Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 20 November 2012 - Strasbourg

8. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Tadeusz Zwiefka (A7-0320/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, the Brussels I Regulation was undoubtedly one of the most successful pieces of EU legislation in that it laid the foundations for a European judicial area and promoted legal certainty for European citizens. The recast of this Regulation affects fundamental areas for the development of European justice, including the extension of the jurisdiction rules to disputes involving defendants domiciled in third countries and choice-of-court agreements. I believe that adopting the new Regulation will guarantee more robust protection for consumers and provide greater legal certainty within the internal market, and that is why I voted in favour.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report because the free circulation of judgments is an objective which is vital for the consolidation of the European Union. I believe that this motion will remove the obstacles to the process of recognising and enforcing judgments in civil and commercial matters in another Member State. Extending the provisions to citizens of third countries who are inside the Union is also very important.

At the same time, the introduction of choice-of-court agreements will make judicial proceedings more efficient. This means that the court chosen by the parties to settle a dispute will always have priority. This will simplify proceedings and reduce costs. We must give citizens and companies within the Union the opportunity to settle their disputes as swiftly and efficiently as possible.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, the European Court of Human Rights has decided in numerous cases that the right of access to a court would be illusory if a contracting state’s domestic legal system allowed for a final binding judgement to remain on paper and not be enforced to the detriment of one party.

The right of execution of a judgement derives from the essential principle of the rule of law. We need to unify the rules on the conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in all EU Member States. The exequatur for all civil and commercial judgements must be abolished. This will be a significant step forward in access to justice for citizens and businesses. The measure will simplify the procedure which allows a claimant who has obtained a judgement from a Member State to enforce that judgement in any other Member State. This would be totally to the benefit of our citizens.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Madam President, as you will know, the United Kingdom has given notice that it intends to opt out of most of the justice and home affairs issues controlled currently by the European Union. If anybody does not understand why, let me introduce you to a young man called Andrew Symeou whom I visited in Athens a couple of years ago when he was detained under house arrest, who was a victim of what was very obviously a case of mistaken identity, as was established when the case finally came to court and was thrown out almost immediately. But in the meantime, this young man, who had gone to Greece celebrating his A-Level exams, had lost three years of his life, 11 months of them spent in one of the most unpleasant prisons in Europe. How do you give that back to a boy of that age? We complain about the length of detention – there was a great row in Britain about 42 days being too long. He was three years without the case so much as coming to trial.

My country’s greatest gift to the human race, our supreme export, was the concept of the rule of law and habeas corpus and the freedom of the individual and all of the things that go with the conception of the law being above the government rather than a projection of the wishes of the state. This is not some abstract issue of sovereignty: this is about the law being a protector of the individual and not an instrument of the government.

- Report: Jan Mulder (A7-0269/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, we all know how important it is to guarantee the safety of citizens within the Member States. The proposal in question, on which I voted in favour, seeks to reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks by limiting access by the general public to widely used substances which in high concentrations can also be used to manufacture explosives. I consider the introduction of a duty to report suspicious transactions of these substances to be very worthwhile, while I note that the tonnages concerned by the proposal, which is directed at wholesalers, retailers and Member States, are small compared to the total amounts sold.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. When what we have in the balance is people’s safety on the one hand and individual freedoms on the other, the situation must be evaluated in the light of the acceptability of the objectives and the principle of proportionality.

Even though the basic approach of the report is to restrict individual rights and increase state control, what we have here is an important legislative proposal by which it will be possible to prevent individual terrorist attacks in the future. Nor, probably, will it be difficult to justify the acceptability of such an objective to the general public. From the aspect of effective prevention of terrorism, it is important that the Member States comply with common statutory provisions which are also effectively carried out in practice.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, I voted for the report on the marketing and use of explosives precursors. It follows and supports the Commission’s approach in restricting access by the general public to 15 high-risk chemicals in concentrations that can be used for the manufacture of home-made explosives. The free movement of goods will not suffer from this measure.

For instance, eight substances listed in Annex I may continue to be sold in concentrated form but only if the buyer presents a licence granted by a national competent authority. The sale of other substances would remain restriction-free but be better controlled. Wholesalers and retailers would be obliged to report any suspicious transactions. I also welcome the decision to support the Commission’s approach involving setting up a more harmonised licensing system instead of a dual system as proposed by the Council. By limiting access by the general public to these 15 substances, the regulation should reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Madam President, of course the explosion that everyone is expecting now is a monetary one. Journalists and observers love to portray things in dramatic terms, so we are given a choice between solving the euro crisis or some blast that will explode it. There is, of course, a third – and, it seems to me, likelier – option, which is that we just carry on getting gradually poorer, as most of our constituents have been doing these past two or three years. We are condemning people to wretchedness and squalor and emigration because we are not allowing countries to price their way back into the market and adjust their monetary policy to their own needs.

The real explosion that we risk is not one of the financial system but one of our democratic system, when people find that it does not matter how they vote because the decisions that most tangibly impact their lives come from remote Brussels institutions. That might be an explosion which is not controllable but which blasts the entire European system of representative government to sparks and splinters.

- Report: Birgit Collin-Langen (A7-0343/2012)

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, with this report Parliament is recognising how quickly the consumer credit market is changing. The financial crisis is also a credit crisis and the massive reduction in loans granted to families affects businesses and the whole economy. If the Commission could intervene to increase access to cross-border credit, which is currently too low, accounting for only 2 % of total credit in the EU, many Europeans who are currently unable to obtain loans in their own countries because of the economic problems of those countries could obtain them in other Member States, thereby guaranteeing the effectiveness of the single market for which the European institutions are fighting so hard to overcome national boundaries.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, I support this agreement between the European Parliament and the Council. As a fully functioning market economy we need to open up national markets in the economic sector of consumer credit. Accomplishing this will promote competition, eliminate market distortions between operators and improve the functioning of the internal market. However, statistics show that cross-border consumer credit has not increased in years. Some legal and practical barriers still remain.

I am supporting this proposal to further harmonise and improve the consumption of consumer credit. It is very important in terms of strengthening the internal market in the area of consumer credit with regard to cross-border transactions. In addition, it includes a high level of consumer credit protection, which is extremely important in order to promote confidence in purchasing consumer credit. Thus, economic growth and investment greatly depend on the adoption of this directive.

- Report: Danuta Jazlowiecka (A7-0263/2012)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of Ms Jazłowiecka’s report, which lets us take an important step forward in the current debate on the economic recovery of individual Member States. While balancing the Member States’ budgets is a priority on the one hand, targeted social investment is also needed to prepare individuals, families and businesses for the change of economic climate and the demands of the employment market. As well as the sustainability of public finances, the Member States should also be focusing on how to create sustainable, quality jobs, on how to invest in training and updating of skills, and on fighting poverty and social exclusion. Hence the need for, and perhaps urgency of, a coordinated approach to social investment and therefore a Social Investment Pact for the whole of Europe.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this important report. Ensuring European competitiveness in the future will require the commitment of social investments, particularly now during this time of financial crisis. When correctly implemented, social investments increase employment and the well-being of citizens. For this reason, they should not be seen merely as expenses but rather as investments in the future.

What is particularly important is to invest in measures to promote employment. Both young people and the long-term unemployed need support as they move into working life. In addition, attention needs to be paid to the quality of working life, and to how people cope with work-related stress. In my opinion, the idea of an agreement on social investment is highly welcome.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Madam President, last Friday in Dublin I had the honour of launching a Leonardo da Vinci-funded training project called Motives. The Motives project promotes the wider social returns of workers involved in training and retraining, and the project has developed a tool for measuring the return on social investment or ROSI. The social investment approach taken by the Ballymun Centre is, I believe, one that should be more widely replicated across Europe in the years ahead.

Fiscal consolidation on its own will not end the crisis and will only work if combined with growth. Enlightened social investment policies make a tangible difference not only in raising employment levels but also in promoting high-skilled quality jobs. Social investment policies will help to prepare people for change rather than just trying to repair the damage after the event.

I supported the Social Investment Pact, which promotes the progressive social, jobs and educational targets of the Europe 2020 strategy, and I was very pleased to do so.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, I support this report which sets out an initiative of the Commission on combating the currently stagnant EU economy. This report calls on Member States to arrange for a system of investment, education and employment targets in coordination with the EU 2020 goals. The Social Investment Pact will contain enforcement mechanisms to ensure that each nation is meeting its goals and to stimulate economic growth. The current unemployment rate in the EU’s 27 Member States is now above 10 %, up from 7.1 % in 2008. Youth unemployment is far worse: it is currently over 20 %. This report calls for actions that will help alleviate some of the economic problems the Union is now facing. We must ensure that the labour market improves, growth is stimulated and that an improvement in employment opportunities is sustainable.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - (SK) Madam President, Slovakia has had very bad experience in the past with the implementation of social investment. Owing to high costs, a lack of transparency in the allocation of subsidies and unclear outcomes, social enterprises have become synonymous with the ineffective waste of public funds. Each of us is concerned about high unemployment, particularly among young people. However, that does not mean that it is necessary to begin to spend billions of euros to give people work, the outcomes of which will be of no interest. If by chance there is interest, this will only be because they will be competing in price terms with functioning businesses thanks to subsidies. Such distortion of the labour market does not solve problems – it creates them. The state is unable to judge which business plan is good and which is not. We learned this during the communist era.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the changing economic situation and the battle with the economic crisis are giving rise to a need for changes in the European labour market and in education systems. The European Union should draw up a plan for social investment, or targeted actions aimed at activation of European society, consisting in investment in individuals and individual families and social groups. This is why, in the report adopted today, of which I am author, I am inciting Member States to sign what is called a social investment pact, which will promote, among other things, investment in lifelong education, cooperation between business and schools and occupational excellence in the workplace, and special training in sectors affected by a shortage of workers. Social investment should be aimed at instilling enterprise and self-reliance, which as a result of certain aspects of social policy are currently dormant, in us right from pre-school age. To this end I voted for this report, and it was also to this end that I drew it up, and from here I would like once again to thank all my colleagues who worked with me on it.

- Report: Wim van de Camp (A7-0445/2011)

  George Lyon (ALDE). - Madam President, I had some grave concerns about the original proposals contained in these reports. The Commission’s original plans were going to require off-road farm bikes used in the agricultural industry and the forestry industry to be built to the same specification as on-road bicycles or quads, as you would call them. That would have had disastrous consequences for the safety and the stability of farm quads. They would be less stable on steep ground, more likely to tip over and indeed they would be unable to perform the day-to-day functions which are necessary when used by farmers and indeed foresters. It would also have dramatically increased the costs of the bikes. Common sense has prevailed, though, and off-road bikes will now be built to a separate specification from on-road bikes, recognising that they are used in dramatically different types of terrain. These changes reflect Parliament’s willingness to listen to and act on the genuine concerns of our citizens about the contents of the proposals and rather than turning a deaf ear to them, they have amended them and that is why I voted for them today.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, on a point of order, I spoke to you before the beginning of the explanations of vote and you agreed to call me on the Ilchev Report because it was not under Rule 138 on the agenda. I requested an explanation of vote and then I was told it was under Rule 138 and you ruled that I could speak, and now you have passed it by.

  President. – The Rules of Procedure stipulate that when there is no debate on the subject, there is no explanation of vote. Therefore I am afraid that under the Rules I cannot give you the floor. I am sorry.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I voted for this report and I am very satisfied with the work that has been done by the rapporteur, Wim van de Camp. The rapporteur, himself, rides a motorbike and I think that that is very important in terms of the report. He understands the issue. I believe that Mr van de Camp has achieved a fair balance. This touches on one of Parliament’s main objectives: road safety. I am particularly pleased with the emphasis on the anti-lock brake system and the combined brake system, and on the requirement for properly fitted daytime running lights. We know that motorbike riders are eight times more likely to be involved in an accident than drivers of other types of vehicles. We Europeans must work together to reduce the number of deaths on our roads.

  Lara Comi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report because I have been following its journey very closely and I think that the rapporteur has done an excellent job, both technically, as regards the ability to grapple with such a complex subject, and also politically, for giving us this final text after so much discussion and paring down. In particular, partly because they safeguard manufacturers’ production cycles, I think advanced brake systems – combined braking systems or anti-lock braking systems – are a good thing, and a better level of safety has been achieved, which was one of our main objectives. At the same time, account has been taken of the technological differences and the different performance and cost of various subcategories of motorcycle. The environmental impact study for the 2020 stage, which leaves the way open for the Regulation to remain up to date with the latest technological discoveries, is also worthy of praise. Lastly I am pleased to point out the market surveillance aspect, and thus compliment the rapporteur once again.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, this proposal finally adds several long expected regulations to the L-category vehicles market. Currently these vehicles account for a high level of pollution. They are also dangerous compared to other vehicle types: two-wheeled power vehicles account for 16% of driving-related deaths in the European Union while accounting for just 2% of total kilometres driven.

I welcome this proposal because it sets out better safety standards such as multi-standard anti-lock brakes along with tougher emission standards to reduce the environmental impact. This will ensure that these vehicles become safer for their operators and friendlier for the environment, and lives will be saved.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, this proposal for a regulation aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements for the type-approval of new L-category vehicles, of which there are currently around 30 million in Europe. Until now, the 2002 Framework Directive and 14 other directives referring to it set out the requirements in a rather convoluted legislative framework that is happily being replaced by a consolidated text. A refined vehicle categorisation achieved by introducing more appropriate subcategories, more severe emission limits, the mandatory introduction of anti-lock brake systems on some types of vehicle and the automatic headlight-on system to improve the visibility of L-vehicles are just some of the innovations to be introduced thanks to this report. The benefits to be gained in terms of safety, environmental protection and improved functioning of the internal market are beyond doubt and because of this I voted in favour.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the current complex type-approval structure is above all a source of considerable and to a large extent unjustified expense imposed on businesses, and thus indirectly on customers. The European Commission’s proposal concerning simplification of procedures is therefore a step towards reducing the costs borne by citizens. The report also contains the required solutions, for example a standardisation of requirements relating to exhaust gas emissions and the introduction of systems to prevent unauthorised tampering with vehicles. The inclusion of agricultural four-wheel vehicles within the scope of the regulation concerning tractor units should also have the effect of improving road safety. Thanks to the efforts of my political group, universal use of an anti-lock braking system in motorcycles only covers high-powered two-wheel vehicles, and will thus not affect those with a larger engine and scooters. An assessment of the consequences has revealed that the existing cheaper braking systems are adequate for these vehicles. The durability requirements for motorcycles and the schedule for the introduction of the new provisions have also taken our comments into account. I am consequently supporting this report.

- Report: Pier Antonio Panzeri (A7-0446/2011)

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I voted for this report on agricultural and forestry vehicles. As I said last night in the debate on this report, I am reasonably satisfied that the rapporteur has reached a good enough balance in order to avoid red tape. I believe that this report is good for the environment, for the internal market and for the cross-border market for these agricultural and forestry vehicles, and I hope that it will help to create a competitive market for these vehicles in the European Union.

  Lara Comi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Panzeri, for this important result, which gives us a regulation that will have a significant impact on the agricultural and forestry vehicles market. Firstly, its simplification of the legislation: the Regulation will replace 24 existing Directives and will allow harmonisation within the Member States through its direct effect on national legal systems. In addition, by laying down common European-wide technical requirements for these it should increase the market’s competitiveness. The introduction of new technologies including anti-lock braking systems and electronic stability control systems will certainly help to improve the safety of these vehicles. As rapporteur for the previous regulation on European standardisation, I think the decision to set standards for technical services and the procedure for assessing them, through delegated acts adopted by the Commission, is absolutely right.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, I rise on this occasion to support the proposal of the European Parliament and the Council, as the manufacturers, suppliers and aftermarket stakeholders, including the trade unions, think the completion of the internal market in this area is a good idea. More specifically, harmonisation regarding the rules and regulations between all vehicles will enhance competition within the European Union. The Machinery Directive will enable better monitoring of third-party products entering the European Union. Furthermore, harmonisation will foster occupational and vehicle safety as well as environmental protection. Thus this proposal will limit market distortion from third-party products while improving our own industries.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the multiplicity of legal regulations we currently have relating to the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles has given rise to a complicated system of market surveillance in this regard. The Commission’s proposal to have these matters covered by a single regulation would therefore appear to be the optimum solution, and for that reason I supported the resolution. The proposal most worthy of comment is that of having virtually all types of tractor covered by a duty of type approval, with this requirement not relating to manufacturers of trailers or towed equipment. It is worth pointing out, however, that possession of an EU type approval will permit a vehicle to operate throughout the EU. The introduction of some differentiation between tractors with regard to their speed will also enable more precision to be brought to bear in regulations that are unclear in this respect. Additional requirements will thus only affect higher-speed machines. The virtual elimination of unfavourable conditions of competition in the case of off-road vehicles, manufacturers of which will be able to obtain type approval in all category T types, will be of major significance. Farmers will consequently not be burdened by the potential unjustified costs of any changes to vehicles.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report because it is essential for a high level of road safety and environmental protection to be ensured. By this means, we will be able to help the internal market function better. Simplifying the existing legislation will make the sector more competitive. Harmonised standards for the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles are needed.

At the same time, we need a common framework for the marketing of products. This will contribute to the application of the new regulations and compliance with them. Unlimited and non-discriminatory access to information concerning vehicle repairs and maintenance is very important. I believe that the right balance guaranteeing free access to technical information must be struck. I also believe that we should have regard to all causes for concern relating to consumer protection and fair competition.

- Report: Sampo Terho (A7-0304/2012)

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Madam President, I fully agree with the Commission Green Paper for an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments. The paper aims to get more competition, more choice, more innovation and more payment security, as well as customer trust. However, customer trust is something that needs to be earned. Standardisation of the security of payments is a must. As common technical standards are developed, so too must common security payments be. Market-based self-regulation of security payments is an absolute non-runner and the Commission must legislate for this. The rapporteur also acknowledges the benefits of promoting and increasing card, internet and mobile payments in order to offer consumers and businesses an opportunity to have access to more convenient, more secure, faster, more variable, flexible and cost-effective payment methods, but we need legislation.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, I am expressing my opinion and my vote in favour of the matter under discussion because the burgeoning of means of payment and the widespread use of ‘e-money’ demand rules that reflect the times and that reconcile the drive towards greater openness to the internal market with the need for transparency. There are some positive aspects to this, which have an impact on the fight against laundering money from unlawful activities and on tax evasion, which is an unfortunate feature of many Member States. However, we need to look at this in greater detail. I think it is essential that we understand the potential problems that multilateral interchange fees could cause as regards competitiveness, with costs and surcharges that discourage greater use of e-money, and some hidden interchange fees that could do the opposite of making for an open, competitive and transparent market system.

  Lara Comi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report because I think that it addresses one of the main technological challenges of the next few years: reconciling the need to reduce what is needed for everyday life to just a few items without compromising security. The use of mobile phones as a payment method is already gaining ground in other parts of the world, particularly where banks have not yet managed to organise a network of cash dispenser machines. In Europe these technologies would allow traceability, helping to fight theft and fraud, and at the same time they would help to consolidate the internal market by making cross-border payments easier in areas with different currencies. Particular attention should quite rightly be paid to security, to preparing standards and to interoperability. While on the one hand, consumer confidence is vital, this should also be backed up by protection and security.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, this report proposes the further integration of the European card, internet and mobile payment market. With the ever-expanding use of non-cash payments through cards, there is an increasing need to develop a system that is both consistent and efficient. With proper EU oversight the card market will be able to reach its full potential. This would be achieved by the further integration of the market to alleviate problems associated with the transfer of payments among Member States with different policies.

This resolution serves to provide integration without fundamentally changing the market. Cross-border standard payments and payment security are both provided for by this resolution. A further goal is to foster competition by decreasing multilateral interchange fees and surcharges. Unnecessary or artificially inflated fees are technical obstacles that must be removed. In doing so, we will increase the efficiency of and competition on our market.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - (SK) Madam President, I wish to comment on online card and mobile payments.

Technical progress opens up new possibilities in the internal market. The gradual replacement of card payment systems by other electronic and mobile means of payment has a huge potential to increase not only the volume but also the diversity of e-commerce in the European Union. A smoothly functioning modern digital economy and cross-border e-commerce, and primarily legal certainty for consumers and traders, requires the creation of secure and efficient payment systems within the European digital market. In my opinion, we should focus on common security standards whereby standardisation should not hinder economic competition and the development of innovation. On the contrary, the European Commission should focus its efforts on increasing competition in the digital market and the card payment market, in which two non-European providers of card payment services are still dominant.

- Report: Saïd El Khadraoui (A7-0354/2012)

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, I rise to affirm this proposal. If banks are left unregulated in regard to shadow banking, then this lack of regulation will further destroy the economy. For instance, shadow banking accounted for EUR 21 trillion in 2002 and then jumped to EUR 51 trillion in 2011. In other words, shadow banking now represents 25% to 30% of all banking activity.

Placing shadow banking under the common regulatory framework will increase stability across the European Union’s banking system. Direct regulation such as establishing bank reporting requirements is a valuable tool for tackling shadow banking activity. I support this report because lack of oversight in regard to shadow banking contributed to the current financial crisis and the current banking system needs a lot of patchwork in the area of shadow banking if we are to fight the financial crisis in the EU in an efficient way.

- Report: Silvia Costa (A7-0353/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Madam President, children with their natural curiosity and superior technological skills are stumbling across or seeking out pornographic material on the internet. Violent and degrading material is easily available and this is having disturbing consequences on our children. Use by children of social networking sites is also making it easier for sexual predators to groom youngsters. When I worked on legislation on sexual exploitation of children I was pleased to support measures aimed specifically at preventing grooming. I also supported plans to block access to sites which contained child abuse images.

Now, usually I am allergic to EU legislation, but the internet has no borders. As such I am able to support most of the suggestions included in this report. I especially support encouraging internet service providers to promote self-regulation, including codes of conduct for identifying and deleting illegal content. ISPs should also help parents by providing network filters and make it easier for the filters to be employed. I am pleased to have supported this report.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Madam President, young Europeans are online for 88 minutes a day and, in the case of 15-to-16-year-olds, you are talking about two hours. This starts at an average age of nine. As has been said previously, the internet can be very dangerous for inexperienced and naive web surfers who face various risks such as the violation of privacy, the commercial or other use of their profiles, health dangers, dependence phenomena and a distorted relationship with reality and their own identity.

Harmful online content with strong connotations, as the previous speaker said – violence, discrimination, sexism and racism – is a features of the modern social media. In Ireland in the last two months we have had several suicides, including the case of two young girls aged 13, who actually hanged themselves because of bullying. The EU’s Safer Internet Programme is excellent and has a good budget. We need it right up to 2014, but we must strengthen it.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – Madam President, I voted in favour of the Costa report against the wishes of my group, and I wanted to explain why this was. I believe the report covers most aspects of the fight against threats to children from the digital world. Protecting children is an urgent matter in a changing technological world, where family, schools and the education system are not always taking the necessary measures to prevent its harmful effects. There is plenty to do, but it was the positive aspects of this report that made me vote for it.

  Lara Comi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I congratulate Ms Costa for the excellent job she has done and for choosing the right time to talk about this tricky matter. Now more than ever, new technologies are presenting a risk to the safety of personal data, particularly when we are not fully aware of the consequences of sharing certain information. It is therefore highly likely that those who are both most exposed to these technologies and least mature when it comes to using them are making mistakes. More and better education are clearly part of a general strategy to increase protection but at the same time, fighting illegal and harmful content must also be used as a way of reducing the risks associated with children being citizens of the digital world.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this important report. I would also like to focus on a number of important additional considerations. Today’s children are born into a world where computers, the internet and social media are a natural part of everyday life; however, children and young people fail to recognise the dangers of the internet, and the risks relating to child protection, in the same way as adults. This sets up new challenges for us all regarding the protection of children and young people.

Online communities also act as an arena for inappropriate contacts and bullying. Child protection in the digital world requires not only supervision by the authorities but also effective and collaborative educational work involving parents, schools and civil society. At school, children must also be taught essential skills for a digital world, and consumer education is also important. Parents, ultimately, are in the best position to monitor and protect their offspring, and so they too must be informed of the dangers of the digital world and how these can be prevented.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Madam President, I want to commend the rapporteur for this excellent report, which recognises the potential of the internet in the education and socialisation of children on the one hand while at the same time seeking to protect children from the harmful aspects of the internet. Children face many dangers in the digital environment, from sexual predators, illegal and unethical advertising to cyber bullying, and indeed there have been two cases recently in Ireland of suicides due to cyber bullying.

The digital environment by its nature fosters a culture of anonymity and secrecy. 49% of young people go online from their bedroom; 16% of young people have admitted to using a fictitious profile; 27% of 9- to 12-year-olds declare themselves to be older than they are when they are online and, worryingly, 50% of young people say that they find it easier to express themselves online rather than face to face. I particularly welcome the proposal for an educational alliance between the family, school and civil society in understanding the digital world and developing a responsible digital citizenship while identifying and developing strategies for dealing with the dangers of the internet. Finally, I believe that the schools eTwinning programme could play an important part in the development of such an alliance on a transnational basis. I was happy to support this report.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, almost 15% of internet users aged between ten and seventeen receive some form of sexual solicitation. Last October a French teenager committed suicide after being the victim of blackmail on a famous social network, Facebook. Though it proves to be an asset for the education sector we can see that the use of the internet involves substantial risk to the privacy, dignity, safety and even the life of children and teenagers.

Member States must transpose and implement as soon as possible Directive 2011/92/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. At the EU level, I welcome the creation of the new cyber security agency based at Europol and I call for adequate resources for its child protection team. A top-down approach alone is not enough: children and teenagers must receive the information and training to be able to protect themselves online. EU programmes such as the Safer Internet Programme are very positive.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). - Madam President, the age of the internet has brought us many opportunities, but also many dangers, especially for our children. I would like to state my support for cooperation between Member States when taking action on the protection of minors using audiovisual and online services. It is an area I feel passionate about and where I feel there is a vast potential to expand cooperation and work towards more effective and coordinated measures to protect children in the digital world.

I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Costa, on her own-initiative report and welcome her recommendations. We need collaboration at a European level and between public institutions and internet service providers in order to protect minors using the internet. Additional technological options, for example the blocking of access by children to harmful content, as well as the promotion of self-regulation by service providers, are also to be welcomed.

Finally, media education for minors is an initiative which I fully support, giving minors themselves the tools to navigate their way around these services safely. We must protect our children online.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, since our children spend an increasing amount of time on the internet, in many cases the internet plays a more defining role than the family or the school. Besides completing exercises for school, young people take advantage of the other opportunities offered by the internet. Many are members of some social community, and so they give information about themselves on their profiles. As they frequently use the internet by themselves, without supervision, children are exposed to various dangers in relation to violations of data protection, risks to health and addiction. First and foremost it is the job of the family and the schools to prepare children for the critical use of digital technologies. With a view to taking a stance against inappropriate content I support the efforts of Member States to elaborate strategies and standards that protect children from content that is not appropriate for their age. I agree that we need to ensure continuity for the Safer Internet Programme and protect children from online crime. This is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - (SK) Madam President, the increasing access of children and young persons to the internet places higher demands on the teaching of responsibilities, primarily by parents. Better protection of children on the internet is achieved mainly by informing parents and teachers. In the field of prevention of juvenile delinquency in Slovakia we have had good experience with the programme ‘Do you know what your child is doing now?’ This programme is aimed at alerting parents to the risks to which their children are exposed. I support the extension of similar programmes also to the field of the internet. At the same time, however, I reject the notion that the state should take responsibility for training children out of the hands of parents. Efforts should be focused on media education so that children and young people, with the help of parents and teachers, may take responsibility for their actions in relation to the internet and develop their e-skills.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, a child’s sensitive psyche faces a number of negative impacts from external digital media, especially the internet, from an early age.

It is often the case that when engaged in innocent surfing more than a third of children come into contact with material that is highly inappropriate and of a violent or sexual nature which is harmful to child development; they are also exposed to bullying. As a physician, I firmly believe that we should effectively prevent such a high level of danger and adverse influence which children face on the internet by means of an adequate interconnection of legal, technical and educational measures. The best remedy is adequate prevention, and we must therefore educate minors to protect themselves from these risks so they do not become easy prey to abusers and paedophiles who may be lurking around the internet. In this respect the inclusion of media education for parents and teachers in primary and other schools in the form of special seminars would certainly help.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report because we need to become more involved in the development and education of minors. I believe that responsibility for avoiding risks lies primarily with parents, but also with internet service providers. Everyone must protect minors when they use the internet, and internet service providers must find solutions which will prevent children under 18 years of age from accessing harmful material. I have in mind the development of filters making it possible to check users’ ages.

Child pornography remains a major problem with regard to internet access for minors, and to this end, the Member States must transpose the Directive on combating the sexual abuse of children as urgently as possible. Those who facilitate the production and distribution of such material must be brought before the courts, without exception.

- Report: Heinz K. Becker (A7-0305/2012)

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of the text adopted today, which stems from the Commission Communication of 2011 on Social Business Initiative. The Europe 2020 strategy lies ahead, and with it we will need to provide answers to the ever-increasing need for social services, for example in the health and nursing sectors, and to estimate the demographic trend we have to deal with. However, this must be accompanied by a high degree of innovation and experimentation, the success or failure of which is a matter for the European institutions to evaluate within a set timescale, so we can see whether this initial approach could bring about improvements and can continue to develop this type of enterprise effectively in the longer term.

We need to bear in mind that the nature of this type of business is very specific, having to reconcile economic growth with solidarity. For this reason I voted in favour, so that this constructive approach can be a basic pillar of a new society that reclaims the meaning and value of a job where humans are central to society in a new, integrated kind of humanism.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Madam President, the primary purpose of social enterprise is to make a positive social impact. Social enterprises, particularly in the health and social care services and in the green economy, are now a major feature of European society and are indeed an integral part of the European social model. They account for two million enterprises, ten percent of all European enterprises; they employ 11 million people or six percent of all workers in the EU.

Social enterprises are therefore important drivers of sustainable development, social innovation and inclusion and indeed the participation of marginalised groups. I believe that they have a major role to play in achieving the social, employment and educational targets of the EU 2020 Strategy. It is therefore important to create a favourable climate for social enterprises and it is important that we have the political framework and the financial support necessary for social enterprises to both survive in the current crisis and to thrive.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, we need a favourable climate for social enterprises and innovation. Social enterprises employ 6% of the entire EU workforce, or over 18 million people. They provide social services in areas such as health and education that are beneficial to society. Social entrepreneurs are innovators and key players in the social economy and must be protected. A stronger social enterprise economy will help accomplish the goals of the Single Market Act as well as the Europe 2020 Strategy. They need support that is specifically designed for their benefit. This support may come from EU-supported banking, funds and microcredit. We must make sure that the measures suggested by this proposal will ensure just that.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, the demographic changes pointing towards an ageing society are prompting an increase in demand for social services, first and foremost in health care and nursing care. Social enterprises employ more than 11 million people today in the EU. Thanks to their innovative potential they contribute to creating new jobs in various areas of employment, such as health care, nursing care, education and training, culture or tourism. They can help integrate vulnerable groups into the labour market. For a social enterprise to enjoy rapid growth and development, the two main requirements are committed personnel and additional financing. We have to increase awareness of these financing opportunities and make them more accessible to young enterprises. Giving financial support to social entrepreneurs not only contributes to creating jobs, but these activities also give meaning to the lives of many people. I support the Commission’s proposal and voted in favour of the report.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - (SK) Madam President, I am very much in favour of the social aspect of entrepreneurship as well as the ability and willingness of businesses and entrepreneurs to participate in helping those in need. If, however, by social enterprises we mean those that are focused not on profit, but on the achievement of measurable positive social impacts, as stated in the report submitted, these are no longer enterprises, but social activities. We should therefore not seek new ways to artificially support such activities and make them competitive with enterprises seeking profit. We should focus on supporting this activity by simplifying legislation, increasing social recognition and reducing the tax burden.

  Mojca Kleva (S&D). – (SL) Madam President, social enterprises have a hard time obtaining finance and gaining access to loans, one of the fundamental conditions for the establishment and development of such enterprises. Even access to public funds and Structural Funds is frequently hampered by the excessively rigid or bureaucratic system.

Their situation is exacerbated by the inadequate recognition of and familiarity with the system of social enterprises, which is beset by unfounded stereotypes. For this reason we need to advertise clearly the possibilities for financing social enterprises at all levels, and to simplify the implementation of state-aid rules concerning social and local services.

Reform of the EU’s public procurement rules also provides a good opportunity to improve respect for social standards.

I myself receive written questions almost every week in my office regarding the possibility of financing social enterprises, and the interest is truly enormous. I therefore support very strongly, and am decisively on the side of, policies geared towards social enterprises.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of Mr Becker’s report, which provides a better framework for the contribution of social businesses to solving the current crisis. Social enterprises are unfortunately often seen as a sort of appendage to traditional forms of business, based exclusively on the maximisation of profit. Social enterprises, on the other hand, have a fundamental role to play in the development of markets and the European economy. They enable innovative responses to be made to economic, social and environmental challenges, through sustainable development, social inclusion and territorial cohesion. I therefore support the proposal to set up a Social Entrepreneurship Fund, which meets the primary objective of not exposing these businesses to unregulated competition, guaranteeing them adequate financial support and facilitating their market integration.

- Report: Marianne Thyssen (A7-0339/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Madam President, this report considers the only genuine economic and monetary union to be a federal one. I voted against this report because I believe it will deprive national parliaments of their rightful say in the budget of their own country. Already we have seen Brussels trying to control national purse strings as the EU tries to claw its way out of the economic misery, but – tighter control by an EU treasury over Member States’ budgets? Seriously? Not a good idea.

We have seen how the Stability Pact has failed to prevent the implosion of the euro. We must also resist proposals for the EU budget to be funded from its own resources, including a financial transaction tax. Again, not a good idea. If the euro area chooses to go ahead with some form of banking union, I hope it will ignore the recommendations of this report.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I voted against this report. Never before have the European Union and its institutions been so powerful, and never before have both the European Union and the institutions of the Union been so unpopular amongst the citizens of the individual Member States.

One of the reasons for this can also be found in this report. I would like to cite just a few examples from a whole list of such reasons. Citizens were promised that they would not have to foot the bill for this financial crisis, but that the private sector would pay. Precisely the opposite is being proposed here: a new fiscal socialism.

There are calls for a banking union. That is nothing less than an admission of helplessness. Instead of a union of citizens we are now creating a union of banks. Citizens are increasingly getting the feeling that this Union is only there for the banks and no longer for them. This is a new form of a Commission- or Council-led Europe that is becoming entirely detached from and moving away from its citizens.

The banking union is only covering up the problem that to date we have still not been able to get the financial crisis under control. This banking union lies outside the European legal system. It is based only on a Council decision that actually even conflicts with the European Stability Mechanism Treaty. I could provide a whole list of such examples. There is no option but to reject this report.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Madam President, I support the creation of an economic, monetary and fiscal union. We have created a common market and a single currency, yet we do not have a unique political decision. The European People’s Party has consistently advocated closer economic integration as an answer to the current financial crisis.

Today I would like to refer to two recommendations in the Thyssen report that I find particularly relevant: recommendation 2.7 on ensuring the democratic oversight of the European Stability Mechanism, and recommendation 4.2 on European financial backstops.

As the rapporteur on the 2010 discharge of European agencies, I do have an insight into the spending of EU money. We cannot create a help fund for Member States without ensuring that this money is spent in a correct, efficient and justifiable way. We are talking about substantial amounts of money with many political interests at stake. We must be clear on who is responsible for control and oversight. The European Parliament has proved that it can take this responsibility seriously. We have taken a leading role in the fight against corruption and conflicts of interest. We must continue to support measures to stamp out potentially ambiguous practices.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report because economic and monetary union must lead to sustainable growth and a high level of employment of the labour force. We need more Europe, but to that end, greater parliamentary involvement is also needed.

The majority of the Member States are in a difficult economic situation, and this is precisely why an urgent decision on the future and the direction in which the Union will continue to move is needed. We need a climate which is good for entrepreneurs and investors, and the creation of jobs and guaranteeing of decent conditions are pivotal in overcoming the current problems.

Europe must move in the direction of a democratic federation of nation states which can develop a coherent economic policy and a foreign policy which is relevant on the international stage.

  Mojca Kleva (S&D). – (SL) Madam President, I support the report on Economic and Monetary Union. We have reiterated countless times here in Parliament that the adopted rules on macroeconomic imbalance and on binding supervision of budgetary discipline in the euro area must be supplemented with criteria for success in the area of employment and social protection.

I am pleased that Ms Thyssen’s report clearly calls for the setting up of a social pact for Europe to promote youth employment and ensure common minimum social standards for all Europeans, social protection, and equal conditions for labour throughout the European Union.

The social pact must be the fifth pillar of the new EU architecture. On this point I merely wish for this report from the European Parliament to make its way to the desks of all political representatives of the Member States and the Council, and for it to be taken seriously by the European leaders, headed by Mr Van Rompuy.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - (SK) Madam President, this House has long been convinced of the need to transform the European Union into a federation as rapidly as possible.

Even though I also represent people who recognise the tremendous benefit of European integration, many of the demands within the present report fill me with concern. I have not voted in favour of this report, because it seems to me as if this Parliament wants at all costs to outpace natural evolution, whilst using the threat of the ongoing economic crisis. At the same time, considerations of a common fiscal policy, banking union, etc., are based on the assumption that citizens of Member States feel a sense of mutual solidarity. However, such solidarity exists only when people share common values, but as our daily experience shows, the debate on common European values will remain open for a long time to come, at least until discrimination against and intolerance towards Christians ceases.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Tadeusz Zwiefka (A7-0320/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report, since I think that the Brussels I Regulation provides clear rules for access to justice and is of major significance for citizens and businesses. In an ever more globalised world, in which European citizens live and work outside the European Union, it is essential to protect their fundamental right of access to justice as well as to avoid discrimination on the basis of domicile. I would also point out our efforts, as members of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, to introduce proposals for a new rule on jurisdiction for disputes concerning industrial action, for individual work contracts, for disputes concerning the infringement of privacy and the right to legal personality. These proposals strengthen an essential aspect since, beyond the simple rights of citizens in a globalised world, we also need to examine labour disputes and their socio-economic consequences for workers, so that in this way we shall be moving towards a fairer Europe.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution which signifies a breakthrough in an almost two-year negotiation on a new set of rules governing the jurisdiction of courts in civil and commercial matters. I support the rapporteur in believing that the new regulation will provide conditions for judgments to flow freely within the EU. The procedure will be quicker and simpler for the citizens, thus saving consumers and businesses more than EUR 47 million per year. This report falls perfectly in line with the concept of the Single Market where free movement of goods and resources is already functioning. Now it will be ensured that European citizens will have an easy and fast way of exercising their rights as the regulation introduces a number of changes designed to increase legal certainty and facilitate access to justice.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the efforts made during the negotiations, because through this regulation citizens and businesses in the European Union will have access to a consistent legal framework which will allow civil and commercial judgments pronounced by the competent courts to be recognised and enforced promptly in a Member State other than the one in which the judgment was pronounced, and by this means they will be able to derive full benefit from rights gained in court. I support the change proposed by the rapporteur, that of abolishing exequatur for civil and commercial judgments, because this means that any judgment obtained in a Member State will automatically be recognised in any other Member State, and this will lead to a significant improvement in the access to justice guaranteed to citizens and businesses, contributing at the same time to the acceleration of the judicial process. I believe that this proposal is also important for European consumers, who are among the main beneficiaries of this reform in the field of judicial cooperation. It is essential that their right to take legal action against the other party to a contract in the courts where the former are domiciled is always guaranteed.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which serves to strengthen judicial mechanisms for businesses and consumers. Issues of jurisdiction and recognition of judgments between Member States are of key importance in the single market context. This text means that consumers, particularly in a legal dispute between a consumer and a business, will always be able to choose to go to court in the Member State where they are domiciled. This is possible under the principle of protection of the weaker party.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal to recast the Brussels I Regulation of 22 December 2001, which forms the basis for cooperation in civil matters within the EU. Even though the Regulation has been successful, there are still certain difficulties in its application (barriers to the free circulation of judgments, complexity of cross-border litigation, etc.) that need to be eliminated. I agree with the proposals set out, such as the proposal to abolish the procedure for the declaration of enforceability of a judgment in another Member State (exequatur), a procedure that prevents the free circulation of judgments and takes up a lot of time and resources. The current Regulation applies only in cases where a defendant is domiciled in the EU. I agree with the proposal to give citizens and companies within the EU the opportunity to sue defendants from third States. I also agree with the abolition of provision that obliges the courts of the Member States to decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seised as such a provision allows the parties in a dispute to first contact a court where the dispute is not justiciable, thus delaying the proceedings. I agree with the other proposals set out in the report.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support Mr Zwiefka’s report analysing the Commission proposal to update Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, also known as ‘Brussels I’. The report not only proposes changes to enhance the effectiveness of arbitration agreements within the Member States and to avoid parallel proceedings in the courts or arbitral tribunals but it also firmly opposes the abusive litigation tactics identified by studies conducted in this area by the Commission.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report as it aims to update the provisions of the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The Regulation is generally recognised as one of the most successful pieces of EU legislation. On the basis of this Regulation, it is intended that judgments can be invoked not just in the Member State of origin but throughout the EU, providing that an authentic copy of the judgment and a certificate issued in the prescribed form are produced. In this recast Regulation, the Commission is also proposing that the Regulation’s jurisdictional rules be applied to third-country defendants, thereby displacing the existing grounds of jurisdiction in such cases. It is important to note that the Commission also proposes special rules aimed at avoiding parallel proceedings and abusive litigation tactics. The Regulation should still not apply to arbitration. The recast Regulation irons out some of the difficulties encountered over the last decade in this field, and that is a positive development.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This report is a recast proposal amending the Brussels I Regulation in favour of European consumers. In fact, this recasting produces a genuine turning point at the heart of the legal framework of our single market: from now on, consumers will be able to take legal action in their European country of origin against a seller or company located outside the EU. In addition, any judgment given in one Member State will automatically be recognised in all of the others.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) After 2 years of intense and complex negotiations, I am delighted that it has finally been possible to reach an agreement, which I regard as generally positive. The Brussels I Regulation of 2002, which is the matrix for judicial cooperation in civil matters within the EU, will thus be revised, making it possible to determine the most appropriate jurisdiction for resolving a cross-border dispute and facilitating recognition and enforcement of judgments given in another Member State. Despite the major improvements introduced by this Regulation, there are still deficiencies that need to be ironed out in order to facilitate cross-border litigation and the free circulation of judgments within the EU, having regard to the development of a genuine European area of justice at the service of citizens and businesses. There is no doubt that among the 27 Member States that share the single market, the exequatur procedure has become a mere formality, in addition to making the cross-border litigation process more time-consuming and costly. I therefore agree that it should be abolished and that, for reasons of legal certainty, there should be no exceptions, although it is essential to retain safeguards to protect rights of defence. I also think that the efficiency of the choice-of-court agreements has been substantially improved.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The single market is also achieved through legal decisions being properly implemented throughout Europe. This text means that consumers, first and foremost, will be better protected and better able to enforce their rights. It was with that aim in mind that I voted in favour of this proposal for a regulation that will allow continued development of a genuine European judicial area.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which strengthens protection of consumers by granting them additional rights in the event of a legal dispute with a business, particularly if the latter is based outside EU borders. The European Union has a duty to implement increased protection of its citizens by making recognition of judgments common to all Member States.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report since I think it is essential to recast Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in response to the recommendations made by various experts on this matter. Revision of the Regulation should help to remove the obstacles still present in the European area of justice which make it difficult to apply the principle of mutual recognition.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I am aware of the enormous importance of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in the area of private international law and of the need to have an appropriate legal framework to enable recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The recognition and enforcement of judgments outside the Member State that delivered them is fundamental for protecting the interests of citizens and businesses and for legal certainty in the internal market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report under consideration, drawn up by Mr Zwiefka, focuses on the proposal to recast the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The law on enforcement of a decision is a fundamental guarantee for defending citizens’ rights. There is no point in bringing a legal case, in view of the costs in terms of time and money if, once the judgment is known, it is not possible to enforce it. I therefore welcome Parliament’s adoption of this regulation approximating the national legal systems – after three years of discussion – and I am hoping that the process will be concluded at the next European Council meeting to be held in December; that will make it possible to have free circulation of judgments, thus helping to consolidate the European Union. Its extension to citizens residing in third countries is very important, since it will enhance the effectiveness of the courts, by simplifying cases and reducing costs. I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution which constitutes a reform of the legal systems, bringing swifter and less costly justice.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The Commission’s proposal suggests amendments to and a recast of the current Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, removing some parts which it considers would present ‘obstacles to the free movement of judicial decisions in line with the principle of mutual recognition’. To that end, it proposes – and the rapporteur supports this – abolishing the exequatur procedure, that is, it advocates that a judgment given by a court in one Member State must compulsorily be recognised by another Member State without recourse to any other expedient. This is another step towards the harmonisation of legislative procedures, posing a threat to independent national judicial powers. This lies within the sphere of national sovereignty, which we believe cannot be relinquished, which is why we did not support the report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) On 21 April 2009, the Commission adopted a report on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The report concluded that, in general, the operation of that Regulation is satisfactory, but that it is desirable to improve the application of certain of its provisions, to further facilitate the free circulation of judgments, and to further enhance access to justice. Since a series of amendments are to be made, that Regulation should, in the interests of clarity, be recast. The Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, inter alia by facilitating access to justice, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extra-judicial decisions in civil matters. For the gradual establishment of such an area, the Union is to adopt measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market. In order to attain the objective of free circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters, it is necessary and appropriate that the rules governing jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments be governed by a legal instrument of the Union which is binding and directly applicable. This Regulation is one of the most successful pieces of EU legislation and its recast is of considerable importance.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Zwiefka as it raises a good number of issues regarding legal certainty. I also believe that we need to improve the efficiency of jurisdiction agreements as this will avoid ‘abusive tactics’. The report also deals with enforceable judgments that were adopted in the Member State where the original procedure was conducted. We have to work towards ensuring that an enforceable judgment can be enforced in other EU Member States without requiring any intermediate proceedings. I believe we also have to improve the efficiency of court of arbitration agreements to ensure that the will of the given parties is fully asserted. I am sure that if the proposals made in the report are implemented this will be a significant boost to legal certainty.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. − (PL) I am pleased to see the results of many months of negotiations on the new principles of jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. The most important element of the new regulation is the potential for automatic recognition of cross-border judgments relating to civil and commercial cases issued in different Member States. Previously the cost of confirmation of judgments varied, depending on the country, between EUR 2 000 and 12 000. The removal of this time-consuming and very costly procedure will lead to a saving of more than EUR 47 million a year, and will also lead to quicker and easier assertion of their rights by EU citizens. It is also important that Member States have retained the right to suspend or refrain entirely from the enforcement of a judgment if it is not concordant with the State’s legal order. The extension of procedures to allow the filing of actions by a company or an employee of a company from outside the Member States, which is additionally proposed in the report, will significantly facilitate the assertion of rights in disputes of an international nature. I agree with the rapporteur that this is a good step along the road towards simplification and standardisation of European legal rules, to enable them to come into line with the challenges posed by the single market. The new regulation, which reinforces the current legal framework, not only eases access by EU citizens to the administration of justice guaranteed by Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, but also means that it will be more comprehensible to them, and less costly, which is an excellent reflection of trends towards the creation of a more transparent and friendly EU law.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report which forms a valuable instrument in Scots law and will give added certainty to Scottish businesses. Scotland benefits greatly from being part of the EU and will be able to contribute even more when we are an independent Member State.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document. Regulation No 44/2001, with its predecessor the Brussels Convention, is one of the most successful pieces of EU legislation; it laid the foundations for a European judicial area, has served citizens and businesses well by promoting legal certainty and predictability of decisions and is used as a reference and a tool by other instruments. The recast of this Regulation is therefore of considerable importance. The proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such. As regards such changes and the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance, in order to ensure a more efficient and rapid recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. The recast Regulation irons out some of the difficulties encountered over the last decade in this field, and the abolition of exequatur for all civil and commercial judgments is a significant step forward in terms of access to justice for citizens and businesses.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) We are pleased with the recast of this Regulation, which is now one of the most effective acts of EU legislation, since it definitively lays the foundations for a European judicial area for the benefit of citizens and businesses, and promotes legal certainty and the predictability of decisions. Among its many points we support the abolition of exequatur proposed by the Commission, since we believe that a judgment enforceable in the Member State of origin should be enforceable and enforced elsewhere in the EU upon production of an authentic copy and a certificate in the prescribed form issued by the court of origin, without any intermediate procedure. The abolition of exequatur for all civil and commercial judgments is a significant step forward in access to justice for citizens and businesses. Lastly, we believe that the question of whether the rules of the Regulation should be extended in the near future is necessary and we think that, in the meantime, wide-ranging consultation and political debate is required. At this juncture, we therefore propose that rules be included in the Regulation to introduce only a partial reflexive effect for disputes in the field of insurance contracts.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Zwiefka report on the recast of the Regulation on the recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters is a courageous and admirable step forward with respect to the Commission proposal. The premise is that judicial cooperation between the Member States is a necessary prerequisite for promoting the internal market. It is impossible to maintain a common European area without coherence between the exercise of a right and its protection. Parliament’s proposal to overcome the obstacle, expensive in terms of both money and time, of the enforcement procedure required to enforce in one Member State a judgment given in another Member State represents a significant act of responsibility in European integration, that has been executed with great competence and without overlooking respect for fundamental safeguards. The report proposes the abolition of exequatur while maintaining control of respect for the right to adversarial proceedings, the principle of the formal final judgment and the fundamental values of the legal system in which the judgment is to be enforced. The path shown by Mr Zwiefka is the right way to go, and for this reason I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) For the sake of protecting the interests of citizens and businesses, and in order to have legal certainty on the internal market, the recognition and enforcement of judgments in other Member States is essential. That is why it is fundamental to approve this report in order to provide a legal framework to enable the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The regulation provides clear rules for access to justice and is of utmost importance for citizens and businesses. In an increasingly globalised world where EU citizens live and work outside the EU the reflexive effect is vital to defend their fundamental right of access to justice, and not to discriminate on grounds of domicile. It is vital also to implement the resolution of 11 March 2004 on non-citizens in Latvia. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) With the Regulation the EU’s intention is to increase legal certainty for citizens and businesses. In place of exequatur, the judgment is to be regarded as if it were given by the courts of the Member State of enforcement. Under certain circumstances a review of the judgment may be applied for at the courts of the Member State of origin. With regard to cross-border litigation in particular it is important that the right to a fair trial is not impaired in any way. However, this principle must not degenerate into a mere instrument of appeal either. That is no easy undertaking. I took this into account in my vote.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Closer integration of the European Union meant that what was formerly just an economic union is now slowly developing the characteristics of a political and fiscal union. Different legal traditions alone make the creation of a common judicial area a lengthy process. For this reason, the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters that was passed in the European Parliament today is an important step towards ensuring that people, citizens and companies in the EU save both time and money in the preparation of procedural documents and the carrying out of sentences.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I believe that the abolition of exequatur for all civil and commercial judgments is a significant step forward in access to justice for citizens and businesses. Abolition of the bureaucratic exequatur procedure will also dismantle certain existing barriers in international agreements. It should be noted that appropriate implementation of the provisions of this Regulation will strengthen the internal market and breaking down bureaucratic barriers that result in companies incurring additional expenses and experiencing legal uncertainty.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The recast of the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the ‘Brussels I’ regulation, is a very important base for the development of single European legislation. I believe that the text is a major step towards cracking open national legislation to make it into a single system that can bring substance to European law by making it effective and giving it certainty through the management of jurisdiction on an international scale. Faster, more dynamic and comparative enforcement of European law is thus achieved to assist citizens in different circumstances.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, with its predecessor the Brussels Convention, is one of the most successful pieces of EU legislation in judicial matters. Both documents laid the foundations for a European judicial area, have served citizens and businesses well by promoting legal certainty and predictability of decisions, and they are used as a reference and a tool by other instruments. The European Commission proposed the recasting of the instrument in question in order to improve it. The European Parliament gave its opinions and supported some of the measures proposed by the Commission. In view of that, since this report brings improvements to the said legal instrument, I voted in favour.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Having regard to the fact that Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 laid the foundations of a European judicial area, it has served citizens and businesses well by promoting legal certainty and predictability of decisions and is used as a reference and a tool by other instruments. The recast of this Regulation is therefore of considerable importance because it eliminates some of the difficulties encountered in the last ten years in this sphere. Bearing in mind that the abolition of exequatur for all civil and commercial judgments is a significant step forward in access to justice for all citizens and businesses, and while underlining the need to improve the effectiveness of arbitration agreements in order to give full effect to the will of the parties, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − This regulation has my support as it provides straightforward rules on the access to justice for our citizens and businesses. The implementation of a clear and consistent rule of law throughout Member States is of the upmost importance as it allows citizens to trust their legal system, and rest assured that policy will be followed in a similar manner throughout the European Union. The regulation sets out that a judgment given in one Member State is to be recognised without special proceedings being required. In today’s world, where increasing numbers of people move between Member States, it is a great comfort to know the states will consistently enforce the rule of law. Many achievements will be accomplished by this regulation including explicit reference to the rights of workers enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and protective rules towards individual employees will be greatly improved. In these times, there has been considerable concern over the workers’ rights, especially when it comes to industrial action, and it is vital that the legal system which is in place protects and respects these rights. The regulation is thus of great significance in terms of the development of EU law.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. After two years of negotiation, an agreement has been reached. Consumers will be among the main beneficiaries of this reform. Consumers benefit from the principle of the protection of the weaker party. This means that in a legal dispute between consumers and business, the consumer may always choose to go to court in the EU Member State in which he/she is domiciled. This principle currently applies only to legal relationships inside the EU. Thanks to this reform, a consumer will also be able to bring to court in his home EU country a seller/company from outside the EU. This is a major success for our Group.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Zwiefka’s report because I believe that judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters constitutes a fundamental legal basis in view of the objective of strengthening the single market. This Regulation is important because, while it lays down civil and commercial provisions at EU level, it establishes with certainty which court will have jurisdiction for settling cross-border disputes. Another positive aspect of the report is the decision to maintain mechanisms that protect the rights of defendants and consumers, in line with the principle of protecting the weaker party.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The adoption of the Brussels I Regulation is extremely important with regard to creating a unified European judicial area. The purpose of the regulation is to foster closer cooperation between the authorities of Member States, eliminating the barriers that arise from differences between the various legal and public administration systems, and thereby promoting everyone’s right to justice. The revision of the Brussels I Regulation is a success story for European consumers, enterprises and the whole of the single market. The new regulation benefits the majority of citizens and companies by facilitating legal certainty and making resolutions more predictable. One significant result is the abolition of exequatur, i.e. the procedure for declaring resolutions enforceable. Following this decision, an enforceable ruling in the Member State where the original proceedings were conducted will now be enforceable in other Member States without any intermediate procedure, thereby accelerating the free movement of court judgments. It makes it possible to resolve disputes quickly, fairly and efficiently, which is a boost to the cross-border trade of small and medium-sized enterprises and therefore also to growth.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. For the internal market to function properly, we must have clear rules on jurisdiction, and also improve and speed up the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Speed of proceedings and legal certainty are, in this regard, key requirements at a time when increased trade between individuals and economic operators in different Member States means that disputes are increasing.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Parliament has today adopted at first reading a proposal for a regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The document adopted approves the European Commission’s position, adding, however that the recognition of judgments should also include the recognition that the guarantees accorded to defendants should be upheld, enabling them to appeal against the judgment should their right to a fair trial be infringed. Moreover, Parliament’s view is that consumers should be the main beneficiaries of this reform. Thus, the consumer, regarded as the weaker party in a court case, may choose to appeal to the court of the Member State in which he or she is domiciled. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the Resolution of the European Parliament on the proposal for a regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. I believe it is important to achieve the Union’s objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, inter alia by facilitating access to justice, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extra-judicial decisions in civil matters. Certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments hamper the sound operation of the internal market. Provisions to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, and to ensure rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State, are essential. This regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts or omissions in the exercise of State authority.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (along with its forerunner, the Brussels Convention) is one of the EU’s most successful legal instruments. It laid the foundations for a European judicial area, promoted legal certainty and predictability of decisions and is used as a reference tool by other instruments. The recast version is of considerable importance. Agreement has been reached on points including the abolition of exequatur, the extension of the Regulation’s jurisdiction rules to defendants domiciled outside the EU and choice-of-court and arbitration agreements. The Committee on Legal Affairs is satisfied with the compromise reached with Council, as it corresponds to Parliament’s position in all major points. The abolition of exequatur for all civil and commercial judgments is a significant step forward in access to justice for citizens and businesses.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The introduction of a new section in the regulation on jurisdiction over industrial actions will improve access to justice, inter alia by making it possible for employees to bring actions against multiple defendants in the employment area under Article 6(1). I have therefore voted for this regulation.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The Commission’s proposal, on which this report gives an opinion, proposes amendments to and a recast of the current Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to remove some parts which it considers would present ‘obstacles to the free movement of judicial decisions in line with the principle of mutual recognition’. It therefore proposes abolishing the exequatur procedure, that is, the rapporteur agrees with the European Commission in supporting the view that a judgment given by a court in one Member State must compulsorily be recognised by another Member State without recourse to any other expedient. This new procedure constitutes another step towards the harmonisation of legislative procedures, which goes against independent, national and sovereign judicial powers; that is why we did not support this report.

