Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - Strasbourg

14. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Monica Luisa Macovei (A7-0299/2012)

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to give an explanation of my vote against the discharge for the European Food Safety Authority. I would like to make it clear that my views on the European Food Safety Authority are not reflected in this vote against, in the sense that I find it impossible to vote for discharge on any of the Environment Committee-related agencies due to the fact that the Court of Auditors are unable to sign off on their accounts for any of these environment-related agencies and therefore I would by default be approving the procedure, which I do not wish to do. But I would like to state on record that the work of the European Food and Safety Authority that I have been involved with has been in every case exemplary.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, food safety is one of the most serious responsibilities an executive body can dispense to its citizens. Although, in line with my group, I express deep reservations about granting a discharge in the absence of firm assurances from the Court of Auditors, the European Food Safety Agency is an EU body which I personally wholeheartedly endorse in principle.

Food is, by its very nature, transnational, travelling from the field, the ocean or an abattoir to the processing plant and eventually to our dinner plates. It does not respect national boundaries. When something goes horribly wrong, such as the outbreak of an infectious disease or poisoning or contamination of our foodstuffs, we need a well-run supranational organisation to identify the problem and enact the necessary measures to alert our national authorities and thus protect our consumers everywhere throughout the European Union.

Report: Monica Luisa Macovei (A7-0298/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, the European Medicines Agency is a prime example of a successful devolved EU body which can bring tangible benefits to European citizens and consumers. Based in my own constituency of London, the EMA replaces the previous complex, bureaucratic requirements for British pharmaceutical companies to apply individually in 26 other countries in order to license their medicinal products. Instead, we have developed a one-stop shop for assessing the safety and granting product licences for innovative medicines, thus saving considerable time and money and benefiting both patients and the pharmaceutical industry, which is a major export earner for the United Kingdom.

Nevertheless the ECR, my Group, maintains serious concerns about some of the contractual arrangements and the transparency of this Agency, which of course merit further scrutiny by the Court of Auditors.

Report: Antigoni Papadopoulou (A7-0271/2012)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 2013 will rightly be the Year of European Citizens. This is an important initiative because recalling and enhancing awareness, in particular among young people, of the rights and achievements attached to European citizenship should be treated as an absolute priority.

Today, thanks to the process of European integration, EU citizens may live, work, study and travel freely within the territory of the Member States, use the health services, enjoy rights and protection as passengers and consumers, and vote and stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence.

These are important achievements, which bring with them not just a strong symbolic connotation that strengthens and promotes the sense of belonging to Europe, but also undoubted advantages and practical opportunities. However, according to a Eurobarometer report, and as I can confirm on a daily basis in my work as an MEP, there is often a lack of awareness of these rights, and of the values and principles that inspire them. It is therefore essential to make every effort, particularly in the schools but also elsewhere, to raise awareness of and provide information on the great advantages of our dual citizenship, the European aspect of which enhances and strengthens the national aspect.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, among the most common problems that EU citizens face when they reside, study or work in another EU country are lack of information and awareness of their rights as well as language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications.

Unfortunately, there is still a lack of visibility of Union citizenship and lack of awareness of the concrete benefits it provides. I am therefore supporting 2013 as the Year of European Citizens. The general objective of the Year of European Citizens will be to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, since 1983, the European years have covered everything from music to cancer. The 30th year will be the European Year of Citizenship and, clearly, we are running out of ideas. We have already had a European Year of Citizens through Education and a European Year of Workers’ Mobility. We simply do not need another European Year to inform people of their rights as EU citizens because, not only is the EU running out of ideas, but it is also running out of money.

The Commission’s proposed budget for the year was EUR 1 million but, in its wisdom, Parliament has called for a five times increase in this budget. This morning I and my group called on the EU to make meaningful cuts to the budget to reflect the austerity measures governments have faced across the continent. Putting an end to the European years would be a good start.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, almost two decades have passed since the concept of European Citizenship was legally established, but still only 43 % of EU citizens claim familiarity with the term ‘citizen of the European Union’. They lack information and awareness of their rights: language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas, degrees and qualifications are among the most common problems that EU citizens face on a daily basis. I therefore agree with the Commission’s initiative to declare 2013 the Year of European Citizens.

I also fully support the rapporteur’s wish to have the scope of application of the Decision widened to focus on enhancing the awareness of citizens in order to allow them to make full use of their rights, and not just their right to move and reside freely. I also hope that the Year of European Citizens will not be another celebratory year but rather provide the foundation for a framework for the future policies, measures and actions needed to reinforce Union citizenship.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) The European Commission has proposed designating 2013 the European Year of Citizens. I am convinced that in spite of the current crisis this will strengthen resolve to ensure that citizens are able to exercise and assert their rights. According to the statistics, one-third of citizens intend to do so, but administrative difficulties and inadequate language knowledge still present barriers to taking up employment when they move abroad to another Member State. The plan for the European Year of Citizens places responsibility for ensuring adequate information in the hands of Member States, but the most effective way to exchange positive experiences will always be at EU level. The objective of our amendments was to broaden the scope of the programme and ensure that citizens have a bigger role in raising awareness regarding their rights.

As shadow rapporteur, I would like to stress that the Commission has successfully mapped out the demands behind the motto ‘More Europe!’ and listened to the expectations voiced in relation to the European Year of Citizens at EU, Member State, regional and local levels. Delivering on these, however, and running popular communications channels or portals will require an increase in the budget. I was pleased to see that, as today’s vote showed, all of the political groups agreed on this.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, the Year of European Citizens is a way of focusing attention on the half a billion people living in the EU. It is a way of remembering that all of the other measures we are discussing in these days – the banking union, the economic and financial measures for combating the crisis – have the interests of citizens as their primary objective. The aim of the European Year on which we have voted is to enhance the rights attached to Union citizenship and the role played by the associations in the Union, reinforcing the right of students, teachers, artists and those working creatively to move freely.

In short, it aims to strengthen European identity through concrete initiatives in which the citizens play the leading role. This is a real bottom-up approach to building the Union, and the reason why I voted in favour.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report, because it is very topical. Next year it will be 20 years since the concept of EU citizenship was introduced. Despite this, many EU citizens are still unaware of their rights and opportunities in Europe.

The attitudes of citizens towards the EU have cooled, thanks to the financial crisis. The EU is regarded more and more as a mere bureaucracy, and the legal instruments that it issues are regarded as making the everyday lives of citizens more difficult, rather than easier. Convincing citizens of the benefits of the EU is primarily the duty of politicians. The participation of citizens in public debate on the various EU policy areas is something that must be promoted. It is only in this way that we will be able to build a Europe that is really supported by the people.

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Madam President, the concept of EU citizenship became a reality 20 years ago with the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty, yet public awareness of EU citizenship is still very low. The 2010 Eurobarometer survey showed that only 43 % of respondents were actually familiar with the term ‘Citizen of the European Union’, and even fewer knew what it meant – although the Irish figure at that stage was 58 %.

The purpose of the European Year of Citizens must be to raise awareness about the rights and responsibilities of EU citizens, the role citizens play in exercising the right to free movement and the importance of civic and democratic participation, including participation in European and local elections. No doubt many of the planned initiatives for next year will be carried out through programmes such as the Lifelong Learning Programme in our schools and institutions, and this will pave the way for a more concerted longer-term effort to raise awareness about EU citizenship. I am concerned about the reduction in the budget from a proposed 5 million to just 1 million, but I also want to welcome the fact that the European Year of the Citizen coincides with the start of the Irish Presidency, and I know that the Irish Government is committed to holding events to promote the European Year throughout its presidency.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the possibility to travel to other countries in Europe without stopping at a border is just one of the many rights and privileges afforded by Union citizenship. For most of us, they are already accepted as a matter of course, but many of our citizens are not aware that they are based on citizenship of the Union, which was introduced 20 years ago. It is therefore only right and proper, not to mention extremely important, to make it a priority to explain to our citizens what the European Union means and how it makes life easier for each and every one of us every day. This year, 2013, is the European Year of Citizens, and I hope to see many more initiatives in future which aim to bring the European Union closer to every citizen. Again, we are on the right track here, but we certainly have not reached our goal.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, this could be a welcome initiative in a Europe, in a European Union that is increasingly becoming more a union of governments than a union of citizens, but on one condition: it should not be a formal one, with the emphasis on ceremony, but should try and pull together the energies of all European citizens to achieve a closer community.

There are still questions regarding free movement, the use of languages and the recognition of third-level qualifications, as well as questions regarding elections. We are organising this campaign one year before the elections but an institutional framework is needed for less formal, more efficient dialogue with the European institutions. These questions could help to re-establish the trust of the European citizens in the Union.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. I think it is very good that the concept of European citizenship is being raised again. As has been mentioned today, it is 20 years since the concept of European citizenship was launched. It is not enough for this sort of concept to exist; the biggest problem in the European Union right now is the fact that citizens do not feel that the Union is theirs. Citizens feel that the Union is more a Union of the elite, a Union of hard cores. It is therefore good that next year there will be a focus on what the European Union actually means to citizens.

The European Parliament is currently also look at the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme, for which I am the rapporteur. Under this programme, which will take place during the next programming period, we will invest a sum of approximately 10 cents a year for every citizen of the European Union. This means that we are currently observing citizens within the Union using economic and other indicators at quite a low cost. It is therefore very important that citizenship and people’s participation in Union decision-making be reinforced.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, free movement of people, statutory rights, civil and human rights, an open labour market, recognition of diplomas: these are all benefits for citizens in the different Member States of the European Union. It was the European Parliament that, in 2010, asked the Commission to designate next year as the European Year of Citizens. The European Year of Citizens is of course an opportunity to talk about Europe in a sensible way so as to increase interest in European opportunities and participation in the Member States, in elections, for example.

I am certainly not in favour of a European superstate, but I feel that the European Year of Citizens will contribute to increased awareness and knowledge of the different rights and responsibilities of citizens of the Union, which should logically encourage citizens to take part in democratic life.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE) . – (RO) Madam President, I also voted in favour of the report because designating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens is a good opportunity to offer correct information to all Europeans. Better information could contribute to an enhanced sense of belonging to the Union. The status of European citizen offers more rights and benefits that we all need to know about, such as free movement and mobility of the workforce.

Until now, Romanian citizens have not fully exercised their rights. A number of Member States still impose labour restrictions on Romanian workers. The restrictions are unjustified and the European Commission has, on numerous occasions, recommended that they be eliminated. The impact of such a measure could be positive not only for Romanian workers but also for the Member States. I believe that the labour market in these Member States would become more dynamic, stimulating competition and economic growth.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was pleased to support these proposals and I especially welcome the European Year of Citizens next year. We often hear that we should be closer to the citizens and next year will give us that chance. I would propose one thing: we must give citizens more opportunities to visit Parliament, either here in Strasbourg or in Brussels. I have seen that when people come to visit us, even though they may have a negative view of Parliament or the institutions, they leave with a different opinion. After coming and seeing what we do here, they have a positive impression and perception of us and we should avail of the opportunity afforded by next year to bring more people to Parliament. As Emer Costello said, Ireland will hold the presidency of the Council next year, and we will make every effort to promote the European Year of Citizens.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, I have to say that I can scarcely believe these proposals. I feel that they are utter nonsense and it should worry democrats that two-thirds of MEPs supported this motion. I did not.

How can we throw money away on such nonsense when the peoples of Europe are hurting? As they are in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal, in France and in my own country. The EU is clearly hopelessly out of touch with the people it purports to represent.

At a time when Angela Merkel today is threatening to veto the entire budget summit if David Cameron vetoes anything but a freeze, this is crazy. David Cameron is trying to do the right thing. Are the peoples of Europe, in between paying higher taxes, in between job cuts and riots, turning to one another to say that what we really need is a Year of European Citizenship? No, absolutely not. Nor am I a citizen of the EU, but a loyal subject of the Queen. The idea is flawed, insulting and an utter waste of money.

  László Tőkés (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Europe must protect its citizens. Last week, Andrea Varga, a Hungarian historian from Bucharest, was seriously assaulted on the street by an unknown individual. Andrea Varga is a distinguished researcher on the Communist era. He is currently working on the restitution of Hungarian church property confiscated during the Communist dictatorship. In 2009, at the request of the Romanian office of the European Commission, he organised an important exhibition in Bucharest on the regime change in Central and Eastern Europe. During the final vote on the report on the European Year of Citizens, I think it is vital to draw attention to the case of Andrea Varga and to call for protection for him as a European citizen by the Romanian authorities and the European Parliament. Europe must protect its citizens.

  Gerald Häfner (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, what we have agreed here for the European Year of Citizens – which, incidentally, goes back to a parliamentary initiative – is both brilliant and tragic, for it highlights the yawning gap between Europe’s institutions and its citizens. Nonetheless, it is a major step forward. Everything that is set out in the Commission’s draft, but particularly in the report which has now been adopted, has my wholehearted support. That is why I not only voted in favour; as the rapporteur for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I also contributed in no small measure to making this a better report.

Nonetheless, I should like to make one thing very clear, if I may: it is like offering a thirsty man a teaspoon of water when he really needs a glass. The budget, the legal framework and the practical measures all fall absurdly short of the mark compared with what Europe actually needs. In the current situation, with major, indeed crucial issues being negotiated in Europe without any citizen involvement whatsoever, we not only need a Year of Citizens; we also need more citizen participation as a whole. We do not need a Europe of citizens imposed from above; what we need is far more involvement from the bottom up, so that we can rightfully claim to put citizens at the heart of the Union.

Report: Kristiina Ojuland (A7-0285/2012)

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). – Madam President, first of all allow me to thank all my colleagues who worked very closely together to prepare this recommendation to the Council. I believe that this is an instrument which demonstrates EU value-based politics. This recommendation is also a clear message to those Russians who want Russia to be a country of the rule of law, and not of corrupt governance.

Those guilty of causing Sergei Magnitsky’s death should be brought to justice, should not be allowed to travel to the European Union and should have their assets frozen here on EU territory. I would also like to call on the Member States and the EIS to take further necessary steps to implement this recommendation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this proposal because I consider that the European Union must not tolerate the infringement of fundamental human rights. Therefore, we need to take firm measures against those who are responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky. His case is a sign that the criminal justice system in Russia is not functioning properly. We must ensure that those responsible for Mr Magnitsky’s death cannot travel freely in Europe. Moreover, I believe that all of their bank accounts in EU Member States should be frozen.

One solution to this could be the widespread establishment of such practices for all those who infringe human rights regardless of their country of origin. I also believe that we need to introduce an automatic sanction mechanism for such cases. In the case of Mr Magnitsky, the Union could make the lifting of the restrictions subject to the establishment of an independent inquiry that would eventually punish the guilty parties.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Madam President, I voted for this very important initiative because the Magnitsky case is a well-proved example of cynical human rights violations which culminated in the tragic death of a Russian lawyer who defended the interests of a British company.

This is a recommendation to the Council to ensure that officials who blatantly violate human rights in their respective countries must feel that they cannot escape unpunished. In this way the recommendation could become an important instrument in making a difference in our policies, and we would be indicating that the EU is serious in insisting on compliance with the rule of law and human rights. This is vital for our own credibility in relations with third partners. So I would ask the Council to take this recommendation very seriously and ensure that this is implemented.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Ms Ojuland as well for this initiative which – if the Council does adopt the recommendations of Parliament – would be the first example of its kind, whereby targeted sanctions of this kind are used as a way of preventing impunity in a strategic partner, in this case Russia.

Russia, we have to remember, is supposed to be a member of the Council of Europe and of the OSCE. It is supposed to have a constitution which demands that the rule of law be upheld, yet we have the terrible case of this man, who died in terrible pain, which was covered up as a result of high-level criminal corruption.

We do not welcome on our territories criminally-acquired funds. Stopping these people travelling to the European Union is, I think, a way of exerting leverage over Russia and pointing out the terrible injustices that prevail in that country, the lack of democracy and the deterioration in the standard of human rights.

This proposal is not unique to this Parliament. Other jurisdictions and other parliaments, such as the US Congress and the British House of Commons, have done very similar things. If it is successful I think it will actually send very strong signals to other countries where we can use similar targeted sanctions to put pressure on them to observe the rule of law.

Report: Jacqueline Foster (A7-0254/2012)

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of Ms Foster’s report, which calls for strong action from the Commission, including sanctions, in order to force Member States that are violating their obligations under the Single European Sky (SES) legislation to fall into line. The SES is an ambitious project aimed at creating a single airspace that would allow increased capacity and efficiency in air traffic management, also bringing economic and environmental benefits.

The implementation of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research programme, which is the technological pillar of the SES project, is a vital aspect for its success, especially from 2015 on, when the program should be launched. Unfortunately, there are still several gaps in the single airspace project, particularly with regard to the realisation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB). In this regard, I welcome the new impetus given a few days ago by Italy and other countries involved in the ‘Blue Med’ FAB, which is of strategic value since it involves the Southern Mediterranean countries.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, we need to have an organised and unified European air traffic control system for commercial flights. The current high volume traffic and outdated technology has led to increasingly congested skies with more delays for passengers. With an ever-expanding demand for air travel, these problems can only get worse without proper infrastructure and a new approach.

The nation-centric approach we see today is no longer fit to handle air traffic on its own. It is estimated that with a more coordinated approach presented by the Single European Sky, delays and cancellations may be reduced by as much as 50 %. The coordination would foster growth and competition by allowing for more efficient use of air space. The Single European Sky would not impede national sovereignty and each nation would retain unilateral control over its air space for military purposes.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – Madam President, I welcome this own-initiative report on the ‘Single European Sky’; it gives a strong signal from Parliament to the Member States and the Commission. The fragmentation of European air space is estimated to cost EUR 4 billion per year; it is costing jobs and is unnecessarily increasing our CO2 emissions. We need a more efficient European air space to relieve congestion around airports and also to meet our environmental challenges.

This is a project where, I am quite proud to say, the United Kingdom is not lagging behind, but all Member States must do their part of the job. A sustainable future for aviation in Europe means that we have to make the right efforts now for our economy, for our environment, to tackle our capacity constraints, to keep our position as a hub in the world but also to remain an environmental world leader. The single sky is one of the alternatives to building new capacity, as are the development of multi-modality and an increased use of regional airports. It is the Member States that now have to deliver on this. We are doing our bit.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the Single European Sky project is visionary and a necessary next step for Europe. Air traffic requires a new approach. Defragmentation must be avoided as it involves major costs. Implementing the legislation and cooperating in this area is crucial. At the same time we must highlight the effect of the project on security issues because there are a number of security-related questions, including questions specific to the Member States, that need to be approached in a much more constructive manner.

Secondly, the economic component is also crucial. The reports indicate the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs through this programme, and beyond these jobs, the economic benefits envisaged are huge. I believe that this project can also make a major political contribution to future European unification.

Report: Georges Bach (A7-287/2012)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, protection of passenger rights is an increasingly important issue, especially at times of crisis such as the present, when transport cost cutting and sudden airline bankruptcy in the sector can cause serious disruption to passengers.

All too often we read in the newspapers of cancelled flights and hundreds of passengers left to fend for themselves, sometimes for days on end; not to mention rail delays and cancellations, leaving thousands of workers, students and whole families stranded, often without information on alternative modes of transport to bring them home or to work.

Passengers must be guaranteed more price transparency and must be protected against unfair commercial practices, such as the addition of non-optional operational costs and excessive restrictions on hand luggage. Efforts must be made to provide multilingual information points to deal with rerouting and cancellation of flights and trains, in order to provide the best protection possible for European citizens.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, passenger rights are central to the debate on transport. The concept of accessibility is the cardinal point of this report, including physical accessibility for all to destinations and information. Correct information must be available to travellers, using various means and covering a range of needs. Furthermore, passengers must have access to assistance through helpdesks with adequately trained and competent staff.

Finally we call for revision of the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC, in order to ensure that consumers and firms in the sector have a clear legal framework for both standard situations and exceptional situations, eliminating abusive and unfair practices and ensuring greater transparency.

Mr Bach’s report addresses all of these aspects and I therefore voted in favour of it.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, with today’s vote we are once again supporting passenger rights in all transport modes. However, we are also taking another qualitative step.

Until now, there have been six different directives which regulate the same issue for the individual transport modes. With today’s report, we are unifying a fragmented legal environment, we are taking a step in the right direction, so that passengers will have a fuller knowledge of their rights, regardless of the transport mode. We certainly take account of the specifics of each form of transport, but it is crucial that there should be a fundamental basis applicable to all transport modes. We are achieving greater transparency and a better level of information on citizens’ rights.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. Even though more than 10 years have passed since the Commission communication, it continues to be the case that not all passengers know their rights. I believe that this stems from inertia on the part of businesses and operators in the tourism industry with regard to legislation at EU level. Another reason for this is insufficient information. Many passengers renounce their rights in the belief that it would be expensive and difficult to defend them.

There are many places in the report that take a position on the problems relating to pricing. Many people wonder why the final price of a journey differs from the advertised price. I do hope that, through this report, we can rein in the problems relating to travel pricing and find rules for the game that are common, functional and fair to all parties.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Madam President, one cannot but support this report, but the process of achieving a unified approach to passengers’ rights has yet to be completed. It is important to ensure there is no discrimination against passengers on the basis of their nationality or place of residence, but it is similarly important to avoid discriminating against travel agencies on the basis of their location.

The final goal should be a single EU directive that would include all forms of transportation and should be implemented in the medium term. I especially support the establishment, in departure and arrival halls, of focal points of information and assistance to passengers and the introduction of a unified form of complaints with facilities to forward these complaints electronically, and immediately, to the relevant authorities.

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Madam President, I very much welcome the Bach report on improving passenger rights in the EU and ask the Commission to address the various recommendations as soon as possible.

A survey carried out by the European Consumer Centre in Dublin last year indicated that less than ten percent of Irish air passengers have a complete grasp of their rights under EU law. But of specific concern to Irish passengers is the proposed Ryanair takeover of Aer Lingus which, if it is allowed to proceed, would have negative implications for the rights of those passengers travelling to and from Ireland. A Ryanair takeover would reduce actual and potential competition on a large number of air routes from Dublin, thereby depriving Irish passengers of any real choice and pushing up fares. Moreover, Ryanair has a history of aggressively disputing the rights of air passengers. I would point out that Ryanair actually charges passengers a levy of EUR 2 for complying with its obligations set down in the Air Passenger Rights regulation. For these and other reasons, I would urge the Commission to reject the Ryanair bid for Aer Lingus in the interests of passenger rights.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, this report is the practical application of our wish to respect the rights of citizens, including disabled citizens, who choose to travel. The report recognises the need for a clearer definition of passenger rights and of key terms such as ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

The publication of these rights would ensure that passengers are fully aware of what they are to expect from their carriers. Defining these rights would make it easier for both passengers and carriers. Passengers should know their rights and carriers must be more accountable to their passengers.

This report calls for better infrastructure to make various modes of transport accessible for the disabled. Transportation services must comply with the design-for-all principle. They must make transportation available physically, and provide facilities for booking and information for help on a variety of matters. All transport modes should be ICT-accessible throughout all of the European Union. Introducing minimum accessibility standards would accomplish this goal.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – Madam President, I certainly welcome this own-initiative report, which points out in particular the need for more information to passengers and the need for more price transparency – which other Members have mentioned – better protection of passengers in the case of airline bankruptcy and more accessibility and assistance to persons with reduced mobility.

I made quite a few amendments myself to this report, particularly on issues such as through ticketing. I believe in addition that we also need clear information to be given to passengers on other issues such as the liability of carriers in the event of damaged or lost baggage, differential baggage allowances, compensation for delays and, particularly, adequate rerouting in the case of travel disruption and missed connections, which should include intermodal rerouting. I am also very keen in fact on the idea of a European multimodal travel planner which would give customers and travellers door-to-door information, including the cost and duration of multimodal journeys, including the air journey. That is something we should pursue.

Report: Maria Luisa Macovei (A7-0300/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, I have previously called on this House to make a bonfire of EU quangos. EU agencies are inefficient, unnecessary and unaccountable. I hope that the scandals of the European Environment, Medicine and Food Safety agencies will make Members think twice about what these quangos do.

The European Environment Agency’s relationship with an NGO, which it sent on trips to the Caribbean and the Mediterranean, are totally unacceptable. The agency’s lack of regard for public procurement procedures is also offensive, especially as so many public bodies in my London constituency are struggling to abide by complicated EU public procurement rules.

Finally, we get to the area where I feel all EU bodies are wasting money: information and communication. The agency’s ‘living façade’ was a EUR 300 000 over-indulgence. I congratulate the rapporteur on recommending a vote against granting discharge.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, regarding the discharge for the European Environmental Agency, I asked colleagues to refuse discharge. We even had more information than we had in May, when we decided to postpone discharge. We had information and written evidence of contracts of over one million euros, which probably breached the procedural rules for procurement, because they were designed specifically for certain companies.

Nevertheless, the discharge was granted following a close vote. I lost, but I think that, at the end of the day, after we voted three times in the COCOBU and once in plenary against the discharge of this Agency, the signal has been sent. Finally I would like to say that it was bad management to let the executive director decide whether a discharge is given and not the agency on environmental issues, and I ask for the resignation of this executive director.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, the entire Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe voted for discharge for this agency. In our vote, we had to balance the assertions that indicate an element of corruption – but without having seen the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office or any relevant authority – with the report of the Court of Auditors, which expresses criticism but does not make any accusations, with the statements of the two Commissioners who evaluated the Agency’s management (I am referring here to Commissioner Potočnik and Commissioner Šemeta) and the statements of a board comprising mainly prestigious bodies, especially Cambridge University. All of this indicates that those involved in the Agency’s management appreciate its performance and its leadership.

Mere suspicions alone should not prevent us from granting discharge for a European agency. It is only natural that such suspicions be backed up by evidence. What would happen if tomorrow we refused to grant discharge for the Commission because it was alleged in some newspaper that Mr Barroso had who knows what sort of important business in a Member State, yet these were just harmful allegations?

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0289/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, why is it that a trade agreement that will facilitate the import of high-quality and affordable medicines into Europe is such a political hot potato? Because the trade agreement is with Israel.

To provide European patients with life-saving drugs at lower prices has taken over two years of negotiations, even though this is an already established joint commitment with Israel. We need to use more generic drugs to lower our healthcare bills. Israel, despite its small size, is at the forefront of major medical innovations. By using Israel’s generic drugs, the cost to healthcare systems for blood pressure medication, for example, could be reduced by 92 %.

I voted for this report because I believe in free trade. Members of the European Parliament should be supporting free trade, especially in an industry which is vital to the recovery of the EU.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report as I consider the approach to be very important. I do not believe that when we talk about the interests of European citizens’ we cannot see that healthcare standards in Europe are not very efficient. On the contrary, access to generic medicines at reasonable prices could be good for European citizens.

I think it is wrong to politicise this topic, as there are no politics here except the politics of those whom one represents. Therefore, I welcome the adoption of this report by Parliament because, in my opinion, it is very beneficial for the healthcare of European citizens and their access to medication.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, as the shadow rapporteur for the report on Israel’s participation in Community programmes, I voted in favour of this Agreement as it represents an additional step towards economic consolidation between the Union and Israel.

Israel is one of the most important partners of the European Union. Moreover, Romania has a very strong political and economic relationship with Israel in various areas, including industry, agriculture, healthcare and tourism.

The effects of the Protocol will be felt by both European and Israeli producers. Reduced certification costs will make it easier for these products to enter the market. European and Israeli consumers will benefit from greater product choice. This is further proof of a high degree of harmonisation between the Union and Israel.

Report: Charles Goerens (A7-0293/2012)

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Madam President, this is a very important report, but I regret to say that I abstained in the final vote on it, for two very good reasons.

The first is that 72 % of the world’s poor live in the middle-income countries and the Commission is proposing to reduce, and then eliminate altogether, the support that we give to middle-income countries for poverty alleviation. If we do that, our entire poverty elimination programme is just going to be a farce, and will be of no use to the European Union at all.

Secondly, we sadly endorsed in the report the Financial Transaction Tax. I think this is a hugely damaging move. It will drive people in the financial services sector away from Europe – particularly from the great City of London, where financial services are the prime revenue earner – to other places, like Dubai, Hong Kong and New York, where there is no Financial Transaction Tax. Should a tax like this be introduced, it should be global. There is no effort at all to introduce it at a global level, so I think it is a very bad move.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, as the shadow rapporteur for this report in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I know how difficult it was to incorporate a perception of development aid as a whole into the resolution. Even the members of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament on the Committee on Development approved my amendment on inter-generational solidarity. However, in plenary today, the S&D Group asked for a separate vote on paragraph 15. Its objective was to remove family mainstreaming from development aid. The family is the cornerstone of every policy directed towards the future. This is as true in Africa as it is in Europe. Without family policy and inter-generational solidarity, there is no struggle against poverty or sustainable development. I am therefore pleased that paragraph 15 was eventually retained in the approved text.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of Mr Goerens’ report. I feel that it is realistic, but it also presents problems because with the list of changes, the Commission is trying to redefine not only the volume but, more importantly, the quality of the assistance.

I am sure that in the future, a number of emerging countries will need to be taken off the list of countries receiving assistance, because at the moment Europe is in a rather delicate situation. Many citizens, for example, the Portuguese, are looking for work in Brazil, and Brazil is still on the list of supported countries. It is important to re-orient changes towards social protection systems, governance and sustained growth. I am saying this because just recently, after an analysis of the support given to African countries, the rumour resurfaced that the assistance Europe gives Africa is ‘fatal’. Therefore, I believe that the quality, dimensions and criteria of this help must be reconsidered.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report as the eradication of poverty at global level is an essential objective of the Union. The European Union is the main donor of assistance to poor states but other developed countries must concentrate more on eliminating poverty. Emerging states should allocate larger sums towards this objective.

In order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in 2015, concerted action is needed. I also believe that the Union must consider the groups most prone to poverty, and I am referring here to children, women, old and disabled people. Not least, the help for development must be oriented towards those sectors that have the greatest impact on reducing poverty: education, healthcare, agriculture and infrastructure. This would assure the sustained development of the countries that are in difficulty.

Report: Paul Rübig (A7-0293/2012)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, it is clear that if the European Union wishes to emerge from the crisis, it should enhance the competitiveness of its small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are responsible for the creation of 85 % of all new jobs in the EU.

It is therefore necessary to harmonise national industrial polices to a greater degree, while it is also essential to achieve another objective: internationalisation of SMEs. Only 25 % of SMEs in the European Union have been internationally active within the single market. I therefore agree with the actions proposed by the Commission aimed at encouraging the process of internationalisation and the need expressed by the rapporteur for provision of specific information about priority markets together with details of the various support services available.

In conclusion, I would underline the need for greater coordination of the various initiatives at EU level. At a time of rationalisation of public spending, we cannot afford to duplicate efforts or policies, risking the creation of pointless administrative and bureaucratic burdens.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Madam President, small- and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economies and drivers of growth, and much of this report is helpful.

However, when it comes down to comments on regulation, the report is simply too vague. To help these businesses we need to do less, not more. Tiny businesses, micro-entities, should be exempt from vast swathes of European legislation, a policy that is now supported by the European Commission, but this Parliament’s report sets hurdles for tiny companies to go through before they can get that exemption. It is the wrong way round.

We should have to prove to those companies why they need to be included in regulation and not leave it up to them to prove to us why they can be exempted. The Commission and national parliaments need to be better at assessing the impacts of legislation. If Parliament really wants to prove its commitment to helping companies then we must consider the impacts of our own amendments before we pass them.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. Support for SMEs during the current financial crisis is important, because they play a significant role in maintaining employment and welfare and in promoting growth. The vast majority of new jobs are being generated in SMEs and especially in businesses in new sectors. SMEs are the backbone of the EU economy.

As far as the report is concerned, it supports the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, which will help the EU to try and increase its competitiveness in the face of increasingly intense global competition. The report also sets out how we could truly make European businesses more international.

Of the individual themes in the report, I would like to highlight the Erasmus programme aimed at young entrepreneurs. By supporting entrepreneurship among young people, we can also intervene in youth unemployment and prevent the marginalisation of young people.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, in order to dig our way out of the financial crisis, everyone must fully understand the context behind job creation. In fact between 2002 and 2010, 85 % of all new jobs within the European Union were created by small and medium-sized businesses.

The Commission must accomplish the aim to increase and help small and medium-sized businesses by ensuring that they have access to Structural Funds. These funds provide small and medium-sized enterprises with a source of money for the development and expansion of their businesses. The Commission must also promote more harmonisation between the Member States in order to enhance competition, which will further grow the economy.

As part of this step towards more harmonisation, the Commission must also conduct a fitness check to review any existing erroneous or overbearing regulations. We need simple, clear and transparent regulations that are also predictable. These steps entail a long, time-consuming process, which is what we have now. That is why I say we need clear and predictable rules to a short deadline. We must work together to improve the job outlook and the European economy.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, 99 % of EU firms fall into the category of small and medium-sized enterprises, which account for 70 % of all jobs. That alone makes them of huge importance to the European economy. It is therefore vital to take steps to boost competitiveness in this area, as well as to remove the administrative burdens on businesses. At present, European provisions impose excessive administrative and bureaucratic burdens, which firms under financial strain are often unable to handle.

I am in favour of strong support for micro-enterprises. We should take action to help citizens onto the job market, in particular young people. By offering temporary allowances and concessions, the relevant authorities should encourage people to start and run a business. At present, many are understandably afraid of taking such a step, put off, to a certain extent, by often complicated tax arrangements. Given the small proportion of small businesses that trade outside the EU, it seems necessary to take action in order to stimulate growth in this area.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – Madam President, I voted in favour of the report, along with my ALDE colleagues, largely because it highlights the crucial role which SMEs play in our economy and their vital role in helping Europe out of the economic crisis. I am pleased that we recognise that a third of red tape and bureaucracy for SMEs derives from poor implementation by national governments.

Member State governments really have to get a grip here and make sure they do everything within their power to make life simple and straightforward for hard-working entrepreneurs who employ the vast majority of the workforce and generate the vast majority of GDP.

Legislation coming from Brussels and Strasbourg also has an effect, and we need to be more sensitive to business realities. It needs to complement existing best practice. It needs to safeguard workers, consumers and employers, while also being smarter, more streamlined and less onerous.

Finally, the problem of access to finance cannot be underestimated. Banks are still failing to lend to the people and businesses that they ought to lend to, having spent years lending to people they ought not to have lent to. SMEs are finding innovative ways of sorting finance, but the banks and governments need to do more to support businesses that are viable. This is vital to ensure not only their short-term survival but also their long-term growth and ability to create new jobs.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report as I consider it necessary to give better support and encouragement to the presence of the European small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) on the international markets, as they represent the great majority of companies and are the main source of jobs and innovation in the Union. I am of the opinion that their potential should be better exploited. In this way, the economy will be spurred on towards growth.

Furthermore, SMEs can contribute significantly to promoting and extending the vocational training system in order to substantially reduce youth unemployment. I also wish to highlight the fact that support for SMEs must consider the specific needs of each enterprise. We need a more coherent and coordinated European policy on SMEs, and the new strategies must be implemented as soon as possible.

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0321/2012)

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of this proposal on trade and economic relations between the EU and the United States, in part because of the important, balanced and complete report drawn up by Mr Moreira, for which I thank him. The proposal offers us a complete framework of the commercial and economic prospects and of the difficulties and challenges involved in the meeting of the two main world economies that together account for about half of global economic output and nearly a third of world trade flows.

After many years of deadlock, we are now approaching a possible turnaround in bilateral relations, with the prospect of a far-reaching agreement between Europe and the United States that could open up positive scenarios for transatlantic relations. Naturally there are questions relating to tariff barriers, and an agreement of this scope would have to aim to remove the many trade and technical barriers that unfortunately persist. It would also deal with other important issues, such as the protection of indications of origin, the opening up of the public procurement markets and harmonisation of rules of origin and regulatory standards, including health and plant protection standards, where there is still too much divergence. However, this in no way detracts from the steps being taken.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the United States occupies a key position in matters of Europe’s security and development. Mutual trade cooperation must therefore be viewed as a priority for strengthening transatlantic economic relations. The ongoing bilateral talks within the EU-US High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth are of huge importance. They serve to develop methods of cooperation that increase growth potential and foster financial stability in order to create high quality jobs. These activities must promote entrepreneurship and aid financial market stability. It is essential to open up our public procurement markets further to ensure full reciprocity and transparency, as well as to improve opportunities for businesses through access to public procurement contracts at all levels of government in accordance with national rules. While I support the motion for a resolution, I would like to stress that, with specific regard to Poland, the visa issue remains unresolved, which, to a certain extent, also restricts bilateral trade.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report as I think that the trade between Europe and the United States must be beneficial to both parties. Eliminating duties on bilateral trade could be advantageous to those Member States that adopt a pro-investment policy.

This applies to Romania, too, as it uses its strategic partnership with the United States to promote cooperation in a number of areas. Besides defence and cooperation within NATO, the US and Romania have engaged in strengthening relations in key areas such as energy and IT. Well-known IT and carbonated drinks companies have operated successfully in the Romanian market for some time. It was the highly qualified workforce that prompted them to transfer some of their activities to my country. I would like to encourage US companies to maintain their presence in Romania.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Francesca Balzani (A7-0308/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I consider that the aim of the draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget 2012 is threefold: namely, the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments, and a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget. In addition, the draft amending budget No 4/2012 foresees the possibility of reflows and amounts left over from Union support to risk-sharing instruments financed from cohesion policy being added the following year, at the request of the Member State concerned, to its cohesion policy financial allocation. However, I would stress that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, as provided for by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Communist Party of Greece in the European Parliament voted against the report on the Draft amending budget for 2012 because it transfers 10 % of EU funds from the Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund to directly finance the monopoly groups through ‘risk-sharing instruments’. The funds for the Euro-Mediterranean budget, in other words the workers’ money again, are allocated to guarantees for low-interest bank loans to the monopolies, for the implementation of projects in high-profit sectors which, of course, have nothing to do with the people’s needs. This is the growth which the EU and the bourgeois governments seem so eager to achieve. Cash for the business groups, enabling them to revive and maintain their profitability; harsh austerity and destruction of the livelihood and rights of the workers; sky-high unemployment. Capitalist crisis and capitalist growth are the two sides of this coin of savage exploitation of the working class and popular strata. The needs of the people cannot be met unless the EU capitalist wagon is unharnessed and overturned; unless monopoly power is quashed in every Member State and power passes into the hands of the working class and its allies.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of this report, which I supported, is to create four budget lines to reallocate appropriations from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund 2007-2013. The text also calls for a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report as it supports the objectives envisaged in the amending budget. I think that it is very important that a percentage of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund for the next period be reallocated to risk-sharing instruments. This transfer must be done correctly and must be subject to suitable and effective controls.

Moreover, the inclusion in the budget of the provisions regarding own resources will lead to useful and welcome changes in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget. Informing Parliament about this procedure should be a priority.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I have no objections to the Council’s position on the draft amending budget No 4/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which will, in particular, reallocate appropriations to risk-sharing instruments. It strengthens the transparency of this mechanism, which I fully support.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I support the draft amending budget No 4/2012 presented by the Council, without amendment. It is essential that Parliament is guaranteed regular and detailed access to information on the operational programmes to be reduced, on the financial instruments to be implemented, and on the projects to be supported in this area.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 1 December 2011 the European Parliament definitively adopted the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012. We all know that budget implementations never fully correspond to the amounts approved, whether due to the unpredictability of revenue received or due to unexpected expenditure. To resolve these situations, we have these amending budgets, which allow the initial allocations to be adjusted. Draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget of the EU for 2012 aims to create four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to ‘risk-sharing instruments’, to revise and budget the ‘forecast of the own resources’, and to replace ‘the “dash” presented in payment appropriations for a budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe by a token entry (p.m.) to make a transfer possible’. Given that this draft is in line with the amendments to the Financial Regulation agreed between the EP and the Council, I voted in favour of this report by Francesca Balzani.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The approval of this amending budget (No 4/2012) aims to ensure budget cover for provisions allowing the creation of a ‘risk-sharing instrument’, based on authorising the transfer of capital from the Structural and Cohesion Funds, from the Member States to the European Commission, that is to say the transfer of part of the financial appropriations made available to countries in difficulty, which will therefore reduce the remaining overall appropriations. The majority in Parliament support the concentration of capital in the European Investment Bank (EIB) to cover expected and unexpected losses resulting from loans and guarantees. This risk sharing is established between the EIB and other national or international, public or private financial institutions, which will grant loans to project sponsors and banks in order to provide private cofinancing to projects implemented using contributions from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. Other methods exist and could have been used to overcome the existing limitations of private investment. These methods would not have resulted in a reduction, in practice, in the overall financial envelope of these countries, but would rather have boosted it. Accordingly, as we indicated previously during the debate on this instrument, this represents yet another sui generis exercise in European ‘solidarity’.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The aim of the draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the general budget 2011 is threefold: the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments; a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget; and the replacement of the dash presented in payment appropriations for a budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe by a token entry (p.m.) to make a transfer possible. The draft amending budget No 4/2012 is fully consistent with the modifications to the Financial Regulation agreed between the European Parliament and the Council. The European Parliament approved, without amendment, the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 4/2012 and instructed the President to declare that this amending budget had been definitively adopted and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Since I agree fully with this report and have no objections, I voted in favour.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Francesca Balzani was adopted by a large majority and I welcome that. This report relates to the draft amending budget No 4/2012 for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission. I voted for this report in plenary on 23 October 2012.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Balzani’s report on draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the EU general budget for the financial year 2012. This proposal aims to create four new budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments. The rapporteur proposes to approve the Council’s position without amendment, while placing great emphasis on certain policy matters, considering for example that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, and that all relevant details and information should be transmitted to Parliament in a timely manner.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. The aim of Draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the general budget 2011 is threefold, namely the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments, a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget, and the replacement of the ‘dash’ presented in payment appropriations for a budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe by a token entry (p.m.) to make a transfer possible.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The amending budget is needed to reallocate credits in particular from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. It also seeks to revise inaccurate forecasts of own resources and national contributions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget 2012 is threefold: namely, the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments, and a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget. However, in my view it is essential that Parliament is given regular and detailed information on the operational programmes to be reduced, on the financial instruments to be implemented, and on the projects to be supported.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Draft amending budget 4 translates in the EU budget (creation of new budget lines) the May 2012 agreement reached between Council and EP to enable those Member States experiencing or likely to experience serious difficulties with respect to financial stability to re-use/re-target some of the funds they receive in the frame of the cohesion policy via the setting up of risk-sharing instruments. The main idea is to address the problem of the lack of cofinancing that has occurred in recent years in those countries by putting in place a financial engineering mechanism which should attract more easily private (and public) funding to complement the EU’s public funds.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As I have no objections to the Council’s position on the draft amending budget No 4/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the general budget 2011 aims to create four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments. It also aims at a revision and budgeting of the forecast of own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget. Considering that the draft is fully consistent with the modifications to the Financial Regulation agreed between the European Parliament and the Council, and that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. We have approved that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, as provided for by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012 and that prior to operating any such transfer as specified in paragraph 2 the budgetary authority be informed by the Commission.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report approves, without amendment, the Council’s position on the draft amending budget No 4/2012. The most important aspect to be highlighted is Parliament’s resolution, which requires any transfer from cohesion policy to financial instruments to be duly justified and well controlled, with all relevant information being promptly forwarded.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the proposal to amend the European Union budget is to authorise the use of available cohesion policy appropriations to cover risks resulting from guarantees for loans granted by financial institutions, thus creating ‘risk-sharing instruments’. I voted in favour of the document, as this proposal will allow countries such as Portugal and Greece, which have received assistance from the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and European Commission, to carry out projects that are essential to stimulate economic activity, create jobs and attract private investment. It should also be noted that these risk-sharing instruments will allow the launch of projects cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund or by the Cohesion Fund, which are currently blocked due to financial restrictions. This will all be subject to a very strict framework of democratic control by the European Parliament with regard to these financial instruments.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the Council’s position regarding the draft amending budget of the European Union, (DAB No 4/2012) for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission. The amending budget (DAB No 4/2012) contains the following provisions:

- a revision of the forecast of traditional own resources (TOR), i.e. customs duties and sugar sector levies), VAT and GNI bases, the budgeting of the relevant UK corrections as well as their financing and revision of financing of GNI reductions in favour of the Netherlands and Sweden in 2012; resulting in a change in the distribution

- the creation of four new budget lines for the implementation of risk-sharing instruments financed from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, to promote convergence, regional competitiveness and employment;

- Modification of the budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe to replace the ‘dash’ for payments on the line with a token entry (p.m.), in order to allow the final payments to be made.

The use of an updated forecast of own resources improves the accuracy of the payments that Member States are asked to make during the budgetary year and reduces the unavoidable forecasting errors from the previous year.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution for two reasons. Firstly, because the main objectives of the draft amending budget are to reallocate financial appropriations to risk-sharing instruments and to revise and set the budget for the own-resources forecast. Secondly, because the draft is in complete accordance with the Financial Regulation agreed between Parliament and the Council.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report approves the amending budget allowing the creation of a ‘risk-sharing instrument’, which will be implemented through the transfer of capital from the Structural and Cohesion Funds to this instrument. This is therefore a decision which supports the concentration of capital in the European Investment Bank to cover expected and unexpected losses resulting from loans and guarantees. This decision once again reflects the political priorities of the EU, which regularly cites ‘solidarity’ as a flagship concept, but without any substance to it.

Report: Luisa Macovei (A7-0299/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament that requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments. Necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur. I believe that, in such cases, the European Food Safety Authority has to draw up an action plan, accompanied by a precise timetable, aimed at remedying the shortcomings, and that its implementation should be monitored by the European Parliament.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 10 May the European Parliament postponed the discharge decision for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and it has now drawn up a second report on the matter. The European Parliament and I decided this time to grant discharge for EFSA, given the considerable efforts it has made. It has endeavoured to reduce significantly the conflicts of interest that previously risked undermining its decision-making processes.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After the refusal to grant discharge for the budget of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the spring, today I voted for the Macovei report, which, in light of the Court of Auditors’ report and the measures that have been taken (or are in the process of being adopted) to prevent conflicts of interest and strengthen the Agency’s independence, decided to grant discharge. Some problems remain, however, and we saw that again recently in the study by Professor Seralini (study calling into question the harmless nature of genetically modified organisms (GMO)), which is currently being examined by the EFSA experts, the very same experts who have always authorised GMOs… The battle for independent agencies, providing scientific expertise without being influenced by industrial and/or private interests, is still very relevant. I am therefore under no illusions when I vote in favour of discharge.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − A vote in favour would mean granting of discharge of EFSA when the Court of Auditors have failed to rule the accounts admissible. There is a definite urgency in calling for greater transparency and further austerity in keeping with the current economic climate.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I have no objections to discharge being granted to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Authority’s main objective is to offer independent, scientific and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety.

The Authority must improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process to better take into account independent peer-reviewed scientific literature and to provide detailed justification when it rejects diverging views. The Authority must be encouraged to increase dialogue and cooperation with external experts and national agencies, especially when they hold diverging views on a specific risk assessment process. Certain elements of importance to the discharge have been addressed and taken up and it is to be believed that the roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach will take due account of those issues.

I voted for discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) After the European Court of Auditors presented its annual report for the financial year 2010, as part of its discharge procedure for the financial year 2010 the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out its financial audit of the implementation of the European Union’s general budget in relation to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The primary task of the Committee on Budgetary Control is to scrutinise and ensure that the EU budget is being implemented appropriately and effectively. The discharge report drew Parliament’s attention to the fact that several conflicts of interest at EFSA had recently come to light. In the interests of clearing these matters up and putting management of EFSA on a more efficient and economical footing, the committee recommended postponing granting of the discharge in spring. At its late September sitting, the Committee on Budgetary Control presented its second report on discharge for EFSA in which it stated that it had found sufficient assurances that management of EFSA would in future comply with the rules. The committee decided to grant the discharge. I supported the granting of discharge in the vote in both committee and plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Food Safety Authority’, because I believe that the Authority has taken important steps to effectively tackle potential conflicts of interest and thus continue independently and transparently to guarantee food safety in the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was set up in order to improve food safety throughout the European Union and thus guarantee a high level of consumer protection so that consumers can trust Europe’s food products. It acts throughout the food chain, from the safety of food for animals intended for human consumption to the protection of plants and plant health. This report concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the EFSA budget for the financial year 2010, following the European Parliament Decision of 10 May 2012 postponing the discharge decision for that financial year due to issues raised by the Court of Auditors, although the latter stated that ‘it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular’. Given the replies from the Authority and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I voted in favour of this report to grant discharge in respect of the EFSA budget for 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Due to potential conflicts of interest and a ‘revolving door’ case, in May of this year discharge was not granted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the financial year 2010. However, according to this second report, many of the obvious problems have been solved. In particular, the Authority has proposed to its Management Board that it elect its chairperson by open ballot, which was previously done by nomination, in order to avoid what happened with the previous Chairperson, who accepted the position without declaring that she was also Chair of the Board of an institute financed by undertakings in the food sector. We therefore believe that discharge of the EFSA accounts can be granted.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) On 10 May 2012 the European Parliament postponed its discharge decision on the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010. The Authority subsequently provided extensive replies to the discharge authority by letters of 29 June 2012 and 20 August 2012. The European Parliament noted the Authority’s statement that adequate measures have now been undertaken to improve financial management and that execution rate in terms of commitment appropriations was close to 100 % in 2011. It pointed out that the Authority’s main task is to provide independent, scientific and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety. It also drew attention to the need to implement measures to safeguard the Authority’s credibility. Members of the European Parliament expressed the conviction that necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur. In such cases, it is necessary to draw up an action plan, accompanied by a precise timetable, aiming to remedy the shortcomings. These problems must be addressed by changing the existing rules and regulations to eliminate possible loopholes.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because we need independent and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety. It is therefore essential to implement measures to safeguard the credibility of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Authority is encouraged to introduce in its annual activity reports a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflict of interest. The Authority is also encouraged to improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process, to better take into account independent peer-reviewed scientific literature and to provide detailed justification when it rejects diverging views. The Authority is encouraged to increase dialogue and cooperation with external experts and national agencies, especially when they hold diverging views on a specific risk assessment process. It is felt that discharge can be granted to the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of EFSA’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010. As a reminder, the European Parliament postponed its decision on discharge in May 2012, mainly due to a conflict of interest involving EFSA staff.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − I voted for granting the discharge to the European Food Safety Authority in order to acknowledge the measures implemented by the Authority and the commitments it made since the postponement of the discharge last May. I acknowledge in particular the Executive Director’s commitment to foster the Authority’s transparency towards European citizens by proposing that the Management Board elect its chairperson by open ballot and by working with the European Commission in order to define the modalities of full public access to unpublished raw data. I also welcome the Authority’s intention to consider the possibility of publishing the outcomes of the breach of trust procedures and to reinforce the mandate of its Committee on Conflict of Interest. However, the Authority should further strengthen its independence policy and consider adopting rules, including among others sanctions and publishing the curriculum vitae and declarations of interest of the in-house experts and scientists. It is crucial for the Authority to keep the discharge authority regularly informed on the progress achieved, and in this respect I believe that its annual activity report should include a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflicts of interest from now on.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report which encourages the European Food Safety Authority to improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process, to better take into account independent peer-reviewed scientific literature and to provide detailed justification when it rejects diverging views; and encourages the Authority to increase dialogue and cooperation with external experts and national agencies, especially when they hold diverging views on a specific risk assessment process.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the 2010 discharge for the European Food Safety Authority. Since the discharge decision was postponed in May 2012, the Agency has improved its management and has taken measures to resolve its structural problems, particularly as regards the prevention and management of conflicts of interest.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions dependent on the European Union’s budget have to be rigorously audited by the Court of Auditors and by all bodies that have this role. It is vital to check that EU funds are being correctly used, that these European institutions are achieving the objectives set out, and that no resources are being wasted. In general, aside from a few rare exceptions which must be assessed through the usual checks, we can confirm that the institutions in question are correctly using the funds made available and achieving the proposed objectives. As a result, I voted in favour of the report on the European Food Safety Authority.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the discharge of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010, as it has met the requirements imposed by Parliament. These requirements were proposed by Parliament on 10 May 2012 owing to a potential conflict of interests, in particular the ‘revolving door’ case. In July 2012 EFSA introduced new rules on the monitoring and prevention of conflicts of interest that comply with the international standards applicable in this regard. In my opinion, the Agency has met Parliament’s requirements and I therefore voted in favour of discharge.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I fully support the EFSA as it has a vital role in making our food safer. I acknowledge that the Authority has taken important steps to address the issue of conflict of interests. Therefore, the EFSA should be granted discharge for the budgetary year 2010. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I have no objections to discharge being granted to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010, and the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts, Parliament has approved the closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the financial year 2010. Discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament in this respect, which requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments. In this context, it is important to recall the existing rules, that is, the Staff Regulations for Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Community, the Financial Regulation applicable to the European Communities, the authority’s founding regulation, and specific policies and procedures set up by EFSA. I strongly believe that the necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur, and I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 10 May 2012, the European Parliament postponed its decision on the discharge and closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) for the financial year 2010. The Authority, then, provided extensive replies to the discharge authority by letters of 29 June 2012 and 20 August 2012. We need to give a reminder that the discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament in this respect, which requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments; recalling, in this context, the existing rules, i.e. the Staff Regulations for Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Community, the Financial Regulation applicable to the European Communities, the Authority’s founding regulation and specific policies and procedures set up by the Authority. Thus, the EP grants the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) One of the fundamental objectives of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is to provide a high degree of protection for humans and animals. I take a welcome the Authority’s efforts to resolve some of the points on which it has received criticism, in particular, the prevention and management of conflicts of interest. I acknowledge the efforts by EFSA to ensure the integrity of its decision-making by introducing policies and actions aimed at improving ethics and transparency, and ensuring effective enforcement of its code of conduct. I also welcome the decisions taken by the Authority to ensure its independence and the integrity of its members. Also of particular importance is the integrated approach to food safety adopted in the EU to combat food-borne zoonoses. This coordinated action has helped to combat a serious and widespread public health threat, with over 320 000 human cases confirmed each year in the EU. I therefore voted in favour.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) It was important to grant this discharge for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Almost 500 million consumers expect EFSA to work efficiently. I still strongly advocate measures to ensure that independent work is the rule, to fully address the audit and to carry out a genuine analysis in order to restore the crucial trust between EFSA and consumers.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report at second reading authorises discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) because the problems found at first reading have been solved. EFSA has made efforts to solve its structural problems, particularly in the prevention and management of conflicts of interest.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the financial year 2010. I would emphasise that EFSA’s main objective is to provide independent, scientific and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety.

I welcome the fact that EFSA has developed an instrument for subsidies and public acquisitions with a view to improving the monitoring of tendering processes, contracts management and the payment forecast capacity. I welcome the fact that a new Database on Procurements and Grants was launched on 28 June 2012.

I think that the significant reduction in the costs of the management board meetings is a good sign, as they amounted to EUR 6 175 per member in 2010. Especially pleasing is the 66 % reduction compared to 2010, realised through switching to audio streaming on demand, using English as the only language for Board meetings and holding all meetings at the premises in Parma.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The European Food Safety Authority’s main task is to provide independent scientific and transparent advice on matters with an impact on food and feed safety. The Authority therefore needs to implement measures to safeguard its credibility. These would have enabled it to avoid previous shortcomings connected with the conflict of interest and lack of transparency. The strategy adopted by the Authority with regard to independence does not go far enough. Furthermore, it has yet to adopt rules providing for sanctions and the publication of the curricula vitae of in-house experts and scientists. For that reason, I voted against the report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) According to the statement by the European Food Safety Authority, adequate measures have been taken to improve financial management. The main task of the authority is to provide independent scientific and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety. It is therefore necessary to implement measures to safeguard the Authority’s credibility, which should improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report states that many of the problems which prevented the European Parliament from granting discharge to the European Food Safety Authority last May have been solved. In particular, the Authority has proposed to its Management Board to elect its Chairperson by open ballot, which to date has occurred by nomination. We therefore voted in favour of this report.

Report: Luisa Macovei (A7-0298/2012)

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the discharge decision for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) cannot be based upon additional requirements, such as the guidelines of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), when the implementation of those requirements has not been officially requested by either the EU legislator or specific arrangements within the Agencies during the respective discharge procedure. The European institutions are therefore invited to examine whether it is advisable to incorporate and to commit to additional guidelines in a possible common framework for all European institutions and bodies. On the basis of the data available, I agree that discharge can be granted to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the EMA’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 10 May the European Parliament postponed the discharge decision for the European Medicines Agency and it has now drawn up a second report on the matter. The European Parliament and I decided this time to grant discharge for EFSA, given the considerable efforts it has made. It has endeavoured to reduce significantly the conflicts of interest that previously risked undermining its decision-making processes.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After the vote in May, the European Parliament is for the second time examining the discharges and it has decided to grant discharge to the three agencies found to be at fault in the spring. Today I voted in favour of granting discharge for the budget of the European Medicines Agency, as I did for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Environment Agency. It seems that each of these agencies has fulfilled its commitments and introduced new procedures to increase its independence and prevent conflicts of interest. That is therefore a step in the right direction, even if the question of the agencies’ independence remains, as we see at the moment with EFSA and the GMO issue.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − A vote in favour would mean the granting of discharge of the EMA when the Court of Auditors have failed to rule the accounts admissible. There is a definite urgency in calling for greater transparency and further austerity in keeping with the current economic climate

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I have no objections to discharge being granted to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Medicines Agency has an important role in providing the best possible scientific advice on any question relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use to the Member States and the institutions.

