Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting opened at 08.35)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure

  President. − Are there any comments before we proceed with the agenda? Mr Audy, you have the floor.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I want to say something about the interpretation of Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure. As there has been no announcement, I gather that there has been no opposition to that interpretation. For the sake of democracy in our Parliament, I wanted to be sure that it had no retroactive effect, that it did not affect the current mandates and political agreements within the committees, and that this rule would apply to the renewal of future mandates in the parliamentary committees concerned.

  President. − Mr Audy, I have heard your comments; indeed, you informed me of this in advance. Unfortunately, retrospective application of that interpretation would not be possible under our Rules of Procedure, so please understand that we must proceed as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has determined in accordance with the wishes of the plenary. The interpretation of Rule 191 is unambiguous. Do please understand that this is not something that I can change retrospectively. Unfortunately, in politics as in life, you generally cannot change anything after the fact. That is something we have to live with. I am very sorry about that.

4. Multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 - Own resource based on the value added tax (debate)

  President. − The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

– A7-0313/2012 by Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, interim report in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure (COM(2011)0398 – 2011/0177(APP));

– A7-0316/2012 by Jean-Luc Dehaene, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax (COM(2011)0737 – C7-0504/2011 – 2011/0333(CNS).

  Reimer Böge, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, if I may, I wish to make a minor correction to what you said, Mr President: Ms Jensen from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is also a member of the negotiating team.

There we have it, Mr President: that is what budget experts are like, they look at every tiny detail. May I say that I greatly welcome the intensive work that you have done, in your capacity as President of this House, to increase democratic accountability in European budgetary policy, notwithstanding possible differences of opinion about the interview you gave on Saturday evening. That is for another time and place, however.

Mr Kalfin and I are today presenting an interim report which is ultimately intended to speed up and facilitate the multiannual financial framework approval procedure. We do so on the basis of the work done in the past by the Special Committee on policy challenges – the SURE Committee – chaired by Ms Jutta Haug, with Mr Salvador Garriga as rapporteur.

At this point, I would like to express my particular thanks to the present and previous Presidencies, for what we have here is a pilot project: before and after the meetings of the General Affairs Council (GAC), a briefing and debriefing are held on the negotiating boxes discussed there, and the European Parliament’s negotiating team was also invited to attend the informal GAC meetings. Hopefully, this will result in greater mutual understanding and a way forward which is based on actual content, not prejudgements. It goes without saying, however, that this pilot project – this working method – does not, in itself, guarantee any outcomes.

Our analysis is not just about a magic number, incidentally. We worked very hard on content and on the challenges facing the European Union in the globalisation process. We looked at the existing multiannual programme and compared the Commission’s proposals to it, and considered how we should proceed. For us, of course, it is about numbers, and about the right numbers. It is about content, and it is about comprehensive flexibility for the annual budget procedures. It is about safeguarding own resources which are worthy of the name. At this particular time, it is also about the unity of the European budget: the Treaty is quite clear on that point.

Let us face facts: some Member States have been talking about a magic number and yet they want to see the cohesion and agricultural policies remaining as they are; they are not interested in anything else. That does not contribute to growth and employment at a difficult time of budget consolidation. If Member States are not willing to provide enough money for the European budget, then they really need to tell us which of the political priorities that they themselves have set will be off the table in future.

We cannot have successes like Erasmus, which benefits 2.5 million students, and then possibly make cuts there because we want to keep other things in cohesion or agricultural policy! We cannot say that 3 % is reserved for research and development and then cut the Commission’s proposals for Horizon 2020! We cannot claim that Europe must prepare for a new role in foreign and development policy and at the same time fail to achieve our own 0.7 % GNI spending target for official development aid. That is not how it works. This cannot enhance our credibility.

We need to focus on better spending, of course taking due account of the budget consolidation processes under way in the Member States. To that end, we have made many detailed proposals on how we can work together, on the basis of comprehensive analyses of administrative aspects and the management of the programmes, and how we can achieve better implementation. At the same time, however, we point out that programmes such as Connecting Europe and lifelong learning should not become casualties as we move forward.

There are other issues which must also be addressed as part of this process: the debate about synergies between national and European administrations, the question of what should be regulated on the basis of subsidiarity, and where there is excessive bureaucracy which we must dismantle. For example, the Member States have 3 164 embassies and consulates around the world, with an annual budget of EUR 7.5 billion and around 95 000 employees. That is 15 times greater than the 2012 budget of the European External Action Service. So again, let us face facts: these figures should also be mentioned in the interests of truth and honesty, ladies and gentlemen.

When we say that based on our analysis and the new challenges created by the Treaty of Lisbon, we are in favour, in principle, of contributions being set at a higher level than envisaged in the Commission’s proposals, this also has a firm basis in our analysis. That is something which the Council must understand. However, if no agreement is reached, we will not fade out of sight. What we will be left with, in that case, are the ceilings for 2013 – the ceilings, not the budget – which will remain in place until a solution is found.

However, our offer, which maintains an appropriate balance between figures – and the more difficult the figures, the more comprehensive flexibility is required – means that we must send out the same clear message that Jean-Luc Dehaene and Anne Jensen have incorporated into our report. We need own resources that are worthy of the name. During the final phase, the Commission made an interesting proposal which also involves the use of the Financial Transaction Tax and, accordingly, a reduction in the national contributions of those Member States introducing this tax. In this context, it is important, in any discussion of a euro capacity or euro facility, to understand that the euro is the rule, not the exception. We cannot outsource the rule. We have to focus on the unity of the European budget so that we have a strong European Union in future too.

If we take the view that the Financial Transaction Tax is an interesting option for the euro facility, for example, but we would prefer not to introduce it in the context of the European budget, I fail to understand the logic. We are maintaining these core elements of our offer and are in a position to negotiate swiftly and achieve a result as soon as possible – but not at any price!

  President. − Thank you, Mr Böge. Do please point out to your group how generous I was with your speaking time!

  Ivailo Kalfin, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to tell you that Parliament’s report on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) does not have a small script. We have said very clearly here everything we wanted to say to the Council at this stage. The role of this report is also very clear: to inform the Council, because the Heads of State or Government will be gathering at the end of November – and before Mr Van Rompuy begins consultations with the Member States – and to explain Parliament’s position on the next financial framework, because the Treaty says that the European Council can only adopt a decision with the agreement of the European Parliament. So we have prepared this report to facilitate the debates in the Council and to provide advance information on Parliament’s position, and we hope this is going to be voted for by a vast majority today.

This report is very clear and consistent and generates very significant support, as have all Parliament’s positions on the next MFF for nearly two years now. We have been working in the Committee on Policy Challenges (SURE), as Mr Böge mentioned, and have adopted different resolutions in Parliament. We have demonstrated great cross-party unity on the major principles of the next budget. The major principle is that this is an instrument. This is not an accounting exercise but an instrument to achieve political goals, to apply the provisions of the Treaty and to make the European Union viable.

I also want to thank the Commission, especially Vice-President Šefčovič, Commissioner Lewandowski and the Presidency. The Cyprus Presidency, like the presidencies before, has done an excellent job of including Parliament in the decision-making of the Council this time – or at least we had the opportunity to express our opinion very clearly. My thanks also go to you, the President of this Parliament, and to all my colleagues who have been working on this issue, because it is an issue which really unites this House and makes our voice stronger.

I want very briefly to touch on four points relating to the budget. The first is the size of the budget. I must begin by saying that the Commission’s proposal is not sufficient to finance all the political ambitions that the European Union has set. This is very clear. We have to be aware that the procedure for the next multiannual financial framework is taking place in a very difficult context. We have two challenges – confidence in the European Union and the ability of the European Union to solve these problems, and the need to make fiscal cuts and achieve fiscal consolidation at national level.

But let us see what the rationale for the European budget is. Firstly, it is not generating a deficit. This means that all the rationale for consolidating national budgets due to overspending in previous years does not hold true at European level. Furthermore, the European budget does what national budgets cannot do in these difficult times. This is an investment budget. It does everything that the national budgets are not able to do because of constraints.

Secondly, regarding confidence in the European Union, this budget has a meaning because of leverage, the additional funds that it attracts into investment in the Member States. Ninety-four per cent of the budget goes back to the Member States, and it attracts several times more investment. So a cut of one euro by the European budget would mean a cut of several euros for national, regional, agricultural and competition policies.

We have to be clear when we speak about the size of the budget. We hear very often from representatives of governments that citizens will not accept a higher European budget. We have to point out to them that we have the same voters. Citizens expect European institutions and national institutions to work together and to put forward a mechanism that will propose an exit from the economic crisis and the creation of growth and jobs, using all the instruments both at national and European level. So I would not set national institutions in opposition to European ones in this case. We have a common interest – we are working for the citizens of the European Union.

If some governments need to go back to basic questions such as whether we need more Europe, whether we can do something better at European level than at national level, and whether we are able to set common goals and to fulfil them, then we are ready to re-enter this debate if it is not clear for some governments.

Of course – and Mr Böge mentioned the flexibility of the budget – in a constrained budget, flexibility is not a technical term. It refers to the possibility of really deploying resources in the most efficient way in order to achieve the goals that we have set.

I will say a few words about the priorities and content of the budget. We have the traditional policies here, but we have to make sure that for the next seven years the European budget stimulates growth, the creation of growth and the creation of jobs across Europe. This is the function of the European budget. We are ready to take on board all ideas relating to better spending – to a more efficient spending of the European budget – but we need this budget in order to create jobs and growth, especially for young people. We have on many occasions heard the President of the Commission speaking in this House about youth and employment.

Finally, just one sentence about the procedure. I want to say here in the plenary something that we have said many times to the presidencies. The MFF considers two procedures: the consent procedure for MFF-related issues and the codecision procedure for nearly 70 legal-basis documents. We do not want to see the Council taking the decision on the codecision procedure, which is the right of Parliament. We will insist on the right of this House to negotiate properly with the Member States and with the Council on all the documents related to codecision.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Kalfin. My comment to Mr Böge applies to you as well.

  Alain Lamassoure, Chair of the Committee on Budgets (substitute rapporteur, Jean-Luc Dehaene). − (FR) Mr President, thank you for your kind words about our delegation.

President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, in addition to what our rapporteurs have said, I would like to highlight two crucial points for Parliament.

First of all, as far as Parliament is concerned, there can be no agreement on the multiannual financial framework without a political agreement on resources reform: an agreement on the principle of this reform, on the adjustments to the correction mechanisms, on the new own resources and on the calendar for implementation.

Everyone agrees. No democrat can continue to defend the European budget’s current financing system. The rebates that certain countries receive are not just. They simply reflect old balances of power. The annual decision-making procedure is devoid of any political debate and any parliamentary control. None of us here today, irrespective of the institution to which we belong, can explain to the voters how their national contribution is calculated.

Eighteen months ago, the mere mention of this topic was seen as utopian. Today, the burden of proof lies with those who defend the status quo. We must thank the Commission and the Cypriot Presidency for that. Unfortunately, the real negotiations on the substance of the reform have not really begun. There is still a huge amount of work to be done to reach a global agreement on the multiannual framework in a month. That is a key point for Parliament.

The second key point that I will mention is the preservation of budgetary unity. Last week’s European Council gave President Van Rompuy a mandate to develop the idea of – and I quote – ‘a fiscal capacity’ for the euro area at the December European Council. It stated that it would not be tied in any way to the negotiations on the EU budget.

I have to say this: for us, this issue completely overlaps today’s negotiations as we are talking about exactly the same thing. We are talking about the same thing when it comes to spending. According to those who promote this idea, we would give additional assistance to the Member States that are applying tough fiscal consolidation measures. Excellent. We can reinvent the Cohesion Fund or the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

We are talking about the same thing when it comes to revenue. If the revenue from this new fund comes from national contributions, then the countries that finance the fund would clearly use it as a pretext to freeze or even reduce their current contribution to the EU budget. If we think about the own resources that would be directly involved, again they will come from our EU budget.

Finally, we are talking about the same thing when it comes to the calendar. We are told: ‘it is an idea for the future, do not worry’. Of course, it will not apply on 1 January 2013, but I imagine that in the midst of the debt crisis, the European Council is not dropping everything to meet in order to take decisions that would apply after 2020, in other words, that would be applied by our successors’ successors. We are thus talking about the same calendar.

That is why, and I must be clear on this, the European Parliament will not give its agreement on the multiannual framework if it does not have a guarantee that all funds that may be created to strengthen European solidarity are integrated in the EU budgetary procedure. That is the basic principle of budgetary unity.

There may be annexed budgets, annexed tables. There may be special funding for certain policies. What we cannot accept, however, is for the European budget to be frozen in time, like some sort of historical monument, at the symbolic figure of 1 %, and for all of the funds that are needed for new requirements to come from intergovernmental sources, avoiding any form of appropriate parliamentary control.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, let me first thank you for the invitation to participate in this important debate. We all know how critical it is that we get the future multiannual financial framework right.

The Council attaches the highest importance to the timely conclusion of this agreement. It will give the Union the means to act and the capacity to implement its policies. The timing of the agreement is crucial, but so is the quality. We also welcome the very close cooperation on this issue with this Parliament. I am particularly grateful to Mr Lamassoure and the two co-rapporteurs for this file, Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin, for their commitment to this dossier and for their determination to ensure that we reach an outcome which is acceptable to both institutions.

The Cyprus Presidency has attached particular importance to continuing the practice of meeting regularly with you, and we will continue to do so until we have an agreement. I would also like to thank Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene and Ms Anna Jensen for their work on the revenue side. The Cyprus Presidency is also working very closely with the President of the European Council as the dossier moves up to the level of the Heads of State and Government.

Over the last few years, the European Union and its Member States have taken important steps in response to the challenges raised by the economic and financial crisis. Looking to the future, the next MFF must ensure that the European Union’s budget is geared to lifting Europe out of the crisis in a sustainable way. We all agree that the budget must act as a catalyst for growth and jobs across Europe, in particular by leveraging productive and human capital investments. Within the future multiannual financial framework, spending needs to be mobilised in order to support growth, employment, competitiveness and convergence, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy.

At the same time we are all aware of the constraints under which we are working. At a time of exceptional fiscal discipline it is essential that the future MFF reflects the consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring their deficits and debt onto a more sustainable path. We must ensure that every euro spent brings European added value and that particular attention is given under the future MFF to the quality of spending.

The work is advancing well. You have seen the revised version of the negotiating box which we produced for the General Affairs Council in September. We also had an informal discussion in the margins of the General Affairs Council last week in Luxembourg. Your contribution through your representatives on that occasion was highly appreciated.

Later this week we will issue a revised version of the negotiating box. This will put forward an overall approach which will provide a range of figures for various qualitative elements in order to make proposals for the qualitative issues which are linked to the various spending areas. Concerning own resources, the Presidency yesterday released a non-paper to stimulate the discussion, particularly on the very sensitive issue of corrections. Discussions are of course continuing within the Council, and I am therefore not able, at this stage, to give you a clearer position on how the debate on the MFF or own resources is likely to evolve, but the Cyprus Presidency remains confident that, together with Parliament, we will soon be able to outline the parameters of agreement with greater certainty.

As you know, the President of the European Council has convened a Special European Council on 22/23 November and has announced that he is ready to prolong the meeting, should it prove necessary. The Cyprus Presidency very much shares this objective, and it is with this in mind that we are continuing to work intensively with all the Member States and yourselves in the run-up to the November meeting.

Mr President, honourable Members, we have been following closely your discussions on the interim report drawn up by Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin on which you will be voting later. I wish to thank both of them for their work on this report. It contains a number of important points, which we will bring to the attention of Member States. The same applies to the revenue side and own resources, Mr Dehaene’s report and the work of Ms Anne Jensen. I want to thank them, too, for their excellent work and cooperation. We have had throughout – and we hope that this will continue – an outstanding level of cooperation with committee chairman Mr Lamassoure and the whole negotiating team of the European Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you personally, Mr President, for your personal involvement and assistance and, most of all, your strong commitment to providing the European Union with the most important instrument in our hands for living up to our ambitions for growth and jobs for the young generation, in order for all of us to honour the contract between generations. Achieving the best possible result on the MFF for the common good of Europe is not just a priority of the Cyprus Presidency, it is a joint endeavour involving this Parliament as well as the Commission and the European Council.

Following the award of the Nobel Prize to the European Union, we must more than ever show European citizens that we are able to unite around a fundamental part of the European project by doing everything to make the European Union more relevant, to prove that the European Union is part of the solution and to offer to each EU citizen a better future. I look forward to hearing your views on this issue.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, firstly we would like to thank you for the opportunity to respond to the European Parliament’s interim report on the next financial framework.

We all agree that this proposal is probably the most important item on the agenda of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Through the decision on the MFF we are clearly sending a message to the outside world on whether we are able to deliver on Europe 2020, have enough resources to fund our common policies and can play our important role on the international stage.

We are also all aware that, for the first time, the multiannual financial framework is being negotiated under the new treaties. Both Janusz Lewandowski and myself have been strong supporters of the clear will of Parliament to exercise its right fully. I would like to thank the Cyprus and Danish Presidencies for having established a very good framework and excellent cooperation with Parliament’s negotiating team and with the Commission. I would say, in particular, that the informal exchange of views before the last General Affairs Council was very important in this respect.

As you know, the General Affairs Council is the place where the discussions on the MFF are taking place. It is where Janusz and I have been defending the Commission’s proposals and where there is also active involvement of the European Parliament in the whole process.

We have studied your interim report in great detail and we very much support your starting point that this is an investment budget. We have to repeat this message again and again, because this is the message we have sometimes lost in the negotiations and in the Europe-wide discussions. We have a very strong argument on our side, because even the European Council recognised the catalysing role of the EU budget when it adopted the Compact for growth and jobs in June.

If you allow me, I shall make a couple of comments on the more horizontal issues before I hand over to my colleague Janusz Lewandowski, who handles all budget questions for the Commission.

First, on the question of the volume of the budget, we are convinced that our proposal of 1.08 % of GNI represents a credible budget and is a balanced figure which would enable us to stabilise the financing of the CAP and the cohesion policy and allow for a noticeable increase in the EU 2020 strategy priorities. We very much appreciate the focus Parliament has put on the improved quality of the spending of the EU budget, because we would like to achieve a qualitative leap in terms of EU funding and European added value. We would like to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and simplification of their delivery.

On the issue of the application of macro-economic conditionality, I take note of the report’s opposition to the Commission’s proposal, and I would just like to underline that the Commission’s proposal has been conceived not as coercive measures but rather to incentivise structural reforms and thus optimise effectiveness and absorption capacity. They are not meant to penalise the Member States or regions that need financial support most urgently, but rather to ensure that precious capital will actually help address the very deficiencies identified in country-specific recommendations.

On specific points raised in the report on administrative expenditure, I can confirm that the 5 % staff reduction over a period of five years is a major effort in the face of the crisis. It is an effort to which all institutions and agencies should contribute.

Finally, the issue of timing. I know that most of us in this Chamber are convinced that we need a decision before the end of the year so that we can continue with efficient spending after 1 January 2014.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me start with the own resources issue. I would like to thank the European Parliament right away for giving real impetus to the reforms and discussions. After the unhappy and rapid end of previous attempts, it was the European Parliament, through its resolution, and Alain Lamassoure personally, who again initiated the attempt to reform the revenue side. Alain was the person most insistent at the time that we should go ahead with a reform of the revenue side.

Parliament’s interim report contains a very forceful message – namely the unity of the budget. Unity can be understood in different dimensions, but it is essential to understand the unity of the European budget as the complementary nature of expenditure and revenue. Expenditure and revenue should reinforce each other and not stand in each other’s way. So we are agreed as to the deficiencies of the present system and the remedies. It is important to know that the Commission today decided to authorise enhanced cooperation on a Financial Transaction Tax. So the ball is now in play, as it is also with the VAT system which will replace the current – very complex – statistical VAT system.

To complete the revenue side of the story: if one wants – and as London, for example, has said we need – a more transparent, simple and fair system of revenue, then we have the system of annual corrections, which is very transparent, simple and fair for everybody.

I will now make a few points on horizontal issues, starting with flexibility. If there are more constraints, we need more flexibility. That is clear. What is less easy to foresee are unforeseen events, so therefore the emphasis on flexibility in our package has been increased. There is also a very clear signal in this respect in your interim report, and I would like to underscore the use of the so-called contingency margin. This has been useful on several occasions under the current financial framework – for example, the economic recovery plan was made possible through contingency margin decisions – but we are basing this on the acquis accumulated in this financial period and the experience of this financial period. So we are leaving things open on how to shape flexibility properly in the 2014-2020 budget.

On the so-called ‘large-scale projects’, our decision to place Galileo in and GMS ITER outside was based on the different nature of those large-scale projects. But what is essential is to ensure their proper financing, perhaps by ring-fencing, so again here we are in agreement. We are also in agreement, I am happy to inform you, as to the infamous ‘reste-à-liquider’ (RAL). RALs are generated through annual budgeting, and the only real solution to the issue of these outstanding RAL commitments is through proper annual budgets and not through artificial devices that kill the predictability of commitments.

A final point concerns simplification, which is a universal request that has come from every corner of the European Union and on which we have to deliver. We have to deliver, and we have a new Financial Regulation. Inga Gräßle was a very tough partner in this negotiation, but it was very much conducive to the final goal of simplification. Now, the second stage is to ensure against the propensity to make it more complex at the level of 57 spending programmes. So we need a scan of what is sectoral, in order not to allow a watering-down of the simplification proposal under the Financial Regulation. With such important and experienced players as today’s speakers, I am sure that we can offer the European Union a decent 2014-2020 budget that provides predictability of investment for that seven-year period.

  Marietta Giannakou, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. − (EL) Mr President, the multiannual financial framework will, quite rightly, remain in place for seven years. However, the information coming to us about the negotiations with the Council is not at all encouraging. It appears that the Council is asking for significant reductions which are out of step with the actual state of the Union and the economic crisis, because the multiannual financial framework can help indirectly.

As regards the ‘Global Europe’ arm of the External Action Service, the European Commission has rightly proposed higher funding, and this funding is needed because the Union has to play its international role and respond to unforeseen political or other situations which arise every day. In other words, there has to be the scope and potential for the Union to use all of the available instruments to fund various interventions in relation to the countries concerned, particularly those where democracy is being restored, and to fund the External Action Service itself.

Mr President, Parliament ought to give full support to an increase in the multiannual financial framework, exactly as proposed by this House, and ought to insist on it, because if we retain the framework as the Council wants it, this will give an unacceptable message to the citizens of Europe as to how the Council of the European Union would address the substantial problems facing the EU.

  Charles Goerens, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. − (FR) Mr President, Malthusian theory, according to which we can only live in prosperity if others life in poverty, has had its day. The current stalemate poses a real risk to our commitment to the official development assistance of the European Union as a whole.

Our Committee on Development is very aware of this and is calling on the governments of the Member States to strongly oppose any move to treat official development assistance as a balancing item in this difficult economic climate. This would undeniably diminish the European Union’s capacity to be a strategic player in the areas of cooperation and humanitarian action, areas in which it is undoubtedly the largest, and by far the most effective, global player. It would sow doubts among our partners about the EU’s reliability in its role as a cornerstone for those who are still unable to manage by themselves.

Yesterday we had the opportunity to set out our ambitions in the debate on the Agenda for Change. Today is the first test of our consistency: we must follow up our statements with actions by refusing to lower our guard against the challenges that we will face over the coming decade.

  Syed Kamall, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. − Mr President, so here it is. Governments across the EU are having to tighten their belts and reduce their debt and reduce their deficit, but the solution here seems to be to increase the debt and spend even more taxpayers’ money to increase that debt; to continue with wasteful subsidies rather than focusing on the better use of existing resources.

At the Committee on International Trade we asked for a better use of existing resources to help SMEs in the EU to access markets overseas, in order to facilitate trade. We also asked for help for entrepreneurs in developing countries to meet EU standards so that they can access our markets, create growth back in their own countries and reduce their reliance on aid.

Overall, I think we should remember that spending is only one very small part of the picture. How do we return to growth? Let us ask the question: how many large EU companies which compete at the top level globally have been established in the last 20 years? Where are the Googles and the Facebooks of Europe? We should focus on completing the single market, promote entrepreneurs and make way for growth and prosperity.

  Jan Mulder, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. − (NL) The most important thing for the Committee on Budgetary Control, of course, is that the money is well spent. To that end, it is necessary that the Court of Auditors gives a positive DAS for once, a positive statement of assurance. We hope that shortly, in November, the DAS will not turn out to be negative as it has been on so many occasions.

The Committee on Budgetary Control strongly believes that the means to achieve this is the Member State declaration. Someone in each Member State must take political responsibility for the EU money that is spent. The new Financial Regulation that we are probably going to approve today provides for this. We in the Committee on Budgetary Control think that the Commission must grasp this opportunity to encourage Member States to issue their national declarations and to treat Member States that do so more favourably than those which do not.

Hence:

T

he stick and the carrot, as they say in English.

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. − (FR) Mr President, the keystone of the European Union, the dimension that was lauded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, is solidarity. However, there can be no solidarity without money, without a budget. We know today that over the past 14 years the national budgets have increased, on average, more rapidly than the European Union budget, and now the Member States want the EU budget to decrease more rapidly then theirs.

Moreover, President Barroso wants the social model to be the spearhead of our competitiveness. The International Monetary Fund tells us that the austerity policy that we are implementing is counterproductive. Day after day, we ask the Member States to carry out structural reforms. The first of these involves investment in human capital. I do not like that expression but it is what it says. Our greatest asset is the quality of our men and women.

In that regard, in the next budget, if we do not succeed in building a wall to consolidate social spending, allocating 25 % of cohesion policy funds to the European Social Fund, we will be on the wrong track and we will not be preparing the European Union to cope with the challenges that lie ahead.

In the same spirit, we must defend the programme for the most deprived persons and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

  Edit Herczog, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for change and for unity. This is my main message to you. The time has come to create a framework for growth, a structure that will drive our economy forward. We need investment, a uniform internal and external market, and legislation to promote growth. By taking significant steps, Europe can restore confidence. In the spirit of the 2020 strategy, as a member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I would also particularly like to highlight the importance of creating financial resources for investment as part of industrial policy. We cannot allow the cannibalising of research and development funds to resource the ITER, Galileo, and GMES policies to continue.

Independent funding is needed. I completely agree with the Commissioner on this point. We need the COSME Programme, and we need the Connecting Europe Facility. Young workers will only be able to find jobs if Europe is strengthened by a new industrial policy. The greatest loss that has occurred with the financial crisis is this lost generation of young people. It is our duty to help them into work. Commissioner, we will support your efforts in this regard.

  Marisa Matias, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (PT) Mr President, it is my responsibility to work with colleagues on proposals regarding the environment and public health. We would urge that, in the current crisis, public health and the environment are not forgotten in the multiannual financial framework, which unfortunately seems to be the case. We therefore request increased financing for the proposals intended to strengthen public health in Europe. We request a 25 % increase in the amounts intended for climate policy, which is so important. We request that we go beyond the European Commission’s proposal with regard to the preservation of nature and conservation of biodiversity in the LIFE programme. We also request financing for civil protection. We are making these requests because the multiannual financial framework is the test that will determine whether or not the European institutions have learnt from the crisis. It is not only the amount that is in question, but also the policy orientation of this amount. What we need to know is whether the future will be austerity or solidarity, sanctions or social progress. That is the question.

We are currently experiencing exceptional times and, in exceptional times, you cannot continue with the same policies as before. We cannot continue in the same vein and we cannot allow a Europe to develop that will threaten the very European project.

  Brian Simpson, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. − Mr President, I speak this morning on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and, on your advice, I will focus on two crucial issues. Firstly, the need to stimulate growth and jobs is the cornerstone of the EU’s recovery plan and its 2020 vision, and transport and the provision of much needed infrastructure can be crucial in delivering jobs and growth as part of those plans.

Secondly, we welcome the Commission’s proposal on the Connecting Europe Facility as providing an effective tool in delivering cross-border transport infrastructure that is both sustainable and achievable. Every transport minister I meet wants help from the EU to build up a European added-value transport infrastructure from within their Member States, but clearly there is often a breakdown of communication between the transport ministers and the finance ministers.

In conclusion I reiterate that the Commission’s proposal is warmly welcomed by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

IN THE CHAIR: ISABELLE DURANT
Vice-President

  Andrey Kovatchev, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. − (BG) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the EP’s Committee on Regional Development feels that the funding of the cohesion policy should be retained at least at the level of the 2007-2014 period, which is the absolute minimum and should therefore be the bottom line that cannot be crossed in future EP debates on this subject.

The multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the annual budget of the European Union are investment tools that contribute to economic growth, increase competition, raise the standard of living in the regions and, of course, help to create jobs.

From both the political left and right, we very often hear the lofty speeches about needing ‘more Europe’. We must not be hypocritical; we must not say, on the one hand, that the answer to the crisis is ‘more Europe’ while, on the other hand, some EU Heads of State or Government agree to cut the funding for this ‘more Europe’, especially its cohesion policy, which will mean only that we will have to compromise our objectives in the 2020 strategy.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am calling on you today to adopt the EP’s interim report on the MFF and to defend it before the Council.

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

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FI) Madam President, I would like to ask the representative of the Committee on Regional Development directly whether this substantial loss applies to countries like Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Portugal and Spain, and what will happen for poor areas of rich countries, like Wales, North and East Finland, and the poorest areas of Poland. Will these areas suffer terribly because of this?

  Andrey Kovatchev (PPE), Blue-card answer. – Madam President, I am not sure if I understood my honourable colleague’s question very clearly. Cohesion policy benefits both: the beneficiaries of cohesion money and the recipients of this money, so I think both sides are beneficiaries. Member States who need these solidarity instruments also benefit, but the countries which contribute more to the European budget also benefit from this money. So we need to present this in the right way to European citizens, the taxpayers: there are no losers or winners from cohesion policy, but the whole Union – all 500 million people in our continent –benefit from cohesion policy. I hope this answers your question.

  Paolo De Castro, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which I have the honour of chairing and for which I drafted the opinion on the interim report, clearly expressed the wish that the common agricultural policy budget should be frozen in real, not nominal terms, as proposed by the European Commission. Although this is evidently the majority position, at this sensitive point in the negotiations I am in favour of giving full support to the own-initiative report drawn up by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin, who have done an excellent job, providing Parliament with a strong, cohesive and united negotiating position.

However, I should stress that were further cuts to be made to the common agricultural policy budget, it would be very difficult to reach an agreement on reform. All of the political groups in the committee have always stressed their wish not to have a final vote on the reform reports until there is clarity on the budget question. Indeed, the budget must be equal to the challenges posed by the agriculture of the future.

  João Ferreira, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. – (PT) Madam President, the proposed multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the years 2014-2020 represents a reduction in relative terms by comparison with the current MFF. This financial perspective will not result in economic and social cohesion, but in greater divergence. The intolerable cuts that some in the Council wish to impose mean that the Commission’s proposal is not sufficient or even acceptable. With regard to fisheries and maritime affairs, the proposal makes provision for an overall allocation of EUR 6.685 billion for the main financing instrument in the sector, namely the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. This represents an annual average of EUR 955 million for the duration of the financial framework, which is even below the amount set aside for 2013, the final year of the current financial framework. The sums set aside for each of the years covered by the future financial framework all fall below the amount set aside for 2013. In other words, even though the current multiannual financial framework is highly insufficient, the proposal for the next one is even worse. The proposal also suggests that the already limited amounts for cohesion should be diverted to other purposes. This suggestion is reiterated by this report, which is sufficient reason for its rejection.

  Morten Løkkegaard, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. − (DA) Thank you, Madam President. As the spokesperson for the Committee on Culture, I have had the difficult task, at a time when we are trying to save, of calling for more funding in the areas represented by the committee, namely young people, education and culture, as well as the cultural sector. Fortunately, we have been able in our statement to lean on the Commission and the Commissioner in the area where a very ambitious plan has been proposed – an ambitious proposal – and naturally we are pleased about it, on behalf of the committee. This concerns the programmes for education, training, young people and sport, as well as the creative and cultural sector; if all goes well, they both have a chance of receiving a boost in a time of savings, and naturally this is also necessary so that we can have the necessary growth and contribute to the 2020 strategy. Today I must appeal to the Member States that have also made their feelings clear on the Commissioner’s motion and on our support, but now we must see what the finance ministers will say about it, and in any case I must urge the Council to support it too, when we come to the difficult negotiations concerning the budget.

  Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. − (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, where the Council and the Member States are concerned, I often have the feeling, well, I am often reminded of a monitor lizard. Monitor lizards have forked tongues. Perhaps that is too complex a metaphor for the Member States, so let me simply say that they have a split personality. They want to impose more and more new tasks on the European Union – and to some extent we support that with our priorities – but they are not willing to equip the EU with the capacities it needs, in terms of adequate personnel, to perform these tasks.

I have heard our fellow Members talking about the different policy areas, such as agriculture, as Mr De Castro has mentioned, but also cultural policy, research, environmental policy, social policy and regional development. These are tremendously important areas for all of the Member States and for the regions which we represent. What strikes me, however, is what the Member States are not doing. They are not considering who is meant to do the work on all of these policies. Who is supposed to process the applications? Who will ensure that the projects are implemented properly and funding is channelled to where it is needed? For that to happen, we need enough staff, and these staff must be properly qualified, highly skilled employees. We need the very best people we can find! We need a multicultural workforce from many different European Union countries, with more geographical balance and outstanding language skills. What does the Council want? What do the Member States want? They want to make cuts here!

Unless we have an appropriate financial framework for administrative expenditure, we will not be in a position to work on any policy areas at all. With that in mind, I urge you, President-in-Office, to ensure that the Commission’s proposal on the staff regulations is accepted so that we have an appropriate framework that enables us to carry out this work!

  Rafał Trzaskowski, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. − Madam President, we have to keep the pressure up within our respective political families so that the timetable is kept and we have an agreement on the multiannual financial perspective. We cannot tackle the crisis without the means needed to fuel growth in Europe. First things must come first.

We cannot meet our pledge for more Europe without a budget commensurate with our ambitions and now a little institutional twist. We have to realise these ambitions with one budget – with one unified budget – in order to safeguard the prerogatives of this House and the democratic scrutiny of the whole process. We have to make it clear that all expenditure should be kept within the EU framework. As Alain Lamassoure has said, we do not need to reinvent the wheel; we have to fight for an ambitious multiannual framework, but we cannot do it effectively while simultaneously thinking about new budgets or new institutions. These ideas may not only weaken the progress of this House but also lead to the fragmentation of the Union.

  Inês Cristina Zuber, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. – (PT) Madam President, in the discussion within the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, it was unanimously concluded that the current proposal for the next multiannual financial framework does not reflect the importance of increasing investment in this area, inter alia, as a necessary and sensible response so that social rights are not further harmed in times of economic crisis. Rather than reducing financing for those specific vertical policies aimed at women’s rights, at this crucial moment we need greater intervention in these areas, by maintaining specific programmes such as the Daphne programme, by keeping gender equality as a specific objective in the Rights and Citizenship programme, by continuing to earmark funding for the European Institute for Gender Equality, and by financing small-scale women’s organisations which are carrying out crucial work in this area. In this area of women’s rights, as in other areas, what fundamentally stands out is the Commission’s desire to reduce the financing in this framework, by allocating only 0.37 % of the EU’s gross national income to the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion. This is a road that will add greater divergence to the already catastrophic policies of the European Union.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I think that Parliament is being unfairly accused, in this debate, of proposing a straightforward budget increase.

We are not talking about expenditure, but about something political. This is a profoundly political debate; it is a debate about expenditure ceilings and political objectives, and the amount of shared resources – resources belonging to the European Union as a whole – that should be used to finance the political priorities that we, in this Chamber, have set as our objectives for the coming years and which are fundamentally linked to the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and employment.

I find entirely natural that we should be focusing on how to readjust these priorities in line with the scant resources available, because Europe is in the midst of a severe financial crisis, but it makes no sense for us to be shooting ourselves in the foot and blocking the only common instrument we have to carry out our priorities.

As we know, the Council intends to cut the proposal put forward by the Commission, which, itself, is already insufficient. We therefore wish to make clear to the Council and the Commission that, if there is going to be less money – because, ultimately, the Council agreement will make reductions – then we need to have as much flexibility as possible.

Unfortunately, a heavily cut and inflexible budget will make it impossible for Parliament to say yes to the forthcoming proposal.

  Patrizia Toia, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a budget is the programme and charter of an institution since it shows what it is, what it does and above all what it intends to do in the future. We are faced with a crucial choice between a budget for mere survival or subsistence – with a little less for everyone – or a courageous budget with selective decisions, with investment in job creation, innovation, youth, in other words in the future of the European Union and its development role. It must be emphasised that, as has been stated very clearly by Mr Kalfin among others, today Europe can do what the individual Member States cannot do for the economy, for regional development and for the regions – where social cohesion will either be strengthened or die – in other words, for the lives of the very citizens we mentioned.

The great European choices are today in danger of being suffocated by accounting-based disputes – within the Council and elsewhere – between net beneficiary countries and net contributors. It should be underlined that this as a false problem, because it is easy, taking account of what happened in the past, to demonstrate with figures and numbers, rather than with words, that the contributor countries actually gained, often more than the others, from the convergence of economies and growth.

The Council is currently working to add figures to the various headings. The war of positions has started: statements, stances taken by certain countries that view the budget as a mere expense item to be cut mercilessly, and even used to appease anti-European sentiment, easy to fuel at a time of crisis. This is a mistaken position that does not help the integration that we are struggling to achieve in other areas.

As many of us have pointed out, our Europe is still incomplete and imperfect. We adopted a stability plan that was supposed to include development, but we have stabilised so much that we are in recession. Let us at least take the opportunity offered by this budget and this multiannual financial framework to make choices that go in the right direction.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Thank you, Madam President. Flexibility has been an important subject for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, but so has new own resources. We can see from the paper that came from the presidency yesterday, which serves as an illustration, that there are great problems with own resources. It is not a transparent system, and it is not a fair system. It should be changed, and it has also not been planned very well. However, I fear that the Cypriot Presidency is placing a great deal of emphasis on net contributions. This is the way of thinking that we must move away from. The expenditure that we put into the EU budget must reflect genuine needs and sensible policies that we implement at European level, not what the Member States should get back. To a certain extent, this is what will decide it, and so we will readily save on common expenditure on research so that we do not ultimately have to touch expenditure on agriculture and that lovely money that easily comes back to the national coffers of the finance ministries. It must not be like this. The report by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin contains six points concerning new own resources. What we propose is a procedure so that we can achieve a better system, and I would like to propose that the Council read these six points and take note of them.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner Lewandowski, President-in-Office, first, let me say that having listened to the speech by the Cypriot President-in-Office, I am shocked to hear how little passion it conveys for Europe. I simply do not get the impression that your heart is in it and that your proposals for the next multiannual financial framework reflect any genuine determination to work for the future of Europe.

We are all in the same situation in Europe. On the one hand, we understand that the Member States must consolidate their budgets. At the same time, we all know that we need to stimulate sustainable growth and that this is in our shared interests. We need to combat climate change, we have to move our economy towards a low-carbon pathway, and we have to offer our young people new prospects and, with that, new hope, which means building confidence in the European project as well. However, we cannot do so if we allow the budget to contract to the level now being proposed by the net contributors on the Council. That sends out the wrong political signal and does not reflect the spirit of Europe.