- Report: Jan Mulder (A7-0269/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report, since the purpose of this Regulation is to restrict the general public’s access to high-risk chemicals which have the potential to be used to produce home-made explosives. I think that in today’s world we must adopt an ever more preventive approach in order to protect Europe’s citizens. The crisis and austerity, as well as the international climate and the geo-strategic situation of Europe, place an obligation on us to take precautionary measures for the sake of the well-being of the population in general. We cannot step aside from the present European and world reality: some fear, frustration and disturbance, since instability took over the economy and thus society as a whole in a large part of Europe, which is living under extreme austerity measures. In addition, it should be stressed that Europe, as an international player with a foreign policy, must be alert to possible attacks and other terrorist acts against the population in general due to political and cultural principles, values and ideas. We must therefore, at all costs, protect the safety and well-being of the people of Europe.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Like a large majority of MEPs, I voted in favour of this report, which seeks to reduce access by the general public to high-risk chemicals that could readily be misused to make home-made explosives. The aim here is to improve traceability and thus increase the effectiveness of work done by Member States to combat terrorism.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for the proposal to limit access by the general public to chemicals that may be used to make home-made explosives, thereby reducing the threat of attacks and increasing the level of security for EU citizens. Legislative and non-legislative measures regarding trade in such substances are not harmonised in the EU and while the purchase of a certain substance might be controlled in one country, the same substance can still be bought in another country. It is essential to ensure harmonised purchase controls for these substances throughout the EU, thereby reducing the possibility for terrorists to use the different safety rules of the EU Member States to their advantage. Furthermore, harmonised rules would be beneficial to wholesalers and retailers. I agree with the proposals regarding the possibility of purchasing substances in concentrations higher than those set out provided that the buyer presents a licence to purchase that substance. I agree with the proposal that any transaction deemed to be ‘suspicious’ on any ‘reasonable’ grounds should be reported to a single national contact point.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Mulder’s report on regulating the marketing of explosives precursors. All chemicals previously sold freely but that can be used to make the homemade explosive devices often used in terrorist attacks when mixed together in the right way, are defined as explosives precursors. These substances are currently accessible to European consumers by various means. The report therefore seeks to harmonise current legislation on the matter by establishing that consumers can buy, for domestic use, products at chemical concentrations below given thresholds but that anyone requiring higher concentrations will be issued with a purchasing licence and a record of their purchases will be kept in special registers.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report as this proposal seeks to reduce the frequency of terrorist attacks and limit legal access to substances (and mixtures thereof) which in high concentrations can be used to manufacture home-made explosives. It is important to note that the stricter rules for purchasing certain substances will not affect specialists or companies that use these substances for legitimate purposes. It is also stressed that the rights of individuals to privacy will be respected when substances are sold in high concentrations to the general public, which is only possible when the buyer presents an end-user licence. To summarise, access by the general public to explosive chemicals in concentrated form will be restricted, while free movement of goods will continue to be guaranteed and individual rights will continue to be protected.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the marketing and use of explosives precursors. This report is part of the European Union’s counter-terrorism strategy. It emphasises harmonised rules concerning the making available on the market of substances or mixtures that could be misused for the illicit manufacture of explosives, with a view to limiting their availability to the general public. I also support the decision to prohibit the sale of certain chemicals to the general public, based on defined concentration limits. However, being able to obtain them, on an exceptional basis, will be conditional on presentation of a permit, in the form of a licence to purchase. In addition, the report ensures that personal data required for the granting of a licence will be processed in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Mulder report on the marketing and use of explosives precursors. In line with European counter-terrorism strategy, it seems necessary to restrict access by the general public to high-risk chemicals that could readily be misused. I welcome the idea of improving controls aimed at preventing suspicious transactions.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Commission’s proposal seeks to reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks by restricting access by members of the public to specific substances in general use but which can also be misused as explosives precursors. Professional users of these materials and business-to-business sales would not be affected. I voted in favour of this report, since I support actions to combat terrorism and agree with the overall rationale for the proposal.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I support the compromise reached with the Council at first reading, which should make a significant contribution to reducing of the risks of illicit use of certain chemicals, widely available on the market and accessible to the general public. In 2006 we adopted the REACH Regulation, which covers chemicals from a safety perspective, but issues of security relating to chemical precursors to explosives were, by way of exception, outside its scope. We must not forget that home-made explosives, made from certain chemical precursors that are easily accessible to the public, are, according to Europol, the preferred tool for perpetrators of terrorist attacks. We urgently need to adopt a common EU approach in order to prevent different levels of regulation resulting in security gaps and distorting the functioning of the internal market. Only thus shall we manage to significantly reduce the risk of the misuse of certain chemical precursors to produce home-made explosives, prohibiting unauthorised sales of certain chemicals above specific concentration thresholds to members of the general public. This regulation should also be accompanied by a whole set of measures to be taken by the chemical industry and the retail sector to enhance security and raise awareness in the entire supply chain.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a result of this preventive measure, we are improving controls over certain chemicals that can be used as explosives precursors. What is targeted here is primarily the manufacture of home-made explosives, which were used in recent terrorist attacks, notably the July 2011 attack in Norway. I particularly support the emphasis placed on equal sharing of costs between all stakeholders: this measure concerns our safety but it must not place an undue burden on our businesses, particularly SMEs.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which serves to limit access by the general public to certain specific substances in general use but which can also be misused as explosives precursors. The European Union has a duty to prevent any terrorist act within its borders. That is achieved through greater cooperation between Member States. Citizens face terrorist threats; their safety must therefore be guaranteed by enhanced legislation.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday 20 November the vast majority of MEPs declared themselves in favour of the report presented by Jan Mulder to restrict individuals’ access to chemicals. If the text is adopted by the Council, it will become much more difficult to buy large quantities of chemicals that could be used to make home-made bombs. While this is clearly not sufficient guarantee to prevent, with absolute certainty, the making of home-made bombs, it is nevertheless, in my view, a significant step in the right direction.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I support the implementation of measures that help to reduce risks and that restrict the general public’s access, as regards selected highly-concentrated chemicals. It is essential to control access to certain articles, such as precursors to home-made explosives which, apart from being dangerous, are frequently used by terrorists and other criminals to perpetrate their attacks.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The proposal we are voting on today consists of a regulation restricting the general public’s access to specific substances that could be misused as explosives precursors. Although I tend to favour legislative frameworks that do not restrict individual freedom, I think that, in some circumstances, protecting overall security calls for some restriction on that freedom. That is the case here, where protecting citizens against terrorism suggests that restrictions should be imposed on the marketing and use of products that could be used to make explosives.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) With the widespread use of new information technologies and the advent of the internet, we are just a click away from a set of data that, if they fell into unscrupulous hands, could pose a threat to the safety of persons and property. We all remember the massacre (85 dead) which took place in Norway, on the island of Utøya, to be more specific, involving young people taking part in a Labour Party summer camp, as well as the detonation of a car bomb that killed seven people in the Norwegian capital only two hours beforehand. The ease with which we are able to access privileged information and certain dual-use products encourages terrorist activity and we must urgently restrict such access, since the security of States and citizens is at stake. I voted in favour of the report drawn up by Jan Mulder on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, because we need measures applying across the Member States to prevent indiscriminate and uncontrolled access to substances that can be used to make home-made weapons. Since terrorism and criminality are cross-border phenomena, I know that this will be a major step towards avoiding new terrorist attacks within the European Union.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Important steps need to be taken as regards the marketing and use of explosives precursors – steps concerning levels of safety for workers and environmental protection, in particular. This report seeks to make progress in that direction, but is not without limitations and contradictions. We find it positive that there is provision for a safeguard clause to allow any Member State so wishing to apply stricter measures for certain substances or mixtures of substances, and to decide not to allow the general public to have access to any of the substances in question. Once again we would criticise the vision of ‘the free movement of chemical substances and mixtures within the internal market’ and of the need to ‘remove distortions of competition’ underlying the report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The Action Plan on Enhancing the Security of Explosives, adopted by the Council in April 2008, called on the Commission to establish a Standing Committee on Precursors to consider measures and prepare recommendations concerning the regulation of explosives precursors available on the market, taking into account their cost-benefit effects. Subsequently, the Committee identified various explosives precursors that are susceptible to being used to commit terrorist attacks and recommended appropriate action at Union level. Some Member States have already adopted relevant laws, regulations and administrative provisions. In some Member States, however, these are divergent and may cause barriers to trade within the European Union. I therefore consider it justified to harmonise them in order to guarantee the free movement of chemical substances and mixtures within the internal market, while ensuring a high level of protection of the safety of the general public. Since the objective of this Regulation, namely limiting access by the general public to chemicals that may be used to make home-made explosives, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, by reason of the scale of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the European Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Given that the retail and wholesale distribution of chemical materials is both risky and alarming from a security perspective – in relation to technologies and products with more than one purpose – I lend my full support to all efforts aimed at tightening licensing procedures. However, it is important to emphasise that these efforts will only be successful if the ultimate outcome has certain risk benefits for the consumer as well. Thus, recognising the situations of workers in the various economies, we have to realise that the scope of activities subject to licensing should be regulated at distributor level. In the light of this I welcome all efforts designed to facilitate the harmonisation of activities between national licensing authorities – alongside strict reporting requirements and permanent operational supervision – thereby helping to improve and develop the legal certainty of bilateral consumer protection.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal. This proposal is for a Regulation restricting access by members of the public to specific substances in general use but which can also be misused as explosives precursors. It seeks to reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks by limiting access by the general public to, and reporting suspicious transactions of, widely and legitimately used substances (and mixtures thereof) which in high concentrations can also be used to manufacture explosives. The proposal is directed at wholesalers, retailers and Member States. Chemical manufacturers already have controls and voluntary reporting codes in place for weapon and drug precursors, for instance, and should not be materially affected by these proposals. Success will depend upon actions by competent authorities with respect to the gathering and sharing of relevant information.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Regulation on the marketing and use of explosives precursors requires the adoption of a series of practical measures aimed at a clearer delimitation of the current safety limits. For this reason I voted in favour of Mr Mulder’s report. In the light of serious and tragic incidents such as the Oslo massacre, the need to make it more difficult to procure explosive substances is understandable. I therefore believe that some of the proposed new rules, such as the ban on the purchase by members of the public of 15 types of explosive, are a step in the right direction since they define more clearly the boundaries of a subject that deserves great attention.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal. It seeks to reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks by limiting access by the general public to, and reporting suspicious transactions of, widely and legitimately used substances (and mixtures thereof) which in high concentrations can also be used to manufacture explosives. The proposal is directed at wholesalers, retailers and Member States. Chemical manufacturers already have controls and voluntary reporting codes in place for weapon and drug precursors, for instance, and should not be materially affected by these proposals. The tonnages involved are small compared to the total amounts sold. There are no concerns with respect to worker health or environmental exposure. Success will depend upon actions by competent authorities with respect to the gathering and sharing of relevant information.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In principle, I am against legislation that might curb individual freedom; however, in some cases it is necessary. Such is the case with the current report, which restricts the general public’s access to certain substances which might be misused as explosives precursors. What is at stake here is protecting citizens against terrorism, which is the reason for the restrictions adopted here on the marketing and use of certain products that can be used to make explosives.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Home-made explosives are part of the terrorist arsenal. Chemicals harmless in themselves and accessible to the general public could be used in the manufacture of fearsome explosive devices. It is important, therefore, to limit access by private users to high-risk chemicals by means of a licencing system and registering transactions. As national rules differ from one Member State to another, the proposal will serve to establish common rules for the European Union as a whole in order to fight terrorism better. The illicit manufacture of home-made explosives should be made more difficult by setting concentration limits for substances that can be used as explosives precursors. The proposal will not, in itself, serve to stop all terrorists or guarantee total protection, but it will significantly limit access to such products.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The purpose of the regulation is to restrict the access of the general public (private users) to high-risk chemicals suitable for easy misuse in producing home-made explosives. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Instructions on making explosives in which pharmacies are recommended as sources of supply are still circulating on the internet. We are therefore not only repeatedly seeing cases in which young people are paying for their curiosity in relation to explosives with severe injuries, but, in addition, the police have in the past found chemicals obtained through pharmacies that had been used to make illegal explosives for criminal and/or terrorist purposes. It is impossible to close every loophole. Intervening unnecessarily in people’s private lives in the name of combating terrorism should therefore be avoided in this area too. I voted to that effect.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) The fact that handling fireworks can be extremely dangerous is not sufficiently clear to many people. We are therefore repeatedly seeing situations in which accidents occur or there is a high risk of explosion, due to people, often young people, experimenting with highly explosive substances, such as fireworks. The relevant instructions can also be found on the internet. It can by no means be relied upon, however, that the procedures described on the internet for making the substances in question are correct, which means that in themselves they present a considerable danger to the ‘do-it-yourselfer’. The danger of explosives is therefore a highly sensitive issue and one that needs to be made clear. It is about much more than combating terrorism, as called for in the report. It is about the duty to provide balanced and in-depth information to the public, rather than intervening in their private lives. I weighed up all these considerations and abstained from voting.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I voted in favour of this report because measures must be taken to reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks in order to prevent risks to European citizens. Although certain explosives precursors are used for legitimate purposes, I find it reasonable to monitor and document their use and sale in high concentrations. At the same time, access by the general public to these substances should be limited to ensure their legitimate use by professional users and businesses only. Avoiding the risk of terrorism is essential, but it should be kept in mind that individuals’ right to privacy must be fully respected and such regulations should not exceed those limits. I supported the adoption of the relevant provisions.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) To help prevent terrorist attacks, reduce their frequency and reduce divisions in the internal market, there has to be a flexible regulatory mechanism that could respond rapidly to changes. It should be noted that terrorists are increasingly using home-made explosive devices, usually made with home-made explosives, the precursors for which can be easily purchased in retail stores or over the internet. In view of this, I agree with the proposal to set effective and proportional controls to ensure the security of citizens. Firstly, access by the general public to substances which in high concentration can be used to manufacture explosives needs to be limited. Furthermore, manufacturers and retailers should take more responsibility regarding their traded goods and ensure that any suspicious transactions are promptly reported to the appropriate institutions.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The safety of citizens and the prevention and fight against terrorism must be given consideration even from a legislative point of view. Controlling and/or prohibiting the purchase of substances considered dangerous because they could be used to make homemade explosives does not amount to restricting the freedom of consumers but to guaranteeing their safety by means of transparency in the market for such products. The Regulation for which I voted intends to restrict public access to particular chemicals by using a system of tracing and/or recording of purchases. The Member States must comply with the conditions of sale required by the Regulation.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL). The European Parliament’s report corresponds to the regulation proposed by the Commission on public access to specific substances which are in general use but can also be used as explosives precursors. The Union is called upon both to protect the free movement of goods and to ensure that citizens are safe from possible illegal use of such substances. This regulation, which I voted for, clearly regulates the concentration levels which make these substances inactive as far as the production of home-made explosives is concerned, and precisely sets out the legal framework for their distribution and use. In any event, however, the enforcement and satisfactory effectiveness of these measures depends on the Member States and the level of cooperation which they develop in this area.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Commission’s proposal is for a Regulation restricting access by members of the public to specific substances in general use but which can also be misused as explosives precursors. To protect the free movement of goods, eight substances listed in Annex I may continue to be sold in concentrated form under a licence granted by a national competent authority for a documented legitimate purpose or, without a licence, at concentration levels which render them ineffective for the manufacture of home-made explosives. Since the proposal is balanced and well-founded, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Because specific chemical substances in general use can also be misused as explosives precursors, it is necessary to restrict access by members of the public to these substances, and thus reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks. Because I agree with the list of eight substances (and mixtures thereof) in Annex I to the proposed Regulation, for which the controls indicated therein are mandatory, and because I consider it reasonable to allow sales in high concentrations to the general public to continue only under licence for legitimate uses, while underlining the fact that the proposal should not affect professional users of these substances or business-to-business sales, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal aims to restrict access by members of the public to high-risk chemicals which can be misused to produce home-made explosives. The proposal seeks to reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks by limiting access to raw materials and reporting suspicious transactions of substances that, in high concentrations, can also be used to manufacture explosives. To that end, the proposal forbids the sale to the general public of certain chemicals above the concentration limits set. Sales of substances with higher concentrations will be permitted only to users who can provide documentary evidence that they have a legitimate need to use the chemicals. The report also proposes, as regards sales of those chemicals and mixtures thereof, a series of obligations, in particular on the subject of reporting suspicious transactions. The Annex to the Regulation clearly distinguishes between substances and the maximum concentration limits for those substances. This proposal is in line with the objectives of EU policies laid down for the EU’s Counter-terrorism Strategy, with the EU’s Action Plan on Enhancing the Security of Explosives and with the Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I congratulate Mr Mulder on the job he has done. With the approval of this text, having regard to the Commission’s proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council, Parliament today wanted to express its support for the possibility of making the sale of ‘ingredients’ for homemade explosives more difficult and better controlled. By means of this restriction, Parliament wants to hit out at terrorist organisations like the one that struck recently in Norway, which have in the past used and do currently use these substances to perpetrate attacks on governments and people. Although some products that contain these substances will continue to be sold without restriction, there will strict and careful controls on their distribution and everyone from wholesalers to retailers will have to report any ‘suspicious transactions’ to the relevant authorities, for example if a customer wants to buy a large quantity of a particular product.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, which, in my view, strikes a reasonable balance: it seeks to improve public safety while causing the least possible disruption to the smooth operation of the internal market. This is a tricky area, particularly as numerous apparently harmless products are used in making home-made bombs responsible for attacks. I supported Parliament’s position on this matter, particularly in relation to purchasers being able to obtain a licence to purchase explosives precursors and to strengthening control through sale, since sellers would then have to notify any ‘suspicious transaction’. Lastly, I am a supporter of the labelling requirement for professionals wishing to make explosives precursors available to the general public, with the product indicating clearly that its purchase, possession and use are subject to restrictions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The Commission’s proposal is for a Regulation restricting access by members of the public to specific substances in general use but which can also be misused as explosives precursors. To protect the free movement of goods, eight substances listed in Annex I may continue to be sold in concentrated form under a licence granted by a national competent authority for a documented legitimate purpose or, without a licence, at concentration levels which render them ineffective for the manufacture of home made explosives. A further seven substances are listed in Annex II where no licences or concentration levels apply. However for all 15 substances, and indeed for sales of any other substance or mixture not specifically listed in these Annexes but identified by the Commission from time to time as having been used for the manufacture of home made explosives, any transaction deemed to be ‘'suspicious’ on any ‘'reasonable’' grounds should be reported to a single national contact point. Professional users of these materials and business-to-business sales would not be affected. The rights of individuals to privacy must be fully respected.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal because it restricts access by members of the public to specific substances in general use but which can also be misused as explosives precursors. Furthermore in protecting the free movement of goods, the proposal suggests that eight substances listed in Annex I may continue to be sold in concentrated form under a licence granted by a national competent authority for a documented legitimate purpose or, without a licence, at concentration levels which render them ineffective for the manufacture of home-made explosives.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The purpose of the proposed legislation concerning the marketing and use of explosives precursors is to restrict access by members of the public to fifteen substances in high concentrations, which are dangerous because they can be used to make homemade explosives. I therefore voted in favour of Mr Mulder’s report, because I believe it could help to prevent potential terrorist attacks and consequently is a very important step to guarantee citizens’ safety. I think it is important, in the case of some categories of substance, for public access to be authorised by setting up a licence system harmonised at European level, and for other categories I think this access needs to be accompanied by reporting and traceability of suspicious transactions.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I consider the decision to restrict public access to a few substances commonly used until now, but where their improper use could be a threat to public safety, to be a priority. Some freely available substances could be used as explosives precursors. To protect the free movement of goods, it will be necessary to guarantee that these substances can be marketed but their sale must be tightly regulated. The reduction of the volumes sold will be minimal but will be instrumental in ensuring that the motivation for this decision – the fight against terrorism – is respected. It can be achieved through a system of checks that prevent the sale of high concentrations, enabling the lawfulness of the final use to be checked. For the reasons I have explained, I voted in favour.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report so that substances or mixtures that could be misused for the illicit manufacture of explosives are regulated in a harmonised and non-differentiated way by the Member States. In particular, I stress the urgency of formulating rules to ensure, at national and Union level, workers’ safety and protection of the environment, which are not covered by this regulation.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) On 18 April 2008, the Council decided to set up a Standing Committee on Precursors to consider measures and prepare recommendations concerning the regulation of explosives precursors available on the market, taking into account their cost-benefit effects. The Committee identified some explosives precursors that are susceptible to being used to commit terrorist attacks and called for appropriate action at Union level. I am voting in favour of this report, since I think it necessary for the Member States to adopt legislative measures for some substances that have an illicit use, thus ensuring similar or greater protection against the illicit use of explosives precursors. I also think that this regulation is essential for establishing European rules concerning placing on the market, possession, use and introduction into the EU. It is a positive step to limit the availability of these resources to the general public and to ensure appropriate reporting of suspicious transactions throughout the supply chain.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the position of the European Parliament at first reading with a view to the adoption of the regulation on the marketing and use of explosives precursors. The illicit manufacture of explosives should be made more difficult by setting concentration limits for certain explosives precursors. Below these concentration limits, the free circulation of these explosives precursors is ensured subject to a safeguard mechanism. Above these concentration limits access for the general public to these explosives precursors should be restricted. The Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures provides that substances and mixtures classified as hazardous should be correctly labelled before being placed on the market. In addition, economic operators, including retailers, shall either classify and label such substances or rely on the classification made by an up-stream actor in the supply chain. It is thus appropriate to provide in this Regulation that all economic operators, including retailers, who make available to members of the general public substances restricted under this Regulation should ensure that the packaging indicates that the purchase, possession or use of that substance or mixture by members of the general public is subject to a restriction.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The proposal seeks to reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks by limiting access by the general public to, and reporting suspicious transactions of, widely and legitimately used substances (and mixtures thereof) which in high concentrations can also be used to manufacture explosives. The proposal is directed at wholesalers, retailers and Member States.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The proposal seeks to reduce the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks by limiting access by the general public to widely and legitimately used substances (and mixtures thereof) which can also be used as explosives precursors. That is why I voted in favour.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I familiarised myself with the content of the regulation with some interest. In my country, a case of a threat caused by explosives has continually been on the front pages of the newspapers in recent days. This was because the special services had arrested a man who was planning an assault on the Polish authorities using explosives. I voted most definitely in favour of the document. Security is one of the most important values for society in the European Union and we must provide it. This is particularly true right now, at a time when we are particularly exposed to terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, I am pleased that in the regulation the author took into account the fact that some chemical compounds are widely used for legal applications by ordinary users. In the light of this, while leaving a proper safety margin for citizens, the document does not impose non-commensurately rigorous restrictions. This means that the provisions will not have a negative impact on the economy or civil liberties, while at the same time they will effectively make it difficult for potential assassins to gain access to hazardous substances. I trust that the European Commission, the relevant agencies in the Member States and the international services will continue to monitor the market for these substances. It is important that their market is properly monitored, so that a new substance may be added to the annex at the appropriate time, or so that a given substance may be deleted from the annex as appropriate.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) In a context where there is still a private monopoly on production, improving the ‘free movement of chemical substances and mixtures within the internal market’ and removing ‘distortions of competition’, while ensuring a high level of protection of workers’ safety and protection of the environment is difficult, if not impossible. It has long been known – and reality shows us – that pursuing maximum profit is incompatible with the necessary rationality of production and distribution of production by human effort. Explosives precursors are no exception to the rule. This proposal, following on from many others which have successively passed before Parliament, is aimed at improving conditions only for big business in that sector by laying down harmonised rules. Despite this, we think it is positive that, within the framework of liberalisation, a safeguard clause has been provided to allow any Member State so wishing to apply stricter measures for specific substances or mixtures of substances and to decide not to allow the general public access to any of the substances in question.

- Rapport: Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (A7-0359/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this regulation, as proposed by the Commission, which provides, in connection with the accession of Croatia, for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff. As was done when the twelve new countries joined in 2004 and 2007, the Commission now proposes to do the same for Croatian citizens. The proposed regulation allows, until 2018, for certain recruitment competitions to be reserved for Croatian nationals. This five-year period does not seem excessive. I would point out that as Europe grows larger we must adapt to that enlarged Europe, allowing fair representation for Croatia, so that it may be able to become more readily and more rapidly integrated into the mechanisms and operation of the European institutions and policies.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which seeks to allow specific recruitment of Croatian nationals to the European institutions. This report simply applies the principle of representation in force within the European Union, since Croatia will join us in 2013. Such a procedure was also put in place for the previous enlargements of 2004 and 2007.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for the proposal regarding special measures in connection with the accession of Croatia that will allow the employment of Croatian nationals only. The proposed regulation allows, until 2018, for certain recruitment competitions to be reserved for Croatian nationals. In particular, these competitions will be for essential Croatian linguistic staff as well as for generalist administrators and assistants. It is essential to create employment conditions for citizens of acceding countries that would allow those countries to be appropriately represented in the European Union. Because this regulation is urgent, as it should be in place at the latest by the time Croatia joins the European Union, I agree with the Commission’s proposal without amendment.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report because I believe that in the context of accession to the European Union, Croatian citizens will need to receive derogations so that they can be employed within institutions of the Union. This is made all the more important by the fact that translators, interpreters, editors and proofreaders of Croatian origin will need to be employed so as not to impair the institutions’ capacity to work in Croatian, which will become an official language of the Union.

Since a similar procedure was adopted for the accessions of the last 12 Member States of the Union, I believe that the same can now be done for Croatia. It is important for there to be a fair representation of nationalities within the European institutions. For that reason, the employment of Croatian citizens must begin immediately after the effective date of accession to the European Union.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In view of the accession of Croatia to the European Union, this report provides for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of EU staff. This derogation is necessary because the rules contained in the Staff Regulations of Officials provide that recruitment must be open to all EU citizens, regardless of nationality. The proposed regulation allows a five-year period, until 2018, for certain recruitment competitions to be reserved for Croatian nationals, with the proviso that they will only be able to be recruited from the actual date of accession. Traditionally, when countries have joined the Union, the requirements have been temporarily adjusted in order to allow for ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of acceding countries, allowing them to be appropriately represented. This was done when the twelve new countries joined in 2004 and 2007. That is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this report in which Parliament provides, in connection with the accession of Croatia, for a temporary derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff that would ensure that recruitment is open to all European Union citizens. It is important to note that this was done when the twelve new countries joined in 2004 and 2007, and the Commission now proposes to do the same for Croatian citizens. Croatians will only be able to be recruited from the actual date of accession; any Croatian staff employed before that date will, for the time being at least, have the status of contract staff.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on special temporary measures for the recruitment of officials and temporary staff of the European Union. On the eve of Croatia’s accession, the regulations concerning the general rules on recruitment of European Union staff must be amended on a temporary basis to open up recruitment to Croatian nationals. I support adjusting these access conditions as a matter of urgency, particularly for linguists, given that Croatian is about to become one of the EU’s official languages.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This regulation provides, in connection with the accession of Croatia, for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff. This derogation is necessary because the rules on recruitment contained in the Staff Regulations of Officials provide that recruitment must be open to all EU citizens, regardless of nationality. Traditionally, the requirements have been temporarily adjusted when countries have joined the Union, in order to allow for ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of acceding countries, allowing them to be appropriately represented amongst the staff of the European Union without undue delay. I voted in favour of this report because I agree with the general line it takes.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The proposed regulation allows, until 2018, for certain recruitment competitions to be reserved for Croatian nationals. This regulation was applied for all countries in the run-up to accession, and therefore in 2004 and in 2007. The general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff allows all European Union citizens to apply for any post with an EU institution, regardless of nationality, but since Croatia is not yet a member of the European Union this provision will take effect at the latest when Croatia actually joins the EU, to ensure, by means of temporary adjustments to the requirements, that the country joining is appropriately represented amongst the staff of the European Union without undue delay.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I think it is necessary to review the regulation on procedures relating to the recruitment of nationals of countries acceding to the European Union, in this case as a result of the accession of Croatia to the European Union, scheduled for 1 July 2013.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) On 1 December 2011, I congratulated the Croatian people on their future accession to the European Union and I expressed the wish that the accession of Croatia to the Union would bring new reforming zeal to the Balkan States which are still not part of the Union and to the European Union itself which, as is widely known, is experiencing difficult times. Almost a year later, the Union is preparing to receive the first Croatian officials, a circumstance warranting support and justifying the exception to the rule on equality between the nationals of the Member States in recruitment competitions. I hope that Croatian officials will swiftly and easily become integrated, enriching still further our diversity in unity, so central to the European project.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report under consideration drawn up by Ms Roth-Behrendt, focuses on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Croatia, special temporary measures for the recruitment of officials and temporary staff of the European Union. Although the Staff Regulations of Officials provide that ‘recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality’, those requirements have been temporarily adjusted when new Member States have joined. This was done when the twelve new countries joined in 2004 and 2007. With the accession of Croatia scheduled for 1 July 2013 and, since new linguistic staff are needed (translators, interpreters, press officers, etc.), as well as generalist administrators and assistants, I am voting in favour of this proposal so that certain recruitment competitions may be reserved, until 2018, for Croatian nationals, in accordance with the previous instruments adopted for the accessions in 2004 and 2007.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The regulation proposed by the Commission puts forward, in connection with the accession of Croatia to the European Union, a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff which provide that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality. This derogation aims to ensure that both forthcoming competitions and some that have already been launched should essentially be intended for Croatian linguistic staff, as well as generalist administrators and assistants. This procedure follows the pattern laid down by previous instruments adopted for the accessions of other countries in 2004 and 2007 and we have no objections.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) On the occasion of the accession of Croatia on 1 July 2013, special temporary measures should be adopted to derogate from the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. Given the relative size of the country acceding and the number of persons potentially involved, these measures, albeit temporary, should remain in force for a substantial period. The most suitable expiry date appears to be 30 June 2018. I believe that given the need to make the planned recruitments as soon as possible after accession, this Regulation should be adopted before the actual accession date, or by no later than the date of accession of Croatia to the European Union. Otherwise, recruitment to linguists’ posts in particular will be jeopardised, impairing the institutions’ capacity to work in Croatian, which will then be an official language.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document. This document deals with the accession of Croatia to the European Union in 2013. It provides for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff. This was done when the twelve new countries, including Lithuania, joined in 2004 and 2007, and the Commission now proposes to do the same for Croatian citizens. The proposed regulation allows, until 2018, for certain recruitment competitions to be reserved for Croatian nationals. In particular, these competitions will be for essential Croatian linguistic staff (translators, interpreters, editors, proofreaders and press officers) as well as for generalist administrators and assistants.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I believe that the adjustment of the rules on the recruitment of officials and temporary staff of the European Union on the accession of Croatia on 1 July 2013 was a necessary measure. I therefore think that adopting some derogations for Croatian citizens, in accordance with European rules that allow Member States’ citizens to be recruited by EU institutions, is logical and appropriate.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. This regulation, as proposed by the Commission, provides, in connection with the accession of Croatia, for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff. This is necessary because the rules on recruitment contained in the Staff Regulations for Officials provide that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The accession of Croatia to the European Union makes it necessary to adopt this report. In order to make it possible to recruit the first Croatian officials to the European Parliament, we need to adjust the rules for recruitment in the light of that need. That is why I am voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − It allows the recruitment of Croatian officials on a national basis. I am in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I believe that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality. We should make every effort to ensure favourable conditions for ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of acceding countries. This will create the necessary conditions for these states to be appropriately represented in the European Union and the capacity of certain institutions to work in Croatian will be ensured. I also agree with the proposal to reserve certain recruitment competitions for Croatian nationals for a five-year period, in particular competitions for essential Croatian linguistic staff.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report which provides for positive discrimination in favour of Croatian citizens as regards the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff. This derogation is necessary, in connection with the accession of Croatia, because the rules on recruitment contained in the Staff Regulations of Officials provide that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality. There can be no objection, since the provisions are clear and indisputable and follow the pattern laid down by previous instruments adopted for the accessions in 2004 and 2007.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Since the rules on recruitment contained in the Staff Regulations for Officials provide that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality, a derogation from the general rules on the recruitment of European union staff is necessary in connection with the accession of Croatia. Bearing in mind that this derogation was applied when the twelve new countries joined in 2004 and 2007, and stressing the urgency of this regulation, which should enter into force at the latest by the date of Croatia’s accession to the European Union, particularly to avoid compromising the recruitment of linguistic staff – as this would affect the institutions’ ability to function in Croatian, which will become an official language at this point – I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal for a regulation provides for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff. The rules contained in the Staff Regulations of Officials provide that recruitment must be open to all citizens of the EU, regardless of nationality. However, the recruitment requirements may be temporarily adjusted when countries join the Union, in order to allow for ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of acceding countries, allowing them to be appropriately represented amongst the staff of the EU. That is the intention now in the light of Croatia’s accession. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Technical vote. This regulation, as proposed by the Commission, provides, in connection with the accession of Croatia, for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff. This is necessary because the rules on recruitment contained in the Staff Regulations for Officials provide that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality. Traditionally, the requirements have been temporarily adjusted when countries have joined the Union, in order to allow for ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of acceding countries, allowing them to be appropriately represented amongst the staff of the European Union without undue delay.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) The report confirms moves aimed at preparing the recruitment procedures for European institutions prior to the accession of Croatia to the European Union on 1 January 2013. It is important for the administration to be ready for the enlargement process, in order to enable new Member States to achieve equal representation in Brussels as soon as possible. Poland also benefited from such provisions in 2004.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The accession of Croatia next year is an important step in what has been a long process that testifies to the strength and unity of the European Union. It shows that in an unprecedented time of crisis the EU is not becoming insular, it is capable of continuing the work it has begun and it is not listening to those who believe that the enlargement process is progressing more quickly than it should. However, we must not rest on our laurels as without integrating the Western Balkans there will never be definitive stability in the former states of Yugoslavia, and without these countries Europe will never be complete. The enlargement has to continue towards the Western Balkans, giving a clear and unambiguous perspective through the accession process. We have to set out what we require and on this basis achieve steady growth in bringing our economies, legal systems, societies and policies together. The example of Croatia demonstrates that our work will bear fruit.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I vote in favour of Croatia – as a newly joined country – receiving positive discrimination to ensure it is appropriately represented amongst the staff of the European Union without undue delay, with particular regard to staff speaking Croatian.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) This regulation is quite urgent, as it should be in place at the latest by the time Croatia joins the European Union; otherwise, recruitment to linguists’ posts in particular will be jeopardised, impairing the institutions’ capacity to work in Croatian, which will then be an official language. Croatians will only be able to be recruited from the actual date of accession; any Croatian staff employed before that date will, for the time being at least, have the status of contract staff.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This regulation aims to introduce a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff by means of positive discrimination in favour of Croatian citizens in connection with Croatia’s entry into the Union. That exception will remain open until 2018, making it possible to launch competitions reserved solely for Croatian nationals. This relates to linguistic staff, (translators, interpreters, editors, proofreaders and press officers) as well as administrators and assistants. Since accession is scheduled for 1 July 2013, I am voting in favour of this report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the regulation introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Croatia, special temporary measures for the recruitment of officials and temporary staff of the European Union. This regulation provides, in connection with the accession of Croatia, for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff, which provide that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality. The requirements have been temporarily adjusted when certain countries have joined the Union, in order to allow for ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of acceding countries, allowing them to be appropriately represented amongst the staff of the European Union. I welcome the Commission’s proposal to do for Croatian nationals what was done in 2004, when 12 new countries acceded, and in 2007. The proposed regulation allows, until 2018, for certain recruitment competitions to be reserved for Croatian nationals. I welcome the organisation of competitions for the recruitment of Croatian linguistic staff (translators, interpreters, editors, proofreaders and press officers) as well as for generalist administrators and assistants.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) This regulation provides, in connection with the accession of Croatia, for a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff. This is necessary because the rules on recruitment contained in the Staff Regulations for Officials provide that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality. This was done in 2004 and 2007. It covers, among other things, Croatian linguistic staff as well as generalist administrators and assistants. This Commission proposal should be adopted without further ado, given that the provisions are clear and unobjectionable and that they follow the pattern adopted for the accessions in 2004 and 2007.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The regulation proposed by the Commission puts forward, in connection with the accession of Croatia to the European Union, a derogation to the general rules on the recruitment of European Union staff which provide that recruitment must be open to all European Union citizens, regardless of nationality. However, in this connection, both forthcoming competitions and some that have already been launched should essentially be intended for Croatian linguistic staff, as well as generalist administrators and assistants. This procedure follows the pattern laid down by previous instruments adopted for the accessions of other countries in 2004 and 2007 and we have no objections.

- Recommendation: Anna Rosbach (A7-0319/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, as I believe that the Offshore Protocol is an important protocol to the ‘Barcelona Convention’ for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean. These protocols cover a wide range of exploitation activities, as well as the removal of installations, harmful substances, coordination at regional level and provisions on safety, contingency planning and monitoring. As well as the above, we also need to bear in mind the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and other accidents that demonstrate how important it is to adopt this report, in order to promote not only safety but also sustainable governance of exploitation activities in conjunction with appropriate international cooperation.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, for which I voted, creates obligations for the Member States concerned (including France) to take all necessary measures to protect the Mediterranean Sea. That means, in particular, limiting, as far as possible, the levels of pollution of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil in the context of operations to exploit resources that could be put in place.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for the proposal for the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (the ‘Offshore Protocol’). The Offshore Protocol covers a wide range of exploration and exploitation activities, permit requirements, removal of abandoned or disused installations, use of harmful substances, safety provisions, etc. In order to ensure the safety of these activities in the Mediterranean Sea and avoid accidental oil spills, a policy of sustainable governance of oil and gas offshore activities is clearly needed. The effects of such accidents are not limited to a single region and so I agree with the proposals that the European Union should promote international cooperation to improve offshore safety and response capability in all countries that have signed the Protocol.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Accidents which have occurred in recent years, such as the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, have once again highlighted the need for stringent security rules and regulations along with supervision for any marine activity related to the extraction of oil and gas. As we are seeing an increasing number of new exploration activities for fossil fuels within the European Union too, it is important for EU legislation to keep abreast of these trends. On this basis I voted in favour of the proposal to ratify the Mediterranean Sea Protocol as this confirms the Union’s commitment in this direction at international level as well. It should be noted, however, that the regulation will only be complete if it not only declares the ‘polluter pays’ principle but also provides appropriate financial security to ensure that any damage caused by a potential industrial disaster can indeed be paid for by the polluter.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that there is a need for increased safety in offshore oil and natural gas exploitation. The recent accidents in the Gulf of Mexico highlight this need. I consider that a policy of sustainable governance of offshore activities is more than welcome. In this context, I support the Commission’s proposal and believe that the Union should promote international cooperation in order to improve the safety of offshore activities. At the same time, I wish to underline the importance of maintaining an optimal environmental situation and avoiding tragic consequences in future. The ratification of the Protocol would constitute significant progress towards this and would help to ensure an optimal level of cooperation.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) On 27 October 2011 the European Commission published a proposal for a Council decision on the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil, known as the ‘Offshore Protocol’. Although it entered into force on 24 March 2011, to date the protocol has not been signed or ratified by the European Union. Recent accidents, especially the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, have highlighted the need for increased safety of offshore oil and gas exploitation activities along with the need for a policy of sustainable governance of oil and gas exploitation activities and the promotion of international cooperation to improve offshore safety and the response capability of all involved parties. Bearing in mind that the European Parliament, in its resolution of 13 September 2011 on facing the challenges of the safety of offshore oil and gas activities, already stressed the importance of bringing the Offshore Protocol fully into force, I voted in favour of this recommendation.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support Ms Rosbach’s report on accession to the ‘Offshore Protocol’, part of the ‘Barcelona Convention’ for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, to which all EU Mediterranean coastal Member States are Contracting Parties. The Protocol has proved to be an effective instrument for protecting the environment, by carefully regulating exploration and exploitation activities, permit requirements, the use and removal of harmful substances, and provisions on safety, contingency planning and monitoring.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal because on 27 October 2011, the Commission published a proposal for the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (the ‘Offshore Protocol’). The need for increased safety of offshore oil and gas exploitation activities has been dramatically highlighted by recent accidents, most notably by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The planned response to the situation at EU level includes a Commission proposal, currently under discussion, for a Regulation on safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. In fact, I view ratification of the protocol as a major step in international cooperation to improve offshore safety and response capability in the Mediterranean.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I think it is crucial to increase the safety of offshore oil and gas exploitation activities, as recent accidents have so dramatically highlighted, most notably the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL). I voted for the report on the accession of the EU to the Offshore Protocol to the Barcelona Convention, which protects the Mediterranean against pollution from offshore exploration and exploitation of the sea bed. Although the risks of such mining operations cannot be fully eliminated, the ‘Offshore Protocol’ is an instrument which provides safety standards for the protection of the marine environment, and standards for environmental impact assessment and environmental responsibility. Much stricter safety standards would, of course, be needed for the Mediterranean, because this is a particularly sensitive area in view of its semi-enclosed nature and significant seismic activity, and because exploration and exploitation operations in the area are steadily increasing. For its inhabitants, the Mediterranean plays a vital role in their everyday lives, and I believe that, beyond the environmental aspect, the ratification of the Protocol by the EU will allow us to work harmoniously with our non-EU Mediterranean partners, ensuring better protection of this sea for all users. The fact that Mediterranean states which are on poor terms with each other are cooperating under the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols proves to what extent protection of the environment can contribute towards peace and international cooperation.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I consider that the European Union needs to sign up to the Offshore Protocol in order to protect the marine and coastal environment in the Mediterranean Sea and to promote international cooperation with a view to sustainable governance of offshore activities. The scale and severity of the accident on the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and other dramatic accidents make it necessary to ensure a high level of safety in oil and gas prospecting and production. An increasing number of offshore exploration and exploitation activities are being pursued in the Mediterranean Sea, and the region is particularly vulnerable owing to its half-closed configuration and significant seismic activity. The aim of the Offshore Protocol is to increase the safety of offshore exploration and exploitation activities and to protect the marine environment in the Mediterranean Sea. It stipulates the requirements that must be met before commencing these activities, the requirements for the removal of abandoned or decommissioned facilities, the use and removal of harmful substances, and measures relating to safety, planning for emergency situations and monitoring.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Mediterranean Sea is particularly vulnerable to pollution. We must therefore pay it particular attention, and that means tighter rules to prevent accidents and remedy those that do occur. I therefore welcome adoption of this text, which will allow the EU to conclude an important protocol to the Barcelona Convention. It will form the basis of better international cooperation to improve offshore safety.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of adopting this protocol, which seeks to ensure improved safety of activities in the Mediterranean Sea and better protection of the Mediterranean ecosystem. I also see it as important to improve coordination between the countries of the Mediterranean Basin in order to improve our response capability, since we are reminded all too often that borders are not adequate barriers to stop pollution.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that Parliament has given its accord to ratification by the European Union of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution, or Offshore Protocol. As already stated by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, it is essential to do everything possible to avoid oil or gas accidents in the Mediterranean like the one involving the Deepwater Horizon platform and to ensure increased safety of oil and gas exploitation activities. While this protocol will not, on its own, solve the problem of sustainable management of Mediterranean resources, it is a first step in this direction, which must be followed by others.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Union has tried, in its internal and external action, to be a force for promoting quality of life for its citizens and protection of the environment and nature. The Mediterranean Sea is included in that concern, and measures are needed to protect it against pollution. The Offshore Protocol relates, specifically, to cases arising from excessive exploration and exploitation. Although it is a party to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, the European Union has still not signed or ratified the above-mentioned protocol. I believe that the Union must do all in its power to combat offshore pollution and it must seek the best technical solutions to the problems confronting the Union and the Member States in this matter. Should it become necessary to improve the content of the Protocol, that must not detract from the protection due to the Mediterranean.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (Offshore Protocol) adopted on 14 October 1994, is one of the protocols to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean. The Protocol covers a wide range of exploration and exploitation activities in the Mediterranean. That offshore oil and gas exploration activity was dramatically highlighted by recent accidents, most notably the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Offshore activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuel. A policy of sustainable governance of oil and gas offshore activities is clearly needed in order to avoid accidents of this type. An accident would have immediate large-scale effects on a semi-closed sea such as the Mediterranean, causing tragic consequences for its economy and its fragile ecosystems, and undermining the efforts made by EU Mediterranean coastal Member States to achieve and maintain good environmental status in their marine waters as required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report is in favour of the EU’s accession to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. The Protocol requires the Parties to take, individually or through bilateral or multilateral cooperation, all appropriate measures to prevent, abate, combat and control pollution in the Mediterranean Sea area including the waters, the continental shelf, and the seabed and its subsoil resulting from (oil and gas) exploration and exploitation activities, by ensuring that the best available techniques, environmentally effective and economically appropriate, are used for this purpose. The Protocol covers permit requirements, removal of abandoned or disused installations, use and removal of harmful substances, liability and compensation requirements, as well as provisions on safety, contingency planning and monitoring. The experience of accidents which have occurred over the years – with the accident in the Gulf of Mexico presenting the most recent and tragic case – has shown that offshore oil and gas exploration and exploitation require effective measures for regulation and control to protect workers, populations and ecosystems, placing them above the profits of the multinationals in the sector. We voted in favour.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) On 27 October 2011, the Commission published a proposal for a Council Decision to approve the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (the ‘Offshore Protocol’). The need for increased safety of offshore oil and gas exploitation activities has been dramatically highlighted by recent accidents, most notably by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. A policy of sustainable governance of oil and gas offshore activities is clearly needed. The planned response to the situation at EU level includes a Commission proposal, currently under discussion, for a Regulation on safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities. In fact, the European Parliament already expressed its position in its resolution of 13 September 2011 on facing the challenges of the safety of offshore oil and gas activities, where it stressed the importance of bringing fully into force the un-ratified 1994 Mediterranean Offshore Protocol, targeting protection against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation.

  Gaston Franco (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the approval of the European Union’s accession to the Offshore Protocol. This attests to the need for increased safety and sustainable governance of oil and gas activities in the Mediterranean. The Barcelona Convention mechanism supplements the commitments made by the EU in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Union for the Mediterranean through the flagship initiative for de-pollution of the Mediterranean, ‘Horizon 2020’. In addition to the ‘sensitive areas’ investment programme for the Mediterranean, supported by the European neighbourhood and partnership instrument, other EU programmes deserve a mention: strengthening the capacities of environmental authorities, systems for sharing information on the environment, sustainable water management, cooperation on urban development and dialogue and various other research projects. It is important for the next multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 to put EU support for de-pollution of the Mediterranean on a long-term footing. The priorities must include combating pollution by plastic residues, which are poisoning marine ecosystems.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Following the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuels in the Mediterranean Sea, offshore activities in the area are likely to increase in the next few years, hence the need to regulate them. Approving a body of laws governing the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf, the seabed and its subsoil is important to guarantee safety and protect the environment. The European Parliament has expressed its opinion of the ‘Offshore Protocol’ to the ‘Barcelona Convention’. Today’s vote demonstrates once again the desire to build an ever safer and ‘greener’ Europe.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal because on 27 October 2011, the Commission published a proposal for the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (the ‘Offshore Protocol’). Adopted on 14 October 1994, the Offshore Protocol is one of the protocols to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, commonly known as the ‘Barcelona Convention’, signed in 1976 and amended in 1995. The European Union and all EU Mediterranean coastal Member States are Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, together with 14 other Mediterranean countries. The Offshore Protocol covers a wide range of exploration and exploitation activities in the Mediterranean, as well as permit requirements, removal of abandoned or disused installations, use and removal of harmful substances, liability and compensation requirements, coordination with other Parties of the Barcelona Convention at regional level as well as provisions on safety, contingency planning and monitoring. The Protocol entered into force on 24 March 2011, following its ratification by six contracting parties (Albania, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Cyprus and Syria), and so far has been neither signed nor ratified by the Union. The accession of the Union to the Protocol requires, under Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the consent of the European Parliament.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal. The need for increased safety in offshore oil and gas exploitation has been dramatically highlighted by recent accidents, most notably by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Offshore activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuel, and an accident of this kind could have immediate large-scale effects on a semi-closed sea such as the Mediterranean, causing tragic consequences for its economy and its fragile ecosystems, and undermining the efforts made by EU Mediterranean coastal Member States to achieve and maintain good environmental status in their marine waters, as required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. A policy of sustainable governance of oil and gas offshore activities is clearly needed.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − The Offshore Protocol against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed of the Mediterranean Sea is an important part of the Barcelona Convention which serves to help a number of Member States in the EU. This protocol allows for international cooperation in regard to oil and gas exploitation in the Mediterranean Sea, establishing requirements for exploration and technology which will improve the safety of these processes and help to safeguard against any negative environmental impact. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the recommendation Ms Rosbach made on the accession of the EU to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The need for increased safety of offshore oil and gas exploitation activities has been dramatically highlighted by recent accidents. It is therefore right that Parliament approves the European Union’s accession to the ‘Offshore Protocol’.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The Mediterranean is one of the parts of our ecosystem that need preserving and where highly rigorous regulations apply in terms of vessels not discharging hydrocarbons. Development of oil prospection and exploitation, in particular, represents a grave danger to this ecosystem, already much weakened by being a closed sea and by numerous pollution sources. This Offshore Protocol does not make it possible to prohibit the development of offshore platforms, but it does serve to control them better and hence limit their effects. I see this protocol as not yet enough but as a step forward, which I support.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The need for increased safety of offshore oil and gas exploitation activities has been dramatically highlighted by recent accidents, most notably by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Offshore activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuel and an accident of such kind could have immediate large-scale effects on a semi-closed sea such as the Mediterranean, causing tragic consequences for its economy and its fragile ecosystems, and undermining the efforts made by EU Mediterranean coastal Member States to achieve and maintain good environmental status in their marine waters. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The importance of preserving the environment, alongside economic development, is quite clear, especially when it concerns a semi-closed sea like the Mediterranean. I am a firm believer in the principle of always ensuring entrepreneurial freedom so that it is able to develop anywhere and at any time. However, entrepreneurial freedom must still be combined with safety measures. That is the only way for the natural environment to be preserved and for businesses that are not based on short-term profit but grow over time and have long-term objectives to operate.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The Offshore Protocol is one of the protocols to the ‘Barcelona Convention’ for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean: it covers a wide range of exploration and exploitation activities, as well as permit requirements, removal of installations, harmful substances, coordination at regional level, and provisions on safety, contingency planning and monitoring.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) A policy of sustainable governance of oil and gas offshore activities is clearly needed. The planned response to the situation at EU level includes a Commission proposal, currently under discussion, for a Regulation on safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities. However, it is clear that the transboundary consequences of an accident in the Mediterranean Sea would most likely not be limited to EU countries. Therefore, the EU should promote international cooperation to improve offshore safety and response capability of all involved parties. Ratifying the Offshore Protocol would be a major step in this direction, and would also constitute an important leverage to ensure a good level of cooperation and the continued concrete commitment of all Mediterranean countries to the achievement of the maximum possible safety of offshore activities. I therefore voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal on the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. We must make every effort to ensure the safety of offshore oil and gas exploration. Given the scope of these activities in the Mediterranean Sea and their potential negative effects on the economy, the ecosystem and environmental protection, a policy of sustainable governance for these activities is essential. It is also essential to cooperate more efficiently at international level and establish the essential environmental protection and safety standards. Only by working together and fulfilling our obligations can we ensure offshore environmental protection in cases of major accidents in the EU.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The use of natural resources undoubtedly requires constant monitoring by the competent authorities. Limiting pollution and forced exploitation of an area is essential to safeguard its ecosystem. For this reason I voted in favour of the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. Recent research has revealed new reserves of fossil fuels under the seabed of the Mediterranean Sea, paving the way for new offshore extraction activities, so better regulation of these activities is necessary to protect the environment.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the draft European Parliament legislative resolution on EU accession to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. The Protocol entered into force on 24 March 2011, following its ratification by six contracting parties (Albania, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Cyprus and Syria), and so far has neither been signed nor ratified by the Union. Given that, following the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuels in the Mediterranean, offshore activities are likely to increase, a potential accident could have immediate large-scale effects. For this reason I think that the EU’s ratification of the Offshore Protocol would constitute important leverage to ensure a good level of cooperation and the continued concrete commitment of all Mediterranean countries to the achievement of the maximum possible safety of offshore activities.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL). The European Parliament report, for which I voted, comes in the wake of the well-known Barcelona Convention, which was signed in 1976 and amended in 1995. Under this Convention, the European Union and all the EU Member States bordering the Mediterranean comply with basic principles for the protection of the Mediterranean (licensing, removal of abandoned or decommissioned installations and harmful substances) and take responsibility for the marine environment. Offshore activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuels, both in Cyprus and in Greece, and therefore the offshore operations of oil and natural gas extraction will need to be managed in such a way as to prevent accidents which would have a direct and large-scale impact in a semi-enclosed sea such as the Mediterranean. Greece is therefore committed to this, and the actions which it is already promoting for the exploitation of its wealth-generating resources are in keeping with the agreements which it has signed.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In October 2011 the Commission published a proposal for a Council decision on the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. The Protocol, also known as the ‘Offshore Protocol’, covers a wide range of exploration and exploitation activities in the Mediterranean as well as permit requirements, use and removal of harmful substances, liability and compensation requirements, and provisions on safety, contingency planning and monitoring, amongst others. Since offshore activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuel, there is an urgent need for increased safety of oil and natural gas extraction activities. I voted in favour of this report because I agree that the Protocol in question is fundamental for improving the sustainability and safety of offshore activities and, consequently, for protecting the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from the exploration and exploitation of fossil fuels.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The need for increased safety of offshore oil and gas activities has been dramatically highlighted by recent accidents, most notably by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Since offshore activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuel, and an accident of such kind could have immediate large-scale effects on a semi-closed sea such as the Mediterranean, causing tragic consequences for its economy and its fragile ecosystems, and undermining the efforts made by EU Mediterranean coastal Member States to achieve and maintain good environmental status in their marine waters, sustainable management of the offshore activities of the oil and gas sector is clearly necessary. In the hope that the EU will promote international cooperation to improve offshore safety, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Union and all its Mediterranean coastal Member States, together with 14 other Mediterranean countries, are Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, commonly known as the ‘Barcelona Convention’. One of the protocols to the Barcelona Convention, known as the ‘Offshore Protocol’, deals with the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. The Protocol entered into force on 24 March 2011 and some Member States who are Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention have already announced, in recent months, their intention to ratify the Protocol. However, the EU has neither signed nor ratified it. So, with a view to promoting international cooperation to improve the safety of offshore exploitation, the EU’s ratification of this Protocol is an important step, particularly if we take account of the need to respond to the foreseeable increase in offshore activities in the Mediterranean due to the discovery of new fossil fuel reserves, and in order to guarantee a policy of sustainable governance of offshore oil and gas exploration, exploitation and production activities. I therefore voted in favour of the EU’s accession to the Protocol.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 27 October 2011, the Commission published a proposal for a Council Decision to approve the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (the ‘Offshore Protocol’). Adopted on 14 October 1994, the Offshore Protocol is one of the protocols to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, commonly known as the ‘Barcelona Convention’, signed in 1976 and amended in 1995. The European Union and all EU Mediterranean coastal Member States are Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, together with 14 other Mediterranean countries.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support the text of the report on the ‘Offshore Protocol’ because I believe there is a need for increased safety of offshore oil and gas exploitation activities, especially following the dramatic accident in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Offshore activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuel, and an accident of such kind could have immediate large-scale effects on a semi-closed sea such as the Mediterranean, causing tragic consequences for its economy and its fragile ecosystems, and undermining the efforts made by EU Mediterranean coastal Member States to achieve and maintain good environmental status in their marine waters as required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In view of the importance of this Protocol on exploration and exploitation in the Mediterranean, the removal of harmful waste and the removal of disused installations, I hope that it will be complied with and implemented with provisions on safety and monitoring.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea, since it will provide a tighter framework for activities linked to exploitation of fuel reserves in the Mediterranean Sea. It advocates increased cooperation and coordination on a regional scale, and these are the solutions for sustainable governance and effective protection of the environment, even though offshore activities are likely to grow rapidly in the coming years. Accession is, moreover, a further step in bringing together the two shores of the Mediterranean, to which I am committed and for which I work under my mandate as an MEP. I therefore cannot but welcome this protocol entering into force in the near future.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I consider the EU’s accession to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (the ‘Offshore Protocol’) to be necessary for the purpose of ensuring more effective management of the inherent risks of offshore activities. Since the Member States are required to ensure that a good environmental status is maintained in their marine waters in the Mediterranean, I am in favour of the EU’s participation in increasing the safety of offshore exploration and exploitation activities. While stressing the need for international cooperation to develop stricter safety standards, I voted in favour.

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. − It is vital for us in the European Union to develop our plentiful resources, particularly in straitened times, but we must do so safely, sustainably, and with the minimum of harm to our environment. The area around the Mediterranean is not only one of the most beautiful regions of the world, but the sea represents a financial and cultural centre for millions of people. If we allow it to become polluted, or worse, from the very necessary efforts to boost oil and gas extraction, then we put at risk not only the way of life of myriad cultures, but the development of some of the poorest parts of Europe. This is one area where the EU really can make a difference in the southern neighbourhood: our partners in North Africa share a sea as well as the aspirations that go with it, and we must use the Offshore Protocol to develop a truly coordinated approach to regulation, monitoring and inspection which aims not only to profit the region, but also to protect it.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I am very aware of matters concerning nature conservation. I therefore voted in favour of this text. A policy of sustainable governance of offshore oil and gas activities is, in my view, essential! The need for increased safety of offshore oil and gas exploitation activities has been dramatically highlighted by recent accidents, most notably by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010: offshore activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuel, and an accident of such kind could have immediate large-scale effects on a semi-closed sea such as the Mediterranean, having tragic consequences for its economy and its fragile ecosystems, and undermining the efforts made by EU Mediterranean coastal Member States to achieve and maintain good environmental status in their marine waters as required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

  Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), in writing. − I am very pleased that the Chamber has voted in favour of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. The Protocol covers exploration and exploitation activities, the issue of permits, the removal of installations and provisions on safety in the Mediterranean. A protocol was necessary because managing these activities is not a matter only for the European Union, but also for all the other countries with Mediterranean coastline. Since the Gulf of Mexico accident in 2010, we have all been aware that a similar disaster in the Mediterranean could have devastating consequences. Not only is the Mediterranean a practically closed sea, but its ecosystem is unique for its size and diversity. The Mediterranean is also a source of economic wealth for many countries that make a living from tourism and the sustainable exploitation of the coast. We should therefore make sure we are providing maximum protection for tourism and for this very fragile ecosystem by ensuring a good level of cooperation among Mediterranean countries to achieve the maximum possible safety of offshore activities. I hope that the European Parliament in future will promote an even more stringent legislative initiative on this issue.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil, signed in October 1994, is part of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, signed in 1976, to which the European Union and all EU Mediterranean coastal Member States are Parties. The signature and ratification of the Protocol by the Union, in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are subject to approval by the European Parliament. The opportunities the sea offers us, in particular investment in Blue Growth, mean we should give attention to certain activities that could destroy the marine environment. For these reasons, this Protocol points out areas for supervision activities and duties falling to the Contracting Parties, in particular with regard to exploration and exploitation of the seabed and its subsoil. We must not shirk our responsibility as regards conservation of the marine ecosystem.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the legislative resolution on the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, commonly known as the ‘Barcelona Convention’, was initially signed in Barcelona in 1976 and amended in 1995. One of the protocols to the Barcelona Convention relates to the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. The European Union has neither signed nor ratified the Offshore Protocol. It is therefore necessary for the Union to ratify this Protocol. One of the objectives of the European Union’s environmental policy is to promote, at international level, measures intended to resolve regional environmental problems. With regard to the Offshore Protocol, it is particularly important to consider the high probability, in the event of an accident in a semi-closed sea such as the Mediterranean Sea, of cross-border effects on the environment. The European Union must therefore take all measures necessary to support the safety of offshore exploration and exploitation activities and to protect the marine environment in the Mediterranean Sea.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on EU accession to the Offshore Protocol. This is one of the protocols to the Barcelona Convention of 1976. It covers a wide range of exploration and exploitation activities, as well as permit requirements and liability and compensation requirements, and also removal of abandoned or disused installations and harmful substances. Adopted in 1994, when the approach to environmental issues was different, this protocol may have its shortcomings when it comes to outlining a sustainable management system for offshore activities. Nevertheless, a policy of sustainable governance of offshore oil and gas activities is needed. It is clear that the transboundary consequences of an accident in the Mediterranean Sea would not be limited to EU countries. Therefore, the EU should promote international cooperation to improve offshore safety and the response capability of all involved parties. In anticipation of the Regulation on safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities, currently under discussion, ratification of this protocol is a step in the right direction.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) Adopted on 14 October 1994, the Offshore Protocol is one of the protocols to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean. The European Union and all EU Mediterranean coastal Member States are Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, together with 14 other Mediterranean countries. The Offshore Protocol covers a wide range of exploration and exploitation activities in the Mediterranean as well as permit requirements, removal of abandoned or disused installations, use and removal of harmful substances, liability and compensation requirements, and safety matters. The Protocol entered into force on 24 March 2011, following its ratification by six contracting parties, and so far has been neither signed nor ratified by the Union. The accession of the Union requires the consent of the European Parliament. An accident could have large-scale effects on the economy and fragile ecosystems. A policy of sustainable governance of oil and gas offshore activities is clearly needed, also to protect the environment against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was a very clear illustration of the need to increase safety and the need to conduct a policy of sustainable management of actions in relation to undersea deposits of oil and gas, aimed at protection from pollution arising from exploration and exploitation activities. I therefore voted for this protocol.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities in the Mediterranean are likely to increase due to the discovery of new reserves of fossil fuels, making necessary the sustainable management of these offshore activities. Besides having tragic economic consequences, a potential accident could undermine the efforts made by EU Mediterranean coastal Member States to maintain good environmental status in their marine waters. The ratification of the Protocol therefore represents significant progress towards this, being a solid base for guaranteeing a good level of cooperation and a continued concrete commitment of all Mediterranean countries to the achievement of the maximum possible safety of offshore activities.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report, on which we voted in favour, consents to the European Union’s accession to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil. As the world has unfortunately experienced, the various accidents that have occurred over the years, for example the accident in the Gulf of Mexico, have shown that offshore oil and gas exploration and exploitation entail grave dangers and require effective measures for regulation and control to protect workers, communities and ecosystems, placing them above the profits of the multinationals in the sector.

- Recommendation: Ole Christensen (A7-0358/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, since I think that, above all, it is in the interest of both parties to conclude a new Protocol. A new Protocol that decides on the fishing opportunities for the subsequent year, taking into account scientific advice, the precautionary approach, the needs of the fishing industry and the minimum quantities for maintaining Greenlandic fishing activities, is consistent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and I therefore think it is a positive Protocol for both parties.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Adopted by the European Parliament by a large majority vote, this Protocol governs the relations between the European Union and Greenland regarding fishing. I supported this fair and well-balanced text, since it takes into account the objectives of sustainable fishing promoted by European Union environmental policy.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this agreement with Denmark and Greenland. The scope of this agreement includes the buying of fishing rights for EU vessels and promotion of responsible and sustainable fisheries policies. The agreement will rule out any risk of depleting local stocks or damaging local fishing communities, which, on the contrary, should benefit from targeted assistance programmes financed by the EU financial compensation. The Agreement is coherent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and will be of mutual benefit to both Greenland and the EU. I agree with the proposals that Parliament should also be given the opportunity for a closer monitoring all along the implementing process of the multiannual sectoral support programme. The effect of the sectoral support measures for the local economy and the coastal communities should be thoroughly assessed by the Commission at the expiration of the new Protocol.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this recommendation because the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland has proved to be a success and I believe that it should continue to be supported and promoted through a new protocol. It represents a key component of the cooperation between the EU and Greenland and of Nordic cooperation in the fisheries sector which has brought a large number of benefits for both parties. I regard the financial contribution envisaged by the new protocol for the 2013-2015 period as appropriate and believe that it will guarantee a responsible and sustainable sectoral policy for Greenland in the fisheries sector.

I also welcome the addition to the new Protocol of the suspension clause in case fundamental human rights or democratic principles are violated. I believe that this is essential for the effective operation of the Agreement.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The first partnership agreements with Greenland were established following its withdrawal from the European Community in 1985. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) between the European Union and the former Home Rule Government of Greenland was adopted on 28 June 2007 and sets out the yearly fishing opportunities and financial contributions until 31 December 2012. Empowered by the Council mandate of 19 July 2011, the European Commission has held three rounds of negotiations Government of Greenland, including representatives from the Government of Denmark. On conclusion of these negotiations, a new Protocol was initialled on 3 February 2012, covering a period of three years starting on 1 January 2013. The current Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland is consistent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and with the principle of sustainable fisheries and it has been of great mutual benefit to both parties. I therefore voted in favour of this recommendation.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the report as in it Parliament approves the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, increased powers have been conferred on Parliament regarding the fisheries partnership agreements: under Article 218(6)(a) TFEU Parliament now has to give its consent to the conclusion of any such agreement. The first fisheries partnership agreement with Greenland was established after its withdrawal from the EC in 1985, on the basis that the Community could retain its traditional fishing rights by paying an annual financial compensation in return. Under the new Protocol, the Joint Committee will decide on the fishing opportunities for the subsequent year, taking into account scientific advice, the precautionary approach, the needs of the fishing industry and the minimum quantities for maintaining Greenlandic fishing activities. Vessel owners’ contributions will be defined in fixed prices for each stock, replacing the previous licensing system. I believe that the positive effect of the sectoral support measures for the local economy and the coastal communities, particularly in relation to local job creation, will prove over the long term and should therefore be thoroughly assessed by the Commission at the expiration of the new Protocol. Parliament should also be given the opportunity for a closer monitoring all along the implementing process of the multiannual sectoral support programme.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland on the other hand. The aim of this report is to renew the previous Partnership Agreement, which expires at the end of 2012, and to extend it from 1 January 2013. I support this Protocol, which specifies the granting of fishing possibilities by Greenland to European fleet operators for the period from 2013 to 2015 for a range of species.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think that the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland is consistent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and with the principle of sustainable fisheries and it has been of great mutual benefit to both parties.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I support a responsible and sustainable fisheries agreement, based on thorough assessments of the available resources, between the European Union, the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The conclusion of bilateral fisheries agreements with third countries, known as ‘Fisheries Partnership Agreements’, is a key element of the external dimension of the common fisheries policy. Acting beyond the mere buying of fishing rights for EU vessels, these agreements commit the contracting parties to promoting responsible and sustainable fisheries policies based on thorough assessments of the available resources. In this respect, I therefore agree that the current Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland is consistent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and with the principle of sustainable fisheries and that it has been of great mutual benefit to both parties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Ole Christensen gives us a recommendation on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand. The European Union, with its 500 million consumers, is the community that is the biggest global consumer of fish, so it needs to meet its requirements by fishing in waters outside its own territorial waters. For its part, Greenland’s economy is highly dependent on fisheries and the export of fishery products, specifically to the European Union. In 2010 exports to the EU amounted to 92.7 % of total exports. However, the balance of trade is clearly in the EU’s favour. I voted in favour of the recommendation, since, in addition to making it possible for the EU fishing fleet to continue to fish in waters under the protection of the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland with effect from 1 January 2013, it ensures protection of fishery resources by promoting a responsible and sustainable fisheries policy.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The first fisheries agreement between the European Community and Greenland was signed in 1985, one year before Portugal joined the Community. Fishing in Greenland’s waters is yet another example of how national interests were left out of account in the accession negotiations and the subsequent integration of national fisheries into the common fisheries policy. Portugal is one of the European countries with the longest and richest histories of fishing in those waters. Nevertheless, the fishing opportunities granted to Portugal under that agreement, in the name of a relative stability that never recognised the historic Portuguese presence in those waters, strongly discriminate against our fleet. In the agreement which has now expired, Portugal was not in a position to make effective use of the quota of 1 000 tonnes of halibut. The national vessels (bottom-set longline) that travelled to Greenland did not manage to exploit the stock effectively. In the new agreement Greenland made available to the EU a new quota of 2 000 tonnes of demersal redfish, from the stocks which grew up between Iceland and the Greenlandic Exclusive Economic Zone. In the forthcoming negotiations a fair distribution of that quota between the Member States is now required, recognising the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Portuguese fleet, which has suffered such obvious discrimination and harm.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Greenland originally joined the European Communities (EC) as a part of Denmark in 1973, but left the EC following a referendum in 1985. Today, Greenland is one of the overseas countries and territories (OCT) of the Union, within the meaning of Article 355(2) TFEU. Greenland’s economy is highly dependent on fisheries and the export of fishery products to the EU. The first fisheries partnership agreement with Greenland was established after its withdrawal from the EC in 1985, on the basis that the Community could retain its traditional fishing rights by paying an annual financial compensation in return. The FPA between the EU and the former Home Rule Government of Greenland was adopted on 28 June 2007 with the current Protocol, which sets out the yearly fishing opportunities and financial contributions until 31 December 2012. Empowered by the Council mandate of 19 July 2011, the European Commission has held rounds of negotiations with the Government of Greenland to renew the Protocol due to the expiration of the current Protocol on 31 December 2012. On conclusion of these negotiations, a new Protocol was initialled on 3 February 2012 covering a period of three years starting on 1 January 2013. I believe that the current Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland is coherent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and with the principle of sustainable fishery and that it is of great mutual benefit to both parties.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The fishing industry is a vital part of Greenland's economy and the money they receive from the EU for fishing rights is not inconsiderable. Unlike many of the EU external fishing arrangements, the agreement with Greenland is truly beneficial to both sides. I accordingly voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this agreement. The first fisheries partnership agreement with Greenland was established after its withdrawal from the EC in 1985, on the basis that the Community could retain its traditional fishing rights by paying an annual financial compensation in return. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the former Home Rule Government of Greenland was adopted on 28 June 2007 with the current Protocol, which sets out the yearly fishing opportunities and financial contributions until 31 December 2012. The protocol is due to expire on 31 December 2012 and I support the renewal of the agreement as it will decide on the fishing opportunities for the subsequent year, taking into account scientific advice, the precautionary approach, the needs of the fishing industry and the minimum quantities for maintaining Greenlandic fishing activities.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this Report. This new Protocol provides for an EU financial contribution of EUR 17.85 million per year to Greenland in return for fishing rights.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I support the conclusion of the Protocol. The Agreement is of benefit to both parties. The text is completely consistent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and with the principle of sustainable fishery.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The objectives of this new protocol are to prioritise the protection of the environment through the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. It guarantees that scientific advice will be taken into account. The interests of Greenland fisheries are secured, as well as those of the EU’s fishermen. I vote in favour of the protocol.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Fisheries Partnership Agreements are a key element of the external dimension of the common fisheries policy. Thus I think that the current Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland is consistent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and with the principle of sustainable fisheries and that it has been of great mutual benefit to both parties. I think, too, that it is an important cornerstone in cooperation between the European Union and Greenland and in the Nordic cooperation on fishery resources. I am therefore voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Under the new Protocol, the Joint Committee will decide on the fishing opportunities for the subsequent year, taking into account scientific advice, the precautionary approach, the needs of the fishing industry and the minimum quantities for maintaining Greenlandic fishing activities. I voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The new Protocol will further strengthen mutual cooperation in the fishing sector and will ensure implementation of responsible and sustainable fisheries policies. It will allow the EU fleet to fish in non-EU waters, maintain a European presence in distant-water fisheries and protect the interests of the European fisheries sector and of consumers. It should be noted that it is very important to ensure that fishing opportunities to be used are supported by credible scientific data and knowledge. Furthermore, taking account of environmental, social and economic concerns, the rational exploitation of fishery resources must be strengthened. Given the above, it is essential to constantly monitor whether the EU compensation is appropriate and whether sparing use of Greenland’s fishery resources is encouraged.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The first fisheries partnership agreement (FPA) between the EU and Greenland dates back to 1985, which shows the importance of the fisheries there for the fleets of certain European countries. The setting out of the fishing opportunities within the scope of the current FPA is based on scientific advice and the Protocol is consistent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and with the fundamental principle of sustainable fisheries. The Protocol is considered to be of great mutual benefit to both parties and includes a significant EU contribution, more than 20 % of the yearly financial contribution, earmarked for improving and implementing sectoral fisheries policies in Greenland, with a positive impact on the economy of the coastal communities and at the level of job creation. Since I think that the FPAs help to strengthen cooperation and the EU’s strategic presence in the waters of third countries, and that the current Protocol is favourable to the fleets of some European countries, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Since bilateral fisheries agreements with third countries, termed ‘Fisheries Partnership Agreements’ (FPA) are a key element of the common fisheries policy (CFP) external dimension because they commit the contracting parties to promoting responsible and sustainable fisheries policies, the current FPA with Greenland is coherent with the aims of the common fisheries policy and with the principle of sustainable fishery. While underlining the fact that Greenland’s economy is highly dependent on fisheries and on the export of fishery products to the EU, and that the fisheries sector generates 6 500 jobs (17 % of total employment), and while recognising that the current Agreement has been of great mutual benefit to both parties and is also a cornerstone of cooperation between the EU and Greenland, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The first partnership agreement with Greenland was established after Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Community in 1985, giving the Community the possibility to retain its fishing rights in exchange for a financial contribution. Since the agreement is due to expire on 31 December 2012, the European Commission, with the authorisation of the Council, has concluded, after three rounds of negotiations, the work for a new Protocol which provides for an EU financial contribution of EUR 17.85 million per year. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland is consistent with aims of the common fisheries policy and with the principle of sustainable fisheries and it has been of great mutual benefit to both parties. In view of the above, I voted in favour of concluding the Protocol.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. The agreement with Greenland is unusual in many respects. It is with an ex-member of the EU. It is with a northern country yet follows the model of southern agreements in exchanging financial compensation for fishing rights. Finally, it was the first one to begin the now general approach of specifying amounts of money for fishing quotas and distinct amounts for fisheries development aid. The primary beneficiaries of the agreement are the northern Member States (Germany, UK, Lithuania, Poland, Estonia), with the southern ones much less than usual (Spain, Portugal). Many of the quotas obtained from the agreement are used by the EU in trade with Norway and Iceland (the EU may trade the capelin it receives from Greenland to get redfish from Iceland, for instance). The protocol with Greenland gives access to thirteen stocks (many of which are deep-sea species that are highly vulnerable to commercial exploitation), some of which are heavily overexploited. Some of these fisheries are mixed fisheries where fish is caught by bottom trawlers which have important by-catch levels. As a result of these problems, and combined with the fact that Greenland is heavily dependent on fisheries and the money it earns from it, we abstained on FISH.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I believe that the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community, the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland offers an opportunity to improve the sustainability, financial management and transparency of fisheries. I support this partnership agreement to maintain and strengthen the fisheries relationship between the European Community and the Home Rule Government of Greenland by establishing a dialogue between the various local stakeholders, in order to guarantee support for the responsible exploitation of fishery resources in Greenland’s fishing grounds. I also consider particularly significant the provision for closer economic cooperation in the fishing industry to protect the interests of everyone involved. I voted in favour so as to maintain the current priorities of the fisheries policy.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) This Fishing Partnership Agreement with Greenland appears to be coherent with the aims of the common fisheries policy. One thing to which I attach some importance is the fact that this agreement is aligned with the principle of sustainable fishery. It has mutual benefits for both parties and is an important cornerstone in the cooperation between the EU and Greenland and in the Nordic cooperation of fishery resources.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Greenland is one of the overseas countries and territories of the European Union, within the meaning of Article 355(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Bilateral fisheries agreements with third countries are important in strengthening the external dimension of the common fisheries policy. These ‘Fisheries Partnership Agreements’ (FPA) commit the contracting parties to promoting responsible and sustainable fisheries policies based on thorough assessments of the available resources. I agree with this report which establishes a fisheries agreement between the EU and Greenland for the 2013-2015 three-year period, thus making it possible to buy fishing rights for EU vessels. Greenland should receive annual financial compensation of the order of EUR 17.85 million.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland was established after the latter’s withdrawal from the EC in 1985, on the basis that the Community could retain its traditional fishing rights by paying annual financial compensation in return. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the former Home Rule Government of Greenland was adopted on 28 June 2007 with the current Protocol, which sets out the yearly fishing opportunities and financial contributions until 31 December 2012. Greenland’s economy is highly dependent on fisheries and the export of fishery products to the EU. In 2012, exports to EU markets amounted to EUR 331 million (92.7 % of total exports), while imports from the EU were nearly twice as high (EUR 641 million). The fisheries sector generates 6 500 jobs, but only 2 000 full-time jobs are offered directly by the fish catching sector. I welcome the renewal of the Protocol for a three-year period from 1 January 2013.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The conclusion of bilateral fisheries agreements with Third countries is a key element of the common fisheries policy. Beyond the mere buying of fishing rights for EU vessels, these agreements commit the contracting parties to promoting responsible and sustainable fisheries policies. Greenland’s economy is highly dependent on fisheries and the export of fishery products to the EU. In 2010, exports to EU markets amounted to EUR 331 million, while imports from the EU were nearly twice as high. The fisheries sector generates 6 500 jobs. This agreement is of great mutual benefit to both parties and is important for the Nordic cooperation in the area of fishery resources.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The conclusion of bilateral fisheries agreements with Third countries, termed ‘Fisheries Partnership Agreements’ (FPA), is a key element of the common fisheries policy (CFP) external dimension. These agreements commit the contracting parties to promoting responsible and sustainable fisheries policies, so I too voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Greenland is one of the 26 overseas countries and territories with which the EU has a Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA). The domestic fisheries sector is the economy’s most significant earner, accounting for 13 % of direct gross value added and 17 % of employment (including processing and other linked activities). The fishery sector accounts for 88 % of tangible exports, almost all of which are to the EU. The current agreement, which came into force in 2007 and expires on 31 December 2012, foresees fishing opportunities for cod, redfish, Greenland halibut, Atlantic halibut, shrimp, capelin and snow-crab. The new protocol will cover a period of three years starting from the adoption of the Council decision on the protocol’s signing and provisional application, and consists of a continuation of the terms of the previous protocol, with some changes in fishing opportunities and the addition of a suspension clause in case fundamental human rights or democratic principles are violated.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The first fisheries agreement between the European Community and Greenland was signed in 1985, one year before Portugal joined the Community. Portugal was one of the countries with a strong tradition and history of fishing in the Greenland area that saw its interests severely damaged by the reduction in fishing opportunities there. With this new agreement, Greenland has made available to the EU a new quota of 2 000 tonnes of demersal redfish, and we hope that there is now a fair distribution of that quota between the Member States, recognising the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Portuguese fleet, which has suffered such obvious discrimination and harm.

