standardisation organisations should promote and facilitate the access of SMEs to standards and their development by applying special rates and providing bundles of standards at a reduced price. Member States should also consider exempting micro-businesses from payment for these services.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Standardisation plays a key role in the functioning of the single market. Harmonised European standards help ensure the free flow of goods and enable businesses in the EU to be more competitive. The introduction of legislation intended to enhance the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in the standard-setting process is something which I think is particularly important. The very low participation of SMEs in the standardisation process gives rise to the fear that the interests of these groups are not properly reflected in the standards. So I think we must support the involvement of SMEs in standardisation by identifying appropriate policies and introducing good practices, for example, but also by introducing European standards which are comprehensible and easy to use. It should be stressed that standardisation affects the safety of consumers, giving them clear information about the standard of the product concerned. Therefore, it should also be a priority to increase consumers’ participation in the standardisation process.

I think a very good feature is the inclusion of standards for services in the legal framework on European standardisation. This is something new, but the great variety of services available means that standardisation of services will certainly have a positive impact on further efforts to build and strengthen the single market. Specifying certain standards which businesses could use to evaluate the quality of services is certain to help improve competitiveness. More effective consultations with all interested parties, greater transparency and extending standardisation to services is a rational direction for the development of legislation on European standards.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal. European standardisation is beneficial in that it helps to boost the competitiveness of enterprises by facilitating, in particular, the free movement of goods and services, network interoperability, means of communication, technological development and innovation. European standardisation also reinforces the global competitiveness of European industry. Standards produce significant positive economic effects, for example, by promoting economic interpenetration on the internal market and encouraging the development of new and improved products or markets and improved supply conditions. Standards thus normally increase competition and lower output and sales costs, benefiting economies as a whole and consumers in particular. Standards may maintain and enhance quality, provide information and ensure interoperability and compatibility, thereby increasing safety and value for consumers.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report. I fully agree with the rapporteur that standards should be comprehensible and easy to use so that they can be better implemented by all users. In referring to users, I am thinking primarily of small and medium-sized enterprises, which form the backbone of the European economy. Unfortunately, their involvement in standardisation does not always reflect their economic importance. This happens because standards are not always designed so as to take account of the characteristics and environment of small enterprises, micro-enterprises and small craft businesses. Therefore, we need to take steps to enable SMEs to play a full part in the elaboration of standards, and we also need to ensure that SMEs have easier access to standards.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Ms Comi’s work on such a wide-ranging and complex issue is praiseworthy for its succinctness and for making proposals on the issue. It is highly desirable to have European standardisation that is as standardised and harmonised as possible and which takes account of the structures of the European system. The standardisation system affects the activity of enterprises and their competitiveness. It is therefore vital to move towards cutting red tape and making the industrial fabric a participant in decisions concerning European standardisation. If operators are fully involved in this important decision-making process, it will only benefit the Community as a whole and all services provided to consumers and citizens.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In order to lighten the administrative burden on businesses, this Tuesday, the European Parliament adopted a European standardisation process. This will mean that businesses can obtain standard solutions to technical problems more quickly. They will also be able to reduce their production costs, promote good practices and stimulate competitiveness and growth. I voted in favour of this report on European standardisation. This will allow us to revise and merge several existing directives. This report is part of the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. During the negotiations, Parliament emphasised the importance of involving small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as representatives of environmental, consumer and civil society organisations in developing these standards. By acting in consultation with these various parties, we will be able to ensure that the opinion of end users is taken into account.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In a society where economic sectors evolve quickly and products have ever shorter lifecycles, the role of European standardisation is to ensure the functioning of the internal market by supporting competitiveness and guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection. However, I am concerned that standardisation in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector is not extensive enough, even though this sector is permanently expanding. Although there are disparities between Member States in terms of using ICT resources in different sectors of activity, I still think that harmonised standardisation is needed at EU level, even in this area. I believe that, in the long run, in-depth regulation of this activity will have tangible, beneficial results for the industry and, by extension, for the way in which competition develops in the internal market.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report and the Commission’s proposal to review the European standardisation system taking due account of Parliament’s request for a revision aimed at preserving the many successful elements of the system, remedying its deficiencies, and striking the right balance between the national, European and international dimensions.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on European standardisation. The contents of this report will allow important steps forward to be made in a specific and necessary area for the single market. European standards enable us to ensure continuity between a national and a European market. They thus offer new prospects for growth and a future for our businesses. However, in order to carry out these functions, the system must be modernised and must guarantee transparency and the representation of all stakeholders, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) ‘EU unity in diversity’ is a compromise which brings benefits, but also creates numerous obstacles to the same degree. This is why the public and economic sectors, in addition to the players who defend the interests of civil society, need to standardise services in order to make things operate more efficiently. European companies need to improve their ability to adapt to a changing global economy.

Standardisation can provide proper support, especially for SMEs. This is why they need to be taken into account when drawing up standardisation criteria. The low level of interest shown by public authorities in participating in the process of devising European standards causes delays and helps maintain the disparities between the EU’s regions.

In the area of public procurement, harmonising procedures is a priority and, in this regard, digitisation plays an important role. I think it is a priority to get the social players involved in establishing the standardisation criteria.

Creating the common framework supporting workers’ safety and rights, people with disabilities and measures aimed at increasing sustainability helps improve social standards in the EU.

I support this report because I think that the standardisation process is vital for attracting investment from third countries. Potential investors are not very keen on the European markets’ diversity and the lack of links between them.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is important that this report be adopted because we need to quickly and simply adjust and ease the regulations for all those who are often overshadowed. Indeed, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often struggle to deal with regulations that have been designed without taking them into consideration.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report fails to call for the obligatory participation of Members in the process of European standardisation. Even worse, it argues for implementing the single market in services through European standardisation or, if necessary, the WTO standardisation of services. I will vote against this report.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this legislative proposal on the standardisation system – the Comi report – because it represents great progress in the convergence and harmonisation of the specifications of products and services within the EU. It also eliminates barriers to movement and competition within the internal market. In fact, this is a piece of what is known as the ‘Single Market Act’, announced by the European Commission last year, aimed at consolidating the single market. Standardisation establishes a level playing field in inter-company competition, eliminates national borders, expands companies’ markets, reduces production costs, better defends consumers, and makes the EU economy more externally competitive. Moreover, internal standardisation boosts EU initiatives and efforts to expand standardisation internationally, whether through bilateral trade agreements or through bilateral instruments. Increasing amounts of international trade depend on the convergence of regulatory standards and the removal of ‘non-tariff’ barriers.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because it outlines new priorities and addresses deficiencies in this important sector.

First of all, the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the European standardisation process is at last being fostered, thus fully involving the true manufacturing force of the EU. The importance of consulting consumer associations when drawing up standards should also be underlined, and this can be of great help, especially for people with specific needs, such as the disabled.

We therefore hope to have more transparent and representative standardisation, first and foremost to help meet the needs of individuals and smaller businesses.

Of course, more could have been done, for example, proposing that micro-enterprises have free access to regulatory standards. I myself have received a number of complaints from small-business owners who have objectively struggled to meet the costs involved in obtaining these documents that are so essential for their manufacturing processes.

However, there are high research costs which have somehow to be covered; we can therefore regard the text adopted today as a good compromise – as to how it will actually be applied, we will, in any case, have to return to this in more detail at a later stage.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report welcoming the Commission proposal to review the European standardisation system, taking due account of Parliament’s request for a revision aimed at preserving the many successful elements of the system, remedying its deficiencies and striking the right balance between the national, European and international dimensions.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Taking into consideration the findings of the Expert Panel for the review of the European standardisation system (EXPRESS) report and the responses to the Commission’s public consultation on the current legal framework of European standardisation, the basis for a revision of the standardisation system has now been built. Stressing the importance of easy access to standards, which would enable enhanced participation by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), public authorities and societal stakeholders in the standardisation process, and with the aim of preserving the many positive aspects of the system, while remedying its deficiencies, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the regulation, which improves the use of technical standards in the services and telecommunications sectors.

This new regulation will provide European businesses with more immediate access to standard solutions to technical problems, which will cut manufacturing costs, facilitating the spread of best practices and increasing competitiveness. The new regulation, which aims to modernise the so-called process of ‘standardisation’, simplifies the whole system in terms of administration and finance, providing a high level of transparency.

I think the biggest success concerns ensuring the participation of small businesses and consumer representatives, environmental organisations and civil society, which will be consulted throughout the standards development process. This is a very important point, as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), owing both to their small size and to language problems, struggle to play an active part in the system, even though they are, in fact, the economic base of our European system.

Moreover, this new legislation makes European standards even more compatible with international ones, thus improving the global competitiveness of EU businesses.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the regulation aiming to modernise the European standardisation process by simplifying the current system at an administrative and financial level, while guaranteeing a high level of transparency. The report aims, in particular, to improve the use of standards in the services sector and in the information and communication technology sector. Thanks to these new measures, European businesses will be able to obtain standard solutions to technical problems more quickly, which will allow them to reduce their production costs. These measures will also allow for enhanced compatibility with the international standardisation system. This report will thus contribute to improving the competitiveness of European businesses and to stimulating growth. The Commission has estimated that standards have an impact on the growth of the EU amounting to more than EUR 35 billion per year. During the course of the discussions, I paid particular attention to the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the development of standards, as well as the involvement of consumers – particularly vulnerable ones – in order to ensure that the opinion of end users is taken into account and the products are responsive to their needs. The final text seems to me to be sufficiently balanced, and I support it. The regulation will enter into force at the start of 2013.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. On 1 June 2011, the European Commission adopted a ‘Standardisation Package’ composed of a proposal for a regulation aimed at revising and replacing the existing legal framework on European standardisation, an impact assessment and a communication providing a strategic vision for European standardisation for the next decade. The proposed regulation builds on two general public consultations held in 2009 and 2010, the work of the Expert Panel for the review of the European standardisation system (EXPRESS), the White Paper on Modernising ICT Standardisation in the EU – The Way Forward, and the European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2010 on the future of European standardisation. The purpose of this draft report is to cover the key issues that require close consideration in this proposal so as to facilitate the discussions in the committee. While the rapporteur reserves the right to table more amendments after having further examined the Commission’s proposal and conducted further consultations, her intention at this stage is to generate a fruitful discussion in the committee and she looks forward to further suggestions.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I supported the legislative proposal on European standardisation tabled by Lara Comi as it set itself the important goal of amending a whole series of guidelines in a technical field, standardisation, that is of great importance for the business world. Following this measure, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will be directly involved in developing new standards owing to the lower access rates. In addition, in the process of drawing up standards, there is also room for consumers through their associations.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The new regulation on European standardisation is a satisfactory compromise reached after a year of tough negotiations. I believe that standardisation is a key step on the road to achieving the objectives outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy and to boosting the internal market. This regulation will help European businesses to obtain certificates of conformity within a constantly updated system, products will be safer, services faster and costs lower. All this is advantageous, particularly for previously under-represented small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which will now be better represented and which will now incur lower costs and fewer burdens in general. The regulation does include among its objectives the elimination of bureaucratic barriers and increased transparency, as well as consumer and environmental protection.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I supported the draft regulation on European standardisation, as it marks an important step towards modernising the development of European standards. This is not only a prerequisite for increasing the competitiveness and economic growth of European firms on the global market, but also a further step towards bringing the idea of a fully functional single market to completion. I also welcome extending involvement in the process of developing standards to a wider circle of consulted parties – consumer representatives, civil society and social partners. All of these must be fully-fledged members of the dialogue, as they are the ultimate users of products and services and are, at the same time, best able to describe their own specific needs. Functioning European standards will not only mean consumer satisfaction, but will also boost consumer confidence in the single market. Last but not least, we must not forget small and medium-sized enterprises, which may be discriminated against and may even face problems with survival as a result of the non-transparent development and adoption of standards involving a high administrative burden. I am therefore pleased that the representatives of these businesses will also be able to take part in standardisation activities through consultations.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. The regulation on standardisation that has been adopted enriches the current legislative framework and provides businesses with a useful tool for achieving harmonisation in the single market. The establishment of clear rules which have the same force in all the countries of the Union will mean that our market can operate on the basis of common production criteria. Through the benefits of simplification, two areas necessary to the development of our free market area will be enhanced: the competitiveness of businesses and the protection of consumers. These two elements in combination are essential for harmonising the European system of production, although we need to exclude social services for citizens. On the one hand, common standards will improve the market; on the other hand, we cannot allow a situation to arise in which the standards applied to consumer goods are also applied to services for citizens. It is up to the Member States to set criteria for the organisation, management and financing of social security and health services; the standardisation process must not be used to regulate the primary needs of citizens. This restriction represents a victory for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament; together, we have safeguarded citizens’ right of access to services.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has tabled a proposal for a regulation on European standardisation whose objective is to improve the method of setting out standards and the corresponding application thereof to the EU. I am voting for the process of European standardisation because I believe it will make Europe more competitive, defend consumer rights, respond to climate change, and increasingly open Europe up to new markets. At a time of economic and financial crisis, the existence of contradictory national standards, or the lack of harmonised standards, leads to higher transaction costs and unit costs because of the need to create separate batches. I would also argue that we need to pay particular attention to small and medium-sized enterprises, which face a range of problems regarding standards and European standardisation. It also needs to be ensured that standards relating to information and communication technology are drafted by European standardisation bodies, not other entities.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation on European standardisation because I think that European standardisation can help boost the competitiveness of enterprises by facilitating the free movement of goods and services, network interoperability, means of communication, technological progress and innovation. The main purpose of standardisation is to define voluntary technical or quality specifications which can be complied with by products, production processes or by current or future services. Standardisation can relate to different aspects, such as different classes or dimensions of a particular product or the technical specifications of the product or service markets for which compatibility and interoperability with other products or systems are vital.

The fundamental principles recognised by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the area of standardisation, namely, the principles of coherence, transparency, openness, consensus, voluntary application, independence from particular interests and efficiency, must form the basis for European standardisation. In keeping with these fundamental principles, it is important that all the relevant stakeholders, including public authorities and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), are properly involved in the standardisation process at national and European level. National standardisation bodies should encourage and facilitate the stakeholders’ involvement.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This new regulation sets the rules for cooperation between national and European standardisation bodies and the European Commission. This will ensure clarity and help avoid administrative problems with a view to allowing firms to get quicker access to standard solutions to technical problems. This modernisation in the development process for EU standards will enable firms to cut production costs. It will help in the spread of best practice, and it will also boost competitiveness and drive growth. I fully support this regulation as voted by the European Parliament, and I am especially pleased that small firms, representatives of consumers, and environmental and civil society bodies will now be consulted during the development process.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) Standards in the service industry and ICT support the dissemination of practices and innovations. The entire system of administration and finance will now be simplified, thereby ensuring a high level of transparency. This will increase the competitiveness of European companies in the global market. This is the first legislative proposal adopted by Parliament under the Single Market Act and its rules will come into force on 1 January 2013.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) A review of the European standardisation system is essential. The system contains many elements which should be considered successful and retained. However, it also has certain deficiencies which must be remedied. A review of the current system should enable a balance to be struck between the European, national and international dimensions.

It is also essential to ensure that both public authorities and societal stakeholders, such as consumers and workers, participate in European standardisation. It is important, too, that the European standardisation process be more transparent, and also that it ensure financial stability. These considerations led me to endorse the resolution.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The concept of European standardisation implies cooperation between industry, the public authorities and other stakeholders. This report argues that standardisation ‘helps to boost the competitiveness of enterprises by facilitating, in particular, the free movement of goods and services’ and increases ‘competition and lower output and sales costs’. These standards and EU standardisation are used as political instruments that guarantee the flow and operation of the single market, promoting free competition and, thereby, deepening divergences between countries. We are also concerned about the intention of developing European standards in the service sector, as provided for in the Services Directive, which the report states ‘should generate further harmonisation in the services sector, increase the transparency, quality and competitiveness of European services’. On the contrary, the liberalisation and privatisation of services will have negative consequences for the peoples of the Member States, particularly those with weaker social and economic situations, such as Portugal.

Report: Sophie Auconie (A7-0199/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because I believe food safety is one of the European public’s main concerns. European legislation should therefore ensure the best possible protection, through the updating and strengthening of provisions whenever necessary. As such, following the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, the EU adopted strict rules on the identification and traceability of bovine animals back in 1997. I agree with the rapporteur, who welcomes the Commission’s legislative proposal, which will enhance the safety of beef for consumers. I would stress that the rapporteur proposes a number of additional clarifications to each of the three sections of the proposal, which I consider important. As regards electronic identification, it makes it possible to obtain more reliable data, thus strengthening the traceability system and enhancing food safety. As regards simplification of labelling and, in particular, updating the Commission’s competences, it is important that, no later than five years after the entry into force of this regulation, it submits to Parliament and the Council a report and, where appropriate, relevant proposals for implementing this regulation and the necessary progress.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) A number of contradictions have emerged from the proposal for a regulation as the provisions contained therein bring benefits, on the one hand, through electronic identification of bovine animals that makes it possible to speed up their registration and thereby their traceability. On the other hand, they take a few steps backwards by justifying it as a way to reduce the costs and administrative burdens incurred by the Member States and by operators who choose voluntary labelling. We have made great efforts, in recent years, to achieve optimal health protection for our citizens, trying to provide the consumer with information to help increase added value and product quality. We have also tried, through voluntary labelling, to counter industrial anonymity and counterfeiting in the beef sector. Why undo all the work that has been done? Why abolish voluntary labelling, when its very voluntary nature means no one is forced to apply it?

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) During these tough economic times which EU Member States are enduring, it is inappropriate to burden farmers with additional administrative requirements. Farmers have enough challenges which they need to face without having other burdens on top of this. At the same time, however, food safety is one of the main issues of concern to Europe’s citizens.

The electronic identification of bovine animals makes it possible to obtain more reliable data, while also strengthening the traceability system. Member States will be able to decide whether the requirements will be applied on a compulsory basis in their territory. I believe that this is an excellent solution and I endorse the rapporteur’s approach and the solution tabled by the Commission; hence the reason I voted for this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In order to ensure the best possible food security, all cattle are monitored from birth until slaughter, and must carry ear tags with a reference number. That is what we refer to as the traceability of meat. Given the progress achieved through the technique of electronic identification, my report proposes progressive and harmonised development of this technology on a voluntary basis; thus, only for cattle farmers who want it. In five years, we will take stock of this development. We will see, then, if it is a good idea to make electronic identification obligatory, replacing conventional identification through ear tags. As regards the other part of this report – the labelling of beef – my report recommends simplifying the procedure to allow the use of optional mentions on meat packets. For example, this affects information relating to the breed of the animal or the rearing method. Too often, the European Union is perceived as restrictive. On this subject of labelling beef, the European Parliament recommends making the lives of farmers and workers in the cattle sector easier. I will now begin the negotiations with the European ministers.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The system for the electronic identification of bovine animals is aimed at improving their traceability. Electronic identification will help to ensure greater food safety in the EU and strengthen control of the spread of animal diseases. Electronic reading will open up opportunities to not only ensure that beef products are as safe and hygienic as possible and to manage outbreaks of infectious diseases, but also to promote this sector’s competitiveness. I agree that electronic identification should remain a voluntary measure, but the expansion of the market in electronic devices must result in lower prices so that this identification method becomes the norm.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against the amended proposal by Ms Auconie because I believe that abolishing voluntary beef labelling is a senseless and counterproductive decision, both for consumers and for farmers.

This proposal levels out the market, favouring an industry based on anonymity and counterfeiting, to the detriment of those farmers who focus on quality. Citizens have a right to know what they are buying and what they are eating: that is why I reiterate my vote against the amended proposal.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because European citizens are concerned about food safety and European legislation must ensure the safety of beef for consumers. The market in electronic devices for the identification of bovine animals should therefore be expanded because only then will it be possible to obtain more reliable data and strengthen the traceability system. This would help guarantee food safety, would speed up the registration of bovine animals and mechanise some tasks. Beef labelling is a very heavy administrative burden. Therefore, it should be simplified and provisions on voluntary labelling deleted.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Food safety is one of the main issues of concern to Europe’s citizens. European legislation must therefore guarantee them optimum protection by means of up-to-date, more stringent provisions whenever necessary. Following the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis, the European Union introduced strict rules in 1997 on the identification and traceability of bovine animals. The electronic identification of bovine animals makes it possible to obtain more reliable data, while also strengthening the traceability system and food safety. It also makes it possible to speed up the registration of bovine animals, automate some tasks and boost the effectiveness of herd management. I think that a debate is needed about whether this measure should be compulsory or voluntary and that the costs which should be borne by farmers need to be quantified.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on electronic identification of bovine animals. The extension of this technology allows us to enhance the current system in relation to the traceability of bovine animals and foodstuffs by making the system operate more quickly and more precisely. It also aims at making progress in the reduction of administrative charges and the improvement of disease prevention. In the long term, this type of innovation will have an effect on the competitiveness of the sector and is thus a welcome innovation.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Greater use of electronic technologies in agriculture is inevitable. Farmers today have to adapt the methods used in production to the requirements and needs of the consumer. Consumers increasingly want to know more about the products they buy, but in the case of raw products such as beef, it is hard to be sure because there are great variations in the conditions under which this meat is produced. The system of electronic identification and registration of bovine animals – using a special ear tag, a chip inserted under the skin or a strap fitted to the animal’s leg – makes it possible to ensure food safety and improve control of the spread of disease among animals. Besides this, I can see many other advantages of this kind of system.

The introduction of electronic identification on a wide scale will mean a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy by enabling all data to be copied and transferred automatically in digital form. As the system develops, the producer could use it to maintain records of individual animals, including a history of diseases suffered, feed used and vaccinations given. The use of an electronic registration system has many possibilities, but a basic condition for its implementation is to ensure the existence of an appropriate IT infrastructure and a body of suitably qualified people who have a thorough knowledge of the technology involved and who can make decisions on ethical questions concerning the storage and transfer of information held by the system. I think this task should be given to the EU institutions.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – It is essential bovine EID is introduced on a voluntary basis and is not, as some Members of this Parliament urge, subject to a report in five years to consider compulsory EID. The UK cattle ID system works perfectly well, so the choice to upgrade should be an individual decision based upon working preferences. It should be made without fear of penalty under cross compliance if equipment is subject to error. Sheep tagging brought a host of problems that persecuted British farmers whose equipment was especially vulnerable to the elements. Cattle in the UK are often out to grass for at least six months, so tag loss is inevitable. There is a crisis in the dairy industry, while the beef market is only just seeing a small recovery after years of being in the red. Both are subject to pressures from rising feed costs and cheaper foreign imports and would suffer from any punitive measures levied by the Commission.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I consider it crucial to make beef safer for consumers, and because I think that, as the situations of European cattle farms are very diverse, electronic identification should remain optional for farmers; at the very least, interested Member States should have the option of imposing it in their territory.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The aim of this proposal is to address major challenges with regard to adopting emerging technology for the electronic identification of bovine animals, simplifying the provisions for labelling beef and updating the rules governing the powers conferred on the Commission. It is about ensuring that legislation on the identification and traceability of bovine animals is clear and enforceable, and about optimising food safety. Current legislation needs to be adapted, particularly in order to recognise electronic identification as an official method of identifying bovine animals. It is essential to harmonise technical standards in order to prevent this identification method from possibly developing in a chaotic manner and to ensure interoperability between national provisions.

I call for the provision of information to those operating the animal identification and registration system, firstly, to be ‘free of charge to the recipient’, in order to protect small farmers and other operators in the ID system and, secondly, to be renewable ‘as often as necessary’ in order to take account of the changes to this regulation. In order to prevent trade from being hindered within the internal market, the Commission must inform Member States about the provisions adopted on the territories of those Member States which have opted for compulsory electronic identification.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. – (SV) I voted in favour of the report on electronic identification of bovine animals as it aims to reduce red tape and the administrative burdens of farmers and because this modern technology will guarantee a higher level of food safety. Use of the new electronic labelling of animals will make it easier to quickly withdraw or check infected meat using the databases that will be set up. At the same time, I think it is good that use of the electronic labelling by farmers will be voluntary. It entails costs, and it should not be something that they are directly forced into doing.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Food safety is one of the European public’s concerns and we have to ensure it. Consumer information should be clear, objective and the result of a simple, unbureaucratic process. Voluntary labelling of beef is clearly important, since it prevents the profusion of erroneous consumer information on issues like breed, husbandry and the processing of the meat; consumer information regulations should respond to this. Beef is an extremely sensitive product as regards the EU market, very vulnerable to pressure from third countries with fewer animal welfare and husbandry requirements. I think the labelling system should be improved, but with concrete rules and a clear system of checks that is the same for all Member States, whilst retaining the idea of an EU system that prevents various activities that promote distortions of competition. In other words, it should be obligatory for all Member States, as is the case for poultry and eggs.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This regulation aims to pave the way for deleting the provisions on the voluntary beef labelling system. It sets out some general rules for framing and protecting consumers and public health, and which guarantee their trust using objective information that can be verified by the competent authorities and understood by consumers.

We did not vote for the amendments tabled because we think they weaken consumers’ information rights. We are in favour of recognising the differences in farming systems and practices and in sectoral organisations between the Member States, meaning that the latter should be able to decide whether or not to introduce electronic identification (EID) in their territory, including beef sector organisations in the discussion, and taking into account the potential impact on small farmers. We also have some concerns and doubts about the implications of the process of receiving direct aid. Nevertheless, we are pleased about the care taken that, where EID is faulty, the technological breakdown will not lead to farmers being financially penalised. The rapporteur acknowledges that ‘there are practical problems which continue to hinder the effective operation of EID, especially with regard to the accuracy of the technology’.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am dissatisfied by today’s vote on beef labelling. Although it was only by a few votes, we were unable to keep voluntary labelling. A specific request from the entire Italian supply chain, which rightly expressed concern, given that abolition involves a financial loss for farmers – many have already invested in and successfully use this tool – as well as a competitive disadvantage compared with other markets, as Italian production is characterised by its quality. The fact that the rapporteur has decided to refer the text back to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) bodes well, considering that in Council, a majority block may form to reintroduce compulsory labelling systems to defend the principles of quality and traceability.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Food safety is one of the main concerns of European citizens. European legislation should therefore guarantee them optimum protection by means of rules that are updated and strengthened whenever necessary. The electronic identification of bovine animals makes it possible to obtain more reliable data, thus strengthening the traceability system and enhancing food safety. The aim is to ensure that legislation on the identification and traceability of bovine animals is clear and enforceable and thus to achieve the optimal level of food safety. Sufficient information will lead to greater consumer confidence.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I wanted to emphasise the importance and the serious situation that would arise should the voluntary beef labelling system be abolished, so I voted so that this system would not be terminated. If Parliament’s position were to be become final following negotiations with the Council, this would lead to a serious lack of transparency for the consumer and a lowering of product quality, as voluntary labelling allows 24 types of additional information to be entered all the way along the value chain and not just the generic ‘useful information’ of mandatory labelling: country of birth, of husbandry and of slaughter. I very much hope that during negotiations, the Council does not opt to abolish the voluntary labelling system.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – Rules brought in during 2010 require all sheep farmers to electronically tag their sheep. As a consequence, they face financial penalties if they do not achieve 100% accuracy of recording. Yet, the technology at their disposal is not yet 100% accurate. This situation is completely unacceptable. The Commission now wishes to extend electronic identification to bovine animals. However, it seems to have learned from the negative experience of sheep farmers, and has chosen to introduce bovine identification on a voluntary basis. This is a far more pragmatic approach, allowing all stakeholders to benefit, and as such I can support this measure. Given the shambles surrounding the electronic identification of sheep, and the considerable financial impact on farmers, it is imperative that, whilst adhering to the agreed EU technical standards, Member States have control over its introduction to bovine animals.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Parliament’s position on the negotiations with the Council because I think that it achieves a good balance between respect for producers and modernising the identification of bovine animals and meat labelling. We must, of course, ensure simple and practical traceability, as well as increased choice for consumers: that is why we must promote electronic identification of bovine animals, which will enable increased rationalisation of the identification process. We must not forget, however, that we are in a period of crisis: we must not force producers to make investments which are too costly, even if they give us the best health conditions in the world. It would be irresponsible to subject small producers to such unnecessary expense when they have already been put in a precarious position by the current economic situation. As regards meat labelling, it is important to combat excessively heavy administrative burdens. As well as being able to ensure that information is true and verifiable, producers must be able to provide details that can help consumers in their choices. It is natural that we should move towards uniform rules for beef and other meats.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In preparation for the negotiations with the EU agriculture ministers, the European Parliament has clarified its position on the electronic identification of bovine animals. Technical progress has been made in the process for identifying bovine animals, but it remains imperfect. Deficiencies remain, and this calls for a gradual adjustment on the part of our farmers. That is why it was essential to ensure that they do not feel disheartened by the ever more burdensome bureaucratic rules emanating from Brussels. Electronic identification of bovine animals will therefore only apply to farmers on a voluntary basis. In five years, an assessment will be carried out in order to decide whether or not it is appropriate to introduce obligatory electronic identification of bovine animals. As for labelling, obligatory information on the origin of animals will not be altered. On the other hand, Parliament is calling for optional information on the quality of beef (breed, husbandry, etc.) to be simplified and brought in line with the labelling rules for other types of meats.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document because we need to ensure that legislation on the identification and traceability of bovine animals is clear and enforceable and thus to optimise food safety. Food safety is one of the main concerns of European citizens. The electronic identification (EID) of bovine animals makes it possible to obtain more reliable data, thus strengthening the traceability system and enhancing food safety. It also makes it possible to speed up the registration of bovine animals, mechanise some tasks and boost the effectiveness of herd management. The development of this emerging technology should therefore also be promoted. Current legislation should be adapted, particularly in order to recognise EID as an official method of identifying bovine animals. It is also essential to harmonise technical standards in order to prevent this identification method from developing in a chaotic manner and to ensure interoperability between the national systems. However, because the situations on cattle holdings in Europe vary widely, EID should remain optional for farmers unless the Member State in question opts to make it compulsory on its territory. Farmers are encouraged to choose this technology rather than being forced to do so.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by my colleague, Sophie Auconie, which was adopted by a large majority. I welcome this result. The partial adoption of this report (no vote on the final legislative resolution) will allow Sophie Auconie to launch interinstitutional negotiations with the Council so that we are able to reach an agreement at first reading.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) For the electronic identification of bovine animals to be effective, and to ensure that it works in the interests of both farmers and consumers, the system needs to be transparent and easy to use. A modern electronic system will enable yet more precise verification of data and this, in turn, will give consumers access to safer food. It is essential that implementation of the system remains optional, so that the new technology does not hit farmers who only have small numbers of these animals. A system of this kind will enable zoonotic infections to be further reduced. If disease does occur, the system will facilitate identification of the focus of the disease.

For the system to be even more effective, it is necessary to introduce a number of measures which will simplify procedures. Many producers encounter obstacles in registering cattle because they do not have the right equipment or technical skills or because their equipment or Internet connection fails in some way. It is therefore essential to extend the time allowed for registration of an animal, to enable everyone to register within the required time and to prevent numerous financial penalties.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) Food safety is a major concern of European citizens. The electronic identification of bovine animals makes it possible to obtain more reliable data, thus strengthening the traceability system and enhancing food safety. It also makes it possible to speed up the registration of bovine animals, mechanise some tasks and boost the effectiveness of herd management. I therefore support the development of this new technology. Current legislation should be adapted appropriately in order to recognise electronic identification as an official method of identification. It is also essential to harmonise technical standards in order to prevent this identification method from developing in a chaotic manner and insufficient interoperability between the national systems.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by my colleague, Sophie Auconie, on electronic identification of bovine animals has received the approval of this House. I welcome the adoption of this report, which I supported because it guarantees better monitoring of the measures introduced. It also improves consumer confidence while ensuring that the administrative burden on producers is reduced. By advocating the simplification of beef labelling and the harmonisation of electronic identification for these animals, her report is embarking on a major project.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this proposal. Food safety and traceability are extremely important issues for the general public.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on electronic identification of bovine animals, which will enable the improved traceability of beef, but without creating a disproportionate burden on this sector, as this is a voluntary measure. However, electronic identification certainly constitutes an important technological advance in terms of greater food security.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Food safety is one of the main concerns of European citizens. European legislation should therefore guarantee them optimum protection by means of rules that are updated and strengthened whenever necessary. For this reason, I supported the adoption of this report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I agree that the main criteria applying to food for consumers are high standards of quality and safety. I therefore welcome the document, which aims to further enhance the safety of beef for consumers. The advantage of the system for the electronic identification of bovine animals is the possibility to trace and obtain reliable data on food that reaches consumers. The document also states that this system would assist farm management and should therefore be aligned with those already in operation in the Member States. This is another step towards achieving food safety for EU consumers.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against the amendments stipulating the removal of voluntary labelling of beef because Europe’s citizens are entitled to have as detailed information as possible about the products which they are buying. I am in favour of simplifying this system, but not of getting rid of it. Provided that they do not cause excessive red tape, voluntary labelling systems must be encouraged in every area of food production.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although I voted for most of the report, I voted against the draft amendments to the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals. This regulation aims to delete the provisions on voluntary beef labelling. I attach great importance to this system, which enables specification and evaluation of issues such as breed, feed and husbandry; these are as important to consumers as they are to farmers, who highlight these issues for reasons of commercial gain. In Portugal, the effort made by farmers, who have seen voluntary implementation of these systems – which require the competent authorities to approve reams of specifications, as well as checks and specific labelling – as benefiting national production could be frustrated if those systems cease to exist.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Given that databases compliant with Directive 64/432/EEC containing information on cattle do not currently take into account the advent of technology for the electronic identification of bovine animals and that the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 fosters a gradual and harmonious development of this new technology, we also need to tailor the data collection principles in question, making them compatible with the new methods of identifying bovine animals. Taking into account the additional objectives of simplifying the provisions on beef labelling – although these aspects are covered by horizontal legislation and powers in this area should not therefore be conferred on the Commission – and upgrading the powers conferred on the Commission, recalling, however, that the delegation of powers may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament and the Council, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against, because the results are too mixed. Adopted: our amendments introducing labelling provisions for beef derived from cloned bovine animals or descendents of cloned animals – very good. Electronic identification (EID): Standards for EID shall be harmonised (delegated acts). MS can keep the current system, but are also allowed to make compulsory the use of one electronic identifier besides traditional means of identification (see briefing enclosed). In five years, the COM shall submit a report on feasibility of mandatory EID everywhere in the EU, accompanied by a legislative proposal if appropriate (ENVI amendment adopted). Very bad: The existing approval system of voluntary labelling of beef products is abolished. At present, any operator who wants to indicate information which is additional to the obligatory information on their labels has to send a specification to the competent authority of the Member State, which has to approve the reliable functioning of the labelling system. This approval system, ensuring that consumers can trust what is indicated, is abolished according to the amendments adopted today. Only general food labelling legislation shall apply to voluntary beef labelling, which is not enough for a sensitive product like beef.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because I believe that my colleague, Sophie Auconie, has managed to find a balanced and constructive position on the rules relating to cattle identification. The traceability of cattle in its current form was introduced after the mad cow crisis in 1996, which made clear the need for complete traceability from farm to fork. The current system of traceability for bovine animals does work. It is considered to be a simple system which is well-received on the ground. However, in order to keep the identification process up to date with technological innovations, the rules provide for a gradual, harmonised development of this technology, but only for those farmers who want to participate. To allow farmers time to adapt, an assessment will be carried out after five years to determine whether it is appropriate to make electronic identification chips compulsory.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to vote against the report on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling. In fact, I believe it is wrong to abolish the labelling system, which is optional, blaming administrative burdens that each farmer can optionally decide whether or not they wish to incur. On the contrary, such a labelling system has proved to be effective, enabling consumers to make informed choices regarding their purchases, by ensuring that additional information is provided in a harmonised and certified manner. Its abolition would favour less transparent producers.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In Italy, as in most European countries, there are many operators who have been investing for years to comply with European beef labelling regulations. The goal of this important instrument is to provide useful information on the animal (such as breed, gender, feed, age, etc.), enabling consumers to make conscious, informed choices regarding their purchases. Its success is now evident across Europe. The removal of these voluntary labelling provisions would leave a vacuum which would then be filled by a proliferation of different voluntary beef labelling systems without adequate and sufficiently rigorous monitoring arrangements. This would also risk creating uncertainty among operators. For these reasons, I voted against all those amendments that seek to oppose the continuation of the voluntary beef labelling system.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. – (ES) In this matter, while the traceability of the origin of meat is a measure that promotes food safety and quality, I do not think it is entirely appropriate in the current situation, particularly with regard to its effects on small farms.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this report. Given that food security is a topic of major concern among European citizens, we must require the Member States to modernise their identification and traceability measures in accordance with a definite timetable. It will increase consumer confidence if we provide consumers with more information on what they are consuming. However, Amendment 46, added by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, which practically does away with voluntary beef labelling, is completely unacceptable and so I cannot vote in favour of this report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the rapporteur who received the Commission proposals on introducing voluntary electronic identification of bovine animals. I think legislation needs to be adapted to acknowledge electronic identification as an official method of identifying bovine animals, taking into account that the use of technology in this area is growing and becoming more widespread. This technology will have a range of benefits for those who wish to use it, most notably in the areas of traceability and herd management. However, it is important that, as the use of electronic identification in bovine animals becomes more widespread, technical standards be harmonised throughout the EU.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling. The electronic identification of bovine animals makes it possible to obtain more reliable data, while also strengthening the traceability system and food safety.

Current legislation needs to be adapted, particularly in order to recognise electronic identification as an official method of identifying bovine animals. The tracing of beef to source via identification and registration is a prerequisite for origin labelling throughout the food chain. These measures safeguard consumer protection and public health, and promote consumer confidence. Using electronic identification systems could streamline traceability processes through automated and more accurate reading and recording in the holding register. Furthermore, it would enable animal movements to be registered automatically in the online database, thereby improving the system’s speed, reliability and accuracy. Using electronic identification systems would improve the management of direct payments to farmers granted per animal, through applying better controls and reducing the risks of payment errors.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is with great satisfaction that I welcomed the rejection of the obligation for electronic identification of cattle, supported by a number of Members who had obviously not been considering the interests of farmers. This measure aroused indignation and concern among farmers, which I shared and which led me to intervene with the Commission to make it aware of this incomprehensible situation. The additional cost and the administrative surcharge created by this technique would have led to the disappearance of many farms, particularly small farms and those located in mountain areas, which would not have been able to respect this obligation, while they are nevertheless an essential part of our heritage, our rural fabric and biodiversity. Although the reinforcement of the legal arsenal can be understood given the imperatives of traceability and food security, from stall to plate, this must not be done to the detriment of the liberty which is inherent to the profession of farmer, especially since the traditional techniques (tattooing, plastic tags) have demonstrated their reliability and durability. I am therefore pleased that, even by a slim majority, the optional nature of electronic identification of cattle will henceforth be the rule, and that this will be developed exclusively on a voluntary basis.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) When I look at the details of this document, I am reassured by the huge amount of work done and the number of amendments proposed by the Commission, as well as by the advanced state of research and development systems in agriculture. I agree with most of the opinions which have been expressed, and am certain that when it is introduced, this technology will yield a number of benefits. However, I decided to abstain from voting because I am not certain as to whether allowing utilisation of the electronic identification of bovine animals to remain optional, without specifying a final deadline for its introduction, might not slow down implementation of the system in the European Union’s poorer Member States.

Report: Linda McAvan (A7-0165/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I consider it essential, in future, to prevent any possible mistakes existing in pharmacovigilance laws, so as to protect patients and facilitate greatly the withdrawal of dangerous medicines. This report is particularly important because the pharmacovigilance legislation in force lays down the rules on medicine safety and the monitoring thereof once they have been cleared for sale on the European market. This legislation was a great institutional step forward for Europe, regardless of one specific case that calls it into question. As such, by increasing pharmaceutical companies’ responsibilities, by requiring greater transparency and by calling for an automatic and urgent EU-level evaluation, this report serves to clarify dubious cases and will certainly contribute to achieving the goals proposed for it.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has adopted new amendments to the European legislation on pharmacovigilance to prevent the marketing of harmful medicines in the European Union. Many will recall the Mediator scandal, where the legislator had to intervene to ensure the safety of Europe’s citizens. By denying the Member States any room for manoeuvre, the urgent procedure will now be automatic, as the Commission wished. Moreover, the level of transparency demanded of companies has been raised greatly, requiring them to justify any voluntary withdrawal of a medicine or the refusal to renew a medicine.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report, which is aimed at adopting new measures to help strengthen pharmacovigilance throughout the EU and ensure greater safety of medicines across the EU. Monitoring the safety of medicines is aimed at determining and evaluating the side effects of medicines, thus stopping unsuitable medicines from entering the market. The need to ensure the safety of medicines arose following the 2011 inquiry in France into the drug Mediator produced there, the effects of which are thought to have led to the death of between 500 and 2 000 people across the EU. I therefore welcome the strengthening of medicine safety, particularly the obligation to make public a list of the medicinal products for which marketing authorisations have been refused, revoked or suspended, the supply of which has been prohibited or which have been withdrawn from the market, as well as other measures to protect patients provided for in the directive.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I gladly gave my vote in support of the report as this proposal provides an excellent example of the fact that the so often criticised EU legislative process is capable of quick response to the challenges of practical life, especially when the protection of public health is concerned. In connection with the case at hand, the European Commission immediately identified the remaining weaknesses of pharmacovigilance and made proposals for the necessary amendments, on which the Council and Parliament managed to come to an agreement, allowing the amendments to enter into force as early as 2013.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Whilst the Mediator affair has revealed severe shortcomings in the area of medicine safety, I welcome the agreement that we have ratified today at first reading. This pharmacovigilance package meets an additional safety requirement. This requires an amendment to the 2001 directive to reinforce the legal framework: to create an automatic urgent procedure, to increase the transparency obligations for companies and to provide for a blacklist of medicines subject to additional surveillance. These are the new features of this reform which, we hope, will be able to make up for the shortcomings and boost the reliability of the European medicine system.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of modifying the 2010 European directive on pharmacovigilance. This revision comes in the wake of the Mediator scandal. What does Parliament want here? Specifically, we want reinforcement of the obligations that apply when a medicine is withdrawn: from now on, whenever a medicine is to be withdrawn in a Member State, all the European health authorities will have to be notified and provided with a justification for the withdrawal. If there is any suspicion of a risk to health, then, in addition to the withdrawal of the product, an assessment will be carried out to anticipate the potential consequences of the product not functioning properly. We no longer want to have to wait until there is an emergency before we resolve the problems. Finally, it will be possible to look up all medicines subject to enhanced surveillance on a publicly available list – a measure that we have already voted for in France. This duty of transparency seems to us to be essential to restore confidence between citizens, health authorities and pharmaceutical laboratories.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is very important to ensure improved safety of medicines at EU level. We therefore have to strengthen the role of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collecting and immediately acting on signal detection and enhance cooperation between Member States. The additional amendments to the directive are needed to ensure that the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee can manage its workload and to ensure that patients and health care professionals are fully involved in improving the pharmacovigilance system. Firstly, there must be a clear declaration on the withdrawal of a marketing licence or decision not to reapply for a licence. A list must be made public annually detailing the medicinal products for which marketing authorisations have been refused and the reasons for such action. Secondly, the marketing authorisation holder must also submit a notification if he or she has taken action in a third country because it would be useful for regulators to know if a company withdraws, does not renew or otherwise halts a marketing authorisation in a third country. Thirdly, a drug fact box should be created for the benefit of consumers so that they understand the usefulness of the drug as well as possible risks.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The effects of harmful drugs drag on for decades, with significant implications in terms of social impact, not to mention thousands of personal tragedies: the effects of dangerous drugs prescribed in the 1950s and 1960s are still visible today.