Why is it so important to have our own resources and above all to introduce proper regulation of the financial markets and expect them to contribute to overcoming the crisis? Because this is just. The banks must shoulder their share of the responsibility. It should not simply be the taxpayers and ordinary people who have to cover the costs of the crisis. The banks must make their contribution as well, since they speculate on the financial markets. That is why the Financial Transaction Tax is the right way forward politically and economically. It is a contribution to a social Europe and it is needed to fund the European budget.

Mr Lewandowski has now cleverly proposed a system of incentives. The Member States would pay a lower percentage of their GDP if they participated in a Financial Transaction Tax. One-third would go to the Member States themselves and two-thirds would accrue to the EU budget. This would be a win-win situation for the Member States and would be in Europe’s interests as a whole. Hopefully, the Council will show some movement on this issue.

Let me make one final comment, if I may: a eurozone budget has also been proposed in the political discussions. I think there are indeed good reasons for additional incentives, also in relation to the European budget, but this is about the indivisibility of the EU budget. We will not relinquish any rights of democratic control over the budget. This issue has arisen before, and regardless of whatever bright ideas some heads of state and government may have, you can be sure that we will defend our parliamentary rights with self-confidence here, and that we will continue to campaign for a genuinely and truly democratic Europe, and that applies to the budget as well.

  Richard Ashworth, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I congratulate both our rapporteurs and I would say that there is a great deal within their reports which we can support. However, there are three points which I want to make: firstly on the question of the size of the budget. It is important that we reflect the difficult times being experienced by the Member State governments, and for that reason we are calling for a freeze at 1 % GNI.

Secondly, on the issue of own resources: we remain open to suggestions, but we are not persuaded by the case either for a financial transaction tax or for value added tax. Thirdly, on the question of the rebate, can I remind this House that this is simply a matter of mathematics and not one of sentiment, emotion or politics.

Finally, I recognise the efforts which are being made towards resolving the crisis in the European economy. However, with resources strictly limited, is it not time that we revaluated our spending priorities for the European Union budget? It is clear that we are going to have to take tough choices in the future, and I want to stress to this House that those choices must be based on the target of achieving true, European added value.

  Jürgen Klute, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, first of all, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the two rapporteurs. I think that overall, the report establishes a good position for this House in this heated debate between Parliament and the Council.

From my Group’s perspective, I would point out, first and foremost, that austerity policies in recent years have obviously failed and that countries which have run such policies and are under pressure to make savings have seen a loss of growth and tax revenue but also an increase in poverty and unemployment. Cuts in the MFF would mean the continuation and entrenchment of these policies for the next seven years, as a substantial proportion of the EU budget goes back to the Member States where it is used to support economic development, research and education. For that reason, we cannot and will not vote for such cuts in the MFF.

Let me take an example from history. My country, the Federal Republic of Germany, faced a similar deep-seated crisis after the Second World War. Then in 1953, the London debt agreement was adopted, which not only cancelled Germany’s debts; it also, and above all, aimed to provide clear and tangible impetus for economic growth through programmes initiated under the Marshall Plan. This helped to bring Germany out of its post-war indebtedness and paved the way for its economy to develop in the way that it has.

So our view is that we cannot make cuts: we must expand the budget and develop it further, and thus ensure that growth can help us overcome this crisis.

I fully support Helga Trüpel’s detailed comments about own resources and the Financial Transaction Tax. We support this position too and would welcome rather more commitment from Parliament to moving forward on the question of own resources and implementation of the Financial Transaction Tax, as this is an important issue for this House.

  Claudio Morganti, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this interim report on the multiannual financial framework offers some interesting points that we agree with, such as the need to maintain expenditure at a moderate and sustainable level and the need for greater flexibility in the use of resources. The crucial point, however, is how to finance all of this. The current mechanism is not sustainable and introduction of new forms of correction and compensation for the Member States is not acceptable.

In the last decade Italy’s average annual net contribution has been about EUR 5 billion. Northern Italy must at the same time support a country that is falling apart and a Europe that acts only in the interests of Germany and a few other countries. The United Kingdom, Germany and other countries have obtained corrections they now wish to retain. This is not possible, unless we are also to introduce a correction for the Po Valley area, in order to compensate for what the citizens of Northern Italy contribute to central government in Rome and to Brussels, with very little in return.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Madam President, yesterday Mr Lewandowski spoke about the 2013 budget; today we are discussing the budgets for the years after that. Fortunately, the British Prime Minister has already threatened to use his veto on the ‘billions budget’ and I advise our Dutch Premier, Mr Rutte, to do the same. Why?

To teach the Commission that it cannot threaten national parliaments with impunity. To remind the Commission that it is those same national parliaments that make the decisions on the European purse and not the Euro-clique here. To call for an end, finally, to all kinds of committees and agencies that do not contribute anything useful to national objectives. Above all, to let the Commission know that it must not imagine that European taxes will ever happen.

The Commission had better listen. Fortunately the Netherlands as a Member State can exercise its veto, just like the United Kingdom. As far as the Freedom Party (PVV) is concerned, the sooner it does this, the better.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, the report by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin reflects and highlights the priorities decided by Parliament in the report of the Special Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Resources for a Sustainable European Union after 2013 (SURE report). The European Union budget represents an indispensable tool in solving the effects of financial crises. We are discussing here a budget of which 94 % is reinvested in Member States and which needs to be used for creating economic prosperity through investments and creation of new jobs. The austerity measures were necessary, but to be effective they need to be complemented by measures that catalyse the economy. For this reason the budget enlargement is indispensable and freezing ceilings at their 2013 level is not an option. The perception of the Union’s budget and the gridlock created in the new multiannual financial negotiations can only be changed by an in-depth examination of the own resources system. A new system for collecting VAT and the taxes on financial transactions are two innovative directions that must benefit from our unconditional support.

Referring to our activities in the European Parliament I believe that the strategy authorised by the contact group is leading us, in the case of a proposal under the threshold proposed by Parliament, to a negative vote. In the event that there is no certainty that a sufficient number of members will vote against the Council’s decision, there will be a delay unfavourable to the European Union. The strength of the European Parliament is in its co-decision procedure. Trust must be extended to all members of this Parliament so as to allow the normal negotiations within the European political files, horizontal files. It is possible that such an approach will change the position of many Member States.

  Jutta Haug (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the next multiannual financial framework and the amount of funding and the policies we want to finance are the focus of our discussions and disagreements here as we seek to reach a consensus, but this is only one side of the coin, namely the expenditure side. However, we must work on the other side of the coin as well, namely the revenue side. That is nothing new. For almost 20 years, the European Parliament has been calling for a more transparent, fairer and simpler system of own resources. Now, for the first time, we can lend weight to this demand.

In the SURE report last June, we called for a system of own resources which would abolish all of the rebates and make the revenue side of the EU budget completely independent of the contributions made by Member States. The Commission took account of these demands, at least to some extent, by proposing a reform of own resources from valued added tax and the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax. We support this proposal by the Commission, even though it only amounts to a 40 % reform. It is at least a step forward, and what is more, it moves in the right direction.

The European Union has won the Nobel Peace Prize. This was intended to be an expression of gratitude but also an incentive to go further. A more peaceful approach could also be achieved if the constant bean-counting between the net contributors and the net recipients were consigned to the past following a reform of the revenue system. A genuinely European revenue stream would also highlight the European value added of the EU budget. Then this constant small-minded national bean-counting could finally stop.

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Madam President, my UK Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support a great deal of what is in the resolution here today. We support a move to own resources allowing Europe to raise more of its own funding while reducing Member States’ GNI contributions. We support a more flexible budget allowing Parliament to switch spending in-year and, most importantly, allowing end-year under-spends to be rolled over into the next financial year instead of being handed back to Member States. We also support spending on growth and jobs and the objectives of the 2020 strategy.

We also want to see a genuine mid-term review of the MFF budget in 2017 so that the ceilings can be looked at again if and when – as we all hope – growth has returned and austerity is on the retreat.

Where we cannot agree is on the size of the budget. In my own Member State, welfare benefits are being cut, health and education spending is frozen and wages are frozen or declining. It is therefore impossible to justify any significant increase in the EU budget. That is why I want to see a budget that better reflects the tough times that all national governments are facing at this time. However, we can only accept a smaller budget provided we get greater flexibility so that we can deliver on our key priorities.

  Konrad Szymański (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I think that the arguments in this debate are familiar to all of us. Those in favour of a ‘small budget’ stress the need to cut all public spending, while advocates of a ‘large budget’ underline how this expenditure will boost growth for Europe as a whole. What interests me, however, is something entirely different. I would like someone to explain to me how it is that the Christian Democrats and Socialists in this Chamber are talking about a ‘large budget’, while in Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg and, finally, France and Germany, these same political parties intend to cut this budget. Is it not the case that it is very easy for Christian Democrats and Socialists to talk about a large budget in this Chamber, when they know very well that their political interests and a reduction in European Union funding are safeguarded in the Council as a result of the pressure exerted by their own parties? If that is true, the European Parliament risks damaging its reputation and attracting ridicule, while the defence of European solidarity staged here is nothing more than play-acting at negotiations.

  Marta Andreasen (EFD). – Madam President, this House is stretching the meaning of the word ‘investment’ beyond elasticity. Can any MEP claim that the many billion euros of taxpayers’ money spent on the Lisbon Agenda have delivered any return? Let us look at the evidence.

In 2007, EU unemployment was 7.3 %; today it stands at 10.5 %. In Spain, one of the biggest recipients of cohesion funding over recent years, the jobless figure today sits at 25 %. GDP for the European Union has been flat. We should also not forget that the Court of Auditors has not given EU spending an overall clean bill of health for over a decade.

The MFF has been built around a legacy of failed projects, and the 2014-2020 MFF simply seeks to top up those failed projects. Employment comes from new industry and new industry requires capital, flexibility and less red tape – none of which the European Union helps with. The MFF needs a haircut and not a Financial Transaction Tax to pay for more waste.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, the Commission has the audacity to ask for half a billion euros from the Dutch taxpayer because it has a deficit of EUR 10 billion. While Brussels is asking the Netherlands to stick within the 3 % budget norm, it cannot even manage to stay within its own budget.

Madam President, the EU should not exceed its budget. If it does, that is due to the financial mismanagement of this Commission and is not the fault of the Member States. The Commission should be burning with shame. While a new government has been formed in the Netherlands and is trying all manners of ways to scrape millions together, this Commission shamelessly asks for half a billion euros.

The debate here about the long-term financial framework is completely futile if the Commission is still unable to stick to its agreements. This hypocritical attitude of the Commission, combined with its completely unreasonable requirements for the MFF, makes me increasingly hope for a cast-iron veto from more Member States.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to mention four risks which I think are related to the MFF negotiations. Firstly, the decision on the multiannual financial framework is not taken in November. How can we explain to citizens that they cannot count on the EU budget as a catalyst for jobs and growth? We have to make it very clear to the Member States – who will come to the negotiating table to say no – that the Treaty allows us to have the budget even if they block the decision. The only challenge will be to identify the legal basis for launching new investment programmes, and we will find it.

Secondly, corrections. I agree that they are crucial for the process. So far the debate has focused on expenditure. The corrections should be transparent, temporary and few in number. The debate begins only now, and I believe that it would be irresponsible to move to a growing number of national corrections. This will make the decision in November impossible.

Thirdly, the risk of the traditional VAT system – which deserves retirement – not being replaced by a new, feasible system is rather high, so we might end up with an increased role for GNI and a vague commitment to own-resources reform in the future. It would be a shame if we could not afford it any more.

Lastly, on behalf of my committee, let me say regarding cohesion policy that we should not depart from the major mission of the policy, which is investing in growth – but with a view to reducing the structural disparities, which means that the national and regional allocation criteria should respect the Berlin methodology.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I have asked to speak in this final debate in support of amendment 72, initiated and tabled by a number of Members. This amendment refers to direct payments in agriculture and aims to replace the idea of reducing the existing gap with the idea of converging direct payments between the Member States. The difference between the two ideas is very clear and very significant.

This Parliament, through a number of resolutions, has pronounced in favour of equal treatment of Member States in terms of agricultural payments. It seems that the idea is not valid for the moment but perhaps it will be in future. In today’s resolution Parliament effectively gives a mandate to the President of the European Council for future consultations. This mandate is incomplete without the legitimate and well-founded aspirations of Eastern European citizens.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, my colleague Jutta Haug was right when she said that if the Nobel Prize Committee were following the debate here, we might never have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. There are undoubtedly serious tensions between the net contributors and the new Member States, the net beneficiaries. It would be good if what Vice-President Šefčovič said about the seven-year budget being a budget for development and investment were true. I have my doubts, however, when I see the way the future of the Cohesion Fund and Structural Funds is shaping up, and especially their internal organisation. I have to say that this is one of the biggest challenges for the new Member States, given that a great deal of the development and investment that has taken place has come from the Cohesion Fund and Structural Funds.

Lastly, I would like to draw your attention to the case of Hungary. Sadly, the European Commission has planned poorly and without conducting an impact study, and one country, namely Hungary, stands to lose 30 % of its Structural Funds support. This is unacceptable.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, one of the key points in the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework is the agreement on the distribution of resources. In my view, the Berlin methodology used since 1999 to calculate the distribution of European funds among Member States represents a solid and carefully negotiated compromise.

There are concerns, however, since I am now looking at proposals for a reduction in the coefficients for Member States with a gross national income of less than 82 % of the EU average from 4.25 % to 3.3 %. I therefore call upon the Cypriot Presidency to prevent any changes to the coefficients of national prosperity which might result in a restriction on resources for less advanced regions.

Supporting European solidarity means concentrating limited resources in the most needy areas.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I think this morning’s debate could be summarised as both an appeal and a challenge to the European Council. Firstly, an appeal to get the MFF sorted by the end of the year and, secondly, a challenge. Mr Böge, the rapporteur, put this well when he said that, if they want reductions, they had better justify them and tell us where they want them. Is it CAP? Is it cohesion funding? Is it Horizon 2020? And on what basis? Our funding here in Europe is always justified on the basis of adding value. If they can show that it does not add value, then we have no argument, but I think they will find that very difficult to do.

The second point I want to make is that the second part of our discussion this morning is on own resources. I would like to compliment the countries who have introduced the FTT on their enhanced cooperation. Hopefully it will prove successful, so that all countries will join in eventually. That certainly will reduce the need for argument and debate in the future.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, we cannot understand how the Council can assert that the priority continues to be strong, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth when it subsequently states that the Presidency recognises the inevitability of having to reduce the total level of expenditure, and that the Presidency considers that an effort must be made to reduce all headings. Have they already forgotten the Lisbon Strategy objective of becoming the most dynamic and competitive economy by 2010? Can they remember the regrettable state in which we found ourselves in 2010? Are they forgetting that we are setting out a strategy for 2020? Or are these only words? What about the objective of increasing the employment rate to 75 % and increasing investment in research, development and innovation to 3 % of gross national income? What about reducing the number of people at risk of poverty by at least 20 million? Are they not forgetting the basics? The Union budget is not a budget for expenditure, but a budget for investment, which is all the more essential given the difficulties being faced by national budgets.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, the cornerstone of the European Union is the Member States, which make up the European Union and give up some of their powers and financial resources to the European Union. Only the Member States, their governments and their national parliaments are entitled to say how much of their taxpayers’ financial resources are to be handed over for the joint activities of the European Union. At a time when all of the countries of the Union and their citizens are having to make substantial savings, the Commission, too, must make a contribution to the consolidation of Union savings and be flexible in reassessing the priorities in line with the current economic situation.

I personally support solidarity within the European Union and I am convinced that there is a need to look for model solutions not only to bring about a fair redistribution of financial resources, but also to prevent such financial resources being squandered on projects that, in a spirit of solidarity, do not bring the developing parts of Europe bonuses that might help them to achieve economic growth.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the proposed multiannual financial framework is modest. It is too modest and cannot be explained by the crisis and the need to make savings. The budget for the common agricultural policy is 12 % lower in real terms, while the proposed CAP reform reduces its competitiveness and imposes additional objectives for which there is no funding. The report misguidedly proposes dealing with Pillars I and II jointly when assessing the CAP. The Pillar I budget is based on old, historical calculations – on criteria that have long since lost all relevance. The budget for Pillar II is based on objective, coherent criteria. The second pillar is mainly used for rural development and environmental programmes rather than to benefit farmers. Combining these two pillars will lead to erroneous conclusions and I am surprised that it has been suggested.

  Mojca Kleva (S&D). – (SL) Madam President, before us is an exceptionally important document, which is probably among those with the greatest political weight for the next seven years.

By adopting this report on the multiannual financial framework, we have an opportunity to send a clear message to the Council and the Commission.

At this time of crisis, an investment-oriented EU budget must remain sufficiently high to deal with unemployment and stimulate investment, growth and cohesion among Member States.

The EU budget must remain an instrument for coordination and fulfilment of the European Union’s objectives, and must thereby ensure the implementation of investment and development programmes which the Member States would otherwise quickly delete from their national reform programmes in a time of crisis.

I would just like to focus on the issue raised by Mr Vlasák, regarding changes to what are termed national development factors, which are extremely important to cohesion policy; these changes threaten the less-developed eastern region of Slovenia with the possibility of a 40 % loss of cohesion funds.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, we all agree today that the multiannual financial framework is becoming crucially important for the next period, a period which – as everyone has mentioned today – is characterised by high unemployment figures, recession and negative growth rates.

Therefore, although we all understand the needs we are faced with, it is particularly striking that when it comes to the distribution of funds – and I am referring in particular to the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund (and I would like an answer on this from the Commission and from the Presidency, if possible) – we are taking as a guide the economic figures and per capita income for the regions in the years 2009 and 2010. I should explain that this leads to considerable unfairness, because since then we have experienced very rapid changes and unfavourable developments; in Greece, for example, the economy has contracted by about 18.4 %, in other words a figure comparable to that seen in Germany and the United States during the Great Depression.

Is the Commission aware of this unfairness? I know this point has also been raised by the Greek Government. Will we see some progress on this issue?

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, I believe that increasingly the European Parliament must be the European Parliament, not a collection of parliaments of Member States. That is why this interim report – and I commend my colleagues Böge and Kalfin – actually reflects a hugely European dimension to the budget. For too long we have had debates about those who pay and those who benefit. This is not the way we should talk in terms of a European Union budget. Yes, we have to acknowledge difficulties in Member States, but we must insist that the budget of the European Union is for European citizens, for growth and for jobs. The chairman of the Agriculture Committee has reflected very well the view of that committee, but can I also stress to colleagues that we are asking for this money to facilitate more farmers in the European Union. We have heard the arguments of colleagues from the new Member States, who rightly and justifiably feel that they are badly treated because of the differences in payments, so we must acknowledge that this report is a European report. Let us keep up that good work.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, we must reach an agreement if we do not want to be the laughing stock of the international community over what, unfortunately, remains a small budget. That agreement is difficult to reach, however.

I would like to emphasise the need to establish a review clause for 2017. By 2017 the Member States will have had time to ratify the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance. The issue of public finances will be resolved, as will the issue of sovereign debt. In 2017 we will have a new Parliament, a new Commission and a new President of the European Council. Consequently, if we do not reach an agreement, let us open a political debate on all of the issues. In this regard, I would like to emphasise this review clause, which, in the context of this political debate, will allow us to set out perspectives that correspond to the European ambitions to which we all aspire.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, in some states there would be no public investment without cohesion and, without investment, all of the drivers of the economy would soon come to a standstill and we would not be able even to speak of a struggle against the crisis. It is not just the poor Member States that benefit from a policy of solidarity; owing to the single market, so, too, do the rich Member States, which are significant suppliers of goods, services and know-how.

In this respect, I should like to draw your attention to the joint declaration of the Prime Ministers and representatives of the 15 states of the Friends of Cohesion of 5 October, following a meeting held in Bratislava in Slovakia. These included representatives of new and old Member States. The participants declared that the cohesion policy was a vital investment instrument for our countries. If there were to be a reduction in financing in this area, we would not be able to achieve the Council’s recently adopted ambitions and objectives or the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The heads of the 15 states agreed that there was no room for a reduction in cohesion policy funding. I believe that this strong message will carry weight in the final decision about the future of Europe.

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). – (SL) Madam President, in the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 we must be especially aware that speed of decision-making is extremely important.

Speed of decision-making because we are in the midst of a crisis and are wondering what to do and where to invest, and this financial framework provides answers to precisely these questions.

We should also be more aware that Europe is unique in its ratio of rural development to large city development. For this reason we should of course maintain the positive trend we have experienced in the past regarding rural development and cohesion.

  Erik Bánki (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Presidents-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, I originally intended to draw your attention to the importance of sport and to talk about how crucial it would be to increase funding for sport in the next seven-year budget from the level provided for in the present draft. We have submitted a motion to this effect. I very much hope that the House will support this motion, as sport has a crucial role in promoting social cohesion and a notable beneficial impact on health and work performance in society. However, I must also respond to Csaba Tabajdi’s comments on the Hungarian budget situation.

The decent thing, I think, would be to speak honestly and openly with each other; I think that the European Commission and Council should tell us what is required, what it would like Hungary to do. According to Eurostat figures, the Hungarian economy, the Hungarian budget, ended 2011 with the largest surplus, so I think that it is unacceptable that they still refuse to lift the excessive deficit procedure that has been in place against Hungary since 2004. On the basis of these figures, this is unacceptable, in my view.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the debate has shown that a clear majority in this Chamber are in favour of a budget that reflects the European Union’s objectives. We in the European Parliament are all aware of the crisis and the need to save money, but in real terms the EU budget is, in fact, shrinking. Consequently, taking artificial measures to reduce the budget simply in order to win over voters in the Member States is not legitimate behaviour. Not only will it cause us to deviate from the objectives we are setting ourselves, but, most importantly, it will create budgetary difficulties. I would very much like the Council to consider the current state of the budget and what will happen if we do not keep our promises.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the multiannual financial framework must reflect the political ambitions of the European Union set out in the Europe 2020 strategy and respond to the expectations of citizens of the European Union. The budget should remain clearly reasoned, stimulating and, above all pro-growth, so that the economic crisis is definitively overcome as quickly as possible, and the Union can increase employment and the prosperity of its citizens, and cement its standing on world markets.

The cohesion policy therefore requires appropriate financial resources. These resources should in any case not be less than in the current programme period. Just the opposite, the budget for the cohesion policy should be further increased, since the disbursements represent strategic investments in the added value field.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, colleagues, thank you for your comments. There is no multiannual financial perspective without the consent of European Parliament – that is clear. Therefore your voice and your vote are important and should be helpful in the very exceptional circumstances in which Europe finds itself today. It is also a sign of good institutional cooperation, with each institution having an important role to play – including the national parliaments – with regard to the issue of own resources and taxation: no taxation without representation. That is my answer to Mr Hartong, who usually makes critical comments and leaves the room instead of listening to the answer.

This is a part of this rational construction I admired for so many years from behind the Iron Curtain. It is absolutely right to place the multiannual framework in the context of the realistic growth, jobs and competitiveness agenda for Europe. It makes a difference whether this is just a political announcement or an agenda equipped with money. The European budget is about the multiannual predictability of investment in Europe with a shortage of investment money in the national budgets. The European Parliament has a clear role to play when it comes to the proper level of budgets.

Our technical update for cohesion was not very fortunate, given the recent figures, but we cannot make the other basis for the ‘Berlin methodology’ in relation to cohesion. The recent figures, as updated, which are not fortunate for cohesion, are the only ones on which we can base our calculations with safeguards for countries like Hungary, which have experienced some problems in recent years.

Regarding own resources, your important message is on the unity of the budget. We can understand unity as also not being a fan of the second budget for the European Union, but this is a unity of a complementary nature of revenues and expenditure. The proposal on the table, supported by the European Parliament, is really a fair, transparent and simple response to everybody who wants a simple, transparent and a fair system of own resources. If we manage to achieve real reform where revenue is concerned, we deserve another Nobel Prize. The same goes for simplification, which has been requested in the soon-to-be 28 Member States.

Finally, the European Parliament has an important role to play at the level of expenditure. This is a modest proposal: comparisons with national budgets are not fair. No single Member State has in the past had to accommodate such a major enlargement in terms of geography. We are to be 28, not 27, in the next financial perspective, and we are to have many more powers and areas of responsibility at European level. Therefore I cannot resist several comparisons. Yes, our annual budgets are less than the annual budgetary deficits of some Member States. I cannot resist pointing out that the UK’s contribution to the European budget is on a par with that country’s contribution to its fire service, and less than it contributes to its prison service. It is 14 times less than the servicing of the UK debt. That is not the problem of the European Union.

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members very much for this debate. I fully understand that some of you – and of course this is just a euphemism – do not support an approach which would reduce the overall size of the MFF. I very much appreciate, however, your frankness on this issue.

You are well aware that there is also a divide between Member States on this issue. I hope you appreciate that there are valid and strong arguments on both sides and different approaches regarding the best way to achieve our targets. I would like to reassure you that we are working hard on the revenue side and will soon come forward with more details regarding our approach.

Some very important institutional issues with regard to the EU budget in the aftermath of last week’s European Council were raised by the rapporteur, Mr Lamassoure, and other distinguished speakers. I will refrain, if you will allow, from commenting on them, especially since later this morning we will have the opportunity to discuss them directly with the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy.

Now I will comment briefly on what Ms Jensen had to say. With all due respect, I do not think that in our paper we either expressed support for the ‘juste retour’ or referred to direct payments as a holy cow. We just raised issues and questions for consideration. But maybe I did not fully grasp the gist of your point.

On FTT, we all know that it has proved impossible to fly at the level of 27. Now we are advancing with enhanced cooperation, and the Presidency is fully committed to moving this forward. But we need to be aware that this enhanced cooperation is not about an own resource but rather a national resource. It is not FTT as an own resource. What we are trying to do in the current exercise on the MFF is to find a way to establish a link between the revenue accrued in Member States participating in enhanced cooperation with own resources with a corresponding reduction to their GNI contribution. But we need to be fully aware that there are both legal and political obstacles in some Member States which otherwise would like to participate in the FTT-enhanced cooperation.

I would also like to emphasise – and reassure those Members who spoke on this issue – that a focus on less-developed regions is one of the few non-controversial issues in this debate.

When we say that the level of the MFF will unavoidably have to be revised downwards and that all headings and sub-headings will have to be affected, we are not expressing a wish. We are trying, as honest brokers, to provide radiography – an accurate presentation of the current situation. The same applies to questions regarding staff, raised in particular by Ms Roth-Behrendt. There again we need to get the right balance.

Let me once again insist on the fact that the Council has not yet come to a decision on the MFF and that discussions are continuing in a pragmatic way and with the full commitment of all – I stress of all – Member States towards reaching a timely compromise. Of course we all work on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will study very carefully and give full consideration to your interim reports, both on MFF and on own resources based on value added tax.

We have also listened very carefully to the views expressed here this morning and I can assure you that I will bring them to the attention of colleagues within the Council. Osmosis between the work of institutions is a key word for the Cyprus Presidency.

  Reimer Böge, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you for your contributions to this debate, which to a large extent have supported the positions presented in our interim report. I would ask you to continue to support our report in today’s vote. I would also like to reiterate my thanks to everyone who worked on this text. May I say on a personal note that the cooperation with Ivailo Kalfin, the members of the negotiating team and the contact group has been one of my most positive experiences as a rapporteur in this House, and I hope that we can sustain this to the end so that we have the chance to achieve a positive outcome together.

If the Cypriot Presidency, the Presidency of the European Council, now unveils a new negotiating box – a range of figures, as Andreas Mavroyiannis has said – this will take us into a new phase in the negotiating process. So let me be quite clear: after the vote on this interim report, we are willing to negotiate from now until 22 November on all of the issues relating to the multiannual financial framework and on all of the details of the interinstitutional agreement, wherever this is necessary to work together to identify solutions which result in an acceptable compromise. It is up to the Presidency to make use of this offer so that it can be integrated into the Conclusions and the debate at the European Council meeting on 22-23 November. Ultimately, and this needs to be reiterated, the outcomes or agreements reached by the European Council are a political agreement, and nothing other than a negotiating mandate for the Council so that it can finally achieve a positive outcome with Parliament in the weeks thereafter. First of all, Parliament must give its approval, by a majority of its Members, so that the Council can then make a unanimous decision. That is something that this institution should never forget in this procedure!

  Ivailo Kalfin, rapporteur. − Mr President, I want to thank all colleagues for the debate today. With this debate, and hopefully with the vote a little later, Parliament will give a very clear signal to the Council. I am sure that the Presidency will take that message to the Council itself.

There are three important issues that we have to take from the debate. First, the budget needs to be sufficient. Therefore, any decrease in the budget will be accepted with difficulty. We have mentioned several times that we will not accept a haircut approach to the budget.

Second, the budget has to be highly targeted. We are ready to discuss any ideas on better spending of the monies under the European budget, and we want to see these being used exactly for the purposes for which the EU budget is needed and expected.

Third, this budget has to help the Member States do something that they cannot do on the basis of their national budgets, which is to help them with additional instruments to create growth and jobs in the Member States, because all taxpayers have an interest in this happening. These messages have to reach the Council and be understood before the Council takes a decision.

We will also insist on the possibility of negotiating all the instruments contained in the legal basis. Again, whatever the Council decides will be taken into consideration, but we will not give up our right to negotiate on the legal basis.

Finally, a word on own resources. I am very happy to hear from Commissioner Lewandowski that the Commission is going to start the procedures for enhanced cooperation for the FTT, but the FTT has to be an own resource and has to make it easier for the Member States to reduce their GNI-based contributions. We do not want a bigger European budget; we want a more stable European budget, and we will fight for it.

  Alain Lamassoure, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, the tougher the negotiations and the more parties around the table, the greater the temptation to agree to continue what has already been done.

Unanimity is necessary. Indeed, there is one thing on which we all agree: the previous agreement. We just need to continue. No one will win, but no one will lose. Everyone will keep their slice of the cake and everyone will avoid losing face. That is what we did previously, despite the efforts of Reimer Böge and our rapporteurs at the time.

Today, in fact, the Cypriot Presidency is publishing a document on the ‘resources’ part of the budget. Its reference is the Fontainebleau agreement, approved by the European Council in 1984. That was 28 years ago. The European Union did not exist then. Cyprus and Poland, for example, were not Member States. The economic community was limited to 10 Western states. The Iron Curtain had torn the continent apart. China was struggling to combat widespread famine. The idea of a single European currency was raised only at academic conferences.

We are in a new century, we are in a new world, we are in a new Europe. Four successive Treaties have resulted in a significant increase in the competences of the Union, which now has three times as many members. Everything is new, expect the budgetary framework. We have a historic responsibility. Our generation of heads of government, ministers, Commissioners and Members of the European Parliament would be disgraced if Europe found itself in 2020 with a budget whose amount, financing and distribution had been designed to cope with the needs we had 30 years ago.

  President. − The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE) , in writing. – (RO) As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I welcome the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the years 2014-2020 and the correlation with the Europe 2020 strategy. In the present economic context we have to concentrate on measures that can improve the economy and overcome the economic and financial crisis facing us. Part of the solution is having an internal market that functions properly, and the only way to make this possible is by appropriate financing.

We are well into the process of implementing the Single Market Act. I believe that the MFF should provide the necessary financial means for implementing the commitments made.

SMEs are another important element for economic growth and job creation, which means that the MFF should provide strong support for an EU policy aimed at improving SMEs access to finance. No less important is the consumer protection policy, with its ultimate objective of empowering consumers. It is not possible to have a properly functioning internal market without adequate infrastructure; the Connecting Europe Facility represents an important step towards creating a single energy market and a digital single market while enhancing free movement of goods, services and people.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The European Parliament has taken a decisive stance against reducing the 2014–2020 European Union budget since inadequate levels of funding could jeopardise, among other things, the EU’s new strategy for growth, the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and economic growth. I would like to stress that not only must the overall budget remain intact, but within it, so must the budget for regional policy for the period 2014–2020. Cohesion policy plays a vital role in achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy, as well as being essential if we are to overcome the economic crisis. It is a key pillar of the ‘intelligent growth’ which the EU considers so important, a strategic tool for investment and competitiveness, and one of the main embodiments of European solidarity. For these reasons, funding for cohesion policy needs to remain at least at the level of the 2007–2013 period. In view of this I think it is unacceptable that the Commission’s proposal would mean that Hungary is the only EU Member State where per capita GDP in the period 2014–2020 will consistently be less than 75 % of the EU average, while its cohesion support could fall by nearly 30 % relative to the current budgetary period. I consider the low growth ceilings set and the growth projections used to determine support levels unfair and counter to the spirit of the EU Treaties because they hit countries with the lowest growth levels hardest and hence keep them trailing behind in the long term.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The next budget of the European Union should reflect the increased range of functions and ambitions of the EU: it is impossible to finance closer cooperation, and economic, financial and political union with fewer resources. The budget must be geared towards growth and employment, enhanced competitiveness, and cohesion for less developed regions. Reducing the European budget would inevitably impede growth and competitiveness, goals reinforced by common agreement and which we need to achieve if we are to overcome the crisis. In many Member States today, EU support represents the only basis for economic growth. Expenditure cuts would increase the gulf between the developed and less developed regions, between affluent segments of the population and those living in poverty, undermining one of the EU’s most important fundamental principles, solidarity. For this reason it is vital to make our position clear: the European Parliament opposes freezing the budget at its current level or reducing it. Of particular relevance here is the demand put before Parliament by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament that in the next EU budget commencing in 2014 a quarter of the Cohesion Fund resources should be spent on projects aimed at promoting employment, social inclusion and poverty reduction. Equally vital in my view is providing more generous support in the 2014-2020 budget for programmes aimed at promoting human rights and enforcing the rights inherent in European citizenship. We must resolutely reject any attempts to produce a future budget for the eurozone that is detrimental or counter to the interests of the EU27.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – (LV) Parliament’s position on the multiannual financial framework must be clear and rigorous: the budget amount recommended by the Commission should not be reduced. A reduced budget in the European Union would have a negative impact on economic growth and competitiveness throughout the EU, and would weaken its cohesiveness, solidarity and ability to overcome the crisis. Any reduction would restrict opportunities to ensure a fairer distribution of direct payments and proper financing of the cohesion policy. I can only support the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, who recently, in Bratislava, stated at a meeting of the Friends of Cohesion group that Europe needs political unity – the wealthier countries must agree to a wide-ranging policy, which provides for support for the less wealthy regions of Europe, since this is an investment in the growth of the European Union as a whole. I understand the political difficulties in many Member States when the EU budget is discussed. However, together with the rapporteur I would like to remind you that the EU budget represents only some 2 % of total government expenditure in the Union, and is hence more than 45 times smaller than the sum of government expenditure in the Member States.

  Vojtěch Mynář (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I would first of all like to say that the macroeconomic measures for the financial stabilisation of the EU adopted since 2008 have not yet been found to be adequate and effective in overcoming the economic crisis. We also have the objectives set by the Europe 2020 strategy. For these reasons, it is appropriate to put forward the MFF 2014–2020 as an essential condition for strengthening European economic governance and for supporting the objectives set in the above mentioned strategy for smart and sustainable growth in support of social inclusion. The MFF and the EU budget together are one of the instruments that should both help in allocating investment into activities increasing growth and employment and help Member States in their structural reforms. The correct identification of investment priorities (human capital and education, development of the knowledge-based society, infrastructure, research and innovation, small and medium enterprises, green and new technologies) and coordination of them in the Member States should kick-start economic growth in the EU. Among other things, the report stresses the importance of supporting research and innovation, the policies of cohesion and general competitiveness in the EU, including financing of large infrastructure projects (ITER, GMES, Galileo) and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. It can generally be stated that the report submitted by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin provides a clear analysis of the MFF and reflects the comments of the EP, and I therefore recommend that it be approved as it stands.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The European Parliament is an institution that represents all European Union citizens and, as such, must play a specific role in determining the next multiannual financial framework. In particular, it is worth actually thinking of cohesion policy as an EU investment policy that helps to achieve a systematic rise in the population’s standard of living. That is why it is also better to avoid earmarking as much as 25 % of regional funds for the European Social Fund, as, however important its role in promoting employment and tackling social exclusion, it is cohesion policy that serves more effectively to achieve the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. At the same time, special EU support programmes benefiting the poorest should be maintained. The multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 should also bring us closer to achieving full convergence of direct payments across the EU under the common agricultural policy. However, even rural development measures financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) differ in nature depending on the size and state of development of rural areas in the individual Member States. For that reason, country-specific allocations of EAFRD monies should be retained. Parliament must also firmly oppose all attempts to reduce rural development funding as contrary to the objective of social and economic cohesion within the EU.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) Although the European Parliament understands the budgetary constraints and the rationalisation efforts which the Member States are making, it ought to insist that the long-term EU budget is a strategic tool for investment, for boosting growth and competitiveness, and, of course, for creating jobs throughout Europe.

As regards cohesion policy, here, too, the message is very clear: this policy is the only European growth policy and as such it must continue to be available in all regions of Europe. Cohesion policy is the main part of the response to the crisis, because it contributes decisively to growth and job creation, and it deserves and is entitled to adequate funding. For this reason, the European Parliament maintains that the financing of cohesion policy must be maintained at least at the 2007-2013 level. By maintaining the current budget level and with an up-to-date, targeted, results-oriented cohesion policy, I am confident that we will achieve much more.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – A democratic, stable and prosperous neighbourhood, sharing the values of the EU, is clearly in the EU’s interest. To achieve this goal, we should take political and financial responsibility and be prepared to offer Eastern Partners further support and clear prospects for an enhanced relation with the EU. The Commission has committed to grant additional support to those neighbouring countries undertaking significant political, economic and social reforms. In the time-frame of the MFF several Eastern Partnership countries could have in force an Association Agreement, including a DCFTA. Association Agreements would contain strong commitments by the Eastern Partners to legal approximation and structural reforms in many areas, like trade, for which the EU has promised to provide financial and technical assistance. Political association and economic integration of the Eastern Partners will be successful only if the necessary financial support is provided. In this context, and in the light of the latest ‘MFF negotiating box’ presented by the Council Presidency, I demand again that the level of financial resources envisaged in the proposal of the European Commission for the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework is at least maintained to enable the EU to play its key role for the development of these countries.

(The sitting was suspended briefly.)

5. Conclusions of the European Council meeting (18-19 October 2012) (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on the European Council and Commission statements on the conclusions of the European Council meeting (18-19 October 2012).

  Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. − Mr President, after a brief, but heartfelt, welcome of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union, which was felt by all to be a tribute to past work and an invitation to redouble our efforts for the future, the focus of last week’s European Council was on the economic issues, namely the implementation of the Compact on Growth and Jobs approved last June and the discussion on the interim report on deepening economic and monetary union (EMU).

We also spent time on some foreign policy questions and touched on a matter which I know is of concern here, the appointment to the vacant seat on the Board of the European Central Bank, which was raised both by me and by your President in his speech at the beginning of the meeting.

The Union’s commitment to promoting the equality of women and men is an objective laid down in the Treaty. Yesterday’s vote by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the appointment is an understandable expression of concern that a great deal remains to be achieved, notably regarding the European Central Bank. But I note also the committee’s recognition that the candidate’s professional competences are in no way in dispute.

For my part, at last week’s European Council, I made a strong appeal to all Heads of State or Government to identify and propose female candidates for vacant posts at European level, in particular in the economic and financial sectors, where the under-representation of women is blatant. I underlined that we need to be active in encouraging this process.

I hope that, with such renewed commitment to gender balance, Parliament will base its final decision on the current candidate for the ECB executive board on the sole criteria of professional qualification and experience. It is urgent to fill that vacancy.