- Report: Carlo Casini (A7-0352/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I agree with this report which provides for amendments to the Directive in terms of allowing European citizens residing in Member States of which they are not nationals to vote in European elections. I think it is another decisive step towards the achievement of a genuine European political space, although supervision and control mechanisms are needed in order to prevent double voting. I also think that we must not forget that the concept of European citizenship will reach its full potential only when there is mobility and residence in Member States other than the Member State of nationality that affords all citizens the same rights, irrespective of their origin and location within the European area.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) My fellow Members and I gave this technical report broad support. It aims to simplify and strengthen the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. Its speedy adoption by the European Parliament should enable it to be implemented in time for the next elections in 2014, if the Council supports it.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the report on the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. According to EU law, EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals have the right to vote or to stand in European Parliament elections subject to the same conditions as citizens of the respective state. It is essential to ensure, however, that no citizen may vote more than once or stand as a candidate in more than one Member State in the same election. I agree with the amendment of Directive 93/109/EC, which lays down means of preventing such a practice. The proposal aims to replace the obligation for Member States to exchange information about nationals entered on electoral rolls or standing as candidates with more simple measures that offer the necessary guarantees and deterrents. I agree with the proposal that citizens wishing to stand as a candidate should be obliged to provide an official declaration that they are not disqualified from standing.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that the procedures for citizens who do not reside in the state where they stand as candidates for elections to the European Parliament needed to be simplified. It is important for checks on the right to stand as a candidate to be performed by Member States and for them to become an automatic procedure for every candidate in elections. This will encourage people to stand as candidates, and voters will be given the opportunity to choose between more candidates. Not least, simplifying the procedures can be a step towards uniform regulation of the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament. Greater harmonisation in the way in which elections to Parliament are held will be necessary in future.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the report as this Council directive provides that EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals have the right to stand in elections to the European Parliament. This document makes some modest improvements to the current situation in terms of administrative convenience for the prospective candidate and for the states concerned. It is expected that these small yet important reforms can be made operational in time for 2014.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. I support this small step and hope that these administrative changes will be applied in time for the 2014 European elections.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because it clarifies and simplifies the procedure for standing as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. This is essential in the current context of the EU, in which migration from one Member State to another is an extremely common practice. As a result, those who are in this situation need a clear and simple process in order to be guaranteed one of the fundamental rights of a democratic entity – that of being able to stand as a candidate in elections. I also welcome the fact that both the Council and the European Parliament will make efforts to ensure that the Directive will be operational in time for the 2014 elections.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Casini report on the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament. However, I think we need to address some problems related to double voting and double candidature. While the new proposal does not meet Parliament’s ambitious objectives, it does improve the current situation in terms of administrative convenience.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Parliament’s original intention was to open the way for candidates to stand in more than one constituency at the same election. This licence is permitted by the 1976 Act on Direct Elections but in practice not regulated for in EU secondary legislation (or in most national laws). I voted in favour of this report since I think that, while the new draft does not meet Parliament’s more ambitious goals, it does make some modest improvements to the current situation in terms of administrative convenience for the prospective candidate and for the States concerned.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the adoption of the Casini resolution on the right to vote and stand in EP elections for EU citizens living in other Member States. The proposed changes would make it easier for citizens of other Member States to vote and to stand in EP elections in their Member State of residence, for example by removing the current obligation upon them to apply to their Member State of origin for a certificate proving that they have not forfeited any of their civic rights; the ‘burden of proof’ will now lie with the electoral authorities in the Member State of residence. I particularly welcome the proposals that future Commissioners should be chosen as far as possible from newly elected MEPs, and that Member States designate both a male and a female candidate in order to ensure gender balance within the next Commission.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The common market must not only be an economic and social area but also a political one: it is important that the European Union makes it easy for European citizens to take part in European elections in a different state to their home state. Therefore, I am pleased to see the implementation of simplified procedures in this regard after several years of blockage at the Council level. We absolutely must ensure that these measures can be implemented in 2014.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I support the harmonisation of Member States’ electoral systems, which would, for example, make it possible for candidates in European elections to stand in a Member State other than their own. It is incomprehensible that the current differences between electoral systems should often prevent citizens from exercising their right to vote owing to bureaucratic problems. However, the Directive must ensure that no one votes more than once or stands in more than one Member State in the same election.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The issue of the right to stand or vote in European elections for citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals remains rather controversial and raises important practical questions, not merely theoretical ones. I believe that any changes to the electoral systems and the way in which Members of the European Parliament from the various Member States are elected, must be approached with the greatest care. I therefore recommend that all amendments should be restricted to the minimum necessary for bringing elected members closer to the electorate and that we should avoid using technical issues for political ends. That said, I think that the majority opinion today is that, if the national parties standing for election to the European Parliament agree, they could include on their lists citizens of other Member States and this possibility should not be hindered. Issues of timely verifiability to guard against double voting or double candidature deserve considerable attention.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Since the European Union is an area of free movement of persons and goods, more and more citizens are taking up residence in a Member State other than their Member State of origin, which gives rise to some legal issues regarding European elections. When the last European elections were held in 2009, this matter was discussed but no agreement was reached. With new elections approaching, the Council is submitting for the approval of the European Parliament a draft Council directive amending Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 as regards certain detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The new Directive allows candidates to stand for election in their Member State of residence, although candidates are required to indicate in their application their last address in the home state to make sure that relevant information is given by the home state. If elected and found to be in error later, measures will be taken to prevent candidates taking up their seat. Since we urgently need to adopt these amendments and in view of the favourable opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I voted in favour of this draft Council directive.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report approves the Council’s text which aims to facilitate some aspects of eligibility to stand and vote in European Parliament elections for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The content of the report cannot be separated from the gradual attempts to confuse and break the link that Members of the European Parliament have to each Member State and to their reality and their community; this could destroy the peoples’ sovereignty – the right to decide upon their present and their future in accordance with their rights and aspirations. This path will inevitably lead to impoverishment of political and democratic rights and freedoms, to the strengthening of the European parties (linked to and dependent upon funding and upon respect for the rules and principles of the EU), to an attempt to reduce still further the number of Members elected by each country, thus truncating plurality of party representation. The intention is clear: to exclude from institutional representation, by administrative means, the parties that pose a threat to the interests of big business and the major powers that dominate the EU institutions, thus creating a political system totally subjugated to the interests and needs of big business and the major powers, bringing greater exploitation and denying the peoples their right to development.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The Commission report on the application of Council Directive 93/109/EC laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals revealed the need to amend certain provisions of the Directive. The Directive provides that no person may vote more than once or stand as a candidate in more than one Member State at the same election. The difficulties, which jeopardise the operability and efficiency of the information-exchange arrangements, could be overcome only by harmonising the rules on entry in the national electoral rolls. Such measures would be disproportionate in relation to the objective pursued. I therefore believe that the exchange of information should accordingly be abolished but the obligation for the voter or candidate to produce a declaration undertaking to exercise his or her right to vote or to stand as a candidate only in the Member State of residence should be maintained. A routine check of all the votes and of all the candidacies would be disproportionate to the problems identified, and would be difficult to implement. Member States should accordingly target their checks on the situations where there is a greater probability of double voting or double candidature.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) This report deals with a question raised during the last European Parliament elections in 2009, namely whether candidates can stand for election in a Member State of which they are not nationals. Originally, it was not only the right to stand as a candidate that was addressed, but also the right to vote. Due to resistance from the Council, however, this report now deals only with the right to stand. What matters is not where MEPs originally come from, but how willing they are to work on behalf of a particular region. Nowadays, many EU citizens decide to leave their country of origin and set up home in another country. If people take this decision, in my opinion there is no reason to prevent them from becoming politically active there. I therefore welcome the – albeit modest – improvement in terms of administrative convenience provided for in this report. This relates to the administrative authorities, who are required to verify whether or not somebody has been disbarred from standing as a candidate in their own state. This simplification should be made operational in time for the 2014 elections.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report in order to enable its rapid adoption by the Council and to inform citizens of the EU residing in a Member State of the European Union of which they are not nationals of the eligibility rules for the next European elections in 2014. Certainly the text requires some improvements in terms of administrative convenience for the prospective candidate and for the states concerned. However, I am sorry to see that the Council has still not been able to reach agreement on the voting rights of these persons and believes it is necessary to examine the possibility of allowing candidates to stand in more than one constituency at the same election to the European Parliament regardless of residency qualifications, which is permitted by the 1976 Act on Direct Elections but in practice not regulated for in EU secondary legislation (or in most national laws).

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document. On 12 September 2012 the Council adopted a text which it intends to adopt as the Directive amending Directive 93/109/EC on the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. Parliament’s original intention was to open the way for candidates to stand in more than one constituency at the same election. However, disagreements in Council on this matter, and on regulating the right to vote in states of residence, caused no action to be taken in time for the 2009 elections. Now the Council has dropped the more thorny matter of voters’ rights and concentrates only on alleviating some of the burden placed on national authorities in verifying whether or not somebody has been disbarred from standing as a candidate in their own state. While the new draft does not meet Parliament’s more ambitious goals, it does make some modest improvements to the current situation in terms of administrative convenience for the prospective candidate and for the states concerned.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, of which I am the Vice-Chair, the Council of the European Union consulted us on the text amending the Directive of 1993 on the right to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament for EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The objective of this was to take account of certain problems connected with double voting and double candidature. We approved this proposal because it contained modest but sensible reforms, and we hope that they will be in place before the 2014 elections. It is an improvement because, for example, it reduces bureaucracy for candidates who want to stand in their state of residence when it is not necessarily their home state.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report which aims to ease the requirements for citizens of the Union residing in an EU state of which they are not nationals to stand as a candidate in the election of the European Parliament.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Our intention was to open the way for candidates to stand in more than one constituency at the same election. However, disagreements in Council, including on regulating the right to vote in states of residents, caused no action to be taken in time for the 2009 elections. While the new draft does not meet Parliament’s more ambitious goals, it does make some modest improvements to the current situation in terms of administrative convenience for the prospective candidate and for the states concerned. We therefore welcome the Council’s draft to ease the requirements of citizens of the Union residing in an EU state of which they are not nationals to stand as a candidate in the election of the European Parliament. We recall, nevertheless, our firm wish to open the way for candidates to stand in more than one constituency at the same election regardless of residency qualifications as well as to improve the regulation of a general right to vote in states of residence. The use of the simplified procedure is justified by the hope that the modest but sensible reforms will be in place in time for 2014.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the Casini report. I support the approval of the Council’s draft and the fact that the simplified procedure was used to issue a swift positive opinion so that the reforms will be in place in time for 2014.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report makes it possible for every European citizen to vote in and stand for the European elections, regardless of their Member State of residence. In this sense this is a significant step forward. I vote in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This issue has created some controversy within the European Union. Everything concerning changes to the rules in force in electoral systems and the way in which Members of the European Parliament are elected must be approached with care. This report follows that line, which is why I voted as I did.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of the draft Council directive amending Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 as regards certain detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The amendment brought alleviates some of the burden placed on national authorities in verifying whether or not somebody has been disbarred from standing as a candidate in their own state. This amendment will facilitate the situation in terms of administrative convenience for the potential candidate and for the states concerned.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The amendment of Directive 93/109/EC concerns the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. According to this report, this is to be made easier, which in principle is a welcome development. If you read the report more closely, however, you realise that the grounds for exclusion are being tightened, as now an individual decision by an administrative authority can also deprive citizens of the right to stand. As the judicial remedies, stages of appeal and legal protection are generally less extensive for the person concerned under administrative law than under civil law, this extension of the grounds for exclusion, which can now also cover more minor offences, and consequently also the amendment of the Directive, must be rejected.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) Democracy is unimaginable without elections. Therefore it is essential to resolve all issues relating to voters’ rights and remove all legal barriers to a successfully functioning democracy at both national and EU level. Elections have to be democratic and citizens must have a right to vote and stand in elections. This applies in particular to European Parliament elections and the respective rights of EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. It is commendable that provisions in the directive will alleviate some of the burden placed on national authorities and improve the current situation in terms of administrative convenience for the prospective candidate and for the states concerned. However, we should be putting more effort into reaching a compromise regarding a reform of the mechanism to prevent double voting.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report on certain detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs decided to use the simplified procedure to issue a swift positive opinion on the Council’s draft without amendment in the expectation that the reforms, viewed as modest but sensible, particularly on eligibility criteria and smoothing the procedures for standing for election, will be in place in time for 2014.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Having regard to the fact that on 12 September 2012 the Council adopted a text which it intends to adopt as the Directive amending Directive 93/109/EC on the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, Parliament should now take note of the Council’s draft to ease these requirements. While I wish to emphasise that Parliament’s original intention was to open the way for candidates to stand in more than one constituency at the same election, but that in practice this is not regulated for in EU secondary legislation and no action was taken in time for the 2009 elections, and while I therefore hope that the new draft will be made operational in time for the 2014 elections, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) On 12 September, the Council adopted a text concerning the adoption of the Directive amending Directive 93/109/EC laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. At the same time, the Council decided to consult Parliament again. While the new draft falls short of Parliament’s ambitions, it does make some modest improvements to the current situation, alleviating some of the burden placed on national authorities to verify whether somebody has been disbarred from standing as a candidate in their home state. It would be convenient to have these proposals in place before the next elections in 2014. Therefore, and without prejudice to continuing to stress the need to adopt more ambitious measures (such as the possibility of double candidature and the possibility to allow the state of residence not to recognise disqualifications by the home state), the rapporteur recommends a positive opinion on the report, leaving the discussion of these issues to the next Convention. Since I agree with that view, I voted in favour of this report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. In 2006 the Commission proposed amendments to Directive 93/109/EC regarding certain detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The Commission wanted to ease the burden on the information exchange system caused by the prevention of double voting as well as an easing of the burden caused by the information that candidates wishing to stand in elections in another Member State need to provide by replacing the need for a formal attestation by a formal declaration. Parliament delivered an opinion in 2007 which went further and intended to open the way for candidates to stand in more than one constituency, something which is permitted by the 1976 Act on Direct Elections but not regulated for in EU law or in most national laws. The committee decided to agree to use the simplified procedure to issue a swift opinion without amendment in the expectation that the modest reforms will be in place for the 2014 elections.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) The report confirms the changes to the Directive on the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. Article 18 of the EU Treaty guarantees that any EU citizen may stand for election to the European Parliament in any EU country. This is an important aspect of European citizenship that was established by the Maastricht Treaty 20 years ago. The changes made to the Directive introduce practical solutions that facilitate the implementation of this Treaty provision in practice.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The amendment of Directive 93/109/EC on the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals has been the subject of an important debate. I view as an important and necessary step the removal of obstacles to the possibility of standing in elections in exercise of the rights associated with citizenship of a Member State and I believe the amendments under examination could be instrumental in bringing about political change in the EU. I voted in favour so that the administrative procedures for potential candidates can be simplified and the necessary requirements can be eased.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) It is important to relax the obligations imposed on EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals who stand as candidates in European Parliament elections. We must allow candidates to stand in more than one constituency at the same election to the European Parliament, regardless of residency qualifications, as well as improve the regulation of a general right to vote in states of residence.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Despite the fact that this draft directive on the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament does not meet all the European Parliament’s objectives since the Council did not give its support, it presents important amendments to enter into force in time for the next European elections in 2014. Thus the main objective is to alleviate some of the burden placed on Member States, namely as regards verifying whether somebody has been disbarred from standing as a candidate in their own state. I voted in favour of the draft report but I think that the debate on voting rights, in particular reforming the mechanism to prevent double voting, must be rethought.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the amendment to Directive 93/109/EC on the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The right of all citizens of the Union to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in their Member State of residence is recognised under Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Member State of residence may check whether the citizens of the Union who have expressed a desire to exercise their right to stand as candidates there have not been deprived of that right in their Member State of origin through an individual judicial decision or an administrative decision, provided that the latter can be subject to judicial remedies. To facilitate communication between national authorities, the Member States should designate a contact point responsible for communicating information concerning candidates. The Directive requires that when submitting applications, Union nationals must produce an attestation from the competent administrative authorities of their home Member State certifying that they have not been deprived of the right to stand as candidates in that Member State or that no such disqualification is known to the authorities.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report on the Directive regarding the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. Parliament’s original intention was to enable candidates to stand in more than one constituency at the same election. This licence is permitted by the 1976 Act on Direct Elections but in practice not regulated for. Disagreements in Council on this matter have prevented action from being taken in time for European elections. The Council has concentrated on alleviating some of the burden placed on national authorities. In essence, this consists of verifying whether or not somebody has been disbarred from standing as a candidate in their own state. Therefore, we are far from meeting Parliament’s ambitious goals. There are just some modest improvements to the current situation in terms of administrative convenience for the prospective candidate. However, with the ordinary legislative procedure it was not possible to obtain more from the Council if we wanted some improvements at the next European elections in 2014.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) This concerns the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in an EU state of which they are not nationals. Parliament’s original intention was for candidates to be able to stand in more than one constituency at the same election. One of the chief revisions to the earlier drafts is that the Directive now only covers the right to stand. In conclusion, it can be said that the draft on election to the EP has been simplified. To ensure that the modest but sensible reforms will be in place in time for 2014, the simplified procedure should be used and approved.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The next round of elections to the European Parliament, in June 2014, is drawing near. At a time when eurosceptic views are on the rise, we should be particularly concerned that EU citizens take part as extensively as possible in the elections, and that Parliament’s mandate is as strong as possible. One procedural restriction on participation in the elections is the difficulty of voting in a country where electors have their place of residence but of which they are not nationals. This is a growing group of people who are seeking work or receiving education in other countries. Unfortunately the directive that is on the table provides no solution to this problem. It does not extend the right to vote, but merely introduces administrative changes to make things easier for potential candidates. In other words, it makes it easier to stand for election, but it does not support implementation of the right to vote, which is based on the potential to play a real part in elections. Consequently this solution is far from satisfactory.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report approves the Council’s text aimed at facilitating some aspects of the procedure for establishing the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State other than their own. The pretext applied here, as part of a broader strategy, is the impoverishment of political and democratic rights and freedoms, the strengthening of the European parties, and an attempt to reduce still further the number of Members elected by each country. We could not support this report.

- Report: Birgit Collin-Langen (A7-0343/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report since I think it is necessary, above all, to guarantee a high level of consumer protection with regard to credit in order to improve financial inclusion, on the one hand, and to increase consumption and growth on the European market, on the other hand. In my opinion, this Directive, by focusing on the key elements concerning consumer rights, is an essential step for re-establishing consumer confidence in banks. Thus we need to improve transparency and information for consumers and, more specifically, on the rates charged, in order to provide better financial education.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) One of the fundamental principles of the single market is precisely the harmonisation of legislative conditions in order to make trade more efficient. The shaping of this legislative framework for consumer credit will firstly eliminate differences in terms of regulation, thereby offering consumers a far wider range of services and offerings. Secondly, through such initiatives, the common market becomes a concrete reality with real coverage, which lends substance to the mechanisms and institutions of the European Union. It is, however, equally important for consumer protection to be prioritised at all times during the process of expanding trade or the scope of credit services. I support the adoption of the report and believe that it is imperative for the Member States to take decisive action so that consumers will be better informed about the products and services available to them.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report, which aims to strengthen protection for European consumers with regard to consumer credit and has been adopted by the European Parliament. It provides a review of the two years since the adoption of the Directive and sets out Member States’ successes and failures. The report states that it is not necessary to amend the Directive but that access to information should be facilitated for consumers, especially with regard to cross-border credit involving different currencies.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal, which aims to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and strengthen the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. In trying to improve the cross-border consumer credit market, it is essential to better inform consumers about the opportunity to obtain consumer credit in other Member States and about the rights of consumers when concluding such contracts. I agree with the call for supervisory authorities to require financial institutions to provide consumers with personalised, complete and easily understandable explanations regarding the risks involved in foreign currency lending. The advertising and marketing practices of financial institutions have to be strictly monitored in order to avoid the spread of misleading or false information. I agree that the provisions on calculating the annual percentage rate of charge should be applied uniformly in all relevant EU legal instruments. I agree that the Commission should present an assessment report on the implementation of the Directive and a full assessment of its impact regarding consumer protection.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. Whilst on the one hand it is true that the harmonisation of some aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe, on the other hand, the increase in the cross-border take-up of consumer credit would seem to have been insignificant. This may be because only a few institutions offer cross-border consumer credit and because the market as a whole has been in decline in recent years as a result of the crisis. As regards the implementation of Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers, some problems were noted, in particular, failure by some Member States to transpose all or some of the provisions of the Directive by the deadline set. Many Member States have extended the scope of the Directive to cover other financial products. This report, which I supported, calls on the Commission to review the way the Directive has been transposed and urges the Member States to apply it correctly. It also recommends a detailed assessment of the impact of the Directive, on the basis of which, consideration should be given to the amendments required.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. − (PL) Because some countries have failed to adhere to the deadlines for transposition of regulations concerning the functioning of financial institutions, there is coming to be a need to monitor their implementation with a view to securing the interests of consumers. Further clarity is needed at least as far as the discrepancies associated with interpretation of the period for withdrawal from a credit agreement are concerned. Particular attention needs to be devoted to the exertion of pressure on financial institutions to make them provide consumers with exhaustive information that is comprehensible and meets their needs regarding the risk of taking out loans in foreign currencies before any agreement has been signed. Last year’s review on consumer credit websites revealed – in the case of almost half of these sites – a lack of mandatory information, chiefly relating to costs and the duration of agreements, and consequently information of exceptional importance. The increasing popularity of SMS loans is also deserving of attention; although it has many advantages, it can quite often lead the potential client into a particular situation with no exit. We should strive to ensure that there is effective protection for consumers in this area. I support the report.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support the report by Ms Collin-Langen, the purpose of which is to check the state of implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC, for the purpose of protecting consumers and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. The report looks in detail at a few issues that make transposition of the Directive into the legal systems of individual Member States difficult, such as the short transposition deadline, the vast scope of the Directive and the need to adapt the reality of individual economic, social and national budget situations, which are often slightly if not completely different. Trying to use the same solutions for all 27 Member States is not only a mistake; it is even counterproductive. Finally, the report also looks at consumer rights and the effects that the economic crisis is having on individuals and families throughout Europe.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this report as this Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. The current situation regarding fundamental rights when obtaining credit in Europe remains almost unchanged as the take-up of cross-border consumer credit has indeed decreased in recent years. It is believed that this could have been the result of the financial crisis. It is also important to note that the obstacles to the take-up of cross-border consumer credit are more likely to be linked to the language barrier or the lack of any personal relationship with the financial institution concerned than to legal considerations. Furthermore, these procedures involve both national legislators and financial institutions in individual Member States, so even though the Commission has put forward guidelines on the interpretation of the concept of ‘annual percentage rate of charge’, they are not legally binding.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC. This report reviews the first two years of the application of the Directive by Member States and highlights the progress made and delays in its application. The main aim of the Directive is to facilitate cross-border credit by closing the gaps in different national legislations. In addition, we need to increase our vigilance to ensure that information is made available to European citizens, especially on the risks involved in taking out a loan in a foreign currency for consumers who choose cross-border credit and on insurance costs.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − (RO) The Consumer Credit Directive has undoubtedly increased consumer protection, which is welcome. On the whole, I believe we can be satisfied with the implementation process and I do not believe that the Directive currently needs to be revised. As this report suggests, the priority should be to ensure proper implementation in the Member States. The ‘sweep’ operation carried out by the Commission has been particularly useful in identifying problems with implementation.

Sustained efforts must be made to ensure that the provisions of the Directive with regard to information about offers in advertising material are not presented in a misleading way. In addition, consumers must be better informed about the risks of obtaining credit in a foreign currency due to exchange rate fluctuations. Not least, I believe it is important for consumers to be better informed about the opportunity to obtain credit in another Member State. This will probably boost cross-border credit and will favour the creation of an internal credit market, which is currently inadequate, even if there are other reasons for this situation, such as language.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. There is no doubt that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. The increase in the cross-border take-up of consumer credit would seem to have been insignificant, however. This may be because only very few financial institutions offer cross-border consumer credit and because the market as a whole has been in decline in recent years as a result of the financial crisis. I voted in favour of this report because I think it is important to strengthen consumer protection and the internal consumer credit market.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I too welcome the Commission’s initiative of conducting a study on the cross-border impact and effects of cross-border cooperation on the internal market and consumer protection. Consumers in cross-border areas must be better informed as to how they can obtain consumer credit in another Member State when purchasing goods for long-term use or cars, or for other purposes, such as with regard to their rights when entering into such a contract, especially where the credit is in a currency other than that of the recipient’s country of residence.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which improves consumer protection against advertising abuses and omissions in the information supplied by some credit agencies. The new Consumer Credit Directive will make it easier for consumers to access information. We are still hearing too many stories about families crippled by debts, through their own naivety but also because the commitment they were making was concealed when they took out a loan. Consumer credit should answer our fellow citizens’ one-off needs but credit companies should be transparent with their clients in order to avoid forcing them into a vicious circle.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report that calls on the Member States to implement fully Directive 2008/48/EC in order to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and to strengthen the internal market in cross-border consumer credit.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Consumer Credit Directive was approved by Parliament in 2008. It aimed to harmonise various aspects of consumer credit legislation for contracts between 200 and 75 000 euros. The harmonisation sought to reduce the differences between national legislations and to guarantee greater and better comparability between information on consumer lending conditions in the various Member States in order to facilitate cross-border loans. The intention now is to assess the implementation of the Directive (since the deadline for its transposition was 2 years ago) and to check the need to amend it, which the rapporteur rightly does not recommend.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The functioning of the internal market should be instrumental in helping European Union citizens to overcome the current economic and financial crisis, which is also a crisis of lack of access to credit. It is therefore essential to improve access to cross-border credit, strengthening the functioning of the single market, boosting confidence in this area and avoiding the possibility of speculation. The report by Birgit Collin-Langen on the implementation of Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers aims to harmonise Member States’ legislation to give maximum protection to consumers in this area. It is essential for the legal rules on credit agreements for consumers to be applied uniformly throughout the EU. I voted in favour of this report since we need to encourage cross-border transactions by means of greater legal clarity, better information for citizens on rates and other charges, more effective procedures and greater consumer safety.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report examines the implementation of the Directive on consumer credit agreements, adopted in 2008. The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and introducing a common legal framework for consumer credit agreements. It is about facilitating the opening up of national markets and promoting cross-border consumer credit in order to strengthen the internal market and thus also the monopolistic concentration in that sector. We recognise the positive aspects of the report, in particular the reference to the problems relating to consumer protection, such as the lack of information, SMS loans, the lack of consumer protection, the need for strict monitoring of advertising and marketing practices. We appreciate the concerns and considerations expressed in the report in this respect. Finally, to sum up, the report contains two contradictory aspects: the positive and necessary consumer protection and the negative considerations on the single market.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. There is no doubt that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. However, some Member States failed to transpose all or some of the provisions of the directive by the deadline set. The main reasons were the short deadline (two years) and the scale of the process. A large number of provisions had to be changed or introduced for the first time in a very wide variety of areas, including consumer protection, general rules governing credit and access to databases. These procedures are very complex and involve both national legislators and financial institutions. I think it would be appropriate in future to allow them more time, by setting a three-year transposition deadline. I also believe that the Commission should now review the way the directive has been transposed and urge the Member States to apply it correctly. Eventually it would be appropriate to assess in detail the legal and practical impact of the directive and, on that basis, give consideration as to what, if any, amendments are required.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) This is a logical consequence of the single market: citizens can take out loans in a country other than the one where they reside. Precisely because of this opportunity, a Member should indeed be concerned about the protection of a consumer who has benefited from this opportunity but who confronts practices which are, certainly, similar to those in his or her own country but which are, nevertheless, special and strange. The problem is that there are not many cross-border loans, because of the language barrier and the lack of any personal relationship with the lender. That is just common sense. Consumers, who often regard bankers, together with insurers and mobile telephone providers, as the top three crooks and thieves, are not enthusiastic about doing business with one of them who does not speak their language and is not very clear about the clauses that cause problems. In this context, the Commission’s desire to allow practices that do not interest anyone seems dogmatic. It amounts to abandoning people’s common sense in favour of a utopia. This is why, despite everything, I abstained in defence of the consumers you claim to be protecting.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the Consumer Credit Directive as I believe it works two-fold, in guaranteeing high levels of protection to consumers, and by strengthening the internal market. It is safe to say that the harmonisation of credit law has substantially improved the level of consumer protection within the EU, and can prove to be a useful tool for the EU to continue to fight barriers such as those linked to language which currently hamper the full realisation of the Single Market and to further help the EU to overcome the current financial and economic crisis.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) Companies that offer consumer credit must provide consumers with clear and accurate information about their offerings. However, the implementation of the EU Consumer Credit Directive, as undertaken by the Member States by the middle of 2010, leaves something to be desired. It was established that on 70 % of websites on which financial institutions are offering consumer credit agreements, key information is missing or the presentation of costs is misleading. This is even more important in the case of cross-border credit, for which easily comprehensible information on foreign currency lending and the costs of additional services is essential when choosing credit. I very much welcome the fact that the existing deficiencies in the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive have been exposed. This once again constitutes one of many examples of situations in which the EU has created, out of 27 different sets of national regulations, a single Directive that is intended to benefit consumers, but the Member States have failed to implement it correctly and as a result the purpose of the Directive, namely to protect consumers, has fallen by the wayside.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Consumer credit is often a key aspect in raising citizens’ standard of living. Unfortunately, unclear principles, a lack of information or even consumer-unfriendly regulations mean that this instrument cannot actually always be utilised in full. As a result of the Consumer Credit Directive, consumers will acquire a high level of protection, and the internal market in cross-border consumer credit will be strengthened. Thus a good instrument is in effect; unfortunately it will be unable to fulfil its aims if it is not properly and effectively introduced into the national legal order of Member States. I support the report because I fully concur that the proper transposition of EU law by Member States, without unnecessary delay, is absolutely necessary for consumers to be effectively protected, and for the single market to function properly in this respect. The issues that have turned out to pose particular problems in the transposition process are those of advertising, information conveyed prior to conclusion of an agreement, early repayment and calculation of the annual rate of interest. Some Member States have also failed to adhere to the transposition deadlines. My view, then, is that the European Commission should carry on monitoring transposition and insist that Member States apply the directive properly.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased to see the adoption of the report on consumer credit, which aims to evaluate and assess transposition of the Directive since 2010. The single market has enabled consumers to access cross-border loans. The objective of this Directive is to harmonise the systems for contracts worth between EUR 200 and 75 000. However, the success of this practice has led to abuses: the Commission has become aware that 70 % of the websites of financial establishments it checked failed to include relevant information in their advertising material and certain items of information in the credit offer itself, as well as omitting information on the cost of auxiliary services such as insurance accompanying the loan application. The report also warns against the expansion of SMS loans – micro-loans granted over the internet or by SMS – an issue to which Member States should pay special attention.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The Consumer Credit Directive offers vital protection to citizens across Europe. Some of the problems that have emerged have related not to the substance of the Directive but rather to its transposition and enforcement. I therefore believe that this report calls for the correct things.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document. This document has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. Opening up national markets in the important economic sector of consumer credit, promoting competition, addressing different levels of consumer protection, removing potential competition distortions between market operators and improving the functioning of the internal market are political tasks incumbent on the EU and are in the interests of consumers and creditors. Improving the cross-border consumer credit market would generate European added value by boosting the internal market. This could be achieved by better informing consumers about the opportunity to obtain consumer credit in other Member States and about their rights when concluding such contracts.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. There is no doubt that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. The increase in cross-border take-up of consumer credit would seem to have been insignificant, however. This may be because only a very few financial institutions offer cross-border consumer credit and because the market as a whole has been in decline in recent years, as a result of the financial crisis. What is more, obstacles to the take-up of cross-border consumer credit are more likely to be linked to the language barrier or to the lack of any personal relationship with the financial institution concerned than to legal considerations. The Commission should now review the way the directive has been transposed and urge the Member States to apply it correctly. Stakeholders should then be given time to get used to the new rules and gain experience of the way they are applied. Thereafter a detailed assessment should be carried out of the legal and practical impact of the directive and, on that basis, consideration given to what, if any, amendments are required.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. We believe that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has undoubtedly significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. The increase in the cross-border take-up of consumer credit would seem to have been insignificant, however. This may be because of the financial crisis. We are therefore asking the Commission to review the way the Directive has been transposed and urge the Member States to apply it correctly. Stakeholders should then be given time to get used to the new rules and gain experience of the way they are applied. We agree with the rapporteur that a detailed assessment should then be carried out of the legal and practical impact of the Directive and, on that basis, consideration be given to what, if any, amendments are required.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) At this time of economic crisis, the most appropriate way of boosting the economy and productivity is through consumption. Since household consumption is the basis of general consumption, it is even more important to ensure a) consumer protection and b) continuing consumption. This is possible only through the existence of measures common to the member countries. Given the cross-border nature of the take-up of credit, it is important that information on both the potential and the risks of consumption is made available. In this respect, I find the measures are wholly adequate, consisting as they do of (1) imposing on financial establishments the duty of providing consumers with personalised, complete and easily understandable explanations regarding the risks involved in foreign currency lending well before they are tied to a contract; and (2) calling for credit institutions to take special care when granting consumer credit loans with a term of longer than five years and not to provide consumer credit which is secured by the consumer’s house where the consumer does not have an adequate wage or salary.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Improving the cross-board consumer credit market would generate European added value by boosting the internal market. I agree with the rapporteur that there is no need to revise the Directive, but that instead priority should be given to ensuring that it is correctly transposed and enforced. I voted in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report attempts to justify competition between consumer credit organisations within the European Union. It draws no conclusion from the finding that these types of organisations are not following the obligations imposed on them to provide clear information to citizens and are forcing them into over-indebtedness. It merely proposes that we control them better. Even worse: it compares such credit to other financial products and welcomes their opening up to competition. I vote against this inept report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. There is no doubt that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. The harmonisation of legislation has been of great benefit to consumer protection as regards consumer credit agreements, which is why I voted in favour.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (PT) − This report sets out basic guidelines for building a financial system at European level capable of providing consumers with correct information. Availability of consumer credit places financial sector facilities at the disposal of national economies but, at the same time, it could entail risks if appropriate practices are not respected. That is why I support the rapporteur’s request in calling on the Commission to assess the extent of compliance with information duties in contracts governing consumer credit. Furthermore, I am in favour of the proposal to extend consumer protection to short-term credit, provided over the internet or other types of quick credit (for example SMS loans) which are not currently covered by the directives in force. In conclusion, increased consumer protection can only be positive in this matter. Bad practices (which led some Member States to extend the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC to other financial products, such as mortgages) have disastrous consequences at a time of economic crisis.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − A high level of consumer protection in the fields on consumer credit is the key for improving financial inclusion and for boosting consumption and growth within the internal market. The legislation should be drafted; there are too many directives. I abstained.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Banks in the euro area are becoming increasingly cautious with regard to lending. For house-building loans the standards were tightened again during the last quarter, and the same applied to a slightly lesser extent to the granting of consumer credit. Time and again there is controversy about bank fees that banks should not actually be charging. Many banks are still demanding processing fees for consumer credit that they are not permitted to charge, as the processing of the credit application is not a bank service for the customer, but – like the credit check – is carried out in the bank’s own interests. These problems are not dealt with in the report reviewing the Directive. I therefore abstained from voting.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document. False or misleading pre-contractual information and advertising as well as abuse of contracts are a source of great concern in the Member States. Providing consumer credit to persons in low-income, higher-risk groups further deepens social divisions between citizens and households. It is worrying that an investigation carried out by the European Commission in 2011 found that 70 % of the financial institution websites checked provided too little information in their consumer credit advertising. For this reason, information on consumer credit that emphasises possible changes in payments and the consequences of insolvency should be spread more actively. I agree with the call to extend the existing level of consumer protection to lower-value, short-term consumer credit that currently falls outside the scope of the Directive. An irresponsible attitude by both parties and inadequate consumer education can cause significant problems for households even if they borrow sums that are particularly small.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) The lack of confidence on the financial markets is unfortunately growing and globally banks are also lending less and less. Very few financial institutions are actually offering cross-border consumer credit. However, politicians cannot be let off the hook entirely, as differences in confidence in the EU institutions constitute an important criterion for cross-border banking activities within the euro area. The 2011 review by the Commission of 562 consumer credit websites that is mentioned in the report also provides food for thought. The outcome of this review was as follows: on 46 % of the websites checked mandatory information was lacking in the advertising material, on 43 % clear information concerning the overall costs, the duration of the agreement and certain credit-related costs was lacking, and on 20 % the presentation of the costs was misleading. In the current implementation phase the national authorities are contacting the firms concerned and calling on them to remedy the shortcomings identified. As there are still many unclear points to be clarified and the share of cross-border consumer credit agreements is dwindling to almost negligible, I abstained from voting.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) It is essential to extend consumer protection at both national and EU level. Efficient consumer protection practices in the credit sector are some of the most important conditions in ensuring financial stability. I believe that special attention should be paid to short-term credit provided through various communication media. First of all, excessive risk should be prevented altogether. It is also essential to provide consumers with comprehensive and easily understandable information on the risks involved in borrowing. Furthermore, by using legal acts, it should be ensured that when a consumer decides to withdraw from a contract, no additional charges are incurred. It should be noted that the objectives set out in the Directive cannot be fully achieved unless they are suitably transferred to and implemented in the Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report on the Consumer Credit Directive, which has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. The definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. The increase in the cross-border take-up of consumer credit would seem to have been insignificant, however. This may be because only very few financial institutions offer cross-border consumer credit and because the market as a whole has been in decline in recent years as a result of the financial crisis. What is more, the obstacles to the take-up of cross-border consumer credit are more likely to be linked to the language barrier or to the lack of any personal relationship with the financial institution concerned than to legal considerations. This revision seeks to resolve some problems noted during the review, namely: advertising, pre-contractual information, contractual information, right of withdrawal, early repayment and calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) There is no doubt that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. The increase in the cross-border take-up of consumer credit would seem to have been insignificant, however. This may be because only very few financial institutions offer cross-border consumer credit and because the market as a whole has been in decline in recent years, as a result of the financial crisis. While stressing the importance of a review by the Commission of the way the Directive has been transposed and that it has been correctly applied by the Member States, and also of the importance of a detailed assessment of the legal and practical impact of the Directive and, on that basis, whether any amendments are required, I voted in favour of the motion.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. Whilst, on the one hand, the harmonisation of some aspects of credit law has raised the level of consumer protection in Europe, on the other hand, cross-border take-up of consumer credit seems not to have increased since the Directive entered into force. This may be because of the effects of the economic recession or because only very few financial institutions offer cross-border consumer credit. Before proposing any required amendments, the Commission should review the way the Directive has been transposed and urge the Member States to apply it correctly, and should present to Parliament and the Council an assessment report on the implementation of the Directive and a full assessment of its impact as regards consumer protection, taking into account the consequences of the financial crisis and the new EU legal framework for financial services.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when Belgium, one of the six founder members of the European Union, has just drawn up its 2013 budget without an ambitious plan to boost growth and consumer purchasing power, the European Parliament is adopting a motion for a resolution on consumer credit contracts. This vote is important for consumer protection. The countries of the European Union were supposed to have implemented this Directive by 11 June 2010. However, some Member States, including Belgium, have delayed the transposition of all or some provisions of the Directive. This delay is essentially due to the short transposition deadline, i.e. two years, and the scope of the legislation involved. As a reminder, this Directive has two objectives: 1) to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and 2) to strengthen the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. Parliament is calling on the Commission to address the transposition of the Directive and is asking that its impact on citizens be clearly assessed in the context of the financial crisis we are experiencing. It is a preventative measure full of good sense.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The Consumer Credit Directive was adopted in 2008 with the purpose of enhancing convergence between the national provisions regarding consumer credit (see also here attached our briefing note from the adoption of the directive in 2008). This is of course a very important legislation in particular in view of the fact that credit problems were central in the current economic crisis (even though they concerned more mortgage credits, which are not covered by the consumer credit directive). The main provisions of the directive concern pre-contractual and contractual information to consumers, a harmonised period for the right of withdrawal (14 days), protection in case of early repayments and an obligation to assess consumers' creditworthiness. The directive applies to consumer credits (not mortgage) between EUR 200 and EUR 100 000. Greens/EFA share the Rapporteur’s main messages. We had tabled an amendment in IMCO to highlight the risks of credits made in foreign currencies, in case of fluctuations in the value of these currencies. This amendment was adopted in the IMCO Committee. Therefore we voted in favour of the Report.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because the Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. There is no doubt that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Ms Collin-Langen. The text adopted by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is a balanced text that seems to take account of the real reasons why some of the Directive’s objectives have not been achieved. However, I would have given greater consideration to the impact this crisis has had on citizens and the consequent widespread mistrust of consumer credit. Within the European Union, the situation can vary significantly from Member State to Member State. I agree with the rapporteur that there is absolutely no need at this time to revise the Directive, which was adopted only a few years ago.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I think that Ms Collin-Langen’s report reflects well the speed of change of the credit market. I voted in favour because I think it could have a positive effect on growth and investment. Its effectiveness is due to the fact that it simultaneously pursues two objectives: to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and to strengthen the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. The importance of approving this report lies in its ability to harmonise some key aspects of credit law, which has enabled better protection to be given to European consumers.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In a period of economic crisis in Europe, it is necessary to introduce a higher level of consumer protection and the strengthening of the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. With this vote, both of these objectives can be met, by harmonising some key aspects of credit law that have undoubtedly made it possible to significantly raise the level of consumer protection in Europe. In 2011 the Commission carried out a review of 562 consumer credit websites. The outcome was as follows: on 46 % of the websites checked mandatory information was lacking in the advertising material, on 43 % clear information concerning the overall costs, the duration of the agreement and certain credit-related costs was lacking, and on 20 % the presentation of the costs was misleading. There also needs to be a focus on transparency and clarity in advertisements for consumer credit products.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. - (SK) When additional taxes were introduced for banks in my country, Slovakia, analysts and bank officials responded by stating that they had a planned profit which, if compromised, would increase bank charges and clients would once again lose out. Therefore, as part of free trade and services, I welcome the possibility of cross-border consumer credit. The Consumer Credit Directive creates not only a common European legal framework, but also competitiveness in the overall cost of credit. Slovak banks, which were privatised as debt-free concerns and without any liabilities with high packages, now offer consumer and mortgage loans which are 25 % more expensive than, for example, banks in Italy. I can therefore see that as part of cross-border consumer credit competition this Directive will greatly benefit the strengthening of the cross-border internal market in consumer credit and I look forward to the creation of legal and technical measures that would create a standard sheet that would enable the consumer to reliably compare offers from different credit providers. I anticipate that there will now follow a close evaluation of the legal and factual point of view and the Member States will be faced with an urgent challenge to apply it correctly.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) Although there is still work to be done, the 2008 Consumer Credit Directive contains all the elements necessary for the improved protection of consumers of banks and other credit providers. That is the conclusion of the interim evaluation report that is before us here and for which I voted. The directive governs the (pre)contractual information for consumers, a harmonisation of the period of reflection (14 days), protection in the event of early repayment of debts and the requirement to check beforehand the creditworthiness of consumers. The interim evaluation indicates problems with the transposition of the directive. There are specific problems regarding the obligation to provide information: not all lenders inform the consumer correctly or they provide too much detailed information that is no longer comprehensible. The right to change one’s mind is not always observed, there is still no uniformity in the checking of the creditworthiness of customers and there is the increasing problem of SMS loans, particularly to vulnerable groups and young people. The possibility of early repayment works reasonably well. I follow the reasoning of the rapporteur that all elements are contained in the Directive but that better supervision of the transposition and implementation of the law is required.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) As the Member responsible for consumer protection, I believe that the Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives of fundamental importance for consumers: a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. The Commission must now address the transposition of the Directive and insist on its correct application in the Member States. Finally, an in-depth assessment must be made of the repercussions of the Directive at the legal and practical levels before, where applicable, proposing amendments to the Directive based on this assessment.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I believe that improving the cross-border consumer credit market would generate European added value by stimulating the economy. Consumers therefore need to be better informed about the opportunities to access consumer credit in other Member States. Unfortunately, cross-border consumer credit accounts for less than 2 % of the total credit market, despite the fact that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. I am voting in favour of this report because I believe it is essential to safeguard consumer rights, and make it easier to obtain consumer credit in Member States other than the home State and to buy products from anywhere in Europe.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC. The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a higher level of consumer protection and strengthening the market in internal cross-border consumer credit. In the consumer credit report, Parliament seeks a higher level of consumer protection. One of the purposes of the Directive was to ensure the availability of information – thus facilitating the operation of the single market also in the field of credit. I believe it is necessary to evaluate whether the number of cross-border transactions is increasing. I stress the importance of making consumers aware that, should they exercise their right of withdrawal from a contract where the supplier or service provider directly receives the sum corresponding to payment from the credit provider through an ancillary contract, no fees, commissions or other costs shall be borne by the consumers in relation to the financial service provided. We call on the Commission to present to Parliament and the Council an assessment report on the implementation of the Directive and a full assessment of its impact regarding consumer protection, taking into account the consequences of the financial crisis and the new EU legal framework for financial services.

  Patricia van der Kammen (NI), in writing. − (NL) The Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) is against patronising rules and regulations, but in favour of protecting the Dutch consumer in the European Union. Therefore the members of the PVV in the European Parliament voted in favour of the Directive on credit agreements for consumers.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The Consumer Credit Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. Individual problem areas include the transposition deadline, scope, advertising, pre-contractual information, right of withdrawal, early repayment and SMS loans. The Commission should now review the way the Directive has been transposed and urge the Member States to apply it correctly. Stakeholders should then be given time to get used to the new rules and gain experience of the way they are applied. Thereafter an assessment should be carried out of the legal and practical impact of the Directive so that amendments can be made. In order for better service to be offered to consumers, the report should be approved.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The Consumer Credit Directive will assist in achieving a high level of consumer protection and a strengthening of the internal market in cross-border consumer credit, and so I have voted in favour of the Directive.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Collin-Langen’s report, which has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit. There is no doubt that the definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. The increase in the cross-border take-up of consumer credit would seem to have been insignificant, however. This may be because only very few financial institutions offer cross-border consumer credit and because the market as a whole has been in decline in recent years, as a result of the financial crisis. What is more, the obstacles to the take-up of cross-border credit are more likely to be linked to the language barrier or to the lack of any personal relationship with the financial institution concerned than to legal considerations.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. − (LV) The own-initiative report prepared by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is to be supported, since it is a successful addition to the Consumer Credit Directive already in force in the European Union. The report includes a couple of important recommendations which could strengthen consumer rights protection in the EU Member States. For example, in many states consumers are quite often not aware of the risks and costs that might arise if they opt in favour of loans in another currency. Therefore, among other suggestions, the report recommends that Member States’ consumer rights supervisory authorities should require financial institutions to provide consumers with personalised, complete and easily understandable explanations regarding the risks involved in foreign currency lending.

The report also calls on the Member States to extend the existing level of consumer protection, since the directive as currently in force does not provide for consumer protection for loans of less than EUR 200. This call is welcome, since in many states, particularly in eastern Europe, micro-lenders are starting to become increasingly active and are offering small-scale short-term loans at enormous interest rates.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report examines the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive adopted in 2008. The Directive has two objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and introducing a common legal framework for cross-border consumer credit agreements. It is therefore a matter of opening up national markets and promoting cross-border consumer credit in order to strengthen the internal market; we are against that on principle and because of the profound negative consequences for the Portuguese economy. However, there are also positive aspects to consider, in particular the reference to the problems relating to consumer protection, such as the lack of information, SMS loans, the lack of consumer protection and the need for strict monitoring of advertising and marketing practices. Thus, although the opening up of the credit market is a bad thing, since it will inevitably tend towards monopolisation of the financial market, we can only agree with some of the warnings sounded about consumer protection.

- Report: Danuta Jazlowiecka (A7-0263/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, pointing out that austerity measures are not sufficient to overcome the crisis. Fiscal consolidation must be accompanied by a strategy of social investment. On the social level, the employment and education targets of the Europe 2020 strategy have not been sufficiently achieved in the majority of Member States. The Member States should therefore consider the Social Investment Pact, since it sets out investment goals and stresses the need for control mechanisms for social and employment policies. Furthermore, alarmingly high youth unemployment figures require immediate measures. I therefore repeat that the European Union needs social governance in order to counterbalance purely economic governance.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The economic and financial crisis has directly affected the living standards and expectations of European citizens. Equally, it may be said that the economic trend has also had a negative impact on the capacity of the Union and the Member States to achieve the sustainable development targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. Issues such as workforce retraining, the adaptation of the labour market to the new economic realities, reform of national pension systems and combating poverty and social exclusion require renewed efforts. I believe that the difficult current context calls for streamlining and prioritisation in spending. In so far as the European Union’s targets for 2020 still take priority, education system targets, labour market objectives and social integration objectives can be achieved within a far more efficient financing framework. I support the introduction of measures to control spending much more rigorously, which provide a further guarantee of the efficiency that we need at the moment.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I support and which is broadly supported by the European Parliament, paints a picture of the social situation of the European Union. It is a genuine appeal for coordination in the field of social investment. As rapporteur on European Social Entrepreneurship Funds, I have followed this vote with interest and welcome its result.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this report on the Social Investment Pact, which sets social investment targets. Targeted social investments could help individuals, families and societies to adapt to changing economic conditions and labour market demands. I agree that the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 should contain appropriate budgetary resources to support social investments in the EU. I also support the call on the Commission to develop a scoreboard of common social investment indicators for monitoring the progress made in the Member States. I agree that Structural Funds should be supportive of social investments. It is essential to invest in education, health care, social protection, the labour market, etc.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This report, adopted by a single vote, has not been top of the bill in today’s debates but it emphasises fundamental issues: investment in human capital as an indispensable condition to create the future of our European societies. It is partly because of the lack of investment in education and training that there is a) a persistent gap between skills and labour market demands and b) a high level of structural unemployment. Young people must be at the heart of social investment strategies. We must respond to different social risks and to needs that are not being met. Social entrepreneurship is one essential component of social investment; this is why this report must be read together with the one we have supported on the promotion of enterprises and social innovation. Reconciling social and economic goals, creating ‘activating welfare states’ and policies to promote growth and employment, is the path we should now follow in order to come out of the current crises on top.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) The financial crisis and the measures adopted to put an end to it, based solely on austerity, are throwing up figures that speak for themselves. In Europe, the removal of social protection and the recession are threatening to impoverish 80 million Europeans, while the number of homes in which no one is able to work is rising at an alarming rate along with the desperation of young people who cannot access the labour market. Therefore, it is now essential that we mobilise public investment once and for all in a decisive way in order to generate social and economic benefits to support human capital. What is described as social spending, and in particular programmes that support reintegration into the labour market, are not spending, but investments.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I abstained from the vote on Ms Jazłowiecka’s report on the Social Investment Pact because, although the report acknowledges the deep economic, social and employment crisis affecting Europe and identifies common objectives we can work on, such as fighting youth unemployment, coordination between the worlds of tertiary education and work, the establishment of more stable models for pension systems, and support for SMEs, it merely analyses the situation rather than proposing convincing action that can be taken to achieve these objectives.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Jazlowiecka report. I am convinced that, in this period of crisis, the social, employment and educational objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy should be pursued, now more than ever. In parallel with healthy public finances, I believe that targeted social investments should be made in order to return to sustainable growth. This is why I support the conclusion of a Social Investment Pact.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) So far, the majority of responses to the crisis have been based on short-term goals, aimed mainly at restoring sustainability to public finances, which is crucial to the EU economy. We should not, however, neglect the negative effects that these austerity measures could have on employment and competitiveness in Europe, so we need to complete them with growth- and employment-friendly measures, in particular well-targeted social investment. I voted in favour of this report because I think it is imperative, in order to bring back sustainable growth in Europe, to respond with well-targeted social investments that aim at preparing individuals, families and societies to adapt to changing economic conditions and labour market demands; helping the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, to get back to work; creating sustainable and quality jobs; investing in education and training, improving educational outcomes and achieving a better match between academic and professional qualifications and labour market demands.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) In the context of the economic crisis, the negative effects of the austerity measures taken by the Member States on employment and competitiveness in Europe must be borne in mind. It is important to take measures which facilitate economic growth and employment, such as well-targeted social investments which prepare citizens to adapt to changing economic conditions and labour market demands. While securing sustainability of public finances, Member States should equally focus on helping the unemployed, and the long-term unemployed in particular, to get back into work; creating sustainable and high-quality jobs for both women and men; and improving work productivity. At the same time, investment in education and vocational training must be supported and the skills of graduates and workers must be matched with labour market demands. The balance between flexibility and job security and the reconciliation of family and professional life needs to be enhanced. The Member States must take the necessary measures to reform the pension system and to create good working conditions until as advanced an age as possible in order to prevent poverty and social exclusion.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The unemployment rate in the European Union rose to more than 10 % in January 2012 as a consequence of the economic and social crisis. Europe has high unemployment levels, especially among younger people. Europe’s current economic and financial crisis will have long-lasting effects. This means that economic growth, employment, social investment and public savings will all be affected as long as the crisis lasts. Since, in recent years, the public sector has taken on a great debt burden, and since the majority of responses to the crisis have been based mainly on short-term goals, measures will be needed to promote employment, growth and competitiveness with a view to the future. Well-targeted social investments are imperative in order to achieve better education and training outcomes in the European Union, since they remain inadequate to meet labour market needs. One of the most important features of social investments is that they can combine social and economic goals, so that they are investments which pay dividends in the future, provided they are well applied. I should therefore like to see the European Social Model modernised and would recommend a restructuring of social policies at national level and, in this context, a greater focus on social entrepreneurship.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I too support the rapporteur’s proposal for the Member States of the Union to sign a ‘Social Investment Pact’ with the aim of developing a mechanism tailored to the current economic and financial crisis which will improve the implementation of the social, employment and education targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. At the same time, I regard as beneficial the proposal to develop a standard number of social investment indicators which will make it possible to monitor the progress made by each Member State.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We should have clear objectives in social, employment and educational terms, since they are the cornerstone of our future growth. Europe should make more progress in this direction and this report sets clear foundations for renewed ambitions to combat the crisis and the changes in the employment market. I voted for this report because it adopts a balanced position between the short-term requirements of responding to the crisis and the long-term challenges of the sustainable modernisation of the European Social Model.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We cannot respond to the economic and social crisis currently affecting Europe solely by instituting stricter budgetary criteria. Although this is necessary, we must also inspire hope in all our citizens by providing them with employment and a dignified life. Therefore, I am pleased that Parliament has voted in favour of a renewed approach to social investments in Europe that considers social investments not as sterile costs or expenditure but as investments, the dividends of which will benefit the entire community.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Report on Social Investment Pact as I believe that is a good response to the crisis. The idea set forth in this agreement shall be an exit strategy from the economic and social crisis. A crisis that is still a real threat to the stability of many European Union countries which are facing enormous problems, especially in terms of unemployment. Even more worrying are the rate of youth unemployment and the chronic lack of jobs among people with low but also high qualifications. The crisis requires not only to remodel social policies of the Member States but also to actively transform the welfare state, in a state that invests in people, in a state that provides citizens with the tools and incentives, in a state gives them a chance to build a real career and a real future.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I support increased social spending in the EU. We should not, however, neglect the negative effects that austerity measures have on employment and competitiveness in Europe, so we need to complete them with growth- and employment-friendly measures, such as well-targeted social investments.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Unemployment is one of the main problems under discussion in the EU at this time and we urgently need to find strategies to create sustainable employment without again plunging the States into debt. The current trajectory of public debt in most Member States in the euro area is unsustainable, which is why we need to reduce our dependence on credit, which is achievable only by cutting State spending. However, whilst it is essential to reduce debt and put the public accounts in order, it is also necessary to complete such measures with real incentives for growth, competitiveness and employment, in order to bring growth back to Europe and to end the recession. In this context, I think we could and should make a targeted study of the proposal on the Social Investment Pact mentioned in this report. This pact could make it possible to improve the way the implementation of social and employment policy is managed and its linkage to the goals set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report under consideration drawn up by Danuta Jazłowiecka deals with the Social Investment Pact as a response to the economic and financial crisis affecting most Member States of the European Union, posing a threat to its stability and leading to a high unemployment rate, above all among young people. The crisis must spur us on to foster the creation of skilled jobs under the Europe 2020 strategy, which entails a coordinated approach to social investment. Implementation of the recommended measures will enable progress in the economies of the Member States. By investing in social policies, we are giving people the possibility to take part in the labour market, thus reducing the social exclusion to which they might fall victim. I voted in favour of this report because I think that the Social Investment Pact is in line with the needs of the most deprived families and communities. In addition to trying to consolidate public finances, we must seek to respond to people’s needs in order to give them the quality of life that they lack.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The rapporteur follows the line taken by those responsible for this crisis as to the solution for getting out of it: combining the so-called austerity measures and budgetary consolidation with an investment strategy for sustainable growth and employment. The usual trick of trying to mix oil and water. Based on that humbug, the proposal is to have a process of transition from the ‘active welfare state’ to what is dubbed the ‘activating welfare state’. Proposals that are made, it must be said, with a straight face and a pained expression since such is the concern about the ‘welfare state’. There is only one ‘welfare’ measure needed, to be taken by the workers and peoples of Europe: to throw these policies, entailing state buck-passing and the shrugging off of the State’s social functions, to the rubbish bin of History. The saga goes on: the promotion of precarious labour relations (flexicurity), the increase in the retirement age, the privatisation of public services – the creation of social investments – to be included in the National Reform Plans and, in general, in the EU’s macro-economic and budgetary monitoring strategies. Rubbish. Nothing but rubbish.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE), in writing. − (SV) We Moderates in the European Parliament have today voted for a report on a Social Investment Pact. However, we have done so with the reservation that we believe decisions concerning social policy should be taken at national level and fall within the competence of the Member States.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The current economic and financial crisis will undoubtedly have long-term effects on the European economy, employment rate, public savings and social investments in Europe. The majority of recent and current responses to the crisis are based on short-term goals aimed mainly at bringing back the sustainability of public finances, which is crucial to the EU economy. As a consequence of the economic and social crisis the unemployment rate in [January 2012 stood at more than 10 % in the EU 27]. As a consequence of the crisis, the pressure on social assistance schemes has increased in many countries and the revenues for pension schemes, employment benefits or healthcare systems have dropped considerably. The majority of recent responses to the crisis seem to lack a social and employment policy dimension. The first attempt to create a coordinated EU response towards employments and social policies in Europe, the Lisbon Strategy together with the European Employment Strategy, failed to deliver due to weak governance and unfortunately, from what we can observe, the success of the Europe 2020 strategy is uncertain and requires stronger engagement from Member States. I share the view that the recently developed economic governance and macroeconomic surveillance should be supplemented by monitoring of employment and social policies. I also consider it to be justified for the Member States to sign a ‘Social Investment Pact’ through which they could create better governance and control mechanism over implementation of the employment, social and education goals of Europe 2020.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The report should be supported, as in addition to the reforms of public finance and budget austerity measures it is extremely important for Member States to employ policies at the same time that are fundamentally based on economic growth and job creation. Because of the economic and financial crisis, however, these objectives require key social investments and employment-friendly measures, and what is more, at EU level. Thus the notion that budgetary and economic policy cooperation and monitoring should be complemented in future with additional employment and social policy elements is one that should be supported, including, of course, scoreboards that track proper use and appropriate investment results as well as the more targeted utilisation of Structural Funds.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The crisis is having long-term effects on employment rate, public savings and social investments in Europe. The majority of responses to the crisis are short term, aimed mainly at restoring sustainability. However, we should be looking further ahead: we should not neglect the negative effects that these austerity measures could have on employment and competitiveness. That is why employment-friendly measures, such as well targeted social investments, are necessary.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I believe that long-term economic growth and prosperity depends on investing in far-reaching and all-encompassing social reforms. The Union will never be able fully break away from the financial crisis if it does not view recovery from a social angle to the same extent that it does from a fiscal or economic viewpoint. Austerity measures are as important as a proper well thought-out plan for social investment and growth – one system cannot function without the other, austerity measures alone will not work, this has already been proven. Tackling poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, shortcomings in our educational systems on the one hand and promoting social inclusion and assistance on the other hand is the way forward. The European social model is based on solidarity, equality, social justice and human rights. Putting into place a sound social investment pact, together with investment in innovation and research as well as a social competitive Single Market, will bring economic returns and help lift Europe out of the crisis in the medium term but most importantly in the long term.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Clearly, austerity measures are not enough to end the economic crisis we are undergoing, which is why we need a strategy of investment. This is the message contained in this report, to which I have lent my full support. In effect, we need a Social Investment Pact under the Competitiveness Pact, one that specifies the genuine priorities in terms of social governance, mainly to combat youth unemployment and to create sustainable, high-quality jobs. This pact should be the chance to show the people who have been constantly suffering the most every day from the crisis and carrying the cost of the austerity measures adopted throughout Europe that public social investment policies will create a better future.

  Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. − (SV) We Moderates in the European Parliament have today voted for a report on a Social Investment Pact. However, we have done so with the reservation that we believe decisions concerning social policy should be taken at national level and fall within the competence of the Member States.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This report rightly states that social investments should ‘be treated not only as spending but primarily as investments’. I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments and am proud to represent a party which remains committed to such investments. The people of Scotland unfortunately must endure a government at Westminster committed to stopping these investments – and a Labour opposition in Scotland intent on destroying the social contract with the people of the country.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I agree with the document because the current economic and financial crisis will have long-lasting effects not only on economic growth but also on employment rates, public savings and social investments in Europe. The majority of recent and current responses to the crisis are based on short-term goals aimed mainly at bringing back the sustainability of public finances, which is crucial to the EU economy. In this context we should, however, not neglect the negative effects that these austerity measures could have on employment and competitiveness in Europe and complete them with growth- and employment-friendly measures such as well-targeted social investments. Europe is facing extremely serious problems with youth unemployment, which together with ever more difficult school-to-work transition creates risks of detachment from the labour market and of losses of human capital in the longer term. Another pressing issue is the situation of low-skilled workers who face constantly decreasing labour demand due to the sectoral change towards higher technology and knowledge-intensive activities as well as the increasing number of people living in poverty and being at risk of social exclusion. It is imperative to respond to the above challenges with well-targeted social investments that aim at preparing individuals, families and societies to adapt to changing economic conditions and labour market demands. It is an important part of the European economic and employment policies and the EU’s responses to the crisis.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. − It is my opinion that we should not neglect the negative effects that these austerity measures could have on employment and competitiveness in Europe. We should complete them with new measures that will target social investments. I agree that social problems, employment and education are not sufficiently addressed by the majority of Member States. The ‘Social Investment Pact’ sets investment targets and reinforces necessary control mechanisms with regard to social and employment policies. I votes in favour of this report.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. − Beside the short term objective of re-establishing the stability and sustainability of European public finances, consolidation measures need to be matched with a definite focus on social investment and employment policy. Targeted social investments are needed on the one hand to help families and individuals adapt to the changing economic environment, and on the other hand to contribute to the creation of sustainable jobs and supporting all European citizens that are excluded from the labour market – with special regard to the young and the long term unemployed – in returning to work. Social investments have proven to be excellent tools for matching skills available in education and training with the demands of the labour market as well as for reconciling the goals of economic and social policy. The exchange of good practices in this field should therefore be fostered by the European Commission and Member States should consider tax advantages for social enterprises and for investors in social businesses. Furthermore, social enterprises should be made an investment priority within the framework of the European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) We are in a period of deep economic crisis that requires a major effort in terms of both social and political cohesion. The unemployment rate, especially among young people, the difficulties small and medium-sized enterprises are experiencing in obtaining credit and the competitiveness of our businesses are just some of the vital areas in which action is needed as quickly as possible to try to find a way out of the crisis. This text, on which I voted in favour, sets itself the task of coming up with some potential solutions to the problem. It calls upon the EU for cohesive joint action to make the efforts national governments are demanding of European citizens effective. I believe, however, that none of these legislative proposals will be properly implemented without the adoption of an adequate multiannual financial framework aimed at achieving growth and employment in the EU. I therefore hope that the negotiations between the Member States soon take a turn for the better for the revitalisation of Europe.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) One of our main aims, as representatives of the citizens of the European Union, is to make economic growth in Europe sustainable once again. It is our duty to give society the help it needs to adapt to the constant and difficult economic changes and to labour market demands, and we need to offer an efficient response taking the form of well-targeted social investments. Because of the unemployment rate, which is continuously rising, we must focus on getting the unemployed back into work and creating sustainable new jobs which, most importantly, can be assessed by as wide a range of members of the social class in difficulty as possible. I believe that more attention needs to be paid to the difficult situations which arise in cases of youth unemployment. In my opinion, the European Commission should support apprenticeship schemes and an increase in the number of apprentices, following the example of the dual education and vocational training system in countries such as Germany or Austria, which is an essential component in the transition of young people from study to the labour market. In addition, I am glad that the majority of my proposals appear in Ms Jazłowiecka’s report, which is a comprehensive report on this delicate issue.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Last month unemployment in Europe topped the 25 million mark for the first time, and almost 80 million Europeans are threatened with poverty and social exclusion. In some countries this percentage is mainly made up of individuals aged between 18 and 24. The situation is really very difficult, and so the creation of new jobs is one of the most important priorities of the European Union. The key issues for the development of Europe appear to be to increase employment, especially among young people, to make it easier to transfer from education to work, to invest in enterprise and to promote and facilitate the establishment of people’s own business ventures. One way in which this will be made possible is through the Social Investment Pact, which I voted in favour of today. This Pact envisages a series of actions aimed at increasing the competitiveness of European workers, a significant increase in the number of new jobs for young people through, for example, the introduction of incentives for employers to employ graduates and the creation of good conditions for the development of businesses. Thank you very much.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which ‘calls on Member States and the Commission to take all possible measures to improve education systems at all levels by: putting strong emphasis on early childhood development strategy; creating an inclusive school climate; preventing early-school-leaving; improving secondary education and introducing guidance and counselling, providing better conditions for young people to successfully access tertiary education or to gain direct access to the job market; developing instruments aimed at better anticipating future skills needs and at strengthening cooperation between educational institutions, business and employment services; improving recognition of professional qualification as well as developing National Qualifications Frameworks’.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The current economic and financial crisis will undoubtedly have long-term and intense effects not only on the European economy but also on the employment rate, public savings and social investments in Europe. We believe it is imperative to respond to these difficult challenges with well-targeted social investments. While securing the sustainability of public finances, Member States should equally focus on productivity, work distribution, education and training. Social investments are important to restore a proper employment level and to improve Europe’s competitiveness. They should thus be treated not only as spending but rather as investments that will give real return in the future. There is therefore a pressing need to create a coordinated EU approach. We invite the Member States to sign a ‘Social Investment Pact’ through which they can create a better governance and control mechanism for implementation of the employment, social and education goals of Europe 2020. We also call on the Commission and the Council to make sure that the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 currently being debated contains appropriate budgetary resources necessary for social investments in Europe.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Small and medium-sized enterprises have an important job creation potential and play a crucial role in the transition towards a new, sustainable economy. It is necessary to call upon the Commission to take all possible measures to encourage and assist Member States to sign the ‘Social Investment Pact’ and to introduce evaluation of employment, social and education goals in the European Semester 2013. I voted in favour.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I fully support the political message that Parliament intends to give the Commission and the Member States with the Jazłowiecka report and consequently I voted in favour. The economic and financial crisis cannot be tackled by cutting into the strategic employment, education and social sectors. To revive the economy, the Europe 2020 strategy needs to give space to these sectors by including them in its priority objectives. Social, employment and education policies are the backbone on which any formula for economic recovery should hang. There is no escaping them.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report shows how disastrous the Lisbon strategy and the austerity measures implemented in the European Union have been. However, it draws no conclusions from this and approves the austerity measures under the pretext of their being ‘necessary efforts’. Its central thesis of a Social Investment Pact, which is ‘intriguing’ in itself, is immediately rendered null and void by the scaled-down objective for such investments (‘addressing emerging social risks and unmet needs’) and by the fact that the report regards public-private partnerships as a social investment. This report, with its fine sentiment, is yet another sham. I vote against.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The current financial crisis will continue to bring serious problems to the European economy, affecting the level of employment in particular. The restrictions on Member State budgets have not made it possible to implement measures encouraging job creation. We therefore urgently need to develop a coordinated approach at EU level aimed at social investments. This ‘Social Investment Pact’ aims to bring about better governance and control mechanisms as regards the implementation of the social, education and employment goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. I therefore voted in favour.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. - (SK) The unemployment rate in the EU has increased to an average of more than 10 % in 2012, and in many regions the rate is nearly 20 %. Unemployment has affected particularly young people, the low-skilled and the long-term unemployed. With unemployment, of course, the poverty rate rises, which for young people ranges around the European average of 22 %. For Member States this means an increased burden on social security systems and an increase in public spending, from which one can infer weaker economic growth, and even deepening recession. It is with regret that we can conclude that most Member States have not given enough attention to the social, employment and education fields, and in this respect I would detect a certain failure of the Lisbon Strategy. It is therefore necessary for Member States to set up a mechanism for the effective implementation of the goals of the new Europe 2020 strategy. At EU level, we must ensure that the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 contains appropriate budgetary resources necessary to encourage and support social investment. I therefore believe that in the next programming period we must clearly preserve the volume of the budget for the Structural Funds, in particular the European Social Fund, in order to continue to support social investments and their priorities that reflect the specific needs of Member States.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Budget consolidation needs to be complemented by a social investment strategy (reference to our call for a Social Pact / possible Social Investment Pact as part of our Social Pact). We need social governance to counterbalance economic governance.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Across Europe, the economic crisis has had an impact not only on the labour market, but also at a social level. People who have lost their jobs are clearly finding it more difficult to get back into employment than in the years before the crisis. This means that the risk of long-term unemployment is becoming ever greater, which in turn makes it increasingly difficult to re-integrate citizens into the labour market. Added to this is a relatively high level of youth unemployment, the cause of which can primarily be attributed to the fact that, according to surveys conducted in 2010, 14 % of all young jobseekers are early school leavers and therefore lack qualifications. I did not vote in favour of the report, as I do not agree with the rapporteur that Europe-wide measures are the appropriate means of tackling the issue. In my view, the individual Member States must take appropriate measures that are in keeping with the infrastructure and the social and education system in the country in question.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of Ms Jazłowiecka’s report proposing a Social Investment Pact because, apart from giving an accurate analysis, it is extremely opportune. I have long maintained that the increasing economic integration of the Union by means of strengthening the internal market needs to be matched by equivalent progress in the Union’s social integration, in order to avoid both competition in the social area and social dumping (in order to artificially increase economic competitiveness) and also to counterbalance the negative social impact (in terms of poverty and unemployment) of the internal market on the most vulnerable economies and countries. Therefore, in addition to establishing the common basic standards needed for social protection at the level of the entire European Union, the idea of a social investment pact is especially opportune when the objectives of fiscal consolidation are so negatively reflected in cuts in public investment in education, health and social protection. Social cohesion must be taken seriously as a constitutional guarantee of the Union.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) One of the most significant impacts of the current economic and social crisis on society is the continuously rising unemployment rate in the EU Member States. It is the younger generation that is most affected. Students who are currently graduating from university are encountering various obstacles preventing them from fully participating in the workforce. Whether it is because of a lack of jobs, employers’ requirements for high qualifications or the natural aging of the population, the consequences of the crisis are unimaginable. Young people must tackle them alone. However, there is a rule that states that the longer a young person is unemployed, the more complex and more difficult it is to get any kind of job. The economic and social consequences of youth unemployment are alarming. Without work, it is absolutely impossible to plan for the future, develop skills or participate in community life. If we do not protect the interests of the younger generation, what future awaits us? For these reasons, I urge all relevant actors to focus on better allocation of public funds and to ensure a sufficient share of funds in the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 for the support of employment, job creation and support for educational programmes and professional qualifications, which could bypass the risks arising from the crisis. By guaranteeing investment in the social sector we will contribute to a better rate of youth employment and a balance in the labour market.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I voted in favour of this report. It is essential to ensure an adequate employment rate in the future and improve the EU’s competitiveness, and social investments play an important role here.

The economic and financial crisis affects not only the economy but also the employment rate and social investments in Europe. Until now, the proposed solutions have focused on short-term goals and ignored social and employment policy as a means of improving economic performance. In a situation where the EU unemployment rate exceeds 10 % and young people in particular are suffering the effects of unemployment, and where the number of working European citizens in relation to the number of citizens over 65 years of age has fallen critically, problems must be addressed through social investments. Preparing the whole of society to adjust to the changing economic environment must be the goal here. We should invest in people; the Member States should pay more attention to assisting the unemployed in every way, creating sustainable jobs, investing in education and reforming the pension systems. Furthermore, the Member States should sign the Social Investment Pact to ensure compliance with the approved Europe 2020 strategy.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I believe that every Member State should sign the Social Investment Pact because during the crisis, young people have suffered most. First of all, young people must be offered barrier-free access to the labour market and good working and living conditions. It is very important that the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 contains appropriate budgetary resources to support and encourage social investments in Europe. Particular attention needs to be paid to the use of the Structural Funds. It is also very important to improve youth access to financing and, in cooperation with business communities, create business support programmes for young people.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL). I voted for this report. Sometimes the mistaken view is expressed that social investments are linked with a lack of growth, or a lack of production. This is a serious error. Social investment is investment against poverty, against exclusion from opportunities; it is investment in skills and qualifications; investment in humanity. Consequently its value and its importance are not simply linked with growth; above all, it brings multiple returns in the future. This is because if a family or a human group is given the opportunity to work or the opportunity to escape marginalisation and social exclusion, then, in addition to the economic benefit which undoubtedly results from one person’s employment, there is a further benefit. Our fellow citizen who is unemployed and is therefore an unproductive unit of society is transformed into a healthy and productive member of society who has something to contribute. Therefore, social investments are investments in human beings and in social cohesion. They must be seen as such, especially in these critical times, when the crisis in Europe, in addition to being an economic crisis, is in many cases a social crisis and a crisis of values.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The majority of recent and current responses to the crisis have been based on short-term goals, aimed mainly at restoring sustainability to public finances, which is crucial to the EU economy. However, the current crisis will undoubtedly have profound effects in the long term, not only on the European economy but also on employment levels, public savings and social investments in Europe. In this context, we should not neglect the negative effects that these austerity measures could have on employment and competitiveness in Europe, so we need to complete them with growth- and employment-friendly measures, in particular well-targeted social investments. That is the aim of this report which, amongst other measures, seeks to lay the foundations for well-targeted social investments aimed at preparing individuals, families and societies to adapt to changing economic conditions and new labour market demands. That is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The majority of recent and current responses to the crisis are based on short-term goals aimed mainly at bringing back the sustainability of public finances, which is crucial to the EU economy. However, the current economic and financial crisis will undoubtedly have long-term and intense effects not only on the European economy but also on the employment rate, public savings and social investments in Europe. It has therefore become necessary to complete these austerity measures with growth- and employment-friendly measures such as well targeted social investments that aim to prepare individuals, families and societies to adapt to changing economic conditions and labour market demands. While stressing the importance of social investments because they cover a wide range of policies and are a means of restoring a proper employment level in the future and improve Europe’s competitiveness, I voted in favour of the motion.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I support the Social Investment Pact as it addresses the new social risks faced by the European Union as a result of the economic crisis. While fiscal consolidation remains a priority, it is highly important that future development is not hampered by neglecting social policy. Issues of employment and education must not be forgotten as Member States strive to meet budgets. By committing fully to the social pact, a state will ensure a stronger, brighter future for the next generation. The pact sets out investment targets and goals in terms of combating youth unemployment and problems with the current social assistance schemes. While financial stability is important, it must be acknowledged that budget consolidation must be complemented by a social investment strategy. Without the maintenance of strong social policies, we will not be able to create sustainable jobs, restore the faith of many citizens in national and European institutions, nor can we pave the way towards greater stability in the future.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Annual Growth Survey published by the Commission shows that the social, education and employment policy goals of the Europe 2020 strategy have not been sufficiently addressed by the majority of the Member States. In order to restore sustainable growth, well-targeted investments in line with the objectives set out in the report on the Social Investment Pact are essential. As well as sustainable public finances, Member States should focus on helping the unemployed, creating jobs and improving productivity at work. We will still need to invest in training, to improve education and to reform pension systems. Finally, it is also essential to make every effort to combat poverty and social exclusion. The Member States should therefore be called on to ensure that the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 contains appropriate budgetary resources to stimulate and support social investments in Europe, and that the available funding, especially the European Social Fund, is supportive of social investments.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) In favour. With more than 11 million jobs in the European Union and one in four enterprises starting up in this sector, the social economy is a genuine way out of the crisis. Enterprises in the social economy contribute significantly to the European Social Model and to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, especially in terms of a) combating poverty and exclusion, and b) employment and innovation. We must enable these enterprises, in their various legal forms (mutual societies, cooperatives, etc.), to access sufficient, sustainable funding. This is why we are supporting investment priorities for the social economy in the European structural funds (FEDER, FSE).

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The current economic and financial crisis is having a negative impact on economic growth, employment rates, the level of poverty and social exclusion. In particular, the unemployment rate increased from 7.1 % in 2008 to more than 10 % in January 2012 in the EU 27; and, in 2011, the rate of poverty among 16- to 24-year-olds was 21.6 %. I have supported this resolution on the Social Investment Pact because it emphasises the fact that the crisis requires a modernisation of the European Social Model and rethinking of national social policies. In response, the resolution proposes specific measures such as the creation of a European social label and sets clear guidelines for Member States.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The consequences of the current economic and financial crisis will drag on for a long time yet, having a negative effect on the European economy, the employment rate, public savings and social investments in Europe. In addition to this, austerity measures aimed at restoring the sustainability of public finances are having a negative effect on employment and competitiveness in Europe. I support this report, which I see as a very important step forward. I think that this difficult situation requires a coordinated EU approach and I recognise the need for measures aimed at promoting employment, stimulating growth and relieving economic problems, such as encouraging proper social investments that guarantee the creation of skilled jobs and continuing vocational training.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The current economic and financial crisis will undoubtedly have long-term and intense effects not only on the European economy but also on the employment rate, public savings and social investments in Europe. As a consequence of the economic and social crisis the unemployment rate in January 2012 stood at more than 10 % in the EU-27. What is more, Europe is facing extremely serious problems with youth unemployment, which creates risks of detachment from the labour market and losses of human capital in the longer term. With this vote, in order to bring back sustainable growth in Europe, we are reacting with well-targeted social investments that aim to prepare individuals, families and societies to adapt to changing conditions and labour market demands.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We are undergoing a serious economic and financial crisis that risks having intense long-term effects for many citizens. The European economy, employment rates, public savings and social investments in Europe are suffering the direct consequences of the downturn. Most of the recent and current responses to the crisis are based on short-term objectives intended to restore the sustainability of public finances, which is an essential element for the EU’s economy. In this context, however, we should not neglect the negative effects that these austerity measures could have on employment and competitiveness in Europe and complete them with growth- and employment-friendly measures such as well-targeted social investments.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The current economic and financial crisis has led to the closure of a number of businesses and consequently thousands of European citizens have lost their jobs. This social scourge has worsened lately and, however much help the Member States provide, it always ends up not being enough given the lack of career opportunities to deal with this scourge. I support this report as I believe that social investments should be a key part of the economic and employment policies of the European Union and the Member States in the face of the crisis. I agree with the rapporteur and urge the Member States to consider signing a ‘Social Investment Pact’, which can serve as a basis for the creation of a reinforced control mechanism to improve efforts to meet the employment, social and education targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. Lastly, I support facilitating social entrepreneurship projects and access to microfinance for vulnerable groups and those furthest away from the labour market. These are some of the measures that will enable new jobs to be created that are sustainable and thus able to ride out the constant ebb and flow of economic cycles.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the Social Investment Pact. In 2011 the rate of poverty among 16- to 24-year olds in Europe was 21.6 % on average, and young people are more likely to be in precarious fixed-term or part-time employment, and are also at a higher risk of unemployment. Social investments should be an important part of EU and Member States’ economic and employment policies, and of their responses to the crisis, in order to achieve the employment, social and education objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. All public social and health services, education services and related services sourced from private service providers, among others, can be considered social investments. I reiterate that they have been determined in agreements as falling under national competence. Facilitating and focusing on social entrepreneurship and access to microfinance for vulnerable groups and those furthest away from the labour market are essential elements in the context of social investment, in that they allow the creation of new sustainable jobs, often causing permanent changes in the economic cycle.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this timely report, which recognises that the austerity measures favoured by so many Member States must also be complemented by investment in social and employment schemes. It is vitally important to address and alleviate rising unemployment and increasing poverty, problems now endemic across the EU. I also welcome the emphasis that this report places on the need to tackle youth unemployment in particular, calling on Member States to create sustainable jobs whilst maintaining a balance between job security and flexibility in the labour market. This report urges EU countries to prioritise social investment strategies as well as fiscal consolidation as a response to the financial crisis, a stance I fully support.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The current economic and financial crisis is having profound, long-term consequences for the European economy, the employment rate, national treasuries and social investments in Europe. As a result of the crisis the pressure on social security systems in many countries has increased and income from pension, unemployment and health systems has fallen sharply. High long-term unemployment rates will further intensify this trend. Unfortunately the majority of recent responses to the crisis lack a social and employment policy dimension. Social investments should contribute to European financial and employment policy as a key component and represent a response by the EU to the crisis. There is a pressing need to create a coordinated EU approach to social investments. The report should therefore be approved.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Social investments are important to ensure a proper level of employment in the future and to improve Europe’s competitiveness. As they aim at reconciling social and economic goals, they should be treated by governments not only as spending, but rather as investments that will give real return in the future. It also seems that the crisis requires from Member States that they rethink their social policies and make a transition from ‘active welfare state’ to ‘activating welfare state’ which invests in people and gives citizens instruments and incentives rather than only responding to emerging damages caused by market failure. Taking the above into consideration we should make sure that social investments are an important part of the European economic and employment policies and the EU’s responses to the crisis. This is why I too voted in favour.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I would like to congratulate my colleague Ms Jazłowiecka on an excellent piece of work. I voted most definitely in favour of accepting this report. Development of the public economy, in its broader sense, may be very helpful at times when it is not only the homeless, the long-term unemployed or the disabled who are out of work and with very limited means on which to live. The crisis, which affects both employers and employees, means that the situation on the labour market is becoming unstable. At times of crisis and a continuous reduction in employment, more and more citizens are threatened by poverty.

Public enterprises, social cooperatives and occupational activity centres have the task of making a profit, which is then targeted at the implementation of social goals or the development of the local community. These are therefore useful instruments which help to solve social problems that are important to all of us. A public enterprise may also constitute an opportunity for young people who cannot get onto the labour market. As my colleague Ms Jazłowiecka correctly pointed out in the report, social policy in EU countries has to change dynamically and bring in effective and lasting ways of resolving social problems. Social investments are the best example of such an action, and every effort should be made to ensure that such strong entities can prosper in a free market and become an effective means of avoiding social exclusion.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The solution the rapporteur puts forward to the problem of the economic crisis is an incorrect one – combining ‘austerity’ and ‘budgetary consolidation’ measures with an investment strategy for sustainable growth and employment, without taking into account the fact that they contradict each other, pure and simple. Based on this idea, she suggests a process of transition away from an ‘active welfare state’ to what she dubs an ‘activating welfare state’. What this concept really means is the State divesting itself of any responsibility in terms of guaranteeing social rights, in particular as concerns providing public services, placing the emphasis on individual responsibility, the creation of private social services – in other words, the privatisation of public services –, the championing of precarious labour relations (flexicurity) and an unacceptable increase in the retirement age, chomping at the bit to destroy yet another social right won by workers. In this way, the rapporteur maintains that the privatisation of public services will lead to economic recovery – the creation of ‘social investment’ – and that these should be included in the National Reform Programmes and, in general, the EU’s macroeconomic and any budgetary surveillance strategies. The path towards worsening workers’ living conditions will always be unacceptable to us.

- Report: José Bové (A7-0286/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report as I believe an information policy that is more dynamic and tailored to the new requirements for agricultural products is an important element towards the new, post-2013 common agricultural policy, which is currently under discussion. Moreover, this report highlights the main objectives of the future policy for promoting agricultural products, assuming that they represent European added value. It incorporates them into a more appealing, easier-to-manage policy, with better synergies between different promotion instruments and public and private stakeholders in the agricultural sector.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution as I believe that agricultural products, especially traditional European food products, should be better promoted in and outside the EU. I agree with the rapporteur that particular attention should be paid to traditional European food products that are authentic, varied and tasty for the consumer. The European Union must try to export a model of sustainable agriculture, as well as its products. As in other areas, consumers also buy ‘ideas’ when they select what kind of food to buy. An obvious example lies in ‘fair trade’ products. I believe that, in order to promote competitiveness of EU agricultural products, ambitious measures should be employed that enhance the prestige of EU agriculture companies.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The success of the European Union’s common agricultural policy calls for much more consistent action in product promotion and consumer information. European agriculture has huge potential to become an essential economic factor for development. Consolidating this dimension of promotion and information in order to establish European products in traditional and emerging markets is equally important. Without doubt, improvements need to be made to the current framework for the promotion of agricultural products and information regarding production processes. A functional and efficient compromise needs to be reached between the need to make the European economy more productive and competitive and the imperative of better promotion of European agricultural products and better information for European consumers. Institutional factors such as the strict nature of sanitary regulations, rules on compliance in terms of environmental impact or a high level of innovation are all advantages which are worth exploiting in order to support European farmers.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By voting for this report, I wanted to support the European initiative to strengthen the visibility of and access to information on agricultural products for European citizens. Making the public aware of agricultural work and the production and distribution methods of these agricultural products is crucial. Since the agricultural sector has the potential to be a strong and vibrant sector for growth, particularly in rural areas, it should receive our support.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. − I voted to support this important report which clearly identifies that the Union’s promotion policy should reward farmers and food promotion actions where substantial efforts have been made to implement production systems which respond to the new challenges European farmers face. At less than 1 % of total CAP spending, it is clear that promotion is grossly overlooked. If we want consumers to be fully aware of the high quality excellent produce produced by European farmers to the highest standards then we must communicate this information to them clearly, simply and in a manner that they can use and respond to. The agri-food sector is a strong sector and one that has the potential to be the catalyst for economic growth in many Member States. In Ireland alone the agri-food industry is flourishing, food and drink exports increased by 12 % last year, reaching close to EUR 9 billion. It is an innovative industry, which should have its efforts supported and bolstered by a strong promotion policy that is accessible to producers, understood by consumers and effective in the market.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal regarding the review and evaluation of the promotion strategy for EU agricultural products. It is essential to make current promotion measures for European agricultural products simpler and more coherent, thereby increasing agricultural incomes, creating employment and generating growth. Information and promotion policy aims to use the development of global demand to promote interest in EU produce among consumers in third countries. Effective promotion policy is necessary to stimulate EU agriculture, guarantee food security and the sustainable use of natural resources and create employment in rural areas. EU products are highly diverse and meet particularly high standards and food security levels. It is essential to promote them both within and outside the EU, as well as to increase their export. I support the proposal to more clearly define a promotion policy and to encourage authentic, traditional products. I also agree with the proposal to finance products that are consistent with the model of sustainable agriculture and to no longer finance measures to re-establish confidence after food scandals.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I am fundamentally in agreement with the contents of the report. From a Hungarian perspective I think it is important to emphasise the point that targets an increase in the amount of funding which can be spent on promotion and information measures. For the purposes of increasing efficiency it seems expedient for these CAP funds to be restricted only to state-owned and state-run organisations. To this end I voted in favour of the report.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report as I believe that promoting products specific to the European Union is particularly important, especially in the context of the economic crisis. Consumers are currently looking for maximally diverse and authentic products, which is why I believe that they should be as well informed as possible about their options. The best way of doing this is to organise general consumer awareness campaigns within the EU and in external markets with regard to production quality standards and certification systems. The Commission will have a very important role in coordinating these measures both within the internal market and outside the Union, and the technical support which it will provide is essential.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I agree with the principles expressed in this report on strengthening promotion and information policies on quality agricultural products, both in the external market and, especially, in the internal market. We need a major effort to give producers efficient access to the value chain and the income derived from it. There are clear mechanisms for doing this, for example short marketing chains, training, innovation and the intensive application of information and communication technologies to marketing. This is a basic requirement in order for farms to be profitable. The deviation from this course is behind the problems affecting the common agricultural policy. The income problems compensated for in this way could be alleviated if the profits from sales did not largely remain in the hands of distributors who have nothing to do with the production sector.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this motion because these promotion measures will make EU agricultural policy clearer and will cover all agricultural products that meet the quality standards. Based on this working methodology food safety will be better ensured. The motion lists a host of important measures including working to implement the fruit and milk in schools program, along with measures to ensure quality wine is marketed to an adult audience with necessary information on consumption. Also very important this motion calls for the state of origin of EU products to be indicated. This will help protect MADE IN BRAND and other EU products overseas from faux versions.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report as in this document, Parliament calls for a clearer definition of promotion measures for agricultural products. Historically promotion measures were put in place to deal with agricultural surpluses, and, later on, food crises. The scheme currently has an annual budget of slightly more than EUR 50 million and its beneficiaries are trade and branch organisations. Support for the promotion of fruit, vegetables and wine is only one of the six potential objectives of operational programmes. These actions also aim to provide school children with a better idea of how food is produced and what life is like in rural areas, by taking them out to meet farmers. Pedagogic promotion activities should go beyond explaining the benefits of eating products like fresh fruit and vegetables towards explaining the CAP itself.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products. Currently, the common agricultural policy contains a large range of measures to promote the consumption of agricultural products. Therefore, I support the drawing up of a modernised, more suitable framework, especially for external markets, that would increase the number of outlets for European agricultural products and contribute to retaining jobs in the primary sector.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The common agricultural policy currently contains a large range of measures intended to promote the consumption of agricultural products. I am convinced that a modernised, more suitable framework would increase the number of outlets for European producers, thus contributing to growth and employment in the EU. This is why I voted in favour of the report on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The common agricultural policy currently has a variety of promotion instruments at its disposal that were put in place for different reasons and for various types of beneficiaries. The next step now is to define more clearly a promotion policy that serves to stimulate and reward: the production of specific products included in quality schemes and farming practices which produce fewer CO2 emissions, protect biodiversity and are better suited to maintaining the quality of soils and water supplies. I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the strategy advocated is correct and involves great added value for Europe.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The common agricultural policy has a raft of promotion instruments at its disposal that were put in place for different purposes and aimed at different beneficiaries. However, the overwhelming majority of these measures were put in place in the past to deal with agricultural surpluses and, later, food crises. However, at this point in time, these measures need to be refocused on the current problems. It should be emphasised that the agri-food sector is in a position to become strong and vigorous and could well contribute a great deal towards economic growth across the Member States. In this regard, information and promotion measures must be clear and should cover all products that are included under European quality standards. The Union’s promotion policy must help the farming and food sector become more competitive at the global level and promote European food diversity. The internal and external markets should be given equal attention, as both encompass producers and consumers. Special attention should be accorded in the budget to improving information and promotion instruments. European farmers are depending on a significant increase in their market share in order to guarantee the food industry a prominent position in the EU’s economy and trade.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I consider that it is now time to more clearly define a policy to promote agricultural products and a strategy to promote the tastes of Europe which will stimulate and reward both the production of specific products included in quality schemes, and farming practices which produce fewer CO2 emissions, protect biodiversity and maintain the quality of soils and water supplies.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Europe has outstanding agriculture: consumers can be proud of the quality of their food. The geographical origins of our products are a stamp of assurance envied around the world: we can be sure, both inside and outside our borders, that they will provide us with stronger growth, broaden our European tastes and protect the environment.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report to enhance the value of European agricultural products. The European Union must support the agricultural sector, which is still a major player in the European economy. Moreover, above and beyond these economic considerations, it is now essential to enhance the value of the products of our farmers, who are unquestionably promoting Europe throughout the world and contributing to the maintenance of proud traditions.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I believe we need a policy which serves to stimulate and reward the production of specific products included in quality schemes and farming practices which produce fewer CO2 emissions, protect biodiversity and are better suited to maintaining the quality of soils and water supplies.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I can only welcome the European Commission’s Communication on promotion measures and information provision for European agricultural products, along with supporting the main points it makes: the creation of higher European added value in the food sector, a more appealing and assertive policy in terms of its environmental impact, greater synergy between the different promotion instruments and simpler management of promotion. I believe the Union’s promotion policy is legitimate and important, internally, at the local and regional levels, and on expanding world markets. It is a key strategy for the profitability and sustainability of the agricultural sector and the incomes of all European farmers.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The common agricultural policy has a variety of financial instruments at its disposal to promote agricultural products, such as Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 (EUR 50 million), operational programmes in the fruit and vegetable sector (EUR 28 million in 2009), support for the promotion of wine in third countries (EUR 236 million in 2012), the School Fruit and School Milk Schemes (EUR 170 million for 2013), support for promotion activities by producer groups (EUR 29 million for the 2009-2013 period), etc. I welcome the adoption of the report drafted by José Bové on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products, in particular on a strategy for promoting the tastes of Europe which should be ‘authentic, varied and tasty for the consumer’. In this regard, I support, in particular, the action under the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes, as well as the creation of a model of sustainable agriculture for the EU, thus benefiting our farmers and helping to overcome the current economic and financial crisis.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Despite the positive aspects of this report, such as defending the importance of local and regional markets and the promotion of products, it is still contradictory, because it supports and values the current agricultural production model – the same model that has laid waste to the agricultural sector in a number of countries, in particular to small-scale agriculture and family production, compromising their sovereignty and food security. The statement that the ‘success of European farmers will depend on their ability to increase their market share’ is a telling apology for the ‘productivist’, export-based models that sacrifice food quality, security and sovereignty for the ‘competitiveness’ of a few large farms. We do not agree that the indication of European origin should prevail as the main indication of product origin either in the internal market or in third countries. Indicating the national origin, as we now well know, is crucial in supporting, highlighting and promoting national production, shorter supply chains and the operation and value of local and regional markets. These are important (albeit insufficient) measures to help strike an agri-food balance in countries with the highest deficits, such as Portugal.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The European Union, which has extremely diverse, high-quality production and guarantees a high level of health security, has all the resources necessary to benefit from the projected growth of global demand as long as it highlights its strengths through a better targeted and more ambitious promotion policy. In addition, on the internal market, consumers should be made more aware of the quality and diversity of the range of products available. The aim of the legislative proposals currently being negotiated relating to the present issue for the post-2013 period is to enable this policy to contribute fully to the Europe 2020 strategy by supporting agriculture that guarantees food safety, the sustainable use of natural resources and the dynamism of rural areas as well as growth and employment. An efficient promotion policy is key to reaching these objectives. The reform of the common agricultural policy is aimed at improving the organisation of the production, sustainability and quality of agricultural products. I believe it is necessary to accompany this with a promotion policy that makes it possible to deploy the entire potential of the food sector in order to foster European economic growth and employment.

  Mariya Gabriel (PPE), in writing. − (BG) I voted for this report because it is a step towards the more active promotion of European products in the local market, as well as the pan-European and external markets. I do think, however, that in order to be more ambitious in promoting quality products that are linked to specific production methods, geographical origins, traditions or cultural contexts, they need to be more actively promoted not only in local markets but also across the whole of the European Union. I am pleased that my fellow Members agree with me that the increasing demand for organic products calls for more active stimulation of their production and promotion. I believe that to achieve these two things, namely the production of more quality and organic products, it is necessary that we first consider the types of agriculture that prevent the loss of biodiversity, such as the beekeeping sector. That is why I am voting for this report as a sign of my support for the rapporteur’s opinion that it is now time to more clearly define a promotion policy which serves to stimulate and reward the production of specific products included in quality schemes and farming practices which protect biodiversity.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Europe, through the diversity of its regions and cultures, now has the opportunity to offer a variety of high-quality agricultural products. The common agricultural policy proposes promotion and information instruments on these agricultural products that should be developed and adapted to demand, while taking into consideration the constraints already imposed on our farmers. This is the purpose of Mr Bové’s report, broadly amended by my political group and adopted on Tuesday 20 November. The rules on food safety and health, environmental conditions and animal well-being are stricter in Europe than in the rest of the world. These are the conditions required to respond to the concerns of consumers alarmed by the mad cow crisis and E. coli. The flip side of imposing these conditions is to offer quality products that will be suitable for promotion in Europe and the rest of the world, especially in the emerging markets. Our agricultural heritage in Europe is unique, due to the variety and quality of the products on offer. Now we must find new outlets worldwide in order to contribute to the growth of the agricultural sector.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The common agricultural policy (CAP) currently has a variety of promotion instruments at its disposal that have been put in place for different reasons and with various types of beneficiary. Although historically promotion measures were put in place to deal with agricultural surpluses, and, later on, food crises, it is considered that it is now time to more clearly define a promotion policy which serves to stimulate and reward the production of specific products included in quality schemes and farming practices which produce fewer CO2 emissions, protect biodiversity and are better suited to maintaining the quality of soils and water supplies. Promotion policy should, as far as possible, concentrate on financing projects which cater to both of those broad objectives, which are, in many cases, compatible. An implicit objective must be to increase farmers’ incomes by placing the focus on products where supply management tools are permitted. Promotion measures should draw attention to traditional European food products that are authentic, varied and tasty for the consumer. That vision is relevant both for internal and external promotion. The European Union must try to export a model of sustainable agriculture, as well as its products. Individual projects must obviously be financed under Rural Development Policy, which can be tailored to local conditions, rather than under Regulation 3/2008, which has more cumbersome rules for applicants. I have voted for this proposal.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I voted in favour of the Bové report, as the high-quality food products that Europe produces under strict environmental conservation, animal welfare and health requirements need strong marketing for a promising future. In addition to the existing promotion measures for information initiatives, such as the School Milk Scheme, I am advocating ambitious measures to promote agricultural products. These will help the agricultural sector to achieve its full potential in terms of economic growth, job creation and the dynamism of rural areas. Strengthening sales promotion measures will also increase the competitiveness of European products on the global market, as the European production model for food products, which is based on diversity, quality, traditional production methods and geographic authenticity, is increasingly in demand.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I fully supported this report, which I think takes an important step towards a new concept of the role that promotion measures and information should play in Europe’s agricultural system. The approach that emerges from the text we voted on today is one of greater awareness of the concepts of quality, food safety and product origin, combined of necessity with those of business profitability and market globalisation. The challenges facing those working in the farming and food industries should find a response in the intentions and values expressed in this motion and the one on the common agricultural policy for 2014-2020, whereby the ‘made in Europe’ label represents safe foods and wines for consumers and profitability for producers.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The European Union has one of the biggest heritages in the world in terms of diversity of agricultural products, and this fact must be exploited and made widely known within and outside the European Union. To this end, the European quality schemes (protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI), organic labelling and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG)) must be promoted, not only among consumers but also among producers, with the characteristics that make them different from other products and the benefits of their production, purchase and consumption being underlined. In addition, in order to create a European dimension, all promotion actions financed directly by the European Union for products or groups of products should feature slogans and common values established by the Commission. It is essential for us to convey a clear and easily identifiable message to consumers.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this report because I do not support its call to increase significantly EU funding for promotional measures for agricultural products. I am also strongly against the promotion of alcohol through EU funds.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I agree with the rapporteur that the time has come to define more clearly a promotion policy which serves to stimulate and reward. Promotion policy should, as far as possible, concentrate on financing projects which cater to both of those broad objectives, which are, in many cases, compatible. An implicit objective must be to increase farmers’ incomes by placing the focus on products where supply management tools are permitted. Promotion measures should draw attention to a ‘taste of Europe’ that is authentic, varied and tasty for the consumer. The European Union must try to export a model of sustainable agriculture, as well as its products. Much more needs to be done, in particular in the context of the School Milk and School Fruit schemes, to bolster grassroots activities aimed at directly showing school children how food is produced and what life is like in rural areas, by taking them out to meet farmers. Pedagogic promotion activities should go beyond explaining the benefits of eating products like fresh fruit and vegetables to explaining the common agricultural policy itself.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of Mr Bové’s report on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products because it expands an important and necessary portion of the common agricultural policy (CAP). While the CAP currently has several types of promotion measures in place, it is important to expand these measures to encourage economic growth in the agri-food sector. The European agri-food sector has the ability to prosper and assist economic stabilisation in the Member States, and developing more extensive promotion measures both for the internal European market and for external market shares. For these reasons, it is important that local, regional, and external promotion measures are adopted, with the focus placed on short food-supply chains and local farming systems.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I agree with the rapporteur that equal attention should be given to internal and external market promotion, since both are of benefit to producers and consumers. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This Commission initiative is important for promotion measures and information provision for European agricultural products. This new policy should focus on the following two aspects: the production of specific products included in quality schemes; farming practices which produce fewer CO2 emissions, protect biodiversity and are better suited to maintaining the quality of soils and water supplies. Promotion policy should, as far as possible, concentrate on financing projects which cater to both of those broad objectives, which are, in many cases, compatible. An implicit objective must be to increase farmers’ incomes by placing the focus on products where supply management tools are permitted. That is why I voted in favour.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The foundation of the EU’s promotion policy has to be better defined. Awareness of the opportunities inherent in local production and short food supply chains must be raised by implementing promotional measures. Developing short food supply chains and local markets can create jobs at local level, and local farming systems will restore added value for farmers. European farmers and producers are facing new challenges and have to apply production systems that adapt to these challenges, such as climate change, lower soil fertility and biodiversity. Promotion activities have to focus more on quality and on products produced at local level. Consumers within the EU are increasingly interested in the tastes of quality products as well as those that have come about through tradition. This is why I support the move to draw attention to a diverse programme of the tastes of Europe that meets consumers’ tastes too, within the framework of promotion measures. I also believe it is important for the individual promotion and information activities to bring citizens and producers together. As part of school programmes providing fruit and milk for pupils, for example, children can be brought closer to the work of agricultural producers. By visiting farms and facilities they can gain first-hand experience of the food production process and how the common agricultural policy works.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Encouragement policy and more dynamic and responsive information to new demands of agricultural products is an important element of the new CAP after 2012. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) To allow the common agricultural policy to be structured as efficiently as possible, there are a number of instruments for promoting sales, such as support for operational programmes in the fruit and vegetable sector, support for the promotion of wine in non-EU countries, the School Fruit and School Milk Schemes and support for promotion activities by producer groups. All these measures are now used to deal with food crises. I voted in favour of the report, as I agree with the rapporteur that a new promotion policy needs to be defined. In addition, it is essential to draw consumers’ attention to European agricultural products.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this report, which aims to improve promotion measures and information provision for European agricultural products. Indeed we do need to do our utmost to defend and protect our quality products and make their properties and characteristics better known; a good publicity campaign would be a great help, bringing benefits in terms of an increase in sale and consumption. Particular emphasis should be placed on the need to promote local products, encouraging the development of products with low food miles and local and regional markets. The non-EU dimension is important too, because it includes countries in which there are still large amounts of counterfeit versions of our products, and a big awareness campaign is therefore necessary. Greater commitment on the part of the EU to cofinancing the School Fruit and School Milk Schemes is also a good thing: our children must be able to enjoy these genuine, natural products, which are much healthier than several packaged snacks that can adversely affect their nutrition from a very young age.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I have emphasised more than once that providing consumers with appropriate information is the first step in ensuring the quality of food products. It is also a step towards a bigger EU agricultural sector and greater competitiveness of its produce. Therefore I agree that it is essential to increase awareness of EU agricultural producers and their products, but only in a way that does not discriminate against EU producers based on their location (with certain exceptions for locations with lower productivity), size or any other criteria.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today we are debating the promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products in Europe and the strategy we should adopt for promoting the tastes of Europe. The European agriculture and food sector could be increasingly competitive globally if we could effectively promote the diversity of our food and our production model, which is characterised by high standards of productivity, safety, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Trade globalisation is increasing, opening up new markets and fresh opportunities for generating the growth we need to get through the economic crisis. What is more, we should not forget that European products have always had significant consumer appeal in larger third markets and should therefore benefit from targeted and strengthened promotional schemes. I therefore agree with my colleagues who would like to see the budget for improved information and promotion measures increased. I also fully support the School Fruit and School Milk Schemes, which aim to promote healthy eating among the very young, from the earliest age.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because a dynamic and efficiently functioning agricultural sector is one of the main factors in increasing agricultural incomes, creating employment and generating growth. I believe that products that are compatible with supply management tools should receive more attention and funding. I also support the promotion of entrepreneurship through the creation of entrepreneurship-friendly strategies, the organisation of training and improvement of knowledge, skills and competence. Only through joint effort can we create European added value in the food sector and increase farmers’ income. Therefore it is important that the means and allocated funds are used efficiently and promote entrepreneurship among more small businesses and farmers.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In plenary, I voted in favour of the report on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products: what strategy for promoting the tastes of Europe, which was adopted by an absolute majority and for which I was a shadow rapporteur. The amendments I made focused on how we must broaden promotion of the tastes of Europe both on the external market and on the internal market, and on the latter market, at both regional and local levels. This remedies the initial outlook regarding this topic, which was very restrictive insofar as it was limited to traditional products that were produced in environmentally-friendly ways. The adoption of these proposals presages a policy to promote the tastes of Europe that now has a clear, unambiguous indication from the European Parliament that it must be as all-encompassing as possible and that its key objectives should include: recognition that European agri-food products meet the most exacting production standards in the world as regards health and safety; environmental and animal welfare measures; obtaining a fair price for producers; and complete, objective information for consumers.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Much has already been done as regards promotion measures and information provision for European agricultural products. The common agricultural policy (CAP) currently has a wide range of promotion instruments at its disposal that have been put in place for different reasons and with various types of beneficiary. However, whilst historically promotion measures were put in place to deal with agricultural surpluses and food crises, it is now time to define more clearly a promotion policy which serves to stimulate and reward the quality and sustainability of European products. While hoping that the promotion policy helps to increase farmers’ incomes and to export a model of sustainable agriculture, as well as promoting local markets, I voted in favour of the motion.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support Mr Bové’s report on promoting the tastes of Europe. Farmers, and especially small-scale farmers, increasingly need aid and legal instruments to cope with global competition in agricultural markets both within the EU and internationally. I think the policy to promote local markets through the development of products with low food miles and information about origin and quality is particularly important for guaranteeing better incomes for farmers. This approach could prove particularly important in mountainous areas where in-quota agriculture is one of the most important ways of preventing the abandonment and degradation of the land and the environment.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The agri-food industry is a very important sector, leveraging economic growth and innovation, particularly in rural areas and at the regional level. It is therefore right to define strategies to increase agricultural incomes, create jobs and generate growth. The current promotion measures and information provision should therefore continue to be developed, thus ensuring a coherent and efficient promotion policy as regards the requirements of the market, increased competitiveness in the agricultural sector, and strengthened awareness of the high quality of European products. Some promotion instruments are already under way: the established horizontal promotion scheme, support for the promotion of wine in non-EU countries and School Fruit and School Milk Schemes under the Single Common Market Organisation Regulation. Nevertheless, the EU needs a more ambitious promotion policy in terms of its content, budget and management structures. For these reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. − (FI) I voted in favour of this important report. I am particularly happy with the way that the EU is striving to reform market promotion policy at the same time as other agricultural policy. In turn, the reform also supports high-quality European food production and promotes the position of European products in the global market. I also gladly welcome the idea of simplifying administrative measures relating to market promotion. These measures have been on the wish list of many Member States and of many food supply chain players for a long time now.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The promotion of a very diverse range of high-quality European agricultural products is essential to ensure the competitiveness and long-term viability of the sector. However, only 0.1 % of the common agricultural policy budget has been allocated to the promotion of these products in 2012. This resolution is asking for an ambitious European policy in this matter and I support it. I am pleased that the report emphasises local and regional markets and states that a promotional policy should highlight the diversity and freshness of products and the proximity between producers and consumers. With regard to external markets, I support the idea that we must promote the strict obligations imposed on our producers, in order to increase the number of outlets for their products. Furthermore, wine consumption in the European Union is in constant decline and there are no European measures for the internal promotion of this product. Given the importance of the wine sector in my constituency, I am satisfied that the report introduces the idea of information campaigns for the adult population on the responsible consumption of quality European wines, highlighting the special qualities and features of European wines.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Historically promotion measures were put in place to deal with agricultural surpluses, and, later on, food crises. However, we consider that it is now time to define more clearly a promotion policy to stimulate and reward the production of specific products included in quality schemes, and farming practices which produce fewer CO2 emissions, protect biodiversity and are better suited to maintaining the quality of soils and water supplies.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I am in favour of the text under examination, which seeks the implementation of promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products. I believe that, for consumers to eat properly, they should be properly informed, with the product origin shown on the label. That is the only way of guaranteeing food safety. This policy aims to promote local markets, developing the concept of low food miles and at the same time enhancing market potential in the EU. I also support the promotion of information campaigns on quality wines, aimed at responsible consumption and – this should not be underestimated – the need to educate children on the importance of a healthy, balanced diet based on fruit, vegetables, etc. provided that these are of good quality. The quality policy for agricultural products should therefore on the one hand provide farmers with the tools to identify products with special characteristics and promote them more effectively and on the other protect them from unfair practices.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report which clearly identifies that the Union’s promotion policy should reward farmers and food promotion actions where substantial efforts have been made to implement production systems which respond to the new challenges European farmers face. For this reason, the budget for the horizontal scheme, which currently represents less than 0.1 % of CAP spending, should be increased.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the Bové report. I believe that the tastes of European products are unique and must be promoted both within and outside the Union. The European Union must try to export a model of sustainable agriculture as well as its authentic traditional products. It is also important to promote local markets and short supply chains. At the same time, individual projects must be financed on the basis of the rural development policy, which can be tailored to local conditions, but producers of traditional foods should be prioritised.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In March 2012, the European Commission published a communication on information and promotion of agricultural products which is expected to be followed, probably next year, by a legislative text. The institutions’ desire to promote foods (such as the School Fruit Scheme) is expressed again in this report. What we are asking with this text is for the information and promotion measures currently available for European foods to be further developed and adapted to produce a coherent, effective promotion policy capable of increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and at the same time making consumers aware of the high quality of European agricultural products. In response to consumers’ concerns, farmers in Europe have to cope with ever stricter rules on food safety, environmental conditions and animal welfare compared with their competitors in the rest of the world. The agricultural sector has the potential to be strong and vibrant for economic growth and innovation in all the Member States. It could, in fact, contribute to an increase in farmers’ incomes, create jobs and generate growth. For these reasons I voted in favour.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I warmly welcome Mr Bové’s report on promotion measures for agricultural products, particularly in terms of the future paths of promotion policy, which according to the report would lay specific emphasis on raising awareness about traditional farming procedures that preserve the quality of arable land and water supply and produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions. I would like to point out that in Harghita, a county in Romania where the majority of people are ethnic Hungarians, a similar promotion mechanism has already been introduced. The ‘Székely product’ trademark and the promotion activity that this involves are given to characteristic agricultural products made in the Székely Land from local ingredients that are produced in an environmentally friendly manner and are healthy. I believe that the new promotion policy should examine the possibility of supporting similar local initiatives as this can encourage the launch and strengthening of similar processes, of benefit to both producers and consumers.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I support the promotion of local farming and short-chain distribution in areas that may need an approach at European level. Individual projects should be included in rural development programmes, adapted to local situations. On the other hand, promotion measures should draw attention to a ‘taste of Europe’ that is authentic, varied and tasty for the consumer. That vision is relevant for both internal and external promotion. The European Union must try to export a model of sustainable agriculture, as well as its products. Consumers often buy ‘ideas’ when they select what kind of food to buy. An obvious example lies in ‘fair trade’ products.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The common agricultural policy has a variety of promotion instruments at its disposal that have various objectives and various types of beneficiary. However, these promotion instruments need to be improved and tailored to ensure the agricultural sector is more competitive as a whole, and thus contribute to a European strategy aimed at restoring added value to European farmers, that is to say: promotion instruments should focus more on aspects that make the European agricultural market safer in relation to its competitors in terms of food security and hygiene, animal welfare and environmental protection. In this way, we will be able to boost the growth of the European agricultural market, promote job creation and guarantee a secure supply of food in the European Union. For these reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the Resolution on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products: what strategy for promoting the tastes of Europe, as I consider that the EU’s policy of promoting agricultural products can contribute to the competitiveness and long-term viability of the agricultural and food sectors. We call on the Commission to develop short supply chains in local and regional markets, thereby creating new opportunities for farmers and other producers in rural areas and for associations of farmers and/or farmers and other operators in rural areas, and to design a broad set of instruments to promote the development of rural areas.

The Commission should produce guides that will help farmers to make more and better investments in the quality and specific value of their products. We ask the Commission to support the efforts being made by European producers to acquire the necessary capacity to meet higher consumer demand in terms of quality, food hygiene and knowledge of the origin of fresh products and when they should best be consumed.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I vote for this report on the promotion of agricultural products, which aims to draw attention to a ‘taste of Europe’ that is authentic, varied and tasty for the consumer. While historically promotion measures were put in place to deal with agricultural surpluses and, later on, food crises, it is now time to more clearly define a promotion policy which serves to stimulate and reward products included in quality schemes and reward farming practices which produce fewer CO2 emissions, protect biodiversity and are better suited to maintaining the quality of soils. To that end, a clear definition of the objectives of the promotion policy for agricultural products is a necessary first step and cannot be detached from a net increase in the budget allocated to this area. We need to focus on the development of short supply chains, for the economic revitalisation and social enhancement of rural life and to show schoolchildren through educational initiatives how food is produced and what life is like in rural areas. Furthermore, the European Union must try to export a model of sustainable agriculture, as well as its products. We just have to implement these fine sentiments.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Although we keep on hearing about businesses re-locating, the food sector is an example that proves that the EU is still a production base. The food sector is the main employer in Europe, with 4.2 million workers, and has a turnover of EUR 1 000 billion annually. Although this sector is currently a recipient and creates jobs, this is due to the common agricultural policy and its quality products, which is making the EU the second-largest exporter of agricultural products. However, we are not resting on our laurels; we are strengthening our long-term position as a leader on the international market. This is precisely the meaning of this report, which I supported and which proposes that we highlight our assets through a policy of promotion that is considered, ambitious and targeted. Examples of the aspects to highlight that I am thinking of are our quality labels, European gastronomy and our environmental and health quality standards for production. What might have seemed to be a constraint on the sector initially has become one of the sales arguments to strengthen our position on the global market, where consumers are looking increasingly for quality and authenticity.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The common agricultural policy (CAP) has a variety of promotion instruments at its disposal. Historically, promotion measures were put in place to deal with agricultural surpluses and food crises. The promotion policy should be defined more clearly and concentrate on financing projects that cater to both of those broad objectives.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Union has a duty to support the development of local, sustainable agriculture and to promote the diversity of its products. Whilst historically promotion measures were put in place to deal with agricultural surpluses and food crises, it is now time to define more clearly a promotion policy which serves to stimulate and reward the production of specific products included in quality schemes and farming practices which produce fewer CO2 emissions, protect biodiversity and maintain the quality of soils and water supplies. Promotion policy should therefore, as far as possible, concentrate on financing projects which cater to both of those broad objectives, which are, in many cases, compatible. An implicit objective must be to increase farmers’ incomes by placing the focus on products where supply management tools are permitted.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Standing up for the importance of local and regional markets and the promotion of products are positive aspects of this report, although it still supports and sets great store by the current agricultural production model that has laid waste to small-scale agriculture and family production. It is resoundingly negative that the indication of European origin should prevail as the main indication of product origin, since indicating the national origin is crucial in supporting, highlighting and promoting national production, shorter supply chains and the operation and value of local and regional markets. We cannot condone this viewpoint which does not protect the type of agriculture that is most practised in Portugal.

- Report: Marielle Gallo (A7-0326/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this proposal for a Directive, as I believe, first and foremost, that it is fair that artists receive the respective dividends for their work. Taking into account the increasing trade in works of art, it is necessary, on the one hand, to ensure that artists are appropriately rewarded for their work. On the other hand, those responsible for trading art must be bound to a commitment towards artists, and at the same time it must be ensured that the added value generated by these works of art is appropriately taken into account, as well as the artists themselves, in European cultural assets.

  Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Resale rights constitute part of the rights inflation in the European Union and introduce an additional layer of transfer rights where people who are already protected get additional protection from institutions incapable of detecting rent-seeking when they see it. Despite the wonderful advances made in communications technologies, in terms of cultural freedoms our governments put in place systems that make us pay more while getting less. The cultural industries are suffering from such extreme ownership concentration that cultural diversity is, at least commercially, a joke. Parliament has failed to recognise the extensive rent-seeking going on in the cultural industries in this report, and had additionally suggested that these high-level reverse Robin Hood rights be imposed on third countries. Therefore I rejected the report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Widely supported by the European Parliament, this excellent report draws up a balance sheet for the art sector. This sector, which is growing fast (especially in China), has since 2001 been regulated at the European level by a directive. The report highlights the importance for authors of receiving fair remuneration, as well as the need to re-examine the applicable rates and thresholds. I voted in favour of this report.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. − (GA) I voted for this report because I believe that authors of graphic works of art should be able to share in the economic success of their creations. At the moment, there are enormous differences in the administration of the resale right for works of art in the various Member States. As a result, the financial burden may be particularly high for those at the lower end of the market who are more deeply affected by the right’s administration costs. Similarly, there is a significant financial burden on art market professionals and the payments received by artists may be reduced as a result. I welcome the proposals on the harmonisation of the resale right in the EU and the implementation of a fairer system for European artists.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal regarding the implementation of the Resale Right Directive. The objective of the Resale Right Directive is to ensure that artists share in the economic success of their creations. The directive aims to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. The Directive aims to harmonise the conditions necessary to apply the resale right, i.e. to set categories for works of art, author rates, maximum value that the minimum sale price may not exceed (EUR 3 000), etc. The report’s conclusions emphasise that the quality of the administration of the resale right varies from country to country across the EU, and the administration costs more deeply affect those at the lower end of the market. I agree with the call on the Commission to work closely with stakeholders to strengthen the European art market’s position and to address problems related to the administrative difficulties faced by smaller and specialist auction houses and dealers, as well as to strengthen the EU art market’s position outside the EU.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The European Union has made significant strides in terms of copyright protection. An example is the Resale Right Directive, which gave authors the right to participate in the resale of their work. By this means, fair treatment for authors has been ensured, as provided by the Berne Convention.

The application of this Directive in all Member States with effect from 1 January 2012 will bring even greater benefits. I believe that in order to have a single copyright market, implementation of the provisions on the right of resale is essential. The potential of the market for plastic and graphic works of art in the Union is very great for both authors and consumers. For that reason, the protection and respect of copyright holders must remain crucial objectives of the Union in order to stimulate innovation and creation.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this report because the Resale Right Directive that was designed by the Commission aims to achieve two objectives: on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. Even though concerns regarding art markets are emphasised, statistics from the sector do not suggest that the resale right has had a detrimental effect on the location of the art market or its turnover. In this report, the Commission is called on to work closely with stakeholders to strengthen the European art market’s position and to address certain problems such as the ‘cascade effect’.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Report on the Implementation of the Resale Right Directive. I consider that it is essential to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations and to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with its premise, namely, on the one hand, the need to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, the need to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this important resolution because I support its spirit and objectives. The European art and antiques market makes a significant contribution to the global market. It therefore merits greater attention and protection by us, especially against increasing competition from third countries. I was very struck by the impressive growth recorded by China in this sector and by the general trend of the centre of gravity of the art market shifting towards emerging countries. I therefore think Europe should do everything it can to strengthen the European market and Europe’s position globally. As regards the resale right in particular, I think it is right and necessary that artists can continue to receive payment for their works of art as time goes by, especially younger artists who often part with their work for little money at the start of their career, in order to make themselves known. What is more, this resale right would not have a negative impact on the market or on its location. Lastly, providing for copyright on works of art that would cover the resale of the original might be a good way of preventing discrimination against artists themselves, and I think that its inclusion in the legal systems of various third countries is a good thing.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − The aim of the Resale Rights Directive is to ensure that visual artists (or their estates) share in the economic success of their work, particularly when its true value is not recognised at the time of its first sale, and to harmonise Member States’ droit de suite legislation, some of which dates back to the 1920s. The Commission’s 2011 report found no clear link between implementation of this directive and the loss of EU art market share. It did find however that an administrative burden was placed on art-market professionals in some Member States. I therefore endorse its recommendation to establish an exchange of best practice and a stakeholders’ dialogue to try to minimise costs, and to produce a further report by 2014. But I believe we need to do more. For example, the Commission should give consideration to moving towards some form of mandatory collective management across the EU so as to guarantee the collection, administration and distribution of royalties. Consideration should also be given to reducing the threshold to EUR 1 000 – studies indicate that this move in Britain increased the number of benefiting artists by over 90%. The directive should be transposed through primary legislation.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I support the implementation of the Resale Right Directive, on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: ensuring that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and harmonising the application of the resale right in the EU. It was only transposed in full at the beginning of this year and it is worth noting that some third countries, such as China and the US, have decided to adopt similar standards on the resale right. The report highlights the upward trend in art market turnover, not just in Europe, but in China particularly, which accounts for 41.4 % of the world market. This demonstrates that the resale right does not seem to have had a negative impact on the art market. I agree with the rapporteur in calling on the Commission to strengthen the European art market’s position and to address problems such as the ‘snowball effect’ arising from the current legislation.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The global art market has been valued at roughly 12 billion dollars for 2012 so authors of art works and their heirs must be compensated fairly. At times, one art work is traded time and time again – which exponentially increases its value – without its author or his or her heirs gaining any benefit. The report under examination, drawn up by Marielle Gallo, addresses the application and effects of the Resale Right Directive. The ‘resale right’ is the prerogative for all authors of art works to share in the price each time that their works are sold. Exercising this right at European Union level was harmonised on 1 January 2006. Although the European art market has tailed off, no cause-and-effect link can be attributed to the entry into force of this directive. I voted in favour of this proposal which aims, on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art receive a financial share from successive sales of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We share the rapporteur’s view that artistic creation makes a decisive contribution to affirming and developing cultural heritage. The resale right – ensuring that the artist receives a percentage of the profit from the sale of a work of art – guarantees continuity of pay for artists, who very often sell their works at low prices at the start of their careers. In this way, the resale right for the benefit of the living author of an original work of art can help to ensure artists are appropriately compensated for their output. On this occasion, we can but defend the right to create and to cultural and artistic enjoyment, and the role of the State in fostering the conditions for this right to be enjoyed. It is a right that is currently being severely jeopardised in Portugal, despite being enshrined in Portugal’s Constitution.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. The Commission concluded that no clear patterns could be established to link the loss of EU share in the global market for modern and contemporary art with the harmonisation of provisions relating to the application of the resale right in the EU on 1 January 2006. Nor could any clear patterns currently be established that would indicate systematic trade diversion within the EU away from those Member States which introduced the right for living artists in 2006. However, the Commission recognises that there are pressures on European art markets, in all price ranges, and affecting both the auction and dealer sectors. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the quality of the administration of the resale right varies from country to country across the EU. As a result, the burden may be particularly high for those at the lower end of the market that are more deeply affected by the right’s administration costs. In these respects, I believe that the Commission should work closely with stakeholders to strengthen the European art market’s position and to address certain problems and obstacles.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The quality of the administration of the resale right varies from country to country across the EU. As a result, the burden may be particularly high for those at the lower end of the market that are more deeply affected by the right’s administration costs. I voted in favour of the report by Ms Gallo as her proposals allow me to conclude that the resale right does not influence the market on which works of art are sold, nor does it impact negatively on turnover of the art market. Consequently – and in agreement with the rapporteur – I consider it extremely important for the Commission to keep working closely with those affected with a view to stabilising the European art market and resolving the difficulties that have arisen.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. − The right to remuneration for the sale of art is one of the first mechanisms harmonising intellectual property law throughout the EU. The Directive, which only entered into full effect in all Member States on 1 January 2012, on the one hand protects the interests of creators, guaranteeing them continuity of remuneration received with each successive professional resale they make, while on the other hand means that the buyer is never the 100 % owner of the work of art and, when deciding to sell it via a ‘professional’, must share his or her income. This complex legal issue, which is none too comprehensible to ordinary citizens, has not, as it would seem, had any negative impact on the position of the European art market, which in 2011 reported record profits of USD 11.57 billion, an increase of over USD 2 billion compared to 2010. Observing this trend, third countries are also planning to introduce unified principles for the resale right, and in practice this would make for equal principles for all and would facilitate the development of competition. In this context I support the application to shift analysis of the Directive by the Commission from 2014 to 2015, in other words four years after the last assessment which was presented in December 2011, in order that the assessment of the rates used, the thresholds and the beneficiary categories may be clearer and more suitable both for artists and for subsequent owners of works of art. The main plank of the Directive was to ensure that the authors of works of art have a share in the economic success of their works, and also to harmonise the application of this right throughout the EU. As may be seen from estimates of the worth of the European art market for 2012 – USD 12 billion – this law is meeting the challenges it faces.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour as the art market was valued at USD 10 billion in 2010 and almost USD 12 billion in 2012 and the resale right accounts for only 0.03 % of those sums. It is an important market from which artists and their heirs should receive fair remuneration. The Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. I believe that it is important to give proactive support to local artists, including the youngest artists. The Commission should work closely with stakeholders to strengthen the European art market’s position and to address problems such as the ‘cascade effect’ and the administrative difficulties faced by smaller and specialist auction houses and dealers.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The subject of intellectual property rights is certainly very complex, and it raises questions that are unquestionably relevant to the protection of artists’ rights, especially at a time when the sector is expanding and becoming increasingly globalised. This Directive concerns the regulation of the resale right, or the right of an author of a work of art over subsequent sales of the original. This is a very tricky matter which raises a series of problems, especially as regards artists at the lower end of the market, who would be harmed by the costs of administering this right. In this respect, I agree with the rapporteur’s call for protection of the youngest artists launching themselves on the market, who undoubtedly need better safeguards in order to be competitive.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report. These measures are important to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations and to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. On this second point, it is worth remembering how the administration of the resale right varies from country to country across the EU.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − The Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. In its report on the implementation and effect of this Directive, the Commission concluded that no clear patterns could be established to link the loss of EU share in the global market for modern and contemporary art with the harmonisation of provisions relating to the application of the resale right in the EU on 1 January 2006. Nor could any clear patterns currently be established that would indicate systematic trade diversion within the EU away from those Member States which introduced the right for living artists in 2006. The rapporteur notes that the art market was valued at USD 10 billion in 2010 and almost USD 12 billion in 2012. The information in the Commission report and market data suggest that the resale right has no negative impact on the location of the art market or its turnover.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR), in writing. − I welcome this Directive and have voted in favour of the report as I believe that it is fair to allow living artists to receive a share of the resale value of their work. In this way it recognises the contribution that the artist has made to cultural values. However, while supporting this Directive I would also note caution and expect the Commission to recognise that there is still work to be done on this front. Such a Directive will continue to negatively affect particularly small business in Europe, for example, small specialist auction houses, unless the Commission does more work to look at the costs and bureaucratic burdens placed on small dealers. The Commission should also actively encourage third countries to introduce resale rights. Otherwise we could see a mass exodus to outside markets where such levies do not apply. I welcome the call in this report for an assessment of the impacts of this Directive and would hope that the Commission addresses any lack of global competitiveness arising from this. I look forward to working with the rapporteur on ensuring that the Directive does not negatively affect European business.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. As the art market was valued at USD 10 billion in 2010 and almost 12 billion in 2012, we think that the Commission should work closely with stakeholders to strengthen the European art market’s position and to address existing problems.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Europe has to guarantee minimum rights to artists and heirs on the international art market.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The aim of the Resale Right Directive is to guarantee the copyright of graphic and plastic artists across Europe. The resale right does not appear to have any negative impact on the location of the art market or its turnover, nor has there been any systematic trade diversion away from Member States. I also agree with the rapporteur that there are pressures on European art markets in all price ranges, and affecting both the auction and dealer sectors. I voted in favour of the report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I agree with this report because an efficiently functioning art market ensures that artists, as creative people, obtain recognition, fair pay and economic success. Conditions necessary to apply the resale right should be harmonised EU-wide. This would remove the current obstacles to the completion of the internal market; I agree that particular attention should be paid to local artists, including the youngest artists. It is essential to strengthen the European art market’s position in the world as well as to address certain problems.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. The adoption of the Directive was important for artists, as regards not only their initiatives aimed at obtaining recognition and fair treatment as creative people, but also their role as contributors to cultural values. Nevertheless, there are still some concerns that this report raises, urging the European Commission to address the shortcomings detected and to ensure that the rights created at European level are also enforced in third countries by means of international agreements.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations and to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. In reality, however, the quality of the administration of the resale right varies from country to country across the EU. As a result, the burden may be particularly high for those at the lower end of the market that are more deeply affected by the right’s administration costs. Since the resale right has no negative impact on the location of the art market or its turnover, and in the hope that the Commission will work closely with stakeholders to strengthen the European art market’s position, I voted in favour of the motion.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. In its Report on the Implementation and Effect of the Directive, the Commission concluded that no clear patterns could be established to link the loss of EU share in the global market for modern and contemporary art with the harmonisation of provisions relating to the application of the resale right in the EU on 1 January 2006. Furthermore, the information in the Commission report and market data suggests that the resale right has no negative impact on the location of the art market or its turnover. The Commission is called upon to work closely with stakeholders to strengthen the position of the European art market.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. Referring to Article 14ter of the Berne Convention, the Resale Right Directive (2001/84/EC) was adopted in 2001 and implemented in all Member States ten years later. This own-initiative report concerns the Commission’s Report on the implementation and effect of the Directive, drawn up in line with a revision clause in Article 11. Under the Directive, the author of an original work of art has an inalienable right to receive a royalty each time the work concerned is sold. This right applies to all acts of resale involving any dealers in works of art. The royalty is to be paid by the seller. The main points discussed in the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs are its conclusions that reassessing the Directive in 2014, as the Commission plans to do, is premature and that the initiatives taken by third countries to introduce the resale right are welcome. Over all, it does not add much to the Commission’s statements and conclusions. I share the position of my group: the resale right is an unnecessary bureaucratic system which mostly serves to give money to very successful artists, who are already rich, possibly to the detriment of all other, less fortunate, artists.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Since the art market has recently seen a very significant overall increase in turnover, its impact on the global economy can no longer be underestimated. By establishing a right over the resale of works of art, this Directive, also known as the Resale Right Directive, has encouraged the harmonisation of legislation on the subject so that artists can receive equal treatment in all the European art markets. In my opinion, we need to take a proper look at the interests of artists, particularly young emerging artists, so that, through the law on the application of the resale right, the administrative obstacles to the functioning of the art market can be removed. I think that the art market can be strengthened and supported through our commitment. For these reasons I voted in favour.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The Resale Right Directive introduces a mandatory resale right for artists and for those who survive them. The resale right is an intellectual property right, whereby following the first sale of a piece of work by an author, the author and those surviving him or her benefit from any subsequent sales. The resale right has been recognised in Hungary for decades, but this Directive has only been applied fully in all Member States since 1 January 2012. The purpose of this legislation is to harmonise the fundamental conditions necessary to apply the resale right on Europe’s art market with a view to reinforcing its position in the world.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. To recap, the Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: on the one hand, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, on the other hand, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. This report calls upon the Commission to work closely with stakeholders to strengthen the European art market’s position and to address certain problems, for example the ‘cascade effect’.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) 2011 was a very positive year for the art market with total revenue for the year of USD 11.57 billion, an increase of more than USD 2 billion on the previous year. There was also strong growth in the European art market in 2011, with the United Kingdom maintaining a 19.4 % share of the global market; France’s market share was 4.5 % and Germany’s was 1.8 %. I can endorse this report as it maintains that the art and antiques market makes a significant contribution to the global economy, supporting various businesses in the creative industries sector. Furthermore, this market was valued at almost USD 12 billion in 2012, and is deemed to be an important market from which artists and their heirs should receive fair remuneration.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the Report on the Implementation and Effect of the Resale Right Directive. Artistic creation contributes to the continual development of the EU’s cultural life and heritage. There was strong growth in the European art market in 2011; the United Kingdom maintained a 19.4 % share of the global market, with an increase of 24 % in sales volume; France’s market share was 4.5 %, with a 9 % increase in turnover; and, Germany saw a 23 % increase in sales, with a market share of 1.8 %. Several of the Directive’s provisions ensure a balanced application of the resale right, taking into account the interests of all stakeholders, in particular the gradual decrease in applicable rates, the EUR 12 500 ceiling on the resale right, the exclusion of small sales and the resale exemption for the first buyer. I stress, however, that the Directive places an administrative burden on dealers. I call on the Commission to undertake an impact assessment of the functioning of the art market in general, including the administrative difficulties faced by smaller and specialist auction houses and dealers.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The Resale Right Directive was designed to achieve two objectives: firstly, to ensure that authors of graphic and plastic works of art share in the economic success of their creations, and, secondly, to harmonise the application of the resale right in the EU. The European art market deserves to be strengthened and closer cooperation should be driven forward.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour, because the quality of the administration of the resale right varies from country to country across the EU, and the Resale Right Directive is designed to harmonise the application of this right in the EU and provide the authors of works of art with a share in the economic success of their creations.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We share the rapporteur’s view that artistic creation contributes decisively to the ongoing development of cultural heritage. In this respect, what is known as the resale right – ensuring that the artist receives a percentage of the profit from the sale of a work of art – guarantees continuity of pay for artists, who very often sell their works at low prices at the start of their careers. In this way, the resale right for the benefit of the living author of an original work of art can be a useful tool to prevent discrimination against artists and to ensure that they receive appropriate compensation for their work. On this occasion, we can but defend the right to create and to cultural and artistic enjoyment – in such danger just now in Portugal – insofar as production of art, particularly by young artists, should be publicly valued and supported and not just viewed as a business opportunity.