I have noticed that the Agency has improved the scope and methodology of the systematic ex-ante and ex-post controls related to the screening of declaration of interest. It should be commended for its decision to perform a yearly evaluation of its revised policy on declaration of interest. The Agency must keep the discharge authority informed on the implementation of its revised policy and in particular of its systematic ex-ante and ex-post controls on a six-month basis. The agency should introduce in each of its annual activity reports a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflict of interest.

I voted for discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Medicines Agency has cooperated faithfully with the European Parliament, responding to the observations that we sent it in the spring and remedying most of the shortcomings that we mentioned. I therefore support the position of this report and voted in favour of granting discharge. The Agency must however, continue to work tirelessly to improve transparency and the management of conflicts of interest. This is non-negotiable for retaining and reinforcing the trust of European citizens.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) After the European Court of Auditors presented its annual report for the financial year 2010, as part of its discharge procedure for the financial year 2010 the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out its financial audit of the implementation of the European Union’s general budget in relation to the European Medicines Agency. The primary task of the Committee on Budgetary Control is to scrutinise and ensure that the EU budget is being implemented appropriately and effectively. The discharge report drew Parliament’s attention to the fact that several conflicts of interest at the Agency had recently come to light. In the interests of clearing these matters up and putting management of the Agency on a more efficient and economical footing, the committee recommended postponing granting of discharge in spring. At its late September sitting, the Committee on Budgetary Control presented its second report on discharge for the Agency in which it stated that it had found sufficient assurances that management of the Agency would in future comply with the rules. The committee decided to grant discharge. I supported the granting of discharge in the vote in both committee and plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Medicines Agency’, because I believe that the Agency has taken important steps to effectively tackle potential conflicts of interest and to thus continue independently and transparently guaranteeing the safety and efficacy of medicines in the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Monica Luisa Macovei concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the financial year 2010, following the European Parliament Decision of 10 May 2012 postponing the discharge decision due to issues raised by the Court of Auditors. The EMA, which was set up in 1993 but only entered into operation in 1995, is responsible for protecting and promoting public and animal health, through the evaluation and supervision of medicines for human and/or veterinary use. No medicine can be marketed without authorisation from this Agency. The Court of Auditors’ report, despite having made observations on carryovers, IT contracts and the payment system, considered the EMA’s accounts of 2010 to be ‘reliable, legal and regular’. Accordingly, bearing in mind the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, whose recommendations merit my full agreement, I voted in favour of this report to grant discharge for the EMA budget for 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In May 2012 Parliament refused to grant discharge for the financial year 2010 to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) due to clear irregularities in the recruitment process, given that there was one ‘revolving door’ case and conflicts of interest between management staff and experts. According to this second report, the Agency has made progress in resolving these issues, by improving ‘the scope and methodology of the systematic ex-ante and ex-post controls related to the screening of declaration of interest’. Consequently, we voted in favour of closing the EMA accounts.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) On 10 May 2012 the European Parliament postponed its discharge decision on the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for financial year 2010. The European Medicines Agency subsequently addressed to a large extent the weaknesses highlighted in the report of 10 May 2012 and provided the discharge authority with substantial information by letters of 2 and 6 July 2012 and 2, 7 and 24 August 2012. The European Parliament – taking into account the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and approving the final accounts of the European Medicines Agency for financial year 2010 – granted the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. Its President will forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because of the importance of the work of the European Medicines Agency in providing the EU Member States and institutions with scientific advise relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use. The discharge is therefore a valid instrument of the European Parliament, which requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments. It is felt that discharge can be granted to the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the EMA’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Medicines Agency at the sitting of 23 October 2012. I should point out that Parliament had postponed its discharge decision in May 2012 because of a problem involving conflicts of interest.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of granting the discharge to the European Medicines Agency in order to acknowledge the measures implemented by the Agency since the postponement of the discharge last May. The Agency has shown a commitment to addressing the concerns raised by the European Parliament. I commend in particular the efforts made by the Executive Director and his team to foster the Agency’s transparency towards European citizens through, for example, its commitment to developing public access to clinical trial data. I also welcome the its commitment to improving the prevention and management of conflicts of interest with systematic ex-ante and ex-post controls related to the screening of declarations of interest as well as a yearly evaluation of its revised policy on declarations of interest. It is crucial for the Agency to keep the discharge authority regularly informed on the progress achieved, and in this respect I believe that its annual activity report should include a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflicts of interest from now on.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report which acknowledges the European Medicines Agency’s efforts to address the discharge authority’s concerns with regard to the prevention and management of conflict of interest; and notes in particular the reports of 29 June 2012 and 7 August 2012 received by the discharge authority on the review of the conflict of interest management cases identified by the IAS and on the review of potential conflicts of interest of experts involved in assessing the medicinal product Pandemrix.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge for 2010 for the European Medicines Agency. Since the discharge decision was postponed in May 2012, the Agency has improved its management and has taken measures to resolve its structural problems, particularly as regards the prevention and management of conflicts of interest.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions dependent on the European Union’s budget have to be rigorously audited by the Court of Auditors and by all bodies that have this role. It is vital to check that EU funds are being correctly used, that these European institutions are achieving the objectives set out, and that no resources are being wasted. In general, aside from a few rare exceptions which must be assessed through the usual checks, we can confirm that the institutions in question are correctly using the funds made available and achieving the proposed objectives. As a result, I voted in favour of the report on the European Medicines Agency.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010, as it has met the requirements laid down by Parliament. These requirements were proposed by Parliament on 10 May 2012 owing to the need to ensure that documentation relating to recruitment was correctly managed. Parliament postponed the discharge for the financial year 2009 for a similar reason. The EMA has improved its documentation control systems and has undertaken to carry out periodic assessments of the recruitment process. In my opinion, the Agency has met Parliament’s requirements and I therefore voted in favour of discharge.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I fully support the EMA as it helps make our medicines safer and more efficient. I acknowledge that the Agency has implemented all necessary actions required by the report as voted in plenary in May 2012. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I have no objections to discharge being granted to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010 and the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts, Parliament granted discharge to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. Discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament, and it requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments. I strongly believe that the necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur, and I therefore voted in favour of the proposal. The discharge decision for the EMA cannot be based upon additional requirements, for example, guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, when the implementation of those requirements have neither been officially requested by the EU legislator nor by specific arrangements within the agencies during the respective discharge procedure. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The work of the Agency is important in providing the best possible scientific advice on any question relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use to the Member States and the institutions. The Agency put in place a multiannual procurement plan for 2012-2014 as requested by the discharge authority in its report on the discharge for the financial year 2009. We should remember, however, that the Court of Auditors reported a high level of carry-overs for the financial year 2010 as well as a lack of compliance with the budgetary principle of annuality. This is one of the cases in which we will have to be cautious.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Medicines Agency (EMA) protects and promotes public and animal health through the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use. All medicinal products for human and animal use derived from biotechnology and other high-technology processes must be approved via the centralised procedure. The same applies to all human medicines intended for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes or neurodegenerative diseases and for all designated orphan medicines intended for the treatment of rare diseases. The Agency is also involved in referral procedures relating to medicinal products that are approved or under consideration by Member States. I voted in favour of closing the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text. Because of the many serious problems posed recently by dangerous medicines circulating freely on the market with the authorisation of the European Medicines Agency, it is absolutely essential to introduce, as soon as possible, procedures that are clearer, more transparent and subject to sanctions if they are infringed with regard to the clinical trial data, and the selection and training of the Agency’s scientific staff, including the declarations of interest of its experts and committee members who have been actively involved in the Agency’s activities.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of discharge being granted to the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010, and would highlight the efforts made by this Agency. I also want to highlight the Agency’s role in issuing scientific opinions on the evaluation of the quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use within the EU territory.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010. I would like to stress the importance of the Agency’s activities in offering the best possible scientific advice on any question relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use to the Member States and the institutions. I welcome the efforts to reform the payment system for services provided by Member States’ authorities, which, clearly, ought to be based on real costs.

I think that a high level of reliability concerning the declaration of interests can only be achieved if pharmaceutical companies themselves make public their list of experts and research centres with which they work, and the sums concerned in their financial links with them. Thought should be given to whether a legislative initiative in this area would be pertinent. Also, the Agency should introduce in each of its annual activity reports a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflict of interest.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The European Medicines Agency provides the EU Member States and EU institutions with scientific advice on questions relating to the evaluation of the quality, safety and effectiveness of medicinal products for human and veterinary use. It is therefore extremely important to avoid a conflict of interests. However, in June 2012, a ‘revolving door’ case occurred at the Agency, the consequences of which are still unknown pending the outcome of the investigation. I therefore voted against this report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In May 2012 Parliament refused to grant discharge for the financial year 2010 for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) due to clear irregularities in the recruitment process, given that there were conflicts of interest between management staff and experts. However, the rapporteur considers that these issues in relation to the declaration of interests have been resolved, which is why we voted in favour of closure of the EMA accounts.

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0277/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This text, which I supported, is more technical than political. Given that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Scheme for the certification of forest reproductive material moving in international trade has been updated, the European system also has to be adapted. The main change is a simplification of the importation of forest reproductive material into the European Union from third countries, based on a system of reciprocity, if eligible.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I think it is important to have monitor the conditions under which forestry material is imported into the Union. Third countries that export forestry material for reproductive purposes into the European Union must respect the same conditions that are imposed on producers in the Union. Therefore, I believe that these materials must respect the European standards in their authorisation system and the registration of the basic material, as well as the standards regarding the production of the reproductive material from the respective basic material. Only in this way can we be sure that the forestry reproductive materials will not destabilise the European Union’s ecosystem. The protection of the environment and forests must remain a constant concern for the Union.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Council Directive 1999/105/EC regulates the internal marketing of reproductive material of plant species. To facilitate trade and to promptly respond to the marketing request, that Directive foresees the possibility for the Council to establish rules for authorising the importation of reproductive material from third countries under an equivalence system. Member States and stakeholders proposed to the Commission to submit this updating to facilitate trade, in particular the importation of forest reproductive material and to promptly respond to the marketing request in particular for fast growing tree plantations intended for energy/biomass production.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of that Decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. This report seeks to establish rules for authorising the importation of reproductive material from third countries under an equivalence system. In my view, it is important to ensure optimum certification of the products that can be imported into the Union.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − This updates the authorities in certain non-EU countries including Canada, Switzerland, Norway to allow the import of forest tree seeds. To oppose it is to block trade yet to support the motion is to endorse an EU competence I do not agree with so I have chosen to abstain

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour as I have no objections to the Commission proposal.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This text will help to facilitate trade in order to meet the demand for forest reproductive material. I therefore support its position and voted in favour of the report.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on forest reproductive material as it makes important updates to the equivalence rules for forest reproductive material produced in third countries and respective conditions for import into the Union.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Paolo De Castro concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category (seed and planting stocks) within the scope of that Decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. Council Decision 2008/971/EC established the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of forest reproductive material and determined the conditions under which forest reproductive material could be imported into the European Union. Given the need to facilitate trade in forest reproductive material in order to meet market demand and bearing in the mind the favourable opinion of 18 September 2012 of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposed text, I voted in favour of this report, which allows the import of seed and planting stocks of the categories listed in Annex II and produced in the third countries listed in Annex I, provided that they are officially certified by the authorities in those countries.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Through this report, Parliament has approved the European Commission proposal to amend the Council decision as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. The Council decision determines the conditions under which forest reproductive material of the ‘source identified’, ‘selected’ and ‘qualified’ categories may be imported into the Union. The aim of this updating is to facilitate trade in this forest material, in particular for fast growing tree plantations intended for energy/biomass production, which is the aspect giving us the most cause for concern. The Commission’s intention to include forest and agricultural plants and seeds in just one directive is viewed by sector organisations as a further obstacle to their development. For that reason, we have already alerted the Commission to the consequences of applying this legislation to national operators in the sector. The requirements imposed on agricultural material cannot and must not be the same as those imposed on forest material, as it is natural for agricultural material to have completely different rules, due to being part of the food chain. These amendments will not protect small producers and are in fact a reason for increased concern.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Council Decision 2008/971/EC of 16 December 2008 on the equivalence of forest reproductive material produced in third countries lays down the conditions under which forest reproductive material included in the ‘source identified’ and ‘selected’ categories produced in third countries can be imported into the European Union. According to these rules, the systems for the approval and registration of raw material and the subsequent production of reproductive material from the raw material should comply with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) system for the certification of forest reproductive material in international trade. As regards material in the ‘qualified’ category, these conditions should include the provision of information as to whether the products are genetically modified or not. I therefore believe that Decision 2008/971/EC should be amended as appropriate.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Paolo De Castro at the sitting of 23 October 2012. This report was adopted by 537 votes to 13, with 14 abstentions. I welcome that result. In order to facilitate trade and respond rapidly to market demand, this report gives the Council the opportunity to lay down rules for authorising the importation of reproductive material from third countries under an equivalence system.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal, which amends Council decision 2008/971/EC to allow the import of the ‘qualified’ category of forest reproductive material into the European Union from certain third countries that satisfy the conditions to meet the ‘qualified’ category. Qualified material is derived from parent trees that are selected on the basis of the superior quality of their observed characteristics. The third countries that we are referring to are Croatia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey and the United States. I am certain that it is in our mutual interest to pursue this course.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal for the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of the decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of production.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. I agree that conditions for materials of the ‘qualified’ category should include the provision of information indicating whether or not the products are genetically modified. This information should help in the application of Directive 2001/18/EC.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, which proposes adopting, under the simplified procedure, the Commission proposal to include forest reproductive material in the ‘qualified’ category and to update the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The Commission proposal contains the extension (from Dec 2012 till Dec 2022) of Council Decision 2003/17/EC providing the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. This proposal contains also an updating of third countries under the equivalent regime.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament position with a view to adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC, as this is intended to facilitate commercial transactions, particularly as regards the import of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category, and to respond more quickly to market demand in the forest sector. The adoption of this decision will also allow the updating of available information on the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of forest production.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council, after consulting the European Economic and Social Committee, and having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the request by Parliament that the Commission refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Decision 2008/971/EC established the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation, and determined the conditions under which forest reproductive material of the ‘source identified’ and ‘selected’ categories produced in those countries may be imported into the Union. This is all based on new information received from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development about the adoption of an updated scheme for the certification of forest reproductive material moving in international trade.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This has to do basically with the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of that Decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. The EP adopts its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal, which amends Council decision 2008/971/EC to allow the import of the ‘qualified’ category of forest reproductive material into the European Union from certain third countries that satisfy the conditions to meet the ‘qualified’ category and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of production.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Decision 2008/971/EC on the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of that decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production contains a list of the countries eligible for an equivalence scheme for importation. It also defines the conditions for forest material to be regarded as ‘qualified’ and ‘selected’ material. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development supported the proposal for a Council decision, as presented by the Commission, for which I voted during the European Parliament sitting.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the inclusion of forest reproductive material from the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of the Decision, as well as for the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production.

The national rules for the certification of forest reproductive material in Canada, Croatia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States of America provide for an official field inspection to be carried out during the collection and processing of seed and the production of planting stock. The systems for the approval and registration of basic material and the subsequent production of reproductive material from this basic material should follow the OECD Scheme for the certification of forest reproductive material moving in international trade.

As regards material of the ‘qualified’ category, those conditions should include, the provision of information on whether the products have been genetically modified or not. As soon as the seed or planting stock has entered EU territory, the importer must inform the competent authority of the relevant Member State accordingly.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) This proposal for a decision on the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of that decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production should be approved.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the proposal because of the benefits it will bring. The proposed changes will, above all, facilitate all areas of trade, in particular the import of forest reproductive material. It will also make it possible to respond more quickly to market needs, especially with regard to fast-growing tree plantations intended for energy and biomass production.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I supported the text presented by Mr De Castro proposing approval under the simplified procedure of the Commission’s proposal of the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category, and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for production, approval and control.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Through this report, Parliament has approved the European Commission proposal to amend the Council decision as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category, with the aim of this updating being to facilitate trade in this forest material, in particular for fast growing tree plantations intended for energy/biomass production. In addition to this issue which gives us the most cause for concern, we believe that these amendments will not protect small producers.

Report: Antigoni Papadopoulou (A7-0271/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, remembering that the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty 20 years ago introduced the concept of ‘citizenship of the Union’, which it is worth underlining through expressions of European sentiment. It is therefore essential to highlight the objectives of raising awareness about the rights and responsibilities attached to Union citizenship: citizens can exercise their rights of freedom of movement and of civic and democratic participation.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the European Parliament welcomes the Commission proposal to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens. The European Year of Citizens must build a ‘bridge’ between Brussels and the EU Member States which would encourage EU citizens to participate actively in elections and would ensure that their voice is heard in the EU institutions. The year 2013 will be very important for promoting and enhancing our shared European identity based on fundamental European Union values. I believe that in the continuing economic crisis the Year of European Citizens will encourage EU citizens to exercise the rights and opportunities that freedom gives them. According to statistics, a third of EU citizens would like to exercise their rights but they still face obstacles in the labour market, such as administrative difficulties, when they come to live in another country. The year is being designated Year of European Citizens to mark the 20th anniversary of EU citizenship, enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht. All initiatives and awareness-raising campaigns will draw attention to the true value of EU citizenship: active participation in the democratic life of the European Union, especially following the European Parliament elections that will take place in 2014.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Treaty of Maastricht established Union citizenship in order to strengthen and enhance the European identity, and enable European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. European citizenship should be understood as more than a mere legal status and take account of all aspects of life in a democratic society. The EU is the union of all of its Member States working together to improve the lives of their citizens. It is our duty to help them to exercise their rights to the full: the right to study, to work, to conduct a business, removing all obstacles, often of a bureaucratic nature, that create barriers and difficulties. We must continue to enhance participation by citizens in the European decision-making process, above all supporting the right of petition and the right to popular legislative initiative introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By making 2013 the European Year of Citizens, our aim is to make citizens more aware of their rights, particularly concerning mobility between Member States. This text, which I and the European Parliament as a whole supported, will allow us to organise awareness-raising and information campaigns for the European citizens. Conferences and events will also be organised and exchanges of information promoted. Finally, particular attention will be paid to the multilingual platforms set up by the European Union because linguistic differences are still one of the main obstacles to the mobility of European citizens.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I supported the report on the European Year of Citizens (2013) because the European Union needs the opinion of its citizens, especially in today’s rather difficult economic circumstances. As a Member of the European Parliament, an EU player directly elected by citizens, I consider it an important duty to ensure that citizens’ ability to exercise their rights is protected. In Hungary, too, I have witnessed the process whereby growing numbers of EU citizens are leaving their native Member State and settling in my home country. Foreign workers such as these must be clear about their rights, and the EU must provide as much help as possible with this in 2013. In Parliament we have frequently heard how effective an instrument citizens’ initiatives can be and I, too, have expressed my support for initiatives that come directly from citizens. As a member of the Committee on Culture and Education, I would also like to point out that the concept of EU citizenship helps to promote a sense of respect for common European values and contributes to cultural diversity.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Maastricht Treaty established European citizenship in order to strengthen and enhance the European identity and enable European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. However, there are still problems and obstacles, such as the lack of visibility of Union citizenship and a lack of awareness about the concrete benefits it provides to EU citizens. More emphasis should therefore be placed on participatory democracy and the new rights deriving from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as the Citizens’ Initiative. We agree with the need for information, education and awareness campaigns, accessible to all citizens, with the preparation of an action plan in the run-up to the European Year, in collaboration with all Member States, EU institutions and civil society, and with the organisation of a pan-European campaign on Union Citizenship in 2013 by the European Parliament, in collaboration with the national parliaments. The European Year of Citizens 2013 paves the way to the new ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme (2014-2020), which will support activities designed to increase citizens’ awareness and understanding of the EU. For those reasons, I supported this report.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) For many citizens, Europe is still what Jacques Delors called an ‘unidentified political object’. However, European citizenship has grown and developed constantly. Family rights, pension rights, vocational training, recognition of qualifications: it is our shared responsibility to make everyone aware of the provisions of European citizenship that are concrete and useful in daily life. The European Year of Citizens, 2013, is therefore excellent news in this regard.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The overall purpose of the proposed European Year of Citizens is to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. In my view this proposal provides a new momentum to the debate on Union citizenship and puts the informed and effective exercise of this right at the centre of the political agenda. Today there is still a lack of visibility of Union citizenship and lack of awareness of the concrete benefits it provides to EU citizens. According to a Eurobarometer study published in September 2011, among the most common problems that EU citizens face when they reside, study or work in another EU country are lack of information and awareness of their rights as well as language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications. These barriers have become more severe at the present time of economic and financial crisis within the EU, because of the negative consequences of the crisis, including the rise of unemployment and social unrest. I therefore consider that the European Year of Citizens provides a great momentum to increase citizens’ awareness on Union citizenship and to stimulate their participation in democratic life.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support this report because the European institutions are constantly taking decisions that objectively improve citizens’ lives. Many have an immediate impact, meaning that they are noticed by the European public, but they are rarely attributed to the work of the European institutions. Others that are more complex or aimed at a specific public barely attract any attention, in spite of the many prospects and opportunities they create for citizens. Any efforts to address this situation will aid European integration.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The concept of ‘citizenship of the Union’ introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht has the objective of consolidating and strengthening the European identity and at the same time allows European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. The feeling of belonging to the European Union is an extremely important factor in outlining and defining civic participation, which can enhance the degree of collective identity, on which the future of the Union depends. I welcome the Commission’s decision to make 2013 the Year of Citizens and I think that this approach will give new impetus to the debate on citizenship. It will put the exercising of citizenship rights in the centre of the political agenda.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Reports by Eurobarometer and other research institutes contain some worrying findings on the ideas of European citizens on Union citizenship. Of course, the economic crisis has made it more difficult to appreciate the original reasons for the Union and its advantages. It is easier to underline the negative aspects, perhaps for internal electoral reasons. The report draws up a proposal that is of particular importance at this moment in history. We do not mean to update the ambitions of Porfirio Díaz for the 21st century, but rather to spread a basic awareness of the positive values and effects attached to Union citizenship, even on a practical level and in terms of opportunities, to counter the effects of continuous underlining of the failings of European integration, real or otherwise. We cannot allow European citizenship to mean no more to our young people than a different passport queue at airports. Opportunities, freedom of movement, training, professional and cultural growth are essential today for many countries affected by double-digit youth unemployment. I therefore support this proposal, including the detailed recommendations for the organisation and coordination of events for the European Year of Citizens.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Year of Citizens (2013). According to a 2009 Eurobarometer survey, close to one in five Europeans see too many obstacles to working in another Member State. They include lack of information about the rights of European citizens, administrative issues, social welfare systems and the recognition of diplomas. At a time when employment must become the priority of European policies, I believe that it is important to facilitate and encourage cross-border mobility for workers. This report therefore proposes implementing various communication initiatives and measures to publicise good practices at European Union level, which will make European citizens more aware of their right to move and reside freely.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Parliament voted to designate 2013 European Year of Citizens with the aim of raising awareness of EU citizenship. Events will be organised during 2013 to explain the rights of citizens who decide to study, work, set up a business or draw their pension in another Member State. I have deep concerns about the free movement of people and the strains it puts on public services and manners in which these rights can, and indeed are, abused. I therefore cannot sanction a programme which will effectively endorse and promote the passage of people across the Union, granting them the same benefits as those citizens already resident in a nation when austerity and economic problems could see droves of people relocating, placing unprecedented strain upon domestic exchequers. It is my belief that Member States need the ability to control their own borders and set out their own package of benefits to encourage immigration that balances with the workforce need and the level of emigration taking place.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the European Year of Citizens will make an important contribution towards enhancing and deepening knowledge of the rights and responsibilities attached to European Union citizenship, with the aim of enabling citizens to make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The right to move and reside freely within the territories of Member States is an essential individual right arising from Union citizenship and all citizens ought to be fully aware of it and profit from the multitude of rights accorded by the legislation of the Union.

The European Year of Citizens also provides vital momentum for greater awareness of Union citizenship and stimulates citizens to participate in the democratic life of the Union, so as to solve democratic deficits and the low turnout at European elections. There is a need for practical ways to eliminate the gulf between EU institutions and European citizens, to address democratic deficits and the low turnout at European elections. Citizens must have access to simple and transparent information about the European Parliamentary elections, to programmes and objectives of political parties and candidates and to know their electoral rights. In addition, the procedures must be simplified.

I am asking for an information, education and awareness campaign, easily accessible and without restrictions, for EU citizens and especially for vulnerable groups. I also request that the Commission issue a comprehensive manual that will explain the terminology, scope and substance of Union citizenship to promote a better understanding of the concept.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Europe of which we want to be proud is not limited to the common market, but prioritises people and puts citizens at the heart of European policies. I therefore welcome the designation of 2013 (20th anniversary of the introduction of citizenship of the Union at Maastricht) as the European Year of Citizens, which is intended to ensure that all citizens are aware of their rights in a cross-border context. In 2009 it was estimated that the number of EU citizens living in a Member State other than their own was around 12 million, adding that 35 % of citizens would consider the possibility of going to work in another Member State. However, much still needs to be done to fill the gap between the legal rules ensuring freedom of movement for EU citizens and the obstacles that they face in reality, particularly the lack of visibility of Union citizenship and of its concrete benefits for citizens. It is vital to ensure greater visibility in relation to the impact and potential that the right to free movement, as an inalienable aspect of Union citizenship, may have in terms of strengthening social cohesion, mutual understanding, non-discrimination and creation of a common European identity.

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), in writing. − I would like to express my support for the proposition to designate the next year as European Year of Citizens. I am convinced that striving to ensure people’s awareness of available European rights, we could promote cross-border labour mobility. Being knowledgeable, European citizens could not only take informed decisions, but also be fully engaged in the Union’s projects and initiatives. In my opinion, it is important to explain more effectively the advantages of the Union Citizenship status so as people could use accessible privileges as well as enjoy and protect their rights.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I support the proposal on the European Year of Citizens in 2013 to raise awareness amongst European citizens of the connection between Union citizenship and the right to freedom of movement. Of those questioned in the 27 EU Member States, 43 % claim familiarity with the term ‘citizen of the European Union’ and more than two thirds (67 %) are not well informed or not informed at all.

As a representative of the citizens, Parliament must be a key player in making European policies understood, with special emphasis on participative democracy and the new rights derived from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as the Citizens’ Initiative.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) European citizens enjoy rights that they do not exercise fully. It is time to tackle the obstacles that still hinder their mobility. Thanks to the European Year of Citizens, from next year we will be able to make every effort to achieve real European citizenship. The first stage in building that citizenship is making everyone aware of what it covers. The main objective of this action is to inform and debate, and I support that fully.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EP voted to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens. Against a general backdrop of economic, political and social crisis, I believe that it is important for European citizenship to have a role. The aim of this event is to inform the general public, and young people in particular, about how to put their rights into practice. European citizens enjoy numerous rights, of which they are not always aware, such as the right to reside freely in another Member State, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in European and municipal elections, and the right to petition the EU. Another important aspect for me is the need to emphasise cooperation with local authorities, work in conjunction with the national parliaments and the Europe Direct centres, and involve civil society.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) On the basis of a Commission recommendation, 2013 will be the European Year of Citizens. The initiative is intended to draw European citizens’ attention to their rights and obligations within the EU, notably with regard to freedom of movement and freedom from discrimination within the EU. The vast majority of European citizens are unaware of the kinds of rights and obligations they have by virtue of being EU citizens, on the basis of Treaties and initiatives such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Stockholm Programme. The statistics produced by Eurobarometer for 2009 revealed that around 11.9 million European citizens are working outside the country of their birth, while 35 % of the EU’s population has considered trying their luck abroad. One in five people, however, believe that many barriers need to be overcome in order to do this. The main reasons for this are lack of information and language differences and difficulties.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the report on the European Year of Citizens because I believe that this is an opportunity to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It is important to give concrete solutions to achieve better and equal opportunities for all. Citizens must be fully aware and take full advantage of the broad array of rights granted to them under Union law, both in their country as well as in cross-border situations. Moreover, I am convinced that the European Year of Citizenship will increase citizens’ awareness on Union citizenship and will stimulate citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the European Union. Any restrictions imposed on European citizenship, such as the ones in place for Romanians and Bulgarians, must be ended as soon as possible in order for the citizens of these countries to benefit fully from their rights.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I support the designation of 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. Most citizens have no knowledge of the rights deriving from European citizenship. In the current context of scepticism about Europe, it is more essential than ever before to increase awareness of these rights and to use next year’s campaigns to better inform citizens about the potential that European legislation has to improve their living conditions.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe in a better Europe. For that reason, I welcome the adoption of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council that 2013 be regarded as the ‘European Year of Citizens’. I hope that this event will help to raise awareness among European citizens about the benefits of this project. At a time when we are commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty being signed, all European citizens should be informed about the contents of the ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’. I would also like to welcome the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union, which, in addition to raising the self-esteem of European citizens, represents recognition of the work carried out by the EU institutions to consolidate peace in various conflict regions. Europe is an area of free movement of persons and goods where, without losing our national identities, we feel imbued with a spirit of fraternity and solidarity that needs to be propagated. Many European citizens are unaware of their rights as such. For that reason, the ‘European Year of Citizens’ will provide an excellent opportunity to conduct information and awareness campaigns on this project in order to make European citizens more aware and participative.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report advocates establishing a European Year of Citizens (2013) in order to raise awareness about the rights deriving from Union citizenship. Unfortunately, the current political, economic and social context could not be more contrary to the view of the EU – which the report adopts – as an area of democracy, equality, solidarity and citizen participation. This view is contradicted every day by the practice, policies and priorities that the EU is imposing on various people and countries, as is the case with Portugal. We are currently witnessing an unprecedented attack on democracy and the rights of citizens. The EU is increasingly an area of inequality, exploitation and loss of the rights for which people have fought and won over centuries. In this EU of free movement of capital and goods, which serves the international monopolies, the ‘free’ movement of people is conditioned by the hard reality for millions of workers, who have no possibility of remaining in their own country due to a lack of jobs and who are forced to seek support for their families elsewhere.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The Treaty of Maastricht established Union citizenship in 1993 in order to strengthen the European identity and enable European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. Union citizenship, conferred automatically on all nationals of the respective Member States, is additional to national citizenship. At the present time, we are targeting the lack of visibility of Union citizenship and lack of awareness of the concrete benefits it provides to citizens, students, consumers, and business people as well as to providers of goods and services in the European Union. The most common problems that EU citizens face when they reside, study or work in another EU country are the lack of information and awareness of their rights as well as the language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications. Citizens want concrete solutions to their daily problems, equal opportunities for all, without discrimination on the grounds of nationality, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, belief or religion. I am convinced that the European Year of Citizens is an opportunity to exert a strong impetus for an improvement in citizens’ awareness of Union citizenship and has the potential to

  Mariya Gabriel (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because it sends a strong political message by dedicating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. The rights and duties conferred by European citizenship are still largely unknown. Now we have an opportunity to increase their visibility. Now we have an opportunity to remove certain obstacles to exercising them. This multi-level citizenship confirms the Union’s commitment to its citizens but it also underlines the need for active citizens who participate in the shaping of the Union’s policies.

Finally, this European Year of Citizens is an opportunity for all citizens to take ownership of it. It is a strong sign for them to renew their commitment. I am sure that we are capable of tackling this challenge together.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The year 2013 will mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of citizenship of the Union. It is essential to put Union citizenship right at the centre of the political agenda.

This is all the more true at a time when families, businesses and European citizens are feeling the effects of severe crisis.

Today’s vote approved the proposal to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens, in order to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship.

Union citizens often lack awareness of their rights, including the rights to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, and to petition the European Parliament.

I hope that these measures to enhance awareness and promote citizens’ participation will be effectively applied.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I completely support the report by Antigoni Papadopoulou to establish the European Year of Citizens in 2013. In these times of economic and social crisis, it is essential to highlight the rights conferred by European citizenship in order to restore the confidence of our citizens in the European project.

Too few people are actually aware of the rights enshrined in European citizenship. We therefore need to support every action aimed at highlighting the rights of European citizens and ensuring that they are applied correctly. European citizenship cannot be a purely declarative phenomenon; it is eminently political. It is by defending and raising awareness of the existing rights and developing new guarantees for citizens that this concept of citizenship will assume substance and force and become tangible for all.

It is for those reasons, too, that I support an ambitious budget for this Year, greater than the EUR 1 million approved by the Member States, which is still much less than what we need to achieve our goal of European citizenship in everyday life.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Citizens are at the heart of the European Union’s policies. This is confirmed in a series of documents, presided over by the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Unfortunately, although they enjoy many rights, EU citizens are often unable to exercise them because they are unaware that they have these rights. An interesting discussion during the launch of Single Market Week, in which it was predominantly citizens participating, revealed this lack of information to be a huge problem and, ultimately, a real barrier to making full use of the opportunities offered by the internal market.

One of the most important opportunities is the right of freedom of movement within the EU. It is this right that will allow us to develop the mobility that is of such key importance to the European economy. Exploiting the potential arising from mobility depends, however, on citizens being fully informed of the rights associated with it. I welcome the Commission’s proposal to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens, because it will be a great opportunity to communicate information in the most effective way possible to citizens in every corner of the EU and at EU, national, regional and local level.

I voted in favour of the report because I have always stressed the importance of the effective communication of information. Furthermore, I believe that the European Parliament, as the most democratic of the EU institutions, should uphold the rights and responsibilities of and their genuine exercise by more than 500 million Europeans.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The most common criticism of the European Union is the gap between its supposedly technocratic institutions and the citizens, who have difficulty identifying the key actors, and understanding their role, who is responsible for what, and, above all, the actual impact of European decisions on their daily lives. Numerous communication campaigns are organised every year to bring the citizens closer to the institutions and give them a better understanding of the actions carried out at EU level. For example, in 2009, an estimated 11.9 million Union citizens were living in another Member State than their own and the creation of the internal market has only served to increase such movements. Nevertheless, many Europeans feel that the obstacles to mobility within the EU are still too high, especially the lack of information about administrative issues, social welfare systems and the recognition of university qualifications. That is why 2013 has been designated European Year of Citizens. Its purpose will be to raise awareness of the rights attached to European citizenship in a cross-border context. Let us hope that this initiative succeeds in reconciling the citizens with the EU.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal because the overall purpose of the proposed European Year is to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. Unfortunately, Union citizenship is not visible enough and there is a lack of awareness of the concrete benefits it provides to EU citizens, students, workers, consumers, and business people as well as to providers of goods and services. The proposal provides a new momentum to the debate on Union citizenship and puts the informed and effective exercise of this right at the centre of the political agenda. I therefore believe that it is particularly important to strengthen Union citizenship at all levels and at every stage of the democratic process, to make citizenship an especially important dimension of EU policies and a key priority in all areas of EU action. In order to enhance citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the Union, citizens must be aware of how they can truly benefit from EU rights and policies, and exercise them everywhere within the societies of the EU Member States. I am convinced that by giving greater visibility to Union citizenship and to its concrete benefits for individuals, a better understanding of the value of European integration is guaranteed.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I would like to welcome the initiative to dedicate 2013 to European citizens and the 20 years of existence of European citizenship. Such a thematic term may provide remedies to the shortcomings of practicing this right, namely the lack of widespread knowledge and awareness regarding the benefits that European citizenship may provide to all European citizens, students, workers, or pensioners. It must be made clear, that these benefits are not privileges of the elite, but are the fruits of one of our most important community acquisitions that everyone is entitled to without discrimination. We therefore expect to see information and awareness campaigns that target all citizens of the EU, with special emphasis on vulnerable groups who, due to their socio-economic status, encounter serious difficulties when exercising their right to move, reside and work freely everywhere within the European Union.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Next year, the institution of EU citizenship will celebrate the 20th anniversary of its founding. It was intended to address the European Union’s so-called democratic deficit and to involve the population more closely in its workings. Today we can see that these objectives have not been achieved. Successive Eurobarometer surveys indicate scant awareness of the existence of European Union citizenship and that few people associate it with any rights. The fundamental problem is not merely that EU citizens lack awareness of their rights but, above all, that they feel so little involvement in the workings of the EU. We should therefore concentrate on strengthening our pro-citizen stance and creating a sense of European patriotism. Europeans who are aware of their rights will instinctively make use of them. I therefore voted in favour of this report, which promotes a series of measures aimed at improving Europeans’ knowledge of their rights.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Antigoni Papadopoulou, which I supported, was adopted in plenary on 23 October 2012 by 518 votes to 63, with 19 abstentions. Its main aim is to ensure that in 2013 all European citizens are informed of their rights, in particular their right to move freely. For this Year, the European Parliament is inviting the European Commission and the Member States to launch broad information, education and awareness campaigns for the general public.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I support the idea of a European Year of Citizens. This proposal’s main purpose is to ensure that all Union citizens are aware of the rights available to them in a cross-border context by virtue of their Union citizenship status, so as to enable them to make informed decisions about whether to make use of their right to free movement and to facilitate the effective exercise of this right. Many citizens of Poland have taken advantage of the ability to travel, work, and reside in different parts of the EU. I am in favour of raising awareness of the importance and benefits of the right to free movement and residence. I hope, however, that the initiatives that will be organised at Union, national, regional or local levels linked to the objectives of the European Year will not duplicate the work of the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The more Europeans know about their rights as citizens of the European Union, the better equipped they will be to make informed decisions about their private lives and the richer European democratic life will be at all levels. I welcome the adoption of the report by Antigoni Papadopoulou on the European Year of Citizens, which will enable us, throughout 2013, to explain the European Union’s contributions to the daily lives of European citizens. Free movement is the most widely recognised right conferred by European citizenship and the one to which the citizens are most attached. However, they are unaware of most of the other advantages offered by European citizenship due to a lack of information. I firmly believe that this European Year of Citizens will have to remedy a number of shortcomings in this area and will enable us to provide the citizens of Europe with valuable information over the course of the year.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the European Year of Citizens (2013). Today, almost 12 million European citizens live in another country than their own, yet there are still many obstacles to mobility within our Union. I thus voted for the various financing strands proposed by the report, such as the development of communication tools for information campaigns for the general public. Although it is up to the Member States to inform their citizens, it is essential that we establish multilateral information campaigns. We must help EU citizens to exercise and defend their rights more successfully, at local, regional, national and European level.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Next year will mark the 20th anniversary of the Treaty of Maastricht and the concept of ‘citizen of the European Union’. The establishment of European citizenship impacted millions of people, bringing with it a series of advantages including cross-border access to health services.

However, a recent survey by Eurobarometer has shown that 48 % of citizens say that they are not sufficiently well informed about their rights as European citizens and only 30 % feel that they can personally influence the European process. A study performed by Eurobarometer in 2011 showed that only one third of EU citizens are fully or partially satisfied with the efficiency of the EU administration, its availability to offer services and its transparency; the rest are dissatisfied, especially with regard to the last aspect. In spite of the small budget allocation (EUR 1 million compared to the 2011 European Year, which had EUR 11 million at its disposal), we need to capitalise on the European Year of Citizens to remind our citizens about what the European Union can do for each of us.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Parliament’s decision to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens is very important for European democracy. All initiatives and actions, information campaigns, conferences and public hearings will have the aim of raising citizens’ awareness of the rights associated with the freedom to move and settle in other EU Member States. The founding of a European Year of Citizens is intended to educate young people, in particular, on their rights within the European Union and how to make use of them. I believe that this is a very important initiative and I voted in favour of Antigoni Papadopoulou’s report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the European Year of Citizens, which will be an opportunity to inform citizens about their rights, including information about voting rights, consumer rights and their rights linked to working and studying in another EU country than their own.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to designate 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. I believe that it is vitally important to raise awareness among European Union citizens of their rights and guarantees, as enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Year of Citizens is intended to increase the active civic and democratic participation of Union citizens. As Vice-Chair of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I support this proposal because I hope that it will not only reinforce equality and solidarity among the Member States, but will also enhance gender equality among citizens and increase the participation of women in the economic, political and social life of the European Union. I also regard this decision as extremely important in terms of increasing the mobility of workers and the resulting employment rate.

  Marisa Matias and Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In a Europe that has always seemed to be concerned only about its economic and monetary agenda, with people being forgotten, even when this agenda threatens to bring Europe crashing down and crush the lives of many citizens, the initiative to declare 2013 as the European Year of Citizens is good news. Furthermore, given that 2013 is a pre-election year for Europe, it may be a good strategy to bring citizens closer to Europe and to non-market-related European issues. We hope that this will also provide the opportunity to discuss a proper concept of European citizenship, encompassing everyone living in the European area, with less fortress Europe. The European Year of Citizens cannot just be for some and against many others.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Through the Treaty of Maastricht, all citizens in the Union benefit from European citizenship in addition to their national citizenship, which grants the right to travel, study and work in any of the Member States and a series of other related rights.

Unfortunately nearly half the citizens are not aware of these rights and cannot make any use of them. Therefore, 20 years after the introduction of European citizenship, the European Year of Citizens in 2013 is most welcome. The actions for 2013 could make people more aware of the rights, values and history of Europe, so that citizens could benefit from the opportunities derived from belonging to the EU. Certainly any initiative that brings citizens closer to the European institutions is useful. Personally, I think that the activities of the European Year of Citizens should be coordinated at EU level so as to make sure that the information is passed on uniformly to all corners of the Union.

Unfortunately, the budget earmarked for this programme is insufficient, much lower than funds allocated to other European Years. On top of that, there are no provisions to co-finance the projects of civil society organisations, and therefore we can foresee only a limited success for this initiative.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I welcome the proposal for a European Year of Citizens. It would be an excellent opportunity to enhance general public awareness of the rights and responsibilities attached to Union citizenship. It would also make Union citizens more aware of their rights.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of this decision, for which I voted. The creation of a ‘European Year of Citizens’ is an excellent way to increase people’s awareness of the rights, and the responsibilities, associated with European citizenship. The initiatives proposed to achieve the objectives set out in the legislative text are to be applauded. However, the idea that the citizens themselves must also play an active role in strengthening these rights through their participation in civil society should be reinforced.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report, because I believe that the European Year of Citizens will raise EU citizens’ awareness of the rights they are entitled to exercise. The Commission will need to develop the debate on active citizenship by introducing discussion within the European institutions on participation and the exercise of citizens’ rights. This is a historic opportunity to promote active citizenship and the framework provided by the European Year of Citizens will serve to make citizens aware of the rights they enjoy.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. − (SK) As the sole intermediary between citizens and the Union, in 2010 the European Parliament invited the Commission to announce 2013 as the European Year of Citizens on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty, which introduced the concept of Union citizenship. I welcome the European Year of Citizens in particular owing to the upcoming elections to the European Parliament to be held in 2014. In the past, we have been afflicted by a low turnout in elections to the European Parliament, which certainly contributes to the Union’s ‘democratic deficit’. I am convinced that the Year of Citizens will contribute to increased awareness and knowledge of Union citizens’ different rights and responsibilities, which should logically also encourage citizens to take part in democratic life. For these reasons, I support the European Year of Citizens and express the conviction that appropriate resources should be allocated from the budget to strengthen the active democratic participation of citizens in Union activities.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − In times of economic and social crisis, raising awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship can help restore citizens’ faith in the Union project. European citizens should enjoy all fundamental rights. What is more, non-citizens, or those deprived of citizenship should also enjoy fundamental rights, I am in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I support the proposal to designate 2013 the European Year of Citizens. Time and money must be used effectively and rationally to help the EU further increase awareness among its citizens so that they have a better understanding of their rights and unprecedented privileges, the likes of which are not enjoyed by the citizens of the member countries of any other international organisations. Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in his or her Member State of residence, the right to enjoy protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State in a third country, the right to petition the European Parliament, the right to apply to the European Ombudsman and the right to address institutions of the Union as well as a series of rights in various fields such as the free movement of goods and services, consumer protection and public health, equal opportunities and equal treatment, access to employment and to social protection. The development over 20 years of the concept of Union citizenship has produced many positive results but there are still many cases where EU citizens are unable to exercise their rights because of practical obstacles and because they are insufficiently aware of their rights and duties. We are therefore looking forward to the 2013 EU Citizenship Report, which should contain proposals on how to eliminate remaining obstacles. At the end of 2013 I would also like the impact of the awareness-raising and communication campaign on European citizens to be analysed in quantitative studies, which would reveal whether the campaign was effective and whether the objectives were achieved.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported this report because I consider essential the activity of civil society and the involvement of EU citizens in exercising their rights in full. Furthermore, I am convinced that all EU citizens should be aware of their right to move freely and choose their place of residence in the EU. Because there is little awareness of the concept of EU citizenship and the related rights, I consider it necessary to additionally inform and involve the citizens of all Member States. This is particularly important for me as an MEP representing the people here. For this reason, I supported the European Year of Citizens.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) EU citizenship is granted automatically to all citizens of the Member States, and does not replace national citizenship but is complementary to it. This report by the Commission responds positively to the proposal for a European Year devoted to raising awareness of the rights associated with EU citizenship. However, although the proposal promotes the idea of citizenship, problems are noted in the everyday life of citizens, such as the lack of equal opportunities for all, travel opportunities for the young, and the lack of administrative effectiveness. Increased awareness therefore means increased citizen participation and increased consensus on the European project. The proposals contained in this report contribute towards this aim, and for this reason I voted in favour of the report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Raising awareness among the general public of the rights and responsibilities associated with Union citizenship is vital so that both the rights and duties resulting from European citizenship are effectively observed. It is only by exercising these rights that the continuing obstacles in this respect can be identified and eliminated. European citizens themselves therefore have a vital role to play in strengthening those rights through their participation in civil society and democratic life, alongside the European institutions, which must run awareness-raising campaigns such as this one involving the European Year of Citizens. For all those reasons, I voted for this report, although I deplore the drastic cut in the budget for this initiative, when this is such a vital issue for the democratic culture of the Union.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In addition to their national rights, all Member State citizens enjoy a series of rights inherent to citizenship of the Union under the Treaties and incorporated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, Union citizens often lack awareness of their rights. The overall purpose of the proposed European Year of Citizens is to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. This European Year should not be another celebratory year but rather pave the way for the new ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme (2014-2020), which supports activities to increase awareness and citizens’ understanding of EU, its values and history. For these reasons, I voted in favour of this proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) I voted in favour of the report on the European Year of Citizens (2013). Citizenship of the Union was introduced through the Maastricht Treaty of 1993, to strengthen and reinforce the European identity, and it enabled European citizens to participate actively in the European process of integration. The common objective of the European Year is to raise the awareness of citizens about their rights arising from Union citizenship when they exercise their right to move and reside freely in another Member State. A Eurobarometer study, published in September 2011, shows that among the most common problems that EU citizens face when they reside, study or work in another EU country are the lack of information and awareness of their rights as well as the language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications. These barriers become more severe at the present times of financial, political and social crisis within the EU, because of the negative consequences of the crisis, including the rise of unemployment and social unrest.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The year 2013 will be designated as the European Year of Citizens, with the general objective being to ensure that all Union citizens are aware of their rights, in a cross-border context, due to their European citizenship. The EUR 5 million budget agreed in plenary is therefore intended to enable Union citizens to make more informed decisions about how to exercise their right of freedom of movement and to facilitate its effective use. Although the Member States are predominantly responsible for raising awareness, appropriate actions to address this problem require multilateral partnerships, exchange of information, Union-wide experience-sharing, and dissemination of transnational good practices. This awareness-raising campaign aimed at removing many of the remaining obstacles to the exercise of the rights deriving from Union citizenship is hugely important. Only more and better information can help Europeans to use their rights. I voted in favour.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As recent Eurobarometer surveys show, Europe is experiencing a crisis of confidence and trust. Since autumn 2009, the number of people who trust the EU has fallen by around 30 %. Given that next year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the creation of European citizenship and we will be less than a year from the European elections, it is a good idea to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens, a year for the citizens of Europe. In the hope of conferring on 2013 a symbolic significance, particularly in the current context, I voted for this text. It has become clear that the citizens do not have enough information about their rights as EU citizens. We must make every effort to ensure that the Year of European Citizens succeeds in raising citizens’ awareness of their rights. We also have to take effective measures to stimulate their interest in the activities of the European Union as that is crucial for the development of European democracy, which in turn is so important for the EU’s legitimacy. However, the success of this Year obviously depends on the financial resources allocated to it, and in this regard, I regret that its budget is so meagre.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Our amendments focused on highlighting the practical difficulties EU citizens face relating to their nationality, social and marital status, in their different roles (as consumers, residents, tourists, students, professionals, volunteers, political actors, people with disabilities) in their daily lives, such as the rights of international couples, portability of pensions and social security rights or access to public services. The right to information about accessing one’s rights within the EU should also include those resident or travelling within the EU or otherwise directly affected by EU legislation and should also be available in appropriate formats for those with particular disabilities.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The purpose of the proposed European Year of Citizens in 2013 is to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship. The year will mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of citizenship of the Union. In all this time Union citizens have acquired a number of fundamental rights, including the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, and the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence. At a time of economic crisis, it is absolutely essential to put Union citizenship and participative democracy at the centre of the political agenda.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Ms Papadopoulou’s report. It is of fundamental importance for democracy and pluralism that European citizens should be informed of their rights arising from their European identity/citizenship. The establishment of the European Year of Citizens (2013) is an important initiative and contributes towards deepening the democratic institutions of the European Union.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is the right time to put the citizens back at the heart of European concerns. We are currently celebrating 20 years of the internal market, which we often accuse of having prioritised the movement of goods over the movement of people, and competition over solidarity. There are still many obstacles to exercising fully the rights conferred by European citizenship. The first of these is knowing what they are. In theory, we should all be aware of them. In practice, unfortunately, few of us are: confusion over the transposition of Directives, complexity of the decision-making process and lack of interest among the citizens mean that we need to raise awareness of our European rights. Indeed, once we are aware of the advantages of European citizenship, we must be able to put them into practice. EU territory is far from a homogeneous, uniform living space for its citizens. Sometimes, it seems as though the elimination of controls of people crossing internal borders has created as many problems as it has solved. In these times of crisis, the European project and European citizenship must rediscover their relevance. The European Year of Citizens in 2013 must be our opportunity to put the citizens back at the heart of European legislation.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) It is almost 20 years since European citizenship was founded and was automatically conferred on all citizens of the Member States. As a result, they acquired many rights across the territory of the European Union. They can now vote in local elections in their country of residence, take part in the European elections and stay, live and study in any Member State. Unfortunately, as the report shows, only 43 % of EU citizens are familiar with the term ‘citizen of the European Union’, while as many as 67 % believe they are not well informed of their rights. On top of that, officials and employers are guilty of all manner of abuses and discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, which effectively discourages many people from travelling and working abroad. Diplomas and qualifications are not recognised, while the language barrier makes it difficult for people to exercise their rights. The present economic crisis and unemployment only exacerbate these problems. For that reason, I greatly welcome the Commission’s proposal to designate 2013 the European Year of Citizens. We must do our utmost to make the best possible use of this time to increase citizens’ awareness of their rights. Furthermore, we cannot allow European solidarity and the sense of belonging that has built up over the years to cease to exist as a result of a temporary financial crisis. I agree with the rapporteur that we must lend European Union citizenship greater visibility.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Year of Citizens in 2013 marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Union citizenship by the Treaty of Maastricht. I see this as an opportunity to promote participation by the citizens of the individual Member States in the process of European integration. All too often the citizens I represent, like those of other countries, lack awareness of the rights and opportunities attached to Union citizenship. The European Union has achieved many important objectives in the areas of protection of rights, health, and freedom of movement within the territory of the Member States, but I think Europe can play a still greater role in the daily lives of its citizens. Therefore, in order to pave the way to a new phase of European citizenship through effective exercise of citizens’ rights, I have voted in favour of the Commission’s proposal to proclaim 2013 the European Year of Citizens.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. − (SK) I supported and very much welcomed the EP resolution of 15 December 2010 inviting the Commission to name 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. Next year will definitely be another good opportunity to disseminate information on citizens’ rights and the benefits of EU citizenship. Following the accession of new Member States to the EU and the enlargement of the Schengen borders, it may be a good opportunity for action on the part of Parliament as a direct intermediary between citizens and the Union. Members of Parliament play a vital role in providing information on the rights and benefits of Union citizenship, gender equality, participation of women and men in the democratic life of the Union, public health, equal opportunities and equal treatment, access to employment, social security and many other benefits. The Commission’s progress report for 2010-2013 and the assessment of measures and adoption of new measures will be further suitable stimuli not only for raising awareness of the European Year of Citizens, but also for providing information on citizens’ rights.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a decision on the European Year of Citizens in 2013, as it will be 20 years since the establishment of EU citizenship. The Union is based on the indivisible and universal values of human dignity, liberty, equality and solidarity and the principles of democracy and rule of law.

Each citizen of the Union must enjoy the rights provided in Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. For the citizens of the Union to be able to take decisions in the full knowledge of exercising their right to free movement, it is essential that they be appropriately informed about other rights to which they are entitled to in accordance with the Union cross-border legislation.

I also voted for the multilingual web portal ‘Your Europe’, a type of information ‘one-stop-shop’ with reference to the rights of citizens and EU enterprises, to be popularised among EU citizens. All the initiatives launched for the European Year of Citizens and their objectives should enhance the degree of awareness of the staff of public authorities of the citizens’ rights, whether those authorities are at Union, national, regional or local level.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In addition to shortcomings in European regulations, the citizens complain about problems with the EU’s administrative efficiency, a lack of transparency and excessive bureaucracy. There is still a gap between the EU and the institutions, and the citizens have little involvement in the workings of the EU. Abstention rates in the European elections are high, particularly among young people. There is a real lack of visibility of EU citizenship and the concrete advantages it offers to EU citizens.

The main problems facing EU citizens when they reside, study or work in another Member State include the lack of information and lack of knowledge about their rights, in addition to linguistic obstacles and non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications. This is magnified further during a financial, political and social crisis in the EU.

The proposed European Year will therefore aim to raise awareness of the rights attached to EU citizenship in order to help the citizens to exercise fully their right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 20(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes citizenship of the Union, explaining that: ‘Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship’. In recent years a series of problems and obstacles to the civic participation of citizens in activities connected with the construction of the European project have been identified. It is therefore vital to promote projects which attract ever more citizens in general, and young people in particular, to the civic and political component. I agree with the proposal to designate 2013 as the ‘European Year of Citizens’, with the general objective of raising the awareness of citizens about the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to enable them to make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. However, I believe it would be more appropriate to use the term ‘European Year of Citizenship’, and I feel that it is vital that the EUR 1 million budget made available for this initiative be significantly increased.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − On Tuesday 23 October, I voted in support of designating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. I believe this will be a key starting point in removing the obstacles to people fully utilising their rights as European citizens. Throughout the year, the European Year of Citizens will aim to educate the general public on what it means to be a EU citizen, especially those who decide to work, study or open a business in another Member State. It will also focus on cross-border healthcare and passenger and consumer rights. Thanks to this initiative, UK citizens will be fully aware of what it means to be a citizen of Europe and how they can personally benefit.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), in writing. − (DE) The European Year of Citizens offers us an important opportunity to put European citizenship at the heart of the European debate. There is far too little awareness of this issue among Europe’s citizens, especially as regards the rights attached to it. Euro-fatigue, Euroscepticism and even hostility to Europe are the direct consequences of this deficit. The European Year of Citizens therefore offers a great opportunity to bring the European project closer to citizens and to contribute to the development of a European public sphere. This is the only way to ensure the active involvement of the people. Europe does not only need politicians; above all, it needs people who are willing and able to engage in society. If the European Year is to be successful, two key prerequisites must be fulfilled: firstly, European civil society organisations must be closely involved in preparation and implementation. Secondly, there must be appropriate deployment of financial resources. The funding currently earmarked for this purpose is certainly not commensurate with the significance of the European Year for 2013 and the opportunities that it affords.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) With the report on the European Year of Citizens, the intention is to enhance awareness and, above all, knowledge of the rights attached to Union citizenship. One of these is the right to reside, study and work in another EU country. This will create better and equal opportunities for all.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) European Union citizenship was established in order to strengthen and enhance European identity and enable European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. However, the democratic deficit that exists in the European Union denies citizens their basic right to freedom and to democratic governments. Furthermore, excessive EU bureaucracy and a lack of transparency mean that citizens feel removed from the EU institutions. I therefore voted against this report.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. − (SK) EU citizens should be better informed about their rights and opportunities. We are living in difficult times and therefore it is extremely important to talk about what unites us as Europeans. However, we should not forget that every EU citizen is first and foremost a citizen of a Member State. EU citizenship cannot replace nationality, but can be a useful supplement to it.

I agree with the rapporteur that it would be a good idea to amend the title and change ‘European Year of Citizens’ to ‘European Year of Citizenship’. It would be more logical and such a change would also be in line with the European Parliament’s original proposal. The European Year of Citizenship 2013 would thus commemorate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of European citizenship.

Through greater visibility of the concrete benefits of Union citizenship for individuals, we can contribute to a better understanding of the importance and benefits of European integration. A common denominator in activities during the European Year should be a strengthening of a sense of belonging, tolerance, mutual understanding, solidarity, and social and civic cohesion.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report supports the establishment of the European Year of Citizens (2013), with the declared objective of raising awareness about the rights of EU citizenship. In our opinion, organising the European Year of Citizens (2013) is nothing more than an EU strategy to try and legitimise the idea of the EU as an area of democracy, equality, solidarity and citizen participation at a time when the European institutions lack public credibility. In reality, the EU is not an area of free movement of persons, and this initiative, albeit in a surreptitious manner, will propagandise the single market as an area of freedom. Bearing in mind the difficult situation that workers are currently facing and the need for emigration to cope with unemployment in their countries of origin, we introduced into the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs the idea of the need to safeguard workers’ social security and trade union rights, and that labour mobility should not be interpreted by some employers as an opportunity to reduce wages, cut back on social security or, in general, to downgrade working conditions.