Now let me move on to the economic questions which were at the core of our discussions. First, growth and jobs. We are still suffering from a lack of growth – 25 million people are unemployed in the Union, many of whom are young people. Overall growth projections for next year are at best modest. I am painfully aware of the toll this is taking on our societies. In several countries, the adjustment is more severe and lengthy than many had expected. Reining in budgetary deficits and restoring competitiveness would have been necessary even without the crisis in the eurozone. It is therefore all the more necessary to share the burden of this adjustment fairly and to have policies especially targeted at reducing unemployment. Here, the EU instruments can and should assist.

Creating jobs and boosting socially-inclusive growth remains our utmost priority and our ultimate goal. The commitments made under the Compact for Growth and Jobs cannot wait: they must be followed by decisive action and translated into concrete results. This is particularly urgent for the implementation of the EUR 120 billion package we agreed in June, for progress on the single market issues and on our EU-2020 goals. It is also urgent for measures supporting social inclusion, promoting research and development, developing the competitiveness of our industries, and harnessing the potential of international trade.

In the meanwhile, we will discuss in November the multiannual financial framework at the European Council. We need a growth-oriented EU budget. Although it represents only 1 % of European GDP, it can, as an investment budget, have a huge impact on growth.

Of course, restoring confidence in the eurozone is a key part of bringing back internal demand and growth. On this, we can now witness the first results of our cumulative actions. Let me give a few examples. The so-called spreads are decreasing significantly in almost all eurozone countries. Public deficits are now lower in most countries. Competitiveness and export performances are stronger in all countries. The upcoming common bank supervisor is a major breakthrough and we launched two weeks ago the European Stability Mechanism so that our ‘firewall’ now amounts to EUR 700 billion.

In the specific case of Greece, significant progress has been made. The eurozone Heads of State and Government issued a statement welcoming the determination of the Greek Government to deliver on its commitments and also commending the remarkable efforts of the Greek people. The Eurogroup will examine this progress in light of the forthcoming troika report and take any necessary decisions.

Our second major debate was on the interim report which I drew up in collaboration with the Presidents of the Commission, the Eurogroup and the European Central Bank – a group of four presidents who also met with your President, Martin Schulz. My office also consulted Member States and the European Parliament’s delegation, whose contribution was significant. I also personally met some of your rapporteurs, coordinators and committee chairs. This was an interim report seeking to clarify concepts and test the level of support for various ideas that have arisen, with the aim of reaching conclusions in December. It highlighted points of convergence and outlined areas that would require further work. The European Council gave a mandate to continue this work and propose a specific and time-bound roadmap to be presented at its December meeting so that it can move ahead on all the essential building blocks on which genuine EMU should be based.

Our immediate priority was progress on financial integration. In June, we agreed to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns. The urgent element now is setting up a single supervisory mechanism (SSM) to prevent banking risks and cross-border contagion from emerging. That is why the European Council called for swift progress, with the objective of agreeing on the legislative framework by 1 January 2013. Once this is agreed, the SSM could become effectively operational during 2013. This places a huge responsibility on all of us to meet this ambitious timeline. We cannot afford to risk losing momentum.

When establishing a Supervisor, several aspects need to be taken into consideration. First, there must be a clear separation between the monetary responsibilities of the ECB and its supervisory functions. The ECB should be able to carry out supervision directly in a differentiated manner, meaning using national authorities in supervisory tasks as much as possible. The SSM will be designed and implemented with the integrity of the single market for financial services in mind. Finally, the mechanism should be inclusive and transparent: all Member States are free and invited to join. This openness should be reflected in the governance structure, with appropriate rights and obligations for all.

The SSM is a first, essential step towards a complete, integrated framework for the financial sector. Other steps also need to be taken quickly, starting with harmonising national resolution and deposit guarantee schemes, following which the Commission will propose a single resolution mechanism.

As agreed in June, direct recapitalisation by the European Stability Mechanism will be possible once an effective SSM has been established. We asked the Eurogroup to draw up the exact operational criteria.

For a stable economic and monetary union, we also need stronger integrated frameworks for budgetary matters and economic policies. On both these fronts we have already done a lot. Let me put it this way: if we fully use all our tools – the six-pack, the forthcoming two-pack, the European Semester with its country specific recommendations, the new macroeconomic imbalance procedure and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance – then we will have already taken a major step towards fiscal and economic union. Yet to secure the eurozone’s long-term stability, we also need to be able to better deal with economic shocks and spur economic convergence.

Here, some new avenues in my report attracted attention. I received a mandate, together with my colleagues, to explore them further between now and December. One of these is that Member States could enter into individual arrangements of a contractual nature with the EU institutions on the reforms they commit to make, in response to the country specific recommendations of the Council, to promote growth and jobs.

Another is the possibility of an appropriate fiscal capacity for the euro area. This new idea requires further exploration and it was agreed that this is unrelated – I emphasise ‘unrelated’ – to the preparation of the next multiannual financial framework.

It will be crucial for the new EMU to be fully legitimate and accountable. As a general principle, we all agree that democratic control should occur at the level where decisions are taken. It is also important to build this deeper economic and monetary union on the EU’s institutional and legal frameworks, and to make sure that it remains open and transparent towards Member States outside the eurozone.

As in all our regular European Councils, I wanted to devote some time to strategic discussions on our external relations and our foreign policy. We focused on two main issues. First, our relations with China – taking a step back and looking at the long term. I debriefed the European Council on the September Summit with China, a very positive one. As you know, this key partner is undergoing a ‘once in a decade’ leadership change. We exchanged views on how to engage constructively with the new leadership. We must pass on the same messages to Beijing, both the easy and the difficult ones, in our contacts at all levels. China presented a package of proposals for future cooperation between the EU and China. We will respond in the same spirit with our own proposals. We will come back to this issue to prepare the next summit, which should take place in China in autumn 2013.

Second, we addressed crisis areas in the world: Syria, Iran and Mali. This was indeed the first time that we had discussed developments in Mali at European Council level. The situation has a security, humanitarian and regional impact on the Sahel. It could also become a threat to our own societies and to our own security. The Union is contributing to the international efforts led by the United Nations to stabilise the situation. We decided to accelerate our own planning for a possible European military crisis management operation and support for the international military force, in accordance with the recent UN Security Council Resolution 2071.

To conclude, this was a positive summit. It is good for Europe that we will have a single supervisory mechanism up and running in the course of 2013.

Between now and December we will work on further progress to reinforce our economic and monetary union. The biggest contribution to growth in the short term is restoring confidence in the eurozone.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, last week’s European Council was the first in a series of three summit meetings this autumn. Our objective in these meetings is to reach decisions which will have a significant impact both on short-term stability and our longer-term objectives.

First and foremost, we must deliver on the Compact on Growth and Jobs agreed in June. The reality is that the crisis is still with us: too many of our Member States are facing recession; unemployment remains worryingly high (with the potential to further undermine social cohesion), and I am painfully aware of the difficult situation in which many European citizens find themselves. Implementing the growth compact is, therefore, much more than a demonstration of our political will; it is a question of fairness and equity.

In some of our Member States, citizens are making major sacrifices because of the situation resulting from excessive debts in the public sector and irresponsible financial behaviour in the private sector. This is why we need to provide citizens with hope, and a realistic prospect that growth and jobs will return and that the most vulnerable in society will not suffer.

The Commission has delivered a great number of proposals and inputs to underpin the Growth Compact. However, the reality is that this Growth Compact, including an important investment package worth EUR 120 billion, has not yet been fully implemented. Some progress has been made, but frankly it is not enough.

I presented to the Heads of State and Government a detailed report describing what is on the table, where the blockages exist, and what the next steps are. It is high time that proposals on negotiation tables became reality.

Let me give some examples. Agreement is within reach on the proposals on venture capital, accounting and alternative dispute resolution in the next two months. But work on several other proposals that are crucial for growth and fairness in the single market needs to be accelerated. Public procurement reform; a tax on savings, including mandates for agreements with third countries; professional qualifications; e-signatures: we need to give a new political push in all these areas.

Last week I urged the Member States’ governments to do their utmost to bring the Compact on Growth and Jobs to life. Likewise, I count on this House to assume its responsibility and play its part in finalising legislation on its elements.

Let us demonstrate to our citizens that Europe carries a message for growth and jobs. When talking about growth, it is clear that the financial sector must also make a fair contribution to recovery. I welcome in particular the recent progress on a European Financial Transaction Tax. Following the requests we have now received from 10 Member States, this very afternoon the Commission will make a proposal for a Council decision authorising enhanced cooperation. This will be the first step in the process. We will also present an action plan on tax fraud and tax evasion – including tax havens – before the end of the year.

I also want to confirm to you that, following the adoption of the employment package, the Commission will introduce a Youth Guarantee Scheme before the end of the year. This will aim to ensure that young people are presented with either the offer of a job, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of being unemployed or leaving formal education. This will be supported by the European Social Fund. We will also introduce a quality framework for traineeships to help young people in their transition from education to work. We are taking these measures to prevent a ‘lost generation’ in Europe.

It is not just the Compact on Growth and Jobs where we have to turn political will into reality. It is essential that by the end of this year there is agreement on the single supervisory mechanism for banks. This is also a pre-condition for the direct recapitalisation of banks under the European Stability Mechanism.

By reaching agreement on this, the European Union has a huge opportunity to restore confidence, demonstrate its capacity to take difficult decisions in times of crisis and send a message of stability. Let us not fail to seize this moment. And let us also be clear about one thing: reaching agreement on these issues is a fundamental precondition if we want to be credible in our further deepening of economic and monetary union.

Regarding the Single Supervisory Mechanism for banks, without prejudice to the ongoing legislative process, the European Council confirmed many of the key principles on which the Commission proposals were grounded. This includes being as open as is legally possible to all Member States who want to participate. As we have stated time and time again, we do not need new walls in Europe between the euro area and non-euro area members.

Secondly, we need proper accountability at the level at which decisions are taken, which for the Commission clearly means to this Parliament, and maintaining the level playing field and the integrity of the single market. This also includes tasking the ECB with responsibility for prudential supervision and the power to intervene, if needed, with any bank in the euro area, as well as a clear separation of this supervisory function and monetary policy. We will continue to work closely with the European Parliament on all these matters.

One important element is the political commitment of the Heads of State and Government that agreement should be reached by the end of this year. I hope that the governments will now respect the commitment they have taken at the highest level. Let us not forget why we are acting here: we are advancing in our response to the crisis. We need to definitively break the negative link between bank debt and sovereign debt – and this is urgent. That is why the Commission put its proposals on the table within weeks of the June European Council. Delivering the single supervisory mechanism will give a very important signal to our citizens, but also to our international partners and to investors in general.

The European Council also spelled out the need for rapid adoption of the provisions relating to the harmonisation of national resolution and deposit guarantee frameworks based on the Commission’s legislative proposals on bank recovery and resolution and on national deposit guarantee schemes. It also called for a rapid conclusion of the single rule book, including agreement on the proposals on bank capital requirements. This House has a decisive role to play in all these matters, and the Commission will work closely with you in the coming weeks to move ahead quickly.

Before I look at the other, longer-term elements of deepening EMU, let me start by underlining how crucial it is to finalise the legislation known as the ‘two-pack’. The prior coordination of national budgets is one important pillar of our crisis response, and it is in the interest of the European Parliament, I would assume, that we incorporate as many elements from the Fiscal Treaty into the Community method as is legally possible. This is what we are doing with the two-pack.

Now that the European Union institutions and Member States have embarked on a reflection process which will cover all aspects of a deeper EMU (including issues of solidarity), I am hopeful that we can agree that the two-pack goes ahead and not deal with other issues covered by the further deepening of the EMU.

As far as these other aspects of EMU-deepening are concerned, the summit was also an occasion for the Heads of State and Government to look in more depth at the issues on the basis of the interim report prepared by the President of the European Council, myself, and the Presidents of the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup. I would also like to underline the very useful contributions that the European Parliament and President Schulz have made to this report.

Coming to the next steps, I had already informed this House last month that we will deliver a blueprint for EMU in time before the December European Council. This blueprint will set out the Commission’s own thinking on all the building blocks of a deeper, genuine EMU.

Allow me a specific word about the issue of the fiscal capacity of an economic and monetary union. As I said in the State of the Union address before this House, to deliver lasting results, we need to develop a fully-equipped Community economic governance, together with a genuine, credible Community fiscal capacity. This would complement our efforts for a stronger and more binding framework for the implementation of key economic policies, in particular in the euro area, as one important means of preventing imbalances.

While much has been done here, for instance through the Six-pack and the country-specific recommendations, further steps are crucial to combine specific conditions with specific incentives and to really make economic and monetary union sustainable. One interesting idea in this context is that of contractual arrangements between the Member States and the Commission. Such arrangements could underpin the commitments taken under the country-specific recommendations with specific support for their realisation. We must, however, be clear that this has nothing to do with the decisions on the next multiannual financial framework, which we will, hopefully, be able to take in the coming weeks.

I want to thank this House for its important contributions and the cooperation with it on all these matters. It is very important to have the views and the involvement of the European Parliament at every stage in this process. We are designing a new system whereby more decisions will be taken at European level. We therefore need stronger accountability. Fixing accountability at the level where the decisions are taken will be one of the fundamental principles which will guide our discussions on economic and monetary union.

At the same time, we need to make sure that more democracy means more transparency and not more complexity. We already have a very complicated system of decision-making in Europe. A proliferation of institutions, mechanisms and procedures would make Europe more opaque and less readable and would distance us from our citizens precisely at a time when we need to draw closer together.

There are also a few more key principles for these reforms. First, we need to build on the existing institutional and legal framework based on the Community Treaties. We must support the deepening of integration in the euro area as the basis for strengthening our currency, the euro. We must ensure convergence between the existing and future euro area members. And we must respect the integrity of policies conducted at the level of the current 27 (very soon 28) Member States of the European Union, particularly the integrity of the Single Market.

Our tasks are mapped out. Let us not forget that, beyond the Growth Compact, the two-pack and banking supervision, we have other tasks and responsibilities this autumn. I am speaking in particular about the MFF. I expect those governments which are always talking about the need for investment to promote growth and jobs to contribute their support for the instrument for investment at European level. Once again this will be a critical test of our commitment to these policies.

During the summit we also had an opportunity to send a very important message regarding Greece at the level of euro area Heads of State and Government. I welcome the conclusion of that meeting, when we said: ‘We expect Greece to continue budgetary and structural policy reforms and encourage its efforts to ensure swift implementation of the programme. This is necessary in order to bring about a more competitive private sector, private investment and an effective public sector. These conditions will allow Greece to achieve renewed growth and will ensure its future in the euro area’. It is very important that the Heads of State and Government have expressed this willingness and this commitment and their hope about keeping Greece in the euro area.

Finally, the European Council discussed the external dimension of our actions, with a focus on our strategic partners, including China, and the need for a proactive agenda for trade. It is crucially important that Europe defend its interests in this globalising world. But openness is a vital element in facing the challenges of growth, and we must not miss out on the opportunities for further trade liberalisation.

It is significant that, at a time when many of our citizens have doubts about the ability of Europe to meet the challenges we face, the international community, through the Nobel Peace Prize, has sent us a clear message: the world needs a stronger European Union. It is indeed an honour to have this recognition for the project for integration and unity of this continent which has, over 60 years, brought us so much. But it is also a responsibility and a challenge for us to show the ‘courage de chaque jour’ – the everyday, mundane, courage – to do the right thing and take the decisions we need to take.

By advancing the deepening of economic and monetary union and progressing towards a political union, let us make sure, together, that the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 will not be awarded to an idea of the past but to a project of the future.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, President of the Commission, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I am, by nature, an optimistic person. My optimism is realistic, however. It is based on concrete elements, on facts and accomplishments, and on experience of everything we have achieved in the past 60 years, which, in the end, is just a start.

The Nobel Prize awarded to the European Union is recognition of what we have built together over 60 years. However, it is also encouragement to go further, and I believe in Europe. I believe in the Community method. I believe in the added value that the European Union offers through its common policies. I also believe, however, in the European investment that allows our budget to inject some EUR 100 billion into our economies every year, and it is by no means enough.

Europe needs these ambitious policies, policies that are going to help us to restore growth, but to implement them, we need an ambitious budget. I think that the debate here has clearly demonstrated that. I therefore appeal to everyone to face up to their responsibilities. We need a financial framework that matches our ambitions and, above all, we need an agreement at the end of the year if we want to appear credible to the outside world, Mr President.

Last week’s European Council took a further step towards achieving our economic union. Our crisis is an economic crisis, but our mistake has been to fail to meet our commitments and comply with the rules that we set ourselves. In recent months, we have faced up to our responsibilities here, in this Parliament, and we have introduced the necessary instruments.

The ‘economic governance’ package now has force of law but it has to be applied. The same goes for the ‘two-pack’ that we are discussing today. I think that we are going to conclude that very soon.

Ladies and gentlemen, one of the lessons of this crisis is that we cannot exclude certain sectors, such as the banking sector, from our common laws. My group is aware of that, which is why we support the Council’s proposal to establish a European bank supervisor. In our economy, everything is connected. The slightest failure, the collapse of a single bank, affects the entire system. The banks may think that they are too big to fail, but no bank is too small to be supervised. We are convinced of this: our citizens, our businesses and the banks themselves need to have confidence in our financial system.

We in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will make every effort to ensure that Europe emerges stronger from this crisis and that our European Union is reinforced because we believe that Europe is the solution.

For some 20 years, the single market has been our success, but for that success to last, we must complete it and finish our work. We must force the Heads of State or Government to quickly fill in the gaps in the single market. I am thinking, in particular, about the establishment of the digital single market. If we do not do this, we will lose a turnover of EUR 1 billion every year.

Ladies and gentlemen, Europe is at a crossroads. Some people want to do away with some of the European Union’s competences and reduce Europe to an economic free trade area. Europe is much more than that, however. Since the signature of the Treaty of Rome by our founding fathers, the European project has been synonymous with peace and prosperity. That has now been rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

For 60 years, Europe has set an example in the world. Our role tomorrow is to strengthen the social market economy, increase our solidarity, continue to defend human rights and, above all, spread our values throughout Europe and beyond.

President-in-Office of the Council, as I have said often here in this House, in times of crisis we need to take decisions. When we take decisions, it is inevitable that we will make some mistakes, but the worst thing to do in a crisis is to wait for too long. If we wait for too long, we will eventually cost our fellow citizens billions of euros.

That is my appeal to you, and I hope that we will see a very good European budget before the end of the year. That will be proof of our commitment for the outside world and the markets.

I wish you the very best of luck; I hope that you have the determination to reach your goal and bring us a nice Christmas present at our December part-session.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, President Van Rompuy, I would like to start with the same issue that you began with, namely the European Central Bank and gender equality. First of all, I have a rather different view on the substance of Mr Mersch’s comments. I was extremely disappointed by them. However, I am even more disappointed by your position and your explanation here today. Mr Van Rompuy, it is simply not good enough!

(Applause)

We are not prepared to accept this kind of evasiveness. We have shown personal commitment because we believed that we could move forward, and we have built bridges. The President of this House built bridges, and yet all you have to say about gender equality is that, yes, we do not have enough of it! What we wanted was not a description of the situation but a commitment from you on how to move forward, and I am very sorry to say that we did not get it!

(Applause)

As for the Council, I believe that the outcome was half-hearted. I would not go as far as to say that it was negative, but it lacked substance. As for the Compact for Growth and Jobs, we do not need 27 or 28 countries to meet in order to determine that, so far, it has had no effect. The Member States must play their part in ensuring that it is effective. Indeed, that is the critical task for the Member States. However, the problem is not only the Compact for Growth, of course. I think it is very regrettable that we have no opportunity to discuss in more detail today the reasons why the Commission and the majority on the Council still do not accept the World Bank’s findings, namely that their calculations are wrong and that the policies which we are pursuing are leading us into recession. Unfortunately, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the European Conservatives and Reformists Group and, indeed, the Liberals are blocking any discussion of this issue. It is not about the Compact for Growth; it is about changing our policies for growth. We need policies at last which do not lead to recession but promote growth and employment. That is what I am demanding from the Commission and from the majority in the Council!

(Applause)

Do you not see that as unemployment rises, so does Euroscepticism and even outright rejection of Europe? That is the problem we have today. Chancellor Merkel and Mr Schäuble are throwing up a smoke screen, and there is a lot of talk about eurobudgets and a super-commissioner, but this is not going to solve the problems we face today. Even with the banking union, we can see how important it was that François Hollande said that we need the banking union now, or relatively soon. That is not just a question for France and Germany. It is a question of two fundamentally different concepts. The one says that institutional issues are important, so we will think about a convention which we want to appoint as soon as possible, perhaps as early as December, and we will think about a super- commissioner. However, as for thinking about the social problems which our policies are creating – no, they do not want to do that, nor do they want to think about the problems facing Spain and Ireland with the banks and their recapitalisation. Let me assure you that as Socialists and Democrats, our Group will not leave Spain or Ireland to fend for themselves. We will fight to make the banking union a reality soon – with sensible rules, of course – and to ensure that the ESM can finally progress with recapitalisation. Those are things that we agree with, Commission President. Indeed, that is why we are resisting these delaying tactics. In-depth consultation? Yes, by all means, but we need a solution soon, for we do not want any further deepening of the crisis in Spain and Ireland and other countries, with even more people losing their jobs. That cannot be our goal. For us, that is an intolerable situation.

That is why I would like to mention the social question again. Mr Van Rompuy, we need this fifth sector, this fifth pillar, on social issues. That is an urgent necessity. We cannot have a situation in which social issues are simply mentioned in passing and dealt with in a few sentences. Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy said at the press conference that they can see the misery within society. Let me say it again, gentlemen: your job is not to describe what is happening. Your job is to change the situation and to work for a social Europe. That is what we need!

(Applause)

We are very proud of the Nobel Peace Prize. We are handing out badges because we are so proud of this achievement; that applies to us as a Group as well. However, we were not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for social peace within the EU. We do not deserve that yet. If we are awarded a Nobel Prize on that basis some day, I will be very satisfied with what we have achieved in Europe. However, we have not achieved it yet. On the contrary, many of the measures being agreed today move us in the wrong direction.

My final comment concerns Mr Cameron. We should make one thing very clear to Mr Cameron, who wishes to veto the budget. Mr Cameron, the fact is that we have a stronger veto: if you veto the budget, there will still be another one, namely the budget for 2013 and 2012! I would be very happy if Mr Cameron were to pursue that course of action, if he showed that he is not interested in Europe, and if he issued an even stronger rebuff to countries such as Poland and so on. We have more leverage than he does. If Mr Cameron does not want to give us his support, we will simply take the 2012 budget as the basis for the future budgets. That is the message that Mr Callaghan should be taking back to Mr Cameron!

I have one final comment on this subject: it is not acceptable for Mr Cameron to steadily withdraw from Europe while still wanting to have a say on every issue. Mr Cameron and the Conservatives, but also the Liberals in the United Kingdom need to make a decision. If you want nothing to do with Europe, then act accordingly, but do not try to have a say on every issue or contribute to decision-making on what happens in the Europe that you reject. Decisions on Europe should be taken by those who are committed to Europe. In my view, that is a fundamental principle which Mr Cameron needs to understand.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, let me first welcome the decision of the European Council on the banking union. Nevertheless, I have to tell you that I thought it had already been decided in June – but better a European Council that decides the same thing twice than nothing at all.

I am also glad to see that the Council finally agrees with the position of the European Parliament and that of the European Commission. We said from the beginning that this system has to be applicable to all banks, and it was an absurd idea to supervise only some banks.

My second remark is also what our colleague Mr Swoboda said on the timetable. I have to tell you that I am less positive, because this timetable that they agreed on is firmly linked to – what? To the electoral calendar of Germany. I find it irresponsible that we first of all have to wait nine months before we can start to implement something that we will approve here through legislation by the end of the year. Nine months to wait for what? For the electoral calendar and the outcome of the elections in Germany. This is the intergovernmental method; if every time you have to wait for the electoral calendar of France, then Italy and now Germany, you will do nothing.

My second point concerns the Paper. I think there are many good ideas in the Paper, and there are also ideas with which I have some difficulties: the idea of individual contracts, for example. I do not think that our European Union is what I would call a private law concern, based on contracts between the Member States and the European institutions. No: we want common policies and binding legislation.

My second point on the paper is on mutualisation of debt. May I ask you, Mr Barroso – you know, I will do it every time – every month I will come back to you and ask you: where is your proposal on the redemption fund and on the start of a Eurobond market? Because you know that it is the only way that interest rates can go down in the European Union. Take, for example, Slovenia. Slovenia is a country with less than 60 % public debt; at the same time it has a fiscal deficit of more or less 3 %, and it has an interest rate of 6 %, because it is a small market and nobody is interested today, with this crisis, in buying Slovenian bonds. The Eurobond market is the only way to solve it. I can tell you I have talked about the necessity to approve the two-pack, while Parliament’s position is clear: if there is no proposal on the redemption fund on the table, we will not approve the two-pack. It is the same for Mr Schäuble’s proposal. Mr Schäuble can say, ‘I want the Super-Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs’. We will not go in that direction – even if I am in favour of that proposal – if there is no proposal on neutralisation of the debt as a first step towards the redemption fund or a first step towards a Eurobond market. We are firm on this within Parliament because we know that it is the only way to end this crisis, besides all the other measures which need to be taken.

Finally, something completely different, Mr President: Syria. It is time for the European Council to do something, for the Nobel Peace Prize winner to do something. We all know what is needed in Syria. We need, as fast as possible, a no-fly-zone so that Assad can no longer do what he is doing now: using his air force to massacre his people. Aleppo, dear colleagues, is becoming more and more like Dresden. Daily bombardments, shelling by the Syrian air force and a whole city in ruins. I find it a scandal that neither the European Council nor the other European institutions are taking their responsibility regarding that scandal together with the international community.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me comment on the issue of women in the European Union and congratulate Ms Reding. I think she has hit exactly the right note with her proposal for quotas. I would also like to send a message to all her female colleagues and the other female Commissioners. I believe that every woman who has achieved power and influence in today’s European Union should be aware that on the one hand, this is of course due to skills and qualifications; on the other, however, it is also due to the fact that other women have campaigned for instruments such as the quota. This awareness should guide all those who are tasked with decision-making or who are in leadership roles, such as Ms Reding’s female colleagues at the Commission. Mr Barroso, I urge you not to undermine a positive initiative that enables the Commission to stand out as a beacon. On the contrary, I urge you to give Ms Reding your support.

As regards Mr Mersch, it is a great shame that Mr Mersch, of all people, appears to be undermining Ms Reding’s strategy. Indeed, let me make it clear to Mr Van Rompuy that the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance will not support this under any circumstances. Perhaps it is enough for you to know that women have a future at the European Central Bank from 2018 onwards. However, this knowledge and prospect are not enough for us! We want a woman at the centre of power in the European Central Bank today, and we are not going to be fobbed off by you.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Nobel Peace Prize has been mentioned in passing in today’s debate. I was starting to think I was mistaken. When I first heard about this decision, taken in Europe’s northern-most region, I was deeply and genuinely moved. As a European politician, I almost took it personally. I felt that this came close to being an unexpected declaration of love for this great shared European project. Of course, it also meant that I looked forward to the summit with very different expectations, Teflon-coated, perhaps. So what happened? Where was the moment of reflection? What happened to the Nobel Committee’s appeal for reflection and for ‘thinking big’ in the European Union? From my perspective, that is the crucial aspect of the award: it makes us think about what we have achieved by working together, and what we may achieve in future.

Mr Van Rompuy, it has been agreed once again that we should give ourselves more time to deal with the banking union. We can afford to do so because the European Central Bank has bought itself some time under Mr Draghi, as it did before under Mr Trichet. Once again, we have seen the crisis pass from an acute to a chronic phase. However, you should not take too long, nor should you be under any illusions, as you were once again with your speech today. In my view, at the end of December, we not only need to have the clear contours or a legal framework for supervision in the banking union. We also need to have the other two pillars in place, the two pillars which are never mentioned in the front row, namely deposit protection and the possibility of bank resolution in the European Union, which must take place in a process which is not only subject to democratic controls but also inspires confidence. In other words, there is a lot to do before the end of December.

Let me take up a point made by Mr Swoboda. Mr Van Rompuy, you said earlier that things are improving. You obviously consult a different set of statistics from mine. Perhaps we should swap. I have figures from the IMF and the World Bank which clearly show, once again, that single-minded and aggressive austerity policies do not improve matters. They do not even support the recovery of public budgets. In our crisis countries, we have higher deficits, and we also have an ailing economy, not only in the crisis countries but Europe-wide. We also have higher unemployment, especially among young people. Knowing this, I then came across a further publication from the IMF which says that fiscal consolidation can only be successful in the context of economic recovery. This requires very serious consideration, and highlights all of the shortcomings in the present policies to overcome the crisis. Economic recovery can only take place on the basis of better growth policies. I am interested to see what will happen now. I regard the comments made by Mr Tajani and Mr Oettinger almost as a threat. As for Europe 2020 – which, incidentally, they appear to have written off entirely – let me say that I cannot imagine being able to achieve sustainable economic recovery with industrial policy strategies of the kind proposed by Messieurs Oettinger and Tajani.

Finally, was it President Hollande or Chancellor Merkel? After the summit, everyone was asking who had won. If we needed any further proof that the two of them did not merit the Nobel Peace Prize and did not match up to the Nobel Committee’s expectations, it can been seen in this particular issue. Political union and deeper European integration have to be dragged out of them. Chancellor Merkel should go to the German public long before the election and explain why financial solidity on its own makes matters worse. President Hollande, for his part, should explain to the people of France why even France has to transfer sovereignty to Brussels.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, I am just wondering whether, in the interests of fairness, we will all be allowed to overrun by two minutes?

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, there were some good things to come out of last week’s Council meeting. For instance, there was the support for the single market of 27 Member States, developing more open trade, the cutting of some red tape and the withdrawal of some pending Commission proposals. These were all good things. However, we need to see more action on all of those initiatives and my group will certainly support Mr Barroso in taking these initiatives forward.

However, when it comes to the main topic of debate – yet again the euro crisis – we can see that the summit manifestly failed to deliver. Both Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso spoke in this Chamber after the previous summit in June. They spoke about balancing solidarity with responsibility and described the results back then as ‘significant’. They said that these took Europe a few more steps down the road to recovery. Well, of course, over the summer it became clear that some key Member States had had second thoughts about what they agreed then, and the few small steps forward were overwhelmed by some pretty giant leaps backwards.

The only significance of that summit, with hindsight, was that it represented yet another missed opportunity. The window created by the actions of the ECB to enable political leaders to get ahead of the curve in reassuring the markets was lost then, and it is lost now. No amount of fudging over the timetable for the supervisory mechanisms or the carefully chosen words about mutual support can cover up for the fact that this summit simply backtracked on what had been agreed.

I have a lot of sympathy for both Mediterranean Europe and Northern Europe, but we cannot go on with this stalemate, with one side unwilling to hand over budgetary sovereignty and the other side unwilling to hand over its chequebook and its cash. It seems to me that, as Mr Verhofstadt observed, we now have no chance of making any headway towards a solution to the crisis before the elections in Germany. The problem that we face is quite simply one of leadership. To take a topical example that has been mentioned in this debate, when the EU was awarded this famous Nobel Prize, the bickering began immediately about who was going to collect the prize, who was going to make the speech and who was going to talk at the dinner. I started thinking about all of those political leaders and organisations who actually really deserved to collect that prize for delivering peace in Europe, for holding firm during the Cold War and for challenging the might of the Soviet Union. I thought about the contributions of General de Gaulle, President Reagan, Prime Ministers Kohl and Thatcher, NATO, and Pope Jean Paul II. No doubt everyone in this Chamber has some figure that they want to put forward as contributing to that list. It seems to me that they had one thing in common – they had political courage, the courage to stand firm, to take political risks and to make sacrifices for what they believed in.

What a sad contrast to the modern day Europe of today, where difficult decisions are delayed, timetables slip, and political realities are ignored. It was sobering to note that that Nobel Prize was awarded to the EU, not because we are dealing effectively with the current crisis, but because we are failing to do so. It is not a message of congratulations to Europe’s leaders, it is an act of charity. The prize has not been given to the EU because it is strong and doing well. It has been given now because the EU is weak and doing badly. That was made clear in the citation itself – in the announcement – if you read it.

So let us put aside the self-congratulations and let us forget the mutual backstabbing. Let us get on instead with the difficult task of making the urgent decisions that are required to make the European economy competitive and to launch the project again.

  Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Rebecca Harms and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the decision taken yesterday evening that a recommendation be made not to elect Mr Mersch this week. I think this is the right decision. I also see it as sending out a signal which, hopefully, when the time comes, will secure majority support in this House, because it really does send out completely the wrong message to tell us that Europe should continue to be run solely by men, and to say that everything arising in the various policy areas dealt with by the European Union, whatever is necessary to safeguard social and indeed regional cohesion, can only be dealt with by male representatives. I think this is the wrong form of representation, at least in the majority of cases, although I admit that there are exceptions.

The results of the most recent summit are relatively limited. A previous speaker said that at the end, two victors appeared in front of the microphones and cameras and went through the usual ritual of saying that there were no losers. There are losers, however. Ordinary people are the losers. People within the European Union have lost out because once again, we are playing for time, because no one has given any thought to the fact that European policy needs to be corrected as a matter of urgency!

I will come back to the example of the Compact for Growth and Jobs in a moment. You surely cannot seriously be proposing in your recommendations or in the Council’s decisions that, ultimately, the Structural Funds must be reprogrammed to fund the Compact for Jobs and Growth. This would mean that 25 % of the ESF would be under threat. With that proposal, you are also putting a question mark over the future of the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion. In the fight against poverty, we are talking about the fate of 120 million in Europe. Then you say that the Nobel Peace Prize for Europe is well-deserved. It simply does not add up!

Therefore, which signals should the summit have sent out? Firstly, there should have been a recognition that austerity policies do not automatically lead to more growth. If the International Monetary Fund can do it, it should be child’s play for the European Union to admit that these policies have plunged hundreds of thousands more people into poverty and social exclusion. We do not need an undemocratic fiscal pact which erodes the rights of the national parliaments and especially the European Parliament. We need a solidarity pact, one which is designed for 99 % of the people of Europe, to replace the austerity pact from 1 % of the people. We need sustainable growth which can only be achieved with decent work, equitable redistribution and appropriate contributions from those who caused the crisis in the first place.

Let us take a look at Greece again: the next tranche will amount to EUR 600 million and is supposed to be spent entirely on repaying the national debt. That means that almost EUR 30 billion have now been earmarked solely for the banks. Portugal was in a similar situation: of the EUR 78 billion allocated, only EUR 8 billion were actually earmarked for the public budget. What you are talking about, and what is being practised here, is certainly not the right balance. That needs to change, and that is what we are demanding. The timetable – the roadmap – for the banking union is really only a brief moment. Why will you not admit that this is simply about splitting up the national banks? You do not mention the ECB’s mandate and role as a lender of last resort or the ancillary roles which could be played by the European investment banks in this context. You need to change your approach. You need to change course – and then perhaps we can talk about the Nobel Peace Prize being well-deserved!

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President: Mr Van Rompuy, when you first appeared here, in what proved to be a rather expensive speech I said you would be the quiet assassin of nation state democracy – and sure enough, in your dull and technocratic way, you have gone about your course. But I have to say you are even worse than I thought you were going to be. I thought it was just going to be a federal Europe – a federal Union – but actually it appears, with every statement you make, that what you now want is the total subjugation of states to completely undemocratic structures based in Brussels.

I misread the bailouts. I thought that when the bailouts happened and I could see the panic around this Chamber, with people fearing economic meltdown... But you, of course, were calm through it all, because you saw the bailouts as your opportunity to take control. Just think how Ireland today has managed, and Greece, for that matter. The sinister-sounding troika come in, 50 officials spend a few days in the country, investigate the situation and then tell puppet prime ministers what they may or may not do. I note great enthusiasm in this Chamber for Spain to have a bailout: lots of Members here want Spain to accept the bailout, so that they too are subjugated to this new order. Indeed in Italy, the appointee there, Mr Monti, is very keen for his own country to be bailed out because, to quote him, he fears that parliamentary democracy could bring down the European Union.

It is pretty clear that your next phase is for those that have not been bailed out and may not need to be bailed out. You now want them to sign budget guarantees and to have the power to strike down national budgets after they have been through parliaments. I have to say I feel that the eurozone is now in a very dark place economically, socially and politically, and I fear that the countries trapped inside it, in that prison, will be there for many years to come. So it is odd that, against this backdrop, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the European Union. It is true that Germany has not invaded France since 1945, but I do not think there is any prospect of that happening – unless what you are all saying is that the Germans are inherently bad people. No, the threat actually came from Russia, and we should be thanking NATO and millions of American soldiers who served on European soil to maintain peace. Yet I do not hear a word of that, because we loathe America and everything that it stands for. No, this is now a divided, split Europe, with neo-Nazi politics on the rise and violent demonstrations in the streets. Frankly, I think that the award of that Nobel Prize devalues that whole organisation.

It is not all bad news, because in Britain the opinion polls are clear that a clear, settled majority of Brits now want to leave this Union, leaving David Cameron as piggy in the middle, trying to pretend to be a Eurosceptic when he comes over here, going back home and claiming victories – but he is stuck. I predict one thing: big political change is coming in Britain, because he is losing the support of millions of his own voters.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, once again we have a summit that promises a solution but in the fullness of time delivers little but further EU integration. Through the fault of unelected, incompetent Eurocrats and blinded Member State leaders, the financial crisis is being used as a tool for further EU integration. What a heavy price we are paying for the Eurocrats’ fantasy of a United States of Europe. Have they learned nothing from their folly?

President Barroso and his apparatchiks care little for the ordinary person. This latest round has been done on the back of the Greek collapse and the 43 % increase in the suicide rate there. My fear is for the UK which, despite being out of the eurozone, is seemingly unaffected. Yet this deal fails to safeguard the City of London and its prosperity. David Cameron has given the green light to banking union and got nothing in return. Why? Was this not the opportunity to renegotiate some of those powers back from the European Union, as Cameron endlessly promises? It shows his words to be empty and that once again we have a Conservative Party which talks tough on Europe, with its sprinkling of Judas goats. But Cameron turns out to be nothing more than the German Chancellor’s poodle.

Three out of four Conservative voters want an ‘in or out’ referendum but are being deceived by their leadership, which continues to sleepwalk the UK into a federal Europe. So I call on those Conservative supporters to stand up to David Cameron for the future of your party and for our country. Send him a loud message: we demand a referendum.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). – Mr President, with the bottom-up approach, step by step, during a period of four years, the jigsaw puzzle for fencing the monetary union with an economic, budgetary, fiscal and now banking union is gradually being completed. But the decisions are hesitant and sometimes ambiguous, the implementation very slow, while the markets are reacting with a speed we cannot match.

The main necessity for the banking union is the moral hazard which exists in asking taxpayers to shoulder the recapitalisation of private banks, and even their rescue. The idea is for banks to borrow directly from the EMS, under conditions to be established in the coming months and through a supervision mechanism at European Central Bank level, and thus to decouple the burden of Member States’ sovereign debt for the sake of banks. If a number of banks now need direct support, this is due to the necessity of capitalisation at the new levels required and to the non-serviced loans as a consequence of the economic crisis. That is why this new mechanism should apply retroactively, covering banks that are now in this difficult situation.

  Liem Hoang Ngoc (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, the October Council decided on a timetable for the implementation of June’s decisions.

