Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 25 October 2012 - Strasbourg

1. Resumption of the session

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting opened at 09.00.)

  President. - I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Tuesday 23 October 2012.

2. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes

3. Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure: see Minutes

4. Order of business : see Minutes

5. Delegated acts (Rule 87a)

6. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

7. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

8. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

9. Documents received: see Minutes

10. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

11. Single Market Act II - Concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market (debate)

  President. - The next item is the joint debate on the 20th anniversary of the single market regarding

- the Commission’s statement on the Single Market Act II; and

- the report (A7-0310/2012) by Regina Bastos, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the 20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market (SEC(2011)1003 – 2012/2044(INI)).

  Regina Bastos, rapporteur. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to present the report on the 20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market, particularly in this debate with Commissioner Barnier, on the 20th anniversary of that market.

First, a word of thanks to fellow Members of all the political groups and, in particular, to the rapporteurs for opinion and shadow rapporteurs for such constructive contributions and such a positive approach. It was a pleasure to work with them all and the report was much enhanced by our combined efforts.

We are very aware and proud that, throughout these 20 years, the single market has been the driver of significant economic and employment opportunities in Europe that have transformed the life of European citizens and businesses. Travelling, residing and working throughout the Union are freedoms that are within the reach of all citizens of the 27 Member States.

For European consumers, the single market means greater freedom of choice and lower prices. For our businesses, the single market means more business opportunities with access to 500 million consumers, which means greater economic growth and more job creation. In order to illustrate the progress that the single market brought about in Europe since it was set up in 1992 until the beginning of the crisis in 2008, we need only consider the 2.7 million jobs created and the 2.13 % growth in GDP. Today it is 13 % cheaper to make or receive a telephone call whilst travelling in Europe than it was in 2005.

Freedom of movement of persons is most eloquently expressed in the Erasmus programme. More than 2.5 million students have benefited from this European programme for educational exchange and mobility. In the past 5 years, businesses have also benefited from a 25 % reduction in administrative charges thanks to single market legislation. But we have to ask: is all well in the single market? No, it is not all running smoothly. The economic and financial crisis we are experiencing has had a negative impact on the operation of the market. Our citizens, who, in some countries, are in the crisis of unemployment and austerity measures, have begun to take a sceptical view of Europe and a negative view as regards the internal market.

People do not yet know or do not sufficiently understand their rights and do not know where to find information or assistance. On the other hand, many Member States are taking an unreasonable time to transpose European directives and legislation on the single market, thus compromising its full potential.

In certain areas of everyday life such simple things as, for example, the reimbursement of medical expenses following a temporary stay in another EU country, the opening of a bank account by a student on the Erasmus programme, changing energy provider, transferring retirement pensions, the recognition of qualifications and registering a vehicle in another Member State, are still very complex, difficult or onerous procedures. It is important to respond to these problems. That was my concern as rapporteur. Therefore, the message conveyed in the report is very clear: greater political will is required, much greater political will on the part of the Member States and the European institutions, the Council – above all the Council and the Commission – to govern better together; it is essential to regain the confidence of people and businesses and to make it easier for them to exercise their rights.

Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the European Commission, represented by Commissioner Barnier, for having presented the ‘Single Market Act II: twelve priority actions for new growth’ which, I am certain, marks a new stage for the future.

IN THE CHAIR: OTHMAR KARAS
Vice-President

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we discuss the single market there is one thing we should remember, which is that the founding fathers in the 1950s based the political ambition of being together and at peace – that is why they have just received a Nobel Prize, in a sense posthumously – on an economic project, an interest, a need to come together through the economy. Thus the European Coal and Steel Community, the Common Market, and then the common policies and the single market were born.

We are not only the inheritors of this, but also the players in it, particularly over the last 20 years since the single market was agreed in 1992.

You were quite right in saying, Ms Bastos, that because of the crisis and because of the suffering and the anger felt by many citizens, right now this anniversary should not be a time for smugness, still less sadness or nostalgia. This anniversary is a time for us to be proactive and dynamic, for us to look at what has not worked, put it right and move on.

I firmly believe – and I know that many of you share this view – that the battle for growth and competitiveness does not boil down to the single market, but that the single market is an essential condition for meeting the challenge of sustainable growth and competitiveness. The market has to be coherent. It has to be as solid as the ground under our feet, so that everything we build on it, the private initiatives of businesses large and small, the initiatives of Member States and local communities in the EU, is as effective as possible. The challenge for us today is to look together at how we can make this ground, the basis of Europe’s economy, more solid and coherent for our citizens, consumers and businesses.

This is why today’s debate is important: because it is both about citizens keeping an eye on that top 20 and about our undertaking, which is the Single Market Act.

On the issue of the top 20, my sincere thanks go to Ms Bastos for her constant watch and for having identified these 20 main concerns. The idea originally came from the report by Louis Grech two years ago, and also from our discussions at the Single Market Forum in Kraków.

I agree with the main points of this report and I think that any tools that can bring the internal market closer to citizens – which we are working on together in Strasbourg and Brussels – are very important. SOLVIT, which is now starting to work well and has solved a lot of problems through mediation, is now up and running. The Your Europe website, with its rising hit rate (I am told that it has 14 000 visitors a day, thanks particularly to the launch of its mobile app), is a good source of reference in the social media.

These are the kinds of tool that citizens, firstly consumers, small businesses and savers, need.

I think we will need to make more of them because citizens are expecting more, in practical terms, as you so rightly said, Ms Bastos, and that is what the consultation we did on the websites also told us.

The second prong of our action, of this proactive, dynamic approach, is to remove the obstacles that are obstructing the coherence of this large market. This is what we wanted to do in the wake of the Grech and Monti reports, through a series of operational measures, measures to help the drivers of the economy, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers.

That was the Single Market Act. I monitor its implementation very carefully and very frequently, especially as regards the first phase, Single Market Act I. I was pleased that on 14 June you approved a resolution calling for the rapid adoption of the main measures in Single Market Act I. Mr Van Rompuy, on behalf of the European Council, also wrote to the Heads of State or Government to highlight the urgency of this. As far as possible we should try to produce good texts for the first reading, which meet people’s expectations.

I have a few short messages to broadcast on key issues for growth and competitiveness.

The unitary patent: the Cypriot Presidency is currently dealing with this, and I am grateful for that. All the Member States should be making a final effort to reach a position where they can support the proposed compromises on the last point still under discussion. I would like to thank the chair, Mr Lehne, as well as Mr Rapkay and Mr Baldassarre, for their efforts towards achieving this compromise.

Investors are awaiting texts on venture capital and social enterprise. We have one last point to deal with. I am going to suggest that the Council Presidency, the Cypriot Presidency, and the rapporteur arrange a meeting to find a solution to the legitimate question of tax havens, and we will thus have two new tools to encourage venture capital funding throughout the European Union and support businesses in the social economy, the ‘solidarity economy’.

As regards public procurement, for which Mr Tarabella is rapporteur – and I would like to thank him and the shadow rapporteurs – we are close to an agreement aimed at simplifying access to public procurement contracts, and qualifying public money and putting it to better use with an excellent method for public procurement and concessions.

There is the issue of professional qualifications. The European Council is working on this too, and so are the rapporteurs, Ms Vergnaud and the shadow rapporteurs. I think we will be able to reach agreement on this item, at the latest by the start of 2013, particularly on the excellent idea, which you support, of the mobility of professional cards.

Because there is no time to lose, because there are so many other problems as you said, Ms Bastos, the Commission – 10 or so of my colleagues, that is, not just me – has just proposed the Single Market Act II containing further priorities, further areas in which we need to make the single market work better. These are the transport and energy networks, which are the arteries of the single market, as well as mobility, businesses, and the digital economy.

There is one last thing that for me is one of the conditions of sustainable growth, social cohesion and consumer confidence. In a few weeks’ time I will be presenting a proposal on a basic bank account and the transparency of bank account fees, as you unanimously asked me to do.

So we are working together and we are taking this proactive and dynamic approach. We still need the things we have already done to be implemented, as the rapporteur, Mr Schwab, whom I thank, and the chair, Mr Harbour, so often say. For us it is a question of credibility. I therefore share the concern of guaranteeing the good governance of the single market. Mr Schwab is going to make some proposals about this, on which my work will based, and also the Commission’s agenda, which I have described as ‘zero tolerance’.

Every year, at the same time as the European Semester, we will be publishing indicators for the implementation of all the directives and regulations related to the internal market, particularly the Services Directive, which is a very important one and which has not been correctly applied. The idea of this is to see how far each country has got with transposition and implementation. I am determined that the texts you adopt will be applied. That is the job you should be asking the Commission to do; I can assure you that that is what I will be doing.

I said at the start that the single market was the first and most important part of the political project of Europe. We are accountable for the smooth running of the single market. It is my firm belief that, to win the battle for growth and competitiveness, every citizen is necessary, and so is every business, and every country and region too. It is for these citizens, businesses and regions, from which new growth will come, that we are collectively responsible for ensuring the success of this new phase, over the next 20 years of the European single market.

  Alajos Mészáros, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. − (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, I congratulate Ms Bastos on her report, which is excellent. The objective of the single market 20 years ago was to create an open area without borders, where persons, goods, services and capital could move freely. Today this market comprises more than 500 million EU consumers. Regrettably, experience has highlighted differences between what was expected and what has actually happened. Urgent action is required at both national and EU level to remove the obstacles standing in the way of investments in energy infrastructure.

The next multiannual financial framework must provide sufficient resources to finance energy efficiency measures and projects. I believe we need a legal framework that both acts as an incentive and integrates energy suppliers into the implementation of measures promoting energy efficiency. It is vital for Europe to start growing again, to improve its employment levels and regain the confidence of consumers in order to stimulate and raise the efficiency of its single market, which generates economic activities worth almost EUR 11 billion.

  Heinz K. Becker, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to thank Ms Bastos for her excellent report. In my capacity as deputy for Mr Busuttil, I would like to set out the position of the Committee on Petitions. Petitions to the European Parliament are a barometer for the practical functioning of the single market.

In this context, 2013 may be the year when the rights of citizens are significantly strengthened in this respect. There are problems with the lack of recognition of professional qualifications, a lack of clarity on consumer rights, the transfer of social insurance claims and the like.

A further measure to combat what, in my opinion, amounts to a critical paucity of information to the general public would be the merger of the European Union’s various information services.

I congratulate us all on the 20th anniversary of the single market and hope to see the strong development of this mechanism, which will play a significant part in the future of Europe.

  Evelyn Regner, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, fundamentally, the single market is a wonderful project for employees and workers. Since the establishment of the single market in 1993, in the first 15 years alone – i.e. before the crisis – 2.77 million jobs were created, amounting to a 1.8 % increase in the overall employment rate. When we look closer, there are, of course, many negative aspects – but fundamentally it is a success. The single market has an impact on people’s normal, everyday lives: it is a massively positive, powerful instrument.

However, where there is light there is also shadow. Jacques Delors built the single market on principles not only of competition but also of solidarity and cooperation. In recent years, much of the solidarity and cooperation has been lost. Therefore, I would like to remind us again of how important it is that social rights and the social model are placed on an equal footing with economic freedoms and I ask you to take this into consideration in all your efforts.

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

  Paul Rübig (PPE), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to ask Ms Regner: in your view, what could trade unions do to combat youth unemployment, for example in Spain and Portugal? Demonstrations will not be enough. What active policy could the single market implement in this respect?

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, it is very hard for me to tell you what trade unions can do as far as creating jobs is concerned. Two things they certainly can do, however, are to cooperate actively in developing models – such as the dual system in Austria of employment allied to vocational training – and to contribute constructive ideas on how training should be developed. They are, in fact, doing this. Of course, they should also be doing this in Spain.

  Andreas Schwab, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I think that the celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the single market on 15 October were a real success, since they united very diverse stakeholders, as we call them in EU-speak, and solicited support for this project, which has now been in existence for 20 years. I would also like to congratulate expressly the Council and the Cyprus Presidency, which played an active role and is taking part in this discussion here today in the plenary session. This was a novel intervention for which we are exceedingly grateful.

These celebrations have also shown that we must use the Single Market Acts I and II to advance the single market, which, although already in place, is not functioning properly in all areas. The Commission has also done its work in this area, which is why I would like to emphasise again what Ms Bastos said. Much has been said about the single market, but at some point we are going to be asked why it is still not fully functional. There is one simple answer to that question: more political will is required at the highest level of the Council, President-in-Office, and at the highest level of the Commission.

It has long been the case in Europe that we have formally adopted European directives in single market affairs. At Member State level, some of them are implemented correctly, some incorrectly and some inadequately. Hence I am pleased to see Commissioner Barnier declaring once again his zero-tolerance policy for incorrect implementation and failure to implement the single market acquis, since this will have a decisive effect.

We also need to talk about the single market in a different way. Nevertheless, I think it is very positive that Ms Regner has pointed out that the Single Market has done a lot for workers. It also brings cultural diversity in Europe right into people’s homes. It offers citizens the opportunity to experience Europe at home. We should be communicating the cultural dimension more, since economic data alone are not enough for citizens.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Monti report’s observation in 2010 was that the rules of the single market were focused primarily on competitiveness and trade in goods, and took no notice of citizens. To put this right, the Commission has presented 50 proposals to relaunch the single market, 12 of them legislative priorities that are currently being examined and are about to be approved.

On the 20th anniversary of the single market, which we celebrate this month, the Commission is announcing a new set of proposals for the single market, entitled Act II. These include measures that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has been asking for for a long time, and we are delighted to see them become a reality at last. I refer in particular to the section on social entrepreneurship, cohesion and consumer confidence.

I am delighted at the forthcoming improvement of rules on product safety, which is of prime importance for consumers, and at universal access to bank accounts, and the transparency needed on bank account fees. This legislation can demonstrate that Europe protects its citizens, is useful and is not just about austerity policies. The EU has not given up on its social model. We have a duty to maintain this courageous ambition, despite the handicaps.

On the other hand, when it comes to Europe being protective and instilling confidence in its citizens, I am slightly more dubious about the proposals on transport and energy networks. I fear that the Commission is still stuck with its ideology of liberalising sectors of the network when we are still a long way from demonstrating the benefits for users, whether in terms of price or quality of services.

It seems to me a more pressing issue to respond to the concrete expectations of citizens and consumers with legislation on collective redress, and framework legislation on public services, which we have been asking for for too long. Mr Barroso’s poor communication on public services was clearly not up to the challenge because these services also have a role in the revival of growth in a new industrial strategy. Similarly the Commission is congratulating itself on the potential for mobility that the single market offers citizens. This is to state the obvious, but it would be even better if there were a guarantee that social rights and pension rights would be recognised.

The issue of mobility lies at the very heart of the legislation on recognising professional qualifications, on which I am rapporteur. The directive has to and will show that Europe can give real added value to growth, to employment and to its citizens, thanks to smart cooperation between all the institutions and in all the Member States. I am thinking particularly of the major innovation of a European Professional Card.

I would like to thank my colleagues for the interest they have shown. We received more than 650 amendments. I know that we will reach some worthwhile compromises, including on sensitive issues like notaries and nurses. All that will remain is for us to persuade the Council to overcome the hesitancy of some Member States, because this is the message we need to give. Yes, the EU can and must be a source of progress and shared wealth to achieve positive, active solidarity between all of its Member States, driven by the same spirit of success from their shared destiny.

  Jürgen Creutzmann, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European single market, Europe’s greatest achievement, is celebrating its 20th anniversary. Border-free travel, work and study, a huge market for businesses and consumers: the single market gives us more freedoms and is a driver of trade and productivity.

However, the benefit that the European Union derives from the single market could be doubled if further barriers to trade – especially in the service sector – were to be removed by promoting the digital single market and integrating infrastructure. If we examine infrastructure in the single market, two things become clear.

Firstly, it is fragmented: few countries place a priority on cross-border links. Let us take the example of rail traffic: a goods train travelling from Italy to Sweden has to change its locomotive and crew up to four times. Secondly, the integration of national systems is extremely costly. Physical and regulatory hurdles must be overcome.

The Commission’s proposals currently being discussed for trans-European transport, energy and telecommunications networks address these and other problems. However, these ambitious aims can only be achieved if enough money is made available. Investments in infrastructure are the best use of EU funds, because they encourage sustainable growth, employment and European competitiveness. This is why it is so important that the Member States, as part of the ongoing negotiations over the multiannual financial framework, do not make any cuts in the Connecting Europe Facility.

SMEs must also benefit more from the European single market. Ninety-nine per cent of European enterprises are SMEs, but only 25 % export within the single market. The further completion of the single market holds no dangers for Member States. On the contrary, it is an opportunity for more growth, more jobs and thereby more prosperity for people in Europe.

  Heide Rühle , on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the single market is without doubt one of the most important and successful European projects. However, this project – as Professor Monti’s report has shown – must be communicated to European citizens time and again. We must make it clear that the single market benefits not only the economy but, above all, citizens. We must address their concerns, as does Ms Bastos’s report.

In times of deep economic crisis, high unemployment and growing poverty in many Member States, a balanced economic structure that maintains a balance between free markets and public goods is essential. It must always be emphasised that these public goods inevitably contribute to the functioning of these markets. Governance in the single market and better legislation also require us to examine whether European guidelines and regulations maintain or jeopardise this balance between the free market and public goods and whether they strengthen or undermine democratic structures including local and regional government.

In this respect, I must also make the urgent point that I consider it a problem if the troika makes a recommendation, for example for Portugal and Greece, that water should be privatised, without the proper inclusion of the citizens of those countries. We must take care that we strike a balance that protects vitally needed public goods while also strengthening the free markets.

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

  Andreas Schwab (PPE) , Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, Ms Rühle, you just said that you want to ensure that public goods in Member States are protected. I agree. The question I have for you is: do you believe, as I do, that the decision on how to protect these goods must be taken in the legislative process within the European context and not subsequently, at the level of its unilateral implementation by respective Member States?

  Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) , Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, this must not be decided at European level alone. The European level must take into account in its decisions the subsidiarity of regional, local and national levels. If it does this, then it can ensure, in cooperation with regional, local and national levels, that implementation really occurs.

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, as Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I particularly want to welcome this opportunity to debate not just the 20th anniversary of the 1992 programme but also Ms Bastos’ important report. There are strong links between those two because historically this Parliament has had a deep engagement with the whole of the single market programme.

The Single European Act of 1988 brought Parliament into co-decision, but we have also consistently supported citizens and consumers in their engagement with the Single Market and in dealing with their frustrations. Indeed, the report that Ms Bastos has prepared comments on a list of such frustrations, which we asked to be prepared – and that is entirely consistent with our role in encouraging action on issues like mobile phone roaming, car insurance, and other areas. These are matters about which citizens were frustrated and on which we have been to the Commission and demanded action.

The second linkage I want to make between the 1992 programme and where we are today is about the fundamental importance, as the Commissioner said, of a clearly-defined set of actions to continue driving the single market forward: having those actions documented, having timescales for them and having deadlines in place. The Single European Act, which led to the 1992 programme, put nearly 300 specifications on the table. That was the scale of the task, in those days, in order to move forward with a single market. We now have the first Single Market Act, and the second. In those acts we have a lot of actions, neatly packaged together, and they constitute clear demands to Member States to move forward.

We need this sort of continuing programme, ladies and gentlemen, and my nomination for the next set of actions is to get cracking with the digital single market. We know that is going to create jobs. It is not, in my view, being given enough priority, and that I think must be the next programme. I am already thinking ahead with my colleagues to 2014. This is an opportunity not to look back historically but to look ahead at what we need to do together.

  Cornelis de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, I wish to thank Ms Bastos for the excellent cooperation that has made it possible for me also to be able to vote for her report.

I believe that it is appropriate that we should celebrate 20 years of the internal market, because it has led to more jobs and to more economic growth. But there are also what I would call a number of fringe issues about which I have some questions particularly for Commissioner Barnier.

First of all, the increase in scale that is the automatic result of the internal market. Sometimes that is a good thing and it works efficiently but it also has cultural effects. In the past if you went to another town you would see different shops with products with which you were not yet familiar. Nowadays everywhere is beginning to look the same. Many people complain about that as well. They want fewer European chain stores and more small, independent businesses that make and sell handicrafts or other products that you do not see everywhere else.

Does the Commission agree with me that we must support SMEs, irrespective of whether companies have plans to expand their business to other Member States? Is there not in fact a need to support small, independent businesses and companies that wish to retain their own character and to remain small? Is it not discrimination if EU funds are available only to companies that wish to expand abroad?

A second problem concerns social entitlements. Professor Monti has already alluded to this: capital moves more quickly than work and, if we do nothing, competition will soon prevail over conditions of employment. That is precisely what we are now seeing. Is the Commission going to take initiatives against social dumping? Is the Commission going to study the possibilities of a European minimum wage, linked to national purchasing power?

A third area of tension concerns public services. We have had many bad experiences with the privatisation of what was previously the public sector. Can the Commission confirm that Greece and Portugal will be forced to privatise the water sector? And if that is the case, does this then mean the beginning of compulsory privatisation via the internal market? Many people are concerned about this and have started a public campaign for the right to water. How is the Commission going to deal with this issue?

  Claudio Morganti, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 20 years of the internal market have undoubtedly had various positive effects, but also other less positive ones. There are still very many important issues that remain unresolved but that we can agree on in part. For example, the ability of EU citizens to open bank accounts in other Member States, the portability of pensions, and the problems concerning small and medium-sized enterprises. Obviously we agree on all these things, but there is one aspect that I want to emphasise, about which perhaps too little is said.

Sometimes rules are decided in Brussels that may be good for many countries but that cannot always be applied everywhere in the same way. For example, Italian bathing establishments are something typical only of Italy. If the Services Directive is applied too rigidly, they are in danger of ending up in the hands of some new multinational bathing establishment company, sweeping away at a stroke thousands of family-run micro-enterprises. Harmonisation is okay but standardisation is not, the principle of subsidiarity should always be followed fully, and there should therefore be greater involvement of national, regional and local authorities in the decisions made.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, doubtless the single market has created some substantial advantages in citizens’ daily lives, from a larger choice of products to the possibility of working or practising a profession in other Member States. However, 62 % of EU citizens believe that the single market only provides advantages for large companies and 52 % believe that the single market is making working conditions worse.

Citizens are not sceptical without reason: many efforts to extend the single market, including those made in the area of public procurement, are misguided. There is a real danger that companies from other Member States will not abide by the tariff agreements. In addition, many harmonisations ultimately benefit only large industry and not consumers. I need only mention the infamous incandescent light bulb ban.

If the Commission wants its Single Market Act II to improve labour and corporate mobility, we must get to grips with the abuse of freedom of movement, e.g. the bogus ‘self-employed’ people from the east working in the construction industry who, in Austria and Germany, are virtually wage-slaves. Great caution is required, owing to the opening of the labour market for Bulgaria and Romania. By dint of a somewhat unconventional citizenship policy, hundreds of thousands of Moldovans, Ukrainians and Russians with Romanian passports are entering Europe. This is good news for large companies but bad news for the local workforce. The single market can certainly do a lot, but it cannot be the ultimate solution to the economic crisis.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I have had occasion to hear during Single Market Week, people are not aware of the benefits the market brings them. This year’s anniversary is an excellent opportunity to reflect on how the public might be better informed of these benefits, and what else we have to do to free up the full potential of the market, particularly in support of economic growth and the creation of new jobs. Certainly one important step we have to take is to define the problems that citizens and SMEs encounter in the single market. We already have a number of proposals and actions which constitute responses to these problems, but it is important that they be adopted quickly and introduced effectively in Member States.

For both the market and the public, the Services Directive, implementation of which is now of fundamental significance, is playing a very important role. There is a need to create a coherent law which will guarantee dynamic development of the single market, because doing away with administrative barriers in one area and leaving them standing in another will block development of the market. For example: one of the objectives of public procurement reform is to make it easier for SMEs to gain access to public contracts, but implementation of this objective will only matter if at the same time we help SMEs to put a contract thus gained into effect, by introducing proportionate rules on employee delegation. Employee delegation is in turn closely linked to the provision of services in the EU and the effective application of the Services Directive.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, in a seminar organised in honour of the single market we engaged in a lively discussion on which factors had caused the greatest change in the lives of citizens over the last 20 years.

The media coverage often stresses the importance of the freedom of choice provided by a common market. The majority of seminar participants were, however, of the opinion that, besides the mobility of goods and services, the most significant benefit had been the fact that the opportunities to move around in a borderless Europe had increased. Indeed, we must make sure that workers, students and travellers can trust that their rights will be respected when they move about in the single market.

I hope that we do not give free rein to the nationalist and protectionist views that have been brought to the surface by the financial crisis, but rather strive by all possible means to support the common single market. Not merely in the economic sense, but because it also integrates Europe at the cultural and intellectual level. It is important that we continually strive to promote the mobility of all citizens, particularly those who are disadvantaged.

  Toine Manders (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I agree with the Commissioner but also with the rapporteur that the internal market has been a tremendous success. However, I am continuing to hear many complaints about the incorporation of directives into national law, particularly from SMEs, and I would ask you again to focus more on regulations so that the legislation is the same for the whole of Europe.

I agree with my fellow Members, including Mr Schwab, that the celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the internal market were very successful, but in my view they were too inward looking and the citizens of Europe still know too little about the success of this internal market. At the moment Europe is less popular than it was 20 years ago. Communication – let us call it marketing – is our greatest problem. A customer – as an SME would say – has to know that a product is very good before he or she buys it and that applies to Europe as well.

The internal market must create the conditions for people to get the best out of themselves, but they must be well informed. Therefore, Commissioner, I would ask you before 2017 to organise a major marketing programme so that all European citizens are aware of the advantages.

  Karim Zéribi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission is proposing that we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the single market and forge further ahead with its completion.

In the field of transport, two areas are identified in Single Market Act II: rail and maritime transport. I am surprised not to see cabotage services provided by road, scheduled for 2013, mentioned here. This will have a massive impact on the environment and lead to more social dumping than is the case at present. I would like to think this was an oversight, though one might consider it a deliberate error.

Commissioner, you can be very pleased with the achievements of the last 20 years, but you cannot hide the reality of the social landscape or the crisis affecting Europe on the job front. As far as the forthcoming reforms in both the maritime and the rail sectors are concerned, these are based on a one-size-fits-all approach, that of liberalisation.

Commissioner, this headlong rush has to stop. The single market is not dogma. It is a tool that should serve economic development, environmental transition and the social wellbeing of our fellow citizens. We cannot reasonably take any more without introducing social and fiscal harmonisation measures that are effective with any future directive. There has to be a level playing field for everyone. My group will, in particular, be making sure that we avoid the abuses of the past and, for every area where the market is being liberalised, will demand that a social and environmental package be introduced so that competition is fair and brings development and prosperity for our continent.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). - Mr President, as the ECR shadow on the Bastos report, I was keen to stress the need for concrete action to solve citizens’ problems, which include the recognition of professional qualifications, obtaining health care abroad, opening a bank account in another Member State and enhanced comparability of financial services on offer to consumers.

Citizens need to see tangible benefits from the single market. The amendments I tabled on this report covered the promotion of the Internal Market Information (IMI) system in the recognition of professional qualifications, enhancing the employability of young people and the need to prevent over-regulation. I was particularly happy that my amendments calling for the SME test to be applied consistently across all policy areas, and for a review of all regulations which negatively impact on SMEs, were adopted.

In this regard I look forward to the report we have requested from the Commission, with recommendations, on legislation which hampers SMEs, and that is due by June 2013. As we debate the Single Market Act, having just celebrated Single Market Week, I want to mention a significant figure I came across this week: between 2002 and 2011, 13 million jobs were created by the EU’s 21 million SMEs. They are our drivers for growth, and that statistic demonstrates yet again why we must avoid placing burdens on SMEs at a time when we need job creation.

We have a responsibility to address the 20 main concerns in relation to the single market, and this is a good start. But we must be mindful, during these difficult times, that the European Union was created for free trade, and we must keep this spirit of free trade and not succumb to protectionism. A properly-functioning barrier-free single market is what we need and what we must deliver.

  John Bufton (EFD). - Mr President, in an ever more globalised world it is vital the UK does not put all its eggs into one basket. We are disproportionately affected by the eurozone crisis because we are too tightly bound to Europe, with whom we trade at a deficit. The Commonwealth represents a far broader international and diverse market place with similar systems of governance and a common language and includes some of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

Commonwealth markets have grown by 7.3 % over recent years, while the EU markets look set to contract. Yet we are limited as to how far we can exploit our ties with the Commonwealth due to EU membership. Domestic bilateral trade and investment treaties become subsumed under the new EU trade negotiations, disabling the UK from forging independent and prosperous import and export contracts with the wider world. The EU model is cumbersome and outdated. The UK must embrace globalisation as a dynamic nation with full sovereignty over policy. Isolating ourselves from the rest of the world by shackling ourselves to a failing EU project is dangerous.

  Ewald Stadler (NI) . – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard so many celebratory contributions that it might be wise to introduce some modesty and be a little self-critical amidst all this celebration. In view of the various Member States’ unemployment rates – in some cases an average of over 20 %, or more than one in five people, is unemployed, and over half of young people – we should in a sense show a little self-criticism and humility.

In developing the single market, we should stop predicating everything on the philosophy of liberalisation. At the moment, some countries really need their young academics and workforce not to leave the country. In this case, liberalisation is the wrong message to send. I would also call on us to consider whether it is really wise to further liberalise the financial services sector, which has already gone completely off the rails. We must consider whether the entire finance industry should, in a manner of speaking, be placed under new control, which in the past ensured that whole countries could not be ransacked, as is the case now.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). - (HU) Mr President, the introduction of the single market was a massive step forward for European citizens. I am convinced that legislators followed a guiding principle in 1986 when they created the legislative package. The first was the smooth access to capital, goods and services, and the free movement of people. However, we should not forget that there are still 80 million EU citizens who remain isolated from these, either partially or completely. Making the single market accessible to people living with disabilities is extremely important with a view to ensuring all-round access. Regardless of the kind of disability people live with, they are immediately faced with barriers in the light of their condition. These barriers have to be dismantled as soon as possible, since they are created by society, not by our own disabilities.

Ms Bastos highlighted and made recommendations for furthering increased accessibility. I would like to thank her for this. I will take this opportunity to draw attention once more to the need, especially in the current economic crisis, for a European package of legislative proposals on accessibility, because people with disabilities are important.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the single market is one of the pillars that supports the edifice of Europe, and as you said, Commissioner, we are accountable for how it works.

The Single Market Act is an excellent initiative in this regard and we should all welcome it. We should indeed be working together to boost the single market and improve the way it operates. Commissioner, you have drafted an excellent proposal for a directive on the modernisation of public procurement and, as you have said, we in Parliament are trying to improve it. We are indeed moving forward in a constructive manner towards greater efficiency in public spending which, as you have often said, accounts for 19 % of the EU’s gross domestic product.

We are trying to achieve greater efficiency in terms of sustainable development, jobs, innovation, social inclusion and compliance with the rules, but also environmental protection. This is fundamentally important because it is the single market and some of the abuses that have happened – perhaps because we have overlooked social harmonisation too much – have caused our citizens to experience frustration and doubt owing to the competition between Member States, the pitting of citizens and especially workers against one another instead of being united in a Europe that is more prosperous for everyone.

I just want to mention two examples that concern us in the directive. One is stopping uncontrolled subcontracting, where public money is lost at every step along the chain, in long chains of subcontractors. We simply want to regulate it, make it more transparent. Subcontracting is a good thing because it obviously helps SMEs to participate more in public procurement contracts, which is something we all want and something there is probably too little of at the moment. What concerns us is compliance with the rules. It is not easy to achieve compliance with the International Labour Organisation Convention of 1994 because only 10 Member States have ratified it. Compliance with existing national rules is equally important.

Consequently, would you join with me, Commissioner, in fighting for greater compliance with the rules, which will improve the single market and make it more harmonious, to the benefit of all European citizens?

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). – (SL) Mr President, the report and the Commission’s proposal come at the right time, at this time of crisis when good innovative solutions are in demand.

In everyday life we are aware of minor changes, such as in car equipment and the mandatory breathalyser, socket connections with a compulsory converter and in information technology. The report clearly shows that the single market is moving towards real solutions.