We have a moral duty to make maximum use of the potential provided by the scientific and regulatory instruments at our disposal, so as to prevent, as far as possible, any suffering and damage to health. This is also in the interests of an industry that makes a significant contribution to our economies and that must not be criminalised per se, where specific responsibilities lie with a small number of private managers.

For this reason, the four amendments to the directive, suggested by the Commission, are entirely reasonable and appropriate: they speed up the introduction of verification procedures and make it easier to prevent the marketing of potentially dangerous drugs, and help bring out into the open any trace of possible misconduct by companies marketing drugs that later prove to be harmful.

The supplementary provisions proposed by the rapporteur are hallmarked by greater involvement of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and complete transparency for consumers and for the medical and scientific community as a whole. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on pharmacovigilance. This surveillance measure, implemented by the Commission and the supervisory authorities in 2001, was reformed in 2010, partly as a result of the Mediator affair. I particularly support the introduction of the following measures: the introduction of an automatic urgent procedure when a medicine is withdrawn from the market, the creation of a new trigger mechanism for this procedure, the introduction of a transparency obligation for businesses (which must declare if there are any safety reasons for the voluntary withdrawal of a medicine), and the drawing up of an exhaustive list of medicines subject to additional surveillance.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – I support this first reading agreement which will enhance pharmacovigilance within the EU. I particularly favour the introduction of the activation of an automatic urgent procedure allowing the Commission to withdraw from the market a pharmaceutical drug if risks for public safety are detected. I truly believe that more efficient and transparent procedures need to be put in place, especially since the Mediator scandal in France has dramatically highlighted how the lack of uniform and rational rules on this issue can severely harm EU patients’ safety. I particularly commend the fact that the rapporteur has fully understood the importance of ensuring that the highest possible level of protection is equally granted to all EU citizens, also in line with the actual Commission orientation. I also wish to express my full support to this agreement as far as the need for further clarification of transparency obligations on companies when they withdraw a drug is concerned: in the aforementioned Mediator scandal, the French company Servier withdrew Mediator from Spain, claiming it was for commercial reasons, thus severely delaying investigations that might have helped save a number of lives estimated between 500 and 2 000.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as I agree with the main thrust of a document aiming to strengthen the EU-level pharmacovigilance system.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We must detect, assess and prevent the undesirable effects of medicines that are put on the market in the European Union, and we must do so at European level. Following the Mediator affair, the Commission implemented a ‘stress test’ which allowed us to identify weaknesses in current legislation. The present revisions are the result of this process. The improvements made today are numerous: most notably, the introduction of an automatic urgent procedure, the creation of a new trigger mechanism for the urgent procedure and the clarification of the transparency obligation of companies. The European regulation marks a significant step towards increased health security for Europeans, and we welcome that.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Parliament and the Council have agreed to review the rules regulating pharmacovigilance at EU level by adopting Directive 2010/84/EU.

A range of measures are required leading to improved safety of medicines at EU level by strengthening the role of the European Medicines Agency in collecting data and acting on signal detection, along with a series of other measures such as:

- clarifying companies’ obligations in terms of transparency – when companies voluntarily withdraw a medicine or do not reapply for a marketing licence, they must specifically declare if this is due to a safety concern;

- providing a drug fact box – a brief description of essential/necessary facts and details about the medicine, which are required by the patient to understand the usefulness as well as the possible risks of the medicine, and how to use it in a safe and proper way;

- publication by the agency every year of a list of the medicines for which marketing authorisations have been refused, revoked or suspended, whose supply has been banned, or which have been withdrawn from the market, including the reasons for such action.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Mediator health scandal will at least have served to make us aware of the overwhelming need to improve pharmacovigilance in Europe – that is, the surveillance of medicines and the prevention of the risk of undesirable effects, potential or actual, resulting from their use. In 2009, France decided to withdraw this medicine produced by the Servier laboratory, which caused the death of 500 to 2 000 people, according to estimates. Since 2003, it has been withdrawn from the market in Spain and in Italy, at the request of the laboratory. From now on, when a medicine is voluntarily withdrawn from the market in a Member State, the precautionary principle will apply, and the medicine will be temporarily or permanently withdrawn from the other European countries. Businesses will also be obliged to declare whether the voluntary withdrawal of a medicine or the non-renewal of its licence was due to safety reasons.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since it is essential to ensure optimum protection for European patients, the Union has a duty to do all it can to ensure that there is a proper balance between pharmaceutical advances and economic activities. It is important to draw the lessons from every past error and adapt the legislation as best we can to improve everyone’s safety. That is why I voted in favour of this text, which, following the Mediator affair, provides better protection for our fellow citizens.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We have ratified by a large majority the amendments made to the European legislation on pharmacovigilance. The aim of these amendments is to compensate for the shortcomings of the new regulation and new directive (that came into force in July 2012), following the sadly famous Mediator scandal. The amendments made to the European texts, which are of the utmost importance as regards public health, will reinforce the European system for detecting and assessing potential problems with medicines in all of the EU Member States. The new rules, which result from an ordinary legislative procedure with the Council of Ministers, will come into force in 2013.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the Pharmacovigilance Directive because it introduces proposals that will contribute to closing existing loopholes, improving protection of the ill, and facilitating the identification and withdrawal from the market of medicines presenting a risk to public health.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Linda McAvan concerns the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance. In December 2010, Parliament and the Council agreed a revision of the rules governing pharmacovigilance at EU level by adopting Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010. The range of measures adopted in this new legislation will lead to improved safety of medicines at EU level by strengthening the role of the European Medicines Agency in collecting signs and acting on them, and to increased cooperation among Member States. I think European patients should be better informed about the medicines that they ingest and the secondary effects thereof. The new legislation provides for, inter alia, the creation of a European web portal and national portals on the safety of medicines and methods for patients to notify the national authorities when adverse reactions occur. In this regard, the benefits of working with 500 million people, rather than each Member State working individually, are clear.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Pharmacovigilance has been under review since December 2010, with a view to its implementation from this year, so as to make medicines safer at EU level by increasing the role of the European Medicines Agency in evaluating, detecting and preventing adverse reactions to medicines, as well as to increase cooperation between Member States. As we have stated in previous reports on this very subject, there are aspects of the changes under way that could improve the workings of this mechanism for evaluating, detecting and preventing adverse reactions to medicines. This need for improvement was made obvious with the tragic outcome of the Mediator case, involving a diabetes medicine that caused the deaths of 500 to 2 000 people.

Pharmacovigilance is unquestionably an important subject, particularly as adverse reactions to medicines are the fifth most important cause of hospital deaths in the EU, responsible for an estimated 197 000 deaths a year. We insist on the Member States continuing to play a key role in the EU pharmacovigilance system. The competent authorities in the Member States should therefore continue to act as the clearing house for all spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – Following the failure of pharmacovigilance rules to prevent a French drug causing unnecessary deaths, there is a clear case for toughening up these rules and ending existing shortcomings. These unfortunate deaths could have been avoided. This report helps close loopholes by improving transparency rules for companies, allowing post-authorisation safety studies, and introducing automatic urgent procedures for known risky medicines. I support this report and first reading agreement with the Council which will help save lives in the future and make our pharmaceutical market safer for all consumers.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The legislative proposal stems from a desire to ensure that certain provisions are observed, as not doing so would result in serious risks to health. Recent cases have, indeed, demonstrated the urgent need to improve the system of surveillance of medicinal products in order to strengthen the system currently in place. The agreement that has been reached is, therefore, a clear signal of our intention to address the shortcomings of the previous system. The vote in this House demonstrates a desire to establish a European system to evaluate potential problems with medicinal products. The new legal framework will allow for better monitoring of businesses: at last, companies withdrawing a drug from the market will not be able to hide behind ‘business reasons’, but will be forced to provide accurate and precise explanations.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Following the scandal surrounding Mediator, which was responsible for 1 000 to 2 000 deaths in France, it has seemed particularly urgent to revise the systems of pharmacovigilance in the European Union, which have a number of profound shortcomings. It is for this reason that I support the work carried out by my colleague, Ms McAvan, to improve detection of dangerous medicines and to speed up their withdrawal from the market. We have a duty to provide measures enabling us to prevent other dangerous medicines from becoming commercially available in the European Union. In addition, we must also consider the question of the influence that the laboratories wield and the pressures that they exert on the administrative authorities.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In 2010, the European institutions agreed to revise the rules regulating pharmacovigilance with a view to implementing the legislation in 2012. This new legislation reinforces the coordinating role of the European Medicines Agency and improves the ‘signal’-based detection system that reveals potential problems and the system for follow-up at European level. Since then, the Mediator scandal has led us to reinforce once again the pharmacovigilance measures. That is the conclusion that emerges from the analyses (stress tests) carried out following the scandal. The European Parliament has set itself the objective of improving the protection of European citizens’ health. In order to do this, it estimates that we must redouble our efforts in the detection of risks and prevent them as much as possible. In order to be more efficient, however, better cooperation at European level is necessary.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance. I welcome this amendment because it aims to further strengthen the pharmacovigilance system at EU level. The five additional amendments proposed serve to clarify wording, ensure that the workload of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee remains manageable, and to ensure that patients and health care professionals are fully involved in improving the pharmacovigilance system. Enhancing cooperation between Member States will ensure improved safety of medicines at EU level and will also avoid adverse effects such as in the Mediator case.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the McAvan report because I think that the welfare of the EU’s patients is a priority. To protect our citizens, we should learn from our mistakes and change EU law so that we can react quickly to any kind of threat. As we all know, many criminal investigations are under way in France relating to the medicine Mediator. The amendments to current pharmacovigilance legislation proposed by the Commission in the wake of the Mediator case are a move in the right direction, but I agree with the statement that further changes are needed to close any potential loopholes. I support the Commission’s proposals, which improve pharmacovigilance at EU level.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – This amendment to the Pharmacovigilance Directive is urgent in light of the Mediator case in France. Mediator was a medicine made by the French company Servier and licensed in a number of EU countries through national procedures (France, Portugal, Luxembourg, Greece, Italy and Spain) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Its main active ingredient was benfluorex, and as early as 1999, the first ADR (Adverse Reaction) reports appeared indicating concerns about possible heart valve disorders. In both the USA and the EU, similar anorectic agents – dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine – were taken off the market in the late 1990s. Despite this, Mediator was widely prescribed in Europe, and particularly in France. By 2009, when the drug was finally withdrawn from the market, an estimated five million people had been prescribed the medicine, and it was one of the top 50 most prescribed medicines in France. Evidence suggests it had been prescribed not only to diabetics, but more widely as a general appetite suppressant. Estimates of the number of deaths related to Mediator vary from 500 to 2 000.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on pharmacovigilance at European level. In 2010, the European system already underwent considerable modernisation in order to allow for greater surveillance of medicines that appear on the market. Nevertheless, the stress test following the Mediator affair has shown that there is still room for improvement in the system. The new measures are therefore a positive step for patient safety.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) A review of the pharmacovigilance legislation is absolutely necessary. The safety of medicines at EU level must be improved by strengthening the role of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collecting and acting on signal detection and increasing cooperation between Member States.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Patient safety and proper information about medicines taken, as well as the safety of the medicines themselves, is one of the main objectives of EU public health policy. Practices show that abuse by drug manufacturers can lead to deaths when introducing medicines to the market or withdrawing medicines which are dangerous to human health. On the other hand, information leaflets provided to consumers must be clear and comprehensible. I therefore welcome the introduction of more stringent requirements and administrative procedures.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) At the end of 2010, the European Parliament and the Council agreed a revision of the rules governing the area of pharmacovigilance at European Union level. Application of this new legislation started in July this year. The measures aim to achieve an improvement in the safety of medicines at European level by strengthening the role of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collecting data and enhancing cooperation between Member States. One of the stimuli was the case of the medicine Mediator last year. Mediator was a medicine developed by the French company Servier for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Its main active ingredient is benfluorex, which can cause heart valve disorders. The adverse effects of this substance have been discussed since the late nineties. The safety of this medicine is still under investigation. Even despite this, it was prescribed to almost 5 million EU citizens up to 2009, mostly in France. The number of deaths related to this medicine is estimated to be up to 2 000. I therefore consider it necessary to reach an agreement with the Council as swiftly as possible that will ensure that similar mistakes are not made again.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree with the broad outline of the Commission proposal strengthening the EU-level system of pharmacovigilance, which is a crucial contribution to European public health.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Taking into account the fact that, in December 2010, Parliament and the Council agreed on a revision of the rules governing pharmacovigilance at EU level by adopting Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010, the measures adopted in this new legislation will lead to improved safety of medicines at EU level by strengthening the role of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). However, the emergence of a major medicine safety enquiry in France, the ‘Mediator’ case, in 2011, made an urgent review of EU pharmacovigilance systems necessary. While the new legislation did strengthen pharmacovigilance at EU level, there are some potential weaknesses in the EU system that need to be addressed. I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. – (SL) Trust is good, but control is better. The safety of medicines is in the interest of public health, which requires supervision of pharmacovigilance systems. We cannot allow a repeat of what happened with the Mediator medicine in France, which is believed to have been responsible for between 500 and 2 000 deaths. I support the Commission’s efforts in making further changes to pharmacovigilance legislation. My vote in favour also reflects my wish that patients and health care professionals are more accurately informed about medicines which require additional monitoring.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In December 2010, Parliament and the Council agreed on a revision of the rules governing pharmacovigilance at EU level by adopting Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation No 1235/2010. This new legislation is due to come into force in July 2012. The rapporteur believes that the range of measures adopted in this new legislation will lead to improved safety of medicines at EU level by strengthening the role of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collecting and acting on signal detection and increasing cooperation between Member States. However, the emergence of a major medicine safety enquiry in France, the ‘Mediator’ case in 2011 (see below), prompted calls for an urgent review of pharmacovigilance systems in the EU. The Commission responded by carrying out a ‘stress test’ on the December 2010 legislation in order to identify any additional lessons which needed to be learned in the light of the Mediator case. The result of the stress tests showed that while the new legislation did strengthen pharmacovigilance at EU level, there are some potential weaknesses in the EU system that need to be addressed. The Commission is therefore proposing some further changes to Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation No 1235/2010 to address these concerns.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document because it will allow for better monitoring of the harmful effects of drugs to prevent the recurrence of cases like that of the French diabetes drug, Mediator, which is suspected to have caused more than 500 deaths.

The new rules, agreed by Parliament and EU Ministers, will introduce an automatic emergency procedure which will allow a drug to be withdrawn from the EU market even in the event that a Member State decides to block sales on the domestic market.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Following the scandal surrounding Mediator, which was potentially implicated in more than 500 deaths in France, the European Union carried out ‘stress tests’ on its pharmacovigilance legislation in order to ensure that it was well suited to such situations. The Commission has brought forward new measures that will enhance patient safety by reforming the method for detecting any undesirable effects of an authorised medicine, refining risk assessment and improving responses to risk. I therefore voted for this report, which improves the Commission’s proposal by enhancing the coordinating role of the European Medicines Agency and the detection of any signs of risk concerning a medicinal product.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In December 2010, Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 were adopted, calling for a review of EU rules governing pharmacovigilance, which applied in July 2012. While the new legislation did strengthen pharmacovigilance at EU level, there are some potential weaknesses in the system in the texts on this issue that still need to be addressed. I voted in favour of the report on pharmacovigilance as it ensures stronger surveillance on the use of medicines and refines the system with regard to disclosure and notification of information to stakeholders. The legal framework is thereby now strengthened, ensuring higher levels of transparency and safety.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a directive is a response to preventing cases like that of ‘Mediator’ in France, which jeopardised the lives of thousands and killed some 500 to 2 000 people. The amendments to the 2010 directive aim to make pharmacology legislation more effective with regard to collecting signs and acting on their detection, and to increasing cooperation between Member States. Following the ‘stress tests’ conducted by the EU, a range of measures have been presented, with a view to improving the system proposed by the 2010 directive, particularly the inclusion of an automatic urgent procedure, a new trigger for the urgent procedure, clarification of transparency obligations on companies, and a longer list of medicines subject to additional monitoring. These measures will increase the effectiveness and vigilance of the authorities competent in this regard. Simultaneously, they aim to increase cooperation between Member States.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposal for amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance because recent events relating to pharmacovigilance in the EU have highlighted the need for an automatic procedure at EU level in the specific cases of safety issues, in order to ensure that the problem is assessed and dealt with in all the Member States where the medicine is authorised.

The normal procedure should be triggered for the quality, safety and effectiveness of medicines when the EU’s interests are at stake. The urgent EU-level procedure should be triggered when a quick assessment needs to be carried out of the concerns which have arisen following the assessment of the data produced by pharmacovigilance activities. Irrespective of whether the urgent or normal procedure is applied at EU level or of the procedure, centralised or not, used to authorise the medicine, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should always submit a recommendation if the reason for taking action is based on pharmacovigilance data. The measures adopted reinforce substantially the legal framework for monitoring medicines through provisions consolidating the coordinating role of the European Medicines Agency, through the options for signal detection and through the application of harmonised procedures at EU level.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The case in 2011 of the French medicine Mediator and the ensuing medicine safety enquiry in France caused many people to call for an urgent review of pharmacovigilance systems in the European Union. The lessons learned from this case have shown that although new legislation adopted in 2010, which amended pharmacovigilance rules, has brought about a real improvement in pharmacovigilance, there are still certain shortcomings in the EU system which need to be corrected. These considerations led me to endorse the report.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the McAvan report. Unfortunately, we have a serious problem in Europe over the safety of pharmaceuticals and the way their use is monitored. I hope that with today’s report, we will take the first of the many steps which have to be taken to improve safety and that, as a consequence, we will make a real improvement to the medical treatment Europeans receive and to their health. The case in 2011 of the medicine Mediator represents only a fraction of the chaos which reigns in the pharmaceuticals market. For example, I would like to call renewed attention to the problems with stents, which continued to be authorised for use in many of the EU’s Member States, despite the fact that in the US, from where they were imported, authorisation for their use had been withdrawn. The need to promote citizens’ welfare means we have to prevent such situations from arising.

Report: Linda McAvan (A7-0164/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) This is another report aimed at strengthening pharmacovigilance legislation, particularly to facilitate any situations requiring the immediate withdrawal of medicines from the market. Current legislation has shown itself to be insufficient for achieving this aim as quickly as is desirable, so it must be adapted to the needs shown by recent experiences when dangerous medicines were not detected and withdrawn from the market effectively. This new legislation increases transparency and lays down important rules, so I voted in favour.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has adopted new amendments to the European legislation on pharmacovigilance to prevent the marketing of harmful medicines in the European Union. Many will recall the Mediator scandal and the legislator therefore had to intervene to ensure the safety of Europe’s citizens. By denying the Member States any room for manoeuvre, the urgent procedure will now be automatic, as the Commission wished. Moreover, the level of transparency demanded of companies has been raised greatly, requiring them to justify any voluntary withdrawal of a drug or the refusal to renew one.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on pharmacovigilance. Monitoring the safety of medicines is aimed at determining and evaluating the side effects of medicines, thus stopping unsuitable medicines from entering the market. We need to improve the drug evaluation system in order to protect public health. I welcome the more stringent provisions set out in the directive on transparency obligations incumbent upon pharmaceutical companies and on a longer period of additional drug monitoring in order to ensure that only drugs that are safe and do not damage public health enter the market.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Whilst the Mediator case has brought to light severe shortcomings in the area of the safety of medicines, I welcome the agreement that we have ratified today at first reading. This pharmacovigilance package meets an additional safety requirement. This requires an amendment to the 2001 directive in order to reinforce the legal framework: to create an automatic urgent procedure, to increase transparency obligations for companies, and to provide a list of ‘black symbol’ drugs subject to additional monitoring. These are the new features of this reform which, we hope, will be able to make up for the shortcomings and boost the reliability of the European medicine system.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is very important to ensure improved safety of medicines at EU level. Therefore, we have to strengthen the role of the European Medicines Agency in collecting and immediately acting on signal detection and enhance cooperation between Member States. The additional amendments are needed to ensure that the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee can manage its workload and to ensure that patients and health care professionals are fully involved in improving the pharmacovigilance system. Firstly, if drugs are subject to a post-authorisation safety study, or other conditions or requirements, they should be included in the list of ‘black symbol’ drugs subject to additional monitoring. Secondly, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee will not be constituted until July 2012, and so the 12-month deadline to choose a black symbol should start from then. Thirdly, the urgent procedure should be triggered automatically. Fourthly, the urgent procedure should be triggered if, for safety reasons, companies decide not to apply to renew a marketing licence. Fifthly, in order to ensure full implementation of the new provisions related to pharmacovigilance, the European Medicines Agency should be empowered to charge fees to marketing authorisation holders for the fulfilment of the pharmacovigilance tasks.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I abstained from this vote as, while it is essential to protect the population from the dangers of medicines and treatments deemed to have dangerous side effects, it is not, in my opinion, an area in which the EU should have jurisdiction. Already in the UK, we have bodies such as NICE to evaluate and test products with any sort of pharmaceutical or pharmacological usage before they are permitted into mainstream medicine. What we need is greater national vigilance against unauthorised and unknown drugs and access to unapproved products on the black market. Some of the EU’s proposals for pharmacovigilance could result in a rise in scaremongering that may, in turn, result in patients not accessing drugs that would otherwise be highly beneficial on the grounds of an unqualified threat. We have already seen the results of parents denying their children vital immunisation due to inconclusive links with autism that were blown out of proportion by the media. There is a real threat that unsubstantiated rumours in one country could result in life-saving medicine being withdrawn across Europe under such legislation.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms McAvan’s proposal for a regulation as I agree on the importance of enhancing transparency and enforcing reporting requirements on agencies authorised to market medicinal products in the event of withdrawal from the market of drugs that are discovered to be toxic to human health.

Keeping a drug on the market that has been declared non-compliant involves great risks for European consumers.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Parliament and the Council have agreed to review the rules regulating pharmacovigilance at EU level by adopting Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010.

It has been observed that a range of measures need to be taken following the stress test carried out by the Commission on this legislative act, specifically:

- an automatic urgent procedure – for example, when Member States want to withdraw a medicine, with some room for discretion on this, while the Commission is proposing to make the urgent procedure automatic;

- a new trigger for the urgent procedure – if companies decide not to apply to renew a marketing licence due to safety reasons, this should trigger the urgent procedure;

- in the case of medicines featuring in the list of medicines subject to additional monitoring, the summary of product characteristics and the leaflet which comes with the packaging must include the statement ‘This medicine is subject to additional monitoring’. This statement must be preceded by a black symbol selected by the Commission on the recommendation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee by 2 July 2013, and must be followed by an appropriate standard explanatory note.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As it is essential to ensure optimum protection for European patients, the EU has a duty to do all it can to ensure that there is a proper balance between pharmaceutical advances and economic activities. It is important to learn from every past error and adapt the legislation as best we can to improve everyone’s safety. That is why I voted in favour of this text, which, in the light of the Mediator case, increases the protection of our fellow citizens.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We have ratified by a large majority the amendments made to the European legislation on pharmacovigilance. The aim of these amendments is to compensate for the shortcomings of the new regulation and the new directive (that came into force in July 2012) following the sadly infamous ‘Mediator’ scandal. The amendments made to the European texts, which are of the utmost importance to public health, will reinforce the European system for detecting and assessing potential problems with medicines in all EU Member States. The new rules, which result from an ordinary legislative procedure with the Council of Ministers, will come into force in 2013.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the regulation on pharmacovigilance because it introduces proposals that will contribute to closing existing loopholes, improving protection of the ill, and facilitating the identification and withdrawal from the market of medicines presenting a risk to public health.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Linda McAvan concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards pharmacovigilance. In December 2010, Parliament and the Council agreed a revision of the rules governing pharmacovigilance at EU level by adopting Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010. The range of measures adopted in this new legislation will lead to improved safety of medicines at EU level by strengthening the role of the European Medicines Agency in collecting signs and acting on them, and in increasing cooperation among Member States. I think European patients should be better informed about the medicines that they ingest and the secondary effects thereof. The new legislation provides for, inter alia, the creation of a European web portal and national portals on the safety of medicines and methods for patients to notify the national authorities when adverse reactions occur. In this regard, the benefits of working with 500 million people, rather than each Member State working individually, are clear.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Like the changes to Directive 2001/83/EC, the amendment of this regulation constitutes another step in modifying the pharmacovigilance system; that is, the system for evaluating, detecting and preventing adverse reactions to medicines. In general, we support the measures that have been made in this regard, the need for which has been made clear by the numbers of deaths associated with adverse reactions to medicines. The objectives of this revision should be guided by strict prevention and health protection criteria, so any other considerations relating to strengthening the internal market and its workings are dispensable.

In general, the rapporteur makes a serious effort to correct the shortcomings identified in the EU pharmacovigilance system, thereby making the system more transparent and efficient in cases where safety problems are identified. It aims, inter alia, to guarantee that the volume of work of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee remains manageable, and to ensure that patients and health sector professionals are fully involved in pharmacovigilance.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union had to react to the Mediator scandal, which claimed hundreds of victims, due to a lack of effective alert and response mechanisms in the face of a harmful drug. I voted for this amendment to the European legislation on pharmacovigilance because I think it is moving in the right direction: that of transparency and control. I think that the three main measures it introduces are very important: the real reasons behind a company’s decision to withdraw a medicine in a country will be known, these medicines will be systematically subjected to an urgent assessment, which will reveal the levels of hazard, and finally, a symbol on the medicine’s packaging will inform patients and practitioners if the medicine has been subject to an additional safety study. Within the framework of the organisation of the market for medicine, in which the EU has some powers, these measures will help to ensure, at EU level, that a health crisis such as the one we saw with Mediator will never happen again.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this amendment because it aims to further strengthen the pharmacovigilance system at EU level. The proposal serves to clarify wording, to ensure that the workload of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee remains manageable, and to ensure that patients and health care professionals are fully involved in improving the pharmacovigilance system.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I support the general thrust of the Commission proposals, which further strengthen the pharmacovigilance system at EU level.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The new legislation for pharmacovigilance at EU level agreed in December 2011 will apply from July 2012. The legislation has been assessed with respect to the safety of medicines (in the wake of the Mediator case) and amendments drawn up so that we can learn the appropriate lessons, improve the system and close existing safety loopholes. It is absolutely necessary that we are able to respond quickly in cases of emerging safety concerns. I support the suggestions for improvement.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) I welcome any measures that could further strengthen the pharmacovigilance system at EU level and thus lead to the minimisation of risk for patients. Patient safety must be our top imperative. It is absolutely necessary that we continue to monitor medicines after their marketing approval because, after all, they are only trialled on a relatively small number of patients. New insights into safety often arise only after prolonged periods of use. In view of the proposed amendment of the Pharmacovigilance Directive 2001/83/EC, I welcome the report and have voted in favour of it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for Parliament’s legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards pharmacovigilance because I agree with the general principles guiding this resolution.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The emergence of a major medicine safety enquiry in France during the ‘Mediator’ case in 2011 has made an urgent review of EU pharmacovigilance systems necessary. While the new legislation did strengthen pharmacovigilance at EU level, there are some potential weaknesses in the EU system that need to be addressed. An automatic emergency procedure needs to be introduced to clarify the transparency obligations on companies and expand the list of medicines subject to additional monitoring. In the hope of achieving those objectives, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The Commission’s stress tests suggest that though much improves under the new system, further changes are needed to close any potential loopholes. An automatic urgent procedure (Article 107i, directive): the 2010 legislation already specifies a list of triggers which would activate the urgency procedure (e.g. if a Member State withdraws a drug), but Member States have some discretion over this. The Commission is now proposing to make the urgent procedure purely automatic. · A new trigger for the urgent procedure (Article 107i, directive): if companies decide not to apply to renew a marketing licence (as was the case for Mediator), and if this is due to safety reasons, then this should trigger the urgent procedure. · Clarification of transparency obligations on companies (Article 123(2), directive): when companies voluntarily withdraw a drug or do not reapply for a marketing licence, they must specifically declare if this is due to a safety concern. (When Servier did not reapply for authorisation for Mediator in Italy and Spain, they claimed it was for commercial reasons.)

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The amendment of the regulation on pharmacovigilance concerns loopholes that emerged after the outbreak of the scandal of the Mediator case in France. Although amendments to the regulation were adopted as recently as 2010, this case exposed weaknesses in those very changes. For these reasons, and as a way of making vigilance of medicines on the market more effective, the EU has proposed a range of standards obliging the agents involved to automatically divulge possible dangers to the corresponding entities. Once again, I am in favour of improving European legislation aimed at safeguarding the public.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards pharmacovigilance.

To ensure transparency in monitoring authorised medicines, the list of medicines subject to additional monitoring introduced by Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 should include all the medicines subject to safety conditions after authorisation. The European Medicines Agency, in collaboration with Member States, draws up, manages and publishes a list of medicines which are subject to additional monitoring. The list includes a link to the information about medicines and to the summary of the risk management plan. The relevant list includes the names and active ingredients of (a) the medicines authorised in the EU containing a new active ingredient which, on 1 January 2011, was not contained in any medicine authorised in the EU; (b) any biological medicine not covered by point (a) which was authorised after 1 January 2011; (c) medicines authorised pursuant to this regulation, subject to the conditions referred to in point (cb) of Article 9(4), point (a) of Article 10a(1) or Article 14(7) or (8); (d) medicines authorised pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC, subject to the conditions referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 21a, in Article 22, or in point (a) of Article 22a(1) of the relevant directive.

Reports: Linda McAvan (A7-0164/2012, A7-0165/2012)

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the two McAvan reports (A7-0164/2012 and A7-0165/2012) because they strengthen pharmacovigilance in the wake of the scandal surrounding the medicine marketed by the French pharmaceutical company Servier under the brand name Mediator, which highlighted serious weaknesses and malfunctions in the drug control system in the EU and the unacceptable lobbying methods applied by pharmaceutical companies. Although the side effects of Mediator were known as far back as 1998, it took eight years to withdraw it from the market and, as a result, some 500 people lost their lives and 3 500 were treated for heart conditions. The amendments which I supported plug gaps in the legislation in the form of a lack of evaluation of medicines once they have been authorised, their withdrawal without automatic notification of all EU Member States, the absence of evaluation and the lack of transparency surrounding withdrawal. The safety of medicines is a massive issue. We want informed patients helping health professionals with pharmacovigilance. The amendments which I supported (activation of the urgency procedure, clarification of transparency obligations for pharmaceutical companies and re-registration of suspect medicines in the list of medicinal products following additional monitoring) are designed to plug any gaps that may undermine the safety of medicines and the protection of public health.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The case of the medicine Mediator, the safety of which is under investigation, occurred in France in 2011. The case drew attention to the need for an urgent review of the pharmacovigilance system in the EU. The European Commission responded by carrying out a stress test on the legislation from December 2010 in order to identify any additional lessons that needed to be learned in the light of the Mediator case. The results of the stress tests showed that while the new legislation did strengthen pharmacovigilance at EU level, there are some potential weaknesses in the EU system that need to be addressed. The stress tests suggest that, though there is much improvement under the new system, further changes are needed to close any potential loopholes. In the interests of public health, a consensus must be reached as soon as possible. I agree with the Commission’s approach in these proposals, which aim to further strengthen the pharmacovigilance system at EU level.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The marketing of products that are hazardous to health in Europe, such as Distilbène, Isoméride and Mediator, and the scandal that this has caused, have made Europe’s governments aware of the need to amend the current legislation. I voted in favour of this report because I think there is an urgent need for a new mechanism to deal with the system’s shortcomings. This mechanism will produce three key changes, namely: urgent assessment when a company decides not to renew a marketing licence, then the obligation to make a declaration when a company decides not to renew a marketing licence and, finally, the creation of an information panel for consumers on the packaging of medicines that have undergone a post-authorisation safety study.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because of the determination of the Commission to further strengthen the pharmacovigilance system at EU level and include the relevant stakeholders, such as patients and health care professionals, in developing an efficient and effective system.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. Three issues, in particular, caught my eye. The introduction of an automatic urgent procedure, the creation of a trigger mechanism for this procedure and, finally, the clarification of the transparency obligation of companies (which will ensure that companies treat citizens as they deserve, unlike Laboratoire Servier, which failed to renew its licence for Mediator in Spain for commercial reasons).

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – The laws we voted on today will strengthen the existing legislation in terms of patient safety, ensuring that new drugs are properly monitored for unexpected side-effects.

Pharmaceutical companies will have to disclose when they withdraw products due to safety reasons and concerns about drug safety will trigger an automatic investigation by European regulators, instead of being left to the discretion of individual national regulators. This will ensure that serious risks to patient health are picked up on and dealt with early, and that patients across the EU can expect the same level of protection.

The laws will also mean that medicines that are still being monitored for safety will have to carry a black ‘warning’ symbol on the packaging and on the information leaflet, so that patients are properly informed about the safety of their medication. In the cases of Thalidomide or the diabetes drug Mediator in France, serious side-effects were not picked up on for years, leading to unnecessary suffering for thousands. This legislation will ensure that medicines are monitored and health risks picked up on and addressed long before another such tragedy happens.

Report: Satu Hassi (A7-0038/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I welcome and support the Commission proposal, and I would stress that the limits agreed in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will come into force even if no directive is adopted. However, the directive could clarify and standardise the implementation and monitoring within the EU of the limits agreed in the IMO, level the playing field for competition, facilitate the transition stage and encourage innovations. By switching to more stringent sulphur limits, it would be possible to achieve significant health and environmental benefits in a cost-efficient way. For that reason, I agree with the rapporteur’s support for the Commission proposal that the 0.1% sulphur limit be extended to vessels engaged in regular passenger transport. However, the rapporteur proposes that the limit come into force in 2015, at the same time as in the Sulphur Emission Control Areas. I also agree that the ceiling currently applicable to EU ports should be extended to the territorial waters. These amendments will enable significant benefits to public health and the environment, and will also create favourable conditions in terms of reducing the costs of reform.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Preserving our oceans is one of the central objectives of Europe’s environmental policy. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I am delighted by the support Parliament has shown for this text. In fact, by 2020, there is a need to cut sulphur emissions from shipping to a seventh of current levels in order to reduce pollution. Marine fuel residues contain, on average, 2 700 times more sulphur than road vehicle fuels. This reduction is also very important from the point of view of public health. This reduction should improve air quality and reduce the number of premature deaths related to air pollution by some 50 000 cases.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted against this proposal. Although negotiations on this issue have been ongoing since 2010, agreement has not been reached on delaying the application of this requirement. From 2015, a new EU requirement will enter into force for ships at berth in EU ports to use fuel with no more than 0.1% sulphur. These rules are only envisaged for ports in the North and Baltic Seas, while throughout the world, ships are allowed to use fuel oil containing 4.5% sulphur. This tightening of fuel quality requirements will make the situation difficult for maritime transport carriers because it will increase fuel costs as well as transportation prices. As a result, there may be a significant reduction in the amount of freight transported by sea and an increase in the amount carried by road throughout Northern and Eastern Europe. Uneven ship fuel standards in the countries of the Baltic and North Seas may allow uneven competition, not only compared to other EU regions, but also to non-EU countries.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. – (HU) While successful in reducing land-based emissions, such as the emission of air pollutants from industry and road transport, EU regulation must not overlook the increasingly high amount of pollution originating from marine transport. Since the reduction in the sulphur content of marine fuels is clearly in the interest of public health throughout Europe, even as an MEP from a landlocked country, I find it very important to introduce the more stringent limit values defined in the directive. An additional reason why I voted for the report is that it ensures a level playing field for competition by applying uniform air quality requirements in the EU for both land-based and marine air pollutions.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Given our commitments on global warming by 2020, the European Union has a duty to act on all forms of pollution. In this respect, this report sets an ambitious target for the reduction of marine pollution by strengthening the standards on fuels. Therefore, sulphur contents will be drastically reduced. This is excellent news for defenders of the environment and shows, once again, the added value of the action of the European Parliament and, more globally, of the European Union in the field of the environment.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for new standards aimed at reducing sulphur emissions from shipping by 90% by 2020. These stricter standards match those adopted in 2008 by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against the Hassi report amending Directive 1999/32/EC on the sulphur content of marine fuels.

The limits for the open sea are equivalent to those envisaged for the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (‘SECAs’): this will ensure that the Mediterranean falls into this classification, which goes far beyond the limits set by the MARPOL Convention (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships). I believe that these amendments will lead to competitive disadvantages for the European market which far outweigh the benefits to the environment, which are utterly negligible.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in view of the indicators on premature human mortality due to ship emissions in Europe, it is essential to implement provisions on maximum sulphur limits for marine fuel. This is a very important reform of the current term of the European Parliament concerning health. It is very important to implement and monitor within the EU the clarification and standardisation of the limits agreed in the International Maritime Organisation and level the playing field for competition, facilitate the transition stage and encourage innovations. More stringent sulphur limits would increase health and environmental benefits by implementing the 0.1% limit more widely than just in Europe’s existing Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs). It is important for the 0.1% sulphur limit to be extended to vessels engaged in regular passenger transport. It would also be possible to achieve significant benefits for health and the environment if the limit currently applicable in EU ports were also extended to territorial waters.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In the case of the maritime transport sector, the traditional means used to power ships is fuel oil, which is derived from crude oil. Fuel oil can have a sulphur content of up to 5%. By way of comparison, the sulphur content of fuels used by lorries or cars should not exceed 0.001%.

It is well known that sulphur dioxide emissions can cause acid rain and generate particulate matter. These particles are dangerous to human health as they cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and reduce life expectancy in the EU by up to two years. These are the reasons why I support the Commission’s proposal, which is part of the efforts being undertaken to resolve the problems relating to air quality and precedes a more wide-ranging review of air policies due to be carried out before 2013.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Air pollution, unfortunately, does not only result from land-based emissions. Marine fuels are extremely dirty and have a considerable impact on the environment. This is why we have approved the legislation which has been the subject of an agreement with the Member States. It sets new, stricter limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels, which will improve air quality along Europe’s coasts. By 2020, the general sulphur limit for fuels in European waters will fall from 3.5% to 0.5%. Fuels used in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel, in other words, Europe’s Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), must meet the new international standards of 0.1% by 2015. Cleaner fuels and technologies exist. It is time to promote them and use them wherever possible.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The proposals put forward are rather heavy-handed without determining the real impact on the shipping industry and without the proposition of a real alternative. While it is an important area to monitor and control, I fear the consequences of a lack of a thorough enough assessment prior to the enforcement of targets.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Atmospheric pollution caused by ships is currently estimated to be responsible for around 50 000 premature deaths in Europe per year. Sulphur and nitrogen oxides release into the air secondary particles harmful to health. Reducing emissions from ships will make it easier to achieve air quality standards in a number of Member States. By switching to more stringent sulphur limits, it would be possible to achieve significant health and environmental benefits in a cost-efficient way by implementing the 0.1% limit more widely than just in Europe’s existing Sulphur Emission Control Areas. For these reasons, and in view of the report by the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I voted for this report.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The purpose of the proposal is to implement the upper limits agreed in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 2008 on the sulphur content of marine fuels. The sulphur limits specified by the IMO are 0.1% in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) from 2015 and 0.5% in other sea areas from 2020. The sulphur limit in SECAs currently stands at 1%. Fuel used on the open seas may contain as much as 4.5% of sulphur until the end of 2011 and thereafter up to 3.5% until 2019. The 0.1% sulphur content limit proposed by the Commission must be applied to all territorial waters of EU Member States up to 12 nautical miles from their coasts.