Report: Kristiina Ojuland (A7-0285/2012)

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this report because, although I totally support the necessity to ask for a further investigation on the Magnitsky case and to reiterate, once again, the rejection of any violation of human rights, I believe that an order of visa restriction for people not condemned by a tribunal would be a clear act of inconsistency with our own legal standards. In fact, if on the one hand we ask Russia to respect the basic principle of human rights, on the other hand we are violating the principle of presumption of innocence. In addition, I deem that the quest of making family members accountable for actions they have not done contradicts one of the basic principles of the rule of law.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While I believe the international and European community should seek to cooperate on matters such as this I am of the belief that it should not be an EU precedent to turn obligation to partake in border restrictions on individuals into the rule of law. It would be in Britain’s interest to partake in restrictions in cases such as these but these decisions must be wrought in the British Parliament and acted out under UK law according to UK Government policy in relation to the third countries in question. I therefore abstained from voting on this matter.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with its assumptions and content.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Kristiina Ojuland concerns the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case. Sergei Magnitsky was a courageous Russian lawyer who died in a Russian prison, as a result of mistreatment, where he was being held after his arrest for fighting corruption in Russia. Despite all of the efforts made with the Russian Government to ensure that this case was properly investigated and that those responsible were tried by an independent court, the fact is that, despite the promises made by those in power, nothing has yet been done and this case continues to be raised at summits with Russia. This image of a lack of freedom and credibility is calling into question the consolidation of the democratic process, as reinforced by Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organisation, and is deterring investors. I voted in favour of this report and urge the Russian authorities to quickly resolve this case of human rights’ violation in the interests of the Russian community itself.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The discussion and adoption of this report represent yet another instance of interference in the legal and constitutional system of a sovereign country, which gives us serious cause for concern and which is difficult to accept in the context of normal and healthy relations between independent and sovereign states. Regardless of any assessment that may be made about the political and social situation in Russia, this represents an attempt to use a legal case to attack this country and its sovereignty, at a political moment when this country is opposing, within the United Nations Security Council, the military aggression in Syria. For that reason, it is clearly a form of blackmail and political retaliation.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law. The European Union has repeatedly offered Russia additional assistance and expertise to help the Russian Federation modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order. The arrest and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represents a well documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights. Furthermore, the posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is a violation of international and national laws and clearly shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system. The European Union has urged the Russian authorities on many occasions and formats, from regular human rights consultations to summit-level meetings, to conduct thorough independent investigations in this special, well documented case, and to put an end to the current climate of impunity. Visa restrictions and other restrictive measures are not in themselves traditional judicial sanctions, but constitute a necessary and legitimate foreign policy tool, constituting a signal of the Union’s concern. EU sanctions on the Sergei Magnitsky case could prompt the Russian authorities to make genuine and fresh efforts to address, in a more concrete and convincing manner, the question of the rule of law in Russia.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The own-initiative report by Kristina Ojuland was adopted by a large majority in plenary on 23 October. I supported this report, which is a recommendation from the European Parliament to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case. In the report, Parliament states that the conditions of his detention and death in custody represent a well-documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights. These conditions clearly showed the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system. Like the United States, Parliament is, with this resolution, calling on the Council to establish a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up, and for the sustained harassment of his mother and widow. The Members of the European Parliament are also calling on the Council to implement an EU-wide visa ban on these officials.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. − (LV) I voted in favour of this resolution, because I think that both the death of Sergei Magnitsky and many other events in Russia point to substantial disrespect for fundamental human rights in that country and the dependence of the courts’ authority on political power. Only in autocratic regimes and dictatorships is the criminal law system used to take action against the opposition, against the freedom of opinion of its citizens or to shield those close to the elite from a fair trial and punishment for criminal activities. I believe that the specific restrictions proposed on persons who are responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky will serve as a serious warning to the Russian authorities and may have a significant effect on the actions of Russian officials in the future. I very much hope that these restrictions will change the current climate of impunity there. I am satisfied that increasing numbers of Europe’s political decision-makers are aware that it is necessary to adopt a firm, robust and comprehensive EU policy towards Russia. Such a policy will only produce results if cooperation, support and assistance are balanced by firm and fair criticism, including sanctions and restrictions when needed.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because the death of Sergei Magnitsky, and the subsequent judicial cover-up of the harassment of his family, was another example of the gross violation of human rights and suppression of democracy that is going on in Russia. Furthermore, the Russian authorities have not carried out a credible investigation into this tragic case. We need to remember that after Magnitsky uncovered the fraud carried out by state officials, the people that he accused were responsible first for his detention, and then for the degrading treatment in prison where he died. We need to implement an EU-wide visa ban on those officials and freeze their financial assets.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal. The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a well-documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky are clearly a violation of fundamental human rights. The Council should take account of the corruption and the flawed Russian judicial system in its relations with Russia, and call in a more resolute manner for respect for human rights in Russia. The Russian officials involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky should also be deprived of European visas.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report. We should make every effort to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case, and to bring all those responsible to justice. The Magnitsky case should also be used to urge the Russian authorities to put an end to the widespread corruption and to reform the judicial system, bringing it into line with international standards by creating an independent system.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament recommendation to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case. The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky are evidence of a violation of fundamental human rights by a member of the Council of Europe, which has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and all of the principles inherent in the rule of law. I therefore believe that visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in this case are a necessary and wholly legitimate foreign policy tool and a political signal of the EU’s concern about the frequent human rights’ violations in Russia.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR), in writing. − (PL) I firmly support the report drafted by Ms Ojuland, in which the Council is called upon to establish a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained harassment of his mother and widow. The case of Sergei Magnitsky has long been covered up by Russia, the investigation is dragging on and, in spite of there being clear evidence, those responsible for the death of this Russian lawyer are still at large. In my opinion, the report sends a clear signal to the Russian authorities that the European Union will not cease to call for justice for those unfairly charged in this case. The posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is unacceptable. I consider that to vote in favour of this report is to give voice to our European values.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The rapporteur comes with a proposal from the European Parliament to the Council to establish visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in case of Sergey Magnitsky.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on establishing visa bans for Russian officials that have been and continue to be involved in this case where human rights have been flagrantly violated. It is regrettable that although it is already three years since the EU raised the issue of this case with Russia within the framework of the human rights dialogue there has been no progress. As the human rights dialogue continues to be limited, I do not feel that there will be any more serious movement in this case. It is time to send Russia a strong signal so that it focuses on rampant injustice, corruption and the human rights situation. I therefore hope that the Council will listen to the European Parliament proposal and adopt appropriate decisions. It should be noted that a number of Member State parliaments have already contacted their countries’ governments with similar recommendations. I believe that the people included on the list should not be issued with either Schengen or national visas of the EU Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the assumption that this is an exceptional measure, and as I have no objections to the assumptions and content of this report, which justifies and explains the exceptional nature of this measure to establish common visa restrictions for certain individuals, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a well-documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights. The posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is a violation of international and national laws and clearly shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system. We encourage the Council to take a coherent and proactive stance on other serious human rights violations in Russia, on the basis of well-documented, converging and independent sources and convincing evidence, and to introduce similar restrictive measures against offenders as a last resort measure. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If the Russian authorities fail to respect the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, as seen in the tragic case of Sergei Magnitsky’s death, a stable and reliable partnership cannot be developed between the EU and Russia. Although the restrictive measures proposed by the report are not traditional judicial sanctions per se, they should, however, serve as a political signal of the EU’s concern, which will be conveyed to a wider target audience with the hope of prompting the Russian authorities to make genuine and fresh efforts to address, hopefully in a more concrete and convincing manner, the question of the rule of law in Russia.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The recommendations to the Council include establishing a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained harassment of his mother and widow; imposing and implementing an EU-wide visa ban on these officials and freezing any financial assets they or their immediate family may hold inside the European Union; and calling on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case, and to bring all those responsible to justice.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report as I believe that respecting fundamental rights values is a prior condition for EU-Russia relations. The reform of the judicial system is essential in order to be in conformity with international standards.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe and of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law, and the European Union has repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to help the Russian Federation modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order. Despite the 2011 conclusions of the inquiry conducted by the Russian President’s Human Rights Council on the illegality of Sergei Magnitsky’s arrest, detention and being denied access to justice, the investigations are stalled and the officials involved have been exonerated and even assigned to the posthumous case. Such actions on the part of the authorities demonstrate the politically motivated nature of Magnitsky’s prosecution. I therefore voted in favour of the establishment of common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I felt that it was important to take a stand against the human rights violations. The death of Sergei Magnitsky is an injustice and just one of many manipulative moves by the Russian Government and judicial system.

More recently, the Pussy Riot conviction attracted a lot of attention in the media because it reflected an increase in the level of repression in Russia, where the government clamps down on public protests, rigs elections, intimidates the media, has banned gay pride marches for the next 100 years, and arrests and beats critics like the chess master Garry Kasparov.

The application of these sanctions at last exposes the senior Kremlin officials to actual consequences, which help to combat their systematic attacks on democracy and transparency. We must send Mr Putin and the Russian regime a strong political message against corruption and impunity.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Magnitsky case is a further example of the rule of law being violated in the Russian Federation, given that there has been a clear abuse of power, in particular by the law enforcement authorities. Following numerous calls by the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe for the true facts to be released, the Russian law enforcement authorities exonerated the officials involved and posthumously convicted Sergei Magnitsky, which is a clear violation of international and national law. The EP is therefore asking the EU and Member States to approve sanctions to show their disapproval of this conduct, namely visa restrictions on officials involved in this case.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death of Sergei Magnitsky represent a substantial and well documented case of non-compliance with fundamental human rights. His posthumous prosecution is a clear indication of the failures of the Russian justice system. Visa restrictions constitute a political signal of the European Union’s concern at these events. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Regardless of whether or not it is appropriate to detain any citizen in any country of the world, we consider that every country and its legal system must guarantee access for its citizens to the law and to the courts in order to defend their legally protected rights and interests. This principle applies to the arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of the Russian citizen Sergei Magnitsky. This report represents a clear interference in the legal and constitutional system of a sovereign country, which we cannot and must not accept in the name of cooperation between independent and sovereign states. This represents an attempt to use a legal case to attack Russia and its sovereignty, at a political moment when this country is opposing, within the United Nations Security Council, the military aggression in Syria. For that reason, it is clearly a form of blackmail and political retaliation.

Report: Jacqueline Foster (A7-0254/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report which concerns the recent Commission document on the ‘Implementation of the Single Sky legislation’. The urgent need for progress and the increased need for political support must be highlighted in order to ensure the successful and timely implementation of the Single European Sky legislation. Other key issues in this report include the implementation of the Functional Airspace Blocks and delays in deploying the SESAR (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) technology, which are both essential to the functioning of the Single European Sky.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The authorities providing air traffic control strictly mirror the geographical boundaries of their countries, each of which have at least one Air Navigation Service Provider. This fragmented national approach needs to be replaced by a common European system to increase efficiency and reduce congestion. Parliament and I supported this report, which should help to consolidate the Single European Sky project.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In recent years, increased air traffic has meant that Europe’s airspace is fast approaching its maximum capacity, and the problem can only be expected to grow over time. The fundamental processes of air traffic control have barely evolved since World War II: controllers continue to communicate instructions to pilots by radio voice communication. Implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) legislation would offer the possibility to move to a more modernised and automated industry. This would allow controllers to contribute to a more flexible, robust and innovative industry. Despite the fact that the implementation of the SES has already taken many positive steps forward, I am particularly concerned with the timing aspects of its implementation. The benefits of a full and timely implementation of the SES are too great to ignore: a study on the macro-economic impact shows a cumulative impact on EU GDP of EUR 419 billion, 328 000 jobs created and 50 million tonnes of CO2 saved. For these reasons alone, it is clear why it is so pressing to make Europe’s airspace as efficient as possible. I agree with the rapporteur’s request to the European Commission to report back to Parliament by a fixed date on progress with the implementation of the SES legislation.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support the substance of this report, because Member States’ reluctance to accept principles as logical as those guiding the Single European Sky legislation represents an example of poor use of resources and a complete lack of respect for citizens. The Single European Sky will allow cheaper, safer, shorter and, consequently, less environmentally damaging flights and requires the standardisation of the technology used in air traffic control systems, which presents an opportunity for European industry. With these principles in force, a crisis such as the one caused by the eruption of the volcano Eyjafjallajökull would never have occurred in Europe.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European air traffic management system is still fragmented, especially the organisation of airspace, technological equipment and air traffic control procedures. This has made flight operations inefficient and generated extra costs of EUR 1 million per year.

There has also been a considerable increase in the level of air traffic and this trend is expected to continue in the near future, especially in south-eastern Europe. The high level of air traffic can be managed safely and efficiently only if neighbouring states and suppliers of air navigation cooperate more closely in future. The creation of a Single European Sky is a basic tool for overcoming future challenges and should generate enough management capacity for the ever-increasing number of flights on the continent so as to reduce delays, increase safety and cost-efficiency, and lessen the impact on the environment.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Despite the current economic crisis, demand for air travel increased in the EU by 9.3 % in 2011 with a 4 % rise forecast for 2012, only slightly under the International Air Transport Association’s 5 % long-term average forecast. If the Asia-Pacific economies are included, the global rise in passenger demand currently exceeds 6 % annually, with cargo demand increasing by 5 %. However, the impact of the crisis cannot be ignored, as underlined by the Association of European Airlines, whose Secretary General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus in a recent interview forecast operating losses of EUR 2 billion for the whole sector. This combination of rising demand and falling operating profits makes implementation of the new Single European Sky (SES) legislation imperative, since corrections and restructuring are unavoidable (for example, to take account of the tendency for supply to move progressively towards European Low Fares Airline Association carriers). It seems incredible that the airlines should still be operating mainly on a pre-Union scheme based on the national economies. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the implementation of the Single European Sky legislation. Today, air traffic is still too dominated by the geographical boundaries of the Member States. In this regard, the harmonisation of air traffic control at EU level offers the opportunity to move to a more modernised and automated industry. Several European Commission initiatives must now be promoted, such as Functional Airspace Blocks and SESAR, the Single European Sky’s technological pillar.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. − (CS) I believe that the implementation of the Single European Sky programme will increase the demand for highly qualified workers and bring with it jobs with high financial rewards. The fundamental processes of air traffic control have barely evolved since the Second World War and have remained essentially a craft. Air traffic controllers still use mental maps of individual aircraft, their positions, headings and speed within the sector of airspace for which they are responsible. They are still certified and licensed and are appointed for only one or a few such sectors. They continue to communicate instructions to pilots by radio communication. The Single European Sky, the SESAR programme and the Functional Airspace Blocks initiative offer the opportunity to modernise and automate this branch. This would allow greater mobility for air traffic controllers, who would be able to apply their talents more widely – as pilots increasingly do now – and thus contribute to a more flexible, robust and innovative branch.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I cannot endorse in principle an effort to create pan-European legislation over airspace despite condoning cooperation on matters of air traffic safety and management. The EU has a history of disastrous policy-making in harmonised fields from fisheries policy to farming. The implementation of this legislation could result in a tangled web of bureaucracy that would benefit neither the aerospace and passenger air industries nor the passengers that use the services. I am also concerned by proposals in line with CO2 reductions that could pass the burden of cost down to airlines and ultimately the public.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Foster report, which aims to encourage the Member States to accelerate the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES). I regret the delay in the completion of the SES, which should offer passengers a means of transport that is more affordable, safer and kinder to the environment. In the current crisis, the SES offers significant economic benefits and potential increased growth and employment. I also share the rapporteur’s concern that the Union might lose its lead in terms of technology if the implementation of the SES does not accelerate.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Foster because it provides us with a timely analysis of a policy launched a decade ago that we must now admit does not work. Indeed, the Single European Sky (SES) intended by the legislators of the time, with greater air traffic capacity and lower costs both in economic and environmental terms, has yet to be realised. I therefore agree with the approach of the rapporteur, who provides an exact account of existing shortcomings, in identifying the need for action by the European Commission. Let us recall that the various components needed for achieving the SES include: the performance scheme, the Functional Airspace Blocks, the role of the network manager and above all the implementation of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme, which is the technological pillar of the SES project. SESAR will complete its research phase in 2015 and onboard and ground systems should then be introduced into the market over a period of 15 years. Drawing partly on EU funding, it will contribute to increased passenger benefits (above all, reduced waiting times and delays) as well as lower CO2 emissions and flight operating costs.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that the full and timely implementation of the Single European Sky will bring significant benefits to the Member States, as everything indicates that it should have positive effects on the economy, employment and the environment.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At the moment, Europe’s airspace is among the busiest in the world, with over 750 million passengers using EU airports. Given the constant increase in air traffic, it is vital to successfully implement the Single European Sky legislation as soon as possible, in order to avoid congestion in Europe’s airspace and ensure high-quality air transport services for the European public. This will also lead to considerable economic, safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level. Although many positive steps have already been taken in the right direction, there is still a long way to go to achieve full and timely implementation, in order to avoid possible safety or operational risks caused by ever heavier traffic flows, outdated technologies and fragmentation of European airspace. Timely implementation should also allow the EU to maintain its competitiveness, encourage a new dynamic in this area, fostering growth and employment, particularly in the aeronautics and aviation industries, and contribute significantly to reducing CO2 emissions.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) At a time when the European Union is focusing on the creation of new jobs, we must also consider the fact that implementing the Single European Sky will mean better organisation and management of the air traffic in Europe, which will create greater demand for high-end, highly skilled and highly paid jobs. A more efficient European airspace will bring additional economic gains at European level, including benefits from economic growth, job creation and environmental protection. Europe cannot afford to experience a 30 % impact on the EU’s GDP, see 58 % fewer jobs created or miss out on CO2 savings of 110 %, which would happen if the implementation of SESAR were delayed by 10 years.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We can only achieve a Europe without borders if we have strong, unhindered transport networks. Our airspace does not yet meet that requirement. For the mobility of our citizens and the growth of our businesses, we need to create a real Single European Sky, because the single market will certainly need aviation. This report is ambitious and sets out clear, concrete objectives, which I support. I therefore voted for it. I hope that Europe will soon have an airspace that responds to its requirements and its global competitors.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which summarises the situation regarding the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES). The SES is an opportunity for the aeronautics industry, but all of the stakeholders must fulfil their responsibilities by respecting their commitments. The delay by certain Member States in implementing Functional Airspace Blocks unfortunately reflects the fact that certain governments are not willing to contribute to the realisation of this excellent European project. Is it still necessary today to point out that this streamlining of flight plans actually has major repercussions for our fellow citizens? Achieving a Single European Sky that is safe, efficient and sustainable, and that benefits both travellers and businesses, is an ambitious but achievable target for Europe that should not pose any problems for the Member States. Some 328 000 jobs are likely to be created against a backdrop of the crisis, which means that it is certainly worth sticking to the timeframe.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the resolution adopted on Tuesday to relaunch the Single European Sky (SES). The SES is designed to reduce journey times, thereby reducing CO2 emissions and the cost of flights, while improving safety and creating jobs. It is important to use all of the means available to us to manage European air traffic effectively and ensure that consumers do not waste any more time or money. Some 328 000 jobs are at stake, and they are very important, particularly during a crisis. With this vote, the EP aims to achieve a Single European Sky that is safe, efficient and sustainable, and that benefits both travellers and businesses.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Finalising the legislation on the Single European Sky would enable the most efficient use of Europe’s airspace from the perspective of the economy, of growth and job creation, and of environmental protection. The most appropriate instrument for this is to develop the new-generation air traffic management system (SESAR), which would successfully replace the already outdated technologies and the safety and operational risks that go along with them. The national Air Navigation Service Providers currently in operation represent the biggest barrier to creating the Single European Sky. These operate along national borders. In future the current system is expected to give rise to congestion as European airspace is fast approaching its maximum capacity, and it will also indirectly affect the quality of air transport services offered to the public. This is why we must support the creation of the Single European Sky.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the ‘Implementation of the Single European Sky Legislation’ as it underlines the need for concrete measures to overcome the obstacles and ensure the timely implementation of this legislation.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Each Member State currently manages its airspace in cooperation with neighbouring countries. This uncoordinated management of Europe’s airspace is estimated to cost EUR 4 billion per year. The European Union has for many years been considering the need to implement centralised management of Europe’s airspace with obvious consequences for all: safety, speed and economy. In this respect, in 2004 the European Commission launched a highly ambitious initiative to reorganise air traffic by creating the SESAR (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) programme, which forms the technological pillar of the Single European Sky. Since then progress has not matched expectations, which is why it is now urgent to raise awareness among the Member States, so that the difficulties in its implementation can be overcome. At stake is the technological and economic development of Europe (creation of jobs, reduction of CO2 emissions, increased safety, more tourism, more competitive industry, and so on). I voted in favour of this report by Jacqueline Foster on the implementation of the Single European Sky legislation because we need well-organised airspace – in which safety is the watchword – and because the implementation of this legislation will make an important contribution to the future of Europe.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to speed up the process of creating the Single European Sky, by identifying the need to lay down ‘binding time frames’ for its implementation. There are two fundamental axes to this report: 1. Clear pressure on the Member States to implement the Single European Sky legislation, with it even being proposed that the Commission adopt punitive measures against countries still failing to meet the deadlines. 2. Disproportionate propaganda on the alleged benefits of the Single European Sky. The wolf has been dressed in sheep’s clothing and they are trying to overcome resistance by promoting the same old chestnuts: more jobs, more wealth for all, more safety, more environmental protection. The lack of basis for these alleged benefits is clear and compelling. The report hides the true purposes of the Single European Sky: national subordination, reduction in labour costs and increased profits for large companies. It also hides the fact that progress in terms of improved coordination and use of airspace can and must be achieved while maintaining the sovereignty of each country over its respective airspace. This is essential in order to defend the specific interests of each country, whether in relation to commercial aviation or defence.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Air traffic plays an important part in the economy and society of the European Union. In this respect, the air traffic management system is of vital importance for air traffic activities, given its involvement in problems relating to competitiveness, safety and sustainability. Air traffic management is still based on national sovereign airspace. In Europe, this is very fragmented and dominated by national monopoly service providers. Since the volume of traffic has greatly increased, not least owing to the development of the single market in air traffic, this fragmentation is now posing serious problems, especially with respect to capacities and long passenger delays. There is still no unified European airspace. A possible solution is offered by the Single European Sky initiative comprising the five pillars of performance, safety, technology, airports and the human factor. This concept has strong political support. There is no doubt that the completion of the Single European Sky will bring significant economic, safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable airspace and a more efficient air traffic control system at a European level.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I welcome this proposal because we must avoid any further delay in the achievement of the objectives established in the Single European Sky (SES) project. The report indicates clearly the advantages to be gained in terms of EU GDP, renewed competitiveness for European industry and job creation. Implementation of the SES is fundamental for putting an end to the current problems affecting Europe’s airspace and maintaining the leading role of the EU in the field of research and innovation. It would also fully respect the sovereignty of the Member States as regards military and other state aircraft operations. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − Mr President, today I have voted in favour of the implementation of the Single Sky legislation, which seeks to reduce the fragmentation of the European airspace and create additional capacity, as well as to increase the overall efficiency and safety of air traffic. I agree that the time has come for national governments to deliver on the commitments they made 10 years ago to create a Single European Sky (SES). As air traffic in Europe fast approaches maximum capacity, it is imperative for both the environment and the European economy that airspace is maximised through a more coordinated approach. I believe that my colleague, Mrs Foster, has done a commendable job in bringing forward these important proposals and I am happy to support them.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The creation of a Single European Sky is an essential component in achieving the objective of a Single European Transport Area.

Back in 1999, it was agreed that the existing fragmentation of EU airspace into 27 national air traffic control systems should end, with airspaces being merged into more manageable units based on a specific number of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB), in order to bring practical benefits: shorter flight times, fewer delays, fuel savings, better protection of the environment, and a reduction in air fares. Specifically, it means that implementation of the FABs and the deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) technology will result in flight times being shortened by approximately 10 %, 50 % fewer flight cancellations and delays, and a net saving in CO2 emissions of some 50 million tonnes. These benefits clearly demonstrate why there is a need to create a Single European Sky.

Although 4 December 2012 is the deadline for completion of implementation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs) and SESAR technology, the results achieved so far are sobering, to say the least. The Member States do not wish to be reminded of their obligation to create a Single European Sky, which they entered into ten years ago. Due to the Member States’ lack of commitment, the target date for implementation at the end of this year cannot be achieved.

How can the EU present itself as a respected negotiating partner on an international level in the aviation sector – an area of transport where the international dimension is critically important – if its 27 Member States are unable to speak with one voice?

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170)

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because a globally coordinated approach is needed to ensure that the new technologies are interoperable worldwide. A strong partnership is necessary to achieve the synchronised implementation of the SES legislation with all players and all Member States, including cooperation with neighbouring countries as well. One of the main challenges that needs addressing is the defragmentation of European airspace. The companies providing air traffic control strictly mirror the geographical boundaries of their countries, each of which have at least one Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP). This fragmented national approach needs to be replaced by Functional Airspace Blocks to increase efficiency and reduce congestion.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The own-initiative report by Jacqueline Foster was adopted by a large majority in plenary on 23 October 2012. I voted in favour of the report in plenary. It calls for measures to address the defragmentation of airspace. The industry providing air traffic control strictly mirrors the geographical boundaries of its countries, each of which have at least one Air Navigation Service Provider. This report calls for the development of Functional Airspace Blocks to reduce congestion. Finally, the report supports the public-private partnership approach.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. A Single European Sky (SES) could reduce delays and make air travel safer. Most importantly for EU consumers, it could reduce ticket costs. As air traffic in Europe approaches maximum capacity, maximising airspace through a coordinated EU approach using new technologies makes perfect sense.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Single European Sky (SES) project aims to establish common air traffic management rules in Europe. On Tuesday we adopted the report by Jacqueline Foster on the SES, which seeks to improve the capacity, safety and efficiency of air traffic. That will eventually result in shorter, faster and cheaper flights. As well as reducing travel time for passengers, the optimisation of air routes should lead to significant fuel savings and lower greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation. Indeed, the inefficiency created by the fragmentation of European airspace costs an additional EUR 5 billion every year. The average flight is 42 kilometres longer as a result, which means greater fuel consumption by aircraft, higher emissions, additional costly charges and increased delays. The long-term goal is to triple airspace capacity and halve traffic costs.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The report proposes the implementation of air traffic legislation as it plays a major role in the economy and society of the European Union. Air traffic management (ATM) is essential for air traffic operations; the legal challenges connected to competitiveness, safety and stability must also be considered.

It is important to note that air traffic is fast approaching its maximum capacity and, with the passing of time, the problem will be intensified; there is an urgent need to implement the Single European Sky (SES) legislation to avoid the safety and operational risks arising from the ever-increasing traffic and outdated technology. By implementing this project, the expected cumulative impact on the EU GDP will be EUR 419 billion, the creation of 328 000 jobs and a saving of 50 million tonnes of CO2. SES is open to all neighbouring countries, aiming to expand and bring benefits to a wider geographic area than the EU.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report which sets out to address the recent Commission Report on ‘The Implementation of the Single Sky Legislation: time to deliver’. Although there have already been many positive steps in the right direction, there is still a long way to go, and 2012 is expected to be a pivotal year for the implementation of the SES.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of rapid implementation of the Single European Sky and I regret the delays thus far. The harmonisation of air traffic management would allow aircraft to take the shortest routes and thus offer passengers a means of transport that is cheaper, safer and kinder to the environment. The Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research programme (SESAR) must not be neglected. We must encourage the deployment of new technologies for information exchange and satellite navigation systems. It is important to remember that this would create no less than 328 000 jobs. We must continue to invest in research and, above all, rapidly deploy the new technologies that are available so that we do not lose our technological lead.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The most effective way of implementing the Single European Sky is by replacing a bottom-up with a top-down approach by calling on the Commission to propose measures aimed at eliminating factors delaying application of the Functional Airspace Blocks.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the Single European Sky (SES) legislation. The Single European Sky will help to create a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level. It will benefit competition throughout the EU, and even globally, by fostering growth and jobs, particularly in the aeronautics and aviation industries. I consider that enhanced priority should be afforded to this issue in order to work on developing and implementing this legislation.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted against this report, because the drafting of legislation in this area cannot serve as a pretext for extending the competences of the defence sector. This report emphasises on cooperation with NATO and strengthens the role of the European Defence Agency in advising and assisting the Member States in their efforts. It also envisages the need to involve the Military Committee of the European Union in the process. A space that should serve civilian purposes is being used by the military authorities to impose their decisions and objectives. Given the track record of these military institutions, we believe that the Single European Sky is being used to increase military competences at European level. The militarisation of Europe is not the solution to, but the cause of, the main threats to Europe. For these reasons, I voted against this report.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Single European Sky (SES) offers many advantages. The new provisions are going to add to the expectations of 2004: less air congestion; enhanced, unique safety features; a 10 % reduction in flight times, a 50 % reduction in delays and cancellations, and lower flight prices; lower CO2 emissions; and the creation of jobs, which is a crucial element. In this regard, according to a European Commission study, which I found to be particularly interesting, full and timely deployment of the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) would reduce CO2 emissions by 50 million tonnes and create 328 000 jobs, which is vital, in my opinion. Following the changes in recent years, the adaptations to the SES will at last improve aviation performance and create a unified airspace, a truly single sky. This vote also enables me to stress that the Member States must adopt a proactive political approach in this area.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The progress and the greater need for political support in order to guarantee a successful and timely implementation of the SES legislation are needed.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Given the need for the efficient and effective use of resources, legislation that has an impact on the Single European Sky must also be implemented as a matter of urgency. Only by aligning flight management systems would billions of euros be saved, in terms of passengers’ time, unnecessary flight cancellations and emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. I understand Member States’ concern regarding national security interests but I encourage them to address these problems as soon as possible for the sake of more efficient travel and a more competitive EU aviation sector.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of swift implementation of the Single European Sky (SES). Air traffic is increasing rapidly and with it airfares, to the detriment of passengers, safety and efficiency. Today the highways of the sky do not run in straight lines due to the fragmentation of airspace, causing longer flight times, and therefore also greater CO2 emissions and higher airfares. The fragmented national approach to air traffic control based on national airspaces in Europe urgently needs to be unified precisely in order to ease congestion, raise levels of safety, reduce flight times and delays, and lower airfares. Above all, full and timely deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research technology could result in the creation of 328 000 new jobs.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Since 2004, when the European Union was given authority in the field of air traffic control, vital aspects shifted from the intergovernmental level to the European Union. The EU’s main objective is to reform air traffic control in Europe in order to cope with the constant growth in air traffic and to operate air traffic so that it is as safe, efficient and environmentally friendly as possible.

The Commission communication on this matter gives a detailed description of the results of a study undertaken by SESAR (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) on the macroeconomic impact of the SES project. If the SES is introduced on schedule, the estimates are very promising. It is anticipated that there will be a cumulative impact on GDP of EUR 419 billion. There will also be an opportunity to create 328 000 jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by 50 million tonnes. The benefits of full and timely implementation of the Single European Sky are therefore too great to be ignored.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This welcome legislation on the Single European Sky (SES) must be implemented. Studies indicate that the SES will bring economic and competitive benefits to all stakeholders, including end users, namely passengers, through reduced ticket prices. For those reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Although the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) project has already taken many positive steps forward, 2012 is expected to be a pivotal year for its implementation. Since air traffic is fast approaching its maximum capacity and as time passes the problem continues to grow, there is a relative sense of urgency with regard to the need to successfully implement the SES legislation in order to avoid possible safety or operational risks with ever heavier traffic flows and outdated technologies. I would also underline that the benefits of a full and timely implementation of the SES are too great to ignore, not only for economic gains but also for potential benefits on growth, job creation and the environment. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) I supported the non-legislative resolution calling on the European Commission to take all necessary steps, including the imposition of sanctions, to encourage Member States to eliminate borders in the Single European Sky. The majority of EU Member States, including Germany and France, will not have merged their air traffic control areas into nine Functional Airspace Blocks by the deadline of 4 December 2012. This unjustified delay means that airlines and their passengers will not have access to shorter, quicker and cheaper routes, in the view of MEPs.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) One of the challenges that most urgently needs addressing is the defragmentation of Europe’s airspace. The industry providing air traffic control strictly mirrors the geographical boundaries of their countries, each of which have at least one Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP). This fragmented national approach needs to be replaced to increase efficiency and reduce congestion. The report supports public-private partnerships as this is a win-win situation for all throughout the whole supply chain, using incentives to encourage commitment, and bringing numerous socioeconomic benefits.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I would like to congratulate Ms Foster on her work. Following the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Parliament, in approving this text, has shown a firm desire to implement a true Single European Sky. The aim is to use airspace and current technology to make traffic management as efficient as possible and above all to ensure that consumers do not waste time and money. It should also be underlined that according to the Commission full and timely deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research technology could bring major benefits in terms of job creation, environmental protection and shorter flight times. The Commission has therefore been called on to adopt a new approach, including both sanctions and, where necessary, EU funding.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Although I welcome the progress made by the Union in implementing the Single European Sky, I agree with the other Members who voted in favour of the resolution that this legislation has to be implemented effectively and without delay. France has significant problems with air traffic congestion. At Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport, an aircraft takes off every two minutes at peak times. It will soon reach its maximum capacity, yet air traffic is increasingly constantly. According to the Commission, introduction of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research programme (SESAR) would have other advantages, too, including the direct and indirect creation of no less than 328 000 jobs and a saving in CO2 emissions of some 50 million tonnes. As we face a constant rise in unemployment and reflect on how our lifestyle affects our environment, I fully support the establishment of the Single European Sky.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The financial investment in research and development for the SES, the FABs and the SESAR technology so far has been substantial. Now is the time to put in place the measures necessary to reap the benefits of that investment with the successful and timely implementation of the SES. Without the SESAR technology, the implementation of the SES would simply not be possible and therefore the industry needs to take the deployment phase of this project seriously. As the technologies are already available from the manufacturers, the implementation of the SES is an achievable goal. Furthermore, the success of the Pilot Programmes also demonstrates that the theory can work in practice.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) National air traffic control spaces in Europe urgently need to be merged so as to clear congestion, increase safety, and reduce flight times, delays and fares. The European Commission should put pressure on Member States to meet their obligations and seize the opportunity to create 328 000 jobs through deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research technology.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Union has the most congested airspace in the world due to its economic importance and the number of states it includes, some of which are small in size. The objectives of the Single European Sky (SES) project were established in 2004 and required air traffic control exercised by the individual Member States to be replaced by an integrated approach at EU level. The aim was to reduce the fragmentation caused by air traffic management based on national frontiers instead of aviation needs. It now appears that the aim to merge airspace by 2012 was optimistic and there is the real risk of further delays in achievement of the SES objectives. It should be underlined that this approach to European air traffic management would fully respect the sovereignty of the Member States. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Ms Foster’s report because it aims to reduce or eliminate delayed flights, reduce airline service costs and ticket prices, develop air transport and create jobs and, finally, bring about economic growth in the tourist sector.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Our airspace needs to be made more efficient through the application of the most recent air traffic management technology in order to avoid a situation in which consumers pay twice: with their time and their money. Increased levels of air traffic mean increased operational risks and we therefore need to act swiftly. The Single European Sky involves a number of measures in the civil and military aviation sectors covering regulation, the economy, safety, the environment, technology and the institutions. I voted in favour of changing the organisation of air traffic management, which has remained unaltered for decades, in the hope of meeting the future needs of aviation safety.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text and I want to stress, in particular, that it is important for the Member States to complete the Single European Sky in order to make considerable safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level. I would also emphasise the importance of taking into account regional airports, given their role in removing network congestion and increasing capacity.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) will bring competitive advantages and significant growth to the whole aviation industry, and to those sectors directly and indirectly involved, at a turbulent time in the history of Europe. If the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) technology is deployed, it is estimated that there could be a cumulative impact on EU gross domestic product of EUR 419 billion, with 328 000 jobs being created and a reduction in CO2 of some 50 million tonnes. Furthermore, air traffic is fast approaching its maximum capacity, which may threaten air operations and safety. It is time to reap the benefits of all of the investment made in the SES and SESAR in order to modernise European aviation and eliminate the defragmentation of Europe’s airspace, which is still divided by the borders of the European countries. Strong and effective European aviation, capable of competing internationally, will bring huge economic benefits to the Member States.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the implementation of a Single European Sky as it represents great progress; 2012 is a key year to implement it. Europe’s airspace is one of the busiest in the world; more than 750 million passengers use EU airports. The ever-increasing volume of air traffic will lead to insufficient capacity and more delays for passengers. We would therefore stress the urgency of successful implementing the SES to prevent increasing congestion and to insure greater coherence of the European directives regarding air safety.

For this reason, when developing SES, regional airports should also be taken into consideration, given their contribution to easing network congestion and increasing air capacity. We call on the Commission to report back to the Committee on Transport and Tourism by March 2013 on the progress made with regard to the implementation of the SES legislation. This progress report should include an assessment of the consequences of the delays in implementing the Functional Airspace Blocks.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I unreservedly support this report, which calls strongly for a more rapid completion of the Single European Sky (SES). This project will release aircraft from the constraints imposed by national borders and will authorise them to take the shortest route between two European airports. To this end, the project is based, on the one hand, on the realisation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) and, on the other, on the harmonisation of flight management technologies (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research). Unfortunately, this project, which should reflect the full sense and breadth of European added value, is struggling. The technological pillar is way behind schedule. We urgently need to accelerate and reverse that trend because the usefulness of, and need for, the SES will become increasingly evident as air traffic triples over the coming years. Its benefits are widely known: a reduction in flight times and costs, a 10-fold increase in safety levels, a reduction in CO2 emissions of 50 million tonnes, and the creation of 328 000 jobs. Therefore, why are the Member States and the stakeholders delaying the completion of this European project?

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The advantages of a Single European Sky are self-evident: increased competition and growth, positive impacts on job creation and the environment, and benefits along the entire supply chain. It will also have positive effects on the labour market and trigger further developments, for example, in relation to safety and controllers, which will create new jobs.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The Member States overwhelmingly supported the legislation creating a Single European Sky and are therefore publicly committed to implementing it. It is necessary to move quickly and push ahead with the implementation of the SES legislation to ensure effective air navigation services. It is essential, therefore, to lay down binding time frames. For that reason, I voted in favour of the report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Ms Foster’s report analyses the shortcomings of a policy launched ten years ago in this sector, requiring greater political effort by the Member States and underlining how the benefits of a full and timely implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) are too great to ignore. The completion of the SES will lead to considerable economic, safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I welcome the adoption of this important document. I have repeatedly said, whether in this Chamber or within the Committee on Transport and Tourism, that we cannot conceive of a common Europe without putting into practice the idea of a Single European Sky. A situation whereby passenger air traffic above Europe is still controlled by 27 different centres is unacceptable. Today’s passenger aircraft reach speeds that make it possible for them to fly through some Member States in a matter of less than 20 minutes. Requiring them in this time to make manoeuvres to change their flight path from the shortest and quickest possible is ineffective, unprofitable and incomprehensible. We do not need to introduce an emissions trading requirement for the aviation industry; we simply need to implement the Single European Sky in order to achieve similar results in terms of environmental benefit. I would also reiterate that the Functional Airspace Blocks must be implemented before the end of the year.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the process of creating the Single European Sky (SES). In other words, it is an attack on national sovereignty with greater national subordination, a predictable reduction in the workforce and increased profits for large companies. Another of our concerns about this project is its militaristic overtones, such as when it states ‘that the military community is a key actor in the SES context’. This may mean that this process, in addition to the economic objectives of privatising the ‘sky’, has military control objectives at the service of those interests that command the destinies of the EU.

Report: Georges Bach (A7-0287/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I agree that the specific passenger rights listed in the communication are a step towards fundamental rights cutting across all transport modes. The drawing up of guidelines on the application and implementation of these rights is one of the main requests designed to improve their short-term enforcement. A single cross-cutting regulation on passenger rights as a whole remains a medium-term vision. Passenger rights are at the heart of our transport policy and better information and transparency for citizens are needed in relation to these rights.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The mass transport of European citizens is no longer a simple aspect of our life. Given the ever-increasing number of citizens of our Member States who travel, we can say that transport modes are an integral reality of the European economy, society and culture. It is the duty of European authorities to make sure that there is transparent and appropriate interaction between citizens and operators in this sector.

We must also keep in mind that for smooth travel it is necessary to respect not only passengers’ rights, but also their responsibilities. We should expand the European Commission’s information on the rights enjoyed by travellers in the EU but also emphasise the information concerning individual responsibilities. More and more European citizens are using the internet to buy or validate their tickets. This process should be encouraged for its advantages: it speeds up the boarding process and helps to protect the environment. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is essential to defend passenger rights in all transport modes. Therefore, the European Parliament and I voted in favour of this report, which contains both a summary of existing legislation and a call for new legislation. The European Parliament has called, inter alia, on the European Commission to present a legislative proposal to protect passengers by means of compulsory airline insurance or a guarantee fund. Efforts are also needed to improve arrangements for persons with reduced mobility or disabilities.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Freedom of movement is a fundamental European right, and the European Commission must immediately adopt strict measures to ensure the rights of passengers. As recommended by the rapporteur, the Commission must introduce penalties to ensure full price transparency and put a stop to unfair commercial practices, such as imposing ‘non-optional costs’ or unreasonable restrictions on hand luggage. I agree that the Commission should provide a clear and unambiguous definition of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that can affect services and for which carriers are not liable. The rights of passengers are often infringed because carriers wrongly invoke ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in order to avoid their obligations with regard to passengers’ rights. Evidently, the current laws are not being implemented properly and that thus creates uncertainty for passengers. Passengers are not made aware of their rights and they are by no means happy about the time and cost involved in obtaining enforcement of their rights.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report because it strengthens passengers’ rights in respect of all modes of transport in three fundamental ways. It introduces the requirement to provide passengers with more and better information about the services associated with the tickets they purchase, it improves all passengers’ access to a system for handling complaints that operates under the same conditions throughout Europe, with particular emphasis on access to this system for people with disabilities, and it prevents fraudulent practices that sometimes occur through the provision on the websites of certain air carriers of information that is not entirely accurate or is incomplete at best. This is a step forward for European citizens.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the Commission’s policy, which aims to guarantee rights and common and comparable conditions for all modes, namely air, rail, waterborne and road transport. I support the measures on intermodality aimed at removing the obstacles that prevent European citizens from exercising their rights correctly. At the same time, I think it is necessary to improve the information given to passengers and compensation in the event of problems, cancellations or lost luggage, and to define the rights of passenger organisations, which are in the best position to inform and support citizens.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Inconsistent application of EU passenger rights law, emergence of new trends in services provided and the intermodality affecting some areas of the EU due to local conditions are the three main elements considered by this report, which deserves to be supported. While acknowledging and taking account of different national situations, the need for rationalisation must also be recognised, in order to achieve clear and precise awareness of a minimum and uniform level of EU passenger rights. The report gives due attention to e-commerce; the Italian General Confederation of Enterprises recently underlined that this sector is expanding rapidly, requiring increased regulation of passenger rights, particularly with regard to ticket cancellations, refunds and transparency in pricing. I therefore particularly welcome the comments in paragraphs 41, 48, 49 and 54 regarding an unambiguous definition at EU level of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ under which carriers are not liable to passengers, taking note of the relevant Court of Justice case-law. I also welcome, in addition to the environmental considerations of the report, the proposals for encouraging new ticketing technologies, as well as intermodality and interoperability of networks and carriers, as test areas for best practices having positive economic effects.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this own-initiative report on passenger rights in all transport modes. This report seeks to improve passenger rights by harmonising European rules. It is important to consolidate the rights of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, and to strengthen consumer protection in the event of airline bankruptcy or insolvency.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. − (CS) Research shows that, in rail transport, 50 % of all problems are caused by delays and missed connections, but the respondents also spoke of cancellations and poor information during train journeys and at stations. It is therefore important that information on passenger rights should be simple, clear and accessible from the time of booking to the journey’s end. Carriers and terminal operators should set up information points or help services in order to provide passengers with the necessary information when making decisions in the event of travel problems and provide information if baggage has been lost or delayed. A standard complaint form, a single email address, and an inexpensive telephone line should be introduced, and a central electronic complaint site set up not only to give advice, but also to pass on complaints to the appropriate national bodies. There is also a need to improve information about air fares. Prices offered on the internet should, from the outset, include all of the costs payable. Customers must be in a position to ascertain the actual total price from the moment that they start booking. The Commission must prohibit every unfair commercial practice.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − The cooperation of airlines and airports in the protection of passenger rights is something I in principle agree with, but as a staunch opposer to the creation of further European legislation and EU competencies I have voted against the harmonisation of compensatory rights for delays. I fear that creating pan-European legislation in this area would not protect airlines in incidents where planes are forced to be grounded and create complex insurance in matters where passengers are seeking compensation in large numbers. MEPs urged the Commission finally to define clearly the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ causing interruption of services for which airlines cannot be held responsible. It is essential that both customers and businesses are fairly protected.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the European Parliament’s adoption of the Bach report on passenger rights in all transport modes. It is essential to have legislation that harmonises all passenger rights in order to ensure that passengers are better protected. I support the measures proposed to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, transparency of the quality of services and prices, passenger information, and intermodality. I also believe that it is essential to simplify the procedures to help passengers to assert their rights in relation to large transport companies.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Mr Bach’s report deals with passenger rights, a question that is crucial for us as members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. The report draws attention to needs directly affecting our fellow citizens on a daily basis when they travel for work or family reasons or as tourists. The Commission communication lists 10 passenger rights that should apply for all transport modes and that aim to ensure a minimum level of protection for all passengers in the EU. In my view, the rights relating to accessibility, correct information and assistance to passengers should always be guaranteed. I particularly welcome the comments on persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, passengers who travel with children and assistance should travel problems occur.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that it is vital to strengthen the application of the current provisions on passenger rights and to improve them in those cases where this proves to be necessary.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the last 10 years we have developed a series of EU passenger rights, regardless of the mode of transport, to ensure a minimum level of protection, thereby facilitating mobility and at the same time creating uniform competition conditions for carriers. Unfortunately, these rights are still not being applied completely and correctly, either by carriers or by national authorities. It is therefore vital to revise the current legislation in order to make it clearer and to strengthen passenger rights, particularly the right to information on their rights and how they can exercise them. Effective and efficient application of these rights can only be guaranteed if they are actively and effectively monitored by national enforcement bodies. Passenger rights are therefore based on three pillars: non-discrimination, accurate, timely and accessible information, and immediate and proportionate assistance. I therefore support this initiative which, as one of the measures included in the communications on a Single Market Act, lists the rights and principles applicable to all modes of transport, while making distinctions due to the specific characteristics of each mode of transport, and identifies the areas in which greater convergence must be achieved as well as current shortcomings.

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), in writing. − Supporting this report, I would like to call for the necessity to continue the ongoing improvement of passengers’ rights in EU legislation as well as in Member States. I would like to stress that it is important to raise the awareness of European citizens about the existing consumer protection mechanisms at national and European level. At the same time it seems extremely important to submit the simplified and comprehensible form for application for the legislative petition so passengers could immediately and effectively defend their rights in the event of problems (delay of flights for example).

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In a Europe where citizens are free to go where they wish, when they wish, depending on their needs and interests, it is essential to have better coordination of the modes of transport and to apply a common core of passenger rights to all transport modes. In my opinion, Member States need to cooperate more closely to develop a European multimodal travel planner that allow passengers to plan their journeys across Europe using a whole variety of means of transport.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Our objective is to allow citizens to move throughout the Union, but we are well aware that it is not yet a reality. One of the problems we all face is the fact that we are often unaware of our rights as passengers: what do I do if my luggage has been damaged or lost? Can I receive compensation if my journey is cancelled or there is a serious delay? How can I complain? This report aims to respond to a problem that affects us all and it has the benefit of being both realistic and ambitious. I fully support that and I voted in favour of it. I agree with its ambition to achieve, in the long term, a more uniform and stronger framework for the protection of European passengers. Pending such a framework, we must continue to better inform passengers by promoting simplicity and communication.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which calls for better protection for passengers in all modes of transport. Often, when passengers encounter difficulties during a trip, they are baffled by all of the existing legislation. Therefore, we are today calling on the Commission to combine in a single text, in the medium term, the provisions on passenger protection. We also call on the Commission to submit a proposal in response to another recurring problem in the transport sector: passenger protection in the event of bankruptcy of a carrier from which they have already purchased a ticket. We can no longer allow passengers to be grounded because of bankruptcy and then deprived of the means to obtain compensation.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the resolution that we adopted, in which we expressly call on the European Commission to harmonise passenger rights in Europe in all modes of transport. Although there are six Directives at present, the aim is to create a common core of rights that are applied fairly to all transport modes, taking into account the characteristics of the different modes. That should result in greater transparency because the current situation remains unclear for thousands of European travellers. In emergencies and unforeseen situations, travellers must no longer be helpless and must be able to consult a simple document setting out their rights. It should contain a clear definition of what is meant by ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and should also clarify the rules on carrier bankruptcy. We need to ensure better protection for travellers, who must be assured of being able to return home. All prepaid travel should be reimbursed, too. Measures must be taken to guarantee the transparency of prices on the internet because all too often the initial price is nothing at all like the final price.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Previous Commission communications contained proposals relating to all modes of transport. It should be possible in the medium term to draw up a single cross-cutting passenger rights regulation, and it is essential to do so in order to promote intermodality. The legislation addresses the problems of air transport by eliminating ambiguities concerning passenger rights and clarifying issues relating to the responsibilities of air carriers in the case of denied boarding, long delays, cancellations, lost luggage, and barrier-free access to airport facilities. Regulation (EC) No 137/2007, in force since 2009, significantly strengthened the rights of rail passengers, but since EU provisions were framed to take account of the diversity in national rail systems, this has allowed Member States to exempt certain services from the application of passenger rights. For all of these reasons, new guidelines need to be drawn up with a view to reinforcing passenger rights, while taking into account the diverse nature of the different modes of transport.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mobility is one of the pillars of modern society and has been extensively promoted, not only among the young – look at the success of the Erasmus programme – but also in business terms (relocation and globalisation), and as a way of overcoming the economic and financial crisis. In fact, in recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of passengers carried, particularly in aviation due to the ‘low cost’ concept. This increase in the number of passengers carried has brought with it an increase in the number of problems in this sector. Every day hundreds of transport services are cancelled or delayed, causing serious complications for passengers (workers, students, tourists, etc.). Sometimes passengers are not aware of their rights, perhaps due to negligence on the part of the carriers themselves, particularly with regard to assistance when transport services are cancelled. In addition, information is not always correct, clear and available in multiple languages. I voted in favour because I agree with the need to implement a legislative framework ensuring respect for passenger rights, mainly easier access to information and support services.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This document brings together a series of passenger rights applicable to all modes of transport, to ensure a minimum level of protection in the EU. It sets out the criteria for compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or long delays, and the liability of air carriers when there are problems with luggage. It also aims to ensure rights for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility travelling by air, in relation to access, information and adequate training. As regards rail transport, it proposes improvements in the protection of passengers and their baggage and on the issue of delays and accidents. However, it is worrying that these rights can be challenged, bearing in mind, for example, that it is considered ‘essential to strike a balance between the need for passenger rights in the case of rural bus services and ... to ensure that the burden is not so heavy as to make such services unviable in the future’. There is also a symptomatic lack of any reference in the report to public transport services, which are an essential way of ensuring that the transport services needed to link isolated regions and places are maintained, thereby guaranteeing the full rights of passengers and populations.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Since the relevant goals were set out in the Commission’s 2001 White Paper, a comprehensive EU passenger rights package has been developed for all modes, affording basic protection to passengers while ensuring a level playing field for carriers. The existing regulations have failed to provide clarity on passenger rights or the responsibilities of service providers and therefore require revision. The common criteria (non-discrimination, equal treatment, physical and ICT accessibility, the requirements of ‘design for all’, fulfilment of the transport contract, exact and accessible information given in good time before, during and after travel, and appropriate assistance without delay in the event of problems and possible compensation) together with the 10 specific passenger rights (defined by the Commission in its communication) correspond to the main rights cutting across modes and form a solid basis for establishing a legally enforceable charter of passenger rights. The same fundamental principles and rights have been introduced across all modes of transport so that travelling in the EU – thanks to an increase in service quality, passenger protection and the appeal of the European transport sector – is easier and pleasanter. These passenger rights remain an integral part of the European vision for transport policy, although the conditions and methods of implementation of these rights differ and are still developing.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Broadening passenger rights is fundamental for reinforcing civil liberties in the EU as it enables citizens to exercise their right to freedom of movement. EU citizens unfortunately lack sufficient awareness of their rights, and so it is important to provide them with information. In my opinion, we should also make citizens aware of the protection available to them in the event of specific incidents such as airline bankruptcy or grounding of aircraft due to a volcanic eruption. Increasing passenger rights helps to increase passenger confidence in the various modes of transport, and without this confidence there can be no economic growth. Mr Bach’s report is exemplary, since it proposes solutions to remedy numerous current problems. I voted in favour of the report.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) In a Single European Transport Area, clear and comprehensible uniform rights for EU passengers are essential. Individual passenger rights have already been established at the European level for all modes of transport. In the aviation and rail sectors, these are already in force. They will apply to passengers travelling by ship from December 2012, and to coach and bus travel from March 2013. This report is to be welcomed as it draws attention to the remaining problems relating to passenger rights.

Among other things, the strengthening and clarification of rights are essential. Enforcement of these rights is often problematical and transparency must be increased, as travellers are still not receiving adequate information about their rights to compensation and reimbursement. Information campaigns are a good way forward here. Enforcement can also be improved with clear rules on the establishment of national authorities tasked with guaranteeing harmonised implementation of passenger rights in all Member States.

The Commission is already planning a reform of passenger rights at the end of this year. In doing so, it should take the European Parliament’s proposals to heart so that passengers’ rights are clear and unambiguous, with no further need to consult a lawyer for an interpretation, and to enable these rights to be enforced in a uniform manner throughout the EU.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report on passenger rights in all transport modes. Although the Union already has a comprehensive, integrated set of rules, it is now essential to ensure further convergence of current legislation and remove the obstacles that still prevent citizens from exercising their rights. For that reason, I especially welcome our recommendations aimed at informing passengers more fully: only citizens who are properly informed will be able to exercise their rights effectively. That requires, in particular, setting up information points and helpdesks and having properly trained personnel.

The future proposal should also, in my view, respond to the new challenges passengers have to deal with in terms of information and reservation systems. In addition to greater price transparency, it should set out clear provisions on complaint handling and the issue of liability. One of the other pillars of passenger rights, as far as I am concerned, is the right to mobility: we urgently need to establish minimum standards for assisting people with disabilities so as to ensure a coherent and effective approach throughout the Union.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) There is much talk at present of citizens’ rights, particularly in the context of the European Year of Citizens in 2013. I therefore welcome the fact that we are also focusing on the rights of specific groups, such as passengers. We can now cite a series of rights common to all forms of transport, such as the ban on discrimination against passengers on the basis of their place of residence or nationality, access to information about travel conditions and assistance should travel be disrupted, for instance, in the form of reimbursement of the full ticket price in the event of cancellation or long delays. Passenger rights naturally differ according to the mode of transport, but a list of common rights will enable these rights to be enforced more effectively. However, this list cannot be allowed to undermine the flexibility and proportionality required due to the diverse nature of the modes of transport in question.

I particularly support the Commission’s intention to continue with the information campaigns, as I have always stressed that clear, complete and accessible information is the basis for ensuring that rights are exercised.

I back this report, because I believe that this core package of rights common to all modes of transport will guarantee a basic standard of service and uniform procedures for all carriers, ensuring that passengers enjoy better travelling conditions, and that it constitutes another step towards further integration of the EU internal market.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 23 October the European Parliament adopted the report on passenger rights in all transport modes, including, in addition to air and rail transport that is already regulated, waterborne transport and bus/coach transport. This report seeks to coordinate the existing regulations and to establish common guidelines. Mobility is one of the key successes of the single market: facilitating the mobility of European citizens thus meant, of course, that the technical and administrative obstacles to their daily journeys had to be removed. I therefore welcome the fact that the EU is drawing up a set of basic passenger rights comprising rules that take account of their concerns. Among these basic rights, I would draw attention to the right to information that is clear, precise and easy to access from the time of booking and throughout the journey, facilitated by the establishment of information points, but also the right to cancel a journey and receive a full refund of the cost of the ticket, the right to compensation in certain circumstances, the carrier’s liability for luggage, and easy and non-discriminatory access for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because the Commission communication lists the rights applying to all modes, a package affording basic protection to passengers in the EU. The EU rules have been drafted so as to provide proportionality and the differentiation required by the diverse nature of the individual modes and their markets, that is to say, the type of journeys. Together they constitute the basis of common passenger rights: non-discrimination, implying that passengers and carriers must not be discriminated against on account of their place of residence or nationality; information about travel conditions; transparency, including price transparency; should travel problems occur, assistance in the form of rerouting and reimbursement of the full ticket price in the event of cancellation or long delays; compensation (except in extraordinary circumstances); care (food or possibly payment of hotel costs); and assistance and accessibility for people with disabilities or reduced mobility.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Georges Bach was adopted by a large majority on 23 October 2012. I supported this report, which relates to the Commission communication on the application of passenger rights in all transport modes. This report calls for improvements in many areas and, above all, the introduction, in the medium term, of a single regulation on passenger rights, which would apply to all passenger modes. A significant section of the report is also dedicated to persons with disabilities and reduced mobility.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report and I agree with the range of requests addressed to the Commission, Member States and other stakeholders (transport companies, service providers, industry) on issues such as clear and timely information of passengers, price-transparency, liability in the case of insolvency, enforcement of legislation by specific bodies at national level, as well as Commission monitoring and infringement procedures. EU consumers and their rights should be our priority. In addition, I particularly welcome the emphasis placed on the needs of persons with disabilities and reduced mobility.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) My colleagues and I adopted the report by Georges Bach on passenger rights in all transport modes. This report strengthens passenger rights by providing legal clarifications, irrespective of the mode of transport. It aims to facilitate the arrangements and information for passengers in the event of delays, lost or damaged luggage, and even carrier bankruptcy. Parliament has thus provided for an upwards harmonisation of passenger rights in all transport modes. The application of this report will, eventually, involve the introduction of a standard complaint form and processing time for all modes of transport, greater price transparency on the internet, and protection for passengers in the event of carrier bankruptcy.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I think that when harmonising EU citizens’ rights concerning all modes of transport, it is necessary to pay particular attention to people with disabilities or reduced mobility, and their need for accessibility. The report includes a number of measures intended to help these people, notably when special assistance is needed; that is a considerable improvement on the present situation.