Thanks go to the rapporteur, who based her findings on real life. When barriers fall, the dividing walls are lower as well. Companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, will have more opportunities to connect. Connected through innovative ideas and products, they will be more competitive globally, in a world where many people just want the same standard of living and environment as we have in Europe.

It is time for us to devote less energy to competing with each other within Europe. It is time for us to take up a strong common position with regard to economic competition outside Europe. We will win with greater unity of the single market.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 20 years is a long time, long enough to do many things, and the things that have been done obviously include many that have been good for European citizens. However, I think that looking ahead is important and I particularly think that we should be focusing as much as possible on what, of the things that ought to be done, still remains to be done in the ‘second phase’ of the single market.

That is why I think we need to spend some time on issues concerning the social nature of the measures that form the single market: we should not see people merely as consumers; they are also citizens and they are also producers. We talk about people’s rights and about how all these separate areas where people should be respected and recognised are linked. Well, that is where we should be coming up with solutions to make the single market more of a reality. We must not forget that the market is made up of the behaviour of people made of flesh and blood.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, finally there is something to smile about! There is at last something to celebrate in these gloomy times. This year the EU’s single market is 20 years old. Much has been achieved, Commissioner, even if some things remain to be done. That is a credit to you, Commissioner, and thank you for your considerable commitment.

People can move freely across borders. They can also purchase goods and services without the expensive and awkward rules of the old days. If we listen to some of our fellow Members, it seems as though you would like to wind the clock back 20-30 years in Europe; however, this is not the solution. It has given us greater freedom of choice, lower prices and a better standard of living.

Mr President, my major concern today is that the EU is beginning to split, to be divided up, and that this could also affect the single market. I appreciate entirely that the euro area must resolve its problems and create stability in Europe, partly through a banking union. However, stronger integration, Madam President, must not also mean a risk of the internal market becoming divided – this must not be allowed to happen.

IN THE CHAIR: ANNI PODIMATA
Vice-President

  Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE). - (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to thank you for being here this morning and also congratulate you on the good job you have done with the publication of the Single Market Act II.

I would also like to applaud the work of Ms Bastos, which is correct and certainly necessary. I believe that the 12 proposals included in the act will surely constitute a major boost to the single market, and I especially welcome the inclusion of the creation of a genuine digital single market among those priorities.

This year we are celebrating 20 years of the single market: 20 years of prosperity during which as Europeans we have expanded the opportunities available to our businesses and to the public. However, if we want to continue making progress and to be able to meet the forthcoming challenges of technological changes and developments, and ensure that our economy continues to be competitive in the global market, I firmly believe that, just as in the 1980s and 1990s we developed and established the four fundamental freedoms, now the main goal we must achieve is to create a true, genuine digital single market.

I know, Commissioner, due to our close cooperation over the last two years, that the digital market is a priority for you. I would like to take this opportunity to once again offer my support so that we may continue the same cooperation between the Commission and Parliament that we have had so far in order to make the digital single market a reality.

Exactly two weeks ago the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted the report on completing the Digital Single Market by a very large majority. I believe it is vital that both Parliament and the Commission convey to the Council the need to move forward with the recommendations in both documents and that we continue to work very closely in order to put them into effect.

  António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D). - (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, Ms Bastos, congratulations on your very successful work. The Union’s single market was set up in 1992, when Jacques Delors was President of the European Commission. At the time, Mr Delors summed up the three basic principles of the single market: competition that stimulates, cooperation that strengthens, and solidarity that unites. Twenty years on, the economic and financial crisis has rekindled the threat of national protectionism and it is clear that the internal market is not a fait accompli. In celebrating these 20 years we must take the opportunity to relaunch the single market with a view to placing the market at the service of citizens and not citizens at the service of the market.

Therefore, priorities must be set and I should like to mention one in particular. We need a common policy for the production and distribution of high-efficiency energy at prices accessible to the consumer via the European energy market, served by cross-border infrastructures with the possibility of leveraging EU investment, representing European added value. Madam President, the common market also has a role to play in the field of energy.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - (HU) Madam President, 2012 is the 20th anniversary of the single market. This anniversary is a great opportunity to think collectively, and overcome the factors and barriers which prevent us from utilising the full potential of the single market. However, whilst celebrating we should not lose sight of the fact that the main beneficiaries of the single market are the citizens and enterprises. It is our task, as legislators, to make this happen on their behalf. This means our duties do not end when efficient legislation is adopted; we are also responsible for its appropriate implementation, and for creating cross-border synergies between the various national public administration systems.

I would like to emphasise that the single market is the best tool available to stimulate economic growth, and therefore it is extremely important that we treat each and every issue associated with the single market as a priority. I congratulate the rapporteur, who put in some sterling work, and I also welcome the efforts of the European Commission in this area to date. However, I believe the process must be continued. We need even greater commitment to implementation. We have deployed significant resources to creating fast and effective information portals, but overlaps have also emerged that impede the very same work. It is crucial that we define goals moving forward that focus on a consumer-based approach. In future I would like to see nothing impeding Member States from treating this issue as a priority.

  Barbara Weiler (S&D) . – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the single market has become a matter of course for our citizens. Who can fail to remember with amusement the judgment of 1979 on Cassis de Dijon or the banana war with the United States? As we look at global trade wars or disputes, the European single market appears as a mainstay of the European philosophy: no barriers, no discrimination, legal certainty and fair competition.

Nevertheless, in the interplay between the global economic powers we, the European Union, must continue to safeguard the rights of consumers and SMEs and protect consumers against new dangers, for example, chemical substances or new, creative tricks by vendors, such as exist in the financial market. We social democrats support the Commission in its measures against dominant practices and unfair competition, regardless of who is involved, even when this applies to Microsoft or Google, to German energy companies or Gazprom.

We must also observe Jacques Delors’s third point more closely: the single market also means solidarity, which unites.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is fantastic that we are celebrating 20 years of the single market this year and 20 years of European citizenship next year. The single market and our citizens belong together. It is also good that we changed the name of the committee from ‘Internal Market and Legal Affairs’ to ‘Internal Market and Consumer Protection’. The single market can only function if we can really freely experience the four freedoms of movement – people, goods, services and capital – in the single market and if we have regulated and controlled them at the European level. There can be no successful single market without internationally active, competitive SMEs. They are the heartbeat of the single market and the driver of employment in the European Union.

Every day we are confronted with two problem areas: some people are complaining that barriers still exist, while others are complaining about the demonstrably inconsistent – or non-existent – application of EU law in many countries. We need to work on both areas. In the financial services and transport sectors, the single market has not yet been fully realised. It is important that we forge ahead in the sectors of transport, professional qualifications, the digital single market, public procurement, banking services and the internationalisation of SMEs.

(Applause)

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Madam President, let me start by saying how good it was last week to celebrate together the great achievements of the integrated market, and I would like to congratulate Commissioner Barnier on all the initiatives of the Commission. You managed, Commissioner, to help us show that it is a win-win situation for all, for business and consumers; you gave a face to the single market. I welcome the single market mainly because of the commitment to moving forward in really finalising what is already in the pipeline, and I count on your support with the Member States also to move forward. It is a commitment to a united Europe.

Moving forward in the single market now is a way to keep together non-euro Member States and euro Member States. This is what this Parliament wants. Help us to move it forward with the Member States, too. Let us start with the digital single market. I very much appreciate your zero tolerance policy for the implementation of the Services Directive. Let us move forward on the previous issues that are missing, such as access to credit for companies, the Professional Qualifications Directive and dispute resolution online – this is the highway to jobs in Europe.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D). - Madam President, the twentieth anniversary of the creation of the Single Market is a great achievement: one set of rules rather than 27 sets of rules, access for Scottish businesses to a market of over 500 million people and a social model to underpin this freedom. Europe is more than a free market. I am pleased that the Commissioner this morning mentioned the importance of social cohesion. I also welcome your statement on basic bank accounts, Commissioner, and I hope that credit unions and their important role are included in your discussions.

Speakers today are correct to point to weaknesses. Twenty years ago we did not use mobile phones in the way we do today; in fact, most people did not have a mobile phone. Now, the ability to access information and buy goods and services on the move is a driver for growth. I must emphasise the importance of the digital single market, which the chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has mentioned today. If I can give you an example, Commissioner, concerning e-books and libraries, certain publishers today are making decisions not to allow libraries to access books in a digital format. You, Commissioner, have an opportunity to prevent this ‘book apartheid’ from happening and to find a solution to the urgent challenges. We cannot allow books to go the way of digital music, where one company appears to determine the price of a download.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE). - Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Barnier for his strong commitment to deepening the single market, which is evident in the Single Market Act.

Despite the benefits the single market has brought to citizens and businesses, and to our economy overall, I think we should be critical in identifying the areas where we can do better, and take the necessary measures. This process was started with the first Single Market Act, which is under implementation, and it is now being completed with the Single Market Act II. I believe the approach taken by the Commission and the priorities identified are correct. Nevertheless I would like to stress that these measures must be accompanied by better governance of the single market and a strong commitment from Member States to transpose the legislation correctly and in a timely and more transparent way, making maximum use of correlation tables. Enforcement is a key priority if we want the single market to deliver.

Last but not least, it is essential to communicate more with businesses and citizens and to associate them as closely as we can with the deepening of the single market.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - (PT) Madam President, the single market is frequently used as a tool as regards its alleged contribution to employment, growth and, astonishingly, economic and social cohesion. Except that reality, stubborn as it is, constantly contradicts this wonderful vision. The truth is that the single market has gone hand in hand with the weakening of the more economically vulnerable countries, the destruction of productive capacity, and an increase in external dependency. These 20 years have meant commerce prevailing over the public interest. The market has encroached upon almost every sphere of economic and social life, upon public services, with liberalisations and privatisations, producing inequality, poverty and exclusion.

The single market has been opening the way to monopolistic concentration in various sectors of activity. To take the case of transport – as regards the so-called freedom of movement of persons within this single market, it is clear today that it serves not harmonisation in progress, but on the contrary, the levelling down of living and working conditions in Europe. That is the balance sheet of the past 20 years that reality places before us.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Madam President, let us remind ourselves of how different, cumbersome and even impossible European citizens and businesses would find many of the mundane tasks we take for granted were it not for the groundwork already done on the internal market over the past 20 years. Moreover, cross-border trade in the EU has been an invaluable source of prosperity, increased access and economies of scale for our businesses.

Unfortunately, given the present design of our monetary union, trade has also been a source of imbalances between the centre and the periphery in the EU, forcing large numbers of our young unemployed people to seek jobs abroad. Our current work on the review of the Professional Qualifications Directive is acutely important, and we must make sure, when dealing with healthcare professionals, that we facilitate professional mobility without jeopardising key principles such as patient safety, and that we do not undermine training standards.

The internal market is not an end in itself but rather a means of achieving prosperity and increasing social cohesion. That must guide us in our work, so that we can arrest the race to the bottom which we have witnessed with blind liberalisation moves on many fronts.

  Paul Rübig (PPE) . – (DE) Madam President, communication is actually the basis for the creation of new jobs. The European Union, through the Roaming Regulation, has set standards, and not only in the single market, since it is also in the process of setting international standards, as communication also needs standards and technical legislation, and this was accordingly supported and achieved by the European Parliament. The Connecting Europe Facility is a further step towards entering the high-speed broadband field and making communication affordable. Affordable communication is also the basis for a successful strategy for the single market. For that reason, the frequency regulations and the framework regulations for future auction and allocation of frequencies will need to play an appropriate role.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D). – (CS) Madam President, Commissioner, the 20th anniversary of the functioning of the internal market more or less forces us to take stock of the situation. We have already heard in the debate about all the successes, but there is still a long way to go before the internal market can become an area where all citizens of the European Union can lead contented and decent lives.

I believe that a well-functioning European consumer policy, which places the citizen first, is an essential pillar. Consumers have already expressed some specific observations; it is now up to us to turn their expectations into understandable rules, and this includes awareness-raising and education of consumers. Neither should we forget that the rules will work only if they are enforceable and citizens are able to actually assert their rights. In this regard the Single Market Act II in my view still offers too little.

Finally, on reaching this anniversary, I would like to express a wish for the internal market to be fair to all its participants – consumers, employees and businesses, regardless of their size – and especially that people will place their trust in it.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE) . – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the single market is without a doubt a great achievement, where and when it functions. What has been put before us as the second single market package also contains many positive proposals. However, I would like to put forward a few additions.

The first concerns transport. In the European Union we are currently creating the trans-European networks in order to build railway corridors. However, what is lacking is harmonisation of current voltages, gauges and safety devices; this is absolutely necessary if the opportunities presented by the single market for rail transport are actually to be taken up.

The second concerns rail passengers: standardised electronic ticketing should be introduced – exactly as we are familiar with for air travel.

The third concerns the sale of cars: if you buy a car and move to another country, you are faced with an expensive bureaucratic obstacle race. The same applies if you buy a used car. In this regard, I call upon the Commission to develop constructive proposals to make the single market fully operational.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). - (PT) Madam President, the single market is one of the European Union’s greatest achievements and certainly represents one of the strongest pillars in the development of the Union, its Member States and its regions. However, in order for it to be efficient and fair, its policies must be based on the notion of equality of opportunities for citizens and for all regions, fostering the Union’s internal cohesion. Within this context, we need to acknowledge that we can only achieve greater development in our most remote regions, such as the outermost regions, through their greater integration into the single market.

Regions such as the Azores need to continue to increase their competitiveness, improving their conditions for competition, but we shall never be able to achieve that if we do not find better solutions to our accessibility issues in the field of transport. We could achieve that through specific instruments that provide a better response to the problems that arise because we are so far away. We therefore propose that the Commission should consider a specific programme, of the POSEI Transportes variety, as an essential instrument for the integration of such regions into the internal market.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE) . – (DE) Madam President, 500 million consumers, 21 million companies, a trade volume of EUR 2.8 billion within the EU and EUR 1.5 billion worldwide – 20 years of the single market. In my view, these figures really speak for themselves. Citizens gain many advantages through the single market. I will single out one point: they can work where they like. Mobility is one of the greatest achievements, but as yet it is little known. Our citizens must be better informed, since, as the economic crisis rages, openness to mobility and cross-border business connections and services in some States could alleviate the situation for some people, especially young people.

In spite of everything, Member States’ national characteristics must be respected and right now we must do everything possible to promote growth, which will alleviate the economic crisis for EU citizens.

  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we salute the initiative taken by Jacques Delors 20 years ago, as the Berlin Wall was coming down. Despite that, despite all the progress that has been mentioned since the start of the debate, we have to admit that the Single Act is nowadays synonymous with injustice, inequality and economic liberalism.

I want to hear what you have to say, Commissioner, I want you to tell us how together we can create a fairer Europe, a Europe that facilitates, a Europe that protects. There are a number of issues – and I would like to hear what you have to say on these – that lie at the heart of the economic and social crisis, as we call it: fiscal harmonisation, public welfare services, minimum wages in Europe, the establishment of job-rich closer cooperation, the promotion of cross-border cooperation, and the drafting of a fair trade policy.

Twenty years on, these are the challenges that lie ahead. I am counting on you, Commissioner, to work together with us on this wonderful policy of European integration.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, one concern that people have is that we react so slowly to the demands that people voice, and specifically to their concerns. This document we are currently discussing is in fact 20 main concerns. It was presented to the public a year ago during the Single Market Forum in Kraków. We must work together a little bit faster. I am definitely with those who are also calling for better information. I would like to remind you once more of the consultations that have been held. The Commission organises them in only a few languages. They must be easily accessible, there must be good information about them and they must take place in all the official languages of the European Union.

I have been listening attentively to the debates about this year’s Single Market Week, and it is true, as has been mentioned in today’s discussion, that the digital economy is at the centre of the debate on the single market, but the development of internet commerce is being held back by the fact that we do not have a single postal services market. We have had success with roaming, Commissioner, although I was hoping for a more ambitious proposal from the European Commission. In that case, let us take a look at the postal service, as disproportionately high payments for cross-border consignments, payments which have no good grounds, are dividing the European market and holding back the development of electronic commerce.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, Commissioner, after twenty years spent building the Union’s single market, it is a good opportunity for us to take stock of what has been achieved from the original plans and what does not work as we might have wished. There is no doubt that large retail chains and multinational companies are already benefiting from this ambitious European project.

On the other hand, when it comes to freedom of movement of labour we are not succeeding in realistically creating conditions such that our citizens can have equal access to work anywhere in the Union. The European labour market is clearly failing to absorb large numbers of our citizens who are looking for work and who come from areas affected by the crisis. We must therefore continue, Commissioner, to improve the mechanisms that shape the conditions for the functioning of the single market and seek to improve the conditions for the mobility of workers, self-employed persons and small businesses.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, on the occasion of the anniversary, I would like to wish the single market chronia polla (‘many more years’), but I think this is not enough. I feel it would be more appropriate to say ‘many good years’, ‘many effective years’, ‘many years of rapid progress’. Technology is overtaking us. Until now, when talking about the single market, we have all been saying – as an example of its success – how cheaply we can talk on our mobile phones, and this is an achievement of the single market.

However, I have a negative example to give you: nearly all of us in this Chamber have our iPads; but if this iPad, this smart device you have bought, say, in Belgium, gives you problems when you go to the UK or some other Member State, you are told ‘go to the country where you bought it’.

I say this to show that we need to act more quickly, because we need to do more than just talk and celebrate. We need action. We have been talking about 12 priority actions and 50 supplementary actions. Of these 12 priority actions, 11 are behind schedule, and this has been admitted by the Commission at an official function. All this gives me cause for concern, but I remain optimistic, because in a time of crisis the single market is more necessary than ever for the European citizen who really suffers.

  María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D). - (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the advantages of the single market are unquestionable: increased competition, an increased supply of products and services, job creation, more affordable prices for consumers and greater protection, but they are still not sufficient, and we cannot become complacent.

However, the cultural, linguistic, protectionist and bureaucratic barriers are preventing the public and businesses from being able to fully enjoy the advantages of the single market. Eighteen months ago we celebrated the announcement of the twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence in the single market. Unfortunately, an agreement has still not been reached on the majority of the proposals, as the Commission acknowledged in last week’s communication.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the urgent nature of the crisis requires us to be ambitious, to go much further and to reach agreements as soon as possible in order to boost growth, employment and the confidence of the public and businesses in the single market.

  Vital Moreira (S&D). - (PT) Mr President, yes, there are reasons to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the internal market. However, the internal market for goods, services and investments should be accompanied by a single labour market, removing obstacles to the mobility of workers. Without the single labour market there is not really an internal market. Secondly, the single market means free competition, but free competition presupposes a level playing field and not regulatory dumping, fiscal dumping or social dumping. Market integration should be accompanied by regulatory integration, fiscal integration and social integration.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, in a period of economic crisis, we are particularly able to value the advantages of a single market. This very single market has become an engine for growth for the European economy. Embracing more than 500 million consumers and 23 million businesses, it is the largest economic area in the world, and the 27 EU Member States make up a larger internal market than the 50 states of the USA. We should slough off our complexes and place our trust in the potential inherent in the EU. Fully united, we are in a position to deal with competition not only from the United States, but also from the ‘emerging’ powers. Of course we must be aware of the restrictions that remain in place, including those linked to poor transport or power networks, problems with the free flow of services or the lack of a genuine digital market – this is something of which my colleagues have spoken. The Single Market Act II, however, provides proof that awareness of the unutilised potential is increasing, and that the European Union is attempting to take down the barriers that exist. I wish the Commissioner every success in strengthening the single market and overcoming these barriers.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the single market saw a series of events taking place in Brussels, at the European Parliament and in all Member States which culminated in the ‘Single Market Week for New Growth’ from 15 to 20 October.

I personally had the honour to participate in the closing event in Nicosia on 20 October, at which Commissioner Barnier, the Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) – Malcolm Harbour – and IMCO Member Malgorzata Handzlik spoke about the past, present and future of the single market in front of numerous representatives of civil society.

As Members have confirmed in their speeches, the establishment of the single market brought not only huge benefits for citizens by increasing the choice of products and services and lowering their prices but was also a driving force for businesses, fostering their competitiveness and innovation capacity.

However, despite impressive achievements the single market and its benefits are not yet fully visible to the citizens, for whom it was originally created. The single market still remains for many a very abstract and bureaucratic concept which is unfortunately too often reduced to top-down rule-making by Brussels.

Furthermore, even after 20 years of its existence, there is still a considerable gap between expectations and reality regarding the single market, with European citizens and businesses still facing obstacles in exercising their rights – or to put it more bluntly – even after 20 years of success, there is absolutely no room for complacency. On the contrary, what we learned from the celebrations is that we have to step up our efforts in order to pursue the establishment of a seamless single market.

Firstly, we need to better inform consumers and businesses on the existing tools, in order to create the kind of ownership which is absolutely necessary for stakeholders to move the single market forward.

Secondly, we need to pass on the message that despite the global financial crisis the single market did not fragment further – which is an encouraging sign of inherent strength, and hence the EU has to build on that. Moreover, completing the single market is not only about passing new laws, but increasingly a matter of implementing correctly and enforcing the already existing rules.

Thirdly, as Europe and other parts of the world struggle to recover from the financial crisis, boosting growth and employment is the number one priority for leaders across the EU. Europe has enormous unrealised potential to restore growth and confidence by unleashing the power of such a single market. In this respect, the Presidency welcomes the launch earlier this month of the new Single Market Act II by Commissioner Barnier. The proposals concentrate, very rightly, on areas of the single market with the highest potential for growth, and should also work as a vector for social and territorial cohesion and for integrating Europe’s markets better by improving mobility for individuals and businesses, encouraging entrepreneurship and making finance more accessible across the EU.

In addition to the above, the 12 key actions proposed concentrate on the network industries and the digital economy. Integration in these areas is essential to creating the conditions for more economic growth and new jobs. Notably, the creation of jobs is an absolute priority for the Presidency as the economic crisis has threatened social cohesion. Unemployment – especially among the young – is skyrocketing in some places. In this respect I would like to seize this opportunity to repeat our Presidency’s full commitment to finalising as many as possible pending dossiers on the Single Market Act I, in particular those covering alternative dispute resolution, on-line dispute resolution, venture capital, social investment funds and the accounting directives.

Promising progress has been achieved on patents, as was mentioned by Commissioner Barnier, and I am grateful to him, as well as to the European Parliament for the understanding and positive cooperation on this very delicate issue. We are indeed now at a watershed and if we can overcome the persisting difficulties we will at last have the chance to put in place a genuinely European patent system.

The European Council has set the goal of agreement on all these proposals by the end of 2012. In short, we will all be committed to intensifying the current pace of work. I trust there will be sufficient flexibility on the part of both legislators, enabling timely adoption.

Let me conclude by recapitulating the following imperatives: the single market is the biggest economic – but also political – asset of the European Union. Despite the recent economic downturn, the single market has continued to function and to deliver. However, in order to be able to reap all its benefits it is essential to breathe new life into that single market, with European citizens and consumers placed at its centre. I remain confident that together we will manage to successfully implement the envisaged measures in order to make the single market a vibrant and living reality for Europe’s citizens. Congratulations to Commissioner Barnier and the Commission, the European Parliament, and in particular to the Chair of the Internal Market Committee, Malcolm Harbour, to the rapporteur, Regina Bastos, and to all the other Members and other people who are working so hard to make a genuine single market part of our daily life in the European Union.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Madam President, my sincerest thanks to everyone for the high standard of this very dynamic debate and the fact that so many of you have taken part.

Many of you – Mr Scicluna at the start, Ms Werthmann, Mr Obermayr – have said that we needed the single market for growth. I would reiterate that it is not enough just for the single market to function well. There are plenty of initiatives – whether national, private, public or European – that should encourage growth, but the single market is a necessary condition for this. If it is working well, all the private and public initiatives that support the single market will work better and be more effective.

That is why I cannot agree with Mr Zéribi, who was not here when I spoke and who has now left, but who criticised me several times for being smug. That was frankly not the tone of my comments. There is no place for smugness, nostalgia or sadness at the moment. None at all.

We need to take stock of the progress we have made, and many of the political groups have emphasised the amount of progress in terms of jobs. Mr Ferreira has also left but he talked of a race to the bottom. That is not true. The 2 500 000 students who have taken part in Erasmus, the lowering of mobile phone tariffs by 70 %, the millions of citizens who now have access to cheaper airfares: that is not a race to the bottom. These are the advantages of the single market.

However, I think we should also be looking ahead. Mr Pargneaux was just talking about the new model. Indeed we should be and are working together on very practical initiatives as part of this new economic and social model. Mr Pargneaux was asking about closer cooperation initiatives. Take the example of patents: here is a practical initiative for closer cooperation that I presented a year and a half ago and you supported, which will clearly lead to many new jobs through the smart protection of inventions throughout the single market. And the basic bank account, which you called for unanimously. These initiatives are part of this model.

This is not smugness. We need to watch out, however, because, as Mr Repo and Mr Schmidt said – they used the word protectionism – the single market is currently in the paradoxical situation of being the first potential victim of the crisis if we let protectionism, national withdrawal and nationalism, which we sense is on the increase everywhere because of the crisis, run riot at the exact moment when the single market is our best chance, our leading asset for getting out of the crisis. We must ensure it is working well and is destined to become what both you and I believe in: a competitive social market economy. All four of these words are important; not just one or two of them as we have perhaps thought, even in Brussels, in the last 20 years.

Just briefly, many of you – Ms Vergnaud, Mr Zéribi, Mr Creutzmann and Mr Correia de Campos – spoke about networks. These are the arteries of the single market. That is why we made them a priority in the Single Market Act II. There is plenty to do in this field.

Mr Creutzmann and Mr Pirker mentioned the issues concerning railways, which are dealt with by the Committee on Transport and Tourism and its chair, Mr Simpson. The procedures we have for certifying rail companies and approving rolling stock are much too lengthy, much too expensive. This is not liberalisation, this is encouraging harmonisation so that the free movement of people and goods can work. We have work to do on harmonisation including, Mr Correia de Campos, in the field of energy. The lack of a single market in energy, which Ms Vergnaud also mentioned, costs consumers EUR 13 billion.

We therefore need to harmonise the single energy market. I could give other examples in the maritime sector. Why is it – and this is just one example – that when it arrives in Naples, cargo that comes from Rotterdam has to undergo the same formalities as cargo from Shanghai? That is not a single market. We need to sort out these problems practically. That is the aim of all the measures we will be taking with Commissioner Kallas, in the Single Market Act II. I would reiterate to Mr Becker that we are working together, just as you are. I am not working alone but with 12 of my fellow Commissioners, which means that the Single Market Acts I and II implement the work of many of the European Parliament’s committees. This is particularly the case with Commissioner Kroes, my colleague who is responsible for the digital agenda. I was very interested in what the committee chair, Mr Harbour said, but also Mr Rübig, Ms Rapti, Mr Arias Echeverría, whom I thank very much, and Ms Jazłowiecka, Ms Stihler too, and Mr Creutzmann, on the digital single market.

The task we have taken on is a vast one, I believe, but it is not being executed quickly enough. Very soon we will need to be thinking about what the Single Market Act III could consist of, in 2014. Mr Harbour, we should probably focus on new measures to give the digital single market a boost. I am expecting to talk to Commissioner Kroes and my other colleagues about this.

Mr de Jong and Mr Karas mentioned SMEs and product safety. I worry a great deal – and Commissioner Tajani does too – that the measures we are taking in the Single Market Act will be approved or rejected on the basis of whether they are advantageous or disadvantageous for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Trust me.

I just want to ask you, as I am asking the Council, Mr Mavroyiannis, whom I thank for being here, to speed up the adoption of certain texts, on public procurement, Mr Tarabella, accounting standards, and capital requirements IV, for which we have issued some proposals on transparency as the rapporteur Mr Karas knows, which should encourage the financing of SMEs by the banking sector.

These are some very concrete texts. If you look at each one of them in detail, you will find they contain measures that are more favourable to or less restrictive for SMEs. To Mr Kósa, who raised the issue of daily living for disabled people – for which I thank him – I want to say that as far as product safety is concerned, we will be very mindful of this, along with Commissioner Reding, when special measures are proposed in 2013 on the access of disabled people to a larger number of products.

Many of you mentioned the social dimension – the competitive social market economy – and I thank you for that, particularly Ms Regner, Ms Rühle, Mr de Jong and Mr Rübig. Once we know something has to be done and we need to introduce reforms, one of the keys to this is social dialogue, which is something some countries do better than others. For example, I could compare the high standard of social dialogue that takes place in Germany with a frequent absence of social dialogue in my own country. We cannot reform, we cannot win the competitiveness and sustainable growth battle without social cohesion, without social dialogue, and without respect for the social partners.

I want my agreement with this to be noted, and I also want to say to anyone who is worried about privatisation, Ms Rühle and Ms Regner, that the treaty clearly and, I believe, definitively stipulates that each country is free to choose how it organises its public services. I would be the first person, wherever I am, to protect this freedom of choice when it comes to the standard of public services.

I should just say, however, that within the framework of this freedom, if one or two countries decide to use a different economic model, it is their sovereign right to use external service providers for some public service roles. In that case we would be accountable for compliance with the rules on public procurement and concessions, and particularly the rules on transparency. That was my intention when I tabled certain texts on public procurement and concessions, but I am totally committed to each country having this freedom of choice, particularly when it comes to protecting public services.

I would like to thank Mr Schwab and Mr Buşoi for raising the matter of implementation again, as did Mr Mavroyiannis. I am encouraged on this matter by Mr Van Rompuy and the European Council’s call for the rapid, concrete implementation by Europe’s governments of many of the texts we have presented and, along with you and the Commission, I will be ensuring that we can reach proper agreements over the next few weeks or months.

Mr Bufton, earlier on, and Ms Mazej Kukovič mentioned the very important external dimension of the single market. We are not alone. We must continue to be open to trade as a continent, but without the naivety of which we have demonstrated too much in the past. We need to take a good look at the rest of the world, which sometimes still hopes Europe will be there but no longer expect us to be, whether it is Brazil, China, the United States of America or India.

So let us consolidate the single market. Honourable Members, I can assure you that when you are in these big countries – I was in Brazil last week – you find that the only reason why they have respect for Europeans is because of the scale of the single market with its 500 million consumers and 22 million companies.

While I am on the subject of the rest of the world, Mr Alves, I have not forgotten the place or role of the outermost regions. As part of the follow-up to the report by Mr Solbes on Europe’s Outermost Regions and the Single Market, which I commissioned, we are preparing some more specific but very practical measures for State aid and innovation.

While I am also on the subject of consumer and citizen protection, I can reiterate to Mr Kósa that I am very concerned about the daily living conditions of disabled people. That is why I have asked the Council for a mandate to launch a discussion on the issue of intellectual property and to discuss an exception for people who are hard of hearing; I am an active supporter of the social enterprise sector, as you know. Many companies are in fact oriented towards disabled people.

I can tell Mr Karas, who spoke about citizen and consumer protection, that I believe every citizen is necessary in the battle for the single market and competitiveness.

So there we are, honourable Members. Mr Paška and Mr Moreira mentioned the completion of the single market in employment. This is also one of our proposals in the Single Market Act II, most notably the development of a European public recruitment service, with EURES. There are not enough online curriculum vitae. We are going to increase this capacity considerably and also encourage cross-border recruitment.

Finally, not with propaganda – this was the word used by Mr Ferreira but I do not think he was right – or smugness, but simply with pride in the work done by our predecessors along the lines of Jacques Delors’s proposal for a single market, let us look ahead and open up the debate with Europe’s citizens.

Over the last few days, many of us have taken part in discussions as part of Single Market Act Week – Ms Thun und Hohenstein mentioned the one in Warsaw. We have had lots of discussions. I was talking with Mr Harbour about the success of the 90-92 generation, where we saw young people who had plenty to say. We need to listen to people. I would like it if – including at the Commission – we could change the ‘top down’ way we communicate, as if we were saying ‘we are always right in Brussels’. That is not true. There are masses of ideas, criticisms and suggestions that should come from the bottom up.

Along the lines of what we did for the first time with Single Market Act Week, I am going to be taking other initiatives with my colleagues to open the debate with European citizens, where we ask those on the ground, consumers, unions, professionals and small businesses, to put forward their ideas. I am repeating what Ms Corazza Bildt and Ms Sehnalová said: a debate for citizens, a cultural dimension, Mr Schwab. Cultural means with citizens. It means not only talking technical, about money and laws, but also asking for people’s opinions. Many of you have taken part in these debates, and I am going to be taking other high-profile initiatives, particularly through social networks and the internet, to open up this crucial, interactive debate on the future and the consolidation of the single market.