- Report: Enrique Guerrero Salom (A7-0281/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I endorse this report, as its main objective is to increase democratic accountability by introducing binding rules for negotiations in legislative procedures. With this amendment, by allowing the authorising committee a negotiating mandate, and clear objective reports and a negotiating team led by the rapporteur, a precedent is being set that could become essential in the democratic construction of the European Union’s institutionalism, as it reinforces the negotiating role of the European Parliament and thus further legitimises this institution, the only one with Members directly elected by the citizens of the European Union.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In a parliamentary democracy, the link between the public nature of debates and votes, and democratic accountability, is inescapable. If we do not give European citizens the ability to know what their elected representatives have said and how they voted, I wonder whether they will be able to hold them to account at the next elections. The review of Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure, through the incorporation of some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedures in the binding part of the Rules, will make the procedures more effective, more transparent and above all more inclusive. I am convinced that the excellent job done and the measures the report contains will increase transparency and therefore the accountability of the elected representatives at European level.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I supported and which has been adopted by the European Parliament, is a procedural act that aims to simplify the ordinary legislative procedure. It is important that these procedural rules are adapted so that the European Parliament improves its efficiency without compromising the transparency of its work.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal to review Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure on interinstitutional negotiations in legislative procedures with a view to making the procedures more effective, more transparent and more comprehensive. The proposal seeks to incorporate some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedures in the binding part of the Rules, and in particular those parts relating to entry of a committee into negotiation as well as negotiating team composition and mandate. The introduction of binding rules for negotiations in legislative procedures would increase accountability and thus would strengthen representative democracy in the EU. I agree with the proposals regarding the introduction of a procedure which ensures transparency and legitimacy of all decisions on the opening of negotiations at first reading. Moreover, an ‘emergency brake’ procedure should be created which could result in a simple vote on the question of opening negotiations.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report as I believe it is important for Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, especially with regard to interinstitutional negotiations, to be adapted to the current context. The review of Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure with a view to making the procedures more effective, more transparent and more inclusive through the incorporation of some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedures in the binding part of the Rules is welcome. In urgent situations, it is necessary for a responsible committee to be able to conduct negotiations and update the mandate in the light of their progress. Defining too strictly in the Rules the form of such a mandate would be counter-productive in terms of flexibility and efficiency.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report as it seeks to review the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The current issue is whether negotiating mandates should be included in decision-making procedures. One could argue that approval of the committee’s negotiating mandate by the plenary would give more weight to Parliament’s position and could in theory ensure the early involvement of all Members in decisions concerning legislative files. Thus a general rule to submit all draft decisions containing negotiating mandates to a debate at and approval by plenary could at a first glance find its justification in improved democratic legitimacy. However, the disadvantages would also be considerable. A full and automatic involvement would risk making the procedure too heavy and would thus counteract the efficiency and relative speed inherent to first reading agreements. It is also to be borne in mind that this solution would create increased workload for the EP’s linguistic staff. Therefore, the procedures created should be not only flexible and pragmatic, but also assorted according to the political importance of legislative files.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the amendment of Rule 70 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on interinstitutional negotiations in legislative procedures. It is important to make procedures more effective, more transparent and more inclusive, as the Conference of Presidents advised in October 2012. I therefore support the introduction of a new Rule 70a on the approval of a decision on opening interinstitutional negotiations prior to the adoption of a report in committee.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the amendment to Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, with a view to making the procedures more effective, more transparent and more inclusive by incorporating some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) It is only natural to strive for interinstitutional conciliation and solutions in the context of legislative procedures. Nevertheless, this desire for harmonisation should not subvert the rules of democracy or deprive its representatives of the possibility to influence and take part in this process or its citizens of the possibility to monitor progress throughout the process. I hope that the suggested amendment to Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure enables these concerns over democracy and transparency to be taken into account at all times and that the way in which negotiating procedures are launched and conducted reflects this.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Rule 70 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on interinstitutional negotiations in legislative procedures lays down the following: ‘1. Negotiations with the other institutions aimed at reaching an agreement in the course of a legislative procedure shall be conducted having regard to the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure; 2. Before entering into such negotiations, the committee responsible should, in principle, take a decision by a majority of its members and adopt a mandate, orientations or priorities; 3. If the negotiations lead to a compromise with the Council following the adoption of the report by the committee, the committee shall in any case be reconsulted before the vote in plenary.’ The Conference of Committee Chairs, after an extensive discussion and after receiving contributions from the Secretaries General of the political groups, asked the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to review the aforementioned Rule. I voted in favour as this proposed amendment to Rule 70 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure aims to make the procedures ‘more effective, more transparent and more inclusive through the incorporation of some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedures’.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The amendments made to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure by this report are aimed at legalising an interinstitutional negotiating procedure that has been conducted abusively and that smacks of the interests of the largest political groups: the right and the social democrats. The coordination between these forces undermines the transparency of discussion processes. This is not an amendment in the democratic sense of how Parliament operates – which is more than needed. It is instead a procedural change, which, among other things, enables, where the committee responsible considers it duly justified, negotiations to be entered into prior to the adoption of the report in the specialised committee. In other words, trilogue negotiations begin without groups like our own having had the opportunity to table any proposals. The major groups agree so full steam ahead! This is an amendment that limits the ability of groups like ours to intervene, make proposals and raise complaints, groups like ours that break with this consensus that also dominates the other EU institutions and which is, after all, responsible for the process of civilisation going backwards that is now being experienced in Europe.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The Conference of Committee Chairs held an extensive exchange of views on negotiations in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure at its meeting of 19 October 2010. In his letter of 18 April, President Buzek informed Chair Casini about the outcome of that meeting and communicated the decision of the Conference according to which the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has been invited to review Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure with a view to making the procedures more effective, more transparent and more inclusive through the incorporation of some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedures in the binding part of the Rules. The issue of interinstitutional negotiations and agreements in legislative procedures is linked – through the principles of openness and democratic accountability – to the cause of representative democracy at European level. Since the beginnings of parliamentary democracy, the public nature of debates and votes has been linked to democratic accountability: if voters are not able to know what their elected representatives have said and how they have voted, they will not be able to hold them to account at the next elections. In this context, the introduction of binding rules for negotiations in legislative procedures that increase openness, and thus accountability, would be a step towards strengthening representative democracy at European level.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) It is true that the rapporteur’s proposals and some amendments seem to democratise and clarify some of the current legislative practices. However, the root of the problem is that vitally important legislative reports are adopted in small committees. Certainly, a rapporteur is appointed, which is logical, but shadow rapporteurs are also appointed (one per group), and they cobble together the work for Parliament’s ad hoc committee. In the worst cases, from the start a handful of people who are not representative of the whole political spectrum are appointed to negotiate with the Council and the Commission in order to arrive at a compromise as quickly as possible – a compromise that was agreed at the first reading. The result is that, with or without debate in plenary, we are now increasingly adopting reports drawn up, in reality, by a tiny minority of our technical colleagues. European laws are in fact decided by five or six nameless figures who claim to be experts. The all-powerful technocratic Commission at the centre, 27 Member States with a subdued majority, a few Members invested with the divine light of the other place – this is the reality of the legislative power of the European Union. That is why I abstained on this report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the aim of the report, which is to ensure a clear, level rule across committees for transparency in forming the negotiating mandate in the ordinary legislative procedure.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Guerrero Salom report on interinstitutional negotiations in legislative procedures. The report concerns the amendment of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, in particular regarding the way our institution works internally. Nevertheless, the report is also important for our citizens, since it improves the transparency of negotiations before a compromise between the three institutions. So that the text adopted by the Members can be representative of the opinions within Parliament, we should modify our Rules and make our procedures more transparent, effective and inclusive.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the proposal to inform all Members of Parliament in their language when negotiations are open between a Parliament delegation and other European institutions, and the proposal to have the delegation’s mandate approved in plenary. I regret that the obligation to provide information in every language does not apply to the minutes of the negotiations that the delegation has to deliver to its parliamentary committee. This kind of information should be made easily accessible to all Members in their own languages. We work and vote on all the reports going through plenary, not only those that go through the committees of which we are members. Therefore, we should be able to inform ourselves easily of all Parliament’s work in our own languages. Parliament investment should be channelled urgently in this direction.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The review of Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure is aimed at making the procedures more effective, more transparent and more inclusive through the incorporation of some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedures in the binding part of the Rules. These amendments allow us to make the legislative procedures more transparent which is why I voted in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The report on Rule 70 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure on interinstitutional negotiations in legislative procedure has the aim to increase the democratic accountability by introduction of binding rules for negotiations in legislative procedures.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I voted in favour of amending Rule 70 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure because Parliament is the representative body of all EU citizens and must be guided by the principle of democratic accountability.

Tripartite negotiations and procedures related to legislative documents must be made more effective, transparent and inclusive. The issue of interinstitutional negotiations and agreements is related to representative democracy at European level through openness and democratic responsibility. Voters must be able to learn what their elected representatives have said and how they have voted. Only in this way can voters make a decision at the next elections based on the actions of MEPs. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the functioning of the Union must be founded on representative democracy, and decisions must be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen. Amending Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure is a small but necessary step towards strengthening representative democracy at European level.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I believe that the inclusion of certain elements of the Code of conduct in the binding part of the rules could make interinstitutional legislative procedures more effective, more transparent and more comprehensive. Furthermore, in order to strengthen representative democracy at European level, it is essential to implement principles for openness and democratic accountability through the introduction of certain binding rules. New rules should in all cases take into account the requirements of efficiency and should not make the first reading procedure heavier.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Committee on Constitutional Affairs was invited to review Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure by the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament, with a view to making the procedures more effective, more transparent and more inclusive through the incorporation of some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedures in the binding part of the Rules and, in particular, those parts on: the decision of a committee to enter into negotiation; the decision on the composition and mandate of the negotiating team; the regular report-back to the committee concerned on the progress and outcome of the negotiations, including any agreement reached; and the re-consultation of the committee on the text agreed before the vote in plenary. The public nature of debates and votes has been linked to democratic accountability: if voters are not able to know what their elected representatives have said and how they have voted, they will not be able to hold them to account at the next elections. The transparency measures tabled here are praiseworthy and, for this reason, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The reform of Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure has been on the cards for some time because of the need for the fundamental principles of democracy and transparency to be properly implemented. This proposal will be implemented through the incorporation of some key elements of the Code of conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedures. More specifically, these changes are inherent in the committee’s preliminary decisions regarding negotiations, understood to be a condition sine qua non for the negotiations to proceed, and to the regular report-back by the committee on the progress of the negotiations. The excellence of this amendment can be inferred in the light of a new, clearer reading of the Code of conduct and the correct way of conducting negotiations. Democracy, transparency and the correct amount of procedural flexibility are better guaranteed by this amendment. In the light of what I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The provisions of this Code focus primarily on transparency, legitimacy and efficiency, with the committee(s) involved as the key actor(s) for such negotiations. They deal with issues such as the initiation by committees of negotiations with the Council and the Commission, stressing that, as a rule, Parliament should make use of all stages of the ordinary legislative procedure and that agreements in the early stages should be the exception and should respect certain criteria; the composition and mandate of the negotiating team; the organisation of trilogues and the assistance offered to the EP negotiators; feedback to the committee responsible and its consideration of any agreement reached; the relevant responsibility at the conciliation stage being assumed by the EP Delegation to the Conciliation Committee.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The amendment of Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure on interinstitutional negotiations in legislative procedures is closely linked to the idea of ensuring greater transparency during debates and votes on negotiations. I think that the introduction of binding rules on negotiations in legislative procedures could have a positive impact on the need for speed and effectiveness in the procedural process, which until now has been too cumbersome. I view the proposal to introduce a procedure that is on the one hand more flexible but does not detract from in-depth political debate in particularly important cases, in a very positive light. We have here the chance to reassure voters that their elected representatives are following the principle of democratic accountability by guaranteeing that debates and votes are made public. Because I think this amendment could help to strengthen representative democracy at European level, I voted in favour.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour, but I would have liked the report to have been worded more clearly and to have given greater consideration to minorities.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. − (HU) By virtue of introducing binding rules increasing accountability, the report aims to make ordinary legislative procedures more efficient and transparent. The European Parliament provides its citizens with an opportunity to know what their elected Members of Parliament are saying and how they are voting during individual legislative procedures. This public nature of debates and voting strengthens representative democracy at European level.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The amendment of Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure on interinstitutional negotiations in legislative procedures aims to increase transparency and accountability so as to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament. Therefore, it incorporates rules from the Code of conduct and from best practice in the Rules of Procedure and makes them legally binding. Furthermore, it seeks to make it possible for negotiations to be opened before the adoption of a report at first reading where approved by one political group or 40 Members. Opening voting early should be justified in terms of the following cases: political priorities, the uncontroversial or ‘technical’ nature of documents, an urgent situation and the attitude of a given Presidency. I voted in favour of this proposal as I believe it is important to launch negotiating procedures, cutting the democratic deficit that is pointed out time and time again to the European Parliament.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the decision on amendment of Rule 70 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on interinstitutional negotiations in legislative procedures. Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure is useful when the three institutions – Parliament, the Commission and the Council – negotiate on legislative instruments of interest to the EU. Negotiations with the other institutions aimed at reaching an agreement in the course of a legislative procedure shall be conducted having regard to the Code of conduct laid down by the Conference of Presidents. Such negotiations shall not be entered into prior to the adoption by the committee responsible, on a case-by-case basis for every legislative procedure concerned and by a majority of its members, of a decision on the opening of negotiations. That decision shall determine the mandate and the composition of the negotiating team. The mandate shall consist of a report adopted in committee and tabled for later consideration by Parliament. The negotiating team shall be led by the rapporteur and presided over by the Chair of the committee responsible or by a Vice-Chair designated by the Chair. It shall comprise at least the shadow rapporteurs from each political group. Any decision by a committee on the opening of negotiations prior to the adoption of a report in committee shall be translated into all the official languages, distributed to all Members of Parliament and submitted to the Conference of Presidents.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The amendments made to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure by this report are aimed at institutionalising an interinstitutional negotiating procedure that has been conducted abusively by the largest political groups in the European Parliament. In other words, trilogue negotiations begin without groups like our own – the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left – having had the opportunity to table any proposals. In this way, this amendment to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure is aimed at limiting the ability of those that disagree with the majority in the European Parliament to intervene, make proposals and raise complaints. This attitude flies in the face of all the marketing about how the European institutions are being made increasingly democratic.

- Report: Stanimir Ilchev (A7-0336/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report which stresses the importance of limiting the current dual system (translation and interpretation). It costs EUR 8.6 million per year to maintain this system. Bearing in mind the current context of economic crisis and given that the majority of the Member States and the EU in general are having to shoulder considerable costs arising from the implementation of measures to consolidate the public accounts as is necessary and find a sustainable balance in their budgets, it is important that the bureaucratic machinery of Brussels also put forward solutions to manage its resources more carefully without damaging the effectiveness of its services and while maintaining workers’ rights.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (GA) An Irish language version of this Parliament’s website is needed now. For almost six years this Parliament has breached the principle of non-discrimination, by producing its website in 22 of the 23 official EU languages, but not in Irish. This blatant discrimination against the marginalised cannot be justified. The Irish language derogation does not justify it - it concerns legislation, and not communication with the public. Nor is there any shortage of qualified translators. For almost two years the EP has in fact been defying Council Regulation (EU) No 1257/2010, which says clearly, ‘The institutions will continue to take steps to improve access to information in Irish on the activities of the Union.’ The passing of this report on the recording of interventions in plenary should at least ensure that speeches made in Irish will remain on the website in Irish and not be removed as soon as they are translated into English; a small but important step. A formal complaint of language discrimination against the EP has now been lodged with the European Ombudsman. It is high time we had equality here.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The present situation demands a strong response from Parliament in terms of both efficiency and financial savings. The statistics for 2011 show that no Member has ever requested the translation of the entire verbatim report of proceedings in his or her own language. This was a pointless, superfluous expense that should quite rightly be restricted. I fully agree with the solutions explained in the report and with the work done by Mr Ilchev. In particular, the database from which citizens can watch all the video recordings translated into all the official languages is certainly an effective solution for preserving European multilingualism.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I supported, aims to rationalise the process of translation within our institution. Translation plays a key role in European democracy by making the work of Members of Parliament accessible to every European citizen. Nevertheless, in order to make savings and, given the introduction of audiovisual recordings of the proceedings with interpretation into all official languages, debates will no longer be translated in written form. Nevertheless, the content will remain accessible online at all times and in all the working languages of the European Union via the videos of debates in direct translation. Modern technologies are thus enabling us to make savings.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the report regarding limiting the translation of verbatim reports of proceedings (Rule 181 of the Rules of Procedure). According to the current Rule 181, translation of verbatim reports into all official languages is to be provided. However, this translation usually takes about four months and is expensive. Immediately after the sitting, an audiovisual record of the proceedings is produced and made available on the internet in all official languages. Members may also ask for extracts from the verbatim report to be translated at short notice. I believe that given the current economic climate and the EU institutions’ commitment to cost saving, it would be appropriate to replace this expensive system where the material is both interpreted and translated. Because all citizens have the opportunity to follow proceedings with interpretation to all official languages in real time, I believe that the current translation system should be changed.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report as I believe it continues to be necessary to maintain a system through which the decisions and proceedings of the European Parliament are accessible to citizens of the Union regardless of their nationality and the language they speak. Drawing up verbatim reports solely in their original language will result in greater budget and resource savings and at the same time uphold the principle of multilingualism. This is particularly important for maintaining the cultural and linguistic identity of all citizens, and also so as not to create certain hierarchies in terms of the official languages of the Union. In addition, the changes will not affect the system of simultaneous interpretation, which will continue to be done in all official languages of the Union.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) Institutional openness and the opportunity for the public to have access in real time to the working documents and the debates surrounding them are one of the foundations of representative democracy in the digital era. The improvements that the report proposes regarding the current services provided on Parliament’s website are heading in the right direction and in addition enable us to save resources without endangering multilingualism, which increases the number of users of those services.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this report because amendments to the Rule on translation of verbatim report of proceeding (compte rendu in extenso – CRE) were already adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in 2007 in the Richard Corbett report. Given Parliament’s commitments in drawing up the budget for 2012, the verbatim report would continue to exist as a multilingual document where speeches would be transcribed in their original language and translated into English only. Obviously individual Members would still be able to request translation in different languages of parts they were interested in.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on amending Rules 181 and 182 concerning verbatim reports of proceedings and Rule 182 concerning the audiovisual record of proceedings respectively. As part of the introduction of cost-saving measures for the 2013 budget, given the size of the budget allocated to translation in the European institutions, we must make savings in translation without putting into question the principle of multilingualism. This is why the reports will henceforth contain Members’ contributions solely in their own language.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with its premise of respecting the principle of multilingualism and making efforts to achieve greater budget and resource savings.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR), in writing. − (PL) What the European Parliament does must be as transparent as possible – this is what taxpayers want, so all changes which move in this direction must be supported.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In these times of budgetary discipline, the European Parliament is setting an example. I voted to adopt a sound measure: to amend Parliament’s Rules of Procedure to end the translation of the verbatim reports of proceedings of plenary sessions without jeopardising multilingualism. This translation was much too expensive. This measure will save almost EUR 8.6 million each year. Furthermore, every language will remain represented in the final report and anyone who wants to follow the debates can continue to watch the videos online, which are interpreted in real time in their language.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The institutions of the European Union should not be excluded from the current economic and financial necessities. Nevertheless, I believe that the demise of a verbatim report of proceedings in the official languages of the Union weakens European democracy and jeopardises equality between the Member States and the commitment to multilingualism that was always viewed as a necessary cost of integration. Without a verbatim report of proceedings in their respective language, citizens will no longer be guaranteed the right to follow the work of all the MEPs during plenary sessions and to understand debates in full and the exchange of views that takes place there. I do not think this is fair, nor is it conducive towards citizens identifying more with the Union. I believe that things would be better for Parliament if its work were more concentrated, thereby saving many millions of euros a year.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Stanimir Ilchev has tabled a report on amendment of Rule 181 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure concerning verbatim reports of proceedings and Rule 182 concerning the audiovisual record of proceedings. Notwithstanding the fact that Rule 146(1) provides that ‘all documents of Parliament shall be drawn up in the official languages’, in January 2012, the President informed the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of a decision taken by the Bureau to limit the translation of verbatim reports of proceedings as part of the commitments made by Parliament in the budget 2012 and mirroring the efforts made by the Member States in terms of curbing spending. I agree with the rapporteur when he states that ‘providing translation of verbatim reports into one language only would create a hierarchy among the official languages of the European Union and thus call into question the principle of multilingualism’. I am in favour of more efficient use of new technologies that could enable multilingual streaming, and that is why I voted in favour of the report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report seeks to do away with the verbatim report of each sitting that is drawn up in all the official languages of the European Union. In its stead, there would be just one multilingual verbatim report with all contributions appearing in their original language. We are facing yet another backward step in the area of respect for the principle of multilingualism. This is an attack against the right of citizens, all citizens, to be able to read the debates of the European Parliament in their own language. Allowing Members to request a translation of an extract from the verbatim report into any official language only very partially mitigates this backward step. This decision, which is supported by the majority of Parliament, under the pretext of cutting costs, comes hot on the heels of other cuts to translation and interpreting expenses, affecting parliamentary work and unacceptably discriminating against Members on the basis of their national origin. Moreover, jobs are being cut in the translation and interpreting services and more precarious labour relations are being championed in this area, which also cannot but affect the quality of the services.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) By letter of 13 January 2012, the President informed the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of a decision taken by the Bureau to limit the translation of verbatim reports of proceedings as part of the commitments made by Parliament in the budget 2012. According to the current Rule 181 translation of verbatim reports into all official languages is to be provided. At the same time and in accordance with Rule 182, an audiovisual record of the proceedings with interpretation into all official languages shall be made available to the public on the internet immediately after the sitting. Moreover, the proceedings are streamed in real time. Members may also ask for extracts from the verbatim report to be translated at short notice. After the adoption of the package of saving measures for the budget 2012, Parliament put into effect its budgetary commitments and started with translation of CRE into English only from July 2011. This situation is in contradiction with the current Rule 181 and Rule 146 and could put into question the principle of multilingualism. I therefore consider it justified to draw up CRE solely as a multilingual document in which all contributions appear only in their original language without any translation being automatically provided. Drawing up verbatim reports solely in their original language will result in greater budget and resource savings and at the same time uphold the principle of multilingualism.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this report. We are trying to make penny-pinching savings on the translation of debates as a whole into all the official languages of the European Union. What we call the verbatim reports of proceedings will only be available in writing in the languages in which the contributions were made. If you want to access the entire debate in your own language you will have to access the video transmission, the interpretations of which carry the clear warning that they are not faithful translations, since they are simultaneous and therefore subject to human error. The hitch is that you can only do this if you are able to access the videos on the Parliament website – a task which is beyond the average citizen, since our institution’s website is complex, non-intuitive and not user-friendly. In any case, this access is time-restricted. In short: the policy of transparency and openness you are burbling about is absolute hypocrisy.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We have adopted a report for which I was the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The report concerns the amendment of Rule 181 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure concerning verbatim reports of proceedings and Rule 182 concerning the audiovisual record of proceedings. Given the constrained budgetary context, the European Parliament wanted to contribute to making savings in the 2012 budget. The Office and the Committee on Budgets came to an agreement on 26 September 2011 to end the systematic translation into all our languages of the verbatim reports of the proceedings in plenary. However, this agreement also keeps the verbatim translation into English, for convenience sake. I believed that translating the reports into one language only – English – would create a hierarchy among the official languages of the European Union and thus put into question the principle of multilingualism. Therefore, I proposed that the reports should comprise Members’ contributions in their original language and that the translation into English should be cancelled, extending the principle of making savings on translations to its limit. The majority of the committee, then Parliament as a whole, agreed with me.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report as a sensible way of reducing costs in Parliament. I agree with the rapporteur, who considers that providing translation of verbatim reports into one language only would create a hierarchy among the official languages of the European Union and thus put into question the principle of multilingualism. It is therefore proposed to draw up the CRE solely as a multilingual document in which all contributions appear only in their original language, without any translation being automatically provided. Drawing up verbatim reports solely in their original language will result in greater budget and resource savings and at the same time uphold the principle of multilingualism.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Ilchev report on the amendment of Rule 181 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure concerning verbatim reports of proceedings and Rule 182 concerning the audiovisual record of proceedings. This report will enable Parliament to make major cost reductions in the area of translation, since the verbatim reports of Members’ contributions in their original language will no longer be translated into the other languages.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Under the pretext of savings from the budget, this report will make the translation of contributions in plenary obligatory only if requested by a Member! Making savings at the expense of the translations required for Members’ work is absolutely shameful. Under this system, no research work into Members’ oral contributions will be possible, either for Members or for European citizens! We are referred to the video of oral contributions (there is nothing for the written contributions) and to their unofficial translation. These are not proper working methods! Henceforth, Members’ assistants will have to listen to the speeches and transcribe them and citizens will have to guess where the videos are hiding in order to access this information! I denounce this damaging report and call upon my colleagues to review their priorities with regard to budgetary savings.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The budgetary restrictions to which we are all subject sometimes mean we have to make certain choices. Although I do not agree with the proposed amendments, I believe that they are necessary at this time of economic crisis.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Taking into account the current economic crisis, the report stresses the importance of limiting the current dual system (translation and interpretation). It takes around four months for these verbatim reports to be translated into all 23 languages, and costs EUR 8.6 million per year. The proposal is to stop the automatic translation of all proceedings and instead to publish a multilingual document with all speeches appearing in the original language they were given in. Members would retain the right to request that parts of the proceedings are translated into another language.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − I support this resolution because the principle of multilingualism should be implemented in the activities of all EU institutions, especially the European Parliament, and all obstacles to such implementation should be removed. Europe is home to a variety of cultures and languages and therefore it is essential to ensure that all Member States and all EU citizens have equal possibilities in terms of communication with the EU and equal rights to be informed about EU legal acts. Given the above, I believe that translation of verbatim reports into one language only would create a hierarchy among the official languages of the European Union and would prevent legal security.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The limiting of the current dual system (translation and interpretation) approved by this report do not jeopardise the principle of multilingualism. In the context of the current economic climate, and bearing in mind the commitments made by Parliament in the 2012 budget process, the proposed restrictions are understandable. In this way, it stipulates that the CRE – the verbatim report of proceedings – will feature all contributions in their original language only, without any translation into one language only being automatically provided, with it thus remaining a multilingual document only. Drawing up the verbatim report in the original language only will effectively lead to greater budget and resource savings, as intended, and will apparently respect the principle of multilingualism. Nevertheless, I have to emphasise that this is a first, and I hope one-off, exception to the translation of all speeches given in the European Parliament into the 23 official languages of the Union. It is worth highlighting that current technology provides all citizens with an audiovisual record of the proceedings with interpretation into all official languages, not only immediately after the sitting, but in real time as well. For these reasons I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In view of the current economic situation and the many commitments that Parliament has taken on in the context of the 2012 budgetary procedure, it seems correct and appropriate to limit use of the double system of translation, because it is excessively expensive and is not essential. An audiovisual recording of the debates with the interpretation is already provided, in real time, in all the languages. Rule 181 currently provides for a full verbatim report of proceedings in all languages. This takes four months to produce and paying the interpreters who do it is not cheap. Following the amendment of Rule 181, the verbatim report will still exist as a multilingual document containing the speeches transcribed in their original languages and translated only into English, so as to save money without invalidating the final objective. In the light of what I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This report aims to update the rules, codifying the new practice of no longer translating the verbatim reports in full in all languages. The Bureau has recently decided to limit translation following an agreement in the budget procedure for the financial year 2012 and the President asked AFCO to draft a report on the possible amendment of Rule 181. The rapporteur agreed to limit the current dual system for reasons of cost and redundancy and taking into account technological solutions but he considered that providing translation of the verbatim report into one language only would create a hierarchy among the official languages of the EU and put into question the principle of multilingualism. He therefore proposed to draw them up only in the original language, with a positive side effect of allowing even greater budget and resource savings. He kept the proposal that Members can demand a translation of extracts. If necessary the translation shall be provided at short notice. Furthermore audiovisual records plus the multilingual soundtrack from the active interpretation booths will have to be available on the EP website during the current and next parliamentary term and then preserved in the records.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In line with the austerity measures being taken by the Member States, the European Parliament has taken some decisions as regards administrative cuts. Hence the decision to restrict the translation of the verbatim report of proceedings. Restricting the current double system of translation and interpreting, which is quite expensive, is a small contribution by Parliament against the backdrop of the current economic crisis. I also think that, with the adoption of a single multilingual document, two important requirements can be met. One is cutting costs and the other is that, in choosing one language only, a hierarchy would be created among the official languages of the European Union.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The European Parliament is monitoring the efforts being made by Member States amidst the current economic crisis, and has adopted a package of cost-saving measures for the 2012 budget. As part of this, Parliament has committed to reducing administrative expenses, which includes restricting the automatic translation of the verbatim reports into all languages. I vote in favour of limiting the current dual system – translation and interpretation – which is costly. In my opinion, drawing up verbatim reports solely in their original language will result in greater budget and resource savings and at the same time uphold the principle of multilingualism. Using modern technologies, Parliament not only makes audio and video recordings available online to anyone after the sessions, but also provides simultaneous interpretation during the live broadcasts into all official languages of the Union.

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. − Mr Ilchev’s timely amendment manages to strike the right balance between an inclusive multilingual Parliament, and the need to be realistic in our attitude both to budgets and language policy. One of the fundamental assets of the European Union is its diversity of peoples, cultures and languages, but Parliament cannot sustain a political Tower of Babel – not least one demanding over EUR 1 billion in annual translation costs. I appreciate that, as an English speaker, I have a natural advantage in this House, but Parliament cannot allow boundless language proliferation at vast expense to European taxpayers. The UN, with 193 members, manages very well with six official languages, and the Council of Europe, with 47 members, operates with just two languages. I therefore welcome the compromise that allows citizens to listen to parliamentary speeches in their own languages, but which limits a further written translation service that we simply cannot afford.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of these amendments. Following the economic and financial crisis, Parliament agreed to add its efforts to those agreed by the Member States and committed to take a series of measures intended to make savings. In short, the three amendments affect the irrelevant, under-used translations of the CRE.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) According to Rule 181 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the verbatim report should be translated in full into all the official languages. However, given the economic context which is forcing cuts to be made in Parliament’s budget, this report seeks to limit the dual system of translation and interpretation. Furthermore, Rule 182 of the Rules of Procedure provides for an audiovisual record of proceedings with interpretation into all official languages to be made available on the internet, and this will remain available and accessible through new technologies enabling multilingual web browsing, thus making it possible to access all plenary contributions by speaker. I am voting in favour of this report since it does not jeopardise the multilingualism upon which the European project is based, ‘united in diversity’.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the amendment of Rule 181 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure concerning verbatim reports of proceedings and Rule 182 concerning the audiovisual record of proceedings. Against the backdrop of the current economic and financial crisis, Parliament wanted to apply a package of cost-saving measures for the 2012 budget. Therefore, CRE will be drawn up solely as a multilingual document in which all contributions appear only in their original language without any translation being automatically provided. Drawing up verbatim reports solely in their original language will result in greater budget savings and at the same time uphold the principle of multilingualism. Oral contributions will appear in their original language, and speakers may make corrections to typescripts of their oral contributions within five working days. At the same time, the proceedings of Parliament in the languages in which they are conducted, as well as the multilingual soundtrack from all active interpretation booths, shall be broadcast in real time on its website. Immediately after the sitting, an indexed audiovisual record of the proceedings in the languages in which they were conducted, as well as the multilingual soundtrack from all active interpretation booths, shall be produced and made available on Parliament’s website during the current and the next parliamentary term, after which it shall be preserved in the records of Parliament.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − As rapporteur on Parliament’s budget I welcome the report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs which puts forward effective ways of working within a more restrictive budget for interpretation and translation. I strongly believe that Members should have the ability to work effectively in their own language. However, scope for savings in this area has been identified and we can see from this report the high cost for translation of verbatim transcripts, which stands at over EUR 8.6 million per year. I support calls for a ‘rainbow issue’ of proceedings, which would mean that a speech would only be transcribed in the language in which it is delivered. I also support the measure giving Members the right to request the translation of any transcript into their own language and am happy that these translations will be fast-tracked. I fully support this report and believe that it has found the right balance between making savings in Parliament’s budget and not jeopardising the work of Members.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) In my view, translation and interpretation is both costly and rather redundant. The current technology provides to all citizens an audiovisual record of the proceedings with interpretation into all official languages not only immediately after the sitting but in real time as well, and for this reason I voted in favour of a change to the current system of translation.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − I am pleased that Parliament has adopted this report which will help reduce the budget of its translation services. Parliament needs to make cuts as our citizens face austerity following the financial crisis. But we are simply not cutting the budget hard enough. In fact Parliament is looking for increases in its information budget. Parliament is wasting over EUR 100 million on follies such as the House of European History. It has also asked for a 9 % increase in the budget of the so-called ‘Parlamentarium’. This visitors centre has been plagued with budget overspends and schedule overruns. Now that it is finally open, it was described by a visitor on TripAdvisor as being ‘impersonal’, ‘confusing’ and leaving the visitor ‘not having learned anything new’. So why are we increasing its budget? Transparency is important, but do our citizens really need 34 Information Offices, which employ over 200 personnel at a cost of EUR 50 million a year? And finally, the elephant in the room – Strasbourg. If we were to scrap Strasbourg we would save over EUR 200 million annually. By refusing to make these necessary cuts, Parliament will certainly lose the confidence of its citizens.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) What is being adopted here – replacing the verbatim report of the proceedings of each sitting, drawn up in all the official languages, with a multilingual report in which all contributions will appear in their original language – does not respect the principle of multilingualism and constitutes a backward step in terms of the rights of citizens to be able to read the debates of the European Parliament in their own language. This is yet another sign of disrespect for the linguistic, cultural and identity differences of the various Member States. The path of financial cuts and job cuts entails a huge loss of quality in the service and a further distancing of the various nationalities in the European Union.

- Report: Wim van de Camp (A7-0445/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I can endorse this report as I believe it is essential that we simplify the current regulatory framework and there is a need to set out new technical and administrative requirements for the sake of rationality, clarity and simplification. This new framework will be in line with current needs, both in terms of better market surveillance, emission levels and the level of safety, which, in my opinion, is a key issue as regards this type of vehicle with the mandatory introduction of anti-lock braking systems (ABS) in new motorcycles up to 50 cc. I think that the efforts worth highlighting are those that regard safety parameters for road users and the lower carbon emissions from these vehicles, which achieves a more comprehensive objective that consists of protecting the environment whilst at the same time improving the functioning of the internal market.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this resolution, which sets new rules for stricter emission levels and safety requirements for motorcycles. Two- or three-wheel vehicles account for only 2 % of transport but represent around 16 % of the total number of road deaths on European roads. Furthermore, when the new rules take effect, the administrative burden for motorcycle manufacturers will be reduced as the new Regulation will replace 15(!) existing directives. I agree with the rapporteur that while human behaviour as well as the impact of the driving conditions are very important when it comes to safe driving, the safety issue related to the technical features of the vehicle has to be properly addressed. This is why we, the Members of the European Parliament, vote for the introduction of mandatory anti-lock brake systems (ABS) on all new motorcycles, with the exception of Enduro and Trial motorcycles.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which received broad support in the European Parliament, aims to reform the rules regarding two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. One of the key points is the mandatory introduction of advanced braking systems at affordable prices (anti-lock braking system (ABS) or combined braking system (CBS)) on all new motorcycles.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal, which sets out stricter emission levels and safety requirements for two- or three-wheel vehicles (L-category). These vehicles account for only 2 % of road transport but represent as much as 16 % of total fatal accidents. The new Regulation aims to replace 15 existing directives and therefore the administrative burden for the manufacturers of these vehicles will be greatly reduced. The proposals for these vehicles will contribute to more efficient, safe and clean urban mobility. I support the proposals regarding mandatory introduction of anti-lock brake systems (ABS) on all new motorcycles. I also agree that all L-category vehicles should be equipped with an automated headlight on (AHO) feature in order to improve their visibility.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) On 4 October 2010 the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. This range of vehicles falls under the ‘L-category’, of which the number currently in circulation in the EU is estimated at more than 30 million. The proposal aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, in particular on environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance. I support the main objectives proposed by the regulation as they improve the functioning of the internal market and protect the essential interests of the general public. Some amendments have been put forward, such as a more straightforward and more transparent timetable for implementation; there is support for the introduction of more stringent emission limits and the mandatory introduction of anti-lock braking systems (ABS) on all new motorcycles, except Enduro and Trial motorcycles.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) This regulation must help to improve the operating safety of vehicles that account for around 16 % of the total number of road deaths in Europe. However, motorcycles and quadricycles only represent 2 % of the vehicles on the road. Despite the protests the rules have provoked, I agree with the opinions on improving braking mechanisms, having headlights come on automatically on start up and gradually incorporating auto-diagnostic instruments to detect faults in the systems that are vital to the safety of the vehicle. I also think the commitment we have made to carry out an evaluation before extending this regulation to other types of vehicles is a prudent one.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. Certain current legal provisions have been found to be too complicated and so it is aimed to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, for example on environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance of the vehicles in question. Some of the main requirements also relate to emission reduction, improving road safety and taking better account of new technologies, such as L-category hybrid vehicles. I believe that the requirements would facilitate the transition to more efficient, safe and clean urban mobility.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. I support this report, which aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, especially on environmental and safety aspects.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the objectives of simplifying the current legal framework and establishing new administrative and technical requirements, including as regards environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of this report will make motorcycles safer and cleaner. Technologies are changing rapidly and making roads safer day by day. We are changing the rules in order to take these developments into consideration and use the best of them. In particular, this report will ensure that motorcycles will be safer, thanks to anti-lock braking systems, and better monitored, in order to reduce accidents.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In the European Union, riders of powered two-wheelers account for only 2 % of the distance travelled but 16 % of road deaths. This statistic cannot be tolerated. Reducing this figure requires an improvement both in the safety of motorcycles and similar vehicles and in road infrastructure. The proposals move in the right direction, whether they concern anti-lock braking systems for vehicles with a capacity of over 125 cm3 or automatic headlight on. However, the planning of road space equally requires Parliament’s attention. We know about the danger of some infrastructure, such as slippery white lines and sharp-edged crash barriers. These issues need some deeper thinking on our part. Finally, there should be a greater emphasis on prevention in road safety terms. We need to consider a genuine culture of prevention and more frequent awareness-raising campaigns. In this respect, I should point out that awareness-raising initiatives carried out over a long period to combat accidents in the home have proved their effectiveness and should inspire us.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which improves transparency and access to information for users in the market for two- and three-wheel vehicles. The new safety and environment measures will benefit all European citizens, since they are designed to reduce accidents and carbon emissions.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it helps to improve the functioning of the internal market in two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles, as well as protecting the essential interests of users. The proposed requirements for L-category vehicles can also contribute to the transition to more efficient, safer and cleaner urban mobility.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) We should welcome the simplification of European legislation for these types of vehicle and the improvement in their safety. In times of crisis, I believe that we should not give in to the temptation to make it too easy for people to travel in vehicles that are not safe, but by the same token we should not overburden consumers with unnecessary or irrelevant demands. I do hope that the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles will benefit from the new measures and that they will result in increased mobility and safety. I would like the new rules to allow European dealers and manufacturers to retain market share and even increase the current number of jobs.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Two-wheelers account for the most deaths on European roads, being involved in more than 60 % of the total, yet they represent only 2 % of total kilometres driven. In addition, they are considered the most polluting vehicles. The report drawn up by Wim van de Camp focuses on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. I welcome the new proposal for a regulation which simplifies the current legal framework, introducing significant improvements which will make new two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles less polluting, give them more effective safety systems (especially as regards braking and lighting), at the same time as giving businesses a period to adapt to the new rules. I welcome the adoption of this text, on which I voted in favour. Its objective is to reduce the number of fatalities on the roads and I welcome the introduction of technical innovations to improve safety, such as anti-lock braking systems (ABS).

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The proposal for a regulation covers the approval and market surveillance of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. Its objective is to improve the functioning of the internal market and its surveillance. The rapporteur believes that ‘with the proposal the European Commission aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, for example on environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance’. We welcome the introduction of environmental requirements for L-category vehicles and we support the introduction of more stringent emission limits, as well as the introduction of safety measures linked to the technical characteristics of vehicles such as ‘the mandatory introduction of anti-lock brake systems (ABS) on all new motorcycles’. As regards the rest, the comments made are equally valid for the report on agricultural and forestry tractors.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The Commission adopted on 4 October 2010 a proposal for a new regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. A wide range of vehicles fall under the ‘L-category’: mopeds, two- or three-wheel motorcycles, quads and mini-cars. The number of L-vehicles currently in circulation in the EU is estimated at over 30 million. With the proposal the European Commission aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, for example on environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance. Type-approval requirements for new, L-category vehicles are currently set out in Framework Directive 2002/24/EC and 14 other Directives referring to it. These will be repealed and replaced by the proposal laying down the fundamental provisions and scope. Detailed technical requirements will be defined at a later stage in delegated acts. The Commission proposal results in an ambitious but rather complex set of dates and deadlines. In the interest of clarity, rationality and simplification, I believe it is justified to consider a more transparent timetable, with clear and decisive steps as regards better market surveillance, more severe emission levels and mandatory safety requirements. This allows the industry and national administrations time to properly adapt to the new requirements and responsibilities.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The industry of two-wheel vehicles plays an important role within the European Union in terms of the economy and jobs. With a view to improving the operation of the single market, we need to have, on the one hand, unlimited access to vehicle repair information by having technical information compiled in a standardised format, and on the other hand, genuine competition on the market for vehicle repair and maintenance information services. I voted in favour of the report by Mr van de Camp as his innovative proposals may succeed in managing many problems related to type approvals and market surveillance within the motorcycle sector. I believe that this long-awaited report suitably draws attention to the motorcycle sector, and to which requirements are expected for the manufacture of two-, three- and four-wheel vehicles.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) European and Italian manufacturers are at last benefiting from the simplification of European legislation. The regulation adopted today replaces more than ten existing Directives on the subject. Today’s vote shows that we are striving for a safer Europe with better protection of the environment. The proposal introduces stricter rules on safety and emissions for two-wheeled vehicles, as well as improving the functioning of the internal market. The new regulation will enter into force from 2016 and will cover all two- or three-wheeled motorised vehicles from powered cycles to the most powerful motorcycles.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, because I believe it is important to have safer and more environmentally friendly motorcycles. There are 30 million mopeds, scooters, motorcycles, off-road vehicles and quads. Their riders represent around 16 % of the total number of road deaths in the EU but account for only 2 % of the total kilometres driven. We cannot allow the users of these vehicles to remain in such a dangerous situation. Therefore, we need these vehicles to comply with very rigorous functional safety requirements and emissions standards. The aim is to make motorcycles and similar vehicles safer – with, for example, greater application of assisted braking (anti-lock or combined braking system) – and more environmentally friendly (harmonisation with European standards). Automatic headlight activation will also be promoted, although left to Member States’ discretion. This report will also benefit manufacturers, since they will benefit from a new regulation replacing the existing 15 directives, which ought to simplify their market and enhance their visibility and prospects.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I support the report, and I voted in favour of it because in my view it will bring about an improvement in the functioning of the single market. I support the main aims of the report, which are a simplification of the current legal framework and specification of new administrative and technical requirements relating to the environment and safety and to market surveillance, as regards the requirements concerning type approval of category L vehicles. A better classification of vehicles is needed in order to ensure safer and more effective mobility, which will play an important role in the subsequent building of a single market. To achieve this aim, an ambitious but also a precise and simple schedule setting out the stages of market surveillance, tougher emissions levels and mandatory requirements in the sphere of safety will be needed. Thought should also be given to new drive technologies and enabling the type approval of category L vehicles fitted with such technology. In my view, the question of safety in respect of category L vehicles is of particular importance. Studies have shown that it is specifically drivers of vehicles of this category who are significantly more prone to serious accidents. The mandatory use of anti-lock brake systems (ABS) or automatic headlight on (AHO) for all new motorcycles, are elements that would definitely lead to an improvement in the level of safety. I think it is also very important to ensure equal access to information on repairs and maintenance, as well as recognising the variety of SMEs operating in the sector.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption by a large majority on Tuesday, 20 November of the report on the approval and market surveillance of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles, of which there are 30 million in circulation in the European Union. Their riders represent around 16 % of the total number of road deaths in the EU but account for only 2 % of the total kilometres driven. Therefore, we need to establish new administrative and technical rules in order to ensure that these vehicles are better protected and reduce their pollutant emissions. I particularly support the compulsory introduction of anti-lock braking systems and the combined braking system, and automatic headlight activation, to make these vehicles more visible, and the strengthening of penalties against individuals who illegally tamper with their vehicles to increase their maximum speed, thus becoming a danger to other road users’ safety.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The Commission's original proposal was deeply concerning to the biker community and I was inundated with letters and emails on this subject. The final agreement is a vast improvement and the biker lobby should be congratulated on their effective campaign. Many of the blanks in the legislation have still to be filled in - and so motorcyclists will continue to play an important role in shaping the law.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. Over 30 million vehicles labelled as L-category (covering mopeds, two-or-three-wheeled motorcycles, quad bikes and mini-cars) circulate around Europe and their drivers face a much higher risk of fatal or serious injuries than drivers of cars or trucks. Raising safety standards is the main concern. In 2007 motorcycles and similar vehicles accounted for only 2 % of the distance travelled but 16 % of road deaths in the EU. Even one death on the roads is already too many. This is why I supported the introduction of mandatory anti-lock brake systems (ABS) on all new motorcycles, including motorcycles up to 50 cc. The industry will now have to include ABS on all new motorcycles over 125 cc – in 2016 (for new types of vehicles) and 2017 (for existing types of vehicles). For motorcycles between 50 cc and 125 cc, manufacturers can choose between ABS and Combined Breaking System (CBS). But this new regulation brings more legal clarity at last because it simplifies the 15 directives which currently relate to these types of vehicles and it establishes more subcategories within category L.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the approval and market surveillance of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles in order to make two-wheel vehicles safer and more environmentally friendly. Riders of these vehicles represent around 16 % of the total number of road deaths in the EU but account for only 2 % of the total kilometres driven. From 2016, anti-lock braking systems and combined braking systems will be installed on motorcycles and scooters.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) More than 70 % of the Union’s population lives in urban areas while approximately 85 % of the Union’s GDP is generated in cities. All major cities in Europe aim to reduce congestion, accidents and pollution. Better type-approval requirements for L-category vehicles can facilitate the transition to more efficient, safe and clean urban mobility. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I agree with the adoption of the new rules to reinforce safety and environmental requirements for motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, quadricycles and off-road vehicles, because these vehicles, although accounting for only 2 % of the total kilometres driven, are responsible for 16 % of all fatalities on European roads.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The importance of the motorcycle as a means of transport is continuing to grow each year. Therefore, we need to make transparent, straightforward, harmonised and consistent rules regarding safety, certification and environmental protection for these vehicles that benefit enterprises and users. Riders of these types of vehicles belong to a vulnerable group with the highest injury and fatality rates among all road users. We must introduce effective primary safety measures to provide riders with vehicles equipped with the safest reasonably affordable technologies. I also share the view that we must introduce more severe limits on their pollutant emissions.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. - (SK) The number of L-vehicles, which include mopeds, two- or three-wheel motorcycles, quads and mini-cars, is currently estimated at over 30 million. Legal and technical requirements for the approval of new L-category vehicles are currently set out in the Framework Directive 2002/24/EC and 14 other Directives, which contributes to a lack of clarity and interpretive complexity. I therefore welcome the replacement of the present Directives by the proposal laying down the fundamental provisions and scope while technical details will then be defined in delegated acts. When defining the safety standards, we must aim to protect the life and health of drivers of L-category vehicles, as the risk of their being killed in an accident is up to 18 times higher compared with car drivers. I therefore support the mandatory introduction of anti-lock braking systems on new motorcycles, the use of which would result in an estimated prevention of 20 to 35 % of all accidents or a significant reduction in the severity of the impact of accidents. With regard to environmental aspects, I agree with the adoption of more stringent emission limits for toxic substances in a reasonably specified time frame in order to enable the industry to smoothly adapt to new requirements.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − We achieve higher safety standards for road users and lower emissions from two-wheel type vehicles in order to protect the environment as well as guaranteeing the well functioning of the Internal Market.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) In order to ensure the efficient functioning of the internal market, harmonised and coordinated rules should be laid down for two- and three-wheel vehicles across the EU. This would provide legal certainty and clarity without causing any negative effects for businesses and consumers. The establishment of transparent, simple and consistent rules could simplify the current legal framework, remove legal loopholes and ensure appropriate market surveillance. It would also improve road safety and reduce emissions. Effective coordination and monitoring at Union and national level should be established to ensure that the provisions of this Regulation are implemented appropriately.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I support the objectives of the proposed regulation, given that it improves the functioning of the internal market while protecting essential public interests, particularly more effective surveillance of the European market. Moreover, the proposed requirements for L-category vehicles can facilitate transition to more efficient, safer and cleaner urban mobility, bringing clear benefits to society. Of note are the new measures to promote access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In view of the genuine end that this proposal for a regulation aims to pursue as regards improved functioning of the internal market so as to achieve greater efficiency in that market, it is to be hoped that the requirements laid down for L-category vehicles will be instrumental in delivering safer, cleaner urban mobility. The number of L-vehicles currently in circulation in the EU is estimated at over 30 million. With this proposal the Commission aims to simplify the current legal framework and add a point concerning the introduction of new administrative and technical requirements, particularly on environmental and safety aspects of motorcycles. L-category drivers face a much higher risk of fatal or serious accidents than drivers of other vehicles. It is because of this alarming statistic that the proposal has been made to introduce a regulation to cut the number of these tragic accidents. In the light of what I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) On 4 October 2010 the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. This range of vehicles falls under the L-category, of which the number currently in circulation in the EU is estimated at more than 30 million. The proposal aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, in particular on environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance. I voted in favour as I agree with the main objectives of the regulation and with the main amendments introduced by the rapporteur.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today we gave the green light to new rules that will make motorcycles safer and greener. From 2016, the rules will apply to all two- or three-wheeled motorised vehicles from powered cycles to the most powerful motorcycles. These vehicles are involved in 16 % of road deaths in the EU but account for only 2 % of road traffic, and this is why we have approved tighter safety requirements and imposed stricter targets for reducing polluting emissions. Driving a motor vehicle safely obviously depends mainly on the motorcyclist driving responsibly, but there is always potential to make vehicles safer and cleaner. The new rules to make motorcycles safer include a requirement for motorcycles above 125 cc to be fitted with anti-lock braking systems (ABS), while ABS or a combined braking system (CBS) can be adapted to less powerful vehicles (below 125 cc), including scooters.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Riders of two- and three-wheel vehicles represent around 16 % of the total number of road deaths in the EU but account for only 2 % of the total kilometres driven. Furthermore, the pollutant emissions of these vehicles are disproportionately high. There is a need to revise the rules in force in order to make these vehicles both safer and less polluting, and I welcome the adoption of this report by Parliament. From 2016, the more powerful motorcycles (capacity greater than 125 cc) will have to be equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS), and the less powerful ones (capacity lower than 125 cc) will have to be equipped at the minimum with combined braking systems (CBS). Furthermore, in order to improve their visibility to other traffic participants, an automatic headlight on (AHO) feature will also be introduced. The report also includes requirements in terms of these vehicles’ compliance with emissions standards: these requirements will increase gradually and reach Euro 5 emissions limits in 2020. The report also specifies the introduction of increasingly advanced on-board diagnostic systems (OBD), which will enable users to detect malfunctions and have them repaired where necessary.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 4 October 2010 the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. A wide range of vehicles fall within the L-category: mopeds, two- or three-wheel motorcycles, quads and mini-cars. The number of L-vehicles currently in circulation in the EU is estimated at over 30 million. With this proposal the European Commission aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, for example on environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance. Type approval requirements for new, L-category vehicles are currently set out in Framework Directive 2002/24/EC and 14 other Directives referring to it. These will be repealed and replaced by the proposal laying down the fundamental provisions and scope. Detailed technical requirements will be defined at a later stage in delegated acts.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I decided to vote in favour of this report because the measure will simplify the current regulatory framework and will introduce new administrative and technical requirements concerning the environment, safety and market surveillance for two- and three-wheeled vehicles and quadricycles. The issues that, to my mind, require further attention are identification of the scope of the proposal for a regulation to remove some inconsistencies and reflect the categories of manufacture, make the timetable for application simple and clear to prevent problems for manufacturers with having to introduce the new features required by the regulation too quickly, and introduction of environmental requirements that manufacturers do not find it excessively difficult to comply with.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I cannot but support the proposal for a regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheeled vehicles and quadricycles. The new rules being introduced, besides simplifying the regulatory framework, will enable the environmental, safety and market surveillance aspects to be improved. I think that more severe standards for emissions are necessary because, together with the introduction of a regulatory framework covering hybrid and electric vehicles, they are essential for meeting the environmental targets. In my opinion, raising the issue of road safety in this context, in view of the need to make drivers fully aware of it by emphasising the importance of human behaviour when it comes to driving, is an important step towards creating more efficient urban mobility. In the hope that the introduction of these new rules will also be accompanied by better market surveillance, so that vehicles that do not meet the approval requirements cannot be put on the market, I voted in favour.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour, but I would have liked the request that I have been making since the beginning of the parliamentary term regarding controlling the noise pollution produced by what is known as the ‘open exhaust’ on motorcycles to have been taken into account.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal for a regulation aims to simplify the current legal framework by incorporating Framework Directive 2002/24/EC and 14 related directives into one single proposal, and to establish new administrative and technical requirements on environmental and safety aspects. This legal clarity will improve the functioning of the internal market and at the same time protect the industry and consumers. For this reason, I agree with the rapporteur’s proposed timeframe, as it will enable the industry and national governments to adapt to the new requirements.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. The Regulation aims to lay down harmonised rules for the approval of L-category vehicles, with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market. L-category vehicles are two-, three- or four-wheel vehicles such as powered two-wheel vehicles, tricycles, on-road quads and mini-cars. The Regulation aims to simplify the current legal framework, to reduce L-category vehicle emissions, to increase the overall level of safety and to strengthen the rules on market surveillance. In the interests of clarity, predictability, rationality and simplification, and to reduce the burdens for vehicle manufacturers, this Regulation should contain a limited number of implementation stages for the introduction of new emission levels and new safety requirements. The industry should be allowed sufficient time to adapt to the new provisions laid down in this Regulation. Timely definition of requirements is essential to ensuring sufficient lead time for manufacturers to develop, test and implement technical solutions on production vehicles, and for manufacturers and type-approval authorities in the Member States to put in place the necessary administrative systems.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the new certification rules for two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles because ultimately they will improve safety for two-wheel users, who are very vulnerable, representing as they do a sixth of deaths on European roads, despite travelling only 2 % of the total distance. Anti-lock braking systems will be mandatory for motorcycles over 125 cc, and the increase in cost should be generally limited by the widespread implementation of this equipment, as has been the case with automobiles. Furthermore, new antipollution standards will be applied gradually between 2016 and 2020. Finally, the entry into force of this regulation in 2016 will signal the end for French motorcyclists of the 100 hp restriction on motorcycles, which has never really proved effective in terms of road safety and could cause insurance cover problems, for example, for a non-restricted vehicle bought abroad.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − I supported this legislation, which will simplify the rules governing motorcycles and other two- and three-wheeled vehicles across the EU. The Regulation also imposes higher safety standards on such vehicles, and this was the most important element for Labour MEPs as currently a disproportionately high number of road deaths involve motorcyclists. Emission reduction measures included in the legislation should result in more efficient and cleaner vehicles; this is not only good for consumers, but good for the environment as well.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The regulation aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, for example on environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance. Type-approval requirements for new, L-category vehicles are currently set out in Framework Directive 2002/24/EC and 14 other Directives referring to it. These will be repealed and replaced by the proposal laying down the fundamental provisions and scope. It will also enable better surveillance of the European market, and in addition the proposed requirements for L-category vehicles can facilitate the transition to more efficient, safe and clean urban mobility.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr van de Camp’s text on the new regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheeled vehicles and quadricycles. Safety will be improved with anti-lock braking systems (ABS), which should be fitted to all vehicles of more than 125 cc, and with the new proposals for headlights to improve visibility on the road. As regards exhaust gas emissions, these vehicles must be type-approved to the Euro 3 standard from 1 January 2016, while compliance with the Euro 5 limits will apply from 2016.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I voted today to accept the proposal for a directive, whereby all new motorcycles, three-wheel vehicles and quad bikes sold within the European Union, starting from 2016, become safer and more environmentally friendly. Under the new regulations, larger motorcycles (i.e. those with an engine larger than 125 cm3) must be fitted with anti-lock brake systems (ABS), while smaller ones (with an engine smaller than 125 cm3) must have ABS or combined brake systems (CBS). From 2016, all motorcycles will also have to meet Euro 4 emission standards.

I am of the opinion that the new regulations that have been voted in will have the effect of improving safety on our roads and will lead to a reduction in the number of accidents involving motorcycles and quad bikes. One of the main reasons why tougher safety requirements should be supported, in my opinion, is the appalling statistic that vehicles of this type, although they account for barely 2 % of road traffic, are involved in as many as 16 % of all fatal accidents.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. − (PL) I am supporting the report on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. These are L-category vehicles, the number of which in the European Union is estimated at over 30 million. This vehicle category is constantly expanding in Poland too, as it covers motorcycles, mopeds and what are known as quad bikes. It is true that these vehicles are responsible for only 3 % of kilometres travelled in general, but their profile among fatal accidents is shockingly high, at as much as 16 %. For this reason I think it makes sense to increase the safety of these vehicles through the mandatory introduction of anti-lock brake systems (ABS) and automatic headlight on (AHO), so that vehicles of this category are visible. In supporting an increase in the safety of these vehicles, I do, however, wish to draw attention to the fact that it must lead to an increase in the price of mopeds, motorcycles and quad bikes. The question must therefore be posed: is it worth doing this? In my opinion it is worth it, as the protection of human life, and this chiefly concerns young people, is worth it at any cost.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This proposal for a regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two-or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles states that its objective is to improve the functioning of the internal market and its surveillance. The rapporteur believes that ‘with the proposal the European Commission aims to simplify the current legal framework and to establish new administrative and technical requirements, for example on environmental and safety aspects and market surveillance’. We have no doubt that strengthening and deepening the internal market in this sector will lead to the establishment of monopolies in the sector to the benefit of large companies and stronger economies. However, we must mention the fact that the rapporteur makes a positive recommendation on the introduction of environmental requirements for L-category vehicles, supports the introduction of more stringent emission limits, and introduces safety measures linked to the technical characteristics of vehicles such as ‘the mandatory introduction of anti-lock brake systems (ABS) on all new motorcycles’.