The banking union will therefore see the light of day in 2014. It will allow us to supervise 6 000 banks in the euro area. It will guarantee deposits and be responsible for resolving banking crises. This will prevent the taxpayers from having to pay the price once again, because the citizens, and workers in particular, are not the culprits responsible for the crisis; the real criminals are the greedy financiers. They have taken the role of police, accusing the citizens of always wanting too many social elements. However, the social pillar is exactly what is missing from your interim road map, Mr Van Rompuy; that and the democratic pillar. As a result, many of our citizens are becoming more Eurosceptic today.

The members of the EP’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs affirmed in the Thyssen report that there cannot be genuine economic and monetary union without democracy and without a social pact. The European Parliament must have its say at each stage of the European Semester. It must be able to discuss the troika’s decisions. It must be involved in the European Stability Mechanism governance structure.

Finally, budgetary discipline must, in each Member State, be accompanied by a substantial European budgetary capacity in order to deal with asymmetric shocks, as you say yourself, Mr Van Rompuy. However, this counter-cyclical fund must be financed using new, sustainable resources, and it must be managed under the Community method in order to prevent the collapse of the Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, many of us agree that there cannot be a successful federal transition without solidarity, without social progress and without democratic progress. That is the message that our Parliament and its President must spread in the ongoing debate.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I want to say to Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy that when I listen to them I get the feeling that there is a timing issue. What I mean by that is that, contrary to popular belief, I do not believe that the European crisis is behind us. Thus, we do not want proposals for tomorrow or the day after, we want actions for today, and I will give you a few examples.

The first relates to the banking union. We are all in favour of it. The key is to make it effective and make it operational now, not in a year’s time, in order to allow recapitalisation of the banks; otherwise, of course, public debt will increase, and that would not be very smart.

Secondly, alongside the banking union, we need a solidarity mechanism, the creation of a European bond market. Once again, we need to do it now, before the countries in difficulty are completely ruined and, indeed, need more support from Europe.

Thirdly, as regards the budget and the economic and investment policy, we need to implement the necessary public policies now; otherwise, there will be a recession tomorrow. It is better to do this before there is a recession than when in the midst of one, because then it will be too late.

Fourthly, as regards gender equality in the European Union institutions and the ECB in particular, Mr Van Rompuy, we need to act now, not in 2018. Otherwise, what kind of credibility will we have if we are defending women’s rights outside the European Union yet having to teach a lesson to the governments of certain countries that do not respect those rights themselves?

Finally, as regards the political union, democracy and democratic legitimacy, which accompanies them, we need to put these issues on the table now and make progress on them now; otherwise, we will lose the confidence of the European people once and for all.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). – Mr President, let me first congratulate you, Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Unfortunately, I cannot congratulate Mr Vidal-Quadras, Vice-President of this Parliament. On Spanish television he suggested sending the Guardia Civil to Catalonia to deal with moves towards Catalan independence. This remark was utterly appalling. Let the Catalonians themselves vote on their future. Look at Prime Minister David Cameron with regard to Scottish independence. Cameron said, ‘OK, let’s hold a referendum in 2014’. That is the way to go about this, ladies and gentlemen. Not the army, but democracy.

In order to explain his remarks, Mr Vidal-Quadras sent us a letter which makes it even worse. Here is the letter. Reading it, I had the impression that it had been drafted by General Franco himself. He calls Catalan independence neither peaceful nor democratic. Well, what about him? So, dear winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, what are you going to do about that?

Mr Schulz, what are you going to do about it? Not much, so far. You said that Mr Vidal-Quadras was just expressing his private opinion and that he was not speaking as a Vice-President. But he was. He was announced as Vice-President and he is Vice-President 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is he not? So, Mr President, please do not run away from reality. Call upon your Vice-President to apologise to this House, to apologise to the Catalan people and to resign. He does not reflect the dignity of his position and he is not worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. I would say to Mr Vidal-Quadras ‘verguenza – shame on you’!

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

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE) , Blue-card question. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Eppink that he has just used the little time he had to dish out words of insult and condemnation from a position of absolute ignorance.

Is he familiar with the Spanish Constitution? Because all Vice-President Vidal Quadras said – nothing more and nothing less – was that the provisions of the Spanish Constitution should be enforced; anything else was merely the personal comments of an individual, which had no bearing on anything and which I respect as such, but with which I do not agree.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, the only point I wanted to make is that while I do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Spain, I do not approve of a remark made by a Vice-President of this Parliament suggesting that the army should be sent to a province. The matter should be left to the voters and not to the army. We know the history of the Guardia Civil, and the señor knows about it better than I do! So let him please talk about it, and let us talk about democracy and let the Catalonians decide themselves.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the situation has been described here in the blackest of terms, and it has been described by Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy, but the problem is what to do next, after the analysis. You are discussing things at a slow pace and deciding, late in the day, that you will take measures much later.

Never in the history of humanity has democracy been better used against the community, against citizens. The possibility of direct funding of banks should be put into action immediately. We cannot accept that the Cypriots and the Spanish should be burdened with the banks’ debts. It is not acceptable that a private debt should be turned into a public one. Can it be said more plainly than that? Although you agree that this has to happen, you are leaving it for later. You are doing what you have always done: you are thinking after the event. Furthermore, the proposal on 10 % equity for banks is a proposal that pushes the banks to stop giving loans – an absurdity if ever there was one.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, regarding the Nobel Peace Prize, I would say to those of you who are going to receive it, that you should pay due honour to the European citizen who really deserves it, and this means, firstly, the citizen of the South, who can no longer survive in the conditions in which he finds himself, and secondly, the citizen of the North, who continues, in a spirit of mutual European solidarity, to support the South. These two citizens are putting up a fight and holding fast to the European vision.

Mr President, now that we have turned to a growth and employment agenda, I think we should see to it that there are no reductions in the allocation of Structural Funds to the South, which are crucial for those countries’ development.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, it was announced in advance of the summit that no decisions would be taken; it was simply about setting the policy course. In my view, this policy course is merely a continuation of the wrong approach, the centralist approach, pursued to date, which has led the eurozone into a dead end. Instead of giving the bankrupt countries the opportunity to leave the eurozone if necessary, the discussions focused on a fiscal union, with Brussels in control of the national budgets.

More robust supervision of systemically important banks is undoubtedly to be welcomed. After all, uncontrolled speculation has created a situation in which bank after bank has had to be shored up with taxpayers’ money. Nonetheless, banking supervision, no matter how effective, cannot contribute substantially to ending the euro crisis; for that, what is needed is a comprehensive reform of monetary union. However, instead of applying the brakes at last, the eurozone is apparently to be further centralised, with talk of a single budget for the eurozone and, indeed, Eurobonds, which would amount to nothing less than the irreversible ‘communitisation’ of debt.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although I believe that things are a bit better, the impression after this Council is that a sort of ‘Penelope’s shroud’ principle is being applied and we are being asked to return again to matters that we thought had been concluded.

I would therefore ask in regard to the single supervisory mechanism, which is certainly a good compromise, what the Commission intends to do to put pressure on the Member States pushing for its entry into force to be postponed. What is going to be done to ensure that they adopt more reasonable positions?

As many wise leaders have observed, time is money. We must acknowledge that some countries want more time, but not enough attention is being paid to the fact that we seem to be postponing indefinitely the adoption, and the final implementation, of any decision. In other words, I believe that the results achieved by the Council should be viewed positively, but I also believe that all possible efforts should be made to ensure that these results take immediate effect.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a single currency requires genuine economic union; not merely a system of rules and regulations but economic government based on democratic institutions and equipped with adequate resources. Parliament insists that there can be no effective and legitimate ways of achieving this aim unless developed within the Union framework based on the institutions of the Union, and that the European Parliament is the Parliament of the euro because the euro is the currency of the Union. It is right that these principles should be recalled in the European Council’s conclusions, but they need to be stated tangibly and coherently.

Greater fiscal capacity is required to absorb the shocks caused by the crisis and to sustain growth and social inclusion, but clearly such fiscal capacity can and must be made a part of the EU budget and must be based on additional own resources; above all it should not distract from the need to have a joint capacity for issuing and managing debt.

However, we are opposed to individual contracts: they are ineffective and risk bringing about an asymmetric transfer of sovereignty, which would accentuate the democratic deficit. Parliament proposes a different model: binding and general social and economic objectives defined in ordinary legislative procedure at EU level, with national governments and parliaments competent to decide how these might be achieved.

This approach reflects a vision that is at once more ambitious and more realistic of a Europe in which stability, growth, social cohesion and democracy go hand in hand – and for this reason a fifth social pillar is essential – and of a federal transition aimed at building consensus among citizens on the basis of a clear road map. This would involve: 1) correcting a policy based on austerity and the inter-governmental method with swift Decisions that take maximum advantage of the possibilities offered by the Treaties and prioritise growth and employment; 2) rendering the upcoming European elections genuine elections for the government of the EU. Finally, a convention should be called to complete the building of real democratic government for Europe and its currency. Parliament calls on you to act, and Parliament will exercise all of its powers.

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE). – Mr President, how many really understand the implications of the single supervisor? It looks to me like banking union ‘lite’ – getting the taste without the commitment. But, like monetary union, the ‘lite’ version will tie Member States together with de facto mutualisation in the event of systemic failures. Of course, we hope that stays theoretical, but citizens should know. Meanwhile, to avoid mutualisation, the ESM is out and recapitalising Spain’s current bank debt is out. Bond buying is linked to other conditionality. So what is the hurry? Is it a question of pushing through a good news story before the citizens get to understand it or before Parliament finds a better way, leaving the substance to never never?

We are working to this mad timetable, but I see this as ‘legislate in haste and repent at leisure’ when a few months more could actually deliver the real deal. For all the gung-ho about banking union, I see no sign of it in CRD IV, which is still an exemption fest. Is it the intention for the ECB to stop all that? I think we should know and we should know up front.

Finally, on women in the ECB, we need more than talk that falls short of promises. That is no different from all the promises on gender equality that have so universally failed.

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI). – (NL) The Council’s conclusions are the umpteenth exercise in pushing at an open door. The simulation of growth, the implementation of the 2020 strategy and the further development of the EU, we have heard it all before.

You can hold all the meetings you want but as long as you stick your heads in the sand about the fundamental problems of the European Union, the situation will go from bad to worse. A common currency for a continent with so much diversity is doomed to fail. We should cherish this diversity and not ruin ourselves with even more centralisation and control from Brussels. The euro is not worth that.

Besides, a majority of the citizens in Europe do not want to transfer more powers to Brussels. Everyone knows that, unless they are blind. We are all democrats, are we not? Why are these signals coming from society not being taken seriously?

What has to happen before you finally see the error of your ways and come to the unavoidable conclusion that it can no longer go on like this. Even more economic austerity, unemployment and social unrest? This project is completely off the rails politically, economically and democratically.

Give the citizens back their freedom and release them from the crushing bonds of monetary union. That would do justice to democracy and offer a chance of economic recovery.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, I want to make a point of procedure to the members of the Conference of Presidents under your authority, Mr President. I regret that we did not have a political debate to prepare for this European Council with the General Affairs Council. I would suggest, and I hope you agree, President-in-Office of the Council, that you should come and prepare for the European Councils with us so that you can hear the political debates in this House.

I was disappointed in this European Council: very little was said about growth; practically nothing on competitiveness; no proposals on a major infrastructure investment plan. Indeed, all we heard about it in the press was that agreement had been reached on the timetable for the banking union.

When it comes to the proposals concerning the contractual relations between the Member States and the European Union, like some other speakers, I have a hard time believing them. Take the national reform programmes: France, under Mr Fillon’s Government, put forward proposals that were accepted at the June European Council, with the new President of the Republic. Where are the recommendations for each Member State? France had proposed reducing public spending, and reforming pensions and the labour market. I think that we need to monitor these country-specific recommendations.

However, we can tighten contractual relations through convergence on social aspects; Article 155 of the Treaty provides for this. We must ensure convergence of minimum wages. The former communist countries have been members of the European Union for eight years. We must factor convergence of minimum wages into the price chain.

As you said, President-in-Office of the Council, we need to restore confidence. We need to use politics to restore the confidence of the people.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, it would be unfair to deny that this Council has resulted in some progress, but it is also correct to say that it has not been immense and has been slow to materialise, meaning that, although we are moving forward, if we fail to do so at an adequate pace, we will fall further behind on the objectives we are pursuing.

In my opinion, it has not been an especially successful summit, and this is because of the following: the repetition that sees some decisions taken and then taken again, the slowness with which some measures are put into practice and their vagueness once they are, and, finally, the failure to achieve a balance between strict austerity and real social content.

With regard to the reiteration of agreements, it must be said that, now that we are approaching almost 30 summits, it is hard to tell one from the next; we remember the summit of May 2010, because it was the ‘Austerity Summit’, and that of June 2012, because it was the ‘Growth Summit’, but while austerity has certainly materialised, we have yet to see growth to the same extent.

In terms of the slowness and vagueness of the measures adopted, the European Council conclusions usually state that it is essential that the measures agreed are implemented swiftly, but, looking at the conclusions of the recent summit, it is phrases such as ‘in the coming weeks’ and ‘work is under away’ that predominate, while the only thing that really is under way since the ‘Growth Summit’ is the EUR 100 million for a political programme.

As regards the lack of balance, the fact is that the Council’s work does not include a significant amount of social content or social dialogue, and there is a danger, for instance, that it will fall to the Member States to find solutions for the problems arising from poverty. We need a European response to help Europe’s poor. It is the only way to lend the European Union legitimacy.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is an old principle that has passed from the legal to the political world and it is ‘pacta sunt servanda’, which means ‘agreements must be kept’.

By that, I am referring to the important measures adopted by the European Council in June to put an end to the crisis in which we find ourselves. Since these agreements were adopted, market pressure has eased, with markets welcoming decisions capable of breaking the vicious circle between banks and sovereign debt, as well as plans to move towards a genuine economic and monetary union and the commitment to defend the euro at all costs.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Council held last week undeniably achieved some positive results: satisfactory progress was made towards a banking union, while the agreement between the 27 Member States on the creation of a single supervisory mechanism is also to be welcomed; and it is right that this task should be entrusted to the euro area finance ministers.

However, I must criticise the biased interpretations that have, unilaterally, been made in this respect. It is not acceptable to make personal interpretations that could misrepresent the mandate granted to the finance ministers, nor do we approve of describing as settled matters that were not even discussed.

We urgently need to move towards a real single supervisory mechanism that covers all financial institutions. A joint deposit guarantee scheme and a crisis resolution mechanism must also be implemented. The euro’s survival depends on the rapid creation of an effective banking union.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with or without a summit, Europe is still in recession. There is a lack of growth stimulus and a shortage of jobs. Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy, you will have to launch some fresh initiatives before your term in office comes to end, otherwise there will be no end to this crisis in Europe. A summit, no matter how intensive the debate, cannot change anything. Europe’s young people have no jobs.

Mr Barroso, you have instruments at your disposal. Mr Andor and the Commission could utilise the available instruments. Why are we not making cuts within the framework that we already have, within the framework of the commitments made in the European Semester, tying the Member States into this process and starting straight away? Why are we not focusing on the young unemployed based on a specific annual percentage proposed by the Commission? Why can we do all kinds of things on a binding basis but we apparently cannot combat youth unemployment this way? The European Parliament is waiting for you to take the initiative.

We need more economic policy competences at the European level, that is absolutely right. The basic question is this: who is doing the regulating here, and what are they regulating? Every time the German Finance Minister, Mr Schäuble, comes and talks to us, he says that he would like to have a strong Finance Commissioner. We say, fine, let us give the job to Mr Rehn. That is the Mr Rehn who is possibly listening now to what this House has to say. Mr Rehn, it would be wonderful if you were given more competencies. However, let us make a deal, and let us be quite clear about it: you would then negotiate your mandate with the European Parliament. Life would be very different then. You would not have to ring round all of the European capitals to find out what they wanted at that particular moment. You would not have to negotiate any bilateral agreements with people who have no idea what it is all about. No, you hammer out your mandate with this House. Europe has all the means at its disposal and all the techniques it needs. We should be strengthening the European Union in its present form. We do not need another Europe. We do not need any new institutions. We need to strengthen the existing institutions, and that means strengthening the European Parliament. That is the only way to move out of the crisis.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Bullmann, we will send Mr Rehn the transcript of your speech so that he can at least take note of what it says on paper. Mr Barroso, perhaps you could let him know that we are kindly sending him Mr Bullmann’s statement. He does not appear to be terribly interested in it.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, facts are extraordinarily stubborn things. The most recent Eurostat statement shows unambiguously that our crisis management is inadequate. In spite of this, decision-making at the current summit continues to be erratic. No decisions have been arrived at, only a direction. At the same time, I think it is important that the new banking supervision should be able to start operating on the basis of the current EU institutions and treaties, and that in future a clear separation will be made between the European Central Bank’s monetary policy and its supervisory responsibilities. We have wasted a great deal of time, but this is not a good reason to make irresponsible decisions now on the pretext that time is short, and which could result in flawed supervision.

I am referring to the sort of decisions that will be detrimental to non-members of the eurozone, or indeed to those who voluntarily sign up to the new supervisory mechanism. It is a well-known fact – we have stated this several times and we will not deny it – that the crisis does not respect borders. This is why it is clear to me that we must also have cross-border crisis management – while of course taking into account the interests of the Member States. In other words, saving the euro requires maximum integration. For those of us who have stated that we want to join the euro in future, it is unacceptable to hear talk of a multi-tiered Europe in connection with banking supervision. Those who say this are flying in the face of the fundamental principle of European solidarity. They have not read the signs of the times and they are refusing to learn from the bitter lessons of the past.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, it is right to turn our attention to growth and job creation, but all of the available financial instruments and mechanisms must be mobilised. Without the growth dimension, the budgetary consolidation effort will fail. The recapitalisation of the European Investment Bank is an important step and may indeed have multiple benefits, especially in countries which are undergoing budgetary adjustment.

The citizens of my country, and other countries too, who are experiencing the harsh reality of budgetary adjustment, should soon come out of this situation. As regards the single supervisory mechanism, this is indeed an element in the deepening of monetary union, and its creation must be expedited. All too often, the banks are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Mr President, comments have been heard here about whether or not there is equality between the sexes. We must move on from talk to action. Europe received the Nobel Prize, not only for what it has done in the past 60 years, but also for what it ought to do in the future, and especially in the immediate future, as a force for stability, democracy, freedom, social justice and growth.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE). – (NL) A great many measures have been taken in the past few years to address the multi-faceted crisis: standard measures and non-standard measures; measures within the Treaty and measures outside the Treaty. Despite this, confidence has not been restored and it is confidence, above all, that is necessary to recreate a financial and economic climate that is conducive to economic growth and employment.

Of course, complex structural problems require structural solutions, in the Member States, but also in the Union. That is why we are anxiously looking forward to the final road map to a strong economic and monetary union that you, Mr Van Rompuy, have been working to complete with the Presidents of the other institutions, and that you plan to use to eliminate the flaws in the economic and monetary union. It has to be an ambitious plan, a plan that is implemented without delay, because the crisis will not wait for politics. That is also the reason why we in Parliament are not sitting around doing nothing.

Last week in Brussels, we voted on my report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the building blocks of the road map. As rapporteur, I would, of course, recommend that you read it. We discuss the four building blocks but we also add a fifth: a social pact to remind us what it is really about.

As far as the banking union is concerned, Mr President, we are working hard on amending the proposals, as the Commission’s text really could be improved on a number of points, but that need not cause any delay. We in Europe will be able to take further significant steps during the course of this year if everyone shoulders their responsibility. We in Parliament will certainly not cause any delay.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, President of the Council, President of the Commission, I must of course firstly welcome the Council results, despite their being rather tardy, in my opinion, given that they have come somewhat after the final decision. The fact is that progress has been made. Precisely because I agree with everything said by Mr Kasoulides, I would simply like to ask the President of the Council one question: those countries which are struggling and which are receiving assistance have fought hard for the retroactive application of the scheme to bank debts in order to decouple their sovereign debt. This has apparently not been accepted. However, we heard statements yesterday from the highest German and French authorities that Ireland would be treated as a special situation. My question is whether the Council has approved a decision to act discriminatorily and treat Ireland in a different manner from countries such as Portugal, Greece, Spain and so on.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have major problems in Europe. From the outset, we agreed, firstly, that in all of the Member States, we must make more sparing use of our financial resources; secondly, we agreed that we urgently need structural reforms; and thirdly, we agreed that we need to stimulate growth. We have done all this. The truth is that things are moving forward. This is happening slowly, but we are making progress. Sometimes, I do not understand why there are these agitated speeches, as if we were constantly expected to reinvent the world. We are on the right track. Mr Van Rompuy, I am most grateful to you for being such a staunch advocate of an approach which relies on steady and systematic work. It is not about introducing something new every week. It is not about producing a new instrument or investing hopes in some other marvellous innovation week after week. What we need is a systematic approach. That is the only way to move forward. Indeed, progress is being achieved, slowly but surely. Thoroughness and reliability are better than speed and a hectic approach. That is why implementation and systematic controls are more effective than a constant stream of new ideas.

I am very happy with the way we are working now. In fact, let me say this on the topic of banking supervision: it does not matter which day we introduce this system of banking supervision, as the two Presidents have said. What matters is whether it works. We ourselves adopted all manner of decisions in connection with the European Banking Authority and we wanted more. Today, we are doing things differently, more systematically. What matters is whether and how the new structures work, not when they work. So I would like to thank you for this systematic and somewhat calmer and more dependable approach. I think it is the right one. What ultimately counts is not who talks a better game but whose actions speak louder than words.

(Applause)

  President. − That brings us to the catch-the-eye procedure. However, I have one major request. We have still not concluded the debate. We now have five minutes for the catch-the-eye procedure. I have a long list of Members who have asked to speak under the catch-the-eye procedure, more than an hour, which shows just how spontaneous it is. I suggest you take your seats, as the responses from Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso are still to come.

Let me also make it quite clear – and this applies to the audience in the gallery as well – that it is not acceptable for speakers and audience alike to have no chance of hearing what is being said because so many private discussions are taking place in the gangways of the Chamber. I would therefore ask you to take your seats; otherwise, I will not allow the debate to resume.

Can I also ask the ushers here in the Chamber to approach the individual discussion groups that appear to be forming and perhaps make it clear to them that they should take their seats. Unfortunately, I do not have a command of all of the various languages; otherwise, I would make the point myself in Spanish, for example, given that part of the PP delegation appears to be holding a meeting here in the gangway. Ladies and gentlemen, please sit down. That applies to the Greens as well, Mr Albrecht. Do please take a seat; there is no charge!

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, the last European Council confirmed that in the medium term there is a good chance that we will move in the right direction, but in the short term the priority is to come out of the crisis, and we therefore need some speed in decision-making, while abiding by the principles of social justice, respect for democracy and consistency in enforcement.

For this reason, Mr Barroso, we must welcome this important decision by the European Commission to submit, today, the proposal for enhanced cooperation on the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax, because the fact is that it is one of the few fair social measures we can adopt at this time. Consistency in enforcement is a principle which must apply at national and European level. You underlined this in the case of Greece, and rightly so, but to achieve consistency in enforcement, government commitments are not enough. Citizens must be convinced that their sacrifices will bear fruit, because without the citizens there can be no successful enforcement, and the Union can help in this by being true to its commitments.

  Romana Jordan (PPE). – (SL) Mr President, it strikes me as very good that the Council has set out specific priorities, which at this time is especially important, and I will highlight those which have not yet been mentioned.

The European Research Area must remain a priority that we should implement more rapidly in line with the Ljubljana Process. We must facilitate mobility for researchers, and in particular proper working conditions and comparable pay for the same work.

If we compare ourselves with the United States, we need to do more primarily in the area of designing a suitable environment for researchers and private investors. Our deficit of up to 3 % of investment in research and development lies principally on the side of private investment.

Secondly, the internal market binds us and provides an opportunity for development. However, setting this up comes at a price, which we must take into account when adopting budgets.

An example is the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators: owing to the low budget there is indeed a threat to implementation of the Regulation on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency (REMIT), which should prevent information abuse and fraud.

I also support the strong words from the Council regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, but at the same time I regret that next week a European Parliament delegation will supposedly be visiting Iran. I do not think it is the right time for that.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, our citizens will welcome the emphasis of the Council on economic growth and the recognition that growth depends on trade.

However, much of that trade is internal. I wonder what Mr Van Rompuy will do to persuade Member States to lift the remaining barriers to trade in order to make the single market work as the Council wishes. What will he do to encourage Member States to open their markets in services in order to achieve the full potential of the single market? What will Mr Barroso do to withdraw some of the proposals he has talked of in order to reduce the regulatory burden? Which proposals are we talking of? Much trade is external, and we welcome the Council’s conclusions on Japan, Canada and Singapore. But do not forget India, and please do not overlook the USA.

Finally, citizens will welcome the commitment to the Connecting Europe Facility. But if the Council wills the ends, it must also will the means to pay for them.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Banking supervision was discussed at the summit and under the plans the ECB should become the regulator, but its buying-up of dubious government bonds has made it part of the problem. The ECB needs to regain its independence first by ceasing to inflate its balance sheet with government and bank debts. Then it will be able to supervise the banks, provided the banking supervision and monetary supervision are functionally separated, and provided the separation does not mean that the banking supervision has to be brought under the political control of Parliament. The Stability and Growth Pact has shown that political supervision does not work.

In any event, banking supervision is not a cure for all problems, as the continuing concern about Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy pushes us into a tough conversation about the future of the euro. This will involve serious discussion of painful solutions.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, first of all a comment on the ECB board nomination. Vice-President Reding is about to unveil her proposal for quotas of women on company boards, but wishful thinking without concrete action behind it is not going to solve anything. Gender equality is a democratic and fundamental issue.

For the rest, I welcome the decision of the ten Member States to introduce the FTT, as well as that of the Commission to introduce the Youth Guarantee Scheme. The European Socialist Party and the S&D group have actively campaigned for this for a long time now, and it is about time that this translated into concrete measures. I also welcome the willingness of the upcoming Irish Presidency to advance plans for that Youth Guarantee Scheme.

President Barroso himself said that we should do everything possible to avoid dooming a lost generation across Europe. However, when I listen to him and President Van Rompuy talking about growth and employment, I cannot help but wonder how they plan to achieve it without the necessary means and funding.

  John Bufton (EFD). – Mr President, it is very rare that I have anything positive to say about European Commissioners, but today is different. Over the weekend in the UK, on Sky News, the Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, turned round and said that the UK can survive without Europe. This is something that we have been saying for years. I would like to ask Mr Barroso, when he stands up, if he agrees with his Commissioner.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Mr President, how is it possible that the European Council did not pay any attention to the IMF’s admission of errors in calculating fiscal multipliers and the impact of austerity, with the consequent tragic costs in terms of the recession endured directly by the peoples of Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Italy, and the indirect weakening of the eurozone and the Union’s economic outlook as a whole?

How come the Commission, which is supposed to be the promoter of European interests and which is part of the troikas in bailout countries, is not pressing those troikas to reassess the adjustment programmes in the light of these mistakes, which have been admitted by the IMF, and of Director Lagarde’s clear recommendations to allow more time and reasonable interest, in order for those countries to adjust?

How can the Council and Commission continue to insist on ‘perpetual imprisonment in austerity’, as French President François Hollande has so rightly put it, for EU bailout countries, which has such dangerous economic and political consequences for the whole of the European Union?

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all regarding the assessment of this European Council, some of you have probably noted that in my initial statement I mentioned three European Council summits. I did that on purpose because this summit was important in terms of confirming some earlier decisions. That represents some progress already because the reality is that, unfortunately, doubts existed as to the commitment of some governments regarding decisions they had taken previously. In fact, though, the final decisions on some of those most important matters will come later, namely regarding the EMU in December and regarding the MFF, hopefully, in November.

So my assessment of this European Council is that it was certainly a step forward in terms of previous decisions being confirmed, but it was not yet the comprehensive response needed for the current challenges in the euro area and in the European Union. I consider this a fair assessment of the results of this European Council. Of course we have to know that we are working on extremely sensitive matters where, to be frank, the initial positions of our Member States are very diverse and where the interest, I believe, of all the European institutions is to create the right conditions for consensus and operational decisions.

One point where there was some progress was on the single supervisory mechanism (SSM) and I am also glad that this debate today has shown a broad degree of consensus on the principles set out in the Commission proposals and reflected in the European Council conclusions. These include, most importantly, that the SSM should cover all banks, that there needs to be openness – as full as possible – and to have as full as possible participation by the non-euro Member States which so wish, and that the SSM is a key element in proving that the European Union is capable of moving forward, of restoring confidence, deepening the EMU and opening up the way to decisions on bank recapitalisation by the ESM.

I particularly welcome the determination expressed by Parliament, namely by rapporteur Ms Thyssen, to advance the SSM work so that we can reach a quality result by the end of 2012. The Commission will work closely with you to further improve the SSM proposals and open the way for the operational phasing-in of the system in 2013 – as had in fact been proposed by the Commission – starting with systemic banks and eventually extending to all banks in the euro area and participating non-euro area Member States.

Another important issue that was mentioned here – I think it was a question by Mr Mauro – was the sense of urgency. I want to tell you that I made that urgency clear. The reality once again, if you want to be honest in our assessment, is that not all Member States feel the same degree of urgency. This is probably due to the fact that they are in different financial and fiscal positions, but I believe that it is important for the credibility of our response that this response is properly prepared. Some of these issues are extremely difficult from a political and technical point of view but the decisions should be as urgent as possible.

Another issue that was raised concerned a social pact for Europe. How can we complement some of these decisions with proper consideration of the social dimension? The elements proposed in the social pact are, to a large extent, already reflected in the Europe 2020 strategy. That is, let us not forget, a strategy for inclusive growth, and in fact the macroeconomic imbalance procedure has been an integral part of the implementation of this strategy during the second European semester. This has implied a number of new challenges for all of us, notably in terms of ensuring that the labour market and social issues are adequately reflected and assessed within this new framework.

This integration results from the fact that economic growth and employment and social aspects are two sides of the same coin. It was interesting to see in the debate that many people are speaking about having a real minister for finance in Europe. They should probably also be thinking about having a real minister for the economy in Europe, so that we complete the work on financial stability with a commitment to sustainable growth and also to the economic and social dimension. Employment and social cohesion are not just an outcome of economic growth but are also an important determinant. The Commission strongly believes that our values of social justice, solidarity and equal opportunities must remain at the heart of European integration and continue to be understood as prerequisites for our future economic prosperity, for the well-being of European citizens and for European cohesion. They must also appear in the European Union’s growth agenda.

At the beginning of 2013 the Commission will present a social investment for growth and cohesion package which will also address various aspects mentioned under what some of you have described as the social pact. The message I want to convey to you is that, yes, we are doing everything we can with the tools and instruments available at European level to inject this economic and social dimension into the broader response to the current crisis in the economic situation of the European Union.

Regarding the future responses on mutualisation of debt, you know what our position is. The Commission has stated it and we will also address this issue in the blueprint I have mentioned.

One point I want to make clear, and that I do not agree with, is the position of those who say that they are in favour of the content of the two-pack, they are in favour of more integration in supervision of budgetary policy, they are in favour of reinforcing the competence of the Commission and the European institutions, the Community method, in terms of economic governance, but they will not support this – they will not approve it – before decisions are taken on other issues like the redemption fund. This is a mistake. It is a mistake because if you make progress on one very important issue in the European Union dependent on other issues, where you know very well that there is not yet agreement between all our Member States, you are in fact paralysing progress and economic governance in the euro area. That is a choice for you to make, but my strong advice to all the pro-European forces is to support everything that enables us to put as much as possible under the Community method and in the European institutions and this is certainly the case with the Two-pack proposals.

Now another issue which was mentioned was the situation regarding some statements made by the IMF. I want to be clear on this aspect as well. The reason we have this crisis today, contrary to what some Eurosceptics suggest, is not because of the euro area. We have a crisis today in the European Union economy because of excessive debt created by national governments and because of the irresponsible financial behaviour in some sectors, including outside of Europe. So Europe was not the cause of the problem, Europe is indeed the victim of the problem and is now trying to be part of the solution. This is the reality.

(Applause)

It was irresponsible behaviour in terms of the excessive debt of public authorities and the sometimes completely irresponsible behaviour of some actors in the financial sector which created the problem. The proof of this – that this is not the problem of the euro – is that, for instance Mr Farage, your own country, which is not a member of the euro, is now implementing a very difficult austerity package. The British people are suffering the consequences of past mistakes. It was not the euro that created the Britain’s problems.

(Loud applause)

So it is intellectually – I repeat – it is politically and intellectually dishonest to pretend that the euro is the cause of our problems. In fact, it is the European Union that is part of the solution because, without the support of other countries in the euro area, some of our Member States would not have the financing necessary to keep their states running, to keep their social services, to keep their national health systems, to keep their public education. This is the reality.

So Europe is part of the solution and now we have to do everything we can to stabilise the euro area and to create the conditions for growth. But what growth? Sustainable growth! Not the growth of the past. The growth fuelled by excessive debt is not sustainable. The growth fuelled by irresponsible private credit is not sustainable, as we have seen.

We have to return to conditions for growth that is sustainable. This why the IMF, like the Commission, like the ECB, is in favour of fiscal consolidation. What the IMF said, and we can completely agree with this, is that the situation is different in some Member States and so those countries which have the margin to promote growth in terms of internal demand can do so, and in some cases there can be fine tuning of the objectives. Indeed I want to make it very clear that it was the Commission which proposed, and we were supported by the IMF, but it was the Commission which proposed one more year for Portugal and Spain to reach the budget consolidation targets. It was our proposal, not the IMF’s proposal. So, first for Spain and then for Portugal, the Commission recommended to the Council that the deadline for correction of excessive deficit be extended by one year.

Our fiscal rules, the revised Stability and Growth Pact, allow for this: when the economic situation turns out to be worse than expected and the reduction of the deficit in structural terms is taking place, an extension of the period to correct a nominal deficit can be granted. This is not automatic. The situation will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

This was also the position of Madam Lagarde when she said ‘conseil nécessaire et possible’ which means in English: advice ‘when it is needed and possible’, and this is exactly the position taken by the institutions that are monitoring the situation in some of our countries.

In particular, in the case of countries under financial assistance, namely Greece, Ireland and Portugal, one must assess the consequences on that sustainability of a possible prolongation of an adjustment period. Prolonging the adjustment period can delay reversing the increase in the government’s debt ratio and put it on a declining trend. This in turn will delay the return of those countries to the market, possibly requiring extra financing, and then comes the question: are the other euro area countries – because decisions are taken by the governments – the Commission makes the proposal in the end but I want to make it clear that the decisions are taken ultimately by governments – are the euro area countries ready to provide extra financing? This is an important issue. This means that for programme countries the possible prolongation of the programmes is subject to the severe constraints stemming from high levels of debt. These are also in fact the views of the IMF.

Now, one thing it is important to note and which people have not paid sufficient attention to, is that some of those who are now saying that we should be more, let us say, flexible in terms of the fiscal targets, are exactly the same people as are proposing hard restructuring of debt; are exactly the same people as believe that the euro area is too big, that southern Europe should not in fact be in the euro area, that it was a mistake to have those countries in the euro area. This is exactly the point I want to make: we do not agree. We believe we should do everything we can to keep the integrity of the euro area because when you accept more flexibility in terms of fiscal adjustment you have to think what the consequences in terms of deficit stability will be and how we can keep those countries going to the market as soon as possible so that they can finance their own state. It is very important to understand this.

This is why in fact I wanted to respond to those direct questions from you, to say that a lot remains to be done, but I believe that this European Council was an important moment for discussing the difficulties in a relatively open manner.

I am not underestimating in any way the difficulties and challenges ahead. I think we are now coming to a moment where, probably because there is less pressure coming from the markets, the sense of urgency in all of our capitals is not the same. That is why I expect Parliament and the Commission, as European institutions that keep firmly to the agenda, to understand that, without a complete comprehensive response to the euro area governance, we will not have the necessary conditions of confidence and confidence is critically important to restore investment and growth and jobs. This is our final and ultimate goal. Growth and jobs, but I repeat, sustainable growth for sustainable jobs.

  Herman Van Rompuy, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many of you have said: ‘you need to act, you need to act now’. I have given you an overview of everything that we have done over the last two or three years, with which you are very familiar, and some of you have even said: ‘you have done a lot; now you need to act and implement your decisions’. We thus do not need to create new instruments, as some of you reiterated, before the instruments we already have are implemented. At the same time, we are told: ‘you need to act now’.

What we have done – and I often say this – was inconceivable a year or two years ago. In fact, when it comes to the economic and monetary union, I must say – and you will also have seen this in Mrs Thyssen’s excellent report – that we have already made a great deal of progress on the economic union, on the budgetary union and even on the banking union. We have to intensify our efforts, but we have already made a good start.

What we have underestimated, however – and I think we must all take the blame, both in the Member States and in the institutions – is the breadth, the depth and the seriousness of the crisis in some of our countries.

The loss of competitiveness and damage to the sustainability of the debt have been so severe that we need much more time to change course. We cannot think for a second that with a deficit of 15 %, as in one country, or a debt of 160 % we can escape the austerity policy. We cannot think that with deficits of 10 % to 15 % on the current accounts of other countries, we can escape a corrective policy, an amending policy, an austerity policy.

It is not imposed, first and foremost, by the European institutions, it is imposed by the reality of the situation; it is the consequence of maladministration in quite a few countries over a period of time. We did not act soon enough, neither in the Member States, nor collectively at European Union level. Therefore, the so-called austerity policy is not a policy imposed from above; it is a policy that was inevitable, completely inevitable.

We have underestimated the breadth and the seriousness of the crisis. We have done many things over the last two or three years, and that is underestimated, too. We have not finished yet. That is why the four Presidents of the institutions are currently working on more initiatives. One of the key points, and something that we lacked, was sufficient financial integration.

At the start of the financial crisis, we set up three or four institutions, of course, but they focused mainly on coordination. Now we need institutions that are much more European, that are shared more fully by all. In fact, what we are going to do now, with the single supervisory mechanism, is in some ways an unprecedented breakthrough.

Of course, there is serious work to be done. We took that decision in June. The Commission put forward its proposal in September and the October European Council laid down the broad guidelines to enable the ministers to complete the work. You, too, have a responsibility in terms of the implementation of this banking union and we hope – and it is an extremely ambitious timetable – to continue and complete the work by the end of the year.

Once the legislative framework has been determined, there is all of the operational work by the Central Bank to put this single supervisor in place, and that will take a number of months, too. Step by step, but with serious and continuous efforts, we are endeavouring to ensure that this first pillar of the banking union is a truly European pillar. We are told that we need to act. We are acting, but we are acting in a serious fashion, in a fashion that guarantees a certain level of quality.

If things are moving somewhat slowly, that is one of the reasons for it. We have done many things and we are in the process of doing things that, in relation to the past, are quite revolutionary, when we talk about certain new institutions that we are going to set up.

Have we reached the end? No. That is why we are going to work with December in mind.

Ladies and gentlemen, the work will be harder than we imagine, because now, after everything we have done – the six-pack, and let us hope that the two-pack will be implemented quickly, too – with the Treaty on Stability and the Stability and Growth Pact, with everything we have done on the financial assistance mechanisms, with everything we have done in all of these areas, now we are really getting to the core of sovereignty and the core of solidarity.

The next stage will thus be a qualitative leap. It will also be a gradual process and I can assure you that the debate will not be straightforward here in this House, nor in the European Council, nor in other institutions. Indeed, the further we go, the harder it becomes to make further progress without touching on certain taboos relating to the concept of sovereignty and the concept of solidarity. I would warn you then that between October and December the work will be very difficult and we will have to take decisions that affect a number of taboos.