  President. - Thank you, Commissioner. You know how important we think what you have just said is, that social dialogue must be respected in each country.

  Regina Bastos, rapporteur. − (PT) Madam President, I should like first to say thank you for this excellent debate. It was a very constructive debate and a debate that showed that the single market really is a great achievement of the European project. I welcome the presence of Mr Mavroyiannis and his participation in this debate; I am grateful to fellow members for their constructive approach – some of them taking a sceptical stance, which is understandable – and heartily thank Commissioner Barnier for the dedication and enthusiasm he brings to the debate on these questions, on these issues of the internal market and of the political will to solve them.

We still have many answers to give citizens. They are dissatisfied and disillusioned and expect more of us, more of the Council, more of the Commission and more of the Member States.

This balance sheet is very useful, this 20-year review is important but, as many have said here, it is important to open the door in order to look towards the future. And looking towards the future involves many questions raised here and many measures already announced by the European Commission. The digital single market, the mobility of citizens, the EURES reform, the European energy market, provide eloquent examples of how far we still have to go in the future and how important and vital the path we take is in responding to this period of crisis in which we are living.

People are suffering; the public expect a great deal of politicians and of the responses that politicians are able to give to the hardships they are enduring. It is therefore important that the single market should be one of the responses to the great challenge of competitiveness, employment and economic growth. I am sure that all of us, after the celebration of these 20 years, are better equipped to provide the responses that our citizens need.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The creation of the single market should be one of the EU’s most significant achievements, and its tangible benefits should already be enjoyed by EU citizens and companies. However, until now, Member States, especially those that are more powerful economically, have been practising protectionist policies and genuine competition is still not present in the domestic market. Successful operation of such a market is directly dependent on the appropriate implementation of other EU political goals. On the subject of agriculture, farmers in some countries, including the Baltic States, still cannot make use of the benefits of the single market as they do not compete in agriculture under equal conditions, in particular because of small direct payments. In the areas of scientific research and innovation, scientists from different countries participating in European projects are subjected to different rules. In particular, they receive lower payments for the same work. There is still no transparent and uniform public procurement system. Small and medium-sized enterprises do not enjoy favourable conditions for obtaining financing. I believe that in the current crisis we should be making use of every opportunity to strengthen the single market in the EU and all of its potential for growth and employment. Therefore, I would like to encourage the Commission to take concrete actions and provide the necessary proposals for removing existing barriers that prevent the single market from functioning.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE) , in writing. – (DE) The EU single market is one of the most worthwhile European achievements. Between 1992 and 2008 it created about 2.77 million jobs and increased GDP by 2.13 %. These figures clearly show the potential of a smoothly functioning EU single market. The 20 years of its existence that we are now celebrating is an anniversary of which all Europeans should be proud. However, past achievements should motivate us to remove any remaining obstructions. As the rapporteur has clearly shown us, some things in the single market are still in dire straits. The Commission has also produced a working paper containing the 20 main concerns of citizens that they consider impede the everyday smooth operation of the single market to no purpose. The problem areas identified must be solved using an integrated approach. Another problem concerns the issue of how we can ensure that every European citizen can benefit from the achievements of the EU single market, no matter where they live. The trade balance deficits within the EU may in the long term create difficulties for the Union. European policy must steer us in the opposite direction.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The 20th anniversary of the launch of the single market is an opportunity to reflect on the obstacles that prevent European citizens from fully enjoying their fundamental rights. An eloquent example is the right to freedom of movement, which is, unfortunately, still restricted by protectionist measures. If European citizens and consumers represent the core of the European project, measures taken at European level must facilitate their access to the labour market and at the same time give them the fundamental freedom to move freely within the territory of the EU.

For that reason, I believe that the time has come for us to talk about a relaunch of the single market which will lead to genuine inclusion and restore the faith of European citizens in this market. I welcome the steps taken thus far by the European Commission in this direction, but I urge the European executive to be more resolute in penalising the protectionist tendencies of certain Member States.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European single market has a handsome track record of 500 million consumers, 21 million businesses, EUR 2 800 billion of trade within the EU and EUR 1 500 billion of global trade. It has transformed the way we live, buy things, work, learn and travel.

In addition, the rights of millions of European citizens, who can do these things in the country of their choosing, are protected by European law in all Member States. The implementation in practice of the idea of a single market has made it possible, and is still making it possible, to improve this process constantly. This is precisely why I support the idea that European citizens must become increasingly involved in the decision-making process, and in 2013 the European Year of Citizens will be a good opportunity for them to speak their minds about their wishes and dreams.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – The Single Market is one of the most tangible results of European integration for citizens. Yet, despite the significant accomplishments, the present dynamics of the market still do not match what citizens expect of it. In the midst of the economic and financial crisis, a well functioning Single Market is needed more than ever. Europe needs a policy for growth and employment and I strongly believe that the Single Market is key to sustainable recovery. Therefore we should aim for a Single Market that stimulates economic growth and job creation but also considers citizens’ hopes, fears and expectations. Ultimately, it is always the citizens who will define change and who will make things happen. The levels of success of the Single Market will be gauged by the degree of support and trust it will get from the average anonymous citizen. The Single Market should be holistic in its concept and structure, thus achieving a balance between an open economy stimulating economic growth and job creation and an economic system fully integrating citizens’ concerns and at the same time giving a human face to the market by championing citizens’ interests, protecting consumers’ rights and enabling SMEs to compete effectively.

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. – (HU) As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, please allow me briefly to highlight the concerns of citizens on energy and telecommunications, and recommend solutions to improve the position of small and medium-sized enterprises. The main source of consumer dissatisfaction in the energy sector is that energy bills are too complicated and they do not provide information on why energy prices have risen in recent times. Regulations in many Member States are very accommodating, and so the energy providers are not compelled to provide consumers with appropriate information. To protect consumer rights properly the Member States must transpose EU legislation into practice as soon as possible.

The biggest problem with telecommunications is the quality of internet service, while prices and service packages are also very difficult to compare. With a view to monitoring service quality and prices we need to reinforce the role of the regulatory authorities and the consumer protection bodies, ensuring transparency. Small and medium-sized enterprises have problems in accessing financial assistance from Member States and the EU. SMEs find it difficult to access tender information, and they have no employees with experience in writing bids. Consequently it would be a great help for SMEs if Member States were to introduce ‘one-stop-shop administration’ for drawing EU and government financial assistance.

  Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) Now celebrating its 20th anniversary, the single market changed the lives, work and travel of European citizens, becoming an integral part of our lives. Enterprises were given the opportunity to cross borders into other European markets. Without the single market there is no European Union; this is the basis of the prosperity that makes Europe stronger. We have to do everything we can for the single market to continue flourishing, so that our children can live in a safe Europe in 20 years’ time, with greater access to what they value. To this end, what do we have to do? We have to open up our minds to let creativity and knowledge flow freely, resulting in innovation and growth. We have connected our transport networks, and now we have to connect our energy and telecommunication networks too, which will ultimately connect 500 million Europeans. We have to create a unified Europe that will be there for our grandchildren, but also one in which the young people entering the labour market just now do not feel like a ‘lost generation’ either. Ladies and gentlemen, let us dream big, let us dream about a unified and flourishing Europe.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – The Single Market is the very essence of European integration. In 20 years intra-European trade has been expanded by four times, as has the FDI between EU countries. Yet we are continuously faced with non-implementation of existing EU directives. About 150 bottlenecks still cause serious distortion and fragmentation in the functioning of the European market. The new Member States find the resistance to opening the services market especially disappointing and demoralising. This reflects in the nutshell the major problems and internal contradictions of the EU – insufficient political commitment coupled with short-term national preferences over the common good. Simply enhancing the role of the Commission to enforce the directives will not solve the problem. The EU first needs to address two dramatic weaknesses: 1. the alarmingly insufficient and unequal level of competitiveness motivating several Member States to protectionism instead of conducting genuine structural reforms; 2. failure to fully understand that in the present demographic situation, where only 2-3 taxpayers are left for one retired person, the model of the established welfare state is not and will not be sustainable. We need to complete the Single Market as fast as possible, to boost the economy; this also means launching the Digital Single Market without delay!

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Twenty years after the birth of the free single market, the principles of free movement of goods, people, capital and services exist only as small beginnings, and these small beginnings have already managed to throw Europe into a serious crisis. The liberalisation of the capital market envisaged by the Maastricht Treaty under the motto of market self-regulation brought about the current bank/euro/economic crisis. Still the EU does not realise that its strength lies in the variety of its different economic cultures existing side by side. Despite this, we are hell-bent on centralisation and standardisation – the so-called harmonisation. Already a call is coming for further deregulation and more competition in the railway sector, since, it is said, only this can ensure better quality and falling prices. It is just that European-born citizens have had completely different experiences as consumers. The wrong approach of centralisation and inflation of the Brussels bureaucracy must end, as must the standardisation that contributed to the current crisis. The planned banking supervision is to be welcomed in principle but will not be able to make any substantial contribution to ending the euro crisis, since this requires a total reform of the currency union.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – The main concern of European citizens about the functioning of the Single Market is that it still does not fully function. Issues that were initially supposed to be water under the bridge long ago have not been properly addressed. For example, a digital signature was first mentioned in EU legislation as being equal to a physical signature already more than a dozen years ago. In many Member States it still remains a faint dream and very few steps are actually taken to adapt to the changing society and business environment of the 21st century. The EU needs to step up and promote the implementation of modern e-Services along with common standards in order to build a Digital Single Market and facilitate the interoperability of cross-border systems. Initiatives such as STORK 2.0 carry huge importance in achieving the necessary results. After addressing those issues and planning future activities, the Council and the Commission should make efforts to implement all legislation strictly and promptly in all Member States. The future of the Single Market should not depend on the good will of the slowest, but on the coherent hard work of all Member States.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) The free circulation of goods is the cornerstone of the EU. The single market is an essential element in implementing the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, as the Commission’s report emphasises, there are gaps and malfunctions in the working of the single market which prevent Europeans from making full use of it. The single market needs to be given a new breath of life, placing citizens and European consumers at the heart of its concerns, so that they can take full advantage of the benefits of this market and thus contribute to the territorial, economic and social cohesion of the European Union. I congratulate the rapporteur on the special importance she attaches to small and medium-sized enterprises, because an improvement in the entrepreneurship, internationalism and competitiveness of European SMEs, which are the backbone of the European economy, is of fundamental importance.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The single market is the conquest of our era. If our citizens and businesses have concerns, it is only because of a lack of information. I therefore agree with the call on the Commission to make use of all available technological resources in order to launch a dialogue with the citizens on the single market. We should inform the public of the advantages of the single market, practical and concrete solutions to their day-to-day problems, and their rights, and encourage them to participate in the creation of a competitive, fair and balanced market by organising information campaigns and by setting out the 20 main concerns.

Special attention should be paid to strengthening the Points of Single Contact project, in which it will be possible to provide information on conducting business in the Member States. I also agree with the call on the Commission to ensure that all citizens are entitled to obtain a European Health Insurance Card on request, to harmonise registration certificates for motor vehicles, and also to create a modern framework for the recognition of professional qualifications, which would contribute to increasing the competitiveness of Europe.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In October, 20 years on from the creation of the single market, the Commission adopted the Single Market Act II – ‘Together for new growth’. This document focuses on the development of networks that are fully integrated into the single market, the promotion of cross-border mobility for citizens and businesses, support for the digital economy right across Europe and the consolidation of social entrepreneurship, cohesion and consumer confidence.

The single market in the transport, energy and communications sector makes it necessary to eliminate the discrepancies between the transport, energy and communications infrastructures of the States which acceded to the EU with effect from 1 May 2004 and the infrastructures of the other Member States. In addition, since the single market is based on the mobility of citizens, I request that the barriers to the free movement of Romanian and Bulgarian workers be removed.

Finally, one of the medium-term objectives of the European Union and the Member States should be a shift towards e-government, especially in terms of its cross-border dimension. The implementation of electronic public procurement across the whole of the EU could generate savings of at least EUR 100 billion a year for public finances. I am in favour of supplementing the framework for the modernisation of EU public procurement standards by making electronic invoicing the standard method of invoicing in public procurement.

  Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Many obstacles continue to exist in the European Union which prevent people from deriving full benefit from the existence of a single market, and from being able to take advantage of the right to free movement. Some problems require special attention from the European Commission. Businesses continue to run up against problems in gaining access to public procurement in other Member States. This applies as much to contractors as to sub-contractors. The cause is an excessive differentiation between national practices, plus complicated administrative requirements in individual countries, along with the language barriers that still exist in official organisations, which hinder the promotion of linguistic variety in the EU. Something else that would make it easier to get the best out of the EU labour market is simplification and acceleration of procedures relating to the refund of treatment costs abroad and care, so that health and social insurance systems take the necessary steps to provide citizens who are mobile with the necessary health care. Greater mobility on the part of skilled employees may make the European economy more competitive. For this to happen, we must adopt an up-to-date model of occupational skills recognition. It needs emphasising that movement of employees between Member States must be voluntary and must go hand in hand with full respect for employee rights. Any discrimination in any Member State with regard to origin or national affiliation is unacceptable. Removal of these obstacles, in particular, will enable Europeans to benefit from the positive aspects of membership of the European Union.

12. Is ERASMUS in danger? (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on Is ERASMUS in danger? [2012/2848(RSP)]

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, the Council fully shares the view that Europe’s economic prospects are very much reliant on skilled and adequately-educated human capital and that the Lifelong Learning Programme – including the Erasmus Programme – is one of the most successful European programmes in the educational sector. Therefore, let me assure you that the financing of the Lifelong Learning Programme in 2012 and 2013 will not be put in danger.

Concerning 2012, the Council has started analysing the Commission’s proposals as presented in draft amending budget No 6/2012 and will adopt its position on this draft amending budget as soon as possible.

As far as the appropriations for 2013 are concerned, these will be decided jointly by the European Parliament and the Council during the ongoing budgetary negotiations. I am confident that the two arms of the budgetary authority will reach a balanced agreement on the 2013 budget in November, as foreseen by the Treaty.

Finally, concerning the future of the Lifelong Learning Programme, including Erasmus, you all know that the negotiations concerning the next multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 are still in progress. The European Parliament is involved in these negotiations. The Presidency will make every effort to move the negotiations on the Programme along, but it would not be in order for me to say more than that at this stage, since we need to wait for the outcome of those negotiations.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, recently there has been a lot of speculation and a lot of question marks and uncertainty regarding the fate of the Erasmus programme, including in the media. Therefore the Commission welcomes this opportunity to clarify the matter.

However, it is also my duty to place the problem of Erasmus, as one single programme, in the more panoramic view of what is really a shortage of funds in the European budget not only for Erasmus – this is only a part of the problem, one of the smallest but most visible parts of the problem, we are encountering in 2012. This is due to the systematic under-budgeting in the annual budget. The major deficiencies in 2012 are in the Social Fund and in regional policy and rural development, but also in our external obligations, which reflects on the credibility of the European Union vis-à-vis our partners around the world.

This is why we are coming forward with the amending budget for this year. There is a large amount of money is needed not only for cohesion and for rural development, but also for external obligations and especially for Heading 1a which concerns competitiveness, covering all sorts of research programmes including Lifelong Learning. Erasmus is part of Lifelong Learning which, as you know, is also about vocational training, possibilities for adults and for schools, and the most sensitive part of that concerns student mobility, namely Erasmus.

What we need in order to overcome the deficiencies for this year under this heading of research, training and education amounts to more than six million euros. For Lifelong Learning, which covers all sorts of programmes, our estimate is for EUR 180 million up to the end of the year, including Erasmus, which accounts for half this amount – more or less EUR 90 million.

Your commitment to vocational mobility around Europe is also very important because, alongside this year’s problem, what is at stake here is the future of these programmes, indeed the future of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. Education is very high on our common agenda due to the very high unemployment among the younger generation. Therefore, knowing how to acquire the right mix of skills is essential in order to place the younger generation in a decent European labour market; the future of what we call Erasmus for All is also at stake.

But to return to the issue of Erasmus 2012-2013. I think Parliament was right to ring the alarm bell for Erasmus for this year, and here is the brutal truth: 99 % of what we have in our pocket – the European budget – has already been delivered to the national agencies around Europe. Of course we are contacting not only the national agencies in the European Union but a total of 33 participating countries, including Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Turkey, Croatia and Switzerland. 99 % of what was available for 2012 has already been delivered to the 33 national agencies. We have already had claims for this year of around EUR 160 million, and we expect more claims for 2012. I think that it is easier to say who is not applying for additional money: Portugal, Finland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania. The other countries are applying and sending requests for additional money. Therefore, an amendment to this year’s budget is essential.

I have to repeat that what we have estimated we need for all sorts of educational programmes for this year is EUR 180 million. What we need for Erasmus is half that: EUR 90 million.

Of course, Minister Mavroyiannis is right. It is our duty to ensure the smooth implementation of Erasmus in 2012 and early 2013, as we have already advanced a lot of money to the national agencies. But if there are no more funds coming in, we will really encounter a very serious accumulation of problems in 2013, as the universities are less likely to deliver to the students and are likely to reduce the expectations for student mobility in 2013. This is why I urge you to help us. This is also a kind request to the Presidency: to deliver a substantial increase for 2012 and not to have an accumulation of problems in this very valuable European Union programme in 2013. Together we can manage.

  Doris Pack, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I have listened to you carefully but it is just that I cannot believe you! Why are we here today? It is an admission of incapacity by the governments responsible – not the Commission and not Parliament! We need to clearly state what this is about: it is not about an increase in resources because the Commission did not do its work properly, it is solely about the States not meeting the obligations they have made to young people

(Applause)

who want to study abroad because their parents, the economy, society and politicians tell them every Sunday how important education is and how important it is to gain experience abroad. Through the Bologna Process, a technical failure, Member States have unnecessarily made students’ lives more difficult. Now they are also setting about damaging the reputation of the flagship project of European educational policy, Erasmus, completely unnecessarily. Already, the year abroad is a financial balancing act for many young people on Erasmus. If the impression is now given that they cannot even rely on these commitments, this is a devastating signal, especially for those who desperately depend on support from Erasmus.

Education ministers have stated repeatedly − and re-stated now − that the goal for 2020, that many young people are able to go abroad and be mobile, must be achieved. What are we to think if, because of a lack of funding, not even 5 % of Erasmus students can go abroad now?

Therefore, I think that the budget reorganisers, that is, the Council representatives, should not reorganise the budget at the expense of students. In this matter, at least, they should be generous – it is also their own children’s future.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, when I studied in Vienna I did not have the possibility of Erasmus at that time and I still deplore the fact that I did not have the possibility. Normally young people in Europe have the possibility – still have the possibility – but even that is now endangered for some of them. In Europe we speak about the necessity for excellence, for high qualifications, of knowing other languages – and the Erasmus programme is in danger. In Europe all the leaders speak about the necessity of mobility. We cannot stick to one place in one country in one city alone – and some of our nation states are endangering mobility. And we speak in Europe about the necessity of having a European identify in addition to the national or regional identity – and again, some of our leaders are endangering the European identity.

It is also very interesting to see that some of the countries where most of the students want to enter the Erasmus programme are trying to cut the budget, and that is absolutely unacceptable. I fully agree with what the Commissioner said. Thank you very much for your engagement on that. Thank you, Mr Mavroyiannis. You are a very gentle and kind person, but sometimes I think you have to be less kind to your colleagues in the other governments because what they are doing is absolutely impossible. As my colleague said, they are endangering one of the biggest flagships of European unification, of European identity, of coming together, of being the most qualified Europe – and then we endanger this programme. This is absolutely unacceptable, especially at a time when euroscepticism is growing. We say to the young people who want to be real Europeans: sorry, we do not have the money. I think again you sometimes have to be very tough with your colleagues and tell them that the unanimous opinion here in this Parliament is that we need Erasmus and we need enough financing for our young people, because this is about Europe, not about national ambitions.

  Morten Løkkegaard, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, thank you for the remarks that have been made thus far. I wholeheartedly agree with them. I have two comments on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in connection with this. Firstly, there is of course the matter pertaining to unpaid bills. Where I come from, we pay our bills. This is not a matter that is up for discussion. I simply do not understand this discussion in connection with the consistent under-budgeting, which the Commission was also party to. I feel the time is absolutely right! We are in a situation where we discuss this every single time, and citizens simply do not understand the lack of logic in this consistent under-budgeting. Bills must be paid! We are in a situation where the work has been done and the money has been allocated, and now the bill must be paid. Naturally, our credibility as institutions will stand or fall based on whether or not these bills are paid. And of course, this also concerns the Member States.

Secondly, this must be expected to affect students. We now face the obvious risk that students across the Member States will not receive a grant at all or at least not the grant they were expecting, or that their grants will be cut. This is the actual situation that we are faced with. It is not a trivial matter, and it is a cold, hard reality and not an abstract situation for the young people concerned.

I would like to strongly advise against taking this programme, which several speakers have emphasised as being one of the most popular specific programmes that we have in the EU, hostage in a situation where there is a tactical game between institutions as to whether this ‘budget loss’ should be assigned to one institution or another. I would like to strongly advise against taking young people and a popular programme hostage. This specifically also concerns the level of confidence in this project among citizens, and here at last is a project that people understand, one where we hear again and again, across political boundaries, that it is beneficial to the EU. This is one of the reasons why people understand that this project is something that is worth being united over. It is this that hangs in the balance. It is not simply a question of some incidental money in a budget; it is about confidence in the entire project. Therefore, I would strongly recommend that the Council and the Cyprus Presidency firmly encourage colleagues to come forward with the money. Thank you for the opportunity to speak!

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Lewandowski, unfortunately it is right and necessary that we sound the alarm bells today. We have got a terrible situation with regard to the Erasmus programme: students no longer have the grant money that was promised to them. This runs absolutely counter to the aims − and here I direct myself to you, Sir, the representative of the Cyprus Presidency − which the Council and Parliament agreed, namely to do more for Erasmus, more for student mobility and more for the education and training of our young people. How can we be so short-sighted and irresponsible as to undermine one of the most successful programmes we have ever had in the European Union? Ms Pack was right to say that we already have an implementation rate of 99 % − and this was in October! What more do you want? We would do better to make cuts to, say, tobacco subsidies, which do a lot of damage, not to a programme from which, as we know, everyone involved can only benefit.

You have breached a contract. You promised money that you are now not supplying. This undermines the credibility of the European Council and, unfortunately, also that of the entire European Union. It is a serious political mistake.

However, it is not only the Erasmus flagship programme that is under pressure: the European Social Fund, for example, has no more money either. Do you know what you are risking here? This year there is no more money for literacy courses or upskilling the long-term unemployed. This is totally contrary to what you are always saying at your summit meetings: that we must do more to counter youth unemployment, that we must encourage young people to get out and about in Europe, broaden their skills and get further training. Stop this irresponsible policy and let us approve a supplementary budget. Above all, let us approach the next multiannual financial framework boldly and make this money available for European education policy.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, you have not alleviated our concerns. As you can see, all four voices – Ms Pack, Mr Swoboda, Mr Løkkegaard and Ms Trüpel – are essentially expressing concern at the situation, and this concern is justified. In fact, these calculations that you have provided have not alleviated our concerns, because this is one of those programmes in which it is worth investing. The European Union hands out a great deal of money quite needlessly, and Ms Trüpel has drawn attention to one such area – that is the truth. It is very common for the European Union to waste money, but the money intended for the Erasmus programme is very much money not wasted. It is the best-invested money in the EU, and we should therefore make every effort – above all the Commission, but the Council too – to ensure that this money does not run short.

This is especially because the division into better and worse continues to prevail, as the size of grants unfortunately continues to reflect the division of Europe. They depend on which country one comes from. A Polish student studying in Germany or France is not, sadly, provided with the same conditions as a German or French student studying in Poland. This is an element we must overcome. The question of credits is also worthy of support, but the most important thing is to make sure this money does not run out. We cannot stand in shame before our citizens, and before our students, because the European Union has not found the money for one of the flagship, vanguard and best-implemented programmes. I must entreat you, Commissioner, to make every effort to prevent this situation from arising, and to make sure that European students have the money to enable them to study abroad.

  Willy Meyer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Madam President, it is unacceptable for the Erasmus programme to be put at risk as a result of this erratic, suicidal European economic policy that is backing privatisation, and the dismantling of the public sector. For the educational community in the southern European countries hit hardest by the crisis, this could be the unacceptable last straw.

In my own country, Spain, everyone in education is protesting in order to defend free, public education, which is at risk due to these cuts and the economic intervention of the Troika, which is suffocating southern Europe.

The fact that this programme is being put at risk is going to further aggravate the situation and, moreover, accentuate the harsh budget cuts, tax increases, restrictions on and reductions in additional grants and the burden of debt taken on by students and families in order to avail themselves of the universal right to a good education.

What is more, European and social cohesion are also being put at risk, which to some extent is creating a two-speed Europe, which we are not prepared to accept; the whole of the educational community must operate under the same conditions and at the same level.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, Erasmus started 25 years ago, and three million people have taken part. During the period 2007-2013 the EU has paid out grants worth EUR 3 billion on Erasmus. However, the economy has shrunk and youth unemployment has grown massively to 11.7 %. Furthermore, the grant gives an average EUR 300 per month, which is insufficient to cover the basic costs of living. If we add travel costs to this we can estimate that a family needs to pay at least EUR 5 000 per year on top of the grant to cover the total cost of one of its members doing Erasmus.

How many families can afford this in these times of crisis? Considering the lack of impact on employment and economic growth that the Erasmus programme has had over the last decade, and given that it can only be afforded by those that are well off, we should scrap it. There are many other priorities that need more urgent attention. Those who find it indispensable to have this development should pay out of their own pocket instead of imposing the burden on the taxpayer.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). - (ES) Madam President, the news regarding the problems with the Erasmus programme is extremely serious, as it affects the education and the intellectual grounding of European citizens. In addition, the programme in question is a vital pillar of European integration.

Therefore the necessary funds must be found as soon as possible from the relevant budget lines in order to resolve the reported situation and calm public feeling. It would also not do any harm if greater restraint were exercised by those responsible when announcing such bad news as this.

Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote The Praise of Folly. It would be folly indeed to endanger the grants that bear his name.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate before this one was on the 20th anniversary of the single market. We had that debate because the single market is one of the European Union’s main goals. If the single market were to fail, the entire European Union could fail.

The same is true of Erasmus: for many young people – and not only for them – it represents the image of the European Union. Without Erasmus, many people’s perception of European unity would disappear. This is more the case than with the single market because with the single market there is also, but not only, an economic advantage for businesses and for our countries. There is nothing wrong with this, but Erasmus is different, it is about students wanting to break out of their confines and discover the cultures of other countries, share the experience of studying with people who speak a different language and perhaps have different customs and traditions, and discover, renew and strengthen our common identity and our unity.

This is how Europe came into being, not through treaties or dreadful bureaucracy, but through genuine lived experiences. Perhaps without Erasmus, the single market would also mean something different, the spirit of it would be different and so weakening Erasmus could weaken our Union. The title of this debate is absolutely right: Erasmus is in danger, and the danger is that, without Erasmus, a different concept of Europe would develop.

I would like to thank the Commissioner for his work and to tell the Council to make a real effort to find and authorise the funds, since the hole that exists is down to the Member States. The Europe of the future will depend on those who want to study and have experiences abroad now. Let us try not to let them down and let us be brave enough to show what Europe is really made of. I wish the Council good luck with its work and hope to hear only good news!

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, in recent times we have been flooded by various headlines about the end of the Erasmus programme, and these have been the cause of growing insecurity among students and families. Today’s debate is essential in the attempt to reassure European citizens that the European institutions led by the European Parliament are actively cooperating, and the uncertainty surrounding the future of the EU budget in no way jeopardises the effectiveness of Erasmus, which is one of the most successful EU programmes.

Using it as an example, we can highlight the challenges and risks of the austerity measures that several Member States would like to apply to the EU budget. When we speak today about the importance of ensuring adequate funding for Erasmus, we are also spreading the message that even in these times of crisis Europe is prepared to invest in education and training, and therefore in programmes that are key to its economic and social recovery. We must strive to ensure that a similar situation is not repeated in the future. It is a matter of trust in the European institutions; the solution that we are able to find will reflect the importance that Europe places on education, training and mobility in times of crisis.

I therefore call on the Council of the European Union to cooperate with Parliament and the Commission in order to reach a satisfactory solution to the negative balance of payments in the budget for 2012 and especially the Erasmus programme.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as my colleagues have said, the image of the European Union that Erasmus gives is a good one. Endangering this standard-bearer for the European Union, which has done so much to create a positive image and which meets the needs of young people at a time when many of our fellow citizens are having doubts about the European project, is tragic.

The Council representatives present have underlined the many problems there are in 2012 and also concerning the future funding of Erasmus, but have not given any firm answers. The question being put to the Member States today, on which there is a consensus in Parliament, is this: are you going to increase your contributions to its funding to meet the commitments you have made? Quite apart from Erasmus, the issue of funding for education programmes and also for the Cohesion Fund is equally tragic.

Personally, I am a supporter of independent financing of the EU budget, which would liberate us from the Member States’ erratic decision-making.

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Erasmus certainly has its limitations but it is one of the EU measures that makes people, and particularly young people, appreciate the idea of Europe. It is a measure that creates a Europe of sharing and cooperation, and not a Europe of competition, a dog-eat-dog Europe.

If the European institutions were really bothered about the general interest of citizens, we would not be here now discussing restrictions and drastic cuts, but instead we would be working together to provide more scholarships to ensure that Erasmus does not only affect 3 % or 4 % of EU students, students already facing considerable financial hardship. Under these circumstances, the worst-case scenario would be the replacement of the current system with a system of loans, meaning that students would start their working lives saddled with an extra financial burden.

If we want Europe to get through the crisis, we need to be aiming for a considerably higher level of training, and for a colossal research effort. It is therefore our responsibility to ensure that the Erasmus programme is not only saved but also developed and is fit to meet the challenges of our times. Similarly, the programme should be extended to the continuing training of employees so that, EU-wide, we create security of jobs and training for all employees in the EU.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Erasmus programme should be defended tooth and claw for the rights and future of our young people. It would be much better to cut the super-high pay and pensions of our senior officials, those untouchables of the European Union, or to reduce the gifts to high finance and the banking system.

Some practical suggestions have been made by young people involved in Erasmus. During the Erasmus Day Live initiative, some suggestions were made to President Barroso such as exchanging homes, which could make it easier and less expensive for families, or introducing some working hours (young people want to work, and they could do so in libraries and archives, or in cultural institutions), and regionalisation. Some regions like my own, Piedmont, have suggested intervening along the lines of the principle of subsidiarity.

Let us expand the basis for participation in Erasmus, let us give young people the role of offering suggestions and taking action. Erasmus is important. We critics of Europe are more supportive of Erasmus than some pro-Europeans, who want to cut not high-level bureaucracy, not costs or waste – good heavens, no! – but the things that serve the future of young people in Europe.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Ms Pack has already said, we are very concerned that it was even thinkable to create dramatic and unacceptable impacts – on education, on training in Europe – by making cuts in the wrong place. It is clear that the strongest weapon against the unemployment crisis and, obviously, for the competitiveness of Europe, is to be found in education. A mainstay of European policy success, as Mr Scurria rightly said, just as valuable as the single market and the euro, is being jeopardised here. This is unacceptable. We should never again – and I am hoping for a happy ending – have to hear sheepish statements from the Commission such as those in the press release of 15 October, which stated that the financial resources for Erasmus until the end of the year could not be guaranteed because the Council could not get its act together and accept its responsibility.

I appeal to the Council – together with all my colleagues in this House – to deal with its responsibility to future generations in a professional manner.

  Eider Gardiazábal Rubial (S&D). - (ES) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, two days ago here in this House we held a debate on the budgets for 2013 and, among other things, I highlighted the problems that we could have next year with payments if the Council does not accept the Commission’s proposal and Parliament’s position.

Today in this debate on Erasmus, we are not talking about what could happen next year but what is happening now, and the reality is that, because the position of the Commission and Parliament was not accepted last year, this year if this is not resolved a large number of programmes, including Erasmus, could find themselves in trouble.