The Commission must explore, by the end of 2013, the possibilities of establishing new emission restriction areas in European sea areas, as well as methods for further reducing emissions, and then report on this to Parliament and the Council and table proposals for creating possible new sulphur and nitrogen oxide emission control areas.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Under international conventions, the Baltic Sea is a Sulphur Emission Control Area. The sulphur content of marine fuels used in these areas must not exceed 1.5%, and this is much lower than the maximum sulphur content permitted in most other marine areas covered by these conventions. Hence, moves to secure a further reduction in the sulphur content of the marine fuels used in SECAs do not seem justified. They do not offer significant environmental benefits, but the cost of this change in the rules could, in this case, have a very serious impact on the maritime economy.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which aims to introduce new upper limits for the sulphur content of marine fuels. This is a real advance in the protection of biodiversity. Following the adoption of this text, Europe’s citizens will, in particular, be better protected against the emission of toxic products.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The updating of the legislation on the reduction of the sulphur content of marine gas oils, which was finally approved by MEPs this Tuesday in Strasbourg, will put a further brake on pollution from ships in all of the EU’s seas. In fact, we ratified by a large majority (606 votes to 55, with 13 abstentions) the provisional agreement reached by the Council on the proposal aiming to reduce emissions of sulphur particles from ships (Directive 93/12/EEC). According to this text, the maximum sulphur content of marine gas oils used in designated Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel) will be reduced from 1.5% to 1% by 31 December 2014 and to 0.1% from 1 January 2015. The maximum content of 0.5% will be compulsory in all EU seas by 2020 and will also apply to all passenger ships operating outside the SECAs, and so on. State aid may be provided to avoid the negative impact on the sector’s competitiveness due to the investment costs inherent in these new requirements. I welcome this move.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of the report on the sulphur content of marine fuels because it argues that the balanced and gradual setting of limits on sulphur emissions and the consequent improvement of air quality will bring clear benefits for public health and the environment.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The main objective of this proposal is to implement the upper limits adopted in 2008 in the International Maritime Organisation on the sulphur content of marine fuels. It is important to control these values, since the atmospheric pollution caused by ships is currently estimated to be responsible for around 50 000 premature deaths in Europe. Sulphur and nitrogen oxides release into the air secondary particles harmful to health. Reducing emissions from ships will make it easier to achieve air quality standards in a number of Member States. However, it is important to take into consideration that, during the transition period, some operators will have to bear significant additional costs, particularly in the case of journeys made in Sulphur Emission Control Areas. I am also very much in favour of the exception for islands and the outermost regions from the 0.5% sulphur limit applicable from 2015 to all maritime areas of the EU and all vessels. As a result of their natural characteristics, a limited number of passenger vessels offering regular services have a five-year period, until 2020, to adapt to the legislation, thereby reducing the negative impact.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a directive is intended to implement the upper limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels. Given the atmospheric pollution caused by vessels and its consequences in terms of public health, not just for coastal cities with major ports where vessels dock, but also because sulphur dioxide causes acid precipitation and eutrophication in water and land areas, the Commission proposes that the new 0.1% sulphur limit for emission control areas should also apply to all passenger vessels regularly entering any EU port from 2020 onwards.

However, the rapporteur suggests that this be moved forward to 2015 and that the ceiling currently applicable to EU ports be extended to 12 nautical miles. We think the objectives guiding this legislation seem fair and the changes demanded necessary. We need to make available more funding, specifically from the EU budget, for investing in technology beneficial to the environment and to public health. Without prejudice to achieving this report’s objectives, we voted, in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for a proposal aimed at safeguarding the specific characteristics of certain regions, such as the Autonomous Region of Madeira, by ensuring the necessary amendments to the rapporteur’s proposal.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The main purpose of the proposal is to implement the upper limits agreed in the IMO on the sulphur content of marine fuels. It is estimated that air pollutants from ships at present cause some 50 000 premature deaths per year in Europe. Reducing emissions from ships will make it easier to achieve air quality standards in many Member States. According to the estimate, the monetary value of the health benefits that can be achieved exceeds the costs of reducing marine emissions by a factor of between two and 25. The Commission estimates the monetary value of the health benefits at EUR 8-16 billion and the cost at EUR 0.6-3.7 billion. The directive will clarify and standardise the implementation and monitoring within the EU of the limits agreed in the IMO, and level the playing field for competition, facilitate the transition stage and encourage innovation. In addition, the lower sulphur limits should lead to significant improvements in European citizens’ health. A cost-benefit analysis drawn up by the Commission suggests that a maximum limit of 0.1% in the SECAs would prevent in excess of 17 000 premature deaths per year by 2020. There would also be substantial reductions in the occurrence of respiratory illnesses.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Up until now, there have not been any limits for European maritime transport, which is very much in contrast to the other modes of transport such as rail, road and air transport. I therefore welcome the fact that we will have a scheme from now on.

However, it would have been desirable to have a uniform scheme for all of Europe instead of establishing stricter sulphur limits for ships which travel in SECAs (Sulphur Emission Control Areas). These apply only to the North and Baltic Seas and the English Channel. If we set different limits in different countries, this could lead to the migration of traffic from water to road. Sulphur-free fuel will become expensive and this will make the transport of goods by road more attractive. I am therefore very pleased that state grants for the shipping industry have been provided and that we have thereby counteracted a possible shift from sea to land transport.

The present scheme concerns the implementation of the international MARPOL Convention. It is important to set international standards for modes of transport that have a strong international dimension, as in the case of maritime transport. However, what we do not understand is how Member States could first agree a scheme at international level only to then attempt to block the very same scheme at European level.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because current emissions from marine fuels have a high sulphur content. They contribute to air pollution in the form of sulphur dioxide and particles that are harmful to human health and cause acidification. The draft directive aims to substantially reduce these emissions by enforcing the most recent International Maritime Organisation (IMO) rules in the EU.

The costs relating to the new standards on reduced sulphur emissions could have negative impacts on the sector’s competitiveness and lead to a switch from shipping to land-based transport. As a consequence, Member States will be able to grant aid to operators in accordance with the rules applicable to State aid. Ships that do not respect these new limits will be required to pay fines to national authorities. These fines must be high enough to ensure that it is not cheaper to pay them rather than to comply with the rules.

  Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), in writing. – List of stakeholder meetings on the Sulphur Directive with rapporteur, Satu Hassi.

Governments and Permanent Representations: Danish Environment Minister, Ida Auken; Danish Permanent Representation; Finnish Environment Minister, Ville Niinistö; Finnish Permanent Representation; French Permanent Representation; Norwegian Ministry of the Environment; Polish Permanent Representation; Swedish Environment Minister, Lena Ek; Swedish Permanent Representation;

European Commission: DG Environment, civil servants responsible for the Sulphur Directive industries.

Non-Governmental Organisations: Armateurs de France; Brittany Ferries; Confederation of Finnish Industries; Couple Systems; European Environmental Bureau; European Cruise Council (ECC); European Petroleum Industry Association; Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association; ExxonMobil; Federation of Finnish Technology Industries; Finnish Forest Industries Federation; Finnish Shipowners’ Association; FIPRA International (representing Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd); Germanischer Lloyd; International Association of Classification Societies Ltd; Port of Rotterdam; Rautaruukki Corporation; Scandline Stena AB; Total Transport & Environment; TT-Line GmbH & Co.; KG; Union of European Petroleum Independents; Wärtsilä.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I abstained from voting because shipping’s competitiveness may be reduced and not all shipowners may have the financial capacity to introduce the measures planned. The opinions of shipowners and equipment suppliers differ regarding the availability and reliability of scrubbers. In addition, everyone would wonder whether the new deadline might be postponed once more. This would further undermine investment in this technology. Those considering using LNG are faced with a chicken and egg situation: shipowners do not want to equip vessels so that they can use LNG without an assurance that supplies will be available in sufficient ports, while ports are equally reluctant to invest in view of uncertainties about demand. In spite of all these doubts, I welcome the provision that it is essential to find means of reducing ship emissions in many Member States because only then will we be able to contribute to improving air quality.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) According to the Commission’s estimate, the monetary value of the health benefits exceeds the cost of reducing marine emissions. The Commission estimates the monetary value of the health benefits at EUR 8 to 16 billion and the cost at EUR 0.6 to 3.7 billion. I admit that these statistics are convincing, but I think we must not forget the additional costs which businesses will have to bear to adapt to the new requirements. I believe that during the transition period, the EU and the Member States will have to agree to provide greater assistance.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) When I speak of the Sulphur Directive, it is as a representative of Finland and from my own country’s perspective. This is a wretched example of everything that can go wrong. The decision will mean an additional bill of billions of euro for our export industry, one that represents the peak of cleanliness in the global context. A mistake was made by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which allowed marine sulphur emission limits in the Mediterranean to be 45 times greater than those in the Baltic Sea, and now the directive is confirming that distortion of competition. The sulphur content of fuel in the Baltic Sea, North Sea and English Channel will drop from the current limit of 1% to 0.1% in 2015, while in the Mediterranean, a content of 4.5% will be permitted up until 2020. This is a particular blow for Finland, 90% of whose exports rely on shipping. The cost of sea freight will immediately rise in Finland by 30-50%. Given the current price of oil, that will mean a permanent additional annual cost of EUR 600 million, corresponding to 9 000 jobs a year. Globally too, Europe would be as much as 30 times more stringently regulated than the rest of the world for the next five to ten years.

If the EU were as good as its word, it would say that it was rejecting its position on decisions that create systematic distortion of competition for our markets. For the sake of comparison, I will take an example from the banking sector. Imagine, for example, the interest rate in Germany of 0.35%, which is what it has been for five years, at 45 times the amount: it would be 15.75%. Would this correspond to our concept of the level playing field? It does not matter how strict the limits are, as long as they apply to everyone. It is a mistake to create distortions of competition in legislation because it means environmental losses. The polluter then always has the competitive advantage. Most Finnish Members of the European Parliament wanted a transitional period for this directive and a clear signal sent to the IMO that the decision needs to be amended.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament this week voted for the report on the Marine Pollution (MARPOL) regulation, which sets maximum sulphur content rates for marine fuels. I voted in favour of this resolution, which is the result of long months of work in Parliament. I also made my own contribution, by having an amendment voted through that will give France the option of renegotiating the requirements set out in the regulation, which would have very serious consequences for our shipowners if they were to be left as they stand. The report was approved by a very large majority, with 606 votes for and only 55 against. I welcome the adoption of this text, which is effective as regards environmental protection yet allows governments to negotiate the directive to obtain suitable adaptations for specific local situations.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In voting on this report, I was influenced by several important issues, such as the introduction from 2015 of a maximum permitted sulphur content of 0.1% for marine fuels used in Sulphur Emission Control Areas – the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel. However, the countries of the Mediterranean are to be placed under these restrictions only in 2020. We are therefore creating a clear division between the countries of northern seas and southern seas, and are stifling competition in the European market.

The data presented show that fuels which contain less sulphur are much more expensive. The environmental objectives which have been set may therefore not be achieved, because if sea transport becomes more expensive, it is very probable that land-based transport will become more popular. It is, of course, possible to fit ships with SOx scrubbers, but in view of the age of the shipping fleet and the economic situation of countries such as Poland, for example, fitting this equipment will be completely uneconomical.

An alternative to conventional fuels is the use of liquefied natural gas in ships. This can only apply to vessels which have come into service recently because of the technology involved. It is also necessary to establish a network of European ports at which it will be possible to take on such fuel.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. The main purpose of the proposal is to implement the upper limits agreed in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 2008 on the sulphur content of marine fuels. Air pollutants from ships are estimated, at present, to cause some 50 000 premature deaths per year in Europe.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the prevention of pollution by shipping. Fuels used on ships cause air pollution due to their high sulphur content. Therefore, the maximum sulphur content must be reduced to a basic 0.1% instead of the current 1%. To avoid the negative repercussions that this more expensive measure would have on the sector’s competitiveness, Member States will have the option of granting State aid to operators.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The degradation of air quality caused by the use of hydrocarbons and the impact of this consumption on the environment and on human health no longer need to be demonstrated. Ships burn heavy, unrefined fuels that cause pollution. Ecological transition means adapting shipping to environmental requirements. This transition would be impossible without appropriate aid. This report is content with setting out the obvious requirement without specifying the amount needed. Hundreds of jobs, however, are under threat. I abstained because I approve of the proposed schedule for reducing sulphur pollution but deplore the absence of substantial practical aid for the introduction of the measures this objective requires.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The sulphur content in marine fuels used in EU waters is to be set at no more than 0.5% from 2015 and, in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA), the value is to be reduced to as low as 0.1%. According to experts, these measures are intended to considerably enhance air quality, especially in coastal areas. However, this transition will come with a high price tag for shipping companies and there is a risk that a share of shipping traffic could move to overland routes. This is in contrast, though, to another EU measure, namely, the one intended to ensure that more shipments are carried by water or rail than on the road. Coastal and inland ships consume much less fuel per transport unit and therefore emit less carbon dioxide than lorries. That is why the EU wants to move a third of the shipments currently transported by lorries over distances greater than 300 kilometres to rail or ship by 2030. Measures for cleaning exhaust gases similar to those used in factories located on land are now being considered for ships. This means that exhaust gas purification devices, or perhaps the use of liquefied gases, could be feasible options. I voted in favour of the report because the rapporteur has clearly addressed financing options or opportunities for financial support for shipping companies. The proposal to provide state investment grants seems to me to be an appropriate means of achieving that.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I abstained. This text is the result of lengthy negotiations but the compromise reached still does not address the greatest concern. I believe that standards on EU citizens’ health and the environment must be as uniform as possible across the EU. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear whether the varied burden of the economic decision will create premises for different competitive conditions and distortion of the common market. With this decision, it is as if we are dividing EU citizens and seas into two parts – in one, we are more concerned about health and the environment, in the other, less so. All that remains is to wait for the Commission’s report and assessment on whether this differentiation will reduce the effectiveness of the fight against pollution from maritime transport and cause a large scale change in modes of transport and a distortion of competition in the European Union market. On the other hand, I hope that this decision will encourage greater attention and investment in environmentally friendly innovations. I believe that the North Baltic region has all the prerequisites to become a leader in this field.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The main purpose of the Commission’s proposal is to establish upper limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels agreed in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Substances from ships are currently responsible for some 50 000 premature deaths every year in Europe, and therefore this is an important reform in the health sector in this legislative period. Sulphur and nitrogen oxides give rise to secondary particulates in the air that are harmful to health. Reducing emissions from ships will make it easier to achieve air quality standards in the Member States. At present, the maximum sulphur content in Sulphur Emission Control Areas is set at 1%. The Commission is proposing that the new maximum sulphur value for these areas (0.1%) should also apply to all passenger ships, and that this limit should enter into force in 2020. If we moved to a more stringent maximum sulphur content value, the health benefits achieved would exceed the costs of reducing marine emissions by a factor of between two and 25. The directive will also clarify and standardise the implementation and monitoring within the EU of the limits agreed in the IMO, level the playing field for competition, facilitate the transition stage, and encourage innovation.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In view of the potential threats relating to the implementation of the provisions of this directive I had no option but to vote against it. I would, however, like to emphasise that I understand the noble goals inspiring the implementation of this document. Nevertheless, even though the majority of EU citizens will note the small-scale positive effects of this directive, its negative consequences will be experienced by a smaller group of people, but will be felt more acutely.

This problem manifests itself, for example, in the unduly short transitional periods proposed in the directive. This means that it will be necessary to provide large amounts of fuels that meet the new criteria within a relatively short period of time. Temporary shortages of supply could occur as a result, which would hike up fuel prices and reduce the competitiveness of maritime transport in comparison to land transport. Moreover, the price of marine fuel will increase due to the costs associated with an additional desulphurisation process, as these will be incorporated into the fuel price. Due to the serious nature of the aforementioned concerns, I have decided to vote against this directive.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Thanks to the proposed amendments, we could achieve significant benefits to health and the environment at the same time as levelling costs. In particular, air quality in coastal areas will increase considerably as a result. I welcome the proposed amendments and am voting in favour of the report because, according to the Commission’s estimate, health benefits quantified in financial terms will exceed the costs of reducing emissions from ships by a factor of 2-25 and the benefit for health will be EUR 8-16 billion, with costs of only EUR 0.6-3.7 billion.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I decided to abstain from voting on this report because I consider it unjust that there are stricter limits on sulphur emissions in the Baltic Sea than, for instance, in the Mediterranean Sea or the Black Sea. Despite the fact that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) already agreed to the establishment of a ceiling for the sulphur content of marine fuels in 2008, which will enter into force even without the directive in question, I nevertheless believe that it is important that we clarify and harmonise the implementation and supervision of the IMO ceilings on EU territory. Excessively stringent environmental standards could instead reduce the competitiveness of European shipping and lead to an increase in the proportion of road transport. It is clear that this latter scenario would be much more harmful to our environment, since marine transport makes it possible to transport significantly more goods and passengers than can be transported by road or rail, there are no ‘traffic jams’ on sea lanes, and practically no funding or natural resources are required to maintain those lanes (apart from maritime signs and marine monitoring). In order to guarantee the development of European maritime shipping, it is essential that we simplify the granting of State aid for necessary environmental investment.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels. Its main objective is to apply the ceilings agreed in the International Maritime Organisation in 2008 on the sulphur content of marine fuels.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Considering that air pollutants from ships are estimated to cause some 50 000 premature deaths every year in Europe and that sulphur and nitrogen oxides give rise to secondary particulates in the air which are harmful to health, we need to implement the upper limits agreed in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 2008 on the sulphur content of marine fuels. Bearing in mind that, if sulphur oxide emissions from ships are not reduced, these emissions in the EU’s sea areas will exceed the combined emissions from the EU’s land areas before the end of this decade, and that according to the Commission’s estimate, the monetary value of the health benefits that can be achieved exceeds the costs of reducing marine emissions by a factor of between two and 25, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Ms Hassi on her work.

By adopting this text, having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0439) and having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 January 2012, Parliament takes a serious position on the challenge of improving air quality on European coasts with a view to reducing the number of deaths caused by air pollution from shipping.

The new regulation’s objective is to realign European legislation to the International Maritime Organisation’s limits and, as such, suggests lowering the general sulphur emission limit for European seas from 3.5 to 0.5% by 2020. This goal could easily be reached by using technology and environmentally friendly fuels.

I also find it very positive that a request has been made for the Commission to give consideration to the Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) limits, which are stricter for all EU territorial waters, even up to 12 nautical miles from their coasts.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The revision of the directive has the main objective of implementing the IMO agreement from 2008 to reduce the sulphur content of fuels in specific Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) from 1.5% to 0.1% in 2015 and to introduce the global sulphur limit of 0.5% (from 3.5%) for all EU sea areas in 2020, or 2025, depending on the IMO. In addition, the more strict sulphur limit applicable for SECAs (Baltic Sea, North Sea and English Channel) was proposed to apply also to passenger ships on regular service between EU ports. Without further measures, the ship-based sulphur emissions would exceed all land-based pollution by 2020, with significant health impacts as well as contribution to acidification. Emissions from international ship traffic were responsible for approximately 50 000 premature deaths in Europe in 2000 and external costs related to human health corresponding to 7% of the total health costs in Europe. The implementation of the IMO agreement into EU law represents probably the most significant air quality improvement introduced during this legislative period.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text to set more stringent sulphur limits for boat fuels by 2020, a change whose main effect will be an improvement in the air quality on European coasts and a reduction in the number of premature deaths every year as a result of air pollution from shipping of around 50 000.

In order to comply with the new limits, there must be greater use of cleaner fuel sources and technologies – such as scrubbers, which can have this effect – all in aid of the health of European citizens.

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. – (LV) Today’s vote on the permissible sulphur content of marine fuels is, overall, a major step towards improving air quality in the European coastal areas, considering that the pollution caused by ships could exceed land-based pollution as early as 2020. This directive incorporates in EU legislation the standards established by the International Maritime Organisation in 2008 with the aim of reducing the overall sulphur limit in European seas to 0.5%. However, I cannot give my full support to the new directive, as the new limit values envisage large differences in sulphur emission limits between various regions of Europe, giving rise to competitive imbalances not only within the shipping sector, but also with land transport. In the Sulphur Emission Control Areas, that is, in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel, there are already stricter standards in place than elsewhere in Europe; the sulphur content of fuels must not exceed 1% by mass up to 2015, and after that – 0.1%. Elsewhere, for example, in the Mediterranean Sea, the sulphur limit will have to be brought down from 3.5% to 0.5% by 2020. In the future, serious work will have to be done on standardising the permissible sulphur content of fuels throughout all European seas – setting it at the level established for the Baltic Sea.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because, by switching to more stringent sulphur limits, it would be possible to achieve significant health and environmental benefits in a cost-efficient way by implementing the 0.1% limit more widely than just in Europe’s existing SECAs, resulting in a different level playing field as regards the cost impact of reform.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), in writing. – (FI) The position of the Committee on Public Health and Food Safety on the sulphur content of marine fuels was clear. The objective was to introduce stricter sulphur emission limits in all sea areas in the European Union. The outcome of talks with the Council was that Parliament’s aims were not achieved. Finally, a decision was reached on sulphur emission limits that will cause an obvious distortion of competition in the EU’s internal market if they are implemented under this directive. Furthermore, the introduction of limits will cause immense economic damage, especially in the northernmost regions of the EU, especially as a result of this distortion of competition.

Although I think that reducing sulphur emissions for reasons of health is something very worthwhile, I would have liked to see some attention being given in the outcome of negotiations to the fact that some Member States will have to bear a much greater burden than others with regard to these goals. Consequently, I voted against adopting the outcome of the talks.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – Air pollution from shipping is thought to be responsible for thousands of premature deaths each year in Europe, as well as for causing significant long-term environmental damage. I fully support this agreement, especially the more ambitious deadline of 2020 by which the new limits must be in force. It strikes the right balance between environmental protection, legal certainty, and a realistic target for operators. Regulating the maritime sector and creating a genuine level playing field for its operators is notoriously difficult. The international agreements made through the International Maritime Organisation are minimum standards, and we should strive to improve on them. As the Commission’s analysis shows, the health and environmental benefits of a 2020 deadline will be significant, and the sector will be encouraged – and helped – to make the necessary investments, resulting in a cleaner atmosphere and a healthier environment.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) The secondary particulates produced by sulphur and nitrogen oxides arising from air pollution from ships cause up to 50 000 premature deaths in Europe every year. Given the above, and in view of the agreement that is on the table today, it must be said that the objectives that were set have largely not been achieved. We need to set equal rates that apply to all of Europe’s seas, in order to guarantee clean air not only for Northern Europeans, but also for other coastal areas of Europe. It is also important to guarantee fair and equal competition in the transport sector, and to avoid the unequal treatment of shipping companies operating in different regions. The European Commission and the Member States should follow the example of the United States and Canada, which jointly established a sulphur monitoring area within 200 nautical miles of their entire coastlines, and they should set firm deadlines for establishing a pollution monitoring area covering the whole of Europe. Although I take a critical view of the agreement concluded between the Council and Parliament, I support the adoption of this report, because the indecision that has existed since 2008 must be brought to an end and all parties must be given a clear signal about the future.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) In the vote today in Parliament on what is known as the Sulphur Directive, I voted for the compromise that has been reached. The particularly stringent rules that apply to sulphur emissions in the vulnerable seas in northern Europe (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel) mean that, as a result of higher freight costs, many of the industries in Sweden and other northern European countries suffer a major competitive disadvantage compared with the rest of Europe, where higher limit values for sulphur emissions apply. Reducing sulphur emissions in our seas is absolutely essential from an environmental perspective, and it is something that all 27 EU Member States have already committed to doing by signing the MARPOL Convention and Annex VI thereto. In my opinion, it would have been better if the seas around all the EU Member States were covered by the same low limit values for sulphur emissions as the seas in northern Europe. In that way, not only would competition be more equal and the internal market more integrated, but the water and air along all of the EU’s coasts would also be cleaner.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. The introduction of upper limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels as agreed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is important. I will give one figure: 50 000. The Commission has estimated that 50 000 premature deaths are caused in Europe by air pollutants from ships. This text was, therefore, keenly anticipated.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Control of the sulphur content in marine fuels for all maritime vessels, including passenger vessels, should take into account the negative impact that this can have on local populations, particularly the residents of the outermost regions and islands. That is why there is an exception for islands and the outermost regions from the 0.5% sulphur limit applicable from 2015 to all maritime areas of the EU and all vessels. As a result of their natural characteristics, a limited number of passenger vessels offering regular services have a five-year period, until 2020, to adapt to the legislation, thereby reducing the negative impact. The Member States’ international commitments, not least to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), already provided for this limitation. However, these changes should be gradual and tailored to the specific characteristics of the island regions, and should simultaneously cover increased support for operators. At the same time, the process of establishing Emission Control Areas should be subject to the procedures of the IMO, the only body with authority in this area.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the sulphur content of marine fuels. With this directive, the EU is making provision for a reduction in the sulphur content of ship emissions to 0.1% by 2015 in the Baltic Sea, the English Channel and the North Sea. It therefore transposes into EU law an obligation required by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which was difficult to ignore. The 2015 deadline, however, seems very premature given the economic and technical constraints that it will impose, especially on passenger shipping. The fear is that some ships will have to be withdrawn from the fleets, as there will be no way of adapting them to the new requirements, leading to the loss of hundreds of jobs in an economic context where passenger transport companies are facing difficulties. Negotiations in Parliament have, however, allowed us to confirm that State aid would be authorised to support the operators in this transition. There is also a reminder that Member States can still approach the IMO for an extension to deadlines to allow their fleets to be fitted out within the deadlines. These different safeguard measures have led me to approve the transposition of the European Union’s international obligations in this directive.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on reducing the sulphur content of certain marine fuels because applying the new provisions will help cut environmental pollution caused by burning marine fuels with a high sulphur content. In order to achieve the targets laid down in Directive 1999/32/EC on reducing the sulphur content of certain marine fuels, the obligations concerning the sulphur content of marine fuels need to be properly enforced.

I think that a more effective system is needed for monitoring and enforcing the sulphur content obligations in order to ensure that the directive is implemented properly. Adhering to the lower sulphur content limits for marine fuels may lead to a significant price hike. This is why appropriate solutions are needed to reduce the costs resulting from compliance, which are incurred by the industries concerned, such as authorising alternative, more cost-effective means of compliance.

I think that Member States and the Commission should promote the testing and development of new technologies, while looking into the possibility of setting up a joint programme for reducing pollution caused by marine fuels, cofinanced together with the industry and based on the principles of similar programmes, such as the Clean Sky programme.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Votes in the parliamentary committees had led to the adoption of untenable positions and I am pleased that the negotiations in trialogue have allowed us to arrive at a more balanced version of the text. Let us not lose sight of the major challenges for the shipping sector and the considerable impact that this directive will have on the activity. Obviously, there is a need to combat pollution from transport and reduce its environmental footprint across all means of transport. Not at any price, however. We must not place excessive restrictions on shipowners and customers that would damage the competitiveness and economic viability of the sector, which already faces strong competition. I had put forward the need to include accompanying measures as a corollary to the reduction in sulphur rates from shipping. The Commission must now propose how the toolbox that it has announced will be deployed in practice. I shall be watching this issue extremely closely. The EU is the leading maritime power and the world leader in the fight for the environment, proof, if it were required, that transport and sustainability are not incompatible, quite the contrary. It is up to us to introduce a considered, flexible policy that no longer pits the economy against the environment.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) As is apparent from the report, it is imperative that we apply maximum limits to the sulphur content of fuel. This decision is important for the environment and is possibly the most important health-related innovation proposed in the current parliamentary term. The use of exhaust gas purification devices should be encouraged and supported. Emissions should also be reduced by alternative methods (see also liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG)).

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – This legislation enshrines in EU law an international agreement that the UK has already signed up to as part of the International Maritime Organisation. Air pollution from shipping can reach far inland and is estimated to cause 50 000 premature deaths a year across the EU. The legislation will set binding limits on the sulphur content of fuels used in the maritime industry, bringing it down from 4.5% to 0.5% in all EU waters and leading to a significant reduction in sulphur emissions from ships. As a result, we should see an improvement in air quality across the UK, and the EU as a whole, and a reduction in respiratory illnesses, heart disease and other health problems. There will therefore be significant environmental and health benefits to this legislation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has established the upper sulphur limit for maritime fuel in the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs). From 2015, this figure will stand at 0.1%. In Europe, SECAs include the North Sea, the English Channel and the Baltic Sea. The introduction of a sulphur limit of 0.1% for all vessels engaging in regular passenger transport, together with the extension of the limit to territorial waters, will result in significant additional costs that will have to be borne by the entities affected by this restriction. Moreover, the reduction in acceptable sulphur levels may lead to lorries being used to move goods which are currently being transported by sea. This will result in additional environmental damage and increased road congestion. That is why I voted against this directive.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Hassi’s text on the proposal to revise the directive on the sulphur content of marine fuels.

The new directive transposes the most recent provisions adopted in this area at European level, introducing obligations for passenger ships operating outside protected areas and further lowering the maximum sulphur content permitted in marine fuels used in sensitive areas such as control areas in northern Europe. After a series of long and intense negotiations, a compromise was reached that strikes the right balance between European environmental objectives and the views of companies from the sector involved.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. – (LV) Limits on sulphur emissions from marine fuels are necessary in order to reduce air pollution caused by ships, particularly in coastal areas. As the EU Member States in the International Maritime Organisation have agreed to stricter standards in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), it is clear that the EU’s regulations must now be aligned with its international obligations. However, due attention should be given to ensuring fair competition in the shipping sector. Unfortunately, the new directive, on which Parliament and the Council have reached agreement, will still allow for significant differences in the permitted sulphur emission levels in different regions of the EU. I cannot support this directive because it will not ensure equal treatment of all Member States within the EU common market. Differing limits in different European coastal waters create competitive disadvantages for shipping companies in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel, compared both with the same kind of companies in other areas and with land transport. In the future, work should be done on standardising the limits of sulphur emissions from fuels in all coastal waters of the EU. In order to ensure fair competition, the sulphur emission standards should be made as equal as possible – both in SECAs and in other European sea basins. Support for such a position was obtained in the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety also took a similar stance. To avoid damaging the EU’s overall competitiveness, it should be done internationally within the International Maritime Organisation by expanding and marking new SECAs.

Report: Herbert Dorfmann (A7-0203/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Significant amendments have been introduced to the Commission proposal as regards the output of farmers from the various EU Member States. The new elements introduced by this report are that, in line with the existing regulation, the Member States can change their support for programmes allocated to the single payments system once per year during a five-year programme. However, according to the Commission, the Member States would have to make a final decision by the end of the year in which the funds were transferred from the wine envelope and this decision would be final. This report’s amendments suggest changing the five-year measure into a one-year measure applicable only for 2014, so as to enable a ‘one-shot’ transfer to the single payment system from 2015. I think that the foregoing will give the Member States more possibilities and more flexibility, so I voted for this report.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission’s proposal to amend Article 103o of the Single CMO Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007), which provides for the possibility for Member States to grant decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme (SPS), definitely needed to be amended.

I endorse Mr Dorfmann’s work and the proposals he put forward, as they ensure farmers receive predictable payments of aid. The report also effectively confronts the current changing situation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform. Above all, it was important to avoid Member States planning five-year decisions that are actually not compatible with the Commission’s proposal for a new system of direct support, just as it was essential to link the calendar for the final transfer decision to the calendar of the future reform.

All these problems were considered in the report and the solutions reached are very positive. This is why I voted in favour.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has adopted the Commission’s proposal to amend a regulation intended to clarify the payment conditions for decoupled aid to vine growers. In the uncertain context of the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), it is important to leave the Member States room to manoeuvre so that they retain the flexibility needed to decide on additional payments, especially when crises occur in this sector.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because of the importance of the vine growing areas in Romania. My country is a major wine producer, which is why I believe that it is appropriate to amend the regulation on the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine growers. This will allow us to ensure that this sector also receives appropriate funding in the future multiannual financial framework. Romania attaches particular importance to the reform of the common agricultural policy, relying on allocations being maintained at least at their current level for the 2014-2020 period.

If we want agriculture in Romania and Europe to progress, we need to ensure that the money earmarked for the CAP is used in the most effective way possible. This is the main challenge facing the common agricultural policy in the forthcoming multiannual financial perspective.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because we need to avoid adopting a definitive decision on wine fund transfers to the single payment scheme (SPS) at too early a stage. The existing five-year measure could be converted into a one-year measure applicable only for 2014, and we could provide for the possibility of making a one-shot transfer from 2015. It should be noted that from 2015, EU Member States can also decide whether they wish to include wine producing areas in regions eligible for direct payments. The one-year measure would ensure continuity in the decisions made up to 2013. In addition, Member States that transfer for 2014 will still have the possibility not to operate the one-shot transfer for 2015.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. Within the framework of the new common agricultural policy (CAP), I support the Commission’s proposal stipulating that Member States must decide, before the end of the year, on transferring funds from their wine envelope to the single payment scheme. However, they will need to take precautions on the programming of aid, given that the new CAP is currently being negotiated.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission proposal aims to amend Article 103o of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (the single common market organisation regulation), which provides for the possibility of Member States granting decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme as part of their national vine growers’ programmes. I voted in favour because I believe there should be a decision on the system of transferring funds from the wine envelopes to the direct payment envelopes through a one-year measure applicable only for 2014, and provision for the possibility of making a ‘one-shot’ transfer – a final and definitive decision – as from 2015. I also think the Member States should be able to decide to exclude vine growing areas from the eligible areas for direct payments.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) On 11 September 2011, the Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament (Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen) voted in favour of the agreement at first reading between Parliament and the Council on Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine growers (A7-0203/2012) since the proposal was purely administrative in nature. For this reason, our support for the proposal must not be taken as meaning that we support the common agricultural policy in general and the provision of support to vine growers in particular. We emphasise that this proposal merely reduces the amount of bureaucracy involved in the current arrangements.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report as I believe this regulation provides a clear legal basis for companies trading in the wine sector. On the basis of the provision that already exists in the current single common market organisation regulation, the proposal in question makes it possible for Member States to modify their support programmes as regards the part allocated to the single payment scheme (SPS) once a year, giving them the possibility of deciding to stop transferring funds from their wine envelopes to the SPS. As well as ensuring continuity in the decisions made up to 2013 for direct payments, the one-year measure would prevent Member States from planning five-year decisions that are not compatible with the Commission’s proposal. I hope that the resistance of some States is overcome, as I believe this regulation is fair, since it guarantees a compromise between consolidating the single market and the requirements of businesses operating in the sector.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D) , in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because only a simpler and more coherent approach can effectively support vine growers in the future.

According to the Commission’s proposal, Member States have to decide once and for all by December 2012 whether to transfer funds from the wine envelope to the single payment scheme (SPS). The draft report instead aims to avoid Member States planning five-year programmes at this stage, before they know the outcome of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform.

The proposal suggests converting the existing five-year measure into a one-year measure. We need to provide adequate support to vine growers and we must do so in the clearest way possible, while still ensuring a certain amount of predictability as regards funds assigned to farmers. Clarity and timely action are the key words in our policy to support vine growers, for a Europe which is a friend to the land.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text to allow greater flexibility in allocating aid to the wine sector. More than ever, it is important to give all of our support to this sector and to those who are participating in the promotion of our local production throughout the world and contributing to the preservation of noble traditions.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘the single payment scheme and support to vine growers’. This proposal aims to change the five-year measure into a one-year measure, and to enable the Member States to decide to exclude vine growing areas from the areas eligible for direct payments. I support this measure, since it will ensure continuity in the decisions made up to 2013 during the transition year for direct payments and will avoid letting Member States plan five-year decisions that are actually not compatible with the Commission proposal for a new system of direct support.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted against the report on the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine growers as we are opposed to taxpayers’ money being used to support and subsidise wine production. We do not want European taxpayers’ money to be used for illogical subsidies which distort market mechanisms and which, in this case, also have a direct effect on the sale of alcoholic beverages by reducing the prices.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Commission proposal aims to amend Article 103o of the single common market organisation regulation, which provides for the possibility of Member States granting decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme as part of their national vine growers’ programmes. This proposal suggests converting the previously established five-year measure into a one-year measure applicable only for 2014, and to provide for the possibility of making a ‘one-shot’ transfer – a final and definitive decision – from the vine growing envelope to the single payment scheme and the decision to exclude vine growing areas from direct payment schemes. The Member States have until 1 August 2013 to reach this decision; the deadline is six months later than in the Commission proposal, in view of the need to know the results of the current common agricultural policy reform. Although this proposal extends the deadline for the Member States to reach a decision, which we support, we are bound to express our disagreement here with the principle of decoupling support from production, which is an intrinsic characteristic of the single payment scheme.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the vote on Mr Dorfmann’s report, which aims to safeguard an important sector and one which is an area of excellence for Italy and for Europe. Parliament is granting more flexibility to Member States so that the sector can also take definitive decisions before the entry into force of the common agricultural policy (CAP) 2014-2020 reform, which we are working hard on at the moment. With today’s vote, we are pursuing the objective of giving greater flexibility to Member States so that they can decide on the national financial envelope of the wine sector, all of which is linked to the proposal for direct payments under the new CAP.

  Monika Flašíková-Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Commission’s proposal aims to amend Article 103 of the single common market organisation regulation (1234/2007), which provides for the possibility of Member States granting decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme as part of their national vine growers’ programmes. On the basis of the provision that already exists in the current single common market organisation regulation, Member States can modify their support programmes once a year as regards the funds allocated to the single payment scheme (support programmes have a five-year duration). That means that Member States could start transferring funds on a yearly basis and that those Member States that used this possibility for only part of their envelopes, like Spain and Greece, could decide once a year to increase this part. Also, at the end of the five-year programming period, the Member States could decide to stop transferring funds from their wine sector budgets to the single payment scheme.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – This report aims to reform the aspect of the common agricultural policy relating to vine growers for the period 2014-2020. The current system, established in 2007, allows Member States to grant decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme. This new proposal can be commended in its attempts to streamline the current wine regime through small-scale simplification of the CAP and by reducing the administrative burden. As part of the UK Government CAP health check in 2008, the UK has already agreed to allocate payments to vine growers through the single payment scheme, so I can therefore support this proposal at EU level.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) The Commission is proposing that Member States grant decoupled support to vine growers under the direct payments scheme. In practical terms, that will allow Member States to transfer funds from the wine envelope to the common agricultural policy (CAP) direct payments scheme (first pillar). That is positive, as the payments will now be granted for an indefinite period, which will allow small farmers to predict their incomes over the period and therefore gain stability. The introduction of this mechanism will, however, require some adjustments. This resolution will allow Member States to test this new mechanism for a period of one year prior to its definitive implementation, if they so desire. That is why I voted in favour of this legislative resolution.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme (SPS) and support to vine growers. I agree that payment entitlements in the SPS should be granted for an indeterminate period and that funds allocated in the SPS should be known in advance so as to ensure predictability for farmers. Even more importantly, the amendment has to be seen in the light of the new CAP proposal for direct payments (Article 25) which, on the one hand, provides for vine growers to obtain payment entitlements for wine areas – while still being allowed to benefit from the wine programme measures as before – and, on the other hand, does not allow the amounts transferred from the wine envelopes to be allocated just to the vine growers. This aims to ensure the convergence of the value of all entitlements.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The reform of the common agricultural policy has been the central issue occupying the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development during this parliamentary term. We are currently working on the European Commission’s proposals through discussions on the direction of change and on experts’ suggestions, but also by listening to our citizens, especially to our farmers. All indications, however, point to the fact that no final decisions will be made this year. This is because doubts still remain with regard to many issues and further debates and many compromises will be required before satisfactory solutions can be developed.

In relation to vine growers, however, the European Commission proposes that Member States support farmers using funds under the single payment scheme and not, as is currently the case, under support programmes in the vine sector. The decision regarding the transfer of funds must be final and must be made by 1 December 2012. In view of the reform and the ‘transitional’ nature of the year 2013, the final year of the current financing period for the common agricultural policy, this measure seems very unfavourable to all interested parties. I strongly support the solution proposed in the document to make a one-off reduction to the structure of the current support programme by cutting it from five years to one year, and to postpone the deadline for making the final decision until such time as the framework of the future agricultural policy becomes known.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully supported Mr Dorfmann’s report on the issue of the payment regime for vine growers ahead of the new common agricultural policy (CAP) that should take effect from 2014. I welcome the measures and aspects that would allow a gradual and harmonious application of rules relating to vineyards. In my opinion, it was out of the question to plan a five-year payment regime or to overlap it with the beginning of the new CAP. I would argue, therefore, that we have contributed to building a long-term revival of the European vine growing sector.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Given that farmers are facing ever growing risks and problems in terms of productivity growth, the latest CAP reforms are focused on strengthening support for rural development as a policy integrated as part of developing rural areas throughout the EU. The new proposal on support for vine growers recommends that the five-year period stipulated by the current legislation should be cut to one year and should only be applied in 2014, with the option to make a ‘one-shot’ decision on transferring funds from 2015.

I think that the solution proposed by the Commission is good for vine growing and will bring continuity to the strategies adopted by Member States in this agricultural sector. It will enable vine growers successfully to manage the risks much better and to respond promptly to crisis situations. A strong agricultural sector is crucial to both Europe’s food industry and to global food security.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of the Commission’s proposal on the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine growers is to get Member States to decide, once and for all, before the end of this year, if they prefer to use their wine envelope in the form of support programmes with a five-year duration or to transfer them to the single payment scheme.

It would, however, be dangerous to include the wine envelope in the single payment scheme, for several reasons.

The special nature of the wine sector will be further diluted in the single common market organisation (CMO).

Depending on the final shape of the direct payment scheme currently under revision, it is likely that greening would also apply to permanent crops such as vines.

Direct payments would be paid willy-nilly, rather than targeted like the programmes introduced by the Member States.