In future, we will need to concentrate our efforts in each of the EU countries, to find solutions to make the infrastructure accessible and to harmonise and adapt the common standards to the architectural barriers in each Member State. In this way, the safety and security of people with disabilities or reduced mobility will not be affected by architectural obstacles and they will be able to play an active role in society.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report. The Commission communication lists the rights applying to all modes – a package affording basic protection to passengers in the EU. The regulations relating to air and rail transport are already in force; those relating to waterborne and bus and coach transport will not enter into force until December 2012 and March 2013 respectively.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is important to defend passenger rights in all transport modes. Passengers need to have rapid access to information and assistance in the event of travel disruption. The European Commission must react in more cases and investigate more systematically the companies that do not respect their users’ rights. It is particularly important to ensure that the principle of transparency is applied in internet prices: too often, additional costs that are not advertised are added at the end of the booking process, for example, credit card fees. The report also calls on the Commission to provide a clearer definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, which too many airlines abuse in order to avoid reimbursing customers affected by flights delays or cancellations.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I agree with the recommendation that the Commission includes in its list of passenger rights on the right to a minimum quality services standard on the part of carriers and I am pleased that it set out a clear definition of such a standard. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) For some years now the EU has been developing a series of EU passenger rights, regardless of the mode of transport, to ensure a greater level of protection, facilitate mobility and, at the same time, create conditions for a competitive market for all carriers. However, it has not always been possible to fully use all of these rights, mainly at the fault of stakeholders, carriers and national authorities. We must therefore revise the current legislation in order to make it clearer and thus strengthen passenger rights, particularly the right to information on their rights and how they can exercise them. Passenger rights must be based on three pillars: non-discrimination, accurate, timely and accessible information, and immediate assistance.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report, as it increases passengers’ protection in the event of carriers’ failure to abide by the rules. Passengers need to be protected, regardless of the mode of transport they use, from the abuses committed by carriers. These practices are very widespread among certain carriers, which shirk their responsibilities and leave passengers to their fate in the event of non-compliance. The report calls on the Commission to provide a clear definition of the extraordinary circumstances under which carriers could be exempt from responsibility. The report also refers to the need for price transparency with regard to transport fares and for the promotion of through-ticketing and the use of intermodal transport. For all of these reasons, I voted in favour of the report.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. − (SK) The fragmentation of passenger rights in the most important modes of transport, air, rail, waterborne and road transport, weakens passengers’ standing. Passengers, like all other consumers, are entitled to accurate and clear information and therefore the right thing to do to is to establish a minimum set of rights in all modes of transport. I consider it a priority clearly to establish passenger rights and service provider responsibilities. The harmonisation of legal rights in these four modes of transport will, in my view, result in the provision of equal responsibilities and conditions among transport operators who have previously not implemented many of the minimum passenger rights. The establishment of a list of minimum passenger rights represents just the first step in improving the situation in practice, since passengers encounter difficulties on a daily basis in enforcing their legal claims. I therefore consider that regular monitoring of the observance of rights and, above all, of the pursuance of passenger rights by national authorities is an essential logical step in the direction of a real improvement in the situation of passengers in the EU.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Passengers’ right are in the core of our transport policy. We need better information and the enforcement of current legislation and it is necessary to strengthen passengers’ right in the forthcoming legislation. I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Integration does not just mean new Member States’ membership of the European Union or inclusion of new policy areas among the EU’s competences. Integration is also the application of uniform rules in the same sector. In terms of passenger transport, we have already adopted documents in the parliamentary term establishing the rights of passengers travelling by bus, ferry and plane. It is very important to ensure that a passenger travelling by different modes of transport during a single journey is guaranteed the same rights, particularly rights regarding information about journeys or their cancellation, as well as passengers with reduced mobility. I therefore welcome the comment that the Commission still has a lot to do for passengers to be able to travel comfortably and safely in the European Union.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Bach’s report on passenger rights for all transport modes. We have lived in a single market for two decades, and travel is increasingly important both for economic development and the personal fulfilment of citizens. Therefore, travelling should be a normal everyday activity, not an obstacle race. We should also promote the use of new technologies for all modes of transport, to be applied to the issuing of boarding cards that can be retained, are valid and can be shown using electronic devices.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) I consider the protection of passengers against operators’ behaviour to be a very important objective in the field of transport. Appropriate regulations are already in force in air and rail transport; in waterborne and bus transport, regulations will not enter into force until December 2012 and March 2013, respectively, and therefore we shall not be able to implement them until sometime in the future. The relevant air transport regulations govern the system of compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or long delays, and the liability of air carriers when luggage is lost, delayed or damaged.

Protection is also essential for passengers with disabilities, focusing for example on the quality of service to this group of people, including barrier-free access to airports, proper staff training and clarification of the matter of liability for loss or damage to mobility devices.

Our citizens are constantly encountering problems associated with transport and therefore it is essential that their rights are harmonised in all modes of transport.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the Commission communication setting out a list of rights applicable in all modes of transport, which together guarantee EU passengers (in a broad sense) a minimum level of protection. This report proposes improving the application of the current provisions on passenger rights and indicates the need to fine-tune these provisions when appropriate. For those reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) A common core of rights applying to all modes, a basic level of service, and a standard way of proceeding for carriers and enforcement bodies as a whole are required if intermodal travel is to work and become a matter of course in the EU internal market. The Commission has so far failed in its attempt to develop a European multimodal travel planner that would enable passengers to plan their journeys across Europe using a whole variety of means of transport. The Member States, together with the Commission, should seek to remove the obstacles preventing carriers from developing a travel planner of this kind. I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report calls for improvements in several areas, in particular for the creation of a single cross-cutting regulation on passenger rights for all modes of transport, to be implemented in the medium term. Another important consideration is passenger protection in the event of airline bankruptcy. In this case, the rapporteur calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal to protect passengers through a compulsory insurance or guarantee fund. The rights of citizens with reduced mobility or disabilities are also considered in this report. As I agree with the recommended measures, I voted in favour.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Consumer law in transport modes is highly developed in the European Union. However, we must acknowledge that the existing legislation has a number of shortcomings. I therefore support this resolution, which aims to provide solutions for the remaining gaps. For example, too often, in the event of delays or cancellations, consumers are not reimbursed for their travel because the company pleads extraordinary circumstances and is thus exempt from having to provide compensation or a refund. For that reason, I welcome the resolution’s call to the Commission to provide a clearer definition of these circumstances. Another key element, in my opinion, is the information that must be provided to consumers and the assistance that may be offered to them in the event of a problem. Consequently, personnel must be able to take immediate decisions and deal with claims for compensation or reimbursement. Finally, I support the call to the Commission to present legislative measures to improve complaint procedures, in particular, the introduction of a standard complaint form.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Depending on the mode, passenger rights differ in terms of their scope and possible exceptions, especially as regards the definition of delays, the extent of assistance and care while passengers are waiting to be rerouted, the amount of compensation (a flat rate or a percentage of the fare), the circumstances in which compensation is not (or no longer) payable, and the time-frame for handling complaints. Essentially, the crux of passenger rights is considered to be the entitlement to fulfilment of the transport contract. Delays are accordingly the case in which the compensation arrangements are most clear cut. Interpreting the relevant regulations, the Court of Justice has ruled on the scope of passenger rights as regards cancellations, delays, and extraordinary circumstances.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Despite points of disagreement, such as the proposal for a common frame of reference for all modes of transport and the use of the new technologies such as certain smartphone applications, I voted in favour of this report because I see the protection of passenger rights as indispensable. More price transparency, proper management of complaints, and more rights than prohibitions are all very useful aims. I also agree with the call for inclusion of better levels of assistance for persons with disabilities. In fact, I made a similar proposal, acting in my capacity as rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, in the European disability strategy. It is intolerable that passengers with disabilities cannot find suitable means of transport and often do not know whether the means on which they intend to travel are equipped with suitable facilities.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I believe that the report adopted today on passenger rights in all transport modes has considerable importance for the transport sector, but above all for passengers. Given the continuous growth of the transport sector and the increasing number of passengers in all transport modes, equivalent and relevant passenger rights must be guaranteed. This is becoming ever more important because in many cases travelling involves several different transport modes rather than just one. Unfortunately, there was no support for the idea to require the Commission to consolidate all rights into a single regulation, which in my opinion would have made them more accessible and clearer for all stakeholders. One of the essential common features of passenger rights in the different transport modes is the prohibition on discriminating against passengers on the basis of their place of residence or citizenship and against travel agencies on the basis of their place of business. Furthermore, as regards passenger rights, I find it important to take the rights and possibilities of the elderly, the disabled and persons with limited mobility fully into account. Uniform pan-European passenger rights must be available for everyone. In view of the above, I voted in favour of this report.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. − (CS) As the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I voted in favour of the draft report by Georges Bach on passenger rights in all transport modes. Passenger rights are a fundamental pillar of our group’s transport policy. The draft report takes note of the current rules for the protection of passenger rights and sets out clear requirements for Member States to improve and accelerate the adoption of the current measures in the field of passenger rights in all transport modes. As the shadow rapporteur, I pushed for the draft to take sufficient account of the rights of passengers with reduced mobility, the fundamental right of passengers to safety, better access to information in intelligible form, the right to compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy or insolvency and collective passenger redress.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Union affords basic levels of protection to passengers. This vote emphasises, among other things, the fundamental importance of a better quality of service to passengers with disabilities, including barrier-free access to airport facilities, devising of coordinated and standard notification procedures, proper staff training, and liability for damage to, or the loss of, mobility devices. With regard to rail transport, significant improvements have been made in recent years in the protection of passengers and their baggage in the event of delays or accidents, but further improvements in service are necessary. Depending on the mode, passenger rights differ in terms of their scope and possible exceptions, especially as regards the definition of delays, the extent of assistance and care while passengers are waiting to be rerouted, the amount of compensation, the circumstances in which compensation is not payable, and the time-frame for handling complaints. The crux of passenger rights is considered to be the entitlement to fulfilment of the transport contract.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The migration of EU inhabitants for work is now an everyday occurrence. I therefore welcome and support the report on passenger rights in all transport modes. For us personally, when travelling every week to Brussels or Strasbourg from different Member States, we find that sufficient information is often lacking in real time. In the draft amendment of passenger rights, the Commission should clearly define ‘exceptional circumstances’ for the disruption of transport and passenger rights for those using more than one transport mode. The current EU legislation in the field of passenger rights is still not being implemented and pursued in all transport modes or in all parts of the EU, which is hindering competitiveness and affecting citizens’ confidence in travelling. The introduction of common standards for the carriage of hand luggage is extremely essential, since many carriers demand a payment immediately before boarding which exceeds the price of the air ticket for just 1 kg of excess weight.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Access to information about passenger rights should be simple, clear and transparent, from the time of booking or purchase to the journey’s end. Passengers must have all necessary help in the event of travel problems or if baggage has been lost or damaged. Information about the costs and prices of services should be clear and accessible from the start of the process. We can only support measures that promote and facilitate information and transparency and consequently ensure passenger rights.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which once again highlights the numerous problems and risks affecting passengers in all transport modes. In particular, the Commission is urged to improve the transparency of the computerised reservation systems governed by Regulation 1008/2008/EC, which leave consumers open to all types of abuse, such as unfair terms in the overall calculation of ticket prices, with the automatic inclusion of extra unwanted costs.

Moreover, we must again urge the Commission to table, at last, a legislative proposal revising the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC, which is no longer adapted to the industry and is thus depriving travellers of a legal framework for both standard and exceptional situations.

Finally, the current levels of consumer protection in the event of airline bankruptcy or insolvency are insufficient and require a legislative proposal encompassing measures to protect passengers who are stranded in the event of cessation of operations, compulsory airline insurance and the creation of a guarantee fund.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Passenger rights in the EU have been constantly and gradually developing. Air and rail passenger rights are already in force, while those relating to waterborne and bus/coach transport will enter into force in December 2012 and March 2013 respectively. I would highlight, in this document, the need for transparency of the information provided, from the time of booking to the journey’s end. There must be a point of contact in any mode of transport. Furthermore, undertakings must be liable in cases of insolvency, and the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ must be better applied. Lastly, the rights of passengers with reduced mobility must be underlined, as they must receive a service appropriate to their needs.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the own-initiative report on passenger rights in all transport modes. I consider that all future initiatives regarding passenger rights must tackle the elements that are missing from the existing regulations, especially routes with no obstacles for all passengers and for all modes of transport. The recommendations adopted on passenger rights include the following: inclusion of minimum quality standards for service providers and the right to compensation, reimbursement and information, all within a common legislative framework that will create competitive conditions between the different means of transport. It is important that clear information be provided on the liability of carriers in the event of damage to baggage during the journey and on differentiated baggage allowances and compensation for delays.

I wish to highlight the importance of the following aspects: the ability to purchase a ticket online that is not more expensive; a simplified procedure for the rapid handling of complaints; clarification of liability if mobility or other assistive devices are damaged, given that the cost of replacing them exceeds the maximum reimbursement permitted by international law, as this frequently occurs.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This report, which has my full support, calls for a number of measures that will strengthen passengers’ rights across the EU. It recommends several sensible suggestions that would improve and build upon current EU passenger rights. Regardless of the mode of transport – be it rail, bus, air or maritime – customers should have access to swift information in all official EU languages in the event of service disruption or if the need to seek compensation should arise. Furthermore, a key recommendation of this report is to improve complaint procedures and tighten rules regarding price transparency, which will help put an end to unfair hidden travelling costs. The suggestions outlined in this report represent a significant contribution to the drive to improve and harmonise passengers’ rights across the EU.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which called for an improvement in passenger rights in all transport modes. Among the suggestions for achieving this goal, I support, in particular, the idea of a European charter that is available to travellers and contains the 10 basic passenger rights. In emergencies and unforeseen situations, it would be useful for travellers to have access to a simple document setting out the most basic rights. Discouraged by the complexity of complaint procedures, passengers all too often decide not to exercise their right to compensation. To remedy this, I proposed a standard complaint form and a maximum time limit for complaint handling for all modes of transport, and that idea was accepted. Finally, the report calls for greater price transparency on the internet, because too often the advertised price is far from being the final price. In my opinion, it should be a more accurate reflection of the price to be paid and should not hide administrative and credit card fees in order to lure customers. The ball is now in the Commission’s court and it must come back to us with an ambitious legislative proposal.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution, because it is essential to guarantee all passengers in the European Union a minimum level of protection in respect of all modes of transport. Passengers are entitled to simple, clear and accessible information about their rights. The application and enforcement of these rights should be the responsibility of the national enforcement bodies across the EU, which should cooperate more effectively in this regard.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. − (SK) Passengers are entitled to accessible and accurate information on services provided by carriers, so that they can make appropriate decisions. However, the European legislation should not become like a nanny. It should ensure that citizens are compensated when carriers breach the transport terms and conditions. Rampant regulation harms the free market and puts prices up. It is therefore important to find the right balance.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − The Commission’s list of basic passenger rights for all transport modes that affords basic levels of protection to passengers in the EU is of great value. The EU rules have been so drafted as to provide proportionality and the differentiation required by the diverse nature of the individual modes and their markets. Together they constitute a core of common passenger rights.

Unfortunately, laws are not being implemented completely or consistently by carriers and national authorities. In addition, passengers are not fully informed about their rights and are unhappy about what it takes, cost included, to assert them. One particular source of unease is the complexity of the procedures. It is therefore necessary to establish clearly the conditions for drawing up a single cross-cutting passenger rights Regulation, placing particular emphasis on clarity and accessibility of information.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. − (LV) Parliament’s report on passenger rights should be supported because, firstly, it calls for the introduction of legal certainty in relation to passenger rights in all transport modes. Passenger complaints for each type of transport – air, rail, waterborne and road transport – in the various Member States are considered and passenger rights issues are resolved in various different monitoring bodies. Therefore, there is often a lack of clarity about the handling of legal provisions and the procedure for considering complaints. In the future, therefore, passenger rights, including rights to compensation, refunds and information, on all transport modes must be based on a common foundation of legal regulation, which must of course take into account the particularities of each type of transport.

The report also points out that in air transport the definitions of delays and cancellation of flights is still too often interpreted in different ways. Another important issue is the need to have a clearer definition of the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, since a technical fault should not be considered to be an extraordinary circumstance; the carrier is responsible for such a fault.

I welcome the fact that Parliament’s report returns once again to the issue of basic fares, which was recently considered in another report. The basic fare ought to include costs which are linked to the carrier’s legal obligations, such as safety, security and passenger rights, and to the provision of tickets and boarding cards or the carrying of a minimum amount of luggage, and all costs related to payment, such as credit card costs.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to identify some of the passenger rights in all modes of transport, such as the criteria for compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or long delays, and the liability of air carriers when there are problems with luggage. It also aims to ensure rights for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility travelling by air, in relation to access, information and adequate training. These, like other aspects, are essential. However, it is extremely worrying that the report contains no references to public transport services, which are an essential way of guaranteeing the maintenance of transport services and the right to mobility, without any regard for profit, thereby ensuring transport in isolated regions and places to the benefit of their populations.

Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0301/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because this text sets out the types of procedure that must be adopted to ensure adequate scrutiny of this part of the budget, which must occur to show how the Council has used its budget. Regrettably, Parliament’s questions on 2010 have not been answered. Although the Danish Presidency has endeavoured to make progress, there have been no concrete results or subsequent follow-up on the part of the Council.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament refused to grant discharge to the Council. However, as no significant irregularities were revealed, I voted in favour of discharge. Although I regret the lack of information and cooperation from the Council, it is not sufficient justification for refusing discharge. In times of crisis, these types of interinstitutional conflicts are particularly regrettable.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In May the European Parliament refused to grant discharge to the Council. Nothing has changed since then so we are reiterating our position today. Cooperation among the institutions does not happen automatically; it is built on respect and mutual trust. The European Parliament is one of the EU’s budgetary authorities, on an equal footing with the Council. The expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of the other institutions. It must therefore be transparent and work in close cooperation with Parliament, by responding to the questionnaire that we send every year, by coming to meetings and public hearings, and so on. Without these elements, without open and constructive dialogue, we cannot exercise our right of discharge to the best of our ability.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of a refusal to grant discharge owing to the Council’s serious failure to provide the information required to make the relevant assessments. The lack of transparency with which this institution has acted is truly deplorable, which is why my vote against discharge relates not only to the discharge itself but also to the Council’s disregard for transparency.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour as I support the refusal to grant the Council’s Secretary-General discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) After the European Court of Auditors presented its annual report for the financial year 2010, as part of its discharge procedure for the financial year 2010 the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out its financial audit of the implementation of the European Union’s general budget in relation to the Council. The primary task of the Committee on Budgetary Control is to scrutinise and ensure that the EU budget is being implemented appropriately and effectively. In its annual report for 2010 based on the inspection carried out by the European Court of Auditors, the committee stated that, overall, for the financial year ending on 31 December 2010, payments by the institutions and agencies relating to administrative and other expenses were free from material errors. The discharge report notes that the financial inspection went smoothly and no major deficiencies were encountered in the course of the inspection. However, the Council failed to make available to Parliament and to the committee a number of documents necessary for conclusion of the discharge procedure. Without these the financial year 2010 cannot be concluded. At its sitting in late March, the Committee on Budgetary Control decided to postpone granting discharge. The second discharge report produced for September presented a similar view to that set out in the spring report. The outcome of the vote in committee was to refuse to grant the Council discharge. In the vote in both the committee and plenary, I, too, voted against granting the Council discharge.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Inés Ayala Sender concerns discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council. The Council is the institution responsible for adopting EU legislation, coordinating economic policies and cooperation between courts and police forces, signing agreements between the EU and third countries, approving the EU’s annual budget, and defining the foreign and defence policies. Notwithstanding its responsibilities, the Council also has obligations, particularly as regards interinstitutional cooperation with the European Parliament, especially in relation to supervision of the budget implementation. In the sitting on 12 May 2012, a proposal was adopted to postpone granting discharge to the Council’s Secretary-General for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010. Despite the explanations given by the Council’s Secretary-General and the measures adopted to deal with the criticisms made by the Court of Auditors on the 2010 discharge, I voted in favour of the proposal to refuse discharge.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this second report, the rapporteur again proposes postponing the decision to grant discharge for the Council’s budget. This postponement is again based on the lack of transparency and presentation of accounts by the Council, which is the reason for the long-standing disagreement between the two institutions of Parliament and the Council. The report is highly critical of the position adopted by the Council, which is still refusing to send all of the documents on the budget implementation, to meet or to answer Parliament’s questions on this matter. As a result, Parliament has no information on the Council’s accounts, despite having participated in the discharge procedure. Without the Council’s response to the questions that Parliament needs answered in order to fully understand and close the Council’s accounts, the rapporteur, as in May, is refusing to grant discharge to the Council’s Secretary-General for implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010. We supported this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The Council, as an institution of the Union, should be subject to accountability to Union citizens as far as the implementation of Union funds is concerned. Parliament is the sole directly elected body among the Union institutions and has responsibility to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union. It is essential and justifiable to carry out an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments carried out by the Court of Auditors in relation to the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor in the course of preparation of its annual report concerning the financial year 2010. In my view, it is indisputable that efficient supervision over the budgetary implementation process is a matter of high responsibility and its successful fulfilment depends entirely on an unhindered interinstitutional cooperation between the Council and Parliament.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour because our citizens have the right to know how their taxes are being spent and how the power entrusted to political bodies is handled. The Council, as an institution of the Union, should be democratically accountable to Union citizens as far as the implementation of Union funds is concerned because Parliament is the sole directly elected body among the Union institutions and is responsible for granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union. We should note the right of Parliament to grant discharge, that is, to submit the implementation of the entire budget of the European Union to parliamentary control and scrutiny without exception, and to grant discharge autonomously, not only in respect of the section of the budget implemented by the Commission, but also in respect of the sections of the budget implemented by the other institutions.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At the sitting of 23 October 2012 I voted in favour of granting discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010. This discharge had been postponed in May due to the lack of cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament. This is thus the second discharge report for 2010. Most of my colleagues and I supported this second report, although we were extremely disappointed that the Council did not respond to our questions. They related, in particular, to the costs involved in the creation of the post of High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the budgetary implications of transferring Council staff to the European External Action Service.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against discharge for the Council’s budget for the 2010 financial year. I regret the difficulties encountered in having an open dialogue between the Council and the Committee on budgetary control, and especially the Council’s refusal to answer the supplementary questions from Parliament. This action is a legitimate budget discharge procedure. Efficient supervision of the implementation of the budget depends on appropriate unconditional institutional cooperation between Parliament and the Council. For this reason, I wish to highlight the fact that all parties involved must take the utmost responsibility in this matter.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which notes that, in its resolution with observations forming an integral part of the above-mentioned decision of 10 May 2012 on the discharge for implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council, Parliament asked 26 supplementary questions linked to the discharge procedure and regrets that the Council refused to answer those questions

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the Council for 2010. The Council’s failure to respond to a number of supplementary questions from the Committee on Budgetary Control is not sufficient justification for refusing discharge, especially since we had already postponed it at the May part-session.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions dependent on the European Union’s budget have to be rigorously audited by the Court of Auditors and by all bodies that have this role. It is vital to check that EU funds are being correctly used, that these European institutions are achieving the objectives set out, and that no resources are being wasted. In general, aside from a few rare exceptions which must be assessed through the usual checks, we can confirm that the institutions in question are correctly using the funds made available and achieving the proposed objectives. However, in the rapporteur’s opinion, this is not the case with the EU’s general budget for the Council, given that various irregularities have again been found and the Council is still unable to present its accounts, which is why I voted accordingly.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Parliament is bringing to light as much information as possible on the way all institutions implement their budgets, including the Council, but at this stage insufficient information has been provided to allow an informed granting of the discharge for 2010.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the reasons for refusing to grant the Council’s Secretary-General discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the European Union general budget, and recalling that ‘citizens have the right to know how their taxes are being spent and how the power entrusted to political bodies is handled’, Parliament has refused to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010. Given that, under Article 335 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ‘the Union shall be represented by each of the institutions, by virtue of their administrative autonomy, in matters relating to their respective operation’, and that an efficient supervision over the budgetary implementation process is a matter of high responsibility and its fulfilment depends entirely on an unhindered interinstitutional cooperation between the Council and Parliament, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour (which means that we have not approved the discharge. The report underlines that in its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors criticised the financing of the Residence Palace building project because of the advance payments made (paragraph 7.19). It also notes that the Court of Auditors made the observation that during the period 2008–2010 advance payments made by the Council totalled EUR 235 000 000 and that the amounts paid came from under-utilised budget lines.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Bearing in mind the Council’s excessive budget appropriation for the purchase of property, its breach of the principle of budgetary accuracy (bearing in mind the opinion of the Court of Auditors of the European Union), the refusal to provide all of the documents needed for discharge of its accounts, and the refusal to answer 26 questions asked by the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control with regard to the discharge procedure, this leads to the conclusion that the Council has a negative attitude towards democratic scrutiny and transparency with regard to the European Union’s taxpayers. The Council, as a European Union institution, must submit to the assessment of its management by the Committee on Budgetary Control and must cooperate with the latter on all levels. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the report, which proposes to refuse discharge of the Council’s accounts.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament’s decision on the discharge for the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council, with which the Secretary-General of the Council was refused discharge in respect of the implementation the Council’s budget for the financial year 2010.

Parliament’s right to refuse to grant discharge, in accordance with Articles 316, 317 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, must be interpreted within the context and its objectives. The execution of the Union’s entire budget must, without exception, be subject to parliamentary control and discharge should be granted separately not only for the budgetary section of the Commission but also for the sections for the other institutions referred to in Article 1 of the Financial Regulation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The Council, as an institution of the European Union, should be subject to democratic accountability towards EU citizens as far as the implementation of EU funds is concerned. However, the Council obstructs democratic control through its failure to cooperate with Parliament in respect of the discharge procedure. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur’s proposal to postpone the decision to grant discharge for the Council’s budget (2010) is once again based on the lack of transparency and presentation of accounts by the Council, which is the reason for the long-standing disagreement between the two institutions of Parliament and the Council. Without the Council’s response to the questions that Parliament needs answered in order to fully understand and close the Council’s accounts, the rapporteur is again refusing to grant discharge to the Council’s Secretary-General for implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010. We supported this position.

Report: Luisa Macovei (A7-0300/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, congratulating the Agency on the transparency in the declarations of interest of its management team, and recognising the Agency’s efforts to deal with the concerns on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 10 May the European Parliament postponed the discharge decision for the European Environment Agency and it has now drawn up a second report on the matter. The European Parliament and I decided this time to grant discharge for this Agency, given the considerable efforts it has made. It has endeavoured to reduce significantly the conflicts of interest that previously risked undermining its decision-making processes.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After the vote in May, the European Parliament is for the second time examining the discharges and it has decided to grant discharge to the three agencies found to be at fault in the spring. Today I voted in favour of granting discharge for the budget of the European Environment Agency, as I did for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency. It seems that each of these agencies has fulfilled its commitments and introduced new procedures to increase its independence and prevent conflicts of interest. That is therefore a step in the right direction, even if the question of the agencies’ independence remains, as we see at the moment with EFSA and the GMO issue.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted against this report because I consider that discharge should have been granted to the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) in 2010, and following the requirements laid down by the European Parliament for improving the communication of the EEA with the public and the media, the EEA put extra emphasis on the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES), the International Year on Biodiversity, e.g. via the Green Facade project, the Eye on Earth platform, thereby using EU subsidies thematically in a way as intended by the European legislator and the European budgetary authority. The European Court of Auditors made no special observations with regard to the EEA's accounts of 2010 and, as a consequence, the ECA considers them reliable, legal and regular. The European Environment Agency (EEA) always provided useful, detailed and satisfactory answers to the questions asked by the rapporteur, within the corresponding time frame; the EEA Management Board has done everything it can to prevent any risks in future.

In view of the above, as well as the excellent work of the EEA, I vote in favour of discharge in respect of the EEA budget for the financial year 2010.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) After presenting the annual report of the European Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010, as part of its discharge procedure for the financial year 2010 the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out its financial audit of the implementation of the European Union’s general budget in relation to the European Environment Agency. The primary task of the Committee on Budgetary Control is to scrutinise and ensure that the EU budget is being implemented appropriately and effectively. The discharge report highlights the main problem concerning the European Environment Agency is that several errors relating to public procurement procedure occurred during the Agency’s 2010 management period. The report also draws attention to the fact that several conflicts of interest at the Agency had recently come to light. The committee will not recommend granting the discharge until these issues are clarified. At its sitting in late March, the Committee on Budgetary Control decided to postpone granting the discharge. In the view of the committee, several additional questions relating to Agency management in 2010 require clarification before the Agency is granted discharge. The situation has not changed significantly since spring. In my view the Agency should have made more of an effort to restore appropriate management procedures and comply with operational regulations. Both in the committee and in plenary, I, too, voted in favour of refusing to grant discharge.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted against the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Environment Agency’, because I believe that, contrary to the rapporteur’s opinion, the Agency has taken important steps to effectively tackle potential conflicts of interest and to thus continue transparently fulfilling its task of providing sound and independent information on the environment in the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Monica Luisa Macovei concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency (EEA) for the financial year 2010, following the European Parliament Decision of 10 May 2012 postponing the discharge decision due to issues raised by the Court of Auditors. The EEA, which was created in 1993, currently has 32 members: the 27 Member States of the European Union, together with Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Turkey. Its objective is to help the EU and national governments make informed decisions about the environment. The Court of Auditors, in its report on the EEA accounts, considered that ‘it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable’ and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. I therefore consider that discharge should be granted for the EEA budget for the financial year 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In May 2012 Parliament postponed closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency (EEA) for the financial year 2010 and refused to grant discharge. The main reasons for this decision were connected with conflicts of interest, particularly involving the Agency’s Executive Director. In this second report, the rapporteur maintains her position and is highly critical of the progress made by the Agency. Three aspects stand out in this assessment: painting of the façade of the Agency’s building without issuing a public tender, which, in order to cover the costs, required a reinforcement of budget line 2140 – ‘Fitting-out of premises’; contradictory information sent by the Executive Director on her relationship with Earthwatch, and use by a non-governmental organisation of the EEA’s premises, without any rent payment. We supported the rapporteur’s position, unlike the majority in Parliament, which therefore opted to grant discharge for the EEA budget (financial year 2010).

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) On 10 May 2012, the European Parliament postponed its decision on the discharge and closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010. The Agency subsequently provided replies to the discharge authority by letters of 24 May, 15 June and 3 July 2012. The European Parliament has always welcomed the professional, reliable and independent provision of information by the Agency for all institutions, the Member States and Union policy-making bodies, and will further expect this kind of professionalism in the future. Parliament is firmly convinced that the necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur. In such cases, the Agency has to draw up an action plan aiming to remedy the shortcomings. The European Parliament or the European legislator has to address these problems quickly by changing the existing rules and regulations to eliminate possible loopholes. The European Parliament refuses to grant the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal because the discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament to assess the proper spending of Union subsidies based on factual and substantive arguments. Furthermore, the professional, reliable and independent provision of information by the European Environment Agency (EEA) to all EU institutions, EU Member States and Union policy-making bodies has always been welcomed. I therefore expect this kind of professionalism in the future.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010. This discharge was adopted by 374 votes to 235, with 39 abstentions. The vote related to the second discharge report because in May 2012 Parliament had postponed discharge, primarily due to a problem involving conflicts of interest within the European Environment Agency.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Because of the defeat of most of the amendments which I was supporting I voted against this resolution.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge for the European Environment Agency. The rapporteur did not provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations of conflicts of interest within the Agency. Discharge cannot be refused on the basis of mere suspicions. Moreover, since the discharge decision was postponed, the Agency has in fact taken many steps that demonstrate responsible management.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions dependent on the European Union’s budget have to be rigorously audited by the Court of Auditors and by all bodies that have this role. It is vital to check that EU funds are being correctly used, that these European institutions are achieving the objectives set out, and that no resources are being wasted. In general, aside from a few rare exceptions which must be assessed through the usual checks, we can confirm that the institutions in question are correctly using the funds made available and achieving the proposed objectives. As a result, I voted in favour of the report on the European Environment Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I think that the EEA should be granted discharge for the budgetary year 2010, therefore I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the reasons for refusing to grant the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010, and the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts, Parliament has refused to grant the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. It is firmly convinced that necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur. It also believes that, in such cases, the Agency has to draw up an action plan aiming to remedy the shortcomings, that its implementation should be monitored by the European Parliament, and that either the European Parliament or the European legislator has to address these problems by changing the existing rules and regulations to eliminate possible loopholes. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against (which means that we grant the discharge). Large majorities for granting discharge to EFSA and EMA and a smaller majority for the discharge of the EEA with votes on the attached resolution going with two or three exceptions along our voting list, which means that we have deleted several articles of the resolution that were controversial.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) I abstained from the vote, because I did not have enough information to gain a full understanding of the issue debated and put to the vote.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. − (SV) In the spring, Parliament, including myself, voted in favour of postponing discharge for the European Environment Agency. That Agency has demonstrated its compliance on many points since then, and its Executive Director has been helpful and willing to cooperate throughout the investigation period. The Director’s actions with regard to the business trip that was arranged must still be treated as improper. However, on the whole, we should not, in my view, deny discharge on these grounds alone. The extended deadline granted by Parliament for them to deal with irregularities and explain themselves has been used well and has straightened out several questions. I therefore voted in favour of granting discharge for the European Environment Agency.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Macovei report, which meant voting in favour of discharge for the European Environment Agency for 2010. I regret this report and its justification, which jeopardised this discharge that is so important and that is in line with Europe’s desire to make the environment a priority.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, at second reading, raises questions about conflicts of interest involving the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency, thereby calling into question the management of the Agency itself. However, the European Commission has not raised any questions on this same issue. I therefore felt that it was right to abstain from voting on this report.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I voted for the report with gritted teeth, as unfortunately, all of the amendments which conceal or water down the truth have been adopted. What I find astonishing is the connivance of some Members from the CDU, who applied what I can only describe as sniper tactics in support of the opponents’ position. In view of their unvarnished glee, I worry for the future of good cooperation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) In 2010, the European Environment Agency covered its building with a ‘Green Façade’, at a cost of EUR 294 641 and without announcing a public tender. Furthermore, in order to cover the related costs, it transferred funds between budget lines. In view of the Agency’s lack of clear internal rules regarding the Financial Regulation, I voted against the discharge.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In May 2012 Parliament postponed closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency (EEA) for the financial year 2010 and refused to grant discharge. The main reasons for this decision were connected with conflicts of interest, particularly involving the Agency’s Executive Director. As the rapporteur maintains the same position in the second report (due to no changes having occurred that justify altering this position), we opted, for the sake of transparency, to support the rapporteur’s position.

Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0296/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the nomination of Mr Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors. The main reasons for this are the candidate’s lack of relevant professional experience in auditing and the existence of a potential conflict of interests. In fact, the candidate, Romania’s current Minister for European Affairs, is responsible for managing European Union funds in Romania.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of Leonard Orban’s nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors because of his vast professional experience of European and other matters. This is demonstrated by the posts he has held over the years: Minister of European Affairs, a job he also held with a previous government, former European Commissioner, Presidential Adviser and Romania’s Chief Negotiator for accession to the EU. There is absolutely no doubt as to his professional competence.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) At its meeting of 26 September 2012, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors and assessed his qualifications. From September 2011 to the present time, Leonard Orban has held the post of Minister of European Affairs. In the past, he was a Member of the European Commission responsible for multilingualism. He also acted as Chief Negotiator with the European Union, coordinating Romania’s preparations for accession to the EU. However, the European Parliament does not agree with the Council’s proposal to nominate Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors and has instructed its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − I cannot support the appointment of Mr Orban to the European Court of Auditors. This would only exacerbate the growing trend in many Member States to make political appointments to the ECA. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Orban has a long history of political appointments in the European institutions. He was the Deputy Chief Negotiator (2001-2004), and then Chief Negotiator for Romania’s accession to the EU (2004-2005). He served as Secretary of State at the Ministry of European Integration (2004-2006) before taking up an appointment as European Commissioner for Multilingualism (2007-2010). Mr Orban was then appointed a Presidential Adviser on EU Affairs before being made Minister of European Affairs in September 2011. Mr Orban’s appointment is not in line with the policies of neutrality that govern such selection processes, and I oppose his appointment.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. − Mr. Orban has a wide experience in European affairs; he is a former Commissioner and Minister of European Affairs in the Romanian government, having been appointed to these posts due to his expertise and not to political affiliation. He was also chief negotiator on behalf of Romania for the country’s accession to the European Union. In this position he supervised the establishment of the audit and control system in Romania, acquiring a good knowledge of auditing. These are the reasons why I voted for his nomination.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Like most of my colleagues, I voted against the nomination of Leonard Orban to the Court of Auditors. This vote took place in plenary on 23 October 2012. We shared the opinion of Inés Ayala Sender, who recommended rejecting Mr Orban’s nomination. The main reasons for this are the candidate’s lack of relevant professional experience in auditing and the existence of a potential conflict of interests. In fact, the candidate, Romania’s current Minister for European Affairs, is responsible for managing European Union funds in Romania.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the nomination of Mr Leonard Orban to the European Court of Auditors as, on the basis of information supplied, he appeared to have the appropriate qualifications.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I rejected Leonard Orban’s nomination to the Court of Auditors. This Court has a vital control function. That is why its members have to be impartial and competent. The risks of a conflict of interest posed by Mr Orban’s candidacy are too high given his current responsibility for managing European Union funds in Romania. Moreover, his professional experience in auditing is too limited.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Court of Auditors is a supervisory institution, which checks the legality and regularity of the European Union’s income and expenditure and its sound financial management, and which works totally independently. In this spirit, the nomination of its members must be governed by criteria of competence and independence. Mr Leonard Orban presented his Curriculum Vitae, answered a written questionnaire and was heard by the Committee on Budgetary Control, but did not provide sufficient evidence to justify his nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors in terms of performing his duties competently and independently, which is why I voted accordingly.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Mr Leonard Orban was Member of the European Commission and currently serves as a Member of the Romanian Government responsible for European Affairs. Although during the hearing in the Committee on Budgetary Control he displayed a high level of knowledge and experience and showed that he is fully qualified for the job, I abstained.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the nomination of Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors. All of the information presented for this candidate, including the answers to the questionnaire for candidates applying to become members of the Court of Auditors, as annexed to this report, formed the basis for my decision by indicating compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the need for full independence of the members of the Court of Auditors. I therefore welcome the nomination of Leonard Orban.

  Aldo Patriciello (PP E), in writing. − (IT) With regard to the nomination of Mr Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors, having examined his curriculum vitae and his answers to the questionnaire, and considering that Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and at its meeting of 26 September 2012 heard the Council’s nominee, I voted against the proposal.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported the opinion of the rapporteur, who worked in collaboration with representatives of each political group to reach the most objective and constructive conclusion on Leonard Orban’s candidacy. On Tuesday Parliament rejected the Romanian candidate’s nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors, with 269 votes in favour of his nomination, 294 against and 80 abstentions. Mr Orban had previously stated that he would withdraw his candidacy if it were rejected by the Members.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors followed the specific guidelines laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. For that reason, I voted in favour of the nomination.

Report: Frédéric Daerden (A7-0322/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from Ireland aims to assist 432 people who were made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the support of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) at present is very welcome. The global economic and financial crisis has seriously affected Ireland in recent years and the loss of 592 jobs is of great significance to the Irish economy.

The loss in revenues owing to the Irish redundancies is also expected to generate significant losses in indirect employment through the loss in workers' disposable incomes and through a reduction in Talk Talk's purchases of Irish goods and services locally and regionally. I believe that the mobilisation of the EGF is very important in this situation in order to help revitalise the local economy.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382 of the EGF for Ireland in order to support 493 potential beneficiaries out of 592 redundancies in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers in Ireland.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report, because the economic situation in the area in question demands it. The Talk Talk facility was located on the outskirts of Waterford City in the NUTS III South-East Region of Ireland, which has had persistently higher than average levels of unemployment compared to the rest of the country. Furthermore, it has fared disproportionately badly as a result of the financial and economic crisis. For example, the region’s unemployment rate has jumped from 4.9 % in 2007 to 18.2 % in 2011, compared to a national average of 14.3 %. I also agree with the use to which this funding is to be put.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. The fund provides support for individual workers and is not to be used for the benefit of the enterprises that made the workers redundant. I supported the mobilisation of the EGF in the present case and voted in favour of the proposals because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. Ireland has requested assistance for 592 redundancies, 432 of which are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk from Ireland. The EGF is designed to provide additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration in the labour market. I strongly support this initiative, which allows us to help Ireland to deal with huge job losses (586 redundancies) in the new information technologies sector since its application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − In 2011, the broadband service firm Talk Talk cut the number of its service centres from 24 to 13. The entire Waterford operation was closed with 592 workers made redundant. While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the EP’s approval of the proposal to allocate EUR 2.7 million to help over 400 ex-Talk Talk workers made redundant in 2011 to retrain, return to education or establish their own businesses. The Talk Talk application is possibly the last EGF application to come from Ireland, at least until the end of 2013, given last year’s decision by a blocking minority of Member States to veto the extension of the EGF ‘crisis derogations’ until the end of 2013. The EGF can help workers who have been made redundant to stay in the labour market and must continue after 2013 as an instrument available to all workers. In its 23 October resolution on the 2014-20 MFF, the EP rightly placed considerable emphasis on continuing the EGF after 2013. I do welcome the recent Cyprus Presidency proposals to continue the EGF after 2013 though I am concerned that it is proposing to cap spending at EUR 245 million per annum, down from the Commission’s proposed EUR 429 million per annum. The Council must remember that the EP’s consent is required for the 2014-20 MFF and ensuring an effective EGF is a key priority for the Irish Labour MEPs.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a tool that few citizens are aware of and it should be highlighted. It will help 432 former employees of the Irish telecommunications sector to cope with their redundancy and assist them in retraining and finding work. I am pleased that Europe is in this way providing concrete support on the ground to the victims of the crisis. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the proposal to mobilise EUR 2 696 382 of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Ireland in order to support 592 workers made redundant from Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited in the telecommunications service sector. I would underline the importance of improving the employability of these workers by means of tailored training and the recognition and validation of skills and competences gained throughout their professional career. I would also highlight that the mobilisation of EGF funds is intended to help workers made redundant to rapidly reintegrate into the labour market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk’ from Ireland). The EGF, which was created in 2006, aims to support workers who, due to structural changes in world trade patterns as a result of globalisation, are made redundant. On 29 February 2012 Ireland submitted an application to the EGF following 573 redundancies from Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited (customer service centre). It requested support totalling EUR 2 696 382. On 27 July 2012 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision to grant the support requested. This is the seventh application to be examined under the 2012 budget. Given that, according to the Commission’s conclusions, the application meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for deploying the EGF, I agree with the rapporteur’s recommendations and voted in favour of this proposal for a decision.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This application concerns 592 redundancies in the telecommunications sector, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited in Ireland. It involves the mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382 to provide assistance to those workers made redundant as a result of outsourcing to the United Kingdom, India, the Philippines and South Africa. These redundancies are not inevitable. They are the result of political choices. We are approving palliatives, which are necessary, but we need to go further. The disease must therefore be attacked at the root: we must break with these neoliberal policies which are leading us into the depths of despair without any glimpse, even fleetingly, of a small ray of hope for the millions of workers who are losing the right to work and to a dignified life.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management provides for the release of resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) through a flexibility instrument with an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million over and above the relevant range of the financial framework. Ireland submitted an application on 29 February 2012 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers or associated manufacturers and supplemented it by additional information up to 15 May 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 696 382. I remain of the view that the EGF should be mobilised in order to make a financial contribution with respect to Ireland’s application.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I welcome the approval of 2.7 million in EGF aid for workers made redundant at the Talk Talk facility in Waterford, Ireland, in 2011. The closure of Talk Talk was a severe blow to the region, particularly in light of the fact that the average age of the laid-off workers was 26. I have been highlighting the EU youth unemployment crisis for many months, indeed Commissioner Šefčovič said in plenary yesterday that youth unemployment is a crisis within a crisis, and something we cannot afford as a society. This funding can make a real difference to the prospects and employability of these young people, who through no fault of their own found themselves without work last year. I for one would like to see the Irish Government taking a decisive, proactive role in administering this EGF funding so that these young people will elect to stay, retrain, upskill, or start businesses in Ireland, rather than emigrate as so many of their friends and relatives have done.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Frédéric Daerden on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help Ireland to cope with redundancies in the new information technologies sector. There have been around 592 redundancies in this sector to date. This assistance was approved by a large majority: 576 votes to 64, with 12 abstentions.

  Seán Kelly (PPE), in writing. − I welcome and am very pleased that there was such an overwhelming vote in favour of the report. I wish to commend Irish Minister of State at the Dept of Education and Skills, Ciaran Cannon TD, as well as Paudie Coffey TD for the active engagement with workers from the outset of the application. Hopefully the funding will aid the workers to retrain and upskill so they can re-enter the jobs market as soon as possible. I hope that the implementation of this application will be far more successful than previous ones in Ireland.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) at the request of Ireland. The application for the mobilisation of the EGF was made in relation to 592 redundancies, 432 of which are targeted for assistance, in the Talk Talk enterprise operating in the broadband services sector. Today’s vote will approve mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382. Finally I wish to underline that this important instrument today allows us to provide a tangible response and assistance to workers made redundant as a result of globalisation or the current financial and economic crisis, not merely by alleviating their difficulties but by supporting their reintegration in the labour market.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this application. 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 due to globalisation. Irish authorities argue that Talk Talk was a customer service centre based in Waterford, originally set up to provide services for both the companies Talk Talk UK and AOL UK. The company supported Talk Talk’s UK market for broadband, voice and, more recently, for TV via inbound, outbound, email and white mail services. Following the purchase of the UK’s ISP division of AOL, broadband services under the AOL Broadband brand were also provided. Talk Talk offered telecoms services to residential Irish customers under the Talk Talk and AOL brands and to business customers under the Opal brand. It also provided full lifecycle management of Talk Talk’s customers in the UK. Talk Talk in Waterford, as near-shore location for the provision of shared services for a foreign client (AOL and Talk Talk UK), benefited from the international trend over the past decade known as business process outsourcing (BPO). BPO typically involves a company contracting specific operations or processes to a third party provider.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people made redundant by Talk Talk in Ireland.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to Ireland, which has submitted an application for assistance for 592 redundancies, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers in Ireland.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report supporting the mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) targeting 432 of the 597 redundancies that have occurred in the company Talk Talk, which operates in the telecommunications sector in the South-East region of Ireland. The EGF provides additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. Ireland has submitted an application for EGF assistance for redundancies that meets the conditions of the EGF Regulation. It must now be ensured that the EGF assistance is used to support the dismissed workers’ reintegration into the labour market and must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the seventh application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 2 696 382 from the EGF for Ireland. It concerns 592 redundancies, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) and three of its suppliers in Ireland during the four-month reference period from 7 September 2011 to 7 January 2012 and a further six redundancies outside the reference period, but related to the same collective redundancies procedure.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 27 July 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Ireland in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. This is the seventh application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 2 696 382 from the EGF for 592 redundancies, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers in Ireland during the four-month reference period from 7 September 2011 to 7 January 2012 and a further six redundancies outside the reference period, but related to the same collective redundancy procedure. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for Ireland, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 27 July 2012, the Commission therefore adopted a new proposal for a Decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Ireland in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Considering that 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, and underlining the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the adoption of Decisions on the mobilisation of the fund, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the application for assistance submitted by Ireland for 592 redundancies, 432 of which are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers in Ireland, the Commission proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 696 382 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which was created in 2006 in order to ‘provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns’. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. 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 and of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, the Fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million, drawn from the 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. Concerning the procedure, in order to activate the Fund the Commission, in case of a positive assessment of an application, presents to the budgetary authority 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 find an agreement on the use of the Fund and the amounts required. The trialogue can take a simplified form.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I view this as a useful instrument for supporting the workers, and particularly the younger workers, of the call centre of the UK enterprise Talk Talk who have been made redundant in Ireland. Following mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, assistance for reintegration in the labour market may be offered to 432 of the 592 workers made redundant following the closure of the centre and outsourcing of services to India, the Philippines and South Africa. I think that action is necessary since the EU fund will allow the workers access to study and training courses, scholarships, tutoring and economic and professional support. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Ireland in support of the 432 employees dismissed from Talk Talk Broadband Services and from three of its suppliers in the telecommunications sector.

I regret that this particular company decided to ally itself with three main providers outside the EU, where a large part of its operations has been transferred, reflecting a strategy which is harmful to industrial jobs in the EU and, in general, to the EU 2020 strategy.

The negative consequences of globalisation, combined with the continuing economic crisis affecting Ireland, further highlight the added value of EGF as a tool in EU social policy. The targeted financial support which it provides for retraining and reintegration programmes for workers affected by mass dismissals is particularly important. Furthermore, the support which it provides is a practical expression of EU solidarity. The Irish Government is making efforts to achieve budgetary rationalisation and drastic cuts in expenditure. EGF assistance can contribute towards the battle against unemployment without significantly burdening the efforts to consolidate the national budget.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. − (SV) Since 2009, I have as a rule voted against all motions to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The Fund has grown, developed, expanded its scope and received its own grant. It exists, and it will not disappear in the foreseeable future. We therefore have to make the best of the situation. I chose to abstain from voting on the report on the Globalisation Fund that was put to the vote. That is because I feel the Fund is not the right instrument for helping employees who are hit by structural changes. It is primarily structural changes that are actually needed in the individual countries that have been hit. Instead, we in the EU should concentrate on supporting such changes. Sweden has also implemented such changes over the years, since the global market is changing. It is often a painful process, but it is indeed necessary in the long term.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. I would like to congratulate Frédéric Daerden on his excellent work in preparing, drafting and organising the vote on his report. As far as the content is concerned, one of the European Parliament’s priorities clearly must be to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and help them to reintegrate in the labour market.

Finally, I must criticise Talk Talk on its decision to form alliances with three key non-EU providers. That has resulted in a significant bulk of work being transferred, reflecting a strategy that is detrimental to EU industrial jobs and to the Europe 2020 strategy.

  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) in order to support workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. I agree with Ireland’s request to mobilise the EGF in respect of 592 redundancies, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers. I believe that the European Commission should mobilise EUR 2 696 382 to assist with the reintegration into employment of workers in Irish telecommunications companies. The financial package now approved should be used to support measures in the areas of career guidance, individual training and general information provided through specific employment channels.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The EGF exists in order to provide additional support for workers who are suffering from the impacts of globalisation and to facilitate their re-integration into the labour market. This application from Ireland has been reviewed; it relates to 592 workers who were made redundant. Talk Talk was a customer service centre originally set up to provide services. It grew very rapidly and to address the new challenges, it rationalised its systems and simplified its business processes, resulting in a dramatic downturn in business.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been set up to provide additional support for workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. The measures under the Fund should complement those taken by national institutions. It is regrettable, therefore, that the regulation allows EGF support to substitute social welfare payments required under national legislation. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this part-session alone we have voted on eight applications to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. This clearly shows the road to economic and social disaster along which the capitalist and neoliberal policies are leading the EU countries. This application concerns 592 redundancies in the telecommunications sector, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited in Ireland and six of its suppliers related to the same collective redundancy procedure. It involves the mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382 to provide assistance to those workers made redundant as a result of the relocation of work to the United Kingdom, India, the Philippines and South Africa. We are approving palliatives, which may be temporarily useful, but the disease must really be attacked at the root: we must break with these neoliberal policies which are leading us into the depths of despair without any glimpse, even fleetingly, of a small ray of hope for the millions of workers and their families who are losing the right to work and to a dignified life.

Report: Dominique Riquet (A7-0325/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from Sweden aims to assist 543 people who were made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support workers who suffered as a result of the EU economic and financial crisis is a good idea. During the crisis, several Member States decided to consolidate their budgets. Most often this took the form of slashing research and development programmes, and many companies in this field reduced their output. With this funding, however, approximately 700 workers will be reintegrated in the labour market through support to find a job, training and professional retraining, funds for setting up a business and assistance for the reintegration of older workers.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854 of the EGF for Sweden in order to support 700 potential beneficiaries out of 987 redundancies in the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an instrument to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. I have voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund in the present case because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. Sweden has requested assistance for the 987 workers dismissed in the pharmaceutical enterprise AstraZeneca. The affected sites are located in four Swedish municipalities with the majority of the staff made redundant in Lund; the closure of the site is a heavy burden for Lund and affects the entire pharmaceutical sector in Sweden and the regional labour market.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): application EGF/2011/015 SE/Astra Zeneca. The EGF is designed to provide additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration in the labour market. I strongly support this initiative, which allows us to help Sweden to deal with huge job losses (987 redundancies) in the pharmaceutical sector since its application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − In 2011, the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca closed two R&D sites and reduced its staff on two other sites creating 700 redundant workers. While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Thanks to the assistance they will receive from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), 700 Swedish workers who were made redundant will be able to cope with the difficulties involved in losing their job, and will receive support and training to help them find a new job. I am in favour of granting this assistance.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The globalisation of markets, on the one hand, and the expiry of patents and growing share of the generics market, on the other hand, have resulted in significant changes to the pharmaceutical industry, forcing it to make adjustments, in an already tough environment, in order to retain its competitiveness. Furthermore, global investments and biotechnological research are on the increase and, given the climate of austerity in Europe, the state of R&D in the EU is cause for concern. In the face of new investment patterns and strategies in the areas of biosciences, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical technology begun by third countries, European companies, even those regarded as examples of success such as AstraZeneca, have been forced to adapt their production to deal with the new challenges. For that reason I voted in favour of this report which mobilises EUR 4 325 854 of the EGF for Sweden.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the extremely serious social consequences of the current economic and financial crisis, the European Union created the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in order to provide additional assistance to workers affected by structural changes in world trade. This report concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EGF, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2011/015 SE/AstraZeneca’ from Sweden). On 16 July 2012 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Sweden in order to support the reintegration of workers made redundant due to the global crisis, following the aforementioned application submitted on 23 December 2011. This is the sixth application submitted under the 2012 EU budget and refers to the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854. It is intended to mitigate the social effect caused by 987 workers being made redundant by the Swedish company AstraZeneca. I voted in favour of this proposal as it fulfils all of the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report approves the mobilisation of the EGF in the amount of EUR 4 325 854 in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of 987 workers made redundant by AstraZeneca in Sweden, in the pharmaceutical sector, due to ‘structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation’ – always the same line ... – outsourcing and cuts made in R&D investment at European level. Unlike the Asian communities which, during the recession, have increased their investment in R&D, Europe, which is fixated with tackling the deficits, is restricting public support for R&D, an approach that could last for years, with inevitable consequences on employment rates and medical research. Each new mobilisation of this Fund can only merit our strongest condemnation and denunciation. This is the result of the policies imposed by the EU on Europe. We need to find another approach.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation and to help them rejoin the labour market. The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows mobilisation of the EGF within an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million. Sweden submitted an application for EGF mobilisation on 23 December 2011 in connection with redundancies at AstraZeneca and supplemented it with additional information up to 16 April 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 4 325 854. I believe that funds should be released from the EGF in order to provide a financial contribution with respect to Sweden’s application.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I am pleased that MEPs have approved EGF funding for AstraZeneca Sweden. There were 987 redundancies following the closures of the company’s research and development sites in the municipalities of Lund and Umeå, and limiting operations in Mölndal and Södertälje. 700 of these workers – those who are expected to have the greatest difficulty gaining new employment – will be targeted for support from the EGF. The package aims to help the workers by offering them occupational guidance and job-search assistance, as well as vocational training and retraining, and aid for self-employment. The pharmaceutical industry worldwide is increasingly reorganising and consolidating in order to retain its competitiveness, so I am satisfied that the EGF is yet again demonstrating clearly the EU’s added value in providing a safety net for those who lose out as a result of these changes.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Dominique Riquet on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help Sweden to cope with redundancies in the pharmaceutical sector. There have been around 987 redundancies in this sector to date. This assistance was approved by a large majority: 574 votes to 71, with 15 abstentions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Sweden. At times of economic crisis such as the present, the EGF is an appropriate means of assistance, and not only to workers in difficulty. Today’s vote involved about 700 redundancies at the pharmaceutical enterprise AstraZeneca. The total amount mobilised is EUR 4 325 854.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this application. 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 due to globalisation. Swedish authorities argue that the pharmaceutical sector is increasingly affected by globalisation. The pharmaceutical industry is currently undergoing significant changes in order to retain its competitiveness in a tough environment. Many companies are in a state of transition; reorganisation, consolidation, mergers and acquisitions are being considered in order to maintain growth centres. The industry is increasingly seeking synergies to hold down the increasing costs of research and development (R&D) activities.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people made redundant by Astra Zeneca in Sweden.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to Sweden, which has submitted an application for assistance for 987 redundancies, of which 700 are targeted for assistance, in the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca in Sweden.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report supporting the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund targeting 700 of the 987 redundancies that have occurred in the company AstraZeneca, which operates in the pharmaceutical sector in Lund in Sweden. The EGF provides additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. Sweden has submitted an application for EGF assistance for redundancies that meets the conditions of the EGF Regulation. It must now be ensured that the EGF assistance is used to support the dismissed workers’ reintegration into the labour market and must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the sixth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 4 325 854 from the EGF for Sweden. The application cites 543 redundancies in AstraZeneca during the four-month reference period from 15 June 2011 to 15 October 2011. I supported this application.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 16 July 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Sweden in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. This is the sixth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 4 325 854 from the EGF for 543 redundancies in AstraZeneca during the four-month reference period from 15 June 2011 to 15 October 2011. A further 444 redundancies (987 in total) occurred before and after the reference period and are related to the same collective redundancy procedure. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for Sweden, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration in the labour market. On 16 July 2012, the Commission therefore adopted a new proposal for a Decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Sweden in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Since in accordance with the Commission’s assessment, the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set out by the EGF Regulation, and underlining that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that as such deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the application for assistance submitted by Sweden for 987 redundancies, 700 of which are targeted for assistance, in the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, the Commission proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 4 325 854 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which was created in 2006 in order to ‘provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns’. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. 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 and of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, the Fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million, drawn from the 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. Concerning the procedure, in order to activate the Fund the Commission, in case of a positive assessment of an application, presents to the budgetary authority 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 find an agreement on the use of the Fund and the amounts required. The trialogue can take a simplified (written) form.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I take a positive view of the timely assistance to 700 workers dismissed by the pharmaceutical enterprise AstraZeneca through mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The pharmaceutical industry is making important changes in an attempt to retain competitiveness at a difficult time and I am certain that the fund can help the workers affected to make the transition to new employment. This package will offer the workers job-search assistance, occupational guidance, training and retraining, and aid for self-employment. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  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) in order to support workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. Sweden submitted a request to mobilise the EGF for 543 redundancies in AstraZeneca during the four-month reference period (15 June 2011 to 15 October 2011). A further 444 redundancies (987 in total) occurred before and after the reference period and were related to the same collective redundancy procedure. I agree with the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854 of the EGF in order to support the reintegration of the workers into the labour market, which also includes incentives to encourage participation in the various measures undertaken, such as a job search allowance of EUR 7 170 and a mobility allowance of EUR 500. I would also highlight that the EGF support should be used for training and job search, instead of contributing directly to unemployment benefits which are the responsibility of national institutions.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in response to Sweden’s application in respect of AstraZeneca. The application requests assistance for 543 redundancies at AstraZeneca from June to October 2011. A further 444 (987 in total) took place before and after the reference period and were part of the same collective redundancies programme.