The President-in-Office of the Council says that that is not going to happen, that there are not going to be payment problems: they told us the same thing last year and now we do not believe them. I am sorry, but they told us they were going to provide sufficient funds, that there would be no problems, and this year the Commission has had to put forward a EUR 9 billion amending budget.

I believe that Erasmus is not in danger and that we are still in time to save it, which is easy to do: you simply need to accept the proposal of the Commission and Parliament so that this does not happen again.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, at a time when every European government is saying that unemployment among young people entering the labour market is double the level in other age groups, is not the information that Erasmus is under threat, or the behaviour of the European Council, proof of extreme irresponsibility? Soon we shall be hearing from these young people – and this does not surprise me in the least – the question: so what are we needed for anyway, at the end of the day? We are sorting out our own problems, but we are not sorting out the problems of the people of Europe. It is not only because of the crisis that Europe is in a situation where every day it has to prove to its citizens that they need it. With this signal that the Council is giving, we are proving that we are needed by ourselves. But we are not in any way needed by the people of Europe. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Commissioner Lewandowski and to Mr Lamassoure; were it not for their voices, Erasmus would be quietly dying and no one would be talking about it. I am surprised at Mr Migalski, with what seems to be his complaint against Commissioner Lewandowski – we are in a situation today where the Council and the Commission must speak with one voice in order to find a solution to this problem. I am pleased that the European Parliament is taking such a unified stance.

May I remind you, Madam President, and through you Parliament’s authorities, that in Council Directive 89/654/EEC we established the conditions in which employees should work in Europe, and that directive also mentions the minimum temperature that should prevail at the workplace. I am not entirely sure that that temperature is prevailing in this Chamber – I am talking here about the temperature, not the political atmosphere – the physical temperature that prevails with us here.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we really cannot make young people bear the cost of the crisis. Of course we are in an economic crisis and need to cut waste. We should start by getting rid of Parliament’s second seat, to set an example as much as anything else. We should not be touching the funds for actions and projects that work. First among these is Erasmus, which has enabled millions of young people in Europe – and I want to emphasise that these have often been young people without great financial prospects – to have an extraordinary experience of study and vocational training, that can help their entry into the world of work.

Jobs are becoming increasingly inaccessible to young people. In Europe, one young person in four is unemployed. This figure is constantly bandied about in this Chamber. To the young people who are watching us, who are following this debate, we should be saying: ‘We’re not touching Erasmus!’ and the European institutions should be doing their utmost to make this possible.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, ERASMUS, in the commonly held view of all of us, is one of the most successful EU programmes, a programme which is synonymous with the European enterprise. Therefore, by discussing today whether this programme is in danger, we are once again casting doubt upon ourselves. I remind you that we did the same in the previous period on the question of the Schengen area, and this is unacceptable.

Continuing what my fellow Members have said, then, I would like to ask all young people, all students throughout Europe, in the 33 countries participating in this programme, to continue sending their applications. They should rest assured that everything will go smoothly. I would also like to express warm thanks to the teachers and all those involved in implementing the programme, who, often at personal sacrifice, ensure that everything works smoothly, because it has been said often enough before that ‘ERASMUS funding is inadequate’.

Governments have made mistakes. That is why we – the European Parliament, the European Commission – are here, to show that we are not going to discuss the obvious again. If we have such an unwelcome discussion again in the future, the discussion will not be about whether ERASMUS has a problem, but about whether Europe has a problem.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, sending disconcerting, destabilising messages to Europe’s young people is not a great way to celebrate 25 years of Erasmus. The 33 countries involved in the Erasmus programme and the two and a half million students who have so far had the opportunity of studying abroad deserve certainty.

It is unthinkable that the reason that this programme is in crisis is its success, including in terms of the funding already used. We need to be aware that the entire lifelong learning programme accounted for just 0.7 % of the EU budget in the last seven-year period, and we are talking about seeking an increase of 65 % or 75 % for the next seven-year period.

We would be giving a completely mixed message if we were to say we could not honour our commitments. I hope that the Cypriot Presidency and the Council will make a very real commitment to reconsidering the extra funding requested by the Commission. Parliament should give a strong, united signal to ensure young people do not become eurosceptics too.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, the Erasmus programme is a flagship EU programme. After the free movement of people and goods, the Erasmus programme is regarded as one of the great achievements of the European Union. For that reason, Parliament supports an increase in the Union’s support for education and training over the 2014-2020 period in order to raise the level of citizens’ skills and help address the high levels of youth unemployment in many Member States.

In view of the importance of education for the future of the Union, we request not only an increase in the budget for the Erasmus programme over the future financial period, but also the following: an increase in the number of people aged over 35 who benefit from lifelong learning, one of the programme’s overall objectives, along with an increase in the mobility of persons for educational purposes in the field of entrepreneurship, and therefore the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs programme; and making industrial policy one of the EU policies which are relevant to the Erasmus for All programme.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Madam President, the foundation of Europe’s future rests upon the shoulders of our children and young people, and it can safely be said that even those parties who have a negative attitude towards EU cooperation are nevertheless of the opinion that the flagships of European success have been the education programmes and, above all, the Erasmus programme.

In the sort of situation in which we find ourselves right now in the European Union, in the middle of this recession, what we need specifically is investment in education and mobility; everybody knows this. What does the market need? It needs a high-quality workforce; and we can only guarantee a high-quality workforce through education, and, as has been stated on many occasions already, Erasmus has been the success story here.

We are supposedly concerned about the trend towards exclusion; it is through education and investment that we oppose this trend, and therefore this is what is required. It will be very alarming if we now start to make cuts in this area. I do not believe that Cyprus, as Presidency, wishes its term of office to be remembered as one in which it had a Commissioner who was anti-education, and one which saw the start of a winding-down of the education programmes. This is not the way to go; we must invest in education, since only in this way will Europe have hopeful prospects for the future.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). - (ES) Madam President, Erasmus grants have enabled three million European students to access exchanges for training and living alongside others that have helped to improve our professional and linguistic skills. I myself, like other young Members of this House, benefited from such a grant in the past.

Erasmus has extended equality in education because it has also given many of us as young people the opportunity to go abroad when we otherwise would not have had the resources to do so, as this was previously a privilege reserved for the children of rich families. We are aware that there are differences in the amount of the grants, but I would like to ask the Council and the Commission how many students are affected and how it is going to be ensured that those students receive 100% of their grants.

During this time of youth unemployment it is more necessary than ever that we back education and training and back the programme that symbolises the European Union, because Europe does not make sense without Erasmus.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). - (PT) Madam President, we are all aware of the fact that youth unemployment stands at twice the level of other generations; we are all aware that the Erasmus programme is enriching for students at the academic and professional levels and at the level of acquiring new skills, which improves employment prospects. We all know that the Council made commitments for Erasmus. It would therefore be unacceptable for the Council to think of not paying. The Council must pay at the due date and time, honouring the commitments it made. The Council must be credible, trustworthy and exemplary. We expect that this priority programme, which has been absolutely fundamental in asserting the European project, should continue and that the Council, in the future, should not again raise doubts as to whether or not it will pay those sums to which it agreed and committed itself.

  Chrysoula Paliadeli (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, I am particularly pleased to be taking part in this discussion today, mainly because in the 25 years of this successful programme, we have been discussing and wondering whether or not to continue with it. I believe the most successful European programmes use up their reserves precisely because they are successful. It is the duty of all the Member States to support successful programmes, because by doing so they are supporting Europe’s future. I am particularly pleased that the great majority of this Parliament is wholeheartedly in favour of continuing the programme and, more than that, ensuring its future; we must therefore make provision for this programme in the next budget.

  Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Madam President, I have only one question; this relates to the argument that I have been aware of since the 1980s, when I worked in a relevant academic institute.

At that time 75 % of GDP growth originated in the application of science and research. Since then, its share in GDP growth has even increased.

Why, then, is the Commission making cuts in the fields of science and research? Why is it doing this when it is in fact the most promising resource for overcoming the crisis? I believe that the Commission’s representatives should answer our questions regarding this matter. Why are we undermining this growth potential for the European Union?

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). - (ES) Madam President, Erasmus is the clearest evidence of the European budgetary illusion.

There have been years of irresponsibility, commitments that cannot be met, artificial transparency and spectacular declarations at every summit, while at the same time there has been less actual money in the annual budget with which the Commission can make payments, as the Commissioner explained perfectly.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are carrying an annual budget deficit of more than EUR 130 billion. The amount that the EU budget owes, as we have still not been able to honour our commitments, would be enough for a whole year’s EU budget.

It was therefore the Committee on Budgets, namely its Chair Alain Lamassoure, who made clear reference to the Erasmus programme in a press statement a short time ago, not as a major budget issue, but as an example of how not to budget.

  Piotr Borys (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, to put it at its most concise, we are talking here about building trust. Nearly 2.5 million Erasmus participants are looking to the European Parliament today, and to the Commission and the Council, in some alarm, but this is also a major text, which will show whether we have the resolve to grasp this great opportunity to enhance yet further integration. There is nothing better than to acquire skills and abilities through Erasmus, through the experience that will stand young people in good stead throughout their lives. This is why we are keeping our fingers so firmly crossed for you today, in the hope that your actions in support of the Erasmus programme will be effective, both at the present time and in future times too.

I know you are keen on sport, so I would like to present you, symbolically, with a shirt with the name Lewandowski on the back. Following yesterday’s match, I hope that you will be as effective for millions of young people as Robert Lewandowski was yesterday in the match against Real Madrid.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). - (ES) Madam President, if there is anything that is a positive influence in Europe, it is Erasmus. It is a past winner of the Prince of Asturias award, that Viviane Reding accepted at the Campoamor Theatre in my city of Oviedo. Let us not lose this opportunity; it would be an unforgivable mistake. Let us follow the budgetary advice given here by Ms Gardiazábal and may Erasmus continue!

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, colleagues, thank you for your real commitment. This is a timely commitment on how to save Erasmus. This is the time to sound the alarm. (Thank you also for reminding us that Lewandowski was successful in scoring against Real Madrid yesterday for Borussia Dortmund!) But this is also very much an opportunity to see what is behind the figures. From time to time it is necessary to see what lies behind the budgetary figures. It is so easy to cut figures on paper, but when you see thousands of Erasmus students it is more difficult, or when you see the small or medium-sized companies behind the figures who are in desperate need of liquidity at a time of credit crunch, then it is less easy to cut the figures.

This is the case with Erasmus. It started with a modest allocation of EUR 18 million I think in 1998, but now more than 4 000 higher education institutions in 33 countries – also beyond the European Union – have signed up to the Erasmus University Charter. So this is really about visibility, about the utility of the European Union for the younger generation. Utility is what we really need now, the utility of our institutions.

The situation is as follows, as I have clarified. You have my assurance, and I think this will also be endorsed by Minister Mavroyiannis, that the students benefiting from Erasmus this year, and at the beginning of 2013, are not in danger. Everything should be implemented, because we have sent money to the national agencies in 33 countries. The danger is due to uncertainty – especially if we make an additional request to take advantage of the money allocated for 2013 to cover the needs of 2012 – and uncertainty affects most of all those students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, poorer students around Europe.

Therefore we need a solution, we need your commitment. Please do not forget that Erasmus is only a part of the Lifelong Learning programme. The very prestigious Marie Curie programme for young researchers is also in danger of being short of money if we do not have an additional EU 100 million for this year.

This is the overall picture at a time when we are starting the battle over the future until 2020. It is not true that the research programmes are to be affected, they are the part of the European budget with the biggest growth for the future, from EUR 50 to 80 billion, but I think what is vital now is to give assurances to the students that in 2013 they will not be affected.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, I would like to thank the Members very much for this debate. The arrival of Mr Swoboda is timely, and I will certainly follow up on his suggestion and, of course, on all the comments and concerns expressed. I have taken good note of all of these and will convey them to the Member States and the Council. Let me assure you that the Council shares the view that student mobility and Erasmus are key for young generations and form part of our vision of the future and relevance of our Europe.

Concerning the situation of payment appropriations in 2012, the Council, as I was saying before, will pursue swiftly the examination of draft amending budget 6/2012 proposed by the Commission and will duly analyse with the Commission the shortage of appropriations identified in the current budget for all programmes, Lifelong Learning included, with Erasmus and Marie Curie being an essential part of this. Let me assure Members that we will do our utmost to avoid the situation they fear of not being able to honour our obligations and ensure the smooth running of the Erasmus programme.

Concerning 2013, the European Parliament and the Council have just started a conciliation procedure with a view to reaching an agreement on the level of commitment and payment appropriations in next year’s budget which, of course, include the Lifelong Learning Programme.

As I was saying before, the discussions on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 are ongoing and we cannot pre-empt their outcome. However, my feeling is that Erasmus is not in danger. In fact, we will not allow it to be endangered, as we are strongly committed to it.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – It was estimated that around 270 000 students will participate in Erasmus this year. However, with the budgetary problems there are many students intending to undertake this programme in the coming months who are rightly very worried about this situation. Faced with the prospect of a shortage of funds, universities and colleges are likely to reduce the number of places available, or they will reduce the level of grants available. This will hit students from disadvantaged backgrounds hardest. I appreciate the efforts being made by the Commission and my colleagues in Parliament to address this situation, but the fact remains that the shortfall in the Erasmus programme amounts to EUR 90 million. If an agreement to increase payments cannot be reached, the Erasmus programme will be at risk, and students, adults and vocational training will all be affected.

It is clear that cuts have to come from somewhere, but the message that the EU sends in times of austerity cannot be that cuts to the EU budget will fall on the youth of Europe first – those on whom we are relying to be the foundation of future innovation, growth and development.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I do not believe there is any young adult in Europe today who has not heard of the Erasmus programme, which helps students in higher education pursue studies in other countries for various lengths of time. In the recent 2010/2011 academic year more than 200 000 students participated in this popular higher-education programme, proving that Erasmus is one of the most successful achievements of the European Union with a positive influence that stretches far and beyond higher education. However, it appears that the recent austerity measures in the EU have put the financing of the programme at risk. Although the European Commission will recommend that the 2012 budget be supplemented in this area with the funds necessary to run Erasmus, if the Member States and Parliament are unable to agree on further payments then there will be no funds in the coming academic year to finance the students’ studies. I know that the lengthy economic crisis and therefore the fiscal austerity measures affect more or less every country in the Union, but I still call upon the Member States to support the Commission’s proposal, because if we do not ensure that the professionals of the future are properly trained, we will have no chance of recovering from the crisis.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Erasmus is one of the EU’s most successful programmes. It offers students significant educational benefits, giving them the opportunity to travel and come into contact with other cultures.

Unfortunately, there is a risk that the programme will be affected by the inadequate financing of the Union’s budget. More than 1 500 foreign students come to Romania each year, and a further 4 500 young Romanians study in other EU Member States thanks to Erasmus scholarships. The large number of students bears witness to the programme’s success, and is further evidence that we need sufficient funds for the Union’s vital policies. We cannot sacrifice education policies when one of the main problems affecting the Union is high youth unemployment. We must encourage education and vocational training programmes to prepare young people to enter the labour market.

This is why the Youth of the European People’s Party sent a letter to the Heads of State or Government who attended the European People’s Party Congress in Bucharest in which it requested the latter’s support for an amended budget proposal to be presented by the Commission. The letter requested that the necessary funds be made available to enable beneficiaries to continue with projects in various fields. The letter is proof of the PPE Group’s commitment to adequate funding for the most important European policies.

  Ivo Belet (PPE), in writing. – (NL) With the amendment to the 2012 budget submitted by the European Commission a strong signal has been given to the Member States to comply with their commitments. In April of this year the EU education ministers again confirmed the objective by 2020 of allowing 20% of European students to spend a period studying abroad. Of course the necessary funds must be available for this purpose. For the Erasmus programme it is therefore absolutely essential that the EUR 90 million shortfall for 2012 be made up as soon as possible. This will avoid students receiving a small Erasmus grant or none at all. If an agreement is not made quickly it will be the least well-off students in particular who have to give up their foreign study experience. As a way out of the crisis the European Union must resolutely take action in respect of the education and employment of young people. Study abroad adds to the profile of students who have recently graduated. Year after year more students study abroad. Now that the Erasmus programme is fully underway it is not a good idea to put it on the back burner.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Erasmus forms part of the EU Lifelong Learning Programme and comprises actions intended to bring about European cooperation in the higher-education sector. At present, Erasmus gives mobility scholarships to thousands of students, with emphasis laid on the academic recognition of studies. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that in October 2009 the European Commission celebrated the fact that the number of Erasmus students at European level had reached 2 000 000. The Erasmus experience is a unique and personal intercultural and university experience, not only for those who have participated in the programme, but also for those who are motivated to sign up. The problem of financing is critical, especially at a time of economic crisis. The European Union must endeavour to put in place the funds necessary for the Erasmus programme to continue over the 2014-2020 period. ‘Social criteria’ must become part of the Erasmus grant award process to enable students on low incomes to benefit from periods of mobility without having to worry about the lack of adequate financial resources. Young people are the foundation of Europe, and it needs qualified young people. To that end, we need to invest in education so that young people can benefit from jobs that are appropriate to their qualifications.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Erasmus programme began 25 years ago and has already had approximately 3 million participants. It is one of the most popular and successful of Europe’s programmes and it is extremely important that it should continue to exist. It is a symbol of the EU and, since it is under threat, it will be the very unity of the EU which could be weakened. It is essential to agree a level of financing to ensure that this programme continues, since all the money applied would never be wasted but would be invested. It is a matter of investment in qualification, in the intellectual and cultural training of young people who will be the future of Europe. That being the case, it is unacceptable that the Erasmus programme should be under threat, since it is one of the most effective weapons for combating unemployment in Europe. The future of Europe and the credibility of the European Union are at stake; it is essential to fight for Erasmus; the amounts due must be paid and grants must be made available; young people must be provided with qualifications and incorporated into the labour market. I call upon the three institutions to strive to reach a satisfactory solution as swiftly as possible and I call upon the Council to set an example of discipline. It is not possible to refuse payments due for projects which were budgeted for and for which the appropriate legal authorisation was given.

  Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Erasmus programme is one of the most successful of the dedicated programmes that were ever put forward for young people throughout Europe. It has worked very well to date, as proven by the fact that more than two million students have taken advantage of it so far. Above all it improves young people’s chances in the labour market, and provides an opportunity to spend time in a foreign country, get to know new people, gain new experience, study a language and raise one’s level of knowledge. Erasmus grant recipients become more tolerant, find out about their own abilities and also acquire the capacity to cope when far away from home. This programme can be a sort of introduction to adult life. It has the effect that those taking part become more self-assured, more mature and independent, and their plans for how they intend to spend their lives for the next few years become more focussed. The Erasmus programme is fulfilling its own objectives outstandingly well, as borne out in numerous statements and studies by its grant recipients and higher education institution authorities. Maintenance of its formula as hitherto applied along with the appropriate funding would appear to be a priority matter. We are currently looking at a new proposal from the Commission in this area. Its essential content is a matter for further discussion, but at this stage when it is being introduced, it is worth asking ourselves whether we should change something that is working so smoothly and to such benefit for all interested parties. As the proverb goes: better is the enemy of good. Let us not change what is good, then.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In an institutional context we very often discuss the problems of young Europeans, especially as regards their difficulties in starting out on a career path. It is less common for us to listen to young people, or to chat with them about their expectations. Instead of doing this, we propose new programmes, like Youth Guarantee, without consulting young people, and then these programmes are criticised by those young people and recognised as supporting occupational passivity. The cry from young people is ‘we need Youth Opportunities, not Youth Guarantees’.

The Erasmus programme is in fact one of these ‘Youth Opportunities’. It is one of Europe’s none-too-common great successes. It is hard to believe that we are now having to discuss savings in this programme. What we should decide today is to transfer all hitherto unused funds from 2007-2013 straight to this fine programme, and not look to make savings in it. Why is it that the Council and the Commission so frequently turn down such irrational paths?

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE) in writing. – (RO) The Erasmus programme helps to improve young people’s skills and makes it easier for them to find jobs. We must not jeopardise this investment in future generations. I make an urgent appeal to the Commission and the Member States which asked to pay EUR 5 million less and ought to bridge these gaps with funds which have not been accessed. This budget reduction will only increase the inequalities between young people, and the Erasmus programme will become a privilege for students who are in a better financial situation, instead of being a right for all. In addition, I would like to propose an expansion of the programme. This initiative could serve as a mechanism to promote the Erasmus brand outside Europe, too. Such a step would not only improve cooperation with countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, but would also mean that funds would no longer be limited to the European area. The Erasmus programme is in jeopardy and we should not gamble with the future of young people.

  Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), in writing. – (BG) It would be no exaggeration if we said that Erasmus was the most successful student exchange programme in the world. Its success is acknowledged to such an extent that it has become a symbol of a united Europe for millions of young people. Even mentioning the possibility of not having enough resources to run it is a blow to our trust in the EU. On top of that, it becomes clear from Commissioner Lewandowski’s statement that those affected would most likely be students with the least financial means. Let us spare a thought for the deep disappointment of a young person who finds out that because of the unfulfilled financial obligations of the ‘officials in Brussels’, he will not be able to feel free, and will not be able to travel on a par with other people of his own age; that he cannot be a true European, because somewhere the money has run out. One more thing: for many this Chamber has been a place where concern has been expressed about the burden this crisis is placing on young people, youth employment, the need for new policies … However, let us not undermine what we already have. The Erasmus programme has been with us for 25 years now, and it has become part of the cultural and educational experience of an entire generation. It has proven its effectiveness, which has far exceeded expectations. It is our duty to preserve and expand it.

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE), in writing. – (ES) I am a firm advocate of programmes aimed at education and young people and specifically of the Erasmus programme, and I am concerned by the news regarding its immediate future. However, as a Member from an outermost region such as the Canary Islands, I am also concerned that our young people do not enjoy equal opportunities in the mobility measures financed by the EU. Young people from the Canary Islands cannot and should not be in a worse situation than other young people in the EU due to living in an outermost region. Youth unemployment figures in the outermost regions are really worrying and it is our duty to ensure that the additional cost of students travelling from their outermost region of origin is borne by the programme itself and not by the students, who often see this additional cost as an insurmountable obstacle that prevents them from accessing Erasmus grants. Yes there should be Erasmus for all, but that should include young people from the outermost regions.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) It is disappointing that because of the lack of funds for 2012 budget allocations a significant number of very important and successful programmes such as Erasmus and scientific research and innovation programmes, are now at risk. The stable financing of Erasmus in next year’s budget also appears to be at risk, even though during the programme’s 25th anniversary we spoke about the need to provide additional funds for the programme in the next EU financing period 2014-2020. The youth unemployment level of recent years has clearly highlighted the importance of targeted measures that aim to reduce the division between education and the labour market, lower youth unemployment in the majority of Member States and encourage mobility and lifelong learning. It has to be noted that Erasmus is one of the most successfully implemented programmes and that it gives Europeans the opportunity to improve and strengthen bilateral cooperation in higher education. I am hoping that the concerns of the European Parliament regarding the funding of Erasmus and scientific research and innovation programmes will motivate the European Commission and the Member States, which undoubtedly understand the usefulness of these education and innovation policy instruments, to search for solutions regarding stable implementation of these programmes as well as regarding their security.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the resolute manner in which the European Parliament (on Tuesday) and the European Commission (on Wednesday) have said that they are in favour of continuing the Erasmus programme, leaping to the defence of the values that underpin it. Over the 25 years of its existence, Erasmus has enabled 2.5 million European students to travel, study in another country and get to know another European culture. Since 2000, they have included 35 000 Romanian students. I shall compare it with another European programme, which is the same age and has followed a similar development path: the EU Food Distribution programme, which was also established in 1987. This programme, from which 18 million citizens or more than 1 in 30 Europeans are currently benefiting, has been in danger over the last few years. I congratulate the European Commission on its initiative to create a fund to assist disadvantaged people in the European Union over the 2014-2020 period, which will replace the Food Distribution programme. Both programmes, Erasmus and the Food Distribution programme, which have now existed for a quarter of a century, are quintessential European programmes which must continue and develop.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The free movement of persons is considered to be one of the greatest achievements of the internal market, the 20th anniversary of which we are marking. In this respect we can consider the Erasmus programme to be a flagship. The Erasmus programme is a symbol of a united Europe. It is a symbol for European youth, and its perception of the European Union. It fosters mutual understanding and European unity: values on which the European Union is built. This commitment to European youth is truly the best investment in Europe’s future. We should be well aware of this and we should not gamble with European credibility. This is not only unacceptable, but also short-sighted.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) It is common knowledge that the Member States of the European Union are experiencing economic difficulties at present, yet I still believe it is unmerited for the Erasmus programme or the assistance for poorer regions from the Cohesion Fund to be put at risk on account of financing problems. The Erasmus programme is one of the milestones of the EU success story, and a further EUR 90 million is needed to ensure we continue these traditions. It means a lot to those who benefit: the opening of horizons, a unique opportunity to gain experience. Raising the funds for this in the EU budget is a justified endeavour because it is one of the projects that makes the benefits of the EU visible and tangible, and allows citizens to experience the specific advantages of the European Union. In essence, Erasmus signifies the transposition of European values into practice, just like the euro or the Schengen Area, or the unrestricted movement across borders. Interestingly, alongside the problems associated with the euro, some Member States are pressing for a reform of the Schengen Area, raising the notion of restricting free movement across borders at the very time when the financing of Erasmus is under threat. We have to concede that this is because it is insignificant compared to the stakes of the common budget or Europe’s debt crisis. It is quite unacceptable that we are jeopardising the most popular achievements of the Union with austerity measures, as we are only undermining the professional prospects of the coming generations and fostering euroscepticism among young people.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Erasmus programme is without doubt one of the European Union’s greatest successes in the field of education. It provides thousands of students with an opportunity to take up studies in a variety of European countries. It enables people to find out about different education systems, to extend their knowledge of a foreign language, but also – and this is the most important thing of all – it constitutes a sphere for intercultural exchange between people from all over Europe. Particularly now, when the EU is grappling with a high level of youth unemployment, we cannot allow the Erasmus programme and the idea of student exchanges to be threatened by a shortage of funds. Young people cannot be expected to pay for the crisis. It needs emphasising that it is precisely mobility for students and the opportunity for them to acquire international experience that gives them a chance to find their feet in the labour market. Erasmus is our European identity and a very important element of the common market. That is why it is very important for Member States to fulfil their obligations so that there is no shortage of money for planned exchanges, or for the continued functioning of this programme. Member States should also bear this in mind when budget expenditure for the longer-term financial future is being discussed. We must not take a short-sighted view of this and seek savings that are needed now at the cost of the Erasmus programme, which will bring tangible benefits in the future.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Erasmus programme is one of the most successful programmes at European level but is currently at risk for lack of EU funding. At a time of serious financial difficulties for young people, it is fundamental to continue to support the mobility of thousands of students between various countries. During negotiations on the EU budget for 2012, the Council decided to reduce payment authorisations by EUR 3 billion, having also undertaken to release the budgetary funds if it became necessary. During the current year the Council and the European Commission approved many projects in different areas such as the National Strategic Reference Framework, the common agricultural policy, the Fisheries Fund, Research and Innovation (Seventh Framework Programme) or Erasmus programme projects. In order for the EU to meet all the financial requirements in the most varied areas of economic and social activity, the EU budget must be increased by approximately EUR 8.3 billion and the European Commission has already presented a proposal to that effect. I think it is fundamental to respect the commitments entered into with the beneficiaries and to finance the projects which were approved by the European institutions. We cannot put the Erasmus programme at risk – a programme it took years to consolidate and which is fundamental for the future of new generations.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The Erasmus programme has proved its worth by enabling millions of young people to go and study in another country, improve their qualifications, learn a foreign language and discover another culture. The scheme contributes to European integration but also to the personal integration of young Europeans. Anything that came in its way would be a step backwards at a time when citizens are having their doubts about the EU and our young people are having doubts about the future. The programme is now a victim of the short-term vision of some Member States that, in the name of defending liberal dogma, are endangering one of the EU’s tools for investing in the future, that of training and that of youth. Discussions on the 2012 and 2013 budgets are well on the way to overcoming this deadlock, but this should not be disconnected from the negotiations under way on the financial framework for 2014-2020. The proposal of a freeze on the EU’s budget is unacceptable when we are promoting education and qualifications as the main assets in the fight against unemployment, particularly of young people. On the contrary, a substantial increase in the EU budget is necessary to get through the crisis and prepare for the future.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), in writing. – (DE) During my long career as a professor at an Austrian university, I was able to be part of the Erasmus success story: I saw how students returned home from their Erasmus stay with more knowledge of the world, more self-assurance, motivation and a positive image of Europe. The economy, for its part, regards experience abroad as an important qualification. Erasmus also makes a significant contribution in the context of the common, single market. It is one of the European Union’s most visible and most popular programmes and is already 99 % subscribed this year. Therefore it is necessary to provide additional resources for the programme. Students who start their Erasmus stays in the coming months need clarity as soon as possible. We should not be sowing confusion at this stage. Erasmus 2013 should not start with a budget deficit. We cannot afford to damage this standard-bearer for European education and employment policy, especially at this time. Education is the best recipe for combating youth unemployment.

(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLA
Vice-President

13. Composition of political groups : see Minutes

14. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the vote.

14.1. Procedures for applying the EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the EC-Serbia Interim Agreement (A7-0273/2012 - Iuliu Winkler) (vote)

14.2. Extending the period of application of Council Decision 2003/17/EC, and updating the names of a third country and the authorities responsible for production approval and control (A7-0315/2012 - Paolo De Castro) (vote)

14.3. Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources (A7-0314/2012 - Ian Hudghton) (vote)

− Before the vote:

  Ian Hudghton, rapporteur. − Mr President, this report is before us today because there is a significant delay being forecast with regard to reaching a conclusion on reform of the common fisheries policy. That is not surprising given that, with the Rodust report, MEPs have tabled some 2 600 amendments to the main regulation. My report was presented as something of a technicality, but there are some important messages to be carried forward from it.

The report was unanimously approved by the Committee on Fisheries, which is itself unusual. It relates to ensuring that the access regime out to 12 miles which is currently in place should be allowed to continue until such time as the new CFP has been agreed. If we did not approve this report, the 12-mile access regime would expire at the end of this year. I am glad to say that the committee unanimously agreed that this would be unacceptable and unthinkable.

The 12-mile zone has been a feature of the common fisheries policy since the initial regulation in 1983, and since then it has always been put into effect for a further ten-year period. This extension would continue until 2014, and then we will see what the new CFP brings.

But I want to make the point that even the Commission has accepted that the management of fisheries within the 12-mile zone has on the whole been successful: ‘generally managed successfully’, in the Commission’s words. So drawing lessons from that, which effectively means that the fishing nations themselves have been relatively successful in managing fisheries out to 12 miles, compared with the general failure of the common fisheries policy as a whole, I think that there is strong case for extending the 12-mile limit both in time and in distance. But that is an argument for the Rodust report, which I look forward to receiving.

14.4. Protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (A7-0272/2012 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, I have something important to say and I will be brief. First of all, as rapporteur, I call on the House to consent to this agreement because it is a good one and should be welcomed as a template for future agreements on the same subject. I am hoping for your unanimous support.

However, in approving the agreement we are not voting to accept the Council decision on this matter while it includes a provision establishing a comitology mechanism allowing the Council to control Commission decisions on the application of the agreement. In my view, Parliament should not accept the Council deciding unilaterally on something which, by definition, ought to be co-decided by this House – let alone accept the Council abusing comitology to control, unduly and unilaterally, the Commission’s powers in relation to application of the agreement.

Therefore, let it be clear that we are not endorsing the draft Council decision on this matter, and that if the draft remains unchanged – which I hope will not be the case – we will not allow it to be considered as a precedent for future international agreements. Unfortunately there is no Council representative here, but I am sure this message will reach the Council.

14.5. Conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the Food Assistance Convention (A7-0309/2012 - Nirj Deva) (vote)

− Before the vote:

  Nirj Deva, rapporteur. − Mr President, thank you for giving me this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the committee and Parliament for allowing this report to go through so quickly.

15 000 people will die of hunger today. Just to put this into perspective, that is equivalent to all of Parliament and its staff, the Council and its staff, the Court of Justice and its staff, the Ombudsman and his staff and one third of the Commission.