- Report: Pier Antonio Panzeri (A7-0446/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I agree with this report as it advocates harmonisation at European level of the technical requirements for the approval of tractors as regards numerous environmental and safety aspects. This would ensure a high level of road and occupational safety for this type of vehicle, as well as setting the bar high as concerns environmental protection. In my opinion, the harmonisation and updating of the technical rules and parameters for agricultural vehicles is a way of reinforcing occupational and functional safety for users and workers, as well as ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and increasing the competitiveness of European industry as a whole.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Adopted by a large majority, this report, which I supported, aims to establish harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural or forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment). These measures will improve the safety of this machinery and Member States’ access to information.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I supported this report on harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment). The proposal aims to ensure road and occupational safety and environmental protection as well as to complete the internal market for agricultural and forestry vehicles. Simplification of the existing legislation would result in a lower administrative burden and contribute to the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry vehicle industry. I agree with the proposals regarding mandatory anti-lock breaking systems in vehicles of certain categories, better brake performance and communication between tractors and towed equipment.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The objective of the proposal presented by the European Commission is to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of safety. The proposed regulation significantly simplifies the existing type-approval legislation by replacing 24 base directives and around 35 related amending directives. The Commission’s proposal is welcomed, as it contributes to the competitiveness of the industry by simplifying the existing type-approval legislation. It is important that the requirements for bodies or organisations to which Member States may delegate some assessment tasks are enhanced with a view to ensuring a level playing field and avoiding distortion of competition. Furthermore, as regards vehicle repair and maintenance information, a balance needs to be struck, ensuring that access to technical information is provided in a comprehensive manner taking into account consumer protection and fair competition, as well as safety, environmental and intellectual property concerns. I therefore supported this report.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The report being debated is particularly important because it provides for the adoption of a regulation on the approval of tractors and agricultural vehicles, which European industry has been requesting for more than 20 years. In my opinion, this new regulation will fill one of the major gaps in the harmonisation of the EU market for the agricultural sector and construction machinery. The regulation has much in it that is positive, especially for the Italian tractor and agricultural vehicle industry. It introduces a single legislative instrument to cover all aspects of the operational safety of tractors, both on the road and in the fields. In particular, with the entry into force of the new regulation, all aspects of safety will be translated into legal measures that will constitute a closed list of requirements that can be checked during the type-approval of a vehicle and can be updated quickly as the state of the art evolves. I also welcome the exclusion of mobile machinery – initially included in the Commission proposal – from the scope of its regulation because the characteristics of this machinery are very different from those of agricultural tractors. I therefore agree with the rapporteur that this type of machinery should be covered by a separate regulation.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report, the objective of which is to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment, category U) with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of road and occupational safety and environmental protection. I believe that the Commission’s proposal is important and sound as it aims to simplify the existing type-approval legislation and contribute to the competitiveness of the industry.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the approval of agricultural or forestry vehicles. I support the initiative derived from this report, which aims to simplify the legislation in this area by replacing the 24 base Directives with a single European Parliament and Council Regulation. The harmonisation of the rules on the manufacture of agricultural or forestry vehicles enables a significant level of protection and avoids the fragmentation of the internal market with regard to the standards for these vehicles.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the objective of significantly simplifying the current legislation by keeping in force harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment) with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of road and occupational safety and environmental protection.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I welcome the objective of this legislative proposal to lay down harmonised standards for the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles so that the existing legislation on vehicle type approval is simplified.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of this report makes the tractor market safer and more competitive. The current legislation is excessive and obscure: therefore, I support this report, since it simplifies the legislation, reduces the administrative burden on manufacturers and facilitates repairs.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report harmonising the legislation in force in the EU on the manufacture of agricultural or forestry vehicles. I believe it is essential to strengthen safety for users by making these vehicles safer and more environmentally friendly.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Unfortunately, we hear about accidents involving agricultural and forestry vehicles all too often and particular attention needs to be paid to their safety as well as their impact on the environment. Partly a means of conveyance, partly working tools, these vehicles have seen significant improvements in recent years in terms of their comfort levels and manoeuvrability. Just as with other types of vehicle, I believe that, in times of crisis, we should not give in to the temptation to make it too easy for people to travel in vehicles that are not safe, but by the same token we should not overburden consumers with unnecessary or irrelevant demands. Harmonised rules on the manufacture of these vehicles can have a positive impact on the safety and well-being of rural populations. I do hope this will be the case.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approval of agricultural or forestry vehicles by Pier Antonio Panzeri is of great importance, not only because the new regulation will simplify the existing legislative framework by replacing 24 directives, but also because it will help improve the quality of the environment and help counter the greenhouse effect. The new regulation, with new technical rules at the European level, will improve the safety of these vehicles (it includes protection against electric shocks), and will make the European market much more competitive, balanced and transparent. I voted in favour of this text as it mirrors the excellent work done, both from a technical and political standpoint, and does not overlook the time that businesses in the sector will need to adapt to a new manufacturing cycle. In addition, it stands as a great step forward in terms of the simplification of legislation and progress towards consolidating the internal market.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The European Commission’s proposal seeks to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment) with a view to providing for a high level of road and occupational safety and environmental protection. The proposed regulation significantly simplifies the existing type-approval legislation by replacing 24 base directives (and around 35 related amending directives). We welcome the steps taken in the field of road safety and environmental protection. Nevertheless, we do have some reservations and disagree on the underlying view, as a general rule, of harmonisation aiming to complete the internal market and promote ‘competitiveness’ in the internal market.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The objective of the proposal is to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment) with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of road and occupational safety and environmental protection. The proposal significantly simplifies the type-approval legislation by replacing 24 base Directives (and around 35 related amending Directives). The new Regulation and its implementing and delegated acts are meant to carry over the requirements laid down in the existing legislation without reducing the current level of protection. The Commission’s proposal contributes to the competitiveness of the industry by simplifying the existing type-approval legislation. In order to ensure a high level of road safety, occupational safety and environmental protection and complete the internal market for agricultural and forestry vehicles, I believe that it is appropriate to introduce a Union approval procedure for all categories of vehicles, while at the same time taking due account of cost-benefit considerations, with special attention given to small and medium-sized enterprises. The purpose of this draft report is to cover the key issues that require close consideration in this proposal so as to facilitate the discussions in the committee.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Panzeri as his proposals contribute to the competitiveness of this industry by simplifying the existing type-approval legislation. In order to ensure a high level of road safety, occupational safety and environmental protection and complete the internal market for agricultural and forestry vehicles, I believe that it is appropriate to introduce a Union approval procedure for all categories of vehicles, while at the same time taking due account of cost-benefit considerations, with special attention given to small and medium-sized enterprises. I believe that the rapporteur proposed a significant number of technical changes which are aimed at refining individual technical specifications and improving the coherence of the wording. I think that the report by Mr Panzeri highlights the problem areas of the industry and the new requirements appropriately.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I welcome this report as it replaces the 24 existing Directives on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles, such as tractors, trailers and towed equipment, with a single one. This reduction in the regulations will simplify the situation in this sector in an efficient and future-oriented way, as attention has also been given to ensuring that the current level of protection is not reduced. This level of protection covers safety and environmental aspects that will now be harmonised across the EU, which will also make it possible to counter any fragmentation of the internal market due to differing national product standards.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this proposal, since it aims to establish harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural or forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment). It significantly simplifies the legislation by replacing the 24 base Directives with a single Regulation that carries over the requirements laid down in the existing legislation without reducing the current level of protection. This report encourages the introduction of new technologies such as ABS (anti-lock braking), which is now available and could make vehicles considerably safer. Studies have shown that, if these technologies were to become the norm for new vehicles, considerable progress would be made. The definition of common binding rules would also avoid the fragmentation of the internal market caused by the existence of different standards in the Member States. Even though these vehicles are in the minority in Europe, they must not be forgotten by European legislation, since they can be very dangerous.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) To tighten up the single market and to make it function better, it is very important to do some work on individual aspects of this market. One example of this is this report, the aim of which is to establish unified principles relating to the production of agricultural and forestry vehicles, and which will not only improve the functioning of the internal market, but also provide a higher level of road safety, occupational safety and environmental protection. Thanks to the proposal, legislation in the sphere of type approval for agricultural and forestry vehicles will be greatly simplified while maintaining a high level of protection. This simplification is also very important in improving industry competitiveness. By introducing an EU type-approval procedure, though, we shall be doing something to make an internal market in agricultural and forestry vehicles a reality. In any event, however, we should be mindful of the specific nature of small and medium-sized enterprises. I also think it is important to keep up the requirements in the sphere of health protection and safety and their specification, in order that they should take every hazard into account, as well as access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, vehicles being, after all, increasingly complex.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union is often criticised for excessive regulation, something that reduces its credibility in its citizens’ eyes. Hence I welcome the adoption of the Regulation on the approval of agricultural or forestry vehicles. This Regulation significantly simplifies the legislation in force by replacing the 24 base Directives and 35 amending Directives with a single Regulation. This new Regulation, which the European Parliament has just approved, will provide harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural or forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment) while at the same time providing for a high level of road safety (through the introduction of new technologies like the anti-lock braking system), occupational safety and environmental protection.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document as I support the Commission’s proposal. This is because it simplifies the existing type-approval legislation and contributes to the competitiveness of the industry. I believe that in order to ensure a high level of road safety, occupational safety and environmental protection and complete the internal market for agricultural and forestry vehicles, it is appropriate to introduce a Union approval procedure for all categories of vehicles, while at the same time taking due account of cost-benefit considerations, with special attention given to small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) My wholehearted support for Mr Panzeri’s report is due to the message of simplification we want to convey to the world of farming. This was undoubtedly a large and complex job but the result that has been achieved has received broad support. In addition, the introduction of compliance with common European technical requirements increases the potential for market competitiveness and above all lays the foundation for a level of technology that will protect European farmers from injury in the course of their work.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this report, the objective of which is to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment) with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of road and occupational safety and environmental protection. The proposed regulation significantly simplifies the existing type-approval legislation by replacing 24 base directives (and around 35 related amending directives). The new regulation and its implementing and delegated acts are meant to carry over the requirements laid down in the existing legislation without reducing the current level of protection. I welcome the Commission’s proposal as it contributes to the competitiveness of the industry by simplifying the existing type-approval legislation. In order to ensure a high level of road safety, occupational safety and environmental protection and complete the internal market for agricultural and forestry vehicles, I believe that it is appropriate to introduce a Union approval procedure for all categories of vehicles, while at the same time taking due account of cost-benefit considerations, with special attention being given to small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the approval of agricultural or forestry vehicles, the objective of which is to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles. The Regulation is worthwhile because it simplifies the legislation, replacing 24 Directives. These provisions will improve safety and the environment through the harmonisation of rules at EU level.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The existing directives applicable to non-road mobile machinery do not provide for harmonised requirements for road safety. In order to complete the internal market and ensure a high level of road safety, it is necessary to develop an appropriate instrument at EU level in order to harmonise requirements applicable to mobile machinery. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal seeks to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment) with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of road and occupational safety, whilst not neglecting environmental protection. The proposed regulation significantly simplifies the existing type-approval legislation by replacing 24 base directives (and around 35 related amending directives). That is why I voted in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Harmonising and uplifting technical rules and standards on agricultural vehicles is a means to strengthening functional and occupational safety for users and workers as well as to guaranteeing good functioning of the internal market and boosting competitiveness of the EU industry.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this text, which aims to lay down common rules on the type-approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles. This agreement achieves a good compromise between the need to establish appropriate rules on safety and respect for the environment, without excessively penalising manufacturers in the sector. For the repair and maintenance of these vehicles, the text also provides for improvements, guaranteeing on the one hand wider access to the information necessary for such repairs and maintenance, without influencing or restricting those dealing with the specifics of this sensitive sector. Lastly, I would just like to mention an important point concerning ‘quad bikes’. I think it was quite right to differentiate between these vehicles designed for agricultural use and those used only for recreation or transport. We should avoid putting vehicles used for work, which are a necessity, and vehicles used solely but quite legitimately for entertainment, on an equal footing.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I am in favour of the proposed regulation. In order to ensure the functioning of the internal market and contribute to the competitiveness of the industry, the EU should lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles. Appropriate implementation of these rules will increase transparency, reduce the administrative burden and eliminate the risk of market fragmentation. However, in all cases, the new rules should meet the high requirements for road and occupational safety and environmental protection.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, adopted at first reading, on the approval of agricultural or forestry vehicles, as it aims to lay down harmonised rules on the administrative and technical requirements for the approval and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles and also defines the requirements for the placing on the market or entry into service of systems, components and separate technical units for these approved vehicles. Harmonisation of rules in the European Union is fundamental for its internal market.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The objective of the proposal in question is to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles. The ultimate aim of this is to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of environmental protection and road and occupational safety. Especially in relation to this last point, the proposal aims to simplify the existing type-approval legislation and thereby help to improve the competitiveness of the sector in question. As far as competition is concerned, the requirements for bodies or organisations to which Member States may delegate some assessment tasks are enhanced with a view to avoiding distortion of competition, particularly arising from different levels of stringency and performance applied by these third-party organisations when testing, inspecting or assessing vehicles. The proposal also seeks to fill any gaps in existing legislation, where there are no requirements aimed at harmonising road safety. In the light of what I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The objective of the proposal presented by the European Commission is to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while providing for a high level of safety. The proposed regulation significantly simplifies the existing type-approval legislation by replacing 24 base directives and around 35 related amending directives. The rapporteur welcomes the Commission’s proposal as it contributes to the competitiveness of the industry by simplifying the existing type-approval legislation. He recommends some additional measures aimed at, for example, enhancing the requirements for bodies or organisations to which Member States may delegate some assessment tasks, ensuring that access to technical information is provided in a comprehensive manner and taking into account consumer protection and fair competition, as well as safety, environmental and intellectual property concerns. That is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The objective of this proposal is to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment) with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of road and occupational safety and environmental protection. The proposed Regulation significantly simplifies the existing type approval legislation by replacing 24 base Directives (and around 35 related amending Directives). The new Regulation and its implementing and delegated acts are meant to carry over the requirements laid down in the existing legislation without reducing the current level of protection.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I decided to vote in favour of this measure because it updates the rules on the type-approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market, while at the same time providing for a high level of environmental protection and road safety. One aspect worthy of mention is access to vehicle repair and maintenance information. The justifiable need to provide information for the repair of vehicles has been balanced by the need to protect information valuable to competitors, especially in Asia, who want to copy the best technical solutions in the sector.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) By simplifying the existing legislation on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles, it will be possible to ensure higher levels of road and occupational safety. A type-approval procedure at EU level for all categories of vehicle also helps to improve the sector’s competitiveness. The new regulations being introduced will have to meet two requirements: they must promote the simplification of legislation, and they must improve regulation, ensuring that any gaps in the legislation are filled. I agree that it is necessary to introduce detailed requirements for health and safety and for surveillance of vehicles placed on the market and control of vehicles entering the Union market. While I am aware of the complexity of the proposed framework, I think that these changes to legislation on this matter are necessary and I therefore voted in favour.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I would like to emphasise the excellent work done on this report by my colleague, Mr Panzeri. Furthermore, I share his conclusions. He has worked on the Commission proposal to ensure that the resulting report, by simplifying current legislation, promotes still further the competitiveness of the sector, while also taking our opinion at the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection into account. Agricultural and forestry vehicles could be excluded from the scope of the Machinery Directive provided that the new Regulation and its delegated acts fully carry over the existing requirements laid down in the Machinery Directive that are currently applicable to tractors so as to avoid any legal gaps and to ensure that the current level of safety is maintained.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal allows for the harmonisation of type-approval for the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles, namely tractors, trailers and towed equipment, by simplifying the 24 base directives and 35 related amending directives into one single regulation. It is a proposal that aims to make the sector more competitive, without lowering the level of road and occupational safety, environmental performance and attention to the transformation of the industry itself, which predominantly consists of small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation on the approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles. The Regulation lays down the market surveillance requirements for vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units which are subject to approval in accordance with this Regulation. It also lays down market surveillance requirements for parts and equipment intended for these vehicles. The Union is a contracting party to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions. To simplify type-approval legislation, it is advisable to repeal all individual directives without reducing the level of protection. The requirements laid down in these directives should be carried over in this Regulation or in delegated acts adopted on the basis of this Regulation and, if applicable, replaced with references to the corresponding UNECE regulations. To reduce the administrative burden associated with the type-approval process, vehicle manufacturers should be allowed to request type-approval in accordance with this Regulation.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The report deals with the proposal to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles. The aim of the report is to ensure the functioning of the internal market and provide for road safety, occupational safety and environmental protection. The Commission’s proposal contributes to competitiveness, as the existing type-approval legislation is simplified.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The laying down of harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of road and occupational safety and environmental protection is important. The proposed regulation will contribute to the competitiveness of the industry by simplifying the mandatory legislation in the area of type-approval legislation, so I voted in favour of the draft resolution.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Panzeri’s text, which aims to lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles – tractors, trailers and towed equipment – with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of environmental protection and road and occupational safety. The proposed Regulation also has the merit of simplifying the existing type-approval legislation by replacing 24 base Directives and around 35 related amending Directives.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The stated objective of this Commission proposal is to ‘lay down harmonised rules on the manufacture of agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors, trailers and towed equipment) in force with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of road and occupational safety and environmental protection’. In this way, the proposed regulation significantly simplifies the existing type-approval legislation by replacing 24 base directives (and around 35 related amending directives). On the whole, this proposal for a regulation constitutes another step towards completing the internal market, towards harmonisation, with the pretext of promoting the sector’s ‘competitiveness’ by simplifying the existing type-approval legislation and, in this way, ushering in a monopoly in terms of the production of these vehicles by certain businesses and countries. However, on a positive note, the rapporteur introduces the issues of road safety and environmental protection, which we do wish to emphasise.

- Report: Sampo Terho (A7-0304/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I agree with this report, as although the general public already make significant use of card payments, this market is still fragmented in Europe as a whole, and, furthermore, the potential of e-commerce and mobile commerce still needs a major boost. The development of a card payment and e-payment system (internet and phone) must be based on a high level of consumer protection. Consumer confidence is a key condition for the development of electronic and card payments. In this way, I believe the European Union should develop a consistent legal framework that guarantees more competition, transparency and safety. As the report addresses my main concerns as a European citizen, that is, by placing the emphasis on issues related to the interoperability of the various systems, more transparent practices for charges for card payments for consumers and enhanced security for card and e-commerce systems, I think that we are therefore progressing towards a system that will prove more appealing to all Europeans.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I agree with what Mr Terho says about applying common rules and standards to the digital single market for electronic payments made by card, internet or mobile. Creating a payment market that is more integrated and secure as far as personal data are concerned, with charges for electronic payments that are more transparent and more in keeping with the costs they are supposed to cover, is important. E-commerce is unfortunately still only used by 35 % of people making purchases online, and this figure has remained low because of ongoing problems with electronic payments. I agree with Commissioner Reding that this report is an excellent starting point for creating a digital market where there is no difference between national and cross-border transactions.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I supported, is the European Parliament’s response to the European Commission’s Green Paper on card, internet and mobile payments, a sector that is growing rapidly. We need to regulate the sector without hindering its development. There is also a need to draw up global standards, not solely European ones.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. − (GA) I voted in favour of this important and timely report, which aims to provide a high level of protection for consumer credit. We need greater legal certainty for card payments. I support the proposals for new rules and standards for personal credit and debit card payments in order to achieve full market capability and maximise efficiency. The same minimum standards for mobile, internet and card payments should be applied in all the Member States of the EU.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal to remove obstacles for card, internet and mobile payments. The variety of payment instruments is constantly growing at both EU and global level. However, their effectiveness is still far from its full potential. The card, internet and mobile payment markets are still fragmented in the EU area and there are significant differences in payment methods among the Member States. I agree that it is essential to create an EU-wide integrated payment environment where safer and more effective payment systems could be developed. I agree with the proposals to ensure market entry for new service providers, strengthen payment security and data protection, set payment service fees in a more transparent and effective way and increase interoperability between service providers. Wider use of such payments would also help e-commerce in Europe to grow in size and diversity. I agree with the proposals to aim to achieve more competition, more choice and more payment security.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Commission has published a Green Paper on an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments in which it identified several barriers preventing the European payments market from working in the most efficient, open and integrated way possible. The benefits of setting up a more integrated payments market are enormous. It would enable a market to be created with more convenient, secure, fast and efficient payments and could generate direct and indirect benefits estimated at EUR 300 billion over the next 6 years. This market is still significantly fragmented in the EU, which is why the European Commission has proposed creating a Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) which, by establishing common rules in the various Member States, will enable the disparities between domestic and cross-border payments to be removed. A number of card payment aspects have been considered in the construction of the SEPA, from multilateral interchange fees to the existence of common technical and security standards, etc. Regulation of electronic and mobile payments should be lighter, as this is a market that is still evolving and innovating. I voted in favour of this report as it puts forward measures that will patently benefit the way these markets function.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The variety of payment instruments is constantly growing at both European and global level. While new ways of using card and mobile payments seem to emerge fast, even the card payment market is still far away from its full potential. I agree with the rapporteur that there are benefits to promoting and increasing card, internet and mobile payments in order to offer consumers and businesses an opportunity to have access to more secure, fast, flexible and cost-effective payment methods. However, the card, internet and mobile payment markets are still fragmented in the EU and there are significant differences regarding the use of card payments between the Member States. I think that common standards for payments, if properly developed and implemented, could not only enhance the competitiveness of the card payment market but also improve the security of payments. While I agree with the Commission’s general objective of developing common standards for the Member States, I would draw its attention to the practical difficulties of shortening the life cycle of current national and regional standards for card payments and suggest the adoption of targeted actions aimed at achieving this.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) In the context of the single market we urgently need to integrate all payment instruments (cards, internet, mobiles, electronic tolls, etc.) so that these payment platforms can be used to their full advantage in all the Member States, under standard conditions and with applications that do not require any additional effort from users and guarantee the security of their money and their payments. There are contradictions that need to be overcome. In an EU that is working to develop trans-European networks it does not make sense that it is not possible to use a single electronic toll system on the motorways that are part of those networks.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report as this Regulation aims to offer consumers and businesses an opportunity to have access to more convenient, fast, flexible and cost-effective payment methods. The process of creating a Single European Payment Area (SEPA) facilitates the bank transfers in 32 European countries. However, there are still problems that need to be solved. For example, issues related to additional fees, payment security and multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) can cause problems for competitiveness, transparency, openness and costs for both merchants and consumers. It should also be noted that regardless of the common standards that apply to Member States, the card, internet and mobile payment markets are still fragmented in the EU area. The Commission acknowledges the need to achieve a level of common infrastructure which would allow a level playing field and encourage innovation and competitiveness but not essentially add restrictions to the expansion of this field.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on card, internet and mobile payments in Europe. There is also a need to improve the security of payments and cross-border purchases, accelerate the process of standardisation and draw up flexible regulation in order not to hinder the development of the euro retail payments market.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the objective of enhancing the integration of markets and stimulating competitiveness between the various card payment schemes, taking into account the need for common technical and security standards that make card payment an easier, more secure and more efficient option for consumers.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. − (RO) The development of an integrated European market for payments is necessary to supplement the European single market and to avoid excessive and pointless charges for consumers. This should ensure greater transparency, competition and security, with similar services to be offered at both cross-border and national level. In this context, I voted in favour of the report on card, internet and mobile payments.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) In a borderless Europe and with the information technology sector constantly growing, it is becoming increasingly necessary to make card and online payments secure and, in particular, to protect personal data and ensure transparency for consumers. It is desirable to ensure that all European citizens are able to make payments by card, regardless of the country of origin in which it was issued, through the interoperability of banking systems so that the integrated European market for payments can function properly.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The single market enables us to travel and make purchases anywhere in Europe. Nonetheless, Europeans know that it is not always possible on a daily basis to pay for purchases as they would like to. Our cards, our online purchases and, increasingly, our purchases using mobile telephones are still restricted by technological aspects and measures that are an obstacle to the single market. I voted in favour of this report in order to end this inconsistency. I am deeply interested in this issue: in particular, as this report was being drawn up I insisted on the importance of taking better account of all the actors involved and the fundamental aspect of payments security for users. I will remain at the service of consumers, traders and enterprises.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Last January the European Commission published a Green Paper on an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments in which it identified several barriers preventing this market from working. In its follow-up to this Green Paper, the European Parliament has now tabled this own-initiative report, which generally agrees with the ideas put forward by the Commission. There are many advantages to creating a more integrated and efficient payments market, which will make payments more convenient, secure, and fast, and could generate direct/indirect benefits estimated at EUR 300 billion over the next 6 years. I therefore would like to highlight the proposals in the Green Paper aimed at enhancing the integration of markets and stimulating competitiveness between the payment schemes. I voted in favour of the report that was adopted today and I would like to emphasise how crucial it is that we reinforce the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) and the need to improve its governance (and therefore the importance of the forthcoming revision of the Payment Services Directive). However, like the rapporteur, I think we should concentrate at this stage mainly on card payments and the following aspects: standardisation, cross-border purchases, multilateral interchange fees (MIFs), co-badging, surcharges and the security of payments.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The harmonisation of European rules on credit card payments will make life simpler for European citizens, who are increasingly on the move and making online card payments. Every card payment, whether made online or by telephone, will be safer and cheaper from now on. Currently, the costs of processing card payments are often too high. Making costs more transparent will encourage operators to bring the invoiced cost closer to the real cost. The establishment of a single card payment system modelled on the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) constitutes progress, since this mechanism has proved effective in improving cross-border bank transfers throughout the participating States. Henceforth, citizens will be able to make payments in a given country via an account in another country. The Commission needs to draw up clear, objective rules to ensure that some sites or file hosting services are not excluded from online payments without justification.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Report on card, internet and mobile payments. I deeply believe that in crisis periods such as the one we are facing right now, it is very important to create a framework of security and transparency of payments. A trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. This report underlines the need for clear and transparent rules on consumer-protection policies at the European level. In order to develop the potential of electronic payments, it is essential to ensure consumer confidence, which requires a high level of security to safeguard against the risk of fraud and in order to protect consumers’ sensitive data. I think that consumer privacy should be protected in accordance to EU and national legislation, and that each party in the payment chain should only have access to data relevant to its processing and the rest would be bypassed encrypted.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it puts forward measures aimed at removing a number of barriers that still stand in the way of the European payments market. Card payment markets are still very fragmented in the EU. We must continue to work towards this type of transfer achieving its utmost potential and maximum efficiency.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In response to the European Commission’s Green Paper, this report examines the barriers to card, internet and mobile payments. As regards card payments, for instance, although 32 countries already use the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), in truth, the market is still very fragmented and much more needs to be done for it to be fully effective. There are a range of factors that could help improve competition in this market and thus optimise its efficiency, in particular through multilateral interchange fees, surcharges and security of payments. Lastly, I agree with the rapporteur’s conclusions insofar as this market is still evolving.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The current payments market is very diverse and uses methods ranging from cards to mobiles and the internet. However, the most important thing is that all means of payment should be citizen-friendly and make their lives easier, wherever they may be. A fully functioning European digital market involves this process being as straightforward as possible (if it were complicated, no one would want it), low-cost and secure. For this to happen, all the barriers preventing the market from being more competitive, more innovative and more secure need to be removed. Bearing in mind that there are still major differences in terms of how this market functions from Member State to Member State, harmonisation should be the first step to take. I voted in favour of the report drawn up by Sampo Terho on ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’, because it is fundamental that we progress rapidly towards a single payments market that makes citizens’ lives easier and entails higher levels of security.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report’s stated objective is to increase ‘free competition’ in card, internet and mobile payment markets. It is about applying neoliberalism to this market segment in order to encourage consumption, credit and workers and the general public getting themselves into debt. Against a backdrop of economic recession, this proposal is part and parcel of the lingering efforts to strengthen the internal market, removing the Member States’ ability to intervene in the market and the logic of providing services in accordance with the national situation. The report even advocates self-regulation of stakeholders. As regards the banks charging for the use of cards, the report is contradictory, stating that this should continue until at least 2017. Respect for privacy is not guaranteed and there are still doubts about the use of citizens’ personal and profile data, and as regards the adaptation costs for terminals so that these accept all cards and meet the interoperability requirements. We voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The variety of payment instruments is constantly growing at both European and global level. Although it seems that new ways of using mobile and internet payments which are of interest to consumers and businesses are rapidly developing, the card payment market is far from meeting its full potential. The card, internet and mobile payment markets are still fragmented in the EU area. There are significant differences regarding the use of card payments between the Member States. The process of creating a Single European Payments Area (SEPA) facilitates bank transfers in 32 European countries, and as of 2014 all the participating countries should have implemented the common SEPA standards. I believe that as SEPA will remove the gap between domestic and cross-border payments, the objective of the integration of the card payment market should be making cross-border payments as convenient as making payments at national level. At the same time the common technical and security standards could make it easier for new players to enter the field, promote the use of card payments and make card payment an easier, more secure and more efficient option for consumers. The guideline for continuing development of common technical and security standards should be to achieve a level of common infrastructure which would allow a level playing field, encourage innovation and competitiveness but not essentially add restrictions to the way in which the entire field can expand.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) In recent years the Hungarian card payment market has been experiencing sustained growth. Although it will probably take another 10-15 years for the ratio of Hungarian card payments to catch up with the figures seen in Western Europe, there has been a clear and unrelenting catch-up trend so far. I believe it is impossible to guarantee that traders will pass on the benefits of the reduction in interbank commissions to consumers. As I pointed out in my plenary speech, legislation on commissions could perhaps ensure a reduction in trader costs, but in terms of the entire market this would have multiple negative effects. Taking into account the likely consequences of regulation I therefore voted in favour of the report, but I rejected the proposed amendments relating to paragraphs 41 and 43.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Given the explosion of internet and mobile payments, the European Commission realised it needed to draw up an overview of the payment methods being used in Europe, in order to identify the disparities between the current situation and the integrated payment market of the future. It is estimated that several million enterprises and several hundred million citizens use these payment methods. In 2009, 58 billion retail payment operations were made in the euro area alone. This is why it is important that the European institutions, whose mission is to anticipate and prevent obstacles, have decided to address this subject and propose measures to create the conditions for an integrated market for card, internet and mobile payments. All the measures and rules likely to facilitate information and remove obstacles for consumers should be supported. This is why I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has expressed its opinion on this issue.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal because the variety of payments has been steadily growing in both the EU and the rest of the world. While new ways of using mobile and internet payments seem to emerge quickly and interest both consumers and businesses, even the card payment market is still far away from its full potential and efficiency. The Commission has published a Green Paper on an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments where it points out several barriers which prevent the European payment market from working as efficiently and openly as possible. There is a need to acknowledge the benefits of promoting and increasing the card, internet and mobile payments in order to offer consumers and businesses an opportunity to have access to more convenient, secure, fast, variable, flexible and cost-effective payment methods. Furthermore, more extensive use of the above-mentioned payment methods is also a key issue if e-commerce is to continue its rapid development and its growing contribution to Member States’ GDPs. Therefore, the gap between domestic and cross-border payments needs to be removed, while the goal in integrating card payment markets should be making cross-border payments as convenient as payments at national level. The internet payments market, however, is strongly at an evolutionary stage and should not be too strongly regulated, because this could hinder the natural development and innovation in the field.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. − Technology can be hugely disruptive but also offers new opportunities. Just as the audiovisual and media market has been disrupted by digital technology we now see new ways of banking and payments. Who would have thought that Africa would become the leading continent in the nascent mobile payments market? When I was in Uganda a few years ago, my taxi driver explained that mobile phone companies in Africa will lift more people out of poverty than our patronising large white western NGOs. We need to make sure that digital payments market thrives here in the EU. I welcome the Commission identifying several barriers which prevent the European payment market from working as efficiently and openly as possible. We all realise the benefits of promoting and increasing the card, internet and mobile payments to offer consumers and businesses an opportunity to have access to more convenient, secure, fast, variable, flexible and cost-effective payment methods. I often wish that instead of focusing on building a European Project that the EU would focus more on creating a true single market and creating and allowing technology companies across the EU to flourish to build a truly digital and innovative single market.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. Digital payments are an area where European consumers and businesses face discrimination based on their country of residence and obstacles that should not exist anymore. Card payment fees vary greatly depending on the financial institution and national laws. Further, cards are not inter-accepted across SEPA. Online transactions face the most discriminatory practices, where especially businesses and residents of Member States who joined in 2004 and 2007 face, in addition to the refusal of their cards, refusal as a shipping destination. This is not only a nightmare for the customers, but seriously also hinders free competition. Non-bureaucratic, transparent, and uniform and customer-friendly payment systems have to be implemented without delay across the SEPA area. It is unrealistic to preach about digital single market and about boosting e-commerce at a time when most users face unfair practices and transactions costs that might even exceed the purchase value. I fully support the rapporteur’s demands on the Commission to take legislative action to ensure fair competition, financial inclusion, and transparency for consumers, payment security and the protection of personal data. Uniform legislation would increase consumer confidence and boost e-commerce and definitely contribute to digital single market.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR) in writing. - (CS) I support this report, because the development of payment systems can significantly influence the development of the internal market. An important role is played by standardisation, which facilitates the entry of new operators. The application of standards in all areas of electronic payment systems is the way to ensure full interoperability of payment models and a method of eliminating the risk of closing the market to potential competitors and innovation. I still perceive barriers hindering the development of payment instruments in the digital market in several areas. This particularly concerns the fundamental problems of different domestic debit card systems that do not work outside the boundaries of particular states. Other obstacles are to be found in the field of electronic payments, which lie in the fragmentation of national solutions and inadequate framework for the implementation of micropayments. I can also see another barrier in mobile payments, which suffer from the inability of key mobile operators to find common ground with phone manufacturers and credit card companies. All payment methods are then faced with one fundamental problem, whereby despite the massive increase in the volume of transactions, average merchant fees do not decrease according to the payment made, either for consumers or for merchants.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Greater effort should be made to achieve the harmonisation of mobile, internet and card payment systems in order to guarantee protection of the most vulnerable consumers and provide correct information for consumers when using these payment methods. Online payment systems that are better harmonised between the Member States would also give greater impetus to a sector that is already growing. There is no doubt that there are aspects of this type of commerce that need to be monitored and evaluated carefully, including by properly reconciling the interests of operators and consumers, but I agree with the spirit of the report and I think that, with some work, the objective could be achieved.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this Report. The card, internet and mobile payment markets are still fragmented in the EU area. There are significant differences regarding the use of card payments between the Member States. The process of creating Single European Payment Area (SEPA) facilitates the bank transfers in 32 European countries, and as of 2014 all the participating countries should have implemented the common SEPA standards. The Rapporteur thinks that as SEPA will remove the gap between domestic and cross-border payments, the goal in integrating card payment market should be making cross-border payments as convenient as payments at a national level. More cross-border players in this field are welcome. The Green Paper introduces several key factors in enhancing the integration of payments and stimulating competitiveness of the payment schemes

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on card, internet and mobile payments. Although such payments take multiple forms and are being diversified through technological advances, making it easier for citizens to purchase various goods remotely, improvements are still possible. In effect, there are weaknesses identified by consumers as unacceptable, such as the fact that some cross-border transactions are not accepted due to their provenance. The costs applied are not transparent enough and we are entitled to ask about the excessive fees charged for cash withdrawals from ATMs. Clearly, the development of the digital economy should be accompanied by transparent, safe and effective payment systems in order to facilitate cross-border trade. The diversity of payment methods and the creation of innovative payment methods should not compromise the safety of payments. Safety standards for internet payments must be improved in order to guarantee safe conditions for transactions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The variety of payment instruments is ever on the increase both in Europe and throughout the world. While new ways of using mobile and internet payments of interest to both consumers and businesses are constantly emerging, the card payment market is still far from having developed its full potential and efficiency. Common technical and security standards could make it easier for new players to enter the field, promote the use of card payments and make a card payment an easier, more secure and more efficient option for consumers. That is why I voted in favour.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (PT) This report seeks to construct an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments in the European Union. Today we face a whole host of difficulties when carrying out financial transactions between Member States (longer delivery times, among other issues). Furthermore, improving the security of online payments should be a constant theme when it comes to designing a European payment model. I would also like to emphasise that private individuals face greater difficulties in making private domestic payments at European level than in undertaking major transactions on the financial investment markets. The most important aspect is most definitely that of pushing for the creation of comprehensive common legislation for an issue that is already technically feasible. The objective, therefore, must be to make citizens’ lives easier by guaranteeing the security, effectiveness and transparency of card, internet and mobile payments. That is why I am voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I think that the development of an integrated European card, internet and mobile payment system should be based on a high level of consumer protection. Consumers’ confidence is a key condition to the development of card and internet payment. The EU should therefore develop a consistent legal framework ensuring more competition, more transparency and more security. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) It is mainly concerns about security that are making people sceptical – and they are right to be so, as banking details and passwords are favoured targets of cybercriminals. Particularly in connection with Android smartphones and the trend of downloading free, untested apps, intercepting data is a simple task. In cases where customers are paying via their telephone bill we are already seeing enough dirty tricks. With mobile payments on the increase, the EU needs to ensure not only security in the form of better consumer protection, but also appropriate data protection in relation to mobile payment procedures. As this report takes steps in the right direction, I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I support the document and would like to draw attention to a certain horizontal aspect of it, namely the European Parliament’s observation on unjustifiably high fees for various services that are not based on the costs of those services and are disproportionately high. Regardless of the payment type, the weaker party to the contract (usually it is the consumer who has not had the opportunity to become familiar with the standard conditions of the service) is forced to pay large fees, which the service provider then uses to cover expenses for services that are not profitable. Therefore I agree with the call for a requirement to set such fees on the basis of incurred costs, and I believe that the consumer would only benefit if there was a set upper limit for such fees.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) Card, internet and especially mobile payments are still subject to significant differences within the EU in terms of the use of electronic payment. Common technical and security standards could make it easier for new players to enter the field, promote the use of card payments and make card payments an easier, a more secure and more efficient option for consumers. As common technical standards within the EU are developed further, in relation to card payment schemes, for example, common security standards should be improved as well; this would be in the interests of consumers. As a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I am very interested in ensuring that when customers make payments via the internet they can do so safely and therefore vote in favour of the report, which addresses in particular the security criteria applying within the EU that still require improvement.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported this report because the variety of payment instruments is constantly growing both in Europe and at global level. However, the development of new means of payment should take into account the fact that even the card payment market is still far from its full potential and efficiency. I support the consistent development of various means of payment because consumers and businesses should have the opportunity to use more convenient, cost-effective, secure and fast payment methods, which in turn contributes to boosting the European economy. I supported the approach that common standards should be applied in Europe to ensure the security of card payments and enhance competitiveness. It should not be forgotten that interchange fees and payment costs should be reduced in the long term. This way we will ensure the convenient use of and better access to various payment methods for consumers.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I agree with the opinion in this report regarding the creation of a secure, transparent and innovative payments market that would also strengthen the global competitiveness of the European economy. At present, the European market for card, internet and mobile payments is not free from divisions, and fragmented systems exist. In order to protect consumers and merchants from additional fees and other negative effects, an integrated system should be functioning at EU level. It needs to be emphasised that standardisation and alignment of practices would be beneficial to both merchants and consumers, who would be able to choose between more cost-efficient payment methods.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL). Online sales are recording a steady and significant increase throughout Europe. Therefore, like any kind of transaction, they should be governed by rules and should also provide security and inspire trust. Bearing in mind the specific nature of online transactions, any regulation at Community level must be introduced gradually and collectively by Member States. One step in this direction would be through better unification of online markets, or markets accessed via mobile telephone, which at present are still in a fragmented state in the EU. The process of creating a Single European Payments Area (SEPA) facilitates bank transfers in 32 European countries, and as of 2014 all the participating countries should have implemented the common SEPA standards . This report, for which I voted, recommends effective ways of operating the SEPA, and also proposes the next steps that should be taken towards a single European framework in the sector of European transactions.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report puts forward measures that everything indicates would benefit the functioning of the integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments. The various barriers preventing the European payments market from working as efficiently, openly and in as integrated a way as possible were identified in the Green Paper on an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments. This study concludes that the benefits of setting up a more integrated payments market are enormous. It would enable a market to be created with more convenient, secure, fast and effective payments and would generate direct and indirect benefits estimated at EUR 300 billion over the next 6 years. As this market is still significantly fragmented in the European Union, the European Commission has proposed creating a Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) which, by establishing common rules in the various Member States, will enable the gaps between domestic and cross-border payments to be removed. I voted in favour of this report as I agree with these measures.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The integration of EU Member States is becoming increasingly well harmonised, but we need to look at the issues to be dealt with in order to achieve this objective even more fully. As part of this, we need to take account of the fact that the variety of payment instruments is constantly growing both at European and at global level. Because of this, and recognising how useful card, internet and mobile payments can be, the Commission has published a Green Paper on the obstacles which prevent these forms of payment from working in the European market, thus obstructing greater efficiency. The purpose of creating the Single European Payment Area (SEPA) was the integration of the card payment market to make cross-border payments as easy as national payments. The process required to achieve this appears to be rather lengthy. If integrated standards were developed with the requisite care, they could not only enhance the competitiveness of the card payment market but also improve the security of payments. In the light of what I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report responds to the Commission’s Green Paper on an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments and pays particular attention to card payments and the following aspects: standardisation, cross-border purchases, multilateral interchange fees (MIFs), co-badging, surcharges and the security of payments. The document also emphasises that the SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area) Council should be assisted by various technical committees, or ‘task forces’ for electronic and mobile payments, cards, cash and other standardisation issues, and by ad hoc working groups, and that any standardisation requirements should not impose unnecessary barriers. Moreover, the report notes that common standards should be sought at the global level in close cooperation with economic partners. Lastly, the rapporteur warns that any attempts at strong regulation of the mobile and electronic payments market could constitute a brake on development and innovation in this area.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The diversity of payment instruments is constantly growing both at European and global level. While new ways of using mobile and internet payments seem to be fast emerging and of interest to both consumers and businesses, even the card payment market is still far from achieving its full potential and efficiency. The Commission has published a Green Paper on an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments in which it points out several barriers preventing the European payment market from working as efficiently and openly as possible. The rapporteur also acknowledges the benefits of promoting and increasing card, internet and mobile payments in order to offer consumers and businesses an opportunity to have access to more convenient, secure, fast, variable, flexible and cost-effective payment methods. More extensive use of the aforementioned payment methods is also a key issue if e-commerce is to continue its rapid development and its growing contribution to Member States’ GDPs.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Because of the speed with which new payment methods are emerging, it is becoming necessary to adapt the European payment market to ensure that it works more efficiently. Consumers need to be sure that they are being offered the advantages of card, internet and mobile payments, which are more secure and cost-effective methods. I must emphasise the fragmented nature of the payment markets, which vary significantly in different Member States, making payment techniques less convenient and flexible. For this reason I believe it is necessary to introduce harmonisation measures to make cross-border payments as convenient as domestic payments. Introducing common security techniques is essential to guarantee consumers high levels of transparency. In the hope that positive progress will be made in this sector, I voted in favour.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. - (SK) In today’s digital world, almost every citizen uses one form of payment. Even children now have their own accounts, and pension payments are made to the accounts of old-age pensioners; these people willingly or unwillingly also make use of non-cash payments. We should therefore appreciate the Commission’s initiative in its Green Paper ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’. There are certainly many problems, but I shall mention at least those that most affect us, as customers of banking services. It is high time for us to unify payments for the use of cards. Whilst surcharges for the use of card payments are not allowed in some Member States, in other Member States excessive surcharges are to the detriment of consumers. Fees for cash withdrawals are different in each banking institution, and in many cases a fee is levied for looking at one’s account status. Today the real-time clearing and settlement system should not present financial institutions with a problem, but it does remain a problem. It has certainly happened to many of us, including me, that we send funds from one account to another within the same banking institution and the withdrawal is recorded instantly, whereas a deposit is not recorded until the next day, or even the day after that. An integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments would certainly remove these problems, although it will not be soon.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The variety of payment instruments has been steadily growing in Europe and worldwide. While new ways of using mobile and internet payments seem to be appearing rapidly, affecting both clients and enterprises, the card payment market is still a long way from its full potential and efficiency. The card, internet and mobile payment market is still fragmented in the European Union. There are significant differences between Member States with regard to the use of card payments. The process of creating the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) facilitates bank transfers in 32 European countries and all the participating countries will have to have implemented the common SEPA standards from 2014. In my opinion, since SEPA will bridge the gap between national and cross-border payments, the goal of integrating the card payments market should be to make cross-border payments as convenient as payments at a national level. It would be good to have more cross-border actors in this area.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Commission published a Green Paper on an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments which identified several barriers preventing the European payments market from working normally in an efficient, open and integrated manner. I am voting in favour of this report as I believe that there are a number of advantages linked to the creation of an integrated payments market, which means a Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) needs to be set up that establishes common rules for the various Member States. Lastly, I would emphasise that a market with more convenient, secure, fast and effective payments could generate direct and indirect benefits estimated at EUR 300 billion over the next 6 years.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’. The share and variety of internet and mobile payments have been steadily growing in Europe and worldwide, and I believe that it is vital to demolish obstacles to a fully and effectively integrated, competitive, innovative, safe, transparent and consumer-friendly European digital single market with regard to these forms of payments. I believe that common technical standards on an open access basis could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, foster interoperability and, at the same time, bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants. I consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States, and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. I underline that standardised security solutions would simplify customer information and thus the way customers adapt to security arrangements, which would reduce costs for payment service providers.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report, which calls for the harmonisation of card payment systems in order to facilitate cheaper and safer methods of paying for goods. The current system means that electronic payment structures across Member States are too disparate and act as an obstacle to better market integration in the EU. As the most frequently used electronic method to make retail payments, it is imperative that the current card payment system be harmonised in order to ensure a higher level of consumer protection. I welcome the suggestions set out in this report, which are a useful first step in developing an integrated European card, internet and mobile payment system across the EU. It is also important, however, for the Commission to ensure that vulnerable consumers are not excluded in any new payment systems proposed in the future.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The possibilities offered by payment instruments are growing – on a European level and also on a global level. New types of internet and mobile payments are emerging rapidly. To guarantee the security of payment transactions, the further development of technical standards should be supported; differences between domestic and foreign funds transfers should be minimised.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − I supported this report and the Commission Green Paper as a good first step in developing an integrated card, internet and mobile payment system across the EU, which should be based on high level of consumer protection. Consumer confidence is a key condition to the development of card and internet payment and for this there must be greater transparency in the pricing system for card payment services, with consideration given to EU-wide restrictions on these. I would, however, like to see the Commission ensure vulnerable consumers will not be excluded from new payment systems.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I abstained from voting, because non-bank institutions’ access to the customer’s bank account data should be carefully studied and not promoted before the same level of security can be guaranteed as applies to the bank accounts.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report supports the objective of increasing ‘free competition’ in card, internet and mobile payment markets. It is about applying neoliberalism to this market segment in order to encourage consumption, credit and workers and the general public getting themselves into debt. Against a backdrop of economic recession, this proposal is part and parcel of the lingering efforts to strengthen the internal market, removing the Member States’ ability to intervene in the market and the logic of providing services in accordance with the national situation. The report even advocates self-regulation of stakeholders. To complete this market, all terminals must be adapted so that they accept all cards and fulfil interoperability requirements. Who is going to foot the bill for replacing the current terminals with new ones? The answer is obvious: it will be the small and medium-sized enterprises (who make up more than 90 % of businesses in the EU Member States) who foot the bill for this extra cost for the banking sector and network operators. As regards the banks charging for the use of cards, the report is contradictory, stating that this should continue until at least 2017. Respect for privacy is not guaranteed and there are still doubts about the use of citizens’ personal and profile data.

- Report: Saïd El Khadraoui (A7-0354/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report. Despite being interconnected, shadow banking and normal banks share very complex links which are opaque and potentially pose systemic risks. In this way, in my opinion, more stringent surveillance and identification of systemic risks is required. From my point of view, a global approach is needed for the shadow banking system in order to detect risk transfers and ensure consumers are protected. I also think that we should make sure that no players or instruments remain off the regulatory radar. We have to fight to obtain fairer, more stable and more efficient financial markets.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I support and which enjoys the wide support of the European Parliament, is an extension of the decisions on banking made by the G20 following the 2008 crisis. Although the European Union is ahead of the pack in implementing these decisions, several areas are still on the back burner, notably shadow banking (tax evasion, off-balance-sheet accounts, etc.) and this report is the first step towards including them in a more transparent system.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this motion for a resolution, which aims to ensure greater transparency and better regulation in the shadow banking sector. Inadequate supervision of financial institutions that perform bank-like functions but are outside the perimeter of banking regulations is harmful to the stability of EU finances. The activities of institutions of this type could have positive effects, such as risk distribution outside the traditional banking sector. However, they have to be completely transparent. Therefore I agree with the proposals to improve the monitoring and regulation system for such financial institutions as well as to establish a central repo database offering supervisory authorities a complete overview of the global repo market. I also agree with the introduction of an exposure limit of 25 % of own funds for all unregulated entities and imposing a limit on the number of times a financial product can be securitised.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Since the start of the financial crisis in 2007, the G20 decided upon a whole series of regulatory measures to make the financial system safer and more sustainable. A great deal of legislation has been developed for the financial sector, but the shadow banking system has lagged behind as regards the changes that have occurred in the rest of the financial system, remaining outside the scope of regulation. With this in mind, the European Commission launched a Green Paper to open discussion on the regulation of this sector which includes activities such as repo transactions, security lending and securitisation. The activity of the shadow banking system could create major instability in the financial markets if left unregulated and unsupervised and, in this regard, the Commission is committed to producing guidelines to increase the overall transparency of activities in this sector and keep the potential for an increase in systemic risk under control. The European Commission is urged to create mechanisms for a better analysis of risk transfer in the financial sector. I voted in favour of this report as it is clear that we need standards to monitor and define rules for the way the shadow banking system operates and provide greater stability, robustness and transparency in the financial system.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Five years after the serious financial crisis, European citizens are still waiting for us to come to a conclusion and learn legislative lessons that will enable us to put an end to the most questionable practices of the financial system. However, it appears not only that these lessons have not been learned, but also that, because of this, we are still being exposed to horrific financial turmoil. Even worse, some practices are becoming more widespread. This is especially the case with shadow banking, the ‘black hole’ of international finance, which is totally out of control and swallowing up billions of euros. It is incomprehensible and irresponsible. The European Parliament is therefore well advised to single out this nonsense and must continue its work to move forward on this fundamental issue.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The crisis of 2008, which has assumed global dimensions, was caused by the financial services and has revealed their weaknesses. These include gaps in regulation, ineffective oversight, opaque markets and excessively complex products. The international response has been coordinated through the G20 and the Financial Stability Board. In particular, the G20 decided upon a whole series of regulatory measures to make the financial system safer and more sustainable. Since then, amongst a lot of other measures, capital requirements for financial institutions have been strengthened, a first step towards stricter regulation of rating agencies has been taken and a new financial supervision architecture has been developed. However, in my opinion, in spite of these new regulatory frameworks, a huge part of the credit intermediation still remains insufficiently monitored and regulated. I agree with the rapporteur that the activities involved in shadow banking could have beneficial effects for the economy, contributing to better risk spreading outside the traditional banking sector, but only if this risk spreading happens in a situation of full transparency in the financial operations market.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support the ideas set out in this report because they are an essential complement to the measures adopted in the financial supervision package in order to prevent and avoid systemic risks and monitor the whole of the financial system. Indeed, the gradual tightening of controls on traditional banking could encourage more innovative practices in order to avoid those controls and resorting to practices linked to shadow banking. This is why we need to get ahead of the game and complete the framework for regulating and preventing the risks that could arise from these practices, both for the financial system and for its users.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because stricter monitoring and supervision of the shadow banking system is essential. Shadow banking has been identified as one of the main possible triggers or factors contributing to the financial crisis, and can threaten the stability of the financial system. In order to get a complete overview on the shadow bank landscape, more and reliable data and analysis capacities are urgently required. The European Central Bank (with the European Systemic Risk Board) should play an important role in this regard. Given the innovative nature of the shadow banking system, its expansion may lead to new developments that may pose a source of systemic risk, which will have to be tackled. To do this adequately, the necessary monitoring tools should be created to get a concrete view on the whole system of credit intermediation.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on shadow banking. Shadow banking currently represents 30 % of the total financial system and in 2011 it generated more than EUR 50 000 billion. Shadow banking is comprised of non-banking credit activities and we need to weigh up the beneficial effects and risks of these activities. The aim of this report is to increase prudential supervision in order to reduce the systemic risks this system presents. I support the two major measures recommended by this report, i.e. the imposition of capital requirements for unregulated entities and the improvement of data collection on operations carried out in this sector.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Since the start of the financial crisis in 2007, the G20 decided upon a whole series of regulatory measures to make the financial system safer and more sustainable. Among other measures, capital requirements for financial institutions have been strengthened, the first steps towards stricter regulation of rating agencies have been taken and a new financial supervision architecture has been developed. Despite or perhaps because of these new regulatory frameworks, a huge part of credit brokerage still remains insufficiently monitored and regulated. As such, shadow banking takes place via entities or financial contracts generating a combination of bank-like functions but outside the scope of regulation or under a regulatory regime which is either light or addresses issues other than systemic risks, and without access to central bank liquidity facilities or public sector credit guarantees. I voted in favour of this report as I believe it is essential that we champion better monitoring and regulation of shadow banking.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The concept of ‘shadow banking’ does not necessarily mean an unregulated or illegal part of the financial sector. However, its innovative nature may be a source of systemic risk for taxpayers and the financial system. As such, all its toxic practices should be eliminated in order to ensure financial stability. Taking into account the fact that some of the components of shadow banking are vital for financing the real economy, it is important to define the scope of new or existing regulatory measures. This is why global cooperation is absolutely vital as a means of obtaining complete transparency as regards shadow banking. A fuller overview and better monitoring will allow supervisors to gauge the level of repo agreements, security lending and all the liabilities and mechanisms of the institutions. I therefore call for a rational, global approach to regulation, in keeping with the Financial Stability Board’s recommendations.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I believe that there needs to be stricter monitoring of entities which perform banking functions but are outside the regulatory system. The shadow banking system is considered to be one of the triggers of the global financial crisis. It is closely linked to the regular banking system, which is causing many concerns in terms of systemic risks. I voted in favour of the report on Shadow Banking as I consider that no actor or financial instrument should remain outside the regulations. We need more stable and more efficient financial markets which are geared towards stimulating the real economy.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Shadow banking accounts for nearly a third of our financial system and nearly half of bank assets. It did, indeed, play a sometimes-detrimental role in unleashing and developing the crisis we are undergoing. Therefore, it must be better regulated. I voted for this report because it adopts an approach that is risk-appropriate: the shadow banking sector should be regulated where its activities are potentially dangerous. Where they are useful and complement the ordinary banking sector, shadow banking should not be hindered. The Commission should develop a toolbox that is appropriate for these issues.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The shadow banking system, which includes insurance companies’ credit intermediation activities and the activities of most hedge funds, is a booming market. Currently, it accounts for 30 % of the overall financial system, i.e. almost USD 67 000 billion. In a period when banks are offering less finance, this credit distribution system deserves our full attention. Although the European Union benefits from the positive effects of this sector, it must also guard against the risks of abuse inherent in this type of activity, especially since the latter mainly contribute to funding at-risk projects via short-term loans, which are a potential source of destabilisation. The subprime crisis of 2007 and the financial crisis that immediately followed it are further arguments in this regard. Therefore, it is necessary to establish an adequate legal framework, with transparent regulation and supervision, in order to re-launch our economy in safety.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which improves the monitoring of non-banking credit in order to avoid the abuses we have seen in the past, which are one of the origins of the current economic crisis. Stricter, better-harmonised banking regulation in Europe can only be beneficial for citizens.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it advocates greater supervision of the activity of financial institutions that perform functions similar to banks, but which are not subject to banking regulation and which raise concerns over systemic risk and improper practices. Shadow banking is only good for the real economy if there is transparency and the risks of a systemic crisis have been addressed.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Since the start of the financial crisis in 2007, various financial regulation instruments have been adopted. However, there is still much that is outside the legislative sphere, including so-called shadow banking, which carries out its activity through entities or financial contracts that establish functions identical to those of banks. However, these are outside the scope of regulation, or within a regulatory framework that is tenuous or deals with other matters than systemic risks. As such, I endorse the rapporteur’s conclusions, particularly that instruments must be created to supervise this sector, with the European Central Bank playing an important role in this regard, and the possibility of creating a public entity to oversee the sector should be studied.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The current economic and financial crisis largely resulted from the malfunctioning of the banking system which, lacking oversight and tighter controls, took advantage of speculative processes which eventually led to the successive bankruptcy of banks and businesses. As shadow banking is outside the sector, it does not respect market rules and may endanger a company’s operations. Therefore, we need tools that would allow us to have greater insight into the sector to stimulate it and, above all, control it so that there is no repeat of what happened. To do this, we need fully operational supervisory mechanisms, which should be provided with a central register of securities purchased to carry out their activity. I voted in favour of Saïd El Khadraoui’s report on shadow banking, which had a turnover of around EUR 46 billion in 2010 – the contagious effect of which is enormous and which could endanger global finance – because it is essential that we create mechanisms to prevent a destructive contagious effect on the regulated banking system.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) According to the report, the shadow banking system represents 25 % to 30 % of the total financial system and half of total bank assets. Few of this system’s practices have vanished since 2008. The report highlights the dependence of the normal banking sector on the shadow sector and that this can threaten the stability of the financial system. It notes that regulation, evaluation and auditing are impossible where there is distortion of credit risk or disturbance of cash flows. Given that this diagnosis is essentially correct, the proposals made by the report, while pretending that something has to change, actually leave everything the same. The problem does not lie in the alleged excesses within shadow banking and how it operates, but in its very existence and essence, which is purely speculative. It is a system dominated by large investment banks with a portfolio of financial instruments several times exceeding the gross domestic product of some countries (even so-called rich countries) which have developed the most speculative tools, particularly with regard to the public debt of States. A system that uses the added value created in the productive sphere (by workers) to create instruments (papers) that are sold and resold, and then the bill is passed to the workers and the people when someone along the speculation chain does not pay up.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Shadow banking as such takes place via entities or financial contracts generating a combination of bank-like functions but outside the regulatory perimeter or under a regulatory regime which is either light or addresses issues other than systemic risks, and without access to a central bank liquidity facility or public sector credit guarantees. Entities such as special purpose vehicles, conduits, special investment vehicles, money market funds, exchange traded funds and investment funds are possibly seen as shadow banking entities. Amongst shadow bank activities, the EC distinguishes repo transactions, security lending and securitisation. It is obvious that shadow banking does not exist on its own. During the crisis, banks were seriously affected not only by the overall market dislocation, but also by their exposure to the shadow banking system. As underlined by the Commission’s Green Paper, different measures have already been taken to tackle the systemic risks caused by shadow banking. The market has also reacted, and since the start of the crisis some of the practices of shadow banking have vanished. However, the innovative nature of the shadow banking system may lead to new developments that may pose a source of systemic risk, which should be tackled. To do this adequately, the necessary monitoring tools should be created to get a concrete view on the whole system of credit intermediation.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Three years after the financial, social and economic crisis erupted, the proposal put to the vote today comes just in time as with a view to effective crisis management and avoiding future turbulence on the financial markets we cannot avoid subjecting shadow banking activities to close scrutiny. It is common knowledge that while they stimulate trading and act as an incentive to financial transactions, shadow banks can at the same time cause massive and sudden damage in the absence of the safety nets of the traditional banking system. The report aims to construct databases and information systems which can be used to facilitate the monitoring of security market transactions and repurchase transactions; this means that in the future we would have a greater chance of avoiding systemic risks. In the light of the above I obviously voted in favour of the report.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − Shadow banking institutions are undoubtedly important players in the EU economy: they make up about 30% of the global financial system. Although shadow banks offer an alternative to regular banks, these are still largely made use of by the latter and therefore the interconnection and to a certain extent symbiosis between the two remains of utmost importance in maintaining stability and enforcing the right controls in our financial markets. Better financial checks and supervision of credit management by regular banks and non-bank financial institutions such as shadow banks have strengthened and been refined since the crisis. The EU is better equipped to monitor the flow of credit throughout the Union and beyond, yet work still needs to be done. The Parliament’s call for the setting up of a central registry of risk transfers between these non-bank financial institutions and regulated financial institutions will enable there to be closer scrutiny and controls. The fact that Parliament is supporting that real-time mapping and monitoring of transactions is put into place, in order to identify the riskiest deals, is also commendable

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Despite or maybe due to new regulatory frameworks adopted since the start of the financial crisis to make the financial system safer and more sustainable, a huge part of the credit intermediation still remains insufficiently monitored and regulated. Shadow banking is a system of intermediaries, instruments, entities or financial contracts generating a combination of bank-like functions but outside the regulatory perimeter or under a regulatory regime which is either light or addresses issues other than systemic risks, and without guaranteed access to central bank liquidity facilities or public sector credit guarantees. I agree that the interconnectedness between ‘traditional banks’ and off balance vehicles and activities should be made more transparent and tackled from a regulatory viewpoint. Firstly, in order to get a complete overview on the shadow bank landscape, more and reliable data and analysis capacities are urgently required. One of the most important steps towards greater transparency could be the initiative to create a central database on repo transactions. Secondly, this data mapping exercise should allow the identification of the aspects of the shadow banking system which have beneficial effects for the real economy and those posing systemic risk or concerns.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. − Five years after the run on Northern Rock, we have still not tackled the main problem, which is to avoid banks being bailed out with taxpayers’ money again. We also do need to look at the so-called shadow banking sector in detail which covers a range of financial activities which should be subject to proportionate regulation where appropriate and necessary. While shadow banking in many ways complements the regular banking sector, it is widely recognised that there are many risks that could potentially be systemically relevant. That is why we have called for a number of proposals, subject to international recommendations, to tackle the linkages and processes that could prove dangerous to the financial services sector. I remain concerned about the suggestions on money market funds, and think that more debate is necessary, but on topics such as securitisation, I am pleased with the outcome of the debate. We need to make sure that sufficient sums of money are put aside to cover potential losses. We shall now look to the Commission to develop its thinking in tandem with the FSB's proposals and I hope that any further proposals are genuinely necessary, impact assessed and subject to cost benefit analyses

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which supports the creation and management, possibly by the ECB, of a central EU database on euro repo transactions database, to be fed by infrastructures and custodian banks to the extent that they internalise repo settlement in their own books; believes, however, that such a database should cover transactions in all currency denominations in order for supervisors to have a full picture and understanding of the global repo market; calls on the Commission to proceed to the rapid adoption (in early 2013) of a coherent approach for central data collection, identifying data gaps and combining efforts by existing initiatives from other bodies and national authorities, in particular the trade repositories put in place by EMIR; invites the Commission to submit a report (by mid-2013) covering, but not limited to, the required institutional set-up (e.g. ECB, ESRB, an independent central registry), the content and frequency of data surveys, in particular on euro repo transactions and financial risk transfers, and the level of required resources.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Shadow banking is a reality that needs to be better understood so it can be better regulated and moulded to society’s needs. The 2007 financial crisis showed how urgent it is to bring this sector under the purview of regulatory authorities. I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it stands as a contribution, however modest, to pursuing that goal.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) At the start of the financial crisis in 2007, the G20 decided upon a whole series of regulatory measures to make the financial system safer and more sustainable. Since then, amongst many other measures, capital requirements for financial institutions have been strengthened, the first steps towards stricter regulation of rating agencies have been taken and a new financial supervision architecture has been developed. Despite these new regulatory frameworks, or perhaps because of them, a huge part of credit intermediation still remains insufficiently monitored and regulated. It is urgent for work to continue towards regulating them, so that they do not once again contribute to a new crisis.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Full oversight of shadow banking is needed in order to capture risky transfers and ensure consumer protection. I totally support the front line to ensure that no actor and no instrument remains outside the regulatory radar – we fight to obtain fairer, more stable and more efficient financial markets, again primarily at the service of the real economy. It is high time shadow banking was eliminated.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) A shadow banking system is essentially understood to mean a system of credit intermediation that exists outside the regular banking system. This mainly concerns hedge funds and money market funds, but also special purpose vehicles, that is institutions that are known for risky transactions. The problem here is that their transactions are not subject to financial market regulation. The Financial Stability Board’s annual report states that in 2011 shadow banks had a turnover of USD 67 trillion (EUR 52.6 trillion). This means that their turnover was up EUR 5 trillion on 2010. For its report the FSB monitored its 24 member jurisdictions and Chile. The 25 countries monitored account for 90 % of global financial system assets. The FSB concluded that last year shadow banks had a 25 % share of total financial intermediation. In 2007 the corresponding figure was 27 %, according to the report. I voted in favour of the report, as I agree with the rapporteur that some of the companies and activities described by the FSB as shadow banking have clear advantages for the regular economy and could promote economic growth. However, instruments should be created that ensure full transparency.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this report, the purpose of which is to shed more light on ‘shadow banking’. Shadow banking is the system of entities and bodies that operate in parallel with and sometimes obscurely compared with the traditional, better regulated financial markets. Last year it was estimated that the shadow banking system’s turnover was around 50 000 billion euros, a shocking figure that is significantly higher than in previous years. It is easy to understand how such a large figure can affect the traditional markets, and the very negative role this sector played in the current financial crisis has justifiably drawn criticism from a number of quarters. The report therefore proposes better monitoring of this activity and its implications for and interconnectedness with the ‘official’ banking system. Finance was what caused this crisis, which is now affecting the real economy and industry, and it is therefore right and necessary that we take any measures we can that could lead to greater transparency and regulation of the sector, which is so important but cannot and must not cause the ruin of every citizen.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) More effective monitoring and supervision as regards banking and shadow banking is definitely necessary to make banking more transparent and avoid market manipulation. I supported this report, which addresses these issues. Unfortunately, depending on the country, a number of shadow banking activities are not regulated, which makes auditing extremely difficult or nearly impossible in the case of disturbance of cash flows or distortion of credit risk.

Therefore, I find it necessary for financial asset transfers from the balance sheet to be disclosed by filling the gaps in the International Financial Reporting Standards. Certainly, the responsibility of accountants and internal auditors in signalling potential risks should be increased. Accounting rules should reflect reality and not the desired situation; for example, real estate is valuated considerably above market value. Such manipulations contribute to instability in banking and this should certainly be avoided because trustworthiness is the very foundation of banking.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I am in favour of this resolution because only by limiting the expansion of shadow banking can we ensure European financial stability. Therefore, in order to prevent the potential systematic risk and other negative effects of shadow banking, it is essential to create an improved system for monitoring and regulation. It should be noted that shadow banking should work as a useful alternative source of financing in the EU. It is an important tool for keeping risks separate from the banking sector and hence away from potential taxpayers or systemic impact.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The activity of shadow banking can create many risks and instability in financial markets if it is not regulated and supervised and, in this regard, the Commission, which presented its findings in its Green Paper, is committed to producing guidelines to enhance the total transparency of all activities in this sector and keep the potential for increasing systemic risk under control. This report calls on the European Commission to create mechanisms for a better analysis of risk transfers in the financial sector. I voted in favour of this report because I consider it clearly necessary to establish standards that oversee and set rules for the functioning of shadow banking and that provide greater stability, robustness and transparency in the financial system.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The global crisis we are currently in started when the market realised that the securitisation of loans was subject to incentives that would lead to a lowering of lending standards, the ‘subprime loans’. Because of what happened it seems increasingly important to make the connection between the traditional banks and the shadow banking system transparent, in order to tackle it from a regulatory viewpoint. In order to gain a complete overview of the shadow banking system, more comprehensive and reliable data on it is required. Indeed, some aspects of the shadow banking system may have beneficial effects on the real economy, whereas others can lead to tragic situations and high systemic risk. In the light of what I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Since the start of the financial crisis in 2007, the G20 decided upon a whole series of regulatory measures to make the financial system safer and more sustainable. A great deal of legislation has been developed for the financial sector, but the shadow banking system has lagged behind as regards the changes that have occurred in the rest of the financial system, remaining outside the scope of regulation. With this in mind, the European Commission launched a Green Paper to open discussion on the regulation of this sector which includes activities such as repo transactions, security lending and securitisation. Shadow banking activity could create many risks and instability in financial markets if it is not regulated and supervised and, in this regard, the Commission is committed to producing guidelines to increase the overall transparency of activities in this sector and keep the potential for an increase systemic risk under control. The report also urges the European Commission to create mechanisms for a better analysis of risk transfers in the financial sector. I voted in favour of this report because I believe that we clearly need to establish standards that oversee and set rules for the functioning of shadow banking and that provide greater stability, robustness and transparency in the financial system.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when Belgium has just recapitalised Dexia to the tune of EUR 2.9 billion, shadow banking, a parallel banking system which involves entities not subject to banking regulation (securitisation funds, hedge funds, commercial banks, money market funds, etc.) is still problematic. Although the G20 has adopted a whole series of regulatory measures aimed at making the financial system safer and more viable after the 2007 financial crisis, this shadow finance, connected to the traditional banking system, is still barely or badly regulated. It was assessed at EUR 67 000 billion in 2011 (compared to EUR 26 000 billion in 2002), half of which (46 %) comes from Europe, a continuing upward trend. Although some parts of this system are vital to the real economy and justify a targeted approach, the motion for a resolution approved today in plenary aligns perfectly with the strengthening of transparency rules and regulation of this sector, which is an indispensable pillar of the global economy.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Despite representing a significant proportion of the activities of the financial sector, often higher risk activities, the ‘shadow banking’ sector has managed to slip under regulators’ and policy makers’ radars for too long. The EP has today sent a strong political signal to the European Commission and governments on the need to ensure that EU rules properly apply to the sector, to clamp down on overly risky practices and to try and shed more light on what is a murky industry. In spite of the significant economic value and risks of the shadow banking sector, many of the entities involved have managed to escape regulations applying to traditional financial institutions. The financial crisis and the interlinkage of ‘true banks’ and ‘shadow banks’ has effectively meant the transfer of massive amounts of public funds to these unregulated entities. This situation cannot continue and MEPs have today called for this to be addressed.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) When we talk about the shadow banking system, we are referring to a credit intermediation system that allows money to move around in the absence of rules and outside the confines of traditional banking channels. This is a system that is growing at a rate of 6 000 billion US dollars a year. Much of the blame for the current crisis, which has brought the global financial system to its knees, has been laid with the operations performed by this system. I think we need a regulatory framework that can stop any dangerous practices. We have a duty to evaluate the appropriateness of new and profound changes that will correct the lack of transparency and clear rules. The regulation and supervision of credit activities that take place within the shadow banking system will enable us to prevent the risk of future crises and guarantee financial stability. Given the necessity of defining the application of this parallel system and identifying the risks it involves, I voted in favour.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In order to get a complete overview of the shadow banking landscape, more and reliable data and analysis capacities are urgently required. The European Central Bank should play a major role in this regard. The initiative on a repo data warehouse may be a crucial step towards more transparency. Furthermore, in order to shed light on risk transfers in the financial sector and to identify who has purchased what from whom and how the transferred risks are sorted, the feasibility of the creation of a public utility should be urgently considered by the Commission. Moreover, this data mapping exercise should allow the identification of the aspects of the shadow banking system which have beneficial effects for the real economy and those posing systemic risk or regulatory arbitrage concerns, like excessive maturity and liquidity transformation, leverage and regulatory arbitrage. Once these systemic risks are identified, they must, it seems to me, be tackled by an improved monitoring and regulative response. Mr El Khadraoui proposes a very interesting series of solutions in this report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The shadow banking system is understood as ‘a system of intermediaries, instruments, entities or financial contracts generating a combination of bank-like functions but outside the regulatory perimeter or under a regulatory regime which is either light or addresses issues other than systemic risks, and without guaranteed access to central bank liquidity facility or public sector credit guarantees’. The Financial Stability Board issued a Green Paper on shadow banking that focuses on its potential risks and how it can be dealt with from the point of view of its regulation. I agree with this report which calls on the European Commission to effectively and efficiently regulate shadow banking which, in 2011, reached an overall dimension of EUR 51 billion, equivalent to 25 % to 30 % of the total financial system and half of total bank assets.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on Shadow Banking as the shadow banking sector fulfils important functions within the financial system. According to the definition given by the Financial Stability Board, shadow banking refers to the system of credit intermediation that involves entities and activities outside the regular banking system. Regulated entities in the regular banking system take part extensively in those activities defined as part of the shadow banking system, and are in many ways interconnected with shadow banking entities. The shadow banking system creates new sources of financing and offers investors alternatives to bank deposits, but it can also entail potential risks in terms of financial stability in the long term. I voted to make bank balances more reliable and we invite the Commission to come up with a legislative proposal for a separation of retail and investing activities of banks. We call on the Commission to undertake comprehensive impact assessments of the effects of all new legislative proposals on the financing of the real economy.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Shadow banking accounts for 25-30 % of the entire financial system and half of banks’ total assets. The Commission’s Green Paper (19 March 2012) was a first step towards genuine monitoring and supervision of shadow banking. This approach is based on the indirect regulation of this system. However, it is regrettable that there is a lack of criticism of the decisive role that all banks played in the current sovereign debt crisis. Direct, extensive regulation of some of its aspects must be implemented. The proposed regulation seems to me wholly inadequate, especially in consumer protection terms, and will not prevent financial institutions from transferring risky assets to less-regulated shadow banking entities. The Commission could encourage changes to the International Financial Reporting Standards, with more attention being paid to aggregates without netting and risk weights. Therefore, I abstained from this vote, which questions neither the relationships between the banking system in general nor these ‘shadow actors’, the number of which has considerably increased over the (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170)

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) Since the start of the financial crisis in 2007, the G20 decided upon a whole series of regulatory measures to make the financial system safer and more sustainable. Since then, amongst a lot of other measures, the capital requirements for financial institutions have been strengthened. In spite of these changes, much credit intermediation remains insufficiently monitored and regulated. Shadow banking takes place via entities or financial contracts generating a combination of bank-like functions but outside the regulatory perimeter or not under any regulatory regime. Action should be taken against shadow banking.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This is a non-legislative report, which represents Parliament’s response to the Commission’s Green Paper on Shadow Banking. Shadow banking, such as hedge funds and trading houses, is currently outside the scope of EU financial regulation. Nevertheless, it is seen as being a contributory factor in the economic crisis as, through their connection with regular banks, shadow banks can allow areas of systemic risk to develop without being noticed or monitored. I supported this report as it proposes measures for reducing the systemic risk posed by shadow banking, by extending regulation to cover shadow banks, while not seeking to lessen the benefits such banks bring to the real economy.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) As underlined by the Commission’s green paper, different measures have already been taken to tackle the systemic risks caused by shadow banking. The market has also reacted, and since the start of the crisis some of the practices of SB have vanished. However, given the innovative nature of shadow banking system may lead to new developments that may pose a source of systemic risk, so I voted in favour of the draft resolution.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The report acknowledges that the shadow banking system represents 25 % to 30 % of the total financial system and half of total bank assets. It recognises that since 2008 only a few of the practices of shadow banking have disappeared, the dependence of the normal banking sector on shadow banking and that shadow banking can threaten the stability of the financial system. It notes that regulation, evaluation and auditing where there is distortion of credit risk or disturbance of cash flows is impossible. The majority are enacting change to leave everything the same, seeking to make us believe that the problem lies in the functioning of shadow banking, in its excesses, and not in its very existence. But it is in its existence and in its purely speculative nature that the problem lies. It is a system dominated by large investment banks with a portfolio of financial instruments exceeding several times over the gross domestic product of some countries (even so-called rich countries) which have developed the most speculative tools, particularly with regard to the public debt of States. A system that uses the added value created in the productive sphere to create instruments (papers) that are sold and resold, and then the bill is passed to the workers and the people when someone along the speculation chain does not pay up.