In the light of the fact that Sweden had a strong position in medical research, the collective redundancies in AstraZeneca had not been expected, despite the worsening situation in the pharmaceutical sector due to the rising dominance of generics and the outsourcing of research and development activities to no-EU countries.

I believe that EGF funds should be allocated primarily to training and job search assistance. The package includes a job search allowance of EUR 7 170 (calculated for an average six-month period) and a mobility allowance of EUR 500. Access to EGF funding will help the workers who were made redundant to reintegrate in the labour market.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The EGF exists in order to provide additional support for workers who are suffering from the impacts of globalisation and to facilitate their re-integration into the labour market. This application from Sweden has been reviewed. It relates to 987 persons affected by redundancies. The Swedish authorities argue that, in the light of the fact that Sweden had a strong position in medical research, the collective redundancies in AstraZeneca had not been expected. The worsening situation in the pharmaceutical sector was more severe than anticipated and ultimately resulted in these redundancies.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Sweden meets the conditions for deploying the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and is therefore clearly entitled to financial assistance. The collective redundancies at AstraZeneca had not been expected, owing to Sweden’s strong position in the field of medical research. The pharmaceutical sector must contend with a rising number of generic medicines as patents gradually expire. At the same time, Sweden is opposed to the continued existence of the EGF after 2013. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report approves the mobilisation of the EGF in the amount of EUR 4 325 854 in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of 987 workers made redundant by AstraZeneca in Sweden, in the pharmaceutical sector, due to what the Commission regards as structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation, outsourcing and cuts made in R&D investment at European level. Unlike various Asian countries which, during the recession, have increased their investment in R&D, the EU’s policy, which is fixated with tackling the deficits, is to restrict public support for R&D, an approach that could last for years, with inevitable consequences on employment rates and medical research. We continue to disagree with the creation of a Fund that also serves to legitimise the policy of redundancies and unemployment, without attacking its real causes.

Report: Alexander Alvaro (A7-0323/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from Spain aims to assist 878 people who were made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe the workers affected by the economic and financial crisis must be helped to reintegrate in the labour market. Metallurgy and construction were the main industries affected by the reduction in global demand. Many companies in these industries have reduced their activity or closed down. Shipbuilding is another sector where predictions are far from optimistic and which will suffer many job losses in the future. This proposal must offer concrete measures to support workers who were made redundant.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report, which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 2 029 235 of the EGF for Spain in order to support 450 potential beneficiaries out of 878 redundancies in 35 enterprises (‘Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment’) in the region of Galicia.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support this report because of the impact the unfair competition that European shipyards face from those located in emerging countries is having on this industry. Galicia accounts for 40 % of Spain’s shipbuilding industry. I also agree that EGF assistance should be used specifically for the outplacement of dismissed workers.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. The Commission has already issued a positive assessment and the proposal for mobilisation is now being presented to Parliament as the budgetary authority. I have voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund in the present case because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. Spain has requested assistance for 878 redundancies, 450 of which are targeted for assistance from the EGF, following redundancies in 35 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 25 (‘Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment’) in the NUTS II region of Galicia (ES11) in Spain.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia Metal. The EGF is designed to provide additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration in the labour market. I strongly support this initiative, which allows us to help Spain, and the region of Galicia in particular, to deal with huge job losses (450 redundancies) in the shipbuilding sector since its application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − In 2011, 878 workers in the shipbuilding industry in the region of Galicia lost their jobs. While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is going to allow 450 workers who were redundant to reintegrate in the labour market. The resources available will provide the necessary support for each of them. I am in favour of granting this assistance.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The financial assistance given to workers who have been made redundant as a result of globalisation must be provided on an individual basis and be aimed at their reintegration in the labour market. It should therefore be reiterated that this assistance must not replace the normal responsibilities of companies and must not be used to finance and restructure those companies. As I said last month in my explanation of vote on report A7-0232/2012, the shipbuilding industry has been severely affected by the current economic crisis, with its effects extending to those industries supporting this sector. This is the situation which has occurred in Galicia and which has led to the redundancy of 878 workers. I would add that these redundancies have occurred in Galicia, a Spanish region which applied to the EGF in 2010 due to restructuring in the textile sector and where the unemployment rate is already high. For all those reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the extremely serious social consequences of the current economic and financial crisis, the European Union created the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in order to provide additional assistance to workers affected by structural changes in world trade. On 9 August 2012, further to the application submitted by Spain on 28 December 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854. This is the 19th application made by Spain to this Fund (EGF) – and the 10th to be examined under the 2012 budget – and is intended to minimise the social impact in Galicia (ES11) of 878 redundancies in 35 enterprises in the shipbuilding sector, which represents nearly 45 % of national production. Given that the aforementioned amount is intended to help with the reintegration into employment of 450 workers in the metallurgical sector and that the application, according to the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, fulfils all of the eligibility criteria, I voted in favour of the report by Alexander Alvaro and hope for a rapid recovery in the economic fabric of these regions.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is Spain’s 19th application for EGF mobilisation since the Fund’s inception. It concerns another 878 workers in the shipbuilding industry who have been made redundant by 35 enterprises in the region of Galicia. The justification has been repeated countless times: major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Although we support this mobilisation, as it is essential to support these workers, we would reiterate our reservations and criticisms regarding the perversity of this Fund. It would have been better for measures to have been taken to avoid the unemployment of these workers. We cannot fail to draw parallels with the situation of Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo, where the workers are fighting to maintain the public nature of the enterprise, which is strategically important, and to keep their jobs. Privatisation, which we strongly oppose, would leave the jobs of hundreds of workers at the mercy of the interests of any future multinational owner (and of the division of work as it saw fit).

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation and to help them rejoin the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to 30 December 2011 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. On 28 December 2011, Spain submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of 878 redundancies in 35 enterprises operating in the NACE Rev. 2 Division 25 (‘Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment’) in the NUTS II region of Galicia (ES11), and supplemented the application by additional information up to 28 May 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 029 235.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − The European Commission rightly noted that the global financial crisis has had a significant negative impact on the development of Europe’s shipbuilding industry. Production at European shipyards has decreased, and according to CESA the shipbuilding workforce in Europe declined by 23 % over the past three years. In Galicia, the figure was even worse, at 30 %, for a sector which represents 45 % of the Spanish shipbuilding industry. Unemployment in Galicia rose from 8 % at the end of 2008 to 17.25 % in late 2011. I therefore welcome the EGF aid for 450 workers, which will include occupational guidance and accompaniment towards business creation or self-employment, as well as general re-training and vocational training, among other measures. I was particularly pleased to see that some funding will be reserved for contribution to commuting expenses and assistance for carers of dependent persons. As some of my MEP colleagues will know, I am a strong advocate of supporting carers and I congratulate the authors of this application for their progressive thinking.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), in writing. − (SV) Today we voted for eight reports on the use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Ever since the Fund was established in 2006, we have always previously abstained from voting: since we were against the Fund from the outset because we did not feel that the Fund was the right instrument for helping employees who are hit by structural changes. The Fund has now grown, developed and received its own grant. It exists, and it will not disappear in the foreseeable future. We have therefore now decided to take a position on every single case; whether it meets the very strict requirements for cofinancing and long-term measures for generating employment that are imposed on applicants. In this case, we felt that the applicants meet these requirements. Within the framework of work on the budget and long-term budget, we continue to support a more effective, long-term instrument for increasing employment, confronting structural changes and increasing flexibility in the labour market.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Alexander Alvaro on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help Spain to cope with redundancies in the shipbuilding sector. This assistance was approved by a large majority: 570 votes to 71, with 13 abstentions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was created in 2006 in order to provide a tangible response to workers made redundant as a result of globalisation, and in 2009 its scope was broadened to include workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis, in order to assist their reintegration in the labour market. Today we approved the mobilisation of a total of EUR 4 325 854 for 878 redundancies in 35 shipbuilding enterprises operating in the region of Galicia in Spain.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. 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 due to globalisation. The Spanish authorities explain that the shipbuilding industry consists of three main areas of activity: manufacture of other transport equipment (NACE Revision 2 Division 30), repair and installation of machinery and equipment (NACE Revision 2 Division 33) and manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment (NACE Revision 2 Division 25). The enterprises concerned by the application are manufacturers of fabricated metal products which operate in the shipbuilding ancillary industry. Citing data from the Community of European Shipyards Association (CESA) and the Gerencia del Sector Naval (GSN), which is a body under the Spanish ministry of industry, the Spanish authorities argue that the global financial crisis changed several of the conditions and expectations for the future development of the shipbuilding market. Order books of European yards decreased both in CGT and value terms as an effect of the global economic crisis. The European order book dropped from 13.69 million CGT to 9.47 million CGT between 2008 and 2009, and further to 6.39 million CGT in 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people made redundant by Galicia Metal in Spain.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to Spain, which has submitted an application for assistance for 878 redundancies, of which 450 are targeted for EGF assistance, following redundancies in 35 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 25 (‘Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment’) in the NUTS II region of Galicia (ES11) in Spain.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report supporting the mobilisation of EUR 2 029 235 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund targeting 450 of the 878 redundancies that have occurred in 35 companies within the shipbuilding sector in Galicia in Spain. The EGF provides additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. Spain has submitted an application for EGF assistance for redundancies that meets the conditions of the EGF Regulation. It must now be ensured that the EGF assistance is used to support the dismissed workers’ reintegration into the labour market and must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament has approved EUR 2 029 235 to facilitate the reintegration of workers made redundant in the metallurgical sector. As MEP for Galicia, I supported this decision, despite feeling that this is not what the industry needs in order to stop the constant rise in unemployment. Over 10 000 jobs have disappeared in the sector due to the lack of an alternative to tax lease for the Galician shipbuilding industry, added to which is the veto on construction in the Navantia Ferrol shipyard. This huge problem cannot be solved with a quick fix of EUR 2 million for 500 unemployed workers, when thousands of jobs have been lost in the last year alone. In this respect, we call on the European Commission to adopt a final decision once and for all: a preferential alternative tax system for the shipbuilding industry in Galicia, which has been in suspense since the withdrawal of the tax lease system which, in practice, was designed to ensure that Galician shipyards competed on a level playing field with their counterparts across the EU. The ban on construction in the Navantia Ferrol shipyard also needs to be lifted. Both measures would form a genuine and effective way of generating jobs in the metallurgical sector in Galicia, where the unemployment rate is around 22 %.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the tenth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 4 325 854 from the EGF for Spain and constitutes Spain’s 19th application for EGF mobilisation since the Fund’s inception. The application cites 878 redundancies in 35 enterprises operating in manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment in the region of Galicia during the nine-month reference period from 23 March 2011 to 23 December 2011. I am in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 9 August 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Spain in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. This is the 10th application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 4 325 854 from the EGF for 878 redundancies in 35 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 25 (‘Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment’) in the region of Galicia (ES11) during the nine-month reference period between 23 March 2011 and 23 December 2011. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for Spain, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers being laid off as a consequence of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 9 August 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 in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. In accordance with Commission’s assessment, the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation, and underlining the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the adoption of Decisions on the mobilisation of the fund, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the application submitted by Spain to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 878 enterprises in the region of Galicia, the Commission proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 029 235. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour. Between March and December 2011, 878 workers involved in the manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment, were made redundant in Galicia. By 570 votes to 71, with 13 abstentions, the European Parliament voted in plenary in Strasbourg to allocate more than EUR 2 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to facilitate the outplacement of 51 % of those made redundant. The Spanish authorities requested the EGF financing for the metal sector in December 2010. The Galician shipbuilding sector represents 45 % of the Spanish shipbuilding sector and the economic crisis means a future complication for the sector, which has seen a 30 % reduction in its Galician workforce. The unemployment rate in that region rose from 8 % at the end of 2008 to 17.25 % in the third quarter of 2011.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I take a positive view of the mobilisation of the fund for the Spanish enterprise because at this particular time the economic and financial crisis is forcing many enterprises to make increasing numbers of workers redundant. This action is necessary to avoid the worsening of an already complex employment situation in Galicia. In particular, new orders in the shipbuilding sector fell by 43 % in 2011, and considering the specific conditions of the region I think that the fund should be mobilised in order to assist in the reintegration of the workers made redundant, and to provide rapid and effective assistance to the local labour market. I therefore voted in favour.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Spain in support of the 878 employees dismissed from 35 companies in the metalworking sector in the Galicia region.

The economy of that region has suffered a severe blow, because opening up to the globalised market has adversely affected significant sectors of the economy, including this one. This, in combination with the problems faced by the textile sector in the same region, has made Galicia one of the most economically vulnerable regions in Spain.

The negative consequences of globalisation, in conjunction with the continuing economic crisis affecting Spain, further highlights the added value of EGF as an EU policy tool. The targeted financial support which it provides for retraining and reintegration programmes for workers affected by mass dismissals is particularly important. Furthermore, the support which it provides is a practical expression of EU solidarity. The Spanish regions are undergoing a process of rationalisation and drastic cuts. EGF assistance can contribute towards the battle against unemployment without significantly burdening the budgetary consolidation efforts for Spain’s national and regional budgets.

  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) in order to support workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. Spain submitted an application to mobilise the EGF in respect of 878 redundancies, 450 of which are targeted for assistance, in 35 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 25 (‘Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment’) due to new orders having inexplicably fallen by 43 %. I agree with the mobilisation of EUR 2 029 235 to support the reintegration of workers, particularly through training measures aimed at creating high value added jobs and thus avoiding the relocation of the knowledge acquired in this industrial sector. It should also be reiterated that the EGF must not replace the legal and financial responsibilities of Spanish companies, as this is additional support granted by the European Union to mitigate the social difficulties that workers will have to face.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in response to the application concerning Galicia Metal from, Spain. The Spanish application asks for a total of EUR 4 325 854 to assist with a total of 878 redundancies in the period from March to December 2011 across 35 metal manufacturers in Galicia. Redundancies in shipbuilding’s ancillary sectors further affect the state of the labour market in Galicia, where the main industries were fishing, automobile production, textiles, natural stone extraction and shipyards.

Considering the impact of the crisis, the redundant workers’ employment prospects are not optimistic. However, EGF assistance must not replace actions that are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors. We call on the Spanish Government to report to the European Parliament and the Commission annually on the rate of re-employment of the workers assisted under the EGF.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The EGF exists in order to provide additional support for workers who are suffering from the impacts of globalisation and to facilitate their re-integration into the labour market. This application from Spain has been reviewed. It relates to 878 persons affected by redundancies. The enterprises concerned by the application are manufacturers of fabricated metal products which operate in the shipbuilding ancillary industry. The global financial crisis changed several of the conditions and expectations for the future development of the shipbuilding market, with order books decreasing dramatically.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The redundancies in the shipbuilding ancillary industry will exacerbate the difficult employment situation in the region of Galicia. Assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund therefore appears essential. The Spanish authorities acted promptly to implement measures, ahead of the decision on EGF support for the proposed package. However, promptness has not translated into quality: the information on the training measures does not describe in which sectors the workers are likely to find employment and if the package has been adapted to the region’s future economic prospects. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is Spain’s 19th application for EGF mobilisation since the Fund’s inception. It concerns 878 workers in the shipbuilding industry who have been made redundant by 35 enterprises in the region of Galicia. The justification for this has been repeated countless times: major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Although we support this mobilisation, as we consider that it is essential to support these workers, we would reiterate our reservations and criticisms regarding this Fund, as we feel it would have been better for measures to have been taken to prevent this unemployment. For that reason, we desperately need a different approach for Europe, which must be a Europe in which workers’ labour and social rights are recognised, and not this EU where, instead of offering workers a dignified life, we try to pay them off with short-term compensatory measures.

Report: Frédéric Daerden (A7-0334/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from the Netherlands aims to assist 435 people who were made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I support the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers who were made redundant as a result of the global crisis. The construction industry in the Netherlands, and in the European Union as a whole, was greatly affected by the crisis, which also affected infrastructure and housing development programmes. This caused high levels of unemployment in Gelderland, particularly in the construction industry.

The regional authorities there have taken a series of measures to support 435 workers who were affected, including job search assistance, training and professional retraining, job placement and financing for business creation.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 2 898 594 of the EGF for the Netherlands in order to support 435 potential beneficiaries out of 516 redundancies in 54 enterprises (‘Construction of buildings’) in the region of Gelderland.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Once again I have voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund in the present case because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. This is eighth proposal for the mobilisation of the Fund submitted to the Budget Authority in 2012 for a total amount of EUR 2 898 594 at the request of the Netherlands during the nine-month reference period from 1 February 2011 to 1 November 2011. I believe that this mobilisation can support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation: it concerns 516 redundancies, of which 435 are targeted for assistance, in 54 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (‘Construction of buildings’) in the NUTS II region of Gelderland (NL22) in the Netherlands.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): application EGF/2011/009 NL/Gelderland. The EGF is designed to provide additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration in the labour market. I strongly support this initiative, which allows us to help the Netherlands to deal with huge job losses (in 54 enterprises) in the construction sector since its application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Dutch construction sector has been one of the numerous victims of the crisis and I am pleased that a tool such as the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) exists to facilitate the transition of workers who have been made redundant to new jobs. I approve the mobilisation of the EGF to support the more than 400 construction workers who lost their jobs.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, which provides for the mobilisation of the EGF in a total amount of EUR 2 898 594 for the Netherlands, which is intended to support 616 redundancies in the rolling sector serving the automotive industry. However, I regret that the Netherlands, as an EU Member State, has opposed the extension of the ‘crisis exemption’ for the current EGF, which has allowed financial assistance to be provided to workers made redundant as a result of the current economic and financial crisis and not just to those who have lost their jobs due to structural changes in world trade patterns, thus compromising the future of the EGF after 2013.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Frédéric Daerden concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2011/009 NL/Gelderland Construction 41’ from the Netherlands). This is the eighth application examined under the 2012 EU budget, having been submitted to the Commission on 15 December 2011, and refers to the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 2 898 594. It is intended to mitigate the social effects of 516 redundancies in 54 enterprises in the construction sector in the NUTS II region of Gelderland (NL22) in the Netherlands. Given that the application fulfils all of the eligibility criteria, I voted for this proposal to mobilise the EGF in favour of the Netherlands, which embodies the reasons why the EU created this Fund. I hope for a rapid recovery in the economic fabric of the Dutch regions affected.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The intolerable stream of requests to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund demonstrates the inhumanity of capitalism and the magnitude of its structural crisis. In this case, another 435 workers have been made redundant in the construction sector in the Netherlands. The justification given by employers for these redundancies is the sharp drop in demand or, in other words, the fall in consumption and purchasing power, accompanied by the difficulty in obtaining credit. These are the same arguments as used on other occasions. Our support for mobilising the Fund stems from the evident need to support those workers made redundant. However, we in no way accept as legitimate the policy of redundancies and the failure by employers to assume responsibility. We need investment policies that will create and maintain jobs with rights, and not this never-ending destruction of productive forces and jobs.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation and to help them rejoin the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to 30 December 2011 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The Netherlands submitted an application on 15 December 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 54 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (‘Construction of buildings’) in the NUTS II region of Gelderland (NL22), and supplemented the application by additional information up to 11 June 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. I think that it is justifiable to release resources in order to provide a final contribution in connection with the Netherlands’ application in the sum of EUR 2 898 594.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − In my home country, Ireland, we are intimately familiar with the perils associated with downturns in the construction sector. It brings me no pleasure to note that other EU countries are experiencing similar or related difficulties. I agree with Commission Andor, who noted earlier this year that the construction sector in Gelderland, Netherlands, has been hit particularly hard by the effects of the global crisis and its job-seekers are facing difficulties in finding new employment. The Netherlands applied for EGF support for 516 workers who lost their jobs at 54 small and medium-sized construction enterprises operating in Gelderland, which with 2 million inhabitants is the Netherlands’ biggest province, and an area where construction is a major employer. The package aims to help workers by offering them job-search assistance, vocational training, and entrepreneurship courses. I also welcome the inclusion of the innovative ‘flexpool’ in their EGF application – a flexible pool providing links for both job-seekers and employers in the construction sector, which can offer temporary employment so that retrained workers gain new work experience.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Frédéric Daerden on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help the Netherlands to cope with redundancies in the construction sector. There have been around 516 redundancies in this sector to date. This assistance was approved by a large majority: 572 votes to 63, with 13 abstentions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) proposed in Mr Daerden’s report. Today’s vote dealt with an application for mobilisation concerning 516 redundancies, of which 435 are targeted for assistance, in 54 enterprises operating in construction of buildings in the Gelderland province of the Netherlands. The total amount requested by the Commission was EUR 2 898 594. I would like to underline, more generally, the important role played by the EGF, which has shown itself in recent years to be a useful and effective resource for combating unemployment coming about as a consequence of globalisation and the economic crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. 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. The Dutch authorities argue that the construction sector in the Netherlands as well as in the entire European Union has been severely affected by the crisis. Loans to the construction sector and to individuals have been drastically reduced, prices of the construction materials increased while the demand for new houses decreased due to declining consumer confidence and the lack of liquidity.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people made redundant by Gelderland in the Netherlands.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to the Netherlands, which has submitted an application for assistance for 516 redundancies, of which 435 are targeted for assistance, in 54 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (‘Construction of buildings’) in the NUTS II region of Gelderland (NL22) in the Netherlands.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report supporting the mobilisation of EUR 2 898 594 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund targeting 435 of the 516 redundancies that have occurred in the company in Gelderland Construction, which operates in the construction sector in Gelderland in the Netherlands. The EGF provides additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The Netherlands has submitted an application for EGF assistance for redundancies that meets the conditions of the EGF Regulation. It must now be ensured that the EGF assistance is used to support the dismissed workers’ reintegration into the labour market and must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the eighth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 2 898 594 from the EGF for the Netherlands. It concerns 516 redundancies, of which 435 are targeted for assistance, in 54 enterprises operating in construction of buildings in the region of Gelderland in the Netherlands during the nine-month reference period from 1 February 2011 to 1 November 2011.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 16 July 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of the Netherlands in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global economic and financial crisis. This is the eighth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 2 898 594 from the EGF for 516 redundancies, of which 435 are targeted for assistance, in 54 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (‘Construction of buildings’) in the NUTS II region of Gelderland (NL22) during the nine-month reference period from 1 February 2011 to 1 November 2011. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for the Netherlands, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers being laid off as a consequence of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 16 July 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a Decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of the Netherlands in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to the global economic crisis. In accordance with the Commission’s assessment, the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation, and underlining the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the adoption of Decisions on the mobilisation of the fund, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the application for assistance submitted by the Netherlands for 516 redundancies, 435 of which are targeted for assistance, in 54 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (‘Construction of buildings’) in the NUTS II region of Gelderland (NL22), the Commission proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 898 594 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which was created in 2006 in order to ‘provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns’. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. 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 and of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 the Fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million, drawn from the 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. Concerning the procedure, in order to activate the Fund, the Commission, in the event of a positive assessment of an application, presents to the budgetary authority a proposal for mobilisation of the Fund and, at the same time, a corresponding request for transfer. In parallel, a trialogue is organised in order to find an agreement on the use of the Fund and the amounts required. The trialogue can take a simplified (written) form.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The construction sector in Gelderland has been particularly hard hit by the recession and those made redundant in the sector are struggling to find new employment. The Netherlands has made an application concerning 516 redundancies, of which 435 are targeted for assistance, in 54 smaller and medium-sized enterprises operating in construction of buildings in the Gelderland, the largest province in the country with about two million inhabitants and where the sector is an important source of jobs. Through this assistance we can provide support to those made redundant, including the Flexpool programme, a flexible pool for both job-seekers and employers in the construction sector that can offer temporary employment in order to gain experience in a new profession. I therefore voted in favour.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of the Netherlands in support of the 435 workers dismissed from 54 companies active in the construction sector. The reference period for this report is the nine-month period from 1 February to 1 November 2011. During that time, the ‘crisis derogation’ was in force, allowing the provision of financial aid to workers who were dismissed as a result of the current financial and economic crisis, and the increase in the rate of cofinancing. I regret that despite the continuing crisis, the Council blocked the extension of this derogation. The case of the Netherlands is the best demonstration of the fact that this financial instrument does not confine its operation to countries facing economic and budgetary challenges, but may prove equally useful in helping dismissed workers to reintegrate into the labour market even in economically robust countries. This in turn underlines the importance of that Fund, and shows how necessary it is that it should continue to operate for the duration of the forthcoming multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. I would like to congratulate Frédéric Daerden on his remarkable work in preparing, drafting and organising the vote on his report. As far as the content is concerned, one of the European Parliament’s priorities clearly must be to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and help them to reintegrate in the labour market.

However, I must take this opportunity to express my regret about the Council’s decision to block the extension of the ‘crisis derogation’, allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union cofinancing to 65 % of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline. I call on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay.

  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) in order to support workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. I agree with the request made by the Netherlands to mobilise the EGF for 516 redundancies, of which 435 are targeted for assistance, in 54 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (‘Construction of buildings’) in the NUTS II region of Gelderland during the nine-month reference period (1 February 2011 to 1 November 2011). I believe that the European Commission should mobilise EUR 2 898 594 to assist with the reintegration into employment of workers in Dutch construction companies. The financial package now approved should be used to support measures in the areas of career guidance, individual training and general information provided 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 in the Netherlands. The application asks for EUR 2 898 594 to assist with 516 redundancies across 54 construction businesses in the Gelderland region between February and November 2011. The construction industry is a major employer and the Gelderland redundancies have had a negative impact on the local communities. In the same industry, 4 100 jobs had already been lost in 2010, and youth unemployment rose by 10 % in 2011.

I would like to reiterate the importance of the employability of workers, especially in elementary professions, which should be improved by means of tailored training and the recognition of skills and competences gained throughout one’s professional career. I welcome the fact that the EGF funds will be used exclusively for training and outplacement assistance.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The Netherlands meets the conditions of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund Regulation. The construction sector is a major employer in Gelderland and the redundancies will be deeply felt, which is why it is necessary to ensure that workers are able to rejoin the labour market. At the same time, the Netherlands has opposed the extension of the crisis derogation for the current EGF, jeopardising its future. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is yet another request to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in a case of mass redundancies. This request, made by the Netherlands, involves support for 435 workers made redundant in the construction sector, with the justification given by employers for these redundancies being the sharp drop in demand or, in other words, the fall in consumption and purchasing power, accompanied by the difficulty in obtaining credit. Rather than this Fund, which to a certain extent legitimises the policy of redundancies and supports employers in this decision, what workers need is investment policies which create and maintain jobs with rights.

Report: Frédéric Daerden (A7-0324/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from the Netherlands aims to assist 616 people who were made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I support the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist workers affected by the crisis in Netherlands, where the aluminium sector suffered a great reduction in demand, like the rest of the Union. This had a negative impact on the Dutch aluminium industry, but also the construction and transport industries. It is why the support measures are welcome, especially the tailored packages for workers who were made redundant.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 1 494 008 of the EGF for the Netherlands in order to support 616 redundancies, of which 478 redundancies are in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV, 18 redundancies in its supplier ECL Services Netherlands bv and 120 in Start.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. The Commission has already issued a positive assessment and the proposal for mobilisation is now being presented to Parliament as the budgetary authority. I voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund in the present case because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. This is the ninth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 494 008 from the EGF for the Netherlands. It concerns 616 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV and in two supplier firms (ECL Services Netherlands BV and Start).

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): application EGF/2011/021 NL/Zalco. The EGF is designed to provide additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration in the labour market. I strongly support this initiative, which allows us to help the Netherlands to deal with Zalco Aluminium’s bankruptcy and to support the 616 people who were made redundant, since the application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The more than 600 people who lost their jobs in the Netherlands as a result of the problems in the country’s aluminium sector will benefit from the mobilisation of the EGF, which will support them in their transition to future jobs. I support this action.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Frédéric Daerden concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2011/021 NL/Zalco’ from the Netherlands). On 9 August 2012 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of the Netherlands in order to support the reintegration of workers made redundant due to the global crisis. This is the ninth application submitted under the 2012 EU budget, having been submitted to the Commission on 28 December 2011, and refers to the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 1 494 008. It is intended to mitigate the social effect caused by 616 redundancies in two companies supplying aluminium products (‘ECL Services Netherlands bv’ and ‘Start’) in the Netherlands. Given that the application fulfils all of the eligibility criteria, I voted for this proposal to mobilise the EGF and hope for a rapid recovery in the economic fabric of the Dutch regions affected.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The stream of requests to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in cases of mass redundancies is shocking. This case involves another two applications by the Netherlands: 1 051 redundancies in 57 companies in the construction sector and in the rolling sector serving the automotive industry. The justification given for these redundancies, in both sectors, is the sharp drop in demand, accompanied by the difficulty in obtaining credit. They in fact provide a clear demonstration and evidence of the economic and financial crisis and of the current processes of concentration and centralisation of capital. Each new mobilisation of this Fund clearly adds to the case against the EU and the policies that it advocates and implements. Rather than palliatives (albeit necessary), we urgently need a new policy, which guarantees the right to work and to improved living conditions for workers and citizens in Europe.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation and to help them rejoin the labour market. The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million. The Netherlands submitted an application on 28 December 2011 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV and in two supplier firms (ECL Services Netherlands bv and Start), and supplemented it by additional information up to 18 June 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 494 008.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − The Netherlands applied for EGF aid for Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company because authorities rightly assessed that the downturn in the European aluminium industry – which was sharp and sudden – could be attributed to declining demand in the construction and automotive sectors due to the global financial and economic crisis. According to the Commission, Zalco’s income suffered from this severe slowdown in aluminium production between 2008 and 2009, but also from the rise in energy costs between April 2010 and October 2011. As well as the usual package of personalised EGF supports, I was pleased to note that Zalco will implement measures to stimulate older workers to remain in the labour market. This is a recurring theme in a number of EU policy debates at present, so I think it is appropriate and important that Europe ‘put its money where its mouth is’ when it comes to keeping older Europeans working.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. − (SV) Today we voted for eight reports on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Ever since the Fund was established in 2006, we have always previously abstained from voting, since we were against the Fund from the outset, because we do not feel that the Fund is the right instrument for helping employees who are hit by structural changes. The Fund has now grown, developed and received its own grant. It exists, and it will not disappear in the foreseeable future. We have therefore now decided to take a position on every single case; whether it meets the very strict requirements for cofinancing and long-term measures for generating employment that are imposed on applicants. In this case, we felt that the applicants meet these requirements. Within the framework of work on the budget and long-term budget, we continue to support a more effective, long-term instrument for increasing employment, confronting structural changes and increasing flexibility in the labour market.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Frédéric Daerden on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help the Netherlands to cope with redundancies in the aluminium sector. There have been around 616 redundancies in this sector to date.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for the Zalco Zeeland enterprise. This is the ninth application for mobilisation of the fund to be examined under the 2012 budget and concerns training of 616 workers made redundant following the failure of the aluminium products enterprise Zalco Zeeland and is for a total amount of EUR 1 494 008.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this proposal. 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 due to globalisation. The Dutch authorities argue that the European aluminium sector suffered from a sudden drop in consumer demand (a reduction by 25.7 % from average EU aluminium usage between 2008 and 2009. The production of Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV was dependent on the construction and transport industry (which represented 63 % of the main end-user market of aluminium products in Europe in 2010). The majority of Zalco’s Aluminium Zeeland Company NV production was produced for the rolling and extrusion industry. Almost their entire production of extrusion billets was used for the construction and transport industries, and in particular in the automotive sector. Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV suffered from the declining demand – due to the global financial and economic crisis – in these two sectors leading, after unsuccessful attempts to overcome the difficulties, to bankruptcy at the end of 2011.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people made redundant by Zalco in the Netherlands.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to the Netherlands, which has submitted an application for assistance for 616 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, of which 478 redundancies are in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV, 18 redundancies in its supplier ECL Services Netherlands bv and 120 in Start during the short reference period from 1 to 27 December 2011.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report supporting the mobilisation of EUR 1 494 008 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund targeting the 616 redundancies that have occurred in the company Zalco, which operates in the aluminium sector in Zeeland in the Netherlands. The EGF provides additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The Netherlands submitted an application for EGF assistance for redundancies that meets the conditions of the EGF Regulation. It must now be ensured that the EGF assistance is used to support the dismissed workers’ reintegration into the labour market and must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the ninth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 494 008 from the EGF for the Netherlands. It concerns 616 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV and in two supplier firms (ECL Services Netherlands bv and Start) in the Netherlands during the short reference period from 1 to 27 December 2011. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 9 August 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of the Netherlands in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. This is the ninth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 494 008 from the EGF for 616 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV and in two supplier firms (ECL Services Netherlands bv and Start) during the short reference period from 1 to 27 December 2011. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for the Netherlands, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers being laid off as a consequence of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 9 August 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a Decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of the Netherlands in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to the globalisation. In accordance with Commission’s assessment, the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation, and underlining the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the adoption of Decisions on the mobilisation of the fund, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance for 616 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, of which 478 redundancies are in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV, 18 redundancies in its supplier ECL Services Netherlands bv and 120 in Start, the Commission proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 494 008 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which created in 2006 in order to ‘provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns’. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 9 August 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of the Netherlands in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. This is the ninth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 494 008 from the EGF for the Netherlands. It concerns 616 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV and in two supplier firms (ECL Services Netherlands bv and Start) in the Netherlands during the short reference period from 1 to 27 December 2011. These redundancies were calculated as follows: for Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV using the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, for ECL Services Netherlands bv using the first indent and for Start using the second indent.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Netherlands has applied for mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for 616 redundancies. The provision of an assistance package aimed at reintegration in the labour market is necessary for EU workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. It is our responsibility not to endanger the future of workers or the balance of local communities. In view of the crisis affecting this sector in particular, I request that the fund be mobilised in order to improve prospects for growth in the region where Zalco Aluminium is located. I therefore voted in favour.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of the Netherlands, in support of the 660 employees dismissed from Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company and from two of its suppliers. The reference period for this report is the period from the 1 to 27 December 2011. During that time, the ‘crisis derogation’ was in force, allowing the provision of financial aid to workers who were dismissed as a result of the current financial and economic crisis, and the increase in the rate of cofinancing. I regret that despite the continuing crisis, the Council blocked the extension of this derogation. The case of the Netherlands is the best demonstration of the fact that this financial instrument does not confine its operation to countries facing economic and budgetary challenges, but may prove equally useful in helping dismissed workers to reintegrate into the labour market even in economically robust countries. This in turn underlines the importance of that Fund, and shows how necessary it is that it should continue to operate for the duration of the forthcoming multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

  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) in order to support workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. The Netherlands submitted an application to mobilise the EGF for 616 redundancies distributed as follows: 478 redundancies in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV, 18 redundancies in its supplier ECL Services Netherlands bv and 120 in Start during the short reference period from 1 to 27 December 2011. I agree with the mobilisation of EUR 1 494 008 in order to support the reintegration of the workers into the labour market. It should be noted that the EGF support must be used for training and job search, and training programmes. This support should not replace the social responsibilities of the companies in question, and cannot therefore be used to contribute directly to unemployment benefits which are the responsibility of national institutions.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in response to the Netherland’s application for assistance for redundancies at Zalco. The application asks for a total of EURO 1 494 008 to assist with 616 redundancies in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV and its two suppliers (ECL Services Netherlands bv and Start) in December 2011. The Dutch authorities state that these redundancies were the result of the global economic and financial crisis, which caused a sharp reduction in consumer demand, including a 25.7 % reduction in aluminium demand across the EU between 2008 and 2009, especially from the automobile and construction industry.

I believe that it is essential to implement swift measures through the EGF. The Fund offers a unique, limited instrument to assist with redundancies caused by the global economic and financial crisis. We call on the Dutch Government to report to the European Parliament and the Commission annually on the rate of re-employment of the workers assisted under the EGF.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The territory concerned by the redundancies, Zeeland, is a small labour market with limited access. Furthermore, other workers in upstream or downstream companies may be dismissed as a direct result of the bankruptcy of Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV. It seems necessary, therefore, to support these workers. At the same time, the Netherlands has opposed the extension of the crisis derogation for the current EGF, jeopardising its future. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is yet another request to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in a case of mass redundancies. This request, made by the Netherlands, involves support for 616 workers made redundant in the rolling sector serving the automotive industry. The justification given for these redundancies is the sharp drop in demand or, in other words, the fall in consumption and purchasing power, accompanied by the difficulty in obtaining credit. The solution advocated to weather the economic and financial crisis involves drastically reducing the workforce, but this is not a human solution ensuring the conditions for the necessary economic recovery. We need policies promoting jobs with rights, rather than simply offering short-term knee-jerk solutions to workers’ problems.

Report: Jean Louis Cottigny (A7-0333/2012)

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) It is well known that the Communist Party of Greece takes the view that the ‘European Globalisation Adjustment Fund’ is a means of manipulating awareness and defusing the workers’ outrage by handing out crumbs of comfort to the workers who are being thrown out of work by the capitalists; but even these crumbs do not go as direct aid to the workers, but to the bourgeois governments for various training programmes etc. The Communist Party of Greece voted against this report because it is a provocation to ask the French Government to disburse funds from that Fund for the thousands of dismissals made by the French monopoly group Peugeot, which even in the midst of a capitalist crisis is showing profits of billions of euros (EUR 1.7 billion in 2010 and EUR 1.3 billion in 2011). The Workers’ Movement cannot confine itself to claiming crumbs from the EGF to assuage the workers’ anger, without raising any protest against the French monopoly that throws workers out on the street and maintains its profitability, or against the bourgeois French Government of the Social Democrats, which defends monopoly interests by every possible means. The Communist Party of Greece supports the workers’ fight for the return to work of all those who were dismissed; it supports the struggle of the working class to ensure that those who pay for the crisis are the plutocrats who caused it – not the working class and the poorest strata of society.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from France aims to assist 2 089 people who were made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because workers affected by the economic and financial crisis must be helped to reintegrate in the labour market. The mobilisation of the EGF in France is a welcome move. The crisis greatly affected economic growth and credit conditions there and job security decreased considerably. The automobile industry suffered a decline in France, where car sales fell sharply despite the local measures taken by the relevant authorities. The measures are a good way to redress the current situation on the ground and will provide assistance for the workers affected.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 11 949 666 of the EGF for France in order to support 2 089 redundancies in two branches of PSA Peugeot Citroën (Peugeot Citroën Automobiles and Sevelnord).

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support this report, because it calls for assistance, under the rules of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, for 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, of which 649 took place in the two branches of PSA Peugeot Citroën (Peugeot Citroën Automobiles and Sevelnord) during the reference period of 1 November 2009 to 28 February 2010, with a further 1 440 workers made redundant by the same companies before and after the reference period under the same redundancy plan based on voluntary departures. I agree with the use of this assistance in favour of the outplacement of the beneficiaries.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The Commission has already issued a positive assessment and the proposal for mobilisation is now being presented to Parliament as the budgetary authority. I voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund for application EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot presented by France because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. France has requested assistance for 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, of which 649 redundancies took place in the two branches of PSA Peugeot Citroën (Peugeot Citroën Automobiles and Sevelnord) during the reference period between 1 November 2009 and 28 February 2010.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): application EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot. The EGF is designed to provide additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their efforts to reintegrate in the labour market. I strongly support this initiative, which allows us to help the 2 089 workers who were made redundant by Peugeot Citroën between 2009 and 2010 following the drastic reduction in the demand for new cars in the European Union. France is severely affected by restructuring; Arcelor Mittal and Continental must continue to receive assistance from the EGF. It is therefore absurd for some Member States to call into question the existence of the EGF in the medium term.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − 2 089 people lost their jobs at PSA Peugeot Citroën in different parts of France as a result of a sharp drop in sales. While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the mobilisation, in favour of France, of EUR 11 949 666 of the overall budget for 2012 of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This allocation from the Fund is intended to assist 5 100 redundancies in two branches of PSA Peugeot Citroën, given that these will affect the regional economy of 10 French regions. I would stress that the EGF was created to provide additional support to workers made redundant as a result of structural changes in the economy, by helping to train them so that they can reintegrate more quickly and easily into the labour market. I would also point out that, given the difficulties experienced by the automotive industry in Europe, in 2009 the Commission presented the document ‘Responding to the crisis in the European automotive industry’ in which it presents an integrated approach to the sector’s structural problems, together with solutions to make it more competitive and adaptable to the needs of the market.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which grants European financial assistance to France to support the reintegration in the labour market of 2 089 workers who were made redundant in a motor vehicle sector that has been hit hard by the crisis. This decision illustrates the crucial role that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund can play in helping economic sectors in crisis. A strong European Union is a Union that, above all, protects its citizens from the vagaries of life.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Jean Louis Cottigny concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot’ from France). On 21 August 2012 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of France in order to support the reintegration of workers made redundant due to the global crisis. This is the 11th application examined under the 2011 EU budget, having been submitted to the Commission on 5 May 2010, and refers to the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 11 949 666. It is intended to mitigate the social effect caused by around 2 089 redundancies in PSA Peugeot Citroën, as well as voluntary redundancies in the same company. Given that this application fulfils the EGF eligibility criteria, I voted in favour and hope for a rapid recovery in the economic fabric of the region affected.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Aside from the position that we normally adopt on this issue, this request to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has some specific characteristics that require an additional critical assessment. The request has been made by France in favour of 5 100 workers made redundant by PSA Peugeot Citroën, of which over 41.55 % are older than 55 years, which therefore raises a question (and concern) about the type of support to be provided in practice and about the future that may be hoped for these workers, who traditionally find it harder to get a new job. It should be added that, in the redundancy plan negotiated with workers, Peugeot has included the EGF support as an integral part of the package to compensate those workers made redundant. This is using the Fund in a way for which it was not designed, but to which it clearly lends itself. We maintain our position of solidarity with those workers made redundant as a direct result of the EU’s policies and the structural crisis in capitalism, despite the fact that we can never agree with this Fund being mobilised as a way of ‘negotiating’ redundancy conditions with workers.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation and to help them rejoin the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to 30 December 2011 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. France submitted an application to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the PSA Peugeot Citroën Group in France on 5 May 2010 and supplemented it by additional information up to 13 April 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. In my view, it is therefore justifiable to mobilise the EGF in order to provide France with a financial contribution in the sum of EUR 11 949 666.

  Gaston Franco (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which is excellent news for Peugeot employees, who are currently experiencing significant social changes. This EU programme is in line with a Europe that protects citizens and that intervenes after a social disaster. In all, some EUR 12 million will be released. Presented by France in 2010, this application relates to 2 089 workers who were made redundant in the group’s subsidiaries in Ille-et-Vilaine, Franche-Comté, Alsace, Lorraine and Île-de-France.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help Peugeot employees: more than EUR 12 million will be used directly for the redeployment, training and reintegration in the labour market of the some 2 000 workers who were made redundant between 2009 and 2010. In all, EUR 37.5 million will have been mobilised in 2012 to assist European workers who have been made redundant in Europe.

In this regard, it is unfortunate that a few states have refused to extend the EGF eligibility criterion for the crisis until the end of 2013. With unemployment still rising and the recession taking hold right across Europe, it is obvious that we are still in the midst of a crisis and that the unemployed in Europe need this European tool more than ever to help them to get back to work.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − Many of my MEP colleagues are aware that Peugeot Citroën recently announced a further wave of redundancies – this is further proof, as if any were needed, that the global automotive industry is still struggling to deal with the worst effects of the economic crisis. This EGF application is not linked to these recent developments, but rather to an earlier announcement of redundancies at Peugeot Citroën in 2009 and 2010. As was the case in the US, ongoing restructuring in some aspects of the European car industry is necessary in order for it to regain global competitiveness. I therefore think it was appropriate that we MEPs today agreed to provide EUR 11.9 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help the 2 089 workers who were made redundant in that period. The French regions affected by the redundancies are Bretagne, Franche-Comté, Île-de-France, Alsace and Lorraine – most of whom have higher unemployment than the national average. I also consider it appropriate at this time to echo the Commission’s call to maintain the EGF for the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, while further improving its functioning. The Fund is a concrete example of the twin EU value of solidarity and added value, and should be maintained.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the fact that the European Parliament approved by a large majority the assistance package for PSA Peugeot Citroën, which, like the French car industry as a whole, has been crippled by the economic and financial crisis. At the request of Nicolas Sarkozy’s Government, the European Commission has proposed allocating almost EUR 12 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to support the 2 089 workers who were made redundant between 1 November 2009 and 28 February 2010. This application was submitted by France after the collapse in the demand for new cars at the start of the crisis in 2008 (down 10.7 % in the third quarter and 17 % in the fourth quarter), which forced the firm to make redundancies in Brittany, Franche-Comté, Île-de-France, Alsace and Lorraine. The EGF is based on a proactive policy because it offers careers advice and training for workers who have been made redundant, and it finances allowances for redeployment leave and setting up a business.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Dominique Riquet on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help France to cope with redundancies in the motor vehicle sector. This assistance was approved by a large majority: 565 votes to 75, with 14 abstentions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for France because I view this as a useful instrument for supporting workers in difficulty due to the economic crisis. The EGF was created in 2006 in order to provide a tangible response to workers made redundant as a result of globalisation, and in 2009 its scope was broadened to include workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis, in order to assist their reintegration in the labour market. Today’s report deals with a request for support for 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, which took place in Peugeot Citroën over four months (1 November 2009 to 28 February 2010) for a total amount of EUR 11 949 666.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this request. 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 due to globalisation. The French authorities argue that the increasingly bleak growth prospects and the tougher credit conditions during the crisis have given rise to fears among private individuals concerning the safety of their jobs and have led them to postpone purchasing a vehicle. At the same time, given the deterioration in the economic situation, companies have also cut down on investments and, consequently, on renewals of their fleet of vehicles. Thus, despite the temporary measures introduced by some Member States (for example, scrapping programmes), the European vehicle market – particularly in Western Europe, which is the largest market for the group PSA Peugeot Citroën – collapsed suddenly in the second half of 2008, with a 10.7 % decrease in registrations of light passenger and commercial vehicles in Europe in the third quarter and a 17 % decrease in the fourth quarter of 2008, in relation to the same period over the previous year. The fall in the sales of vehicles due to the global financial and economic crisis has directly affected the economic results of the PSA Peugeot Citroën group.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. In France, 2 089 people lost their jobs with PSA Peugeot Citroën because of the drop in sales: they will receive assistance totalling EUR 12 million. This assistance will also go to Franche-Comté, Alsace and Lorraine.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The financial and economic crisis had a substantial impact on the automobile industry and its labour market across Europe. The European car sales market suffered a significant decline that led to redundancies and social concerns.

To manage the impact of the 2 089 redundancies at PSA Peugeot Citroën, concrete measures for job search assistance, training, and professional retraining and requalification are necessary. In this sense, I support measures to improve the employability of vulnerable groups, and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout one’s professional career.

I voted in favour of this report because the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund plays a crucial role in the economic recovery of the regions affected by mass redundancies, including in the newer Member States. I wish to welcome the proposal of the European Commission to allocate EUR 2.9 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to Romania to assist with the impact of the Nokia redundancies.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to France, which has submitted an application for assistance for 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, of which 649 redundancies were in two branches of PSA Peugeot Citroën (Peugeot Citroën Automobiles and Sevelnord) during the reference period between 1 November 2009 and 28 February 2010, with a further 1 440 redundancies in the same companies before and after the reference period, under the same redundancy plan based on voluntary departures.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report supporting the mobilisation of EUR 11 949 666 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund targeting the 2089 redundancies that have occurred in the company Peugeot, which operates in the car manufacturing sector in 10 different regions of France. The EGF provides additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. France has submitted an application for EGF assistance for redundancies that meets the conditions of the EGF Regulation. It must now be ensured that the EGF assistance is used to support the dismissed workers’ reintegration into the labour market and must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the eleventh application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 11 949 666 from the EGF for France. It concerns 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in PSA Peugeot Citroën over the four-month reference period between 1 November 2009 and 28 February 2010 as well as redundancies resulting from the same redundancy plan based on voluntary departures, also in PSA Peugeot Citroën, but outside the reference period. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 21 August 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of France in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis due to globalisation. This is the 11th application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 11 949 666 from the EGF for 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in PSA Peugeot Citroën during the four-month reference period between 1 November 2009 and 28 February 2010, as well as redundancies resulting from the same redundancy plan based on voluntary departures, also in PSA Peugeot Citroën, but outside the reference period. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for France, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers being laid off as a consequence of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 21 August 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a Decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of France in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to the globalisation. In accordance with Commission’s assessment, the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation, and underlining the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the adoption of Decisions on the mobilisation of the fund, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) France submitted an application to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for redundancies in PSA Peugeot Citroën in France. This was supplemented by additional information up to 13 April 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions, as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 11 949 666. I voted in favour.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The crisis is hitting the motor vehicle sector hard. The second quarter of 2009 saw a 39.5 % drop in the total number of vehicles manufactured in the EU in relation to the previous year, so the main European manufacturers, and their suppliers, are experiencing enormous difficulties. The French car industry is particularly affected by the crisis because it has experienced a bigger drop in competitiveness than other European countries, and this situation forced PSA Peugeot Citroën to make more than 2 000 people redundant in various regions. To help them, France requested assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which may be mobilised in the event of redundancies linked to the economic and financial crisis. With my vote for this resolution, I am calling for EUR 11.9 million to be released to help the PSA Peugeot Citroën employees who lost their jobs. Although this aid is essential – and I welcome the adoption of this resolution – the problem of the competitiveness of the French and European car sector has yet to be tackled. The solution has to be greater investment in research and development in order to steer production towards the cars of the future.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 21 August 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of France in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. This is the eleventh application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 11 949 666 from the EGF for France. It concerns 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in PSA Peugeot Citroën over the four-month reference period between 1 November 2009 and 28 February 2010 as well as redundancies resulting from the same redundancy plan based on voluntary departures, also in PSA Peugeot Citroën, but outside the reference period. All of these redundancies were calculated in accordance with the first indent of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The EU should provide assistance to support the reintegration in the labour market of over two thousand workers made redundant at Peugeot Citroën by mobilising a total amount of EUR 11.9 million. In view of recent figures reflecting a worrying decrease in the number of vehicles manufactured in the Europe and consequent redundancies in the motor vehicle industry, I think that the fund should be mobilised for the enterprise in question, especially in view of the fact that further redundancies are expected at Peugeot since demand is still falling due to the crisis. The package provides assistance to 2 089 workers who have been made redundant by the French vehicle manufacturer. I therefore voted in favour.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of France, in support of the 2 089 employees dismissed from the PSA Peugeot Citroën group, which is active in the car-manufacturing sector. It is clear that the adverse consequences of globalisation further highlight the added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund as an EU social policy tool. The targeted financial support which it provides for retraining and reintegration programmes for workers affected by mass dismissals is particularly important. The support which it provides is a practical expression of EU solidarity. Furthermore, the reference period for this report is the four-month period from 1 November 2009 to 28 February 2010. During that period, the ‘crisis derogation’ was in force, allowing the provision of financial aid to workers who were dismissed as a result of the current financial and economic crisis, and the increase in the rate of cofinancing. I regret the fact that despite the ongoing crisis, the Council blocked the extension of this derogation.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my esteemed colleague Mr Cottigny. As far as the content is concerned, one of the European Parliament’s priorities clearly must be to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and help them to reintegrate in the labour market. There were 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted by this assistance, including 649 in the two branches of the PSA Peugeot Citroën group, and this was both an economic and a social disaster. Europe was duty-bound to come to their aid.

However, I regret the Council’s decision to block the extension of the ‘crisis derogation’, allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union cofinancing to 65 % of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline. I call on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay.

  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) in order to support workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. France submitted an application to mobilise the EGF for 649 redundancies in two branches of PSA Peugeot Citroën (Peugeot Citroën Automobiles and Sevelnord) during the period between 1 November 2009 and 28 February 2010, as well as a further 1 440 redundancies under the same redundancy plan based on voluntary departures. I agree with the mobilisation of EUR 11 949 666 to support the reintegration of workers, particularly through training measures aimed at creating high value added jobs and thus avoiding the relocation of the knowledge acquired in this industrial sector.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to support Peugeot employees. Almost EUR 12 million will be released for the 2 089 workers who were made redundant by Peugeot. These funds will be used to finance active reintegration measures additional to those required by virtue of French law and to help the workers to find new jobs. However, I regret that this support for Peugeot employees is one of the EGF’s last on the basis of the ‘crisis’ criterion and that access to the Fund will be restricted in the future. At a time when the recession and unemployment explosion are hitting European countries, the Council has unfortunately decided that this ‘crisis’ criterion may no longer be invoked to mobilise the EGF.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in France, at Peugeot. The application asks for a total of EUR 11 949 666 for France to assist with 2 089 redundancies at PSA Peugeot Citroen between November 2009 and February 2010. The bleak economic growth prospects and tougher credit conditions have damaged job security and car sales. Businesses have cut down on investments and on renewals of their vehicle fleets.

Peugeot Citroën Automobiles is required by French law to contribute to the revitalisation of these regions, contributing to the creation of new activities and new jobs, so as to attenuate the effects of redundancies. I regret that the assessment took 27 months from the submission of the application in May 2010 to the adoption of the proposal for a decision in August 2012. We call for the EGF to be mobilised swiftly in order to support the workers who were made redundant in this case.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome this vote to mobilise EUR 12 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help 2 089 workers, following redundancies in Peugeot in 2010, after it was rejected in 2011 because of the incomprehensible opposition of the Socialists. With an annual budget of EUR 500 million, the EGF allows the EU to cope better with the shocks linked to major structural changes in the global economy and helps to combat unemployment by financing training and occupational redeployment measures. This shows that the EU has the ambition, and equips itself with the resources, to put individuals and the real economy at the heart of its project. It is unfortunate, however, that some Member States are opposed to preserving this Fund for ideological reasons. Parliament will have to stand firm in the ongoing budget negotiations to ensure that the EGF has the resources it needs to respond to the challenges involved. Finally, the redundancies suffered by Peugeot employees remind us of the urgent need to create a ‘competitiveness shock’ through a massive reduction in the taxes that are suffocating our industries.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Under the conditions set out in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund Regulation, France is entitled to financial assistance. The French authorities started to implement measures ahead of the final decision on EGF support for the proposed coordinated package. The package includes allowances provided under the category ‘redeployment leave’. However, EGF support should not contribute directly to unemployment benefits but should primarily be allocated to training and job search activities. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report considers the request made by France to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of 5 100 workers made redundant by PSA Peugeot Citroën, of whom over 41.55 % are older than 55 years, which therefore raises a question (and concern) about the type of support to be provided in practice and about the future that may be hoped for these workers, who traditionally find it harder to get a new job. It should be added that, in the redundancy plan negotiated with workers, Peugeot has included the EGF support as an integral part of the package to compensate those workers made redundant. This is using the Fund in a way for which it was not designed and may be viewed as a way of blackmailing those workers to make them accept the redundancy, which has been dressed up as voluntary departure. We maintain our position of solidarity with those workers made redundant as a direct result of the EU’s policies and the structural crisis in capitalism, despite the fact that we can never agree with this Fund being mobilised as a way of negotiating redundancy conditions with workers.