However, I welcome the suggestion of converting the existing five-year measure into a one-year measure, applicable only to 2014. The decision to exclude wine areas from direct payments and opt for support programmes instead will, therefore, have to be taken by the Member States in 2013. I strongly recommend that they do so.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. The Commission’s proposal aims at amending Article 103o of the single CMO regulation (1234/2007) which provides for a possibility for the Member States to grant decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme (SPS) as part of their national vine growers’ programmes.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) I would like to talk about the Commission’s proposal to amend Article 103o of the single common market organisation regulation (1234/2007), which provides for the possibility of Member States providing decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme as part of their national vine growers’ programmes. In the context of the fundamental changes in the EU’s common agricultural policy, I consider it necessary to proceed with caution and, at the same time, with flexibility in adopting changes to the legal regime in the wine sector, since reform of the common agricultural policy may bring many significant modifications and only make conditions for vine growers more opaque. In order to ensure certainty and predictability for vine growers, I think it right to allocate funds for the single payment scheme so that the individual amounts are known in advance. At the same time, I agree with allowing a rise in the national ceilings for direct payments to vine growers. In my opinion, however, ensuring the continuity of adopted measures and establishing a transitional period enabling smooth adjustment to the new system remain clear priorities.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Commission’s proposal regarding the provision of aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme is part of the reform of the CAP. The Commission’s proposal aims to amend the single common market organisation regulation (1234/2007), which provides for the possibility of Member States providing decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme as part of their national vine growers’ programmes. On the basis of the provision that already exists, Member States can modify their support programmes (lasting five years) as regards the funds allocated to the single payment scheme once a year. According to the Commission’s proposal, Member States will have to decide definitively by the end of this year on the transfer of funds from the budget allocated for the wine sector to the single payment scheme. Claims for payment under the single payment scheme will be granted for an unlimited period and will have to be known in advance in order to ensure predictability for farmers. The EP and Council have agreed to change from a five-year measure to a one-year measure that is valid only for 2014, and to establish the possibility from 2015 of making a one-off transfer of funds. The agreement is an acceptable solution which retains the flexibility of wine sector decisions without disrupting the results of the CAP reforms in 2013.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine growers. The single common market organisation regulation provides for the possibility of Member States granting decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme. A number of Member States have taken the opportunity, making use of the transfer of aid programmes from a direct payment scheme to the single payment scheme, thereby creating considerable administrative and budgetary burdens. In order to simplify the application of this specific support measure and to attempt to ensure consistency with the objectives governing the direct payment scheme, I thought it opportune to vote in favour, since this proposed amendment aims for the Member States to reduce definitively the amounts allocated to the vine growing sector, thereby increasing the national direct payment ceilings.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On the basis of the provision that already exists in the current single common market organisation regulation, Member States could modify their support programmes as regards the part allocated to the single payment scheme (SPS) once a year. The Commission’s proposal suggests converting the existing five-year measure into a one-year measure applicable only for 2014, and providing for the possibility of making a ‘one shot’ transfer (final and definitive decision) as from 2015; it would also ensure a result which is not too early in respect of the future CAP reform. Since the one-year measure would avoid Member States planning five-year decisions that are actually not compatible with the Commission’s proposal for a new system of direct support, and would link the calendar for the final transfer decision to the calendar of the future reform, I am voting in favour of the proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In today’s plenary sitting in Strasbourg, we voted on Mr Dorfmann’s report.

Mr Dorfmann’s proposal aims to give Member States greater flexibility so they can decide on the national financial envelope of the wine sector. It also asks that any reform of the vine growing sector goes through the new common agricultural policy (CAP) 2014-2020.

Member States will have the possibility of making a one-shot transfer (final and definitive decision) from 2015 and can react to the Commission’s proposal by deciding before 1 December 2012 to adjust support to vine growers by transferring a certain amount of the national wine envelope to the direct payments budget.

This proposal has to be seen in the light of the new CAP proposal for direct payments that enables vine growers to obtain payment entitlements for their wine areas and does not allow for the amounts transferred from the wine envelopes to be allocated just to the vine growers, in view of the objective of convergence of the value of all entitlements.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The Commission’s proposal aims at amending Article 103o of the single CMO regulation (1234/2007) which provides for a possibility for the Member States to grant decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme (SPS) as part of their national vine growers’ programmes. During discussions on this COM proposal, concerns were raised about taking a fundamental decision regarding the future regime for the wine sector already in December of this year when the outcome of the CAP reform (new system of direct support) is likely to be unknown. In order to avoid a definitive decision of wine fund transfers to SPS at too early a stage, the draft report proposes a possible solution for this problem. This proposal suggests to convert the existing 5-year measure into a one-year measure applicable only for 2014, and to provide for the possibility of making a ‘one-shot’ transfer (final and definitive decision) as from 2015. This proposal suggests also the possibility for Member States to decide to exclude from 2015 the wine areas from the eligible areas for direct payments.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of this report as it provides for the possibility for the Member States to grant decoupled aid under the single payment scheme (SPS) to vine growers as part of their national vine growers’ programmes.

In essence, decoupled aid for vine growing is extended to cover 2014. I believe it is important that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) has reaffirmed its position against the abolition of planting rights in the sector. The real risk is a sharp fall in quality of wine products and, consequently, the risk of an important loss of income for farmers who base their activities on producing high-quality wine.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because it provides the possibility for Member States to grant decoupled aid to vine growers under the single payment scheme (SPS) as part of their national vine growers’ programmes. Moreover, I strongly support that the European Parliament underlines its position against the abolishment of planting rights in the sector.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. Next to appear on the table will be the debate on planting rights. A high level group set up by the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development is working to find a compromise. The legislators plan to amend the common market organisation (CMO), which for years has authorised government interventions to support and stabilise the wine sector. The issue will then be to know if lifting the restrictions could weaken a sector that is in difficulties in the face of cheap imports, overproduction and the fall in demand. The proportion of land used for wine production in Europe fell by 12% between 2001 and 2011, according to figures from the International Organisation of Vine and Wine.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of this report. It will provide greater planning certainty for European vine growers and it has secured the transition period for 2014. Under the common agricultural policy (CAP), a lasting solution for all vine growers in Europe should also be found in the next few months.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when our Parliament is laying down future markers for our main policies, we are discussing the issue of the model of support for vine growers. Thus, by 2015, Member States will have to choose between the single payment scheme that applies to all farmers and the mobilisation of dedicated funds for vine growers, which previously they could accumulate. I obviously supported this measure, which I think is the best way of recognising the special nature of the profession of vine grower and to provide appropriate aid, against a background of change in the sector. France has already made its choice, as it basically uses the specific support scheme for vine growers. This reform then will not disrupt the French wine sector, but it will have the advantage of guaranteeing more transparency and greater predictability of the amounts and nature of the aid distributed. I welcome the adoption of this report, which also allows me to remind people of my attachment to planting rights. This regulatory tool, which, let me mention in passing, costs the taxpayer nothing, guarantees optimum quality for our wines and a stable income for vine growers. This system must be preserved; it is a commitment I have made and it needs to be made permanent.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The report deals with the problem of reconciliation between the new regulation for Member States, which states that they have to make a single and definitive decision on the transfer of funds from the national wine sector to the single payment scheme by the end of 2012 (instead of deciding on the transfer of appropriations every year, as hitherto), and the new system of direct payments to vine growers under the new CAP. It is somewhat difficult to estimate the impact of CAP reform on the wine sector. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal so that we can avoid unnecessary transition problems, both as regards payments and compatibility with the new CAP.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) From the moment I became aware of this issue, my intention was to endorse the proposal aimed at amending the regulation as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support for vine growers since all the proposed changes bring nothing but benefits to producers. As part of the changes introduced, there is the possibility of granting assistance to vine growers. Significantly, the provisions contained in the document also allow for a transfer of funds between sectors. This allows for a much speedier response to problems experienced by the sector and helps prevent negative effects for vine growers.

Report: Adam Bielan (A7-0068/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I consider using the Internal Market Information System (IMI) for administrative cooperation an appropriate tool available to the Member States for protecting the rights of the European public, and I am voting for this report because it aims to lay down rules for the use of the IMI that include the process of exchanging personal data concerning European citizens between the competent authorities in the Member States and the Commission. This report is intended to make the internal market run more smoothly by creating a more effective tool that is easier to use, so as to facilitate administrative cooperation and information exchange. This proposal goes much further with the amendments by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, which ensure that there are more limitations on how personal data are used, thereby protecting the public, as well as ensuring the proper implementation of the new provisions.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Developing administrative cooperation between Member States and European institutions on the ICT infrastructure for the single market provides an implicit guarantee for increasing the European Union’s economic competitiveness. However, it is just as important that European citizens who are directly affected or involved enjoy the benefits and opportunities offered by the Internal Market Information System in a way which does not affect the system’s security and functionality or via an interface which is separate from the actual system.

At the same time, the European Union’s economic and political development depends on expanding its relations with its external partners. It is timely for Europe’s institutions to look into the possibility of expanding the Internal Market Information System or of connecting it to the dedicated IT infrastructure of its partner countries. Last but not least, an important role must be played in all these measures by strict compliance with European legislation on personal data protection. I voted in favour of this report.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) has been in use since 2008 as a free service to Member States with a view to improving the exchange of information within the internal market.

To date, the IMI system still operates on the basis of a Commission decision and a Commission recommendation and, as a result, lacks a single legal instrument. This has been a major obstacle to further expansion of the IMI system, which should have been overcome long ago.

We have seen that the system has worked perfectly with regard to the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive. The system has proven its value as a rapid and secure means for cross-border information exchange and administrative cooperation with currently over 6 000 registered authorities in all EU Member States and EEA (European Economic Area) countries.

Therefore, I welcome the report’s proposals and I hope that the expansion in IMI application to other sectors will have clear benefits for citizens and for the internal market.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) An effective single market needs administrative barriers to be as simple as possible. This has been achieved with the Internal Market Information System (IMI), which encourages the exchange of information and cross-border administrative cooperation in different languages. Parliament wished to vote for a new legal basis for this system. By appointing national coordinators, it hopes to further improve the system and increase its transparency to allow for its possible future extension to other areas.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on establishing a legal framework for the Internal Market Information System (IMI) and the extension of the application of this system. This electronic system for information exchange enables national, regional and local authorities to exchange information with the relevant bodies in other countries quickly and simply. The system reduces the administrative burden and helps Member States to cooperate as effectively and efficiently as possible. Currently, IMI is being used to implement provisions on administrative cooperation in the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive, but it is important for its use to be extended in future to include more areas of legislation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because the Internal Market Information System (IMI) has proven its value as a rapid and secure means of exchanging information and supporting administrative cooperation across borders. There are currently more than 6 000 authorities from all Member States registered in the system. The cross-border exchange of information, which takes place seamlessly between authorities in Member States, is vital for expanding the single market in the European Union. I believe that the Commission’s proposal will create a sound legal framework for the IMI system. It will also facilitate the IMI system’s possible expansion in the future to new areas of EU legislation and clarify the role played by the various actors involved in this system. Last but not least, it will provide a comprehensive data protection framework, based on devising rules for processing personal data in the IMI system.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) has been used since 2008 as a free service provided to the Member States, with the aim of improving the exchange of information within the internal market. It is a fast and secure means of cross-border information exchange and administrative cooperation. Currently used for exchanging information on the recognition of professional qualifications and services within the internal market, the IMI still operates without a single legal instrument, which is seen as a major obstacle to its further expansion. As such, this report, for which I voted, supports creating a single legal framework applicable to the IMI, along with a set of rules to ensure it functions properly, thereby enabling its future expansion to other sectors of EU law.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) is a computerised network that facilitates the exchange of information between national administrations. Hitherto, this administrative cooperation has only applied to the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive. The current legal framework restricts any extension. Convinced of the advantages that IMI offers, I voted in favour of the Bielan report, which seeks to consolidate the rules applicable to its use, especially those related to the protection of personal data. Any future extension of IMI will be carried out under the control of Parliament via codecision.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the Internal Market Information System (IMI) is a fast and secure means for cross-border information exchange and administrative cooperation, the benefits of which can clearly be seen in the statistics – it is currently used by over 6 000 registered authorities in all the EU Member States and EEA countries. In August 2011, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation, which would establish a single legal framework for the IMI system together with a set of rules to ensure that it functions effectively. Generally speaking, IMI is described as a flexible tool which it will be possible to apply widely. The new system in a consolidated form will contribute to better data protection and will make it possible for the relevant authorities to communicate quicker and cover more policy areas. It is also very important to consider the period for the retention of personal data that has already been adopted and whether the new period proposed is compatible with national legislation on data protection. Other aspects of IMI are equally important, such as access to the system for external actors.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of the report, in support of the Commission’s proposal and with the further – non-redundant – caveats of the proposed amendments on the subject of secure management of data.

The interoperability of administrative systems, which citizens and businesses deal with on a daily basis, is key for market growth, the spread of a transnational culture and a European civil conscience. Although there were approximately 2 000 information exchanges in 2010, it is likely that greater knowledge of the usefulness of the IMI system will result in the flow of information increasing rapidly, even more so if the system is expanded to other, more complex areas of EU law.

Considering the growth in the number of potential and actual users, as well as the volume of data exchanged, it is sensible to promptly tackle aspects of data handling and confidentiality.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (IMI). IMI offers an online application for the exchange, in various languages, of information and cross-border administrative cooperation that benefits 6 000 European authorities. The aim of the report is to increase the transparency and legal certainty of the stored data and to guarantee a well-defined data retention period. I support the idea that the system could be extended to other areas of EU legislation, provided that these extensions are always subject to a proposal for a regulation

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because the IMI system is a tool which has proven to be effective in the efforts to complete the single market. Its new format will also allow it to provide better data protection and exchange information more quickly between the relevant authorities by creating a ‘face-to-face’ online network for European administrations.

Establishing this common, efficient and reliable multilingual communication channel will continue to encourage cooperation between the administrative structures of one Member State with their counterparts in any other Member State. I also concur with the rapporteur’s clarification that this proposal will guarantee that the IMI system’s full potential is utilised, which will entail definite benefits for both the internal market and citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I consider it crucial to improve information exchange within the internal market. This exchange has been guaranteed since 2008 by the Internal Market Information System (IMI), which has more than 6 000 authorities registered in all the EU Member States and European Economic Area countries. However, the IMI operates on the basis of a Commission decision and a Commission recommendation, so it lacks a single legal instrument, which has been seen as a major obstacle to its further expansion. I voted for this report because it advocates laying down a series of common rules for the functioning of the IMI, with a view to making the IMI a more comprehensive tool at the service of the European public and the internal market.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) is an extremely important instrument for the internal market. When authorities cooperate via the IMI, it helps to ensure the correct implementation of internal market rules and increased mobility for citizens and companies in the EU. At a time of crisis, a well-functioning internal market really is the highway to more growth, competitiveness and jobs in Europe. The IMI system for administrative cooperation between national authorities has existed since 2008 but, up to now, it has lacked a legal framework. I welcome the fact that we have gathered existing practice together in a single text, which increases transparency and legal certainty. At the same time, we have simplified procedures and increased the protection of personal data. One of the things that I have worked hard to promote is the principle that data should not be stored in the system any longer than necessary, but that it must also be possible for a person to request access to his or her own data for special purposes relating to the provision of proof, even after a case has been closed. As the representative for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I have worked to ensure that we have a safe, cost-effective, flexible and user-friendly system. I particularly welcome the fact that it will be possible for the IMI system, which is currently used for the Services Directive and in relation to professional qualifications, to be extended in future to other areas of EU legislation, such as Solvit and e-commerce, on the basis of pilot projects run by the Commission.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that it is beneficial that the relevant authorities in Member States can communicate more quickly in a larger number of policy areas by implementing this regulation. It is particularly important that there is the possibility for better cooperation between local authorities and that they are involved in the single market.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which will ensure and provide a framework for the proper exchange of information in the Member States and regions of the EU. It will make it easier for national, regional and local authorities to cooperate, thus improving services to European citizens whilst improving the transparency of the single market.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (IMI) because I believe these amendments will facilitate the future expansion of the IMI to other areas of EU legislation, thereby laying down a clear set of rules regarding its operations and data protection processing.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) is used as a free service provided to the Member States, with the aim of improving the exchange of information within the internal market. This regulation has the specific purpose of establishing a single legal framework for the IMI system, so as to contribute to the subsequent expansion of this instrument. It is also intended to enable the future extension of the IMI to other areas of EU legislation and establish a clear series of rules; some of these rules cover data protection processing. The IMI is nothing more than an instrument created to deepen and develop the internal market. That is the measure we are using to evaluate it and on which we are basing our position. That is why we did not vote for this report. The data protection issue is another problem that arises in this regulation. First, they want to open up the IMI to external actors, which could jeopardise the security and protection of personal data. Second, the Commission is not explicit about the maximum periods for holding on to personal data under the IMI.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The proposal aims to establish a set of common rules for the functioning of the IMI system. A smooth cross-border exchange of information between different authorities in the Member States is essential in our efforts to complete the construction of the single market. The IMI system has proven to be a reliable and efficient instrument in the two areas in which it has already been operating, the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive, and the current proposal will allow the full potential of IMI to be exploited further, which will bring clear benefits to the citizens and the internal market. IMI is a flexible instrument that can be adjusted to the specific requirements of various legislative areas and its use in a new, consolidated form will not only allow for better data protection, but will also make it possible for competent authorities to communicate quicker or in a larger number of policy areas. Last but not least, it will permit better cooperation among local level authorities and their greater involvement in the single market.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). in writing. – (HU) In the present state of the harmonisation of European laws, there are considerable differences in national administrative procedures and national laws on data protection. I believe that the Internal Market Information System (IMI) should therefore be implemented in such a way as to enable users from all 27 Member States to comply with their respective national laws, including national laws on data protection, when exchanging personal data through that system. At the same time, data subjects must be assured that their data will enjoy consistent protection regardless of whether the data will be forwarded through IMI to other Member States. Ensuring consistency while respecting diversity is a fundamental challenge for the establishment of both the technical and the legal infrastructure of IMI. However, unnecessary complexity and fragmentation should be avoided. All in all, I welcome the procedure laid out by Mr Bielan as it clearly delineates the scope of application of IMI and ensures transparency while allowing for flexibility in cases where IMI is intended to be used for further information exchange in the future. I voted in support of this report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document because it is aimed at establishing a single legal framework for the Internal Market Information System (IMI) together with a set of rules to ensure that it functions properly. It should allow the further expansion of IMI and its application in other areas of EU law and lay down a clear set of rules in terms of its functioning and the protection of data processed. A smooth cross-border exchange of information between different authorities in the Member States is essential for completing the single market. It has previously been recognised that IMI is a reliable and efficient tool in the two areas of implementation in which it is already being used, the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive, and the current amendment will make it possible to further exploit IMI’s full potential. This has clear benefits for citizens and the internal market. IMI is a flexible tool which can be adapted to the specific requirements of various legislative areas and using the system in a new consolidated form will not only allow for better data protection, but will also make it possible for competent authorities to communicate quicker or cover more policy areas. Furthermore, it will enable local authorities to improve cooperation and become more involved in the single market.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the present report concerning administrative cooperation through the IMI system because the use of this Internet tool for exchanging information between administrative bodies is very efficient and useful not only for administration, but also for average people. Thanks to this system, we can easily obtain recognition of our qualifications or information concerning our business partners. (Currently, IMI is used for exchanging information covered by the Services Directive as well as the Professional Qualifications Directive. There is a pilot project aimed at determining if the IMI system will be a suitable tool for exchanging information within the Posting of Workers Directive.)

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the report since the smooth cross-border exchange of information between different authorities in the Member States is essential to our efforts to complete the single market. However, there is one issue that I would like to highlight. Mr Bielan stressed that Article 13 of the proposal for a regulation introduces the data blocking procedure after a period of 18 months from the closure of an administrative cooperation procedure for personal data processed in the Internal Market Information System (IMI), and substantially extends the data retention period from six months to five years. I agree with Mr Bielan, who expressed his regret regarding the fact that the amendment to the proposal had been made with no impact assessment nor sufficient justification for the necessity of such a provision. The Commission has not provided sufficient data to justify extending the already existing period of six months and consequently, no data is available to help ascertain whether the new extension will be compatible with existing national laws on data protection.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the Internal Market Information System (IMI) because I believe it could be a useful instrument for improving administrative cooperation, including through the new developments in this text, aimed at expanding the system to other administrative bodies. There is certainly room for improvement in this valuable instrument, and I hope that we can continue to move in that direction, considering the crucial role it performs, in order to facilitate communication between businesses and administrations, with all that follows from this in terms of the competitiveness of our businesses. Applying the latest technologies and the use of networks will also improve the effectiveness of the information system, in use since 2008, by making it available to all 27 Member States.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. The Internal Market Information System (IMI) has been designed to improve the functioning of the single market by offering, since 2008, a fast, secure online application for the exchange of information and cross-border administrative cooperation in different languages. In the Single Market Act of 27 October 2010, the extension of IMI to other sectors is considered to be one of the keys to promoting better governance of the single market. Through this report, Parliament has shown its desire to consolidate the rules applicable to the use of the IMI system in a single legal instrument, whilst thus improving transparency and legal certainty and facilitating the future extension of the system to cover other areas of EU law. Currently, the IMI system is basically used in the recognition of professional qualifications.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) I am voting in favour of the regulation on the Internal Market Information System (IMI), on which I was the rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). One of my aims in this work was that the IMI system should be as easy to use as possible. That is the way to ensure good treatment for the enterprises that need to have a case resolved in another Member State. On behalf of the ALDE Group, I worked to make the system future-proof. Among other things, this means that there must be a good translation function, so that the system is not just tailored to the current IMI system, but can also be expanded to incorporate future legislation. We were successful in getting the Commission to accept that they must always make satisfactory translation functionality available. I was also very concerned about data protection for the citizens and enterprises if data is exchanged through IMI. I am more than satisfied that we have ended up with a flexible solution that takes account of which data is to be exchanged, and who is to have access to it. I also worked to ensure that enterprises and citizens can have errors corrected as quickly as possible if it emerges that the authorities have exchanged incorrect information.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I supported this proposal. The Internal Market Information System (IMI) has been in use since 2008 as a free service to Member States to improve the exchange of information within the internal market. The system has proved itself as a fast and secure means for cross-border information exchange and administrative cooperation with currently over 6 000 registered authorities in all the EU Member States and the EEA countries.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the Internal Market Information System (IMI). IMI is currently used for the exchange of information related to the recognition of professional qualifications and services in the single market. The text we voted for will extend this system to cooperation in other areas of EU law.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) A smooth exchange of information between authorities in the Member States is necessary to complete the single market. The IMI system has proven a reliable and efficient tool in the two areas in which it has already been operating, the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Service Directive. I am voting in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report rejects the option of delegations of power as requested by the Commission. It introduces several improvements concerning the protection of personal data, but these improvements are inadequate. The option of retaining personal data for more than six years has been kept. Third countries will continue to have access to these data without citizens being aware of this. I am abstaining merely to support the parliamentary control so correctly demanded by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) has been in use since 2008 as a free service to Member States with a view to improving the exchange of information within the internal market. The system has proven its value as a rapid and secure means for cross-border information exchange and administrative cooperation with currently over 6 000 registered authorities in all the EU Member States. The future expansion of the IMI system to other areas of EU law will promote the establishment of a ‘genuine face-to-face electronic network for European administrations’. A smooth cross-border exchange of information between different authorities in the Member States is essential in our efforts to complete the single market. The IMI system has proven a reliable and efficient tool in the two areas in which it has already been operating, the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive, and the current proposal will allow us to further exploit IMI’s full potential with clear benefits for citizens and the internal market. However, I would like to express the legitimate sense of concern that many citizens have made me aware of: Article 13 of the proposal for a regulation introduces the blocking procedure after a period of 18 months from the closure of an administrative cooperation procedure for personal data processed in IMI and substantially extends the data retention period from six months to five years.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) has been in use since 2008 as a free service for Member States. Its aim is to improve the exchange of information within the internal market. The system has proven to be a fast and secure means for cross-border information exchange and administrative cooperation and, at present, over 6 000 authorities in all EU Member States and European Economic Area countries are registered in it. The current proposal aims to improve the conditions of operation of the internal market using an effective and user friendly instrument enabling the practical implementation of administrative cooperation and information exchange. The regulation is based on two parts. One lays down rules for the use of the IMI system for administrative cooperation, and the other lays down the basic rules for data protection. For the IMI system to operate more effectively, it is important to establish a comprehensive legal framework.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’). The proposal aims to establish a set of common rules which will allow them to further exploit the IMI system’s full potential and encourage a smooth cross-border exchange of information between different authorities in the Member States, guaranteeing, at the same time, a higher level of protection than traditional communication channels. On these grounds, I believe the proposal for a regulation is an essential element to complete the single market and is clearly in the interest of citizens.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission proposal aims to establish a set of common rules for the functioning of the Internal Market Information System (IMI). Given that no effort is too great as regards completing the single market, and since I consider it equally essential that there be a smooth cross-border exchange of information between different authorities in the Member States, I voted for this report. In fact, IMI has already proven a reliable and efficient tool in the two areas in which it has been operating already – the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive – and the current proposal will enable further use to be made of IMI’s full potential, with clear benefits for the public and the internal market.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Internal Market Information System (IMI), in use since 2008 as a free service to Member States with a view to improving the exchange of information within the internal market, has proven its value as a rapid and secure means for cross-border information exchange and administrative cooperation Nevertheless, the IMI system still operates on the basis of a Commission decision and a Commission recommendation and, as a result, lacks a single legal instrument. I voted in favour of the proposal because I believe that this is a major obstacle to future expansion and development of the IMI system, that a smooth cross-border exchange of information between different authorities in the Member States is essential in our efforts to complete the single market, and because I hope to see future expansion of IMI to other sectors of EU law.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the regulation on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (IMI), which is a tool to improve the efficiency of administrative cooperation between competent authorities in the framework of the application of a piece of EU legislation. I would stress the importance of the protection of personal data in the IMI system and fully support Parliament’s action in favour of improving the transparency of procedures, especially as regards the key functionalities of the system and the categories of data that may be processed therein. Within the framework of the amendment to the Professional Qualifications Directive, on which we are currently working, it is proposed to make the use of the IMI system compulsory, thus reducing costs, overcoming linguistic and administrative issues and accelerating the recognition procedure for professional qualifications. It is an efficient way of improving the governance of the single market and it has my full approval.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Currently applied for the exchange of information pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (‘the Professional Qualifications Directive’) and Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (‘the Services Directive’), the IMI system still operates on the basis of a Commission decision and a Commission recommendation and, as a result, lacks a single legal instrument. This has been seen as a major obstacle to further expansion of the IMI system, which has developed as an effective tool for different Member States’ administrative structures in their day-to-day cooperation with their counterparts in other Member States, ensuring a proper channel of information exchange in different languages and guaranteeing, at the same time, a higher than traditional channels of communication level of data protection.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the regulation, as the Internal Market Information System, in use since 2008 as a free service to Member States, is aimed at improving the exchange of information on the relevant regulations.

For years, we debated how to expand this system that has proven its value as an effective instrument and a channel of information exchange in different languages which guarantees a higher level of data protection than traditional channels of communication. Trialogue meetings have primarily focused on defining comitology procedures, which were redefined, satisfying the Member States’ requests.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. All of the socialists have accepted the Commission’s proposal to establish common rules for the functioning of the Internal Market Information System (IMI). A smooth cross-border exchange of information between different authorities in the Member States is essential in our efforts to complete the single market. IMI has proven a reliable and efficient tool in the two areas in which it has already been operating, the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that ‘the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties’. Moreover, the EU is responsible for adopting measures with the aim of establishing or ensuring the functioning of the internal market. A free service for the Member States called the Internal Market Information System has been created to improve the exchange of information within the internal market. I am voting for this report because I consider the system a fast and safe means of cross-border information exchanges and administrative cooperation, with more than 6 000 authorities registered. I should also like to stress that all the personal data and information in circulation among the various competent authorities should be collected, processed and used strictly for legitimate purposes and in line with data protection rules.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’).

The Internal Market Information System is a software application accessible via the Internet which has been developed by the Commission in collaboration with Member States, by creating a centralised communication mechanism intended to facilitate the cross-border exchange of information and reciprocal assistance. The IMI system helps the relevant authorities identify their counterparts in other Member States, manage the exchange of information, including personal data, based on simple, uniform procedures, and overcome language barriers using pre-defined, pre-translated workflows.

I think that the IMI system needs to be available in all the official EU languages to overcome language barriers. This regulation stipulates the rules for using the IMI system for administrative cooperation, including for processing personal data, between the relevant authorities in Member States and between Member States’ relevant authorities and the Commission.

  Gino Trematerra (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support Mr Bielan’s report because I believe we must create common rules for the functioning of the Internal Market Information System (IMI).

The IMI system has developed as a reliable and efficient instrument in the area of the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Services Directive. This proposal will allow the IMI’s full potential to be exploited with benefits for citizens and the internal market.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) was made available to the Member States in 2008 for the purpose of improving the exchange of information within the internal market. The IMI system, however, lacks a single legal instrument, and this is a major obstacle to its extension. The smooth exchange of information between authorities in the Member States is essential to complete the single market. It is therefore vital to establish a set of common rules for the functioning of the IMI system which will strengthen its legal certainty. This will also facilitate better use of the full potential of the IMI system, providing benefits for citizens as well as for the internal market. I therefore endorsed the report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Internal Market Information System (IMI) is used as a free service provided to the Member States, with the declared objective of ‘improving the exchange of information within the internal market’. This regulation therefore has the specific purpose of establishing a single legal framework for the IMI system, so as to contribute to the subsequent expansion of this instrument. It is also intended to enable the future extension of the IMI to other areas of EU legislation and establish a series of rules, such as data protection processing. This makes the IMI nothing more than an instrument created to consolidate and develop the single market, which we would criticise. Data protection is also one of the greatest concerns raised by this report: opening up the IMI to external actors could jeopardise the security and protection of personal data, and it could make this system accessible to the private sector. Furthermore, the Commission is not explicit about establishing maximum periods for holding on to personal data under the IMI: it takes the view that retention periods should not go further than is necessary for achieving the purposes of the regulation, which leaves the way open for holding on to these data for an unspecified length of time.

Report: Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (A7-0227/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because, four years after the outbreak of the financial, economic and social crisis, it is crucial to understand clearly where the Member States are heading, taking into account all the possible solutions to get Europe back on track for growth and development. First, it is essential to create and engage in new common policies, which will help us to be united and strong enough to avoid crises in the future. Second, in times as hard as these, we also have to rethink our existing policies and commitments, and we need to test them, where necessary, to see if they are still up-to-date and adequate for facing the challenges ahead. The Council directive on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of the different Member States has been amended several times in recent years, but there are still some technical refinements to make. As stated in the Commission statement, these are intended to improve clarity and accountability.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Frequently amended, Directive 2003/49/EC regulates the common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. For the sake of clarity, it is therefore necessary to simplify its use and remove the tax barriers to the proper functioning of the single market. Cross-border interest and royalty payments are taxed more heavily than domestic transactions. When transactions are purely national, the recipient of the payment is subject to corporate tax in the country of residence for tax purposes. In the case of European payments, they may also be subject to deductions at source in the Member State making the payment. The purpose of the directive is to place cross-border interest and royalty payments on an equal footing with domestic payments, by eliminating double taxation, burdensome administrative formalities and cash-flow problems for the companies concerned.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. In order to eliminate double taxation on companies and cumbersome administrative formalities, it is necessary to lay down equal conditions for cross-border and national interest and royalty payments. Member States need to further reduce the possibilities of unintended taxation and tax avoidance fraud in order to maintain the smooth functioning of the EU’s internal market. I welcome the proposal for the establishment of a minimum rate of corporate tax, which would decrease tax competition and would therefore strengthen the freedom of Member States to tax companies.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Today, the European Parliament voted with an overwhelming majority for this report, which sets out clear rules for the common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments, reducing the possibility of tax evasion, tax fraud and double non-taxation to a minimum. The adoption of this document, which I, too, supported with my vote, allows Member States to obtain significant revenues previously foregone by reducing the possibility of the various forms of tax evasion. The aim of Parliament’s report for a recast of the Council directive on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments that was adopted today is to regulate the system of interest and royalty payments between associated companies of different Member States while, at the same time, increasing clarity and accountability.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that Europe needs to be brought back to the path of economic growth and development, and the crisis which we are still facing must be resolved as soon as possible. In this context, I believe that a clear, overall picture is needed of Member States’ strategies. It is vital for us to devise new common policies aimed at avoiding a similar crisis in the future.

At the same time, current policies need to be reviewed to make sure that they are still adequate for tackling the challenges Member States are facing. The common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies in different Member States is appropriate, but it needs to provide greater clarity. With this in mind, I think that the Commission’s proposal marks both a positive and necessary step.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Directive 2003/49/EC regulates the common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. However, there are still problems relating to the functioning of the internal market, not least as regards corporate tax rates: transactions between different Member States are taxed more heavily than the same transactions within the domestic market. Therefore, this Council directive aims to ensure greater harmonisation between the rates paid within and between different Member States, thereby eliminating certain problems like double taxation, tax avoidance fraud and the possibility of unintended non-taxation, since these cause great damage to the smooth running of the internal market. The Commission is also being called on to set a minimum level for taxes paid by companies within the EU, taking into account factors such as tax competitiveness among certain countries and in such a way as not to harm the sustainable consolidation of the Member States’ national budgets. I voted for this report because I consider it an important step in the process of building an internal market that is efficient and competitive, and that genuinely benefits European companies and citizens.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is essential to consider all perspectives, taking into account solutions, which would help Europe recover from the financial, economic and social crisis so that such crises can be avoided in future. On the other hand, it is also very important to consider current policies and existing commitments and make sure that they are still suitable to face the challenges ahead. According to assessments, uncollected revenues have a negative impact on the governments of EU Member States because they increase the deficit and debt levels. As cooperation between Members States’ tax systems is increasingly desirable, it is essential to amend the directive (the Parent-Subsidiary Directive which was adopted in September 2011) in order to prevent tax avoidance fraud, as well as reduce cases of unintended non-taxation or double taxation. All of this has a significant impact on the smooth functioning of the EU’s internal market and it is therefore necessary to take specific action to prevent it.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. In these times of economic and financial crisis, it is urgent to do everything possible to reduce to a minimum tax fraud and tax evasion, which represent considerable losses for Members States.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I consider it important to make every effort to reduce the possibility of unintended non-taxation, double taxation or tax avoidance fraud among the Member States, since these phenomena cause significant damage to the smooth running of the internal market, as stated in the recently adopted motion for a resolution on the call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion.

  Andrea Češková (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I voted against the report on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments because, although it ought to be targeting greater transparency, it includes sections with ambiguities in the differentiation of terms such as tax evasion and tax avoidance. Since the aim is to limit tax fraud, double taxation, tax abuse and evasion, I take the view that it is important to differentiate between these terms consistently, so that no room is left in practice for their application. It is important to create a sufficiently robust environment to avoid further crises in the future, but we must also respect the different policies of individual Member States. I therefore cannot agree with the point proposing that the Commission bring forward the introduction of a minimum rate of corporate tax. In my opinion, tax competition is good for the market, and Member States have enough options for taxing companies as they see fit.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I support the ongoing efforts to recast the 2003 directive on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, but I abstained in the final vote on this consultative European Parliament resolution due to its effective call for minimum rates of corporation tax. Under the EU treaties, taxation is a matter of national competence where the principle of unanimity applies. Discussion on this issue has to have regard to the needs of geographically peripheral Member States whose prosperity and employment levels depend, to a large extent, on their capacity to attract foreign direct investment, particularly in the current very difficult economic circumstances.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that cooperation is vital between Member States’ taxation systems in order to prevent a fall in uncollected revenues, which is harmful to the smooth functioning of the internal market. It is also beneficial for us to avoid the possibility of tax evasion, substitution of taxes or any inappropriate tax exemptions.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) While, in non-EU countries caught up in the current crisis, the fight for growth and jobs is being met with economic and financial leverage – whether legal or monetary – under the control of a single political and administrative body, in Europe, we continue to endure political delays from an EU that still cannot overcome the issue of unitary governance. This situation is aggravated by the fact that, despite the major ongoing effort to strengthen coordination between Member States on their own budgets, conclusive action to coordinate tax systems is still excluded from political debate, especially in respect of the direct taxation system. This delay produces tax competition that could also be construed as dumping, which has a negative impact, especially on the stability of businesses, including geographically, and risks, above all, affecting areas that are already weak and corporate social responsibility. This is why I regret the failure to adopt the part of the amendment that highlighted the risks of tax competition, to the detriment of consolidating national budgets, and, to this end, suggested the introduction of a minimum rate of corporate taxes. I hope that we can make up for this delay in the near future.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which aims for an improvement in the European Union’s common system of taxation on companies present in the Member States. In particular, this text will allow us to step up the fight against tax evasion and tax fraud, and will limit double taxation in the Member States. Although the European Union is facing a difficult economic situation, it is important for it to guard against all forms of losses of corporate tax receipts, so that together we may contribute to the objectives of reducing our public deficits.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on a ‘common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments’. Cooperation among the tax systems of the various Member States is increasingly desirable. I support this proposal, since it aims to exclude any possibility of tax evasion, substitution of taxes or any illegitimate tax exemptions.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats clearly support a strong welfare society financed by solid tax revenue. We therefore see significant problems in the trend towards lower corporate taxes, which is being driven by the ever tougher tax competition between the Member States. If this process is not checked, corporate tax will not be the only thing that is eroded. It will also be difficult for those countries that want to keep a relatively high level of taxation to actually do so. Consequently, we feel that it is worth holding a proper debate on limiting or putting a stop to this tax competition.

However, we cannot support the establishment of a minimum level for corporate taxes. This would entail the EU getting involved in an area – direct taxation – in which the starting point has to be that the Member States take the decisions entirely on their own.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The subject of this Council Directive (2003/49/EC) is a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. It puts forward the goal of preventing the double taxation of income. This can be achieved in two ways: taxing income in the Member State where it is produced or in that country where the registered office of the beneficiary company is located. The aim of this proposal is to tax interest and royalties in the Member State where the recipient company has its registered office. It is well-known that associated companies, which are often sister companies within a single umbrella organisation, have a number of mechanisms available to them to reduce taxes on their profits, particularly by manipulating the prices of goods or services that they trade with one another. They use these methods to transfer profits to where they are taxed least. Article 1(1) states that interest and royalty payments are exempt from any taxes imposed in the Member State where they are generated, provided that their beneficial owner is a company of another Member State or a permanent establishment situated in another Member State. That is the case whether or not the company is associated with the payer company.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Council directive on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of the different Member States has been amended several times in recent years. However, there are still some technical refinements to make for the sake of clarity and accountability. According to recent estimates, European Union governments are losing a significant amount of uncollected revenues due to tax evasion and tax avoidance. The loss of revenues raises the deficit and debt levels of the different Member States. Cooperation between the tax systems of the different Member States is increasingly desirable. We must amend the directive in order to further rule out the possibility of unintended non-taxation, double taxation or tax avoidance fraud in the Member States disrupting the proper operation of the internal market.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – I can agree with this proposal insofar as unintended non-taxation, double taxation, tax fraud and abuse with respect to the collection of tax on interest and royalty payments should be avoided at national level. However, I cannot agree to the lack of clarity between the definitions of tax avoidance and tax evasion, two completely different concepts, one being prudent and the other being criminal. I also strongly oppose the call for implementation of a minimum rate of corporate tax to be applied across the European Union. This is completely unacceptable and would be in breach of Member State fiscal autonomy. Despite the good work of our rapporteur, I cannot support this report.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). in writing. – (HU) The aim of Parliament’s report for a recast of the Council directive on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments that was adopted today is to regulate the system of interest and royalty payments between associated companies of different Member States while at the same time increasing clarity and accountability. It is important to note, however, that in tax-related matters, the final decision still lies with the Member States, and that the principle of subsidiarity applies. Still, complex matters that sometimes affect several Member States, such as the system of interest and royalty payments, require a European framework that applies uniform considerations and jointly agreed criteria to ensure, as regards Member States, that taxes are settled in a transparent manner and within a regulated framework. Thus, the report discusses important issues and seeks to further limit the opportunities for tax evasion, double non-taxation and tax fraud, and is therefore worthy of support.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal because tax evasion and tax avoidance cost the governments of the European Union a significant amount in uncollected revenues. Revenue losses increase the deficit and debt levels of the different Member States. Cooperation between Members States’ tax systems is increasingly desirable in order to further reduce the possibility of unintended non-taxation, double taxation or tax avoidance fraud among the Member States, which does even more damage to the smooth functioning of the EU’s internal market. It is essential to combat tax fraud and tax evasion. The proposal is aimed at excluding any possibility of tax evasion, substitution of taxes or any illegitimate tax exemptions. Moreover, it is necessary to take appropriate measures in order not to preclude Member States from combating tax fraud, tax evasion and abuse.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Ms Gáll-Pelcz’s text aims to amend Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of Member States. The abolition of taxation on interest and royalty payments in the Member State where they arise, whether collected by deduction at source or by assessment, is the most appropriate means of ensuring a simplified and more transparent system of taxation. This system is even more welcome in terms of increased surveillance of tax evasion and, at the same time, of a transparent system of taxation that does not suffocate businesses and citizens.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution but against Amendment 2, Part 2, which calls for the introduction of an EU minimum corporate tax rate.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I abstained from the report on the recast Council directive on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States because, although the principle of harmonising taxation in the EU has been enshrined, said harmonisation was not enshrined in this directive. On the contrary, under cover of discourse about eliminating double taxation, the report squanders the opportunity to make progress with combating fraud and tax evasion in this regard.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report is commendable in that it points out the danger of tax evasion that the Commission’s proposal entails. However, it does not draw every consequence there is to draw from it. Whilst it refuses to reduce the holding requirements to 10% for a company to be treated as an associated company of another company, it nonetheless maintains a very low tax rate for the companies concerned (70% of the average statutory corporate tax rate applicable in the Member States, in other words, scarcely 16.24%; it is much less than the VAT rates that the Troika imposes on the people of Europe). In the midst of a public finance crisis, Parliament’s amendments do not curb the tax evasion by which major groups minimise their corporate tax in their home country. I voted against.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE), in writing. – I am generally supportive of this recast as it is designed to support European business. However, I have serious reservations about attempts to include any reference to minimum tax rates. I therefore did not support the amendments in this report, which included these references. Tax rates are a sovereign matter for each individual Member State. The EU does not have competency to act in this area.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States because I fully agree with the main objective of the text which amends the 2011 Council directive: to combat tax evasion on a European level by improving its technical regulations. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) had already adopted the text on the common consolidated corporate tax base, demonstrating that, with a common system of taxation for associated companies, it wishes to direct European Union countries towards tax cooperation. Thanks to a regulated system that is able to shed light on company accounts and pinpoint accountability in the case of illegitimate exemptions, substitution of taxes and other kinds of fraud, the fight against tax evasion has become a key issue throughout the Union.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. I would stress the importance of updating this system, in view of the lessons learnt from the financial crisis. The most important of the rapporteur’s amendments are those concerning ‘subject to tax’ and the ‘permanent establishment’, which aim to exclude any possibility of tax evasion, substitution of taxes or any illegitimate tax exemptions.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On many occasions in the last few years, there have been amendments made to the Council directive concerning a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. However, there are still some technical refinements to make, for the sake of clarity. Considering that recent estimates indicate that tax evasion and tax avoidance cost the governments of the EU a significant amount of uncollected revenues, the directive needs to be amended in order to further tighten the possibility of unintended non-taxation, double taxation or tax avoidance fraud among the Member States. Although the question of holding requirements (10%) and that of transitional periods are not modified in the rapporteur’s draft report, I am voting in favour of the proposal in the hope of ruling out any possibility of tax evasion, substitution of taxes or any illegitimate tax exemptions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. It is scandalous that EU governments are still failing to take action against businesses dodging their tax obligations in the Member States in which they operate at a time when EU exchequers are under such pressure. Parliament has today voted in favour of strengthening the draft legislation, with a view to prohibiting the current practice of companies channelling profits through different Member States and tax regimes to avoid their tax responsibility. These ‘legitimate’ tax avoidance schemes like the ‘Double Irish’ and the ‘Dutch sandwich’ should be totally outlawed and Member State governments should take on board today’s vote. Parliament voted in favour of introducing an effective minimum EU tax rate on interest and royalties income, which would further limit the scope for corporate tax avoidance. If the EU is serious about tackling tax avoidance, immediate legislative steps must be taken to end the tax tourism and arbitrage that enables individuals and corporations in the EU to avoid up to EUR 100 billion in tax payments.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. There was a need to amend the directive in order to further tighten the possibility of unintended non-taxation, double taxation or tax avoidance fraud among the Member States causing more damage to the proper functioning of the internal market as stated in the recently adopted motion for a resolution on the call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion’.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In recent years, successive amendments have been made to the Council directive on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, and a number of additional measures could be adopted to make it more effective. I am voting for this report because I agree that the Commission should introduce a minimum corporate tax rate, since this rate will reduce tax competition and enhance the Member States’ freedom to levy taxes on companies. I also agree that interest and royalty payments should be subject to tax once in a Member State, which will increase fairness between European citizens. Finally, I consider it crucial to implement effective measures preventing tax evasion, substitution of taxes or any illegitimate tax exemptions, which will increase economic transparency within the EU.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies in different Member States.