The global population is expected to double and go up to nine billion people, and our food production output has to double to meet that appalling number of people that the world will have to feed. The current Food Aid Convention falls short of what is required. The new Convention which we will pass today will introduce new forms of assistance: local producers with local purchases; untied food aid; vouchers for farmers in developing countries that they can turn into money and food and that help agriculture in developing countries. I would like to thank everyone for working so hard to get this report through and for trying to save so many lives.

14.6. Consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad (A7-0288/2012 - Edit Bauer) (vote)

− Before the vote:

  Edit Bauer, rapporteur. − Mr President, thank you for giving me this opportunity to make some short remarks, as we have had no preliminary discussion on this topic.

The proposed directive is intended to replace the 1995 decision regarding consular protection for EU citizens by diplomatic and consular representations, in view of the legal framework established by the Lisbon Treaty. Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on which the proposal is based, provides that every citizen of the European Union shall, in the territory of third countries where the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State. The proposal covers not only everyday situations, such as loss of a passport or becoming a victim of crime, but also crisis situations where EU citizens might need help. While in relation to everyday situations citizens could seek help at any consulate or embassy of any Member State, crisis situations are different. There was almost unanimous agreement in all the committees involved here that no single Member State or lead-state should bear the burden of dealing with evacuation or other crisis-related tasks, including assistance to unrepresented EU citizens, so the role of coordination had to be shifted to EU delegations. This proposal is an excellent illustration of the fact that ‘more Europe’ does not mean more bureaucracy or more Brussels. ‘More Europe’ could also mean more help for EU citizens in need, and more protection for citizens unrepresented in third countries who find themselves in precarious or crisis-related situations.

Finally I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their efforts and to ask all of you, colleagues, to support this proposal.

14.7. Concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market (A7-0310/2012 - Regina Bastos) (vote)

14.8. Appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (A7-0348/2012 - Sharon Bowles) (vote)

− After the vote:

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, in my view it is unacceptable that a specific person is the subject of voting – we have to vote for that person in secret, without seeing his name. This is a procedure that I think is highly unparliamentary, as we have voted for someone whose name is not even up on screen.

  President. − The officials tell me that we have correctly followed the procedure, so the vote is valid and we will proceed.

14.9. Protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (A7-0243/2012 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

14.10. EU trade negotiations with Japan (B7-0462/2012) (vote)

14.11. EU report on policy coherence for development (2011) (A7-0302/2012 - Birgit Schnieber-Jastram) (vote)

− Before the vote on paragraph 144.

  Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D). - (ES) Mr President, the amendment consists of adding the phrase ‘while protecting the right of women to have access to legitimate sexual and reproductive health technologies and services’ after the words ‘child prostitution and sex tourism’.

(The oral amendment was not accepted)

– Before the vote on the motion for a resolution.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, before we take this important vote I want the House to reflect on the large majority of men who stood up on the other side of the House to deny women their rights.

(Applause)

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, the reason I rose is that 200 million females are missing from the world’s population because of gender-based abortion and infanticide. We have to stand up for the rights of women; they should not be terminated on the grounds that they are women.

(Loud applause)

  President. − That concludes the vote.

15. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Regina Bastos (A7-0310/2012)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very satisfied with the report by Ms Bastos, on which I voted in favour. Unfortunately, the severe economic crisis in Europe has had a negative impact on perceptions of the single market’s potential, among both citizens and businesses, and some governments and national political movements. There is a danger that this will cloud our vision of the excellent work done by the European institutions to revitalise and strengthen the single market, for example the wide-ranging public procurement reform and the revision of the Late Payments Directive.

I agree that there is a need, as Ms Bastos has stressed, to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation between the European Union and the Member States. Fundamental measures – such as the setting up of unitary patent protection – are all too often blocked or delayed by institutional conflict and national egotism. In a period of crisis like the current one, we need to take a united approach to governance, one which enables us to introduce the necessary legislation promptly, to revitalise the internal market and strengthen the rights of citizens within the European Union.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). - (FR) Mr President, I believe that in politics we should not be afraid of words. The single market, which is now 20 years old, has brought many things. The benefits are huge. Let us not mince our words, though: we need to say out loud that the single market will not be fully justified until it has become a means of protecting our jobs and industries. If we do not change our ways, we need to ask ourselves what is going to happen in the future. Dominant economies like China, Korea, Japan and Qatar are going to carry on buying up our industries and our jobs, and when Europe’s new bosses decide to relocate, there will be nothing we can do about it. That is why words are important in politics.

I think we should agree that the time really has come to set up a proper protection policy for the internal market: European protectionism.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, as a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I have taken a close interest in the report by Ms Bastos on the 20 main concerns of citizens and businesses. Our debate on this report has also been linked to our debate on the 20th anniversary of the single market. For 20 years it has supposedly been possible to exercise the freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital in the single market, our area of living, trade and freedom.

Firstly, I was interested in the fact that one of the leading concerns expressed by European citizens was the difficulty of having professional qualifications recognised, and on this we really need to be particularly proactive and effective. That is what our citizens are expecting of us: that we succeed in setting up, in the very near future, recognition procedures for their certificates, skills and professional qualifications that are genuinely more rapid, simpler, more effective and less costly. This is a real challenge.

As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on this matter, the modernisation of these procedures, I am actively working with the other members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on a genuine response to this major challenge of mobility. More mobility for more of Europe: that is what our fellow citizens are asking for.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to relaunch the single market, which is a key element in realising the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, I think it is important to step up the strategies for reviving economic growth and employment, and winning the confidence of citizens and businesses. I support the report because it emphasises the gap between expectations and reality, which is often the cause of growing concern, for example about tax obstacles, energy costs, and payment of VAT.

At a time when citizens are eyeing Europe with mistrust, we need to improve cooperation between the EU institutions and the Member States in order to promote competitiveness, creating new jobs and contributing to research and innovation, and to territorial cohesion, in order to protect our businesses and high quality products. For example we need to harmonise energy costs, which are the largest outgoings for many businesses, in order to create a single European market.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report. I am particularly pleased that the report encourages businesses to be bolder in hiring young people who have studied abroad, and to produce information and publicity in such a way that consumers who are more disadvantaged are also taken into account.

In the case of information and publicity, the report also calls on the Commission to monitor and control the effectiveness and success of information campaigns. I sincerely support this proposal, since if the campaigns fail to reach the selected target groups or if consumers do not understand what we wish to say to them, then our work is pointless and we are wasting scarce resources.

I hope that, through this report, we find new shared ways of improving the position of citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises, and of increasing their mobility and their confidence within the Union.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). - Mr President, I am honoured that you have chosen to speak English today. I find that delightful.

There are 20 concerns here about matters on which European legislation has focused, and they are important – about professional qualifications, opening bank accounts, having inheritance rights recognised, establishing rights to pensions and so on throughout the EU – but what is more important, in an EU where unemployment is growing very fast, is job creation. The engines of job creation in the single market are the small and medium-sized enterprises. They are in the vanguard when it comes to creating jobs and getting our economy moving, and the report has focused on that reality. That is why I supported it.

However, 35 % of European citizens do not even know about the single market. They do not understand the legislative framework or our regulations. What we need is less regulation in order to enable the enterprising spirit of European people to garner its own reward through hard work.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Deva. My English is not perfect, but I am learning.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the single market is a major achievement and is now, more than ever, a key element in realising the ambitious objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Twenty years of the single market is a long time, but there is still a lot to do. So it is fundamentally important that this celebration is used as an opportunity to relaunch the single market, and it is also important for us to look ahead and see what we still lack. For example, a common energy policy is now essential if all of Europe’s citizens are to be guaranteed secure and clean energy supplies at more accessible prices.

Removing obstacles and relaunching the single market will prove decisive in Europe’s current economic and social crisis, because they will contribute to innovation, growth, development, the promotion of competitiveness and above all to job creation.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Mr President, I support the agreement between Parliament and the Commission. The single market was formed to increase the flow of commerce between Member States, without barriers. Today, unfortunately, that is not the reality.

We need to assure our citizens that they benefit from EU membership and that they all belong to the same community. To make that a reality, we must further deepen the single market, thus increasing competition, economic growth and job creation, and making available more money to increase social benefits. We must accomplish this, but how do we do it?

We must promote harmonisation; we must create a single rail system, for example; we must introduce standardised rules for small and medium businesses. We need less regulation and clearer regulation. Harmonisation is vital for the single market and for our citizens.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the objective of a single market is to have a free flow of goods, services and capital between Member States, which should lead to balanced economic growth. But citizens continue to run into problems with the proper functioning of this market, particularly because of a number of legal loopholes, and also because of inadequate information. Consequently I agree with the need to present the Commission and Member States with recommendations that will bring about standardisation of the functioning of the single market, as an improvement will only come about with Member States’ involvement.

As a minimum, standardisation is needed in the recognition of occupational qualifications, or access to health and pension services, and also to banking services. Support is needed for a functional digital single market, to enable it to bring benefits to business people and consumers. I support the call to modernise national public administration to promote electronic facilities. I also take a positive view of the demand for closer cooperation between Parliament, the Council, the Commission and Member States in the direction of increasing the influence of citizens in EU internal affairs.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was happy to give my support to this report, but I believe that the earlier we can put a single market in place, the better it will be for all of us, especially to escape from the economic recession and to create jobs and growth in the European Union.

I find it somewhat bemusing to hear that this addresses the concerns of European citizens and businesses. It certainly addresses the concerns of businesses but, unfortunately, where most citizens are concerned, they are probably not even aware of the single market and what it means. That certainly is a challenge for us.

Having said that, the proposals are eminently sensible and certainly they are worth completing as soon as we can. I would just like to emphasise two of them. One is the vast potential that is there in the use of the internet and e-commerce. Too many businesses do not trade outside their own Member State, never mind the European Union: there is a challenge for us. The other is the recognition of qualifications across the European Union.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I too voted in favour of this report because consolidating the single market is an essential factor for the relaunching of economic growth and employment for the labour force. For this reason, I consider that the existing obstacles, including with regard to freedom of movement within the single market, need to be removed as soon as possible.

That way, citizens will be able to take full advantage of all their rights. Yet Romanian citizens still face restrictions, although the latter are not justified and should be eliminated. Against the background of the economic crisis, elimination of the gaps and barriers identified is becoming increasingly important. By that means, we will be able to contribute to innovation, growth, competitiveness and greater confidence in the single market. I would like to highlight the importance of better joint government, primarily with regard to improved cooperation. Furthermore, I consider that the economic and social wellbeing of the Union’s citizens must be central to this approach.

- Motion for a resolution: EU trade negotiations with Japan (B7-0462/2012)

  Nirj Deva (ECR). - Mr President, this is a very important report. Japan is our second largest trading partner after China, with the EU, and Japan has invested heavily in the European Union. Japan’s production of motor vehicles, both in the European Union and in my own country, the UK, is quite splendid. 140 000 jobs are being kept going – the number is in fact increasing – because of Japan’s investment in the EU economy.

Likewise, we ought to be investing in the Japanese economy. What we need to do is to ask the Japanese not to keep on with quantitative tariffs and quantitative restrictions, but to open up their distribution networks to our exports and our services. It is sometimes very difficult to distribute within Japan because of the way in which business is done there, and we need Japan to understand that we should also be able to have a level playing field so that we can access the Japanese market and Japanese consumers in the same way that we have permitted Japan to access our markets and to sell its goods to our people. This is a very important report.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, taken together, the European Union and Japan represent more than one fifth of world trade. Many high-quality Japanese products have for years enjoyed the trust of a high proportion of Europeans. A mutual free trade agreement should make it significantly easier for our business people to obtain goods, and also expand exports to Japan. The mere fact that a distinct majority of them are in favour of commencement of negotiations bears this out. Such matters as duty, intellectual property law, business competitiveness and above all the removal of non-tariff barriers and obstacles to market access in public procurement must be sorted out. Attention must be drawn to the need to carry out an assessment of progress in eliminating non-tariff barriers after commencement of negotiations, which is not without significance for Parliament’s future stance. While avoiding an uncontrolled rise in imports, we must also envisage bilateral protective measures, especially in respect of such sectors as the automobile industry, so as not to cause any threat to European businesses. I support this resolution.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). - (HU) Mr President, amidst the current global financial crisis we must not forget that the European Union also has to hold its ground as the circumstances of global economic competition change. Some believe that the 21st century will be Asia’s century, not to mention China’s. Looking at the emerging markets, the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations – Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia – will be capable of generating incredible economic output. Under these circumstances we have to do everything we can to ensure that the EU continues to develop its trade links with the region, principally with the countries that already have functioning market economies. One such step is the forthcoming free trade agreement with Japan, which could provide a significant boost to trade based on experience of the similar agreement reached with South Korea, and thus be beneficial for both sides.

We know that dismantling the customs and duties standing in the way of free trade is not the most difficult task, unlike the abolition of non-customs barriers that are vital to achieving genuine free trade. Europe has to pay more attention than ever before to the countries in East Asia, as trade with this region still harbours many opportunities.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I too want to congratulate you on your excellent English; keep it up. I will try speaking the language of Dante one day, but not yet.

The EU and Japan should be proud to cement their partnership in a free trade agreement (FTA). Japan is not only a key European ally and a liberal democracy, but also the third largest economy in the world, with highly advanced systems of production and levels of consumption. As mentioned by my colleague, trade with Japan is massive, generating over EUR 116 billion in combined imports and exports last year. Free trade is, after all, a cornerstone of what the EU is all about for the benefit of manufacturers and consumers alike. We must carry on developing and consolidating these markets, trading opportunities and strategic partnerships wherever we find them, and particularly those with democracies like India and Japan, which will enable us to kick-start economic growth, with this being what is missing on our continent at present.

In the 21 years since the first EU-Japan joint declaration was made on trade and other issues, it is clear that political relations between the European Union and Japan have gone from strength to strength. This FTA can only serve to benefit both sides.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I also voted in favour of this agreement. Japan is the European Union’s second-largest trading partner, and this is important. Last year trade amounted to EUR 160 billion, and, as Europeans, we all know that Japan has a very strong presence in Europe, above all in our industrial markets.

It is also very important that the access of European firms to Japan’s markets is likewise facilitated. It is important to remember at all times that in trade policy the principle of reciprocity is a good thing. Right now the opportunity exists for the abolition of unnecessary tariffs. Europe, too, needs growth and consequently this free trade can be of benefit to both parties.

Of course, as European decision-makers we must always remember that since the European Union is a community of values, it is also important to strengthen links with Japan, which despite its cultural differences and background shares the common European values of democracy, human rights, freedom of opinion and the rule of law, and it would be good to be mindful of these values when we engage in trade.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I must say that we have a high regard for Japan. I believe that Japan is a wonderful nation. The Japanese are sensible, they are intelligent: they work diligently and they have made an enormous amount of progress over many years.

Of course, they have great difficulties at present because of the worldwide economic recession, because of the tsunami, because of Fukushima and such events, but they shall overcome all of those in time. We, in the European Union, can help them by concluding a free trade agreement with them.

Having said that, there are still problems. I am thinking of one in particular, public procurement, and they have to change their mind about this issue. Some of the most important points in relation to the creation of the free market between us have already been mentioned, and the earlier that is resolved, the better it will be for the Union and for Japan.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I have not asked for the floor in order to explain my vote, but because I want to respond to the situation that occurred during the vote – and that was during Ms Schnieber-Jastram’s report. I want to speak on behalf of all Members who stood up during the oral amendment, because they were only voting according to their conscience. Mr Cashman used the speaking time to discredit and blame us; I believe that this Parliament says a lot about human rights, and the right to conscientious objection and freedom of conscience is one of the fundamental human rights. I therefore greatly regret this incident.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Iuliu Winkler (A7-0273/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, arising from the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part. The Agreement will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Parties notify each other that their respective ratification procedures have been completed. Bearing in mind that the Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia – signed on the same date to allow the early application of trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) – entered into force on 1 February 2010, I agree with the Commission’s proposal for an Implementing Regulation to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

On the other hand, for the sake of consistency of the trade legislation, I agree with the rapporteur, who proposes amendments which aim at aligning the amended provisions to the changes brought about by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ to the 5 Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) A Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) on 29 April 2008 between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg. The Commission has proposed an Implementing Regulation to facilitate the application of the Interim Agreement, which lays down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements. Mr Winkler felt that the amendments to the Commission proposal under examination should mirror the amendments brought about by the Trade Omnibus I report. I agree with the rapporteur because this will guarantee the consistency and coherence of the European Parliament’s position on the matter. Consequently the report contains amendments aimed at aligning the amended provisions with the amendments brought about by the Trade Omnibus I Regulation to the five Regulations on the application of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements and the Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries. I fully agree with Mr Winkler’s report, and that is why I have decided to give it my full support.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of this agreement, adopted by the European Parliament and on which I voted in favour, is to specify the framework for trade relations between the European Union and Serbia. It gives the Commission the option of taking protective measures at the request of one or more Member States, if necessary.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for the Implementing Regulation to lay down rules for the implementation of provisions of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) and Interim Agreement (IA). In order to integrate Serbia into the European political and economic sphere, it is essential to correctly and transparently follow the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement. Therefore, I agree with the proposal to apply the Agreement to the first Single Market Act, allowing for the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because the ratification of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia marked a historic moment in the relationship between the two parties. Moreover, the granting of candidate status to Serbia this year marked another step forwards on the road to this country’s reconciliation with the Union.

I believe that by adopting these additional implementing procedures for the Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the Interim Agreement, we will be able to stimulate trade with Serbia in the agricultural and fisheries sectors. In addition, the Union will be able to ensure that Serbia complies with competition requirements when it places products on the European market. Not least, these procedures will spur Serbia to push ahead with reforms in other key areas in order to deepen its cooperation with the European Union.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia. In this case, for the sake of the consistency of trade legislation, the rapporteur proposes amendments aimed at aligning the amended provisions to the changes introduced by the Trade Omnibus I Regulation relating to the Western Balkan countries.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report because the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and Serbia is to align common commercial policy rules to the new regime of delegated acts and implementing acts introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because on 29 April 2008 one of the first stabilisation agreements, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Serbia, was signed, which influences further economic partnership agreements and trade-related provisions between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia. In order to correctly and smoothly apply interim agreements, the Commission has indicated that the provisions of five regulations relating to implementing acts fundamentally conform to the provisions of the newest Commission proposal on the EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the Interim Agreement. For this reason, potential amendments to the provisions of the above five regulations brought about by the Trade Omnibus I report should be mirrored in the amendments to the Commission proposal under examination. This way, a consistent and consequent position of the European Parliament on the issue of stabilisation and association with the Republic of Serbia would be ensured.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The entire significance of the SAA between the EU and the Republic of Serbia could be represented by just the trade balance of this Balkan republic. Serbia sees the EU as its leading trade partner, accounting for almost two thirds of the overall value. This fact makes close integration between Brussels and Belgrade a necessity. This integration has already been consolidated on the basis of trade and industrial partnerships, and now further action is required to fit it into the institutional and regulatory system.

Previous agreements have shown how significant and important progress can be promoted across a wide spectrum of fundamental areas, from the liberalisation of markets to encouraging foreign investment, from strengthening legality to the resulting rise in free enterprise, from the exchange of ideas and information to civil and economic liberties, from the modernisation of legal systems to the gradual alignment of laws with the European acquis. For our countries, Serbia is an important market and a natural partner. I am therefore voting in favour of the report, including the proposed amendments (for example, conferring implementing powers on the Commission) and the stipulations on tariff quotas.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report concerning the rules for the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and Serbia and the Interim Agreement between the European Community and Serbia. The report lays down detailed rules for the implementation of tariff quotas for fish and fishery products, reduced tariffs, technical adaptations to the Combined Nomenclature codes and trade defence instruments. I therefore support this report proposing to align the amended text to the changes brought about by the Trade Omnibus I to the five regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements with the other Balkans’ countries.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I voted against this as a prelude for Serbian membership of the EU. There are already far more net beneficiaries than net contributor Member States in the Union, placing an even greater burden on countries such as the UK. Europe is struggling through severe financial crisis and cannot manage those countries already in the Eurozone, while all new Member States must take on the beleaguered single currency. There are serious questions regarding democracy in Serbia and the debate surrounding Kosovo. I do not assent to Serbia joining the EU and therefore have voted against.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I agree with the proposed amendments.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this regulation, which will enable the European Commission to ensure that the EU-Serbia Interim Agreement is properly implemented and hence that the provisions concerning trade, which are so important to the consolidation of a stable and prosperous society in Serbia and setting this country on the road to accession to the Union, will be applied.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and Serbia along with the Interim Agreement facilitating the prompt application of provisions on trade and trade-related issues was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008. The former is still being ratified. The proposed regulation provides amongst other things for fish and fishery product tariff quotas, trade protection mechanisms and customs tariff regulation. Several agreements were previously reached with countries in the Western Balkans, which are part of the Trade Omnibus I Regulation. These are aimed at harmonising existing regulations with a view to ensuring the smooth implementation of common trade policies. Only in this way can we ensure that the European Parliament position on the issue is consistent. The agreement represents another important step towards the full EU membership of our southern neighbour.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and Serbia is awaiting completion of the ratification process. Until it enters into force, it is right that some rules between the Union and Serbia may already be applied, in particular those concerning trade. The Implementing Regulation for the Interim Agreement, which the Commission is proposing, follows the line of others already established with other Balkan countries. This Agreement and the others will have to be compatible with the legal regime in force following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. It will also have to be clear and appropriately incorporated.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008 and envisages that it will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date of notification by the Parties, of its ratification. On the same date, an Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia was signed to allow the early application of the provisions set out in the SAA. That IA entered into force on 1 February 2010. The report under debate deals with the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the procedures for applying the SAA. The SAA regulations include the ongoing ‘Trade Omnibus I’ Regulation, on which the European Parliament adopted its first-reading position on 14 March 2012. In order to speed up implementation of the IA, the Commission is proposing an Implementing Regulation on detailed rules and procedures for implementation of the provisions set out in the SAAs. I therefore voted in favour of this report drawn up by Iuliu Winkler.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report, like other reports on international trade, aims principally to align the legislation in this field with the amendments affecting this field introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. The amendments introduced by the rapporteur aim at aligning the amended provisions to the changes brought about by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ to the Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements. However, we must assess this report on its deeper significance, bearing in mind positions of principle concerning the Treaty and the provisions therein on trade policy. In principle the Treaty of Lisbon lays down that commercial policy is the exclusive competence of the EU. Commercial interests are clearly different from country to country, since the respective economies and their weaknesses and potential are different. Placing the interests of the strongest over those of the weakest in this field, as in other fields, is harmful to the weaker economies and that is happening with Portugal, which is subject to the commercial interests of the big companies of the EU powers, especially Germany, which are so often contrary to the interests of the national productive fabric.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) A Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008. It will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Parties notify each other that their respective ratification procedures have been completed. In addition, the Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia, signed on the same date to allow the early application of trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), entered into force on 1 February 2010. I believe it is important and necessary to lay down rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Interim Agreement, as well as procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for its implementation. Since the provisions of the agreements governing trade and trade-related issues are largely the same, this regulation should also apply to the implementation of the SAA after its entry into force.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Mr Winkler in plenary. The report was adopted by a large majority (514 votes) and I am delighted. A Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and Serbia was signed on 29 April 2008, and the purpose of the Winkler report is to define, by means of a regulation, the detailed rules for implementation of the provisions on tariff quotas for fish and fishery products, reduced tariffs and trade defence instruments.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report, the aim of which is to ensure the correct and smooth application of the Interim Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia. The Commission proposes an implementing regulation, to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted in favour of this report to lay down detailed rules for the implementation of the Interim Agreement between the European Community and Serbia signed in 2008 on trade and trade-related provisions. In particular, detailed rules are laid down for the implementation of tariff quotas for fish and fishery products, reduced tariffs, technical adaptations to the Combined Nomenclature codes and trade defence instruments.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution. The report concentrated on proposing amendments aimed at aligning the amended provisions to the changes brought about by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ to the 5 Regulations concerning application of Stability and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries. It is thus possible to develop a consistent European Parliament position on this issue.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that these agreements could be effective tools for stabilising the Balkan region. The report establishes the adoption of detailed rules improving the implementation of the agreements. In this case, the improvement of economic relations could help the recovery of the region following the fierce conflicts that ravaged it during the last decade of last century. The normalisation of relations with EU countries could thus be an important step in the recovery and development of the region. For these reasons I voted in favour of this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − With the aim of the correct and smooth application of the Interim Agreement, this Implementing Regulation is proposed, to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I support the European Commission’s proposal for an Implementing Regulation to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement and EC-Serbia Interim Agreement to ensure that these agreements are implemented smoothly and correctly. Serbian progress was recognised in 2008 when the Stabilisation and Association Agreement was signed, and also when Serbia gained the status of a candidate country. However, in order to become an EU Member State, Serbia still has to implement reforms not only through legislation, but also by introducing European practices in areas such as foreign investment protection, improvement of the business environment and visas to Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the amendments to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia aimed at aligning the amended provisions to the changes to the other Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries, thus providing greater consistency between all the agreements signed.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Having regard to the fact that a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008 and entered into force on 1 February 2010, in order to ensure the correct and smooth application of the Interim Agreement, the Commission is proposing an Implementing Regulation to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements. Bearing in mind that this has previously been done for other SAAs by means of regulations that form part of the Trade Omnibus I Regulation, the amendments to the Commission proposal under examination should mirror the amendments made by the Trade Omnibus I report to the provisions of these regulations. For the sake of consistency in trade legislation, I am voting in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. A Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxemburg on 29 April 2008. It will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Parties notify each other that their respective ratification procedures have been completed. The Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia, signed on the same date to allow the early application of trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), entered into force on 1 February 2010. With the aim of the correct and smooth application of the IA, the Commission proposes an implementing regulation, to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this report. It is, of course, a text that has undergone only slight amendments and that could be seen merely as an alignment to existing legislation. However, I would like to explain the political importance of this little vote. We should be close to Serbia and be helping its development and growth. I am generally sceptical about this kind of agreement with other countries, but encouraging interchange between the EU and Serbia could prove an important opportunity for both sides.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In order for the Interim Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia to be correctly applied, I welcome the proposal for an Implementing Regulation to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements. To guarantee the coherence and consistency of trade legisation, I believe that the amended provisions should be aligned with the amendments brought about by the Trade Omnibus I Regulation to the five Regulations on the application of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements and the Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries. For this reason I voted in favour of the report.

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. − When one considers that just 13 years ago, Serbia was governed by tyranny and its cities were being bombed by NATO planes, the fact that we now stand ready to welcome that country into the EU is a remarkable achievement. Serbia, like many of its neighbours, still has a long way to go before it reaches that ultimate destination of full EU membership, and the necessary paths of reform and negotiation will not be easy, but its new status as a candidate country is a crucial breakthrough for that journey, and a development that all in the EU should welcome. Let us hope, in particular, that progress can be made on finding a solution to the Kosovo question, and on repealing Article 359 of the criminal code, the offence of abuse of office. Serbia has made it this far – now we need to offer all the help we can to enable its citizens to realize their dreams of development and prosperity that so many others among us have come to enjoy.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this procedure. For information, a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, had already been signed in 2008. The amendments tabled in this text by Mr Winkler are designed to align the text to the changes brought about by the Trade Omnibus I to the five Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements with the Western Balkans’ countries.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In view of the agreements signed between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia with a view to boosting trade between the two economies and having regard to the amendments arising from implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is necessary to introduce amendments to the agreements signed. The legislative changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon are in addition to the changes introduced by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ and the resultant strategic alignment of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements between the EU and various Balkan countries. Therefore, the European Parliament must maintain legislative consistency as regards treatment of the Balkan countries, which include Serbia. In view of the above, I am voting in favour of the report which proposes to bring the agreements signed between the EU and Serbia into line with existing legislation.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, and for applying the Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part. The SAA and the Interim Agreement stipulate that certain agricultural and fishery products originating in Serbia may be imported into the Union at a reduced customs duty, within the limits of tariff quotas. It is therefore necessary to lay down provisions regulating the management and review of these tariff quotas in order to allow for their thorough assessment.

It is appropriate that the advisory procedure be used for the adoption of immediate measures in case of exceptional and critical circumstances given the effects of these measures and their sequential logic in relation to the adoption of definitive measures. Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair it is necessary to allow the Commission to adopt immediately applicable provisional measures. With the aim of the correct and smooth application of the IA, the Commission proposes an Implementing Regulation, to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Both the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia and the Interim Agreement were signed back in 2008. I voted in favour, because the proposed directive is aimed at facilitating their proper and effective application. The regulations and procedures they contain enable the adoption of detailed regulations relating to implementation of the provisions of these two agreements.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − I voted for this report because I believe in free trade. However, as the report concerns the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement, which includes as a general principle the observance of human rights, I feel I must comment on two recent incidents in Serbia which are of concern to me. Firstly, the recent behaviour by Serbian football fans at an England-Serbia under-21 match in Belgrade was despicable. The fans made monkey taunts at black England player Danny Rose, and stones, coins and chairs were thrown at the players. Secondly, Belgrade’s decision to ban a gay pride event for the second year running is worrying. Serbia should respect the right of LGBT people to free assembly. Commenting on the banning of the gay pride event, the Serbian Prime Minister said that ‘Nobody will be telling anyone what should happen in Belgrade’. In principle I agree, as I am opposed to EU meddling in issues which should be decided at Member State level. However, if Serbia is serious about accession to the European Union it must ensure that fundamental rights are respected, and that means tackling all forms of discrimination, especially racism and homophobia.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The amendments introduced by the rapporteur aim at aligning the amended provisions to the changes brought about by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ to the Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements. It is important, however, to make one criticism, since the Treaty of Lisbon lays down that commercial policy is the exclusive competence of the EU. It is clear that there will be different commercial policies adapted to the interests of each country, and history shows that placing the interests of the stronger countries above the interests of the weaker countries, in this field as in other fields, is harmful to the weaker economies, which is what has happened and is happening with Portugal.

- Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0315/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, since I agree with the rapporteur’s proposal, given its urgency and importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime. However, I agree with the rapporteur’s position in underlining that the Commission proposal has failed to amend the ‘old’ comitology provisions of Decision 2003/17/EC, which in fact only concerned the amendment of both its annexes. It is well known that old comitology provisions, given the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, have to be replaced by either delegated or implementing acts in accordance with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, the Commission confirms that the annexes to Decision 2003/17/EC are not expected to be amended before the entry into force of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform’s legislative proposal on seed. For that reason, and to avoid any possible obstacles to the prompt adoption of this urgent proposal, the rapporteur considers that it should be enough to delete the current comitology provisions of the amended Decision 2003/17/EC (i.e. its Articles 4 and 5). The rapporteur therefore proposes three amendments; nevertheless, if an amendment to those annexes proves necessary, this will still be possible by means of the ordinary legislative procedure and, consequently, I am voting in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which is a technical measure allowing a system for the certification and control of products during trade with third countries to be updated.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. Council Decision 2003/17/EC states that certain types of seed grown in third countries are considered equivalent to seed grown according to Union legislation. In order to ensure the necessary seed supply to the European market, the Council Decision recognising the equivalence principle for importation of seed from third countries needs to be extended to 31 December 2022. I also agree with the proposal to remove Yugoslavia from this text as it was replaced by a few new countries a long time ago. It is also essential to update the names of some authorities responsible for approval and control of the production.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the rules which the European Union applies for the inspection of seed must also be complied with by third countries which export these products into the Union. In addition, seed should be produced in accordance with all of the safety standards which the Union lays down. This is our only means of ensuring that human and animal safety will not be put at risk.