Report: László Surján (A7-0345/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from Denmark aims to assist people who have been made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because mobilising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support workers who were made redundant is a good idea.

In Denmark, the wind turbine industry was gravely affected by decreasing demand in the Union. As the production of renewable energy seems to move gradually outside Europe, urgent measures such as reducing production and transport costs would help both consumers and markets. Moreover, measures to reintegrate the workers who were made redundant in the labour market are welcome and useful.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 7 488 000 of the EGF for Denmark in order to support 720 redundancies in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support this report, because the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund assistance will aid the outplacement of Vestas workers, whose loss of employment has a huge impact on the local area. Vestas provided many high-skilled and high-quality industrial jobs for workers in the municipalities concerned and the loss of these jobs has put the region into difficulties. The redundancies have occurred at a time when unemployment is rising rapidly. In February 2012, it was 36 426 in Midtjylland and 40 004 in Syddanmark (compared with 28 402 and 29 751 respectively in August 2011).

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) The Commission has already issued a positive assessment and the proposal for mobilisation is now being presented to Parliament as the budgetary authority. I voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund for application EGF/2012/003/DK/Vestas presented by Denmark because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. Denmark has requested assistance for 720 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, which took place in the Vestas Group in Denmark, a wind turbine manufacturer.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − 720 workers lost their jobs at the wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas Group, in Denmark. The Danish authorities argue that this industry in the EU has been seriously affected by changes in world trade patterns and a severe drop in EU market share. While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that the application fulfils the eligibility criteria.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Our vote in favour of this assistance hopes to help not just the workers who have been redundant but also an entire region in difficulty. By supporting their reintegration, we are supporting the future recovery of that region and Europe as a whole.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by László Surján concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2012/003 DK/Vestas’ from Denmark). On 13 September 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 of workers made redundant due to the global crisis. This is the 13th application submitted under the 2012 EU budget, having been submitted to the Commission on 14 May 2012, and refers to the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 7 488 000. It is intended to mitigate the social effect caused by 720 redundancies in the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group (NACE Revision 2 Division 28 – ‘Manufacture of machinery and equipment’). Given that, according to the Commission’s conclusions, the application meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for deploying the EGF, I voted in favour of this proposal for a decision.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This request is the 13th application submitted under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 7 488 000 from the EGF for Denmark. The application concerns 720 redundancies in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group. Ironically, one of Europe’s largest renewable energy groups is making hundreds of workers redundant at a time when the EU claims that this is a priority area under its Europe 2020 strategy. This is food for thought, and in fact sheds light on the real meaning and objectives of that strategy. Despite wind turbine production in Europe having increased in recent years, and despite the foreseeable increase in the needs of the Asian, North American and South American markets, the solution adopted has not been to build on the loyalty of the European market and conquer new markets, but to dismiss highly skilled workers and relocate production and services outside Europe. This has left behind another trail of poverty in the municipalities of Midtjylland and Syddanmark, where in February of this year 76 430 people were already unemployed.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation and to help them rejoin the labour market. Denmark submitted an application on 14 May 2012 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Vestas Group and supplemented it by additional information up to 10 July 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. In order to provide a financial contribution in connection with the Danish application, therefore, financial resources in the sum of EUR 7 488 000 should be released from the EGF.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − The Danish authorities responsible for this EGF application argued that the European wind turbine industry was seriously impacted by changes in world trade patterns and a major drop in EU market share. Indeed, Denmark is to be complimented for starting the implementation of support measures ahead of the final decision on its EGF application, in order to provide workers with quick and timely assistance. Vestas employed many high-skilled workers and I hope that the EGF funding will be used to ensure that their skills sets are successfully reutilised for the continued benefit of Denmark’s already-impressive renewable energy sector. The total estimated cost of the package is approximately EUR 15 million, of which the EGF would provide almost half, i.e. EUR 7.4 million.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal. To this avail, the Danish authorities argue that the wind turbine manufacturing industry in the EU, which is included in NACE Revision 2 Division 28 (‘Manufacture of machinery and equipment’), has been seriously affected by changes in world trade patterns, in particular a significant reduction of the EU market share. Denmark explains that, although the European production of wind turbines has increased in the past few years, the global market for wind turbines has developed even faster, especially in Asia and North America. For the first time in 2010, more than half of all new wind power capacities were added outside the traditional markets of Europe and North America. This development was mainly driven by the continuing economic boom in China, which accounted for half of the new global wind installations. As a result of the dynamic global growth of the sector, Europe’s share in total capacity was reduced from 65.5 % in 2006 to 43.7 % in 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people who have been made redundant by Vestas in Denmark.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to Denmark, which has submitted an application for assistance for 720 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group in Denmark.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the thirteenth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 7 488 000 from the EGF for Denmark. The application concerns 720 redundancies in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group in Denmark, all of which occurred during the four-month reference period from 8 February 2012 to 8 June 2012.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 13 September 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Denmark in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis due to globalisation. This is the 13th application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 7 488 000 from the EGF for 720 redundancies in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group in Denmark, all of which occurred during the four-month reference period between 8 February 2012 and 8 June 2012. Since this procedure was assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and since the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was associated with the process and in favour of the Fund being mobilised for Denmark, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers being laid off as a consequence of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 13 September 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 in the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. Considering that the Danish authorities argue that the wind turbine manufacturing industry in the EU, which is included in NACE Revision 2 Division 28 (‘Manufacture of machinery and equipment’), has been seriously affected by changes in world trade patterns, in particular a significant reduction of the EU market share, and underlining the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure for the adoption of Decisions on the mobilisation of the fund, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Denmark submitted an application on 14 May 2012 to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Vestas Group. This was supplemented by additional information up to 10 July 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions, as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 7 488 000, for which I voted.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 13 September 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 in the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. This is the thirteenth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 7 488 000 from the EGF for Denmark. The application concerns 720 redundancies in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group in Denmark, all of which occurred during the four-month reference period from 8 February 2012 to 8 June 2012. All of these redundancies were calculated in accordance with the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission has informed the Budgetary Authority that it has received the confirmation required under the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 2(2) that this is the actual number of redundancies effected.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Major structural changes in the wind turbine market worldwide, with the rapid development of wind turbine production in Asia and North America, has caused the Danish group Vestas to make a number of redundancies. The application by Denmark should be approved for assistance to an enterprise that provided many high-skilled and high-quality industrial jobs for workers. Indeed, the redundancies affected highly qualified workers and I therefore believe that the package of measures should be mobilised in recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career. I therefore voted in favour.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark, in support of the 720 employees dismissed from the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group. It is clear that the adverse consequences of globalisation further highlight the added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund as an EU social policy tool. The targeted financial support which it provides for retraining and reintegration programmes for workers affected by mass dismissals is particularly important. The support which it provides is a practical expression of EU solidarity. The case of Denmark is the best demonstration of the fact that this financial instrument does not confine its operation to countries facing economic and budgetary challenges, but may prove equally useful in helping dismissed workers to reintegrate into the labour market even in economically robust countries. This in turn underlines the importance of that Fund, and shows how necessary it is that it should continue to operate for the duration of the forthcoming multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Bearing in mind that Denmark has requested assistance for 720 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group in Denmark and that the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) Regulation, I voted in favour of mobilising this Fund to provide additional support to affected workers and to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Denmark’s application meets the eligibility criteria for financial assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The redundancies at Vestas have placed this region of Denmark in difficulties. However, Denmark has opposed the extension of the crisis derogation for the current EGF, jeopardising its future after 2013. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We are examining the 13th application under the 2012 budget, which refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 7 488 000 from the EGF for Denmark. The application concerns 720 redundancies in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group. This is yet another case of collective redundancy in which, despite wind turbine production in Europe having increased in recent years, and despite the foreseeable increase in the needs of the Asian, North American and South American markets, the solution adopted has been to dismiss highly skilled workers and relocate production and services outside Europe. This has left behind another trail of poverty in the municipalities of Midtjylland and Syddanmark, where in February of this year 76 430 people were already unemployed. These redundancies are due to the famous relocation policies, which have come into their own since the economic and financial crisis. However, we must be frank: this is all in the name of quicker and easier profits. It is always the workers who end up paying the price for the crises caused by capitalism, which can never solve these crises.

Report: José Manuel Fernandes (A7-0346/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from Germany aims to assist people who have been made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report as assistance under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is most welcome in the current situation. In Germany, the printing machinery manufacturing industry developed a global market. However, German manufacturers face steep competition even though the cheaper competing products are of a lower quality. As a result, the sales of German manufacturers have fallen sharply.

The proposed measures can redress the situation and the tailored packages proposed in the funding application can help to reintegrate the workers affected in the labour market.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 5 352 944 of the EGF for Germany in order to support 2 103 potential beneficiaries out of 2 284 redundancies in printing machinery manufacturer Manroland AG.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support the report, because the assistance will aid the outplacement of the workers in question. The redundancies referred to in the report affect three different regions of Germany – Augsburg (Bavaria), Offenbach (Hessen) and Plauen (Saxony) – that have been laid low by the crisis. Neighbouring major towns are also affected by the closure and the redundancies, including Aschaffenburg, Wiesbaden, Darmstadt and Frankfurt am Main. Plauen, located in the eastern part of Germany, which has a small population but a high dependency on social welfare payment, is the weakest of the three and deserves this assistance, which should aid the recovery of a region hit very hard by the crisis.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − 2 013 employees were made redundant by the German printing machinery firm Manroland AG, two of its subsidiaries and one of its suppliers as a result of growing international competition and changing technology. While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Several large German towns and regions have been affected by the redundancies referred to in this report. The break-up of this enterprise must not mark the end of the road for its former employees, and I hope that my vote in favour of this assistance will help to facilitate their transition to new employment.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, which I had the honour of drafting, concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2012/002 DE/Manroland’ from Germany). The EGF, which was created in 2006, aims to support workers made redundant as a result of structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Germany submitted an application on 4 May 2012 to mobilise the EGF. This is the 12th application to be examined under the 2012 EU budget, following 2 284 redundancies (2 177 in Manroland AG, 62 in two subsidiaries and 45 in one supplier), and was approved by the Commission on 13 September 2012. Given that, according to the Commission’s conclusions, the application meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for deploying the EGF, as laid down in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, having been submitted within the set deadline, I voted in favour of this proposal for a decision.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Germany requested assistance for 2 284 workers made redundant by Manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries as well as one supplier in Germany. This company was a machinery manufacturer, with specialist skills and attractive wages, whose closure has affected other neighbouring cities. If these workers manage to find another job, they will have to accept lower wages, which will reduce their purchasing power, increase pressure on the wages of other workers and affect the local economy. This is unacceptable. The stream of mobilisations of this Fund is shocking and intolerable, with another eight in this part-session alone. In total 8 415 workers have been cast into unemployment. This support is purely a (necessary) palliative, and will not solve the drama unfolding in the lives of each of these workers and their families.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation and to help them rejoin the labour market. Germany submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries, as well as one supplier, on 4 May 2012 and supplemented it by additional information up to 10 July 2012. This German application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes mobilising the EGF and releasing resources for Germany in the sum of EUR 5 352 944.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I welcome the adoption of this report. The provision of funds from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is, in my view, a very clear example of how we, the Members of the European Parliament, can provide assistance to people at home, at the local level. That is not all, however: for all of the relevant sites of the insolvent printing machinery manufacturer Manroland AG, it is important to retain the existing skilled workforce. We must use the EUR 5.3 million now provided by the European Union to offer further training for the persons concerned and give them new prospects for the future. The task now is to ensure that these funds are disbursed swiftly.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by José Manuel Fernandes on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help Germany to cope with redundancies in the printing machinery sector. This assistance was approved by a large majority: 561 votes to 71, with 15 abstentions.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal. The German authorities argue that the printing machinery equipment market is highly internationalised. Manroland, together with its German and other European competitors, already operates on a world-wide basis. During recent years, emerging markets such as China, India and South American countries, e.g. Brazil, increased their demand for printing machinery and therefore became important customers for German and other European printing machinery manufacturers. Increasingly, however, they have also become important players in their own right on the supply side of an increasingly global market. Producers China, India, South America, as well as a growing number of competitors from Eastern Europe, the USA and Japan, have all achieved rising market shares during the past decade. As a result, German high-quality producers now face stiff international competition, mostly of lower quality and at lower prices

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people who have been made redundant by Manroland in Germany.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to Germany, which has submitted an application for assistance for 2 284 redundancies, of which 2 103 are targeted for assistance, in printing machinery manufacturer Manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries as well as one supplier in Germany.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the twelfth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 5 352 944 from the EGF for Germany. The application concerns 2 177 redundancies in Manroland AG and 62 in two of its subsidiaries, as well as 45 in one supplier (Gefinal Systema), making a total of 2 284 redundancies, of which 2 239 occurred during the four-month reference period from 1 January 2012 to 30 April 2012. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 13 September 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Germany in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis due to globalisation. This is the 12th application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 5 352 944 from the EGF for 2 177 redundancies in Manroland AG and 62 in two of its subsidiaries, as well as 45 in one supplier (Gefinal Systema), making a total of 2 284 redundancies, of which 2 239 occurred during the four-month reference period between 1 January 2012 and 30 April 2012. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for Germany, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers being laid off as a consequence of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 13 September 2012, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a Decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Germany in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. Considering that the printing machinery equipment market is highly internationalised and that German high-quality producers now face stiff international competition, mostly of lower quality and at lower prices, and underlining the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the adoption of Decisions on the mobilisation of the fund, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the application submitted by Germany to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries, as well as one supplier, the Commission proposed mobilising the amount of EUR 5 352 944, for which I voted.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 13 September 2012 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Germany, in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. This is the twelfth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 5 352 944 from the EGF for Germany. The application concerns 2 177 redundancies in Manroland AG and 62 in two of its subsidiaries, as well as 45 in one supplier (Gefinal Systema), making a total of 2 284 redundancies, of which 2 239 occurred during the four-month reference period from 1 January 2012 to 30 April 2012. The redundancies in Manroland AG and its subsidiaries were calculated in accordance with the second indent of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC No 1927/2006, while those in Gefinal Systema were calculated in accordance with the first indent of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Germany has requested assistance for the redundancies in the printing machinery manufacturer Manroland AG. The break-up of a large enterprise such as Manroland AG has led to a great number of redundancies and a loss of skills affecting the regions concerned. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has shown itself to be an effective instrument for assisting workers who have been made redundant. The amounts mobilised will be used to cofinance active labour market measures including personalised services aimed at reintegrating the workers in the labour market, training courses leading to qualifications, updating of skills and retraining, and short-term incentives and allowances. The EGF should be mobilised to assist the enterprise in order to ensure that the skills and competences gained throughout professional careers are not wasted. I therefore voted in favour.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Germany, in support of the 2 103 employees dismissed from the printing press manufacturing company Manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries. It is clear that the adverse consequences of globalisation further highlight the added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund as an EU social policy tool. The targeted financial support which it provides for retraining and reintegration programmes for workers affected by mass dismissals is particularly important. Furthermore, the support which it provides is a practical expression of EU solidarity. The case of Germany is the best demonstration of the fact that this financial instrument does not confine its operation to countries facing economic and budgetary challenges, but may prove equally useful in helping dismissed workers to reintegrate into the labour market even in economically robust countries. This in turn underlines the importance of that Fund, and shows how necessary it is that it should continue to operate for the duration of the forthcoming multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Bearing in mind that Germany has requested assistance for 2 284 redundancies, of which 2 103 are targeted for assistance, in printing machinery manufacturer Manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries, as well as one supplier, and that the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) Regulation, I voted in favour of mobilising this Fund to provide additional support to affected workers and to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The application submitted by Germany meets the eligibility criteria set out in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund Regulation. Implementation of the coordinated package began ahead of the decision on the granting of support and the German authorities have taken the necessary precautions for the future. However, half of the EGF support will be spent on allowances for workers, when it should primarily be allocated to job search and training programmes. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Germany requested assistance for 2 284 workers made redundant by Manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries as well as one supplier in Germany. This company was a machinery manufacturer with specialist skills, whose closure has affected other neighbouring cities. If these workers manage to find another job, they will have to accept lower wages, which will reduce their purchasing power and affect the local economy. This is absolutely deplorable. This was the final request to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund that we examined in this part-session, with support totalling EUR 40 531 302 having been approved for 8 415 workers. This support will only be a compensatory palliative, and will not solve the drama unfolding in the lives of each of these workers and their families. Only breaking with the policies that are being followed by the EU will get us off this road to social and economic disaster.

Reports: A7-0322/2012, A7-0325/2012, A7-0323/2012, A7-0334/2012, A7-0324/2012, A7-0333/2012, A7-0345/2012 and A7-0346/2012

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt and Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), in writing. − (SV) Today we voted for eight reports on the use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Ever since the Fund was established in 2006, we have always previously abstained from voting, since we were against the Fund from the outset, because we do not feel that the Fund is the right instrument for helping employees who are hit by structural changes. The Fund has now grown, developed and received its own grant. It exists, and it will not disappear in the foreseeable future. We have therefore now decided to take a position on every single case; whether they meet the very strict requirements for cofinancing and long-term measures for generating employment that are imposed on applicants. In this case, we felt that the applicants meet these requirements. Within the framework of work on the budget and long-term budget, we continue to support a more effective, long-term instrument for increasing employment, confronting structural changes and increasing flexibility in the labour market.

Report: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0231/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report which concerns the export or transit through the European Union of dual-use items, bearing in mind that dual-use items are goods and technology. Given that these can be used for both peaceful and military purposes, it is vital to have a set of rules to identify and regulate this type of item. This regulation lays down the conditions under which these items are exported, as greater transparency is essential.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Like a majority of my colleagues, I voted in favour of this text, which updates a Regulation on the control by the European Union of exports of goods that are civilian in nature but may be used for military purposes.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report because a modification of the rules is welcome in the context of global technological progress. Careful control of the export of products that may be used for purposes other than civilian is needed. The impact on the relevant industries must be noted, however; the global competitiveness of SMEs must not be further endangered.

Romania is very interested in the impact of this modification as it is the biggest global producer of heavy water used in the cooling of CANDU nuclear reactors. In this context, I would not like to see exports of heavy water affected. The implementation of the Commission’s proposals must involve the Parliament as well, and will entail a necessary collaboration with the Member States and the other relevant parties.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I supported this report, because I believe that it improves the security conditions in place to prevent the misuse of items which, in addition to their civilian purpose, may also have a military application. The measures enable the lists of items to be updated more quickly without affecting manufacturers’ competitiveness. They bring greater transparency and efficiency without compromising the effectiveness of controls.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Fjellner’s report on a proposal amending the current EU regime for the control of exports and transit of dual-use items that are civilian in nature, but which may be used for military purposes, replacing ordinary legislative procedure with the more streamlined delegated acts. Dual-use items are subject to international export control regimes laid down by the UN, with which the EU and the Member States comply, and frequent updates to the dual-use export control list are required. Existing updating procedures are too complex and slow in view of EU market needs and delayed updating of lists can hurt competitiveness. The regime of delegated acts enables protection of market needs while allowing Parliament and the Member States to oppose initiatives by the European Commission if they wish.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. These rules aim to limit the risk of military use of sensitive dual-use products (chemicals, telecommunication software and devices). Without hampering legitimate trade, it is important to develop a full system of general export authorisations for the EU in order to fight effectively against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In my opinion, this report will undoubtedly allow us to pursue a risk-free export policy for our dual-use goods.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I feel it is important to ensure non-proliferation without restricting competition and competitiveness, and because I believe that the Commission proposal is in line with the aim of ensuring that EU control lists are updated with a minimum delay, enhancing speed and flexibility. This will also allow rapid adaptation to changing external circumstances to both tackle emerging proliferation threats and ensure European industry is not left at a competitive disadvantage.

  Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) On the whole, it will make the process more effective if the Commission is given delegated powers to update the lists. This is a task of a technical nature, and it is an advantage both for the business community and for security if the procedure is faster. Efficiency must not, however, be at the expense of quality in the controls. I have therefore, together with the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, voted for a number of proposed amendments that aim at quality. Advance controls increase transparency when export licences are issued, make the export licence more restrictive, reinforce cooperation between Member States and prevent cyber-attacks. These are areas that we wanted the rapporteur to take up in the negotiations with the Council.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Dual-use items – goods that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, such as chemicals that can be used as fertilisers or to make bombs, or IT technology for computers that can be used to guide missiles – are now a highly sensitive matter. The Europe-wide control of exports of dual-use goods and technologies is intended to ensure compliance with the international commitments of the EU and its Member States in terms of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and proliferation of conventional arms. This proposal aims to streamline procedures in the EU export control regime by introducing delegated acts for regular updates of Annex I and modifications of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009. These updates will enhance the speed and flexibility of the control, which will allow rapid adaptation to changing external circumstances in order to tackle emerging proliferation threats.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Some of the goods we use on a daily basis have the potential to be used for military purposes. It is therefore necessary to monitor very closely their export to other countries, while taking care not to hinder their trade when there is no danger. The text I voted for aims to streamline these controls, not hindering trade but nevertheless ensuring a high level of security. I fully support this goal.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Christofer Fjellner refers to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. In recent years the European Union has taken various steps to prevent these dual-use items (which can be used for both civilian and military purposes) from being used to manufacture weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction. The main instrument of EU control is Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009, which covers the brokering and transit of these items, but which needs amending in order to avoid different treatment depending on the Member State. I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the need to update the current Regulation in order to streamline control of exports of dual-use goods and technologies so as to limit the risk of these being used for non-peaceful purposes but without affecting the legitimate trade in these items.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report follows on from two legislative proposals previously adopted by this Parliament on the control of exports of dual-use items. Those proposals will amend Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, which governs the system for controlling exports of dual-use items, and its respective annexes, which contain lists of controlled items and destinations. We would repeat the objections we made at the time of that adoption. This report concerns the Commission proposal on the update of the annexes to the Regulation. Currently, the Regulation is updated through the ordinary legislative procedure. The Commission proposes to introduce delegated acts for regular updates of Annex I and modifications of Annex II. The rapporteur supports the Commission’s position, with the main reason for this change in procedure being that the ordinary legislative procedure is ‘burdensome and lengthy’ and delay in implementing decisions on tightening controls ‘hurts the competitiveness of European exporters’. Our group co-signed various proposed amendments to the report, which would have improved it. Regrettably, they were not adopted.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Rapid technological progress leads to constant review of international control lists of dual-use items. Although decisions of international export control regimes are legally non-binding, international commitments undertaken by Member States mean, that frequent updates to the EU dual-use export control list are required and important. Such updates must, in view of their impact on security and trade, be included regularly and in good time in EU legislation. In the event that international export control regimes decide to include new items in the control lists, such supplementary items must be constantly controlled throughout the EU for security reasons. Furthermore, a decision by the international export control regimes to de-control certain items must also be included in EU legislation as quickly as possible so that exporters from the EU are competitive on world markets. In view of the rapid rate of development in the world, it is essential to ensure that current EU General Export Authorisations can be promptly amended with respect to their destinations and range of items. I think that this step is also justifiable in order to be able to take account of changes in the world situation in the EU export control system.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Rapid technological progress leads to constant review of international control lists of dual-use items. Use of delegated acts in such a technical area, where Decisions are adopted subject to international control regimes, avoids over-complex legislative procedures that damage the competiveness of European exporters and allows accelerated and regular updating of control lists. Considering also that the regime of delegated acts provides for control by Parliament and the Member States of Commission initiatives and allows them to take action where appropriate, I voted in favour.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Christofer Fjellner’s report on the Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. The report was adopted on 23 October by 378 votes to 263, 17 abstentions. This export control framework for dual-use goods and technologies (that is, goods of a civilian nature that may have a military use) is absolutely essential. It has a dual goal: to limit the risks of proliferation and military use, while also avoiding hampering legitimate trade.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this resolution because of the defeat of some key amendments. In particular I felt we should have re-introduced the so called ‘ex-ante control mechanisms’ rather than the current ‘ex-post controls.’

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) A balance has been found in this report between limiting the risks of proliferation and military use of dual-use goods and promoting the legitimate trade of these goods. It is necessary to streamline the annex modification procedures so that the annexes can be updated regularly and quickly when necessary. The delegated acts lend themselves to such modifications. That is why I voted for this report.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. I support the rapporteur in urging the Commission to step up efforts developing a dual-use e-system and an EU training programme on export controls, ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises remain competitive inside and outside of the single market.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU controls exports of items that are civilian in nature but may be used for military purposes through Regulation (EC) No 428/2009. Annex I to that Regulation contains the EU list of controlled items, reflecting decisions taken by consensus in international export control regimes. Controlled items may not leave the EU customs territory without an export authorisation. General Export Authorisations listed in Annex II cover exports of certain lower-risk items to certain destinations. The export control framework of dual-use goods and technologies serves a dual purpose: it aims to limit the risk of proliferation and military use without hampering legitimate trade. Hence, it is vital to strike a fair balance between these concerns.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted against this report, because it proposes making changes to the control of trade in this type of item under European law, including the requirement for notification 30 days after export operations have begun. Under the proposed rules, items of this kind will be included on a list and subject to controls, but these measures make no sense at all if operators do not require authorisation prior to their export. The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left tabled an amendment to the proposal in order to introduce a requirement for prior authorisation. As this amendment was unsuccessful, I am voting against this report, as it favours control by means of the provision of information instead of real and effective control of the export of items of this kind.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The issue of export controls on dual-use goods is vital. These controls should limit the risks of proliferation and military use, without harming legitimate trade. The procedures applied within the European export control system therefore needed to be streamlined through the introduction of delegated acts with a view to the regular updating of Annex I and, consequently, modification of Annex II.

Regular updates to Annex I and simplification of procedures are necessary given the pace of technological progress. Any delay in this area could lead to serious security problems and could even be detrimental to the competitiveness of European exporters if a third country were to remove export controls more quickly than the European Union.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Dual use items are products and technology that can be used both for peaceful and military purposes. This regulation sets up the conditions in which these items are exported. More transparency is needed with regard to the export authorisations of these goods. Therefore I favour a system of ex-ante controls.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree with the aim of ensuring that EU control lists are updated with a minimum delay, enhancing speed and flexibility. This will allow rapid adaptation to changing external circumstances in order to tackle emerging proliferation threats and ensure European industry is not left at a competitive disadvantage.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The export control framework of dual-use goods and technologies serves double purpose: it aims to limit the risk of proliferation and military use without hampering legitimate trade. It is vital to strike a fair balance between these concerns. Rapid technological progress leads to constant review of international control lists of dual-use items. Simplification and acceleration of existing procedures is therefore necessary in order to avoid security issues that may arise due to delays in implementing Decisions on tightening controls, and to allow rapid adaptation to changing external circumstances, both to tackle emerging proliferation threats and to ensure European industry is not left in competitive disadvantage. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU controls exports of items that are civilian in nature but may be used for military purposes through Regulation (EC) No 428/2009. The export control framework of dual-use goods and technologies serves a dual purpose: it aims to limit the risk of proliferation and military use without hampering legitimate trade. Hence, it is vital to strike a fair balance between these concerns. In this respect, the Commission is now proposing amendments to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 in order to streamline procedures in the export control regime. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. Among other things, we regret some amendments by the PPE according to which they limit delegated acts to the removal of countries under an arms embargo, and on the other hand some of our common amendments (presented together with other groups) were rejected.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The general export authorisations have shown themselves to be very effective instruments, lowering the risks involved in exporting certain products to certain destinations. Amending the current EU regime for the control of exports and transit of dual-use items will render such controls as effective, efficient and timely as possible. Export controls on certain types of goods serves to limit the risk of proliferation without hampering legitimate trade. Today technological progress requires constant review of control lists. It must therefore be possible to modify the current EU general export authorisations swiftly based on the destination and field of application of the goods, so that the EU export control regime adequately reflects new global developments. I therefore vote in favour.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The existence of civilian goods and technologies that can be used for military purposes requires the European Union to regulate and control their export. This export control has the aim of limiting the risk of proliferation of weapons without hampering legitimate trade. In relation to this control, the Regulation governing export contains two annexes which list all dual-use goods and technologies. However, rapid technological progress requires these annexes to be periodically updated via the burdensome and lengthy ordinary legislative procedure. Bearing in mind the need to honour, with minimum delay, the international commitments undertaken by Member States of the European Union with regard to security issues, and the need to ensure the competitiveness of European exports, the procedure for updating the annexes needs to be as swift as possible. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the document which proposes that the power to update the lists annexed to the Regulation on dual-use items should be delegated to the European Commission.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The export control framework of dual-use goods and technologies serves a dual purpose: it aims to limit the risk of proliferation and military use without hampering legitimate trade. Rapid technological progress leads to constant review of international control lists of dual-use items.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The EU controls exports of items that are civilian in nature, but may be used for military purposes under the Regulation (EC) No 428/2009. Its Annex I contains the EU list of controlled items that may not leave the EU customs territory without an export authorisation. The export control framework of dual-use goods and technologies aims to limit the risk of proliferation and military use without hampering legitimate trade. It is vital to strike a fair balance between these concerns, streamlining procedures in the EU export control regime. Indeed, the objective of the EU export control system is to ensure non-proliferation without restricting competition and competitiveness.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report follows on from two legislative proposals previously adopted by this Parliament on the control of exports of dual-use items. Those proposals will amend Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, which governs the system for controlling exports of dual-use items, and its respective annexes, which contain lists of controlled items and destinations. The rapporteur supports the Commission’s position, with which we disagree. The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left co-signed various proposed amendments to the report, which would have improved it but which were rejected.

Report: Brian Simpson (A7-0162/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I support the collection of data on the seafaring profession at European level. There is a clear need for a fuller picture of the employment situation in this sector.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Communist Party of Greece voted against the report because both the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers of 1978 and the Manila amendments, which are proposed for incorporation into EU law, are very out of date and do not meet the requirements for modern, high-quality maritime training to ensure the effective protection of human life at sea and protection of the environment. The public status of maritime education is not guaranteed, and the regulations on working hours are medieval. They envisage up to 14 hours’ work per day, or more (on the basis of various exceptions), which leads to very rapid deterioration in the physical and mental health of seafarers, greatly increasing the risk of maritime accidents, with incalculable consequences. The EU strategy is to secure the lowest possible level of maritime training, increasing the exploitation of seafarers by ship-owning capital, which can then more easily replace the seafarers who have established industrial rights, with other workers – mainly from third countries – who have no rights and are employed on demeaning starvation wages. The Communist Party of Greece supports the struggle of the class-oriented seafarers’ movement for modern, high-quality maritime training; a 5-day week, 7 hours per day, 35 hours per week; strict measures to protect the health and safety of seafarers; wages corresponding to present-day needs; full, steady employment with rights for all seafarers.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Following a detailed examination of the International Convention on Standards of Training for Seafarers, several changes have been decided This text, which has been adopted by the European Parliament and which I voted for, incorporates in European legislation the changes made to an international convention. It aims to improve training conditions and to make certain requirements with regard to the training of seafarers more stringent.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers because it is important to maritime safety, a priority for naval operators. European legislation should promptly take into account international norms, and I welcome the Commission’s initiative in this sense.

We need a coherent European maritime policy aimed at improving training and working conditions for seafarers. I would like to highlight that the minimum rest period must be provided and respected at all times to avoid accidents and dangers due to tiredness. The global dimension of maritime transport requires the European rules to adapt promptly to international standards.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this proposal for a directive, because I consider it essential to harmonise the training of seafarers in Europe, raise the medical standards required of crews and, in particular, to improve training on safety, both specifically in relation to the occupation itself and with regard to other dangers, such as piracy. I also agree with the inclusion of measures designed to prevent fraudulent practice in connection with certificates and welcome the important improvements the directive will make in terms of statistics on the scale and conditions of employment in this sector within Europe.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because it is primarily intended to ensure greater security and stronger respect of safety regulations, especially in the case of crews made up of individuals trained in different countries who operate in the same ship. At the same time, the report is aimed at fostering the competitiveness of EU fleets, which is crucial during this time of economic crisis.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The report presents a range of amendments to the Directive, recognising and protecting the professional standing of our seafarers. There is currently widespread dissatisfaction in the sector for several reasons, ranging from the economic crisis to the new regulatory regime, from international political instability to environmental emergencies. Every measure aimed at achieving greater clarity in the protection of seafarers is certainly timely and appropriate at this moment. I voted in favour of the proposal and particularly welcome the provisions for the prevention of fraudulent practices, training on security matters and certification of certain advanced professional qualifications, as well as a system for collecting and managing information that is both complete and practical and that safeguards the right to protection of personal data. Proper analysis of information on the sector will be of use not just to the legislator but also to private citizens seeking guidance on the opportunities and dynamics of the sector. I note the proposal, also included in the amendments, that minimum rest periods for prevention of fatigue should be accompanied by a reasonable system of exceptions relating to specific types of activity.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which aims to strengthen provisions on the training and assessment of seafarers, in particular with regard to fraudulent practices and piracy. It primarily involves the integration in European legislation of the reworked international convention agreed at the Manila Conference on 25 June 2010.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Simpson report, which aims to transpose into EU law the changes in the international legislation, as decided by the International Maritime Organisation. Through my work as Vice-Chair of the Committee on Fisheries, I have been able to observe how important it is for crews trained in different countries but working on the same boat to have the necessary skills to carry out their duties in the same way. I am convinced that training plays a vital role in maritime safety and I welcome the adoption of this report.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission proposal is in the main an exercise in transposing the changes already agreed by the Member States to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in order to bring European legislation into line with the amended STCW Convention. I believe that the changes made to the transposition serve the purpose of improving the wording of the legislative text for the sake of clarity or to bring the text up to date with latest developments. I agree with the requirement for all Member States to submit details of individual seafarers’ training certification to the Commission on an annual basis in order to get a better picture of the seafaring profession in Europe. I also agree with bringing the legislative text up to date with the revised committee provisions introduced in light of the Treaty of Lisbon. For those reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is vitally important that crews on board ships have a minimum level of training to ensure their safety at sea and in port. It should be guaranteed that seafarers performing the same duties have the same level of skills needed to ensure the same performance, even where they have been trained in another Member State. Training and certification of seafarers are regulated by the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), which was adopted in 1978 by the International Maritime Organisation. The STCW Convention was amended in 2010 in Manila, with these amendments having entered into force on 1 January 2012. It is vital that the amendments agreed in Manila are coherently transposed into EU law through the amendment of Directive 2008/106/EC. In order to avoid compromising safety on board ships, the opinion advocates an essential minimum rest period for seafarers. I therefore support this proposal, which seeks to prevent the danger posed by fatigue by not allowing exceptions to the daily rest period. Exceptions will only be allowed if social partners in the different Member States agree to a lower weekly rest period than 77 hours.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The sea is home to some of our most beautiful professions, but also some of the most risky. The human factor is the key to mitigating this risk. The goal of this text, which I voted for, is to ensure that seamen are well trained by bringing European provisions into line with our international obligations.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Thanks to the vote on the resolution harmonising minimum levels of training for seafarers, European legislation is now in line with international standards (the International Maritime Organisation’s International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW)). While the text improves the competitiveness of the European fleet, it also maintains the strictest European standards with regard to rest periods. I am happy that, by ensuring that all European seamen will, in future, have the same minimum level of training, this directive promotes advances in terms of health and security (with better management of acts of piracy, for example).

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the ‘minimum level of training of seafarers’ because it will bring European legislation into line with the international conventions on the certification of training of seafarers.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The advent of the era of globalisation, with the removal of borders and the increased mobility of individuals, means that workers of various nationalities are increasingly working for the same company or contractor, as is the case with workers performing duties on the same ship. Rules on the training and certification of seafarers (International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers or STCW Convention) entered into force in 1984 and were significantly amended in 1995. They require a minimum level of training for this category of workers. Directive 2008/106/EC is the existing European Union law right now, having been adopted in November 2008 under the codecision procedure. A series of significant amendments agreed at the Conference of Parties to the STCW Convention in Manila in 2010 entered into force on 1 January 2012. Given that the objective of the Commission proposal is to transpose the amendments agreed at the Conference of Parties to the STCW Convention in 2010 into EU law, I voted in favour of this report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The proposed amendment to the Directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers is intended to establish a minimum level for the training and certification of seafarers, with theoretical and practical components, guaranteeing sufficient skills to ensure the necessary safety and protection and to respond to hazards and emergencies. Portugal has the technical and administrative capacity to meet the new training requirements. However, it must be ensured that the minimum training requirements do not fall behind current technological developments and scientific progress, which we fear is not the case. The proposal also stipulates a minimum number of rest hours and minimum ages for young candidates, and minimum compulsory requirements for certification as ratings. However, in Portugal the intensity of work on board is already high, and is tending to increase further due to the trend towards reducing the number of personnel. It should have been ensured that these workers do not work more than eight hours, which this report has not managed to achieve.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I welcome Mr Simpson’s report. Suitable and up-to-date training of crews is essential for ensuring safety on board ships. Training should therefore comply with international standards, and be standardised, in order to overcome problems often posed by the presence on board a given ship of workers from different countries and trained according to different systems. All actions aimed at upholding safety in the sector must be regarded as essential, in particular the strengthening of provisions on issuance of certificates of competence, medical fitness and fitness for duty, and the proposals on better working conditions and control of alcohol abuse. It is essential to aim for greater involvement of the Commission through greater transparency, and for easier access to information in order to a provide fuller picture of the employment situation in this sector.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) It is of utmost importance that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating onboard the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner. Training, in fact, plays an important role in maritime safety. Training and certification of seafarers is regulated by the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) which was adopted in 1978 by the International Maritime Organisation. The Convention entered into force in 1984 and was significantly amended in 1995. More recently, in 2010, a Conference of Parties to the STCW Convention in Manila launched a comprehensive review and introduced significant amendments to the STCW Convention, which entered into force on 1 January 2012. I remain of the view that the Union rules relating to training and certification of seafarers should continue to be kept in line with the international rules in order to avoid a conflict between the European Union commitments and the international commitments of the Union Member States, who are all parties of the STCW Convention and signed up to the amendments adopted at the Manila Conference.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support the proposal for a number of reasons. Firstly, in order to avoid causing conflict between international obligations, EU obligations and those of its Member States following the amendments to the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Secondly, because the report addresses the essential aspects of safety and recognition of seafarers’ certificates issued by third countries by the European Maritime Safety Agency. Finally I agree with the amendments to the text, particularly with regard to the competitiveness of European seafarers and its importance for job creation at the present time of economic crisis and high unemployment. I therefore voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this amendment because it is of utmost importance that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating onboard the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner. I am convinced that training, in fact, plays an important role in maritime safety. The amendments adopted regard the regulations annexed to the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers and the more technical code. The main amendments to the Convention include: strengthened provisions concerning training and assessment, the issuance of certificates of competency, as well as for prevention of fraudulent practices; updated standards relating to medical fitness, fitness for duty as well as alcohol abuse; and new requirements concerning certification for able seafarers, for electro-technical officers as well as security-related training for all seafarers.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Brian Simpson’s report at the part-session of 23 October. The report was adopted by a large majority, by 619 votes to 16, with 16 abstentions. I welcome this result. The goal of the report was to bring the minimum level of training for seafarers into line with international rules. The main improvements sought are the introduction of stronger provisions on training, assessment and prevention of fraudulent practices, the updating of standards concerning medical fitness and alcohol abuse, new requirements for electro-technical officers, and new provisions on security training for seafarers.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the report by Brian Simpson, because I consider it important to stress the need for adequate rest periods for watch-keeping seafarers. Above all, however, I would like to underline the importance of making effective use of information concerning certificates and other documents relating to seafarers’ training in order to determine labour market trends. The results of the Commission analyses should help seafarers in planning their careers and deciding on training and vocational education. These analyses should also help maritime higher education institutions to prepare their course programmes. Finally, I should like to voice the hope that the implementation of the directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers will lead to greater safety at sea, which is one of the European Union’s priorities, and to improved job market prospects for European seafarers.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The very important matter of the minimum level of training for seafarers was put to the vote this Tuesday and the report was adopted. After the recent tragedies at sea that have made their mark on the public consciousness, I am delighted that the European legislation is being brought into line with the International Convention on Standards of Training for Seafarers. Indeed, the human factor is crucial to maritime safety, and we had a duty to update our legislation. I voted in favour of this text so that vital improvements could be made as regards the minimum quality of training for seafarers, revision of the requirements concerning their medical fitness, and stricter certification standards. These improvements will bring European law into line with international standards.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report. It is of utmost importance that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating on board the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner. Training, in fact, plays an important role in maritime safety. Training and certification of seafarers is regulated by the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), which was adopted in 1978 by the International Maritime Organisation. It entered into force in 1984 and was significantly amended in 1995. The main objective of the Commission’s proposal is to transpose the latest amendments into EU law.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This is about adapting the rules concerning the training of seafarers to the new international rules decided at the Manila Conference in order to avoid a hiatus between European and international law. Amongst other things, these changes introduce new requirements on the certification of qualified seafarers, as well as training on security. The deadline for recognition of third-country systems is also extended from 3 to 18 months.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Improved training for seafarers should include all specialist categories among crew members and officers and cover proper theoretical and practical instruction on the safety of human life at sea. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is of utmost importance that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating on board the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner. Training, in fact, plays an important role in maritime safety. Training and certification of seafarers are regulated by the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), which was adopted in 1978 by the International Maritime Organisation. It entered into force in 1984 and was significantly amended in 1995.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I did not support this report, because, although it introduces minimum qualifications, it fails to impose the standards now required by new technologies. It refers, for instance, to the ‘Manila amendments’ to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which will be applicable to all seafarers working in Europe, in the aim of improving safety within the profession. However, this Convention has not kept pace with the significant technological advances that have occurred with regard to ships and shipping. The report also fails to define clearly the working time applicable to seafarers. For these reasons, I decided to abstain from the vote.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − It is of utmost importance that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating on board the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner. Training, in fact, plays an important role in maritime safety. I voted in favour.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I am voting in favour of strengthened provisions concerning training of seafarers in order improve levels of safety for themselves and passengers on board. Better medical fitness, training in technology-related matters and security training against piracy and armed attack can only contribute to the safety of maritime travel. Above all, the amendments will bring relevant EU legislation into line with the international standards approved by the International Maritime Organisation.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers. Training of a seafarers is an essential element of maritime safety and it is therefore of the utmost importance that crews trained in different countries in accordance with different systems have the necessary skills to carry out their onboard duties safely. The present proposal is aimed at bringing relevant EU legislation on training and certification of seafarers into line with current international standards, improving the wording of the legislative text for the sake of clarity. I therefore consider the proposal to be essential for avoiding conflict between international obligations and the EU obligations of the Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report. It is based on the Commission proposal, which is in the main an exercise in transposing the changes already agreed by the Member States to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) at the International Maritime Organisation in order to bring European legislation into line with the amended STCW Convention. The changes made to the transposition improve the wording of the legislative text, making it clearer and up to date with latest developments. The requirement for all Member States to submit details of individual seafarers’ training certification to the Commission on an annual basis in order to get a better picture of the seafaring profession in Europe seems to be a positive step to me.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Considering that it is of utmost importance that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating onboard the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner, and that training therefore plays an important role in maritime safety; and recalling that training and certification of seafarers is regulated by the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) which was adopted in 1978 and significantly amended in 1995 and again at the convention in Manila in 2010, it is now necessary to transpose the changes already agreed by the Member States to the STCW Convention at the International Maritime Organisation in order to bring European legislation into line with the amended STCW Convention. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating on board the same ship must have the minimum capacities needed to perform their duties to the same degree of excellence. These capacities play an important role in maritime safety. Bearing in mind the International Maritime Organisation’s rules, the legislation on which we have voted makes changes to the European legislation in order to bring Union rules on the training and certification of seafarers into line with the international rules. I voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) recently updated training, certification and safety standards of seafarers to prevent fraudulent practices in issuance of certificates, raise medical standards and improve safety training, including security training against piracy and armed attack. The rapporteur agrees that the Commission’s proposal is in the main an exercise in transposing the changes already agreed by the Member States to the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) at the IMO in order to bring European legislation into line with the amended STCW Convention. Furthermore the report supports EU rules on minimum rest periods, which are stricter than international rules, and proposes that the European Commission should be able to gather information on crews operating in EU waters.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. It is of utmost importance that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating on board the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner. Training, in fact, plays an important role in maritime safety. Training and certification of seafarers is regulated by the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), which was adopted in 1978 by the International Maritime Organisation. It entered into force in 1984 and was significantly amended in 1995. As for the structure, the Convention’s introductory articles contain the general principles, the provisions on entry into force and amendment procedures. The Annexes are composed of technical ‘Regulations’ which contain the training, qualification and certification requirements for the different positions on ships (such as ‘captain’, ‘first mate’, etc.), as well as the ‘Code’ which contains in its Part A detailed tables with a precise description of the material skills (e.g., positioning, ship-manoeuvring, cargo-handling) and in its Part B guidance on the implementation of the whole of the STCW rules. Except for Part B all parts of the Convention are legally binding for the State Parties.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I think that improved standards for crews working on board ships are needed, bringing European standards into line with those approved by the International Maritime Organisation. We can no longer ignore the need for updating rules on training and safety of seafarers, including medical standards and security training against piracy and armed attack.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal because it is of utmost importance in securing maritime safety, and that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating on board the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner. The proposal includes several key aspects that strengthen this outcome. These are: updated standards relating to medical fitness, fitness for duty as well as alcohol abuse; new requirements concerning certification for able seafarers, and for electro-technical officers, as well as security-related training for all seafarers; clarification and simplification of the definition of ‘certificate’ amongst others.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers. The proposed amendments aim to ensure improved standards for issuance and recognition of certificates of maritime training issued by states that are parties to the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), new criteria for determining medical fitness of crews and stricter measures to prevent fraudulent practices. The proposal also addresses recognition of seafarers’ certificates by the European Maritime Safety Agency, extending the deadline for the procedure of recognition of third countries’ STCW systems from three to 18 months.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) Today I voted in favour of the report on the minimum level of training of seafarers for a number of reasons. Firstly, given that the days of national crews are long gone in maritime transport and that crews consist of seafarers from a wide range of countries, it is essential to establish and enforce minimum requirements for seafarers holding certain posts. At international level, uniform standards for training and certificates were first established with the convention adopted in 1978, which entered into force in 1984. These standards were integrated into EU legislation only in 1994. Two years ago, the aforesaid convention was materially revised, which necessitates amendments to the EU legislation. One of the major issues is the recognition of seafarers’ certificates issued in third countries, which must guarantee that these seafarers have been trained in accordance with the requirements to ensure the safety of the entire crew. One of the amendments to the directive concerns periods of work and rest for seafarers to ensure the safety of all parties.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) It is of utmost importance that crews being trained in different countries and under different systems operating onboard the same ship have the capacities needed to perform their duties in a safe manner. Training therefore plays an important role in maritime safety. This vote aims to press for: strengthened provisions concerning training and assessment, the issuance of certificates of competency, as well as for prevention of fraudulent practices; updated standards relating to medical fitness, fitness for duty as well as alcohol abuse; new requirements concerning certification for able seafarers, for electro-technical officers as well as security-related training for all seafarers; updated requirements for personnel on certain types of ships; clarification and simplification of the definition of ‘certificate’.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Simpson report, which aims to incorporate into EU law the changes to the International Convention on Standards of Training for Seafarers adopted by the International Maritime Organisation. It should be noted that the social partners were fully involved in the conciliation process and were able to provide constructive comments.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to transpose the amendments agreed in Manila in 2010 to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which was adopted in 1978. In this respect, I must express my support for this report by underlining the importance of minimum rest periods and limits on possible exceptions to minimum rest hours for seafarers on watchkeeping duties. At a time when the blue economy has incredible potential for growth, we must invest in the training and qualification of seafarers.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the minimum level of training for seafarers. The European Parliament had limited room for manoeuvre, since the Member States had already accepted the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). These changes constitute progress on training and the harmonisation of the issue of certificates of competency. They also improve the prevention of fraudulent practices and the standards applied in respect of fitness to work, medical requirements and requirements concerning alcohol abuse. In a sector which operates without borders, it is in the interests of seafarers, as well as in the general interest, for the certificates issued by Member States and third countries to be recognised everywhere in Europe. However, to avoid a ‘race to the bottom’, it is necessary to ensure that a certain number of strict common criteria remain in place. We can be satisfied that this is the case. I also welcome the Commission’s initiative of obliging Member States to communicate the available information on certificates, an appropriate provision which will help establish an overall picture of the current state of affairs and a strategy for employment in the sector.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers. The Union’s maritime sector is characterised by high professional competence, which ensures its competitiveness. The quality of the training for its workers is therefore important increased competitiveness and attracting young workers to the profession. To maintain high training standards in this field we must prevent fraudulent training and competence certification. For this purpose, the Member States should adopt and apply adequate measures and sanctions to prevent and discourage fraud and illegal certification and training practices.

Better training for seafarers should include practical and theoretical knowledge of safety and security standards, and risk and emergencies management. Quality standards and systems should be imposed through a best practices framework at European level.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of this legislation, which will ensure that seafarers operating in EU waters are entitled to better working conditions and improved training standards. Thanks to the adoption of this resolution, EU law will now be synchronised with standards set by the International Maritime Organisation, including the implementation of a minimum level of training and higher medical fitness requirements, measures that will help prevent fraud and improve security training. Seafarers’ rights will also be protected, as MEPs have rightly voted to preserve EU limits on exemptions to minimum rest periods. Furthermore, the Commission will be permitted to amass data on seafarers in order to gain a clearer picture of the profession in the EU.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this directive, which transposes into EU law the changes to the convention on the training of seafarers adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Europe is the world’s leading maritime power and its maritime industry is one of the jewels in our crown, creating jobs and serving as a vector for growth. It is clearly important to maintain our maritime know-how, particularly as the competitiveness of the sector depends on the quality of training given to seafarers. The IMO is the appropriate body to establish regulations on this matter, given the international nature of maritime transport. The fact that the Member States and the Commission sit on this body is a measure of the trust placed in its expertise. Recent disasters have led to a strengthening of the quality of training on onboard security, and I have insisted on the need for crew members to have access to procedures and documents in their own language on the operation of the vessels and on emergency situations. I also advocated a stringent approach to the procedures for issuing and checking seafarers’ certificates. Maritime safety and security are too important for us not to lead by example, and I am therefore pleased with the consensus Parliament has reached.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers (COM(2011)0555 – C7-0246/2011 – 2011/0239(COD)). The seas have long offered many benefits and resources to our Union, thus it is vital that we continue to make the seas safe for everyone. This directive covers the safety and training of the seafarers and imposes the international laws of the STCW into EU law. Simply put, it puts the EU on a par with the rest of the seafarers around the world by incorporating the laws that already exist into EU legislation. We have accounted for our high standard of protecting the identity of our seafarers as well as increased safety measures to equate with our higher standard of protecting the workers. Many of our citizens are employed as seafarers and now they have the safeguards to protect them while out to sea.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Training of crews onboard ships is of vital importance, as is standardisation of the training of crews from various countries operating onboard the same ship. The aim is to ensure safe operation of ships at sea and in port. Training and certification of seafarers is regulated by the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), adopted in 1978 by the International Maritime Organisation that entered into force in 1984. Directive 94/58/EC of 22 November 1994 integrated for the first time minimum training for seafarers of the STCW Convention into EU law.

In 2010, a Conference of Parties to the STCW Convention in Manila launched a comprehensive review and introduced significant amendments to the STCW Convention (‘Manila amendments’), which entered into force on 1 January 2012. The Union rules on training and certification of seafarers should continue to be kept in line with the international rules in order to avoid a conflict between the EU commitments and the international commitments of the EU Member States. It is therefore essential to transpose the latest Manila amendments into EU law.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The proposed amendment to the Directive concerns the rules on the minimum level of training of seafarers. However, we feel it is necessary to ensure that the minimum training requirements do not fall behind current technological developments and scientific progress, which we consider has happened in this case. The proposal also includes the stipulation of a minimum number of rest hours, but does not guarantee the fundamental point, namely that these workers should not work more than eight hours.

Recommendation: Vital Moreira (A7-0289/2012)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I welcome the result of the European Parliament’s vote giving consent to the Protocol to the EU-Israel Agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products (ACAA): 379 in favour, 230 against with 41 abstentions. Also I would like to express my gratitude to those colleagues who supported this important resolution. The vote endorsed the PPE Group line on this important agreement between the EU and Israel, whose Additional Protocol on pharmaceutical products will help to facilitate market access by eliminating technical barriers to trade on industrial products. Once in force, the ACAA foresees mutual recognition of regulatory and verification procedures for pharmaceutical products in the EU and Israel. Such mutual recognition would certainly benefit European consumers. Since there would no longer be a need for additional testing in the EU, something that normally takes from one to three years, European consumers would get quicker access to Israeli pharmaceutical products. It means that EU citizens will benefit directly from this Agreement as they will be able to get good quality pharmaceutical products from Israel quicker and cheaper.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Communist Party of Greece in the European Parliament condemns the Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA), and the approval of this by the monopolies’ political staff in the European Parliament. This Protocol actually permits the EU and its Member States to have direct trade relations with the Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, and the export to the EU of Israeli products produced there. This agreement is essentially a recognition and legitimation of the Israeli occupation and its crimes against the Palestinian people. It is a continuation of the EU’s general imperialist policy in the area, which is to systematically upgrade its political, economic/commercial and military relations with Israel, both within the framework of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and in the context of including Israel in the Single European Sky. At the very moment when the EU, with cheap hypocrisy, is supposedly condemning the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, it is recognising the Israeli occupation with tangible measures, and arming its murderous hand against the Palestinian people.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I am strongly against this agreement because I believe, as a matter of principle, that the EU should not upgrade any kind of relation with a State that violates international law and human rights in Occupied Territories. From my point of view, with the approval of this protocol we lost the opportunity to send a strong message to Israel and to urge this country to take a step toward the two-state solution. On the contrary, the consent to the agreement sent to Israel the message that there are no real consequences for its continued violations of international law. I also think that it has been totally unfair from the EU side to approve a deal giving beneficial access to Israeli pharmaceutical products at a time when Israel is blocking such products from entering Gaza. For all of these reasons, we have shown, once again, the existence of double standards in the European foreign policy.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Like the majority of Members, I voted in favour of this text, which aims to remove technical barriers to the trade of industrial products between the European Union and Israel. It includes a recognition procedure based on a system of equivalence, as well as a mechanism for the mutual acceptance of the two parties’ products.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support the report on the addition to the existing Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Israel of the Protocol on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products. The protocol will facilitate access for products of both parties to the agreement. Furthermore Israel will undertake to transpose all relevant EU legislation, which will allow European exporters to test and certify their products once only, subject to the same aligned requirements and standards, and then to have access to the Israeli market without the additional expense involved in having to comply with further conformity assessment certification procedures.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the additional Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA). It provides for a procedure to recognise equivalence between the two parties in the technical regulation, standardisation and assessment of the industrial products concerned, as well as a mechanism for the mutual acceptance of industrial products. In no way does it constitute a political judgement for or against legitimisation of the Israeli settlements or the Occupied Territories, which remain a matter for international diplomacy.

  Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) We support postponement of approval for two years, since there is too much uncertainty surrounding the control mechanisms for products from the Occupied Territories (EP Legal Service). Furthermore, in line with the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel and with the Treaty, respect for human rights and democratic principles must be a guideline for the EU’s foreign policy, including trade policy.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The additional Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, and the State of Israel on an Agreement between the European Community and the state of Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA) provides EU exporters with an optional and mutual single testing and certification mechanism. This is applicable to sectors that are already aligned and means that these products will be able to access the Israeli market without further certification procedures and assessments.

I voted for this agreement, which aims to improve EU-Israel relations. It is a mutually beneficial agreement for both Europe and Israel, which will experience increased trade, especially in the pharmaceutical field, and better trade conditions such as cost reductions for European patients, faster market access, a greater variety of pharmaceutical products, and better controls of pharmaceutical products from outside the EU.