Parliament has called for practical ways to be defined for combating tax fraud and tax evasion, drawing attention to the opportunity for committing tax evasion. We call on Member States to ensure effective cooperation and coordination between their tax systems to avoid unintended non-taxation and tax evasion. Abolishing any form of taxation on interest and royalty payments in the Member State where they arise is the most appropriate solution for eliminating the formalities and problems and for ensuring that equal tax treatment is applied between national and cross-border transactions.

This directive does not affect the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions which go beyond the provisions of this directive and are designed to eliminate or mitigate the double taxation and double non-taxation of interest and royalties. To ensure a simplified, more transparent system of taxation, the taxation of these payments therefore needs to be abolished when they are made between associated companies in different Member States or between permanent registered offices of these companies.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) It is common knowledge that tax evasion and tax avoidance cost the governments of the EU Member States a fortune in lost revenue and the finances of my country, Greece, have been hard hit by this problem. I voted in favour of the Gáll-Pelcz report because I believe that the creation of a common system of taxation in the EU will improve cooperation between the Member States in combating tax evasion and represents another step towards precisely the sort of genuine economic and monetary union that we should have created when the euro was introduced.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) In theory, this resolution aims at preventing the double taxation of companies by reducing taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. In reality, this resolution aims to facilitate access to tax exemptions. Indeed, ‘associated companies’ benefit from remarkable exemptions on the interest and royalty payments made between them. This proposal broadens this category. Furthermore, the resolution does not pay enough attention to fraud and tax evasion, which are undermining the European Union, much like tax competition between Member States. The amendment tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left introducing a minimum rate of corporate taxes was rejected by a majority of 362 against 296. Therefore, I voted against this motion for a resolution, as it does nothing but increase tax privileges granted to companies, to the detriment of European citizens. It does nothing to resolve the structural problems of taxation in the European Union, which are at the very heart of the crisis that is unfolding in front of our eyes, and which have hit European citizens hard, particularly those in southern Europe.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to recast Directive 2003/49/EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States. We do not consider it appropriate to introduce a minimum rate of corporate taxes, since the Member States should retain their sovereignty as regards what tax rates to apply.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0345/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this joint motion for a resolution. I would highlight the proposals by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. My group proposed introducing important priorities for our emergence from the crisis towards smart, inclusive, sustainable and green growth. Our priorities focus on the needs of people and companies: restoring growth and jobs, including regulation of the financial markets, pursuing the Citizens’ Agenda, and the area of freedom, security and justice. We are therefore emphasising the social market economy, ensuring sustainable growth so as to provide the next generation of Europeans with jobs and prepare the EU to integrate all its financial and economic policies. We are also stressing the multiannual financial framework. These are both key elements in revitalising the EU’s future.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Within the framework of the Commission Work Programme for 2013, adopted by Parliament, we wanted to express our hopes for the future of the European Union. We want to commence negotiations towards establishing a true economic and monetary union leading to a stronger political union, with greater democratic responsibility. It is also essential that we promote initiatives focusing on growth and improved controls for the spending of EU funds at national level.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the Commission Work Programme for 2013. The Commission should exercise its powers and take action to overcome the consequences of the economic crisis, and strive for financial stability, economic recovery and greater European competitiveness. I welcome the proposals set out on the establishment of a banking union, greater powers and accountability for the European Central Bank when monitoring the EU’s banking sectors, a more comprehensive growth agenda and an amendment to the EU’s tax law in order to combat tax evasion. Other important priorities of the Commission Work Programme include swift approval of the multiannual financial framework, the implementation of the reform of the own resources system and improved governance of the single market. The Commission should also devote more attention to the implementation of the Road map to a Resource Efficient Europe and the creation of a fully integrated and interconnected single energy market. The harmonisation of the CAP and the Europe 2020 strategy to promote innovation in farming and the anticipated large-scale reform of the common fisheries policy are also important.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. – (HU) At today’s plenary session, the European Parliament decided on the Commission Work Programme for 2013 in the form of a motion for a resolution. The text of the motion fully reflects the objectives of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), meaning that it focuses on growth incentive and job creation programmes. These objectives are in line with the measures taken by the Hungarian Government over the past two years. The reinvigoration of the European economy greatly depends on the future directions of the European Commission’s activities, which the European Parliament can influence by determining the annual legislative programme of the European Commission. The resolution calls on the Commission to take firm action in order to ensure that we can recover from the crisis as soon as possible, and indicates in a separate annex the sectors where urgent progress is needed. The resolution stresses that over the next year, the Commission should pay even more attention to legislative initiatives that promote job creation. I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In France, as in Europe, the year 2013 is proving to be crucial. After several years of crisis, the European economy is today at a turning point that obliges us to step up our efforts in order to lift ourselves out of this stagnation. In drawing up our road map for 2013, Parliament is calling on the Commission to start working immediately on consolidating economic and monetary union, building a Banking Union and boosting employment policies. While I voted in favour of this report, I cannot help but regret the absence of an agreement on redemption funds, which is sadly missing and needed to help us emerge from this crisis structurally.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because with it, each year, the European Parliament expresses its position on the planned Commission Work Programme. This year, discussions on the European Parliament’s evaluation were particularly important because now, decisions taken by the EU institutions will have a decisive influence on the future of the European Union. In the European Parliament negotiations, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats was keen to encourage the Commission to devote particular attention next year to job creation and to the more active implementation of the Citizens’ Agenda in the fields of justice and home affairs, as well as the Union’s foreign policy. Of course, one of the fundamental and overarching priorities in the European Parliament at the moment is financial policy and economic governance, in order to help Europe recover from the crisis.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Europe must undertake to adhere to the social market economy model leading to sustainable growth, in order to ensure jobs and a better quality of life for its citizens. The biggest challenges which the EU is facing concern maintaining competitiveness, economic growth, combating unemployment, ensuring a properly functioning labour market and good social conditions aimed at improving employment performance, promoting decent work, guaranteeing workers’ rights and working conditions throughout Europe and reducing poverty.

The Commission must submit a European action plan for stimulating sustainable economic growth and creating decent jobs. It must also present an EU strategy for the homeless, while also dealing with the growing problem of poverty among women and minimum pension schemes.

Slow progress has been noted on the Commission tabling a legislative proposal on improving the gender balance among company management executives, as well as the lack of any initiative from the Commission on reviewing the directive on equal opportunities for women and men when it comes to salaries and jobs. The Commission must monitor closely the launch of the paternity leave initiative and table a legislative proposal for eradicating violence against women.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We voted today in favour of the resolution on the Commission Work Programme for 2013. The most important priorities for the Commission in 2013 must be to deal with the crisis by taking measures to promote an effective internal market, increased competitiveness, open borders and investment in innovation, research and job creation. We therefore also voted in favour of the amendments relating to better budgetary discipline, a clearer principle of subsidiarity, a stronger internal market and investment in innovation, research and enlargement. For the same reason, we voted against the paragraphs in which Parliament expressed its support for a tax at EU level, own resources and an amendment of the Treaty.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the joint motion for a resolution on the ‘Commission Work Programme for 2013’. I think the Commission should do everything in its power to implement effective policies for tackling the challenges resulting from continuous crisis. This measure is intended to achieve financial stability and economic recovery.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted against the resolution adopted by the majority in Parliament, which is the result of the usual consensus between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. It concerns the Commission Work Programme for 2013 and can be summarised as the customary annual exercise of agreement between both institutions. This is the most serious crisis the EU has ever faced and is, in turn, an expression of the more general crisis of capitalism in the EU; in response to it, Parliament and the Commission are united in blindly pushing yet further ahead, which can only cause more and greater expressions of the crisis, with extremely serious consequences for the workers and the peoples. They are preparing yet another leap ahead in the capitalist integration of the EU, deepening neoliberalism, federalism and militarism, whilst sacrificing national sovereignty and democracy so as to implement a colonial-style system, in order to force through greater capital concentration by means of an unheard-of increase in the exploitation of those who work and live off the proceeds of their labour. The Portuguese people have experienced this at first hand, with the implementation of the aggression pact of the two troikas: the IMF, ECB and Commission, and the Portuguese Socialist Party (PS), the Portuguese Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the Democratic and Social Centre – People’s Party (CDS-PP). This integration process, which is ever more dominated by Germany, is clearly intended to serve the profits of big business.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The crisis in the EU will only be overcome on the basis of principled and fair actions. Europe must remain true to the social market economy model guaranteeing sustainable growth in order to secure jobs and a better quality of life for the current and future generations. Cohesion and solidarity are among the main objectives of the EU, as is confirmed by Article 174 TFEU. The European Commission needs an ambitious work programme for 2013 focusing on the promotion of sustainable growth, the creation of jobs, the quality of life in Europe, and the restoration of the confidence of citizens in European integration. The Commission should demonstrate that it is a strong leader by providing proper political solutions to the crisis, guaranteeing and asserting the correct EU institutional balance, and ensuring that the common European interest prevails over incompatible national interests.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The challenges faced by the European Union call for decisive and determined action from the Commission, so that we might finally lift ourselves out of this crisis and find our way back onto the path to growth and solidarity. It is in view of this call for decisive action, which, above all, takes into account the needs of the most vulnerable, that I voted in favour of this resolution. The rise in extremism, euroscepticism and populist discourse should, in particular, alert us to the truly serious state in which we find Europe today, and to the crisis of legitimacy that has grabbed the attention of our fellow citizens. The same applies when we see the return of an intergovernmental logic, which is creeping onto the negotiating table. Therefore, the time for talking is over and it is now time for concrete action. Through this, we are demanding that the Common European Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies becomes a legally binding instrument rather than simply an empty shell. By having the courage to face these challenges, Europe will be able to regain the trust of our fellow citizens.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The continuing crisis in the euro area still poses a threat to all European Union Member States. Furthermore, the European Union faces a profound competitiveness crisis, whereas most other regions of the world are growing more quickly, with increasing levels of productivity and innovation, and will leave the European Union trailing behind unless decisive action is taken. The Commission should therefore seek as a priority to devote its energies and resources to supporting the Member States so they can deal with this crisis effectively and swiftly, while reducing bureaucracy and centralisation. I therefore believe that the 2013 Work Programme for the last full year of the current Commission’s term of office must prioritise more targeted and specific initiatives that would stimulate real growth and improve competitiveness. I therefore abstained from voting on this document.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) I would like to use this explanation of vote to explain why it is necessary for the Commission to look into this matter further. I strongly uphold the free movement of persons on the EU’s internal market as a fundamental right for all EU citizens, but I see a need to examine the relationship between different legislative instruments in order for it to work in the best way possible. After all, the Free Movement Directive grants EU citizens the right to reside in another EU Member State for a period longer than three months without working if the person has sufficient resources to not be considered a burden on the country’s social assistance system and has sickness insurance. In several EU Member States, however, a person who is not working nevertheless has the right to various social security benefits. The Commission’s proposal can be read in such a way that a person who is not working and who has been granted a social security benefit (which is not linked to gainful employment) can be considered to have resources so that he/she is not considered to constitute a burden on the Member State’s social assistance system and thus meet the requirements for the right of residence. In practice, this means that a person is first examined to see if he/she has the right to social security benefits (regulation on the coordination of social security systems) and then whether he/she has the right to residence (directive on the free movement of persons). From a purely logical point of view, it should be the other way around and the right to residence should be examined before granting social security benefits.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution. Although it enhances all the main relevant issues that the EC needs to take into account for its work programme, I regret that some concrete measures proposed by my group, the EPP, were not included in the final document. A binding calendar for implementing the remaining legislation regarding the single market is essential. Clear deadlines and, should they be breached, fast-track infringement procedures should motivate Member States to finally comply with the EU legislation needed to fully integrate the single market. This means full enforcement and the removal of any remaining obstacles to the free circulation of goods, services, persons and capital. Our rhetoric must be imperative: obligations and commitments have to be fulfilled. Secondly, the future of research and innovation has been left out. The future Horizon 2020 is crucial for generating a knowledge-based economy and society that can compete in the global arena. In this regard, widening the participation of industry should be a priority. Also, there must be serious efforts to bridge the gap in the field of R&I between newer and older Member States to avoid larger divides than those that already exist at present.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this resolution, which makes it clear that a modern trade policy has to take other policy areas, from human rights to industrial policy, into account for an integrated approach to trade, foreign, development, social and environmental policies and has to be based on reciprocal access to the markets. It emphasises, in particular, the role that an appropriate use of trade policy can play in the fight against poverty outside the EU and, in the specific cases of neighbouring countries, ensuring stability at the EU’s borders. Robust international trade, investment and market integration are key drivers therefore of strong sustainable and balanced growth. The resolution stresses the importance of open markets and a fair, strong, rules-based trading system and insists on the need for protectionist measures to be refrained from worldwide as a basic condition for fair competition. In this context, the resolution highlights the importance of pursuing bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral efforts that are consistent and supportive of the WTO framework.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission should lay out in detail the ‘European Growth Commitments’ within the European Semester and the needed structural reforms. The European Semester must be the occasion for each Member State to account for its own commitments regarding the EU 2020 strategy, the Euro Plus Pact and other major EU objectives.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This joint resolution from 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 Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is pathetic. In it, these four groups unquestioningly accept that the Commission continues to have prerogatives which should belong to Parliament such as, primarily, the power to initiate legislation. They content themselves with ‘urging’ or ‘calling on’ this non-elected body to table legislative proposals that they themselves would have launched if they had any real legislative power. Yet the worst part is the content of these suggestions. Not content with supporting the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Semester, the Euro Plus Pact or even the Compact for Growth and Jobs, these groups lay stress on the establishment of the single market for services and the single market for energy, on supporting the carbon market, and on fighting against protectionism. I voted against.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The crisis is intensifying almost every day and we are continuing to muddle along as before. First Spain and now Cyprus, too, have applied for bailout funds. It is time that the EU openly admitted that financial assistance is pointless because the monetary union was designed with a built-in flaw. The voices that see no future for Greece in the euro area are getting more and more numerous. However, if Athens had been dropped from the euro as much as 2 years ago, we would have made a saving of EUR 250 billion. Brussels is concerned only with grabbing more and more power for itself. Whether it be milk and butter mountains, subsidy billions oozing away into dubious channels every year, ever new waves of illegal migration or the euro crisis – it has already been demonstrated that the path of unifying and levelling down taken so far has been a highly problematic one. It is time we finally put an end to these wrong turns taken by the EU. I have rejected this resolution because it advocated going further down the previous wrong track.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) We are now in the fourth year of this Commission’s term. The main challenge that faces this Commission is dealing with the economic crisis that has gripped a large part of the EU. Although a lot has been done to boost the economy, I would like the Commission’s activity on the environment to be rational, not purely based on ambitions. Although it goes in the right direction towards a ‘greener’ EU, draft legislation proposed by the Commission often becomes an insurmountable burden for Member States, both due to implementing measures and deadlines that are too strict. On the other hand, I would encourage the Commission to keep to its long-standing programme and present a new recast draft of the EIA Directive in 2013.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) After the latest request for bailout funds from Spain and now one from Cyprus as well, the first course of action, in my opinion, still ought to be that any country that is simply too weak macro-economically and that cannot keep pace with the requirements of a hard currency union is asked to leave immediately. A residual monetary union would certainly be preferable to the current situation, not least because, in this constellation, the traditional hard currency countries of the former Deutsche Mark block would be in a corresponding majority and could therefore formulate an appropriate monetary policy. However, because of international pressure on Germany, we are still not seeing any of this long-needed downsizing. It is clear to see that Germany is either too weak, too dispirited or, for other reasons, reluctant to take steps that would not only be reasonable, but which are also desired by a large majority of its own population. It is now time that we stopped further financial injections to ailing EU Member States. Considering that the European Union is facing a profound competition crisis and that most other regions in the world are achieving much faster growth and higher productivity, as well as a higher degree of innovation, leaving the European Union to trail behind if no decisive countermeasures are taken, I voted against this resolution because it has failed to steer us away from the wrong path that we have been down before.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Clearly, the extent of the fiscal crisis is putting both cohesion and the economic policy of the Union to the test. The multiannual financial framework applied to a stable and optimistic environment in 2006 will be completed next year in a completely different economic environment. As such, the initial objectives and priorities need to be adapted to the new situation. In this joint motion for a resolution, which I supported, the European Parliament compares the importance of greater unification to counterbalance the crisis, on the one hand, with the immediate need for a road map for rational and efficient use of Community resources in the future, on the other. Obviously, new challenges of particular concern to Greece, such as widespread youth unemployment, the need for more intervention at the initiative of the European Investment Bank and the importance of creating a climate of economic growth and investment, should be included in the new multiannual financial package.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this joint motion for a resolution tabled by Parliament’s major political powers because it sets out the suggestions for the broad strokes of the Commission programme for 2013. I agree that the future common agricultural policy should be better harmonised with Europe 2020 strategy targets, so as to encourage innovative farming practices and ensure the sustainability, fairness and competitiveness of European agriculture at local and regional level. However, it is important not to underestimate that farming’s raison d’être is food production: it should ensure Europe’s food independence and its ability to export products in a world with a growing need for food. I also agree that there should be a new, ambitious common fisheries policy, designed to enable the long-term existence of sustainable and healthy fish stocks. Nonetheless, it is important not to forget fishers, their families and fishing communities, for whom fair working conditions and remuneration need to be ensured.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Good result, at the end. The text considers that the EU is facing a crucial time, requiring strong and relevant decisions and calls on the Commission, while planning its legislative work, to show more reactivity and flexibility to respond faster to the serious consequences of the crisis faced by EU citizens in their day-to-day life and strongly believes that the EU needs fiscal stability for growth, and growth for stability and prosperity, and therefore that the crisis can only be tackled if the Commission fully works both sides of this coin in order to restore credibility, to boost investments and to generate growth.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I gave my support to the Commission Work Programme for 2013. There are issues, however, which require particular attention. In social terms, the issues in question involve, firstly, the battle against unemployment, especially among young people, and secondly, the resolution of the problem of poverty, which is spreading across the EU. There is also the issue of promoting social integration and inclusion. In terms of gender equality, particular consideration should be given, first of all, to the implementation and supervision of the gender consideration process in legislative and budgetary procedures, in the Lisbon strategy, and in job creation programmes. Secondly, we need to consider the development of a comprehensive directive on preventing and combating violence against women. Thirdly, we need to consider the elimination of remuneration differences between women and men, and lastly, the development of integration and migration policy from a gender perspective.

Implementation of EU law must be improved and measures put forward in relation to various proposals on blocked directives, such as, for example, the EU Anti-Discrimination Directive. I also appeal to the Council to ensure the effective inclusion of the issue of human rights and democracy in external policy. It is important that in the case of a blatant violation of human rights by a Member State, the EU should take bolder measures in relation to imposing sanctions provided for in agreed clauses on human rights, including the possibility of a temporary suspension of an agreement. EU programmes should contribute to the implementation by the Member States of international obligations in the area of human rights.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted for adopting the resolution on the preparation of the Commission Work Programme for 2013. In the motion for a resolution, we call on the Commission to take firm action in order to ensure that we can recover from the crisis as soon as possible, indicating in a separate annex those sectors where urgent progress is needed. We cannot stress it enough that the top priority of the Commission’s legislative programme for next year should be legislative initiatives that promote job creation. We have a responsibility to future generations. The coming generations should not inherit debt from us but a Europe built on an economy based on work. We therefore call upon the Commission to pay particular attention to the fight against youth unemployment and to facilitate the initiation of economic growth by all means available. These objectives are in line with the measures taken by the Hungarian Government over the past two years.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution. A true economic and monetary union is the first step towards stronger political union, with greater democratic responsibility, as requested by Parliament in the Commission Work Programme for 2013, which was adopted on Tuesday. Initiatives focusing on growth and improved controls for the spending of EU funds at national level are amongst the specific proposals put forward by MEPs.

MEPs decided in the resolution, which was adopted by a vote, that the Commission should ‘participate fully’ in the European summits in October and December, which aim to draw up a road map for the consolidation of the economic and monetary union. It aims to create a financial and fiscal framework and to guarantee greater democratic legitimacy. In order to achieve this, we call upon the Commission to publish, with immediate effect, a legislative proposal according to the ordinary legislative procedure in which Parliament is fully involved and transparency is guaranteed. This initial proposal should allow a true banking union to be put in place, with greater powers and responsibilities for the European Central Bank (ECB).

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Parliament has today called on the Commission to do everything in its power to promote political leadership able to face up to the numerous challenges resulting from the present crisis and thereby contribute to achieving financial stability and economic recovery in the EU. As part of the Commission’s legislative programme for next year, there is an urgent need to facilitate the swift adoption of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 and the related multiannual legislative programmes. To that end, it will be important to invest in strengthening cohesion policy after 2013, with adequate funding on the basis of multi-level governance, in line with Europe 2020 strategy targets. In the cohesion area, it will be essential to lay greater emphasis on coordinating this policy with research and development.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the motion for a resolution on the Commission Work Programme for 2013, through which we call on the Commission to adopt measures aimed at simplifying EU programmes, especially in the areas of research and innovation, and to monitor closely the use of financial engineering instruments. We also call on the Commission to submit a detailed action plan featuring measures promoting a fully integrated, interconnected single market in the energy sector, and to devise a strategy for tackling the impact of rising energy prices on the most vulnerable members of society.

We support the need to modernise Europe’s multimodal transport network, which is key to the internal market’s success.

We voted for the paragraphs where we emphasise the importance of getting young people into employment and the need to increase the EU’s ability to encourage education and training. We are also awaiting specific measures for reducing poverty and reforming the labour market.

We call for a sound cohesion policy to be applied at EU level after 2013 to ensure the integration of current funds and programmes, to provide sufficient resources, to be based on multi-level governance and to be properly aligned with the EU 2020 strategy objectives.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the joint resolution from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance on the Commission Work Programme for 2013. This resolution supports current economic policies, the dramatic consequences of which we are, unfortunately, all too aware of, particularly in social terms. It also directs the Commission to grant additional powers to the European Central Bank (ECB), supports austerity policies (the ‘two-pack’, the European Semester, reducing deficits) and is in favour of traditional liberal tenets (opening up the markets, fighting against protectionism, increasing the number of free trade agreements). The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left promotes radically different proposals. We would like to fundamentally change the role of the ECB and bring an end to its independence, to implement a European investment programme, a framework directive on adequate minimum income and a European guarantee for all young citizens to be offered a job or free training if they are unemployed. These are the proposals that we have put forward in our alternative resolution.

Report: Marina Yannakoudakis (A7-0223/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because I support this proposal to increase public support for donations. However, it must be stressed that the Member States should work to create a transparent system of donors that respects ethical values and safeguards both donor and recipient. We in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have included important recommendations to the Member States with regard to the obligation for donations to be voluntary, unpaid and anonymous, to compensation only for the costs relating to the donation, to coordination on preventing a black market, and to encouraging campaigns for potential donors. If this proposal were realised, it would increase reliability and safety for all potential donors and would increase long-term life expectancy for people dependent on this type of donation.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Tissues and stem cells play an increasingly central role in curing certain illnesses. Parliament has therefore adopted a report that proposes increasing stocks of stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells through a highly supervised and unpaid system. These resources would, in particular, facilitate further research into treatments for a number of children’s illnesses. These unpaid, voluntary and closely supervised donations would come largely from deceased donors. Promoting the implementation of common standards amongst private and public donor banks will facilitate exchanges and, hence, the availability of tissues and cells.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on the evaluation of the second report on voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells. Although health care is largely a Member State issue, the recommendations set forth are geared to build on areas such as cross-border donation. It is very important for Member States to carefully manage and outline compensation for donation, defining strict conditions under which financial compensation may be granted, and for compensation to be strictly limited to making good the expenses incurred in donating tissues and cells. We need to ensure that the human body is not a source of financial gain. I agree that it is important to regulate the online purchase of gamete cells in order to prevent the possible emergence of an online black market and to increase the number of centres for harvesting blood stem cells in order to increase the chances of finding a donor.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The report explores current Member State trends in the voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells and makes recommendations in order to improve the quality of life for people throughout Europe and increase the flow of donations between Member States. It lays down the basic principle that donations must be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit basis in a transparent environment. The report gives particular focus to the donation of cord blood necessary for the extraction of stem cells, as there is increasingly solid proof that stem cells can be used to treat diseases, including children’s illnesses. At the same time, the report concludes that despite all this, stem cells from cord blood are only stored at 1% of total births in the EU. The report therefore encourages mothers to donate cord blood and tissue to public or private banks when giving birth, urges information campaigns, expects each Member State to establish at least one public bank for cord blood, encourages private and public cell banks to engage in close cooperation in order to increase the availability and exchange of cord blood and tissue at both national and EU level, and stresses the importance of the establishment of, and compliance with, EU-level standards for both private and public cell banks. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the report.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report highlights that there is a shortage of bone marrow in certain Member States and it is difficult to find appropriate tissue and cell matches for patients, mainly due to a lack of collaboration in the field of cross-border donation.

I therefore welcome all the initiatives to aid effective cross-border cooperation in this area, while also highlighting the need to carry out robust checks to ensure maximum traceability and transparency in the system. I believe donation should be carried out on a voluntary and unpaid basis. I am therefore worried by the problems raised by the existence of numerous websites permitting people to sell or purchase gamete cells online.

We urgently need to consider adopting legislation to regulate this area in order to prevent the possible emergence of an online black market. In particular, as regards cord blood donation, from which stem cells are derived, there is increasing evidence that these cells can be used in the treatment of serious diseases, including children’s illnesses.

In order to optimise the potential of cord blood, I agree that the competent authorities should develop public awareness campaigns targeted principally towards expectant mothers.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has voiced its opinion on the voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and stem cells following the second report from the Commission on this subject. This report, which expresses the point of view of MEPs, is in no way a legislative text aimed at regulating a sensitive area over which Member States have sole jurisdiction. In France, the Bioethics Law was revised in 2011. In this report, we restate that donations should remain voluntary and be carried out on a non-profit basis. We also call upon Member States to ensure the fullest transparency in this area. Finally, we encourage the donation and collection of umbilical cord blood, which is useful for transplantation. With regard to sensitive issues relating to embryonic stem cell research, in-vitro fertilisations or cloning using stem cells for investigative purposes, we state that such issues are best decided upon at Member State level.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report as it analyses the current EU trends in the field of the voluntary, unpaid donation of tissues and cells and makes recommendations for improving the quality of life of people across Europe and for increasing the flow of donations between Member States.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Yannakoudakis’ report as I agree that donation of multiple tissues, reproductive cells and non-reproductive cells should be voluntary and unpaid.

I also believe it is important to support research and awareness of cord blood donation, from which stem cells can be extracted and then used in the treatment of various diseases, including many childhood illnesses.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because donation should be voluntary, and that means not for any material gain. As the health care sector is largely managed at national level, the recommendations are geared to complement already existing practices in Member States, building on certain areas such as cross-border donation. In the case of donation, there is an emphasis on altruism when donating tissues and cells. Compensation for donation should therefore be well managed by the Member States and compensation would only cover costs incurred in donating (travel expenses, for instance). It is very important for there to be effective international cooperation that would help to achieve reliable control, so that it is possible to ensure maximum transparency and safety in the donation system.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on the voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells. Indeed, I support the rapporteur’s wish for donations to become increasingly voluntary and to be carried out on a non-profit basis in a transparent environment. Making human body parts a source of financial gain is illegal in France, unlike in other countries, where a veritable trade takes place.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The document put forward is non-legislative and therefore unnecessary, and it is in my party’s interests to discourage the dissemination of this kind of material from the EU which also serves to permit the EU to encroach on highly sensitive areas wrought with moral and social implications.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Yannakoudakis. It supports the view that donations should be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit basis in a transparent environment. I am convinced that altruism is vital when donating tissues and cells. Compensation provided by Member States should therefore be carefully managed, and non-financial benefits should be considered. To aid effective cross-border cooperation, I support the implementation of robust checks, in order to ensure maximum traceability in the donation system.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text presented by Ms Yannakoudakis because although health care is still an area of national competency, it is right to try to find a European approach to the discussion by considering the role that Parliament and the European Union can play in defining common rules in this area. This issue is all the more tricky to deal with given the regulatory differences that exist between the Member States. In any event, I believe it is incumbent on all of us to commit to fighting crippling diseases. For this reason, we must work without speculation and anomalies, which these days, unfortunately, threaten to run rampant. The ethical principles the European Union has followed hitherto in the donation and use of the human body for therapeutic aims are essentially the principles of non-remuneration, solidarity, safety and non-profit, and I believe this text covers the main aspects in their various parts.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Tissue and cell donations should be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit and transparent basis. It is important to increase tissue and cell supply by exchanging best practices in relation to common operations, ethical standards and raising awareness of donation, as well as boosting provision of tissues and cells whilst guaranteeing adherence to health and safety standards. To optimise the potential of cord blood, competent authorities should develop public awareness campaigns targeted principally towards expecting mothers. Common standards should also be enforced and practised in both national and private banks, which should work together to increase the availability of national cord blood samples. I voted for this report, as I consider it crucial to improve the public’s quality of life throughout Europe by increasing the flow of voluntary donations among Member States, made on a non-profit and transparent basis.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Donations should be made voluntarily and provided on a non-profit basis in a transparent manner. This relates exclusively to tissue and cells which fall into one of these three categories: multiple tissues, reproductive cells and non-reproductive cells. To optimise the potential of umbilical cord blood, the relevant authorities should devise public awareness campaigns targeted, in particular, at expectant mothers.

Common standards should also be applied and enforced in both national and private banks, which should work together to increase the availability of national cord blood samples. Compensation for donations should be carefully managed and outlined by Member States and should be limited to reimbursing the expenses incurred in donating, such as travel expenses, loss of earnings or medical costs.

Member States ought to consider increasing the number of donors of bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cells so that any patient in need of a stem cell transplant has the best chance of finding a compatible donor.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe it is vitally important to improve the voluntary donation of tissues and cells.

Although the report concerns mainly national competency, I would argue it is essential to improve coordination between Member States Europe-wide, especially as regards exchanging best practice. I agree that the donation system must remain completely unpaid, with financial incentives prohibited, and be anonymous and managed by public bodies, in order to avoid illegal exchanges and prohibited Internet sales.

I am also of the opinion that it is more urgent than ever to establish ethical standards in order to improve exchanges between Member States.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text which reminds us, as if it were still necessary, that organ donation should be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit basis. Organ donation saves lives and brings real hope for a better future for numerous families. This donation, when properly supervised, represents a chance for many European citizens. However, the press is too often filled with stories on the existence of a parallel illegal trade in organs coming from clearly identified countries. Every European citizen should have access to the latest medical techniques regarding donations, whilst also being protected from illegal practices such as the trade in organs.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In plenary on Tuesday, we adopted a non-binding resolution on the donation of tissues and cells. The text of the resolution calls upon Member States to prohibit financial incentives for the donation of tissues and cells and to clearly set out the conditions under which financial compensation may be granted. The Commission was, for its part, asked to propose a text in order to ensure the principle of unpaid donation. The resolution also highlights the importance of bilateral agreements, which help countries to deal with the lack of tissues and cells and to find a compatible donor, where this is done on a national scale, and the advantage for Member States of collaborating more closely with the European Registry for Organs, Tissues and Cells (Eurocet), which manages the European registry for tissues and cells. It was also, for the majority of MEPs, an opportunity to discuss concerns over the emergence of a black market for sperm and egg cells, which is why we have also asked Member States to take coordinated action with a view to combating the ethical and public health risks associated with this.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells because I consider it important to gain public support and increase tissue and cell donation rates. The Member States should work together to develop, transparently, tissue and cell banks that respect ethical principles, and which guarantee the safety of donors and of the ill.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report reinforces the view that tissue and cell donations should be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit and transparent basis. Since health care is, to a large extent, a Member State competence, the recommendations aim to complement existing practices in the Member States and apply to areas such as cross-border donations. Altruism is a key word when we are talking about tissue and cell donations. That is why I believe compensation for donations should be carefully managed and outlined by Member States, and should be strictly limited to covering the expenses incurred in donating. In relation to these issues, it is very important to consider legal and ethical problems raised by the existence of numerous websites permitting people to sell or purchase gamete cells online. As such, Member States should consider adopting legislation to regulate this area in order to prevent the possible emergence of an online black market. I consider it important to increase tissue and cell supply by exchanging best practice in relation to common operations, ethical standards and raising awareness of donation, by means of the Member States working together more.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Donated tissues and cells, such as skin, bones, tendons, corneas and haematopoietic stem cells, are increasingly used in medical therapies and as starting material for advanced therapy medicinal products. Directive 2004/23/EC states that Member States shall endeavour to ensure voluntary and unpaid donations of tissues and cells and that the procurement of tissues and cells shall be carried out on a non-profit basis. There is, then, a clear statutory obligation to proceed in this way. Donations should be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit basis in a transparent environment. As health care is largely a Member State competency, the recommendations set forth are geared to complement existing practices in Member States and build primarily on areas such as cross-border donation. The report works towards increasing tissue and cell supply by exchanging best practice in relation to common operations, ethical standards and raising awareness of donation. To aid effective cross-border cooperation in this area, robust checks should be carried out to ensure maximum traceability and transparency in the donation system.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The data shows that the supply of tissues and cells is insufficient to meet demand and the immediate needs of individuals. Indeed, those who sign up are often faced with long waiting lists. The legislative initiative stipulates that the practices in place for compensation, incentives, promotion and advertising, as well as procurement and removal, should be carried out on the basis of the principle of altruism, that is, on a voluntary, unpaid basis. Although Member States have already adopted legislative directives on donation, harmonisation is required among Member States, especially as regards compensation and promoting these donations. I hope this initiative introduces greater efficiency and transparency, both at a national level and as regards inter-State cooperation.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I felt it was important to vote in favour of this resolution, which reaffirms certain principles regarding the donation of tissues and cells. It is an ethical requirement. However, several Member States do not take it into consideration: donations of tissue and cells should be voluntary, unpaid and, without any exception, anonymous. These ethical failures in certain Member States are set in an environment of regular revelations of cases of trafficking in human products. The main reason for my vote is to send a message to the Member States that they must put a stop to this trafficking. The scope of this resolution goes beyond ethical questions and addresses the issues of public health and the fight against criminal activities. Moreover, this resolution encourages the creation of systems allowing for greater European and international cooperation, aimed at improving the management of the growing need for human tissues and cells for innovative treatments, a need that, in itself, constitutes a major challenge for public health.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am very much in favour of this report, which strongly states its opposition to payment for donations of tissues and cells. These donations are essential for transplants and the treatment of numerous patients. Despite structures and information campaigns, approximately half the Member States continually report shortages of tissues and cells, including bone marrow and gametes. To date, over 20 000 transplants of cells derived from umbilical cord blood have been carried out across the world over the last 20 years, to cure leukaemia and lymphoma, genetic conditions and immune deficiencies. Yet too few mothers are asked by midwives to donate umbilical cord blood during childbirth. Member States should strive to ensure that umbilical cord blood is no longer considered hospital waste, but a real resource for research. Public and private umbilical cord and stem cell banks should cooperate more effectively. It is important that a regulatory framework for Member States is developed quickly in order for these establishments to operate in a transparent and safe manner. Establishments should respect the principles of fair access to treatment and solidarity.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The principle of voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells is an absolute principle that should not be challenged. However, we cannot ignore the shortage of cells and tissues when numerous patients have immediate requirements and waiting lists are getting longer and longer. Donations are essential for transplants and for the treatment of patients suffering from cardiac conditions, leukaemia, genetic conditions and so forth. There are systems and information campaigns in place, but they are insufficient from one country to another. Improved cooperation between Member States is therefore essential in order to facilitate cross-border donations. Establishments have a part to play in encouraging donations of tissues and cells, notably donations of umbilical cord blood. By changing current perceptions, and showing that umbilical cords are a resource for research, we will be able to save lives.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells because voluntary and unpaid tissue and cell donations contribute to high safety standards for tissues and cells and, therefore, to the protection of human health. As health care is largely a Member State issue, the recommendations set forth are geared to complement existing practices in Member States and build on areas such as cross-border donation. The Member States are encouraged to step up their public information and awareness-raising campaigns to promote the donation of tissues and cells and to ensure the provision of information that is clear, fair, scientifically based and conclusive and of data enabling the public to make informed choices. It is also stressed that donors should be fully informed of the procedures used in this process and their moral, psychological, medical and social consequences.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The issue of illegal trafficking of organs is very current and topical. The phenomenon has greatly increased during this period of crisis and increasing poverty we are experiencing. The report in question has the merit of expressing the intention to keep our guard high on this matter and the wish to tackle the problem in a more decisive way by proposing concrete solutions. Therefore, providing facilities for donating tissues and cells, an appropriate level of information, and social and health care that is absolutely suited to the needs in question, are concrete actions which are to be welcomed.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Stem cells play an increasingly important role in treating a range of illnesses. The report, which proposes increasing stocks of stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells through a highly supervised and unpaid system, was adopted on Tuesday, 11 September. This report, which I voted in favour of, supports the voluntary, unpaid and entirely transparent donation of tissues or cells. The report also calls for the implementation of common standards for donor banks, whether they be public or private. This would facilitate exchanges and therefore the availability of tissues and cells. The adoption of this text by Parliament will allow for improved regulation of organ donation in order to avoid costly trafficking or exchanges.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report, which analyses current EU trends in the field of voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells and makes recommendations to improve the quality of life of people across Europe and to increase the flow of donations between Member States. Particular attention is drawn to boosting stem cell and cord blood reserves in Member States and harnessing stem cell therapies to treat diseases successfully.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The principle of altruism and the associated principle of voluntary and unpaid donation fundamentally prevent any form of commercialisation of organs or other body parts, and thus the risk of illicit trade in them. The principle of non-commercialisation of the human body and its parts as such is also contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as it ensures the highest possible protection of living donors. I therefore welcome the submitted report, which analyses the current situation in tissue and cell donation, and I believe that, together with the directive on the quality and safety of organs intended for transplanting, it will help to improve the whole mechanism for the functioning of donation and to better cooperation at European level.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this document – the donation of tissues and cells must be voluntary, not for profit or other financial gain. I agree entirely with the condition that the removal of tissues and cells for the benefit of recipients may only be carried out under two conditions: it must be done with a medical or scientific and therapeutic aim, and all the elements removed must be donated without any payment being made. It is essential to avoid any practices that are at odds with ethics when removing tissues or cells, and this should only be carried out by professionals in the field. I believe that a few things can be singled out in order to avoid non-transparent donation. Firstly, public awareness raising – publicity campaigns ensuring clear and scientifically based information for donors and recipients, from consenting to donation to the consequences of transplantation. Secondly, traceability must be ensured from donor to patient, while maintaining anonymity and applying the highest standards of quality of tissues and cells for transplantation, particularly in the case of third countries. The European Commission also has a special role to play in monitoring the morally sensitive donation system, based on the implementation of the principles of anonymity and volunteerism. Action must be taken as soon as possible if potential violations are observed in the Member States, particularly in the case of financial compensation.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – Addressing the shortage of tissue and cells available for medical purposes is a growing challenge for all EU Member States. This report focuses on three main objectives: increased harvesting of umbilical cord blood, further expansion of stem cell donation, and financial compensation for potential tissue donors.