It is important for us to know whether seed marketed within the Union, including seed which has not been formally certified, has been treated with chemicals or whether the variety has been genetically modified. Not least, detailed rules on the exact information that must be mentioned on the labels of certified seed imported into the European Union will have to be upheld.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report on extending the period of application and updating the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. The report relates to the continuation of the regime for the importation of seed. Following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU did not amend the provisions relating to the former commitology procedure, while now it should refer to delegating acts and implementing acts. In this respect the rapporteur considers that it should be sufficient to remove the current commitology procedure provisions and therefore tables the amendments.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − This is a technical measure to facilitate continued trade in seeds and plants. While to maintain balanced fauna throughout Europe and avail ourselves of a spread of planting options is beneficial, to support this measure is to endorse a further EU competence, therefore I abstain.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think it is very important to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I agree with the rapporteur’s view that Parliament should accept the Commission’s proposal in its current form, given the importance of maintaining the rules governing imported seed.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The importation of seed is of great importance to our economy and agriculture. Where it works well, there is no need to create obstacles to it. This report underlines the fact that the existing scheme is working properly and therefore calls for it to be extended. I support this objective.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘Extending the period of application of Council Decision 2003/17/EC, and updating the names of a third country and the authorities responsible for production approval and control’, taking into account its importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime until revision of the relevant regulation is completed.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I fully agree with the list drawn up by the European Commission on the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seeds, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries, as well as with extending the relevant time limit beyond 31 December 2012.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Mr De Castro has presented his report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC, which extends its period of application and updates the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. On 31 December 2012 the period for recognition pursuant to Decision 2003/17/EC expires for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. Since it is necessary to guarantee the supply of seed to the EU agricultural market whilst the revision of the Regulation on seed under codecision procedure is in progress, the Commission is proposing extending the time limit by ten years in order to avoid it expiring before the revision of the Regulation on seed is completed. I voted in favour, since I agree with the rapporteur’s position recommending that the ‘Commission proposal be accepted by Parliament in its substance as it stands, given its urgency and importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime’.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the principle of equivalence for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. The period of application is five years, which may be extended if all requirements are fulfilled, and it is due to end on 31 December 2012. This report aims to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market and therefore extends the time limit to 31 December 2022, thus extending the period laid down by ten years. It also amends provisions which, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, are replaced by delegated or implementing acts. Even though we supported the rapporteur’s proposal, I should like to take this opportunity to draw attention once more to the constraints associated with the world seed market, which is increasingly controlled by a handful of large monopolies, which make millions of producers throughout the world dependent upon them. There are also serious and persistent agri-foodstuff production deficits which affect several EU countries, such as Portugal.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Council Directives on the marketing of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants regulate the internal marketing of seed for sowing of the plant species as listed by those Directives. To facilitate trades and to promptly respond to the marketing request, those Directives foresee the possibility for the Council to establish rules for authorising the importation of seed under an equivalence system from third countries. It appears that those field inspections continue to afford the same guarantees as those carried out by the Member States. These field inspections should therefore continue to be considered as equivalent. As Decision 2003/17/EC will expire on 31 December 2012, I believe it is reasonable to extend the period for which equivalence is recognised under that Decision. It appears desirable to extend that period to 10 years.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of Mr De Castro’s report is to facilitate trade and enable the EU to respond rapidly to market demand for forest reproductive material. This decision will enable the Council to lay down rules for authorisation of the importation of reproductive material from third countries under an equivalence regime. I supported this report in plenary, which was adopted by 558 votes to 7.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. It also set out detailed requirements to be fulfilled, in particular to limit the period for which equivalence is recognised to five years, to be extended if all the relevant requirements are fulfilled. That period will expire on 31 December 2012. In order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, the Commission considers that these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently foreseen for five years only. The Commission argues that since the revision of the regulation on seed (under codecision procedure) will only be launched in September 2012, a time limit of ten years seems necessary to avoid the expiration within this process.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provides a list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants until 31 December 2012. The revision of the new Regulation on seed and reproductive material will only be launched in September 2012. It is therefore necessary to extend the equivalence principle by an extra 10 years, given the importance of the seed importation regime.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Despite some issues with amending old provisions, I agree with the rapporteur about the need to accept the Commission’s proposal as it stands, given its urgency and importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the principle of equivalence for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. It set out the requirements to be fulfilled as well as the limit on the period for equivalence recognition, which expires on 31 December 2012. Extension of the period envisaged for application of Decision 2003/17/EC, now 31 December 2022, given the urgency and importance for the seed importation regime, will guarantee operation of the sector and the necessary supply of seed to the EU market.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe the application period needs to be extended in order to ensure the supply of seed to the European market. The Decision includes the application of the equivalence principle to fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants for a period of five years ending on 31 December 2012. The report aims to extend the validity of that Decision to a period of 10 years provided that third countries comply with the conditions established in the Decision. In this way, the hope is to guarantee that European farmers have sufficient materials to carry out their production. This guarantee for European farming was sufficient to motivate me to vote in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Annex I to Decision 2003/17/EC lists Yugoslavia as a country under an equivalence regime. Some new countries now replace the former Yugoslavia. Slovenia is a member of the European Union, Croatia is already recognised as equivalent by Decision 2003/17/EC, and Serbia should be added as being a member of the OECD Scheme for the Varietal Certification of Seed moving in International Trades and member of the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) as regards the seed sampling and testing. Hence, Yugoslavia should be deleted. Other countries from the former Yugoslavia cannot be added, not being members of the OECD and ISTA. But it is understandable. Under thorough examination it becomes clear what kind of disorder is in the European Commission. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Owing to droughts in various agricultural areas, the prices of agricultural commodities such as soya beans and corn have increased by 30 %, or 50 % for wheat, compared to the previous year. In addition to this, agribusiness is being promoted in Eastern European countries and there is an increasing demand for animal feed in the emerging countries. In response, farmers are increasing their seed purchasing. Because of the diversity of the guidelines, for example the genetic engineering guidelines, the importation of seed from third countries can create problems. The proposal before us does not address this issue sufficiently. Therefore, I cannot support it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Given the urgency and importance of continuing the seed importation regime, I voted in favour of this report, since I agree with the rapporteur’s position that the Commission proposal be accepted in its substance as it stands.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I recall that Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries, and limited the period for which equivalence was recognised to five years. That period expires on 31 December 2012. Therefore, in order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently foreseen for five years only. Furthermore, because I believe that Serbia should be added to the list of countries under equivalence regime and the former Yugoslavia should be removed from the list, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. It also set out detailed requirements to be fulfilled, in particular to limit the period for which equivalence is recognised to five years, to be extended if all the relevant requirements are fulfilled. That period will expire on 31 December 2012. In order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, the Commission considers that these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently foreseen for five years only. The Commission argues that, since the revision of the regulation on seed (under codecision procedure) will only be launched in September 2012, a time limit of ten years seems necessary to avoid the expiration within this process.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of the proposal in order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, and, given the urgency and importance of the continuation of the seed importation regime, these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline to 31 December 2022.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the principle of equivalence for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries, set out the requirements to be fulfilled and, in particular, set the limit on the period for equivalence recognition at five years, to be extended if all requirements are fulfilled. That period expires on 31 December 2012. Thus, in order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, the Commission considers that those rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently envisaged for 5 years only. The rapporteur proposes that the Commission proposal be accepted by Parliament, given its urgency and importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime and I therefore voted in favour.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC by extending its period of application and by updating the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production.

Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. It also set out detailed requirements to be fulfilled, in particular to limit the period for which equivalence is recognised to five years, to be extended if all the relevant requirements are fulfilled. In order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently foreseen for five years only.

Annex I to Decision 2003/17/EC lists the countries under the equivalence regime. Croatia already benefits from the equivalence regime, and Serbia should be mentioned as a member of the OECD Scheme for the Varietal Certification of Seed moving in International Trades and member of the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) as regards the seed sampling and testing.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. The period for which the regulations remain in effect is currently having to be extended to ensure that the required seed material is supplied to the EU market. It is also necessary to update the entry for Yugoslavia, which has been replaced by several new countries. This is why I voted in favour.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report aims to guarantee the necessary supply of seeds (fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries) to the EU market and therefore extends the time limit making that possible to 31 December 2022. We voted in favour of this proposal, although we must stress the growing constraints associated with the world seed market, controlled by a handful of large monopolies, which make millions of producers throughout the world dependent upon them.

- Report: Ian Hudghton (A7-0314/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting in favour of this report. The conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources is a matter of the utmost importance and must be given the priority it deserves; I therefore stress the importance it holds for the viability of the fishing communities of the islands. To that end, I agree with the rapporteur who thinks that the issue of the 12-mile limit should be included in a wider debate on the reform of the common fisheries policy.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this resolution on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. It is important that the European Parliament has voted unanimously in plenary to extend the 12-mile access regime until an agreement on a new common fisheries policy (CFP) has been reached. If we had voted against, the 12-mile regime would have ended at the end of this year. I agree with the rapporteur that this would be completely unacceptable and unthinkable. It is important that management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful, whilst the common fisheries policy was impracticable owing to over-centralised and ineffective Brussels control. I agree with the rapporteur that the general effectiveness of Member State control within the 12-mile zones clearly demonstrates that management appropriate to circumstances is most effective.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Commission proposal seeking to extend the time limit on the 12-mile access regime. Considered a success, this coastal management regime is a central part of the conservation and exploitation of fisheries resources.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I agree with this proposal. Since 2003, Member States can limit the rights of certain ships to fish in the territorial waters of Member States within a 12-mile zone. This derogation aims to give Member States the opportunity to protect biologically sensitive regions, ensure sustainable fisheries management and protect traditional fishing. The derogation expires on 31 December 2012 and I agree that it should be extended to 31 December 2014 in order to ensure uninterrupted application of this derogation until a new common fisheries policy is established.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that greater attention should be paid to good management of fishing zones and resources. I agree with the rapporteur that the coastal zones should be extended. I consider that it is extremely important for the reform to allow Member States to take more management decisions. That would enable them to cooperate on a regional basis. At the same time, I believe that the intended reform should move in the direction of a decentralised regime focusing on the implementation of these matters. As the 12-mile zones have worked well so far, their extension is welcome. We need to reform the common fisheries policy so that it can work to its maximum potential.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report on fisheries as conservation of resources and sustainable fishing through the common fisheries policy is essential. It is important to point out that the current 12-mile zone created under the common fisheries policy regulation in 1983 must be maintained, as the alternative would mean opening up Pandora’s box. We are currently in the throes of the reform of the common fisheries policy, which aims to promote conservation as well as efficiency in the fisheries sector.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I am in favour of the report by Mr Hudghton because I support the proposal seeking to extend to 31 December 2014 the powers of the Member States over coastal waters within a 12-mile limit. Unlike the CFP, the policy for coastal waters within the 12-mile zone has been acknowledged to be a success and has had positive effects.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because the Commission proposal seeks to extend the time limit on the current 12-mile access regime. Within the framework of the existing common fisheries policy (CFP) legislation, Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle when exploiting Member States’ fisheries resources within a 12-mile zone. This derogation is valid from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. The proposal seeks to extend the derogation until 31 December 2014. The current 12-mile zones work well, but they will expire on 31 December of this year if the current proposal is not in place. The zones offer some protection to vulnerable coastal communities – and these communities would not be understanding if that protection was to be removed as a result of an inter-institutional stalemate.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Fisheries continue to be essential for a large number of local economies within the European Union. Despite the modest contribution made by fisheries to the economies of the Member States (less than 1 % in the majority of cases), many local communities depend on the incomes of more than 300 000 full-time and part-time fishermen who work within the Union. We must also consider industries related to the fisheries sector, which employ several hundred thousand people. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that this activity can only continue if there are enough fish. For these reasons, I believe a policy on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources is necessary.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. In January 2003 a derogation allowed Member States to limit fishing to certain vessels in waters less than 12 nautical miles from their coast. From January 2013 this derogation becomes part of the Regulation. I fully support this initiative, given that it makes a positive contribution to the conservation of fisheries resources and allows traditional fishing activities to be preserved by introducing a differentiated access regime to coastal waters.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While I disagree wholeheartedly with EU control of British fishing waters I am very much in favour of extending the time limit on the current 12 mile access regime. The article does not go far enough but I will vote in favour of even the smallest of improvements to the CFP until the time that Britain can leave the EU and regain sovereignty of her own waters. Member States can and do manage fisheries with a degree of success. Whilst the management of fisheries resources beyond the 12 mile limits has been characterised by highly centralised and ineffective Brussels control, management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful. I hope that the Commission learns from this and sees fit to restore national territories and fishing rights beyond the current 12 mile stretch. One Member State has suggested that the zones be extended to 20 nautical miles. Even this does not go far enough

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think that fisheries management by the Member States within the 12-mile zones has been stable, effective and successful.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I agree with the rapporteur’s proposal to accept the current proposal for a two-year extension of the regime, but continue to argue for greater national control of coastal fisheries within the wider CFP reform package.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Until there is a new common fisheries policy, we must support this regime, which has proved its worth. The 12-mile derogation from the equal access rule is effective and crucial for European fishermen and seafarers. I therefore fully support its extension and I voted in favour of this report.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The common fisheries policy (CFP) has not succeeded in protecting fisheries resources and the balance of the ecosystem any more than it has managed to prevent economic and social damage to a particularly important sector of activity. Management of coastal areas by their Member States is one of its rare successes. That is why the extension of this zone in space and time is a step in the right direction for the complete overhaul of the CFP. The future CFP must propose local solutions within the framework of partnerships with the Member States and the large coastal regions. It must also give a larger role to producers and improve consumer protection. Finally, the new CFP must not simply take a free trade approach. In international negotiations, fisheries products should be treated as ‘sensitive products’ just like certain agricultural products.

  Nirj Deva (ECR), in writing. − I voted together with my group for the extension of national fisheries management within the 12-mile zones of each Member State. This is one of the very few aspects of the common fisheries policy which have in fact proved to be a resounding success. Why? Because it leaves Member States with the power to manage their own waters. It is no secret that the management of the fisheries resources beyond the 12-mile limit, a regulation under the purview of the European Union, has been a resounding failure. This is why I believe we must substantially increase the 12-mile limit for the period beyond 2014 (to 20 miles or beyond) and capitalise on the lessons we have learnt here in the overhaul of the common fisheries policy. Since the management of fisheries controlled by Brussels has always been over-regulated, highly centralised and utterly ineffective across the board, it is only sensible that we work towards a decentralised and regionalised system for the entire fisheries policy. The coastal regime stands as a brilliant example of how we must restructure other policies where powers have been grabbed by Brussels and Member States have been sidelined.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. - (CS) The EU common fisheries policy has had limited powers and has been weak at managing fishing. There continues to be a massive disappearance of fish species as a result of overfishing. This report addresses the two-year extension of the special 12-mile regime to protect the coast, which is the most vulnerable. I urge the adoption of the report in its current form, and I support the extension of the zone to 20 miles from the coast. Some Member States can address the protection of their coasts entirely on their own, but the minimum protection requirements must be set by the European Union. The report continues in the fight for the preservation of fisheries as an industry for the next generation, and this is why I voted for its adoption.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, taking into account the need to extend the time limit on the current 12-mile access regime, which has been managed by the Member States, and thus avoid a legal vacuum until a wider reform of the common fisheries policy has been completed.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I agree with extending the current 12-mile fishing zone, introduced in 1983 by the first Common Fisheries Policy Regulation. The zones offer some protection to vulnerable coastal communities. The current 12-mile zones work well and should be extended beyond 31 December 2012.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The fisheries sector is fundamental to the European Union, not only as regards food but also as regards the environment. Thus the sustainable management of fisheries resources is one of the EU’s concerns, above all as regards endangered species. The European Parliament, aware of the importance of this sector, has often debated this matter. In 2009 it adopted a resolution (206), on the need to conserve fisheries resources in the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. Everyone acknowledges that the common fisheries policy has in general been a failure. Whereas fisheries management within the 12-mile zones (which is the responsibility of the Member States) has been a success, management outside these zones (the responsibility of Brussels) has been a disaster. I voted in favour of this report because I agree with the rapporteur on the two aspects mentioned in his conclusion: as regards urgency, since the current 12-mile zones, although they work well, will expire on 31 December, it is necessary to extend them for two more years; and as regards inclusion of this debate within a broader scope – that is, within the process of reform of the European Union’s common fisheries policy.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The report covers the extending time limit on the current 12-mile access regime (exclusion zone). Within the framework of existing legislation, Article 17(2) of the current Regulation establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. The derogation is in place from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. Since it is highly unlikely that reform of the common fisheries policy will be completed before the end of 2012, it has been necessary for the Commission to bring forward the current proposal to ensure that the existing regime – which the Commission itself has assessed as very positive – does not lapse. We voted in favour of the report. However, we think that the principle of exclusive access should be of a permanent nature and that the area should be extended beyond 12 miles (with the proviso that, in the case of the outermost regions, that area should include the whole of the Exclusive Economic Zone, that is, should be increased from 100 to 200 miles). The rapporteur also thought this, which is why we support his position. Unfortunately, the right and the social-democrats voted together to block this amendment, allowing only extension of the current derogation.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Union fishing vessels have equal access to Union waters and resources subject to the rules of the common fisheries policy. Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy provides for a derogation from the equal access rule, by authorising Member States to restrict fishing to certain vessels in waters up to 12 nautical miles from their baselines. Rules in place restricting access to resources within that zone have benefited conservation by restricting fishing effort in the most sensitive part of Union waters. However, the derogation is to expire on 31 December 2012. I believe that it should be renewed until a new regulation on the common fisheries policy has been adopted.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The common fisheries policy was described as a failure by the Green Paper on CFP reform, while the Green Paper acknowledged the success of local management in this sphere, represented by the policy on coastal waters within the 12-mile limit. I therefore have no option but to support this report because I wish to support the proposal seeking to extend the 12-mile limit policy to the end of 2014. For these reasons I voted in favour of the report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I supported this proposal, which seeks to extend the time limit of the current 12-mile access regime. It is to be hoped that the reformed CFP will in general bring about a highly decentralised regime and allow Member States to take real management decisions whilst cooperating on a regional basis.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) During the plenary I supported Mr Hudghton’s report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. This report was adopted by a large majority of 658 votes. I applaud this. The aim of this report is to extend the time limit on the current 12-mile access regime until the entry into force of the new regulation on the common fisheries policy (CFP).

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I have come across the opinion that the CFP has generally left much to be desired over the last 30 years. Today, it seems that the Commission shares that opinion. The Commission’s comment in its Green Paper on CFP reform notes that ‘the current CFP has not worked well’. On the other hand, it has been acknowledged that the fisheries management within the 12 mile zones has been a success. The Report on Reporting Obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 stated that ‘the regime is very stable, and the rules have continued to operate satisfactorily’. It seems to me that there is still a lot of work ahead of us. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Mr Hudghton’s report raises various issues and problems linked to the CFP reform. In particular, attention is given to measures to be adopted to protect threatened species on Europe’s coasts. However, because of its importance and because of the role it plays in regulating the fisheries sector, the common fisheries policy must give serious consideration to individual territorial issues. As is the case with the drafting of the new common agricultural policy, the needs of the environment, which of course requires protection, must be carefully balanced with the competitive and market needs of those operating in the sector.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The common fisheries policy is of considerable value to the EU. The report was accepted unanimously, which is an exceptional occurrence. Rational exploitation of reserves, enabling species and balance to be preserved, is a key task. Let us remember, however, that problems may still remain with regard to individual sea areas and states. As a guide, the report provides a better and stronger basis for securing the interests of Baltic fishing and Polish fishermen. Governments should consequently familiarise themselves with these provisions and adapt their policy accordingly, in relation to reserves, exploitation principles and fishermen.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. The Commission proposal is seeking to extend the time limit on the current 12 mile access regime. Within the framework of the existing CFP legislation, Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. The derogation is in place from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. The current proposal seeks to extend this period to 31 December 2014.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The derogations from the equal access rule within coastal waters, due to expire in December 2012, must be extended. This measure is all the more necessary in view of the fact that the management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I approve of the proposed extension of the differentiated access scheme to coastal waters. This is the fundamental point of this report. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy. With Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, rules were introduced restricting access to fisheries resources in the 12-mile zones, which has helped to conserve resources. The derogations are due to expire on 31 December 2012, which is why the amendment to the above-mentioned Regulation is of extreme importance at a time when the common fisheries policy is under discussion.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The current 12-mile zone was put into place in the first CFP Regulation in 1983. Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 established that the zone would be in place from 1 January 1983 until 31 December 1992; equivalent provisions were enacted in the subsequent CFP reforms (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 and Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002). The current basic regulation (Council Regulation 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy) will remain in force until a new regulation has been adopted, except for a provision in its Article 17(2) on access rules and restrictions for the 12 nautical miles waters which expires on 31 December 2012. Taking into account that a new basic regulation will not be adopted before that date, the provisions of this article will no longer apply. The necessity to avoid that gave the green light to the report. But why is this at the last moment? What was the European Commission doing earlier?

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Unfortunately, the current fisheries policy does not ensure the sustainable exploitation of fishing resources. Therefore, until discussions on the CFP and the wider use of scientific-research-based exploitation of fisheries resources are taking place, it is appropriate to apply separate measures that can be used efficiently to ensure the protection of fisheries resources and their sustainable exploitation, as has been shown in practice. For this reason, I agree with the extension of the regulation.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the conservation of fisheries resources. Reform of the common fisheries policy has so far been weak and misunderstood by European fishermen. There needs to be better communication with these communities, who often have legislative decisions imposed on them that seek to maintain the sustainability of fish stocks and therefore guarantee a continued living for them but that should not be to the detriment of the economic and social equilibrium of seafarers.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report and support these measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, which are scientifically grounded and truly necessary. Such measures are necessary in the Black Sea, which over the past 30 years has undergone continuous deterioration in the quality of its coastal waters and pressure from exploitation. As a result, live marine resources have suffered a dramatic decline which in some cases has led to the exhaustion of the stocks of exploitable organisms. While the annual catch exceeded 15 000 tonnes of fish in the mid-1980s, in 2008 it was barely 500 tonnes. Currently, only 5 of the 26 species of fish with commercial value are still being exploited in the Black Sea. Many species of sturgeon are endangered, as are dolphins, sharks and seahorses. Seals, many species of shrimp and seashells, and tens of species of plants and organisms have already disappeared from the Black Sea. I therefore support the conservation of fisheries resources as mentioned in this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The common fisheries policy (CFP) includes the principle of equal access to coastal waters, and this principle has now been in effect for more than 40 years. However, the Regulation is due to expire on 31 December 2012. The current proposal seeks to extend this period until 31 December 2014. The retention of the 12-mile zone is particularly important, not only as a security measure but, above all, because of the statutory nature of environmental legislation and possible criminal prosecution. Therefore, I voted in favour of it.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which should in theory be operational on 1 January 2014, has a total budget of EUR 6.5 billion for maritime affairs and fisheries. Consequently, and in view of the current crisis, we would like to make sure that this money is dedicated to the greater good. If we opted to make the common agricultural policy greener with new environmental conditions, why should the same requirements not apply to the fishing industry, when we know that the ocean biomass is in a critical state? The text of the fisheries reform proposed several months ago by the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Ms Damanaki, sought ‘to promote sustainable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture’. However, it has to be said that the proposals of certain political groups and Member States seem a long way from the spirit of the reform. The idea that a temporary ban on fishing in the Atlantic would protect stocks and ultimately increase the revenue of the fishing industry is gaining currency and therefore merits close examination.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The 12-mile zone was put into place in the first Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) Regulation in 1983. Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. Since that derogation expires on 31 December 2012, the current report proposes a two-year extension in order to ensure that the 12-mile regime does not lapse by extending its validity until 31 December 2014. The current 12-mile regime has worked well enough, affording protection to the fishing activity of coastal communities. Since I agree with the reasons given and with the urgent need for this extension, I voted in favour of this report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The current 12-mile zones work well but will expire on 31 December 2012, so it is now necessary to extend them. Whilst the management of fisheries resources beyond the 12-mile limits has been characterised by highly centralised and ineffective Brussels control, management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful. It is to be hoped that the reformed CFP will in general bring about a highly decentralised regime and allow Member States to take real management decisions whilst cooperating on a regional basis. The 12-mile zones have clearly been effective and there is a strong argument in favour of having their distance extended. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) During the plenary in Strasbourg today, we voted in favour of Mr Hudghton’s report. The rapporteur supports an extension of the 12-mile zones both in time and distance, and accepts that this debate should take place within the wider debate on CFP reform. The current 12-mile zones work well but they will expire on 31 December 2012. Today’s vote extends this period to 31 December 2014. The zones offer some protection to vulnerable coastal communities. The rapporteur therefore proposes to accept the current proposal for a two-year extension of the regime but will continue to argue strongly for greater national control of coastal fisheries within the wider CFP reform package.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. That the CFP has generally been a failure over the last 30 years is a universally acknowledged fact. The Commission's comment in its Green Paper on CFP reform (COM(2009)0163) that "the current CFP has not worked well" is perhaps something of an understatement and the ongoing reform process has been brought about by necessity. In contrast, there is widespread acknowledgement that fisheries management within the 12-mile zones has been a success. The Green Paper for example stated that the coastal regime "has generally worked well and could even be stepped up", whilst the report on reporting obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (COM(2011)0418) stated that "the regime is very stable, and the rules have continued to operate satisfactorily". As the debate around the wider CFP reform continues, one of the key issues to be decided upon is the level and nature of decentralisation and regionalisation to be brought into effect. The general effectiveness of Member State control within the 12-mile zones clearly demonstrates that management appropriate to local circumstances is most effective. The success of Member State control contrasts sharply with the failure of EU-centred control - and offers a useful guide for the direction in which CFP reform should be heading.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Hudghton’s report. The existing 12-mile zones work satisfactorily, and I think the current regulation on the smooth operation of fishing and marine policy should be renewed.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The common fisheries policy (CFP) aims to guarantee the long-term sustainability of the fisheries sector. It is acknowledged that, within the CFP, fisheries management within the 12-mile zones has been a success. These results are attributable to the success of the Member States in managing fisheries. Given that the management of fisheries resources beyond the 12-mile limits, which has remained in the hands of Brussels, has been ineffective, I would be very much in favour of a decentralised regime. This would mean that Member States could manage fisheries beyond these limits, whilst cooperating on a regional basis, with the aim of greater national control. I voted in favour because I support the extension of the 12-mile limit for accessing fisheries resources off the coast of the Member States.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We have to accept that the common fisheries policy (CFP) is, on the whole, a failure, and has been for 30 years. However, despite this chaos, the 12-mile zone rule is admittedly one of the few grounds for satisfaction. I therefore supported the rapporteur’s opinion in favour of an extension of the 12-mile zone both in time and in distance. Nevertheless, the debate must be part of a wider debate on the reform of the CFP. The current 12-mile zones work well, but they will expire on 31 December of this year if the current proposal is not in place. The zones offer some protection to vulnerable coastal communities; these fishing communities would not be understanding if that protection was to be removed as a result of an inter-institutional stalemate.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Commission proposal is seeking to extend the time limit on the current 12-mile access regime. Within the framework of the existing common fisheries policy legislation, Article 17(2), of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. The derogation is in place from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. The rapporteur supports a two-year extension of that period. The European Parliament approved his position at first reading, adopting the Commission proposal, on which I voted in favour.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, a report voted on unanimously in plenary, which was a historic moment! The report itself presented no problems. The access regime to the current zone of 12 nautical miles, which is managed and controlled by the Member States, is one of the CFP measures introduced in 2002 that has been the most widely supported by stakeholders, and the effectiveness of which is undisputed. The report voted on in plenary only had the effect of extending the time limit of the regime until 31 December 2014, after which it was expected to be brought into line with the CFP reform currently under way by means of a new regulation. The vote was unanimous because certain questions raised by the committee were not addressed, such as the proposal to extend the derogation in coastal zones beyond the current limit. In order to avoid any further extension, the rapporteur also proposed that the regime should be extended indefinitely. These questions will of course be discussed in more detail when the future regulation is adopted, which is expected to cover a period of 10 years.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Within the framework of the existing CFP legislation, Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. The derogation is in place from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. The current proposal seeks to extend this period to 31 December 2014.

Management within the 12-mile zones has been a success. This demonstrates that the Member States can and do manage fisheries with a degree of success. I welcome the stable and successful management implemented within the coastal zones by individual Member States. The general effectiveness of Member State control within the 12-mile zones clearly demonstrates that management appropriate to local circumstances is most effective. We welcome the current proposal for a two-year extension of the regime, but will continue to argue strongly for greater national control of coastal fisheries within the wider CFP reform package.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) This report seeks to extend the period of validity of the current rule on access to the 12-mile zone (current proposal: until 31 December 2014). The 12-mile zone has been shown to be effective, independent of the final form of the reformed CFP. This is a convincing argument for its extension. The proposal before us for a two-year extension of the rule should be accepted. In addition, greater national control of coastal fisheries should be part of the more comprehensive CFP reform package.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The principle of restricted access within 12 nautical miles, and its effect of management by halves in the 12-mile zones, is an example of success. It indicates that Member States are in a position to manage fishing in a stable and successful way. This success stands in stark contrast to the failure of centralised EU control and marks out the direction in which reform of the common fisheries policy should go. That is why I voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The common fisheries policy has met with various failures over the last 30 years, while it is widely acknowledged that fisheries management within the 12-mile zones has been a success. Whilst the management of fisheries resources beyond the 12-mile limits has been characterised by highly centralised and ineffective Brussels control, management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful. Consequently, as the debate around the wider CFP reform continues, I have expressed my support for extending the derogation concerning the 12-mile zones until 31 December 2014.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The report covers extending the time limit on the 12-mile access regime (exclusion zone), which was due to expire on 31 December 2012. We agree with that decision, although we maintain that the principle of exclusive access should be of a permanent nature and that the area should be extended beyond 12 miles (with the proviso that, in the case of the outermost regions, that area should include the whole of the Exclusive Economic Zone, that is, should be increased from 100 to 200 miles).