The arguments against this agreement were neither convincing nor consistent and were mainly political and economic. Moreover, consideration has not been given to the very likely EU market losses (mutual arrangements can mean Israeli sanctions) should the ACAA be rejected.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation by my compatriot Vital Moreira concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA). Trade relations between the EU and the State of Israel have existed for a number of years. However, the EU has never recognised the legitimacy of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands, particularly in the Gaza Strip. The Protocol now adopted aims to streamline the import of safe low-cost medicines, known as generics, through mutual recognition of the competence to certify certain products. I believe that this is a very important agreement, not only because it represents a step forward in the trade cooperation with Israel, but also due to the benefits for European and Israeli consumers and producers. Furthermore, this Protocol has forced Israel to bring its legislative framework into line with European legislation, which is in the interests of the EU.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of this Protocol is deplorable and demonstrates the EU’s hypocritical position with regard to human rights. This strengthening of trade relations between the EU and Israel – based on the removal of technical trade barriers by harmonising legislation and infrastructure (principle underlying the Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products) – is occurring at a time when systematic violations by Israel of the most basic rights of the Palestinian people are on the increase. It comes just a few days after Israel advanced into new settlements, in flagrant breach of international law and innumerable United Nations resolutions. Violations of human rights are occurring on a daily basis in the Occupied Territories, from where some of the products covered by this Protocol may come. The EU is turning a blind eye and putting business first. This policy of double standards becomes clearly apparent when you consider the human rights violations cited in order to impose various types of sanctions on other states, such as the recent case of Iran, where the ‘nuclear threat’ was also cited. However, this is now conveniently forgotten in the case of Israel, despite it being the only nuclear power in the region which recently refused to participate in the UN Conference in Helsinki on ‘A Nuclear Weapons-Free Middle East’.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The Committee on Foreign Affairs has been asked to deliver an opinion on the additional Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States and the State of Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA) for the Committee on International Trade under a consent procedure. Bilateral relations between the EU and Israel are based on the Association Agreement and the Action Plan. The Protocol will allow EU exporters, if they so choose, to test and certify their industrial products, prior to export, once only, subject to the same aligned requirements and standards, and then to have access to the Israeli market without having to comply with any further conformity assessment certification procedure. This will apply also in the other direction, based on the same aligned requirements and standards. The European Parliament has agreed to the conclusion of the Agreement and called upon the Commission regularly to report to it on any progress in the implementation of the Protocol.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − I voted in support of the amendment to the Protocol on the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement. The ACAA is the result of a regional process which has been initiated in the framework of the Trade Group under the ‘Barcelona Process’, and this protocol extends the agreement to European medicinal imports. I believe it is necessary to add such a technical framework to the pre-existing protocol in order to avoid damage to trade in pharmaceutical products between the parties during such a time of slowed global economic growth.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has just approved the Protocol on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA), which will be annexed to the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel. This agreement, as adopted, does not guarantee that the products that arrive on our market will not be partly manufactured in the settlements, contrary to the provisions of European and international law. Let us not forget that the European Union condemns Israel’s settlement policy, which it considers to be illegal, and that it decided in 2009 to suspend any upgrade of relations with Israel (following the launch of Operation Cast Lead against Gaza). We are therefore sending out mixed messages, which are contradictory and difficult to understand. It is for this reason that I voted against the adoption of the agreement.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I opposed the ACAA agreement as it is inappropriate until there is tangible progress in Israel’s respect for international humanitarian and rights law. Approving ACAA, moreover, is inconsistent with Parliament’s frequently repeated condemnation of Israel’s occupation policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Why should Israel gain increased access to European pharmaceutical markets, without any new, concrete undertakings to meet demands for human rights obligations? EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht told MEPs that the EU does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories and as such will ensure that products under this agreement come only from Israel – not occupied settlements. I sincerely hope that this will be the case. The problem is to ensure that this actually happens on the ground Finally, I wish to express my disappointment at the result of the vote, which unfortunately sends a signal that EU-Israeli cooperation can continue apace regardless of Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territory, which are not recognised by international law. As noted by Irish NGO Trócaire, granting greater access to the Israeli pharmaceutical industry also means benefiting a sector which profits directly from occupation-related policies, as outlined by the Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace.

  Jim Higgins, Seán Kelly, Mairead McGuinness and Gay Mitchell (PPE), in writing. − The Fine Gael delegation in the European Parliament voted in favour of this protocol. Our position has always been to uphold international law and we have for a long time been advocates of a two state solution regarding the Israeli - Palestinian question in the Middle East. The EU does not recognise Israeli jurisdiction over the territories placed under Israeli administration after 1967. The European Commission will observe this position in the implementation of the ACAA, which does not under any circumstances imply any recognition of Israel’s jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories. Furthermore, it is clear from Rule 81 of Chapter 9 ‘Consent Procedure’ of the Rules of Parliament that all amendments in Plenary are forbidden as only a single vote is provided for.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because the Protocol will allow EU exporters, if they so choose, to test and certify their industrial products, prior to export, once only, subject to the same aligned requirements and standards, and then to have access to the Israeli market without having to comply with any further conformity assessment certification procedure. This will also apply to Israeli exporters, based on the same aligned requirements and standards.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At the part-session of 23 October, I voted against the request to refer the matter back to the Committee on International Trade and voted in favour of Vital Moreira’s report on the Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA). In the end, the request for referral back to the committee was not approved. The report, meanwhile, was adopted by 379 votes to 230, with 41 abstentions. I welcome this result.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I wholeheartedly support the signing of this protocol. The mutual recognition of certificates will remove technical barriers to trade, cutting manufacturers’ costs and enabling them to get their products to the market faster. This will be a major step in improving the life of European consumers by reducing the costs of medicines and increasing the quality and quantity of medical products on the market. It will also decrease unnecessary bureaucracy. I am also glad that EU exporters will have better access to the Israeli market and vice versa. As I noted during the plenary debate on this subject (which became very political in nature), Israel is the EU’s greatest ally and it defends us from those who wish to harm us. We must undertake all efforts to foster the EU’s cooperation with Israel. This protocol is a step in the right direction.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the Agreement between the European Union and the State of Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA). This agreement should allow European Union exporters, if they so choose, to test and certify their industrial products once only prior to export, subject to the same standards. Even though the left has tried to exploit the vote on this agreement to serve its own agenda, citing reasons related to the policy of the current Israeli Government, the vote is actually about extending an essential trade agreement that strengthens the economic ties between the State of Israel and the European Union, and I therefore voted in favour.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this proposal as I do not believe the time is right for the EU to be upgrading its trading relations with Israel. I do not accept the argument that this is a mere technical measure.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products. This is a purely technical agreement that will allow EU and Israeli exporters to test and certify their goods once only, thereby saving time and money.

  Marisa Matias and Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) An upgrade to the relations between the European Union and Israel – a country which is violating international law and human rights in the Occupied Territories of Palestine – is unacceptable. Even ignoring the violation of human rights, this Protocol does not include adequate mechanisms to monitor and block industrial goods which are illegally produced in the settlements, which themselves constitute a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Given that the European Union has received the Nobel Peace Prize, halting this Protocol would give Israel an incentive to make a significant contribution to the peace negotiations. By accepting this Protocol with Israel, the European Union is tacitly agreeing with the occupation and the war.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report advocates taking the first step towards the full integration of Israel into the European single market. Under the pretext of complete liberalisation of the trading of pharmaceuticals between the EU and Israel, the Protocol approved by this text actually makes it possible to include new products and services in this free-trade agreement without any prior or subsequent parliamentary approval.

I am opposed to this Protocol because it reinforces free trade, but also because of the political signal it sends out. At a time when the Israeli Government is continuing its policy of aggressive settlement and maintaining a blockade on Gaza in spite of international law, this Protocol strengthens its trade relations with the Union without asking for any guarantees about the origin of the products in question. In ratifying this Protocol, the Union would be sending out a dangerous message about compliance with international law. I voted against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products. This Protocol will allow EU exporters to test and certify their industrial products, prior to export, once only, subject to the same aligned requirements and standards, and then to have access to the Israeli market without having to comply with any further conformity assessment certification procedure. This will also apply the other way round, based on the same aligned requirements and standards. However, I would stress that the EU’s trade policy must be conducted based on the objectives of the Union’s external action and on the principles on which the EU is founded, including respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms laid down by the Treaty.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted against this protocol, because it represents further recognition of the State of Israel’s strategy of annexation and genocide. This country, which systematically violates human rights and frequently acts contrary to international law, has, since 1967, illegally occupied Palestinian territory, from which it will be able to export industrial products to Europe as if they were Israeli goods. This protocol brings the rules applicable to industrial products from Israel in line with those applicable to the European Union, thereby facilitating their access to the internal market. I have repeatedly voiced my profound opposition to trade with Israel, as it represents economic cooperation with a country that consistently violates human rights and is the greatest threat to peace and security in the region.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The EU-Israel agreement on the Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products is a protocol to the wider EU-Israel association agreement. This technical agreement would mean that industrial products (namely pharmaceutical products) are not subject to two sets of assessment procedures, when they leave Israel and enter the EU. However, the jurisdiction of the responsible Israeli authorities to administer this poses problems – the jurisdiction of such authorities could cover illegal settlements and areas brought under Israeli control in 1967, something which we should not recognise. It could also mean that Palestinian products would be at a disadvantage and could be discriminated against by such an agreement. I voted in favour, since products should not be associated with politics.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted against granting new commercial benefits to Israel because I believe that, as required by the Treaty on European Union, the Union’s foreign trade policy must be coherent with its external policy in relation to Israel. Strengthening the commercial partnership between the EU and Israel is not in line with the EU’s strong condemnation of Israeli policy in relation to the Palestinians, particularly the economic blockade of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, the annexation of West Jerusalem and the violation of the fundamental rights of Palestinians, specifically the right to their territory and to freedom of movement and work and, obviously, their right to self-determination. The EU cannot have two contradictory policies in relation to Israel. We must have a single coherent political message, specifically that there will be no strengthening of bilateral relations while Israel continues to ignore the EU’s condemnation of Israeli policy on the Palestinian issue. While Israel, with total disregard for and in defiance of the Union’s positions, continues to systematically destroy the conditions for a peace agreement, giving it this commercial ‘gift’ is clearly not evidence of coherence.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and Israel which is undoubtedly beneficial for EU consumers because it will help to significantly reduce the prices of imported pharmaceuticals and make generic medicines more accessible to European Union citizens. This agreement, which is to be concluded under the Association Agreement and will be a protocol to it, will apply to the same extent as provided for in Article 83 of the Association Agreement. The Commission is committed to monitoring the territorial dimension. At the same time I refer to the clarification of Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products and the origin of products provided to the European Parliament by the Commission during the discussion on 3 July 2012. In terms of coherence it is true that some other EU partners are in a similar situation but this has a limited impact on the development of trade relations between the EU and them and bilateral trade is encouraged, with the EU choosing to have an effect through greater involvement.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D), in writing. − The issue is not strictly technical but it has political repercussions. I abstained from the vote as I consider that the timing is inappropriate. It is unfair to approve a deal giving beneficial access to Israeli pharmaceutical products at a time when Israeli authorities are blocking such products entering Gaza. My abstention to this agreement sends a clear message that human rights should always be at the heart of international trade.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I regard it as positive that EU exporters, if they so choose, may test and certify their industrial products, prior to export, once only, subject to the same aligned requirements and standards, and then have access to the Israeli market without having to comply with any further conformity assessment certification procedure.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) At present Israel applies all of the agreements concluded with the EU in the whole of ‘the territory of the State of Israel’ as defined in Israeli national law. The EU does not recognise Israel’s application of these agreements to the Occupied Territories, nor does it recognise any Israeli legislation advocating the annexation and settlement of those territories. In this context, the terms of the proposed text might allow Israel to implement the protocol on the basis of its national law. If that were to happen, the EU would be failing to comply with its own law and its obligations under international law. Underlining the fact that when conducting its foreign policy, the EU must not deviate from the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which imposes an explicit requirement on the EU to ensure coherence between different areas of its external action and between these external policy areas and other policies, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products seeks to remove the technical barriers to trade in industrial products between the European Union and Israel. The European Parliament had to grant its consent in this process. I do not agree with the political blocking of the agreement with reference to human rights violations in Israel, since there is no jurisdiction for such an approach within the agreement. I therefore support the agreement, which in economic and trade terms will have positive effects on the Member States of our Union.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of the Protocol, for which I voted, will allow EU exporters to test and certify their industrial products, prior to export, once only, subject to the same aligned requirements and standards, and then to have access to the Israeli market without having to comply with any further conformity assessment certification procedure, thus minimising technical barriers to trade in industrial products. This will also apply the other way round.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) I voted for the Protocol as I believe that it will benefit the European Union. The Protocol is not the right instrument to address the issue of human rights abuses. Such considerations should be included in the human rights clause of the agreement itself. It is sufficiently clear that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories should not profit from this Protocol. The Protocol does not imply recognition of these settlements under international law.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. The Protocol would primarily benefit pharmaceutical products, but could cover any other industrialised products from Israel, if imported into the EU. In the current circumstance I understand that approving this Protocol would reward Israel when this country is repeatedly violating international law.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the recommendation on the draft Council Decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products. Under this agreement some of the benefits of the internal market would be extended to aligned sectors and facilitate access to the Israeli market, removing technical barriers to trade for industrial products. The Protocol will allow EU exporters, if they so choose, to test and certify their industrial products subject to the same aligned requirements and standards, and then to have access to the Israeli market without having to comply with any further conformity assessment certification procedure.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) The conflict between Israel and Palestine has unfortunately continued for decades, and a long-term solution requires input from the parties as well as from the world around them. This is where the EU can play an important role. I believe that trade and dialogue create better conditions for the parties to find a proper solution. Israel must respect the human rights of its Palestinian neighbours, but even though the simplified trade agreement between the EU and Israel does not contain any conditions about respect for the Palestinian people, I do not feel that Parliament should dismiss the agreement in this case. It is still the case that Hamas refuses to acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to exist. I therefore voted in favour of the trade agreement.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA) protocol is a technical agreement aiming to facilitate access to the market by removing technical barriers to trade for industrial products. In this particular case the ACAA Protocol between the EU and Israel will apply exclusively to best practice in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. I am in favour of negotiating this agreement, which is an element of the Euromed process, the aim of which is to complete and strengthen the network of free trade agreements with all countries in the region. My vote in favour is based on a view of the agreement not as an upgrading of relations between the EU and Israel but rather as a technical agreement provided for in an existing joint document (the EU-Israel Action Plan), falling within the scope of implementation of the Association Agreement and approved by the Council in 2010. This agreement should therefore be seen as based on technical and not political considerations that would simplify reciprocal access to markets for pharmaceutical products, bringing economic benefits for both sides.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The framework agreement removes technical obstacles to trade relating to industrial products. The ACAA establishes two mechanisms. First of all, the mechanism for acceptance of the equivalence of technical regulations, standardisation and conformity assessment of industrial products, to which the Union legislation and the national legislation of the partner countries relate. Second, the mechanisms of mutual acceptance of industrial products which meet the requirements for placing on the market in one of the contracting parties in accordance with the legislation.

Like the Commission, I too believe that the proposed ACAA establishes an acceptable balance with respect to the benefits to all parties and that the ACAA will achieve trading benefits. I therefore supported the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products in the final vote.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) I abstained from the final vote, because it is not clear that this protocol complies with international law as regards the definition of the ‘the territory of the State of Israel’ or with the principle of non-recognition of the legality of Israeli settlements on the territories that have been subject to Israeli governance since 1967, in violation of the law. I call for the same stringent application of international law here as I called for in relation to Western Sahara (in respect of the EU-Morocco Association Agreement).

  Csanád Szegedi (NI), in writing. − (HU) It is clear that Israel will apply this agreement on its territory. A compromise solution might be to include in the Protocol only a vague reference as regards the territories in which the Protocol must be applied. This is called ‘constructive vagueness’. The view of the EU is that a Palestinian state should be established on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is a political opinion and lacks any basis in international law. Palestine has never existed historically and the Palestinian people are a political projection that lacks any ethnic basis. The only possibility for creating a Palestinian state would be if the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) entered into an agreement with Israel, and the PLO is not prepared to do this. This should not be allowed to influence the EU’s activities. The EU wrongly asserts that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are ‘occupied Palestinian territories’. The Mandate for Palestine made provision for the creation of closed Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and on the western flank of the River Jordan, in other words on the West Bank too. Hence the settlements established by Israel do not contravene international law, but only EU political and legislative resolutions, which, conversely, do contravene international law. I repeat, the EU should not interfere in this debate, especially as it is in the wrong. Baroness Ashton’s condemnation of Israeli settlement construction is unfounded.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I followed the opinion and arguments of the rapporteur, Vital Moreira, and voted against this agreement. My grievances are not with the Israeli citizens, but with the decisions of their government. The Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA) is not simply a technical agreement: it is a strengthening of EU/Israel relations. Giving our consent to the ACAA means accepting and encouraging the illegal settlement of the Palestinian territories.

In addition, some passages remain quite obscure. That is why, rather than voting for or against the agreement, I was one of those who wanted it referred back to the committee so that a number of questions could be addressed. This agreement is ultimately a defeat for all parties. By acting in haste, we have ended up with a badly constructed agreement, which, moreover, is detrimental to values that I consider to be fundamental.

  Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I am bitterly disappointed that Parliament voted to endorse ACAA. I do not accept the disingenuous argument of the majority of the PPE and ALDE that this was a purely technical matter. It is clearly a political one. and this vote will send out the message that the EU favours increased trade with Israel over the welfare of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are daily subjected to a blockade of Gaza, illegal settlements on their territories, an apartheid wall and property evictions and demolitions. Trade can be a useful tool in development and peacemaking, but voting to accept ACAA is tantamount to endorsing the ongoing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinian territories and people. Through this failure to provide consistency in the application of its fundamental principles, and only weeks after the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Parliament is undermining its own, and the EU’s, credibility as a force for good in the world. It makes no sense. I will continue to contribute to peaceful settlement in this troubled region, and strive for justice for all.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Protocol on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA) will ensure easier access for European manufacturers to the Israeli market and, reciprocally, Israeli manufacturers will have easier access to the European market. This will be possible due to the removal of technical barriers to the trade in industrial products. Through mechanisms recognising the equivalence of technical regulations and standards, and the mutual acceptance of requirements for placing products on the respective markets, it will be possible to develop the trade in industrial products between these economies. Given that, according to the Commission, the ACAA will allow all imports of industrial products originating in the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory to be controlled, as well as those industrial products of dubious origin, this will ensure compliance with European Union and international law, and will consequently ensure coherence between the different areas of external action of the Union, including respect for human rights. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the document.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. − This is a purely a technical agreement which aims to help eliminate trade barriers in respect of certain industrial products. Unfortunately, anti-Israeli elements have tried to turn this into a political issue. The first annex of the ACAA refers to good manufacturing practice concerning medicinal products. It does not imply recognition of Israeli jurisdiction in the Occupied Territories. Instead, it is a common sense measure that will reduce the cost of importing Israeli products, none of which are produced in Israeli settlements.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) A majority of the European Parliament gave its consent to this trade agreement between the European Union and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA), which is part of the Association Agreement between the two parties. Presented as a purely technical agreement on the adoption of common standards for pharmaceutical products, this agreement allows for the mutual recognition of certificates of pharmaceutical products, thus reducing the time taken to bring products to market by shortening the approval procedures. Both parties’ pharmaceutical products will have easier access to the other party’s market. The ACAA will soon be followed by agreements in other sectors, such as toys, cosmetics, etc. I voted against this agreement, as it boosts relations between the EU and Israel without taking into account Israel’s policy with regard to the Palestinian Occupied Territories. Any deepening of relations between the EU and Israel, including in the economic and commercial spheres, must be dependent on Israel’s compliance with the United Nations resolutions on Palestine and respect for human rights. Therefore, by giving its consent to this agreement, the majority of the European Parliament is asserting its unconditional support for Israel’s policy in the Occupied Territories and is sending out more than a bad political signal.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of ACAA, despite the official position of my political Group, because I do not find the arguments presented by colleagues convincing enough or relevant enough. We should not mix purely technical issues with complex political questions. This agreement is not an upgrade of the relations with Israel, it does not give a green light to further expansion of settlements, neither can it be seen as change in the political line of EU or EP towards the Middle East conflict. It is regrettable that this technical agreement has been elevated to such a political height that it finally blocked our own ability to negotiate and achieve the goals we initially have identified. If one says ‘no’ in advance and in any circumstances, then that in itself is a weak position. I believe that ACAA will give EU citizens a larger choice of, and easier access to, cheaper and higher quality medicines. That is a very good reason to support it. It is true that some European pharmaceutical giants would not be happy to face stronger competition on the European market, but finally it is people’s health which has to come first.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) Until the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is resolved in a manner which is beneficial for both parties, it is not sensible, in my view, to further strengthen one of the two parties with the adoption of an economic agreement. Let me underline this position by drawing attention to the concerns expressed in the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, namely that the EU does not recognise Israel’s application of these agreements and legislation to the Occupied Territories. Given the precariousness of the situation under international law and possible disadvantages which could in some circumstances arise for the Palestinian people, I cannot vote for the recommendation to consent to the conclusion of the Protocol.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − The proposed Protocol would eliminate technical barriers to trade in industrial products between the EU and Israel, in effect extending some of the benefits of the EU internal market to Israel and offering easier access to European markets to Israeli pharmaceutical companies in particular. The process was previously frozen as the majority of political groups in the European Parliament felt it was inappropriate given the political situation in Israel. The Socialist Group believe the political situation in Israel has not changed sufficiently and requested that the file not be voted on at the moment and instead sent back to committee. The Protocol represents a clear upgrade of trade relations with Israel, which we feel we cannot support in the current circumstances. Furthermore, despite a request being sent to the Commission for clarification on the position and labelling of goods produced in the Occupied Territories, this issue remained unsettled. The EU-Israel Association Agreement requires that relations between the EU and Israel are based on respect for human rights; Labour MEPs feel strongly that any upgrade to this agreement would be inappropriate at this time.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This Protocol aims to strengthen trade relations between the EU and Israel, by removing technical barriers to trade by harmonising legislation and infrastructure (principle underlying the Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products). It is hypocritical to conclude this Protocol at a time when daily violations of human rights are occurring in the Occupied Territories, from where some of the products covered by this Protocol may come. This policy of double standards becomes clearly apparent when you consider the human rights violations cited in order to impose various types of sanctions on other states, such as the recent case of Iran. We obviously voted against the conclusion of this Protocol.

Report: Charles Goerens (A7-0234/2012)

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth and Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. − The EU has a vindictive, neocolonialist trade and aid policy towards the world’s poorest countries. It refuses to trade on fair terms with them, and has a desire to bully them economically. Much of the poverty and insecurity in the world’s poorest countries was created by the EU in the first place. Outside of the EU, the UK could pursue policies that genuinely help.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because its aim is a renewed development policy. I also support the principle of differentiation. Likewise I welcome stronger language on conditionality and a human rights-based approach. The amendments that were adopted also introduce the issues of non-discrimination, protection of minorities, gender equality and the role of health and education, and restrict the definition of Official Development Assistance (ODA).

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Although there are federal elements of this report with which I disagree, such as the mention of Commission control of development planning, I voted in favour of this report because, overall, it is a positive and progressive report which includes an emphasis on respect for human rights (including LGBT and minority rights), democracy, the role of civil society, the gender equality and environmental perspectives, and the ILO core labour standards.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on the future of EU development policy. I support the rapporteur’s view that the EU should further develop a clear linkage between relief, rehabilitation and development, particularly in the light of the continuing nutrition crisis. The EU must assume, strengthen and demonstrate a leading role in fighting malnutrition, using effective and sustained assistance through a combination of public and private partnerships and corporate social responsibility. Specific investments in food, health and nutrition are of the utmost importance, bearing in mind that improving the nutrition of mothers and children is key to eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable growth. In this regard, I support the rapporteur’s view that the new Strategy on Human Rights, which focuses on economic, social and cultural rights as well as those codified in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, should have an impact on budget support methods. It is very important that the Union fully assumes the responsibility incumbent on it as the world’s leading donor of development aid, and turns its political potential to better effect, further developing its leading role on development issues at international level.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The EU development policy helps countries to eradicate poverty through the 2015 Millennium Development Goals targets and objectives. The EU must choose the best combination of policies and resources to tackle poverty by increasing the quality of aid and directing aid towards the countries where it can have the most impact.

I believe that, in the future, EU efforts should focus on sustainable development that also ensures the protection of the environment, biodiversity and natural resources and preventing natural disasters. It is why the EU development policy should promote a green economy capable of creating jobs without endangering the environment. In addition, I believe that the capacity of developing states to cope with climate change should be increased. I voted in favour of this report.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I support this report because I value its intention to support the future of the EU development policy. With its ‘Agenda for Change’, the Commission intends to place particular emphasis on the quality of the assistance. This principle is of utmost importance. In particular, I believe that the Agenda for Change should bring about a real policy shift, by focusing on a rights-based approach, i.e. fulfilling individual and collective rights of the population in developing countries. On the use of budget support, I agree with the idea of combining grants and loans, and of promoting the private sector in order to contribute to lifting the citizens of developing countries out of poverty and aid dependence. Moreover, considering that effective land rights systems in developing countries are essential for eradicating poverty and creating a fair and inclusive society, one of the objectives of the Agenda for Change should focus on making sure that secure land rights systems are in place in developing countries and that they are monitored accordingly.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Like the European Parliament as a whole, I voted in favour of this text, which aims to redefine Europe’s approach to the aid it offers to some developing countries. As the world’s leading donor, the European Union must reform some practices, in particular some of the criteria used to select the countries that receive aid. Therefore, some emerging countries should eventually be removed from the list of beneficiaries. The problem no longer lies in the creation of wealth, but in its distribution. Furthermore, the new procedures should strengthen controls on the use of European funds and thus ensure that the European Union remains a driving force for social progress in these countries.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Goerens’ report. Current EU policy for fighting poverty is in need of a change of direction. Important changes are required, with more emphasis on the quality of the assistance and greater selectivity when it comes to choosing partner countries, with greater safeguards to ensure that resources are not diverted towards purposes other than the fight against poverty. Finally the Council should be urged to pay more attention to the question of development; only three or four ministers responsible for development have attended recent Council meetings, reflecting a very low level of interest by Member States.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union and its Member States are global leaders in providing innovative funding for the financial sector, as well as for climate change and development aid. The Commission regularly renews the debate on financing sources. Even though the EU is the world’s biggest aid donor, I believe aid in itself is insufficient to sustainably reduce poverty. We need policies that can overcome commercial, geographic and government barriers preventing the full realisation of the opportunities provided by globalisation.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As the 2015 deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) approaches, even if some objectives seem to be have been met, we must look at ways of improving our aid, making it more coherent with our trade policy, our agricultural policy and our foreign policy. Europe’s future development policy must be based on precise, measurable commitments over the short and medium term. We must explain to our fellow citizens that the development of third countries is not simply charity and solidarity, but also a source of development for us. We need only look at the markets opening up to Europeans in the emerging countries: China, Brazil and India. This is why 2015 should be named the European Year for Development and, above all, responsible development.

  Michael Cashman (S&D), in writing. − I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for a comprehensive and balanced report which reflects our Parliament’s and our citizens’ perspective of a new development policy, which is more inclusive, coherent and sustainable. While we redefine our policies, let us not forget the humans behind these definitions and keep in mind that what we need is growth and development of people along with the economies. The S&D Group has voted against paragraph 15. Although important for education and the well-being of the child, family is not the only factor that affects and determines the future of an individual: society, schools, peers, work etc. determine the chances, risk and opportunities of each individual. The universal guiding principle of the EU’s development policy should be grounded in the EU’s values and principles of liberty, equality, respect for human rights and the individual, as defined in the Lisbon Treaty. Furthermore, ‘family mainstreaming’ has no common understanding. Family has various meanings in different cultures and we should not impose a model and certainly not promote a traditional definition of it, which would go against gender equality, provision of sexual and reproductive health rights, sex education, the rights of same-sex families and single parents etc...

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The new global challenges require a new approach in the various policies, instruments and resources that the EU has to effectively combat poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In its communication on ‘an Agenda for Change’, the European Commission announces significant changes to the EU position on development cooperation, which I consider welcome. It places particular emphasis on the quality of the assistance, by proposing greater selectivity when it comes to choosing partner countries, thus excluding emerging countries from the list of beneficiaries of Official Development Assistance (ODA), since their difficulty no longer lies in the creation of wealth but in its distribution. It also focuses on combining grants and loans and on promoting the role of the private sector. As regards this last aspect, I agree that, from a financial, administrative and social point of view, the setting up of microbusinesses and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in developing countries, in order to boost entrepreneurship and development of the private sector, is essential. I also support a clearer linkage between relief, rehabilitation and development, which can be achieved by means of sustained assistance through a combination of public-private partnerships and corporate social responsibility.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the future of EU development policy since I agree with it in its entirety. As clearly stated in the Treaty of Lisbon, the primary aim of the development policy of the European Union is the reduction and the eradication of poverty. This aim can be pursued through development cooperation, consisting of promoting human development and the fulfilment of human beings in all of their dimensions, including the cultural dimension. One of the objectives of the Commission is to promote sustainable development, considering that, from a financial, regulatory, administrative, and social point of view, the setting up of microbusinesses and SMEs in developing countries, in order to boost entrepreneurship and development of the private sector, is essential for creating favourable business environments in developing countries. The EU should focus on reducing excessive regulatory burdens on SMEs and microbusinesses, and, in this context, should encourage and further strengthen access to microcredit and microfinancing. I congratulate Mr Goerens on his excellent work, both in terms of its long-term vision and the quality of the report.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In order to develop, our partners need our support and our trust. The Union plays a key role and helps them as much as it can. However, this aid cannot be provided to the detriment of our own interests. For this reason, we must ensure that every euro handed over is invested where it will have the most impact. We must therefore strengthen dialogue and set out clear priorities. I voted in favour of this report because it lays down these requirements.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Support to developing countries has always been one of the European Union’s flagship policies. It is the leading donor of financial development aid given that it provides half of all this aid. Many countries having benefited from this support are now emerging economies which no longer need the EU’s assistance. At this time of economic and financial crisis, the EU must redirect its support to the poorest countries, by gradually withdrawing assistance from countries with emerging economies. The European Agenda must be adapted to this new situation in order to continue the fight to eradicate global poverty and achieve the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. We must properly assess this whole issue and look carefully at every euro that is spent, as the shortage of resources means that we must all pay closer attention to preventing waste and maximising investments. I voted in favour of this report on ‘an Agenda for Change: the future of EU development policy’ because I consider that the EU must continue working to eradicate global poverty by channelling its support, not to the governments of developing countries, but to the people and organisations directly involved in this process.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report is based on the Commission’s communication on ‘an Agenda for Change’, in which changes are announced to development cooperation policy. Over its 15 pages, the report contains both positive and negative aspects. The idea that the implementation of development policy should contribute first and foremost to combating poverty and exclusion is a cross-cutting approach. Important (but inadequate) consideration is given to the problem of food security, to the right of developing countries to regulate investment (particularly foreign investment), to the central role that public aid must continue to play, and to the need to assess the results of cooperation policy, among other issues. Furthermore, the trend towards an instrumental view of cooperation policy, involving its export to developing countries and the imposition of models in the plan for the state’s economic and social organisation, is undeniable. The assertions on market economy and the conditionality of assistance form part of this trend. Lastly, the references to tax havens, tax evasion and capital flight are totally inadequate. The same is true of the problem of policy coherence, which is insufficiently tackled.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Since the Millennium Development Goals were adopted in 2000, the major changes already apparent at the time have become more evident. Above all, globalisation, boosted by more liberalised world trade, has become an impressive source of wealth creation. This fact on the one hand reduces inequalities between countries, while, on the other, increasing them inside all of them, including the industrialised countries. In this context, the Commission places particular emphasis on the quality of the assistance. Moreover, it is justified in believing that greater selectivity is called for when it comes to choosing partner countries. This would result in the elimination of some emerging countries from the list of beneficiaries of European Official Development Assistance. With the ‘Agenda for Change’, the EU seeks to become the best donor, while also making efforts to excel in three areas: governance, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and the development of social protection systems in developing countries. I also consider it no less important that all other donors also make intensive efforts in the field of common programming.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) More than half of all of the money spent on helping the poor countries of the world currently comes from the European Union and its Member States. For this reason EU development policy must be treated as an issue of special importance. In my opinion the report presented by the rapporteur, Mr Goerens, contains many innovative points and advances the fundamental goal of EU development policy, namely the long term elimination of poverty. I too agree that EU trade facilitation instruments must not focus solely on developing countries’ export sectors, but must be targeted at facilitating trade for local and regional markets too. In terms of promoting inclusive growth and increasing the effectiveness of aid, there is great promise in the innovative approach whereby from now on loans agreed for a developing country will not be classified as official development aid in donor countries unless an ex-post assessment can confirm that the loan in question has in fact helped to reduce poverty. In developing countries there is a great need to boost entrepreneurship and private sector development, and this report is right to highlight the need to create favourable business environments for SMEs and microenterprises and the importance of access to credit. I am pleased that the report sets out the need for a well-coordinated, consistent policy for Member States and other European cooperation actors and calls for the creation of an independent think-tank with analytical and advisory abilities to meet this need. Because of these innovative approaches I voted in favour of this report on development policy.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Charles Goerens on the future of development policy as it seems to me to be positive on the whole. The aim of the report is to refocus the discussion on the priority aspects of development policy, in particular the criteria for public development aid, independent strategic reflection, the issue of differentiation (emerging countries) and aid for local trade. I am particularly happy about the positive vote on the paragraph introduced by the amendment tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in the Committee on Development, which aims to refocus aid for trade facilitation instruments, which currently targets the export sectors, so that it also supports local and regional trade.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report drafted by Charles Goerens on the future of the European Union’s development policy. The report was adopted by a large majority, by 540 votes to 36, with 65 abstentions, and I welcome this result. Through his speech of 13 October 2011, entitled ‘Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’, Commissioner Piebalgs wished to initiate a far-reaching debate about the changes to be made to our development policy to make it more efficient and ensure its quality. The report by Charles Goerens suggests a number of practical ways of achieving this objective. For instance, the rapporteur proposes that there should be greater selectivity when it comes to choosing partners, that more detailed criteria should be set with regard to the budget envelope and public development aid, and that inclusive growth and the role of economic growth in developing countries, which are a driving force for social progress, should be taken into account.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. − A few years ago I ran some workshops for young African politicians on creating prosperity in Africa. They wanted: 1. an end to EU protectionism, which harms farmers and African entrepreneurs exporting to the EU; 2. to stop EU Member States’ support of corrupt regimes; and 3. aid for short-term disaster relief, although they were suspicious of long term development aid. Some were even against foreign aid altogether – especially direct budgetary support – since they felt it helped to keep corrupt governments in power. They suggested that any aid should focus on: 1. helping farmers to meet EU sanitary and phytosanitary standards; 2. building infrastructure which the private sector cannot finance; 3. developing robust legal systems, e.g. legal advice, training for lawyers and judges, legal staff, court recorders, documentation, etc.; 4. drawing up land & property registers, allowing citizens to register property and raise capital; 5. creating a system of mortgage finance to create property-owning democracies; 6. lending capital to entrepreneurs who are unable to access larger banks; 7. improving tax collection and government revenue systems to reduce reliance on import tariffs; and 8. training local politicians and civil servants for trade negotiations. We can learn a lot from them.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Mr President, our work as representatives of the citizens of the European Union is meant to guarantee their EU rights and freedoms, and offer solutions for equal and sustainable development, which can eliminate class differences and all types of inequalities within each state.

EU development policies should be based on uniform administrative and fiscal governance that can eliminate extreme poverty and dependence on aid in developing countries. This proposal barely mentions the situation of the disabled in developing countries, 82 % of whom live below the poverty line. In conjunction with the private sector, our efforts should focus on finding solutions and immediate benefits for this category.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution which among other things recalls that an active and inclusive civil society is the best guarantee – in both the countries of the North and those of the South – of good democratic governance, protection of vulnerable groups (in particular disabled people and minorities), private-sector responsibility and an improved capacity to distribute the benefits of economic growth.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union’s development policy must focus on a few priority aspects in order to be effective. It is necessary, for instance, to invest in inclusive growth, which does indeed enable social progress. We must not forget, however, to monitor all projects closely and to evaluate their real impact in terms of poverty reduction. Development aid must also take account of the emerging economies and their impact on the situation of the poor in the developing world.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) From a financial, regulatory, administrative, and social point of view, the setting up of microbusinesses and SMEs in developing countries, in order to boost entrepreneurship and development of the private sector, is essential for creating favourable business environments in developing countries. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon requires development policy to be implemented in such a way that the measures encourage economic growth in developing countries in order to, primarily, combat poverty and exclusion, particularly through access to education and healthcare. Due to being regarded as principal objectives of EU development policy, additional efforts must be undertaken to more effectively mainstream human rights and democracy across development cooperation, ensuring fulfilment of international human rights obligations. I voted in favour of this report and welcome its adoption in a clear challenge to the EU on its development policies, in accordance with the principles set out in the Treaty, which must be observed in this area.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I abstained from the vote on this report, because it represents a continuation of the double standards applied by the EU in its development policy. This report makes a number of complaints regarding the absence of policies consistent with the development policy the European Union has been implementing in relation to developing countries. However, the same problem exists in respect of the need for coherence between development policy and the Lisbon Treaty and Europe 2020 strategy, two political instruments serving the neo-liberal European cause that are ultimately the cause of the problems preventing the eradication of poverty in the countries in question. I also voted against the double standard the EU applies in imposing human rights requirements on certain countries, but not on those with which it signs trade agreements. These are the reasons for my decision to abstain from this vote.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am particularly happy that the report on the future of the Union’s development policy takes the cultural dimension into consideration. Culture is a vector for openness and a driving force for democracies, guarding against retreats into nationalism, the temptations of racism and exclusion, all of which are being fuelled by the current economic, financial, climate and food crises.

That is why I believe it is necessary to encourage the free movement of artists. A country’s culture is also part of a global cultural scene. Such diversity is essential if we are to halt the impoverishing uniformisation of globalisation. Culture, as a system of thought, norms, values and interactions between societies, will, as Abdou Diouf says, be a decisive factor in the management of globalisation.

Finally, culture creates wealth and jobs. Its contribution to GDP can be as much as 3 %. That is why it must be taken into account in national and international poverty reduction strategies.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. − (SK) According to the Treaty of Lisbon, development policy should be coherent and aimed at reducing poverty and stimulating economic growth in developing countries. Globalisation has set the world a new challenge in view of the fact that the economic centres are gradually shifting from advanced to developing countries still facing the problem of poverty. The Millennium Development Goals are still, however, only aspirational ideals, which are very difficult to achieve.

As regards the three areas in which the EU should excel: governance, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and the development of social protection systems in developing countries, I believe that the emphasis should be placed on the development of social protection, which is lacking in many developing countries. In particular, people with health problems in developing countries live up to 82 % below the poverty line.

In conclusion, I should like to point out that, in developing countries with a high birth rate, it is not possible to have recourse to practices directed against the right to life, human dignity and the right to a family life, but every attention should be paid to ensuring adequate economic growth.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I support the principle of differentiation according to which some upper middle income countries such as Brazil, China and India will stop receiving bilateral aid and EU development policy will focus on countries most in need having a better impact in reducing poverty, but we want to modify the criteria used for ‘differentiating’ (not only on the basis of GNI) and consider transitional periods. I voted in favour.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) With a view to achieving the Millennium Goals, it is essential to concentrate on those areas of development policy looking mainly at the quality of assistance. The EU, as a major donor, should therefore be an exclusive example in the area of governance, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and the development of social protection systems in developing countries. In order for the EU to achieve its ambitions, it is necessary to provide sufficient resources. We are talking about the possibilities for advice, information on the situation on the ground and the capacity for strategic reflection.

The financial resources which the EU provides to third countries are to be used for a sustainable reduction in poverty and inclusive growth. It is therefore necessary to reassess the existing expenditure of finances, invest in donors’ common programming and provide development assistance to new actors in the field, such as China and India.

What we must not forget is the direction of European development policy. Our priority is the fight against poverty! We must direct all our efforts towards this objective and we must not be discouraged by the modest results of cooperation, but continue to fight for cohesion and effectiveness in EU development assistance.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The economic environment in which the EU finds itself is causing rifts in the growth objectives set by the Europe 2020 strategy. It is a fact that in terms of competitiveness, Europe is falling behind many Asian economies while at the same time dwindling demographically. This own-initiative proposal, which I voted for, is an answer to the communication from the Commission ‘Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’, and calls upon the Commission to place greater emphasis on utilising funds to combat poverty (which is spreading), and on those factors which constitute advantages of the EU, such as innovation, entrepreneurship, and the social state. Although it is not binding, the report contains useable proposals addressed to the Member States and the Commission regarding support for employment and growth prospects without social exclusion and without discrimination.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report which constructively describes the current situation and sets out changes to be made to correct problems in the Union’s development policy, so that Europe’s capacity for action is in line with its ambition to become not only the main but also the best aid donor.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Since the Millennium Development Goals were adopted in 2000, the major changes already apparent at the time have become more evident. In economic terms, the impressive rise of China, India and Brazil is effectively displacing the centre of gravity away from mature economies towards emerging countries. In demographic terms, should the growth curve persist, the population of our planet, which has increased from 6 to 7 billion human beings in less than 10 years, will exceed 9 billion by 2030. For these reasons increased cooperation of the EU with developing countries is necessary. In order to ensure the success of EU development policy, particular attention should also be paid to the new actors, particularly China and India, in terms of their impact on the circumstances of the poor in the countries of the south. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the report on an Agenda for Change is to refocus the discussion on certain priority aspects which are essential for the success of EU development policy. First of all, Official Development Assistance (ODA) involves the allocation of funding. It is highlighted that ODA funds are not always used to eradicate poverty. Second, there is inclusive growth and the role of economic growth in developing countries as a potential driving force for social progress. The importance is highlighted of ensuring that any such projects are subject to an assessment aimed at informing us about its real impact in terms of reducing poverty. Third, there is the impact of emerging countries, particularly China and India, on the economic circumstances of countries of the south, and the EU’s role as an international community donor. Lastly, there is the need for a commitment from the Commission and Member States to the demands of coherence, efficiency and sustainability in this Agenda for Change.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union and its Member States are the leading contributors to development aid in the world today: more than half of the funds allocated to aid for developing countries come from the European Union and its Member States. We must be constantly vigilant about how these funds are used and continue to fight against some of the imperfections that characterise their use. I therefore welcome the resolution of the European Parliament on the future of EU development policy. I believe that we must establish priorities in the aid we want to provide to developing countries in order to add real added value to the Union’s actions. In this regard, the resolution proposes the idea of focusing European aid on the countries that need it most and gradually reducing the aid provided to middle-income countries. I also support the idea of involving emerging countries more in the financing of future development policies and in cooperation agreements with developing countries.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Since the Millennium Development Goals were adopted in 2000, the major changes already apparent at the time have become more evident. In economic terms, the impressive rise of China, India and Brazil is effectively displacing the centre of gravity away from mature economies towards emerging countries, which, despite their impressive economic growth, are still unable to bring poverty effectively under control. Globalisation, boosted by a more liberalised world trade and now an impressive source of wealth creation, is effectively the source of a very curious phenomenon: on the one hand, it reduces inequalities between countries, while, on the other, increasing inequalities inside all of them, including the industrialised countries.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, as it goes some way towards restoring the balance between the proposals of the European Commission and the reality on the ground. In particular, it highlights the lack of dialogue and the lack of consistency between the different branches of the EU’s external action, leading to a decrease in the efficiency of the funds allocated and the actions undertaken in the field of development.

I therefore supported paragraph 51, which states that ‘aid for trade and trade facilitation instruments (…) need to change in order to facilitate trade for local and regional markets’. Indeed, these markets are a necessary precondition to integration in the global market.

I also supported paragraph 61, which calls for European businesses operating in third countries to be subject to sanctions in their country of origin if they violate basic international labour standards. I had proposed this option in an opinion drafted for the Committee on International Trade last year and it seems to me to be just as relevant today, in view of the growing interdependency of national economies.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Since the Millennium Development Goals were adopted in 2000, the major changes already apparent at the time have become more evident. In economic terms, the impressive rise of China, India and Brazil is effectively displacing the centre of gravity away from mature economies towards emerging countries. However, despite their impressive economic growth, they are still unable to bring poverty effectively under control. Globalisation, boosted by a more liberalised world trade and now an impressive source of wealth creation, is effectively the source of a very curious phenomenon: on the one hand, it reduces inequalities between countries, while, on the other, increasing inequalities inside all of them, including the industrialised countries. With this vote, the European Union assumes a very particular responsibility in the international donor community. To this end, it should equip itself with the best advice in terms of its approach to the situation on the ground and develop a capacity for strategic reflection.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. The Agenda for Change is innovative in that it focuses, inter alia, on the use of budget support, on combining grants and loans and on promoting the private sector. I believe that using these mechanisms should essentially contribute to lifting the citizens of developing countries out of poverty and aid dependence and to the dissemination and application of principles of good administrative and fiscal governance.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The ‘Agenda for Change’ presented by the European Commission aims to place particular emphasis on the quality of the development assistance in itself. It does not therefore aim to alter the practices, principles and approaches assumed to date by the EU in supporting developing countries. One example demonstrating the need for change in development policy is the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), since their difficulty no longer lies in the creation of wealth but in its equitable distribution. I voted in favour of this report as I consider the approach presented to be the best way of improving the effectiveness and quality of development assistance.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Poverty eradication is one of the historic objectives of the EU, which is the world’s leading provider of development aid. However, it is time to turn words into action, and that is exactly the purpose of this report, which I supported. We have fallen behind with the Millennium Development Goals, and this House is proposing a strategy for making significant political and economic progress. The political action should make it possible to establish democracy and respect for human rights for the long term. The economic aspect should focus on specific points: targeting funding at basic social services to improve living conditions, supporting micro-enterprises by improving the economic and legal environment, combating unemployment, and coordinating the actions of public and private players to rationalise the distribution of the funds available. It is clear that we will not be able to solve all of the problems at once. We must therefore take things one step at a time, concentrating on actions with the most added value. That is how the EU will make the best possible use of its development aid, a tangible manifestation of the solidarity of European citizens with those who have nothing.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The report on the future of EU development policy states that the practices, approaches and principles which have proved their worth should not be abandoned but should be further expanded. There should be a particular emphasis on the quality of the assistance. Key areas are governance, ‘sustainable and inclusive economic development’, and the development of social protection systems in developing countries.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Attainment of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 remains difficult. Since the adoption of the goals in 2000, the major changes already apparent at the time have become more evident. Europe has made significant changes regarding development cooperation, without, however, abandoning the practices, approaches and principles that have proved themselves in the past. An essential aim is to place particular emphasis on the quality of assistance and to exercise greater selectivity when it comes to choosing partner countries. The EU is already the leading donor but it also seeks to become the greatest. For this purpose, the EU should excel in three areas: governance, ‘sustainable and inclusive economic development’, and the development of social protection systems in developing countries.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We believe that some of the ideas in this report are quite positive, such as ensuring that the primary aim of the implementation of development policy is the eradication of poverty and exclusion, and the consideration given to the problem of food security, to the right of developing countries to regulate investment (particularly foreign investment), to the central role that public aid must continue to play, and to the need to assess the results of cooperation policy, among other issues. However, the report advocates an instrumental view of cooperation policy, involving its export to developing countries and the imposition of models in the plan for the state’s economic and social organisation, which we can only criticise.

Report: Paul Rübig (A7-0293/2012)

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Although this report includes some very worthwhile points to consider surrounding SMEs, including the necessary cutting of red tape and the need for a reduction in unreasonable administrative burden for small businesses, I cannot support a report which calls for any extension of the Service Directive and the consequent likely privatisation and liberalisation of our public services and utilities. EU workers’ rights must be defended, especially in this time of austerity and I cannot support any possible risk of them being further corroded.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) SMEs comprise the most important economic sector of the European Union, they employ a significant number of European citizens and contribute decisively to economic growth and development. Therefore, they must receive adequate support for research and development, an area that may contribute to increased competitiveness across all European economies.

Given the impact of the economic crisis, it is essential to stimulate the competitiveness of SMEs. This can only be done by abandoning protectionist practices, and supporting the global competitiveness of SMEs. The Union and its Member States must act cohesively to modify complex customs laws, eliminate unclear technical regulations and encourage free and cheap access to information that may help SMEs to expand internationally. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report enjoyed widespread support within the European Parliament and was adopted. In an effort to offer relief to small and medium-sized enterprises, this text aims to make them more competitive. Having managed a business myself, I am aware of the difficulties, particularly the administrative difficulties, that are imposed on small businesses, and that is why I voted in favour of this text, which is a step towards simplification. It also aims to reinforce the entrepreneurial potential of young people, women and migrants. Any action that strengthens the competitiveness of these businesses will put the European Union back on the path to jobs and growth.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) This is not the first time we have discussed here in Parliament the importance of the 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe. The biggest problem facing SMEs is how and where to access funding and small loans. I understand, from small enterprises in my local area, that very little progress has been made. The competitiveness and growth of the European Union could be enhanced on the basis of our SMEs, which employ 75 million people throughout Europe, but for that to happen the EU must implement a number of tough measures to tackle the problems facing the sector. I support the proposal for a ‘mapping exercise’ of the local, regional, national and European support schemes to help SMEs secure funding, in particular initiatives facilitating access to loans for micro-enterprises. We have to match our words with actions, reducing red tape and simplifying administration. We should apply the ‘one in, one out’ principle to single market legislation. This means that no new legislation that imposes costs on SMEs can be brought in without the identification of existing regulations within a given field and of an equivalent value that can be removed.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In Europe there are approximately 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which represent 99 % of all businesses and employ around 75 million people. Bearing in mind the impact that these enterprises have on the European economy, it is important that policy makers look for opportunities to exploit the dynamism within the sector to the wider benefit of European society. In order for the European Union economy to be pushed back to growth, the EU must adopt measures able to reduce the administrative burdens that SMEs encounter. This report, which merited my support, advocates reinforcing industrial and SME competitiveness, which requires an environment that favours new ideas and new businesses. The EU should also encourage its SMEs to go international, mainly in the new emerging markets, and therefore stresses the need to reduce some of the substantial obstacles faced by these businesses when they attempt to launch themselves on the global market. Lastly, the need for the Commission to continue and reinforce programmes such as ‘Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs’ and the need to study the possibility of creating a programme in order to give talented entrepreneurs the opportunity to acquire experience in centres of excellence outside the EU are also supported.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often lack information on the support services provided by the European Union and as a result do not make use of the available resources and lose out on precious opportunities for growth. I therefore welcome the contents of this report and in particular the emphasis on the importance of carrying out a mapping of programmes inside and outside the Union in order to provide SMEs with an up-to-date framework of the services available. A European strategy alone, regardless of how ambitious and well-structured it is, will not be sufficient to bring about significant changes. It must be accompanied by strong action to provide better information to SMEs in order to raise awareness of EU support services for internationalisation. Among tools for better information, a central role will be played by the new online portal that should provide constantly updated information about priority markets and sectors together with details of the various support services available. I also agree with the report’s underlining of the need for better coordination and synergy between different European, national, regional and local polices and instruments directly addressing SMEs: fragmentation must be reduced in order to ensure greater pooling and coordination of financial resources available at the various levels.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I supported this report, because it highlights and brings very practical solutions to the main problems faced by small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe in order to boost their activity and development. It also serves to encourage entrepreneurship. I agree, in particular, with the points made with regard to financing, the simplification of administrative procedures, the need to reduce the burden represented by the latter, and support for internationalisation and innovation, which are set out in the manifesto my group drafted in order to support entrepreneurs and enterprises of this kind.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support Mr Rübig’s report aimed at creating a policy of support to a vital aspect of the European and more in particular the Italian economy: small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In Europe they represent 99 % of businesses and provide 70 % of jobs, employing almost 75 million workers. The only way for Europe to emerge from the crisis, develop its economy and face the stiff competition from other markets is to invest in and promote the consolidation, competitiveness and internationalisation of SMEs, further simplifying the European regulatory framework in order to reduce their administrative burden.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The global economic crisis that started in 2008 continues to affect SMEs. Despite the hostile environment in which they now operate, SMEs have retained their essential role in the European economy. The 20.7 million SMEs represent over 98 % of European businesses and employ 87 million people. Most SMEs (92.2 %) are micro-enterprises with less than 10 workers. Current estimates show that SMEs account for 67 % of all jobs and 58 % of gross value added. The current trends in the Member States are increasingly divergent and we need positive changes in the area of job creation. In this delicate situation, decisive political action to help SME growth may bring progress.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Re-launching the system of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is essential for European economic recovery, considering that SMEs constitute over 90 % of businesses in many countries. I vote in favour of the proposal and wish to underline just some aspects of this extensive report. It is vital that SMEs have access to credit for funding research and development activities, since shortcomings in this area are resulting in missed opportunities for technological and industrial development. The recommendations contained in paragraphs 37-38 on intellectual property rights and paragraphs 39-43 on a transparent regulatory framework for international public procurement are particularly important. Finally I wish to call attention to the central role played by the ‘one in, one out’ principle for new single market legislation, since overregulation results in uncertainty as to rights and acts as a barrier to investment. Finally I agree with the call for a new governance model for the Enterprise Europe Network, and the proposal that a ‘mapping exercise’ of the large number of public, local and private support schemes and incentives be undertaken in order to avoid duplication and improve resource efficiency, contributing to better targeting and analysis of expenditure.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities. The report highlights important issues arising from the situation of SMEs in Europe: it underlines the importance of the internationalisation of SMEs and the reduction of administrative burdens, in particular for micro-enterprises, and is intended to boost the industrial competitiveness of SMEs. In this context, I strongly support this report and encourage the European Commission to promote the topic of social entrepreneurship immediately.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. − (CS) I consider it important to create a simplified and transparent EU regulatory framework for public procurement, so that small and medium enterprises gain better access to such contracts both within the EU and in third countries. Public procurement is one of the effective methods of supporting domestic small and medium enterprises in achieving technical innovations and providing for the growth needed for them to engage in internationalisation. I expect the Commission to take an initiative to ensure that EU small and medium enterprises have access to public procurement on third country markets on an equal footing with other companies. I hope that the recently published motion for a regulation on the EU public procurement market will support reciprocal openness, which would benefit EU small and medium enterprises. In this respect, the EU should develop an ambitious common industrial policy based on support for research and innovation using quite new financing arrangements, such as project bonds, and supporting the development of small and medium enterprises, particularly through access to public procurement, in order that they maintain their competitiveness vis-à-vis new major players in industry and research. The EU should also enhance the value of European production by providing consumers with better information on quality, particularly through the adoption of the regulation on origin marking for products imported into the EU (made in regulation).

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Rübig report on the competitiveness and business opportunities of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). I am convinced that Europe must make use of the dynamism of these businesses. I also believe that the European economy will only start to grow again if the Union is able to boost the competitiveness of SMEs while also adopting measures to reduce the administrative burdens to which they are subjected. That is why I subscribe to the report’s recommendations, which emphasise the importance of the manufacturing sector, as well as the need to promote entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, I welcome the proposals aimed at encouraging international market penetration by European SMEs.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are crucial to the European economy and represent 99 % of European businesses. In all, SMEs employ 70 % of workers in the EU and, between 2002 and 2010, these businesses provided 85 % of the new jobs created in the EU. I voted in favour of this report because I feel it is essential to minimise the administrative costs borne by SMEs and to reinforce support for the internationalisation and competitiveness of SMEs.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In the EU there are approximately 23 million SMEs, accounting for 99 % of all businesses and 75 million jobs (70 % of all EU jobs). If the EU manages to increase SME competitiveness and adopts measures to reduce administrative burdens, the potential of European entrepreneurs will develop, and the EU will again experience growth.

The EU should invest in programmes aimed at boosting entrepreneurship as a real alternative to employment, especially for young people, women and migrants. Expanding entrepreneurial culture through ad-hoc programmes and stimulus packages such as favourable tax and fiscal benefits for SMEs may help people to overcome the fear of failure and encourage entrepreneurial spirit. This would result in job creation, further innovation, economic growth of all businesses, across the industrial, services and social sectors.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the current economic crisis, and bearing in mind that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) form the backbone of the European economy, given that they represent 99 % of all businesses in the euro area (23 million enterprises) and provide 70 % of the total number of jobs (76 million people), it is vital to adopt measures to reinforce the competitiveness of these businesses. The following will therefore be necessary: more support policies in the EU; easier access to financing, mainly in the initial investment and export phases; encouragement for businesses to go international; improved management and operation of business support programmes; more cooperation between business associations in the single market and in third countries; greater efficiency in transposing EU legislation and reducing bureaucracy; and development in the EU of high-speed broadband links in order to ensure maximum participation of SMEs in a digitalising internal market. I therefore support this initiative, which proposes investment in programmes addressing the entrepreneurial potential of citizens, enhanced competitiveness of SMEs and micro-enterprises, and creation of a favourable environment in which businesses can flourish and therefore create jobs.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − SMEs are comparatively more prevalent in Ireland than across the EU as a whole. SMEs in Ireland represent 99.7 % of all businesses and account for 69 % of all jobs in the private, non-financial sector. Almost one third of Irish SMEs are active in high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive service sectors, which are crucial for Ireland’s future competitiveness. SMEs in Ireland and all across Europe are still struggling with the effects of the economic crisis. According to the Commission, the number of jobs in the SMEs sector has fallen by more than twice the amount in the larger enterprise sector. I welcome the concrete actions set out in the Rübig report to improve the competitiveness of SMEs, to support and promote their activities outside the EU and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on SMEs and microenterprises and very much endorse the call for an Erasmus-type programme for young entrepreneurs, though I would have concerns about any proposals for a blanket exemption for SMEs and micro-enterprises from EU health and safety rules and on workers’ rights.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The presence of European SMEs on the international market must be increased. In all, only 25 % of them operate within the single market while 13 % operate globally. In a globalised world, European SMEs must be encouraged to expand to non-EU and developing countries whose potential is still untapped.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have everything to gain from the single market. Europe has everything to gain from an integrated market in which SMEs can grow and trade without difficulty. Because this text is ambitious and contains practical measures, I voted in favour of it. SMEs are the driving force of European growth, and I particularly support the provisions aimed at promoting their interests abroad, and increasing the mobility of entrepreneurs within the Union.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which promotes the competitiveness of our small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Today, it is essential to give our SMEs all of the tools they need to boost their competitiveness on an increasingly competitive market. Supporting this network of SMEs means supporting the attractiveness and economic development of our territories. By adopting this text, Parliament is showing that its role is indeed to represent the interests of our citizens and our economic actors by making their voices heard in the institutions. The measures proposed here, such as the lightening of administrative burdens, offer a helping hand to our SMEs in these difficult economic times.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 23 October 2012, the EP adopted a resolution designed to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs are the driving force of the European economy and represent one of our best chances to boost the creation of welcome jobs in this time of crisis. I am therefore delighted that Parliament has voted in favour of this resolution, which highlights a few essential measures for the development of the European economic fabric: reducing administrative burdens, facilitating access to loans of less than EUR 25 000, setting up an Erasmus programme for young entrepreneurs, etc. As part of the negotiations for the new multiannual financial framework, the EP has also decided to recommend an increase in the budget allocated to SMEs.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The Commission has so far presented three communications, namely: ‘Industrial Policy: Reinforcing competitiveness’, ‘Small Business, Big World – A new partnership to help SMEs seize global opportunities’, and ‘Minimising regulatory burden for SMEs – Adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro-enterprises’. With these three pillars, the Commission aimed to help SMEs within the EU to remain in business and strengthen their competitiveness. Approximately 23 million SMEs operate within the EU, employing an estimated 75 million people, which represents 70 % of jobs in the EU. To further enhance the competitiveness of SMEs, there is a need for structural changes in the economy, technical innovation, resource efficiency and the creation of a business environment that enables European SMEs to hold their own when competing in the global market. A vital tool in this context is the governance model provided by the Enterprise Europe Network, as are measures to reduce the administrative and regulatory burdens on SMEs further and facilitate the provision of tailored support. Building relationships with chambers of commerce and industry and other relevant stakeholders is also essential.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report on SMEs: competitiveness and business opportunities. I am convinced that SMEs play a central role in the EU’s economic development. The EU should invest in programmes whose direction addresses the entrepreneurial potential of European citizens as a real alternative to employment – particularly in the poorest and most vulnerable countries of Europe. In order to encourage entrepreneurs to take the risk of starting their business, two key points should be implemented: the entrepreneurial culture should be made more attractive through ad-hoc programmes and the administrative and fiscal barriers that young entrepreneurs face should be reduced. Finally, creating a business environment supportive of the sustainable development of SMEs is fundamental.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union has high expectations with regard to the contribution that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can make to help Europe emerge from the economic and financial crisis in which it is currently mired. Strengthening the competitiveness of SMEs, improving the harmonisation of policies and encouraging greater internationalisation are all factors that will enable Europe to exit from the crisis. SMEs account for 75 % of European business activity and have been responsible for creating 85 % of jobs in recent years. It is therefore vital to improve their capacity to go international and to facilitate their access to financing. I therefore welcome the COSME programme to support the internationalisation of SMEs. SMEs form the basis of our economy and are the drivers of sustainable economic growth. If we want to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, we must support SMEs by promoting their excellence and improving their productivity and competitiveness. To do that, we need to cut red tape, reduce the administrative burden and implement a fair and competitive tax policy. I voted in favour of this proposal because it is a good initiative by the Commission, given that SMEs are the engine of economic growth and vital to overcoming the crisis.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report combines a lack of realism with an ideological deception. It concerns a crucial element of the business fabric – small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – and proposes certain measures that we support, such as the dissemination and provision of information, and the creation of local and regional export helpdesk networks. However, it ignores the current reality for SMEs, which are being steamrollered by recessionary policies that are crushing consumption and investment, by credit restrictions and, in short, by policies which are strangling SMEs, particularly in terms of tax, at the same time as granting benefits to large economic and financial groups. In Portugal, the Troika’s policies are ruining thousands and thousands of SMEs. However, there is not one word on this in the report. The ‘internal market’ excuse is an attempt to hide the consequences in terms of the monopolistic concentration in various sectors of the economy. Entrepreneurship is again presented as the miracle solution to the problem of unemployment. As a result, they are trying to shift the focus of society’s problem from its forms of organisation to the individual.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) In the EU there are approximately 23 million Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs), which represent approximately 99 % of businesses. The jobs created by SMEs represent 70 % of the total number of jobs in the EU. They have a significant impact on the European economy. I am convinced that it is important for policy makers to look for opportunities to exploit the dynamism in this sector to the general benefit of European Union citizens and society. If the Union wishes to overcome the crisis, it is essential to make efforts to enhance the competitiveness of all European businesses. It makes sense to try to put new ideas into practice, to create suitable opportunities and the conditions for the establishment of new businesses. The natural consequence will be the creation of new jobs, more innovation and higher economic growth of all enterprises, whether industry, services or socially oriented. I believe that these are the steps which are both necessary and important for Europe as a whole.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the driving force of the European economy, constituting 99 % of all businesses and making a major contribution to employment. It is therefore evident that strengthening SMEs can contribute to European economic recovery. I welcome the recommendations of the report: our business can be strengthened by initiatives such as reduction of the administrative burdens on SMEs, assessing the efficiency of existing support services and developing forms of partnership as well as programmes offering training to young entrepreneurs. I voted in favour.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Despite the genuine efforts on the part of both the Commission and the Member States to improve the competitiveness of SMEs, further measures are needed in this area. I still think any initiative aimed at ensuring more appropriate use of EU resources to support SMEs or helping this sector to function smoothly is vitally important. A good example of the latter is the SME test which was mentioned in yesterday’s debate, and which would enable preliminary examination of the impact of legislation on SMEs. In this context I could also mention the online portals for EU SMEs proposed by Mr Rübig, which would enable programmes targeted at SMEs to operate more effectively. A properly functioning single market creates a competitive environment in which SMEs at present are still at a significant disadvantage, largely because they do not have adequate information on business opportunities, and because lack of language knowledge is a major obstacle. For this reason I believe that an EU strategy geared towards better legislation is needed, and the ambitious proposals put forward by Mr Rübig are crucial in order to make the European Union more competitive and more attractive to investors and producers. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) represent 99 % of all European businesses. It is therefore evident that improving the framework conditions in which they operate will help general economic recovery. SMEs are the backbone of the European economy, offering the main opportunity for development and the creation of new jobs. At this time of crisis, however, SMEs should be offered support to internationalise: only 25 % of EU SMEs have been internationally active within the single market while only 13 % have been internationally active outside the EU. In order to support European SMEs, it is essential to provide a simpler and more streamlined regulatory framework, avoiding the national-level bureaucracy that often hampers their activity. At the same time the existing support schemes at national and EU level should be made more effective, avoiding the type of duplication that often complicates and confuses business activity.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) According to figures from the Commission, the 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU generated two-thirds of private sector employment in 2010 as well as 59 % of the total non-financial business economy value added. They also accounted for around 80 % of new job creation over the past five years. This shows that SMEs are of key importance for the EU’s economic and employment policy and thus make a major contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy.

For that reason, it is essential to strengthen the role of SMEs. This initiative by the European Parliament is an important step. Among other things, it calls for the launch of a multilingual online portal with information about legislation and administrative formalities in third country markets and mapping of local, national and EU support schemes, which will particularly benefit SMEs which operate transnationally. It also supports initiatives to reduce administrative and management burdens. These are good approaches to strengthen the position of Europe’s SMEs, increase their competitiveness and thus benefit the internal market as a whole.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) There is no doubt that the small and medium-sized enterprise sector holds crucial opportunities for the EU and it is precisely to this sector that we should look for real chances of recovery from the economic crisis. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) account for 70 % of all jobs in the EU, and, accordingly, have huge significance for the European economy. We should recognise this valuable potential and redouble our efforts to boost the competitiveness and business opportunities of SMEs. The development of SMEs is, in reality, often hampered by excessively complex administrative procedures, which create burdensome obstacles to the expansion of SMEs in the EU.

I voted in favour of the proposal because I believe that it is vital to create an environment favourable to the development of new businesses. We should ensure that companies have the opportunity for internationalisation, for expansion beyond the borders of one country, which also requires clear regulations, uniform technical standards, market information and simple customs rules.

In debates, I have consistently stressed that it is also vital for SMEs to have easy access to information, in particular about funding opportunities, and we must also recognise their needs with regard to public procurement I believe that this report is an important step towards the creation of a more coherent and coordinated policy on SMEs.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that the European Parliament has taken on a major issue that is vital to growth in Europe: the competitiveness of businesses and industries. The Commission and Parliament share the same analysis: growth will only be possible if we undertake structural reforms to modernise the European industrial system. This aim of competitiveness should be at the heart of our public policies. That is why Parliament supports the lines of action proposed by the European Commission: the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), a reduction of administrative burdens and a strengthening of industrial competitiveness. Concerning the internationalisation of SMEs, the European Parliament is calling for the launch of a multilingual portal to facilitate SMEs’ access to essential information on the various legislation and administrative systems in force in third countries. As regards the reduction of administrative burdens, Parliament is in favour of a new net reduction target and is calling for a strengthening of the role of the network of SME representatives. Finally, Parliament considers that in order to boost industrial and SME competitiveness, it is also important to maximise the entrepreneurial potential of young people, women and migrants.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because only if the EU succeeds in strengthening the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), and adopts measures that reduce the administrative burdens on SMEs, will the potential of European entrepreneurs be developed and the EU economy begin to grow again. Industry plays a key role in the European economy. The manufacturing industry generates 25 % of the jobs in the private sector of the European Union and accounts for 80 % of private research and development. All agree that, if the EU wants to recover from the crisis, it should enhance the competitiveness of EU firms of all sizes. For this an environment that favours new ideas and new businesses is required. This kind of business friendly environment is not well developed in Europe also because industrial policies in the Member States differ significantly from one another. The reality, though, is that to achieve sustainable growth and to kick-start the economy, as requested by the Europe 2020 strategy, coherent and coordinated industrial policies from the Member States as well as deep structural changes of the EU industrial system are very important and necessary.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. − Almost three quarters of all jobs in the European Union are provided by small and medium enterprises and, furthermore, 85 % of newly established work places between 2002 and 2010 were created by this sector. It can be clearly seen that not only do SMEs play a key role in the European economy but enhancing their competitiveness and helping them engage more people may also vitally contribute to the recovery from the economic crisis and may reset the EU economy on a trajectory of growth. The Union should develop and launch tailor-made programmes in order to boost the entrepreneurial potential of EU citizens, especially targeting vulnerable groups excluded from the labour market, for whom self-employment as an alternative may provide a way out of poverty and marginalisation. In this regard, I would like to welcome the Commission’s successfully implemented plan to reduce the administrative burdens by 25 % this year.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Paul Rübig’s report on competitiveness and business opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). The report was adopted by a large majority of the European Parliament at the sitting of 23 October and I welcome this result. The report focuses on three points: the internationalisation of SMEs, the reduction of administrative burdens and the boosting of industrial competitiveness.

  Seán Kelly (PPE), in writing. − SMEs are the heartbeat of the European economy and I am very pleased that we are placing them centre stage. The suggestions contained in this resolution will go a long way, if implemented, to helping SMEs help the European economy on the road to recovery and prosperity. If every SME in the EU added one more staff member to their books, the unemployment crisis would disappear overnight, so it is incumbent on us across all sectors to provide an SME-friendly environment, particularly in relation to COSME, Horizon 2020 and access to credit.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) SMEs are the backbone of the economy and an important factor in development, research and innovation that may result in job creation and increased EU competitiveness overall. Unfortunately, they are also the most affected by low competitiveness due to reduced market adaptability and limited access to capital, technology and infrastructure. That is why we must prioritise their development and facilitate their access to financing. SMEs must be considered eligible partners for Cohesion Fund investments and must benefit from supplementary funding in the next programming period for 2014-2020. In order to progress, SMEs should create partnerships with similar organisations and universities.

  Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), in writing. − (BG) Every attempt to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in the EU is, in fact, an attempt to aid the EU’s economic development and growth. That is why it is natural to support this report regardless of any controversial aspect that are obviously the result of compromises between political groups. However, there can be no argument over the common conviction that without strong and competitive SMEs Europe will lose its economic prospects. We welcome the efforts to make SMEs more international by creating a multilingual on-line portal that would help entrepreneurs to become quickly and easily informed of the relevant legislation in third countries. We also welcome the Commission’s intention to create a map of the local, regional and national networks for assisting SMEs in Europe. Above all, we welcome all efforts to ease the bureaucratic burden on SMEs. This report and its recommendations undoubtedly represent a crucial step in this direction. Growth and new jobs are what we most need today, and the statistics showing that this is exactly what the SME sector offers more than any other. Therefore, every new attempt by the European institutions to improve the business environment for SMEs must be supported.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of this report, because I believe that the basis of a sound European Union economy, as the rapporteur has noted, is to provide SMEs with the support they need. In my opinion, an effective recovery from the present crisis should be achieved by boosting the competitiveness of industry, the existence of which is largely dependent on SMEs. We must therefore create the right conditions for implementing innovative solutions in existing and newly emerging businesses. Unfortunately, the EU lacks a coherent and coordinated industrial policy. Human capital is also vital to successful businesses, and closely tied to improvements in their performance. An appropriately implemented, and above all, rational administrative and fiscal policy will also help SMEs, and, consequently, the entire European Union economy, to achieve more rapid growth.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report. Only 25 % of EU SMEs in the European Union have been internationally active within the single market while only 13 % have been internationally active outside the EU. Since the EU needs to find new sources of growth to provide employment and wellbeing for EU citizens it should encourage SMEs to go international. The opportunity for future business growth outside the EU and especially in the new emerging countries is high, even though, because of the large number of small firms that are tied to local business, the unfulfilled potential within Europe’s SME sector to go international should not be exaggerated.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) To support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is to invest in growth. For this reason, it is important to develop a multilingual portal providing them with information on the legislation and administrative systems of third countries. We also need a new qualitative, measurable and verifiable target for a net reduction in administrative burdens, which too often hinder the growth of SMEs. We must also make it easier for SMEs to obtain loans. Finally, when we talk about SMEs and competitiveness, we should not forget the entrepreneurial potential of young people and women.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In 1956, a former German Enterprise Minister, charged with the economic design of West Germany stated that small and medium businesses were ‘an expression of a state of mind and a specific attitude’. Decentralisation in Member States was an important factor in SME development. SMEs actively seek partnerships with regional authorities and financial institutions while local studies show that small businesses develop relationships mostly with local actors.

We need integrated European policies for SMEs aimed at facilitating their access to financing and research and development grants. This will give them increased access to global markets and may help raise export levels. I am convinced that, at present, when we are outsourcing more frequently, SMEs can improve on these risks. Their added value lies in the capacity to adapt to relatively reduced costs.

The standardised European system must permit their participation in decision-making processes, including the public-private partnerships between the Member States and the Commission. IT standardisation and an integrated cooperation system are essential in increasing their competitiveness.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) We are very much in need of greater integration of Union policies in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises, with particular reference to innovation, growth, internationalisation, productivity, containing costs and reducing bureaucracy, the quality of human resources, and social responsibility. I voted in favour.

  Anthea McIntyre (ECR), in writing. − It is estimated that 40 000 EU citizens each year are not represented in a third country and require consular assistance by consular representatives of other Member States; the ECR Group recognises that all EU citizens are entitled to consular assistance if they face difficulty in a third country where their national consular or embassy is not present. And we see the value in EU Member States cooperating in this area in order to help our citizens. The ECR Group understands that this right is enshrined in law under Article 20 of the EC Treaty and we believe, therefore that this report is unnecessary given the existing regulations and frameworks in place. We have concerns that this report is significant in the on-going battle of some to further harmonise EU foreign, consular and diplomatic services. We strongly support the sovereign power of Member States to exercise and retain responsibility for their consular and diplomatic services and hence oppose an extension of powers and funding to the EEAS for consular duties. The ECR Group has therefore decided to vote against this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the engine of economies and are seen as important job creators (around 85 % of new jobs created in the EU between 2002 and 2010 were created by SMEs). In a period of economic crisis, it is vital to promote and support the economic activities of SMEs in the single market and in third-country markets. However, the extremely diverse nature of SMEs must not be forgotten, because the EU’s policies must take account of the different challenges facing SMEs according to their size and sector. I voted in favour of the report.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted against this report, because, although it contains certain elements that could be beneficial for this type of company, it fails, overall, to provide solutions to the problems they are facing. The main cause of the collapse of this type of company, which accounts for the majority of jobs in Europe, is the fall in consumer spending by the middle and working classes, who are being impoverished by the austerity policies championed by the European Union. Furthermore, the proposal includes aspects that require the full implementation of the Services Directive, which seeks to liberalise and privatise public services in keeping with the austerity policies, as well as the assessment of students according to their entrepreneurial spirit. These are the reasons why I voted against the report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The communications ‘Reinforcing competitiveness’ and ‘Small business, big world’ and the report ‘Minimising regulatory burden for SMEs’ propose a ‘new’ industrial policy with the aim of reinforcing competitiveness, to promote and support SMEs’ economic activities outside the European Union and to set out concrete actions to minimise the regulatory burdens on SMEs and micro-enterprises. For the S&D Group it is problematic to accept a premise of the Commission thinking – namely those SMEs and micro-enterprises should be exempt from European legislation on health and safety at work and on workers’ rights. Amendments in committee stressed that health and safety at work and workers’ protection cannot be considered administrative burdens, and that fundamental workers’ rights and occupational safety and health should not be jeopardised by the reduction of documentation and reporting obligations. I disagree with that, since the specificity of small enterprises does not provide an opportunity to guarantee social guaranties and protection for employees. I voted against.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) account for 99 % of European businesses and employ 75 million people, or 70 % of the total number of jobs in the EU. These figures alone do not adequately convey the importance of protection and enhancement of this sector, which in the last decade created 80 % of all new jobs in the EU. We have for some time now argued in favour of certain measures and initiatives to support SMEs, including reducing administrative burdens and bureaucracy. The international dimension is still relatively underdeveloped, and strengthening the Enterprise Europe Network would certainly bring benefits in this area. Equally welcome are the instruments for trade defence and intellectual property right protection in third markets. In this regard, the helpdesk set up in China is a useful pilot experience that should be developed and improved in order to make it more effective, before exporting the model to other countries.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the document adopted today because I am convinced that in the European Union we are still failing to pay enough attention to promoting small and medium-sized enterprises. Precisely this form of business, which has created by far the most new jobs recently, is at a disproportionate disadvantage – both in the context of opportunities to obtain EU support and with various administrative procedures that impede SMEs’ activities disproportionately. I therefore join the voices calling for legislation regulating SMEs’ activities to be reviewed as a matter of urgency, making it simpler and giving SMEs more opportunities to access the EU single market.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the rapporteur’s initiative on the creation of a one-stop-shop for VAT, which would greatly simplify the operations of trans-European businesses.

I regret that the Parliament did not debate this report, which is so relevant to the European economy.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported this report, which aims to improve the international competitiveness of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) and reduce their administrative burden. Despite the fact that the administrative burden of businesses has dropped year by year, the Member States are facing serious problems in transposing EU legislation which causes an increase in administrative burden and costs. Therefore, it is necessary to find ways of implementing legislation more effectively to avoid duplication and the redirecting of operators between various authorities, which entail excessive costs. The purpose of bureaucracy should be the efficiency and development of the whole of society rather than merely the establishment of social positions for officials. In order to enhance the entrepreneurial spirit of individuals – I agree with the rapporteur – the EU should invest more in action plans aimed at introducing to citizens, especially young people and women, the nature of entrepreneurship and the alternatives to employment that it provides. The very foundation of the European economy should above all be enterprising individuals, and expanding the administrative structures is not the solution here.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report which aims at the submission of proposals for strengthening small and medium size enterprises. In Greece, SMEs and family businesses make up 98 % of all businesses. The economic crisis, in addition to excluding them, essentially, from access to credit and liquidity, threatens their very existence. The European Investment Bank’s recent assurances that it will grant them substantial amounts are significant, but do not altogether solve the problem. Support for SMEs also means support for entrepreneurship, innovation and jobs. In this proposal, the European Parliament calls upon the Commission and the Member States to show even greater decisiveness in this direction. Amongst other things, it proposes stepping up the entrepreneurial attitude in the EU and attracting more people into the business world through EU programmes, and providing incentives such as SME-friendly taxation systems and other tax incentives.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur proposes concrete measures to minimise the costs borne by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and to reinforce support for their internationalisation and competitiveness. These proposals stem from the importance of SMEs to the European economy, as they represent 99 % of European businesses and have provided 85 % of the new jobs created in the EU. These aspects explain why I voted in favour.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the EU there are approximately 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that represent 99 % of businesses and employ around 75 million people (70 % of the total number of jobs in the EU). It is therefore important for policy makers to look for opportunities to exploit the dynamism within the sector to the wider benefit of EU society. If the EU wants to recover from the crisis, it should enhance the international competitiveness of SMEs, at the same time adopting measures able to reduce the administrative burdens on them. An environment needs to be created that favours new ideas and encourages the growth of an entrepreneurial culture. Calling for the new strategies to be implemented as soon as possible, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is one of the aspects covered by this report, which calls on the Commission to launch an online portal informing SMEs about the laws and bureaucracy of third countries and to adopt a new governance model. The document welcomes the local, regional and national mapping exercise and EU support schemes, and suggests enhancing cooperation between the various business associations, chambers of commerce and other private stakeholders in countries outside the EU. In short, the report redefines the political priorities in the effort to reduce the administrative burden, and calls for improvements to be made in the transposition of directives into national law.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today we voted on Mr Rübig’s report. The three Commission documents represent an important step towards a more coherent and coordinated European small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) policy. They tackle different problems that prevent SMEs from deploying their full potential. The report underlines that the direction chosen for the future by the Commission is the right one, but hopes that the implementation of the new strategies will be done as fast as possible. European economic recovery is too slow and SMEs need the EU to act quicker.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. In the EU there are approximately 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which represent 99 % of businesses. All together SMEs employ around 75 million people (70 % of the total number of jobs in the EU). Moreover, between 2002 and 2010 85 % of the new jobs created in the EU came from SMEs. These data show the impact that SMEs have on the EU economy, and stress the importance for policy makers to look for opportunities to exploit the dynamism within the sector to the wider benefit of EU society. Only if the EU succeeds in strengthening SMEs’ competitiveness and, at the same time, adopts measures able to reduce the administrative burdens that SMEs encounter, will the potential of European entrepreneurs be developed and the EU economy will be pushed back to growth.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report since industry plays a key role for the European economy. The manufacturing industry generates 25 % of the jobs in the private sector of the European Union and accounts for 80 % of private research and development. These data show the impact that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have on the EU economy and stress the importance for policy makers to look for opportunities to exploit the dynamism within the sector to the wider benefit of EU society. Only if the EU succeeds in strengthening SMEs’ competitiveness and, at the same time, adopts measures able to reduce the administrative burdens that SMEs encounter, the potential of European entrepreneurs will be developed and the EU economy will be pushed back to growth. Public policies must support the development of professional skills in SMEs and ensure they have free access to information. The natural consequence will be the creation of new jobs, more innovation, and higher economic growth of all enterprises, allowing them to achieve the Europe 2020 targets. The Italian economy has been stagnant for years and cannot afford to waste the momentum provided by industry, in which SMEs have always played a major part, relying on quality, tradition and good integration with other industrial systems.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of this report because I think that the proposal for a resolution highlights the crucial importance of SMEs to the European economy, and it makes very sound proposals for interventions to remove obstacles and develop entrepreneurship.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The large number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and major industrial areas represents an advantage that must be built on by internationalising SMEs through targeted policies. Recent years have seen changes in key elements of competition, in turn requiring updating of traditional recipes for success and rethinking of both the strategic models adopted in the past and the basis for future business success. We must support all EU measures aimed at strengthening entrepreneurship and assisting the access of SMEs to the single market and third markets. I therefore voted in favour.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. − (SK) I regard coordinating Member States’ industrial policy as essential in improving the competitiveness of all European enterprises and achieving sustainable growth in line with the Europe 2020 strategy. In this context, I welcome the Commission communication on industrial policy, which talks about strengthening competitiveness and identifies the areas in which it is essential to make progress towards the objective of the Europe 2020 strategy. If the EU really wishes to reduce unemployment, it must invest in programmes to support this. At the local level, immediately transposing the Late Payments Directive, which will help enterprises’ liquidity, implementing tax stimuli and educational and retraining programmes to encourage people and remove their fear of entrepreneurship would constitute a useful instrument for employment. Small and medium size enterprises have a huge potential to create jobs and therefore support for them would be very effective. At EU level, I welcome the Commission proposal to map support systems in European countries which might form the starting point for a single European environment.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have a decisive and increasingly important role to play in the relaunch of economic activity and job creation, and merit special attention from the competent authorities. It should be highlighted that around 85 % of all new jobs created in the European Union between 2002 and 2010 were created by SMEs and that 32.5 million EU citizens are self-employed. I agree with this report as I consider that SMEs must target not only the European market but also other international markets, and they must have improved access to the Market Access Database and Export Helpdesk and to patent protection in the single market. I also believe it is appropriate for the European Commission to establish partnerships and promote business clusters in order to facilitate economies of scale and access to new international markets. The entrepreneurial activities carried out by young entrepreneurs must also be an integral part of the new education, training, youth and sport programme entitled ‘Erasmus for All’.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE), in writing. − (LV) I am pleased that the European Parliament supported the report by Paul Rübig, which is very important in terms of fostering the competitiveness of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). However ambitious the Europe 2020 strategy may be, we will not succeed in meeting the goals set out in it if we do not provide adequate support to SMEs. Therefore it is important to facilitate access by SMEs to capital, and to simplify SME financing instruments and programmes, in order to reduce the administrative burden.

Just as important are the recommendations included in the report on the measures required to help SMEs win new markets. The report says that only 13 % of SMEs have expanded their activities beyond EU borders. Incentives must be put in place in order for Europe’s SMEs to grow, increase their capacities for innovation and offer goods and services worldwide. Within the framework of EU trade policy, and by also using other applicable EU instruments, solutions must be developed to help SMEs have access to the capital that is required in order to start financing export.

Similarly, SMEs must also be effectively protected from unfair trade practices, which they quite often encounter. I also support the creation of a special internet portal, which would provide SMEs with information on priority global markets, thus helping SMEs to carry on their activities internationally.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As we witness an unprecedented phase of deindustrialisation, with one redundancy plan after another, it is time to undertake structural reforms to return to growth. It is vital that we give a sharp boost to the competitiveness of our small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for 99 % of businesses and 70 % of jobs within the EU. Several levers are available to us to help us achieve this goal, and in my view we must use them all at once if we want to make up the ground we have lost. First of all, we must continue to reduce the administrative burdens on businesses. Considerable efforts have been made in this regard, but I think that we can go further still, particularly with regard to very small enterprises. It is also imperative to improve loan activities to benefit the real economy and help to mobilise private capital to support our SMEs. These firms create wealth and jobs, and should be able to benefit from reasonable interest rates. Finally, I would insist on the need to reduce the tax burden, which weighs too heavily on our businesses. These three proposals should ensure secure and flexible entrepreneurship, which is vital if we want Europe to remain a region of production.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) This report relates to the 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU which represent 99 % of businesses and employ around 75 million people. Practical support measures should continue and be expanded. It is also important to promote new businesses and entrepreneurship and create a business friendly environment. In view of the present crisis, it was important to vote for this report in order to promote opportunities for growth.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. − (DE) With his report on Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities, Mr Rübig has focused on an issue very close to my heart. We need objective, consistent and independent impact assessments to determine how our legislation is affecting SMEs, whether positively or negatively. We need better access to capital and better advice services, especially about overseas markets. In this context, I would like to spell out once again what I regard as the essential feature of good advice services for those of our SMEs that wish to do business in overseas markets. A multilingual online portal containing legislation and information, as proposed by the Commission and Mr Rübig, would certainly be helpful provided that it is user-friendly. However, this can only ever be an add-on. What we need, first and foremost, are advisory services for businesses at the local level. Doing business internationally is a major risk for many firms, and to take this step, they must have confidence in their partners. This is created through the provision of advice services locally – not at the EU level or, indeed, in the third country markets – by organisations such as the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), which are already familiar to SMEs. The trusted partners must in turn have partners who they can trust in the third countries which are companies’ target markets. That is how good advice services can support access to overseas business.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) European small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are often unaware of the support services provided by the European Union and therefore do not utilise the available resources, missing important opportunities for growth. At a difficult time for business due to the lengthy economic and financial crisis, it is vital that the EU adopt measures to encourage the internationalisation of companies, pooling SMEs and their ability to interface with the European institutions.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We agree with this report in relation to various measures associated with the dissemination and provision of information, and the creation of local and regional export helpdesk networks, among other aspects. However, this report clearly fails to put its finger on the real problem: in Portugal dozens of businesses are closing every day due to the recessionary policies that the Troika is imposing, such as increased taxes on these businesses and policies resulting in a fall in domestic consumption and the loss of workers’ purchasing power. It is very strange that this report says absolutely nothing about this aspect, and therefore neglects the real problems facing SMEs. Furthermore, it continues to use the internal market excuse when it is clearly apparent that it was precisely the monopolistic concentration in certain sectors of the economy, which were possible due to the free movement of goods and capital, that condemned many SMEs to disaster and bankruptcy. The report also perpetuates a huge ideological deception by maintaining that the EU should invest in programmes aimed at addressing the entrepreneurial potential of European citizens as a real alternative to employment. It therefore advocates a paradigm which absolves the states of any responsibility, with which we vehemently disagree.

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0321/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, according to which the EU and US leaders have established a High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth to identify options for increasing trade and investment to support mutually beneficial job creation, economic growth and competitiveness. This report welcomes the ongoing joint discussion between the EU and the US on how to work collectively to ensure long-term prosperity and employment, and agrees that a comprehensive agreement should include an ambitious reciprocal market opening in goods, services and investment, address the challenges of modernising trade rules and enhance the compatibility of regulatory regimes. It also calls for progress in the removal of trade barriers, better market access, better protection of intellectual property rights and the opening up of public procurement markets. I voted in favour of this report because I consider that it strengthens bilateral relations between two of the largest economic and political blocks in the world: the US and the EU.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on trade and economic relations with the United States. The US and the EU are very important trade partners: the two economies together account for about half of the global economic output and nearly a third of world trade flows, making this relationship the largest economic relationship in the world. Although the economic ties between the EU and the US are among the most open in the world, there is a general consensus that the potential of the transatlantic relationship is far from being fully exploited. Therefore it is important to foster the ongoing joint discussion between the EU and the US on how to work collectively to increase growth potential and financial stability. I support the rapporteur’s view that, in order to ensure long-term prosperity and employment, a joint commitment and effort is needed to create new opportunities for businesses both large and small, to promote entrepreneurship and to capitalise on the advantages offered by the uniquely integrated transatlantic market. In this regard, we, Members of the EP, emphasise that there are many areas where progress would be greatly beneficial, such as the removal of trade barriers and better market access.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report aims to open negotiations on a possible comprehensive trade agreement between the world’s two largest economic powers, the United States and the European Union. To achieve this, one of the most ambitious goals of the European Union’s trade strategy, it will be necessary to remove numerous technical obstacles and overcome unnecessary differences and excessively rigid regulatory requirements between these two parts of the world. While remaining very vigilant about the coming negotiations and without prejudging the end result, I agreed to the opening of discussions.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I fully support this agreement for free trade that guarantees European enterprises, in particular those operating in the agro-food sector, better access to the US market. Elimination of tariff barriers is important for the strengthening of economic relations between the EU and the United States, provided this does not have adverse effects on the remaining strategic sectors of the European economy. For the purposes of future negotiations, I would like to draw immediate attention to combating the so-called ‘Italian sounding’ phenomenon. In 2009, according to recent official estimates, for every eight Italian-inspired products sold in US supermarkets only one was actually produced in our country. I therefore call on the European Commission, in the context of a free trade agreement, to take steps to ensure better protection of European food products, and in particular Italian products because they are more affected by counterfeiting, as well as greater efforts by the US to combat this phenomenon.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I supported this report, because it will help reap the benefits of trade relations between the United States and the European Union. The report pinpoints the action needed to address the problems affecting trade, such as the removal of trade barriers, the introduction of measures to ensure better market access, including for investment, the protection of intellectual property rights, the opening up of public procurement markets to ensure full reciprocity, the clarification, simplification and harmonisation of rules of origin, and convergence on the mutual recognition of regulatory standards

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report on trade and economic relations between Europe and the United States. Its text finally solves the problem of recognition and protection in the area of indications of origin, essential for protecting quality Italian products. Under the current system of trademark registration in the US, which prefers to protect registered trademarks rather than indications of origin, the so-called ‘Italian sounding’ phenomenon has evolved, which misleads foreign consumers and causes enormous economic damage to the exports of our enterprises, especially in the agro-food sector. Other areas where the report considers that agreement between the partners would be greatly beneficial include: the introduction of measures to ensure better market access, the protection of intellectual property rights, the opening up of public procurement markets to ensure full reciprocity since European small and medium-sized enterprises are currently operating at a considerable disadvantage in this area, and the convergence on mutual recognition of regulatory standards.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union and the United States enjoy excellent trade relations with an unequalled mutual investment of up to EUR 2 100 billion. The overall US investment in the EU is three times higher than that in Asia and EU investment in the US is approximately eight times the value of EU investment in India and China combined. Investment is the essence of the transatlantic relationship and contributes to economic growth and job creation on both sides.

Given the current economic climate, I believe EU-US trade must be better utilised in stimulating intelligent, strong and sustainable growth.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report on trade and economic relations with the United States. It makes important recommendations for a fruitful trade agreement between these two world powers. Trade relations should be revitalised firstly by modernising the trade rules and secondly by improving the compatibility of the regulatory regimes.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because it is extremely important to encourage negotiations between the EU and the US and other partners on how to work collectively to tackle the environmental crisis and climate change.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The US is the EU’s main trading partner, with the two economies together accounting for about half of the global economic output. Despite transatlantic flows of trade and investment being quite considerable, the potential of the EU-US relationship is far from being fully exploited. I support this report by Vital Moreira because I consider that there is huge potential for the two economies to intensify their trade relations: they both share common values, similar legal systems and very similar labour, energy and market standards, based on which fruitful agreements and synergies can be developed. While the specific interests and sensitivities of both partners must be safeguarded (such as European policies and guidelines on the environment, hygiene and animal welfare, food safety, cultural diversity, social rights, etc.), there are many areas where intensifying relations would be a win-win deal, in particular regarding the removal of trade barriers, the introduction of measures to ensure better market access, the protection of intellectual property rights, the opening up of public procurement markets, and the clarification, simplification and harmonisation of rules of origin. Given the increasing importance of e-commerce, in my opinion it is also essential to intensify relations with regard to the data protection standards that are crucial in protecting customers both in the EU and the US.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Trade relations with the United States are extremely important to the European economy, although the potential of the relationship has yet to be fully exploited. I would like to congratulate the European Commission on its work in the area of international trade, focusing on the most important areas for growth that enterprises may exploit in order to relaunch the international economy. I regret that certain questions that have for some time been on the agenda of multilateral negotiations are being resolved bilaterally, but I am optimistic that a transatlantic solution may also help deadlocked negotiations elsewhere. We must create the right conditions for enterprises to be able to work, grow and stimulate economy recovery, and the present report is part of that effort.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on free trade relations between the European Union and the United States as increased trade and mutual investment between the two parties can stimulate job creation and economic growth. However, we must remember that the EU and US perspectives on various aspects, such as genetically modified organisms and animal cloning, are different.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I support the proposal to establish a formal framework for the compatibility of the EU and US regulations that would facilitate and reinvigorate transatlantic trade relations. Even if the regulation issues are not resolved, setting a global standard will contribute to consumer product safety, above all.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Union must constantly deepen its relationship with the key partner that is the United States. This relationship can be a springboard for Europe’s economic recovery. I support the approach adopted in this text, which encourages reciprocal opening-up of markets, but without sacrificing our most important demands, in particular with regard to genetically modified organisms and the protection of geographical indications of origin.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which is an attempt to satisfy Europe’s ambitions in our trade partnership with the United States. In these times of crisis, the strengthening of trade between the world’s two main economic powers is an important challenge if we are to return to growth.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am very happy about the signal that the EP has sent out by giving the go-ahead for the negotiation of a transatlantic free trade agreement between the EU and the US, which should give rise to an ‘ambitious and reciprocal market opening’ between two partners who together account for nearly half of global GDP. While remaining watchful to ensure that the EU does not sacrifice its values and interests (particularly in agricultural and environmental matters, public health and workers’ rights), the prospect of such an agreement can only reinforce the stability and economic development of the EU.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the report on Trade and Economic Relations with the United States, as I welcome the ongoing discussion between the EU and the US on how to work collectively to increase growth potential and foster financial stability in order to create high quality jobs. Furthermore, I am convinced that working closely with the Council, the Commission, the US Congress, the US Administration and the stakeholders will make it possible to achieve the full economic potential of the transatlantic economic relationship, in order to create new opportunities for businesses and workers on both sides of the Atlantic and strengthen EU and US leadership in the global economy. Nevertheless, there are still some problems that persist in the relations between the EU and US, and which also affect the economic climate, one of the most important being the visa-free restrictions for the citizens of four EU countries. Visa-free travel should be granted equally to all EU citizens in order to increase mutual confidence and to boost economic and trade relations.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Vital Moreira concerns the trade and economic relations between the European Union and the United States, which are the two most important economies in the world. Half of the world’s gross domestic product is generated by these trade relations as, on a daily basis, over EUR 2 billion are traded between the two partners. I welcome the intensification of trade relations between the EU and the US in order to create a genuine transatlantic market that will be highly beneficial to both European and US consumers, not just due to its enormous growth potential for the two partners, but also due to the collective action to overcome the challenges faced by the global economy. Although some issues are still unresolved, such as technology (motor vehicles), products resulting from genetically modified organisms, food safety, meat from cloned animals, etc., I hope that these will soon be resolved and that we can adopt this agreement as quickly as possible, as we will have much to gain from its entry into force.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report tries to establish the basis for intensifying trade relations between the EU and the US, claiming that closer economic cooperation between these two countries may help to overcome the crisis. It welcomes the commitment ‘to open trade and investment, expand markets and resist protectionism in all its forms, which are necessary conditions for sustained global economic recovery, jobs and development’. This is the usual list of arguments for the marvels of free trade, on which they keep insisting, even though reality continues to contradict their wonderful promises and make the true consequences of this approach ever more apparent: namely, unemployment, business closure (particularly small and medium-sized enterprises), monopolistic concentration, pressure on the workforce resulting in their devaluation, and increased pressure on the environment and natural resources. The aspects in relation to opening up the market in services and public procurement should also be highlighted, as they are particularly worrying. Further attacks on public services are being lined up, with private capital advancing into ever more new areas of social life, so that it can engage in accumulation processes in an attempt to counteract the ever-deepening crisis.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The EU and the US are each other’s main trading partners, the two economies together accounting for about half of the global economic output and nearly a third of world trade flows. They are thus in the position of the most powerful economic partnership in the world. There is a general consensus that the potential of the transatlantic relationship is far from being fully exploited. The EU and US share common values, similar legal systems and high standards of labour and environmental protection, and should exploit these synergies to secure the growth and jobs both partners need. The moderate growth of global trade exchanges over the past three years has significantly contributed to mitigating the negative effects of the economic crisis, in particular in the EU and the US, proving that trade plays an important role in determining growth and employment. I consider it important to continue to strengthen transatlantic economic relations. I also believe that there should be close cooperation between the European Parliament and Council, the Commission, the US Congress, the United States Government and the stakeholders to achieve the full economic potential in order to create new opportunities for businesses and workers on both sides of the Atlantic and strengthen EU and US leadership in the global economy.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Although there are important issues to be resolved in EU-US trade relations, such as differing views in the agro-food area, the European Union and the United States are nonetheless each other’s main trading partners, and the removal of half of the existing non-tariff measures and regulatory divergences would translate into an increase in GDP on both sides. In the light of the reciprocal advantages in this type of agreement for both parties and the significant amendments that will hopefully be made to provisions on indications of origin, I voted in favour.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Ninety-eight per cent of trade between the US and the EU is carried on without major problems or significant obstacles. Nevertheless, controversial issues have a serious negative impact on the climate of bilateral relations. In spite of frequent high-level consultations, many issues still remain unresolved, and indeed new issues can also arise. I welcome Mr Moreira’s many recommendations aimed at enhancing the development and integration of our knowledge-based economies and promoting innovative technologies. The recommendations include for example designating priority areas for cooperation on research, deepening policy dialogue and promoting higher education exchange programmes. I voted in favour of the report since in my view it addresses the commitments we have made at previous summits to develop a strategy and practical recommendations with a view to creating a more open and more efficient overseas market.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the current economic environment, with high unemployment and a sharp fall in investment, assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) should be a priority of the European Parliament. Easier access for SMEs to the US market could improve the situation of many of our businesses. Although for decades now the United States has been Europe’s main trading partner, barriers persist, mainly in the form of non-tariff measures, (such as quotas, subsidies and monopolies) that prevent the potential of the relationship from being fully exploited. An EU-US agreement leading to the removal of these barriers would represent a major step forward in transatlantic trade relations and would open up a market for European enterprises. I hope that any free trade agreement will offer better protection for products and greater efforts on the part of the United States in the anti-counterfeiting area. Imitation that misleads consumers causes great damage to our producers, in particular the Italian agro-food industry.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The own-initiative report by Vital Moreira was adopted by a large majority at the sitting of 23 October, by 526 votes to 94, with 7 abstentions. The adoption of this own-initiative report will enable us to restart the debate on the appropriateness of opening fresh negotiations on an ambitious and comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with the United States. My colleagues and I want the future agreement to be beneficial to both parties, well-balanced and based on reciprocity. The aim is to inject new life into our bilateral relations, but also our multilateral relations within the World Trade Organisation.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. − It has been said that no other economic relationship in the world is as integrated as the transatlantic economy. You only need to look at some of the statistics. The EU and the US economies together account for around half the entire world GDP and for almost a third of world trade flows. Mutual investment is more than EUR 2.1 trillion. Total US investment in the EU is three times higher than its investment in all of Asia. Equally, the EU’s investment in the US is estimated to be eight times the amount of EU investment in India and China taken together. There are also roughly 15 million jobs linked to the transatlantic economy. It is estimated that a third of the trade across the Atlantic actually consists of intra-company transfers. There are issues that can get in the way of other trade agreements such as labour and environment standards, which should not be obstacles to an EU-US trade agreement. However, we should be careful that any EU-US agreement is not seen to force standards and agreements on less-developed countries. If we can guard against EU-US dominance, we should welcome a comprehensive transatlantic trade agreement across the political spectrum.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − The EU-US economic partnership is a key driver of global economic prosperity, representing the largest and most integrated economic relationship in the world. Together, the EU and the US economies account for 49 % of world’s GDP and a third of world trade. The EU and the US are each other’s biggest trade and investment partners, and the volume of trade in goods and services, taken together, amounted to some EUR 667.8 billion in 2010 (up from EUR 610 billion in 2009). The two partners trade more than EUR 1.8 billion per day in goods and services, while more than 15 million jobs are linked to this relationship. I believe that the EU-US relationship has not achieved its full potential and neither side can afford to ignore that a free trade agreement would give us greater prosperity and economic stability. This why I voted in favour of this report.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I support the Commission’s efforts to commence negotiations with the US on a comprehensive trade agreement as soon as possible. However, there are a number of sensitive issues still on the table which require a general solution. Of particular importance, in this context, are the divergent views on the issue of genetically modified organisms. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and our farmers from health risks. We should therefore be able to decide for ourselves whether to accept genetically modified seed or not.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) My colleagues and I have given our consent to the opening of negotiations in early 2013 on a possible trade agreement with the United States. The strong potential for growth and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic could allow us to create a real transatlantic market, although we must take care to ensure that the interests of the European Union are protected, particularly in the agricultural sector. It is important to remember that the EU and the United States have the largest economic relationship in the world, with a trade volume of EUR 700 billion and a bilateral investment stock valued at EUR 2.4 trillion in 2011. This agreement could increase the gross domestic product of the European Union and the United States by more than EUR 163 billion by 2018, if half of the existing non-tariff barriers were removed. I am therefore in favour of the opening of these negotiations, although we must be careful to ensure that we are on the same page in the agricultural sector with regard to geographical indications, genetically modified organisms, animal welfare, food safety and all of the other subjects that we consider to be fundamental, on which we must not compromise.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution which welcomes the ongoing joint discussion between the EU and the US on how to work collectively to increase growth potential and foster financial stability in order to create high quality jobs; it underlines that in order to ensure long-term prosperity and employment, a joint commitment, and effort, is needed to create new opportunities for businesses both large and small, to promote entrepreneurship and to capitalise on the advantages offered by the uniquely integrated transatlantic market; it calls for negotiations between the EU and the US and other partners on how to work collectively to tackle the environmental crisis and climate change; it calls also for more joint commitment to achieve financial market stability.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I support the opening of negotiations with a view to a free trade agreement with the United States. The economic consequences of such an agreement for the European Union could be considerable. If such negotiations are opened, they must be accompanied by convergence and mutual recognition of regulatory standards, as well as the protection of intellectual property rights. We must also be vigilant when it comes to the dismantling of trade barriers and the opening-up of public procurement.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) It is important to continue with the strengthening of transatlantic economic relations, while supporting EU interests, in fields such as environmental, health and animal protection standards, food safety, cultural diversity, labour rights, consumers’ rights, financial services, public services or indications of origin, among others.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report is an ode to the creation of a great transatlantic market, which I oppose. Without a hint of embarrassment, it approves all of the proposals of the high-level working group created last November without citizens knowing anything about it. The report advocates the adoption of the most liberal positions, the setting-up of an integrated transatlantic market (including in services and, in particular, financial services), the removal of all tariffs in the near future, close cooperation from the beginning on regulatory processes, a fight against protectionism in all its forms, the ambition to establish ‘global standards’, and a proposal to create an integrated market with the North-American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Everything is there. Nothing is missing, except, of course, consideration of the general interest and consultation of workers’ representatives and national parliaments, the only people forgotten in the much-vaunted transatlantic ‘dialogue’. I voted against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The largest economic relationship in the world is between the EU and the US. Together they account for about half of the global economic output. The current economic and financial crisis threatens the prosperity of these economies, which is why efforts must be focused on closer economic cooperation between the EU and the US, in order to overcome the obstacles created by the crisis, by developing the conditions for global economic recovery, jobs and development. I welcome this motion for a resolution, for which I voted.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I fully support this resolution, which provides a very concise description of the state of trade and economic relations between the EU and the United States. It underlines the importance of this bilateral relationship, the largest in the world, and proposes a very detailed plan to address all of the aspects that need to be improved. Indeed, the potential of this transatlantic relationship is far from being fully harnessed. That is why I am in favour of the resolution. I wish to offer my support for the removal of non-tariff barriers and regulatory incompatibilities, which would, amongst other things, bring about a significant increase in the GDP of the EU and the United States, and would obviously have a decisive impact on growth and jobs. In these times of crisis, close cooperation between the EU and the United States is necessary.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Since the report calls for progress on removing trade barriers, better market access, better protection of intellectual property rights, opening up of public procurement but most importantly calls for progress on tackling trade barriers, I voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) At last, this report addresses and seeks to provide a rapid solution to the long-term problem of failure to recognise indications of origin and quality. The United States is by far the market worst affected by the ‘Italian sounding’ phenomenon: there is nothing more Italian in 90 % of apparently Italian cheeses, sauces and preserves that US consumers find on the shelf than their name or packaging. The situation is slightly better for pasta, oil and confectionery, but still far from acceptable in terms of protection of products and producers. We cannot continue to tolerate this situation in a mature market that enjoys substantial parity with our own. Protection of quality and excellence, which single us out from our US competitors, should therefore be the basis of any future trade agreement with the United States.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour. As the economic and financial crisis in the European Union and the US continues it is important to eliminate existing barriers to bilateral trade. This would bring mutual benefits for the budget revenues of both parties, help to mitigate the consequences of the crisis, and promote growth, reducing unemployment, encouraging entrepreneurship and opening up new opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. The economies of these two trading partners represent more than half of the global economy, almost a third of global trade flows and are the most ambitious economic relations in the world, but the potential that exists offers hope of even greater mutual benefits and a positive impact on the global economy. I therefore hope that the dialogue currently taking place between the EU and the US will be productive and that concrete and broad proposals will soon be presented.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) At last year’s summit, the leaders of the European Union and the United States set up a working group with the objective of increasing job creation, economic growth and competitiveness. The economic relationships between the United States and the European Union are among the most open in the world. Our markets are deeply integrated through significant flows of trade and investment with a bilateral trade volume of EUR 702.6 billion and a bilateral investment stock valued at EUR 2 394 trillion last year.

Despite this positive result, there is a general consensus that the potential of the transatlantic relationship is far from being fully exploited. The European Union and the United States share common values, similar legal systems and high standards of labour and environmental protection. These synergies should be exploited as much as possible to secure the growth and employment and achieve the objectives both partners sorely need in this time of crisis.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Geographical indications of origin represent a significant bilateral problem, but I am convinced that the current impasse will be overcome. A good example is the recent 1 June agreement on mutual ecological certification for marketing in both the US and EU, which will increase mutual trade and provide important commercial opportunities for both partners.

In the field of agriculture, trade relations are mutually beneficial, as the US is the EU’s second biggest trading partner for agricultural products. I have reservations about the effects of a complete cancellation of export refunds in EU-US agricultural trade, which warrants its own detailed study.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because it is extremely important to encourage collective action between the EU and the US and other partners to tackle the environmental crisis and climate change.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The EU and the US are each other’s main trading partners, the two economies together accounting for about half of the global economic output and nearly a third of world trade flows. The ongoing financial and economic crises, both in the EU and in the US, are threatening the stability and prosperity of our economies and the welfare of our citizens, while the lack of coordination of financial regulation is causing unnecessary barriers to trade, calling for a closer economic cooperation between the EU and the US, in order to make use of the benefits of international trade in overcoming these crises. Therefore trade and foreign investment must be better used to stimulate smart, strong, sustainable, balanced, inclusive and resource-efficient growth, leading to higher job creation and increasing the welfare of people across the world. In line with these objectives, I vote in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report emphasises, with appropriate realism and without ignoring the contextual difficulties, the huge potential benefits of a comprehensive trade agreement. It is a balanced proposal, based on reciprocity, in which both parties will emerge winners if the agreement is successfully concluded, as it aims to encourage bilateral relations between the two powers and will ultimately stimulate world trade, by forming new multilateral links that are currently being held back within the World Trade Organisation. With the hope that the many technical disputes will be resolved by the end of the year, particularly with regard to dealing with the divergences and burdensome regulatory regimes, the report finally wishes for a favourable response in relation to these two negotiations. Given the importance of this ambitious goal, which aims to achieve closer transatlantic economic cooperation ‘in order to make use of the benefits of international trade’, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution by Vital Moreira.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) By approving the proposal, Parliament, in the light of the Joint Statement of the EU-US Summit issued on 28 November 2011, and the Joint Statement of the EU-US Transatlantic Economic Council issued on 29 November 2011, stresses the importance of continuing with the strengthening of transatlantic economic relations, while supporting EU interests, in fields such as environmental, health and animal protection standards, food safety, cultural diversity, labour rights, consumers’ rights, financial services, public services or indications of origin, among others. Following careful and thorough preparation and consultation, negotiations should be launched in the first half of 2013, building on the present political momentum, and on the support of industry, to enable a swift and successful conclusion to the negotiations. It is essential that all stakeholders representing the business communities, once these negotiations have been opened, organise themselves in such a way as to provide maximum support, in a coordinated, broad-based manner, to underpin an open, transparent dialogue to make progress on the initiative.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. Greens filed 18 out of the 123 amendments to the report. Our main goal at this stage is to go against the hype of a fast-tracked FTA which almost certainly will result in failure and damage US-EU relations even further. The obstacles for regulatory convergences and service liberalisation in particular are so high that we demand a much more precise elaboration of what shall be negotiated. Therefore, we want the HLWG to take all of the time it needs to make a sound proposal of possible deliveries of any kind of trade agreement, after thorough consultations with all stakeholders. We also warn against the hype that a comprehensive transatlantic FTA could become the maker of new global trade rules, which we regard as a serious threat to the survival of the multilateral trade system as embodied by the WTO. Except for a couple of our amendments which were included in compromise texts, especially a hint to the very different perceptions of the role and function of public services and services of general interest, we lost all our amendments in the committee vote. As a result, Greens voted against the report, together with GUE.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union and the United States are each other’s main trading partners, the two economies together accounting for about half of the global economic output and nearly a third of world trade flows, making it the largest economic relationship in the world. A free trade agreement would clearly enable us to consolidate our relationship. Studies are underway on both sides of the Atlantic, the final results of which should be made public by the end of the year.

At this stage, we must determine the conditions in which such an agreement could be mutually beneficial. That is why I voted in favour of this resolution, which highlights, in particular, the fact that this potential agreement must not be limited to the dismantling of tariff barriers. It also reiterates our concerns about the protection of geographical indications and public services and about data sharing. These concerns will only be dispelled through regular, detailed and open dialogue, both ahead of and during any negotiations.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report because trade and foreign investment must be put to better use to stimulate the growth that will lead to a greater increase in jobs and enhance the prosperity of peoples. I think further steps should be taken in the direction of EU-US relations, as it is widely accepted that the dynamic of transatlantic relations has not yet been fully exploited.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report on trade relations with the United States by Mr Moreira. The US is undoubtedly an important trading partner for Italy and Italian exporters, although I urge the European Commission to make greater efforts to protect Italian interests on the question of indications of origin. I therefore particularly welcome the report’s emphasis on the need to resolve this issue. Other important questions are also dealt with, such as removal of trade barriers, the introduction of measures to ensure better market access, including for investment, the protection of intellectual property rights, the opening up of public procurement markets to ensure full reciprocity and convergence on mutual recognition of regulatory standards.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) The European Union and the United States have always been important trade partners, while the United States aided the development of European countries in the years following the Second World War. Together, the US and EU economies currently account for approximately half of global economic output and their combined trade flows for nearly one-third of global turnover. Consequently, Europe and the United States enjoy the largest economic relationship in the world. Unfortunately, these relations do not yet extend to harmonised regulatory standards, which presents a significant barrier that is particularly difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises – on which our growth and employment must be based – to surmount. Moreover, in view of the ongoing financial crisis, we must strengthen our relationship, as it is the only way out of the crisis. As stressed by the World Trade Organisation, the open and multilateral trading system in use among WTO member countries is the best means of stimulating growth and improving the welfare of people around the world and we must hold onto that if we wish to defeat the crisis. Another important issue is that of agricultural trade, in particular as regards the recently announced US Farm Bill. The rules on subsidies in the United States differ from those set out in the European common agricultural policy, but are just as high. It is also worthwhile focusing on geographical indications of origin in the context of bilateral trade in agricultural products, which could increase access to the agricultural markets of the EU and United States.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The priorities with regard to EU-US trade relations need to be redefined. Better use should be made of existing synergies between the two sides through closer cooperation bringing numerous advantages in terms of international trade in a time of continuing crisis. I welcome the strengthening of transatlantic economic relations, since there is significant potential for increasing exchange of goods and services, bilateral investment, and the high degree of interdependence between the two economies. An open transparent trade system will have a positive effect in a number of areas, such as increased potential for growth and living standards. I therefore voted in favour.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU and the US are each other’s main trading and economic partners, and are deeply integrated through large flows of trade and investment. However, there is a general consensus on both sides of the Atlantic that the relationship between these two blocks could be intensified. In 2009, according to the Commission, the existence of non-tariff barriers to trade translated into losses of EUR 163 billion for both economies, excluding their potential growth in gross domestic product. Consequently, there is huge potential for socioeconomic development and growth, which could come from a trade agreement between these partners. I agree with the rapporteur that this potential trade agreement should involve the total or almost total removal of tariffs, mutual recognition or harmonisation of technical standards, reciprocal rules, opening of the public procurement market, and so on. I regard as welcome all of the proposals and measures that could develop from such an agreement with the US, which represents an economic and historic opportunity for the European Union, with tangible benefits for all its economic operators. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the document.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the motion for a resolution on trade and economic relations with the United States based on the fact that the EU and the US are each other’s biggest trading partners and the two economies together account for approximately half of the global economic output and nearly a third of world trade flows, making it the largest economic relationship in the world.

. EU-US trade and investment must be put to better use in order to stimulate intelligent, strong, balanced, sustainable growth, focused on social inclusion and resources effectiveness, and ultimately job creation. We highlight the importance of a sustained consolidation the of transatlantic economic relations while supporting EU interests in the areas of: environmental protection, health, animal rights, food safety, cultural diversity, workers’ rights, consumer rights, financial and public services, and geographical indications.

We also welcome the initiatives adopted in respect of the key areas of technological development, such as nano-technology, electric vehicles, intelligent networks and e-health. Given the rising prominence of e-commerce, data protection standards also plays an important role in protecting consumers in the EU and the US, which both need to tackle international digital security threats in a concerted manner.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) At the present economic and historical moment, efficient and effective use of trade and foreign investment is of the utmost importance in order to stimulate growth in an intelligent and sustainable fashion in terms of resources. To this end, the EU and the United States have a responsibility to make a joint effort to create new opportunities for businesses both large and small, to promote entrepreneurship and to capitalise on the advantages offered by the uniquely integrated transatlantic market.

The US is the main non-European destination for Italian exports but certain barriers still prevent relations from being altogether free-flowing. The key to unlocking the potential of the transatlantic relationship lies in the tackling of non-tariff barriers, consisting mainly of customs procedures and behind-the-border regulatory restrictions. Priorities should include protection of indications of origin for agro-food products, greater protection of Italian products and greater effort by the US to combat counterfeiting.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report tries to establish the basis for intensifying trade relations between the US and the EU by insisting on the failed arguments of free trade, which would lead to unemployment, business closure (particularly small and medium-sized enterprises), monopolistic concentration, pressure on the workforce resulting in their devaluation, and increased pressure on the environment and natural resources. We are also totally against the idea suggested in this report of opening up the market in services and public procurement, which, if it went ahead, would represent another attack on public and universal services.

  President. − That concludes the explanations of vote.