Umbilical cord blood contains 10 times as many stem cells as bone marrow, but in many Member States it is wasted. I voted in favour of this report because it encourages the introduction of appropriate, transparent, and regularly audited financial compensation for potential donors. By attracting donors, this will ensure a steady supply of vital stem cells. The compensation will cover only the cost incurred in donation, protecting the health of the donor while upholding the ethical argument that the human body must not become a priced commodity.

I agree with my colleagues that this initiative will allow EU citizens greater access to life-saving and tissue-regenerating stem cells, while increasing the transparency and traceability of donations. This will ensure the safety of stem cell use and provide for a plentiful donated supply of quality tissue and cells.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) This report is underpinned by the view that donations should be voluntary and should be made on a non-profit basis within a transparent environment. Clearly, ‘buying’ a humanitarian offer is not the right approach, whereas non-monetary incentives offer moral compensation, which is in keeping and consistent with the spirit of altruism and donation. Good practices already being applied in certain Member States, such as Great Britain, illustrate that this is the right approach. Be that as it may, however, apart from the final policies that the Member States decide to apply in this particular sector, serious legal and ethical problems are clearly being caused by websites on which gametes can be bought and sold online and questions are being raised about the transparency of such transactions. The lack of a legal framework in several Member States is exacerbating this particular situation. This is the focus of the report, which I supported.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the tabling of this report, which reinforces the position the EU has always maintained as regards organ, tissue and cell donations; that is, they must be absolutely free, as the name suggests. The core values for organ, tissue and cell donations, shared by all the Member States, are those of altruism and solidarity, and that should remain the case: we must resist the economic interests that have been developing in this area, thereby combating the marketing of the human body and the exploitation of the individual.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since I would stress that donations – in this case, of multiple tissues, reproductive cells and non-reproductive cells – should be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit basis in a transparent environment, and considering that health care is largely a Member State competency, we now need to complement existing practices in Member States and build on areas such as cross-border donation. Also, bearing in mind that there are shortages of bone marrow and sperm cells in certain Member States and that many countries have difficulties in finding appropriate tissue and cell matches for those belonging to minority ethnic groups, we must increase tissue and cell supply by exchanging best practice with regard to common operations, ethical standards and raising awareness of donation. For this reason, I am voting in favour of the proposal.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abstained from voting on the resolution proposed by Ms Yannakoudakis on the donation of human tissues and cells, which focuses, in particular, on the areas of non-remuneration and anonymity. While the Commission reminded us, during the debate, about finding the right balance between respect for fundamental principles and the availability of tissues and cells, Parliament has added hurdles to an already tricky situation. Fourteen Member States suffer from regular shortages, notably for bone marrow transplants and donations of gametes.

Nothing justifies, as set out in the resolution, European requirements for private tissue and cell banks. In the same way, the will of the conservative forces in Parliament to change existing legislation on advanced therapy medicinal products should be condemned: it calls on pro-life movements to stop a whole sector of research, from tissue engineering (skin, cardiac valves) to somatic cell therapy (used primarily in cancer research).

As rapporteur for the ALDE Group, I am disappointed that Parliament has refused to take a humanist, open approach to medical research: the only approach that would allow the expectations of European patients to be met.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The principles governing tissue and cell donation are set out in Article 12 of Directive 2004/23/EC: ‘Member States shall endeavour to ensure voluntary and unpaid donations of tissues and cells. Donors may receive compensation, which is strictly limited to making good the expenses and inconveniences related to the donation. In that case, Member States define the conditions under which compensation may be granted’. Donated tissues and cells, such as skin, bones, tendons, corneas and haematopoietic stem cells, are increasingly used in medical therapies and as starting material for advanced therapy medicinal products. In addition, reproductive cells are used in the field of medically assisted reproductive technology, e.g. in vitro fertilisation. The most controversial issue concerned cord blood donations into private cord blood banks. We wanted to introduce critical wording about private cord banks for potential autologous treatment, as the Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits making the human body and its parts a source of financial gain, yet private cord blood banks clearly have a commercial interest. We did not succeed in that, but managed to avoid any explicit promotion of private cord blood banks. We also managed to get rid of statements which tried to state that benefits in kind would not necessarily violate the principle of altruism.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution and was pleased to reiterate my support not just for the principle of unpaid and voluntary donation, but also for the related issue of cord blood research. I want to stress the importance of giving the right information to parents so they can make informed choices about the collection and, in particular, the storage of cord blood. Whilst fully exploring the potential of this area of medicine and promoting the collection of cord blood for the mutual benefit of everyone, we must be sure that the information given about the potential uses of cord blood is consistent with scientific knowledge and not unproven speculation. I am grateful that Parliament gave its support to my call for the European Group on Ethics to re-examine the ethical aspects of cord blood banking.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. Donations should be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit basis in a transparent environment. They deal exclusively with tissues and cells that fall into one of three categories, namely, multiple tissues, reproductive cells and non-reproductive cells. With the exception of skin tissue, vessels and amniotic membrane, the donation usually comes from a deceased donor.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report makes a number of recommendations on the voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells to complement existing practices in Member States, which have exclusive competence in this area. Donations are intended to be voluntary and carried out on a non-profit basis, in a transparent and safe environment; limited compensation for covering expenses incurred is allowed. The proposals only concern multiple tissues, reproductive cells and non-reproductive cells. In-vitro fertilisation, cloning using stem cells for investigative purposes and embryonic stem cell research fall outside the scope of this report. The rapporteur calls on Member States to pay attention to the existence of websites selling tissues and cells, and to the parallel market that could emerge therefrom. I voted for this report, as I believe cooperation and the exchange of best practices can increase transparency and the flow of donations between Member States, thereby improving the public’s quality of life.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on voluntary and unpaid donation of tissue and cells. I think that it is important that all Member States clearly define the conditions under which fair and proportionate financial compensation may be granted, bearing in mind that compensation is strictly limited to covering the expenses incurred in donating tissue and cells. Member States must adopt measures to protect living donors and guarantee that donation is anonymous (except in the case of harvesting from a living person for a relative), voluntary, freely consented to, informed and unpaid.

Member States need to step up their public information and awareness campaigns to promote the donation of tissue and cells and to ensure that medical information is provided which is clear, fair, scientifically based and conclusive, as well as data which enables the public to make an informed choice.

I think that it is important to establish rules for ensuring the traceability of tissue and cells of human origin from donor to patient and vice versa, as well as a system for regulating imports of human tissue and cells from third countries, thereby ensuring that equivalent quality and safety standards will apply.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This motion for a resolution lays the foundations for future regulations on the donation of tissues and cells. In particular, it reasserts the necessary principles of non-remuneration and anonymity for all donations of tissues and cells. With regard to stem cells becoming one of the great hopes for modern medicine, a clear stance on the subject is essential. The establishment of a regulatory framework would allow both donors and recipients to be safeguarded. Yet this resolution paves the way for the creation of private tissue and cell banks in which individuals would be able to stockpile their own cells and tissues. In practice, anonymous cord blood is 100 times more used and transplanted. There is therefore a gaping hole with regard to personal protection (which, after all, is selfish), which is nothing but detrimental for anonymous donations. It is for this reason that I abstained from voting on this motion for a resolution.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) On the one hand, this report shows the current trends in tissue and cell donation in the European Union. On the other, the quality and safety of tissues and cells must be guaranteed and donors given adequate compensation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I fully support any initiative similar to the one we have voted on, since I am aware of the existence of an online black market in gametes and realise that we have limited options to prevent such practices. I agree that donations should be voluntary and that financial considerations should never influence a donor’s decision. At the same time, we should make Member States aware that it is necessary to ensure that the donation process adheres to health and safety standards in respect of the donor. We should promote similar initiatives for the benefit of human beings.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In my view, the Yannakoudakis report is extremely important at this point in time, when the demand for organs, blood and bone marrow is increasing and the advance of medical science allows for their optimum use in saving human lives. Awareness of, and confidence in, public institutions which collect information and biological data regarding potential donors are key to reducing the gap between supply and demand of transplant material. This will certainly limit the trade in tissue and cells and reduce ‘transplant tourism’. Clear rules in relation to compensation and medical care provided for donors will also guarantee the comfort and safety of those who decide to help save the lives of others.

We should also strongly emphasise the ethical aspect of voluntary donation and call on the European Commission and the Member States to guarantee broader access to information regarding transplantation and donation. In my view, regardless of the systems used in individual Member States for the donation of organs, tissue or post mortem cells, whether based on informed or presumed consent, the Member States and the Commission should undertake a comprehensive information campaign aimed at promoting the declaration of consent among EU citizens. This declaration would be a clear signal to doctors and family members of a person’s willingness to become a donor after death.

Report: Mikael Gustafsson (A7-0235/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I think gender equality should predominate in political decision making, as well as in developing the environmentally friendly economy. I consider this report particularly important. I would stress the need to overcome the obstacles women face today, such as patriarchal systems in which women have fewer rights and therefore find it harder to own land, take out loans, and access their own education and health care. We could increase women’s participation in the economy by balancing the rules of the job market to make them fairer, thereby enabling women themselves to make a major and important contribution to developing the environmentally friendly economy.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) One of the key objectives of my political vocation is to strengthen the participation of women in the economic sphere. As President of ‘Femmes au Centre’, I welcome wholeheartedly the European Parliament’s support for this own-initiative report. By seeking to promote the positive role women can play in decision-making bodies, the European Parliament is demonstrating once more its commitment to gender equality.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The potential for creating ‘green jobs’ is considered a priority for the EU. The International Labour Organisation estimates that this sector will be able to generate some 25 million new jobs by 2030. In 2009, Portugal was ranked third in the EU for incorporation of renewable energy sources. As in other sectors, we need to ensure gender equality in the labour market and the full participation of women in drafting policy, in decision making and in implementing the green economy. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I support this report because it likens the green economy to a sustainable economy that includes equality between men and women. We need to establish equal participation in political life and in the green economy so that the interests of women carry the same weight as the interests of men.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the essence of a green or, in other words, sustainable economy is to preserve the ecosystem’s productive capacity while creating a society where basic human needs are met. When creating a green economy, it is therefore important not to harm nature and for resources to be fairly distributed, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability or beliefs. Men and women need to be equally involved in making political and economic decisions because democracy is based on those elected representing the entire population. Countries must take all appropriate measures to achieve a gender balance and to ensure women’s interests are considered in the same way as men’s interests. We must take into account the fact that natural resources are limited, as well as the fact that production and consumption results in emissions that eventually end up in the ecosystem. The prudent use of natural resources is therefore important for preventing negative environmental outcomes. This means the need to move towards the scenario of a green economy. Gender equality is part of what we mean by a green and sustainable economy. It is very important to make the role played by women visible and women should have time left to participate in social development.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) A green or sustainable economy is a system which preserves ecosystems’ productive capacity, while creating a society where everyone’s basic human needs are met. Equal participation in politics and the green economy is essential to ensure that women’s interests are considered in the same way as men’s.

The current economic system does not take into account the fact that natural resources are limited. Production and consumption generate emissions and pollutants which will end up, sooner or later, in our ecosystem. The ability of ecosystems to absorb and manage emissions, and adapt to changing circumstances is finite. Once the absolute limit is reached, important services provided by the ecosystem are in danger of disappearing. I think that to avoid such a scenario, we need to switch to an economic system where the pace of natural resource extraction promotes recovery and the production of new resources.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report on the role of women in the green economy. This report seeks to promote women’s participation in the new green jobs. In this regard, activities producing goods and services that favour environmental protection, or eco-activities, are envisaged as a means of helping to ensure wage equality between the sexes and reducing the economic and social disparities between men and women.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – This is a prime example of European Union bumf that essentially paves the way for more EU targets, more EU research, more EU money spent on more EU rules for reasons that are neither pressing nor realistically relevant. It ticks two of the EU’s favourite boxes; green issues and gender equality. Essentially, such non-essential money and time-wasting efforts simply keep the bureaucrats employed and well oiled with a sense of raison d’être, rather than contributing anything of any value to Europe as a whole, despite using up taxpayer’s money and proposing a raft of measures that are likely to be of less value than the paper on which they are printed.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I consider it essential to implement a green economy that increases gender equality and deepens social justice. We need a new social and environmental growth indicator which includes non-economic aspects of well-being and focuses on issues relating to sustainable development, such as gender equality, poverty reduction and cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. Research funding is an indispensable lever for society’s development, which should be focused on projects to develop innovative and sustainable transport solutions. It is essential to ensure that women occupy more leadership positions in companies and organisations. Equal representation of women should be ensured in decision-making bodies, in management positions, and on the boards of companies in the green-jobs sector. I think that, if it is not possible to achieve this goal on a voluntary basis, specific measures should be taken, such as introducing quotas or other methods of reinforcing equality and democracy.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) A green economy is defined as a sustainable economy, which means social and ecological sustainability, since social sustainability involves a social order based on gender equality and social justice, regardless of gender, ethnicity, colour, religion, sexual orientation, disability or political opinion. The role of women in the green economy in many Member States continues to be underestimated and ignored, thereby creating numerous forms of discrimination in terms of lost benefits, such as social welfare, health insurance, adequate salary and pension rights.

Member States must acknowledge the importance of the vital role that women play in raising and educating children and protecting the environment, and the appropriate remuneration required for both unofficial and official activities. The Commission must support investment and programmes promoting green jobs intended for those in greatest need of them: young people, women and the poor. Member States must ensure appropriate working conditions and strong social dialogue to facilitate the transition to the new green jobs, especially for women. Furthermore, they must be proactive in providing women with a decent standard of medical care, education and housing.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Climate change and the impoverishment of biodiversity constitute a threat to which we urgently need to find answers. Preserving our ecosystem is doubtless the cornerstone of the green economy, which should involve environmental and social sustainability. It is the most disadvantaged people, 70% of whom are estimated to be women, who are most at risk of being severely affected by climate change and ecosystem destruction. It is unacceptable that a number of Member States continue to undervalue the role of women in the green economy, resulting in numerous discriminations in terms of lost benefits, such as social protection, health care insurance, adequate salaries and pension rights. We urgently need to move towards a green economy in which environmental requirements should be intrinsically associated with social sustainability, particularly as regards increasing social justice, with a fair distribution of resources among individuals, men and women, and among generations. I call on the Member States to adopt tax measures enabling a boost to the implementation of the green economy, quantifying the environmental impact, on the one hand, and investing funds in stimulating environmental innovations and sustainable infrastructure, on the other. This should be considered a means of stimulating economic development and job creation.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported this own-initiative report by voting in favour because I believe it is vital to make every effort to counter discrimination against women, in particular, in the world of work.

This report looks specifically at the fight against discrimination against women in the green economy, which is a new and growing sector with enormous potential, especially considering the serious crisis we are experiencing.

I therefore agree with both the appeal for Member States to organise specialist training courses in areas such as renewable energy, and with promoting information campaigns on programmes financed by the EU to increase participation of women in jobs in the green economy.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt and Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Conservatives today voted in favour of the report on the role of women in the green economy. The report contains a paragraph in which the Member States are called on to introduce quotas in order to increase equality in society. We Swedish Conservatives voted against this paragraph, as we believe that it should be up to the Member States themselves to decide how they want to achieve an equal society with reference to the principle of subsidiarity. We also do not believe that quotas are the right way to go about increasing the proportion of women in top positions.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The report by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality is unacceptable. Once again, the subject matter of a report – in this case the green economy – is being used as a pretext for yet another attempt to impose ideas across the EU relating, for example, to quotas for women in management roles. These issues should not be the subject of EU provisions.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) From a social and environmental perspective, a green economy is a sustainable economy which involves a social order based on both gender equality and social justice, regardless of gender, ethnicity, colour, religion or political opinion. The role of women in the green economy in several Member States continues to be ignored, thereby creating numerous forms of discrimination in terms of lost entitlements, such as social welfare, health insurance, salary and pension rights. In this context, I think that, across the EU, environmental policies at all levels must include a gender equality perspective in defining, implementing and monitoring the promotion of gender mainstreaming as an instrument for good governance against the background of the Europe 2020 strategy, as well as in strengthening gender equality and social justice. I also believe that Member States must promote specific research and studies on women and gender equality as part of the green economy so that the gender perspective is included in environmental protection and environmental impact assessment studies.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There is consensus about the urgent need for an international agreement on a common definition of a green economy based on the pillars of social and environmental sustainability. The significant role of civil society stands out here, in which women have very often taken the lead in setting the targets and goals for the green economy. I voted for this own-initiative report because I believe that the Commission and the European institutions as a whole can play an important role in this regard, through a coherent and balanced design for its development policy, which will enable the yearned-for success hitting social and environmental sustainability targets.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The economic and social system that dominates the world – capitalism – is showing itself to be incapable of ensuring the most basic needs of millions of human beings across the world. The poor are worst affected, including women. We believe that sustainable development based on a sustainable relationship between humans and nature is impossible without breaking away; that is, calling into question the capitalist system. However, we agree with the rapporteur that measures are needed to promote equality between men and women, to enhance the quality and quantity of local public transport networks, to create child care infrastructure and retirement homes, and to enable women to participate in the ‘green’ economy under the same conditions as men, with access to decent social services, education and housing. We voted for this report and we think that the Member States should create political, economic and social conditions enabling women’s participation on an equal footing with men in all areas of economic and social life.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The imbalance between women and men in decision making in politics and the economy is great. This gender imbalance undermines the legitimacy of political decision making, as democracy is based on elected officials representing a cross-section of the population. Equal participation in politics and the green economy is essential to ensure women’s interests are considered in the same way as men’s interests are currently considered. To address this imbalance, countries should take all appropriate measures, including the introduction of quotas, to achieve a more balanced representation of the sexes in politics and the green economy. A green economy, however, also requires sustainable husbandry of human resources and social sustainability. This means, for example, a fairer balance between rich and poor, and between men and women. Greater equality must be an integral part of a green and sustainable economy.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – Once again, the EU attempts to add a gender perspective to an issue that is not gender-related. This report on women in the green economy includes a number of condescending proposals, which include the provision of specific training courses for women who wish to work in green jobs and the improvement of public transport with the specific aim of enabling women to travel more easily. Not only does this report over-generalise the issue of the green economy, but it includes a number of areas that should be the exclusive responsibility of Member States to decide, such as setting targets and quotas for the management boards of companies in the green economy. Furthermore, it calls for better access to health care and education, which are completely unrelated to the issue of the green economy and are not matters for the EU.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). in writing. – (HU) There are 14.6 million jobs in the European Union that either directly or indirectly serve the protection of biodiversity and the restoration of natural resources and forests. Women can be among the main winners of a greener and more socially inclusive economy. They can obtain easier access to job opportunities (including in renewable energy) and higher wages, and their employment can be legalised. In developed, industrialised countries, only 8-12% of the workforce is being employed in the 10-15 industries that are responsible for 70-80% of all carbon dioxide emissions. If policies aiming at the greening of existing companies and the promotion of employment are adopted, it is likely that only a fraction of these people will lose their jobs. I find the objectives set in the report extremely important, and I therefore supported the report with my vote.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it is essential to examine the role of women in a sustainable economy. Why? Because women are on the front line today and the devastating effects of the environmental crisis have taken a particularly heavy toll on them. We must remember that the crisis affects, in particular, women in rural areas, impoverished by soil degradation, women in large cities, who are forced to maintain a pace of life that is not compatible with respect for human rights and who are exploited in degrading conditions, and women and their children who have been displaced as a result of conflicts or climate imbalances. Even now, women are all too often excluded from sustainable development policies even though they play a crucial role in maintaining an agricultural environment that preserves biodiversity and strengthening social cohesion through their collective organisational practices. Women have solutions to get us out of these crises; we must stop ignoring them.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – Eco-industry and environment-related industries – a significant and quickly growing portion of the EU economy currently representing 2.1% of EU GDP – offer an important and continuously expanding opportunity to enhance labour market participation, both in high-skill and low-skill sectors. Eco-industries and related services – including air pollution control, waste water management, solid waste management, soil remediation, renewable energies, and recycling – sustain 3.5 million full-time jobs at present and around 75%. Unfortunately, there is a disturbing lack of reliable, comprehensive and comparable data on how the green economy influences the labour market, especially from the aspect of its impact on equal opportunities and equality. The European Commission and national statistical authorities must therefore develop a proper disaggregated database and set of indicators to measure the actual and potential impact of the green economy on territorial and social cohesion. Furthermore, a set of strategic recommendations and policy instruments needs also to be defined in order to effectively respond to the possible changes in the level and/or structure of employment.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The transition to a green economy affects women and men alike in different sectors of activity, both socially and professionally, but not to the same degree, as there are much greater disparities in some Member States than others. Unfortunately, we do not have as yet concrete data based on in-depth studies conducted across the whole of the European Union which illustrate these disparities in totally real terms and which enable us to devise clear policies relating to gender aspects. These policies are needed so that they can then be specifically integrated into sustainable development programmes at regional, national and international level, thereby removing the current disparities present in different areas of the EU.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Most of the members of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality have a talent for coming up with own-initiative reports that are unbelievably creative.

Surely it is discriminatory to draw up a report on the role of women in the green economy, unless we immediately draw up a similar report on men.

I admire the extent of the facts set out, for example, the fact that women consume less than men, regardless of their socio-economic status, even though women are responsible for 80% of the world’s purchasing decisions.

Women do not have the same access to transport systems, but this does not apply to the EU.

In order for women to participate in the green economy, their sexual and reproductive rights must be ensured.

Nor did I know that men had better access to the agricultural technologies needed to access jobs in the green economy.

This report calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide a whole string of studies, statistics, programmes and new indicators that take account of climate change, biodiversity, etc.

In the absence of details of the financial impact of all of these requests, I voted against the report because it seeks to turn society into a model of an unaffordable, utopian green economy, the consequences of which for growth and employment are unknown.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which calls on the Commission to be particularly aware that access to clean water is of major importance to girls and women in many parts of the world, as it is often their responsibility to fetch and carry water home; stresses that it is also important to retain female indigenous knowledge of local ecosystems.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Gustafsson’s report on the role of women in the green economy, as developing the green economy involves creating new jobs, in particular, for prevalently male sectors where the participation of women is still limited.

By analysing data and statistics regarding different employment areas in the European Union, I noted with regret that a high concentration of ‘green’ jobs are normally filled by men. In most cases, women involved in the transition linked to new job opportunities are underpaid compared with men. The disparities in access to different green trades and professions are a threat to the equality of the transition towards a greener labour market.

To facilitate women’s access to new ‘green’ jobs, I would argue it is vital for the Commission and Member States to organise specialist training courses in areas such as renewable energy, thereby giving women real opportunities to join the labour market in remote areas where unemployment affects young people in particular. I am referring, for example, to the potential for women to succeed in the area of solar and wind power in southern Europe.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (PT) A green economy should be a sustainable, social and environmentally friendly economy, since social sustainability includes a social order to which social and gender equality are intrinsic, regardless of gender, ethnicity, colour, sexual orientation, disability or political views. It is clear that environmental policy has a direct impact on people’s health and socio-economic status, and that gender inequality, combined with a lack of sensitivity about the needs of women and the economic and social disparities they face, often leads women to suffer disproportionately from environmental degradation and inadequate policies in this regard. In this sense, in my country, Galicia, women working in farming, fishing and shellfishing suffer the consequences of a lack of environmental protection. That is why I am voting for policies that support equality in the green economy.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The inequality between women and men occupying the highest decision-making positions in bodies that create and manage the economy is enormous. This fact calls into question the legitimacy of today’s democratically-based decision-making bodies. I would say that at the present time, full of economic uncertainty, deepening climate change and collapsing ecosystems, access for women to world markets should be facilitated. One thing is indisputable. The approach of women to the pressing problems of today is diametrically opposite to the ‘masculine’ way of dealing with stalemates. Women are more inclined towards economical and efficient decisions. I often see how the role of women in the home, workplace and community is undervalued. Women always think first of the needs of their children and families, securing health care, education … On the other hand, they favour greater political stability and strongly oppose armed conflict. Let us therefore also exploit the potential of women in the green economy. A balanced approach to both sexes will bring alternative and innovative perspectives to the future. Growing demand for professional workers, however, also requires the appropriate training. Let us therefore give women and female students the same opportunities of access to education and training. I believe that only in this way will it be possible to make progress in research, sustainable development, and environmentally viable solutions to the present crises.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Current trends in the development of society are leading to excessive consumption of resources and deepening social exclusion. In order to change this, we need to begin by promoting the activities of areas that are more environment oriented. This report makes a significant contribution to the creation of a ‘green’ economy in which social equality and human well-being are established while reducing the negative impact on the environment. The report talks of the need to integrate women in agriculture, research work and the creation of green innovations. As it is more difficult for women to adapt in the changing labour market than it is for men, their integration should be one of the EU’s highest priorities when creating a green economy. I voted in favour of this report because its implementation would not only increase women’s wealth but would also encourage change leading towards a more sustainable economy.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I am in favour of a green economy in which economic development takes place in a context of nature supporting and ensuring fair distribution of resources among individuals and among generations.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) If a green or sustainable economy can be defined as a system which preserves the ecosystem’s productive capacity, while creating a society where the basic human needs of all individuals are met, which, of course, also means equality between men and woman, and bearing in mind that the imbalance between women and men in decision making in politics and the economy is huge, countries should take all appropriate measures to achieve a gender balance. Given that women and men have different consumption patterns due to different gender roles and contribute to environmental pressures in different ways, and that this different consumption behaviour is part of creating and strengthening our gender identity, I am voting in favour of the proposal.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) In today’s vote on the report on the role of women in the green economy, I voted in favour in the final vote, despite the fact that I voted against in the majority of the votes on the separate paragraphs. I would, in particular, like to express my reservations about paragraph 35 concerning gender quotas, which, in my opinion, is not the right way to achieve a truly equal society or the filling of positions in either politics or industry.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This report equates the green economy with a sustainable economy, which, in turn, includes both a socially and ecologically sustainable economy. This, of course, also means equality between women and men. A green or sustainable economy is a system which preserves the ecosystem’s productive capacity (the planet’s tolerance) while creating a society where the basic human needs of all are met. Economic development in a green economy therefore takes place within the context of what nature can tolerate, and ensures a fair distribution of resources between people, between men and women, and between generations. The green economy means that the needs of the planet and of humans receive the highest priority and that the goal is to create sustainable societies that are energy efficient and healthy, and in which all people, regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, colour, sexual orientation, disability or beliefs, may participate.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report. As the Member responsible for gender equality, I share many of the questions raised in this text. For example, does the Commission communication to the European Union institutions and committees entitled ‘Rio+20: towards the green economy and better governance’ not incorporate a gender dimension? I also wonder why there are no figures about women’s participation in the green economy in certain European countries, including any difference in relation to previous years, and why there is no precise common definition of what the green economy means for the European Commission?

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to alleviate the existing imbalances between men and women, particularly as regards making policy and economic decisions. It particularly focuses on inequality between the genders, on the environment and sustainable development, and on the green economy, whilst analysing ways to facilitate women’s market access in the environmental economy. It therefore makes recommendations to increase women’s participation in this emerging market, through more training and European programmes with this in mind. I am voting for this report. I would re-emphasise my opposition to imposing quotas, because I think it sends a negative signal that detracts from women’s merit. I think it is better to create the necessary social and tax conditions to enable women to participate in the labour market.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the role of women in the green economy because I think that a sustainable economy is an economy which creates decent jobs and sustainable communities and allows for a fairer distribution of wealth.

I voted to ensure that women enjoy appropriate working conditions, have access to a decent standard of health care, education and housing, and participate actively in social dialogues to facilitate the transition to the new green jobs.

I support the need for more child care centres, which are absolutely essential to achieve a balance between work and family life. We think that EU policies should provide support for social security, family planning and child care, since women will only be able to use their experience and contribute their equal share to the prosperity of green economies in a society which provides these conditions.

We call on Member States to ensure that women are equally represented in political decision-making bodies, as well as in government appointed bodies and institutions dealing with defining, planning and implementing policies relating to the environment, energy and green jobs, so as to incorporate the gender perspective in these policies.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report by Mikael Gustafsson of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left. It stresses that the current economic and ecological problems are dealt with mainly from a technical perspective, ignoring the fact that the solutions require a drastic change in our conception of social justice and sustainable economy. In this area, women are, at the same time, the primary victims and real pioneers. We therefore have to give women and men the same opportunities to take action at a policy level and in relation to the economy, whose future also depends on green jobs. This report calls, in particular, on the Member States to develop action plans to encourage more women to choose courses and careers within sectors that will be the focus of many green jobs in the future (engineering, natural sciences, information technologies) but that are largely inaccessible to them at present. Some examples include women’s access to micro-credit for small businesses, and more centres for the care of children and the elderly to allow women to reconcile family and work life.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) This report emphasises many aspects of sustainable development (consumption, transport and politics in international relations) and social justice (adequate representation of women, working conditions, subsidies, education and child care) in particular. If we want a green economy, then a common definition is needed which includes the question of equality as well as the creation of a sustainable, energy-efficient and healthy society. I have voted in favour of this report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Within the European Union, women are still subject to severe discrimination in the labour market and this is also the case in an expanding area such as that of the green economy.

Member States should therefore arrange for specialist courses in the area of renewable energy to promote and facilitate women’s access to new jobs. The text presented by Mr Gustafsson also stresses the need to promote information campaigns regarding the EU funds in this area, with the aim of increasing participation by women at all levels of employment in the transition towards a green economy.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Capitalism is showing itself to be incapable of ensuring the most basic needs of millions of human beings across the world. The poor are worst affected, including women. We believe that sustainable development based on a sustainable relationship between humans and nature, as advocated here, is impossible without breaking away; that is, calling into question the capitalist system, which exploits nature as a source of profit. We agree with the rapporteur’s statement regarding the need to change to an economic system in which the pace of natural resource extraction allows for recovery and new production.

We also agree with the rapporteur that measures are needed to promote equality between men and women, to enhance the quality and quantity of local public transport networks, to create child care infrastructure and retirement homes, and to guarantee access to decent social services, education and housing. We think that the Member States should create political, economic and social conditions enabling women’s participation on an equal footing with men in all spheres of life, including the so-called ‘green economy’, but we do not support measures such as introducing quotas.

Report: Iratxe García Pérez (A7-0246/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because women accounted for the overwhelming majority of EU service sector jobs in 2010, and around 50% of women were concentrated in 10 of the 130 occupations in the services area. These facts are worrying, particularly at a time of economic crisis, especially if we also consider the fact that women are paid 16.4% less than men. I therefore support this proposal, which aims to encourage improved working conditions for women because, not only will that bring Europe out of the crisis sooner, but it will help to hit the Europe 2020 strategy targets effectively. This report includes measures like the need for the Commission to collect data on the impact of austerity on women in the service sector and to demand projects based on the goal of helping women with their work situation.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report takes stock of the situation of women in the service sector, in which they have traditionally been in the majority. Nevertheless, that fact masks a completely different reality. In fact, women often work on a part-time basis, are passed over for managerial positions, and are the victims of unjustified wage gaps. Female immigrant workers and parental leave are some of the issues that the European Parliament has supported in order to ensure that greater consideration is at last given to the situation of women across the European Union.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU has made great strides with integrating women into the labour market in recent decades. The employment rate for women is 62%, up from the figure of 55% recorded in 1997. Moreover, women represent almost 60% of all EU university graduates. Although increasing numbers of women are highly qualified, and despite their participation in the labour market increasing, they are still massively outnumbered by men in positions of responsibility in politics and business, particularly the top jobs. There is also a sexual division of labour based on stereotypes rooted in society, which assume that there are male and female jobs. Furthermore, wage disparities are still the reality in the European Union. Despite various legal initiatives for wage equality, the gap remains and progress is extremely slow. I voted for this report, which suggests a series of measures, particularly as regards work/life balance, to improve working conditions for women in the service sector.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) There are significant gender inequalities in the service sector. It is a widely recognised phenomenon: the vast majority of women work in this sector, sometimes in low-skilled jobs, and a disproportionate number of women compared with men work on a part-time basis. These part-time jobs, often imposed on workers, are the concrete manifestation of the fragmentation of the job market and less job security for workers, especially women. We have to take this aspect into account when drawing up current public policies on both employment and education. We must make women’s jobs more secure and combat stereotypes from school age. Finally, I must state here once again that wage equality for men and women has still not been achieved, despite 30 years of discussions of this issue at European level. Equality is a battle that we have yet to win in our respective countries.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In 2010, in the EU, employment in the service sector accounted for 69.4% of all jobs, and 83.1% of the female workforce is employed in the service sector compared with 58.1% of the male workforce.

Despite numerous legal initiatives undertaken by the EU to pursue the goal of equal pay for men and women, the gap remains and progress is extremely slow. In the EU, women earn about 17.1% less than their male colleagues, although the gender pay gap ranges between 3.2% and 30.9% in the Member States.

An even less comforting figure is that the rise in the educational level of women has not always been matched by them moving up the hierarchy at work or by an improvement in their conditions of employment. In view of this situation, it is estimated that it would take over 40 years to reach any significant gender balance in the labour market.

Bearing this in mind, I see the need for Member States to adopt appropriate policies allowing a balance to be found between personal, work and family life and, not least, child care services compatible with the flexible working hours which, according to recent studies, are gradually being imposed in the service sector.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I supported this report because working conditions for women in the service sector will improve if the guidelines included in it are followed. The majority of the female working population is employed in the service sector. We need to tackle the underground economy and the pay gap, including in times of crisis, with the flexibility to reconcile working and family life.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I support the report by Ms García Pérez, which is designed to improve women’s working conditions in the service sector, in terms of both pay and working methods.

We need to push for women’s wages to be increasingly equivalent to men’s. However, it is also essential to ensure that women have safe working conditions, both from the legal point of view – since women working in domestic services and personal care are often forced to work in the black economy, without a contract – and from the point of view of safety and respect for the dignity of women and of human beings.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because 83.1% of the female workforce is employed in the services sector. Sadly, certain stereotypes prevail in society, which cause the gender-specific division of labour. Some feel that there are female jobs and male jobs, and female jobs are usually associated with the home. Stereotypes also exist with the issue of flexibility and some still feel that caring for the home and family is women’s primary responsibility and that they should therefore accept working flexible hours, or doing temporary or casual work. On the other hand, it is crucial for women to reconcile professional and family life. The issue of equal pay is also very important because women in EU Member States now earn 17.1% less than men. Although current legal initiatives demand equal pay, the gap remains and progress on this issue is extremely slow. In its report ‘Gender Equality (2010)’, the European Commission emphasised that there are still inequalities in employment and expressed concern that the economic crisis is exacerbating the situation, as equality measures are being cut or eliminated.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In 2010, in the European Union, employment in the services sector accounted for 69.4% of all jobs, with 83.1% of the female workforce employed in this sector, compared with 58.1% of the male workforce. In Romania, according to a World Bank report on gender equality, women are paid, on average, 10% less compared to men for doing similar jobs and with the same level of training. However, this is a smaller gap compared to the regional gap.

Equal pay for women and men produces a ‘smart economy’, since the countries which create opportunities and good working conditions for women can increase productivity. To achieve the right balance between gender and professional qualifications, companies should adopt a flexible quota system for having women on boards of directors. Flexible quotas mean that each company will set its own percentage, selection procedure and deadline for reaching the quota.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report on women’s working conditions in the service sector. We are accustomed to hearing that women are under-represented in decision-making positions and that there is a large gender wage gap. Little progress has been made, however. Today, 80% of women work in the service sector: we need to concentrate the legislation concerning this sector in order to begin to improve working conditions. Moreover, the Member States must urgently put in place user-friendly evaluation tools for the various jobs in order to make wage equality a reality.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – It is at times hard to argue against legislation supposedly promoting gender equality without facing a raft of criticism from people who would wish to label you sexist. However, I fully support women’s rights and believe the equal contribution made by women and men to society must never be overlooked or taken for granted. I also believe that more must be done to close the pay gap between the sexes. However, wasting time and money on reports such as these actually undermines the sex equality fight rather than aids it. The report rather dramatically reveals that women tend to be disproportionately represented in the flexible and part-time employment market. I assume, without needing to have spent hundreds of thousands on a think tank, that this may have something to do with pregnancy and child care. All that the EU achieves in commissioning such reports is pointing out obvious differentiation between the sexes and then subsequently painting a portrait of women as martyrs, something which many forward-thinking feminists despise.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Almost half the women in employment are concentrated in 10 of the 130 occupations listed in the International Standard Classification of Occupations. This horizontal segregation follows certain stereotypes rooted in society, which assume that there are male and female jobs. Most people employed in jobs with flexible working hours are women. Part-time employment and temporary work are still predominantly female domains. In the EU, women earn 17.1% less than men, although the gender pay gap ranges between 3.2% and 30.9% in the Member States. Although 60% of university graduates are women, only one in seven members of the boards of major European companies are women (13.7%). Women account for a greater proportion than men of the informal economy in the service sector. There is particular concern about sexual harassment and abuse at work, as well as other types of violence against women. I voted for this report because it reports these situations and suggests measures for improving working conditions for women in the service sector.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In 2010, in the EU, employment in the services sector accounted for 69.4% of all jobs, while in industry this figure was 25.4% and in agriculture 5.2%. Most of the female workforce is employed in the services sector: 83.1% compared with 58.1% of the male workforce.

Member States need to adopt policies on integrating vulnerable workers into the labour market, especially low-skilled, unemployed, young and older workers, as well as people with disabilities, those with mental disabilities or members of minority groups such as migrant workers and Roma, by means of targeted and tailored occupational guidance, training and apprenticeship programmes. The situation of female migrant and undeclared workers in the services sector, in particular, those employed in private households, with the majority of them working without a contract in precarious employment and domestic service, in unsuitable working conditions, earning lower wages than declared workers and without any social rights, requires appropriate policies to be adopted to ensure that migrant workers enjoy basic human rights, including the right to health care, fair working conditions, education and training, physical and moral integrity and equality before the law.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Conservatives today voted in favour of the report on women’s working conditions in the service sector. The report contains a paragraph concerning the Pregnant Workers Directive and a call for the Council to approve the directive. We Swedish Conservatives are opposed to this, as the directive represents a serious curtailment of the principle of subsidiarity. We believe that maternity leave is a matter that is best decided on by the Member States themselves.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – The service sector accounts for almost 70% of all jobs in the EU and is predominantly female. There is a tendency to stereotype jobs which associate women’s work with the more caring jobs e.g. nursing, caring, teaching, etc. These positions are often less well remunerated than traditional ‘men’s’ work. Women are disproportionately represented in the public sector and therefore can suffer disproportionately from budgetary cuts in the efforts to ensure fiscal consolidation. Therefore, it is important to have a strong gender dimension to Europe’s emerging growth and jobs strategies, including as regards ESF spending. I support efforts for a European Equal Pay Target to reduce the gender pay gap by 10% in each Member State. Gender pay differentials, currently at 16%, are transmitted into later generations in the form of lower pensions and higher poverty rates amongst older women. I look forward to the Commission proposal, due in November, on ratification of the ILO’s 2011 Domestic Workers Convention. This convention is also important in the context of the EU’s strategy to combat people trafficking.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The individualisation and ever increasing flexibility of the labour market in many Member States are putting employees, in particular women, who also have family obligations to meet, in a more vulnerable position, which can result in creating precarious jobs. There is a large proportion of women on the labour market employed in precarious jobs, and certain types of precarious jobs carried out by women, such as paid domestic work and providing care, are almost non-existent on the labour market. Under current legislation, there are, in this respect, large disparities in the European Union with regard to job opportunities and the quality of work, as well as in terms of receiving equal pay for doing the same work or work of the same value.

In these circumstances, I believe that both the Commission and Member States need to adopt clear guidelines and practical measures for guaranteeing not only existing jobs, but for creating employment opportunities, especially for women, as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. An EU-level strategy needs to be devised on precarious work, with the emphasis on creating decent, green jobs and incorporating the principle of gender balance.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I advocate implementing measures that contribute to reducing women’s segregation in the service sector. Women’s level of education, which is higher than men’s, on average, is rarely accompanied by ascending the professional hierarchy or improved conditions of employment. We need to apply measures guaranteeing increased representation of women on boards of directors and ensuring the effective implementation of the principle of equal pay for men and women.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) From halfway through the last century, modern societies have seen increased emancipation of women, essentially through an increase in their level of education, which has quickly outstripped that of men. In fact, 60% of university graduates are now women. It used to be said that a woman’s place was in the home; there are now many professions in which they are in the majority, for example, the service sector. In the EU, 69.4% of all jobs in this sector are occupied by women; this figure is as low as 5.2% for agriculture. Despite the trend at EU level towards the employment rates for men and women to move closer together, the truth is that many women still experience discrimination from their employers due to motherhood. That is why they mainly work flexible or part-time hours, which results in a wage disparity between the two genders. It is therefore crucial to eradicate gender inequality, so as to prevent any form of violence against women that affects all social, cultural and economic strata, since sexual harassment and abuse predominate in the service sector.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report highlights the precarious working conditions of women in the service sector, including wage discrimination, part-time work, temporary work, irregular and unpredictable hours, scarce and irregular rest days and periods, and hard working conditions. The most important of the report’s various positive proposals included the need to implement measures ensuring equality of remuneration, to combat precarious working relations, to convert precarious workers into actual members of staff, to reinforce the safeguarding of workers’ rights and conditions, and for companies to implement effective maternity support schemes.