- Recommendation: Vital Moreira (A7-0272/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I agree with this report, recalling that the European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote quality within the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development. I share the rapporteur’s view that the EU interest is well protected in the Agreement. Moreover, Moldova is the EU Eastern Partner that is, after Ukraine, next in line to conclude a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in the Framework of an Association Agreement with the European Union. The present agreement paves the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations and should be supported in that context.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The European Union has developed precisely because of the acceptance and adoption on a large scale of the principles of free trade. At the same time, consumer protection through the maintenance of a high level of transparency in relation to the origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs is of equal importance. The starting point for the analysis of this Agreement must be the need to reconcile these two imperatives. I support the approval of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, not only because it honours the formalities required by EU law, but also because it represents a major opportunity to bring the Republic of Moldova closer to the European Union, starting with the intensification of trade. I also believe that the adoption of this agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova will make a decisive contribution to both the successful development of the Union’s initiatives in this part of Europe, such as the Eastern Partnership, and the creation of a necessary climate of cooperation and mutual trust.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Adopted by the European Parliament and supported by me, this text will help to strengthen the reciprocal protection of geographical indications and to harmonise the legislation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As a member of the European Parliament delegation for relations with this country, I have followed the adoption of this agreement with great interest.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the Agreement on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The purpose of this agreement is to encourage bilateral trade by expanding the geographical indications system to protect the names of regional foodstuffs in certain areas from plagiarising as well as to prohibit potential misuse of EU indications. The Republic of Moldova will protect all EU geographical indications that are included in the list while protecting its own current geographical indications in EU territory. I am in favour of the proposed agreement as it will contribute to closer EU/Moldova trade relations as well as promote quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the conditions in which bilateral trade occurs between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova need to be improved. They should enhance the quality of foodstuffs and, at the same time, stimulate sustainable rural development. I would like to underline that the Union’s interests are well protected in this Agreement. At the same time, since the Republic of Moldova is one of the Union’s most important eastern partners and is due to enter into the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in the Framework of an Association Agreement with the European Union, I believe that this Agreement must be supported so that it can improve and strengthen trade relations between the two parties.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report on the agreement with Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The agreement is the result of negotiations between the EU and Moldova on this subject; it properly protects EU interests and it does not have any repercussions on the EU budget.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The European Union is an important economic partner of the Republic of Moldova. This is true of a variety of aspects of economic activity: foreign trade, foreign investment and remittances. Agricultural products and foodstuffs make up a much smaller proportion of the Republic of Moldova’s exports to the EU than they do of its total exports. This is because of the non-compliance of this category of products with the technical standards that exist within the EU. To remedy this, the Republic of Moldova has embarked on the process of linking up with EU technical regulation standards. I welcome the existence of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs as it will improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as promote quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I support the report as regards the rapporteur’s assessments and the merit of the agreement. The EU is the Republic of Moldova’s main partner, accounting for slightly under half of all its trade. This is something that should not be underestimated, including from a political and cultural point of view, in an area characterised, since the beginning of the 20th century, by conflicting geopolitical interests. Concerning the specifics of the Agreement, it should be emphasised that a good third of imports from Moldova are agricultural products and foodstuffs. This is why we have a direct interest in supporting cooperation agreements and legislative convergence processes that promote a culture of quality and excellence in this sector, which, like fashion, is one of the sectors most vulnerable to fraud. Consideration must be given to the positive effects of protecting geographical indications (PGI) in terms of protecting farmland from speculation, a problem that urgently needs to be addressed in view of the recurrent tensions in the commodities market. Any initiative in this direction helps to spread a culture of protection of the public interest, including in terms of preserving habitats and rural economies.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. I welcome the report, which seeks to provide reciprocal protection of the geographical indications of both parties in a bid to improve bilateral trade conditions.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While facilitating ease of trade along a far broader reach is positive in an ever globalised society, be those indications small or significant, I do not accept the EU as the final authority of bilateral trade agreements, therefore I abstained from voting.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − (RO) The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations concluded on 18 April 2011. These negotiations had two objectives: intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications and expansion of the protection of the geographical indications system of the Republic of Moldova. I voted in favour of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications as it will bring benefits for producers and traders in the Republic of Moldova and the EU and will improve the conditions of bilateral trade by guaranteeing quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report since I think that EU interest is well protected in the present Agreement and because the Agreement paves the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations beneficial to both sides.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs because I believe that both are aiming at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain, and stimulate value for sustainable rural development. EU citizens and consumers are increasingly demanding high quality traditional products of protected geographical origin, and this means that there is a need for agricultural products and foodstuffs whose specific qualities can be clearly recognised. The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations that had two objectives: on the one hand expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system, and on the other, the possibility of intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications. Similarly, the Republic of Moldova has an interest in developing and protecting its current geographical indications in the EU territory and strengthening its relations with the EU. In conclusion, the fact that this agreement has no implications for the EU budget means that I fully support it.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I believe that this report finds that the EU’s interests are well protected in the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova, which is aimed at the mutual protection and use of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade and promote quality in the food chain.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We naturally exchange agricultural products and foodstuffs with our trading partners. We do this while continuing to guarantee the protection of European interests. This text will specifically protect our geographical indications, thereby showcasing the wealth and specific qualities of European agricultural production. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which improves the transparency of trading relations between the European Union and Moldova. This text will also help to promote our local products by facilitating exports to the Moldovan market. The European Union is thus demonstrating its support for our rural areas, and honouring its commitments towards protecting diversity.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. This agreement was signed to provide a suitable framework for the political dialogue between the EU and the Republic of Moldova. The main goal of the agreement is to promote trade, investment and harmonious economic relations between the parties and also to encourage their sustainable economic development. Moreover, it is very important to underline that this agreement will provide a basis for legislative, economic, social, financial and cultural cooperation, and it will support the efforts that the Republic of Moldova is making to consolidate its democracy.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, since it aims at mutual protection of the geographical indications of the European Union and of the Republic of Moldova and thus helps to strengthen bilateral trade and to promote food quality and sustainable rural development.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In order to maintain and even bring closer trade relations between the European Union and Moldova, with the aim of promoting product quality in the food chain and sustainable rural development, it is important to have mutual protection of the geographical indications (GIs) of the respective regions. For the sake of the EU’s interests, we should now move on to extending the protection and use of the geographical indication system to other products.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The recommendation under consideration put forward by Mr Moreira, concerns the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The EU and the Republic of Moldova also wish to protect geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development. On 18 April 2011, the EU and the Republic of Moldova concluded bilateral negotiations aimed at extending the protection and use of the geographical indications system, thus avoiding misuse of EU GIs. According to the rapporteur, this Agreement not only provides sound protection for the EU interest, but also constitutes an ‘open door’ for closer trade relations between the EU and Moldova. Therefore, having regard to the opinion of the Committee on International Trade, I voted in favour.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This agreement between the EU and Moldova aims at the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development and improve the conditions of bilateral trade. We have always thought it important to defend protected geographical indications, protected designations of origin and guaranteed traditional specialities, since they are instruments which might help to safeguard various regional products, their quality and traditional methods of production and thus might be helpful in enhancing the living conditions of people in rural areas. But, as we have already stated several times, these denominations of origin and quality indications cannot be regarded as a panacea for the harm caused by existing agricultural and trade paradigms, based on intensification of production and deregulation and liberalisation of trade. We must, therefore, continue to draw attention to the intentions underlying this agreement leading towards signature of a ‘Deep and Comprehensive’ Free Trade Agreement.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report because I believe that protecting the geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs has undoubted advantages for consumers and producers. The interests of the countries involved are thus better protected as regards product quality and safety and sustainable rural development. In an increasingly global market with its succession of free trade agreements, including on agricultural products, we have a specific duty to defend the special character, quality and traceability of products.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The European Union and the Republic of Moldova are making concerted efforts towards the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote quality in the food chain and stimulate sustainable rural development. The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations, which had two objectives: on one hand expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system and on the other hand intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications. Reciprocally, the Republic of Moldova had an interest to develop and protect their current geographical indications in the EU territory and strengthen its relation with the EU. The agreement provides for a mutual protection of geographical indications protected in the respective Parties. No less negligible is the fact that it will pave the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations. It is also for this reason that I consider it reasonable for it to receive appropriate support.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Although there are other countries that pose greater problems for our production system when it comes to the sensitive issues of geographical indications (GIs), it should be pointed out that this agreement, besides the fact that it has no implications for the EU budget, could play a worthwhile part in combating and preventing the counterfeiting of foodstuffs. I will therefore be voting in favour.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported in plenary the report by Mr Moreira, which was adopted by a large majority. The aim of this report was to adopt the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I support the European Union and the Republic of Moldova’s aim to assure the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development. This, of course, is a two-way street: the Republic of Moldova has an interest to develop and protect its current geographical indications in EU territory and to strengthen its relations with the EU. I am also glad that the rapporteur is of the opinion that EU interests are well protected in the Agreement and I applaud the fact that the Agreement is paving the way for closer EU-Moldova trade relations.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) European farmers produce top-quality goods. These high-quality products are internationally protected by geographical indications of origin. Famous Austrian examples of this are: Styrian pumpkin seed oil, Marchfeld asparagus and Tyrolean smoked bacon. By signing this agreement, the EU and Moldova agree to mutually recognise the protection of geographical indications. I voted in favour of it.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report because I think the text holds firm and fast to the guidelines that should be followed when negotiating such bilateral agreements. The European Parliament has worked and continues to work profitably to protect quality and the quality certifications of our agricultural products and foodstuffs. We need to stand by these intentions when negotiating agreements with non-EU countries, but it is also essential to consider the economic and social needs of both parties to the agreement. Most of all we should make a priority of protecting European agricultural products, which are alone in maintaining the food safety standards that safeguard consumers. My personal wish is for the quality of these bilateral agreements to improve by giving the necessary consideration to the special characteristics and requirements of European agricultural producers.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report. The European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote the quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This concerns the mutual protection of the geographical indications of the European Union and the Republic of Moldova in order to avoid, for example, the words ‘European Union’ being misused, and thus to promote quality in the food chain.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs began to be protected in the European Union in order to prevent abuse, imitation of products and false indications of origin, thereby ensuring better quality in the products offered to consumers. The purpose of registering names is to help producers earn higher incomes through the added value brought by this identification. From 1992 onwards, a system for the registration of those intellectual property rights which are also protected at international level was introduced at European level, though in a less effective way. The Union applies the same standards for the mutual protection of geographical indications in its dealings with third countries. This is also the case with the agreement with Moldova, through which bilateral trade conditions will be improved. It must be pointed out that for products from third countries, there is an additional requirement over and above those for EU products, namely that names must be protected in the country of origin at the time when the application for EU protection is made. This agreement with the EU gives the Republic of Moldova the opportunity to extend and protect its current geographical indications across the Union, with a view to the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in the Framework of an Association Agreement.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This legislative resolution is based on the result of bilateral negotiations, concluded on 18 April 2011, between the EU and Moldova. This Agreement paves the way for closer EU/Moldova relations, which is why I voted in favour.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the geographical indications of the goods produced by both parties must be protected. This report presents the agreement relating to the bilateral negotiations that took place in April 2011 and aims to promote respect for local, good-quality production by both parties in agricultural and food trade. Geographical indications are tools for protecting and recognising traditional agricultural practices that enable producers to add value to their produce by respecting quality. Recognising these indications is therefore essential in order to recognise good practice by farmers. For these reasons I supported the adoption of this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − As is known, geographical indication is a name or sign used on certain products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (e.g. a town, region, or country). The use of a geographical indication may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin. For example, Champagne, Cognac. If I understand correctly from now on Moldavian products will be named ‘wine with gas’, ‘grape alcohol from a barrel’! It is just excellent! I voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe we have a duty to protect as best we can the agricultural specialities produced within our territories, and this measure on the mutual recognition of typical geographical indications with the Republic of Moldova does just that. The European Union should sign similar agreements with all of its commercial partners, starting with those that cause us the greatest problems by failing to protect our products of excellence. I refer in particular to the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with whom we still need to resolve this delicate and important question. A report was approved just this week on trade relations with the United States, in which an explicit reference was finally made to the protection of our origin and quality marks. This agreement with Moldova, which, among other things comes at no cost to the EU budget, can therefore be used to prevent cases of food counterfeiting, to which our products and companies so often fall victim.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Correct information about agricultural products and foodstuffs is an essential condition for guaranteeing that food is safe for consumers. One of the elements of this information is proper protection of geographical indications. It is important that products that originate both in the EU and in third countries are subjected to a homogenised set of rules. Therefore I am in favour of the decision on the conclusion of the Agreement with Moldova on the protection of geographical indications.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as an Italian MEP who comes from a country which excels for the quality of its agricultural products and foodstuffs – too often illegally imitated – I voted in favour of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, because it has two objectives: the Republic of Moldova will protect the full list of EU geographical indications (GIs) and the EU will expand the protection and use of the geographical indications system; additionally, the possibility will exist of intervening at the source of potential abuses of EU GIs.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I welcome the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, an agreement for which I was the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Mutual protection of geographical indications is essential for the improvement of bilateral trade conditions and will bring significant benefits for producers and traders within the EU and Moldova. Romanian producers have viewed the ratification of similar agreements with other countries with satisfaction and are also looking forward to the ratification of an agreement with the United States, the Union’s biggest trading partner.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. − (PL) Geographical indications of agricultural products in the European Union are one of the symbols of an EU presence on European tables. The regional agricultural products protection system in the European Union is good at implementing the objective, which is to protect the names of these products and guarantee their authenticity. Both producers and consumers of foodstuffs have recorded their satisfaction with the functioning of this system many times over. Consequently we have reason to recognise an extension of its geographical scope to include states aspiring to EU membership as sound. One such state is Moldova.

For some years now, Moldova has been making progress along the road to EU membership that has been seen as positive. Moldova is definitely the Eastern Partnership state that is taking fullest advantage of its political opportunity. The European Union should make efforts to draw Moldova closer to European institutions, together with an imminent prospect of concluding a deeper and more comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU as part of an association agreement. With the above considerations in mind, I think it would make sense to conclude an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. Such an agreement would have advantages for both parties.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution, which gives a green light to the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova aiming at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Union and the Republic of Moldova are aiming for the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development. On 18 April 2011 bilateral negotiations were concluded that, for the EU, had two objectives: on the one hand expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system, and on the other, the possibility of intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications. Since the EU’s interests are well protected by the agreement and because the agreement under examination paves the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The agreement will allow the mutual protection of geographical indications and will help to bring the legislation of neighbouring countries – in this case Moldova – more into line with that of the European Union. The agreement ensures that geographical indications that are protected in the two countries will be maintained and, from a European perspective, the interest of our countries is protected. This agreement is an important step in the negotiations under way for a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Moldova.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. The European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim to assure the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve bilateral trade conditions and promote quality in the food chain, while adding value for sustainable rural development. The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations concluded on 18 April 2011. For the EU, these negotiations had two objectives: on the one hand expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system (the Republic of Moldova will protect all the EU GIs listed), and on the other hand intervention at source with regard to potential misuses of EU GIs. Reciprocally, the Republic of Moldova had an interest in developing and protecting its current geographical indications and strengthening its relations with the EU. The agreement provides for mutual protection of geographical designations and indications (PDOs and PGIs) on the territory of the respective parties. The proposed agreement has no implications on the EU budget.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I obviously voted in favour of this report. It is a good sign that the European Commission has reached an agreement of this kind, although Moldova is certainly no threat to our geographical indications. We expect efforts to achieve recognition of our products of excellence to be stepped up with other third countries such as the USA and Australia. This should be our objective, though I doubt that Commissioner De Gucht has either the will or the ability to pursue it.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − I supported this agreement to increase the protection of geographical indications of foodstuffs. More and more products are having their geographical indication recognised, and this protects the unique characteristics of local, traditional food produce, brings income to traditional food-producing regions and helps to preserve our rich culinary diversity.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) With the aim of mutual protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the European Union and the Republic of Moldova have reached an agreement that promotes quality in the food chain and provides support for sustainable rural development. I believe that seeking mutual protection is essential to protect the EU’s geographical indications against abuse, as well as to protect and encourage the development of the geographical indications in the Republic of Moldova. Since the agreement in question has no implications for the EU budget and for the reasons I have given, I voted in favour.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Moreira. The agreement guarantees the mutual protection of geographical indications (protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications) for each party. Furthermore, the text provides adequate protection for EU interests. The agreement in question paves the way for stronger trading relations between the European Union and Moldova, and on that basis merits support.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote the quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development. The Agreement gives the European Union the opportunity to intervene at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications.

Moldova is the EU Eastern Partner that is next in line to conclude a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in the Framework of an Association Agreement with the European Union. I believe that this agreement is paving the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations. The proposed agreement has no implications for the EU budget.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) This agreement aims at the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote the quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development. The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations concluded on 18 April 2011. For the EU, these negotiations had two objectives: firstly, expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system, and secondly, intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications. Since the proposed agreement has no implications on the EU budget, it should be approved.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour because the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova will ensure mutual protection for geographical indications. The system of application and protection of geographical indications will be expanded between the two parties. It will bring about an improvement in bilateral trade conditions, and will also help to promote food quality and support balanced development of rural areas. Furthermore, it will strengthen future contacts between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report, by means of which the European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim for the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We have always thought it important to defend protected geographical indications, protected denominations of origin and guaranteed traditional specialities, since they are instruments which might help to safeguard various regional products, their quality and traditional methods of production and thus might be helpful in enhancing the living conditions of people in rural areas. The Agreement between the EU and Moldova falls within this scope. However, we cannot stop drawing attention to the intentions underlying this Agreement leading towards signature of a Free Trade Agreement, which would be highly damaging to the weakest economy in this relationship.

- Recommendation: Nirj Deva (A7-0309/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting in favour of this report, bearing in mind that the Food Assistance Convention (FAC) 2012 aims at improving transparency and openness towards other stakeholders, who can be invited to participate in the Food Assistance Committee’s formal or informal meetings and with whom the Parties are to consult regularly. I think it is useful to set up a publicly accessible website with the explicit objective of facilitating information-sharing with stakeholders. The publication of the Parties’ minimum annual commitments, the Committee’s annual report and the dates, locations and summary records of the Committee’s sessions will facilitate greater external accountability and allow stakeholders to track donor performance. The Committee’s annual report will include a summary of all Parties’ annual reports. However, some points should be reassessed and improved, either during the implementation period or with a view to a future revision of the Convention.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As one of the largest donors in the world, the European Union must go beyond simple monetary aid. This text seeks to bring about this change. The aim of the Convention, which includes new assistance mechanisms, is to be more than a humanitarian tool by encouraging local production in order to provide long-term solutions for the food insecurity that exists in many countries. I therefore voted in favour of this text.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention. This Convention is in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. I agree that it is essential to set an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries. I agree with the proposals to aim to provide food assistance fully in grant form, as well as to improve agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods in implementing this Convention. It is also very important to carefully monitor the repercussions of food assistance on local food production and markets.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. Although we are now in 2012, more than 13 % of the world population lacks adequate access to secure food. Despite the technological advances and economic growth of many countries, this problem has not yet been eradicated. Furthermore, more than 60 % of people affected by hunger are women, which confirms the vulnerability of certain groups to this phenomenon.

The conclusion by the European Union of the Food Assistance Convention will enable it to continue to promote its humanitarian aid policies at international level. I believe that the EU’s efforts will be able to be better targeted and integrated into a global hunger eradication strategy.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Hunger and food insecurity remain a global challenge. While progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress is still slow. The European Parliament fully subscribes to the objectives of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC) 2012, which is instrumental in allowing the EU to pursue at international level the advancement of its humanitarian aid policy objectives. The FAC 2012 will allow the EU to ensure that the most effective and efficient food assistance policy is put in place that responds to the nutrition needs of the most vulnerable populations. The emphasis is placed on dialogue, exchange of information and sharing of best practices among the Parties to the Convention, and the aim is to increase transparency and openness towards other stakeholders. The FAC 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. In view of the above, I voted for this recommendation on the conclusion of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012).

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support the Food Assistance Convention voted on today, on which Parliament has given its approval to the Council’s decision to conclude it. Today hunger and food insecurity continue to be challenges on a global scale, and although the battle has been fought on several fronts, more progress is still needed in order to advance the battle against hunger and malnutrition.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Deva’s report because the Food Assistance Convention is fully in line with EU policies and the Millennium Development Goals. With the Treaty of Lisbon, reducing and eliminating poverty are the main objective of EU policy. Food security remains a core challenge: around 14 % of the world’s population did not have enough to eat in 2010 and malnutrition is now an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, the European Parliament calls on the EU to make an ambitious minimum annual commitment for 2013 and duly fulfil its annual commitments regarding food assistance in developing countries. It is regrettable from the point of view of visibility for the EU as a humanitarian actor that no collective EU minimum annual commitment will be made that includes the contributions of both the EU and Member States. For this reason and as the result of a joint European Parliament decision, we request the Commission to keep Parliament fully informed of the implementation of the Convention by the EU and the Member States party to the Convention, inter alia by transmitting their annual reports and debriefing the Development Committee on a regular basis on the implementation of the Convention and Committee proceedings. Implementation of the convention will ensure that the most effective and efficient food assistance policy is put in place that responds to the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable populations, based on objectively identified needs.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Because it is not possible to make amendments to the content of the Convention, in declaring my vote in favour of the recommendation I wish to express my agreement with some of the observations made in the report. The broadening of the list of Eligible Activities is in response to the adoption of a food assistance approach more suited to the times, to the donors’ potential and to the needs of the beneficiaries. The Food Assistance Committee could promote coordination policies, partly to reinforce the necessary conditions for adopting assistance plans in line with the general principles that underpin the EU’s cooperation and development policies such as respect for human and civil rights, a minimum framework of administration and government, essential levels of transparency, periodic checks of the results and the uses made of the aid. The whole system needs to evolve, from the original idea of using up agricultural surpluses into an effective culture of support and development of agricultural production in the beneficiary countries. Finally, I concur with the wish concerning the donors’ expression of their commitments solely in terms of value, because it is quite clear that being able to express them in terms of quantity is simply a legacy of a time when the global agricultural products market was less volatile.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Food aid is vital to combat hunger which has always been a primary global challenge. Hunger and malnutrition affect a large percentage of the world’s population, with a death toll that continues to be far too high in the 21st century. I believe the international community has a responsibility to tackle starvation and malnutrition both at home and abroad. However I do not consider the EU as an independent authority with the right to distribute aid, especially given the poverty it has wreaked across Europe, leaving tens of thousands of families reliant upon food parcels in countries such as Spain and Greece. The UK is one of the largest donors of aid to the developing world and has a long history of pastoral care, especially to its former Commonwealth. Due to my beliefs about the role the EU plays on the international stage I chose to abstain from voting.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I endorsed the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012). I believe that the FAC 2012 is an intrinsic part of the EU’s current efforts to reduce poverty and eradicate hunger within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The changes made represent a real step forward, and therefore I welcome the conclusion of this Convention.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think that the Food Assistance Convention 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals and that the amendments now made in comparison with the Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999) are major steps forward on the path to increasing food assistance.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Hunger and food insecurity remain major global challenges, despite the efforts made and the progress achieved on a number of fronts. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat, 98 % of the world’s undernourished were living in developing countries, and 60 % of them were women. The Food Assistance Convention 2012 aims to improve food assistance policy, to which end the following will be necessary: moving from a product-based approach to a more varied, needs-based and locally adapted mix of tools; finding longer term solutions with activities that facilitate the transition from relief to rehabilitation or recovery programmes; donor coordination; and mutual learning around food assistance policy and practice. Accordingly, the European Union will need to put in place the most effective and efficient food assistance policy that responds to the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable populations, based on objectively identified needs. In addition, at the European level, a mechanism allowing for the maximum involvement of representatives of countries affected by emergencies needs to be developed as a means of increasing the legitimacy of the Food Assistance Convention.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition has remained stubbornly slow. Therefore, I believe that the continuous need for an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries is obvious.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EU has clear, strong and ambitious targets for food aid, and should be applauded for this. This report adopts an approach that, in order to be as effective as possible, focuses on the beneficiaries: we must consequently ensure that each euro is spent wisely. I therefore fully support this text.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Today, famine and food insecurity are two of the world’s major health issues which have not yet been eradicated. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat. The worst-affected tend to be women and children. For years the European Union has been working with its major international partners, signatories of the United Nations Food Assistance Convention, to put an end to this. Its annual commitment in terms of emergency food aid to developing countries totals EUR 200 million. With the implementation of the new agreement on food assistance, the European Union will no longer solely provide support in the form of emergency food parcels. This aid could also consist of vouchers or seed in order to precipitate food self-sufficiency for the worst-affected rural populations, and thus avoid any long-term dependency on international food aid.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the Food Assistance Convention, in view of the importance of continuing the EU’s efforts to reduce poverty and eradicate hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Poverty and hunger are among the most pressing concerns in our society. Despite efforts to reduce the former, both persist. The vast majority of malnourished populations are in developing countries and are women and children. Malnutrition is the underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year. In view of the most fundamental issues of human solidarity, I can only welcome the approval and renewal of the Food Assistance Convention.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The recommendation under examination, drawn up by Nirj Deva, concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012). Hunger and malnutrition, despite all the technological advances and even though many developing countries have seen significant growth in their gross domestic product, are still a global scourge. Therefore, States, institutions and citizens must continue to support non-governmental organisations who are working to reduce the figure of around a billion people a year who suffer hunger. It is unacceptable that 20 % of children under the age of five in developing countries should be malnourished with the related consequences for their normal physical and cognitive development. Since this Food Assistance Convention is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals, I am voting in favour and welcome the approval, which represents a step forward in aid to the most deprived.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We support the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the Food Assistance Convention which has as its objectives ‘to save lives, reduce hunger, improve food security, and improve the nutritional status of the most vulnerable populations’. This Convention comes at a time when hunger is continuing to rise and to kill throughout the world. Hunger is also on the increase within the EU’s borders and is one of the most brutal consequences of the process of civilisation taking backward steps which is happening now. Within this context we must draw attention to the shocking attempts to put an end to the European food aid programme for the most deprived or to substantially reduce its budgetary provisions when they need to be increased.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition have remained stubbornly slow. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. 60 % of them are women. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year. Long-term undernutrition has left millions of children suffering from stunting (low height for age), putting them at risk for diminished cognitive and physical development. The number of people worldwide affected by disasters, including as a consequence of global climate change, is on the rise. In this context, the European Parliament is requested to give its consent to the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC). The FAC 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally. I therefore consider it to be highly justified and appropriate for Parliament to give consent to the arrangement.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The Treaty of Lisbon set as one of the main objectives of the European Union’s development policy the reduction and consequent elimination of poverty. Since the Food Assistance Convention is fully in line with EU policies and with the Millennium Development Goals and since malnutrition affects around 14 % of the world’s population and kills more than two and a half million children every year, I voted in favour of the recommendation.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Mr Deva in plenary. This report was adopted by a large majority during the plenary sitting on 25 October. The reason for the vote was to adopt the Food Assistance Convention on behalf of the European Union. I was pleased to see that there was a broad consensus among all of the European Parliament’s political groups on the issue of food assistance.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Given the still unresolved problem of hunger, with which 13.6 % of humankind is grappling, and the terrible consequences this problem creates, mainly among women and children in developing countries, I am supporting the new 2012 Food Assistance Convention. Thanks to the fact that this Convention differs from its predecessor at several crucial points, the battle against world hunger may become more effective. In my view, the main flow of assistance should be directed towards programmes supporting rebuilding and renewal which help to reinforce local production, and thus make a gradual move away from ad hoc assistance possible. Through this approach we can reduce the dependency of hungry countries on long-term aid. We should, however, continue to work to improve certain aspects of the Convention, including striving to create a system whereby the Convention’s obligations are expressed in value terms, meaning avoidance of, for example, delays in delivering food caused by rises in global food prices. This problem arises from freedom in the expression of one’s minimum annual obligations relating to food assistance. It is also important to increase the share of food assistance in grant form, and to improve farming yields in countries affected by hunger.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − In 2010, an estimated 925 million people or 13.6% of the world population did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries, and 60 % of them are women. The FAC is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The modifications made in comparison with the FAC 1999 constitute a major step forward. These modifications include: moves from a product-based approach to a more varied, needs-based and locally adapted mix of tools; activities that facilitate the transition from relief to rehabilitation and recovery programmes; a more active forum for donor coordination and mutual learning; and increased transparency and openness. I voted in favour of this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I approve of and support the Food Assistance Convention (FAC), which is adopting new criteria compared with the previous FAC. It introduces a criterion of encouragement towards non-dependency on aid instead of the kind of long-term dependency that prevents growth and development. Furthermore, the criteria introduced, which aim to increase transparency and openness towards new products and the terms of the Convention, make this a very positive revision of the FAC. As pointed out by the rapporteur, there are still some areas for improvement but the steps taken towards better regulation of distribution and access to aid will undoubtedly improve the effectiveness of this Convention. The introduction of agricultural products and foodstuffs that aim not to meet food needs but to protect livelihoods in emergency and early recovery situations, such as seeds and livestock for milk and meat should be highlighted.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made over the past decade on a number of fronts, progress on hunger and malnutrition has remained stubbornly slow. In 2010, an estimated 925 million people, or 13.6% of the world population, did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions; 98% of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries; 60% of them are women. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of child deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year. Nearly one in five children under the age of five in the developing world is underweight. Long-term under-nutrition has left millions of children suffering from stunting, putting them at risk for diminished cognitive and physical development. The number of people worldwide affected by disasters, including as a consequence of global climate change, is on the rise. The Food Assistance Convention (FAC) 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The continuing need for an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries is obvious.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention. The fight against famine and malnutrition must be a priority. Good-quality nutrition in underdeveloped countries is essential to allow these countries to break out of the poverty cycle.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. I support the call for the EU to make an ambitious minimum annual commitment for 2013 in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, and to fulfil its annual commitments duly. Today, hunger and food insecurity remain challenges that we cannot ignore.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of the ratification of the new version of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC). I applaud the fact that, according to its principles, food assistance should not adversely affect local markets, create further dependency, add to the debt of the countries concerned, or serve the interests of the wealthiest countries, and that Member States and the EU should purchase the necessary supplies locally. However, it is a shame that the Parties to the Convention and the EU do not endeavour to adhere to these principles when they negotiate trade agreements. It is also a shame that the ban on blackmail in return for food aid is not mandatory. Finally, it is a shame that the minimum annual commitments of EU Member States can vary from year to year. Nevertheless, I still voted in favour of the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think it is fundamental to give continuity to the EU’s efforts to reduce poverty and eradicate hunger globally in the context of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Hunger and food shortages remain global challenges. In 2010, an estimated 925 million people did not have enough to eat. While substantial progress has been made in various areas in previous years, the pace of improvement is still slow. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths. Besides this, the number of people worldwide affected by disasters is on the rise. The EU has to adopt a leading role in reducing poverty and eradicating hunger. The continuous need for an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries is obvious. We need long-term solutions, backed by activities that facilitate the provision of aid. By strengthening local production and livelihoods we can avoid long-term aid dependency. This is why we need to extend the scope of products entitled to subsidies to include ones that promote the protection of livelihoods. Consequently, I voted in favour of the proposal. Thank you.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe it is important to ensure food security. The Food Assistance Convention aims to help improve global food security, which is especially important when the food crisis is creating alarming situations in multiple regions. The Convention seeks to establish information protocols and databases between all the countries that donate food aid, which represents an improvement in the effectiveness of aid by preventing, for example, overlaps between aid sent by different countries, and improving the coordination of efforts to reach the greatest number of locations possible. It is essential that we equip ourselves with better aid structures in order to ensure global food security, which is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition have remained stubbornly slow. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions. 98% of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. 60% of them are women. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year. Nearly one in five children under the age of five in the developing world is underweight. Long-term undernutrition has left millions of children suffering from stunting (low height for age), putting them at risk for diminished cognitive and physical development. The number of people worldwide affected by disasters, including as a consequence of global climate change, is on the rise.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The experience of the European Union itself shows that food assistance can be an important part of social politics and assistance to the poorest EU citizens. Food assistance to third countries is also an important part of EU development policy and essentially seeks to achieve the same goals. For this reason, I support the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of an updated Convention that will simplify the provision of food assistance. When these changes take effect, we will be able to help citizens of countries that suffer from food shortages more efficiently.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Prior to the vote, the rapporteur said that today alone, 15 000 people all over the world will die from a lack of food. The EU has a duty to consider the world’s poor in the policies which it implements. At the same time, the EU must also think of its own poor, which is why I welcome the Commission’s initiative of creating a fund to help disadvantaged people within the European Union for the 2014-2020 period. Let us never forget that nearly 9 % of Europeans cannot afford a meal including meat or fish once every two days, which is a basic need according to the World Health Organisation.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − Today, global food security and hunger represent a serious challenge. In 2010, approximately 925 million people (13.6% of the world’s population) did not have enough food to eat. Despite advances made in reducing income poverty around the world, 98% of undernourished people live in developing countries. Child malnutrition runs rampant as well, affecting millions of children worldwide every year. The EU is committed to fighting poverty and eradicating hunger on a global scale. The Food Aid Convention 2012 will greatly aid in the construction of an international, legally binding framework to define and provide the necessary instruments for the delivery of food aid to developing countries. I voted in favour of this recommendation, because I believe that FAC 2012 will streamline and improve food aid policy and ensure that the food and nutrition needs of the most critical populations will be met effectively. FAC 2012 will increase transparency of food assistance and humanitarian programmes and provide for more effective donor coordination. We in the EU have a responsibility to assist our less fortunate counterparts in developing countries – FAC 2012 will go a long way towards helping us to achieve that goal.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the Food Assistance Convention which the European Parliament is called upon to approve without being able to amend it. It is generally admitted that progress is slow on questions of combating famine. Even now, nearly 14 % of the world population is undernourished. The EU is undoubtedly the world’s largest donor in the areas of humanitarian aid and food; however, the economic crisis facing the EU is resulting in a growing dialogue – particularly among the large Member States – on the question of reducing such aid. The European Parliament expresses its disappointment at the fact that there is no collective EU minimum annual commitment that includes the contributions of both the EU and Member States towards this effort; at the same time, it emphasises individual political proposals, such as the transition from a product-based approach to a more varied, needs-based and locally adapted mix of tools, transparency and greater accountability in the implementation of these programmes.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012), which is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges and, despite substantial progress on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition has remained stubbornly slow. Consequently it is necessary to make modifications to the Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999). Highlighting the fact that the Food Assistance Convention 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals, and hoping for the setting up of an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. Parliament was requested to give its consent on the proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012). No amendments are possible on the content of the Convention as such, and the consent concerns only the decision of the Council on the conclusion of the Convention and the deposit of the instrument of ratification, provided for in Article 12 of the Convention, with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I view in a very positive light the proposal to modify the previous Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999) in order to provide for the setting up, through the Food Assistance Convention 2012, of an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries. Food assistance policies capable of meeting the challenges of hunger and malnutrition need to be pursued. The needs of the poorest populations demand that we make a major effort to improve the instruments of intervention. The FAC 2012 will have a longer-term perspective of supporting rehabilitation and recovery programmes by strengthening local production and livelihoods. I believe that, by making targeted changes to the previous Convention, it is possible to remove the most vulnerable countries from long-term aid dependency, for example by including on the list of Eligible Products not only those that contribute to meeting food needs, but also those that protect livelihoods in emergency situations. With the prospect of these ambitious commitments being pursued, I voted in favour.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. - (SK) I appreciate the fact that the EU, as one of the main donors of humanitarian aid, has advocated together with the Member States a renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention of 1999 and was the main driving force behind a modified Food Aid Convention at both EU and international levels. The main objective of the Food Aid Convention is to respond efficiently and effectively to the food and nutritional needs of the most vulnerable groups. As regards the general principles of food aid, I only support its provision when it is the most effective and efficient means of addressing the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable groups in society. I expect that countries will take on the commitment to ensure their food security and that they will create the conditions for reducing poverty and eradicating hunger. We must work for a Europe which is not only characterised by having a unity of interests, but also has an appropriate social security system, and most importantly one where citizens – if they are dependent on food aid – are not in a situation where they have to live on charity, which may be demeaning to them.

  Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Certain points of the Convention still need to be reassessed and improved, either during its implementation, or when it is reviewed in future. However, the amendments made to the previous Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999) represent real progress and the conclusion of FAC 2012 must be applauded, as must the work done by Mr Deva on his report. To recap, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges today. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition have remained stubbornly slow. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. 60 % of them are women.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition have remained stubbornly slow. The Convention is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The European Parliament is requested to give its consent on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Convention, although there is no possibility to make amendments. The document was approved by the European Parliament, and I voted in favour.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012). According to recent statistics, in 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. 60 % of them are women. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year.

I believe that the FAC 2012 will allow the EU to ensure that the most effective and efficient food assistance policy is put in place that responds to the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable populations, based on objectively identified needs. However, it is important to prepare the ground for longer term solutions with activities that facilitate the transition from relief to rehabilitation and recovery programmes, inter alia by strengthening production and local livelihoods, thus avoiding long-term aid dependency. The FAC 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Hunger and food security are currently challenges with which the whole world is grappling. The European Union is making unceasing efforts to assist in limiting poverty and eliminating hunger in the world. What is essential is to establish legally binding frameworks helping to deliver food assistance to developing countries. The Food Assistance Convention will ensure that the European Union makes progress in this area at international level. This is why I voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Despite significant progress in the past decade, progress on hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity remains stubbornly slow. The Food Assistance Convention 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. It is obvious, however, that these objectives will only be achieved by setting up an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The Food Assistance Convention states as its objectives: ‘to save lives, reduce hunger, improve food security, and improve the nutritional status of the most vulnerable populations’. It is clear today that poverty and, consequently, hunger, are increasing throughout the world, but also within the EU due to the structural crisis of capitalism and to austerity policies. We shall totally oppose the attempts under way to abolish the European food aid programme for the most deprived or to substantially reduce its budgetary provisions, when it is more than evident that at the present time they need to be increased.

- Report: Edit Bauer (A7-0288/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, since it expresses Parliament’s opinion on the proposal for a Council directive on consular protection for the citizens of the Union abroad, within the context of a consultation procedure. The proposal aims to enable EU citizens to seek help from the diplomatic and consular services of any Member State, when in a third country where their country has no consular representation. The level of protection provided must be equivalent to that provided by the Member State to its own nationals. It is essential that European Union citizens should know that, where their Member State does not have representation in a third country, Union citizens may rest assured that they have the protection and assistance of the consular services of other Member States or European Union delegations. Such a proposal will make it possible to strengthen the feeling of belonging to the European Union amongst European citizens throughout the world.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted for the resolution on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. The proposed directive is intended to replace the 1995 decision on consular protection for EU citizens by diplomatic and consular representations. Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This principle has also been established in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The proposed directive covers not only everyday situations such as the loss of identity documents, arrest or imprisonment, but also covers situations where EU citizens might need assistance. I agree with the opinion that in cases of crisis situation, Union delegations should be in charge of coordinating and providing assistance regarding the preparation for and in case of crisis. In order not to put an unbearably heavy burden on the Lead State, or any Member State present in the area, it should be the Union delegation who deals with all the coordination of cooperation. In emergency situations it should also be responsible for coordinating the actions and plans and evacuation arrangements of the missions of the Member States. I agree with the speaker that this proposal is an excellent illustration of the fact that ‘more Europe’ does not mean more bureaucracy or more Brussels. ‘More Europe’ could also mean more help for EU citizens in need, and more protection for citizens who are not represented in third countries and who find themselves in precarious or crisis situations.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Citizenship of the European Union gives citizens whose Member State is not represented by an embassy or consulate in a third country the entitlement to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as nationals of that State, and this is indisputably one of the Union’s clearest expressions of solidarity and identity. To ensure that this right is not an illusory one, and that citizens may enjoy the practical benefits of citizenship of the Union, clarification of the contents and means of exercising this right effectively and simplified cooperation and coordination between consular and diplomatic authorities have become necessary at EU level. For that reason, I welcome the Commission’s motion and Ms Bauer’s report, which will remove the obstacles that exist when we seek the diplomatic or consular assistance to which citizens are entitled when they need protection, in cases where they are outside their country of origin. I believe that the way in which the accessibility of embassies or consulates has been defined is adequate to determine whether a citizen is represented or unrepresented in a third country as the resolution of emergencies without delay is facilitated.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The right of a citizen of an unrepresented Member State to seek assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States that are represented is one of the rights conferred by EU citizenship. It is a right that has existed for some years, but European citizens are still not fully informed of it. As a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I am more than satisfied with the work done on this report. I believe that the measures adopted will improve the enforcement of this right, through better coordination between Member States on consular representation. The only doubt that remains is how these new measures will be publicised among European citizens. I think that a coordinated campaign of information at European level could be the most effective way of achieving the results we hope for.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Consular protection is an integral part of the EU’s policy on citizens’ rights. This text allows European citizens, in the event of a crisis or in the absence of a consular mission in a particular area, to apply to the consular missions of another Member State of the European Union in the confidence that their request will be dealt with. I therefore voted in favour of this text.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. The large-scale crises of recent years, following the uprisings in Libya and Egypt and the earthquake in Japan, have affected about 150 000 EU citizens and highlighted the importance of consular protection in third countries. It is important that every citizen of the EU is, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, entitled to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State. I agree with the proposals for the development of a clear Member State cooperation and support coordination system as well as for the establishment of common consular protection terms. I agree that the Member States should consider establishing a trust fund for consular protection, from which the embassy or consulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial advance.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Thanks to this decision our citizens receive more tangible assistance from the Union when they are in third countries. Approving the report represents significant progress in protecting the interests of Hungarian citizens too as it will provide assistance in situations where they are most in need of help anywhere in the world outside the European Union if, because of an accident, attack, natural disaster or even the loss of documents, they find themselves isolated and unable to travel home. This is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that solidarity between the Member States must be supported. The Treaty of Lisbon gave the opportunity to any citizen of the Union to receive, in the territory of a third country in which their Member State is not represented, protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State. This is made all the more important by the fact that there are many Member States which do not have very developed networks of embassies and consulates, and this can leave citizens open to certain risks.

The directive creates a framework for every European citizen to enjoy maximum diplomatic and consular protection in any State. I believe this is another reason to strengthen the feeling of belonging to the Union.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In accordance with European legislation, citizens of the Union enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. In order to facilitate the access of citizens to their rights, including the right to protection in third countries, a new legislative instrument is needed, which is why this directive aims to repeal Decision 95/353/EC. I voted for this report, since I agree that, in crisis situations, the European Union delegation should be in charge of coordinating and providing assistance in terms of preparation for crisis and should coordinate all cooperation, including contingency plans between Member States and evacuation, as well as making sure that all EU citizens, including unrepresented citizens, are covered by contingency plans. The Union delegation should have the necessary financial means to provide this coordination. For facilitating future consular protection, Member States should consider establishing a ‘trust fund’ for consular protection.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Bauer report, which advocates better consular protection for European citizens abroad. Consular services must provide each EU citizen with equal protection, irrespective of his or her nationality. This particularly applies when a European national is unrepresented in a third country and seeks help from the diplomatic services of another Member State of the European Union.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, any EU citizen may enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. The aim of this Directive is to repeal the Decision of 1995, which is the current legislative framework, and to gradually deepen the work of the European External Action Service.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it is very important to define more precisely the means for coordination and cooperation that are necessary to ensure daily consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. Article 20(2)(c) and Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union define consular protection as a fundamental right of EU citizenship. More specifically, two types of consular protection can be distinguished: consular protection in everyday life and consular protection in crisis situations. The Member States should consider establishing a trust fund for consular protection, from which the embassy or consulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial advance. This way the Member States would not burden each other financially and in emergency situations all EU citizens would be taken into account, including those not represented. The Council Directive should create the necessary conditions for the wide network of EU representations to play a larger role in providing consular protection.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In a recent article the historian Niall Ferguson argued that the current European system of governance is a bit like the United States of America facing the 21st century with its old Articles of Confederation as its institutional instrument. I should point out that these Articles survived for barely eight years before succumbing to constitutional revisions imposed by political and practical imperatives. My point is that the European institutions should make an effort to bridge the gap between relatively advanced European integration and the manner in which this integration is applied, which in a wide variety of spheres, is slowly and imperfectly. This report, on which I voted in favour, deals with one of these contradictions in the field of the diplomatic representation of European citizens, the particular importance of which becomes apparent if we draw up, even for just one year, a list of the emergency situations that have required the intervention of the consular authorities of individual Member States. The various rights and interests of our citizens can be threatened by unforeseeable crises at any time, even in remote areas. I therefore feel that the measures in the report (including the creation of a trust fund) are appropriate because the integration of consular protection, which is already practised in some areas of the world on an informal basis, would allow the interests of Europeans to be defended more effectively and would give greater substance to the notion of European citizenship.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. This report distinguishes between two types of consular protection: on one hand, local consular protection, which should come within the remit of Member State missions; on the other, consular protection in crisis situations, where Member States must cooperate with each other, coordinated by the EU delegations. I support the general outline adopted, such as the definition of the scope, access to consular protection and cooperation, local coordination and assistance in a crisis situation. It is important, for example, that the EU delegation can turn to instruments such as the EU Civil Protection Mechanism in a crisis situation.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I am against this step to harmonise consular protection to all EU citizens. I believe strongly that the UK should be an independent member state with its own foreign policy and its own embassies and therefore am against making it compulsory to give consular aid to non-UK EU citizens where this decision has not been reached in a bilateral agreement between the UK and a third country. The proposal that diplomatic and consular services of all EU member states must give any EU citizen seeking help abroad the same protection that they give their own nationals paves the way for closing British embassies abroad and undermining the British presence internationally. It is up to individual countries to establish consular facilities overseas and offer protection to their own citizens.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Bauer report and the solidarity measures it proposes. It is time to give substance to the right of citizens to receive assistance, in third countries, from the diplomatic and consular authorities of all Member States. I support the idea whereby each EU delegation should be given the financial means necessary for coordination in crisis situations. I also support the idea of improved training for consulate and embassy staff on crisis management.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) According to Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This principle is enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I agree that, in order to afford EU citizens easier access to their rights, including the right to protection in third countries, the appropriate legislative instruments are needed. It is essential to guarantee consular protection at local level and in crisis situations. For the reasons set out, I voted in favour of this report.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) The right of a citizen of an unrepresented Member State to seek assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States is one of the rights conferred by citizenship of the Union. To facilitate EU citizens’ access to consular protection in third countries, the existing legal framework needs to be consolidated. To this end, the Council directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad must increase the role of EU delegations in the exercise of consular protection and clarify the coordination and cooperation measures necessary for the day-to-day consular protection of unrepresented EU citizens. Furthermore, the Commission must ensure that information on consular protection is as widely available as possible, to clarify that citizens should continue to benefit from the full range of consular assistance customarily provided by Member States’ representations. The Member States should consider establishing a ‘trust fund’ for consular protection, from which the embassy or consulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial advance.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Although there is an ever-increasing number of Union citizens living and working outside EU territory, it is possible to find consulates for all 27 Member States in just three non-member countries. Hence the importance of the fundamental right, inherent in the concept of European citizenship, for every citizen of a Member State without representation to be able to obtain assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States which are represented in that third country. In order to give EU citizens easier access to their rights – especially taking into account the difficulties they have faced in practice, in particular in the event of major crises, as was the case with the 2004 tsunami, or the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, or the 2011 earthquake in Japan, which highlighted the need to provide consular protection for citizens without representation – it has become necessary to adopt a new legislative instrument establishing a joint approach. I therefore support the adoption of this Directive which lays down common concepts and identifies two levels of protection, local consular protection for everyday matters, which is left to the responsibility of the Member States and consular protection in crisis situations, where cooperation should be coordinated by the EU delegations.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) We all know that the right of a citizen of an unrepresented Member State to seek assistance from the consular authorities of other represented Member States is one of the rights conferred by citizenship of the Union. This is why I believe that one of the biggest problems is the fact that citizens are not informed that they have the right to receive assistance from the consulate of another Member State if they are in a third country where their state is not represented. This new directive must also address this problem.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On a day-to-day level, what does European citizenship actually mean? In future, it will mean effective protection anywhere in the world for all Europeans without distinction. The text contains concrete and innovative measures to ensure that each Member State bears this obligation in a fair and equitable manner. I welcome the support and the help it will bring to European citizens who find themselves in difficulty in a foreign country.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Consular protection is an integral part of EU policy and a fundamental right granted to EU citizens defined in the Treaties. I therefore voted in favour of this report which introduces measures for coordination and cooperation between Member States and the EU, harmonising consular protection concepts and practices and thus facilitating the life of European citizens in third countries. I would point out that, under the Treaty of Lisbon, solidarity between Member States provides that a citizen of a Member State without representation may seek assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States which have representation. I welcome the Commission’s proposal which, by defining accessibility to the embassy or consulate as the time required to reach the embassy or consulate and return to their place of departure on the same day, makes access to consular services easier and more available to all European citizens since, regardless of whether or not they have representation in the third country, they can go to the nearest service. Another example that ‘More Europe’ means MORE protection for its citizens. Coordination and the provision of consular assistance in crisis situations are the responsibility of the EU delegation – one more step in the effective implementation of the European External Action Service!

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The recent events in Libya and Egypt during which numerous Europeans had to be repatriated, as well as natural disasters such as last year’s earthquake in Japan, demonstrate the need for optimal consular protection of European citizens abroad. The diplomatic and consular services of Member States must therefore offer each European citizen in search of aid abroad, irrespective of his or her nationality, the same protection as that given to their own nationals. From now on, any European citizen whose Member State is unrepresented in the country concerned may count on the support of other Member States and, if necessary, receive assistance from EU delegations abroad. The coordination of the diplomatic resources of Member States and the EU represents an important step towards affirming the external role of the EU. This joint approach sends out a clear signal of the solidarity between all European citizens.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which reinforces the right to consular protection of EU citizens who travel or live in a country that is not a Member State of the Union and in which their own Member State is unrepresented. While the European Union is often criticised for being too remote from its citizens, the increased consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad is a concrete example of what Europe can offer its people.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad because according to the Lisbon Treaty the solidarity among Member States shall be sustained, therefore in everyday cases of consular protection, such as loss of identity documents, arrest, detention or death, an unrepresented citizen has the right to request the help of any diplomatic or consular authority of any Member State. It has been noticed that one of the major problems for European citizens is that they have not been aware of their right to obtain help from the consulates of another Member State when they are in a third country in which their own Member State is not represented. For this reason I believe that we should raise awareness, to reduce citizens’ lack of knowledge of their rights, but we should also clarify that they should continue to benefit from the full range of consular assistance customarily provided by Member States’ representations, and make clear that the role played by the authorities of represented Member States does not mean that unrepresented Member States are excluded from providing assistance.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad, because I think it is a positive step for EU citizens from countries without representation in third countries to be able to enjoy consular protection from the diplomatic or consular authorities of another Member State, in accordance with the principle enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Consular protection of European Union citizens outside the EU borders, where there is no diplomatic representation of the State of which the citizen is a national, may be provided by the representation of any of the remaining EU Member States represented there. The same applies to conflict situations, and to everyday situations in which a citizen needs consular assistance or protection. That is fundamental for guaranteeing the rights of European citizens abroad and is an essential factor in coordination and solidarity between Member States.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In accordance with Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: ‘Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he or she is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State.’ This same right is enshrined in Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This report by Ms Bauer, deals with the proposal for a Council directive on consular protection for European Union citizens abroad and envisages two levels of consular protection: local protection for everyday matters (loss of identity documents, arrest, detention or death) and in crisis situations. In order not to put too great a financial burden on Member States providing the assistance, each Member State should set up a ‘trust fund’ from which the amount necessary to cover the expenses of supporting citizens abroad may be withdrawn, then paid back later by the Member State of which the citizen receiving help is a national. I voted in favour of this report because I recognise the advantages for European citizens of implementing this directive.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We agree with the principle of cooperation between States, having regard to the objective of guaranteeing better consular protection for the citizens of the various European countries. It is known that Member States’ representation in third countries is very unequal and that, at the same time, there has been a significant increase in the number of Europeans travelling and living outside the EU. The Commission proposal is in line with the provision in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which states that every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he or she is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State. Although we support the extension of this directive, we regret that, in her proposal, the rapporteur introduced unwarranted and unnecessary amendments as far as the proposal’s aim is concerned. We cannot support those amendments.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Consular protection for citizens abroad (in accordance with Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) operates both for day-to-day matters and for emergency situations. Emergency situations are arising in an increasing number of contexts and for this reason the simplification of access to rights and better knowledge of these among citizens is desirable, so that they are in a better position to benefit from solidarity between Member States if their own country is not directly represented in the third country or if they are having difficulties reaching their own embassy. For this reason I am in favour of the report, though I recognise that further action and future clarifications will be necessary, for example concerning the role and functions of the delegations and the definition of the necessary financial resources to ensure they can be implemented.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Under Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This principle is also enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In order to facilitate the access of EU citizens to their rights, including the right to protection in third countries, a new legislative instrument is desirable and required. The number of crisis-hit areas is also increasing. I therefore believe that a new, common approach is all the more important. We distinguish between local consular protection in everyday life and protection in crisis situations. According to the Lisbon Treaty, solidarity among Member States shall be sustained. Therefore in everyday cases of consular protection the unrepresented citizen has the right to request the help of any diplomatic or consular authority of any Member State. In cases of crisis situation, it is proposed that the Union delegation be in charge of coordinating and providing assistance regarding the preparation for and in case of crisis.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I am in full agreement with the considerations expressed in the report. Every citizen of an EU Member State, whenever they find themselves in difficulty in a foreign country where their own country is not represented, should be able to turn to the diplomatic and consular services of the other Member States or, failing that, to the Union delegation in that country. I would also like to see the Union delegations in third countries given the role of coordination between Member States, particularly as regards representing and assisting citizens in emergency situations. For these reasons I voted in favour of the report.

  Kinga Gál (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Adoption of the draft directive on consular protection and its subsequent implementation could be a sign of the continued existence of solidarity between EU countries that can be mobilised. This directive strengthens the protection of our citizens in situations where they feel most vulnerable. Belonging to the European Union gives them that extra chance at the most difficult of times. This is because the directive now approved means Member States which are represented in a given region, regardless of where that might be in the world, are obliged to give any EU citizens without foreign representation the same assistance as they give their own citizens, in the event of lost documents, arrest, accident or illness. This assistance must also be provided in cases where it is extremely difficult for citizens to reach their own consular representation (where travel would take more than one day). I think this represents significant progress in protecting the interests of Hungarian citizens in situations where they are most in need of help anywhere in the world outside the European Union if, because of an accident, attack, natural disaster or even the loss of documents, they find themselves isolated and unable to travel home. We also have an interest in the part of the directive that increases the role of the European External Action Service and EU foreign representation along with the coordination of consular protection, thinking here of the case of Előd Tóásó, who is currently languishing in prison in Bolivia. This is an important gesture from Parliament, the Council and the Commission to its own citizens.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Every year, EU citizens travel outside the EU more than 90 million times, but only in the United States, China and Russia do all 27 EU Member States have a diplomatic presence. These figures emphasise the importance of providing consular protection to EU citizens. I believe the report adopted today represents further progress in this respect as it facilitates access to consular protection for citizens whose Member States do not have a consular office in a particular country outside the EU. In the spirit of ‘more Europe’ I welcome the fact we are including the European External Action Service and EU foreign representations in the performance of consular duties, and so they will be responsible, in emergencies too, for coordinating cooperation between Member States and for evacuations. This will eliminate the somewhat unfair situation to date of one Member State taking on the entire burden of coordinating events in such cases. The proposal also simplifies access to financial assistance in crisis situations, and makes it easier for the country helping out to have costs reimbursed. This document is therefore based on European values and solidarity between European nations, and I believe it is an important step towards European citizenship, which is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) We passed this resolution establishing that EU citizens in difficulties abroad can seek assistance from the consulate or embassy of any EU Member State or where necessary, from the Union delegation, by a very large majority.

I congratulate Ms Bauer, who prepared the resolution.

I am entirely in agreement with her: this resolution reveals the face of a Europe close to its citizens. The proposal strengthens consular rights, clarifying the circumstances in which a citizen is considered unrepresented and specifying the type of assistance that the Member States should typically provide in case of need.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which guarantees better consular protection for EU citizens abroad. The diplomatic and consular services of all EU Member States must give each EU citizen in search of help abroad the same protection as that afforded to their own nationals. We also call on the EU delegations to play a key role in increasing the protection of EU nationals in third countries. This proposal is an excellent way of showing that more Europe does not necessarily mean more bureaucracy or more Brussels. Any EU citizen in difficulty abroad, for example after being involved in an accident, or being the victim of violence or theft, or being caught up in a crisis situation, should be able to seek assistance from the embassy or consulate of any EU Member State or, if necessary, the EU delegation, if his or her own country is unrepresented.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which seeks to implement Article 23 of the Treaty of Lisbon on consular protection, one of the principal rights conferred by European citizenship, in addition to Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, aimed at guaranteeing assistance for European citizens not represented in a third country.

Consular protection is a concrete manifestation of what everyday European citizenship might look like. It is also an opportunity to improve how the burden of responsibility is shared in the event of a crisis. This debate will pave the way for a discussion on the future role of EU delegations, which could in future handle everyday consular tasks on behalf of unrepresented citizens. This would also have the advantage of creating a more European type of diplomacy, redefining European citizenship and raising the profile of the Union. Finally, it would provide the assurance that the fundamental rights of all are guaranteed.

Parliament’s opinion is of course purely advisory, although the Council would have everything to gain by drawing inspiration from it, fostering true European solidarity beyond our borders for the benefit of our citizens.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) In the case of loss of identity documents, arrest, detention and other problems that may descend upon us while we are travelling outside the EU, consular support is essential. According to the provisions of the Treaty, EU citizens have the right to take advantage of diplomatic and consular protection from any other Member State in a third country where the Member State of which these persons are nationals does not have its own representation. This right is an important aspect of EU citizenship and, as it were, expands the scope of consular protection for Europeans throughout the world. It is increasingly common, however, for citizens to need assistance not only with routine problems, such as those concerning documents, but also in crises which constitute a major coordination challenge. It is therefore important to nominate a single unit responsible for coordination, which would, for example, ensure that all EU citizens, including those not represented, were covered by emergency and evacuation plans. The question of the funding of such protection is also of great significance in this context. It is therefore important that the report gives attention to this. The report has my full support, as it will lead to an increase in consular protection for EU citizens and the provision of more effective and more prompt assistance in third countries.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal as I firmly believe that new legislation is needed in order to ensure that EU citizens are able to exercise their rights, including rights in third countries. The right of citizens of unrepresented Member States to ask for assistance from Member States that do have consulates established is one of the rights of Union’s citizens. However, as experience has shown, citizens cannot comprehensively use their consular protection rights. One of the main problems is that citizens are not aware that they can get assistance from other Member States’ consulates while in third countries where their own Member State is not represented. This new directive will solve this problem. Furthermore, this directive will provide a common framework for assistance for citizens of unrepresented Member States. This directive will help to establish a system where Member States can agree that in certain countries or regions, one Member State acts as Lead State and coordinates consular work. This will not affect the ability of unrepresented citizens to seek assistance in establishments of any Member State. Such agreements will be publicised. That is, citizens who travel to a certain region will know which consulate they should contact first. In the long term, this will help to save funds as the presence of an agreed Lead State in the region will reduce the need for separate representations in that region for other Member States.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. − The right of unrepresented EU citizens to consular protection abroad under the same conditions as Member State nationals is one of the Union’s most important achievements and is symbolic of its solidarity and its common identity towards third countries. Moreover, the provisions for extending consular protection – including the broad definition of being unprotected, the clarification as to when the embassy or consulate of the citizen’s own Member State is non-accessible, and the inclusion of protection for third-country family members of EU citizens, to the same extent as Member States provide it to the third-country family members of their own nationals – bring great practical advantages for individuals.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Ms Bauer’s report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. The report was adopted by a large majority of 596 votes in favour. I applaud this. The aim of the report was to facilitate access by EU citizens to their rights; namely, the right to be protected in third countries. The new provisions of this report are particularly important since consular protection is an expression of European solidarity and the identity of the Union in third countries.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he or she is a national is not represented, be entitled to consular assistance from any Member State which is represented in that country, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This is stipulated in Article 20(2)(c) and Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The coordination of assistance, primarily through the establishment of ‘Lead States’ in third countries, which is described in the new directive, is aimed at improving the effectiveness of functioning in instances of consular protection both in routine matters and in crisis situations. The access to a diplomatic authority defined in the conclusion on the directive, which will enable it to be accessed with a round trip feasible within one day, is a good solution, particularly in urgent and common situations (e.g. theft or loss of documents, death or arrest).

The obligation of the Union delegation to coordinate and provide assistance regarding the preparation for and in case of a crisis distinctly lightens the load for the ‘Lead State’ nominated in the third country for this purpose, and for any other Member State that has a presence there. In the light of the above, I consider these changes to be both necessary and remarkably helpful for all EU citizens.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − A new legislative instrument may be required to facilitate the access of EU citizens to protection in third countries. I am concerned about additional costs, but I share the opinion that in crisis situations, where the Union delegation has the role of coordination, it should have the necessary financial means to provide that coordination. We should not forget about the prerogatives of Member States, because it is their consulates and embassies that, first and foremost, have the responsibility of protecting their citizens. Nevertheless, these are not always available. There are cases when even though an EU citizen has his or her embassy or consulate in the third country, it is inaccessible. This is where the EU must play a role because, according to Article 23 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member States of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as a national of that State.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has adopted Ms Bauer’s report, which seeks to increase the consular protection of EU citizens abroad. The diplomatic and consular services of all EU Member States must give each EU citizen in search of help abroad the same protection as they afford to their own nationals. The report was adopted by 596 votes to 66, with 12 abstentions. I voted in favour of the text, since the consular protection of European nationals by the embassies of Member States, in the event that they find themselves in difficulty abroad, helps to strengthen the sense of European citizenship. Union delegations in third countries must now take responsibility for cooperation and coordination between Member States, including the distribution of tasks in order to ensure that unrepresented citizens are fully assisted in the event of a crisis.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Our top priority, as representatives of the citizens of the European Union, is to protect them both within EU borders and outside the Member States; that is why this measure is more than welcome. From now on, the critical situations which citizens who are not represented through embassies or consulates in third countries may face will be able to be resolved much more easily through consular cooperation at local level, which boosts confidence in EU policies and, in particular, citizens’ sense of belonging to the European Union project. At the same time, I believe that in future we must pay particular attention to people with disabilities and the handling of critical situations in which they may find themselves, through special assistance and consular protection adapted to their specific needs, in accordance with the EU policies applicable in the Member States.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report. In cases of crisis situation, the report proposes that the Union Delegation is in charge of coordinating and providing assistance regarding the preparation for and in case of crisis. In order not to put an unbearably heavy burden on the Lead State, or any Member State present in the area, it should be the Union Delegation who deals with all the coordination of cooperation, including the contingency plans among Member States and evacuation. It should be the Union Delegation, who should make sure that all EU citizens, including the unrepresented citizens are covered by contingency plans. This idea is in line with the Article 35 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) which says that ‘the diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States and the Union delegations in third countries (...) shall cooperate in ensuring that decisions defining Union positions and actions (...) are implemented. They shall contribute to the implementation of the right of citizens of the Union to protection in the territory of third countries as referred to in Article 20(2)(c) of the TFEU and of the measures adopted pursuant to Article 23 of that Treaty.’

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We are voting in favour because we acknowledge that it is essential to be able to guarantee consular protection for European citizens when they are abroad. However, we can only regret that the same principle and the same right was not extended to refugees with recognised status, stateless persons or persons who have not yet obtained the nationality of any of the Member States, residing in the European Union and even travelling with a document issued by one of the Member States.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) When they find themselves in difficulty abroad, European citizens have the right to ask any embassy or consulate of another Member State of the European Union for help if their country is unrepresented. This right to consular protection is a fundamental right, which I have been keen to reaffirm. I have fought to ensure that this right can be better guaranteed, particularly by involving Union delegations when a crisis situation arises so that each citizen can be granted protection.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In emergency situations, the Union delegations should ensure the necessary coordination between Member States. To be able to fulfil that role, the European External Action Service (EEAS) should be provided with the necessary financial resources, including for training Member States’ consular staff.

  Anthea McIntyre (ECR), in writing. − It is estimated that 40 000 EU citizens each year are not represented in a third country and require consular assistance by consular representatives of other Member States; the ECR Group recognises that all EU citizens are entitled to consular assistance if they face difficulty in a third country where their national consular or embassy is not present. And we see the value in EU Member States cooperating in this area in order to help our citizens. The ECR Group understands that this right is enshrined in law under Article 20 of the EC Treaty and we believe therefore that this report is unnecessary, given the existing regulations and frameworks in place. We have concerns that this report is significant in the on-going battle of some to further harmonise EU foreign, consular and diplomatic services. We strongly support the sovereign power of Member States to exercise and retain responsibility for their consular and diplomatic services and hence oppose an extension of powers and funding to the EEAS for consular duties. The ECR Group has therefore decided to vote against this report.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report encourages solidarity between consulates of the EU Member States in helping European citizens and their families, regardless of the nationality of their members, refugees and stateless persons. I am in favour of this and welcome the prospect of such solidarity. However, I am concerned that the budget cuts introduced in the name of austerity, which the majority of this Parliament insisted on, have also undermined the protection that our consulates can effectively provide. I voted in favour of this text to express my support for the principles of consular solidarity that it enshrines, but remain critical of the lack of consistency of the European Commission and Parliament in this matter. I reiterate my opposition to setting up a pointless, expensive and meaningless service in the name of so-called European diplomacy.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Under Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), ‘Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State.’ This principle is enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In order to give EU citizens easier access to their rights, including the right to protection in third countries, a new legislative instrument is needed. The Stockholm Programme, as well as the European Parliament, called for common concepts in consular protection.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that European countries should be jointly responsible for the situation of other citizens abroad. Citizens of Member States that do not have consular representation in a third country have the right to consular protection under equal conditions to other European citizens, which therefore means that they should be able to access the consulates of other Member States. I think that the suggestion made by the report regarding ways in which consular services can work together and simplify their processes in order to make it easier to transfer information between them, and therefore speed up procedures, is a positive one. As this represents an increase in the guarantees and rights of European citizens in third countries, I voted in favour.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Consular protection must be effective, efficient and well-coordinated, its primary goal being that citizens can benefit fully from it. However, I find that the proposal does not allocate enough responsibility to Union delegations in the context of everyday, local consular protection. I think that a more important role should be given to Union delegations, including granting them consular powers. The proposed directive might then be an opportunity to assign a greater role to the delegations and give them the means to fulfil this role. This would create a more European form of diplomacy, raising the profile of the Union and strengthening European citizenship. Respect for fundamental rights must also be guaranteed. For example, can we be sure that the embassies and consulates of all Member States will guarantee the same rights for same-sex couples and their families? This guarantee is granted by Union delegations, which are bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, I believe that a sound compromise has been reached on what is a key issue for the Union’s citizens.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Union citizens can now safely rely on protection and assistance from the consular services of other Member States or Union delegations. I am in favour.