There has been talk of a fifth building block, but the social dimension must form an integral part of every single policy. That is what we did with the Europe 2020 strategy. Mr Barroso and I fought to ensure that this fifth goal of combating poverty was approved. It was not easy; most of the Member States were totally opposed to it. However, we eventually incorporated it in the Europe 2020 strategy.

Indeed, what is the Compact for Growth and Jobs but an element of the social dimension? What is more social than trying to create jobs in extremely difficult circumstances? The social dimension can be seen everywhere.

The four building blocks that I have proposed are building blocks that are traditional in every economic and monetary union. Moreover, in the European Council, no Head of State or Government, of any ilk or any political leaning, has called them into question. Therefore, we will also work on this social dimension, as I have just said, within the framework of these four building blocks.

The social policy is most important at Member State level. When the Member States take decisions on fiscal consolidation – and I was a finance minister for a very long time – they have to evaluate every measure in terms of its social impact. What is needed is a policy where the strongest shoulders bear the heaviest load. That is a general rule; but when it comes to implementing it and making it a reality, it is much more difficult.

The social dimension is everywhere, both in the Member States and in the policies adopted at European level. Some people say: ‘we need to act now on growth’. Ladies and gentlemen, the monetary policy – and I do not want to pass judgment – is not a restrictive policy, when we see that the interest rates are, in practice, negative interest rates and that the Central Bank is providing liquidity to the tune of EUR 1 000 billion by the end of the year; EUR 1 000 billion! The monetary policy is by no means a restrictive policy.

As far as the budgetary policy is concerned, are we once again going to move to deficit spending? No! Where possible, however, we are going to make the path a little easier. We have done it for Spain and for Portugal, and we may do it for other countries, too.

In fact, if we do not continue with these fiscal consolidation efforts, the markets will, unfortunately, punish these countries immediately. Everything that is gained by making the path a little easier will be lost immediately because of interest rate increases.

Consequently, we do not have not dozens of different ways to generate economic growth in the very short term. The most important thing in the short term is to restore confidence in the euro area. That is more important than anything else.

If you do not mind, I will give you some figures because when you say something positive, you need to be careful because it is not really politically correct. If you look at the difference between the bond rates 10 years ago in most of our countries and the benchmark, which is the German interest rate, if you look at the current situation and compare it to the worst situation in the last 12 months, you will see a decrease: 239 points in Italy, 249 points in Spain, 800 points in Portugal, 900 points in Ireland and 270 points in Belgium. It is therefore not right to say that there have been no results.

I hope that these results last, and the difficult lesson here is, of course, that we have been wrong on several occasions in the past. Well, perhaps I am the only one who has been wrong and some of you are always right. In any case, I can get things wrong. This result is also a clear sign that we can make progress in terms of restoring confidence. If we continue like this, consumers and businesses will also gain in confidence and that will lead to an increase in growth, albeit too low, at the end of 2012 and beginning of 2013, and, indeed, we are starting to see the first signs of this.

Restoring confidence in the future of the euro area is the best way of promoting economic growth in the very short term.

This work will take place here and in the European Council, gradually, step by step. Each time, we are comparing completely new elements to the past. We will continue the work in December. In the meantime, I, like you, hope that in November we will reach an agreement on the multiannual framework. To do that, however, we need one thing, without which an agreement will be impossible: we need a sense of compromise and the political will for this to work. Without that, an agreement will not be possible. For our part, like the other Councils that I have chaired, we will make every effort to reach a compromise.

(Applause)

  President. − The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debate.

(The President provided details on the procedure for the photo session.)

⁂

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I do not wish to take up too much of your time. I simply wish to remind my fellow Members of an event of major European significance that began on 23 October 1956. I am referring, of course, to the revolution in Hungary. Unfortunately, it is sometimes misused by extremists, such as today’s demonstrations by Jobbik and by Nick Griffin, a homophobic extremist from the British National Party. This was a major and very important event in European history, along with the Berlin uprising and the Prague Spring, of course. We should not let this day pass without remembering all those who fought bravely in a revolution which, tragically, was crushed by Soviet troops. Even so, it was an important symbol of freedom in Europe. As the European Union is now a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, it is important to commemorate this day.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, in the numerous emails you sent inviting us to be part of this photograph, you explained that it would serve to greet visitors to Parliament and would therefore be used in the media. I am happy that President Barroso and President Van Rompuy are also included in this photograph. Their inclusion will send out a message to all those coming to Brussels that the European institutions are united in their actions and aims.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The plenary debate in the European Parliament on 18-19 October 2012 on the results of the EU summit confirms the Greek Communist Party’s view that the summit strengthens the attack by capital, the EU and bourgeois governments on the working class and popular strata, in the context of intra-imperial rivalries – both within the EU, and with other imperialist centres and the dynamically rising capitalist economies – which are intensifying as they face the dead-end street of bourgeois management of the capitalist crisis.

What unites them is their strategic choice to ‘cheapen’ the workforce, to destroy the livelihood and rights of the working class in all of the Member States, in order to withstand relentless monopolistic competition. This hideous reality cannot be concealed behind the laughable award of the Nobel Peace Prize to this sham alliance of imperialists or behind the ‘grandiose’ plans ‘for real economic and monetary union’. The plans for greater unification of the euro area and the EU coexist with the tension of the growing centrifugal tendencies, and run up against the insurmountable conflicts among the bourgeois classes regarding the distribution and extent of the destruction of capital and the way out of the crisis, and the problems of management which these conflicts entail.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. – (NL) Most of the topics reviewed at the summit had also been discussed at the previous summit. What is new is that the President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy, is proposing a separate budget for the eurozone. I understand that there is a great need for more money to save the banks but is the emergency fund not the instrument for that? There is no public support for a bigger emergency fund, but is a new budget not a way to hoodwink our citizens? In Mr Van Rompuy’s proposal a separate budget for the eurozone comes down to ever more ‘Europeanisation’ of social policy. Calling for more Europe at a time of crisis threatens to trample subsidiarity under foot compared with economic, social and fiscal policy. Does the Council not recognise an area of tension here? How will he ensure that subsidiarity is not eroded? I want to warn you about these proposals for an economic and budget union, because I am very worried about them.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D) , in writing. – (RO) It is laudable that the European Union is maintaining its decision to stimulate economic growth and jobs within the context of the Europe 2020 strategy. The Compact for Growth and Jobs agreed in June, is the general framework for action at both national and EU level, using all the necessary tools and policies.,. Therefore, all the commitments made under the pact must be fulfilled as soon as possible. It is a fact that SMEs offer approximately 90 million jobs in the EU, of which 30 % are in micro-enterprises, while 85 % of the new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 were by SMEs, mainly new enterprises. Access to finance is essential for financing business investment, to guarantee that they reach their full development potential and so to facilitate the creation of new enterprises that can generate growth and future jobs. The Commission must provide even more support to Member States in reprogramming their structural funds so that they are strongly focused on economic growth and job creation, especially for young people, women and vulnerable individuals.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At a time when we are still suffering the effects of the economic and financial crisis, it is understandable for the European Council to have focused on economic issues, particularly as regards the need to invest in growth and job creation and the need to extend economic and monetary union (EMU). It is essential that we rebuild European competitiveness and encourage investment and job creation, as the number of unemployed in the EU is around 25 million. We therefore need a growth-oriented budget. It is also vital to restore confidence in the euro area and ensure the EU’s long-term stability, by guaranteeing economic convergence. However, it is not only EMU that needs a boost, but also the Union of citizens. The creation of a common European identity, in an area without internal borders, is under threat. We have to urgently reach compromises in this area, too, as the Europe of which we want to be proud is not limited to the common market, but goes further, by prioritising people within European policies. I regret that, in all of these areas, the Council has simply repeated previous decisions and postponed others, which does not give hope to Europe’s citizens.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The essential element for the single supervisory mechanism for banking to succeed is to ensure the equal participation of all Member States in the decision-making process. The dominant weight of euro area capital in EU Member States with national currencies requires a balanced configuration of the regulatory framework. Otherwise, not only will the European Union be transformed into a structure made up of 17 decision-makers and 10 victims, but also, the conditions for major systemic risks will be created.

The agreement regarding the gradual implementation of the practice for banking control in the euro zone indicates a departure from counterproductive debates on banking and budgetary union in European priorities. The French-German compromise, indispensable for the Union’s cohesion, could be the right solution for reducing the very dangerous interdependence between banks and governments. To reduce the vicious circle of increasing interest rates, the lowering of ratings and liquidity problems, we need more than just measures; we also need a framework that will force the banking sector to become sustainable and responsible when faced with speculative tendencies. The serious effects of the economic crisis, which started in the financial sector, force us to act so that ‘banking ethics’ does not become a contradiction in terms.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) On 18-19 October there was another meeting of the European Council. In connection with the ongoing administration of economic and monetary union, there is a need to decide on a proper legislative framework relating to a single supervisory mechanism as soon as possible, and by 1 January 2013 at the latest. The process aimed at deepening economic and monetary union must in particular be open and transparent to Member States that are not part of the eurozone and the integrity of the single market must be respected.

We need a real economic and monetary union. Smooth operation of the economic and monetary union requires more intensive and sustainable economic growth, employment and social cohesion. I agree that improvements should continue to be made in administration within the eurozone. We should adopt legislative proposals relating to budgetary supervision by the end of 2012 at the latest. This involves key legislation that is essential for strengthening the new economic governance in the EU.

The European Council also agreed that it is essential to break the vicious circle between banks and states. We need precise operating criteria directly governing the recapitalisation of banks from the European Stability Mechanism. One of the most important priorities, however, is support for employment and social inclusion. Effective measures are required as soon as possible to promote employment. We must also ensure that quicker progress is made in this respect.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This meeting marks an unmistakable deepening of the economic, social, political and institutional crisis in which the EU is mired. Fastidiously repeating general positions and announcements – on growth, employment, reforms, consolidation, single market and other clichés which regularly appear in the conclusions of European Council meetings – is not the way to tackle the growing tensions and contradictions, particularly those between Germany and France, Spain and Italy, among others. Faced with the mass destruction of productive forces, unprecedented levels of unemployment, and deep and prolonged recessions in prospect, growing differences of opinion over the extent (and location) of this destructive process are developing. The contradictions surrounding the banking supervision mechanism and direct financing of the European Stability Mechanism by the banks are a clear example of this. Against this backdrop, attacks are continuing on the rights and sovereignty of the people, and on democracy itself. Following on from economic governance and the Fiscal Compact/Budget Treaty, the idea is emerging of concluding contracts between the Member States and European institutions, forcing the former to comply with a previously agreed plan of reforms, in line with the recommendations of the European Semester. Despite differences of opinion, an agreement determined by class interests has prevailed, which aims to intensify the exploitation and robbery of workers and citizens.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – I would like to welcome that the European Council meeting of 18-19 October clearly declared that boosting employment and social inclusion remains a priority of the utmost importance and called on Member States to step up their efforts to tackle the social consequences of the crisis and to fight poverty and social exclusion. The stumbling of the world economy and the debt crisis strangling our Union have accelerated those harmful tendencies, due to which fewer and fewer people are able to maintain a proper standard of living and for more and more European citizens even everyday subsistence represents an insoluble challenge. The European Council will devote a special meeting in November to reaching agreement on the next multiannual financial framework, which will be a crucial factor in improving the hopeless situation of the poorest Europeans, the marginalised millions of our Union. The Commission and Parliament have introduced proposals to give priority to the integration of the most disadvantaged communities and I truly hope that the fourteen governments of our political group will promote these amendments unanimously in the Council, and enable regional policy to help the most deprived and most marginalised 30 million Europeans.

  Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), in writing. – (BG) In recent weeks, many of us have been wondering whether the European leaders would take the specific steps required for the implementation of the lofty objectives that they set themselves at the start of the year. Swaying between gloating and sincere concern, almost everyone agreed on one thing: that there was an evident delay, an increasing lack of clarity and a feeling of a lack of political will. Today we can view matters with more optimism because a decisive step has been taken towards the introduction of a single banking supervisory mechanism. I am very pleased that its development was announced as a priority and that a deadline was fixed for reaching an agreement for its legislative framework, that is, 1 January 2013. There is no doubt now that the European banking union will be realised. Its new, stricter rules will give security to citizens and increase confidence in the markets. However, I must reiterate: the ease with which some leaders make references to the inevitability of splitting Europe into a ‘two-speed’ Europe is frightening. The European banking union and subsequent fiscal union will form the future not only of the eurozone countries but of the entire EU, and their success will depend on everybody, not just the countries that are directly involved in the euro crisis today.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In the last few years, the European institutions have come up with a series of proposals, documents and pacts. We talk about different unions: economic, monetary, banking and political. We establish new mechanisms, authorities and agencies. Summit follows summit. Some time ago, a strategy paper was adopted on Europe 2020. Meanwhile work has also been ongoing on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 and on reforms to the main policies. For the average EU citizen, the sheer number of initiatives and actions is often confusing. In my opinion, three objectives are the most important right now. First of all, reaching an agreement on the future financial framework in order to ensure the stability of the EU and financing for growth measures under the EU budget from 2014. Secondly, a single banking authority should be set up that will strengthen the banking system in Europe and help establish a banking union. Sound and effective banking will create the conditions for the much-desired growth. We must ultimately make sure that there is no repeat of a situation in which a crisis within financial institutions and the collapse of banks become the cause of a financial, and subsequently economic, crisis, with huge sums allocated from national budgets in order to rescue these institutions. Thirdly, more robust economic management and budgetary supervision and coordination in the Member States must go hand in hand with deeper structural reforms and greater productivity and competitiveness. These measures will help strengthen the EU politically, as an efficient structure bolstered by economic integration and essential reforms designed to tackle the crisis.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The countries belonging to the eurozone have committed to ensuring that a future dedicated eurozone budget would not be detrimental to the budget of the 27, but the grounds for having an independent eurozone budget have been recognised. As far as banks in countries outside the eurozone are concerned, the possibility of joining the banking union and applying community regulations is a given, but they will not be able to share in the resources of the planned bank rescue fund. Meanwhile, the countries of the eurozone will be able to offer financial support on a contractual basis to less competitive members for the purpose of structural reforms, while this possibility is not available to countries outside the eurozone. It is becoming increasingly clear that the rules of the common market are being shaped according to the demands of the eurozone, quite simply because the countries outside the eurozone are in the minority (EU17-EU10). Participation in deepening integration is vital to the interests of small, open economies such as Hungary that are stuck outside the eurozone. Being stuck on the outside will mean a steady decline in their ability to service national debt and attract vital capital into the country to ensure a functioning banking system, finance development and enhance competitiveness. It is high time that Mr Orbán’s Government abandoned its freedom-fighter economic policy, which runs directly counter to the European mainstream. It is a policy that will mean the ruin of the Hungarian economy and leave the country lagging behind in the long term.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The most recent European Council held in Brussels had the opportunity to discuss three issues regarded as pivotal to the future of the European Union, namely the Compact for Growth and Jobs, and economic and monetary union. In addition, reference was also made to the difficult economic and financial situation of Greece. I support the new Compact for Growth and Jobs being rapidly implemented to the tune of EUR 120 billion, the capital of the European Investment Bank being increased by EUR 10 billion, trans-European networks in the area of energy and transport being adopted, and the internal market being extended or the amounts for research and innovation or industrial competitiveness being increased. I am therefore critical of the lack of agreement between the Member States on the entry into force of economic and monetary union, with the decision having been made that the European Central Bank will not extend its responsibilities for supervising all European banks until next year. I would also stress that, if any Member State in receipt of external financial support manages to make the adjustment period more flexible, or if the bank recapitalisation amounts do not influence the budget deficit, all of the other countries should be entitled to receive exactly the same treatment.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the conclusions of the European Council of 18-19 October in which it reinforced its commitment to take decisive action to deal with the tensions in the financial markets, to re-establish trust and stimulate economic growth and to create jobs. Not enough progress has been made in implementing economic growth and job creation as agreed in June and therefore we ask for firm, rapid and result-oriented measures. We ask the Commission to support the Member States in the process of reprogramming their structural funds so that they can be strongly focused on economic growth and job creation.

The competitiveness of the EU and its economic and social development depend on ensuring a modern and efficient infrastructure for transport, energy and information and communication technology. The Connecting Europe Facility will help deal with bottlenecks and the problems with cross-border connections in trans-European transport, finalise the internal market for energy and create a fully functioning digital single market by 2015. All this will promote research and development and improve the competitive edge of EU industries as they contribute to growth and to the creation and preservation of jobs within the EU.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), in writing. – (NL) The speeches today lacked any inspiration, immediately quashing the hope that the vision report can contribute to a powerful solution to the crisis. We want real answers from the leaders of the Union to the questions from the thousands of workers at Ford Genk who are threatened with redundancy, and to the concerns of the ‘lost generation’ of 14 million young people in the EU who are not in education, employment or training. These young people, who will have to take the future of the Union into their hands, have nothing to do, are powerless and have lost all belief in the policy.

The Union is cultivating a generation of mistrust which feeds populist and nationalist tendencies that encourage Europeans to retreat to the little islands that are their Member States. We really must go for a social pact in Europe. What we mainly see now is that the Union continues to blunder about in the economic margin by blunting the sharp edges of the misappropriation of the unregulated market a bit, without really looking to the future, giving hope to young Europeans and developing a real vision.

6. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the vote.

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

6.1. Request for waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser (A7-0332/2012 - Bernhard Rapkay) (vote)

6.2. Draft general budget of the European Union - 2013 financial year (vote)

Before the vote:

  Giovanni La Via, rapporteur. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as is the case every year, the complexity of the procedure has given rise to the need for certain technical adjustments. Firstly, the only reference document concerning the amounts is DOC 6. In the case of multiple amendments, the vote relates to all lines concerned by the amendment. Secondly, rectifications should be made in respect of the following pilot projects and preparatory actions to be voted.

– Pilot project ‘Development of indicators to measure the implementation of the European Charter for Equality of Women and Men in Local Life’: adoption under heading 3a and not heading 1a.

– Preparatory action ‘Fruit and vegetable consumption’: adoption under heading 2 and not heading 3b.

– Pilot project ‘Promotion of Self Care Systems in the European Union’: correct payment amount EUR 1 million rather than EUR 100 000.

– Preparatory action ‘Climate mainstreaming and innovation’: reduction of EUR 2 million compared to the draft budget (both commitments and payments).

– Preparatory action ‘European voluntary humanitarian aid corps’: reduction of EUR 1 million compared to the draft budget (both commitments and payments).

I also stress that Parliament’s position does not take into account amending letter No 1/2013, adopted on 19 October 2012 by the Commission, which will form part of the conciliation process.

I conclude with an appeal. It is more important than ever that Parliament show unity and cohesion with regard to the 2013 budget. A difficult conciliation process lies ahead with the Council, which does not seem prepared to free up the necessary resources. I call on Parliament to send a strong message in its vote, showing that it is united and will fight its corner.

After the vote:

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, the European Parliament has just adopted amendments to the Council’s position on the draft budget for 2013. Consequently, in my capacity as President of the Council, I agree that the President of the European Parliament should convene the Conciliation Committee as required in Article 314(4)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

6.3. General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sections (A7-0311/2012 - Giovanni La Via, Derek Vaughan) (vote)

6.4. Multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (A7-0313/2012 - Reimer Böge, Ivailo Kalfin) (vote)

After the vote on Amendment 20:

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, we are voting on quite a large number of amendments tabled by one particular group that usually attaches great importance to strict compliance with the Rules of Procedure. In this House, roll-call votes are generally reserved for issues of particular and major importance. It would therefore be sensible for the EP’s Services to contact the group concerned to establish whether each of these roll-call votes is, in fact, necessary. In my view, what the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group is inflicting on us here is completely unnecessary.

(Applause)

6.5. Own resource based on the value added tax (A7-0316/2012 - Jean-Luc Dehaene) (vote)

6.6. Financial rules applicable to the annual budget (A7-0325/2011 - Ingeborg Gräßle, Crescenzio Rivellini) (vote)

Before the vote:

  Ingeborg Gräßle, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will be as brief as possible. You are voting today in a single vote on the consolidated text. You are voting on whether we include joint statements. However, you are also voting on whether we should include a statement by Parliament that reads as follows:

‘The amount of EUR 85.9 million repaid by Belgium to the European Parliament at the beginning of 2010 and earmarked for building projects is to be considered as external assigned revenue under Article 18 of the Financial Regulation.’ That is the wording of the text.

All that remains is for me to thank everyone involved in the difficult process of negotiating this regulation.

  Crescenzio Rivellini, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, very briefly, I would like to point out that today we are approving a new, more modern and simpler regulation on the way in which funds are managed, with more effective rules for facing and overcoming the challenges posed by the current crisis. Thank you.

  President. − That concludes the vote.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

7. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan (A7-0311/2012)

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, in the United Kingdom we are still getting to grips with the ruinous financial inheritance left to us by the last Labour government. We have had to increase taxes and cut spending. I voted against the budget today because it proposes an increase in EU expenditure of 6.8 %. For the EU to demand such a large increase, indeed any increase, is grossly insensitive. It is difficult to think of anything more likely to alienate voters in the UK and across the whole of the EU. Why should Europe be getting more money, when almost every other public service is getting less? Why does the EU lecture Greece to cut spending, tell Ireland to raise taxes, force Spain to accept a bail-out and then demand more money for itself? At a time of austerity it is the height of hypocrisy for the EU to ask for more.

I fully support David Cameron’s efforts to freeze EU expenditure. He is far more in touch with the citizens than the majority of Members of this spendthrift Parliament.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the policy of austerity adopted in order to emerge from the economic crisis has not yielded the desired results. As has been underlined in the report by Mr La Via, only by investing in a more selective manner and supporting a European budget aimed at sustaining growth and employment will it be possible to stabilise the Member State economies and improve the situation of European citizens. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, it is the duty of parliamentarians to represent the interests of their constituents. Trust in the European Union is at an all-time low. According to Eurostat, fewer than one third of Europeans have a positive image of the EU. In my country, the EU is seen as wasteful and out of touch. If we are to restore credibility we need to rein in excess spending.

The Commission’s inflation-busting 7 % increase in the budget is an insult to my constituents. While I would prefer to see a complete budget freeze, the Council’s proposal of 3 % is more acceptable. So why has this House voted to restore the Commission’s unrealistic demands? Perhaps it is because the Commission will go ahead and spend anyway. The Commission recently demanded a 10 billion top-up to its 2012 budget and this is an affront and an outrage. We must send a strong message to the Commission that it can no longer continue to squander its citizens’ taxes.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr La Via and Mr Vaughan for their excellent work on the 2013 budget; in particular, I wish to reiterate the support of the European Parliament for the Erasmus Programme. Since 1987 more than two and a half million European students have had the chance to go abroad to study and work.

We voted against the cuts by the Council and requested EUR 30 million more than was proposed by the Commission. We not only need to save Erasmus, we must rather implement it more comprehensively and propose a European strategy for youth, because young people should not be made to pay the costs of the crisis, especially at a time when youth unemployment in Europe stands at almost 25 %.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr La Via on his excellent work on the report on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013. His task was difficult, and there seemed little likelihood of an agreement between the Member States and the European Parliament. Despite the prolonged period of crisis and constant requests for cuts to EU expenditure, Mr La Via and Mr Vaughan together managed to ensure continuity for current policies and initiatives.

I think it was particularly important that any slowing down of the pilot projects in the areas of energy and the environment was avoided, a clear sign of the good work carried out by the European Parliament in defending the prerogatives of the European Union. I have therefore given my full support to this report.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, it is unacceptable that, at a time of unprecedented budgetary constraints across Europe, the EU should be planning to increase its 2013 budget by 3 % – which is an inflation-beating figure – next year, with Parliament proposing a staggering 6 % rise in payments.

EU governments are being forced to keep an ever-closer eye on their national spending. The British Government, for instance, is to cut spending by an estimated GBP 83 billion, with individual departments having to slash their budgets by an average of 19 % each. There is no good reason why the EU should be exempt from the cold realities of a global spending crisis. Once again this organisation risks being viewed as out of touch by a European public subjected to painful austerity measures in their home countries and yet witnessing manifest profligacy in Brussels on a daily basis.

The EU is an expensive enterprise and demands a lot of money, but if it wishes to retain the confidence of EU citizens, it needs to tighten its belt like everybody else.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report. I think he has found a good compromise. The 2013 budget has attracted a great deal of public interest. It is, after all, the final year of the seven-year financial framework. That is why the Member States are sometimes not entirely fair in their dealings with the European Union. In the final year, for example, a relatively large number of projects are still being submitted and need to be end-financed. The very same Member States which received rebates in previous years are now focusing very strongly on compliance with financial discipline in 2013. In my view, we should deal fairly each other. Most of the funding allocated by the European Union ultimately goes to economic development and innovation; in other words, the funding is put to good use. In that spirit, I trust that we will deal fairly with each other.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the committee to which I belong, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, has noted the need to lower expenditure on external staff. We also stressed that the budget for this purpose should not exceed 10 % of total staff expenditure. In view of that position, I believe that we should concentrate on constantly developing our IT infrastructure. We should strive to ensure that the public are increasingly able to use the internet to manage their affairs. One such example is the SOLVIT system, which is an effective extrajudicial means of settling disputes. However, further action needs to be taken to promote it among businesses and to boost its role in aiding the functioning of the internal market. I voted against the report, as I believe that the individual areas vital to economic policy need to be addressed in separate documents.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, I do not think that there is anything more revealing in terms of the detachment from reality and the distorted picture that characterises Parliament’s members than the votes on the budget that took place here a few minutes ago. All EU Member States are compelled to make cuts in their consumption, despite the fact that the EU’s Court of Auditors has said for 16 years in a row that it cannot approve of the way in which the EU spends taxpayers’ money, and despite the fact that the entire consumption of money by the EU is characterised by fraud and swindling to an extent that we would not see in any normal democracy, so I do feel that the vast majority of us here at Parliament are insisting not only on an increase, a moderate increase, or an increase in line with inflation, but an increase of almost 7 %. I hope that the vote we have held today, in which most people have had to put their name to their vote, will be sent around sites and discussion forums all over the EU, so that people can see who is mistreating their money and who is simply insisting on being given more.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I also voted in favour of this report as the financial crisis continues in Europe and the Member States are still resorting to austerity measures. Now more than ever Parliament needs to act in a responsible manner. It must take into account the financial policies of the Member States when approving the budget for 2013. Even more importantly, the public expenses of the Union should be approached in the same way, and the European Parliament should establish its priorities and reduce its expenditure where necessary.

I maintain that the budget represents an important instrument for promoting growth and cohesion in Europe. At the same time, I believe we need to emphasise innovation and competitiveness and promote the positive developments in these areas more effectively. For Romania, the priority is to ensure adequate cohesion policy and common agricultural policy funding.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Mr President, I do not think it is very acceptable for the European Union to ask for a 7 % increase when my constituents in the south-east of England are having to tighten their belts and to live within their means. What prompted me to get up on my feet was the rather clever speech made by the President of the Commission who appeared to blame the national governments and the national parliaments for the current mess that we are in and not the European Union. What he forgot to mention is that when the eurozone was set up, it was the Commission that was to monitor expenditure in the Member States and the 3 % limit, the deficit limit, has been breached right throughout the European Union and the Commission did absolutely nothing about it. The 3 % and the 60 % ratios which were installed when the eurozone was created were ignored. That was the Commission’s omission.

Report: Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin (A7-0313/2012)

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Mr President, in that report I voted with my group, except for a few exceptions which related to international development, because I did not believe that we should – even though we are in difficulties – punish those who are in such dire straits that the quality and standard of living that we enjoy in Europe is utterly luxurious compared to the way they live.

Therefore the poverty programmes and the other programmes which we would have essentially cut – particularly in Asia – I voted differently from my group, because I believe that it is very important to be able to link our wellbeing to that of others in dire circumstances and in circumstances which are not as good as the ones that we find ourselves in.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020 is being discussed in a difficult social and economic context. Member States are busy making fiscal changes to their own national budgets in an effort to stabilise public finances, and so the European Union is seen in many cases as a factor adding to the burden of taxpayers. Therefore, if we really want to emerge from this crisis and ensure a better future for European youth, it will be essential to make greater and more tangible investment in training and development.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, earlier this month Margaret Thatcher celebrated her 87th birthday and I am sure this House would join me in sending its warmest congratulations. Mrs Thatcher fought hard to negotiate a rebate for the UK in 1984. When the Iron Lady secured a 66 % rebate she said, ‘Of course, one would like 100 %, but one has to be a reasonable partner’. The UK continues to be a reasonable partner, but the proposals in this report to end the UK rebate are unacceptable.

David Cameron – like Margaret Thatcher – wants to outline the budget negotiations which are good for the UK and good for Europe, which is why the British Conservatives are calling for a freeze in EU spending. This is a reasonable approach. I do not see how the Commission can continue to demand an increase in its own budget while imposing austerity measures on Member States.

As a former businesswoman I know that it is possible to make cuts to any budget. Our citizens deserve these budget cuts and the Commission must listen to their demands.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time of crisis when the Member States are asking to reduce their EU contributions, we must spend our available funds in a better manner, ensuring that they address the real priorities: growth, development and employment, reducing misspending and eliminating unfair advantages, starting by abolishing the so-called system of rebates, which are nothing less than budget discounts benefiting some Member States to the detriment of others. It is unacceptable, in my view, that the United Kingdom has to date benefited from rebates amounting to about EUR 97 billion.

Italy cannot afford to be a net contributor country, giving more than it receives, and much less to finance these anachronistic discounts. In 2011 alone, Italy made a net contribution of almost EUR 6 billion. Let me finish by saying, on the issue of misspending, that today the European Parliament clearly stated its preference for a single seat in the near future.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, the medium-term financial framework will set the parameters for the next seven years of EU budgets and could not come at a more sensitive time. Every single Member State is making cuts in local and national spending and European public spending must be subject to the same discipline.

We have limited money. Every euro, every pound, every kroner, even every zloty needs to get to the front line with a minimum of waste. In my own region, EU-funded projects often sound attractive for jobs and skills, infrastructure and research, but the red tape reality is that running those projects often has huge costs and wastes, and these schemes could be better funded through national programmes or local grants.

I do not just want to tinker with EU funding, I want a fundamental review on how to reduce waste and excess, starting with getting rid of this Chamber but moving on to look at our staffing costs and benefits, so that there is not one set of rules for EU institutions and another for those who work locally. Then I want a root and branch review of every project so that the EU only funds projects where there is added value at international level in areas like our world-class science, where investment genuinely will boost growth and jobs.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to begin with I would like to recall that the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 are proceeding in a very difficult social, economic and financial context. I regret to say that the European Union is increasingly seen by citizens as an additional burden to be borne by taxpayers, rather than an important resource.

I am convinced that this situation is caused by the fact that the EU budget is not in line with national budgets, since it has not been expanded to take account of the duties and competencies assigned to the Union under the Treaty of Lisbon, or of the important political Decisions taken by the European Council.

I voted in favour of the report because I was aware of the need to reach an interinstitutional compromise and to send a clear signal to citizens.

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Mr President, the EU’s multiannual budget must be fit for purpose. Without a proper budget we cannot deliver on agreed aims and policies, in particular those set out in the EU 2020 strategy. Indeed, the budget is one of the most effective instruments we have to help create growth and jobs across Europe. Those who argue that the EU budget should be cut or frozen must spell out which EU policies they would take out.

I firmly believe that 25 % of the cohesion funds should be allocated to the European Social Fund. This could help co-fund initiatives to tackle the growing problem of youth unemployment, such as the Youth Guarantee. In that context I welcome the Irish Government’s commitment to prioritising the Youth Guarantee Scheme during Ireland’s Presidency. Youth unemployment is currently running at 30 % in Ireland.

Finally, I do believe that the EU needs to tackle the issue of own resources, and I would like to see agreement on a Financial Transaction Tax.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, first I would like to congratulate the Republic of Cyprus for handling the delicate multiannual financial framework negotiations so adeptly for the 2014-2020 period. This is the island state’s first experience of holding the EU’s rotating Presidency-in-Office. The Cypriots, like the British people, recognise the importance of value for money for the European Union, while emphasising the need for the EU to help create jobs and enable economic growth. Nevertheless, the British Prime Minister David Cameron has made it quite clear that at a time of austerity it is simply unacceptable to the British public to demand either an above-inflation increase or an end to the British rebate, particularly given the fact that the UK is the second largest net contributor. Member States should be warned that he is prepared to exercise the UK veto if necessary and go over to an annual emergency funding on a frozen budgetary basis.

There is plenty of budgetary fat to be cut, and shutting down the Strasbourg Parliament would be a great place to start. Then we need to reform the CAP and reduce Structural Funds, particularly the European Social Fund, so that only things like research and development – both medical and scientific – or major infrastructure projects are given emphasis. At the moment, however, the British public really thinks that the EU is spending far too much money and could do a lot less and do a lot better.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, we all know that in recent years, national budgets have immensely outgrown the EU budget, which has put economic growth under stress. It is important for the growth of all the European economies and that of the Member States, including the European Union, to get their fiscal house in order.

I rise in support of this bill, because it is of paramount importance in fixing the euro crisis. By providing the Member States with a budgetary framework, national parliaments will structure their national budgets in a pro-economic growth manner. If we allow deficit spending to continue, it will further stall economic growth and restrict the growth of the EU economy.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like, at this juncture, to reiterate my request for the Member States to deal fairly with each other, for it is quite unacceptable for the Member States to be wearing two hats, as it were. They put on the first hat in Brussels. They are always saying that the European Union, the Commission, must take more vigorous action and that we should be launching new programmes for economic development and innovation, which need more money. As soon as they get home, they put on their second hat, and then the message that comes out of Europe’s capitals is, of course, that the Member States want to pay less to Brussels.

The fact of the matter – and we really do not need to dwell on this point for long – is that if we want to pay less to Brussels, we will also get less in return. That being the case, I would ask everyone to deal fairly with each other, taking into account, on the one hand, the difficult situation in the Member States but ensuring, on the other, that the programmes which the European Union needs in order to stimulate economic recovery in the Member States continue to be effective.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the budget for the current programming period has been implemented with the involvement of the new Member States, including Poland. We can see already how the monies allocated have aided their development and granted them equal economic opportunities. In spite of taking into consideration a series of important demands, this report warns against making cuts to the Commission’s proposal. In my opinion, the priority as far as the economy is concerned is to carry out the initiatives outlined with regard to the internal market. It is vital to guarantee funding in this area. That also involves making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access European Union financing. At the same time, we should take measures aimed at boosting entrepreneurship. An internal market that operates effectively obviously requires an appropriate level of consumer protection. I call for an increase in the resources allocated to this objective, as, in the current proposal, they are insufficient.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Interim report in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure because it promotes a stable, solid and sustainable budget that guarantees economic growth and jobs, as well as a high standard of living and security for the citizens of Europe.

The Union’s budget and, more specifically, cohesion policy expenditure, represent an important instrument that needs to remain available to Member States to overcome the current economic crisis and to lead to the accomplishment of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. If we wish for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe, we definitely need to allocate sufficient resources to the cohesion policy, at least at the level agreed for the current programming period. I put forward the idea of eliminating macroeconomic conditions as it would be unfair to penalise the regions for not respecting, at national level, the procedures regarding economic governance.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). – (NL) I have three comments on the multiannual financial framework. First, the amounts should be a bit lower. The EU should mainly confine itself to its core responsibilities. This was a good suggestion, for that matter, from President Schulz in the Dutch press last week, although I do not agree with his argument for centralisation at European level.

Another way to make significant savings is to deploy the Structural Funds exclusively in poor regions in the Member States with the lowest incomes.

Finally, the matter of the EU having its own financial resources. Parliament would like the tax on financial transactions and VAT remittances to be used to finance the EU. This would be instead of the contributions from the Member States. This is not desirable. The Member States are less wasteful, as can be seen from the 2013 EU budget. The Member States have the authority to collect taxes and so it must remain. After all, the Union is here to serve the Member States, even though it may not seem that way in these economically difficult and tense times.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, the vote that we held here earlier today on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) was probably the biggest, possibly not the most important, but the biggest vote by far that we will hold as members of the European Parliament. Close to DKK 1 000 billion has been waved through here, because we pushed the buttons and decided how the money in the EU should be spent from 2014 to 2020. The interesting thing was to see the protest in the room against my group – the EFD Group – having insisted on the individual votes having to be on a roll-call basis and in public, naturally so that citizens can see who has voted for what, given that it involves approximately DKK 1 000 billion to be used over a period including the next seven years, which is longer than any Commissioner or any Member of Parliament generally sits, without having to be held responsible to the voters. It is telling of the way in which Parliament and the EU system generally work that the further away from citizens the decisions can be made, and the more secretly it can be done, the less has to be entered in the accounts, and the better it is. This is not worthy of any democracy.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I attended the debate here this morning and was happy to give my support to the vote today. The multiannual financial framework is obviously very important and, as has been said, it will be extremely important in terms of reaching an agreement at the Council’s meeting in November. However, as Mr Van Rompuy has stated, for that to happen, we will need political will and cooperation from all of the Member States, especially all of the Heads of State or Government. I hope that that will happen. My second point is that you, yourself, have taken leadership on the issue of the single seat, Mr President. I voted in favour of the single seat, too, because I do not believe that we should continue in the way we are at present given the carbon dioxide, expense and difficulties involved in travelling here, and especially because of the cost, which totals EUR 180 million. That can no longer be tolerated.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because the Union’s budget represents a key instrument for stabilising the economy. It can be used to promote investments in growth and to create jobs. Also, the budget can help Member States to overcome the difficulties facing them.

In this context, I would like to highlight the importance of robust public finances. Member States must continue their efforts to exploit the potential for sustained growth. The multiannual financial framework must offer greater budgetary flexibility in order to ensure that resources are fully used. Romania has difficulty absorbing European funds, and the goals for the end of this year were revised downward. Nevertheless, it is necessary to ensure adequate funding for the cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy. This will make it possible to reduce the gap in development between Romania and other Member States.

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, if you read the report, the words are there: growth, employment, response to the crisis. Besides those words, however, nothing has changed. The budgetary approach is still the same as that taken by Europe during the stalemate and the crisis.

There are still the same ultraliberal options that are supported no matter what: destruction of the social acquis and confinement within a policy of complete support for the competition that is corrupting our countries. With budgetary guidelines such as these, there is no chance of Europe emerging from the chaos that it has created. Quite the contrary, in fact. There is a high risk that Europe will sink further into the crisis, with finance the only beneficiary.

It is high time that we changed the guidelines completely. We need to give priority to the public services that can shield us from the crisis. We need concrete support for the development of jobs and protection of industry. We need to revitalise social protection by harmonising upwards and putting an immediate end to levelling downwards. We need to stop pitting citizens and workers against one another. Without these essential changes, Europe will not be able to get past the crisis. It is for that Europe, however, that I am campaigning with the citizens.