- Report: Silvia Costa (A7-0353/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I endorse this report. We must make a joint effort within the European Union to make social networking safer, to address cases of blocking of content and payment schemes and the fragmentation of the market due to the unilateral actions of each Member State. Thus, in my view, action is needed at a European level based on the best practices of Member States in order to achieve economies of scale and information and communication technology development to make it safer for children to use the digital world. I think an educational alliance between families, schools, civil society and industry has become essential. Only a combination of legal, technical and educational means will enable us to address and prevent the dangers that children face in the digital world.

  Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) The Pirate Party is fully aware of the many challenges faced by children and young people in digital environments. However, Parliament has failed to consider all these challenges in this report. Instead of safeguarding freedom of speech and open communication and contact, the report encourages taking responsibility for what is a good, legal and democratic debate among private bodies rather than within the court system. However, private enterprises are not constitutional courts and do not have the expertise, knowledge or opportunity to establish such difficult boundaries. Additionally, the consistent mistrust of children and young people’s interactions with other people does not protect children and runs the risk of damaging their natural attitude towards adults and their surrounding world. Therefore, the Pirate Party has voted against this report.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We are of the opinion that children should be protected and crime should be tackled through law enforcement. However, the report’s focus on government campaigns and the extension of enforcement to ISPs and other self-regulating mechanisms is setting the wrong priorities and risks privatising responsibilities that lie in the hands of states, while diminishing the role of parents in their children’s education. Measures included in the report furthermore demonstrate an unwarranted bias towards the perceived dangers of the internet, limiting the opportunities for education and innovation. Rather, we prefer to strengthen the youth’s resilience and independence. Efforts should be directed at educating children and youth, with the help of their parents and teachers, to take ownership of their actions on the web and to develop e-skills.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this important resolution on protecting children in the digital world. The growing popularity of social networking means that children spend more and more time online. Statistics also show that young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television. They are online 88 minutes a day (2 hours for 15-16-year-olds), starting on average at 9 years of age but in some cases much younger, even before they start schooling and reading. 77 % of 15-16-year-olds and 38 % of young people aged 9-12 are registered on Facebook and need protection from the dangers of the virtual world. For this reason I am happy that the European Parliament has passed the resolution calling for the combating of harmful content and ensuring that the internet is safe for children. We, the Members of the European Parliament, would like to encourage the EU Member States and the European Commission to present a common position and policy guidelines on the protection of children on the internet as soon as possible as well as prepare a proposal regarding a single, common framework directive on the protection of children in the digital world that would summarise all the provisions relating to children that were set out in EU legislation adopted previously. It is especially important that all EU Member States take urgent action to ensure the protection of our young generation in the digital world and increase youth awareness of the limits of their privacy and the dangers that they face on the internet when they incorrectly assess information that they receive and reveal personal information.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Children are the category most exposed to risks when surfing the web. Their thirst for knowledge can often turn them into victims of psychological manipulation, child pornography, violation of privacy, online gambling, commercial fraud and many other things. I believe it is necessary to protect minors when they are in cyberspace by promoting, at European level, digital education and training for children, parents, educators, schoolteachers and social workers to enable them to understand the digital world and identify those dangers to which this age category is exposed when using the internet. I believe it is important to continue the Safer Internet Programme, which finances programmes aimed at increasing the level of protection for minors online, in an increasingly efficient form which is more geared towards collaboration at European level. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I supported, is part of a wider initiative in the digital field. The digital world is constantly developing and often the legislation is late in catching up. It is important to enable a sufficiently flexible framework to be drawn up in order to protect children in their use of these tools while still retaining sufficient flexibility to allow adaptation to these permanent changes.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. − I fully support the recommendations in this Report for increased education and awareness of both the benefits and dangers of the internet and also for technologies designed for prevent children from accessing content inappropriate for their age, such as parental control tools or age verification systems, to be improved and strengthened. It is important that policymakers assist parents, educators and communities in addressing the challenges and problems facing children in the digital world and that policy keeps up with technological advancements. It is also essential that it is made easier to report illegal content or abuse and for cross-border measures in this regard to be increased given the nature of the digital world.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on ensuring internet safety for children and removing and combating illegal and harmful content. The EU Member States have differing and insufficient measures for dealing with the problems relating to harmful internet content where age classification systems and technical means to ensure that websites are suitable for certain age ranges are not harmonised. I support the establishment of hotlines for reporting harmful content, and believe that support infrastructure for a more effective removal of illegal content should also be improved. I also agree with the establishment of wider classification systems for online games based on age, preparation of codes of conduct and the need to better inform retailers about the classification so that children are not able to purchase games that are unsuitable for their age. It is essential to organise awareness-raising campaigns on internet safety for children as well as to teach internet safety in schools.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television and around 88 minutes a day online. The internet is young people’s companion, often more than the family, school and friends. Internet users face various risks, including breach of privacy, health dangers, dependence phenomena and a distorted relationship with reality. It is clearly difficult for parents and teachers to accompany young people in their positive discovery of the digital world. It is essential to strengthen access to education about traditional and new media; protection, making the distinction between the fight against illegal content and the fight against inappropriate content and conduct, protection of privacy and the right of reply and digital citizenship. For these reasons, I voted for this report.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Inexperienced and naïve web surfers, among whom we can certainly include minors, when their navigation lacks awareness, protection and control, face various risks such as the violation of privacy, the commercial or other use of their profiles, dependence phenomena, and a false relationship with reality and their own identity. Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union argues that policies for children are holistic: therefore a broad framework directive is needed to regulate the whole subject area as well as multilevel governance to seek a harmonised approach in Member States and encourage stronger coordination between them. I applaud the recent introduction, thanks to EU cofinancing, of valid instruments, above all the Safer Internet Programme, which is well established in all the countries of the Union. In my opinion we need to ensure continuity for the Safer Internet Programme and in particular to guarantee that the responsibility for protecting minors against cybercrime is held by the police, in an increasingly efficient and cooperative form at European level. In this context, it is necessary to encourage action to combat online crime against minors, which has been successfully adopted by some Member States that already exchange information.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I fully support this report, because I think it is essential to protect children from the phenomena of invasion of privacy, proselytism of potentially dangerous ideologies, identity theft, the risk of sexual aggression and the distribution of data that could create risks for the safety of those who handle it and for public safety in general. I think that in this area it is fundamental that we raise awareness among parents of the risks of unmonitored internet use and commit to the value of training and adopting European laws to prevent problems arising from deficient self-regulation by the industries that exploit content.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this motion because it is an imperative that children in the EU, who are spending increasingly more time online, are protected from the plethora of existing online dangers. A single EU framework directive for Children’s rights in the digital world, including instruments and actions such as ‘Media Education’ and strengthening collaboration between police for stopping crimes online, will aid parents and teachers in protecting children from online danger.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Internet and television take up more and more time in young people’s lives, which makes it necessary to establish protection for children and define quality standards for content that targets them. It is estimated that among 9 to 16-year-olds, young people use computers for school work and to play (100 %), to see video clips (86 %), to play with others, to download videos and music and to exchange P2P files (56 %) and, finally, for file sharing and visiting chat rooms (23 %). Young people themselves, schools, and academics and society as a whole are showing increasing awareness of the quality standards that must be required for content for minors, regardless of its means or the instrument used (television, computer, telephone, digital pad). Thus, with EU financing, valid instruments have been created, above all the Safer Internet Programme, which is well established in all the countries of the Union, and which until 2013 will guarantee coordination, which has been positively assessed in the interim report. It is necessary to ensure continuity for the Safer Internet Programme, and guarantee that the responsibility for protecting minors against cybercrime is held by all Member States. In order to achieve greater effectiveness, the fight against illegal content should be addressed and the protection of privacy should be ensured.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on protecting children in the digital world. Young people are using digital technology a great deal and more intuitively than adults. This is why, in order to enhance the protection of children against illegal and inappropriate content circulating in the digital world, I support this report, which aims to establish more effective cooperation at European level.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television. They are online 88 minutes a day (2 hours for 15-16-year-olds), starting on average at 9 years old. Inexperienced and naive web surfers, among whom we may include minors, when surfing with a lack of information, protection and control, face various risks, including violation of privacy, the commercial or other use of their profiles, health dangers, dependence phenomena, and a distorted relationship with reality and their own identity. I voted in favour of this report because I consider greater commitment by Member States to the protection of children in the digital world is essential, particularly through promoting complete mastery of its codes, which is essential for full and active citizenship in order to offer European citizens the chance to benefit from the cultural and economic aspects of all types of media associated with digital technology, and to contribute to achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty, by favouring the emergence of a knowledge-based economy and encouraging competition.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) As minors spend most of their time in front of the television and online and are exposed to a great deal of violence, there is a need for a framework directive to end the fragmentation of legislative provisions and indications to protect minors in the digital world, in order to have a harmonised approach in Member States and encourage stronger coordination between them and the EU. It is necessary to continue with the Safer Internet Programme and to guarantee that responsibility for protecting minors against cybercrime is held by the police, in an increasingly efficient and cooperative form at European level. It is necessary to encourage action to combat online crime against minors, which has been successfully adopted by some Member States, which implements information exchange with internet and email service providers. It is important for Member States to agree to protect minors in the digital world, to offer European citizens the chance of benefitting from the cultural and economic dimension of all types of media connected to digital technology and to contribute to the realisation of the Lisbon goals, favouring the emergence of a knowledge-based economy and stimulating competition.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I have no doubt about the numerous opportunities related to education and learning that the digital world can offer to children and young people. However, the education sector is adjusting at a pace and in a way that is completely failing to keep up with the speed of technological changes in the lives of minors. The rapid evolution of technology thus requires equally rapid and effective responses, particularly through the adoption of a strategy for the effective protection of children. We must focus on prevention, helping young people, families and schools to be aware of the possible dangers they face online. We must effectively address all types of illegal online content, but also other threats such as harassment, discrimination, bullying, breaches of privacy, etc. In view of the strong and strengthened commitment to defending children’s rights in the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is necessary to take another step forward and transform general objectives into concrete actions. I therefore support the creation of a framework directive to integrate and regulate all matters relating to the protection of children in the digital world, as well as multilevel governance to seek a harmonised approach in Member States and encourage stronger coordination between them and the EU.

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), in writing. − My support for this Report could be explained by the fact that recently the increasing number of children is using the internet. While being an essential infrastructure for economic and social relations, the internet still carries a number of risks. Children start using the online services at a younger age, and spend more time online. The Digital World offers them innovative facilities for education, creativity and self-expression. However, online digital media often carry a spectrum of negative and abusive content to which children are more vulnerable than adults. I support the Rapporteur on the fact that it is necessary to ensure the sustainability if the Safer Internet Programme at European level. I am convinced that by enforcing the age-appropriate privacy settings, content classification, and parental controls as well as by enhancing the cooperation of all actors of children's education we could enable the internet to become an open platform for social progress and economic growth.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I consider that the role of parents in protecting their children against the dangers generated by the digital world is very significant, but at the same time I believe that at European level the main priorities should be oriented towards policies which ensure that children are protected against aggressive or misleading televised and online advertising.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome this report, which lays the foundations for a strong response to limit the risks for children on the web. Coordination between Member States is required in order to address these dangers better: the internet does not have borders, so our action should not have any either. Above all, parents and schools must learn how to respond to these issues. Reducing our children’s exposure to danger and coordinating our responses better without endangering our private lives: these are all essential measures, and ones I fully support.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Ninety per cent of 9-16 year-olds connect to the internet at least once a week. Poorly informed of the risks, especially those linked to child pornography, and with scant appreciation of considerations of confidentiality, they are the most vulnerable sector of society in this respect and therefore the most in need of protection. It is the duty of the Member States and the EU to do all they can to protect children and young people effectively against the dangers of the digital world. Contrary to received wisdom, the latter is not a virtual world without risks or consequences. Regulation of online content, enhanced identification of illegal content, cooperation between police and judicial authorities in the Member States and with third States are actions that must be carried out rapidly. Finally, age verification systems at the entry to sites must be created to prevent children accessing any inappropriate content. The proposals in my report on the protection of minors also need to be implemented urgently: the creation of a ‘.kid’ domain name, to be reserved for content for children and regularly monitored by an independent authority; awareness-raising campaigns; distribution of information kits showing how to surf safely, protect oneself using filtering systems, make a complaint or report harmful content via a hotline; and the training of teachers and trainers.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which enhances the protection of children in the digital world. With the increased presence of new technologies in the daily lives of citizens, and especially of children, it is essential that children are educated in these new media. It is also necessary to protect children with stricter rules against the potential dangers present in illegal online content.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Swift changes in technology require swift responses. The broad domain of the digital world is no longer limited to desktop personal computers; we now have smart phones, tablets, etc. Educational institutions are endeavouring to adapt to the digital world; children are educated in using the internet earlier and find it much easier than adults. Several studies have shown that they spend on average one and a half hours a day surfing the internet, from the age of nine years old, and in fact, in many cases they learn how to use the world wide web before they learn how to read and write. However, adult intervention is required to ensure that the internet is used wisely, responsibly and safely. It is important that they understand the possible dangers lurking around the corner when using the internet: in particular, addiction to the internet or video games and becoming detached from reality can distort how children identify with themselves. The spread of chat rooms and other messaging options has increased access to the personal information of children in the digital world. We have to take up the fight against illegal and harmful content. The easy access to internet content related to online harassment, racism, violence and discrimination means that unprotected and naive children do not learn to understand when human dignity is wronged. Responsibility in relation to protecting children from illegal content falls on families, schools and civil society.

The efforts to create an electronic system for certifying ages should be welcomed. Unfortunately, though, the agreement reached in 2009 between operators of 17 social networking sites and the Commission was not fulfilled, designed as it was to improve the protection and security of children.

Owners and administrators of web pages should ensure that systems require mandatory parental consent before processing the personal information of children below the age of 13 years. The biggest problem with this is that if children encounter an internet restriction because of their age, they provide false information about themselves or authentic information but with a higher age when registering themselves on the site.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Report on protecting children in the digital world. The internet is becoming increasingly present in the lives of children and it gives children and young people an incredible opportunity to make their voices heard. On the other hand it exposes them to high risks and requires action on at least three fronts: access and education, protection and digital citizenship. Moreover I believe that Member States should make efforts to promote systematic education and training for children, parents, educators, schoolteachers and social workers, thus allowing them to understand the digital world and identify those risks which could harm the physical or mental integrity of children. I believe that raising awareness on the rights of children in the digital world would greatly impact the wellbeing of the next generation and protect them from the risks posed by the internet.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I consider it necessary to invest in education for the young, training and teaching them to cope with the digital world. Parents cannot always keep up with changes in children caused by technological innovations, hence the need to implement a European programme to ensure safer use of the internet.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) According to data in the report, young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television and are online 88 minutes a day. Although the use of digital media is nowadays a fundamental tool for learning and information, the truth is that the internet presents numerous risks and threats, especially for younger users: violation of privacy, the commercial or other use of their profiles, health dangers, dependence phenomena, a distorted relationship with reality and their own identity, and sexual exploitation and child pornography. As a parent, I know how difficult the task of parental control of computer resources is, so I think that it is essential to establish a framework of rights and governance to end the fragmentation of legislative provisions currently existing in the field of human rights, protecting privacy, combating sexual abuse, audiovisual media services and e-commerce, in order to protect children in the digital world, as proposed by the rapporteur.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) A great Portuguese writer wrote that ‘children are the best thing in the world’. In this regard, everything that we can do to protect them from the evils of the society to which they belong must be done. The advent of the internet age has brought many dangers to its users, especially children and young people for whom it is often a second home. Amongst internet users aged between 10 and 17, 15 % have been subject to invitations of a sexual nature. Moreover, there are abuses involving sexual exploitation and pornography that must be stopped. It has therefore become of the utmost urgency to create legal certainty for internet users. We all remember the recent images of a girl who killed herself because she was the victim of sexual harassment and cyber-bullying. The protection of children is an imperative for European society and it has to take appropriate measures to achieve this protection. I voted in favour of the report drawn up by Silvia Costa on protecting children in the digital world because it promotes a responsible digital citizenship, making parents and educators aware of the need to educate and inform their students of the danger that uncontrolled use of the internet represents.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The report highlights three key elements for protecting children in the digital world: education on media and new media, protection of privacy (combating illegal content and inappropriate content and conduct) and the right of reply, and digital citizenship. We know that on average a child spends about 90 minutes a day on the internet. The risks are many and varied, especially for health. We share many of the concerns of the report, but we have reservations concerning the prohibitions the rapporteur suggests implementing. Specifically, restrictions on freedom of expression or disrespect for the privacy and protection of data are not justified. The Safer Internet Programme (cybercrime control and exchange of information) should not jeopardise those rights, and we believe this is not guaranteed. Reference should also be made to the role of the public service in ensuring safe and universal access to the internet and combating digital exclusion.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television. They are online 88 minutes a day, starting on average at 9 years of age, but in some cases even before they start schooling and reading. The first issue to address is still that of the digital divide which in the current economic situation threatens all the least protected groups, including minors, with a negative impact on their economic, social and cultural future. This report addresses, in a comprehensive overview, an issue which, in just a few years, has profoundly changed the life of minors in the European Union. Harmful online content, with strong connotations of violence, discrimination, sexism, racism, with features that are such as to be unsuitable for minors, can diminish, in unprepared users, the perception of the offence to human dignity and facilitate among minors the use of the internet with intentions that are more or less knowingly harmful of their personal dignity and that of others. I think it is essential for Member States to agree to protect minors in the digital world also by promoting complete mastery of its forms, which is essential for full and active citizenship, to offer European citizens the chance of benefitting from the cultural and economic dimension of all types of media connected to digital technology and to contribute to the realisation of the Lisbon goals, favouring the emergence of a knowledge-based economy and stimulating competition.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The protection of children is a crucial issue everywhere, whether we are talking about the real world or the digital world. It is incredible that European children spend 40 hours a week in front of the television and an average of 88 minutes a day online. I believe that children are exposed to many different dangers for lack of proper supervision and control. Thankfully many EU Member States have already rolled out programmes and working methods that attempt to keep abreast of the requirements of the digital world. I voted in favour of the Costa report because I agree with Ms Costa that the primary task of Member States just now is to regulate harmful content, combat online sexual harassment, protect children against online crime, and protect data and digital identities, and perhaps the most important aspect is the Safer Internet Programme, which is established in all EU Member States.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) On the one hand the internet is an extraordinary tool that lets us visit millions of websites, access information, watch films and listen to music, and on the other it has hidden dangers, some of them serious, and children are particularly at risk. It is therefore important that today we have adopted this report that shows how we can improve use of the internet, among other things through education programmes that involve families. Various laws exist within the Member States to tackle cybercrime, but some of the legal differences are quite significant. With this report we are moving towards greater uniformity. Personally, I like the idea of setting up targeted education programmes that also involve families.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the anniversary of which was the actual day of this vote, states that a child is not simply a fragile being in need of protection but a person with the right to be educated, cared for and protected regardless of the part of the world where he or she is born. On this International Children’s Rights Day, the European Parliament passed by a large majority a resolution on the protection of children in the digital world against the risks of violence, fraud, child pornography and sexual harassment which children may encounter on the internet. Our resolution strongly asks States to make additional efforts to combat illegal and harmful content on the internet, to minimise the risks of internet use for children, while insisting on the importance of educating children in the new digital media. At a time when internet surfing is becoming a habit for our children, we need to provide enhanced protection for them.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In the digital age, when smartphones and tablets are now part of everyday life, especially for our children, we need to investigate the means of protecting this vulnerable group from particularly violent or shocking content to which they may be exposed and to prevent any risk of harassment or fraud. This is why I supported the adoption of Ms Costa’s report in order to highlight the need for coordinated action at the European level, in collaboration with the Member States and the internet providers themselves. We should have better resources for reporting the illegal content and abusive behaviour present on the web and for promoting better cooperation with the police forces and the judicial services for minors. Furthermore, tools such as parental control, filtering software and age verification systems must also be used better. Finally, given that adolescents are often not very aware of the personal information they reveal online, which can be used for commercial or malicious purposes, it is vital that information campaigns be developed – especially via schools – to disseminate best practice.

  Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) I abstained from today’s vote, as the report presents the internet as a source of dangers to children and young people in too one-sided a way. It also intends to protect them by taking measures whose effects on freedom of expression on the internet cannot be foreseen. Too little reference is made to the huge opportunities that the internet offers young people, in the areas of education and participation for example. I also consider effectively disempowering parents by means of an ‘educational alliance’ among families, schools and civil society to be a crucial point. Instead of creating an artificial safe area for children, we should make sure that children and young people are empowered to use the internet confidently and independently.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The internet has facilitated access to information and more sources of information. It is also an educational tool that is still used too little in French schools. This is why the European Parliament believes that young people’s access to digital technology should be promoted, while still guaranteeing a high level of protection – and I share that belief. Parliament believes that young people are also being educated by this new medium, in the sense that it contributes to educating young people in citizenship. However, this learning tool needs to be strictly regulated, since abuses exist, in the form of illegal or inappropriate content, and must be prevented.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This report deals with important issues. Given the absence of real borders in the digital world, tackling such things as child pornography can be best achieved through EU and international cooperation. The EU has already taken initiatives in this area and the UK has at times opted in. Should the UK subsequently opt to leave all the justice and home affairs legislation into which it has currently opted, that cross-border cooperation will be lost. Children's safety should not be endangered in order to satisfy the xenophobic right of the UK Tory party.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because the protection of minors in the digital world must be addressed at regulatory level by deploying more effective measures, including through self-regulation by engaging the industry to assume its shared responsibility, and at educational and training level by training children, parents and teachers in order to prevent minors from accessing illegal content. One of the main objectives of an effective child protection strategy should be to ensure that all children, young people and parents/carers are provided with the information and skills to be able to protect themselves online. Minors today generally use the internet with great ease, which is why they need help in order to use it wisely, responsibly and safely. I believe that minors must be protected from the dangers of the digital world in accordance with their age and developmental progress.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. − (FI) I felt this report was important, since the digital world is certainly developing at a high speed and our debate needs to keep abreast of this development. For this reason, I expressed my support and voted in favour of this report. The internet is an increasing presence in the lives of children and young people, and at an increasingly early stage. It is important that schools keep abreast of changes in the digital world. Schools must instruct children and young people in the practical, safe and critical use of digital technology and the internet. As schools and teaching take on an increasingly digital aspect, it must be ensured that the know-how of teachers also remains at the level required by today’s world. I would like to express my thanks to Ms Costa for this comprehensive and commendable report, which on the one hand highlights the opportunities of digital technology relating to school life and teaching, but on the other hand reminds us of the dangers faced by children and young people in an online environment. Minors are capable of using the internet with ease, but to use it sensibly and responsibly they often require help. Child protection, especially the protection of privacy and the combating of unsuitable content, is of primary importance. On the other hand, positive opportunities which digital technology offers young people need to be supported and promoted: an example of this is the digital citizenship emphasised in the report. It was easy to vote in favour of this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I fully support Ms Costa’s report because this text is the basis for the definition of a more organic framework directive that will absorb the various measures concerning children in previous legislation. On the one hand the digital world is an environment in which development is synonymous with a technologically advanced economy, but on the other it can be misused in ways that can seriously jeopardise children’s safety. I therefore think it is essential that we promote a common plan of action that, while taking due account of cultural and legal differences in different countries, can in the short and longer term protect children and prevent attacks on their safety from the digital world.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which stresses that digital technology is an important learning tool for citizenship, facilitating the participation of many citizens living in peripheral areas and especially of young audiences, allowing them to fully benefit from freedom of expression and online communication.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Member States continue to promote children’s access to the digital world, through actions and policies to access the internet, govern its content and respect privacy. Self-regulation of content has been encouraged through the Safer Internet Programme, created with EU cofinancing, which is well established in all the countries of the Union and which, until 2013, will guarantee general coordination. Aware of the cultural and legal differences among Member States, on the basis of which it is hard to establish a boundary between content and conduct to be penalised and those ‘grey’ areas, we propose distinguishing illegal content from conduct which can have serious consequences and unsuitable conduct for the age. In my opinion it is therefore necessary to ensure continuity for the Safer Internet Programme and in any case to guarantee that the responsibility for protecting minors against cybercrime is held by the police, in an increasingly efficient and cooperative form at European level. Self-regulation has proven to be a useful path, but has demonstrated limits that must be corrected. It is therefore necessary for Member States to agree to protect minors in the digital world by promoting complete mastery of its forms to guarantee access to technology but protection from harmful content.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − Children are increasingly more exposed to digital media through television programming and internet access, raising concerns about internet safety and harmful online content. Ms Costa’s report on protecting children in the digital world seeks to establish precautions at the European level and to encourage Member States to adopt initiatives as well. By focusing on education and integrating digital media into schools, the school system can provide access for all children while teaching them how to use new media safely. Certainly, digital media has become an integral part of society, and it is necessary for the EU and Member States to show dedication to regulating its safe use and allowing all citizens to have access, which is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report ‘Protecting children in the digital world’, because at a time when young Europeans are spending more and more time in front of a computer at an increasingly young age, I am concerned about the potential dangers for young surfers. We need better coordination at European level for reporting illegal content or abusive conduct. The police and judicial authorities and EU agencies must cooperate to tackle child pornography. Educating parents and teachers about new media is also fundamental and must be at the heart of the legislation, along with setting up hotlines for reporting illegal conduct and content.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) To protect children in the digital world, a qualitative leap is needed in terms of legislation. We should be approving more incisive measures including through self-regulation, which forces the sector to assume its share of responsibility. The education and training of children, parents and teachers should play an important role. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) According to studies, young Europeans spend about 40 hours a week in front of the television, and are online 88 minutes a day. While we all agree that the use of digital media is nowadays an important tool for learning and information, the truth is that this also brings various risks and threats, especially for younger users. Controlling young people’s usage is difficult, so I agree with the search for a legislative framework which safeguards rights and maintains governance concerned with the current fragmentation of legislative provisions to protect children and young people in the digital world. Hence my vote in favour.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The internet is playing an increasingly important role in most families. Children are using the internet at a very young age, even before going to school or learning to read and write. These young internet users are then exposed to numerous risks, such as child pornography and sexual exploitation, which must be tackled at European level. Just as it is impossible to keep an eye on all the ‘perverts’ using the internet, it is also very difficult for parents to monitor everything their child does. In digital terms, children reach the age of majority well before 18 years of age and changes in family lifestyles mean that teenagers, often left to their own devices or at home alone after school, are receiving some form of sexual solicitation much more frequently than before. That is why parents, teachers, civil society, internet service providers, businesses and public authorities must work together to protect children from online abuse and crime. Taking all of these issues into account, together with the growing vulnerability of young people on the internet and on social networks, it seemed to me to be more than appropriate and, indeed, necessary, to support this report.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (PT) The ‘net’ is the most important technological advance of this century. It allows us to exchange all types of information (written, audio and audiovisual) from anywhere in the world. This has turned the internet into a pillar facilitating access to knowledge for a greater number of people. Girls and boys have also found the internet a door to a new world where games, teaching materials and information of interest is mingled with content not recommended for their age. As such, the internet is a threat to naive and inexperienced users, which include minors surfing and visiting various sites on the internet. They expose themselves to risks such as breaches of their personal data, the commercial use of their profiles on social networking or other sites or dependence phenomena, among others. In conclusion, the European institutions must be alert particularly when it comes to protecting minors from undesirable situations by improving online privacy and establishing parental control mechanisms, taking advantage of advances in new technologies. Therefore, I vote in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Only a comprehensive combination of legal, technical and educational means including prevention can adequately address the dangers that children face in the online environment. In favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Today the internet is increasingly a gateway to another world. This naturally appeals in particular to children and young people. From the age of nine, children are already making frequent use of gaming platforms and social media sites. However, many dangers also lurk on the net, such as cyber bullying, which can have a dramatic impact on young people’s lives in the real world. To show young people how to use the internet properly and highlight the risks it presents, and to raise their awareness of these issues, there is a need for information and instruction from adults, such as parents or teachers. I abstained from voting, as I do not believe that government agencies can gain control of the problems that present themselves for children and young people on the net. There is no doubt that governments must provide very clear definitions concerning the legality of various websites and actions, but responsibility for the well-being of children still lies, in my opinion, in the area of education.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) In recent years the age at which young people enter the digital world has fallen dramatically. It is not unusual for children at the age of 10, if not younger, to surf the web freely, despite all the risks this may entail. Some of the data are alarming, for example 15 % of internet users aged between 10 and 17 receive some form of sexual solicitation, and 34 % of them encounter sexual material that they have not searched for. Children are much more exposed and vulnerable to being the victims of scams and abuse, and that is why they are expressly protected, as Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union clearly states. This report emphasises a few important points such as the need to increase collaboration between the different authorities within the Member States and those in non-EU countries: cybercrime by nature knows no borders and is difficult to identify except with a dense, well-developed collaborative network. I therefore decided to support this report, which could lay the foundations for better protection and safety of children.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document and its provision regarding more intensive regulation for the protection of minors in the digital world at two levels: by engaging the industry to assume its shared responsibility, and at educational and training level by preventing minors from accessing illegal content. Information on the internet inevitably has two effects on minors. On the one hand, the internet, as a knowledge source, has an educational function; on the other hand, it causes harm through illegal content that can have serious effects on children’s and teenagers’ development. Sexual content, encountered by a large percentage of minors, whether accidentally or intentionally, is of particular concern. Responsible growth of knowledge-based society is the principle that we should follow when it comes to the protection of children and teenagers in the virtual world. At the same time, particular attention should be paid to the closest environment for children, the family, and the responsibility that it has to raise responsible citizens. Education and prevention should start at family level. Therefore, in order to comprehensively combine prevention and legal, technical and educational measures, the Member States must implement the Safer Internet Programme as well as cooperate with teachers, parents and industry and public groups so that children are protected from the dangers of the digital world.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I remained undecided on this report. I am fully convinced that the protection of children on the internet should be ensured by means of legal protection. However, the digital world is more than just a major threat; it broadens the mind and makes informal learning possible. This report is one-sided, proposes subjecting private businesses to self-regulation, and underestimates the role of parents and schools. Protection of children and educating them in the safe use of the internet is first and foremost the duty of parents and schools. The report does not add any value to documents previously adopted, such as the Directive adopted in 2011 or the provisions of the Data Protection Regulation adopted the same year.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I support this resolution. The rapid development of technologies makes protection of children in the digital world increasingly difficult. For this reason, general regulation and self-regulation measures should be used. However, it is important that any such measures should be fully compatible with the rule of law and with legal certainty and take into account the rights and interests of end-users. In addition to combating illegal and inappropriate content, prevention and intervention measures should also address a variety of other dangers that are faced by minors. I believe that websites that are safe for children should be classified with distinct labels. The Commission must give special attention to the online marketing of substances that are harmful to young people. I believe that campaigns to assist parents in understanding ways to protect their children from illegal, unsuitable or dangerous material should be undertaken at both national and EU level.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) The internet is becoming an increasingly important part of our lives and an essential part of everyday life for minors. We must ensure responsible browsing for minors in the digital world as well as strengthen measures that ensure internet safety for minors. We must further restrict harmful content and marketing. The young generation is more vulnerable and easier to manipulate. I voted in favour of this report as it encourages the greater involvement of parents, schools and society in discussions regarding the protection of minors on the internet. The report creates a framework for safe and responsible internet use for minors.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL). The very rapid introduction of new technologies often creates difficulties for parents and teachers, in terms of putting these technologies across to children in an effective and positive way. The resulting gap provides ground for internet threats of all kinds, so that the protection of children in the digital world is becoming essential. This own-initiative report envisages actions, both at the level of national educational systems and in terms of specific requirements for internet service providers. Of course, these proposals alone do not solve the problem. Effective protection of children depends to a large extent on the family. However, it is clear that protection of children should under no circumstances be equated with exclusion from the new technologies which are now a necessary resource for improving children’s qualifications and skills. In the same spirit, protection must be accompanied by a boost to investment in new technologies, especially in countries which are facing financial problems. The report, for which I voted, adequately covers this aspect.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) There is a real need for greater protection in the digital world. This report was prepared based on information provided by Member States in response to a questionnaire. Young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television and around 88 minutes a day online, and the internet is their companion, often more than the family, school and friends. We can conclude that we need to strengthen education on media and new media. I support the rapporteur in her desire to strengthen education on media and new media, as well as the protection of users, making the distinction between combating illegal content and combating inappropriate content and conduct, protection of privacy and the right of reply, and digital citizenship. I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it also contributes to achieving the goals of the Lisbon Treaty, favouring the emergence of a knowledge-based economy.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The data speak loud and clear: Europe’s children are online starting on average at 9 years of age, but in some very precocious cases, even before they start schooling and reading. A total of 38 % of young people aged 9 to 12 and 77 % aged 15 and 16 are registered on a social network. In their profile, 16 % use a fictitious profile and 27 % of 9 to 12 year-olds declare an older age than their real one, and state that they find it easier to express themselves online rather than face to face. In the light of these startling facts, we should highlight how these inexperienced and naïve web surfers are constant victims of child pornography, violation of privacy and commercial fraud. We therefore need to ensure continuity for the Safer Internet Programme so that responsibility for protecting minors against cybercrime is held by the police, in an increasingly efficient and cooperative form at European level. In the light of what I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I agree with Ms Costa’s motion on protecting children in the digital world. It has been calculated that children spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television and are online for 88 minutes a day. In many cases children enter into contact with the internet well before they start schooling. I am therefore convinced of the need to protect them from harmful and violent content, as well as violations of their privacy, through European legislation on the subject.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report focuses on the need for greater protection in the digital world and was drawn up based on information provided by Member States in response to a questionnaire. Young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television and around 88 minutes a day online, being exposed to various risks, including violation of privacy, health dangers, dependence phenomena and a distorted relationship with reality. It is clearly difficult for parents and teachers to accompany young people in their positive discovery of the digital world. Efforts are therefore necessary to strengthen education about traditional media and new media, combating illegal content and inappropriate content and conduct, as well as to promote the protection of privacy, the right of reply and digital citizenship. I voted in favour of this report, as I consider that it contributes to the achievement of the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty, favours the emergence of a knowledge-based economy and encourages competition.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Protecting children, particularly online and on social networks, is a major political issue that must remain a topic of discussion within the European Union. That is why I am delighted that the European Parliament has adopted this resolution on protecting children in the digital world this afternoon. The revolution that is the internet is playing an increasingly important role in most families and parents often find themselves disconcerted by the fact their children are so ‘advanced’ when it comes to technology. In digital terms, children reach the age of majority well before 18 years of age. Young internet users are being exposed at an increasingly young age to dangers in digital form, such as violent games and videos, but even more importantly to the risk of coming into contact with perverts and, possibly, members of child pornography networks. It is, of course, impossible to monitor every internet user, just as it is to ask parents to keep tabs on everything their child looks at on the internet, but we need a holistic approach. Parents, teachers, internet providers, businesses, public authorities and safeguarding agencies need to work together to provide the best possible protection for children, who are particularly vulnerable and exposed to the most serious of abuses on the internet and social networks.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In Europe it is becoming commonplace for children to go online. A study showed that in the EU, nearly all children aged between 9 and 16 use a computer to play games or do their homework. While the internet may play a role in furthering education and development, it also exposes children to risks, through phenomena such as pornography, the exchange of material on violence, or cybercrime, of which parents are usually unaware. By voting in favour of this resolution, I am calling for children to be better protected in the digital world. In particular, I am supportive of the additional technological options that prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate content (parental controls, age verification systems, etc.). I believe it is crucial that children, parents and educators are better informed about the use of new digital media. I also believe better coordination at European level is essential in terms of points of contact, such as hotlines for reporting illegal content or abusive conduct, in addition to greater cooperation with third countries as regards the prompt deletion of web pages containing or disseminating illegal content or behaviour hosted in their territory.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. This report draws on the Communication of May 2012 ‘European Strategy for a better internet for children’ and aims at delivering an answer to the results of a survey in the Member States on the use of the internet by minors. In its draft version, as presented in CULT, the report focused on the fear that inexperienced and naive web surfers - among them minors - are in danger of being exposed to all sorts of abuses, especially child pornography, while parents and schools, overwhelmed by technological developments, have difficulty accompanying young people in their ‘exploration of the digital world’ Therefore, Ms Costa insisted in her draft text on the implementation of legal measures, mixed with recommendations for stronger rules, harmonisation of systems within the EU, responsibility-sharing with internet providers, and also - but not strongly enough - on education. Finally the consolidated version remains a mix between a certain demonisation of internet (e.g. recitals A and N) and a statement of the opportunities opened to children and all potential consumers ( e.g. recital I, Articles 15 and 16).

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL). I voted for Ms Costa’s report because I think it contributes to harmonisation of the efforts being made in the area of protecting minors in the digital world. There is no doubt that the internet offers many opportunities and new tools for communication, education and training for children, which are extremely important. However, as the report itself emphasises, it is important, firstly, that there should be a guarantee of the quality standards which content for minors must meet, and secondly, that the Member States should undertake to protect minors in the digital world.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE), in writing. − I am of the opinion that children should be protected and crime should be tackled through law enforcement. However, the report’s focus on government campaigns and the extension of enforcement to ISPs and other self-regulating mechanisms is setting the wrong priorities and risks privatising responsibilities that lie in the hands of states, while diminishing the role of parents in their children’s education. Measures included in the report furthermore demonstrate an unwarranted bias towards the perceived dangers of the internet, limiting the opportunities for education and innovation. Rather, I prefer to strengthen young people’s resilience and independence. Efforts should be directed at educating children and young people, with the help of their parents and teachers, to take ownership of their actions on the web and to develop e-skills. I recognise that advancements in ICT can raise social capital, facilitating fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and access to information. I consider the participation of children and youth in today’s digital society an essential aspect of their development. While fully recognising the need for effective law enforcement, particularly the need to end serious crimes such as child pornography, I regret the restrictive nature of the proposed measures prevents me from giving my support.

  Marco Scurria (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Digital citizenship is a fundamental part of the European Union, and necessary for producing well-informed players in the electronic processes of democracy. The first issue we need to address is that of the digital divide and in particular the protection of the least-protected groups, including minors. The adoption of the report on protecting children in the digital world lays the foundations for a more organic framework directive that includes all the measures concerning children in previous EU legislation. It is undoubtedly necessary to encourage action to combat online crime, which has been successfully adopted by some Member States. But the cultural and legal differences among Member States make it hard to establish clearly which content should be penalised. Self-regulation adopted so far has proven useful, but has demonstrated limits that must be corrected with a unified framework of rights that tackles conduct that could have serious consequences for young Europeans. Thanks to this report, we are on the way to greater uniformity of intervention.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) According to statistics, young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television. They are online for 88 minutes a day (2 hours for 15 and 16 year-olds), starting on average at 9 years old, but in some very precocious cases, even before they start schooling and reading. The internet is young people’s companion, often more than the family, school and friends. Among 9 to 16-year-olds, young people use computers for school work and to play (100 %) and also to watch video clips (86 %), to play with others, to download videos and music and to exchange P2P files (56 %) and, finally, file sharing, visiting chat rooms, blogs and virtual worlds (23 %). With this vote we are aiming to achieve the following objectives: access to and education on media and new media; protection, distinguishing combating illegal content from combating unsuitable content and conduct, protecting privacy and the right of reply; and digital citizenship.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The digital world provides numerous opportunities related to education and learning. From a very young age children are able to very skilfully navigate the technology and their access to it is almost unlimited. In many cases it is curiosity that compels them to explore the unknown, without realising the unsuitability of what they might learn. It is therefore necessary to take measures in order to protect our children from illegal online content, abuse of minors, violent advertising, and the risks that they are faced with every day by means of the digital world. The Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, together with the now legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, whose Article 24 defines the protection of children as a fundamental right and provides that in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration. In order to protect children there is a need for a coordinated approach to protecting the rights of minors in the digital world by the European institutions and the Member States.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I am absolutely in favour of the report on this issue, the importance of which cannot be underestimated. To flag up a few key figures: young Europeans spend up to 40 hours a week in front of the television and are online 88 minutes a day, starting on average at 9 years of age, but in some very precocious cases, even before they start schooling and reading. Member States must work together to protect minors in the digital world. They also need to offer European citizens the chance to benefit from the cultural and economic dimension of all types of media connected to digital technology and to contribute to the realisation of the Lisbon goals, favouring the emergence of a knowledge-based economy and stimulating competition.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The growing use of the internet by young Europeans requires the creation and promotion of mechanisms to protect children in the digital age. With regard to the report by Silvia Costa, which highlights the risks and harmful content to which children may be exposed when browsing the internet, I think that it is important to establish a framework of rights and governance to end the fragmentation of legislative provisions within the European Union to protect children in the digital world. Beyond the creation of mechanisms to resolve the fragmentation in terms of regulation in the EU, I also agree with the rapporteur on the need to ensure continuity for the Safer Internet Programme, as well as evaluating it to ensure its more effective and efficient implementation in the future.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on protecting children in the digital world. The digital world is a great tool for communication, information and education. However, children today are accessing this world at an increasingly young age. Parents are not always able to protect them in this enlightening but complex universe, where there are dangers such as commercial targeting, sexual abuse, bullying on social networks, etc. I supported this report because it will allow greater coordination of actions at European level. Education about digital media, tackling illegal content and content harmful to minors, protection of privacy and the right of reply will help to protect children. This report has successfully brought together two important principles: protecting children and defending freedoms.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on protecting children in the digital world because the online environment and social media sources pose substantial potential risks to the privacy and dignity of children, who are among the most vulnerable users. I support Member States’ efforts to promote systematic education and training for children, parents, educators, schoolteachers and social workers, aimed at enabling them to understand the digital world and identify the dangers associated with it.

I believe it is important for minors and their parents to acquire digital and communication media knowledge and skills. Digital skills and safe internet use by minors must be considered a priority in the Member States and in the Union’s social, educational and youth policies, and a crucial component of the Europe 2020 strategy.

I support ongoing digital training for educators and teachers. I support the Safer Internet Programme. I request its continuation, with adequate funding to carry out its activities fully and the safeguarding of its specific character. I consider the ‘Media Education’ programme the essential tool for allowing minors to engage in the critical use of media and opportunities of the digital world. We invite Member States to include this tool in school curriculum.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − Today’s generation of young Europeans grow up in a world where the internet is a central part of their daily lives. It is therefore vitally important that frameworks are put in place which protect children from the more sinister aspects of the online world. This report, which has my full support, recommends that education in new media should be incorporated into formal and informal education programmes and extended to parents as well as children, so that they can better understand the benefits and the dangers of the internet during childhood. Children are particularly vulnerable to cyber bullying, online grooming and harassment, so I agree with this report’s proposals that EU Members States should increase their efforts to combat the diffusion of illegal content and encourage the harmonisation of their strategies for limiting online risks.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) Children and young people are spending more and more time online and are starting to use media at an increasingly early age. Surfing without any protection or control entails dangers, such as major violations of privacy, health risks, addiction and dependence phenomena, and so on. The protection of children must be ensured and control of cybercrimes must be guaranteed.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour because it is necessary to ensure continuity for the Safer Internet Programme, and, in any case, guarantee that the responsibility for protecting minors against cybercrime is held by the police, in an increasingly efficient and cooperative form at European level. It is necessary to encourage action to combat online crime against minors, which has been successfully adopted by some Member States, which implements information exchange with internet service providers and email service providers.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The internet is now young people’s companion, often more than family, friends and school. This is why access to the digital world and command of its language needs support and guidance that only an educational alliance between family, school and society can offer. When navigation lacks awareness, protection and control, as in the case of children, web surfers face various risks such as the violation of privacy, health dangers, dependence phenomena, and a distorted relationship with reality and their own identity. Despite the fact that public radio, TV and multi-platform services started to exchange good practice and monitoring tools for programmes for minors some years ago, there is still much to do. A broad framework directive is therefore needed to summarise and regulate the whole subject area as well as multilevel governance to seek a harmonised approach in Member States and encourage stronger coordination between them and the EU.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. − (PL) In today’s world we all appreciate the opportunities that the internet offers us. This is more than just entertainment – it is education, work and a source of information. Besides this enormous role played by the net in our lives these days, we must also be aware of the hazards it creates. Above all we must emphasise the importance of protecting children in the digital world; children, through their customary naivety, credulousness and curiosity, constitute an easy target for anyone who acts outside the law. Children should be making the greatest use of the internet for study purposes. They should use it to glean knowledge about the world, and also to acquire the new capabilities which are essential to successful functioning in the 21st century. They should not, however, be exposed to inappropriate content, and they should not in any way be exploited, manipulated or threatened.

It is therefore important to have cooperation between parents, schools and state institutions to prevent infringement of the rights of children on the internet. In this connection I am expressing my support for the creation of a framework directive in which the relevant provisions will be consolidated and which will thus regulate the field as a whole and management on many levels. It will further accelerate harmonisation of the regulations applied in the Member States and provide a stimulus for stronger coordination between them and the EU.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The report highlights three key elements in protecting children in the digital world: education about media and new media, protection of privacy and the right of reply, and digital citizenship. In a matter as important as protecting children in the digital world, reference should also be made to the role of the public service in ensuring safe and universal access to the internet and combating digital exclusion. The average child spends 88 minutes a day online and there are risks of the violation of privacy, the commercial or other use of their profiles, health dangers, the rise of dependence phenomena and a distorted relationship with reality and their own identity. Although this is a problem that obviously concerns us, I must mention the reservations we have in relation to the prohibitions to be implemented, insofar as they should not impose restrictions on the rights of freedom of expression and must respect privacy and data protection. Accordingly, the Safer Internet Programme (cybercrime control and exchange of information) should not jeopardise those rights, and we believe that this is not guaranteed.

- Report: Heinz K. Becker (A7-0305/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I agree with this report, and am in favour of the development of social entrepreneurship at a time of economic and financial crisis, as this type of activity can create sustainable employment, social innovation and the inclusion of vulnerable groups. Thus, I would argue for suitable political and financial support for social enterprises. Despite the political and financial recognition through the inclusion of social enterprises in the Programme for Social Change and Innovation, as well as their inclusion in Social Entrepreneurship Funds, it is important to ensure that the definition of social enterprises is very clear and in line with formulated legislation.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Social initiatives are one of the ways in which Europe’s economy and its companies can respond to the current challenges caused by the growth of globalisation. Whether we are talking about mutual aid organisations, private enterprises or cooperatives, it is clear that the social enterprise system can compensate for the activity of the private sphere or the state on many levels. Social initiatives create jobs which are not at risk of relocation and make a significant contribution to the promotion of social inclusion, and are also a significant factor for innovation at a time when European economies must respond to global challenges through real increases in competitiveness. I believe that support for these initiatives at European or national level is imperative for the future of the European Union. However, it must have regard to both evaluation based on a set of performance criteria and reinvestment of profit. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This own-initiative report, which has been adopted by the European Parliament and for which I voted in favour, is a general statement on social entrepreneurship. It is a genuine call to support the social economy at European level, which I have been following with interest as the rapporteur for a related report on creating a European label for investment funds that want to invest in social entrepreneurship.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on creating a favourable climate for social enterprises. Social enterprises provide goods and services to businesses using conventional methods. However, excess profits are used first and foremost for social purposes. Because the main goal of social enterprises is the social impact and not profit, the European Commission and the Member States should ensure that these companies do not face disadvantages in relation to companies of other types. Social enterprises contribute to smart growth and promote social and economic reforms. I agree that there should be a legal framework at EU level that regulates solidarity funds’ investments to make sure that social enterprises have better access to financial markets. I also agree that it is necessary to improve companies’ access to micro-credits and improve social enterprises’ access to funds to finance start-up, development and expansion. I support the proposal on the establishment of a kind of seal of quality in order to improve the visibility of those enterprises. I also believe that it is essential to better inform managers of social enterprises about EU programmes that can provide them with the support they need.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) With nearly 11 million workers in Europe, the social economy is a key element of the social market economy that the EU is looking to develop. The sector has significant advantages, particularly in times of crisis, because it responds to both economic and social demands, aims to meet social needs that are not met or met inadequately by the market or the State and contributes to social and territorial cohesion. The objective today is to facilitate and support the development of this undervalued sector in all Member States. I therefore welcome the adoption of the Becker report, which highlights all of these issues and makes proposals for actions. I also supported the alternative resolution by Ms Vergiat, which highlights the diversity of the sector, particularly in France, and shows the difference between the social economy and social enterprises. The report calls for a comparative study on the existing frameworks in Member States and also for greater flexibility in terms of access to funds.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) The social economy is hugely important in my country, and I think that all initiatives that decisively support the extension of its values to the economy are positive for Europe. In this case, I think that some of the measures proposed in this own-initiative report are especially practical for encouraging the European institutions to make a greater commitment to a more humane enterprise philosophy. As proposed in the report, I believe we urgently need a comparative study of the legal frameworks, operating conditions and characteristics of social enterprises, and to recognise the importance of clusters to support social innovation.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − I voted against this initiative because it does not go far enough to help fix the root problems currently facing the European economy. Europe for the time being needs to focus on recovering and regaining economic competitiveness. Furthermore to harmonize social enterprises at the community level of Member States would be a very difficult task at the current time. The initiative lacks in solid reasoning, making it unclear of what the benefits would be for voting in favour.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I have voted for this report because one of the main future goals of the EU is a well-developed social enterprise. I believe that there is an ever-increasing need for social services, for example in the health and nursing sectors. Europe is striving for economic growth to increase global competitiveness with the potential for new jobs, which are mainly to be found in the ‘green’ and ‘white’ economy. Unlike many other sectors of the economy, social enterprise requires additional financial instruments. In other words, I believe that in order to promote social enterprise in the EU, an environment should be created that is accompanied by a high degree of innovation and experimentation, the success or failure of which should be evaluated by the EU institutions together with the Member States within a defined period. Social entrepreneurship should be promoted as it is perceived as a common public interest and something that is of benefit to society. It should become a key initiative that will allow the development of new infrastructures and encourage new innovative ideas.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Social Business Initiative report, of course. This report proposes stimulating new social businesses because, much like SMEs, they create a large number of jobs, currently the EU’s top priority. I am also delighted that the social label is included in paragraph 28 of the report, which I have supported for two years, and which is partly due to our proactive hard work and partly due to the support of all political groups. It is good news for the future of the social label, which is not limited purely to social enterprises but is open to any enterprise that respects social standards in the workplace.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree with its assumptions and consider the development of social entrepreneurship and the promotion of social enterprises to be important.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Social economy actors and enterprises in this sector are important drivers of economic growth and social innovation as they offer the opportunity to create sustainable jobs and encourage the integration of vulnerable groups into the labour market. Social economy enterprises can contribute to the provision of social services, thereby supporting the achievement of common EU objectives. It is important to develop a strategy and measures to promote social entrepreneurship and innovative social enterprises, especially for young and disadvantaged people, in order to ensure wider and easier access for entrepreneurs – both women and men – to the Union’s programmes and funding. The Commission must provide the support necessary to continue the Erasmus For Young Entrepreneurs programme and enhance its attractiveness and visibility in the social economy. The Member States must support innovative social enterprises, in particular those that promote high-quality employment, combat poverty and social exclusion and invest in education, training and life-long learning. Social enterprises must be supported through sufficient financial means at local, regional, national and EU level through the relevant funds under the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Social economy enterprises represent approximately 10 % of all European enterprises, that is, about 2 million enterprises employing at least 11 million people in the EU. They are of fundamental importance for the structuring of the European social model and the Europe 2020 strategy. It has become advantageous to maximise the contribution of social enterprises, given that gradual and sustainable economic growth, increase in and the quality of jobs and combating poverty are some of the priorities of the single market and the Europe 2020 strategy. These enterprises will be able to respond positively to social, national and regional needs through their innovative potential, and as such, social entrepreneurship needs support tools and additional funding. Social enterprises offer favourable working conditions, promote equal opportunities for men and women and seek to create a more active and cohesive society. I therefore call for a simplification of EU funding, as funding opportunities should be made available in a timely manner and announced with the appropriate level of flexibility for each of the Member States.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I consider that the establishment at European level of a database of certificates applicable to social enterprises in Europe will be beneficial for their development and, at the same time, make it possible for this type of organisation to be recognised within the Union as distinct.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Social enterprises are good for growth and are a measure of inclusion and innovation. Nearly 11 million people already work in the sector. However, social enterprises have no clear legal framework within which to operate. The Commission wants to establish basic framework conditions to support social enterprises. I voted in favour of this report and am keen to see further clarification but also more ambition. It is time for local, national and European authorities to work together actively to support social enterprises.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the Report on Social Business Initiative. The objective of the Report is to achieve social impact rather than generating profit for owners and shareholders which operates in the market through the production of goods and services in an entrepreneurial and innovative way and which is managed by social entrepreneurs in an accountable and transparent way, in particular by involving workers, customers and stakeholders affected by its business activity. With this initiative will be possible to facilitate social and work integration, improving the quality of social and healthcare contributing to inclusive growth. Moreover, it is very important to give the possibility to the youth to have an environment and the opportunity to start their one social business. We have to raise awareness for all Europeans on the regional, social, structural and cohesion funds that Europe provides to his citizens. The acquisition of this fund should be easier and for everyone. EU Structural Funds programs and exercises a significant role in facilitating access to finance for enterprises in the social economy. The access to European funds should be simplified, allowing the establishment of an appropriate level of flexibility to the Member States.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Commission’s proposal to increase access to finance for social enterprises through the establishment of a regulatory framework for the introduction of investment instruments at the EU level is important in my opinion. Social enterprises have the potential to provide innovative responses to the current social and economic problems and to contribute significantly to job creation in the EU. There should, therefore, be a favourable and simplified regulatory framework that promotes the structural diversity of social enterprises, is responsive to the specific nature of their activities and provides more suitable financial support for social entrepreneurship and to social enterprises, especially SMEs, in order to promote their growth and sustainability.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Mr Becker has provided us with a report on the Social Business Initiative – Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation. I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of all these institutions in minimising the negative impacts of the crisis – we are aware of its consequences but have not paid much attention to problems of a social nature – as well as the contribution that they have made to help Europe emerge from this. These enterprises, the aim of which is not immediate profit but improvement in the living conditions of the most vulnerable classes, currently represent 6 % of all European Union workers, many of whom are young people. The Europe 2020 strategy should respond to the lack of social services given the ongoing demographic trends and an ageing population. This is a sector that deserves our full support and therefore should benefit from a special tax regime to have easier access to funding. I voted in favour of this report because it deals with a special form of entrepreneurship that not only promotes economic growth but is also socially engaged.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The Social Business Initiative (SBI), as conceived in this report, is an integral part of the single market and has the express aim of creating the right conditions to encourage EU industry to channel financial investment to competitive, cross-border social enterprises. We oppose this view. It does not concern just the support of this wonderful entrepreneurship as a panacea for the crisis, concealing its true causes – the unequal distribution of wealth, increased exploitation of labour, unemployment, recessionary policies. The report goes further and sees the replacement of public services, which are people’s rights, by services rendered by these social enterprises as something positive, thus transforming rights into business opportunities. On the way, it promotes precarious work, advocating that workers be hired on a voluntary basis, ‘for the young who are beginning their careers, and for the elderly in order to share competencies’. Unacceptable. Obviously, we voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The subtitle of the Communication from the European Commission of 25 October 2011 on the Social Business Initiative should be referred to expressly, as it describes the complex objectives of the EU in a welcome concise form: ‘Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation.’ The objective formulated here includes both recognition of the existing structures and the opening of new, innovative forms in social business, both of which will be necessary in the future in order to meet challenges in the social arena in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy and successfully implement the relevant tasks. The Commission’s initiatives should be swiftly followed by adequate measures at national and regional level. The report also recognises that the phase ahead of us should be accompanied by a high degree of innovation and experimentation, the success or failure of which should be evaluated by the EU institutions together with the Member States within a defined period. Specific conclusions for the corresponding optimisation measures are to be drawn from this, making it possible to continue efficiently with the long-term development of social entrepreneurship. To fulfil this objective I believe that the key measures proposed by the Commission, such as the mapping of social entrepreneurship in Europe, the establishment of a certification database, or extensive information platforms for mutual learning, will help. Likewise, the establishment of a kind of seal of quality should help with the further development of social enterprises.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I voted in favour of this report because it seeks to highlight the role of social enterprises in the European Union. It is undeniable that the number of social enterprises is growing across Europe, but supporting them requires stronger regional and cross-border cohesion as well as additional financial resources. These areas of this work are far from complete, however, as the concept of social enterprise needs further clarification along with a precise mapping of related activities, the role of those participating in social enterprises has to be defined and we need to present potential business models based on which social enterprises can operate in Europe. The report we have before us outlines ideas for all of these questions and it points the way forward from the perspective of the future of the single market.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Social businesses in Europe have considerable potential, but they also feature certain aspects that are peculiar to them alone, and for this reason their development will run up against some specific problems. I am pleased that the Commission has acknowledged this in its announcement and has proposed an action plan, because in my view one must support business types with such significant potential. I consequently supported the report by Parliament on this issue. As an advisor for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I have concentrated chiefly on issues linked to consumers and public procurement. The role of consumers in the development of social enterprise cannot be overestimated. It is precisely consumers making choices on where they purchase products or which company’s services they make use of that make or break businesses. Consumers are often not aware of the benefits that come with social enterprises, however. It also happens that consumers do not trust businesses of this type. I am therefore of the opinion that the European Union should take steps to raise the level of consumer confidence in social enterprises and encourage consumers to give active support to such businesses. Where public procurement is concerned, it is my view that countering social exclusion by providing easier access to procurement for entities from vulnerable social groups is an aspect that must be supported, with the principles of a free market in mind, of course.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this proposal because, unlike many other sectors of the economy, social enterprise requires additional financial instruments. The Commission’s initiatives should be swiftly followed by adequate measures at national and regional levels. In order to facilitate the rapid development of social enterprise in conjunction with the targeted promotion of the persons and organisations engaged in such activities, the European Parliament report presented here seeks to anchor precise, clear and open general conditions for the next phase of the European social economy that will afford new opportunities. The report also recognises that the phase ahead of us should be accompanied by a high degree of innovation and experimentation, the success or failure of which should be evaluated by the EU institutions together with the Member States within a defined period. Specific conclusions for the corresponding optimisation measures and steps are to be drawn from this, making it possible to continue efficiently with the long-term development of social entrepreneurship. In summary: orderly framework conditions and action plans should leave room for diversity and plurality where these already exist, or establish them if they have been lacking so far. A useful basis for this can be provided by the key measures proposed by the Commission, such as the mapping of social entrepreneurship in Europe, the establishment of a certification database, or extensive information platforms for mutual learning. Likewise, the establishment of a kind of seal of quality should help with the further development of social enterprises.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. − It is important to ensure better and easier access for entrepreneurs to EU and Member States' programmes and funding. The report underlines the importance of a strategy and of measures promoting social entrepreneurship and innovative social enterprises, especially with regard to young and disadvantaged people. Moreover, it is well known that social enterprises provide social services and they contribute to a sustainable employment, social innovation and the inclusion of vulnerable groups. Therefore, I think there are sufficient arguments for financial and political support for social enterprises, especially in times of crisis. I voted in favour of this report.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. − Social enterprises may significantly contribute to the fulfilment of the EU2020 objectives and therefore the twofold goal set forth by the Commission’s communication and also by this report to recognize already existing social businesses and to pave the way for the creation of new and innovative forms needs to be pursued and more effectively communicated. The European Commission should create an online public database of fair businesses, quality schemes and labels to serve as a multilingual information and exchange platform for social entrepreneurs, business and social investors, also in order to facilitate accessibility of CSR information and improve transparency. A European regulatory framework for ethical investment funds and a quantified headline target on social businesses needs also to be developed by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States, in order to support social businesses through EU policies and to increase their number, and consequently the jobs they create.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I supported the report on the Social Business Initiative because I feel that this type of business is worth encouraging. It combines economic and social aims and, while having a positive impact on the development of social services and meeting the significant needs of elderly and disabled people and children, it also enables jobs to be created, primarily for young people. Social enterprise also facilitates social innovation and the development of local communities and grassroots initiatives, which is of particular importance in the current socio-economic situation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the call in this Report for EU public procurement rules that apply the principle of the "most economically advantageous tender (MEAT)" rather than the principle of "lowest cost" when contracting service provision out.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of Mr Becker’s report because the Social Business Initiative provides support for a newly developing and important sector of the European economy. Given the current difficulties facing businesses and entrepreneurs due to economic hardships, it is crucial that the EU adopts and implements procedures that help to overcome these obstacles. One such measure is established with the Social Business Initiative, which aims to provide assistance to businesses operating within the social economy. The social economy offers an opportunity for entrepreneurs to provide services that have a positive social impact, notably for marginalised or disadvantaged persons.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Social Business Initiative report to support businesses which provide goods or services to vulnerable people and who use their profits for social ends. It is important to have a strategy and measures promoting social business for the development of this sector.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Social enterprises can help deliver social services, which are key components of a welfare state and thereby contribute to achieving shared objectives of the European Union. This is one reason why we need to ensure that social enterprises are not disadvantaged by other types of enterprises that ‘cherry-pick’ lucrative areas in the social economy.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Becker’s report on the European Commission’s Social Business Initiative because it is a laudable and ambitious programme. Investing in social enterprise can bring significant returns, not only in strictly economic terms – wealth creation and employment potential – but also from a social point of view. The added value of social enterprise is represented by the pursuit of goals such as social inclusion, re-entry into the employment market, the provision of services to the community and to people who are most marginalised and at risk of exclusion. I also support Mr Becker’s approach to ensuring that social enterprises are not exposed to uncontrolled competition and benefit from adequate financial support. In this regard I hope that appropriate measures are taken to make it easier for these enterprises to access microcredit. Social enterprise will also be particularly instrumental in accelerating social and territorial cohesion in some parts of Europe where development is lagging behind. Social enterprises will feed into a ‘virtuous circle’ through the production of goods and supply of services of a social nature, the stimulus to create new production models and the spread of entrepreneurship and a culture of legality.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Supporting social entrepreneurship is a good thing. We have to understand what we mean by that, however. Social entrepreneurship cannot only be the provision of services to people who are vulnerable, marginalised or excluded from society. Nor should the aim be to replace public services. Employees should be paid, not volunteers. There are many points on which this report is somewhat vague to say the least. Vigilance is therefore key. The stubborn desire to turn social enterprises into ‘competitive’ enterprises as part of the ‘social market economy’ also gives rise to concern because social enterprises should not be trying to be competitive. Despite these worrying aspects, I am pleased that the report highlights giving social enterprises the recognition they deserve and recommends further funding be given to social enterprises. I therefore chose to abstain.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal from the Commission is important in terms of facilitating and increasing the possibility of funding for enterprises involved in social entrepreneurship, with the approval of an applicable regulatory framework for the introduction of financial instruments for Union-level investment. These companies can contribute significantly to creating innovative ideas to combat the current social and economic problems, as well as contribute to creating new jobs.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Social enterprises often provide social services and are important drivers of sustainable employment, social innovation and the inclusion of vulnerable groups. Adequate financial and political support for social enterprises should therefore be ensured at Union and Member State level.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. I agree with the position set out in the document regarding the promotion of social enterprises and their support. Companies that seek to have a positive social impact on various groups in society and whose goals and management structure are consistent with the social economy should be promoted through various support programmes. Particular attention should be given to improving the legal and fiscal environment and securing EU funding at all levels, from national to EU. On the other hand, I fully agree with the requirements for these companies, such as the involvement of volunteers in their activities, including young people seeking experience at the start of their careers, and support for Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs and similar support and consultation programmes. The growth of social enterprise in the Member States, including in Lithuania, which I represent, can significantly contribute to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and promote the involvement of people from social risk groups.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported this report because I find it essential to reduce unemployment and comply with the Europe 2020 strategy aimed at sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Social enterprises make up 10 % of all European enterprises and employ more than 11 million people; supporting and promoting this form of enterprise certainly helps to reduce the negative effects of the economic crisis. Given the high unemployment rate among young people it is essential to involve them in the social business sector in order to give them the opportunity to start their career and bring new skills and enthusiasm into this sector. Naturally, making better use of the experience and skills of elderly people is necessary. Solidarity and valuing every member of society regardless of age, religion, race or gender helps achieve a socially coherent Europe with a sustainable economy.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because social enterprises play an important role in the promotion of social innovation and therefore a favourable economic and regulatory climate must be created for those enterprises in the social economy. In order to improve the visibility of social enterprises, the financial needs of those companies must be assessed. It is also essential to create better conditions to access financial markets and provide appropriate funding at local, regional, national and EU level. Furthermore, social enterprises should be appropriately integrated into employment and social inclusion action plans. Only with a functioning support mechanism can growth and development of social enterprises be ensured. They will be able to gain financial independence and engage in commercial business activity.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The goals of the Social Business Initiative proposed by the European Commission in 2011 are to create a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation. It seeks to achieve that goal by recognising existing structures but also by opening new innovative forms within social entrepreneurship. The combination of existing and new models is necessary for the future if we wish to meet challenges in the social arena in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy and successfully implement its mission. For these reasons, and taking into account the contributions made by the European Parliament in this report to achieve that aim, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Because of demographic changes, we are increasingly in need of social services. By virtue of this, we need to remember that social enterprise needs additional financial instruments besides EU funding, and by that I mean national and regional instruments. In social enterprise, terms such as common public interest, social and environmental impact and factors such as increased repatriation of profits or models for employee participation and openness/transparency principles all merge. As an integral component of the eco-social market economy in the European internal market, social entrepreneurship also requires orderly competition that leads to continuous quality improvement and efforts aimed at greater efficiency. Because of the worthy aim of the motion, which is instrumental to the flourishing development of social entrepreneurship, and in the light of that which I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the motion.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I support the social business initiative as I believe it is highly important to promote and encourage a positive environment for these enterprises, particularly during times of crisis. A social business is an enterprise whose primary objective is to achieve social impact rather than generating profit. These businesses have a positive social impact on the world around them and strive to be accountable and transparent in their dealings with others. In recent years, they have also created many jobs in various sectors throughout Europe, presently employing over 11 million paid employees. As these enterprises provide important social services in an innovative manner, adequate financial and political support should be readily available to them. The social business initiative proposes new ways of improving social businesses’ access to funding, providing them with a clearer pathway to expansion and growth. The unexploited potential of these enterprises can be explored, finding new ways to identify and overcome our social problems. In times of social or financial crisis, social businesses may help us to uncover creative and fresh solutions to many of the problems we face.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The public consultation on the Single Market Act launched by the Commission revealed high levels of interest in social entrepreneurship and the social economy in general and in its ability to provide innovative responses to social, economic and, in some cases, environmental challenges through the development of sustainable jobs, the promotion of social inclusion and the improvement of local social services and territorial cohesion. Social enterprises operate by providing goods and services to the market, using their profits primarily to achieve social goals. Their ambitions are consistent with the goals of the undertaking which can be quantified by means of performance indicators. Profits must be reinvested mainly to promote social goals. Given the importance of these institutions, especially in the context of the crisis we find ourselves in, they should have suitable financial support, in particular through the European Social Fund.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The report recognises that the phase ahead of us should be accompanied by a high degree of innovation and experimentation, the success or failure of which should be evaluated by the EU institutions together with the Member States within a defined period. Specific conclusions for the corresponding optimisation measures and steps are to be drawn from this, making it possible to continue efficiently with the long-term development of social entrepreneurship. In summary: orderly framework conditions and action plans should leave room for diversity and plurality where these already exist, or establish them if they have been lacking so far.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because social enterprises are important drivers of sustainable development and social innovation and they have a major role to play in achieving the social, employment and educational targets of the EU 2020 Strategy. A favourable climate for social enterprises in combination with a strong political framework and the necessary funding will allow for these enterprises to survive in the current crisis and to thrive.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Creating fertile ground which allows the promotion of social entrepreneurship is one of Europe’s priorities. I think that social enterprises need support, given the essential role they can play in social innovation. I am thinking of the provision of services to improve people’s quality of life. A lot of energy needs to be channelled in order to develop initiatives that help to strengthen entrepreneurial capabilities and professionalism. I think a more forceful contribution needs to be made to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. I think it is right to emphasise the need for future policies to foster the specific features of social enterprise while obeying the rules of competition. In order to promote the impact and social efficacy of the activities of social enterprises, I voted in favour.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. - (SK) At present social enterprises represent 10 % of all European enterprises and employ 6 % of the entire workforce. Therefore, the Commission Communications ‘Social Business Initiative’ and ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’ should only be welcomed and encouraged. Even the definition of a social enterprise is a positive step in the initiative, because in each Member State there are different conditions for the establishment and operation of a social enterprise. In times of crisis even social enterprises face difficulties in accessing funds for the expansion of their activities and therefore need specific and tailored support. We should not forget that social enterprises bridge the gap in employment and creation of new jobs, especially in the health and social services sector and in the environmental area. Social enterprises can be supported with funds under the multiannual financial framework, but will need support at local, regional and national level.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) Europe is in crisis. There are increasingly more unemployed, more older people, more dependent people and there is more poverty and more than ever there is a need for a greener economy that cares for the planet and its people. In order to face up to these challenges the European Parliament proposes to support the necessary investments and experimental projects in social entrepreneurship. The key measures proposed by the Commission can form a useful basis here, for example, the mapping of social entrepreneurship in Europe, the setting up of a certification database, or extensive information platforms on mutual learning. Equally of great benefit could be the development of a kind of quality stamp for social enterprises for their further development. After all, social enterprises have a general use, a use in society and social and environmental effects. They represent enhanced profit limitation or models of employee codetermination, as well as principles of openness and transparency. The report rightly argues in favour of orderly competition (no competition in price or quality between densely populated areas and rural areas), social banking and social franchising models. Social enterprises earn our support; they are key players within the social economy and social innovation.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Becker report in the hope of speeding up the creation of a multilingual platform to enable peer learning and the exchange of tried-and-tested models that should facilitate information sharing about accessing funding and about training opportunities that should serve as a network for cross-border cooperation. The measures proposed, such as the mapping of social entrepreneurship in Europe, a certification database and extensive information platforms for mutual learning, could well prove to be particularly beneficial.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Social economy enterprises located in the European Union employ about 11 million people, accounting for 6 % of the total workforce and 10 % of all European enterprises. Thus, more than 2 million enterprises have contributed significantly to the conception of a new European social model and the goals enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy. I believe that this report, which provides new incentives to set up social enterprises, can create vocational opportunities for thousands of Europeans, mainly in the health, welfare and environmental sectors, because they are growing fast in the economy as a whole. I believe it is essential to strengthen the support for the Erasmus For Young Entrepreneurs programme to improve its attractiveness and visibility, including in the social economy.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the Social Business Initiative – Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation. The social economy is part of the eco-social market economy as well as of the European single market. We call on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that social enterprises are not disadvantaged by other types of enterprises that ‘cherry-pick’ lucrative areas in the social economy. We point out that these areas are mostly urban, so that other less profitable, mostly rural or peripheral areas – where logistics result in higher cost – are left with fewer and lower quality of services. We stress that users should have freedom of choice among a plurality of providers. We underline that different financial instruments – such as the European Social Entrepreneurship Funds, the European Venture Capital Funds and the European Angels Funds – are needed to improve access to financial markets for social enterprises. We stress the importance of a strategy and of measures promoting social entrepreneurship and innovative social enterprises, especially with regard to young and disadvantaged people.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − Social enterprises make a huge contribution to the EU economy and I fully support this initiative, which looks at fostering their development. The proposals will establish a European financial instrument to lever funding for start-up enterprises and contribute towards developing and expanding established enterprises. With a particular focus on measures to promote social entrepreneurship for young and disadvantaged people, the Social Business Initiative is a positive step towards encouraging the creation of innovative social enterprises.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the Social Business Initiative – Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation (2012/2004(INI)) as it provides our communities with the necessary resources to not only boost local and national economies but more importantly allows for a platform to assist our citizens. This initiative clearly seeks to anchor precise, clear and open general conditions for the next phase of the European social economy that will afford new opportunities. It is through this that many benefits can and will be gained in the following phase. In addition the initiative will help to develop orderly framework conditions and action plans that should leave room for diversity and plurality where these already exist, or establish them if they have been lacking so far. Finally I would like to say that by implementing the measures in this document we will be better suited to ‘spread the wealth’ so to speak, meaning that enterprises will not be able to focus on just one location to increase their profits but will be welcome to spread out to rural areas and gain the same benefits as those located in large cities.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) A definition of social entrepreneurship: ‘Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation’. Innovative concepts and ideas should be implemented and promoted and can be combined with measures in various ways to contribute to social entrepreneurship. Innovations represent a significant opportunity, particularly in times of crisis.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation, includes both recognition of the existing structures and the opening of new, innovative forms in social business, both of which will be necessary in the future in order to meet challenges in the social arena in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy and successfully implement the relevant primary tasks. This is why I voted in favour.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) As conceived here, the Social Business Initiative (SBI) is an integral part of the single market and has the express aim of creating the right conditions to encourage EU industry to channel financial investment to competitive, cross-border social enterprises. However, this report contains several points which we directly oppose. Firstly, it considers the entrepreneurship paradigm as a solution to the crisis when we know that the recessive policies of capital accumulation have prevented and hindered job creation. Moreover, the report takes a positive view of the replacement of social services, that is, public services which are people’s rights, by services rendered by social enterprises, thus transforming rights into business opportunities. It also promotes precarious work by advocating that workers be hired on a voluntary basis, ‘for the young who are beginning their careers, and for the elderly in order to share competencies’. As these are unacceptable ideas, I voted against.