The report encourages Member States to ratify International Labour Organisation Convention No 189 on domestic workers immediately, so as to ensure decent working conditions. It also stresses the need to create publicly owned facilities and social services for supporting children and dependants. It also urges the Council to break the deadlock on adopting the recast Pregnant Workers Directive. We voted in favour.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In 2010, in the EU, employment in the service sector accounted for 69.4% of all jobs, while in industry this figure was 25.4% and in agriculture, 5.2%. Most of the female workforce is employed in the service sector: 83.1% compared with 58.1% of the male workforce. Horizontal segregation follows certain stereotypes in the services sector that are deep-rooted in society, which assume that there are male and female jobs, and that the latter are associated with the work that women do in the home (clothing and textiles, teaching, nursing, cleaning, etc.). Although 60% of university graduates are women, their representation in decision-making positions in the economic field, especially the most senior positions, is disproportionately low. Similarly, the proportion of women working as computer professionals is very small and is seeing a much slower growth than it is for men.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report by Iratxe García Pérez, which highlights perfectly the deeply unjust characteristics of the organisation of services in our European societies. It is very unfortunate that the employment of women in the service sector is still very much characterised by stereotypes in society that depict women’s main responsibility as being the family carer, with jobs that are seen as an extension of the work they do in the home, such as cleaning, teaching, clothing and textiles, etc. The jobs held by women are – for the most part – flexible, part-time, low-skilled jobs with notable wage gaps. In short, insecure jobs have almost become the norm and we cannot remain indifferent to that. It is in this context that the national and European authorities must demonstrate their commitment to combating these gender stereotypes, particularly from an early age. The issue of the employment – or, rather, the exploitation – of migrant women, especially in the area of domestic service and care work, also warrants the utmost attention of the public authorities.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – More than four-fifths of women in the EU labour market find work in the service sector and, quite surprisingly – mostly due to widespread stereotypes concerning what is considered to be a feminine job, or an occupation suitable for women – more than half of them find an occupation within less than 8% of all available professions. Similarly to the whole of the labour market, most of them face a gender pay gap, difficulties in reconciling work with family life, and the glass ceiling blocking their advancement. Unfortunately, precarious work is a persistent feature of the European Union’s labour market and women represent a great proportion of undeclared workers who are mainly engaged in domestic work and care. The European Commission and the Member States need to develop comprehensive and effective strategies in order to combat precarious employment as well as to support the development of the formal domestic and care services sector.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Garcia Pérez report was adopted by a large majority in plenary: 528 votes for, 57 against and 33 abstentions. This own-initiative report sets out the main statistics on women’s working conditions in the service sector in the EU: in 2010, more than 80% of women worked in the service sector. Women are over-represented in flexible and part-time employment and under-represented in decision-making positions, and they have to deal with wage gap issues. Women account for a considerable share of undeclared employment, particularly in domestic service and care work. The report also expresses concerns about the situation of immigrant or undeclared women working in the service sector.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) As a member of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Iratxe García Pérez on women’s working conditions in the service sector. With this text, the European Parliament is highlighting a statistic that receives very little attention in the media: the proportion of jobs for women in the service sector, a sector that provides most jobs in the European Union. Moreover, these jobs are generally part-time jobs and the wages are lower than those paid to men. As a result, I strongly welcome the adoption of this report by the European Parliament, which encourages the Member States to improve women’s working conditions in the service sector.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is useful to focus on working conditions in the service sector, but why focus only on conditions for women?

Most of the members of the committee responsible have an annoying tendency to group women’s problems in with those of the disabled, the elderly, minorities and those who are different.

Women are citizens in their own right. We have to stop this counterproductive categorisation.

I did not vote for this report because I refuse to associate myself with this hotchpotch of pointless affirmations and demands that contradict reality and are actually damaging to women.

As I do not have much space, I will give just one example: the claim that in the public sector, women are more at risk of losing their job is false. Women and men who work in the public sector are better paid and better protected than those who work in the private sector.

The most absurd of all the demands appears in Article 43. The reform of the directive on maternity protection is blocked in the Council because the text adopted here with a whole string of exaggerated, heterogeneous demands does not lend itself to any serious discussion. The existing directive could have been improved two years ago if we had accepted the reasonable proposals of the Commission instead of trying to go one better and giving in to populism.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which argues that policies permitting better balancing of work and personal life will help trigger a substantial employment potential for women and will facilitate a better matching of women to available jobs and thus boost economic growth, employment and innovation; whereas, moreover, women in the services sector work mainly in areas such as retail and hotels, but do not yet work in higher positions.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on women’s working conditions in the services sector because it is essential to act quickly to improve women’s conditions in this sector, since 80% of women in the EU labour market work in the services sector and are still subject to serious discrimination, both in access to technical and highly qualified positions, and in salary levels.

I think that in order to improve women’s conditions in the services sector, it is necessary for Member States to facilitate access to upskilling programmes under the European Social Fund, offering computer training courses to reduce the gender digital divide and enable women to have access to many highly technological job opportunities.

Lastly, the EU must take steps to transform the precarious work often performed by women in the services sector into work with rights and genuine prospects for training and professional development. This is particularly so during this economic crisis, in which we must get everything we can from our human resources in order to breathe new life into the European economy.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on women’s working conditions in the service sector. Women are strongly represented in the service sector and hold the majority of part-time jobs. We have to combat the gender wage gap, which averages 17.1% in the European Union.. There are various solutions for the Member States, including the introduction of tax benefits and service vouchers to combat the informal economy or the adoption of policies to integrate the most vulnerable workers into the labour market.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) In accordance with the principal goal of the Europe 2020 strategy, which is to attain 75% employment by 2020, measures must be created to improve the access of women to the labour market, since statistics have long attested to their significantly lower representation. I consider the low representation of women in the labour market and, above all, in skilled positions, to be a highly negative phenomenon, even given the fact that women account for approximately 60% of university graduates. Yet, despite this, we only rarely find them in management or decision-making positions in the services sector. Since women in the service sector are found in the lowest level jobs in terms of qualifications and wages, and are even paid less than men, I believe the training and knowledge of woman can be left to develop through the promotion of business activities and entrepreneurship of women. I am therefore pleased by this proposal for micro-financing as an instrument for supporting entrepreneurial women and people in a vulnerable position in the labour market in the services sector. Finally, I would like to applaud the excellent work of the hundreds of thousands of women in the area of social services and in the social enterprise sector, and I therefore especially welcome the Commission communication entitled ‘Social Business Initiative’, which is intended for them.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (PT) The service sector accounts for over 70% of economic activity in the EU, and a similar and increasing percentage of total employment. Precariousness is a persistent characteristic of the EU labour market, which affects women above all, because women face wage discrimination and are the most affected by part-time work. This means they are paid lower wages, have less social protection, have greater limitations on the progress of their career, and have less opportunities for economic independence. This, in turn, encourages them to retreat into the private sphere and leads to steps backwards in responsibility sharing. Women account for a large proportion of those doing undeclared jobs. Using the excuse of labour reforms, the economic adjustments and social cuts that Member States such as Spain are making, as well as austerity measures, are weakening the rights of women working in this sector. That is why I am voting in favour: to support policies that favour improved working conditions for women in the service sector.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) EU statistical indicators announce that the majority of workers in the services sector are women. I voted in favour of this document, agreeing with the idea that there is still an unequal division of labour between men and women in specific sectors. Although the services sector creates a large proportion of jobs and revenue, it still pays the least. The payment of lower wages is possibly discriminatory, taking into account women’s responsibilities in the home and the possibility that they may stop working due to pregnancy. One of the major threats in this sector is illegal employment and its associated pay. Particular attention should therefore be paid to employers in the Member States’ services sector employing women part-time and paying inadequately for work, and to the exploitation of workers, particularly immigrants from third countries. Investment in training, more even distribution of rewards among both genders, and flexible working time arrangements, taking into account women’s responsibilities, are the main measures capable of improving the position of women and their working conditions in the services sector.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The segregation of work sectors between women and men is still a fact. It has been confirmed in a number of studies, which also highlight a need to pay increased attention to the working conditions of women. These must be secured for them under all circumstances. The discrepancy between the representation of women in the public sector and the service sector continues to grow. Many women from disadvantaged groups have limited opportunities in the labour market. It should be noted that the working conditions and salaries are much lower than in other sectors. Another fact is that the problems associated with job insecurity tend to affect women more than men. The concentration of low-income, part-time work and other indicators is closely related to sexism in the workplace. It is therefore necessary to support any initiative that aims to fight against inequalities in the workplace, supports a reduction in gender differences, strengthens the rights of migrant workers, and calls for the wider participation of women in decision-making positions.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported this report because I consider it important to devote more attention to instances of gender inequality, particularly in the service sector. As many as 83.1% of working women are employed in the service sector, where they receive considerably lower wages than men, or are often forced by circumstances to work part-time. Unfortunately, women’s increased level of education has not led to a sufficient rise in women’s career advancement or employment conditions, and their skills and knowledge are underrated, despite the fact that an average of 60% of university graduates are women and, in my home country, the figure is as much as 70%. Therefore, I believe that measures promoting the integration of private life, family life and work should be implemented with greater determination. It is unthinkable that this objective could be achieved without the active participation of men, in order to achieve a balance between work and family life. Both men and women will enjoy the benefits of a family-friendly employment policy and the sharing of unpaid work and domestic responsibilities.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is another step towards reducing social exclusion and improving the position of women in the labour market. The services sector provides around 70% of all jobs in the EU and women in this sector account for about 83% of all employees. Statistics show that women earn 19% less than men for doing the same job. This encourages a discriminatory approach to certain professions and has an impact on social guarantees in retirement. The EU must therefore take decisive action to encourage greater integration of women in the labour market, to defend their rights, and to improve their working conditions.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report. Its most important elements are the proposals regarding work/life balance and those encouraging family stability and assistance for minors; these are absolutely decisive issues for gender equality in the world of work.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal because: in 2010, in the EU, employment in the service sector accounted for 69.4% of all jobs and most of the female workforce is employed in the service sector (83.1% compared with 58.1% of the male workforce); women have limited opportunities to adapt to the requirements of labour markets in a modern, highly globalised world, in which a worker’s key attribute is mobility and the ability to move to take up a position outside his or her place of residence, which, in the case of women, who are more involved in caring for children and looking after the home, is often impossible, preventing them from taking full advantage of the opportunities offered by the labour market; and because, in the EU, women earn about 17.1% less than men.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In 2010, in the EU, employment in the service sector accounted for 69.4% of all jobs, while in industry this figure was 25.4% and in agriculture 5.2%. Most of the female workforce is employed in the service sector: 83.1% compared with 58.1% of the male workforce. Almost half of women in employment are concentrated in 10 of the 130 occupations of the International Standard Classification of Occupations: shop salespersons and demonstrators, domestic and related helpers, cleaners and launderers, personal care and related workers, other office clerks, administrative associate professionals, housekeeping and restaurant services workers, secretaries and keyboard operators, general managers, finance and sales associate professionals and nursing and midwifery associate professionals. This horizontal segregation follows certain stereotypes rooted in society, which assume that there are male and female jobs, and that the latter are associated with the work that women do in the home and are, in some way, considered as an extension of these (clothing and textiles, teaching, nursing, cleaning, etc.). It is also noted that there is a concentration of women working in the public sector, with 25% of women compared with 17% of men.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In all, 83% of the female workforce is employed in the service sector. It is therefore essential to focus once again on women’s working conditions in this sector. We can never overemphasise the importance of ensuring that women are fully integrated into the labour market, combating the discrimination they suffer. In fact, women hold most of the precarious jobs and they are under-represented in senior official and decision-making positions. The first measure has to concentrate on wages. How can we justify the fact that women today still earn 16% less than men? We must ensure that the principle of equal pay for men and women for equal work is applied urgently. This discrimination is evident everywhere, even in the political sphere. If the European Union does not give women the opportunity to make the most of their skills, it will be betraying its values and paving the way for the obscurantism that is unfortunately rife in other parts of the world. I therefore voted for this report, which calls on the European institutions and the Member States to put an end to the glass ceiling that women have to face in their careers and to adopt measures to make it easier to reconcile work and family life.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the European Parliament’s resolution on the improvement of women’s working conditions in the service sector. Currently, nine out of ten jobs created are in the service sector. Achieving a 75% employment rate among adults by 2020, which is the primary goal of the European Union, requires the entry of a significant number of women into the labour market. Currently, the employment rate for women is 62.1%, compared to 75.1% for men.

In particular, I would like to draw attention to the need to break the horizontal segregation prevalent in the labour market by means of, for example, information campaigns, training courses and vocational training programmes. In Poland, women prevail in low-paid jobs which, nevertheless, require qualifications and experience. I refer to jobs in administration, social care, education and medical care professions such as nursing and midwifery. This is mainly a result of stereotypical divisions into female and male occupations. On average, women also have to work four years longer than men to receive a promotion and, in comparison to men, their average earnings are 16.4% lower.

We require more EU projects which will help women to break stereotypes and take up education and professional career options in different sectors. I conduct training of this nature for women as part of my project Akademia Polka Potrafi (‘Polish Women Can’ Academy). These are free training sessions for women who want to be active in professional, political or social fields, or who want to start their own business. The academy teaches women how to cope with different challenges and provides information on the various types of support available. I encourage everyone to create similar schemes aimed at providing assistance to women.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I naturally voted in favour of this own-initiative report. As the Member responsible for gender equality, and, indeed, as a Socialist, this is an issue that is close to my heart. In 2010, in the EU, employment in the service sector accounted for 69.4% of all jobs, while in industry this figure was 25.4% and in agriculture 5.2%. Most of the female workforce is employed in the service sector: 83.1% compared with 58.1% of the male workforce. In the EU, women earn 17.1% less than men, although the gender pay gap ranges between 3.2% and 30.9% in the Member States. Those are just a few figures that underline how essential it is to change our approach.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report makes a detailed analysis of the working conditions of women in the service sector, which employs 83.1% of the active female population, as opposed to 58.1% of the active male population (2010). The most important factors in this report concern the sexual division of labour, temporary and part-time work, wage disparities, vertical segregation, the informal economy, work/life balance, the situation of immigrants, the over-qualification of women, the gender digital divide, and violence against women. It is a purely technical report, which sets out a number of important facts for analysing the true situation in terms of gender inequality, which is important for reaching concrete decisions.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on women’s working conditions in the services sector as 83.1% of the female workforce worked in this sector in 2010. In addition, nine out of ten new jobs created are in the services sector, and the further enhancement of the single market for services will help increase the number of jobs in this sector significantly.

I support the need to reinforce the policies aimed at balancing work and family life and, in particular, at increasing free, good-quality social public services and facilities in order to provide child care services and care for other dependants in both rural and urban areas.

I think that it is important to get more women involved in the research sector where they can play a decisive role in developing new, innovative systems and new products and services in the services sector. I maintain that involving women more in innovation processes would open up new markets and boost European competitiveness. Last but not least, acquiring skills in the area of information and communication technology will increase women’s employment prospects, especially in the services sector.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This report highlights the worrying situation for women in the service sector, especially in the current economic climate. The report, which I voted in favour of, highlights the need to ensure that migrant workers are entitled to basic human rights and fair labour conditions. I also support the report’s call for Member States and trade unions to develop job evaluation tools and also for measures to be introduced to reduce the gender pay gap, such as companies undertaking annual equal pay audits. Assessing the impact of austerity measures on women in the service sector was also called for by the report. I hope that the Commission will undertake this and also look at increasing the use of ESF to fund projects to help to employ more women.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which was initially proposed by my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left. It highlights the extent to which women are most affected by precarity, which is a persistent feature of the labour markets in all EU Member States. In fact, almost 80% of part-time work is carried out by women; they hold the majority of fixed-term contracts; and they earn, on average, 16.4% less than their male counterparts in the same jobs, with this figure rising to 17.1% in the service sector. This report highlights the extent to which the practical inequalities between men and women persist at a high level, despite the EU’s efforts in this area. Consequently, the report calls on the Member States to improve women’s working conditions, for example, by ratifying without delay Convention No 189 of the International Labour Organisation (‘Decent work for domestic workers’) or by turning precarious work in the service sector into stable work through different measures (introduction of a special regime for the personal service sector in order to combat undeclared work, efforts by the Council to break the deadlock with regard to the amendment to the directive on pregnant workers).

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted for the improvement of women’s working conditions in the service sector through adoption of amendments to the directive on pregnant workers and acceptance of the flexible working hours proposed by Parliament. In my view, it is very important to advance the protection of rights and improve the working conditions of pregnant workers and of those who have recently given birth. The protection of motherhood and fatherhood against dismissal from employment, salary cuts during maternity leave and downgrading of job status or remuneration upon return to work are issues that need to be addressed on the basis of the highest possible standards. Article 43 highlights the situation of locums and temporary employees who will be able to assert rights to an extent that reflects their work contribution, which will ensure their equal treatment in relation to permanent workers. I agree that it is necessary to provide strengthened policies aimed at reconciling work and family life. In particular, we need to create and expand public social service facilities in order to increase care services for children and other dependants. The provision of such facilities can also significantly help to reduce poverty among women by making it possible for them to work.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) In view of the fact that the pay gap between men and women in the EU is still a gaping 17.1%, only one in seven board members of the largest European companies is a woman, and more women are in precarious employment situations and employed in the informal economy, it is high time that we established the appropriate prerequisites – for instance, working hours which allow for a work/life balance and appropriate child care – to enable equal treatment. I voted in favour of this report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report draws attention to the fact that the majority of the EU’s active female population is employed in the service sector, with many women in precarious conditions of employment and contracts. The majority of women still work part-time, flexible hours are widespread in the service sector, and temporary work has become common in EU countries. The situation of many women who provide domestic services and are not covered by any form of social security is also tragic. Although we do not support some of the report’s recommendations regarding deepening the services market, we think the main thrust of the report is towards increasing the rights of women working in the service sector: it calls for precarious labour relations in the service sector to be combated; it encourages the Member States to ratify International Labour Organisation Convention No 189 on domestic workers; and it stresses the need to increase and create publicly owned facilities and social services for supporting children and dependants that are free and of a high quality. Unfortunately, the course that the EU and the troikas have chosen is the complete opposite of the aforementioned recommendations.

Report: Mary Honeyball (A7-0247/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since the economic costs and consequences of poor performance in education and its impact on the Member State’s development are significantly higher than the costs of the financial crisis. I think the Member States should prioritise spending in the areas of education, training, youth, lifelong learning, mobility, research and innovation, and linguistic and cultural diversity. I consider these investments crucial, not just for improving future economic conditions in the Member States and for the European public, but also for a fair and balanced future founded on knowledge-based growth and development.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Education and vocational training are one of the drivers of economic growth, while also helping raise the level of social inclusion and cohesion. This is why the policies in this area need to be implemented as effectively as possible as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. I think that investment needs to continue in education, lifelong vocational training, research and innovation. In my view, young people need to benefit from increased measures aimed at their integration into the labour market after completing their studies, as this group is being hit hard by the current crisis.

Last but not least, I think that older people need to be encouraged to take part in education and training activities aimed at providing personal fulfilment and social contact. I voted for this resolution, which may help improve cooperation in education and vocational training in the next stage of the ‘Education and Training 2020’ programme.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I support this report because I do believe that economic growth must be based, as a matter of priority, on education, innovation and appropriate social policies. I also share the opinion that the economic costs of educational under-performance, including school drop-out and social inequalities, are significantly higher than the costs of the financial crisis. For these reasons, these issues require an adequate public funding to guarantee equal access to education without any kind of social discrimination. In addition, it is fundamental to bear in mind that providing all children with quality early-childhood facilities and education is an investment in the future and provides a great benefit both for the individual and for society.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Education and training are two of the core objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. At a time when the Member States have a great deal of pressure on their budgets, it is crucial to maintain high-quality education systems by keeping early school leaving to a minimum and promoting mobility in order to acquire new skills. This report adopted by the European Parliament demonstrates that drastic reductions in education budgets would result in short-term savings but would have much higher costs in the long term. Indeed, we could end up with a low-skilled or unskilled workforce that is ill-equipped to meet the needs of the labour market, and that would lead indirectly to a fall in Member State revenue. It is therefore essential to concentrate our efforts by investing in the early years of education in order to limit the social cost of early school leaving and school dropout.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of the report and I would like to draw particular attention to what it says about lifelong learning and the role of sport in education.

Clearly, there is a need to pay more attention in education policy to adult education. It is not right that no figures are available for learners aged over 64 who are participating in lifelong learning programmes, especially given that the number of people over that age who are already participating in lifelong learning is significant.

Europe’s population is ageing and many people will have to wait longer to retire. So, there must be education, training and personal development facilities for people, no matter what their age or ability.

Moreover, I agree with what the report’s rapporteurs have to say about acknowledging, by way of encouragement and financial assistance, the role of sport in education and training.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE), in writing. – (HU) It is a threat to the achievement of the goals of a knowledge-based economy if new austerity measures introduced under the pretext of crisis management significantly affect education and training systems. Both Member State and EU level cuts in financing come at the cost of quality. If we allocate more funding to high-quality early-childhood education, we can cut costs in later stages of education. I voted in favour of the report because I acknowledge the priority of education policy. I support the European harmonisation of dual vocational training systems, and I am of the opinion that practical training should be given greater priority in higher education. The report points out that students and educators in vocational education and training should be encouraged to make more efficient use of the opportunities provided by mobility. A stable European economy demands high-quality work and European professionals with complex expertise. To this end, it is essential to eliminate any remaining barriers to mobility in the European area of education and training.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the priorities of the ‘Education and Training 2020’ programme for the years 2012-2014. It is important to promote cooperation in this area in order to implement the objectives provided for in the Europe 2020 strategy and there is consequently a need for smarter investment and policy reforms. I agree that reducing school drop-out rates and promoting lifelong learning and international mobility should be the programme’s most important priorities. I welcome the proposals that greater attention should be paid to early years development issues, that access to lifelong learning should be facilitated for persons with disabilities, and that small grants should be allocated to pre-university students facing financial difficulties. It is also essential for the EU Member States’ universities to widen access to learning, modernise their curricula and adapt them to the changing needs of the market.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because it focuses particular attention on education. The joint report compiled by the Commission and Council on education and training at EU level raises doubts about the way in which Member States are preparing future generations for joining the labour market.

Romania launched a wide-ranging reform of the education and vocational training system, which took the form of adopting a new education law. This law will enable the education system to adapt better to the real requirements of the labour market. The training legislative framework has been supplemented by the law on apprenticeships, whose role is to encourage vocational training for young people. All these measures have been adopted as a result of the ambitious objectives which Romania also assumed as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. I call on the Commission to continue to give Member States all the support they need to meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy on education and training.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Every two years, the education ministers and the European Commission publish a joint report on the overall situation in education and training across the EU. The report summarises the actions and developments during the first 2009-2011 cycle and confirms the need to increase efforts towards achieving the targets set by the Europe 2020 strategy, particularly as regards reducing the school drop-out rate, towards increased support for higher education in a context of lifelong learning, and towards increasing transnational mobility for acquiring new skills. Although the report makes some excellent suggestions, some key areas have not been properly tackled. Specifically, there is a need to improve foreign language teaching in schools, to invest in education, even in an unstable economic environment, to reinforce the importance of adult education and informal education, and to increase investment in pre-school education. The report also suggests the possibility of awarding grants at the pre-university education stage. I voted for this report because I think it highlights key issues that should be evaluated and which will better contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy targets.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In these difficult times, it is important to remember that investment in human capital, particularly in the younger generation, must not be seen as a cost but as an investment in the future to ensure sustainable growth and an inclusive society. We would stress that investment in the development of both knowledge and skills is crucial if we want to improve the integration of learners into social, civic and professional life and reduce unemployment. The report stresses, too, the role of employers, who must make lifelong learning a reality by giving workers proper credit for in-service training and making it more accessible to all workers. This is crucial, yet rights to training are still under-used.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This report suggests priority areas for European policy cooperation and highlights, in particular, how cooperation in education and training can support attainment of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Among the report’s conclusions, it is worth noting the need for more efforts to reach the Europe 2020 headline target on early school leaving and tertiary education and the need to improve Europe’s skills base. Although it does contain helpful recommendations, I think a number of key situations in the EU have not been adequately addressed.

Frankly, in our single market, one potentially huge barrier to a citizen being able to work anywhere within the EU is language. Multilingualism is a vital part of how we function and, though many countries have good resources for language education, I think we need to consider what more the European Union could be doing to encourage further uptake.

Considering, moreover, that Early Years Development is a stage in education deemed to be the most crucial for a person’s future educational attainment, I agree with Ms Honeyball that it should be given greater attention so that it can be usefully expanded.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I supported this report promoting education and training with the aim of achieving the goals established in the Europe 2020 strategy. We need smart investment combined with policy reforms and work to combat early school leaving. Lifelong learning is still not a reality for the majority of Europeans. Transnational mobility is essential in order to acquire new skills.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Honeyball’s report, which aims to restore European competitiveness by investing in the development of new skills and competences.

This strategy will be played out through the Education and Training 2020 programme, whose goal is to cut the dropout rate among 18-24 year-olds to 10% by 2020. If this goal is to be achieved, renewed focus on early years policies will be essential.

Indeed, way back in 1996, the Commission urged the Member States to invest at least 1% of their GDP in early years education. As it stands, we are a long way from such figures, even though innumerable studies show that investment in early childhood results in reduced education costs later on.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because language learning and multilingualism in general have a bearing on finding work in another EU Member State. The EU’s contribution is important, as are resources allocated at national level. Prospects for older people in the labour market are another relevant area. The retirement age is now increasing in many EU Member States and it is therefore important to ensure that lifelong learning works not just in theory, but also in practice. Basically, it is important to stress that the perspective and best interest of the student takes priority when talking about education. We should also consider the issue of early years development because this stage is the foundation for subsequent education and learning. Sadly, this area is often neglected due to economic difficulties and it is therefore important to stress that it is not a luxury, which can be cut with impunity. Investment in this area may have excellent social results in future, such as lower crime rates.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on Education, Training and Europe 2020. In the context of an unstable economy and the ageing of the EU population, education and training must be crucial areas of investment in order to combat unemployment and improve young people’s access to employment. The heterogeneity of the education and training systems in the Member States can be both a strength and an obstacle: it is a strength because we can draw on them and exchange expertise and good practices in order to combat early school leaving, for example, but it is also an obstacle in terms of the coordination of training and certification systems and the cross-border mobility of learners. I believe, too, that we urgently need to modernise educational and vocational guidance programmes in order to better match training to jobs in European companies.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Whilst the situation in many countries of the EU relating to youth unemployment and falling education standards is indeed something that must be broached to forge an optimistic future for the next generation, I do not think it within the EU’s mandate, particularly bearing in mind the devastating impact that Brussels-borne austerity programmes have had upon growing rates of unemployment among 18-24 year olds. It is surely the focus of all national governments within the EU to target this developing scourge without feeling compelled to hand the European Commission responsibility in social policy making when the EU has such a poor track record and, in fact, has been the co-author of a great deal of recent social and economic upheaval.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree with its main conclusions and because I think that we need to step up investment in early childhood education and care, since pre-school education is crucial for individuals’ success at school. Studies have shown that investment in early childhood education and care reaps greater rewards than investing in any other stage of education.

  Andrea Češková (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I fully support some of the ideas and objectives that this report contains. I agree there are still obstacles preventing the greater mobility of students in the area of education between individual states. These include insufficient knowledge of languages, insufficient advice and access to information for students and, last but not least, the mutual recognition of knowledge, qualifications and competence gained abroad. In today’s Europe, I consider it essential to encourage student mobility through various programmes, such as Erasmus, for example, and to focus on teaching foreign languages preferably as early as pre-school age. I was unable to support this report, however, since it proposes further steps leading to greater integration in the area of education and, in my view, it goes beyond the framework of the EU’s powers in this area. These are clearly defined in Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) ‘Education and Training 2020’ is a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training, based on the earlier ‘Education and Training 2010’ work programme.

The priorities for education and training at EU level should be: the need for smart investment along with policy reforms, with greater efforts required to achieve the Europe 2020 strategy headline target on early school leaving and tertiary education; lifelong learning; transnational mobility for acquiring new skills, and the need to improve Europe’s skills base. It is necessary for people to acquire good language skills from a very early age, covering the official EU languages, as this will enable them to be more mobile and give them greater access to the labour market and far more opportunities for study, while also helping promote intercultural exchanges and greater European cohesion.

I call for greater efforts to establish and implement a European system for certifying and recognising qualifications, and for formal and non-formal learning, including voluntary service, so as to strengthen the links between non-formal learning and formal education, as well as increase national and cross-border educational and labour market mobility.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The austerity measures and resulting budget cuts that have been affecting the education and training systems throughout the EU could have negative effects in terms of the economic growth we need so badly to get us out of the current crisis. It is a priority that this growth be based on education, on knowledge and on suitable social policies. The economic costs of failing school, including dropping out, the social inequalities in the education and training system, and their impact on growth in the Member States, are significantly higher than the costs of the financial crisis. We cannot forget young people, who are being severely penalised by the effects of the crisis: they will have to play a key role in achieving the main Europe 2020 strategy targets as regards employment, research and innovation, the climate and energy, education, and combating poverty. It is essential that the Member States re-evaluate and improve their education and training policies and that they adopt specific measures for young people at risk. It is also imperative to strengthen EU-level youth policy, and it falls to the Commission to make available the necessary support – including financial support – for developing values, aptitudes and skills in the fields of education, youth and citizenship.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report because I strongly support all measures to reduce early school leaving, boost support for higher education through lifelong learning, and promote cross-border mobility.

This biennial report is a very helpful way to get an overview of the situation across Europe and to urge Member States – in an area they are responsible for – to do better and to pursue shared European goals through coordinated activities.

Moreover, at this time of severe economic crisis and austerity policies, calls to not cut funding for education take on particular importance, because educating children and young people is tantamount to investing in our future. Indeed, 2020 is just around the corner and we need to start sowing the seeds now, so that we can reap the fruits later.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Investment in education is vital for all Member States, especially with regard to early years education. This allows suitable professional training to be provided, which will subsequently ensure access to the labour market and avoid future costs relating to health care, the crime rate and anti-social behaviour. In spite of the financial constraints imposed by the financial crisis, there must be programmes enabling young people who have interrupted their studies to resume their education, including at university level.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the current economic crisis, governments are tending to focus their attention on controlling spending, particularly in the Member States where austerity measures have been leading to cuts in education and vocational training budgets. I voted for this own-initiative report because I believe that the yearned-for long-term economic growth in the EU will have to focus on education/training and lifelong learning, the knowledge economy, research and development, and policies of active inclusion. As the rapporteur mentions, particular attention will also have to be given to the informal/non-formal vehicles that emerge inside or parallel to the formal education/training system. At times of crisis, young people – the most irreverent, creative and vulnerable to unemployment – have a major role to play in this knowledge economy, which should be stimulated and incentivised by all means necessary. The issues tackled in this report represent genuine challenges for a contemporary society increasingly committed to combating poverty, to inclusion and to social cohesion. That is why what is often called an ‘expense’ should rather be seen as a ‘smart investment’ in policies in line with the real education/training needs of society and a knowledge economy.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In the resolution that we adopted today, we drew attention to the social and economic consequences of early school leaving. In fact, beyond the current crisis, the economic cost of the rising unemployment and difficulties in integrating young people into the labour market will undoubtedly have negative effects in the long term. That is why we called on the Member States to put in place and finance specific lifelong learning programmes that meet the demands of the labour market and strategies to reduce early school leaving, increase the number of graduates and strengthen student mobility. The Member States must aim to invest at least 2% of GDP in higher education and 3% in research if they want to be able to compete with the new global economic powers. In order to ensure equal access to higher education, we also called on the Member States to give greater consideration to the idea of small, easily accessible student grants at the pre-university stage.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘Education, Training and Europe 2020’. Education, Training and Europe 2020 is the strategic framework for European cooperation on education and training. The most important elements are the ways in which education and training can contribute to achieving Europe 2020 strategy targets, such as transnational mobility for the acquisition of new skills.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU, a community aiming to achieve the highest levels of excellence, has adopted a growth strategy for the current decade named the Europe 2020 strategy, with a view to overcoming the present crisis and making the economy more competitive, with more jobs being created. To that end, one of the commitments is to smart growth ‘through more effective investments in education, research and innovation’. As part of the Europe 2020 strategy, the strategic framework for European cooperation on education and training has been created, known as ‘Education, Training and Europe 2020’. Mary Honeyball’s report concerns the biennial report drafted by education ministers and the Commission on progress made during the first two years of Education, Training and Europe 2020. I voted in favour because I agree with the rapporteur’s position regarding the need to increase investment in education and training, focusing on human capital and preventing early school leaving. Improving access to lifelong learning, to multilingualism and to student mobility programmes among the Member States for acquiring new skills are recommendations to take into account when pursuing the Europe 2020 strategy targets.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report identifies a number of problems existing in the Member States, inter alia: a lack of funding for higher education and research; the relationship between economic costs resulting from failing or dropping out of school and their impact on Member States’ economic and social growth and – we would add – development; and the insufficient network of pre-school education. However, this report is contradictory. The greatest contradiction undermining it is that it advocates subordinating education and training to compliance with the Europe 2020 strategy which, as we know, seeks to establish education systems in all the Member States’ schools that serve the interests of the market, not the complete education of the individual to boost their free and full development and elevate their individual and collective conscience and their contribution to developing society as a whole. This report focuses on ‘education for the market’, rather than the ‘education for life’ that we advocate.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. – This report calls for education and training provision to be reconciled with the targets outlined in the Europe 2020 growth strategy. Whilst I agree on the need to improve education and training provision in order to encourage growth in Member States and maintain competitiveness with education systems in booming economies such as the Far East, I do not believe that the EU is the competent body to do so. Education policy is an exclusive responsibility of Member States, as stated in Article 165 of the Treaty, which recognises ‘the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems’. As such, I cannot support the demands of this report for European frameworks. Whilst some aspects of the report, such as encouraging language skills and improving mobility of students, can add value, it is not for the EU to be involved in education policy. This must remain a matter for Member States.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) We should be fully aware of the importance of investing in education and training in order to meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to strengthen European competitiveness. In spite of the fiscal consolidation process, Member States must improve access to lifelong learning for all. Investing in human capital and preventing early school leaving should not be regarded as costs but as a fundamental condition for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, and should therefore be assessed purely in terms of competitiveness. Education is a basic human right that should be guaranteed to all with a special emphasis on the younger generation and members of vulnerable groups, including people who are not employed or in education or training. Investment in high-quality education and training plays a key role in overcoming the economic crisis by increasing Europe’s competitiveness, helping the workforce adapt to a changing labour market, strengthening social cohesion, and helping to ensure that people are qualified for a broader range of jobs that can give them high-quality, permanent employment.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). in writing. – (HU) I welcome the Commission’s goal to reinforce cooperation in the field of education and training in the 2012-2014 work cycle of the ‘Education and Training 2020’ strategy in order to ensure the successful implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. I believe that the reinforcement of the fight against early school leaving, the implementation of lifelong learning and efforts to improve transnational mobility and Europe’s skills base are all welcome steps. It is important to note, however, that in my opinion, there are areas that did not receive sufficient attention, even though their importance is undisputable. These include the issue of language learning and language skills, which are among the greatest potential barriers to finding employment anywhere within the European Union. Language skills are useful generally, but in the context of the European Union, multilingualism is a vital part of how we function. Another crucial aspect for the future of Europe is to ensure the general availability of high-quality early-childhood education, which can facilitate the achievement of two of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy at once: on the one hand, it can contribute to reducing the rate of early school leavers to under 10% and, on the other, it could help at least 20 million people to rise up from being threatened by poverty and social exclusion.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Education and training are the cornerstones for achievement of the Europe 2020 goals. The existing inequalities in education and training systems need to be removed and the Member States must develop increasingly effective strategies for lifelong learning. In addition, these strategies should be provided with a budget at the national level as well as within the framework of the medium-term financial framework.

Education has a significant impact and affects all age groups:

Language skills and multilingualism should, in particular, be promoted at an early age. They not only increase access to the labour market in the future but also increase training opportunities and contribute to cultural exchange. A comprehensive offering of languages in schools is one way to achieve this goal.

Particular attention should be paid to young people, since unemployment in the EU has risen above 20% and is even 50% in some Member States. I therefore support the call to reduce the number of early school leavers, increase training opportunities and simplify integration into the world of work for young people. Access to learning must be expanded, for instance, by promoting exchange programmes between pupils, students and teachers.

However, the opportunity for learning later in life should also be given, for the purpose of solidarity between generations, in order to encourage lifelong learning.

(Written statement abbreviated in accordance with Rule 149)

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I fully support the own-initiative report by Mary Honeyball because I believe that today, we have to propose concrete actions that are proportional to the gravity of the youth unemployment that is rife in many Member States and that puts young people at the risk of social exclusion and unprecedented poverty. First of all, we need to improve skills and knowledge to limit this phenomenon. We also need to make additional efforts to inform young people about the training available to them, especially the opportunities to train abroad. That is not all, however, because we know, too, that many young people are overqualified and still struggle to find work. Finally, another problem is the situation of young people who do not have enough training and who leave school early. Education is an investment – that must be strongly emphasised – and the Member States should see access to lifelong learning as essential, in spite of certain budgetary ‘consolidation processes’.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because ‘Education and Training 2020’ (ET 2020) is the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training: it builds on the earlier ‘Education and Training 2010’ (ET 2010) work programme. Every two years, the education ministers and the European Commission publish a report on the overall situation in education and training across the EU assessing progress towards common objectives. The report summarises the actions and developments during the first 2009-2011 cycle of implementing ‘ET 2020’ and suggests priority areas for European policy cooperation for the next cycle 2012-14. It highlights, in particular, how cooperation in education and training can help achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. Europe needs smart investment along with policy reforms and more efforts are needed to reach the Europe 2020 headline target on early school leaving. It should be noted that transnational mobility provides the opportunity to acquire new skills.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because it stresses the need to invest more in education and training. The report places particular emphasis on preventing dropping out from school and on promoting education and child care. Enhancing the quality and effectiveness of education and vocational training, which includes improving basic skills and the use of foreign languages, should be a priority in education reform. It is also of paramount importance that young people have access to several types of vocational training, such as traineeships, to allow them to adapt more easily to the labour market. I hope that we will shortly be able to see results in this area too.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – As the recent report of EU education ministers and the Commission points out, more efforts are necessary for reaching the EU 2020 headline target for tackling early school leaving (ESL). The absence of early childhood education has been identified by several studies as one of the main reasons behind ESL and, despite the recommendation of the European Commission network on child care to invest at least 1% of GDP on early education, the vast majority of EU Member States still lag behind this level and the most vulnerable are most likely to be left out, or to enrol late and, even if they attend pre-school, the necessary services appropriate for their age and development are not secured. In the most disadvantaged micro-regions, there is no pre-school service available, despite the usually high number of children and the fact that early childhood development plays an essential role in developing the necessary cognitive, emotional, social and physical attributes (the absence of which increases the risk of ESL and low educational performance), or the option of redirecting disadvantaged children into special schools. Poor performing pupils are also much more likely to fall victim to high risk behaviours, such as drugs, criminality, or early parenthood.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The early childhood education period is considered to be the most important for the future level of educational attainment of an individual. In 1996, the European Commission recommended that the EU countries should invest at least 1% of GDP in early childhood education and care. According to an OECD survey carried out in 2004, however, only five countries out of the 20 reviewed had achieved this investment level. In the context of an unstable economic climate and a period of drastic austerity measures, childhood education is easily neglected. In reality, however, the failure to invest in this area has costs that will arise in the future, such as lower potential economic gains and increased costs of health care, protection against crime and anti-social behaviour.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Honeyball because I am firmly convinced that investing in the training and education sector during a time of crisis like the present is increasingly necessary – and not only in order to reach the goals connected to the Europe 2020 strategy. The cuts that many Member States are making in these sectors jeopardise the competences and skills of the leaders of tomorrow. Accordingly, I welcome the efforts set out in the report, which are geared towards a cooperative approach not only between Member States, but also between the education system, industry and business. Indeed, it is increasingly important for businesses to be in closer contact with the various levels of education and training, so as to ensure that Europe’s young students develop the specific skills and competences to make them competitive and ready to join the labour market.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Mary Honeyball entitled ‘Education, Training and Europe 2020’. With this report, the Members of the European Parliament are expressing our desire to promote early childhood education, which must be a priority, not only from a moral perspective, but also from an economic perspective. It is true that the current economic climate hardly lends itself to such investment. It is marked by widespread austerity policies that affect all of the budget headings that include education and training. Nevertheless, this type of investment has numerous benefits: strengthening the future workforce, reducing future health costs and lowering tax losses for governments. I wholeheartedly support a number of objectives, including reducing early school leaving, better support for higher education in the framework of lifelong learning and promotion of cross-border mobility to acquire new skills. I believe that this report contains proposals that will help to build a more harmonious society and I welcome the fact that all of the political groups approved this text.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The education sector must be regarded as being of paramount importance in every Member State, and the way in which we now regulate lifelong learning will have a huge impact on the prosperity of future generations in the European Union. Although measures are being taken to implement and widen the popularity of continuous training programmes for adults, I think that significant efforts need to be made in the area of professional retraining. Professions appear and disappear from one decade to the next, and there is a steady rise in the number of people unable to continue making a living because they are not keeping pace with scientific and technological developments. In addition to this, I think that raising the retirement age provides a further argument for launching substantial investments in extensive professional retraining and lifelong learning programmes across the whole of the EU.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The report summarises actions and developments in education and training and their influence on the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. It describes key findings and recommendations such as, for example, the need to implement policy reforms and make smart investments, increase transnational mobility and provide better access to the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP). These recommended measures will help increase public qualification levels and effectively combat unemployment, both among young people and also amongst those aged over 50.