Report: Jean-Luc Dehaene (A7-0316/2012)

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, the next report we voted on here concerns the EU’s own resources, and I voted against. This was not on the basis of the detailed amendments that will be made in relation to the collection of VAT from Member States, but because, as we all know very well, when we talk about own resources it means that the EU does not only want to prepare for having money sent to it in the form of a cheque from Member States once a year; it wants to put its hands directly into citizens’ pockets. Some people want it as a duty on aviation fuel, some want it as a direct VAT rate, others want it as a direct tax on financial transactions. The crucial thing is that, irrespective of which group we belong to, if we go in for EU taxes, we will eliminate the necessary link that must exist between being directly elected by citizens and having permission to obtain direct access to citizens’ pockets. This link simply does not exist in the EU, because in the EU it is the Commissioners who have the right of initiative, it is they who submit the proposals, it is they who execute the decisions, and in return they have the privilege of not being elected by anyone other than themselves and the government that has chosen to install them. The whole principle of own resources must therefore be dropped. It does not belong in a place like the EU.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report as I consider that reforming the own resources system in the European Union represents a step forward. Moreover, I am of the opinion that own resources, based on VAT, have significant potential to contribute positively to the Union’s budget. The tax could help to reduce the level of contributions of the Member States. Moreover, the new system will bring significant advantages, as well as greater transparency, flexibility, security and predictability. Member States will benefit from equal treatment, and the administrative load will be reduced. However, there are some disadvantages in this process that need to be considered; the methodology is a complex one and not easy to simplify. The own resources system is very important and reforming it demands attention.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0332/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, given that, in light of Article 9 of the Protocol and the relevant provisions of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the Austrian Constitution, the Committee on Legal Affairs concluded that there was no reason not to waive the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report because the alleged offences by Mr Martin Ehrenhauser, against whom the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to conduct an investigation procedure, do not fall within the scope of the opinions expressed or votes cast by the Member in the performance of his duties, in accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union. I agree with the Committee on Legal Affairs that Mr Ehrenhauser’s immunity should be waived.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − It is only correct in the incidence of inappropriate or fraudulent behaviour by any elected or unelected representative of the EU that the matter be fully investigated and the identity of the accused disclosed for the purpose of transparency.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Bernhard Rapkay concerns the request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser MEP following a request made on 21 March 2011 by the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office in Austria. The Public Prosecutor’s Office wants to prosecute this Member, whom it suspects of illegally accessing a computer system in breach of the Austrian Penal Code with regard to telecommunications secrecy, unlawful interception of data, use of recording equipment and infringement of data protection. Based on statements and a series of documents from another Member, the Public Prosecutor’s Office suspects that Martin Ehrenhauser illegally accessed the private email system of Hans-Peter Martin, by copying and disclosing the latter’s private and professional data. In this respect, and bearing in mind the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs to lift the parliamentary immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser, I voted in favour of this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) At the sitting of 2 July 2012, the President announced, pursuant to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, that he had received a letter dated 21 March 2012 from the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office requesting that the parliamentary immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser be waived in the context of proceedings being conducted by the Austrian judicial authorities. In its letter, the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office states that on the basis of the statement by another Member of the European Parliament, Hans-Peter Martin, there is a suspicion that, between the latter part of the summer of 2010 and April 2011, Martin Ehrenhauser unlawfully accessed Hans-Peter Martin’s private email system and opened, copied and printed data of a private and professional nature belonging to him, in particular emails and attachments thereto. Hans-Peter Martin had also forwarded the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office a sheaf of documents in support of this claim of unlawful access. On this basis the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office considers that a reasonable suspicion against Martin Ehrenhauser exists.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the waiver of immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser, a Member of the European Parliament (Non-attached). This request was approved by a large majority in plenary. The aim is to allow the Austrian authorities to carry out the necessary investigations into the alleged offences, notably illegal access to a computer system. I supported the report by Mr Rapkay.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report as, based on its findings, I believe that there is no reason not to waive Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the waiver of Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity. It is legitimate and just that the Austrian authorities should be able to carry out an investigation into his alleged illegal access to a computer system.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Parliamentary immunity must only be used to protect Members from political pressure. Martin Ehrenhauser is accused of an offence under ordinary law. He has stated that he supports the waiver of his immunity to allow justice to be done. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament is responsible for defending the independence of the Member’s mandate, and this independence cannot be threatened. In accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament may not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. The request to waive immunity has been made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to enable the Austrian authorities to conduct the necessary investigations and to take legal action against Martin Ehrenhauser. The request to waive the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser relates to alleged offences involving illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code (StGB), a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 StGB, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a StGB, unauthorised use of a recorder or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) StGB and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act. I am therefore in favour of waiving Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The general prosecutor’s office in Vienna is going to conduct a preliminary investigation against Martin Ehrenhauser, MEP. Martin Ehrenhauser is suspected of illegal access to a computer system, in violation of Article 118 of the Criminal Code of Austria, violating telecommunications secrets. As always, I voted against. I think that immunity should be kept until MEPs’ credentials expire.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Following a complaint by Hans-Peter Martin MEP, the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office in Austria intends to carry out a preliminary investigation against Martin Ehrenhauser, MEP. There is a suspicion that Martin Ehrenhauser unlawfully published some of Hans-Peter Martin’s private emails. The Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office also wishes to investigate allegations that Martin Ehrenhauser made a recording of a conversation without the knowledge of the persons involved. The immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser must be waived by the European Parliament if the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office is to proceed to investigate the allegations against him. I voted in favour of waiving Martin Ehrenhauser’s parliamentary immunity for I believe that all Members of Parliament must be persons of the utmost integrity. This obligation towards the electorate is incumbent on each and every one of us. A thorough investigation of the matter is the only way to reassure voters that everything is legal and above board. If Mr Ehrenhauser is innocent, this, too, must be established by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, just as if he were guilty. This is imperative in a rule-of-law system and must also apply to the politicians in whom the public places its trust.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) Following a complaint by Hans-Peter Martin MEP, the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office in Austria intends to carry out a preliminary investigation against Martin Ehrenhauser MEP. There is a suspicion that Martin Ehrenhauser unlawfully published some of Hans-Peter Martin’s private emails. It is also suspected that Martin Ehrenhauser unlawfully made a recording of a conversation without the knowledge of the persons involved. Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity must be waived by the European Parliament if the investigations are to proceed. I voted in favour of waiving his parliamentary immunity, for I believe that a thorough investigation of the matter is in the voters’ interests.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament has received a request to waive the parliamentary immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser MEP in the context of legal action related to illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code (StGB), a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 StGB, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a StGB, unauthorised use of a recorder or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) StGB and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act. Considering that the facts in this case, as presented in the documents sent to the Committee on Legal Affairs, do not indicate that the alleged events have any direct and clear link with the performance, by Martin Ehrenhauser, of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, it was decided to waive his parliamentary immunity. Based on these arguments, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The President announced in plenary on 2 July 2012 that in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament he had received a request from the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office on 21 March for waiver of the immunity of Mr Martin Ehrenhauser in connection with an investigative procedure and he forwarded the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs. Mr Ehrenhauser was heard by the committee on 17 September 2012. Considering the nature of the alleged offences, in connection with which the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to conduct an investigation procedure, it is evident that they do not fall within the scope of the opinions expressed or votes cast by Mr Ehrenhauser in the performance of his duties in accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Unions. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal by the Committee on Legal Affairs to waive Mr Ehrenhauser’s immunity.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The waiver of immunity of concerns alleged offences related to illegal access to a computer system. Martin Ehrenhauser was heard by the EP Committee on Legal Affairs, where he stated that he believed that his immunity should be waived.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to conduct an investigation procedure against Mr Martin Ehrenhauser MEP. The alleged offences relate to illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code, a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 of the code, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a of the code, unauthorised use of a recording or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) of the code and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act. Furthermore, it is also suspected that Mr Ehrenhauser made a recording of a private statement by another person available, without the speaker’s consent, to a third person for whom it was not intended, by sending a recording of a conversation between several people, including Mr Hans-Peter Martin, to one of the participants, who then submitted an extract from that recording to the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office. In view of the seriousness of these acts, I voted in favour of the proposal that Mr Ehrenhauser’s immunity should be waived.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the request to waive the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser MEP as the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to take legal action against him, given the suspicions presented in this report.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Given that the European Parliament is perceived as an institution of public trust, any alleged breach of the law by one of its Members should be clarified without delay. In this particular case, the Austrian authorities conducting the investigation must be able to question Martin Ehrenhauser in order to obtain a fair and accurate explanation of the matter. The fact that the person making the allegations is another Member of the European Parliament lends the case particular significance. In my opinion, the accusations are of a very serious nature and actions of this kind should be firmly denounced, without hesitation, including within Parliament. Martin Ehrenhauser has voiced his wish to testify before the competent authorities in the hope that it will allow him to be cleared of these accusations. As a member of the party Solidarna Polska [United Poland], which is concerned about Europe’s image, I voted in favour of waiving Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity.

Draft general budget of the European Union - 2013 financial year

  Marta Andreasen (EFD), in writing. − I supported Amendment 1263 on the House of European History because it reduces the budget of the European Parliament by 5.3 million; even though I believe it does not go far enough, it is a reduction. Ideally the vanity project should be wound up and the budget line removed.

I voted for Amendment 964 on ITER because I am in favour of reducing the European Union budget, and Amendment 964 was to reduce payments by EUR 490 million. However, I do not support the intent of the author of the amendment which was to eliminate nuclear power. I fully support nuclear power and, if the British people were not sending so much money to Brussels more would be available for investment in the British nuclear industry.

I supported Amendment 754 because I oppose EU funds, which are really the taxes of British and European citizens, being used for aid to tobacco producers.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union must respect the commitments it has made now, including the payments related to these commitments. Any non-compliance could affect the credibility of all the European institutions, not only of the European Commission.

The Union is searching for solutions, including financial support, to reduce the effects of the crisis and to develop different projects – investments in strategic areas for economic growth and job creation, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and transport networks, to name just a few – so it is desirable not to get into a situation where the EU cannot respect its commitments or honour legitimate requests for payment.

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. – (FR) Like every year, and particularly in these times of crisis, the European Union is making a fool of its citizens and its taxpayers. The Commission and Parliament are ganging up on the countries that are slightly more careful to waste less.

The taxpayers are being taken hostage. The demand to increase the European budget to EUR 151 billion to respond to ridiculous requirements and fanciful projects and strategies is a deception, with the European Union presented as the solution to the problems that it created.

Contempt for the citizens is also evident in the EU’s distribution of more than EUR 1.5 billion in pre-accession support, including a large share to Turkey, whose economy is booming.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The introduction of a line in the EU budget for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, based on the excuse of being ‘able to respond more quickly to new cases’, is yet another step towards formalising an instrument that, as we have said from the start, is not the appropriate response to business restructuring problems. In addition, its financing criteria are grossly unfair. Some people, particularly the Social Democrats, want to perpetuate this Fund and use it as a shock absorber (and as a weapon of political and ideological manipulation) for those policies attacking social and labour rights in the EU. They do not want to get to the root of the problem, but simply to mitigate the effects of any unemployment. We abstained from voting on several amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets, particularly with regard to the distribution of milk in schools, simply because we preferred the subsequent amendments, which further increased the amounts available under those headings that we consider to be very important. With regard to the financing of certain development cooperation areas, we supported the respective headings, although not without reservations about the nature and effectiveness of the action of some of the non-governmental organisations supported. At times the system seems to operate for itself, with the financial support not being reflected in practical actions that help to improve the life of the people in these countries.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for Amendment 351 restoring the Commission’s draft budget for the European Globalisation Fund. At a time of economic recession it is vital that this fund is adequately financed.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The draft budget of the European Union for 2013 represents a realistic budget to fund the European Union and to deal sufficiently with the financial crisis.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − After studying draft amendments concerning appropriations under Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, I abstained, because they are not correct and not transparent.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) It will be impossible to finance the existing European policies, the new competences that the Member States unanimously transferred to the Union with the Treaty of Lisbon and the commitments made by all of the European institutions and the Heads of State or Government in the Europe 2020 strategy and the Compact for Growth and Jobs, particularly as regards climate, development assistance, research, employment and the fight against poverty. A reduction in global warming, economic recovery and social cohesion in Europe cannot be achieved unless the European budget is guaranteed the necessary financial resources.

Consequently, the European Parliament report adopted today warns the European Council not to attempt to make any cuts in the next multiannual financial framework. Since the European Council constantly says that we need more Europe, the time has come for the Council to put its words into action.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) First, it should be noted that we abstained from voting on several amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets, particularly with regard to the distribution of milk in schools, simply because we preferred the subsequent amendments, which further increased the amounts available under those headings. Second, we do not agree with the introduction of a line in the EU budget for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which we consider to be yet another step towards institutionalising an instrument that, as we have said from the start, is not the appropriate response to unemployment problems.

Report: Giovanni La Via, Derek and Vaughan (A7-0311/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I consider that the proposals of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament to slightly increase the payment appropriations, with a proposed increase of 6.82 %, should be taken into account. This increase is needed given the European Commission’s proposal of less than 3.8 %, which I consider to be out of line with the Compact for Growth and Jobs. I therefore feel that it is vital that the European Parliament does not accept any level of payment appropriations for 2013 that does not totally cover the 2012 payment needs. The European Union must show the necessary solidarity and, above all, boost the recovery of growth in the internal market.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament and I supported this report, which seeks to clarify the European Union’s budget for 2013. What might seem a simple administrative formality is, in fact, essential so as not to maintain certain programmes whose payments are stopping. Indeed, symbolic programmes such as Erasmus and projects that depend on the cohesion policy are short on funds. This situation is mainly due to poor administration by the national governments, which are seeking to reduce their contributions but are not dealing with the impact of these cuts on the citizens. The European Parliament rejects this, as demonstrated by this vote.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Faced with the Council, like every year, the negotiations are difficult, perhaps even impossible. Last year, Parliament eventually gave in. The result was that certain programmes now do not have enough money to last until the end of the year. The European Social Fund and Erasmus need an amending budget to be able to honour their commitments. This is a reflection of the Council’s inconsistency today: it begrudges adopting a budget that balances the commitment and payment appropriations, and it complains about the increase sought by the Commission and Parliament, yet through the Structural Funds the states receive most of the budget back into their territory. In any event, the negotiations on the 2013 budget are not finished and Parliament’s vote in plenary is clear: restore payment appropriations to the level proposed by the Commission and increase the appropriations for research and jobs for young people. It is now up to the Council to take this into account in order to move towards conciliation.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009, the European Parliament has had greater budgetary powers. Parliament and the Council of the European Union thus share competence for the budget. For the European Union’s 2013 budget, we reiterated our support for growth and employment. In that regard, I voted in favour of restoring the EUR 1.9 billion cut by the Council. These budget cuts threaten sectors that are essential for growth, such as research, employment measures and entrepreneurship. Restoring the payment appropriations for 2013 will guarantee funding for European programmes such as Erasmus and the European Social Fund are financed. We also reiterated our support for the peace process in the Middle East. The amended text will be discussed in the Conciliation Committee, which comprises members of the Council and Parliament.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report, because I believe that the EU should increase its investment in research and competitiveness, SMEs, infrastructure and research and innovation in order to meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. To achieve that, the EU budget needs to be strong and coordinated with the Member States. Europe will emerge from the current crisis only by boosting investment in growth and employment and helping Member States to tackle structural problems such as loss of competitiveness and increased unemployment and poverty. It will not do that by making cuts to policies designed to achieve economic growth. We therefore need to set priorities. If the Council decides on cuts, then it must determine where its priorities lie and which policies need to be abandoned.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − It is utterly abhorrent that the EU is seeking to increase its budget and reverse essential cuts when the EU authored programmes of austerity are inflicting pain in Member States across the continent. It is the result of the EU created and perpetuated Eurozone crisis that so many citizens of Europe are currently jobless, without access to medical care or food and suffering as a result of a failing economy. To use the impecuniousness of certain sections of society as a just cause for reversing proposed cuts is absurd. It is essential that the EU scales back its operations rather than increase its scope of power and therefore has need to increase the amount of money it pools centrally which ultimately comes from the hard pressed taxpayer.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) As regards the budget for 2013, we, the four Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament (Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen), did not support the decision on Parliament’s negotiating position in relation to the Council of Ministers in the forthcoming negotiations on the 2013 budget. This is because we cannot support Parliament’s desire to increase the budget to the level that has been adopted, nor do we support a number of sub-elements of the budget, such as the continued high level of aid for agriculture and aid for tobacco production.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The delicate situation of the national economies reinforces the role that the EU budget must play: mainly as an instrument to support those economies. In this context, the EU budget must be carefully and responsibly considered, given the importance of its application. It is vital to safeguard and honour the EU’s commitments and, in this respect, the cuts made in the draft budget (DB) during the Council’s reading are worrying. It will perhaps be possible to reduce some appropriations in certain categories of the DB. However, if we accept the Council’s reading, the EU will be at risk of not honouring its debts. While not wanting to make the error of seeming inflexible with regard to the Council’s strategy, and bearing in mind that the EU’s institutional credibility is at stake, I have to say that the response to the crisis must be ‘more Europe’ and not ‘less Europe’. I therefore support the Commission’s DB, which is in line with Parliament’s priorities on the programmes and initiatives to be used to deliver these objectives. As a result, the priorities for the 2013 budget must consist in support for sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises and youth.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text because the position adopted by Parliament is, in my view, the fairest. It is unacceptable to reduce the appropriations for programmes that are crucial for recovery and growth. I am thinking, in particular, of the Europe of major projects and the Europe of mobility, spearheaded by ITER and Erasmus. The draft approved today by Parliament protects these fundamental elements and I therefore support it completely.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union needs a budget that allows it to take concrete action to emerge from the crisis. That is why the public policies that encourage growth or new activities must be safeguarded. Education programmes, such as Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus, research and development programmes and programmes to support enterprise can help the European economy to get through the crisis and create new jobs. They absolutely have to be maintained. We also have to safeguard the funds for the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the EU, which supports 18 million people suffering from malnutrition within the Union.

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. – (FR) In these reports on the budgetary principles for 2013, Parliament, a traditional ally of the ever-present Commission, is attempting gradually to sideline the states by establishing own resources for the Union.

These attempts have been blocked successfully so far, but for how much longer? Such a prospect would enable the EU to evolve without the slightest democratic control on the part of the Member States.

Marginal reductions are highlighted while fraud continues and the 40-odd European agencies of questionable worth will continue to be broadly supported, with subsidies for Turkey and significant funding for propaganda.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In these times of crisis, it is essential for the EU to assert itself as a responsible actor, capable of reviving growth and employment. The cuts proposed by the Council for the 2013 budget were, in this regard, unacceptable because they reduced the EU’s capacity to stimulate growth, entrepreneurship and research, which are needed to improve the everyday lives of European citizens. I am therefore pleased that we adopted a draft budget that is in line with the Commission proposal. I would also like to point out that, although the EP voted against the budget cuts in headings designed to revive growth and employment, it is not opposed to making savings where possible. The proposal we adopted thus contains a reduction in real terms in the EP budget.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) In a public debate, the European Parliament set its commitments for 2013 at EUR 151.1 billion and payments at EUR 137.9 billion. These figures represent 1.13 % and 1.03 % of the EU’s GNI, respectively. They also mean that Parliament’s commitments for EU purposes in 2013 will exceed those of the Council by EUR 1.5 billion, while payments will be EUR 5.3 billion higher. During the vote, we managed to push through some amendments that are important for Hungary and will increase funding for research and development, the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy, increased border surveillance and the school milk programme. This increase in the framework amounts has enabled Hungary to salvage the investments that can be implemented through the Cohesion Fund, investments that particularly affect the central Hungarian region and cross-border cooperation.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that the European Union must have the capacity to pay for all costs and activities planned for 2013. The cuts made by the Council must be revised. It is unthinkable that certain important programmes, such as Erasmus Mundus and the European Social Fund, may be suddenly interrupted due to a lack of funds.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan concerns the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sections. We deplore the attitude of the Council, which once again has proceeded with the usual approach of horizontal cuts to the draft budget. In fact, compared to the Commission’s proposal, the Council has cut EUR 1.155 billion from the commitment appropriations and EUR 5.228 billion from the payment appropriations. This cut in the payment appropriations will result in the need for amending budgets next year, which is a practice leading to instability and demonstrating lack of rigour. The multiannual financial framework is nearing its end and the focus on completing projects in the Member States is leading to an increase in the funds needed for the respective payments. As a result, I agree with the European Parliament’s strategy of restoring sufficient funds to the payment appropriations, particularly in the area of sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment, small and medium-sized enterprises and youth.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of the European Parliament’s position on the EU budget for 2013 repeats the strategy of previous years. The majority in this Parliament simply play the traditional institutional game whereby the initial disagreements ultimately fade way and the three institutions (European Parliament, Commission and Council), together with the dominant political forces, always agree on the basic point: reducing the EU budget. The reasonable concern about the likely shortage of funds to cover debts already contracted in various programmes and the fact that 2013 is the final year of the current multiannual financial framework do not hide the complicity of the majority in this Parliament with regard to the deepening social and national disparities, galloping unemployment and huge increase in poverty in the EU. The majority in this Parliament are happy to make cosmetic changes, with other changes being pure propaganda, while leaving the main orientations and priorities of the EU budget unchanged, which is therefore clearly insufficient given the urgent situation in countries such as Portugal in this period of profound economic and social crisis. The basis for negotiations between Parliament and the Council is well below the existing needs and even below the figure set in the multiannual financial framework (1.15 % of gross national income).

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) As regards the general budget for 2013, the Committee on Budgets set a sum of EUR 1 750 463 939. The rapporteurs’ objective of keeping the overall growth in the budgets of the different bodies within the bounds of the forecast inflation of 1.9 %, including the costs of enlargement to include Croatia, was achieved. Exceptions relate to the European External Action Service, the Court of Justice and the European Ombudsman, where, in view of the specific situation of these institutions, the committee voted in favour of additional funding. The intention was partially to renew the proposed budgets in a sustainable way with respect to inflation. The proposal was supported by most political groups. In view of the voting in the relevant committee, Parliament’s budget for 2013 is increased by 1.9 % in comparison with the 2012 budget. The increase was possible thanks to a whole range of savings achieved in the preceding period of 2011 – 2012.

  Gaston Franco (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the 2013 budget because it maintains the European programme for the most deprived persons. I would stress, however, that this programme must be maintained in the next financial framework for 2014-2020; the challenge is to focus on the long term because the associations need to be visible in order to carry out their missions in full. A year ago, many associations expressed their concern that the funding for the programme had been called into question by the Court of Justice of the European Union, putting the food supply of 18 million people in jeopardy. That situation was unacceptable and it does not reflect the idea of a protective Europe that I defend.

Thanks to the mobilisation of many governments, including François Fillon’s Government at that time, an agreement was reached in the Council of the European Union to maintain the programme’s funding for two more years, namely 2012 and 2013. The beneficiaries of the programme can be reassured that the financial envelope of EUR 500 million will certainly be maintained in 2013 and I welcome that. We must continue to strive for a sustainable and satisfactory solution for all of the Member States, the beneficiaries and the contributors.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) This text rejects the arbitrary cuts proposed by the Member States for the 2013 budget. In its proposal, which Parliament supports, the Commission called for an increase in payments in order to meet budgetary commitments and outstanding payments from previous years. I abstained in the vote, however, because it supports the funding for the ITER nuclear fusion programme, a pipe dream that is a money pit for the European budget. At the same time, the report calls for cuts in certain lines, including some that are linked to development cooperation. I also voted in favour of amendments that sought to use the nuclear funds to finance programmes to dismantle plants, though these were rejected. I abstained on the amendments calling for a reduction in the subsidies for tobacco production. These reductions would have a severe impact on small farmers. Unless we call for a ban on the production and marketing of tobacco, this reduction would be counterproductive. Finally, I abstained, too, on the amendments calling for a single seat for the European Parliament. We need to have a real debate on that subject, not just a few amendments, as is the case here.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Growth and employment are the two main things that we want to support. In my opinion, that is the message that we absolutely have to defend in this vote on the 2013 budget. My Socialist colleagues and I reject the severe cuts proposed by the Member States (a reduction of EUR 5.2 billion in comparison to the Commission proposal), which would decrease expenditure, especially in the areas of cohesion, research and citizenship.

I also support the proposal to put into the reserve 75 % of the funds allocated to certain budgetary lines related to internal security, pending clarification of the European Parliament’s role as a co-legislator in the reform of the Schengen evaluation mechanism.

Finally, I agree with a number of increases in the area of freedoms, security and justice, notably for the European Refugee Fund, the European Fund for Integration and the Daphne programme to combat violence against women.

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted in support of the European Parliament’s efforts to prevent a reduction in funding for cohesion. The Council’s proposal to cut resources for assistance in this area is unacceptable, since it is precisely in the current economic situation that cohesion needs strengthening. We cannot allow differences in development levels to undermine European cooperation. We cannot support a reduction in funding because maintaining solidarity among the Member States is all the more crucial now, in the midst of one of the most serious crises in the history of the EU.

  Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We feel that the EU budget must be given adequate resources to be able to fund measures that have already been adopted. At the same time, we would like to point out that the EU must, in the first place, take a restrictive stance and make these resources available through re-allocations within the existing budget. We feel that the agriculture budget should be reduced for the benefit of areas that are currently suffering from payment problems, for example the Social Fund, research programme and Erasmus.

We do not feel that the EU should act as an insurance company in the event of any crises in the agriculture sector. We do, however, welcome the large reductions in EU export aid.

Finally, we consider it important to reduce the EU’s administrative expenditure and make it more efficient, so we welcome the fact that the budgets for all EU institutions other than the European External Action Service are staying below the inflation rate. In this context, we also welcome the savings made in MEPs’ travel expenses and the reduction in the allowance for the House of European History as well as the requirement for a single seat of Parliament. Work must continue, however, on additional savings.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament met in plenary on Tuesday, 23 October, a few days after the European summit of the Heads of State or Government in Brussels. Although Parliament’s traditional position is to call for an ambitious budget and reject the drastic cuts advocated by certain Member States, the key aspect of this vote, for me, is the fact that the priorities of the French delegation of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) were respected, especially the preservation of the budget for the common agricultural policy and a plea for better use of European funds. I am concerned, however, about the amendments relating to Parliament’s seat and the emergence of an anti-Strasbourg movement, which is gaining support with every vote. We must remember that it is not up to Parliament to decide where it sits; any such decision would involve amending the Treaties, which has to be done by the Member States, notably the founding members, which naturally have a special responsibility given that they were the driving force behind European integration. Indeed, we could say that by deciding to join the European Community, the other countries had thus signed up to the provision giving Strasbourg a special status, and they were obviously aware of this.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because 2013 is the last year of the current multiannual financial framework, which makes it of the utmost importance to reach a balance between commitments undertaken so far and payments deriving from them that need to be honoured, the institutional credibility of the EU being at stake as well as possible legal consequences for the Commission should legitimate payment claims fail to be reimbursed. It should also be emphasised and remembered that the EU budget is to be seen as a complementary instrument of support for the Member States’ economies, capable of concentrating initiatives and investment in areas strategic for growth and the creation of jobs and of bringing about a leverage effect in sectors whose activities transcend national boundaries.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Experts on the global economy have stated that 2013 will be equally as difficult as the preceding years of the crisis or possibly even worse. In these circumstances, it is natural to curb or make cuts to national budgets. The European Union budget, however, is a different type of budget: it is an investment budget, funds from which are used to promote entrepreneurship and activity, to create jobs and to boost innovation and growth. In times of crisis, the Member States often abandon investment, in particular social investment, which, in my opinion, is crucial if we are to emerge from the crisis, maintain growth and retain competitiveness. That is why I voted in favour of increasing the EU budget, which will help us to implement the growth pact that has been adopted. At the same time, I have constantly stressed the need to make savings in every European institution. Parliament is also making savings, as its budget is shrinking in real terms, if the proportion of resources given over to Croatia’s accession to the EU is taken into account.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan on the general budget of the European Union for 2013. After long negotiations, this report was adopted by 492 votes to 123, with 82 abstentions. I welcome the result. The EU’s budget for 2012 totals just under EUR 150 billion and represents around 1 % of the GDP of the EU27. Even though the EU budget is still balanced, the Council wishes to cut more than EUR 5 billion from the estimated budget for 2013. However, the European Parliament wanted to increase payments by 6.82 % in comparison to 2012. My colleagues and I hope that the increase in payment appropriations will contribute directly to growth and employment in the EU.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. − (LV) I voted in favour of the resolution. I would particularly like to stress the need to take a decision on locating the European Parliament’s seat in one place, and not, as has been the case up to now, in Brussels and in Strasbourg. Firstly, this would be a responsible attitude towards the resources paid in taxes by European citizens. Secondly, just like any directly elected parliament, the European Parliament ought to be entitled to decide on its own seat. Thirdly, this vote sends a clear message to Member States that the issue of Parliament’s seat must be resolved at the next intergovernmental conference, which will at some point be convened in order to review Europe’s agreements once again. Fourthly, this process must be begun, by preparing a guide to the shift to a single seat for Parliament, and by calculating all of the costs and assessing the gains and losses that such a decision would entail.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) As I stated during the debate, today’s vote needed to reflect unity and firmness. I am happy with the result of the vote because an overwhelming majority of Members supported our proposal, aimed at eliminating the considerable cuts proposed by the Council. It is unthinkable that at a time of crisis the Member States can propose cuts to investment and funding for research, development and employment. It would also go against the statements by the Heads of State and Government in June, and this inconsistency on the part of the Council should be underlined. I would like to make a short statement on payments. Bills must be paid. This is a simple rule, as well as a legal obligation, and I hope that during the conciliation process the Council will accept an agreement that takes account, first and foremost, of the demands of European citizens, who are calling on us to invest in growth, the competitiveness of enterprises and above all in the creation of employment.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I abstained on this vote. There are significant monies to be paid for commitments made over this financial period which are now being requested – and a number of them are late. As the EU cannot carry over monies unspent from previous years, we have been unable to build up any provision for these requests. However, Member States have had those unspent monies returned to their national budgets, where they can carry forward unspent monies: they are now unwilling to restore that money to the EU budget in order to meet commitments made – ironically, largely to Member States. I doubt if they will be willing to forgo those payments and will thus still expect payment. The monies owed are larger than the additional amount requested by Commission and Parliament. I was also angered during the vote by the hypocrisy of some Members who, while arguing for a reduced budget, then voted for additional and continuing funding for the ITER project which is, in my opinion, a waste of Union resources. We also failed to have a qualified majority to end export and tobacco subsidies, when we could find money by ending such damaging projects.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The vital need to restore growth in Europe to emerge once and for all from the successive crises we have experienced meant that my fellow Members and I gave complete priority to our responsibilities for the 2013 budget. We felt that it was important to eliminate the Council’s cuts to the Commission’s budget. Consequently, my colleagues and I voted to restore the EUR 1.9 billion cut by the Council in June. These funds will be used for priority sectors for growth, such as the economy, research, entrepreneurship and employment. An amending budget was also presented to ensure the ‘survival’ of the Erasmus Mundus programme. This programme allows our young people to study right across Europe, enabling them to discover different cultures and languages, and it makes them aware of their European citizenship. As far as agriculture is concerned, most of the budget cuts proposed were also removed, and I am pleased about that. Moreover, we approved the reduction of EUR 8.9 million in the EP’s administrative expenditure. The aim is thus to do more with less money from now on.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the La Via-Vaughan report on the 2013 budget. We want it to be more ambitious than the Council seems prepared to accept at this stage. In fact, we want to send a strong message to the European leaders who will meet on 22 and 23 November in the Extraordinary European Council on the EU’s future budget.

  George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. − It is clear that there is still much uncertainty over the Commission’s estimates on what it needs in 2013 to pay the bills from Member States. The prudent approach at a time when there is huge pressure on public spending across Europe and people are under serious financial strain is to aim for a budget freeze if possible. That is why today we oppose Parliament and Commission’s position of a 6.8 % increase in the 2013 Budget. Once all the bills from Member States are presented for payment by next October, if there is a shortfall it can be addressed then through an amending budget. I welcome that Parliament has agreed a real-term cut in its own budget, frozen MEP allowances and cut MEP travel allowances by 5 %. I also welcome Parliament’s vote calling for an end to the circus of travelling to Strasbourg every month, with the largest majority ever. I hope that now the Member States will look to a solution to put an end to the monthly trek, costing EUR 180 m per year and generating 19 000 tonnes of CO2.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − In this resolution I voted in favour of Parliament having the right to decide on its own seat and working places.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I opposed the Council’s proposed reduction in the European budget. This determines the survival of numerous European programmes, such as the Erasmus student mobility programme and the European Social Fund, which are essential, fundamental programmes. These two programmes are at risk of losing their funding and that should never be the case. Growth and employment must be an absolute priority.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I supported the final text of this report on the Council’s position on the draft general budget of the EU for the financial year 2013 which outlines the European Parliament’s decision to restore the Commission’s draft budget and increase the resources for growth and job creation policies. I voted in favour of paragraphs 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90 which all refer to the savings that can be made in the EU budget if the European Parliament had a single seat and supported paragraph 91 which suggests the agreement between the Luxembourg authorities and European Parliament on the number of staff to be present in Luxembourg should be revised. I abstained on Amendment 3 which refers to nuclear fission.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The amendments to the Council’s draft budget for 2013 that are supported by this report have four undeniable benefits: they reject the Council’s shameless cuts in the Structural Funds, of which it also demands strategic use; they restore the EUR 300 000 withdrawn from Erasmus by the Commission and the Council; they increase the funding for Palestine and UNRWA; and they maintain the financial envelope for the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the EU.

However, I cannot vote for a budget that restores the disproportionate financing for Frontex, which the Council had rejected, reintroduces the increase in funding for ITER, which the Council had rejected, too, and follows the approach of the Europe 2020 strategy. I abstained out of consideration for the excellent Erasmus programme and to show my support for the food distribution programme and the increase in aid for the Palestinians.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The priorities of the EU’s 2013 general budget, as detailed in Parliament’s resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue, consist in support for sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and youth. In my opinion, the Commission’s draft budget (DB) reflects Parliament’s priorities as regards the programmes and initiatives to be reinforced towards these objectives. We are all aware of the severe difficulties arising from the state of the national economies and of the need for a responsible and realistic reading. We cannot accept, however, the approach whereby the EU budget is made the source of possible savings with the same proportion and logic as applied to the national budgets, given their substantial difference in nature, objectives and structure. Reducing EU resources may result in a lack of investment and liquidity in the Member States, thus aggravating the problems they are facing, which we cannot allow to happen.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I think that in the light of economic and budgetary constraints, the European Parliament should show budgetary responsibility and self-restraint.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) It would seem that the cuts approved by the Council in July 2012 on the basis of the draft budget proposed by the Commission for 2013 are to be reversed and, indeed, that even more funds are to be spent on growth and foreign policy, for example. As a result, commitment appropriations will total EUR 151.2 billion, with payment appropriations rising to EUR 137.9 billion. I am firmly in favour of the cuts, as it is unacceptable for the EU budget to increase substantially every year while countries and regions are forced to make savings. There is plenty of scope to make savings in the countless agencies and administrations, for example, and this potential must now be utilised. Singling out students and putting a question mark over Erasmus is utterly abhorrent and clearly demonstrates to everyone how the EU does politics. As a result of the planned cuts, Parliament’s budget would face a shortfall of EUR 8.9 million compared with the Commission draft. Admittedly, this corresponds to a inflation-adjusted increase of 1.9 % compared with 2012, but nominally, that is, in real terms, it is a cut, as the additional costs arising from Croatia’s accession to the EU will result in a shortfall in other areas of the budget.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) In the vote on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, I voted in favour of an amendment to eliminate subsidies for tobacco growing. I consider that maintaining this aid for tobacco production is inconsistent and incompatible with the Union’s health policy and with the objectives of reducing tobacco consumption, particularly among the young. The money saved could be used for the fight against smoking and the damaging effects of tobacco. I also voted in favour of a proposed amendment aimed at excluding, from the payment of premiums for the production of beef, bulls specifically bred to take part in bullfights. First, the breeding of these animals is basically motivated by objectives other than the production of beef, which is why it must be considered as falling outside the scope of this premium. Second, I consider that subsidising the breeding of these animals encourages and promotes a barbaric and degrading spectacle that is offensive to the values of today’s society.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) All European countries are applying austerity measures, some of which very severe. It would be wrong for Europe to behave as if nothing were amiss and not to acknowledge the difficult situation affecting us all. I therefore consider the result obtained to be an acceptable compromise, showing restraint with regard to commitments and focusing mainly on payments. It would be wonderful to promise funds and financing for all, but at the end of the day we must balance the books and we would run the risk of having to deal every year with dozens of cases such as the recent problems with the Erasmus programme.

I am satisfied that the 2013 budget makes a clear and explicit reference to the need to have a single seat for the European Parliament, a battle I myself started in February, collecting the necessary signatures in order to present the amendment. This is not a case of demagogy or populism but acknowledgment of a completely unsustainable situation. The same could be said about the House of European History: fortunately, expenditure has been reduced, although I would prefer to see the whole project frozen and reviewed.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because its goal is the adoption of Parliament’s position on the European Union’s draft budget for 2013. It maintains the financial envelope for the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the EU and guarantees the appropriations for competitiveness and innovation, in particular, Erasmus Mundus and lifelong learning measures. However, I voted against the paragraphs that were opposed to keeping the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The House of European History being built in Brussels not far from the European Parliament is an idea that I would have fully supported in other circumstances. However, steeply rising costs during the execution of the project itself and the recent opening of the new Parlamentarium multimedia visitors’ centre led me to support Amendments 16 and 26 calling for freezing of expenditure on the House of European History and the scrapping of the entire project.

  Vojtěch Mynář (S&D), in writing. − (CS) The EU budget for 2013 is specific in at least three areas. First of all, 2013 is the last year of the current multiannual financial framework and it is now extremely important to achieve a balance between the commitments made and the resulting payments. Otherwise, there may be a threat of legal consequences for the Commission in the event that justifiable claims for payments are not settled. Second, we have here the Europe 2020 strategy, the objectives of which cannot be achieved without financial support for growth, competitiveness and employment, especially with respect to small and medium-sized enterprises and young people. Moreover, implementation of this strategy should not forget regional competitiveness and employment in relation to local environmental conditions. Third, the reaction to the current eurozone crisis should be more Europe, not less Europe. The report reflects the above mentioned points, in other words the EU budget for 2013 should allocate more resources to investment and development priorities, not to administration. The report also warns of the pitfall of the horizontal cuts proposed by the Council. The EP prefers effective management. It can generally be stated that the report submitted by Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan reflects a consensus with respect to the EU budget and I therefore voted in favour of it.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report and I ask the Commission to consider the request in the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on payments for rural development measures, as well as offering Member States the necessary flexibility to transfer unspent funds between financial programmes. I would draw your attention to the fact that the time remaining for completing the adjustments is very short.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) I wish to comment on various aspects of the budget. On buildings policy, the only reason why Parliament can still afford the luxury of two sites is simply because the general public is largely unaware of this state of affairs. Just imagine if the French Parliament decided to meet once a month in Marseilles, with travel and accommodation costs of course being borne by the taxpayer. This would create a massive scandal and it would not take long for this travelling circus to be grounded. Most citizens are also completely unaware of the existence of Europarl TV. While it is a good idea in principle and is intended to promote transparency, it lacks adequate resources for marketing and is simply a waste of money. I also welcome the Council’s proposals to cut the funding for the agencies. However, I would not apply cuts to the Return Fund, whose funding should be increased; the same applies to Frontex. Finally, I am opposed to any cuts for Erasmus. Studying abroad should continue to be affordable for every student!