- Report: Marianne Thyssen (A7-0339/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I agree with this report, and consider that this ambitious plan to reform the Economic and Monetary Union should be based on the following principles: an integrated financial framework; an integrated budgetary framework; an integrated economic policy framework and strengthening of its democratic legitimacy and accountability, but there should above all be a social pact to strengthen cohesion and dignified living conditions for European citizens. Therefore, it is important to send a clear message to the European Council, based on the idea that the reforms of the Economic and Monetary Union should include a social pillar with a Social Pact outlining minimum standards to be guaranteed to all Europeans – including a European Youth Guarantee, decent public services, protection regarding freedom of labour and social rights, basic social protection and equal conditions of payment and working conditions.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this important resolution. The European Parliament stresses that to put the EU firmly on the road to financial stability and economic recovery, cosmetic touches are not sufficient. The European Parliament wants a thorough overhaul of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in all its aspects. I agree with the rapporteur that in order to achieve a stronger architecture, the so-called four pillars of the EMU (its financial, budgetary, economic and democratic legs) must be reinforced. It is essential that democratic control matches the pace of reforms and, across the board, the European Parliament, as the Institution that represents all citizens, should play a key role. We, Members of the European Parliament, underlined that the goals of a stronger economic union should be sustainable economic growth, more jobs and greater social cohesion. Completing the internal market, implementing existing internal market law, implementing the 2020 Strategy for Growth and Jobs and a targeted use of European budgets are key issues which should be put in place without further delay.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which aims to establish genuine banking union between Member States. This is the response by the European Parliament to President van Rompuy’s initiative to redefine economic and monetary union. The report proposes greater fiscal and economic union between Member States while strengthening democratic accountability. The intention is to use the provisions in the treaties to avoid amendments or new ratification procedures, which would take a considerable amount of time. I believe that European integration can go a long way to solving the crisis. It allows for better management, improved cost-cutting, and greater coordination of actions. This is particularly true within the euro area but the door is open to anyone who wishes to join us.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this resolution regarding European economic and monetary union. As EU economic and monetary policies gain effectiveness, it is important to increase the Union’s democratic accountability and, if necessary, change EU agreements and place the governance of the European monetary union within the institutional framework of the Union. I agree with the proposals regarding the establishment of a European ‘ministry of finance’, headed by a European finance minister, individually accountable to Parliament, as well as regarding Parliament’s right to approve the chairman or chairwoman of the supervisory board of the European banking supervisory mechanism and the European Stability Mechanism. It is also important to strengthen the role of the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and his or her accountability to Parliament. I agree with the call to give the Member States more responsibility in the process of preparing their governments’ fiscal and reforms plans. The Commission should present legal acts regarding enhanced cooperation between Member States in the field of taxation, a social pact for Europe and a reform of the own-resources system as soon as possible.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) At its plenary sitting in Strasbourg today the European Parliament voted for a draft report that would create tighter fiscal discipline in the European Union and take specific steps towards the establishment of a banking union. The Thyssen report on ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ was created in response to decisions made at the June summit of the European Council. The document highlights that the financial markets have become increasingly fragmented in recent years, their activities have become complex, and this situation has contributed significantly to the financial, economic and social crisis which emerged and still continues in Europe today. This is why it is vital not only for there to be Member State economic policies and fiscal austerity measures coordinated at EU level, but also for the Union to have a supervisory framework that is capable of covering, forecasting and under certain circumstances managing systemic risks. The new structure would create a more predictable regulatory environment and redress the imbalanced financial situation between banks and sovereign debts, whilst restoring confidence in the financial market. This is why I voted in favour of the draft report.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Given the severe economic and financial crisis which the European Union is facing, and considering the objectives of promoting stability, consolidation of public accounts, sustainable and balanced growth and the deepening of the internal market envisaged by the European and Monetary Union (EMU), this proposal is intended to be an EU response to restore confidence in its currency and economy. The proposal is based on four key pillars: banking, fiscal and economic union and the strengthening of its democratic legitimacy and accountability, including proposals such as the establishment of a Single Supervisory Mechanism, the strengthening of tax harmonisation and the decisive implementation of structural reforms in the economy. I voted in favour of this report, since it is a decisive step towards clarifying and strengthening the pillars of the EMU and sets a course towards a return to prosperity in the Union.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In addition to the supervision of the banking sector, the need for a genuine European budget based on own resources and stepping up the fight against tax evasion, there has to be greater democratic legitimacy. As you know, the EU has been going through a profound economic, social, societal and institutional crisis for some years now, but it has also been a crisis of direction. That is why I believe a social pact is fundamental. The idea is that the EU should be founded on a fifth pillar in addition to the four highlighted by the report of the Presidents. During this crisis, the EU has neglected action on social issues. Binding regulations on budgetary discipline and surveillance of economic and budgetary policies must be accompanied by regulations governing labour and social issues. That is why we are calling for a European social pact, to promote decent living wages in particular, and for the implementation of a social protocol to protect fundamental social and labour rights. People who have been hit hard by the crisis and its social impact need something more than austerity budgets and hardship. The EU has to prove where its added value lies and find its way again.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this report because I believe that the economic and monetary union is an instrument for achieving the objectives of the Union and the Member States, in particular balanced and sustainable growth and a high level of employment. It could be said that last year was a year full of challenges for the European Union. I have in mind the financial and banking crisis that together with the existence of excessive macroeconomic imbalances has affected the socio-economic development of the euro area and of the Union as a whole in a quick, direct and negative way. Between 2008 and mid-2012, the EU-27 unemployment rate has climbed from around 7 % to 10.4 %, or 25 million unemployed and more than one out of five young people is unemployed (22 %), with youth unemployment exceeding 50 % in some Member States. The European Union is at a crossroads and a clear direction needs to be chosen either to combine forces within the Union and to build a future for a strong and value-driven and solidarity-based Union in a globalised world, or to fold back on itself and be forced to passively adapt to globalisation. Even though the answer to the euro crisis is complex, it demands sustained efforts. The need for closer European integration built on the basis of democratic legitimacy, accountability, transparency and citizen’s endorsement is becoming ever clearer.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on economic and monetary union. I support the proposed recommendations such as greater financial, budgetary and economic integration and strengthening democratic legitimacy and accountability.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. - (CS) During today’s plenary sitting a vote on banking union was held. Citizens of the Czech Republic still have the Czech banking sector crisis of the early 1990s fresh in their memories and they are aware of the necessity for high-quality supervision following banking consolidation in order to prevent problems with the liquidity and stability of banks. I therefore welcome the effort to create banking supervision across the EU in today’s interconnected European banking sector. I voted in favour of the report.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report is a response to the proposal of the European leaders (European Council, European Central Bank, European Commission and the Eurogroup) to redefine a true Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in which the basic pillars of this union, the steps that should be followed for its consolidation and the implications in terms of amending the necessary Treaties for its full implementation are defined. The proposal is based on four key pillars: banking, fiscal and economic union and the strengthening of its democratic legitimacy and accountability, including proposals such as the establishment of a Single Supervisory Mechanism, the strengthening of tax harmonisation and the decisive implementation of structural reforms in the economy. I have voted in favour of this report, since it is a decisive step towards clarifying and strengthening the pillars of the EMU and sets a course towards a return to prosperity in the Union. I voted for this report since I consider it fundamental that we strengthen the European Institutions and the mechanisms that will enable the European Union to deal with the present and future challenges it faces in a more effective and timely manner.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) According to the Treaties, when the policies and activities of the Union are defined and implemented, account must be taken of the promotion of a high level of employment and the guarantee of adequate social protection. The specific rules for a binding supervision of the budgetary discipline in the euro area can and should complement fiscal and macroeconomic benchmarks with employment and social benchmarks. The Commission must establish a social pact for Europe to promote: youth employment, including initiatives such as a European youth guarantee; high-quality and appropriate financing of public services; decent living wages; equal pay and equal rights for work of equal value for all; access to affordable and social housing; and a social protection floor to guarantee universal access to essential health services regardless of income. In addition, support must be given to the implementation of a social protocol to protect fundamental social and labour rights and European standards to manage restructuring in a social and responsible way. A new health and safety strategy including stress-related diseases is also needed.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Given the current economic, financial and banking crisis, which has led to increased public and private debt at the national level and difficulties in public financing in quite a number of Member States, it is essential to restore confidence in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) project. We must therefore bear in mind that job creation, encouraging business investment and improving the conditions of financial institutions, so that they may once again be able to provide credit to the real economy, will be decisive elements in the development of the euro area and the EU a whole. The single currency cannot, in any way, be seen as a sign of division. It should therefore be closely-knit and capable. The single currency must be stabilised and to do so will require the Member States to transfer competencies in budgetary policy development to the Union level. It is essential to stop the precariousness of the banking sector and meet the commitments of the Member States, within the European Semester, especially those related to the Euro Plus Pact, the Stability and Growth Pact and the Europe 2020 strategy. I therefore call for greater democratic legitimacy of the EMU so that it can overcome the difficulties of a socially and economically fragile Europe.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I very much endorse the call in the Thyssen report for a strong social pillar to EMU, including a social protocol to protect fundamental rights, a social protection floor, guaranteed access to public services, equal pay and terms for work of equal value and a European Youth Guarantee. If we want EMU to work, we must work towards a social union. Moves towards a genuine EMU must be based on the ‘community’ method, with enhanced accountability to the European Parliament, especially in relation to the coordination of Member States economic policies and the ESM, and to National Parliaments. To implement June’s Growth Compact and to achieve the aims of the EU2020 strategy, we need a euro area counter-cyclical spend of 1% of GDP within the EU budget as well as a clear path towards a Redemption Fund. I do regret however that this resolution did not propose a ‘golden rule’ for investment and Eurobonds. Finally, I have set out my position on the CCCTB on 19 April 2012 (A7-0052/2012) and on the FTT on 23 May 2012 (A7-00352/2011) and I refer to those explanations of votes in relation to this resolution.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I consider that in the process of implementing the provisions of the economic and monetary union, the Union needs to avoid applying policies which would lead to the creation of two different Europes. This is necessary so as not to affect the EU’s credibility and European citizens’ confidence in national and European public institutions, given that Europeans continue to regard the Union as the most effective actor in tackling the economic crisis.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) By strengthening economic and monetary union we can tackle the economic and monetary crises that have hit the EU, damaging society and industry, with a more forceful and more coherent approach. This means giving the EU greater powers, which in turn means new obligations for the EU and Member States. In a society based on trust, democracy requires transparent decisions and information to be given to the European public, as well as greater integration. The inevitable back and forth between the EU and Member States is one of the EU’s most important democratic tools and it is important to involve national parliaments so that they can see the impact of their decisions at European level. It is equally important that the European Parliament is more closely involved in the implementation of economic and monetary policy. That is why the single supervisory mechanism and the Chair of the European Stability Mechanism must be accountable to the European Parliament. This will give them greater legitimacy, not only in Europe but also in the international arena, where the balance of power means it is even more important. The treaties already provide for major reforms, particularly in the area of European democracy. Why wait any longer?

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which calls for greater economic and monetary union within the EU. As the euro area dips into recession again, it is vital that Europeans agree on the organisation and decision-making processes within the euro area to halt Europe’s descent into economic stagnation. The most recent progress has soothed the markets, but we have to stay on course and press ahead to ensure continued stability in the euro area and that periods of recovery are not the calm before a new storm.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In this time of economic and social crisis, it is vital that Europe once again offers a message of hope. I am delighted that the report by my colleague Marianne Thyssen on economic and monetary union has been adopted. As the report states, there needs to be a social dimension to closer supervision of budgetary policies, which should not be an end in itself. I am also pleased that the report highlights the need for greater democratic legitimacy (in other words, the European Parliament) in return for closer economic and budgetary integration.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report as it advocates the strengthening of fiscal coordination, the creation of a social pact for Europe and high standards of democratic accountability at the European level being applied to the Troika. The sustainability of public finances in the long term also involves fair taxation, progressive tax, well-organised collection of taxes, and a more effective fight against all forms of tax fraud and tax evasion.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have concluded that this report contains both positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, there are a number of good sections on the social and democratic dimensions, and the importance of respecting and taking into consideration the interests of non-euro countries. Parliament’s clear stance concerning the establishment of a social protocol within the EU is particularly welcome. On the other hand, there are sections on further integration in the euro area, which are problematic and in certain respects incorrect. It is important that the euro countries do what is necessary to stabilise the common currency; however, it is also important that the integration process does not take place too rapidly and is not too far-reaching.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report in question, prepared by Marianne Thyssen, contains recommendations to the Commission on the report of the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’. It is a text that focuses on financial and monetary union as a means of helping to find a way out of the crisis and build a genuine single market. However, we must demand a banking union serving the citizens and not the banking sector. I welcome the establishment of monitoring and preventive mechanisms, as well as a strengthened fiscal capacity provided with the necessary means to fully discharge its duties. To find a way out of the crisis, we need true governance of the euro area to strengthen the economy and restore confidence in the banking sector. I voted in favour of this report, the recommendations of which reinforce the current legislative framework, because I am convinced that this financial and monetary union will increase cohesion between Member States and will help in overcoming the current crisis. European citizens are expecting proposals to resolve their problems and contribute to a significant improvement in their living conditions.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) It is worth making some remarks about the discussion process involved in this deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). As on other occasions, Germany imposes, the Council adopts and Parliament endorses this. Before this report was discussed and voted on, a committee of three representatives of Parliament (appointed, not elected) took a position on behalf of Parliament on various aspects. These positions formed the basis of this report and the final compromise solutions. A peculiar exercise in democracy by this Parliament. As far as the key issue is concerned, the consequences of this Economic and Monetary Union are plain for all to see, as it has been responsible for unsustainable imbalances and differences between Member States and has been the instrument for deepening neoliberalism in Europe. But those who have benefited from it do not now want to let it go. As on other occasions, a new step legitimises the previous one and justifies the following. As far as we are concerned, our profound disagreement with the EMU is well-known, and for which there is no possible reform. Strengthening the EMU will lead to greater destruction of the manufacturing bases of countries with weaker economies and will heighten production deficits that will generate greater budgetary deficits and growing public debt. We have presented several proposed amendments to the report that run counter to its entire philosophy and general approach, which were voted against by the majority.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Since the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the European Union has made significant steps towards political, economic, fiscal and monetary integration. The roadmap ‘For a stable and prosperous EU’ presented to the June 2012 European Council by President Van Rompuy does not adequately address employment and social policies, though they are fundamental elements in the development of the Union and especially the euro area countries towards a true monetary and economic union. In some Member States the EU needs to get out of the vicious circle of austerity measures/recession and make full use of the EU added value which is not only about rules but also about common policies; the European economic and monetary union should first and foremost serve the people and the real economy as a basis for increasing the living standards of all citizens. The economic and monetary union is not an end in itself but rather the instrument to achieve the objectives of the Union and the Member States, in particular balanced and sustainable growth and a high level of employment. Social inclusion and solidarity are the cornerstones of the European social model and of European integration as a whole and cannot be left out of any future reform of the Union.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I voted in favour of the report as it quite correctly reacts to the deepening of the economic and monetary union as resolved at the June summit by not only focusing on integrated budgetary and integrated economic-policy austerity measures, but also defining an integrated financial framework as an objective. For us, the most important goal in this respect – which was also included in the report in the form of amendments – is to have equal rights and obligations as a non-euro area Member State with the intention of joining the new banking union system in the future. Another positive aspect of the report is that it openly calls on Member States and the Commission never to neglect the European Parliament’s opinion and its role during the establishment of the European banking supervision framework, and later on with regard to the accountability of this supervision.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) EMU is a precondition for the effectiveness of EU action and to fill the current political gap between national politics and European politics. In the resolution we have adopted today it is accepted that a ‘truly federal Europe’ must be built by amending the Treaties. There is already a lot we can do to tackle the crisis under the current rules, but it is good to have new legislative proposals in line with the current Treaties. We are therefore evaluating some new legislative proposals that could be adopted under the current rules. They are fiscal coordination; a social pact to integrate policies on employment and social problems more effectively; new rules to improve the functioning of the European Semester; and a system to give the EU a budget based solely on its own resources. However, we are also exploring possibilities that would require amendment of the Treaty in order to guarantee legal certainty and democratic legitimacy.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I readily admit that real economic and monetary union requires a huge transfer of skills and funds to the EU, as the rapporteur states. According to you, budget, taxes, social protection and supervision of banking institutions should all be dealt with by the technocrats in Brussels and the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. Nothing is left with national parliaments and governments except the financial privileges and material benefits for their MPs, paid to give you their approval, as they have been for the past 30 years. The question is, does anybody want that, apart from those here who already consider themselves the absolute masters of a tyrannical Europe, who are hiding behind a pseudo-democratic legitimacy? No they do not! Do you want proof? Then show some courage for once. Ask the people, after a genuine, democratic, open and honest debate! You would not dare because you know all too well that the response would be that you could go and take a running jump, or words to that effect!

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The crisis we have experienced since 2008 has shown up the cracks in the current architecture for economic and monetary union. Today we need to learn from the crisis and give the EU the frameworks it needs to ensure it remains economically and financially stable as well as prosperous. That is the very meaning of this report. By voting in favour I also wanted to support two demands relating to democracy and social issues, which I believe are essential to this next wave of integration. Firstly, I believe strengthening economic and monetary union can only happen alongside a guarantee of greater democracy, which requires the involvement of and supervision by the European Parliament and national parliaments. Secondly, in view of the serious social crisis facing several Member States, I particularly support the recommendation to introduce social and employment benchmarks alongside current fiscal and macroeconomic benchmarks.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The day before a major summit on the future of economic and monetary union, I met with my colleagues to put forward the case for a social pact. It is all too clear that austerity policies alone have not been effective at solving the major endemic crisis we have been battling for several years now. Together with the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I am calling for solutions that do not just focus on ‘saving the banks’, but take into account the need to preserve the European social model and prioritise employment and training for young people. Moreover, the European Parliament must be closely involved in these reforms as the voice of the European people and national parliaments. The Heads of State or Government in the Council have to realise that if they want the European people to be behind these economic reforms, measures have to be subjected to democratic scrutiny. This is vital for the democratic legitimacy of the process.

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The initiative aimed at a genuine economic and monetary union links in well with the economic-policy measures of the EU so far, as alongside Member State and fiscal discipline, the supervision of banks will now be included in the common economic and monetary policy. This initiative is extremely important for Member States outside the euro area as well since the national supervision frameworks of banks have so far proved insufficient in shackling the economic crisis. I believe it is important that when the new banking supervision system is established we must ensure that Hungary is able to join this common supervisory system with equal rights and obligations.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) I voted for the report, as the EU needs greater stability in the banking and finance sector. However, the report contains certain proposals, motivations and comments that I do not fully support.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. − While my country Britain was absolutely correct not to join the euro area, we also want the current mess sorted out since many British companies need thriving EU markets. There are two choices. Either go for full fiscal and political union or allow the euro area to shrink by letting the weaker Member States leave. Letting Greece leave the euro area is still too big a psychological blow for the political elites who see the euro as an essential building block towards the European Project of a federal republic of Europe. That’s why euro area leaders are continuing to forge an ‘ever closer union’. Having transformed their economy by going through painful economic reform, my German friends tell me they resent subsidising what they see as the less productive countries but a sustainable monetary union requires fiscal transfers from taxpayers in richer countries to governments in less productive countries. The solution may come from the ECB printing money which debases the euro but allows banks to buy sovereign debt and when they go bust doing so, they will be bailed out by the ESM. Who funds the ESM? Germany, the Netherlands and Finland and ‘Hey Presto’ we have fiscal transfers by the back door!

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted for the Thyssen report which is really comprehensive and urgently needed. While formulating its policy options, the Commission and the Council should take more seriously into account the positions of the European Parliament on the multi-annual framework. I support the understanding that the own-resource system needs an urgent reform and that in the future, the EU budget should be funded solely by own resources. However, I cannot agree with the Recommendation 2.5 advocating the gradual roll-over of excessive debt into a redemption fund. That is why I voted against it.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) We have reached the critical point where the sustainable development of the EU project can be accomplished only through the efficient use of simplified and transparent budgetary mechanisms which restore economic and financial balance and also citizens’ confidence. To this end, financing the European Union’s budget fully from its own resources is an absolute necessity, but it urgently needs to be regulated in detail, otherwise the objective of economic and monetary union cannot be achieved. To that end, as soon as possible, we need to focus our efforts in the following directions: 1. increasing existing traditional own resources; 2. introducing new own resources, such as the financial transaction tax and the common consolidated corporate tax base, and finding other innovative methods of generating a stimulus for the financial sector; 3. A considerable decrease in resources based on contributions from national budgets; and 4. eliminating mechanisms for deductions and corrections for certain Member States, which are completely unfair and incomprehensible to citizens.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which is of the opinion that a ‘genuine EMU’ cannot be limited to a system of rules but requires an increased budgetary capacity based on specific own-resources (including an FTT) which should, in the framework of the EU budget, support growth and social cohesion addressing imbalances, structural divergences and financial emergencies which are directly connected to the monetary union, without undermining its traditional functions to finance common policies.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’, which encourages economic integration, in the euro area in particular. The report makes useful recommendations on creating an integrated financial framework and on a single supervision mechanism, the need to tackle tax fraud, and taxation. These issues are at the heart of European integration and are the main challenges we face today.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), per iscritto. − La creazione di posti di lavoro, la qualità dell'occupazione e la dignità del lavoro sono fondamentali per superare la crisi attuale. Questo sarà possibile soltanto con un’interdipendenza e un’integrazione tra gli Stati maggiore. Serve più Europa per vedere la luce in fondo al tunnel. Il mio voto è favorevole.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I support Ms Thyssen’s report for its inherent merit and more still for its political and institutional expediency. It proposes drawing attention to the necessity of the European Parliament’s involvement in the process of promoting Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). As regards the report presented by President Van Rompuy, which launched the debate on banking, fiscal and economic union, the position expressed by Ms Thyssen’s report is one of openness, which makes a welcome distinction between amending the Treaties and the involvement of all the Member States. I think that Ms Thyssen and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have done an excellent job, and I therefore voted in favour.

  Arlene McCarthy (S&D), in writing. − Labour MEPs voted for this report in solidarity and with the understanding that action needs to be taken within the euro area to bring countries fiscally closer. Whilst we are not in favour of a two-speed Europe we believe we should not vote against further fiscal integration for countries in the euro area or sign up to the fiscal pact. In that regard it should be clear that the actions outlined in this report are not applicable to the United Kingdom and other countries outside of the euro area or signed up to the fiscal pact.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report endorses all of the decisions taken at the last two European summits: Fiscal Compact, Growth Pact, European Semester 2012, Europe 2020 – it is all there. The report even calls on Member States to implement these decisions as quickly as possible and suggests ‘naming and shaming’ those who do not. The banking union we are being promised is just another step towards an austere federal States of Europe, about which the text is quite explicit. The usual superficial call for the European Parliament to have a bit more power and stressing the importance of social inclusion and solidarity do not change the key issues. I voted against the text because of the false solutions it proposes and its calls for austerity.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This economic, financial and banking crisis has led to increased public and private debt in some Member States, as well as difficulties for these countries in obtaining financing. We therefore find ourselves at a point in time when it is very important to regain confidence in the European project, with the main focus being on Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). I therefore believe that job creation, incentives for business investment and an improvement in the conditions of financial institutions, so that they can once again finance the economy, will be key to the resumption of growth in the European Union. We thus have to find joint solutions which will benefit all, to overcome the difficulties that we are now experiencing within the EU.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of closer supervision by Parliament on the four strands to strengthen economic and monetary union: banking union, fiscal union, economic union and political union. As Guy Verhofstadt put it, the euro can only survive if we have a federal Europe with a European government drawing up fiscal, budgetary and economic policy. The report strengthens the democratic nature of the institutions by putting the participation of citizens and national parliaments first, making all of the new authorities report on a regular basis and establishing an open process to appoint the President of the Council of the European Central Bank, who will also be accountable to the national Parliaments.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The report ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ aims to push forward centralisation further and elevate all questions relating to economic and monetary union to European level. Member States are to be excluded from having a say as far as possible. It is a complete misjudgment of the situation, as since May 2010 it has been absolutely clear that a monetary union between countries with different economic orientations and strengths and different cultural perceptions, particularly as far as fiscal policy is concerned, is not sensible. The seemingly simple answer of the EU establishment, to call for greater centralisation everywhere and at all times, therefore misjudges the situation entirely. The report does contain something positive, however: with its call for ‘necessary Treaty changes in order to guarantee legal certainty and democratic legitimacy’ it confirms that the measures taken to date, bilateral loans to Greece, the European Financial Stability Facility, the European Stability Mechanism and the European Central Bank’s bond-buying programme, are not covered by the EU Treaty and therefore were and remain illegal! The report is poor, points in entirely the wrong direction and consequently had to be rejected on all points.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. − (PT) 1. I consider the Thyssen report ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ to be one of the most important reports adopted by the European Parliament on European integration since the start of the banking crisis in 2008, which then became the economic and then budgetary crisis in several countries and which has put the solidity of the European Union to the test. 2. The key message of the report is that the crisis arose and developed in large part due to a lack of European integration in the construction of the European and Monetary Union (EMU) and that the solution to the crisis is a genuine EMU in all its dimensions – fiscal, economic and banking union – and the strengthening of the social and political pillar of European integration. The problems of integration can only be overcome by more integration. I also note that this time the report has not ignored the need to limit competition and dumping tax within the EU, since it is from the outset contrary to the logic of the internal market. As such the report deserves the broad support it has received and deserves to be considered as a reference for the future.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) More than 55 years have passed since the signing of the Treaty of Rome. During its relatively short history the European Union has made a significant shift towards political, economic, fiscal and monetary integration. Between 2008 and mid-2012, the EU-27 unemployment rate climbed from around 7 % to 10.4 %, or 25 million unemployed. More than 1 in 5 young people are unemployed (22 %), with youth unemployment exceeding 50 % in some Member States. The latest Eurobarometer research indicates that for reason of the persisting crisis there has been a sharp decline in trust in political institutions both at national and at Union level. The Union remains the actor that Union citizens feel is the most effective in tackling the economic crisis. The economic and monetary union is an instrument to achieve the objectives of the Union and the Member States, in particular balanced and sustainable growth and a high level of employment. Social inclusion and solidarity are the cornerstones of the European social model and cannot be left out of any future reform of the Union.

  Sławomir Nitras (PPE), in writing. − (PL) The report of the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ is a good model for holding a discussion on the future of the euro area. In my view, at this level of generality, all interested entities should take part in the debate, so it is very good that Parliament has been able to come up with a position in such short order. Nevertheless, the role of Parliament in future should be still more distinct, and specifically the President of the European Parliament should be part of the team drafting a roadmap for reform of the economic and monetary union. I would also like to emphasise that interested entities means not only institutions, but also Member States, and above all euro area countries and those covered by a temporary derogation from accession to currency union. Parliament’s report is a good instrument which contains a number of sagacious demands such as the call to create a banking union based on three pillars and to deepen the internal market. We are also emphasising that the Fiscal Compact should be transposed into secondary legislation and that economic policy should be more effectively harmonised. Despite reference being made to many important structural principles, there continues to be a lack of a clear vision of responsibility management – particularly in the case of banking union. It is hard to see decision making being transferred to the level of common European authorities while at the same time maintaining national fiscal responsibility for the results of such decisions as a way of bringing about financial stability.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I believe that having common rules is one of the most important preconditions for having a common currency. The Economic and Monetary Union must become an instrument in achieving financial discipline in the Member States. This is crucial in order to restore confidence and convince European citizens and enterprises to start investing again in the economy. Taking all that into consideration, I support the fact that this report also calls for the implementation to be in line with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) Effective economic and social cohesion is a basis for a genuine and strong economic and monetary union. It can also guarantee balanced and sustainable growth and high employment. However, in trying to achieve these goals, it is very important to protect democracy and ensure the appropriate participation of citizens. National sovereignty should be protected by expanding the powers of national parliaments and at the same time preventing the shift of powers from national to EU supranational institutions. I agree with the proposal to retain the nations’ right to express their will and remove any obstacles to their ability to make decisions regarding their own countries’ economic policy.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Given the severe economic and financial crisis which the European Union is facing, and considering the objectives of promoting stability, consolidation of public accounts, sustainable and balanced growth and the deepening of the internal market envisaged by the European and Monetary Union (EMU), this proposal is intended to be an EU response to restore confidence in its currency and economy. The proposal is based on four key pillars: banking, fiscal and economic union and the strengthening of democratic legitimacy and accountability. I voted in favour of this report because I believe it to be an important step towards clarifying and strengthening the pillars of the EMU and establishing a path that can create a new cycle of growth and stability for the Union.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Since the signature of the Treaty of Rome, the European Union has made significant steps forward as regards political, economic, fiscal and monetary integration. In a globalised information society, the need for closer European integration built on the basis of democratic legitimacy, accountability, transparency and citizens’ endorsement is becoming ever more clear. In the light of recent events, the euro area lacks the means to solve the economic crisis we are in. There is still an urgent need for building a true economic union where the Europe 2020 strategy should give the binding framework for defining and implementing economic policies. For the reasons that I have briefly outlined, the need for further amendments to the Treaty cannot be ruled out, in order to increase the democratic legitimacy of a fully operative EMU. In the light of what I have briefly explained, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR), in writing. − (PL) Together with the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, I voted against the report on the issue of an action plan for creating a ‘banking union’. Several important factors made themselves felt. Governance of the economic and monetary union was supposed to be conducted within the institutional framework of the Union, and Parliament was supposed to play the role of co-legislator, but that runs counter to the current Commission application and the understanding achieved in the Council (Article 127(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

Furthermore, the attribution of a binding nature to the rights of coordination and surveillance of the budgetary discipline of the Member States whose currency is the euro would mean that national parliaments of euro area countries would have no say concerning their own national budgets, and that would facilitate the appearance of a common budget for the euro area. As a ‘genuine EMU’ demands increased budgetary opportunities within the framework of the EU budget, we are against both the increase in the EU’s own resources and the introduction of an EU financial transaction tax.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report is a response to the proposal of the European leaders (European Council, European Central Bank, European Commission and the Eurogroup) to redefine a true Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), which defines its basic pillars, the steps that should be followed for its consolidation and the implications in terms of amending the necessary Treaties for its full implementation. Given the severe economic and financial crisis which the European Union is facing, and considering the objectives of promoting stability, consolidation of public accounts, sustainable and balanced growth and the deepening of the internal market envisaged by the EMU, this proposal is intended to be an EU response to restore confidence in its currency and economy. The proposal is based on four key pillars: banking, fiscal and economic union and the strengthening of its democratic legitimacy and accountability, including proposals such as the establishment of a Single Supervisory Mechanism, the strengthening of tax harmonisation and the decisive implementation of structural reforms in the economy. I voted for this report since I agree that decisive steps should be taken to strengthen integration and deepen the EMU.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) During the Strasbourg session today, we voted in favour of Ms Thyssen’s report. The resolution represents a contribution to the roadmap for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), which should be presented by the presidents of Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Eurogroup and the Central Bank. The text highlights the need to guarantee democratic control over a series of players, many of them at EU level, but also through the strengthening of national players. In particular, the Member States’ parliaments should have greater powers of control. The resolution accepts the idea that, to attain genuine EMU, it is necessary to amend the EU Treaties and the document proposes a ‘truly federal Europe’. The new legislative proposals that can be adopted under the current rules include: greater fiscal coordination through enhanced cooperation; a social pact to integrate policies on employment and social problems more effectively; new rules to improve the functioning of the European Semester; and a system to give the EU a budget based solely on its own resources.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE), in writing. - (CS) I am in favour of real and structural changes in the legal framework regulating the European financial sector, and I therefore in principle support banking union and the further deepening of economic and monetary union. However, I must object to some of the proposals in the approved report that I do not consider beneficial. For example, the establishment of a joint fund for the redemption of excessive sovereign debt or common European debt is not realistic at the current level of European integration. By contrast, improvement in the deposit guarantee scheme is an absolutely necessary step and will bring the desired stability. Nevertheless, any modernisation of the deposit guarantee rules should be based on the existing national schemes. Mandatory lending between national deposit guarantee schemes, as proposed by the European Commission, would, however, expose the European economy to an increased risk of destabilisation. The need to improve the current democratic deficit in the European decision-making process is significant; in other words, the European Parliament should be fully involved in the review of all the planned steps. No less important is the enforcement of the principle of maximum inclusiveness, i.e. countries which are not members of the euro area should be able to become involved at any time with each individual project for deeper economic and monetary integration.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Following the report 'Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)' put forward by Van Rompuy together with Draghi, Barroso and Juncker, the Conference of Presidents took the formal decision to ask the ECON committee in association with the AFCO committee to draft a legislative initiative report outlining the European Parliament position on the future of the EMU and at the same time providing a formal reaction to Mr Van Rompuy's report under the procedure foreseen in Article 225 of the TFEU and Article 42 of the EP Rules of Procedure a legislative. Under Article 225 the EP may request the Commission to submit any appropriate legislative proposal and set a deadline for the submission of such proposal. The Commission has to explicitly agree or refuse to submit such proposal.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) In preparation for the December European Council, which will be devoted to matters associated with the deepening of budgetary and economic integration within the framework of the economic and monetary union, the European Parliament, in Ms Thyssen’s report, presented its position on the proposal put forward by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. What is of particular importance for Poland and other countries that are not yet members of the euro area is the fact that this report emphasises the unity of the European Union. It draws attention in a satisfactory way to the point that proposals associated with deepened economic cooperation cannot be partial solutions that divide the Union, but must be introduced with appropriate respect for the integrity of EU principles such as a single market.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Stability and lasting prosperity are the challenges the EU is having to face and, to this end, I think we need to work on strengthening Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). I believe that the desire to make choices that lead to economic and social wellbeing can be pursued through some of the fundamental points in this report. For example, the European Youth Guarantee, a social protocol to protect fundamental social and labour rights and a social protection floor to guarantee universal access to health services. Strong mechanisms for democratic legitimacy and accountability are needed, and in this sense a closer dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament is needed, which will guarantee greater cooperation. I believe that expanding EMU through an institutional and legal framework for the EU will guarantee the creation of an integrated and transparent single market.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. - (SK) There is a massive wave of discontent in the EU today amongst citizens of individual Member States. It is fair to say that the demonstrators are right. They just want to work and live a decent life. The statistics for unemployment growth show that they are right. Between 2008 and mid-2012, the unemployment rate has climbed from 7 % to 10.4 %. Therefore, job creation, quality employment and decent work are crucial in overcoming the current crisis. I am aware of the problems in the economic and monetary union, and we even propose solutions, but the problem lies in the implementation of solutions and putting them into practice, or their differing application in each of the Member States. I agree with the Commission’s motion, that investment in factories and businesses is required in order to support European industry and in the interest of growth and employment; at the same time we must also eliminate the unfair advantage compared with other sectors, so that public funding for the support of industry does not damage economic competition and so that support or various advantages are provided selectively in the name of solidarity in the most disadvantaged regions.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) In Amendment 9, I agree with strengthening democratic legitimacy, but the wording of the amendment is too hasty.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) I enthusiastically approved the Thyssen report with conviction, because it sends a strong message to the European Council: Europe must be more democratic and socially involved. In order to restore confidence in the euro, we need stronger European institutions: from a European finance minister to a European banking regulator. Democratic control must also be stronger. A future European finance minister must be individually accountable to the European Parliament. The president of the European banking supervision mechanism that must come into effect in 2013 should be approved and regulated by the European Parliament. The European Semester, the procedure in which the financial and economic policy of the EU countries is checked, must be democratised. Parliament must gain control over the guidelines that the Commission operates. National parliaments must discuss beforehand the reform plans that their governments submit to the Commission. The reforms, cutbacks and investments which governments undertake to carry out within the European Semester must be more strictly checked with regard to their effects on jobs and social protection. In addition to banking union, budgetary union, economic union and democratic union there is therefore a fifth pillar: social union. After all, the EU must not ignore the social consequences of the crisis: poverty and unemployment are increasing.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution but I want to be very clear: there cannot be economic and monetary union without democracy and a social pact. Without them there will be more intense competition between Member States and social dumping. As regards a transition to a federal Europe, I feel quite sure that it is doomed to fail without solidarity, social progress and democratic progress!

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Prosperity and stability in the European Union (EU) increasingly rely on one of its cornerstones, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The economic and financial crisis revealed the weaknesses of the EMU. The strengthening of the EMU is therefore fundamental to the future socio-economic well-being of the EU. I therefore agree with the proposals put forward by Marianne Thyssen in this report, since they are aimed at strengthening the EMU through adopting concrete measures to enable the existence of a real banking, fiscal and economic union, guaranteed by legitimacy and democratic accountability. However, any tax union must take into account the exemptions in the Treaties with regard to the Outermost Regions. The proposals contained in the report, if carried out in a coordinated way, will ensure a coherent and comprehensive framework capable of ensuring long term stability and sustainable economic growth for the EU.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution with recommendations to the Commission on the report of the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’. The Union is at a critical point, and job creation, quality employment and decent work are crucial in overcoming the current crisis. The important role played by the euro, both within the euro area and at the global level, as the second most important international reserve currency, demands a strong European response and coordinated European action to bring back growth and stability to the economy. A genuine economic and monetary union requires an increased budgetary capacity based on specific own resources which should support growth and social cohesion. We request the Commission to submit to Parliament, as soon as possible after consultation of all interested parties, with Parliament being a co-legislator, proposals for acts on following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex to this resolution with regard to the integrated financial framework, the integrated fiscal framework, the integrated economic-policy framework and the strengthening of democratic accountability and legitimacy.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL). The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) voted against the report, which displays the same reactionary and antipopular attitude as the Van Rompuy plan. The plans drawn up by the political mouthpieces of the monopolies for the economic and fiscal unification of the EU – the future structure, form and functioning of the euro area and the EU – are devised to serve the interests of capital. At the same time, they intensify the centrifugal tendencies and the fierce rivalries – both within the EU and with other imperialist powers – regarding who will gain from the capitalist crisis at the other’s expense. The solutions proposed by the bourgeois governments and the EU as a way out of the crisis are based on the criterion of strengthening the profitability of the monopolies, through a savage attack on the way of life and the rights of workers. This path worsens the people’s problems and prepares the way for the next crisis, which will come much sooner than the political mouthpieces of capital expect. Here is the proof of how dangerous those delusions are: the delusions spread by the parties of capital and the European one-way street, that the EU can change and that there can be populist administration within the EU, under conditions of domination by the monopolies. A populist way out of the crisis presupposes disengagement from the EU, unilateral debt cancellation for the debt-burdened capitalist countries, and socialisation of the monopolies through people’s power and a people’s economy.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE), in writing. − (LV) As the European Union’s economic and monetary ties become closer, it is important to coordinate the creation of Member States’ economic policy. It is equally important for the institutions that carry out the work of monetary union to be transparent and subject to democratic scrutiny. At the same time, I cannot agree with most of the sections included in the action plan.

Firstly, a gradual roll-over into a redemption fund which would store the debt of a state which exceeds 60 % of individual euro area Member States’ GDP would reduce the individual responsibility of the states. Already it is clear that some Member States are unable to carry out the required legislative alignment in order to reduce national foreign debt. The creation of a joint fund will not encourage the repayment of debts.

Secondly, I do not support the long-term plan on the common issuance of debt in the euro area. Eurobonds would allow the weaker states to continue to borrow and spend, while at the same time increasing borrowing costs for the remaining states, which are adhering to the EU’s fiscal conditions.

In view of the arguments set out above, I did not vote for Parliament’s report to the Commission on the report ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’.

  Frank Vanhecke (EFD), in writing. − (NL) It still surprises me that the one and only answer to the euro crisis in this Parliament is always the same: more of the same, more Europe, more decision-making authority within the European institutions. Those who on the basis of deceit and lies allowed completely unsuitable countries into the euro area have learned nothing from their mistakes. The question remains of whether it is logical or even practically possible for countries with very different labour markets and very different political inclinations or social and fiscal traditions to be squeezed into a straitjacket. We have experience of this in Belgium and there are only two peoples there. For that reason I have not approved this report. The solution today is not ‘more Europe’ but on the contrary ‘less Europe’.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Instead of being a genuine critical analysis of the recommendations made by the quartet of the Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup, the report by Ms Thyssen (a Belgian MEP in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)) endorses all of the initial proposals made by the Commission and the Council, in particular closer supervision of indebted countries, binding economic policy guidelines for the euro area countries adopted by the Commission, the implementation of the ‘two-pack’ and the need to transpose the European Stability Mechanism in all euro area countries. The repetition and reaffirmation of these well-worn phrases does not bode well for Europeans, particularly those worst off, and will not help Europe out of the crisis but instead have quite the opposite effect, as stated by a growing number of economists. It risks plunging Europe back into recession and dragging a number of other countries with it. The European Parliament has missed a unique opportunity to give its view on a process from which it was completely removed. Therefore I voted against the report.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. − (LV) This own-initiative report drafted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, together with the recommendations attached to it, point in the right direction for a more integrated euro area and European Union. Although banking union, the first stage in approaching genuine economic and monetary union, is encountering difficulties and the interests and prejudices of various states are becoming increasingly prominent, these ought not to be reasons for not striving for such an ambitious system. With its help, it will be possible to resolve the current crisis and to prevent the recurrence of similar crises in the future.

In addition to a single supervisory mechanism for banks we must also rapidly reach agreement on a common deposit guarantee fund and other mechanisms – and thus also on a sufficient EU budget with which to fund these. Member States which have prejudices against unequal expenditure in connection with mechanisms for resolving the crisis ought to acknowledge that all states have enjoyed the benefits of the single market and single currency and that it is only fair, in difficult times, for all states to assume responsibility. Similarly, we must look at the EU’s banking sector as a whole, taking into account the fact that it involves cross-border activities.

A solid mechanism for solving banks’ problems, financed by credit institutions, is the right way to ensure that insolvency on the part of banks will not result in states becoming insolvent. It is in the universal interest to achieve a sustainable future for the EU, with a fair approach to all.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report contributes to the mystification of the debate on the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the euro, concealing the responsibilities of the majority who approved it. The reality here demonstrates that, contrary to the propaganda surrounding the euro and the EMU – and the EU itself – these instruments have not only been shown not to be a shield against the crisis or a weapon with which to confront capitalist globalisation, but also have very clearly shown their instrumental nature in the accumulation of profits by capitalist monopolies. There is no solution nor reform possible for the EMU. Strengthening the EMU will lead to greater destruction of the manufacturing bases of countries with weaker economies and will enhance production deficits that will generate greater budgetary deficits and growing public debt. What is required is an immediate radical change in its statutes and guidelines, as well as the fake regime of independence of the European Central Bank (ECB), to guarantee the equitable participation of States represented on its board, in order to ensure, firstly, effective political control of the ECB by Member States and, secondly, the control of each participating State over its own national central bank and its national monetary policy, with a view to promoting economic growth and employment.

- Report: Norbert Neuser (A7-0328/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I can endorse this report. The ACP-EU (African, Caribbean and Pacific - European Union) Joint Parliamentary Assembly continues to provide a framework for an open, democratic dialogue between the European Union and ACP countries, based on the Cotonou Agreement. However, I would stress the need for a greater role for ACP national parliaments, local authorities and non-state actors in the drafting and monitoring of Country and Regional Strategy Papers and the implementation of the European Development Fund. In this way, the European Union and the ACP countries can gradually progress together towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which is an interim review of the work and cooperation achieved by the EU and ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries. While highlighting a slight loss of interest on the part of MEPs, the report also stresses the progress made through the joint work of these two groups of countries.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on the work of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) and EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2011. The goal of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a dialogue between the EU and the ACP countries on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and its implementation, including the Economic Partnership Agreements. An important part of the work of the JPA is the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in ACP countries. I agree with the proposals to encourage the greater involvement of MEPs at JPA Committee activities and meetings as well as the call for a clearer delineation of responsibilities between the European External Action Service and the Commission in terms of the implementation of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. The Commission should update the JPA on the state of play of the ratification of the Agreement, as revised in 2010. There is also a need to clarify the future roles and relations of the different groups (ACP, African Union, Least Developed Countries, G-77, regional groupings) during the discussions regarding the future of the ACP after 2020.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because through the quality of its work in 2011, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation. The Assembly plays a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements. Both of the working sessions of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly in 2011 contributed to the consolidation of relations between the Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states. Since the European Union is still the primary donor of development aid for many African, Caribbean and Pacific states, maintaining close relations is important for both parties. By intensifying contracts in the years to come, I believe that the Union’s external profile could be consolidated.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in it Parliament presents an assessment of the work of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) and EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2011. In 2011, ten resolutions and two declarations were adopted. In the session of the Assembly in Hungary, there were three reports by the standing committees, on democracy and constitutional order, budgetary support and water pollution, and the JPA adopted resolutions on democratic upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East and the situation in the Côte d’Ivoire. The workshops on climate change and agriculture, conductive education and innovation for development all attracted a large number of participants and great interest. In the session of the Assembly in Togo three resolutions contained in the reports by the standing committees on the Treaty of Lisbon, debt, and persons with disabilities were adopted. The session also adopted resolutions on the food crisis in the Horn of Africa and the impact of the Arab Spring on neighbouring Sub-Saharan states. Two Co-Presidents’ declarations on human rights in Eritrea and the security situation in Somalia were also issued. The workshops on energy, malaria and youth unemployment in Togo provided good opportunities to discuss important regional issues in depth. Lastly, in 2011 the Working Group on the Working Methods of the JPA, established in order to enhance the political role of the JPA as well as to provide for improvements in efficiency, concluded its work, enabling a first set of amendments to the Rules of Procedure to be adopted in Budapest.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2011. The Assembly, which met in Budapest and Lomé, adopted 10 resolutions and two declarations in 2011, thanks to the active participation of national parliaments, local authorities and non-State stakeholders, all of whom played an essential role. The same political will is needed to drive work on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and the EPAs forward in the next year.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − (RO) As a substitute member of the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I voted in favour of this report as the JPA is an essential instrument for dialogue and cooperation between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. By virtue of its political nature, the ever more active role played by its members and the quality of its debates, the JPA makes a vital contribution to the ACP-EU partnership. However, more attention needs to be paid to the outcomes of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, and coherence between its resolutions and those of the European Parliament needs to be ensured. Through this vote in favour, I also express my satisfaction with the reduction in the time spent on the sessions from four days to three, which enables considerable savings to be made in terms of the costs involved.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Neuser report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2011. I am delighted that over the course of 2011 the JPA has continued to be an opportunity for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Like the rapporteur, I believe it is important to ensure there is coherence between the decisions made by the JPA and those made by the European Parliament. I am also in favour of greater involvement of MEPs in the meetings and activities of the JPA.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that through the quality of its work, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation, playing a key role, among other aspects, in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA), and I consider that its political role and efficiency should be enhanced and developed.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which has brought together representatives from Europe and representatives from the African, Caribbean and Pacific region, has made it possible for our regions to engage in an open and democratic dialogue. I am pleased that the report expresses a clear ambition to continue and strengthen our relationship. The JPA must continue its work to establish itself as a key player in the North-South dialogue. I very much support the proposal to encourage the involvement of citizens, particularly women, in development projects, task forces and working groups.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the ACP-EU (African, Caribbean and Pacific - European Union) group of countries is an important instrument for open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the ACP countries. It is important for it to continue and the frequency and level of attendance at its meetings to be maintained. Therefore, I think it would be more constructive if more attention were given to the results of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and that coherence were ensured between its resolutions and those of the European Parliament.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report under consideration, prepared by Norbert Neuser, focuses on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly during 2011. The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly is made up of the Member States of the European Union and 78 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries who are signatories to the Cotonou Agreement and it meets twice a year to discuss issues related to development. In 2011 it met in Budapest (Hungary) from 16 to 18 May, and adopted three reports by its standing committees and resolutions on democratic upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East and the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, and in Lomé (Togo) from 21 to 23 November, adopting three resolutions by its standing committees on the Treaty of Lisbon, debt and persons with disabilities. In addition to its regular meetings, it held a regional meeting in Yaoundé (Cameroon) and two fact-finding missions, one to Timor-Leste and another to the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea. I voted in favour of this report and I am pleased with the way the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly has operated and the quality of its work which has enshrined it as a key player in North-South cooperation.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report is drawn up annually by the European Parliament’ Committee on Development. It is an evaluation of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in the past year. The rapporteur is concerned over the fall in the participation of MEPs in the meetings of the JPA’s specialised committees. This is a real problem, the causes of which need further study. At various times we have stressed the importance of the JPA as a space for sharing experiences and joint reflection which can greatly enhance cooperation with the ACP countries. While the report does not say so, JPA meetings clashing with other parliamentary activities (whether committee meetings or plenary sessions) is one of the factors that has limited participation. Such clashes should be avoided in the future. The rapporteur expresses concern over budget cuts in EU Member States affecting development policies and calls on the JPA to maintain its pressure on EU Member States to meet their 0.7 % gross national income target by 2015. This is a fair and relevant concern, which we support. Once again, it stresses the need to uphold the freedom and independence of the media, but says nothing about the issue of the concentration of media ownership on the limitation of this freedom and independence.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) met twice in 2011. The 21st session was held in Budapest (Hungary) from 16 to 18 May and the 22nd session was held in Lomé (Togo) from 21 to 23 November. Ten resolutions and two declarations were adopted. One regional meeting was also held during the year, in Yaoundé (Cameroon). The Assembly has played, and continues to play, a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements. Hearings of the head negotiators on both sides, meetings with economic and social players (both at formal meetings and at events held alongside them) and interaction between European and southern parliamentarians have helped to make the process more transparent and have made it easier to take local issues into account. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, I believe the Assembly had a positive bearing on the negotiation process.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I agree with the document because in 2011 the Joint Parliamentary Assembly continued to provide a framework for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the ACP countries on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and its implementation, including the Economic Partnership Agreements. However, more attention should be paid to the outcomes of the work of the ACP-EU JPA, and to ensure coherence between its resolutions and those of the EP. It is essential to involve parliaments in the democratic process and in the national development strategies because they play a vital role in establishing, monitoring and controlling development policies. The Commission should supply all available information to the parliaments of the ACP countries and to assist them in exercising democratic scrutiny, in particular by means of capacity-building. There is a need for an enhanced, genuine and more comprehensive political dialogue on human rights.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this Report. I am convinced that through the quality of its work, the JPA has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Neuser’s report. I agree that there is a need to pay more attention to the outcomes of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and to ensure coherence between its resolutions and those of Parliament. I am also concerned about budget cuts in EU Member States affecting development policy spending.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a forum for open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the ACP countries. It is therefore right for the frequency of meetings to be maintained so that we can all benefit from this. That is why I voted in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The report stresses the crucial role of the ACP national parliaments, local authorities and non-state actors in the drafting and monitoring the Country and Regional Strategy Papers and the implementation of the European Development Fund (EDF) and calls for greater involvement of MEPs in its meetings and activities as well as welcoming the renewed attendance by the EU Council at its sessions in 2011. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly met twice in 2011 and was able to organise two fact-finding missions, one to Timor-Leste and the other to the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan (South Korea). Through the quality of its work, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation. The Assembly has played, and continues to play, a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). The report is very informative and clear, which is why I voted in favour of it.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I believe that more attention should be given to the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and to more actively developing an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue. In particular, more attention should be paid to human rights questions and more information should be supplied to the parliaments of the ACP countries to assist them in exercising democratic scrutiny. I believe that MEPs should participate more actively in the activities of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly has played and continues to play a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Hearings of the head negotiators on both sides, meetings with economic and social players (both at formal meetings and at events held alongside them) and interaction between MEPs and their counterparts from the South have helped to make the process more transparent and have made it easier to take local issues into account. In addition to the outcome of the negotiations, there can be no doubt that the Assembly’s work has had a bearing on the process. I welcome the fact that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation through the quality of its work, and I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly met twice in 2011 and carried out two fact-finding missions in the same year, one to Timor-Leste and the other to the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in South Korea The purpose of the mission to Timor-Leste was to support the country with the development of democracy, given that elections were to be held there in 2012. Through the quality of its work, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation. The Assembly has played, and continues to play, a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Hearings of the head negotiators on both sides, meetings with economic and social players, and interaction between European and southern parliamentarians have helped to make the process more transparent and have made it easier to take local issues into account. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, there can be no doubt that the Assembly’s work has had a bearing on the process, and for this reason I voted in favour of the motion.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The Joint Parliamentary Assembly met twice in 2011. The 21st session was held in Budapest (Hungary) from 16 to 18 May and the 22nd session was held in Lomé (Togo) from 21 to 23 November. Ten resolutions and two declarations were adopted. One regional meeting was also held during the year, in Yaoundé (Cameroon). In the course of its proceedings, the JPA welcomed the Member of the Commission with responsibility for development, Mr Andris Piebalgs. The successive Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Council also attended both sessions. In a break with tradition, the JPA held both of its plenary sessions in 2011 over three days, rather than four, thereby enabling considerable savings to be made in terms of accommodation and related costs.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Through its work, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) has been a forum for different viewpoints on the initiatives taken. It has also made it possible to accelerate the dialogue between European representatives through direct contact with countries where growth is precarious and there are pressing social problems. The adoption of resolutions on democratic upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East and the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, and the particular attention given to climate change and agriculture, bear witness to a desire to meet the targets set. The JPA has also provided a valuable opportunity to look in more depth at certain issues such as the food crisis in the Horn of Africa and the impact of the Arab Spring on neighbouring Sub-Saharan states. I hope that the JPA’s role will continue to grow at the meetings with economic and social players.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This document presents the results of the two meetings of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2011. This Assembly is a key partner of the European Union in implementing the Cotonou Agreement, particularly the changes made in 2010 that still require ratification. The negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreements, which seek to integrate the ACP countries in the global market and support the regionalisation of these markets, are an example of the role that the Assembly has played. It is very important that the European Parliament has partners who are aware of the reality. Contact with the economic and social actors has contributed to a North-South dialogue, and greater transparency in the negotiations on the various areas of the Cotonou Agreement. I have voted in favour of this report as I consider that this close contact with the European institutions is essential.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the proceedings of the African, Caribbean and Pacific - European Union (ACP-EU) Joint Parliamentary Assembly. I underline the need to pay more attention to the outcomes of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) and to ensure coherence between its resolutions and those of the European Parliament. I also stress the crucial role of the ACP national parliaments, local authorities and non-state actors in the drafting and monitoring of the Country and Regional Strategy Papers and the implementation of the European Development Fund. We call on the Commission and the ACP governments to guarantee their involvement in this process.

I call on the EU and ACP countries to encourage citizens, particularly women, to participate in development issues, since the involvement of society is vital. I acknowledge the problem-solving and conflict resolution skills of women and urge the Commission and the JPA to include more women in task forces and working groups, and highlight the valuable contribution of the Women’s Forum in this regard. I reiterate the importance of an enhanced, genuine and more comprehensive political dialogue on human rights, including non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of accepting the report, because the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has played, and continues to play, a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Hearings of the head negotiators on both sides, meetings with economic and social players (both at formal meetings and at events held alongside them) and interaction between European and southern parliamentarians have helped to make the process more transparent and have made it easier to take local issues into account.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − I was not able to vote for this report, but not because I want less dialogue between the EU and the ACP countries. On the contrary, I welcome the scrutiny of local parliaments over EU development assistance to ACP countries and the work that the ACP-EU Joint Assembly does to promote human rights and democracy. However, the main problem with the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly is the eye-watering cost of its meetings. Earlier this year, it was revealed by a British newspaper that the Joint Assembly’s meetings in Kinshasa and Tenerife had been Parliament’s most expensive trips by parliamentary delegations in 2010. Over EUR 1 million was spent on the meeting in Kinshasa. For 50 MEPs this worked out at over EUR 20 000 per head. The meeting in Tenerife cost over EUR 700 000 with a per head price tag of over EUR 10 000. If the Joint Assembly is to remain a relevant player in relations between the EU and the ACP it needs to lose its reputation for political tourism. Parliament needs to make meaningful cuts to its budget. If we do not cut the budget of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly we are letting down citizens both at home and abroad.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) As vice-chair of the Committee on Development and member of the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA), I welcome Mr Neuser’s report, which stresses the need to pay more attention to the outcomes of the JPA’s work. Among the most important aspects, I want to stress the importance of the on-site visits organised during the JPA sessions, which complement the debates in the part-session and make it easier to understand the difficult circumstances in which the populations of the ACP countries have to live. Lastly, as well as hoping for greater involvement of MEPs, the need to ensure greater coherence between the resolutions of the ACP-EU JPA and those of the European Parliament should also be stressed.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report is an evaluation of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in the past year. The rapporteur expresses concern over the fall in the participation of MEPs in the meetings of the JPA’s specialised committees and over the budget cuts in EU Member States affecting development policies and calls on the JPA to maintain its pressure on EU Member States to meet their 0.7 % gross national income target by 2015, which seems a relevant concern and one we have expressed in the various forums in which we participate.

  President. - That concludes the explanation of votes.