In addition, the rapporteur has emphasised the very important role that foreign language skills currently play in education and the labour market. The report covers the issue of early learning and childhood development, the problem of an ageing population and employment opportunities for older people. It also covers measures aimed at preventing early school leaving and the issue of inadequate access to student grants, particularly in the case of students from poorer backgrounds. In my view, all these issues require greater attention and involvement on the part of all interested parties together with the development of specific effective solutions. This is why I voted in favour of the report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I supported this report and welcome the rapporteur’s statement that ‘There should be further research into the idea of student grants at the pre-university stage of education. For many students across Europe from poorer backgrounds, education becomes unaffordable for their family way before they get to university age. They feel pressurised by their financial situation into leaving school early and getting a job. Financial constraints make re-entering education and the secondary school level difficult as well. There have been schemes in many countries that sought to offer financial support directly to students from poorer backgrounds so that they can stay in school. It would be useful to do a study on the effectiveness of such schemes’.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report by Ms Honeyball on education, training and Europe 2020 for a number of reasons. Not only does this report encourage programmes that will help accomplish the Europe 2020 strategy, but many of the provisions also target issues that have arisen from the current economic crisis. The focus on lifelong learning concentrates on developing a workforce that continues to accrue skills even after formal schooling has ended. The report also draws attention to the current status of youth unemployment in the EU. It is necessary to combat this growing problem by creating a more efficient school system and encouraging meaningful vocational education and training. Additionally, it is important to establish a system of early childhood education and care as this is the foundation for a student’s future success in the labour market and reduces educational costs in the long term.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on Education, Training and Europe 2020, which points out that young people are particularly affected by unemployment, with more than 20% of young Europeans out of work. Dual vocational training therefore allows a better entry into the world of work thanks to the practical dimension that it incorporates. The difficulties young graduates experience in finding work should force the Member States to analyse and evaluate the quality of their education systems so that these systems prepare students effectively for the labour market by giving them the opportunity to gain professional experience.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The fact that we regularly discuss the general state of education and training across the whole EU helps us assess the progress made towards achieving the common targets. Cooperation on education and training can certainly help fulfil the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. We must make greater efforts not only to reduce the school dropout rate, but also to increase the percentage of higher-education graduates, including by providing support to young people who come from families experiencing financial difficulties.

Early years education is, for its part, an extremely valuable factor contributing to further personal development. We cannot afford to abandon this training aspect, which has a positive long-term impact on national budgets and on public health, helping reduce anti-social behaviour later on.

Lifelong learning must also be encouraged at a time when the retirement age is steadily rising in Europe and employees are required to have an increasingly varied skills set.

We fully acknowledge the importance of citizens’ involvement in cross-border mobility programmes, but we have not managed yet to remove the obstacles hampering labour mobility. The time has come for us to expand the extremely restricted list of professions recognised at EU level and to remove existing barriers in Member States.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour. It is important to ask the Member States to prioritise expenditures in education, training, youth, lifelong learning, research, innovation and linguistic and cultural diversity, which are investments for future growth and economic balance.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The major benefit of this report is that it calls for public spending on education to be deducted from the national deficit calculations. I support this unprecedented request and I hope that this consideration will be extended to other public services. That is why I voted for this text, despite its obvious support for the Europe 2020 strategy, which I denounce.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The EU’s multiannual financial framework provides for the biggest percentage increase under the EU’s long-term budget for education and related sectors. Yet Member States are unfortunately making cuts to the budget of education and training due to the present economic situation. This jeopardises our goals for establishing a knowledge-based economy. Only with sufficient state funding can education and training policies ensure non-discriminatory access to education for everyone, irrespective of social or economic status, race or political affiliation. Financial austerity measures hinder the entry of socially disadvantaged students to secondary or university education. I agree that the effectiveness of schemes offering financial support to these students to allow them to continue their studies should be assessed. Unless Member States take measures in the interest of early school leavers who give up education and training, early school leaving could have dire consequences. This issue must be urgently addressed, because their lack of qualifications makes these people the least able to succeed on the labour market. The negative impact of the crisis is also noticeable in the employment rate of young people and, as a result, new graduates are often unable to find employment corresponding to their qualifications. Vocational education and training must therefore be given special priority in higher education. Better and more targeted information and career orientation is needed, in line with the demands of the labour market.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) I certainly consider investment in high-quality education and training to be investment in the competitiveness of the European economy. Rapidly changing labour market conditions require a flexible workforce that will be able to adapt to an ever greater variety of jobs in order to secure high-quality and sustainable employment. Member States must also, however, seek ways to balance labour market supply and demand in the various sectors of the national economy. In this regard, I support the modernisation of training programmes in sectors that do not enjoy universal popularity among the younger generations in particular, but the demands of society require a regular supply of qualified workers. These include, for example, technical areas, the area of research and innovation, and the energy sector, which should be promoted more and made more attractive in the minds of people. In my opinion, an education and training programme should also encompass the traditional crafts that are our cultural heritage, in order to prevent their gradual disappearance and total loss.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Education is a precious thing that deserves to be promoted in a free world. The number of early school leavers throughout the EU is certainly far too high and measures must be taken to reduce this. The report mentions the need for multilingualism, which makes it significantly easier for EU citizens to cross the borders of individual Member States to work there. I abstained from voting since no options were indicated here for how the question of education could be resolved from a financial point of view. It is true that the rapporteur pointed out problems in this regard. However, there is no discussion about their resolvability. It would be necessary to consider how young people in particular could be supported financially even during their education, particularly with cross-border educational routes in mind.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Although the report also contains good recommendations, a few important key areas are not directly addressed, such as the problem of ever increasing numbers of early school leavers. In economically difficult times in particular, we concentrate primarily on the financial and economic situation. However, we must not lose sight of young people in the process. The report emphasises that the perspectives and interests of pupils and students should have the highest priority when it comes to the subject of education. However, I cannot see any concrete solutions for how to tackle the problem of early school leavers and those who do not finish their training. Therefore, I have abstained from voting.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the document highlights the EU’s main policy priorities in education. Faced with the current economic crisis, we cannot reduce funding in education because this will have negative consequences on the future economy and will increase social exclusion. Only five of the 27 EU Member States have been able to implement the European Commission’s proposal on allocating 1% of their GDP to education. I therefore welcome the proposals contained in the report on increasing funding for early years education and on promoting multilingualism and lifelong learning programmes because without a responsible approach to the development of education programmes, we will be unable to achieve the ‘Europe 2014-2020’ objectives outlined.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The ET 2020 education and training programme follows on from the Education and Training 2010 work programme. However, in the current difficult economic environment, smart investments and initiatives targeted at production and innovation must be in the front line if positive and sustainable growth rates are to be restored. Despite the fact that the Commission proposal takes account of the above to a certain degree, its communication does not include crucial sectors, such as the demographic problem in Europe, linguistic obstacles in the EU and greater investment in lifelong learning and retraining problems, especially of the social groups with the fewest opportunities. Education and training, which are supreme social goods, should not be downgraded by the crisis; on the contrary, they should be highlighted as ways out of it. This report, which is important to Greece and which I supported, is drafted along these lines.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report presents the strategic framework for European cooperation in the area of education and training, fields in which – I would stress – it is important to invest more if we are to be able to hit the Europe 2020 strategy’s ambitious targets.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) ‘Education and Training 2020’ (ET 2020) is the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training and builds on the earlier ‘Education and Training 2010’ (ET 2010) work programme. The joint report on the overall situation in education and training across the EU, which is published every two years by the education ministers and the European Commission, reveals the need for smart investment along with policy reforms, and more efforts to reach the Europe 2020 headline target on early school leaving and tertiary education. It also states that for the majority of EU citizens, lifelong learning is not a reality and affirms the need for transnational mobility for acquiring new skills. In the hope that these areas will be confirmed as priorities for European cooperation during the next ‘ET 2020’ work cycle (2012-2014), I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. – (FI) I voted in favour of this report because education is a basic prerequisite for intellectual capital in Europe. Europe’s strength is its skilled population and considerable know-how, especially in the field of technology. In a changing world, however, nothing can be taken for granted. Europe is steadily losing its appeal compared with the rising economic powers. By investing in education today, we invest in future innovations and, consequently, in European competitiveness and appeal.

An ageing population is one of Europe’s greatest challenges. Accordingly, it is important that the population’s knowledge potential is deployed appropriately with the provision of learning opportunities for older citizens also. I think that it is important that employers, too, acknowledge their role as promoters of skills. For example, a young employee’s successful induction at work will help that young person to adapt to working life.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am sorry that the education and lifelong learning goals set out by the European Union in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy are far from being achieved. I am also sorry that certain Member States are reducing their spending on education and vocational training at a time when we should instead be strengthening these policies. I firmly believe that economic growth must stem from education first and foremost. Consequently, I fully support the resolution adopted by the European Parliament, which urges the Member States to invest in education, training and research, paying particular attention to young people and the most vulnerable. We need greater efforts to establish a European system for the certification and recognition of qualifications in order to improve educational and labour market mobility.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. ‘Education and Training 2020’ (ET 2020) is the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training: it builds on the earlier ‘Education and Training 2010’ (ET 2010) work programme. Every two years, the education ministers and the European Commission publish a joint report on the overall situation in education and training across the EU and assessing progress towards common objectives. The report summarises the actions and developments during the first 2009-2011 cycle of implementing ‘ET 2020’ and suggests priority areas for European policy cooperation for the next cycle 2012-14. It highlights, in particular, how cooperation in education and training can support reaching the objectives of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy. Key findings of the report: 1. Need for smart investment along with policy reforms; 2. More efforts are needed to reach the Europe 2020 headline target on early school leaving and tertiary education; 3. For the majority of EU citizens, lifelong learning is not a reality; 4. Transnational mobility for acquiring new skills; 5. Need to improve Europe’s skills base.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because it underlines several important objectives that need to be addressed in the development of education and training throughout Europe. There is a need for smart investment along with policy reforms; more efforts are needed to reach the Europe 2020 headline target on early school leaving and tertiary education; transnational mobility for acquiring new skills; and the need to improve Europe’s skill base.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I support this report, which warns Member States about the disastrous social and economic consequences of early school leaving in the EU. The crisis puts the future of young people at serious risk. Youth unemployment has risen from 15.5% in 2008 to 22.5% in 2012, while the percentage of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who are not working, studying or training has risen by two points. In 2010, 53% of the young people who had left school early were unemployed. We are asking the Member States to target a total investment of at least 2% of GDP in higher education and 3% in research. Moreover, by 2020, Europe must increase to 40% the number of young people with a university education and reduce early school leaving to below 10%. This investment in education and training is absolutely crucial if the European Union is to be able to compete with the new global economic powers.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report on Education, Training and Europe 2020. This is a very important report which, once implemented effectively, will contribute towards increased employment, especially for women, young people and the long-term unemployed. The Member States have to invest in learning, namely in education, lifelong learning, scientific research and innovation, as well as in improved language skills. Training programmes and education profiles need to be better adjusted to the needs of the labour market. It is important to improve academic and career guidance services and encourage traineeships and apprenticeships for women. It is also important to create new opportunities for training in order to increase employment prospects in the low carbon and high-tech sectors of the economy. I support the proposal that the Member States deduct education and training investments from the national deficit calculation under the fiscal compact as these are considered to be key drivers for sustainable recovery in line with the Europe 2020 objectives.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Considering that we are going through the most serious and prolonged crisis period in the history of the European Union, education and training and the prevention of early school leaving are, in the present situation, an investment that can guarantee successful crisis management. There is a great need to ensure that supply and demand on the labour market are precisely matched, so that the creation of ‘lost generations’ can be avoided. The greatest assistance in this can come from lifelong learning, because through it we can, and must, adapt to the changing opportunities on the labour market. Through a higher quality of education and training, young – and not so young – generations can improve the chances of successfully combating the crisis. Member States are facing a difficult task: it is not easy to create synergies between the supply of labour and the ability of the labour market to absorb it. Highly qualified people can find employment more easily, but we should be cautious of the risk of a ‘dumping’ of high qualifications, as society is in great need of craftsmen and skilled workers, as well as the preservation of traditional trades.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report. It highlights the shortcomings that we need to look at, from early childhood development to the vital role of language learning, to consideration of older people, etc.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has tabled a proposal setting out the ‘Education and Training 2020’ programme, which is to become the strategic framework for European cooperation on education and training. I am voting for this report because I consider it crucial to deepen lifelong learning, to strengthen dual vocational training systems that ensure a link between theory and practice and allow a better entry into the world of work, and to improve EU-level recognition of university qualifications, thereby facilitating labour market mobility. Despite the financial crisis in many Member States, I would argue against education budget cuts because investing in this area is very important for the development of countries and their economies, and for improving the public’s quality of life. That is the only way it will be possible to hit the Europe 2020 strategy targets, under which the proportion of young people with university degrees should rise to 40% and there should be a 10% reduction in early school leaving.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on Education, Training and Europe 2020. Education and training are crucial elements in achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and ensuring the future growth of Europe. The current economic difficulties must not be used as an excuse to reduce the resources set aside for education and training. In order to guarantee the investments for the future, the Socialists proposed excluding investments in education and training from the national deficit calculation of the fiscal compact. As the report points out, dropping out of school early has a higher cost than the crisis. There is thus no point in making short-term savings that would compromise future growth. For the same reasons, we encourage the Member States to devote at least 2% of their GDP to higher education in order to ensure a knowledge-based economy. However, additional efforts are required in the area of early childhood education and schooling, which is a crucial stage in the development of our future workers and citizens.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on education and training as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. To enable the EU to emerge from the current economic and financial crisis, economic growth must be based as a priority on education, knowledge, innovation and appropriate social policies. It is important to implement the policies in this sphere within the EU 2020 strategy framework properly and in full in order to get through this crucial period successfully.

I call on Member States to prioritise expenditure in education, lifelong training, research, innovation and linguistic and cultural diversity, which is regarded as an investment for future growth and economic balance, while also ensuring the added value of this investment.

The EU unemployment rate has risen to more than 20%, with levels in excess of 50% in some Member States and regions, and young people, particularly those with the least qualifications, are particularly hard hit by the current economic and financial crisis. I should stress that young people have a key role to play in achieving the EU headline targets for the Europe 2020 strategy on employment, research and innovation, climate and energy, education and fighting poverty. Economic and social development and the competitiveness of the EU and Member States depend on the investments made in education and training, as well as on the quality of the services in these sectors.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This report, which I have supported, highlights the need for Member States to invest in education at all levels. A particular emphasis is placed on improving key skills, reducing the number of early school leavers, the modernisation of higher education, and developing strategies for lifelong learning. At a time when many countries have responded to the economic crisis by cutting their education budgets, this report rightly calls for Member States to protect or increase their investment in education and training. In addition to this, the report supports the introduction of small-grants systems for pre-university students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, in order to encourage them to remain in education, thus improving social mobility.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – This report shows very clearly the necessity of education: the basis for every citizen’s career. It becomes very clear that there is still a lot to be done for young people – dropouts – as well as for older people, if one just thinks of lifelong learning. Education is a bare necessity and has to be available for everyone, regardless of their income.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Unfortunately, lifelong learning is still not a reality for all European citizens and the European education system has a number of gaping holes: insufficient language knowledge, for example, continues to be an enormous obstacle to mobility for the purposes of learning.

It also needs to be highlighted that at times of crisis, many Member States are tempted to cut their education and training budget, notwithstanding the fact that the economic costs of a moribund education system are significantly higher than the costs of the financial crisis. Accordingly, I have voted to support Ms Honeyball’s report, which aims to highlight how cooperation in education and training – with effective joint effort – can support attaining the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I support the resolution on Education, Training and Europe 2020 as it contains important guidelines which are helpful in combating the effects of the current crisis, mainly through the stimulation of economic growth and limiting the phenomenon of social exclusion. The report emphasises the need to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to access lifelong learning, regardless of age, disability, gender or belief. It also stresses the need to ensure good quality universal early childhood care and education and the need to create a system which will prevent children from leaving school early. This is very important since, in many regions of the European Union, including the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship I come from, young people with the lowest qualifications are the ones who suffer the most from the effects of the crisis. It is therefore essential that these people increase their qualifications and acquire language skills, thanks to easier access to schools and traineeships. This will improve their chances of finding employment.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is contradictory and focuses on what we might call ‘education for the market’, rather than the ‘education for life’ that we advocate. Nevertheless, the text identifies a number of problems existing in the Member States, inter alia: public underfunding of higher education and research; the relationship between economic costs resulting from failing or dropping out of school and their impact on the Member States’ economic growth; the approach to lifelong learning; and the insufficient network of pre-school education. The incurable contradiction of this report concerns the subordination of education and training to compliance with the Europe 2020 strategy which, as we know, seeks to establish education systems in all the Member States’ schools that serve the interests of the market, not the all-round education of the individual to boost their creativity and elevate their individual and collective conscience.

Report: Jean-Marie Cavada (A7-0262/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since we need to encourage access to culture, not restrict it. The EU should create a clearer, simple legal framework, harmonised for audiovisual work, so as to achieve a digital single market. Currently, the various regulatory systems throughout the EU prevent creators from benefiting from a consistent and harmonised market. Moreover, providers cannot develop effective online services, which has recently prevented the public from accessing audiovisual content. Without a European cultural market, we will never achieve a genuine and unlimited pan-European culture, in which the cultural diversity of all the Member States should be accessible to all Europeans via a genuine European citizenship.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European audiovisual sector has had to cope with numerous changes in the market in recent years. The development of the Internet must be seen as an opportunity to link content to online platforms while ensuring fair remuneration for authors. The European Parliament’s call for a genuine framework in this area must be heard. Teaching young people about new technologies, promoting new exchange and payment methods for these works, and allowing balanced negotiations between authors, producers and consumers are just some of the challenges for the future of the sector.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The report of Mr Cavada represents an important milestone in the development of the European audiovisual sector. The Internet is currently the number one information source for young people and is a new channel for people seeking information. The possibility of digital recording is an invaluable asset for culture as well. The reason I supported the report is that it offers a comprehensive description of the issues related to the legal framework of the audiovisual sector, the increasing demand for a legally available selection of works of art, the possibilities provided for their distribution by online use, and the dangers of piracy. It supports the protection of cultural diversity, which is something I myself often stress. In my opinion, one of the important points of the report is that it emphasises media literacy, as the media have great social responsibility. At the same time I support the idea that public archives should make use of the means of digitisation, thus providing the broadest possible access to these cultural treasures.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on the establishment of a legal framework facilitating the distribution of audiovisual works on the digital single market. The EU’s cultural and creative sectors create 2.5% of the EU’s GDP, equal to that of the automotive industry, and the EU should therefore promote this sector and develop an environment conducive to legal content, innovation and creation. I welcome the proposals to improve conditions to acquire original works online, and to develop alternative and innovative micro-payment systems, such as payment by text message. I welcome calls to permanently apply an international system for the identification and numbering of audiovisual works which would give each work a permanent unique number and would therefore facilitate the movement of works. I agree that in future, we should reduce VAT for cultural goods and services distributed in digital format in order to address the issue of the inequalities between online and offline services.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because the European market for audiovisual works is particularly fragmented. Greater predictability is required for both copyright holders and consumers. Creating a digital single market requires the removal of all the barriers preventing the free movement of audiovisual works. This must be achieved in compliance with copyright and ensuring sufficient remuneration for right holders.

I also think that it is particularly important to respect the principle of Internet neutrality. We must allow consumers to have non-discriminatory access to audiovisual works distributed via the Internet. Achieving general interest objectives such as media pluralism and cultural diversity require special measures. The Commission and Member States should suggest practical measures to this end.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order to make the European audiovisual sector more competitive, it is essential to support online services at the same time as promoting cultural diversity and pluralism in the media. In the EU, the cultural and creative industries represent a significant number of jobs and they contribute around 2.5% of GDP to the economy. It is therefore essential to create a system encouraging legal content available to all in which the authors and artists involved are awarded fair and proportional remuneration, by means of individual contracts or collective work agreements. This same system should also take into account the fact that legal constraints should not be imposed on licences; should ensure the neutrality of the Internet; should adapt European law to the realities of the Internet and digital era; should guarantee legal certainty for rights owners and consumers through better coordination of legislation among Member States; should allow Internet users legal certainty when using streaming services; and integrate new technologies into national education programmes. I voted for this report because I think the measures included therein will contribute to promoting better audiovisual works in the EU.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I support Mr Cavada’s report, which aims to provide a regulatory framework for audiovisual works and their online distribution, by tackling key issues, which are constantly changing, such as the legal certainty of copyright, asking that there be no inequality of treatment between online and offline services; remuneration for artists that is proportional to the profits made from online exploitation of their works and harmonisation of the VAT rates in Member States.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Digital technology and the Internet are changing very quickly the way in which audiovisual materials are produced, sold and distributed. Consumers increasingly want to be able to view anything, anywhere, any time, using any device. Business models need to develop rapidly to keep pace with the ever growing rate of technological progress, which offers new opportunities to creators and distributors, while also creating new expectations among consumers and thereby helping increase and create jobs.

The production, funding and distribution of audiovisual works in the EU are handled by a complex network of large, medium-sized and small specialist companies, each with its own particular characteristics. The single market is in operation and offers new prospects and opportunities, both to consumers and to creators and service providers. I think that the aim of EU policy in this area must be to create an environment conducive to the development of universally accessible legal content, as well as to innovation and creation.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The rapporteur presents a full analysis of the issues, especially the fiscal and legal aspects, and prospects of the audiovisual industry, especially with regard to new media. The comments are incisive and the recommendations are worthy of endorsement. I therefore support the report.

The central focus is communication in the post-analogue age, with its highly fragmented market, brought together by the general trend for platform convergence. While realistically acknowledging the features, if not the limitations, of the European market, I would like to add a few comments of my own. The new challenges and opportunities available even to small businesses with room for creativity and initiative for authors and performers lead to a number of recommendations. Where possible, there should be incentives in the form of remuneration in order to encourage the development of talents and a more conducive system of taxation; administrative and bureaucratic obstacles need to be removed; audiovisual piracy must be tackled; the Internet must remain neutral; and finally, platforms must be interoperable and there should be free access to content and to the markets.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the issue of digital literacy, a problem that has perhaps been overemphasised on the basis of raw data on Internet use, but which nevertheless continues to raise delicate questions of participation and citizenship that need to be properly examined.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union. This report seeks to make the European audiovisual sector more competitive and to guarantee, as a priority, legal certainty for both rights holders and consumers with regard to the application of authors’ rights. The report is also a positive call for the promotion of a legal supply of European artistic creation and clear support for the online service sector.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We voted today in favour of the own-initiative report on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union as it is important to make the sector more competitive by simplifying and improving matters relating to licensing and remuneration. However, we voted against the paragraphs that seek to regulate the ways in which authors are to be able to sell their work and to place greater responsibility on operators for consumer protection and the protection of copyright. The aim should be to come up with simple and clear legislation that will promote free movement and make the sector more competitive, while at the same time finding a balance between the protection of copyright and the protection of privacy.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In an increasingly dynamic information society, cultural and creative industries must also be able to provide a large number of jobs in the future in every Member State. This will also enable the relevant sectors to increase their financial contribution to EU countries’ GDP. Last but not least, we must also bear in mind the significant contribution which these sectors make to young people’s education, a priority area in European policies.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which sets out some points for reflection in order to support our audiovisual sector. We must work together to preserve this heritage, which is unique in the world. Supporting it also means securing the cultural space that surrounds us. We will only be able to combat fraud if we offer everyone a rich and high-quality legal supply of content. The text that we adopted today by a large majority calls for measures to make the European audiovisual sector more competitive.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, in plenary, we called for better access to audiovisual works available online (films, music and streaming services), particularly beyond national territories and linguistic limitations. While the cultural and creative sector offers enormous economic potential (around 2.5% of the EU’s GDP), the main challenges for the online distribution of audiovisual works are user accessibility and the attractiveness of legal audiovisual content. There is a high concentration of illegal content and this hinders investment in the sector. The text adopted therefore emphasises the importance of a more diverse legal supply of content and supports more flexible release windows. We thus proposed the systematic use of the International Standard Audiovisual Number for the identification of audiovisual works and a reduced VAT rate for their online distribution in all Member States.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the EU. I think the EU should aim to create an atmosphere encouraging the development of legal content accessible by all, innovation and creation. It should be mentioned that we need to ensure that the legitimate aims of the public interest are achieved, with pluralism in the media and social diversity.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The information technology sector is certainly one of those that has experienced the most innovation and technological progress. Nowadays, a whole panoply of content of which the majority of people have no awareness is just a click away. The arrival of new data-transfer technologies like ADSL, fibre optic, cable Internet, etc. enables the infinite diffusion of content, specifically in the form of streaming. Online distribution of audiovisual works in the EU needs to be properly regulated, since the crisis we are experiencing requires us to seek new job opportunities that can respond to the cultural and creative industries. I voted for Jean-Marie Cavada’s report because I think that, in the digital era, with the new information technologies, the audiovisual sector could constitute a veritable jungle in which creators are exploited by unscrupulous producers and/or companies completely disrespecting the market rules. This will cause serious harm as regards copyright to both the creators and the Member States to which they belong.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The circulation of works of art and artistic creations, and the diffusion of knowledge, arts and culture, in themselves, represent elements boosting human and social development. The online distribution of audiovisual works constitutes a strong expression of cultural dissemination. The circulation of artistic and cultural works clearly benefits society as a whole, and artists, authors and producers are no exception. Cultural policy should not be based on protecting property rights and creating new market segments, thereby sacrificing enjoyment, as advocated in this report; rather, it should be geared towards ever increasing mass access and cultural enjoyment, as well as the creation of culture itself, whilst safeguarding copyright. We would also draw attention to the intentional confusion between sharing – free and without commercial intentions – and piracy. This confusion has paved the way for a sort of hyper-vigilance and punishment, even when these can be shown to be harmful to the free circulation of works, entail high costs, and prove socially ineffective.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The future development of the information society must be focused on creating the audiovisual material that is essential for the growth of this market. The cultural and creative industries provide a significant number of jobs in the EU and their economic contribution in terms of added value amounts to 2.5% of GDP. The economic model for the market in audiovisual works is based on different sales territories, each with its own specific release windows for the various media. This system must not be undermined because it ensures a good commercial balance between all of the partners in the sector. In the EU, the production, funding and distribution of audiovisual works are handled by a complex network of large, medium-sized and small enterprises, each of which is specialised and has its own particular characteristics. The single market works, and offers new prospects and opportunities, both to consumers and to creators and service providers. The aim of EU policy must be to create an environment conducive to the development of universally accessible legal content, to innovation and to creation. We must now focus our efforts on ensuring legal certainty in the online digital environment in Europe and ensure that there is no inequality of treatment between online and offline services.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) In an age where the Internet is the most widely used tool for both work and leisure, intellectual property rights have to keep up with consumer needs and technological developments. Improvements in the audiovisual service sector, by way of support for online services, are of enormous importance for the promotion of European civilisation as well as for linguistic and cultural diversity. European broadcasters finance over 80% of the production of original audiovisual content and also fulfil an important role in the promotion of creative industries in Europe.

It is important to provide both the holders of copyright and the users of works with legal certainty as regards copyright within the European cyberspace through greater coordination in the legal provisions of individual Member States. We already have rules for the free flow of goods and services throughout the European Union but, paradoxically, these do not apply to cyberspace, which itself is rooted in freedom and the absence of barriers. This must change. The European Commission should ask Internet companies throughout Europe to make it possible to purchase digital services in a Member State other than the consumer’s country of origin.

In order to provide artists with better legal protection against their works being made available online illegally, we must offer consumers a competitive alternative. At present, about 35.8% of films are downloaded illegally and up to 98.8% of data downloads using P2P networks breach copyright. Often, consumers do not have a convenient legal alternative so they use illicit practices. We must find a solution to this problem. I support and encourage the European Commission in its continuing efforts to promote and improve access to European culture online.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Creativity in the audiovisual and film industries is not just art; it is also a market sector that provides many jobs throughout the European Union. The economic contribution of culture and the arts expressed as added value is some 2.5% of GDP. To ensure continued growth in this market, we should create favourable conditions for the creation of audiovisual materials and also provide protection to the creators. However, it is easy to forget that, in the age of the Internet, distribution of and access to audiovisual materials takes place increasingly through illegal channels. Consumers using this type of channel often do not understand the meaning of intellectual property rights. In the light of the above, consumers should be given appropriate information about all the issues relating to intellectual property rights that may come up with regard to file-sharing using cloud computing services. Ease of access to audiovisual materials should, one would think, result in increased revenues for the creators and performers of these materials. However, the earnings obtained by them are often very modest. It would be worth therefore putting some effort into finding a solution that would allow authors and performers to receive appropriate remuneration.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report by Jean-Marie Cavada on the distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union raises certain issues about the legal aspects, accessibility and copyright protection in the industry. Everyone is aware of the importance and function of audiovisual materials in learning and information. However, the widespread reach of the Internet has led to problems relating to the accessibility of such works, and especially regarding effective copyright protection. Case-law on the subject should therefore guarantee the most widespread distribution of audiovisual content and, at the same time, protect the authors and intellectual property owners. I agree with the proposals made in this report, which seem to be moving in the right direction to tackle the problem.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the report by Jean-Marie Cavada, which seeks to improve the distribution of audiovisual works on the Internet. This will make it easier for the public to access the various works and easier to distribute the works across borders. Improved access to the works will automatically increase their popularity and, as a result, their audiences. This distribution will not have any impact on authors’ rights because they are protected and recognised by the European Parliament as tools that defend creativity. Through this text, which I supported, it will be possible to publish throughout the European Union photos, films and other documents that are covered by authors’ rights, but whose holders cannot be identified. This legislation will allow everyone to access these ‘orphan works’ and will push forward the plan to make this cultural heritage available online.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Jean-Marie Cavada on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union. With this report, the Members of the European Parliament are emphasising the necessary implementation of rules on the distribution, availability and use of European audiovisual works. The report also underlines the importance of education on media and digital literacy for citizens of all ages, right from early childhood. In fact, at a time when new technologies are playing an increasingly important role in our societies, it seems necessary to me to coordinate the rules governing all of the mechanisms related to those technologies. These mechanisms must be made available to all in a secure manner. I am therefore pleased that Parliament is calling on the Commission to take action in the areas of legal certainty for Internet users and consumer protection.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – The ALDE Group abstained on the final vote to show the concern with the missed opportunity of modernising the European online audiovisual sector and the lack of European solutions. Especially paragraph 46 on buyout contracts was concerning and goes against the idea of contractual freedom. Furthermore, the report on the online distribution of audiovisual works promotes the status quo and points to changes in the structure of the cultural industry as negative. Digitisation was mainly seen as a challenge and problematic for the industry, instead of a possibility to increase the content available and the people reached within Europe.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Intellectual property rights in relation to audiovisual content, including online, has been a long discussed subject at European Union level, with numerous attempts having been made so far at harmonisation in this area. However, I believe that what we are losing sight of is the need to tackle more the cause and less the effects. In specific terms, it is about educating people about the importance of protecting copyright and about using online distribution channels properly. Furthermore, education systems in Member States must focus on developing digital skills and on integrating the new technologies into school curricula so that future generations are aware of how important it is to adopt a civic minded attitude in the digital environment.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report. With the imminent development of smart terminals, consumers will find it even easier to obtain direct access to audiovisual content via search engines. Given the plethora of content, the concern is that the links given the highest ranking by referral sites, which are inevitably controlled by the American giants, will direct consumers to non-domestic and non-European sites or services.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the EU so that the public bodies do not remain on the sidelines of the development of new technologies but seize the potential they offer to ensure the distribution of cultural works to the citizens in a legal environment that protects both creators and Internet users. Digital technologies are an opportunity for works that form part of the heritage, they must be accessible to all and thus taught to citizens of all ages, and they should allow creators to be paid directly.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Given not only the specific nature of the audiovisual sector but also the fragmentation of the European online market, a uniform approach must be adopted to a number of issues at EU level. Using content online can provide a real opportunity to broadcast and distribute European works more widely, provided that the audiovisual works are supplied legally, respecting copyright. If we take a look at the European figures available, one interesting point which can be noticed is that the cultural and creative industries we are referring to contribute up to 2.5% to GDP, which is similar to the figure for the car industry. This makes it all the more necessary to organise public information campaigns about the importance of copyright, together with programmes for promoting digital and media skills for all EU citizens, including people with disabilities.

I am also in favour of facilitating online payment methods for audiovisual works, as well as of reviewing the costs involved, to make them affordable to the public, as a preferable option to piracy. I also stress how important it is to adapt European legislation to the reality of the Internet and the digital era, with one of the biggest challenges still being how to prevent access to platforms offering illegal content.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In view of the growing need to promote a convincing online supply of audiovisual content and to encourage innovation, it is essential for new methods of distribution to be flexible in order to allow for the emergence of new business models and to make digital goods accessible to all EU citizens, regardless of the Member State of residence. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) European cinema is an economic factor which should not be underestimated. European productions bring in money for the Member States while they are being shown and also serve to make viewers aware of a wide range of different regions. In 2010, 1 203 films were produced in Europe. In the US, there were ‘only’ 754. Numerous SMEs profit due to European internal market film productions. However, it is becoming more and more difficult to monitor the legal distribution of audiovisual content in the Internet era. This results in the unequal treatment of online and offline services. Many audiovisual services use the Internet for distribution and marketing of their content and services. I abstained from voting since I believe that a number of approaches are required to regulate the audiovisual market on the Internet. On the one hand, care has to be taken to ensure that no copyright infringements result and, on the other hand, Internet neutrality and unregulated access must remain guaranteed for users.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The distribution of artistic works in the film and audiovisual sector is not a simple matter. In this sector, art meets industry. Since the European Union has to be focused primarily on culture and education, it is essential to secure proper resources and opportunities for the dissemination of European films. Similarly, it is necessary to ensure the effective preservation of these works, primarily through digitisation. The cultural industry is not only an opportunity for artists: it also represents a significant number of jobs, and its economic contribution amounts to 2.5% of GDP, which is the same figure as for the car industry. Unfortunately, audiovisual production in the EU and its distribution involve a complex network of large, medium-sized and small enterprises, each of which is specialised and unique in its own way. It is essential that the EU has a clear, transparent, straightforward and, in particular, coherent legal framework for audiovisual works, because only in this way will it be possible to achieve a single digital market. Such integration will help create the new business models and distribution channels needed to improve and simplify access for consumers across the EU.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) I believe that, with regard to the distribution of audiovisual content in particular, more attention should be given to the protection of personal data, the right to privacy and the improvement of security for online distribution platforms, including the implementation of online payments. It is becoming increasingly more problematic to monitor the legal distribution of audiovisual content. In the case of the current plethora of content on the Internet, the concern is that AdWords reference services, which, for instance, are operated by large American providers, will also mainly refer to links which will direct consumers to non-domestic or non-European sites or services. I abstained from voting because many steps are still required in order to regulate the controlled and legal distribution of content and services on the Internet.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The audiovisual and cinema sectors are vital components of the EU’s cultural and creative industries, which collectively contribute added value to the economy to the tune of 2.5% of total GDP – as much as the automotive industry. I supported this report because it calls for a public environment that fosters the creation and accessibility of legal audiovisual content. Legal certainty and regulation of authors’ rights and copyright laws must exist in the European online environment in order to establish such beneficial conditions. The distribution and promotion of original European audiovisual content is vital to the development of European education and culture in today’s digital age.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The audiovisual sector combines intellectual creation, culture and art with industry. The coexistence of these two different elements requires tools to encourage the artistic expression of creators, especially young creators, while at the same time finding ways of enabling it to create jobs and thus make a contribution to the economy. Certainly, any policy in this sector cannot ignore new technologies and the dynamism which they impart to the audiovisual sector. One of the facts highlighted by this report, which I supported, is that Union policy must aim to create an environment conducive to universally accessible legal content. This is in keeping with Europe’s moral obligation to protect holders of intellectual property rights, without depriving citizens of knowledge and education.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which combines online distribution of audiovisual works with the need to protect copyright, thereby ensuring legal certainty online within the EU and attempting to prevent unequal treatment of rights between online and offline services.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Considering that in the audiovisual and cinema sectors, the artistic input of creators is not a simple matter, as this is, at one and the same time, an art and an industry, it is important to create both opportunities and the necessary means for disseminating European films, as the European Union must, above all, be geared to education and culture. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the cultural and creative industries provide a significant number of jobs in the Union and their economic contribution in terms of added value amounts to 2.5% of GDP, equal to that of the automotive sector, and that a very strong case may be made for the introduction of an international system for identifying cinematographic, audiovisual and multimedia works, and underlining the need to adapt European law to the realities of the Internet and the digital age, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the resolution on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union. I believe that we have to act at European level to combat the fragmentation of this sector and move towards a single digital market. The development of this digital market faces a number of substantial challenges that we must overcome together. I am therefore pleased that this resolution takes into account the need for a competitive audiovisual sector that creates jobs and protects the interests of consumers and rights holders. With that in mind, I supported the invitation to the Member States to ban buyout contracts for the online distribution of audiovisual works. I believe that authors and performers should receive adequate and fair remuneration in proportion to the online exploitation of their works. In the same vein, I voted in favour of the principle of chronology, which allows audiovisual works to benefit from an efficient pre-financing system.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Key issues for our group are legal content, accessibility and collective rights management: the report recommends that legal content be made more attractive in quality and quantity (insisting on subtitled works) and up to date, especially in reviewing micro-payment systems when needed. Insists also on greater coordination of legal rules between Member States and legal certainty for both consumers and right holders, recommends that the EU digital companies remove geographical controls across the Union and allow the purchase of digital services from outside the consumer’s Member State of origin.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because the single market works, and offers new prospects and opportunities, both to consumers and to creators and service providers. The aim of EU policy must be to create an environment conducive to the development of universally accessible legal content, to innovation and to creation. It is encouraging that the issue of net neutrality is of fundamental importance in this new online environment.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) A total of 6.9% of GDP, 14 million jobs, an annual turnover of EUR 860 billion, continued development despite the crisis: the cultural and creative industries offer huge potential for creation, growth and employment that is still largely unexploited. Following my report on ‘unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries’, adopted last year, Parliament adopted today a resolution on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union. I supported this report, which seeks, in particular, to provide better access to audiovisual works available online – films, music and rebroadcasts (streaming) – particularly beyond national territories and linguistic limitations. Counterfeiting and piracy discourage investment in this sector. The report therefore emphasises the importance of developing a more diverse legal supply of content and more flexible release windows. Finally, legal certainty with regard to authors’ rights and better collection of those rights must be guaranteed at all stages of the creation and distribution process.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I support this report, which has the commendable intention of proposing the creation of opportunities and methods for distributing European films. It is important to ensure that the European Union does not detach itself from the educational and cultural channels. By preserving them, we will benefit future generations of young Europeans.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over the course of the last decade, the cultural and creative industries have been growing in importance to the European economy, employing a significant body of people and accounting for value added amounting to 2.5% of GDP, which is equivalent to the automotive industry. I am voting for this report because it argues that the online distribution of audiovisual products constitutes an excellent opportunity for increasing knowledge of European languages, aims to strengthen protection of freedom of expression and thought, and intends to make digital services available to all EU citizens. I also consider it important to promote digital skills and media literacy for every EU citizen. I also think consideration needs to be given to the farthest-flung European regions, such as the outermost regions.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union.

The fragmentation of the online market is characterised by technological barriers, the complexity of licensing procedures, differences in payment methods, the lack of interoperability for crucial elements and by variations in the rates of certain taxes applicable to goods and services. I think that there is currently a need for a transparent, flexible and harmonised approach at European level in order to advance towards the digital single market. I should stress that the digital divide between Member States or regions of the EU poses a serious barrier to the development of the digital single market. I recommend expanding broadband Internet access throughout the EU with a view to encouraging access to online services and new technologies.

Using content online can provide a real opportunity to broadcast and distribute European works more widely, especially audiovisual works, at a time when the legal supply of such material can be developed in a climate of fair competition. I call on Member States and the Commission to promote solutions aimed at supporting the digitisation, preservation and availability of these works for educational purposes, including across borders.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The Internet has evolved more rapidly than European law. Consequently, we now have to ensure legal certainty in the European digital space and make sure that we prevent situations of unequal treatment between online and offline services. This resolution reaffirms the principle of net neutrality, which allows content to be distributed to all, thereby giving priority to media pluralism and cultural diversity. It also rejects the principle of pan-European licences, which would have paved the way for the monopolisation of the audiovisual market by a number of big players to the detriment of many SMEs, which form the real backbone of the audiovisual and cinematographic industry today. I therefore voted for this resolution, which seeks to ensure universal access to varied Internet content, while protecting the small players in a major European industry. We are calling on the European Commission and the Member States to take this into account when drawing up future European legislation.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The report itself is now somewhat out-of-date, but nevertheless indicates the necessary requirements for an overhaul and the weaknesses of the system. A framework should be created which will allow the market, as well as consumers, to profit equally from the market.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Cavada, which aims to increase the competitiveness of the European audiovisual sector through the development of online services and new technologies for promoting cultural diversity within the EU.

As the rapporteur underlines, it is important to remember the need to ensure fair remuneration based on individual contracts and collective rights management for authors and performers who use the Internet to promote their work.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The circulation of works and creations, and the diffusion of knowledge, arts and culture, in themselves represent an element boosting creativity, and elevating human, individual and collective consciousness. The online distribution of audiovisual works constitutes a strong expression of cultural dissemination. The circulation of artistic and cultural works clearly benefits society and the economy as a whole, and artists, authors and producers are no exception. Cultural policy should not be based on protecting property rights and creating new market segments, thereby sacrificing enjoyment, as advocated in this report; rather, it should be geared towards ever increasing mass access and cultural enjoyment, whilst safeguarding intellectual property rights. We also need to draw attention to the confusion between sharing – free and without commercial intentions – and piracy, which they have been exploiting for the purposes of censorship, hyper-vigilance and punishment, even when these can be shown to be harmful to the free circulation of works, entail high costs and prove socially ineffective.