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I voted in favour of the report on the EU budget for 2013, considering it important to return the level of payments in next year’s budget to that suggested by the European Commission. As the EU has yet to overcome the economic crisis, the paralysing effect of the social crisis continues. Since a large number of Member States still suffer from a high rate of unemployment, it is essential to restore in the EU budget the means – EUR 1.9 billion – for promoting economic growth and employment. In a situation where the EU has greater commitments, that is to say, expenses, we cannot simply make cuts which subsequently create large budget gaps which must be ‘remedied’ in the future. It is regrettable that the cuts jeopardise useful programmes like Erasmus Mundus, Lifelong Learning and the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are vital for enabling us to emerge from the economic crisis stronger than before. However, I do support the administrative expenses cuts and use of the released resources to implement important programmes.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the joint resolution. The European Parliament, in the drafting of the new budget, places emphasis on support for sustainable growth, competition and employment, and especially for SMEs and young people. For our country, where the unemployment rate among young people is as high as 55 % (a negative record in the EU), a consistent focus on this particular target group is an absolute priority. At the same time, the text makes it clear that any savings at EU level, however necessary, cannot be made at the expense of initiatives that support the European economy and growth. With this in mind, I voted against an amendment which affects, amongst other things, the agricultural production of certain produce in our country.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the priorities expressed in the opinions issued by the relevant committees, and those that emerged from the meetings with the rapporteurs specialising in budget matters, were, as far as possible, taken into account in this resolution, I voted in favour of this report. I also want to stress the fact that, through this report, the European Parliament’s prerogative to decide the location of its seat, and the places of work for Members and officials, has been overwhelmingly approved on an unprecedented scale.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Considering that the current economic climate in many Member States is characterised by national austerity, weak growth, recession and lack of international competitiveness, Parliament should behave in a responsible manner, approving the 2013 budget with a clear vision of how the budget might be utilised to promote growth and competitiveness within the European Union. Furthermore, in view of the fact that many Member States, after years of growth and unsustainable public-sector spending, are making extraordinary efforts to reduce their national debt and government budget deficit, EU public-sector expenditure should be subject to the same degree of rigour. Therefore, while underlining that Parliament should provide the Council with a draft budget that increases spending where it is important and cuts spending where it is not, I voted in favour of this proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The proposed budget provides for EUR 151.2 billion in payment appropriations and EUR 137.9 billion in authorisation appropriations, which therefore represent an increase of 2.2 % and 6.82 % respectively over the 2012 budget. In all of the 2013 budget resolutions, the European Parliament declared its commitment to ensuring an adequate level of payment appropriations in order to cover budget needs throughout next year, in line with the European Commission’s estimates. As a result, and at the European Parliament’s request, two interinstitutional meetings were added (to the committee’s schedule, in line with the rules) in order to amend the budget in respect of payment appropriations. As regards the authorisation appropriations, Parliament’s reading likewise followed the best strategy, by limiting the requirements in this area in order to focus negotiations with the Council on the payment appropriations. I therefore voted in favour of the draft budget, which, however, is awaiting critical amendments to be made in the next part-session.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Parliament has decided to restore the Commission’s draft budget and to increase resources – selectively – in some chapters of the budget closely linked to political commitment to growth and jobs, particularly for youth. However, I notice that the proposal on payments by the Commission in its draft budget was established on the basis of the estimates sent by the Member States themselves, which were then revised downwards.

We cannot currently contemplate jeopardising the implementation of certain European programmes. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the credibility and trustworthiness of European Union are at stake here. Paying our bills is a legal obligation that we cannot afford to neglect and it is certainly not Parliament’s job to explain this to the Member States. I therefore hope that during the conciliation procedure agreement may be reached with the Council on a satisfactory level of resources, in order to ensure that the EU budget is equipped with the necessary resources to invest in growth, development and job creation, with a sufficient level of payments to honour all of the commitments made in recent years.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. However, on the positive side, MEPs have today voted in favour of a common-sense proposal to end Parliament’s multi-seat operation, with a view to delivering significant direct savings to the EU budget. The vote is also an expression of frustration with the current situation – whereby Parliament is denied a say on its own place of operation, with EU governments retaining sole decision-making power – and the continued failure of the EP to hold a plenary debate. Although the two largest political groups want to practise omerta, it is also high time for the EP to end its taboo and debate the issue of a single seat for Parliament. The Greens have pushed for such a debate for years and will continue to do so through the EP’s Conference of Presidents. The practice of shifting thousands of people and resources from place to place is not only costly, inefficient, wasteful and environmentally damaging, but also damages the public perception of the EU. The EP has today sent a clear political signal that action can no longer be avoided.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) With regard to the European Union budget for 2013, I believe that we should place the greatest emphasis on reaching a degree of political compromise, especially at a time of crisis. Two political fronts have emerged within the Union, one of which is calling for deep cuts, in particular France, but also Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, that is the EU Member States enjoying a high level of economic development, while on the other side of the ‘barricade’ are the countries of Central and Eastern and southern Europe, countries that are still developing, with the help of European Union funding. As 2013 approaches, accompanied by the strong possibility of budget cuts (the talk is of savings in every possible sector), a situation may arise whereby there is not enough money to finance existing commitments. Already at risk is the European Social Fund, of vital importance because it benefits all EU citizens, whether they are in work or seeking employment, and many other EU programmes, including the Erasmus programme, which may suffer the biggest cuts. At a time of crisis, we should strengthen social protection for the unemployed, while creating growth in various workplaces, in both the public and private sector, which requires a high level of financial assistance.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) Amendment 8: I voted against this amendment in order to respect the compromise agreed in the Committee on Budgets by all political groups.

Amendment 15: I voted to uphold the agreement reached on 26 September 2012 between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets, which already represents a reduction in Parliament’s budget of EUR 18.3 million.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. − (SV) The budget for 2013 sets out Parliament’s position in the negotiations with the Council. The aim of the budget is to be an instrument for economic recovery through targeted measures to increase investment, stability and growth, with particular emphasis on promoting employment among young people, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. The proposed budget aims at expansion, which cannot be reconciled with the calls on the Member States to exercise restraint. The current motion does not re-prioritise the budget lines in the way that is needed. The view of mankind that the Christian Democrats embrace posits that every human being has an inherent, inviolable value. We must devote more political energy to fighting violations of this value, and this must show in the EU budget. I voted for the proposal to move resources from agriculture support to internal security, that is, the fight against crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and to support for research and environmental measures. The core of European cooperation consists of more than employment levels and competitiveness in the market, and this must show in the budget. This core consists of cooperation for peace and protection of human dignity from the cradle to the grave. I voted for the budget as a whole, and for all of the amendments that will, as far as I can see, lead to greater focus on the EU’s core area.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday, 26 October, Parliament opted for a 2012 budget focusing on growth, employment and innovation in the Union and support for development and democracy in our neighbouring countries. I must first of all thank Derek Vaughan for his work. We voted in favour of this budget. We sought to restore the draft budget proposed by the Commission, after the Council’s cuts in July. Parliament’s position implies a 5.2 % increase in payments in relation to this year’s budget. The resulting budget totals EUR 133.1 billion. The resolution on the budget was adopted by 431 votes to 120, with 124 abstentions.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets decided to adopt a budget with EUR 151.2 billion in authorisation appropriations and EUR 137.9 billion in payment appropriations. These figures represent an increase of 2.2 % and 6.82 % respectively over the Union’s budget in 2012. It adds that the budget adopted by the Committee on Budgets has restored all of the budget cuts proposed by the Council with regard to the amounts intended for cohesion for growth and employment. The amounts included in the category of cohesion for growth and employment are vitally important given the current economic and financial situation facing the Member States. The budget adopted for the European Union will support small and medium-sized enterprises, respond more robustly and coherently to youth unemployment, and allow cohesion policy to be aligned with the Europe 2020 objectives. The regions, particularly those regions in countries subject to the structural adjustment programme of the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and European Commission, will benefit from an important tool to combat the crisis, as this budget will tackle the lack of investment made in those regions. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the document.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 – all sections. I voted against reducing the EU’s resources for 2013 by an overall total of EUR 1 155 million (-0.8 %) in commitment appropriations (CA) and EUR 5 228 million (-3.8 %) in payment appropriations (CP) as compared to the Commission’s draft budget.

I think that the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) is one of the main contributions to the Europe 2020 strategy and is an essential instrument to facilitate access to financing, especially for SMEs’ innovative initiatives. Therefore, I voted to increase the commitment credits and payments for the CIP Entrepreneurship and Innovation and Intelligent Energy Europe programmes.

I am against the Council cutting the payments (-EUR 1.6 billion or -3.3 % as compared to the draft budget) affecting the regional competitiveness and employment objective (-12.9 %), the European territorial cooperation objective (-18.7 %) and the Cohesion Fund (-4.7 %) because, if these reductions are applied, they will hinder the correct implementation of projects in the last year of the financial programme, with dramatic consequences, especially for those Member States that are already facing social, economic and financial difficulties.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The draft budget drawn up by the Commission reflects Parliament’s priorities as regards the programmes and initiatives that should receive support. They include sustainable growth and competitiveness and employment in respect of young people and small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. − (PL) This budget is of particular importance, as it is the final one of the multiannual financial framework 2007-2013. During this period, the European Union has allocated considerable resources to the Cohesion Fund, which has allowed a great deal of investment in infrastructure and environmental measures, including in my province of Kujawsko-Pomorskie. This investment has largely been completed and must now be accounted for in the EU budget. That is why the 2013 budget cannot reflect only planned objectives for that specific year, but must also include funds to cover investments made in previous years. It is a question of preserving the European Union’s credibility.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In the adoption of the European Parliament’s position on the EU budget for 2013, most of the political forces enthusiastically agreed with reducing the EU budget. The main orientations and priorities of the EU budget have been left unchanged, which is clearly insufficient given the urgent situation in countries such as Portugal in this period of profound economic and social crisis. The EU could have given a political signal of its willingness to redistribute more funds among the weaker countries, but has failed to take this opportunity.

Report: Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin (A7-0313/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I consider that the European Union’s budget can form part of the solution to promote investment, growth and employment, and can help the Member States to tackle, in concerted fashion, their present structural challenges. It is also important to stress that this is an effective instrument for expressing the European Union’s solidarity and must form an appropriate tool to achieve the political objectives of the Compact for Growth and Jobs.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The dispute over the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, between those who wish to reduce the budget and those who aim to increase it, tries to conceal its class orientation, which is the use of workers’ money to strengthen and finance the EU monopoly groups through EU funding. The common denominator between the two points of view is the strengthening of the competitiveness/profitability of the monopoly groups based in EU Member States, during the relentless conflict amongst themselves and with other imperialist centres and the emerging imperialist powers in their efforts to secure their profits and control the markets. The European Parliament proposes a restructuring of expenditure to strengthen the most reactionary features of the EU, such as the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Galileo space and military programme, centres of excellence in research, etc. The supposed robust opposition of the European Parliament (supported alike by the political representatives of capital and by opportunists) to a reduction in funding is another exercise in the stage management of popular forces, concealing the fact that any increase in funding is aimed at strengthening the monopoly groups and is accompanied by an intensified attack on the rights of the working class and popular strata.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The multiannual financial framework allows us to establish a budget for the European Union in a coherent and organised manner for a seven-year period. The economic crisis has an impact on all budgets, national and European. Nevertheless, the European Union must retain its capacity to finance its numerous policies and projects that contribute to recovery and growth. That is why the European Parliament voted in favour of this text, calling for a stronger European budget and the creation of own resources for the European Union.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The budget is the crucial element in Europe and in the Member States. It is the ordeal that specifically reflects the level of ambition of our public policies. We have often, if not always, had to deal with unattractive haggling in recent budgetary procedures. Caught in the grip of public debt, many Member States apply the brakes as soon as the issue of a real budget for Europe is raised. We must be aware, however, that any recovery plan worthy of the name that aims to get us out of this slump will require joint action at European level. The light at the end of this crisis will not appear by magic. If Europe condemns itself to a budget of 1 % throughout the 2014-2020 period, it is likely that in 2020 we will again be discussing a hypothetical way out of the crisis.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. − (CS) With respect to the approval of the report on the multiannual financial framework, I welcome the significant increase in funding for the Union programmes in the fields of competitiveness, small and medium-sized enterprises, entrepreneurship and sustainable infrastructures, which are at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy. I am convinced that further cuts with respect to the Commission proposal would jeopardise the effectiveness of these programmes and, in the final analysis, the credibility of the EU and its commitment to growth and job creation. I am of the view that the Connecting Europe Facility aiming to improve Europe’s transport, energy and digital networks should be financed independently and not through the transfer of resources from the Cohesion Fund. If such a transfer does take place, these resources should be used in accordance with the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund. In view of the importance of the EU cohesion policy as a strategic instrument for investment, sustainable growth and competitiveness, I consider it vital that financing intended for the cohesion policy should be kept at least at the same level as in the 2007-2013 period and should continue to be available in particular to the less developed regions in the EU.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. − (CS) The new multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2014–2020 period has a few welcome changes. It is growth-oriented and aims to support the European economy. The financial instruments within the new MFF are also able to support further joint financing from private and public investors. I also welcome the more effective orientation of the MFF, emphasis being placed on investment and economic growth. Another new aspect in MFF 2014–2020 is the obligatory on-going audit of financial instruments and direct reaction to the audit results. In my view, this is why the new MFF is a more flexible and usable instrument. I also consider it important that the budget for the multiannual financial framework should make use of own resources, for example value added tax or a Financial Transaction Tax. I have therefore voted for the report on the multiannual financial framework.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I cannot accept a call to increase the financial provision to the EU over the next parliamentary term when Europe is still going to be gripped by austerity and undergoing a programme of tentative regrowth after such deep fiscal cuts. The crisis in Europe was caused and prolonged by the EU, which has used ongoing economic misery to push for a more integrated and centralised European Union. This audacious attempt to seize more funding to support the ambitious extension of power towards a federal level is not only democratically vacuous but utterly incongruent with the needs of Europe as a continent. The EU also seeks to undo rebates which at present are in place to stop Member States such as the UK being used solely as a cash cow and provide protections for the citizens who would be disproportionately burdened with the financial costs of levelling out wealth across the Union.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that it makes an effort to adopt cross-cutting criteria of simplification and flexibility that will surely help to increase transparency and the accountability of each Member State in the use of EU funds.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) We, the four Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament (Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen), did not support the decision on Parliament’s negotiating position in relation to the Council of Ministers in the forthcoming negotiations on the EU’s multiannual financial framework (MFF), since we cannot support some of the initiatives set out in the report. In particular, we do not support the continued large proportion of the budget spent on EU agricultural aid. Instead, we are in favour of cutting the budget and prioritising resources for education, research and green growth, among other things.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In the context of the current economic and social crisis, the multiannual financial framework must sustain and encourage those investments that favour the resumption of economic activities; in particular, it must demonstrate their added value in combating structural challenges faced by Member States, especially unemployment and poverty.

The new framework and the financial instruments must restore citizens’ trust in the European project by integrating Article 9 of the Treaty regarding the ‘horizontal social clause’, to guarantee a high level of jobs for the workforce and adequate social protection, to combat social exclusion and to promote a high standard of education, training and health protection.

Also, it is important to consolidate the administrative capability of the authorities responsible for implementing a cohesion policy for better administration of the Structural Funds, thereby influencing the governing capability of the public authorities. The Commission must allocate at least 20 % of the European Social Fund to promote social inclusion and combat poverty. At the same time I am calling, within the context of multiannual financial programming, for acknowledgement of the difficult situation for young people in the job market. I believe that we need to create a section for ‘Initiatives for young people’ as part of the European Programme for Social Changes and Innovation, with its own financial envelope of EUR 150 million.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. − (SV) The moderates voted against the interim report on the multiannual budget as we cannot support Parliament’s position in relation to the Council and Commission on the increase in budget levels set out in the report. Instead of prioritising savings, the Commission and the majority of Parliament have chosen to demand increased expenses and the introduction of EU taxes. This increase is indefensible owing to the absence of priorities and in light of the substantial savings that the majority of Member States are making. The burden on citizens will not be reduced by introducing new own resources. We will help to solve Europe’s problem if the EU and Member States use their revenue efficiently and prioritise the most important expenditure. Large contributions to agriculture will not contribute to growth and new jobs, but investment in innovation and research will. The proposal for the long-term budget does not have any priorities for making a strong contribution to increased growth and competitiveness. The EU’s long-term budget must be modernised and streamlined. Obsolete lines must be reviewed and the money must instead be invested in areas that promote growth, such as research and development. Cohesion policy must focus on encouraging research, developing new initiatives, and infrastructure. The Member States are facing difficult challenges in relation to budget policy that require prioritisation, and priorities must also be made at EU level. It is against this background that we decided not to support the report.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The merit of the interim report drafted by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin undoubtedly lies in its proposal of an investment budget for the European Union, whether with regard to the financing of the Lifelong Learning Programme, including the Erasmus programme, or through its recognition of EU cohesion policy, of which Poland is a main beneficiary, as a pillar of European solidarity and a strategic tool for sustainable growth. The continuation of the programme supporting the most needy and the opposition to the UK rebate are also worthy of praise. At the same time, however, the arrangements for financing a package of climate measures, which will be extremely damaging to the Polish economy, and the EU agencies, including the European Environment Agency, mean that I was unable to support this report, for which reason I chose to abstain from the vote.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Europe of growth must be considered in the long term: hence the importance of this financial framework, which lays down our guidelines for the years ahead, up to 2020. Our Union must become even stronger and reassert itself, and I fully support the priority given to major projects such as Galileo, ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security). However, the Europe of 2020 is also the Europe of solidarity: thanks to the guidelines laid down in this text, the assistance for the most deprived will continue, giving vital support to several million Europeans. Because growth and solidarity must go hand in hand, I voted in favour of this text.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when the European economy is having a particularly rough time, it is important for the Union to equip itself with an ambitious budgetary programme for the next seven years. For that reason, the draft multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 must be capable of supporting the return to growth in Europe. The future research and investment budgets must be substantial enough to support competitiveness, generate activity and allow jobs to be created. At the same time, it is only fair that part of this European budget be allocated to emergency assistance and solidarity with citizens in difficulty, especially through the continuation of the programme for the most deprived persons in the EU and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Finally, from now on it should be possible to finance the EU budget from own resources, without increasing the fiscal pressure at national level.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which proposes better use of the European budget. In these difficult economic times, it is important for the European institutions to set an example in terms of the use of public funds. Nevertheless, the Union must fulfil its commitments to finance the major programmes that offer the real added value of this European level. If the Council wants to cut this spending, it must justify it to the public and take responsibility for its position, which will jeopardise the future of certain structural investments.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The European Parliament is resolute in its stance that the EU budget for the period 2014–2020 cannot be reduced, since inadequate funding could jeopardise, among other things, the EU’s strategy for growth, our ability to deliver on Europe 2020, and economic growth. I would like to emphasise that we must avoid cutting not only the overall budget, but also the budget allocation for regional policy in the programming period 2014-2020. It is particularly important for ‘friends’ of cohesion policy, such as Hungary, that the interim report highlights EU cohesion policy as a strategic tool for investment, sustainable growth and competitiveness, as well as the main pillar of European solidarity. The European Parliament insists that this policy area must have a stable, solid and sustainable financial framework behind it and that funding should remain at least at the level of the 2007–2013 budget. In the light of all this, I find it unacceptable that, on the basis of the Commission’s proposal, Hungary would be the only EU Member State where per capita GDP in the period 2014–2020 would be consistently lower than 75 % of the EU average, while its cohesion funding could fall by as much as 30 % compared to the current budgetary period. I consider the low growth ceilings set and the growth projections used to determine support levels to be unfair and counter to the spirit of the EU Treaties because they hit countries with the lowest growth levels hardest and hence keep them lagging behind in the long term.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it advocates a strong EU budget that will help to coordinate efforts made by the Member States. The EU budget forms part of the solution that will allow Europe to emerge from the crisis. Without investment, there will be no economic growth and many Member States will need EU funds to solve structural problems, increase competitiveness and reduce unemployment and poverty.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This interim report aims to facilitate and speed up approval of the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020. Europe’s citizens have high hopes that the priorities in the Europe 2020 strategy will be achieved, namely smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. This will be the only way to exit the crisis and develop the European economy. In this context, I would highlight the importance of cohesion policy. Every study points to its added value. Given the huge disparities between EU regions, this policy clearly needs to be maintained and must never become an adjustment measure for other policies, such as those resulting, for example, from the emblematic initiatives of Europe 2020. Cohesion policy is the only policy that can simultaneously contribute to the five Europe 2020 objectives in the area of education, research and innovation, climate change, employment and the fight against poverty. Over 80 % of the EU budget depends on direct contributions from the national budgets. This means that each Member State seeks a ‘juste retour’, which leads to an unhealthy distinction between net contributors and recipients. That is why the EU needs genuine own resources. As a result, the EU must seek other income, such as by imposing a Financial Transaction Tax and charging VAT as proposed by the Commission.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a further expression of the support given by the majority in Parliament to a path of successive budget reductions, as advocated by Europe’s major powers, which are the main beneficiaries of the single market and the current policies and priorities. They say that they want to influence the negotiations on the next financial framework, but on several points – as in the case of cohesion policy – they support the Council’s unacceptable positions. The majority support the EU budget being subordinated to the Europe 2020 strategy (which favours the processes of privatisation, liberalisation and destruction of public services) and the predictable use of Cohesion Fund monies to extend the single market through the ‘Connecting Europe Facility’, by transferring public funds to large transport networks. In the context of the prevailing relationships within the EU, this will accentuate the dependence and subordination of countries such as Portugal on and to the major powers, which will not only find it easier to sell their products, but will also have access to our country’s resources. We therefore advocate the need to increase the EU budget to at least double the current amount, and to reinforce its redistributive function.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 are entering the concluding and decisive phase. At the end of November, there will be a meeting of the European Council, at which a political agreement is expected to be reached. This should then be reflected in a specific regulation on the multiannual financial framework. Before the regulation enters into force, the approval of the European Parliament has to be obtained. In the spirit of close interinstitutional cooperation, the European Parliament has decided to adopt the interim report setting out the main political priorities in this matter as an objective. The draft interim report was adopted by a majority in the Committee on Budgets.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The negotiations on the European Union budget for 2014–2020 are entering a key phase. In a few days, the Cypriot Presidency will present a new proposal for a seven-year budget that includes precise figures. In spite of the fact that it has been systematically shrinking for several years now, the EU budget continues to serve as a symbol of solidarity with the poorest EU Member States, as it provides support for the structural changes they are undergoing and for their efforts to boost investment, benefiting growth and employment throughout the European Union.

Above all, the EU budget for 2014-2020 must include adequate resources for the continuing elimination of disparities in terms of development, research and development and assistance for competitiveness and innovation. The amounts allocated to cohesion policy, a key tool for investment and reducing macroeconomic differences between the regions and Member States of the EU, must, therefore, at least be maintained at their current level.

It is also vital to continue the EU programmes aimed at young people and those which, very successfully, support culture, education and the media. In the interests of integration, it is important to maintain at least the same level of financing for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the existing funding for measures to reduce CO2 emissions and tackle climate change.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) At a time of economic and financial crisis, when Member States are putting every aspect of their budgets under the microscope, the multiannual financial framework, which sets out the EU’s spending for 2014 to 2020 in broad terms, is extremely important.

The EU must achieve a balancing act between budget discipline, planning certainty and a level of flexibility which will enable it to respond to unforeseen situations. Above all, recent developments have shown that unforeseen situations can have global consequences which require an immediate response. Greater flexibility based on appropriate adjustments is therefore provided for within the new financial framework for 2014-2020.

Irrespective of the budget architecture, it is essential that cross-border programmes – whether in the social, education, employment or cultural policy field – continue to be financed by Europe, and this aspect should therefore be considered in the reprogramming of the Structural Funds within the framework of this report. The European Parliament will be looking very closely at how the Council takes up its pen and starts to make cuts.

The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), which is intended to do much to support the creation of a single European transport area, is a further challenge in the discussions with the Council. Improving mobility for goods and people alike, creating better connections for remote regions, making the entire transport system more eco-friendly: these are all goals which many governments have set themselves. They must now show that they have the political will to make these goals a reality.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which emphasises the European Parliament’s strong and united position on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the years 2014-2020 in the run-up to the November European Council on this issue. The report reiterates our support for a 5 % increase in the budget in relation to 2013, that is to say, an additional EUR 100 billion. The multiannual financial framework is Europe’s only way out of the current crisis. Given the stakes, it must be up to the task and it must finance the commitments made by all of the European institutions, particularly in the areas of climate, development assistance, research, employment and the fight against poverty. In addition to the issue of the percentage, the other main problem is that of the EU’s own resources. In that regard, too, Parliament sets out a united position in favour of the creation of new own resources, such as the Financial Transaction Tax.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We are here sending a clear message to the Member States, which are obsessed with austerity therapies and disregard the need to invest in growth and employment by giving ourselves the budgetary resources that match our ambitions.

It is highly regrettable that as Europe is given more and more responsibilities, the Member States – using the crisis as a pretext – are refusing to put their hands in their pockets. What the European Commission is proposing is still far less than we need to deal with the challenges posed by the crisis. It is an absolute minimum and we cannot go below it without risking affecting entire swathes of the European cohesion policy. The European budget, as I see it, must thus continue to be an instrument of solidarity.

It is a trap to continue to believe solely in the sirens who support the budget cuts. Rather than taking a short-term view, we must see the European budget as a lever for growth and not – as the Member States see it – as a simple means of picking up a cheque to finance their national policies alone. Finally, it is clear that there can be no agreement on this budget without an agreement on own resources.

  Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) Against the backdrop of the economic situation facing the Member States, we feel that the budget framework should not exceed the current level. For example, we feel that agriculture subsidies should be reduced further than in the Commission’s proposal and that they should be reallocated to the Structural Funds and to investment environmental and climate measures, among other things.

We also do not feel that new sources of revenue should be added to the EU budget, and we do not want Sweden’s share of the funding to be increased. On the one hand, the report has some good proposals on growth, jobs and solidarity, but on the other it is not ambitious enough for savings and reform; against this backdrop we chose to abstain in the final vote.

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) If we look at the report on the multiannual financial framework, the words are there: growth, employment, response to the crisis.

Unfortunately, the proposals indicate the contrary. The budgetary approach is still the same as the one that led Europe into the stalemate and the crisis. Beyond the words, there are still the same ultraliberal options that are supported no matter what: destruction of the social acquis and confinement within a policy of complete support for the competition that is corrupting our countries and Europe. With budgetary guidelines such as these, there is no chance of Europe emerging from the chaos that it has created. On the contrary, Europe risks sinking further into the crisis, with finance the only beneficiary.

It is time to change the guidelines completely. We need to give priority to the public services that can shield us from the crisis. We need to provide concrete support for the development of jobs and industry, instead of finance, by seeking a public dimension to finance aimed at providing special support for projects and people rather than profit.

We need to revitalise social protection, harmonise upwards, and put an immediate end to levelling downwards and pitting citizens and workers against one another.

Without these essential changes, Europe will not be able to get past the crisis. It is for that Europe, however, that I am campaigning with the citizens.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This was a key sitting for the European Parliament, which adopted its position to speed up the negotiations with the Council and the Commission on the multiannual financial framework, which will determine the EU’s actions and policies for the next seven years (2014-2020). The aim was thus to establish the European Parliament’s priorities and ‘red lines’ in preparation for the European Council meeting on the budget on 22 and 23 November. Although the European Parliament’s room for manoeuvre is limited by the Treaty of Lisbon (consent), it is a crucial power that allows it to influence the negotiations. With this vote, the European Parliament is thus seeking to preserve its prerogatives as well as the unity of the budget: now is not the time to fragment financing as this would affect the transparency and predictability of the European budget. The European Parliament recognised, however, that the introduction of some form of flexibility into the European budget would enable it to adapt better to any contingencies linked to the crisis and to any economic and structural changes.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. − The next multiannual financial framework will most probably prove decisive for the European Union’s objectives regarding social and territorial cohesion, and particularly in the social inclusion of marginalised communities. I would like to welcome the fact that the Commission has introduced several instruments aiming at the complex development of underdeveloped regions, in line with the requirement for territorial targeting of the European Framework for National Roma Inclusion Strategies and I also welcome the proposal to earmark 5 % of the ERDF resources of each Member State for integrated urban strategies. The draft general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund establish the Integrated Territorial Investment, which enables Member States to allocate funding from several priority axes of the Operational Programmes for the purposes of multi-dimensional and cross-sectoral intervention. In this context the maximum extent of place-based approach should be considered, in order to unlock unused local capabilities. Furthermore, the Community-led Local Development, as a set of multi-fund financed strategies with an integrated bottom-up approach may play a significant role in the inclusion of marginalised communities, including Roma, when properly used and may represent an effective tool for the involvement of the concerned communities themselves.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. − (PL) In the vote on the multiannual financial framework, I voted in favour of Parliament’s position, which seeks to ensure that expenditure on agriculture and structural policies, in particular cohesion policy, is maintained. We cannot vote against a policy of growth and investment aimed at improving living standards and education and creating jobs. We set ourselves goals in the Europe 2020 strategy and we must achieve them. We need to remain credible and fight for what we promised 500 million citizens. Limiting expenditure in the EU’s next multiannual financial framework will cause growth to slow and make it harder to recover from the crisis. Let us remember that the EU budget is an investment budget and cannot be compared to national budgets. In view of the need to make a quick decision regarding a budget that determines the EU’s every action, I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.

  Kent Johansson, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) We are convinced that the EU is needed to tackle common challenges such as climate change, organised crime and humane treatment of asylum seekers in Europe. We also believe that a strong EU and proper functioning of the internal market are needed in order for Europe’s economy to gather momentum again. We therefore voted for increased investment in measures that will contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy, such as research and entrepreneurship, and against the same budget for the EU’s agriculture policy. We feel that the EU’s aims and objectives should be met within the framework of the Commission’s proposal, through clear priorities and strategic reductions, not through an increased budget. Therefore, for example, we voted against the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and in favour of an end to Parliament’s travelling circus between Brussels and Strasbourg. We would also like to have a more lucid, transparent EU budget. We feel that politics is about choosing, and that choosing something also involves having to prioritise. In these times of economic crisis in the EU’s Member States, demanding an increased EU budget would be irresponsible.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I believe that the report drafted by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin represents the balanced position adopted by Parliament with regard to the future multiannual financial framework and consequently voted in favour of this document. I welcome the report’s emphasis on such important points as the role of cohesion policy as an investment instrument and the part played by the EU budget in achieving the Europe 2020 goals.

Nevertheless, one of the proposals in this report struck me as worrying, which is why, along with 40 other Members, I decided to table an amendment in plenary, which I would now like to explain. It is my belief that allocating 25 % of cohesion policy resources to the European Social Fund not only imposes unnecessary restrictions, but is also at odds with the need, referred to later in the report, to increase the flexibility of the multiannual financial framework. I would also like to thank here the Members who supported the amendment in today’s vote.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin was adopted by 517 votes to 105, with 63 abstentions. I supported this report in plenary. It forms the European Parliament’s mandate in the forthcoming negotiations with the Council. The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 began 11 months ago and sped up dramatically with President Herman Van Rompuy’s announcement that there would be a European Council meeting on 22 and 23 November. Since the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has had the power to give its consent, in other words, to say yes or no to the Council’s proposals. In that regard, the report by Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin aims to establish a number of ‘red lines’. If these are not respected in the future, Parliament will be forced to refuse to give its consent. The ‘red lines’ are as follows: respect for Parliament’s prerogatives, unity of the budget, greater flexibility to facilitate adjustment of the budgetary resources and reform of the own resources system.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020. This is the second time that Parliament has dealt with this matter, following the report by the Special Committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013, but we need to re-state our position now that the negotiations are nearing a decisive phase, with the European Council at the end of November devoted expressly to dealing with this difficult issue. As you know, the Commission’s proposal to some extent freezes expenditure at the levels of the preceding MFF, and thus, in our view, it is not a suitable proposal for taking on the global challenges that we will be facing in the coming years. This applies above all to the common agricultural policy, where the Commission’s cuts are not in line with the needs of the sector. We therefore decided to amend the proposals aimed at removing the differences in direct payments between Member States, introducing instead a general formula for reduction.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) My colleagues and I approved the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020. This framework, which covers several budget years, establishes a total budget and a maximum ceiling for expenditure in each area. At the June 2012 European summit, the European leaders proposed increasing the funds available for research and competitiveness in order to combat the ongoing crisis. Both of these sectors will help to boost the European economy, which has been severely affected by the crisis. I welcome the massive support for this resolution, which will allow these sectors to develop further. I voted for the resolution because I strongly believe that investment in research and competitiveness will be one of the solutions to the crisis and that funding for these aspects should therefore match the ambitions that the European Union has set out.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Our recommendations for the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 have once again attested to the proactive role of the European Parliament, which is more assertive than the Commission, particularly when it comes to competitiveness and innovation programmes and Erasmus. Moreover, as with the Financial Transaction Tax, which will be subject to ‘enhanced cooperation’, we stressed in the Böge and Kalfin report, which I supported, that it is essential to improve the European VAT system.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. − Some Member States try to use the current financial crisis in order to reduce their contribution to the EU budget. They bow to or even consciously exploit the anti-European sentiments which arose in some countries. However, reducing the European budget means hurting one’s own economy as much as that of the other Member States. The EU budget redistributes 94 % back to the Member States and is largely devoted to investments. Those investments are proven to boost economic growth, not only in the cohesion countries but also with the so-called net payers. The European Parliament has to make a stand for this investment budget and has to oppose any cuts. The budgetary austerity which some Member States also want to impose onto the EU is a self-defeating strategy. The EU does not have any debts to pay off and has one of the lowest rates of spending on its own administration. Therefore it makes no sense to apply budgetary cuts to Europe’s most efficient mean of investments. Therefore I supported this interim report.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020 is the main instrument for achieving the Europe 2020 strategy and especially for assuring economic, social and territorial cohesion.

Considering the important role played by cohesion policy to redress the European economy, I think that the financing of the cohesion policy should be maintained at the same level as in the previous period, 2007-2013, that is, EUR 354 815 billion. In this way, we will benefit from a cohesion policy that will ensure strategic investments within the Union, and considerable economic growth based on job creation and increased competitiveness. At the same time, it will help us to overcome the present economic and financial crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this resolution, which calls for the end of the British rebate.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 come at a difficult economic and financial time, when the Member States are being forced to introduce harsh fiscal consolidation measures. However, the EU budget can only be seen as offering huge added value with regard to investments made at national level.

The Commission’s proposal freezes ceilings at their 2013 levels and significantly weakens the requests made by the Special Committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 to strengthen European policies to enhance competitiveness, small and medium-sized enterprises and sustainable infrastructure. Parliament hopes for a ‘responsible’ reaction from the Council. Any attempt to reduce the ceilings proposed by the Commission would result not only in a decline in effectiveness but also in the credibility of the EU budget.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This interim report lays down the broad guidelines that the European Parliament supports for the forthcoming negotiations with the Council on the multiannual financial framework. Firstly, all of the European Union’s programmes and policies must be covered by the framework. Flexibility must also be a key principle of the new financial framework so that the appropriations can be adjusted in line with changing situations and priorities. It is also important to get to an EU budget that is financed by own resources, in particular so that the national contributions can be reduced. Most importantly, I voted against the call for a single seat for the European Parliament. We must respect the Treaties and the strong symbol of Strasbourg as the seat of the European Parliament.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The reduction of the EU budget with respect to the national budgets is a flagrant contradiction of the extension of competences and tasks conferred on the Union by the Treaty and major political decisions taken by the European Council itself, notably the development of enhanced European economic governance. I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The multiannual financial framework will outline the expenditure of the European Union for a seven-year period from 2014 to 2020. I voted in favour of the final text of this interim report on the MFF outlining the European Parliament’s position on the negotiations, which opposes the freezing of the MFF ceilings and favours an adequate increase in the EU budget in order to meet the challenges facing Europe in the future. I supported paragraph 50 which underlines the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a single seat.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This interim report on the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 has four benefits: it emphasises the need to continue the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the EU, it proposes a substantial increase in the budget allocated to the fight against climate change, it calls for an end to the British rebate and it calls for real parliamentary control of the budget. It is also significant that it supports the European Commission’s proposal that it should be possible to go above the ceilings of the financial framework, if necessary.

It is therefore unfortunate that it does not demand for the states what it demands at European level. This same report gives the thumbs up to the austerity policies. I also reject its support for the ITER project and an increase in the budget for Baroness Ashton’s External Action Service. I therefore voted against the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am aware that the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 are taking place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context, in which Member States are engaging in considerable efforts to make fiscal adjustments to their national budgets, with a view to the sustainability of public finances and the stability of the banking sector and the single currency. However, I consider that the EU budget forms part of the solution to enable Europe to emerge from the current crisis, by promoting investments in growth and jobs and helping Member States to tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion, the present structural challenges, in particular loss of competitiveness and rising unemployment and poverty. We must also present an MFF 2014-2020 which endorses the objectives set out in the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, namely promoting employment, improving the conditions for – and public spending on – innovation, research and development, meeting our climate change and energy objectives, improving education levels and promoting social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − State deficit and debts should be decreased in compliance with foreseen strategy on investment till the year 2020, ensuring jobs and high quality work. I would also add that authors should be responsible for taking risks.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The draft resolution on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 is part of Parliament’s contribution to the November summit on the EU’s long-term budget. It warns EU governments against any attempt to reduce further the level of EU expenditure proposed by the Commission. Members also call for an increase in investment in competitiveness and research, and for the funding available for agricultural and cohesion policy to be maintained, at the very least, at current levels. Other specific proposals include demands for a reform of the EU’s own resources system based on the value added tax which flow directly into the EU budget. Overall, then, the resolution is mainly about a further increase in the EU budget. Such a move must be rejected on principle at a time of austerity. Given that municipalities, regions and countries have no option but to pursue rigorous austerity measures, the EU’s urge to spend more and more money is completely unreasonable. What we need, in many areas, is for competences to be transferred away from the EU and handed back to the Member States. This would dramatically reduce the EU’s demand for funding. EU taxes must also be firmly rejected.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I fully support paragraph 26 of the European Parliament’s resolution on the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020, given the importance of the cohesion policy for the coming years. As the permanent rapporteur for the European Social Fund (ESF), I welcome the fact that the report emphasises the importance of respecting the vote by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs to endorse the Commission proposal to earmark 25 % of the total cohesion policy allocation to the ESF.

The ESF is the main tool for promoting social integration through professional integration; it is absolutely essential to maintain this tool and increase its use in the period from 2014 to 2020. I therefore call on the Member States to fulfil their responsibilities at November’s European summit.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Faced with the continuing economic crisis, when talking about the EU budget for the forthcoming financial perspective, we must undoubtedly talk not only and not so much about its size as about how to use it efficiently. EU funds earmarked for five-year plans and for the goals outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy must, on the one hand, ensure that all states are able to participate equally effectively in EU projects (that is to say, both the development of EU-wide infrastructure and the allocation of those funds, ensuring that they are divided equally among all states). On the other hand, the funds must be used for economic stimulus measures that promote and guarantee the efficient and effective use of resources. Only by using resources efficiently will we achieve effective economic growth.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted against Amendment 23, which denied the usefulness of the decentralised European agencies. How can we suggest, for example, that the Food Safety Authority in Parma is useless, given that it was the first to raise the alarm about the ‘blue mozzarella’ originating in a German factory?

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for Amendment 72 regarding direct payments in agriculture, in which I proposed replacing the phrase ‘reduce the existing gap’ with ‘ensure convergence of direct payments among the Member States’. If we want a European budget, we need to consider the interests of all Member States; it is important to make this distinction.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the report on the multiannual financial framework, as it emphasises the need to ensure that expenditure on agriculture and structural policies is at least maintained, which is beneficial to Poland. For several months now, Parliament’s stance on the new framework has been consistent and clear, which strengthens our position with regard to the Council. It makes no sense, however, to attempt to restrict cohesion policy funding, in particular when not enough money is being spent on investment in Europe. Net contributors need to realise that the majority of the money comes back to them in the form of investment or increased exports.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The disagreement about the size and structure of the budget is, at the same time, a disagreement on how to tackle the economic crisis. An increasing number of people are being won over to the view that cuts and belt-tightening will kill, rather than cure, the patient. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is calling for a large budget that would be earmarked for investment. It would be the equivalent of the Marshall Plan, but financed by Europeans for Europeans. I am delighted that President Barroso holds a similar view. It is particularly important today to defend cohesion policy, which is fully capable of assuming the role of the European Marshall Plan I have mentioned. The second pillar of the common agricultural policy can also serve a similar purpose. It should be accorded special protection from the threatened budget cuts. The announcement of reduced spending on science and research is also extremely worrying, as it blatantly contradicts the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. I consider the Commission’s budget proposal to be the best solution. Any attempts to make cuts should be met with opposition. In its work on the multiannual financial framework, Parliament should take care to retain its own integrity. At the same time, a decision to reject the reduced multiannual financial framework may be a justifiable step.

  Ivari Padar (S&D), in writing. − (ET) Planning for a seven-year period requires the ability to objectively assess the current problems and the capacity to perceive what will actually happen in 2020. I am convinced that establishing connecting routes and facilitating the increased mobility of EU citizens is an area where we can make no mistake: improved possibilities for travelling between Member States represent a constant need and a sustainable policy. Therefore, I consider it essential to underline that a common transport policy is not an item subject to budget compromises: better connecting routes are key in establishing a single Europe.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This resolution on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 presents the European Parliament’s concerns on the process of adopting a regulation on the multiannual financial framework. This will be the first multiannual financial framework adopted under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, entailing in consequence new cooperation arrangements between the institutions aimed at reconciling efficient decision-making with respect for Treaty prerogatives. Given these circumstances, I voted in favour of this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report highlights the political importance of the European Union’s budget in terms of overcoming the economic crisis, by ensuring the necessary level of financial investment throughout the EU territory. The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) are taking place in a difficult context, in which only the European concepts of solidarity and mutual assistance can help the Member States to tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion, the structural challenges ravaging Europe: loss of competitiveness, and rising unemployment and poverty. However, the Commission’s proposals would freeze the budget for the MFF and are therefore inadequate. Any attempt by the Council to further reduce this level must therefore be rejected, with the Council being urged by the report to clearly and publicly indicate which EU projects and priorities must be abandoned. I voted in favour of this interim report, as we all depend on the leverage effect of the EU budget to launch and catalyse actions with clear added value in order to boost growth and jobs, which the Member States, on their own, are not capable of achieving.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I would like to congratulate Mr Kalfin and Mr Böge on their work. By adopting this text today, Parliament, in accordance with Articles 311 and 312 of the TFEU and its resolution of 13 June 2012 on the multiannual financial framework and own resources, wished to send out a strong signal and point a new way to growth and competitiveness in Europe. It is particularly important to emphasise the need for well-targeted, robust and sufficient support from the Member States for the EU budget in order to help coordinate and enhance national efforts.

I expressly call for significantly increased spending in the EU budget for relaunching competitiveness, developing small enterprises, entrepreneurship, sustainable infrastructure, and research and innovation. Increased spending of this nature, together with the reorganisation of own resources, is the best way for the EU to attempt to counter and overcome the crisis currently affecting the Member States.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Today’s vote sets out the EP’s red lines for the forthcoming negotiations on the future EU budget for 2014-20. MEPs have made clear that they want an EU budget that plays a central role in stimulating economic recovery in Europe and in the sustainable transformation of our economy. They have also clearly nailed their colours to the mast in favour of a meaningful own resources system for the EU budget. In order to emerge from the economic crisis, we should be investing more in research, education, green technologies and the sustainable transformation of our energy sector. The EU budget represents a value-for-money way to deliver this. In this context, the calls by some net contributing Member States, like the UK, to drastically cut the budget would be totally the wrong approach to take. The Commission’s proposals fail to reflect the necessary ambition and MEPs have today called for them to be increased.

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. − (LV) The European Parliament expressed strong support for the resolution on the EU multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020. The resolution emphasises that a balance needs to be maintained between EU expenditure to meet obligations and the available budget, in order to achieve the targets set in the Europe 2020 strategy. In the Member States we often hear complaints that they are forced to implement austerity measures and reduce their spending, but the EU is not reducing its spending. However, it should be borne in mind that 94 % of the EU budget is invested in the development of Europe, financing programmes that are important to the Member States and joint EU activities. The EU budget is one of the solutions and an incentive for Europe to emerge from the current crisis. For the EU to become a leading economy in the future, once it has overcome the crisis and its consequences, it is necessary to invest in spheres that promote growth and new jobs, education, research and innovative, competitive production. The Commission’s proposal to date, which provides for a reduction in the EU budget, cannot really be seen as a budget for the development of the EU over the next seven years. Therefore, in talks with the European Council, Parliament will resolutely maintain its position in order to reach a decision that will be beneficial for Europe as a whole.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − Today I voted in favour of a youth guarantee scheme to provide more opportunities for young people. Today’s youth is being hit particularly hard by the economic crisis, as are the public services which people rely on for their education and training. The youth guarantee scheme will provide a safety net for those struggling to find employment. I also supported the guarantees to maintain cohesion policy expenditure at least at the current level, which is vital for many EU Member States, including Romania. Cohesion policy provides a lifeline through which inequalities can be reduced and less wealthy regions helped to prosper. Another lifeline, although of a different kind, is the food for the most deprived persons programme. It must be renewed, and a solution must be found to ensure that it receives adequate financial support after 2013.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The priority of the EU budget must be to help the Member States to respond to the difficult economic and financial environment. Concerted action is required to tackle the present challenges, such as loss of competitiveness and rising unemployment and poverty. Specifically, Italy’s role as one of the major contributors to the EU budget must be emphasised. Greater impact of spending on growth and employment must therefore be adopted as priorities. The Commission proposed a reduction of the common agricultural policy (CAP) budget, with a nominal freeze at 2007-2013 levels. The largest reduction is in direct payments (from EUR 322 billion to EUR 281 billion (-12 %). The Commission aims to introduce greater fairness in the distribution of payments (by bringing all countries closer to the EU average aid per hectare). I do not agree with the general outline of the CAP budget proposal for allocation of direct payments, which is based exclusively on the quantitative criterion of farmland and is contrary to the objective of growth and employment. I voted in favour, hoping that the reform of the CAP will not go ahead, as it would render it too burdensome.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) Amendment 46: I voted in favour of the amendment, although I am unhappy with the blunt terms in which it is expressed. Staffing policy in all areas needs to be more nuanced and respond to general efficiency criteria as regards the use of available resources.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. − (SV) The EU’s budget must be used on what can offer European added value. This is one of the linchpins of work on the budget and it is also what must govern the allocation of the common resources that the Union has at its disposal. There is no problem in that regard. The interim report adopted in plenary on 23 October places great emphasis on new own resources for the EU. This means the Financial Transaction Tax, which I firmly maintain is detrimental to Sweden and to Europe. Too often, ‘own resources’ means a tax that must be paid directly into the EU budget. More money for the EU in the form of own resources does not automatically constitute an investment that will help Europe with its stresses and strains. Instead, priorities need to be set using the resources available now. It is important to note that a Tobin tax was tried in Sweden and proved to be harmful. Transactions were moved away from Sweden. In addition, it is obviously important for me to emphasise that the cost of the FTT would hit the average consumer and that economic growth would be impeded. Since so much focus is being placed on own resources and requirements for a Financial Transaction Tax, I chose to vote against the report.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. I must congratulate Mr Kalfin on his excellent work, which is of a quality rarely achieved for a task of this magnitude. The multiannual financial framework is a spending plan that reflects the Union’s priorities in financial terms. This text provides an excellent basis for the annual budgets. It sets out the spending over a given period of time and the maximum amounts available for each major category of expenditure. It thus provides a financial, but also a political, framework, allowing us to allocate our resources and investments where needed.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The multiannual financial framework defines the EU budget for the 2014-2020 period. In June 2011 the European Commission presented a proposal of EUR 1 083 billion in expenditure, corresponding to 1.11 % of European Gross Domestic Product and an increase of 5 % in relation to the current programming period (2007-2013). I would argue that the EU budget must be reinforced, which is in line with the European Commission’s proposal and advocated by the Friends of Cohesion group consisting of 15 Member States. At a time of heightened economic and financial difficulties, it is vital to reinforce European investment in a wide range of areas (such as cohesion policy, agriculture, research and innovation). Only in this way will it be possible to grow economically, create jobs and improve the social situation of European citizens. I wish to point out that I do not agree with the pre-allocation of 25 % of cohesion policy funds to the European Social Fund, on the basis that there should be sufficient flexibility for Member States and the European regions to define their strategic priorities. Lastly, I must oppose the sharp reduction (47 %) in the specific additional allocation for the outermost and sparsely populated regions, in the hope that the budget amounts will be amended at the Council meetings.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D) in writing. – (RO) I voted for Parliament’s resolution aiming to achieve a positive outcome of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 approval procedure. The Compact for Growth and Jobs adopted by the European Council in June highlights the lever effect of the EU budget for the consolidation of both growth and jobs.

Any reduction of the EU budget would increase imbalances, affect the economic growth and competitiveness of the Union and its cohesion, and undermine the principle of solidarity as the fundamental value of the EU. Promoting growth and quality jobs for all Europeans can only be achieved if the necessary investments in education, in the promotion of a society based on knowledge, in research and development, in SMES and in new and environmentally friendly technologies, simultaneously promoting social integration, are made immediately.

I welcome the future Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and the financial allocation for it proposed by the Commission to improve transport, energy and digital networks in Europe. I am asking that the sum transferred from the Cohesion Fund to the CEF be used to comply with the provisions for national allocations under this fund. I voted against Amendments 12 and 30, which reduced the sums allocated to the COSME programme and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) If we look at the report on the multiannual financial framework, the words are there: growth, employment, response to the crisis. Unfortunately, the proposals indicate the contrary. The budgetary approach is still the same as the one that led Europe into the stalemate and the crisis. Beyond the words, there are still the same ultraliberal options that are supported no matter what: destruction of the social acquis and confinement within a policy of complete support for the competition that is corrupting Europe. With budgetary guidelines such as these, there is no chance of Europe emerging from the chaos that it has created. Above all, we need to give priority to the public services that can shield us from the crisis. We need to provide concrete support for the development of jobs and industry, instead of finance, by seeking a public dimension to finance aimed at providing special support for projects and people rather than profit. We need to revitalise social protection, harmonise upwards, and put an immediate end to levelling downwards and pitting citizens and workers against one another. Without these essential changes, Europe will not be able to get past the crisis. It is for that Europe, however, that I am campaigning with the citizens.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This vote is a crucial stage in the discussions on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 and it determines Parliament’s mandate for the negotiations. We need to find a balance between two realities: the Treaty of Lisbon created new EU competences, which require additional resources, but the crisis is preventing any increase in the national contributions that finance the EU budget. It will be difficult to solve this equation if the Member States persist with their double refusal to increase their contributions and approve own resources to take their place. Mr Sarkozy’s France initiated a dynamic that resulted in a Financial Transaction Tax, the revenue from which will go to the EU budget, thereby decreasing the contributions of the countries that apply it, and that is the first positive sign. In these negotiations, Parliament will defend several ‘red lines’: the budget will have to be a catalyst for intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth, it will have to be flexible enough to cope with structural and economic changes, and it will have to support the projects with high European added value. In this power struggle, Parliament must give its consent and has the authority to say yes or no. Therefore, the ball is clearly in the court of the Member States.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − Let us be clear, Labour’s MEPs believe that the EU budget can be part of the solution to the current economic and unemployment crisis in Britain and the rest of the EU. We believe that a greater focus should be placed on bringing forward key infrastructure projects and making a commitment to invest in innovative sustainable technologies. This is why we voted to secure funding for projects in the UK and voted to protect EU spending in deprived areas. We also called for a single seat for the European Parliament to end further wasteful expenditure. However, we must be realistic about the fact that we cannot increase spending in all areas. We must support targeted spending in areas, which must be offset by making savings in areas with less added value. At the same time Labour MEPs could not vote for a report that called for an end to rebates but refused to make a deep rooted commitment to reform the CAP.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The European Union budget is a key tool for achieving sustainable and inclusive growth for the entire EU. In the current crisis, the EU budget is part of the solution, allowing Europe to recover through investment and job creation. However, the proposal to freeze the multiannual financial framework ceilings for 2014-2020 at the 2013 level means that there will be insufficient funding for these priorities. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. − (PL) We are moving ever closer to adopting a budget for the period 2014-2020. Unfortunately, the disagreements in this regard are growing ever stronger. The majority of Member States, that is the net contributors, would, as a minimum, like to freeze the budget amount and, if possible, even reduce it. I am firmly opposed to such an action. The European Union budget for 2014-2020 should be well in excess of EUR 1 billion. Let us remember that this budget is intended to cover new investments in infrastructure, stimulate production and create new jobs. It must be a pro-investment budget and not serve to restrict the European Union. For Member States such as Poland, it has added significance in terms of enabling them to catch up where, unfortunately, they still lag behind. Without a generous budget benefiting the less developed Member States, we will never eradicate the differences in living standards among EU residents.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. − (LV) The resolution definitely warrants our support. In a situation where there is a move towards much greater EU centralisation, it is absurd to talk, at the same time, of reducing the total budget, as often demanded by some large EU Member States. Only around 1 % of the overall EU GDP or 2 % of total government expenditure is currently channelled into the EU budget.

I welcome the statement in the resolution that the EU budget should not be considered from the position of donor states as an additional burden on their taxpayers, but that the use of joint EU resources should be seen as part of the solution for taking Europe out of the crisis, by encouraging growth, job creation, science, education, large-scale infrastructure projects, youth employment, improved quality of life, etc.

The evaluation of EU cohesion policy given in the resolution is important as it is a strategic instrument for bringing about growth and competitiveness and the main foundation of solidarity between EU Member States. In the resolution, Parliament insists that in order to effectively reduce the lack of macro-economic balance and promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, cohesion policy must be based on a stable, solid and sustainable financial framework, stressing that the funding allocated to cohesion must be maintained at the 2007-2013 level as a minimum.

It is also important that the resolution calls for the funding allocated to the common agricultural policy to be kept at at least the level planned for 2013 in the future, directing the funding in an effective way, including, inter alia, a fair distribution of direct payments between Member States and regions.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Owing to the inclusion of several points that are extremely harmful to Polish sovereignty, the Solidarna Polska [United Poland] delegation within the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group was unable to vote in favour of the motion for a resolution. I believe that nobody whose aim is for Poland to retain its sovereignty and to cooperate within the European Union on an equal footing can, in clear conscience, support measures that will lead to the creation of a single European superstate. Including through the introduction of a requirement to allocate as much as 20 % of expenditure to tackling climate change. The EU’s current policy in this area (the so-called climate and energy package) will lead to a twofold rise in energy prices, a loss of competitiveness for Polish industry and the disappearance of several hundred thousand jobs, and may jeopardise Poland’s economic growth. There is a lack of any clear provisions concerning the reform of the common agricultural policy, in particular as regards ensuring equal conditions of competitiveness and equal payments for farmers in Poland and in other Member States or on the introduction of a new European tax to provide direct EU financing, without going through the Member States. The motion for a resolution merely calls for the introduction of a European Financial Transaction Tax. The introduction of an EU tax is a step towards the creation of an EU federal state.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a further expression of the support given by the majority in Parliament to a path which does not force the main beneficiaries of the single market and the current policies and priorities – namely, the major economic powers of the EU – to channel more funds into this budget and, in this way, into the redistribution of wealth. The majority in Parliament in essence endorse the Council’s positions, by supporting the subordination of the EU budget to the Europe 2020 strategy and the predictable use of Cohesion Fund monies to extend the single market through the ‘Connecting Europe Facility’, by transferring public funds to large monopolistic transport networks. We have therefore tabled proposals advocating the need to increase the EU budget in various areas.

Report: Jean-Luc Dehaene (A7-0316/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because it will clearly not only result in more own resources for the European Union itself, but will also send an important political signal to the world about the political union existing in the European Union.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Allowing the European Union to obtain its own financial resources is an objective that is enshrined in the Treaties. This report adopted by the European Parliament, which I supported, seeks to redefine the way in which VAT is calculated in Europe. The long-term goal is to harmonise these rates and allow the European Union to collect part of the VAT collected in Europe, thereby reducing the national contributions in order to achieve budgetary autonomy.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The proposals for a new multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 contain a set of proposals for reforming the Union’s own resources. They include a proposal for the seventh Decision regarding own resources, the abolition of the present own resources based on VAT and its replacement with a new source based on VAT. Within the present MFF, regarding own resources based on VAT, a 0.30 % uniform rate can be applied to the harmonised basis of assessment for transactions for VAT in each Member State. The taxed basis of the VAT is frozen at 50 % of the gross national income in every country to prevent less wealthy Member States from paying disproportionate sums, since VAT represents a larger percentage of the internal revenue in countries with reduced income. This proposal is a major improvement on the present system and could become a stable and viable source for the EU budget.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) We have already seen how the economic crisis has helped to accelerate the process of European integration. I agree with Mr Dehaene’s report, which touches on a cornerstone of European integration, in other words, a genuine own resource system and responsibility for taxation. I have no doubt that the current system of contributions by the national governments is an out-dated concept given the sort of integration taking place in the areas of tax regulation and general policies. This sort of asymmetry points to an anachronism, and the report provides useful proposals for overcoming it. In particular, increased transparency and reduced burdens on the Member States may well make up for the apparent loss of sovereignty in the performance of activities that are in fact more statistical than administrative. Following this logic, the assumption of a greater burden by the Commission seems justified. If the provisions of the report are adopted they will help to create a widespread European awareness of a common future, making many of the questions that are today the object of heated debate on sovereignty and governance a thing of the past.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I am totally against the EU sneaking in a form of direct taxation via the backdoor. The EU must not have any form of revenue raising powers, however small a percentage they may be and even if they do not accrue directly in the EU budget but via national treasuries. Creating a resource based upon VAT is the first step towards establishing a stealth tax without a single citizen of Europe bestowing revenue raising powers upon the EU.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on the new proposal concerning the VAT own resource for the Union. This proposal is a considerable improvement on the current system. It is also likely to encourage the establishment of a genuine own resource for the EU budget that is both reliable and stable. I agree with the rapporteur that the VAT own resource should be part of a general reform of the own resources system aimed at reducing significantly the overall level of national contributions.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that the VAT own resource should be part of a general reform of the own resources system, which should substantially decrease the overall level of national contributions by Member States, and because I consider that the current proposal represents an important improvement to the current system.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The report tabled is a step towards an own resources system for the European Union that is based, primarily, on revenue from an unfair value added tax, which places a burden not only on the administration but, above all, on the poorest EU citizens. I am in favour of keeping the current system, under which the vast majority of funding comes from national contributions, which is why I voted against the report.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it urges the European Commission to present a concrete proposal on the EU’s own resources, particularly through VAT, so that this tax can accrue directly to the EU budget as from 2014-2020. I believe that other possibilities can be explored, such as the Financial Transaction Tax, which may help to reduce the Member State contributions to the EU budget.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over 80 % of the income received by the European Union budget comes from contributions by the Member States, based on gross national income, which are taken directly from the respective national budgets. This means that, contrary to the requirements of the Treaties, the EU budget is not funded by genuine own resources. This leads to the logic of the ‘juste retour’ and the undesirable distinction between net contributors and recipients. The new challenges and commitments of the EU in terms of combating the crisis and fulfilling the Europe 2020 strategy led the Commission on 29 June 2011, when it presented its proposals for the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020, to include a set of proposals on the reform of the EU’s own resources system, which contemplates abolishing the VAT own resource in its current form and replacing it with an EU VAT resource. I voted in favour of the report by Jean-Luc Dehaene because I consider that the new EU VAT resource, being more transparent, stable and reliable, is a step forward in the reform of the EU’s resources and a way to lower the contribution of each Member State.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We strongly disagree with the proposal by the majority in Parliament to reform the own resources system in order to include a new ‘EU VAT’ as an ‘own resource’. This is a federalist proposal involving blatant manipulation based on the false argument of ‘reducing the share of Member States’ GNI-based contributions’. As is their wont, the majority in Parliament are adding insult to injury. They are trying to take advantage of the severe economic and social crisis facing countries such as Portugal (for which the EU is largely responsible) in order to advocate switching from a contribution regime based, in the main, on the income of each country to a regime which will be increasingly based on the blindest and most unfair of all taxes, VAT, thus penalising the weakest and most vulnerable. This proposal is even more manipulative as, by invoking ‘the consolidation efforts of Member States’, it is trying to create the idea of inevitability. However, as we have proposed, another method could and should be used, which would improve the current regime. This involves changing the scale of national contributions proportional to the respective GNI (gross national income), in order to guarantee that countries with a higher GNI contribute proportionally more to the EU budget, and making in-depth changes to its redistributive function and priorities.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) At its inception in 1970, the VAT-based own resource was designed as a potentially genuine own resource, under the assumption that a continuous process of harmonisation of national VAT legislation would eventually render the national VAT assessment bases fully harmonised. However, it has gradually been transformed into a complex and opaque statistical device that actually represents another form of GNI contribution and is transferred from national budgets.

In June 2011 the Commission presented its proposals for a new multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 jointly with a set of proposals on the reform of the Union’s own resources system. The proposal rests on the fact that the new EU VAT-based own resource is based on a share of the VAT on supplies of good and services, acquisitions and importations subject to a standard rate of VAT in every Member State. Therefore, it is based on the actual harmonisation that already exists in those goods and services with a standard rate across the EU. In addition, the new system moves the largest share of calculations currently done by Member States to the European Commission. I believe that this proposal represents an important improvement to the current system and includes the potential for a change to a stable and reliable own resource for the Union budget.

  Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We welcome the fact that the tremendously complex VAT revenues for the EU budget are being reviewed and simplified. We also welcome the fact that the administrative burden on Member States is being reduced. Since, however, the motion concerns the area of taxation, we do not feel that the methods for collecting VAT revenue amended in this way should be governed by a regulation. The motion should instead be dealt with in the decision on own resources, which requires unanimity within the Council and ratification by all Member States.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour because I agree with Parliament’s opinion that the greatest advantages of the new VAT proposal are its transparency, fairness to taxpayers in all Member States, greater simplicity and the potential to turn it into a genuine own resource.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Jean-Luc Dehaene on an own resource based on the value added tax was adopted under the consultation procedure by 516 votes to 98, with 33 abstentions. In this report, most Members approve the proposal for a regulation. In that respect, the Commission is now invited to come up with concrete proposals to further reform the VAT own resource. The objective is for it to accrue directly to the Union budget in the 2014-2020 period or in a further revision of the own resources system. Finally, the resolution also calls for a practical follow-up to the Commission’s Green Paper on the future of VAT and concrete measures that will ensure a higher degree of harmonisation of the VAT systems in the Member States.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The steps to attract own resources to the European Union’s budget must be followed with great care, given the high level of technical detail, in order to assure a simplified method that can be implemented by all Member States. This new proposal on own resources from VAT is more transparent and is more adaptable and flexible for the Member States in relation to with previous regulations.

I regret that the method for calculating the monthly contribution from every EU country in four phases is still a complex one; in future it must be simplified, taking into account the existing VAT systems in each Member State.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this draft regulation. The draft regulation for making the VAT own resource available is necessary to define the method Member States should use to calculate this new resource as well as the procedures for its transfer into the EU budget. The underlying principle of the Commission’s proposal is that the new EU VAT own resource is based on a share of the VAT on supplies of goods and services, acquisitions and imports ‘subject to a standard rate of VAT in every Member State’. Therefore, it is based on the actual harmonisation that already exists in those goods and services with a standard rate across the EU. In addition, the new system transfers the largest share of calculations currently done by Member States to the Commission.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is important for the European Union to have its own budget. The value added tax is an important lever that must not be overlooked. However, it must accrue directly to the EU budget. We invite the Commission to put forward proposals in this regard.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. The proposal regarding the new EU VAT own resource is clearly a great improvement on the current system. In the future it might well become a genuine own resource for the EU budget that is both stable and reliable.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − This report proposes the creation of a new EU VAT own resource system which would reduce the administrative burden on the Member States with the overall aim of financing the EU budget entirely from own resources. The reform of own resources plays a pivotal role in the MFF negotiations as the European Parliament has made it clear that it will not give its consent to the next MFF regulation without first achieving an agreement on the reform of the own resource system. I voted in favour of this report.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report proposes making VAT the be all and end all of the financing of the European budget. We are therefore less surprised about the European Commission’s obsession with increasing VAT rates and doing away with VAT rates, including on the most essential elements, such as water and energy. It sanctions the least fair tax and makes the poorest people finance institutions forced into austerity. I voted against the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 29 June 2011 the Commission presented its proposals for a new multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 jointly with a set of proposals on the reform of the Union’s own resources system. Those include a proposal for the VII Own Resources Decision (ORD), which calls for the abolition of the existing VAT own resource and its replacement by a new EU VAT resource. The draft regulation for making the VAT own resource available is necessary to define the method Member States should use to calculate this new resource as well as the procedures for its transfer into the EU budget. The new EU VAT own resource proposal represents undoubtedly an important improvement to the current system and has serious potential to develop into a stable and reliable genuine own resource for the Union’s budget. The VAT own resource should be part of a general reform of the own resources system, which should substantially decrease the overall level of national contributions by Member States.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The draft report by Mr Dehaene welcomes the proposed simplification of the VAT calculation method; it reiterates the need for the Council to reach a political agreement on the proposals of the EC to enable the new system to enter into force during the period 2014-2020; it calls on the EC to make concrete proposals to ensure that genuine own resources would in the future accrue directly to EU budget.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Value added tax was conceived as the basis for calculating part of the EU contribution. In the meantime, the system for calculating own resources has become extremely complex, as a number of factors must be considered. A new proposal has now been presented for the calculation of own resources. There can be no objections to making adjustment to take account of the overseas territories or the specific VAT treatment granted in certain regions. The new standard percentages are, in effect, a way of punishing Member States with a lean administration. Furthermore, the largest share of calculations currently done by Member States would in future be moved to the European Commission. Both these aspects constitute a further step towards centralisation and undermine national competences, something which I vigorously oppose.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Own resources for the EU budget and the proper collection of these are a prerequisite for ensuring that the budget itself is effective. Nevertheless, with regard to VAT, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that when aligning the rate of VAT throughout the European Union, we need to carefully consider the opportunities that states currently have to apply various reduced VAT rates, mostly for social objectives. On the one hand, this tax cannot be used as a hidden form of state support for one sector or other, while on the other hand, throughout the EU we need to establish the areas where states can derogate from common rules.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on VAT own resources because it is only sensible in an internal market system regulated by the EU that VAT should directly accrue to and be managed by the EU rather than the Member States.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) I am opposed to standard percentages in the calculation of own resources, as this method results in increased payments by Member States with a lean administration. Furthermore, I fail to understand why the calculations should be undertaken on a centralised basis by the Commission. For these reasons, I voted against the report.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The issue of transfer of taxes from the Member States to the EU budget has occupied the Union almost since its foundation. This regulation proposes a specific method which the Member States must use to calculate this new VAT resource and to determine the procedures for transferring it to the EU budget. According to the proposal, the new VAT own resource of the European Union is based on the percentage of VAT on goods and services offered, acquisitions and imports which are subject to a standard rate of VAT in each Member State. This ensures greater transparency and a reduced need for corrections to the VAT base. Nevertheless, the complicated method of calculation is still there, and today a question mark still hangs over the question of paying the tax directly into the EU budget without the need for it to be collected first by the national authorities. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report, which embraces the Commission’s positive proposals while at the same time highlighting the shortcomings and the further action and initiatives that need to be taken.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a Council regulation on the methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax. As indicated by the European Commission, it is important to abolish the current VAT own resource and create a new EU VAT own resource.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The proposal for the VII Own Resources Decision that involves the abolition of the existing VAT own resource and its replacement by a new EU VAT resource would bring about an important improvement to the current system, with serious potential to develop VAT into a stable and reliable genuine own resource for the Union’s budget. Considering the notable simplification of the VAT calculation method, fewer administrative burdens, the equal treatment of all EU Member States, and in the hope that the VAT own resource will be part of a general reform of the own resources system that should substantially decrease the overall level of national contributions by Member States, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposal to abolish the existing own resources system and create a new EU VAT own resource will streamline the current system of taxation so that it develops into a stable and reliable own resource for the Union’s budget. The VAT own resource aims to reform the EU’s own resources system in order to decrease the level of national contributions by Member States, as one of the fundamental criteria of a genuine VAT own resource should be to accrue directly to the EU budget without first being collected by national administrations.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I congratulate Mr Dehaene on his work. In the light of its resolution of 8 June 2011 on ‘Investing in the future: a new multiannual financial framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’, and Article 311 of the TFEU, Parliament today approved the proposal for a regulation supporting the proposals of the Commission for abolition of the current VAT own resources and the creation of a new EU VAT own resource.

A new and fundamental criterion for a genuine VAT own resource must be that it accrues directly to the EU budget without first being collected by national administrations. If this condition cannot be met for the upcoming 2014-2020 MFF, the Commission should at least consider the option for the next period, when the own resources system should undergo further reform in order to achieve full financing of the EU budget from own resources.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The draft regulation on the procedure for making the VAT own resource available is necessary to define the method Member States should use to calculate this new resource as well as the procedures for its transfer into the EU budget. At its inception in 1970, the VAT-based own resource was designed as a potentially genuine own resource, under the assumption that a continuous process of harmonisation of national VAT legislation would eventually render the national VAT assessment bases fully harmonised. However, it has gradually been transformed into a complex and opaque statistical device that actually represents another form of GNI-based contribution and is transferred from national budgets. The VAT-based own resource represents 11.2 % of revenue in the 2011 budget. On 29 June 2011 the Commission presented its proposals for a new multiannual financial framework 2014 - 2020 jointly with a set of proposals on the reform of the Union’s own-resources system.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The agreement on the reform of VAT is necessary to define the method Member States use to calculate this new resource as well as the procedures for its transfer into the EU budget. I believe that a new EU VAT own resource might bring about an important improvement to the current system since it has serious potential to develop into a stable and reliable genuine own resource for the Union’s budget. The VAT own resource moves the largest share of calculations currently done by Member States to the European Commission, which should substantially decrease the overall level of national contributions by Member States. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal to abolish the current VAT own resources and to create a new EU VAT own resource.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. The reform of the own resources system, including the proposals on a Financial Transaction Tax, were expected. A new EU value added tax was needed to provide own resources and to reduce to 40 %, by 2020, the share of Member States’ gross national income-based contributions to the Union budget, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States. There are also plans to simplify the VAT calculation method and improve the transparency of the VAT own resource.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The multiannual financial framework defines the EU budget for the 2014-2020 period. In June 2011 the European Commission presented a proposal of EUR 1 083 billion in expenditure, corresponding to 1.11 % of European gross domestic product and an increase of 5 % in relation to the current programming period (2007-2013). In order to reduce the contribution by Member States to the EU budget to 40 %, the European Commission has presented the possibility of creating own resources which are enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In this respect, I consider the introduction of the Financial Transaction Tax and the modernisation of VAT to be appropriate, with the current European resource of part of the national VAT collected by Member States being abandoned. I support the creation of these own resources provided that businesses and households do not have to pay more for the goods and services that they purchase. I also support the statement made by the President of the European Commission that this is not about increasing the EU budget, but about giving it a more solid basis and reducing the direct contributions of Member States.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposal for a regulation on the methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax as the objective is to simplify the method for calculating national contributions, thus reducing administrative costs and ensuring greater transparency.

The new calculation method uses actual VAT receipt figures as a starting point. To achieve greater simplicity and transparency, the regulation proposes that the Commission establish a uniform percentage at EU level, from VAT accruing from supplies of goods and services by final consumption that are subject to a standard rate in each Member State. The resulting value of the ‘assumed VAT receipts’ is then divided by the actual standard rate applied in the country to give the VAT own resources base. Once this has been calculated, the actual contribution is calculated by applying a percentage that is set out in the implementing Council Regulation on own resources.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The EU’s VAT own resource will from now on be based on supplies of good and services as well as acquisitions and importations subject to a standard rate of VAT in every Member State. It is therefore based on the actual harmonisation that already exists in goods and services with a standard rate. The proposal also transfers to the Commission the calculations currently done by the Member States.

This own resource was created in 1970 to form a genuine own resource, under the assumption that a continuous process of harmonisation of the VAT legislation of the Member States would eventually result in the harmonisation of the national rates. That did not happen and the VAT own resource is currently another form of contribution from the Member States to the EU budget based on gross national income. I abstained on this proposal by the European Commission because it risks pushing for a harmonisation of increased VAT rates, in line with the proposals to increase VAT, wrongly described as ‘social’ by the right, in France, in exchange for a reduction in employers’ social contributions.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The proposed methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax are complicated and require elaborate calculations. Moreover, these methods do not appear to take account of the differences between the VAT systems used in the individual Member States. In addition, the Commission will be greatly burdened with administrative tasks, while the own resource based on VAT will still not be paid directly into the EU budget, but will be intercepted by the national treasuries. I therefore voted against the report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The creation of a new ‘EU VAT’ as an ‘own resource’ is yet another federalist proposal involving blatant manipulation based on the false argument of ‘reducing the share of Member States’ contributions’. In adopting this proposal, the European Parliament is advocating switching from a contribution regime based, in the main, on the income of each country to a regime which will be increasingly based on the blindest and most unfair of all taxes, VAT. We propose that the countries with a higher gross national income contribute proportionally more to the EU budget, with in-depth changes being made to its redistributive function and priorities. This would be the most supportive way of obtaining own resources for the EU.

Report: Ingeborg Gräßle, Crescenzio Rivellini (A7-0325/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as, for the first time, the European Parliament is playing its role as co-legislator in this area. The financial rules applicable to the Union budget need to be simplified so that the organisations implementing the EU budget, through applications to various funds and subsidies in a range of areas, are not prevented from this goal by excessive bureaucracy. We should remember that easier access to the central funds may provide an extra boost at this time of crisis for many Member States.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Adopted by the European Parliament, the Financial Regulation contains the rules and principles governing the establishment of the EU budget and its implementation; it applies to all areas of expenditure and revenue. I personally support this text, which seeks primarily to streamline the technical rules governing the EU and make them more coherent.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted for this report as I believe that it is the right time to revise the financial system. The new regulation could help the Union to implement a more efficient Neighbourhood Policy. The new rules could bring many advantages, including greater flexibility and speed in payment of financial assistance to third countries. Moreover, the regulation provides for certain special measures for rapid payment in times of crisis as well as the reduction of administrative duties.

I am of the opinion that the general objectives of the new regulation correspond to the global policy objectives of the Union. I would like to emphasise the fact that they also require respect for sound financial administrative principles. The simplification of procedures and rules is another positive element that will make it more attractive and more accessible.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I agree with the general aims of the programme and consider it important to ease the situation in the area in question. The companies affected are located in four of Sweden’s 290 municipalities, with the majority of redundancies in Lund in southern Sweden. The closure of the AstraZeneca site is a heavy burden for Lund and affects the entire pharmaceutical sector in Sweden. This development creates an imbalance in the regional labour market. Unemployment increased in all of the affected municipalities between January 2009 and November 2011, rising from 2 467 to 3 025 in Lund, from 3 725 to 4 539 in Umeå, from 3 100 to 5 555 in Sodertalje, and from 1 458 to 1 663 in Mölndal.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget. This new Financial Regulation seeks to establish and clarify the principles governing the establishment of the European Union budget. Several important changes are envisaged with a view to optimising and modernising use of the budget by the European administration on the one hand, and the Member States on the other. Consequently, the European Union will be able to purchase property through loans, while the Member States’ use of the Structural Funds will be better supervised.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. − (CS) In connection with the adopted report on the motion for a regulation on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the EU, I welcome the efforts to simplify the budgetary rules with respect to administration and financing during the different programme and project phases (submission of application, evaluation and management), from which the stakeholders should obtain primary benefit. Research is an uncertain process involving a certain amount of inherent risk, and result-based funding might limit the scope of the research projects to less risky projects and market-oriented research, which would hamper the EU in pursuing excellence and frontier research. Unfortunately, a too rigid interpretation of the Financial Regulation has in recent years created a culture of risk avoidance and a zero-trust attitude towards participants in research programmes, thus reducing the efficiency of its implementation. It is therefore important to proceed urgently with a simplification of the financial and administrative provisions relating to the framework programme and other European funding instruments. Simplification should not be regarded as an end in itself, but as a means to ensure the attractiveness and accessibility of EU research funding, and simplification measures should offer greater potential for avoiding errors. As regards operating grants in the form of lump sums or flat-rate financing, I am of the view that the rule that grants should gradually decrease should be removed.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − The EU has long demonstrated it is incapable of operating transparently and is riddled with fraud and misspending. billions are squandered, other projects represent a profligate waste of money, application of funding is often grossly mishandled while penalties under cross compliance either punish the innocent or fail to protect against corruption. There is little real effort towards transparency by the wasteful and undemocratic Eurocrats in Brussels. I therefore cannot extol this hollow attempt to sell EU representatives a notion of fairness and good governance.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) For the first time, the European Parliament is co-legislating with the Council on the Financial Regulation, which lays down the rules and principles governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget. I voted for the Grässle and Rivellini report, which proposes, in particular, that the European Union be allowed to establish trust funds. These funds are a precious and visible tool for international cooperation that can be used for emergency operations after a disaster or for development assistance. I also support the report’s call for simplification, harmonisation and modernisation of the financial rules.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that the proposed amendments are balanced and relevant.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The mechanisms for implementing the budget must be effective and must not clog or slow down the implementation of European policies. This text is an appropriate response to that goal and I therefore voted in favour of it. I support, in particular, the provisions on transparency and gender equality in the human resources policies of the European institutions. This text will guarantee the sound financial management of the EU, giving it as much flexibility it needs.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which improved the Financial Regulation applicable to the EU’s annual budget. While the national budgets focus on ensuring greater budgetary discipline, the European institutions must set an example in order to make EU spending more efficient.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The new Financial Regulation for the first time contains provisions on financial planning tools such as project bonds, setting out cases and purposes for which these can be used. In future, the European Commission will be able to establish multi-donor assistance funds of the type that are now fundamental in the field of international cooperation and aid. Although it is one of the world’s largest donor organisations, the EU has hitherto been unable to contribute, for example, to existing United Nations or World Bank aid funds. This will now be possible and will raise the profile of the EU in the field of international aid. The new regulation has broadened Member States’ reporting obligations in respect of the Structural Funds and it also contains a more precise definition, which will enable more effective monitoring. I welcome the fact that the new regulation allows more relaxed EU monitoring of Member States in exchange for guarantees that EU funds will be used appropriately. It is important to emphasise that the work of the European Commission and the European administration will be speeded up as a result of the regulation, as strict rules will be laid down regarding time limits for decisions relating to various payments and funding for particular projects.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it advocates greater efficiency and transparency in the EU budget implementation mechanisms. In the current economic context, it is more important than ever to ensure appropriate use of European taxpayers’ money and to make the Commission more accountable for the budget implementation, as laid down in Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE),