Oral explanations of vote

Recommendation for second reading: Saïd El Khadraoui (A7-0171/2011)

  Guido Milana (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I should like to express my overall satisfaction about the adoption of Mr El Khadraoui’s report.

I believe it represents a step forward for consumer and environmental protection, including in terms of the positions of individual Member States, which sometimes complain of delays. Essentially, I think that by adopting this measure, Europe has demonstrated that it is further ahead than many Member States, which will clearly have to remedy this situation in short order.

I come from a country whose government was rather tardy in expressing its interest in this directive. I therefore hope that Parliament’s decision will be productive and function as a stimulus so that the attitudes and the level of attention for this issue will be substantially improved in the not too distant future.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the ‘polluter pays’ principle is, without doubt, essential for resolving environmental problems aggravated by European industrial development. However, it is not always right to attack a single category; we also need to defend the principle that it cannot be solely road hauliers to pay, but also those in Europe who do not put enough energy into supporting an alternative transport system.

Europe still has too few programmes to restructure the transport sector for more ecological solutions with a low environmental impact, and there is also a dearth of resources to improve its efficiency and environmental performance. Once again, therefore, we need to remember that we cannot cut traffic volumes because, by contrast, the amount of journeys and haulage needs to be increased. Therefore, road hauliers cannot be the only ones to pay for the ecological problems caused by others.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, the rapporteur, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and, obviously, Parliament as a whole, have to be congratulated on this excellent piece of legislation. This was the result of compromises being made and which received willing support. I think that it is extremely important that heavy goods traffic is included when we speak about climate change and sustainable development. In this way, we can show the public that we are really concerned about how emissions from heavy goods traffic, especially during the rush hour and on congested roads, are causing problems.

One thing I agreed to here, for the sake of compromise, was that the money that is being charged here for heavy goods traffic can be spent on rail transport or shipping. That may be possible in some cases, but I hope that when these decisions are being implemented nationally, it will be realised that it is heavy goods traffic that is paying for it. These funds could be used for improving, repairing and building roads and would, in this way, be of benefit to heavy goods traffic.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – Mr President, in relation to the carrying of heavy goods vehicles, this is quite serious as far as Ireland is concerned. We are on the periphery of Europe, with two sea bridges to mainland Europe where all of these extra charges for road use and pollution are going to apply. I understand from the exporters’ association in Ireland that this would add EUR 150 per trip, or EUR 300 per round trip, for haulage from Ireland, which depends heavily on this type of haulage and also very heavily on exports. This will ensure that we will be less competitive.

I believe that the Commission and the Council must look at this and must take into consideration the peripheral regions. It is not a major issue for the mainland European Member States but is certainly a major issue for Ireland and for other peripheral countries.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I wish to make it quite clear that the recommendations Parliament has adopted today will not be so straightforward under the conditions existing in Poland. These recommendations result in an increase in transport costs, and hauliers with older vehicles will obviously be in a worse situation. It is, however, to be welcomed that additional funding will be available to invest in sustainable transport and, above all, that there will be an opportunity to construct high-speed rail links and water transport links. However, I would like to echo previous speakers who have said that these recommendations have negative as well as positive aspects. They will also give rise to a whole series of complications for a great many hauliers in my country.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have two comments to make on the so-called Eurovignette. On the one hand, I would have liked to have seen a clear formulation to the effect that the financial resources collected there really are to be used for road building.

My second point is that I assume that the provision stating that the countries can exclude small commercial vehicles weighing between 3.5 and 12 tonnes from the Infrastructure Costs Directive will be respected by the Member States. After all, a lot of medium-sized enterprises use vehicles in the 3.5 to 12 tonne range. Most of these businesses will be unable to sustain higher costs. Such businesses are often the pillar for potential employment and enterprise in our rural areas.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, the Eurovignette proposal is well intentioned. There are many commendable aspects to it. To reduce carbon emissions from vehicles is very commendable; to reduce heavy goods vehicle congestion is very commendable; and the spending of 15% of the tolls on infrastructure is very commendable.

I would have liked to support this particular measure but I had to vote against because, as has been said already by my colleague, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Ireland’s economy is heavily dependent on exports. The Eurovignette measures, if adopted in our country, would have devastating consequences. Any additional charges on Irish hauliers would have a major negative impact on our exports. I think I am supported by the Spanish, the Portuguese and also the Italians. We are peripheral nations. We are totally dependent on our international markets. The high cost of diesel has pushed hauliers to the brink. Regrettably, I had to vote against the measure.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, today’s vote represents a marked step forward in bringing in the ‘polluter pays’ principle, including in the road haulage sector, which makes a significant contribution to atmospheric and noise pollution. Despite the criticisms of industry organisations, I think that the Council’s position is the best compromise available right now, even though I hope that improvements can be made in the future.

I voted in favour. I must point out, however, that we need to identify better ways to use the revenues, making it mandatory for the Member States to invest these resources to improve the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) and infrastructure for reducing pollution. This is the only way that, in future, we will be able to say that today’s decision has had positive results.

Report: Jo Leinen (A7-0330/2011)

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, thanks to the Treaty of Amsterdam, environmental and sustainability policy has gained greater significance and attention has focused on integrating economic and environmental policy, as well as introducing environmental considerations to other policy areas.

The key sectors include climate change, sustainable transport, nature and biodiversity, health and the environment, the use of natural resources and waste management, as well as the international dimension of sustainable development. The Council, in its conclusions of June 2006, called on the Union and its Member States to extend national accounts to the fundamental aspects of sustainable development. National accounts must therefore include an integrated economic and environmental accounts statement with fully coherent data.

I voted in favour of this proposal for a regulation because it creates new uses for national accounts data, environmental statistics and other statistical domains.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Leinen report because I am convinced that by recording this data in the various countries, we will learn far more about the situation in these countries. However, I have chosen to speak again because a number of contributors to the debate have said that we should only deal with these accounts and ignore GDP completely.

I would like to advise you against this. That is an extremely dangerous development. Gross Domestic Product is an indicator of economic development and prosperity. If we want to stop measuring this or only want to use social and environmental criteria in our measurements, then we are heading for a disaster. Thus, all of this can only supplement GDP figures. GDP must be at the centre of our analyses, as agreed in the Rosbach report. I believe that this should also apply here. I should like to emphasise that yet again.

Report: Carlos Coelho (A7-0185/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – Mr President, sorry, could you tell me which subject we are on now? I did not hear it.

(The President: ‘On Coelho’)

The Romania/Bulgaria acquis? Thank you.

(DA) Mr President, we have today voted on and adopted in Parliament a decision recognising that Romania and Bulgaria are ready for admission into the Schengen cooperation. I do not doubt that the purely technical aspects are in place and that an enormous amount of work has been done to be ready for admission. However, I think that there are a number of reasons why we should take seriously the concern felt by European citizens on account of the rising level of corruption in many Member States and the increasing level of cross-border crime. We ought therefore to have utilised this situation to strengthen our police cooperation and our fight against corruption before we set about extending the Schengen area. It is not a question of directing criticism at these two countries, but of taking advantage of the opportunity before extending Schengen to demand some relevant answers for the concerned citizens who are witnessing this rising crime in Europe.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when they joined the European Union in 2007, yet both countries still carry out border checks as a result of the partial application of the measures contained in the acquis. As careful assessments and visits carried out by groups of experts have shown, even though the two countries have shown substantial commitment and made obvious progress in implementing the acquis, some shortcomings still remain, for example, in the fields of equipment, performance of border checks and training.

We are of a mind to confirm our support for their full adhesion to the agreement, although we think it is essential for the two countries in question to inform us in writing, within six months, that additional measures to close these gaps have been implemented. Indeed, the fact that the Bulgaria-Turkey-Greece area is one of the most sensitive regions for the Union’s border policy in terms of illegal migration is something we cannot ignore or fail to consider.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, the most important part of this very well drafted report from Mr Coelho was at the end. This is where there was a very clear mention about the danger from the emigration wave which may inundate Europe from Turkey and, through Turkey, from the countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Up to a quarter of a century ago, Europe was protected from such emigration waves for two reasons: the Iron Curtain and the totalitarian regimes in North Africa. Both totalitarian systems kept their citizens under submission and were more likely not to allow them to leave their country than the opposite, but these obstacles do not exist now.

This is why I voted for this report. I welcome the fact that Mr Coelho has mentioned the significance of the emigration pressure from Turkey on Bulgaria and Greece. However, I wish to say that it will not be enough for these statements just to remain words on a piece of paper. Resources and programmes are needed, which will be used to protect the Union from this emigration wave.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, it is obviously very important that in the European Union, the same principles can be applied to all the Member States of the Union. In this respect, the Schengen Agreement is one step forward towards this kind of closer cooperation, that is to say, freer movement, but we must obviously remember that free movement also has to involve a certain sense of responsibility. Now we must hope that, when Romania and Bulgaria join the Schengen area, the problems that have occurred on their borders are actually addressed, and that adequate resources are channelled there to ensure that this sort of illegal migration and the other occurrences can be prevented.

Of course, basically the situation is that there cannot be a two-tier system in the European Union: the same rules have to apply to everyone. In this way, we can also ensure that the same opportunities are pursued in these countries as elsewhere. Resources are needed, because we know the problems and dangers that are occurring there.

  Roger Helmer (ECR). – Mr President, as you are well aware, British Conservatives normally take the view that we abstain on questions to do with the euro or with Schengen because we are outside both, and therefore arguably it is none of our business. However, in this case, I believe it is our business; we know that Bulgaria and Romania have serious problems with crime and corruption and I do not believe that their border controls are as good as those which would obtain in other Schengen countries.

They will therefore become a route and a conduit for illegal immigrants into the European Union who, within the Schengen area, would then be free to come to Calais and would definitely have the effect of increasing illegal immigration into the United Kingdom. For that reason, I voted against the report.

Report: Jean-Pierre Audy (A7-0160/2011)

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, the report on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme is especially significant.

There are four reasons – which I consider to be paramount – why I voted in favour of the report: 1) the simplification and streamlining of procedures in order to make it easier to access funding; 2) the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are essential for growth and employment; 3) innovation for a competitive manufacturing sector capable of meeting the challenges of the market; and 4) the risk finance facility, which so far has produced very good results.

Lastly, I should like to point out that the triangle of knowledge, education and research – on which the future of the cohesion policy rests – can only be consolidated in Europe through a steadfast commitment to research.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, there is broad consensus in Parliament on the need to reform our research programme. Nevertheless, I have to express my regret that the Commission has been so vague and unambitious in its mid-term review. It could, in fact, be made very much better and much more could be done immediately. The Commission could reduce the application deadlines, secure funds for demonstration facilities and use international accounting standards instead of inventing its own. All of this creates pointless bureaucracy that frightens industry away. It prevents Europe from progressing from ideas to invoices. In future, therefore, we must reduce the chaotic jumble of programmes and the amount of bureaucracy, and we must focus on the major challenges: climate change, energy and food – in short, we must use our research to create jobs. Parliament has today shown that it has the will to do this. Now it is up to the Commission to show the way.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, research and innovation play a central role in the European Union’s development and competitiveness and they are crucial in terms of reaching the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. The Seventh Framework Programme is the main instrument for funding research in Europe, as shown by the report voted on today. However, there are still many problems being caused by excessive amounts of red tape for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

In its resolution of 11 November 2010, Parliament asked the Commission to introduce procedural, administrative and financial simplification measures into the current management of the Seventh Framework Programme, yet these measures have still not been addressed. I call upon the Commission to acknowledge Parliament’s observations and to identify solutions to make it easier for SMEs to access the seventh and eighth research programmes.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, I was also happy to vote in favour of this report, and I thank my colleague, Mr Audy, for doing such a good job. I have two matters to raise. Funding is extremely important, and it could be a little more ambitious, since it is being stated here that this level is credible and necessary. We have to increase funding to achieve vital growth in Europe.

Some time ago, I myself was listening to a Finnish research group which was receiving funding through this programme. They do cell research, in which they are quite close to a breakthrough which would even allow them to develop cures for cancer. They have had no information, however, as to whether the funding will continue. They are quite at a loss. In my opinion, this funding should be continued and it should be sufficient.

The other issue, on which we are clearly receiving feedback, is that a lot of working time is spent on red tape. This needs to be cut, so that things can be prioritised properly.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, I am pleased that today, we are discussing the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme. Many of the points mentioned in the document are very true, particularly as regards young researchers and more active participation by industry in projects under the Framework Programme. The document expresses concern over the rather low participation rate among certain Member States. I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are objective reasons for this. The financing schemes in force today are, in a sense, more favourable towards the old European Union Member States. This is also reflected in the figures. The amount of financing that a project participant from one of the new Member States receives is half what it would be for a participant from the old Member States. As a result of this situation, a gap is forming in the Community and new Member States are being excluded, which I firmly believe is wrong. I therefore feel that it is necessary to review the financing schemes and to strive to ensure during FP8 that there are no more disparities or discrimination, so that we can successfully address the challenges mentioned in the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the current Seventh Framework Programme ensures that the European Union can raise its research policy to an adequate level. With its budget in excess of EUR 54 billion for the period 2007-2013, we can consider it as one of the most significant programmes supporting research in the world. We need to prepare a mid-term review based on concrete data in order to ensure that the Seventh Framework Programme continues to meet European requirements. I believe that the simplification process is the most important thing we can underline in a mid-term review. Experience also shows that the complexity and difficulty of administrative procedures was one of the biggest problems for our researchers. The other important thing is the facilitation of the participation of SMEs in the programme. Unfortunately, in this respect, we need to make further efforts, although some improvement has been achieved in programmes concerning cooperation. We were very pleased to welcome the introduction of the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility. This should be continued and increased until the end of the Seventh Framework Programme, and in the course of subsequent programmes. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the report.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I voted against the Audy report. I am unable to lend my approval to a document which blocks the INDECT project. I do not agree with the statement that the project, which is being carried out at the well-known AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków, violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Its research goal is, after all, to accomplish the goals set out in resolutions on the fight against paedophilia, sales of weapons via the Internet and the fight against drug trafficking and human trafficking, which are issues we have raised many times in this Chamber. It is an innovative project, which does an excellent job of filling the gaps in the EU Member States’ security systems, particularly as regards the Internet. The people it affects are those who break the law, and they are the ones who have most to fear from its goals. What is more, the project provides a good basis for the construction of an integrated security network, ensuring defence against cyber attacks. Russia, the United States and China have put in place similar solutions, and we have been eagerly awaiting them for several years at EU level. I do not therefore understand why funding for the entire project is being withheld, all the more so since this is the only project which the Audy report singles out in this way.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I voted for the report, but concern remains over the public funding of embryonic cell research. According to the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, embryonic cells are considered to be human embryos, and therefore beings from which life arises. These cells, since they represent the first stage of the human life they will become, must be legally defined as embryos, the patenting of which must be ruled out. On the basis of this statement, the European Commission should immediately take into account the decisions and conclusions of the European Court of Justice and adapt its policies on the funding of science and research to them.

Motion for a resolution (B7-0344/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, today, we voted through the last in a long line of free trade agreement texts. Fortunately, Parliament is, on the whole, still in favour of free trade, and that also applies to the agreement with Canada. However, the demand for sector-specific analyses comes up again and again. The impact assessment for the EU-Canada agreement indicates clear benefits for both sides. Sector-specific analyses are simply a way of looking for a reason to say no, because the truth is there will always be both winners and losers. It is our responsibility to do what is best for the majority. Free trade is best for consumers as it provides greater choice and lower prices. It is best for businesses because it extends their market and creates growth and jobs. Free trade is the international division of labour, ensuring that we all do what we are best at, while allowing everyone else to do what they are best at.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, of course I welcome any trade agreement between two countries or businesses because, if correctly managed, world trade can help improve living standards and contribute to progress.

On the other hand, I always worry that the large number of bilateral agreements will cause us to lose sight of the overall picture and that we will end up with a patchwork of agreements that makes it hard to achieve a genuine agreement within the framework of the WTO.

For me, bilateral agreements are always the second best option. The best option really would be to continue with trade talks in the context of WTO negotiations and to conclude the agreements that world trade is waiting for and that the global economy desperately needs.

Report: Wolf Klinz (A7-0081/2011)

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is an incontrovertible fact that the rating agencies have now amassed huge and unchecked power. Their initial function was to provide valuable information to investors, but over time, they have morphed into supreme and uncontrollable arbiters of the international financial markets.

In my view, it is unacceptable that businesses and even Member States are subject to the judgments of three large American companies, whose ratings have not always been correct and indeed have, at times, led to astonishing blunders, as in the Lehman Brothers affair.

Greater controls are therefore to be welcomed and I hope that the new European authority will manage to operate at optimum capacity, with real powers to intervene and even to issue penalties where necessary. I also believe that it is a fine idea to introduce the principle of civil liability in situations of obvious negligence. Greater competition is required in the sector and we must break up this historic oligopoly and try to bring in new, independent and possibly European organisations, which would therefore have a proper awareness of the economic context and reality of our continent, which is entirely different from the way of thinking in the United States.

For all these reasons, I voted in favour of the report in question.

Report: Angelika Niebler (A7-0159/2011)

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, I am delighted with the document adopted today on guaranteeing independent impact assessments (IAs). IAs are the basis of the legislative process. I feel that the effective independence of IAs must become a general principle, applied to all types of IAs, particularly environmental impact assessments. A guarantee of the implementation of this principle should also be contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, which is likely to be reviewed in the near future. I am pleased that the proposals in the Committee on the Environment, for which I provided amendments, concern environmental impact assessments, which really is crucially important. The European Commission must also play a more active role in defending the interests of the European Union and its Member States in cases where projects being undertaken by third countries may have an impact on the European Union or on one or several of its Member States. I believe that this document is a step towards ensuring security for us all.

Report: Richard Falbr (A7-0172/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I would very much like to speak on this subject, as I think it is somewhat absurd that we are laying down provisions on CSR here. It is all well and good that we can presumably all agree only to enter into free trade agreements and partnerships with countries that respect human rights. That is actually already in the Treaty. However, I think some politicians have forgotten what CSR stands for. It stands for corporate social responsibility. Thus, it is a question of what enterprises do on their own account over and above complying with the legislation. This is used as a competitive parameter in business, thus creating a drive for enterprises themselves to keep on improving this aspect of their business. If we come along and steal this away and turn it into political legislation, we completely remove this competitive parameter, and that – if I may say so – is sheer political stupidity.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the external dimension of social policy includes all the European Union’s actions and initiatives to promote labour and social standards in non-member countries. Even though both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Europe 2020 strategy attributed an unprecedented level of importance to social policy, the issues of competitiveness and economic factors continue to take priority over social issues.

However, it is becoming ever clearer that we need to stop concentrating strictly on the markets and instead take a more holistic interest in people, which means protecting them, the rights of workers and the right to work. The European Union must make it a long-term goal to be able to ensure that men and women have the chance to gain dignified and productive employment, in conditions of freedom, equality, safety and dignity. In future, it will therefore be necessary for Parliament and international and European trade unions to work together and add their positive and urgent recommendations to the initiative voted on here today.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, I supported the report because European business enterprises are of especially great importance in international trade. We always have to act in accordance with European values and international social and labour standards, even in third countries.

Corporate social responsibility is only useful as a voluntary exercise if consumers are given reliable and accurate information on the activities of companies, the origin of products and the conditions under which goods are produced and sold. Certificates, brands and standards are important for consumers, and image and reputation are directly linked to a company’s success. In the age of social media, it is difficult to hide information from consumers on a company’s practices abroad.

Responsible entrepreneurship is always the backbone of competitiveness and successful business. The European Union, too, must be a pioneer in the promotion of social standards. I think that the notion of corporate responsibility should be included in all EU policy and trade agreements.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, it may be an interesting venture to support and promote social responsibility in external relations. It concerns me that we are not going as far as we might in our activities. Social responsibility must be focused on the poorest, on those at the margins of society, on those who have no qualifications and who are most exposed to manipulation. In short, it must be focused on those who are furthest from the labour market.

The French programme on learning and working together, initiated by the organisation ATD Quart Monde and the French state, is a fine example of a solid enterprise preserving the authentic social responsibility of a partnership with the most disadvantaged workers. In this way, the Union can bring real added value to the policy.

Report: Gay Mitchell (A7-0187/2011)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, 2011 offers a strategic opportunity to draw the lessons from the four years that the regulation establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation has been in force. Since its entry into force, the main problem which has emerged seems to be the difficulty in understanding or accepting the specific role of development cooperation in the context of the European Union’s external action.

We therefore need to clarify the fact that development cooperation is the one policy area of external action, besides humanitarian aid, which has not been designed to serve EU interests, but to defend the interests of the most marginalised and vulnerable populations on this planet.

Through today’s vote, we will underline the need for a separate development cooperation instrument that specifically and exclusively targets developing countries and expressly pursues the objectives laid down in Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). To conclude, Mr President, we are asking, in particular, for the delegated acts procedure to be used when taking decisions on general objectives, priority areas and expected results, as well as the allocation of funds which fulfil the criteria of Article 290 of the TFEU.

Report: Diana Wallis (A7-0164/2011)

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, despite the fact that the European Parliament has repeatedly acknowledged the advantages that would be conferred upon the Internal Market by improvements to the framework of contract law, the introduction of a new system of contract law using an optional instrument has encountered a series of major problems, in terms of both substance and procedure. Above all, the proposals put forward reflect the Commission’s position, which is not supported by the substance of public debate. We do not know the positions held by the individual Member States, or those held by consumer and business representatives. Diverging legal interpretations may result from the lack of clarity of some of the proposed documents, which will be used as a basis for judicial decisions.

Finally, the introduction of an optional instrument would have a significant economic impact on businesses and consumers. There may be very high costs associated with the necessary training, the replacement of standard contract forms and possible court proceedings. In my opinion, it is unwise to impose additional financial burdens on businesses at a time of economic difficulty. On the basis of the above, I voted in favour of rejecting the report.

Report: Nadja Hirsch (A7-0082/2011)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the possibility and ability to learn and work in an international context is a prerequisite for a successful working life in today’s strongly globalised economy. As far as education and vocational training are concerned, the key factors listed in the European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth need to be translated into practical steps at European Union level and in the Member States. The projections suggest that the demand for skills will continue to rise. Industrial and technological change increases the need for workers with high and intermediate skill levels, but low-skilled labour is, conversely, being squeezed out.

Therefore, especially where young people are concerned, action needs to be taken quickly: the continuing rise in youth unemployment is one of the most important challenges facing Europe. To attain these goals, we believe it is essential for education and vocational training to continue to be treated as a long-term common political priority, which can be translated into reality only with the participation and commitment of all stakeholders, the EU institutions and those involved at local and regional level.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I voted against the Hirsch report as it fundamentally sees education not as a means by which people can improve their knowledge and skills, but solely as a tool for increasing the profits of big business.

I completely reject that approach. The report claims that the implementation of the EU 2020 goals is a way to secure employment and a better standard of living. This is simply untrue. The EU 2020 strategy will deliver neither jobs nor a better standard of living. It offers more neoliberal policies and a race to the bottom in wages and conditions.

This report disgracefully calls for employers to be able to terminate apprenticeship contracts should the apprentices be deemed unsuited to their employment. That is a recipe for gross exploitation. I reject the call for the increased involvement of private higher-education institutions in the expansion of vocational training and instead demand meaningful training opportunities provided through massive public investment.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, I supported the report because youth unemployment is a challenge facing the whole of Europe, and one that is troubling all of society. It is also behind the unrest in the southern Mediterranean countries. In the prosperous societies of the Nordic countries, youth unemployment is visible, for example, as exclusion and an increase in substance use among adolescents.

Youth is all about mobility and changing jobs. Youth unemployment is serious when young people have no access to work of any kind because they are poorly educated or lack work experience, nor are young people lacking in a proper education or work experience in a strong position when competing for jobs. That is why we have to focus our energy on providing wide-ranging, high-quality education and, furthermore, pay attention to the perspective of gender, so that the underlying causes of youth unemployment can be eliminated. We should also remember the role of further training because it is that which promotes lifelong learning and prepares people for changes in the labour market.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, it is highly significant that Parliament is using this resolution to send a strong message to both the Member States and the younger generations to ask for greater commitment to European cooperation on learning, vocational training and higher education in order to bolster the Europe 2020 strategy. We know that youth unemployment has severe repercussions on poverty and social exclusion, as does the prolonged period of insecurity in which 40% of European young people live.

Strong backing should be given to a combination of education policies and a new incentive-based welfare system for enterprises that provide full-time employment for young people and women. Ensuring that the skills being learned are in line with the competences – including for citizenship – required for the new goals of sustainable and intelligent growth is essential, as are policies for the transition from education to the workplace and speeding up the recognition of professional qualifications, titles and academic credits.

Those Member States which, like my own, are cutting resources for education and research at a time of crisis must know that they are hurting young people, and hurting the future of Europe.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Mr President, I was involved in the preparation of the report in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, and indeed, unemployment in Europe is high, but unemployment among the young is, on average, twice as high. There are Member States in which the figure is even higher, such as my home country, where it is actually three times higher. I support the initiatives in the report as practical steps to turn this situation around towards improvement. We do not see the sense in training a large number of people who have been in higher education but who then do not find any use for it in the labour market. We must concentrate more on vocational training and retraining.

What is completely unacceptable, however, is the action taken by the Council on education in terms of budget cuts. Their actions are also incompatible with the fulfilment of the Europe 2020 strategy, which has already been adopted. They are not putting their money where their mouth is. I voted for the adoption of the report. Thank you.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I also voted in favour of this report, especially since it is estimated that there will be 15 million jobs available to people who have tertiary qualifications between now and 2020. At the same time, it is estimated that there will be 12 million fewer jobs for people who have no qualification or a very poor one. Therefore, something must be done about this and there is evidently a great need for education and training. Twenty-one per cent of young people across Europe are out of work and it is therefore important that they remain in education until they, too, have a suitable qualification and that there be collaboration between colleges and business so that those qualifications are suitable. In addition, it is important that there be independent evaluation of those qualifications. If all those things are done, we can solve this problem in the future.

Report: Salvador Garriga Polledo (A7-0193/2011)

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, the report by Mr Garriga Polledo is a very important piece of work that allows us to set out a new financial framework for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe.

We need a budget that is designed for the challenges of the present day and that can provide a strong and innovative response to current needs. Its top priority must be research and innovation for small and medium-sized enterprises, to stimulate growth and employment, while the second objective is to reform the common agricultural policy in order to promote and support the competitiveness of agriculture in Europe.

However, particular attention should be paid to the future of the cohesion policy, which I consider to be a very important instrument and one which provides financial support for investments that drive economic growth and, above all, the creation of new jobs. On this subject, I would like to revisit a point that I think is particularly important: the establishment of a new intermediate category. I believe, of course, that this new category cannot be created by siphoning off resources from existing ones, which are essential for supporting the balanced, harmonious and sustainable growth of our communities.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, this extremely important report was adopted, and I would like to mention just a few details. The first is Amendment 18, tabled by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, which states that some fairly precise cuts can be made under the common agricultural policy, according to the kinds of current reforms that exist. In other words, we get a clear picture of the ALDE Group’s view of agricultural policy, although it has been worded very cleverly. The obvious and basic premise here is that agricultural policy is what is to be cut, if we have to cut anything.

The other important point, on which I voted differently from my group, was Amendment 37d, which originally points to the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a single seat. There is no point arguing about that: savings will be made. It does not make any difference, no matter how we vote: we know that savings will be made. I would hope that here at long last, people understand that the public is really tired of savings being made that concern them but not savings that concern us. This cannot be explained away to the public and nothing will be improved by voting on it. Savings will be made and we have to make them.

  Salvatore Caronna (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Garriga Polledo on the forthcoming financial perspectives of the Union because, at one of the greatest times of crisis for the so-called European spirit, I am convinced that it is vital for us to insist upon and prevail in our belief that it is essential to provide the Union with credible instruments, beginning with adequate funding.

The request for a 5% increase in the next budget is therefore just and necessary. Perhaps it will not be enough, but it is essential in order to provide answers to the big questions that lie ahead: these resources are needed to tackle real problems, such as greater cohesion between the regions, a greater capacity for research and innovation, and a greater capacity to generate growth and provide jobs. Without adequate resources, none of these problems will be properly dealt with, beginning with the introduction of the intermediate category in cohesion policy, which only makes sense if it does not harm the other categories already in place.

That is why I voted in favour and I hope that the Commission and the Council will follow the recommendations of the report.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the economic crisis, demographic problems and growing unemployment are having a significant impact on the budgetary constraints of the Member States. A European budget providing opportunities for long-term planning should therefore be a tool which promotes the growth of the individual countries’ economies. The Europe 2020 strategy, which stimulates job creation and promotes social integration, is, to my mind, a key component in helping countries exit the crisis. In this context, it is particularly important for its scope to cover small and medium-sized enterprises as well. I therefore agree with the proposal to ensure greater support for all programmes and instruments supporting these businesses, including programmes aimed at competitiveness, innovation and use of the Structural Funds.

Maintaining competitiveness, increasing economic growth and fighting unemployment will be the greatest challenges faced by the EU. I would therefore like to highlight the urgent need to support growth through investment in knowledge-based economic sectors. Strengthening the link between education, scientific research and employment will promote integration, mobility and specialisation.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I am speaking to express my satisfaction as well as to explain my reasons for voting in favour of the report by Mr Garriga Polledo, which somehow manages to set out serious and effectives goals which contribute to strengthening the cohesion policy.

I do have one doubt, which we have expressed by voting to adopt the amendment removing the wording on the creation of an intermediate category for cohesion policies in those parts of Europe where gross domestic product (GDP) falls to between 75% and 90% of EU GDP. This really concerns us, not because we do not believe that the focus of the cohesion policy should be extended, but because we think that without additional resources, this extension risks depriving and reducing the resources for the areas referred to in Objective 1 – the so-called convergence objective – which need just as much attention and support from the European Union. To sum up, I am pleased with the report and I am pleased with the work that has been done, but I have some concerns about the attention that we seem to have paid to a policy that could have confirmed the so-called ‘facing-out’, as we are used to seeing.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the contents of the new Multiannual Financial Framework must present a clear vision of the future of the Union and its citizens. The current economic and social challenges that we face need to be reflected not only in impressive speeches but, first and foremost, in concrete budget chapters.

Whether we look at the current difficulties and ambitions of the EU and its regions from a regional or a global perspective, the most pressing issues remain the energy shortage, the slowdown in economic growth and unemployment. We must therefore still regard the development and innovation of European energy infrastructure as priority areas that need considerably more funding. In my opinion, a return to coal-burning is not, in the current environmental context, a solution for the future or for the creation of a fully-fledged trans-European transport network. These two areas are an essential precondition for developing the competitiveness of the EU as a whole and for the operation of the Internal Market and, as such, they deserve particular attention when drafting the budget.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Firstly, I welcome the commitment in the report to at least maintaining the CAP and cohesion funding at present levels in the next perspective. There was much controversy in our group as well about the intermediate category, and it was decided to have a free vote. It does not affect my colleagues in Ireland or ourselves at all because even though we are in the IMF – and we are broke as a country – we are well above the European average in GDP terms; so whether there is an intermediate category or not does not affect us.

However, we do think that there is a need for a fundamental appraisal of cohesion policy going forward because, as more and more regions go above the 75% threshold, the policy is either going to become redundant or be reformed, and that is what we expect to happen.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Carlos Coelho (A7-0185/2011)

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party delegation in the European Parliament assumes that the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area will further improve freedom of movement within the EU. Now that both Member States have achieved positive evaluation results in all areas of the Schengen review, there should be no more obstacles to delay inclusion further. There is no denying that technically securing borders will not automatically make them secure as long as problems persist in combating corruption in the justice and policing system.

Accordingly, this challenge also relates to Member States already in the Schengen area. For this reason, the German Free Democratic Party delegation believes that criteria such as the fight against corruption must receive greater attention when evaluating the Schengen mechanism, and any misdemeanours must be punished appropriately.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, given the positive results of the evaluations carried out on both countries to establish whether they meet the requirements of the Schengen acquis. Whilst both Romania and Bulgaria are currently ready to open their borders, although the Bulgaria-Greece border is very sensitive, Bulgaria needs to take additional measures and a tripartite approach common to Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey needs to be adopted.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important resolution on the application of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania. I agree with the rapporteur’s position that, although there are some outstanding issues that will require regular reporting and a follow-up at some point in the future, they do not constitute an obstacle to full Schengen membership for these two Member States. The inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania in the Schengen area is very important both for these countries, their economic growth and investment development, and for the whole of the European Union, for increasing integrity and solidarity among Member States.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on Romania and Bulgaria joining the Schengen area. This is the second time that Bulgaria and Romania’s application of the Schengen provisions has been examined; the first assessment took place in 2010. Let us bear in mind that Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis (data protection, Schengen Information System, air, land and sea borders, police cooperation and visas) when they joined the European Union in 2007. Now, however, all Member States need to agree on their effective participation in the area without internal borders. For its part, the European Parliament has been consulted.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Schengen cooperation started on 14 June 1985, with the Schengen Agreement, allowing for the abolition of systematic border controls at the internal borders of the signatory states and for the creation of a common area, with free movement of persons. Currently, free movement is guaranteed on a territory with 42 673 km of external sea and 7 721 km of land borders, covering 25 countries and 400 million citizens. Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus only partially apply the Schengen acquis at the moment and checks are therefore still carried out at the borders with these three Member States. Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when joining the EU in 2007. Taking into account the results of the evaluations and the necessary revisits carried out by teams of experts, the European Parliament and the Council have concluded that, although there are some outstanding issues that will require regular reporting and a follow-up, they do not constitute an obstacle to full Schengen membership for these two Member States. I support the proposal that Bulgaria and Romania should inform the European Parliament and the Council, in writing in the course of a six-month period, of further action that they intend to take as regards recommendations, submitted in assessment reports and mentioned in subsequent reports, which have yet to be implemented.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since the Schengen Agreement was concluded in 1985, its five founding states have expanded to 25, 22 of which are European Union Member States. Schengen enabled the abolition of internal border checks between signatory states and the creation of a single external border where border checks on entry to the Schengen area are carried out. Bulgaria and Romania adopted the Schengen acquis when they joined the European Union in 2007.

On the basis of the results of the evaluations and of the monitoring visits carried out, the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, has reached the conclusion that all the conditions necessary for the application of all parts of the Schengen acquis have been met: specifically, checks at the land, sea and air borders, police cooperation, visas, connection to the Schengen Information System (SIS), and data protection. These countries should become full members of the Schengen area. This is an important step forward for these countries, as well as a strengthening of European citizenship. I am therefore voting for this report, and would congratulate the rapporteur.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted for this initiative because Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when they joined the EU in 2007. Following the relevant expert evaluations, and in spite of the fact that there are still some problems to be resolved, both countries have shown they are prepared to implement the provisions of the Schengen acquis and can therefore fully accede to it.

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) This is a very important report concerning not only my country, Bulgaria, but also the European Union as a whole. I am confident that our efforts will be rewarded very soon. Our borders have been ready for some time to defend Europe’s borders. However, the decision which was so greatly expected has still not been forthcoming. I believe that the motive for this is completely political. The report also refers to the inspections carried out at our border with Turkey, which meet the Schengen requirements and prove our readiness. I sincerely hope that this report will be voted for at the next session of the European Council because the faster we move on this issue, the more we will all gain – politically, economically and socially.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against the full application of the Schengen measures in Romania and Bulgaria. Notwithstanding the generally positive judgment on the progress made by these two Member States in terms of security, the report itself admits that numerous technical and administrative shortcomings were detected in the bodies tasked with ensuring the border security of both States and, in particular, in the bodies tasked with checking and monitoring sea and land borders. Secondly, the report acknowledges that if the two countries were included in the Schengen area, their geographical position next to the Turkish border would create two new routes for illegal migrants who currently only head for Greece, which, at this precise moment, is the only Schengen State in the Balkan peninsula.

The admission of Romania and Bulgaria would therefore considerably increase the size of the EU’s south-eastern Achilles heel and cause a threefold increase in the pressure it currently faces. The draft resolution therefore flies directly in the face of the citizen’s need for protection – which Lega Nord has always put at the core of its programme – and I cannot support it.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The decision on admitting Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area now remains a purely political one. The report supporting Romania’s inclusion in this area, adopted by the European Parliament, only serves to confirm that the opinions of the Union’s experts are correct – Romania has done a good job, made its borders secure and fulfilled all the required conditions. The opinion of Parliament in Brussels is advisory and now, as in the past, the decision lies in the hands of the Council’s politicians. Applying double standards and talking about mandatory criteria which, once they have been met, are regarded as ‘only technical’ is not at all characteristic of a democratic, fair Union, as we know it. This is why I can only hope that the opinions of the experts and those of the European legislative will not continue to be ignored by politicians from Member States. Hiding behind words without resolving the matter directly can no longer be an option when admission to the Schengen area has never been a political problem, but a technical one. The assessments of the independent experts and those of Parliament, which voted overwhelmingly in favour of Romania’s integration into Schengen, should count as a crucial factor in the European Council and, consequently, the procedure should be unblocked.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Schengen area and, in particular, freedom of movement, is an acquis communautaire that genuinely means something to our citizens. President Barroso reminded us that ‘freedom of movement is to Europe what foundations are to a building’. Free movement is one of the Union’s greatest achievements. I am delighted that Parliament has approved Bulgaria and Romania joining the Schengen area. Huge efforts have been made to guarantee border security: their fourth generation surveillance systems are far more impressive than our second generation models. Yet there are still barriers to the free movement of workers: firstly, legal and administrative obstacles that affect all aspects of citizens’ lives; secondly, social dumping: although Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union guarantees equal treatment for workers, the work of the Committee on Petitions proves that the reality is quite different; thirdly, social protection, which varies from one country to the next and so does not encourage mobility. I would therefore like to propose a minimum basic social protection for the Union. Although social protection falls under the competence of the Member States, the lack of harmonisation is clearly damaging the Internal Market.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the Schengen acquis being extended to encompass Bulgaria and Romania simply because I do not think provisions have been made to make sure they adjoin the passport-free area safely and effectively. Corruption and organised crime are still rife in these countries which are also portals for illegal immigration. Sex trafficking, child prostitution, trafficking of children and managed criminal gangs would all potentially flourish under open border conditions and not enough has been done to curb these crimes in these Member States.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Coelho’s report on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania. We should congratulate the two Member States on the work that they have done. Both States have met the criteria for the full application of the Schengen acquis. Nevertheless, this report emphasises that the region includes one of the Union’s most vulnerable external borders in terms of illegal immigration. Bulgaria will have to implement transitional measures when it enters Schengen. Both States will have to cooperate fully so as not to jeopardise a system which depends on mutual trust between the Member States. I support the rapporteur’s position.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As Bulgaria and Romania meet the requirements for accession to the Schengen area, I welcome its expansion to include them. However, I think these additional measures and the solutions given to the shortcomings mentioned are important, not least as regards the illegal immigration phenomena recorded in Bulgaria because of its peripheral geographical location. The proper functioning of the free circulation of people, products, services and labour will depend on the robustness and harmonisation of policies on external borders, as that is the only way to preserve social peace and economic stability within the Union.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report. Some Member States, including France, Germany and the Netherlands, want to change the rules of the game. However it is not reasonable to add other criteria such as an assessment of policies on combating corruption and crime. These issues are undoubtedly important, but the proposal is purely politically motivated. Adding new criteria would create a two-tier system for the Member States.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report on the grounds that such moves are important to reaffirm European solidarity at a time when it is being severely put to the test.

  Jurgen Creutzmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party delegation in the European Parliament assumes that the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area will further improve freedom of movement within the EU. Now that both Member States have achieved positive evaluation results in all areas of the Schengen review, there should be no more obstacles to delay inclusion further. There is no denying that the technical securing of borders will not automatically make them impermeable as long as problems persist in combating corruption in the justice and policing system.

Accordingly, this challenge also relates to Member States already in the Schengen area. For this reason, the German Free Democratic Party delegation believes that criteria such as the fight against corruption must receive greater attention when evaluating the Schengen mechanism, and any misdemeanours must be punished appropriately.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Today’s vote in the European Parliament has highlighted that Romania is ready to apply the Schengen acquis. According to the rapporteur Mr Coelho, all the shortcomings which were identified in the past have been successfully rectified by the Romanian authorities. Romania is capable of providing proper protection, whether at its air, sea or land borders. This is why I find it regrettable that there are still doubts about our readiness to apply the acquis and that some Member States continue to protect their so-called ‘national security’ by putting unjustified obstacles in the way of a Member State which has earned its right to be treated in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. The European Parliament has spoken today with one voice about fairness. For how much longer is the Council going to continue ignoring our position?

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The evaluations and additional visits by expert teams have shown that Bulgaria and Romania are ready to participate fully in the Schengen area. I have therefore voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Mr Coelho.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur, who has been monitoring this area over several sessions of Parliament, believes that although there remain unresolved issues that justify regular monitoring, these do not constitute an obstacle to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area. Given his experience in this area, I believe I can safely endorse his evaluation, and his demands for external border security. The decision to open borders to these Member States will provide improved freedom of movement and, on a more practical level, will enable Bulgarians and Romanians to feel more integrated with a Union of which they are fully-fledged members.

I hope that the symbolism of the moment will also translate into greater fluidity of trade between countries, and into the handling of immigration and security issues in a more integrated way. The rapporteur rightly warns of the sensitivity of the Bulgaria-Turkey-Greece region in terms of illegal immigration. I agree with him when he points to the need for Bulgaria to adopt additional measures, including a special plan that includes measures to be applied at the moment of entry to the Schengen area, and an approach to combating a potential sharp increase in migration pressure common to Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by our fellow Member, Mr Coelho, concerns the draft Council decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania. The Schengen Agreement was concluded on 14 June 1985. By abolishing checks at the internal borders of signatory countries and creating a common area, it made the free movement of people and goods throughout the European Union possible. Given that Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis in 2007; that the documents show both Bulgaria and Romania are ready for EU accession from a technical point of view; that all the accession headings were met in March 2011; and that the delay in the adoption of the new Schengen evaluation system to minimise existing problems – I fear that insecurity will increase – cannot prevent the entry of these countries into the EU, I am voting in favour. Finally, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work he has done in drawing up this report, despite the obstacles the Council placed in the way of accessing certain documentation considered essential to achieving this.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Verification that new Member States meet the conditions necessary for the full application of the Schengen acquis is a precondition for the adoption of the Council decision to abolish border checks at internal borders, after it has consulted the European Parliament.

In this case, the report considers all the conditions for abolishing border checks with Bulgaria and Romania to have been met. The decision to include these countries, which joined the EU in 2007, in the Schengen area will have to be taken unanimously in the Council by the governments of all the countries already belonging to Schengen. The rapporteur mentions the need for additional measures to be taken on the Bulgaria-Greece-Turkey border, which is one of the most sensitive in terms of illegal immigration. The evaluation committee also invited Bulgaria to adopt additional measures, fearing migration flows from Turkey.

This entire context of pressure exerted on these countries, as well as the objectives of this pressure, are the reason for our abstention. Moreover, we believe the considerations defining our position as regards expansion and the accession of new countries to the EU to be equally valid as regards the full application of the provisions of Schengen in these or other countries.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur considers all the conditions for abolishing border checks with Bulgaria and Romania to have been met, but wants the European Parliament to be kept informed about additional measures to be taken on the Bulgaria-Greece-Turkey border, which is one of the most sensitive in terms of illegal immigration.

Verification that new Member States meet the conditions necessary for the application of every part of the Schengen acquis is a precondition for the EU Council of Ministers adopting a decision to abolish border checks at internal borders with these countries, after it has consulted the European Parliament.

However, the evaluation committee invited Bulgaria to adopt additional measures, including a special plan that includes measures to be applied at the moment of entry to the Schengen area, largely because they fear migration flows from Turkey.

The decision to include these two countries, which joined the EU in 2007, in the Schengen area will have to be taken unanimously in the Council by all the governments of all the countries already belonging to Schengen. The subject should be debated at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 9 and 10 June.

Given our position on the accession of these countries, we have maintained our position of abstention, reinforced by the pressure that continues to be exerted on these countries.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when joining the EU in 2007. The basic condition for the Council to decide in favour of abolishing checks on internal borders with these Member States is to confirm, within the framework of the assessment procedures, whether the new Member States have fulfilled the necessary condition of applying all parts of the Schengen acquis: data protection, the Schengen Information System (SIS), air borders, land borders, sea borders, police cooperation and visas. In order that the European Parliament can clearly assess all the elements necessary for reaching an opinion on whether these two countries are ready to join the Schengen area, it is essential to have full access to the expert assessment reports on progress in the preparations of these two countries. In my opinion, however, Romania and Bulgaria have now proved that they are sufficiently prepared to apply all of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in a satisfactory manner. At the same time, though, the situation must not be underestimated, and we must now think how to keep the situation under control following the full accession of these countries to Schengen.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I have nothing against our friends and neighbours in Bulgaria and Romania. However, I do have a number of grievances against the Schengen provisions. This appalling agreement was concluded on the sly and ratified one August back in the 1980s. It has brought nothing but trouble. Removing internal borders does not guarantee freedom of movement for European citizens; rather, it creates insecurity and produces unmanageable population and migration trends within the EU, both in the countries of origin and of destination. It also provides wonderful opportunities for illegal immigrants, who know that no matter where they enter Europe, they will be able to settle wherever they like: France is particularly hard hit. The problems of the Roma and Lampedusa that have often been cited in this House merely serve to illustrate the problem. I do not want Schengen to apply in my country, nor would I wish it on others. Member States should retain full control of their borders and, where applicable, work together to strengthen the ‘external’ borders.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I fully supported the adoption of this report which approves Bulgaria and Romania joining the Schengen area. Both States have worked hard to beef up border controls and have been successful, as confirmed by the positive findings of the evaluations and expert visits organised by the Council’s Schengen Evaluation Working Group. Both countries have met all the technical criteria laid down by the European Union. Consequently I fully support their full participation in the Schengen area. Member States cannot add new conditions (such as an assessment of policies on combating corruption and crime) or change the rules at half-time. This week marks the 26th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement, one of the EU’s greatest achievements, which must be defended, as must freedom of movement, which is a fundamental right for European Union citizens.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of Romania and Bulgaria joining the Schengen area. A detailed and objective assessment of both countries’ compliance with the Schengen acquis has been completed. Both countries have met all the criteria. It is therefore unreasonable to add other conditions such as an assessment of policies on combating corruption and crime. These issues are undoubtedly important, but the proposal is purely politically motivated. Adding new criteria would create a two-tier system for Member States. This vision of a two-speed Europe, with different rules for old and new Member States, is quite simply unacceptable.

  Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party delegation in the European Parliament assumes that the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area will further improve freedom of movement within the EU. Now that both Member States have achieved positive evaluation results in all areas of the Schengen review, there should be no more obstacles to delay inclusion further. There is no denying that the technical securing of borders will not automatically make them impermeable as long as problems persist in combating corruption in the justice and policing system.

Accordingly, this challenge also relates to Member States already in the Schengen area. For this reason, the German Free Democratic Party delegation believes that criteria such as the fight against corruption must receive greater attention when evaluating the Schengen mechanism, and any misdemeanours must be punished appropriately.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when joining the EU in 2007. According to the Act of Accession, verification, by means of evaluation procedures, that the necessary conditions for the application of all parts of the Schengen acquis (data protection, the SIS, air borders, land borders, sea borders, police cooperation and visas) have been met by the new Member States is a precondition for the Council to decide on the abolition of checks at internal borders with those Member States. I did not endorse this document because taking into account the results of the evaluations and the necessary revisits carried out by teams of experts, the committee responsible has concluded that there are some outstanding issues that will require regular reporting and a follow-up at some point in the future. It should be taken into account that the area made up by Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece is one the most sensitive points in the EU’s external borders in terms of illegal migration. It is therefore essential for Bulgaria to adopt some additional measures, namely, to prepare a special plan containing actions to be implemented at the moment of entering Schengen and also a joint approach (between Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria) in order to be able to respond to the possible increase in migration flows. I feel that the Member States concerned should be requested to inform the European Parliament and the Council, in writing in the course of a six-month period, beginning on the date of the entry into force of this decision, on the implementation of these additional measures and shortcomings.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Coelho’s report on the application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania. Indeed, Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when joining the European Union in 2007. According to Article 4(2) of the Act of Accession, verifying that the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis have been met by new Member States is a precondition for the Council to decide on the abolition of checks at internal borders with those Member States. The assessments carried out show that both Romania and Bulgaria have proved that they are sufficiently prepared to apply all the provisions of the Schengen acquis in a satisfactory manner. I therefore support the rapporteur’s request. However, we cannot forget that the area in question is one of the most sensitive parts of the EU’s external borders in terms of illegal migration. This means that additional measures need to be adopted because, as we know, the abolition of internal border controls requires a high level of mutual trust between Member States and also the existence of effective controls on external borders, since the security of the Schengen area depends on the rigour and efficiency with which each Member State carries out its external border checks.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Today in the European Parliament, we voted on the Coelho report on the application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania. It is worth noting that the end of preparations for these countries to join the Schengen area coincides with the debate on the EU migration policy and the growing opposition of some of the countries in the Schengen area to plans for its expansion. It is worth emphasising the fact that Romania and Bulgaria have met almost all the requirements imposed upon them, in particular: land, air and sea border checks, the issuing of visas, police cooperation and data protection. We must also not forget that these are EU border countries, which are contending with the problem of an influx of illegal immigrants. Sofia and Bucharest are jointly applying for membership, and the current state of preparations in both countries has been rated highly, so I voted in favour of adopting the report.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I naturally voted for the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area. Like all Romanian and European citizens, I want the reforms to the justice system in my country to continue, the level of corruption and fraud to be reduced, cases to be judged justly and more quickly, and the guilty to be punished harshly. We joined the European Union because we wanted to adopt its internal rules. I feel it is normal for us to abide by them and to keep the promises which we made on joining. I thank the Union and Member States which are helping us carry out permanent reforms to the justice system and implement anti-corruption measures because this is also what Romanian citizens want.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the basis of expert reports which say that at this moment, both Romania and Bulgaria have proved that they are sufficiently prepared to apply all the provisions of the Schengen acquis in a satisfactory manner.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D), in writing. – (EL) Bulgaria and Romania satisfy the requirements for full integration into the Schengen area, based on their evaluation reports and the reports by the expert monitoring teams. However, the European Parliament should be informed about the additional measures to be taken in the area between Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece in order to address a possible increase in immigration flows.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Bulgaria and Romania have completed all the work demanded by Fortress Europe in order for their citizens to be able to move freely within the Schengen area. This report asks for even more. It calls for a joint approach in conjunction with Greece to tackle migration from Arab countries. This demand is unacceptable. I am abstaining so as not to vote against freedom of movement within the Union.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Bulgaria and Romania have been subjected to the evaluation of the proper application of all parts of the Schengen acquis: control of the land, sea and air borders, police cooperation, visas, connection to the Schengen Information System (SIS), and data protection. This is a precondition for the EU Council of Ministers in deciding to abolish checks at internal borders with those Member States, following consultation with the European Parliament. Following the positive results of the evaluations and follow-up visits by teams of experts, it can be concluded that although some issues remain outstanding and regular reports and future follow-up visits are being demanded, these do not constitute an obstacle to the full accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area. We cannot, however, neglect the Bulgaria-Turkey-Greece region, which is one of the EU’s most sensitive external borders in terms of illegal immigration. There is a need to strengthen the measures already taken and to be prepared to combat a possible sharp increase in migration pressure. Bulgaria should adopt additional measures, including a special plan that includes measures to be applied at the moment of entry to the Schengen area.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The right to freedom of movement is one of the most fundamental and most visible rights conferred on citizens of the Union. Within the Schengen area, it is now possible to move freely without border controls. What a change in comparison to the era when Europe was scattered with border posts where checks – nit-picking ones at times – were the norm, not to mention the impossibility for citizens in the East to cross the iron curtain without risking their lives!

Currently, this space comprises 25 participating States. Romania and Bulgaria should join this circle soon – at least that is my hope. These two countries have adopted the Schengen acquis since their accession to the European Union in 2007. Taking into account the results of the evaluations and the visits carried out by teams of experts, I am completely in favour of full accession to the Schengen area for these two Member States, even though certain problems are still to be resolved and will require follow-up. I would add, however, that it would be unfortunate if new conditions, which were unknown at the time of the request and evaluation, were imposed along the way.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – It seems that Romania and Bulgaria have proved that they are, to a sufficient extent, ready to fulfil the Schengen acquis. There are many unresolved issues in the report on the expansion of the Schengen area prepared by Carlos Coelho. From the assumptions of reports of evaluation missions and results of repeated evaluation visits, I came to the conclusion that there are separate areas which require constant monitoring. The report, which has not been adopted yet, is the conclusion of a repeated visit by the evaluation mission regarding the external border of Bulgaria. Therefore, it is clear that the triangle Bulgaria-Romania-Greece is one of the most sensitive regions from the point of view of illegal migration and that requires Bulgaria to prepare additional measures to resist migration pressure. I think that the report should be accepted. I voted in favour.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Coelho report on applying the Schengen acquis in Romania and Bulgaria and I welcome the realistic attitude and good faith shown by all my fellow Members who also voted for this report.

Romania and Bulgaria have fulfilled the technical conditions for joining the Schengen area and this must be the only factor to be considered in adopting this decision. Romania and Bulgaria have proven their ability to adopt the necessary domestic legislation and make their borders secure. Furthermore, great strides have been made in the fight against corruption, a topic which often has been associated wrongfully and, to an exaggerated extent, with accession to the Schengen area.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Today, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the application of all the provisions of the Schengen acquis to Bulgaria and Romania. These countries, which joined the European Union in 2007, adopted only some of the provisions concerning the Schengen area, and have applied them within this limited scope ever since. The upshot of this situation is that border checks are still carried out along the borders of these countries.

When they joined the EU, these countries were not ready to adopt the Schengen package in its entirety, and have therefore had to reform and extend their policies on border checks. In addition, the section of the border between Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece, which is one of the EU’s most vulnerable external borders in terms of illegal emigration, poses an extremely significant problem. Since joining the EU, Bulgaria and Romania have taken numerous measures aimed at properly preparing and protecting their borders. During this entire period, the Schengen Evaluation Working Party has carried out systematic inspections and checks, which have now shown that both countries are sufficiently well prepared to apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis satisfactorily.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The abolition of internal border control is particularly important for the entire European Union and each Member State individually. In order for the Schengen area to be able to function effectively and for the goals set to be achieved, it is necessary to ensure that the abolition of border control does not have negative consequences, particularly as regards illegal migration. Every country aiming to join the Schengen area must meet, without exception, all of the conditions of the Schengen acquis concerning data protection, the Schengen Information System, borders in the air, on land and at sea, police cooperation and visas. Moreover, it is very important to ensure that every Member State has strict and effective external border controls. I believe that Romania and Bulgaria will soon be able to become real members, capable of applying all of the provisions of the Schengen acquis. At the moment, particular attention should be paid to Bulgaria, because this country, like Turkey and Greece, lies on the EU’s external borders. It is the most sensitive and fragile place in the Union. When they become full members of the Schengen area, it is therefore crucial for Bulgaria and Romania to be properly prepared to manage increased migration flows, to be able to implement measures to combat illegal migration appropriately and effectively, and to guarantee well-functioning external border control mechanisms.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of admitting Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area. Following careful examination, the EU committee responsible recognised that these countries have fulfilled all the criteria for membership of the Schengen area: they offer sufficient assurances as regards the protection of national borders on land, at sea and in the air and they have mastered the Schengen Information System for data exchange and reliably ensure data protection. My group considers the introduction of new criteria for membership at this point to be wrong because this would mean applying double standards for these countries. The difficulties that Romania and Bulgaria still face – organised crime and corruption – are, undoubtedly, serious accusations against the governments of these countries, which should combat these phenomena more effectively. However, in my opinion, closing Schengen’s gates to Romania and Bulgaria should not penalise honest citizens, who would suffer the most if they now lost the opportunity to travel freely throughout Europe.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the context of the free movement of European citizens within the European Union, I think Bulgaria and Romania joining the Schengen acquis is an excellent step forward and I therefore voted in favour of the relevant provisions being implemented. I also believe that even though both countries have worked hard for the free movement of their citizens within Europe, they should, in any case, continue to bring their controls and rules into line with European standards, given the sensitive nature of the eastern European borders in the Balkans.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted today in favour of the opinion of the European Parliament on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania. This is a balanced approach, as the opinion recognises the progress made by these two countries in terms of the criteria which must be satisfied for integration into the Schengen area (control of land, sea and air borders, visas, police cooperation, readiness in terms of connecting to and using the Schengen Information System and data protection), but also requires regular progress reports on certain issues which are considered to be outstanding. Thus, Parliament has given the go-ahead for the integration of these two countries into the Schengen area and equal rights for their citizens, who have not enjoyed the right to move freely in the past. We trust that the European Parliament’s message will act as a guide and that unanimity will be achieved in the Council so that a final decision can be taken.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would congratulate my colleague, Mr Coelho, on his excellent work on the report on the draft Council decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania. Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when they joined the European Union in 2007. The report says that compliance with the necessary conditions for application of the acquis in question – data protection, the Schengen Information System (SIS), air borders, land borders, sea borders, political cooperation and visas – was evaluated on the ground, and progress in the implementation of measures aiming for the abolition of checks at the internal borders with these Member States was confirmed in situ. According to the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs who have been monitoring this process, the outstanding issues, which will require regular reports and monitoring in the future, do not constitute an obstacle to these two Member States’ full accession to the Schengen area. For these reasons, I support the decision to open the borders to these Member States. I am voting for this report and welcome Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area.

  Vincent Peillon (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Coelho proposing the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the ‘Schengen area’. This is one of the greatest achievements of the European integration process. The accession of a new State is conditional on strict compliance with the criteria of the Schengen Agreement. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties – like the European Commission – has concluded after evaluation that these two States meet the conditions laid down in full. Consequently, there is no longer any reason why they cannot integrate into this area of free movement. I would find it unacceptable if certain States, under false pretexts and motivated by internal political calculation, continued to oppose it. The Community acquis should not be regarded as an à la carte system where Member States can adapt or suspend provisions as circumstances dictate. Therefore, I solemnly call upon the Council to acknowledge the improvements made by Bulgaria and Romania and admit them into the Schengen area.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Taking into account the results of the evaluations and the necessary revisits carried out by the expert teams, it is evident that Romania is now in a position to implement the Schengen acquis fully, all the points meriting attention or reviewing have been remedied (improvement of risk assessment, upgrade of the security features of the buildings, improvement of the process for submitting and processing visa applications and so on) and, in some aspects, it could be considered as a model of best practice.

According to the evaluation reports, Romania has shown that it is sufficiently prepared to apply both the non-SIS related provisions of the Schengen acquis, as well as its SIS-related provisions, in a satisfactory manner. The preconditions have been fulfilled for the Council to take the decision referred to in Article 4(2) of the Act of Accession, allowing for the lifting of internal controls at air, land and sea borders. This means that the removal of internal border controls requires a high level of mutual trust between Members States regarding the existence of effective external border controls because the security of the Schengen area depends on how rigorously and effectively each Member State controls its external borders.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because the full application of the Schengen agreement in Bulgaria and Romania certainly means the abolition of border checks for these countries as well. At a time when some governments are daring to suggest the reestablishment of checks at internal borders, it is even more important to demonstrate our support for the extension of what is, today, one of the European Union’s best achievements. Full application in these Member States is also a question of equality and non-discrimination within Europe because excluding those two countries would send an extremely negative signal to their populations, which are very keen to join the area of freedom of movement. For these reasons, it is important to give this stage broad support.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Balkan region is one of the most sensitive areas of the EU’s external borders in terms of illegal migration. This phenomenon is of great significance and has repercussions on the daily lives of many of our citizens, exacerbating the insecurity they face. Before being able to think about the possible admittance of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area, special and detailed plans must be drawn up to contain migratory pressures. In addition, improving controls at external borders must be combined with fighting the corruption of local authorities. I voted against this measure for the reasons stated and to better protect our citizens against illegal immigration.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Accession to the Schengen acquis involves the need to comply with various evaluation procedures: candidate countries have to comply with a range of conditions in order to be admitted to the area of freedom of movement, which currently covers 25 countries and 400 million Europeans. This report evaluates the positions of Bulgaria and Romania, stressing, on the one hand, that Bulgaria follows best practices in various activities and, on the other, the efforts made by Romania as regards the shortcomings that were being detected. In conclusion, while I would stress the need to resolve a number of issues, the evaluation of these two Member States’ behaviour is positive overall.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party delegation in the European Parliament assumes that the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area will further improve freedom of movement within the EU. Now that both Member States have achieved positive evaluation results in all areas of the Schengen review, there should be no more obstacles to delay inclusion further. There is no denying that the technical securing of borders will not automatically make them impermeable as long as problems persist in combating corruption in the justice and policing system.

Accordingly, this challenge also relates to Member States already in the Schengen area. For this reason, the German Free Democratic Party delegation believes that criteria such as the fight against corruption must receive greater attention when evaluating the Schengen mechanism, and any misdemeanours must be punished appropriately.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We support the accession of Bulgaria and Romania provided that all preconditions are met (as is the case, according to the experts’ opinion).

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) According to Article 4(2) of Romania and Bulgaria’s Act of Accession to the Schengen acquis, the precondition for the abolition of checks at internal borders with those countries is verification that the Schengen requirements are being met. Since both Romania and Bulgaria have proved that they are sufficiently prepared to apply all the provisions of the Schengen acquis in a satisfactory manner, both Member States should become fully-fledged members of the area. I would underline, however, the importance of rigorous controls at external borders for the purposes of internal security. As it is located in a sensitive area in terms of illegal migration, Bulgaria should adopt additional measures to respond to a possible increase in migratory pressure at its borders.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Bulgaria-Turkey-Greece area is one of the most sensitive parts of the European Union’s external borders in terms of illegal migration. I disagree with the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, in that the admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Romania to the Schengen area cannot be completed in the short term because of the deficiencies in the fields of equipment, performance of border checks, training of personnel and the obligation to exchange information.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when they acceded to the EU in 2007. The integration of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area is acceptable, provided that they satisfy certain technical requirements noted in the relevant procedure. As the rapporteur quite rightly points out, the accession of Bulgaria to the Schengen Agreement should be followed by a special plan to combat illegal immigration. Cooperation is needed on the question of land border management. In 2010, 47 000 immigrants were arrested crossing the Greco-Turkish border, passing to the Greek side of the River Evros, which marks the border between Greece and Turkey. This number accounts for 90% of the total in Europe for that year. Within this framework, I welcome the rapporteur’s proposal for a special plan to be prepared as soon as Bulgaria joins the Schengen area, containing actions in this direction and a joint approach between Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, so that it is in a position to cope with what may be a large increase in immigration flows.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DA) I voted against Bulgaria and Romania becoming full members of the Schengen cooperation at this point in time. The issue concerning Bulgaria giving its military police access to information from Schengen records demonstrates that there are problems with those parts of Schengen that these countries are already included in. There are also problems with corruption and organised crime. Europol points out that the full admission of Bulgaria and Romania into the Schengen cooperation will give criminal groups from the Balkans and the former Soviet Union easier access to the EU. Until these problems are resolved, full admission of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen will bolster cross-border corruption and crime whilst, at the same time, giving certain forces the opportunity they were waiting for to demand increased monitoring and undermining of the rule of law.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) At a time when more and more people are talking about a crisis of trust in the European Union, the fact that the overwhelming majority of MEPs support the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs should be seen as confirmation that the idea of European integration still continues to be relevant. The fact that Bulgaria and Romania have external EU borders should not be regarded as a barrier preventing them from joining the Schengen area. Criteria for joining the area were established with the aim of ensuring the highest possible level of security. Experts have confirmed that the appropriate technical standards have been put in place. The countries have met the requirements imposed on them to an extent which makes it possible to abolish border checks with the remaining EU Member States. It should be emphasised that, as was the case for my country, joining the Schengen area does not mean that Romania and Bulgaria no longer have any work left to do as regards full implementation of the cooperation instrument. Both countries will have much work ahead of them in order to establish good working practices.

The example of Poland shows clearly that the new Member States are able to meet the Schengen requirements effectively. In the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, we have the chance to implement the next stage of the political project known as the area of freedom, security and justice, provided appropriate monitoring is carried out by the European institutions. The European Parliament should play a key role in this process, and it must be kept up-to-date with the situation in Bulgaria and Romania.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report which proposes to apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System to Bulgaria and Romania. I am also pleased that the report contains safeguards for data protection.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today, Parliament has adopted the report produced by Mr Coelho on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania. This report follows on from the evaluations carried out under the auspices of the Council’s Schengen Evaluation Working Group.

The evaluations have not found any obstacles to Romania and Bulgaria joining the Schengen area. Opening the borders has been one of the European Union’s greatest achievements. I am therefore delighted that Parliament has voted in favour of these two new States joining the Schengen area. The Council now needs to be realistic and show solidarity by giving its unanimous approval.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The creation of the Schengen area dates from 1985 and currently includes a territory of 42 673 km of external sea borders and 7 721 km of land borders, taking in 400 million Europeans. The Schengen Agreement currently covers 25 Member States with a common area for the free movement of people, by removing systematic checks at internal borders and creating a single common border. In order to fully realise this agreement, common rules were established – regarding, inter alia, checks along the entire external border, common visa policy, police and judicial cooperation – and the Schengen Information System (SIS) was created. This report concerns the entry of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen acquis and, following the evaluation visits and a final report, it concludes that both countries are ready for full accession. However, some issues remain outstanding, in particular, the need to establish a plan to combat possible pressure from illegal migration. I therefore agree with the rapporteur that there is a need for the Member States in question to inform Parliament and the Council within a six-month period, beginning on the date of entry into force of this decision, on the implementation of these additional measures and progress with the shortcomings identified.

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party delegation in the European Parliament assumes that the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area will further improve freedom of movement within the EU. Now that both Member States have achieved positive evaluation results in all areas of the Schengen review, there should be no more obstacles to delay inclusion further. There is no denying that technically securing borders will not automatically make them secure as long as problems persist in combating corruption in the justice and policing system. However, this challenge also concerns Member States already in the Schengen area. For this reason, the German Free Democratic Party delegation believes that criteria such as the fight against corruption must receive greater attention when evaluating the Schengen mechanism, and any misdemeanours must be punished appropriately.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In 2007, when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU, they adopted the Schengen acquis. According to Article 4(2) of the Act of Accession, ‘the verification, through evaluation procedures, that the necessary conditions for the application of all parts of the Schengen acquis (data protection, the SIS, air borders, land borders, sea borders, police cooperation and visas) have been met by the new Member States is a precondition for the Council to decide on the abolition of checks at internal borders with those Member States’. According to the evaluation reports compiled by experts, both Romania and Bulgaria have shown that they are prepared to apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in a satisfactory manner. This is why we call on the Council to approve the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area. The Union must apply the same criteria to all Member States, including when it comes to joining the Schengen area. The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for the justice system does not feature among the criteria for joining the Schengen area and cannot be referred to in connection with Romania and Bulgaria joining the area. Since Romania and Bulgaria fulfil the technical conditions for joining the Schengen area, on behalf of the citizens of Romania, Bulgaria and Europe, we call on the Council to approve the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the area.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Bulgaria and Romania should join the Schengen area, since both countries are ready to do so and the objections of certain Member States are unfounded.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the integration of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area because both countries have met the technical criteria in question. However, additional measures should be taken by Bulgaria, in cooperation with Greece and Turkey, to address the problem of illegal immigration.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – As a friend, albeit critical friend, of Bulgaria, I wish to do all I can to assist progress in that country, but not at the expense of my own country’s well-being. I therefore abstained in the vote. On the accession of Bulgaria to the EU on 1 January 2007, weaknesses remained in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption and organised crime. The Bulgarian authorities undertook to bring about radical improvement. The EU established a ‘Cooperation and Verification Mechanism’ to assist Bulgaria and to verify progress against six benchmarks. Improvement has been disappointingly slow. In its most recent report on these matters (February 2011), the Commission stated that Bulgaria needed to improve further the way the judiciary, police and other investigative bodies are structured, managed and cooperate. Nevertheless, the 27 governments in Council concluded, perhaps surprisingly, that Bulgaria fulfilled the conditions for Schengen, a system which is itself under question at the moment. The UK, of course, remains outside the Schengen area.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the majority of over 80% received in the European Parliament during the vote in favour of adopting the report on the fulfilment of the Schengen acquis by Romania and Bulgaria. This vote sends out a powerful political signal. In the European Parliament’s view, Romania and Bulgaria are ready to join the Schengen area.

According to the position of the UDMR (Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania), Romania and Bulgaria must receive a definite prospect in 2011 of joining this area of free movement. I do not think that the rules should be changed during the game, and the decision on joining the Schengen area must take into account what has been achieved under the Schengen Agreement and not be based on political assessments. The situation which has been created over the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area highlights how weak the sense of solidarity is within the EU.

The fact that there are Member States prepared to give up one of the basic freedoms of European integration, the freedom of movement, sounds an alarm bell. At the same time, this is a mistaken response to the tensions caused by the economic crisis and to its social consequences. The UDMR believes that we need a strong Europe, which can be achieved through greater solidarity and by firmly rejecting internal protectionism and populism.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Despite having a few doubts about the excessive reach of the text – which falls within the ambit of the Europe 2020 strategy – I think the objectives of the resolution are most welcome. I therefore voted in favour of Mr Coelho’s report on verifying the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis, which is a prerequisite for the abolition of internal border controls with Bulgaria and Romania.

Report: Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (A7-0189/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) This report will be adopted despite the controversy in the working party of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament on the amendment raising the nuclear issue, and the amendment of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) removing the issue of additional permanent members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council. There needs to be a substantial change in the international order so that the EU can better overcome its challenges using concerted global action. I would also draw attention to the fact that, according to Article 21 of the Treaty, the EU is formally committed to effective multilateralism and to the role of the UN in particular.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution, not only because of the importance of the upcoming 66th session of the UN General Assembly, but also because it is vitally important that the EU finally steps up cooperation and coordination in this and all other UN bodies. Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union clearly stipulates that Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and that Member States, which are also members of the UN Security Council, will concert and, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union. So far, cooperation was not exemplary in the UN General Assembly. Neither was it in the UN Security Council. We all know well that Member States that belong to the UN Security Council (France, the United Kingdom and Germany) failed to act in concert and come up with a single position vis-à-vis military intervention in Libya, in particular, with regard to the vote on the UN Security Council Resolution 1973. I would therefore urge EU Member States to strive for a common position on issues vital to international peace and security, especially in areas where there is already a broad international consensus.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In a rapidly changing world, the European Union is faced with numerous challenges requiring a concerted global response. All these major transformations are making the European Union commit itself actively, alongside the other partners, to promoting effective solutions to the problems affecting both European citizens and the whole of humanity. The European Union is the world’s biggest provider of development aid and the United Nations’ main partner in supporting the latter’s efforts in carrying out its activities. The European Union must play a proactive role in creating a United Nations Organisation which makes an effective contribution to global solutions, peace and security, as well as democracy and international order, based on the rule of law. According to Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU is formally committed to effective multilateralism, which has a powerful UN organisation as its focal point, making a vital contribution to tackling the global challenges.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are currently witnessing radical changes in the international order; changes to which the European Union can no longer be a mere spectator. I think the European Union should see this as a starting point and take a truly active role in dealing with both current and emerging world powers, shaking off once and for all its reputation as a political dwarf in terms of international policy. In the same vein, I agree with the need expressed in Mr Lambsdorff’s proposal for the Member States to exert pressure during discussions to reform the United Nations Security Council in order to obtain a permanent seat for the European Union. By strengthening the role of the European Union at the United Nations, we will succeed in ensuring that the EU takes a leading role in regional and global affairs. Otherwise, we shall have to keep facing up to the continuous lack of coordination of Member States’ interests on the international scene.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I strongly supported the main thrust of this report. It calls for an enhanced role for the EU in the UN system, taking into account the institutional changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty. Today’s vote comes after a relevant success for the EU in the UN: the adoption of a set of modalities granting the EU delegation in the UN General Assembly the right to make interventions, as well as the right of reply and the ability to present oral proposals and amendments.

These improvements reflect a clear reality: The EU and its Member States are the biggest financial contributors to the UN system, with EU funds amounting to 38% of the UN regular budget, more than two fifths of UN peacekeeping operations and close to half of the contributions to the UN funds and programmes. Moreover, the EU, in spite of all its limitations, is a major global actor whose weight must be properly recognised at every level.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Alexander Graf Lambsdorff because I think that we need to foster greater cohesion between the Member States’ positions and enhance our ability to negotiate with other regional groups. It is a question, then, of improving the efficiency and transparency of the United Nations and enhancing the management of its financial resources. I am certain that reforming the working methods and composition of the United Nations Security Council is necessary in the medium term.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) A major transformation of the world order is taking place, challenging the European Union to engage more actively with current and emerging world powers and with other bilateral and multilateral partners, in order to promote effective solutions to problems which affect both EU citizens and the world at large. In accordance with Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU is formally committed to effective multilateralism with a strong UN at its core, which is essential in order to address global challenges, such as climate change and environmental degradation, the universality and indivisibility of human rights, poverty reduction and development for all, the consequences of demographic change and migration, and international organised crime. I agree that the EU should play a proactive part in building a United Nations that can effectively contribute to global solutions, peace and security, democracy and a world order based on the principles of the rule of law.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report drafted by Mr Lambsdorff because I think that the EU is creating a new identity for itself on the global stage at the moment. I should remind you of the lengthy period of cooperation between the two international organisations, as well as of the EU’s involvement in numerous projects launched by the UN. I must mention at this point the commitment made by European leaders to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The eradication of poverty globally now features among the Union’s foreign policy priorities. I welcome the initiative for strengthening cooperation on bringing stability to crisis zones and on drawing up new safety standards for nuclear power plants. The course of events in Japan highlights the need for this partnership. In view of the social upheaval in the Mediterranean region, I think that coordinated action between the EU and UN would ensure a peaceful transition to democracy. In this regard, I welcome improving relations with regional organisations.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of this proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the next session of the United Nations General Assembly. The proposal underlines that the European Union and the United Nations share the common commitment to promoting democracy, respect for human rights and peace among the international community. The proposal states that the further enlargement of the United Nations Security Council in order to include the EU is a key factor for effectively pursuing the objectives mentioned above. The proposal rejects Germany’s request to occupy the potential new EU seat at the United Nations on a permanent basis and instead incorporates the Italian proposal to allow all Member States to occupy the seat in rotation in order to respect the principle of the equal dignity of all Member States.

The German request had been seen as an attempt to impose the political authority of Germany and the Anglo-French-German bloc within and outwith the EU. However, the adoption of the Italian position through this proposal confirms that the possible enlargement of the Security Council would also assure Italy the chance of having its voice heard on crucial international issues outside the EU. I have therefore voted in favour.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – It is important that Europe reaffirms its commitment to, and cooperation with, international movements like the UN at this time. The attention that the European Parliament gives the UN is most important.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The times we live in make it clear that there is a need to link up the Member States and the European Union in the most diverse situations and instances. This coordination is also very important in the United Nations (UN). I would even say it is essential to ensure European interests and values are defended and safeguarded in what is the most comprehensive and decisive international organisation.

Regardless of future changes to how the Union is represented within the UN, and in the Security Council – a debate which is still open – in particular, there is increasingly a need to join up the efforts of European countries so as to, alongside the Union’s representatives overseas, encourage a collective capacity for intervention and influence. Regular consultations between the ambassadors of the Member States and those of the EU will be an important step along this path. At the same time, the Union should contribute to making the UN more efficient and transparent, and improve the management of its financial resources. The creation of a United Nations parliamentary assembly within the framework of the United Nations system is an interesting proposal that is worth studying and debating.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Mr Lambsdorff concerns a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the 66th Session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. The transformation of the present international order at global level through conflicts in various parts of the world, and the self-determination of many peoples that have been downtrodden for decades, or even centuries, make the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly unusually significant. Pursuant to Articles 21 and 41 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament could not fail to take advantage of this session to push its positions on a number of subjects: not least, the role of the EU in the UN system; the EU and global governance; peace, security and justice; development; human rights; and climate change. I therefore agree with the rapporteur’s proposals mentioned above, as well as with the need to foster a debate on the role of parliaments and national assemblies in the UN system, and on creating a UN parliamentary assembly.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report advocates giving the European Union a seat on the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and a permanent seat on the Security Council. A number of voices have been heard advocating this idea in recent times, supported by the amendments introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, specifically, the attribution of ‘legal personality’ to the EU. These are amendments whose legitimacy we have always contested. This demand – which subverts the spirit of the organisation: an organisation of states and not of supranational organisations – is not being made with the intention of making the UN’s workings more democratic or of creating a new world order that is fairer and more peaceful.

The EU’s alliance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United States to undertake wars and carry out acts of aggression in countries like Libya is proof of this. It is fundamental principles of the UN Charter, such as non-intervention in states’ internal affairs, respect for their sovereignty and independence, and recognition of their right to development, that the EU has been placing at risk. Sovereignty comes from the people and the peoples of Europe have not given it to this EU, which is increasingly anti-social and anti-democratic.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report again makes the unacceptable demand that the European Union have a seat at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and a permanent seat on the Security Council, as a result of the anti-democratic Treaty of Lisbon and the ‘legal personality’ acquired from it. It is not with the intention of making the workings of either the UN body more democratic, or of creating a new, fairer world order, that the majority in the European Parliament is doing this.

How can an EU which, in alliance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United States, is promoting a war, and violating international law and the UN Charter in Libya, contribute to making the UN more democratic, or to humanity’s peace and progress? How can the EU contribute to non-intervention in states’ internal affairs, and respect their sovereignty and independence, and their right to development – rights enshrined in the UN Charter and in international law – when, in partnership with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), it is imposing an unprecedented programme of aggression against the workers and people of Portugal, and of the usurping of their resources? It cannot.

Sovereignty comes from the people and the peoples of Europe have not given it to an EU that is increasingly anti-social and anti-democratic.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union should play an active role in developing the UN so that it can contribute effectively to global solutions, peace, security, democracy and international order based on the rule of law. There is a need to support multilateralism as a primary strategic interest of the EU, and to strengthen cohesion and the visibility of the EU as a global player within the UN. The ongoing transformation of the international order presents the EU with a challenge to focus more actively on current and emergent global powers and other bilateral and multilateral partnerships, in order to support effective solutions to the problems affecting EU citizens and the whole world in general.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The document under discussion sets out the European Union’s priorities to take to the United Nations General Assembly. The key point, which has now been under discussion for some time, is the debate about reforming the Security Council. The proposal for a European Union seat that may be rotated between the Member States seems like an excellent idea. I therefore support the report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I endorsed the document because it advocates advancing effective multilateralism as the overriding strategic concern of the Union and strengthening the coherence and visibility of the EU as a global actor at the UN, inter alia, by better coordinating internal EU consultations on UN issues and by promoting greater outreach on a wide range of issues. It also promotes engaging with the EU’s strategic partners within the UN system and giving the strategic partnerships a multilateral dimension by including global issues on the agendas for the EU’s bilateral and multilateral summits, as well as contributing to improving the efficiency and transparency of the UN and enhancing the management of the UN’s financial resources.

Furthermore, it touches on important issues, such as strengthening the role of the International Criminal Court and the international criminal justice system, promoting accountability, putting an end to impunity, and strengthening the crisis-prevention structures and their effectiveness within the United Nations Development Programme, with a view to transforming this organisation into a global leader in crisis prevention and recovery. It also stresses the need for close cooperation between the EU and the UN in the area of civilian and military crisis management, particularly in humanitarian relief operations, and the need to thoroughly reform the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), by bringing to an end its dual function of both monitoring and promoting nuclear energy use, and to limit the IAEA’s responsibilities to overseeing the nuclear energy industry and verifying compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as other important issues, which I basically agree with and support.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In the run-up to the 66th ordinary session of the UN General Assembly, the European Parliament, as usual, addressed its recommendations to the Council, representing the Member States, who are the only fully fledged members of the organisation. However, this year, the Union will be able to take advantage of its new ‘super-observer’ status, which confers special rights to speak during sessions. I voted in favour of this resolution because it is commensurate with the Union’s new ambitions at international level. The Treaty of Lisbon grants the EU new prerogatives, confirms the development of its international capacity and puts new tools in place. Following this act, the Union must use this new ambition in the service of effective multilateralism, with the full strength of its values at the core. It also calls for a strengthening of global governance at a time when global challenges require global solutions. Finally, it focuses on core themes that the Union must play a role in advancing, as is its custom: development, human rights and climate change.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The current change in the international order is pushing the European Union to make a more active effort in its dealings with world and emerging powers so that it can take a proactive role in building a United Nations that can make an effective contribution to global solutions: peace, security, democracy and an international order based on the rule of law. This represents an essential starting point for dealing with climate change and environmental degradation, the universality and indivisibility of human rights, poverty reduction and development for all, the consequences of demographic change, migration and international organised crime.

Thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, we now have permanent structures for external representation. This allows us to take an international role in line with our pre-eminent economic status and to act as a global player capable of sharing the responsibility for security around the world. It is down to us to clearly identify our interests and strategic objectives in order to be able to act effectively. The European Union is the world’s largest provider of development aid and a major partner of the UN in crisis and post-crisis situations. We therefore feel duty bound to promote effective multilateralism as the overriding strategic concern of the Union and to strengthen the consistency and visibility of the EU as a global player.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU cannot forget its role in every respect as a leading actor on the world stage. As such, it needs to increase its role in all the multilateral organisations and, in particular, the United Nations (UN), where its role must be increasingly active following the launch of the European External Action Service (EEAS). Given that global partnerships are instrumental in achieving jointly identified global goals; that the EU is the world’s largest provider of development aid and a major partner of the UN in its efforts across all three pillars of its work, including in crisis and post-crisis situations; and that Member States’ contribution amounts to 38% of the UN’s regular budget, we believe a solid and stable EU-UN partnership is fundamental to the work of the UN and key to the EU’s role as a global player.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In keeping with past practice, the Committee on Foreign Affairs draws up Parliament recommendations to the Council for the session of the United Nations General Assembly. As I understand it, EP priorities are: an enhanced role for the EU in the UN system, taking into account the institutional changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty; a need for guidelines ensuring proper consultations between the ambassadors of the Member States in order to avoid discordance of EU voices as in the case of Libya; an adequate budget for UN Women; further strengthening of the role of the ICC; support for the UN Mediation Unit and a key role for the EEAS in this context; improvement of the relationship between the UN Peacebuilding Commission and the EU Peace-building Partnership; and finally, stronger EU leadership in the area of global climate governance. All the abovementioned issues are timely and I voted in favour.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal because it gives an extensive review of the current global issues in the EU and UN, pointing out the challenges and the opportunities that the EU is facing. It has also addressed solid and far-reaching suggestions for the EU in various areas on the international level, such as engaging with the EU’s strategic partners within the UN system, ensuring the important role of the EEAS, enhancing peace, security and justice, and combating climate change. I believe that these are the issues that are critical on the global stage right now, and the EU has to involve itself and play a vital role in all these aspects. Therefore, I support this proposal and recommend to the Council that it should give careful consideration to this report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree with the recommendations being made to the Council in view of the 66th Session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. I agree that the UN’s role should be strengthened. In fact, and as the rapporteur mentions, the European Union carries insufficient weight in UN bodies, taking into account the major contributions made by the EU and its Member States. The Council needs to make its positions heard more vigorously in the UN, whilst ensuring greater coordination in achieving the Union’s goals there and fostering greater cohesion between the Member States’ positions. I agree with the rapporteur’s call for the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the President of the European Council to make achieving enhanced observer rights for the EU a strategic priority, and to show greater visibility at the UN by way of intensifying consultations with the governments of third-country UN Member States.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. We recommend that the Council advances effective multilateralism as the overriding strategic concern of the Union and strengthens the coherence and visibility of the EU as a global actor at the UN, inter alia, by better coordinating internal EU consultation on UN issues and by promoting greater outreach on a wide range of issues. The Vice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) should be authorised to draft guidelines for regular consultations between the ambassadors of the Member States and the EU ambassadors, especially between those working at a multilateral level in places like Geneva and New York, so that the EU can successfully pursue its UN agenda and meet the expectations of UN members regarding its ability to act. Greater cohesion should be fostered both within the UN system and between the positions of EU Member States and candidate and potential candidate countries, so as to maximise the potential offered by the Lisbon Treaty to strengthen the EU’s impact through the coordinated and strategic use of its various and distinct (EU and Member State) entry points. Its ability to negotiate with other regional groups should be enhanced in a timely manner and the EU representatives provided with a proper mandate to negotiate effectively on behalf of the Member States.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With regard to the 66th United Nations General Assembly, I support the view that Parliament ought to urge the Council to take a leading role in promoting the Millennium Development Goals. In fact, we must start a debate on how to sustain the international community’s commitment to sustainable development and the elimination of poverty – which must also continue beyond 2015. Making progress on statebuilding, good and democratic government, conflict prevention, and the adoption of the required measures to combat corruption, tax evasion and the flight of capital, is an absolute priority.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Lambsdorff because I consider that the challenges facing the EU, in a fast-changing world, require coordinated action at global level. The EU has more and enhanced opportunities for external representation under the Treaty of Lisbon and cooperation with the UN and other international organisations is both desirable and necessary for the purpose of crisis management, to maintain and build peace and to respond to international challenges, such as recent developments in Japan.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development on this report, I am delighted that it has been adopted today by the plenary of the European Parliament. It is essential to reaffirm the need to harmonise the efforts of different United Nations bodies in order to better promote the efficiency and effectiveness of action on development. Development assistance implemented by the United Nations must focus especially on achieving the Millennium Development Goals, with particular attention to the Least Developed Countries.

Report: Jean-Pierre Audy (A7-0160/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, firstly because it criticises the Commission for delaying publication until 9 February 2011, even though it was obliged to table it in 2010, and because, like the rapporteur, I regret the weakness of the Commission communication as regards new developments. I also regret the lack of good results as regards small and medium-sized enterprises. I do, however, acknowledge that the joint technology initiatives help make European industry more competitive, although the already existing legal and administrative obstacles need to be dealt with quickly.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important resolution on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities. By adopting this resolution, the European Parliament is sending a clear signal to the European Commission on the future implementation of the Framework Programme for research. One of the most important proposals, which I also support, is the simplification of administrative requirements for projects implemented according to this programme. In fact, one of the difficulties noted is the complexity and burden of administrative procedures, as a result of which researchers seeking European financing are diverted towards national financing and Europe is made unpopular with regard to research. It is also very important for research and development policies to be territorialised so that research is distributed harmoniously in relation to all universities. The excellence often found in urban areas could be ensured by intensifying virtual links, for example, through permanent videoconferencing and a smart connection between territorialised research centres and centres of excellence.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities is the largest research support instrument in the world and the primary tool of European Union research policy. Research is the process of converting economic power into knowledge, while innovation is the reverse process of transforming knowledge into economic power. The European Union and its Member States must create for themselves the means to respond jointly to the major social, economic, environmental, demographic and ethical challenges facing Europe’s states, such as an ageing population, citizens’ health, food supply, sustainable development and the major environmental issues.

A better relationship is essential between the academic, research and industrial worlds to enable research results to be converted more effectively into products and services, generating economic growth and benefits for society as a whole. Member States should also step up their communication efforts regarding the use of new technologies, such as smart research information services, by announcing forthcoming research challenges and distributing research findings. This is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Despite a series of hindrances – such as the economic crisis, the persistent inability to close the gap with the United States and increasing competition from emerging countries – the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) has proved that it can offer added value to European research and development. FP7 is a chance for the European Union to make its research policy match its economic and social ambitions, particularly by consolidating the European Research Area (ERA). Looking at Mr Audy’s report, I agree on the objectives highlighted in the mid-term review, particularly with regard to the simplification of administrative procedures, the participation of small and medium–sized enterprises through the Cooperation programme, and revamping and intensifying the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility. With a view to negotiating the future financial perspective from 2014, these measures will pave the way for the Europeanisation of research.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by my colleague, Mr Audy, on the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities (FP7) reveals a low level of participation by SMEs and industry in general, a low number of female researchers and under-representation of certain Member States. I think it is necessary to develop effective coordination of research between the EU and national and regional authorities. That is why I voted in favour of this excellent report.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The Seventh Framework Programme, with a total budget of €54.6 billion, is the world’s largest instrument for supporting research, and that programme is definitely at the heart of EU research policy. It must be reviewed and adapted to a changing world, however, particularly in light of the financial crisis and varying fiscal circumstances. Currently, Irish bodies receive about €1 million a week from EU research funds, and other opportunities remain for Irish small and medium enterprises (SMEs). It is the SMEs that create 70% of the jobs in the euro area, and the SME sector is at the heart of the European economy.

Therefore, transparency must be increased and the administrative burden reduced so that more SMEs would be interested in becoming involved in programmes in the future, to ensure the Union’s effectiveness in relation to research, development and innovation. Time-to-grant must be reduced and European cooperation and coordination improved in order to tackle the fragmentation which is currently damaging to the programme.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) On 23 and 24 March 2000, the European Council, meeting in Lisbon, set the European Union (EU) an ambitious strategic objective: to become, by 2010, the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. The central role played by research in this strategy has been acknowledged. Allocated a budget of around EUR 54 billion for the period 2007-2013, the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) has become one of the largest research support programmes in the world and represents the primary tool of EU research policy. Its aim is to enable the EU to respond to the great societal challenges that concern all Member States and to which they cannot respond alone (ageing population and health, energy and water supplies or food supplies, sustainable development, climate change, and so on), as well as to develop the knowledge to enable our businesses to innovate more and enhance their competitiveness. In this report, the European Parliament is carrying out a mid-term review in order to ensure that FP7 meets the needs of European policies. I agree that in order to ensure that this programme is as effective as possible, it is necessary to simplify complicated and burdensome administrative procedures so as to successfully create a European Research Area.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The EU’s Seventh Framework Programme is a crucial programme for improving the European added value in terms of research, development and innovation, at a time when Europe is lagging behind the United States in these areas, and is losing the headway it had over the emerging economies. Therefore, this report serves to highlight the relevance of an unknown programme while calling for changes: to alter the overly burdensome administrative and financial regulations and the low rate of success that make this programme still too prohibitive for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), at a time when they play an important role in turning research outcomes into products and services; to ensure better cooperation and coordination between the various stakeholders at a time when the funding of research still remains split between national and European sources. These are a few initiatives that could at last enable us to reach the goal of financing research and development set at 3% of GDP by 2020, which is far from being achieved, in particular for France, which still only devotes 2% of its GDP to R&D.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In March 2000, the Council set the European Union the ambitious objective of becoming ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ by 2010. The central role played by research in this strategy has been acknowledged. I think that examining the review of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for research and technological development offers an opportunity to cement the precious link between knowledge, education and research. Over the years, FP7 has become one of the largest research support programmes in the world and represents the primary tool of EU research policy. It also offers a chance for the EU to make its research policy match its economic and social ambitions by consolidating the European Research Area.

In my view, there are two main aspects that the review should focus on in particular: overcoming the problems related to the burden and complexity of administrative procedures, as a result of which those seeking European financing are diverted towards national financing. Added to which, despite the progress made in recent years, the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in the Framework Programme should be stepped up in order to develop the skills that would allow them to boost their competitiveness.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted for the resolution because the Europe 2020 programme considers research and innovation to be central for emerging from the crisis by means of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. For that to happen, the Seventh Framework Programme must increase its funding from 2013 onwards. The Member States must commit themselves to continuing with the programmes as there must be increased collaboration between technology platforms, universities and the industrial sector as well as further simplification of procedures to eliminate the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized enterprises in accessing the research and development programmes.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report by Mr Audy on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities certainly contains a number of pleasing aspects. For example, it looks at the fact that the programme has had a low success rate with small and medium-sized enterprises and also considers the request to shorten time-to-grant periods. However, I abstained in the vote because this own-initiative report contained a point which I thought was particularly weak, which made it impossible for me to vote in favour. Specifically, I do not support Mr Audy’s call to increase funding for the European Research Council, as well as making it an independent legal entity with decision-making power which would be directly responsible for its own scientific strategy and administrative management.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that an appropriate mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities is particularly important for establishing whether the programme’s implementation accords with the objectives set. This programme is one of the most important research support programmes in the world and represents the primary tool of EU research policy. Furthermore, in many of the documents it has adopted recently, setting out its development goals and guidelines for the next decade, the European Union stresses the importance of research and innovation for strengthening the EU economy and helping it remain one of the most competitive in the world. In addition to the generally positive assessment, the report draws the Commission’s attention to many aspects of the programme’s implementation and provides specific proposals as to how they might be improved. For example, the report proposes increasing the programme’s financing but, at the same time, it proposes identifying common research areas among those which appear most promising in terms of concrete applications, enabling the highest extent of sharing in an ethical context, so that tangible results are achieved when implementing this programme.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) Despite the fact that Europe is still behind the US and is losing the lead it had over the developing economies, the results of the Seventh Framework Programme demonstrate the added value of this European programme for research and development in Europe. Unfortunately, however, there is still no method for evaluating how far the projects funded by the Seventh Framework Programme have advanced scientific knowledge. It is also necessary to point out the considerable imbalance between the participation of entities from the old and new Member States. Equally, the level of involvement particularly of small and medium-sized enterprises remains relatively poor. The situation could be improved by simplifying the administrative and financial rules.

It is necessary to emphasise the importance of the Joint Technological Initiatives (JTI) for the competitiveness of European industry. It is also necessary to point out the legal and administrative obstacles (legal subjectivity, funding rules and sometimes also intellectual property) which may dissuade many key research players and SMEs from participating. We must change the situation where the funding of research in Europe is too fragmented, while there are many sources of funding in the Member States and the EU applying different priorities, evaluation criteria, definitions and procedures, which necessarily leads to overlaps, confusion and errors.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the still fragile economic situation resulting from the financial crisis that has rocked Europe, in his mid-term review, the rapporteur mentions important aspects that should be improved so as to use the available public funding as efficiently as possible. I agree with the emphasis given by the rapporteur to two issues that are very important for future European research: increased simplification of payments between the European Commission and other entities, and increased participation by small and medium-sized enterprises, and industry in general, in responding to the great social challenges.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The unanimity of the committee vote on this important report and the vote taken today show, once again, that Parliament knows how to take a clear and decisive stance on crucial issues for citizens and enterprises. I think the report really highlights the critical aspects of the Seventh Framework Programme. It also sets out valid proposals to ensure that the remaining funds to be allocated can make a real contribution to increasing competitiveness and quality in the European market. In my view, simplifying administrative procedures and cutting red tape is still the most important challenge if we really want to let our businesses – and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises – have access to funds. We must use these funds to improve our ability to work in an integrated way by improving public/private partnerships, incentivising inter-regional clusters and ensuring good coordination between cohesion funds and funds for research and innovation.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report helps to draw attention to the factors which are crucial in meeting the requirements of the future of research in Europe, in particular, in the context of the objectives assigned by the Europe 2020 strategy. It has now become essential to reduce excessive administrative burdens, in particular, to encourage greater participation by SMEs in the Seventh Framework Programme. Furthermore, it is imperative that EU programmes consolidate at all times the advantages of research and innovation, for the benefit of education and job creation.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Seventh Framework Programme for research and development for the period 2007-2013 has been subject to a mid-term review by the European Parliament. This is an opportunity to remind the European Commission of the importance of making the right choices when investing in research and innovation for the future of Europe. EUR 28.5 billion remains to be programmed for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. This sum must be allocated as a matter of priority to projects put forward by SMEs and industry in general, particularly in the areas of energy provision, sustainable development and the fight against climate change. We must ensure a better distribution of research infrastructure throughout the European Union, while respecting the principle of excellence which allows Europe to attract the best researchers in the world.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In 2010, the EU had not met the Lisbon strategy target of spending 3% of its GDP on research and development. This goal was revived in the Europe 2020 strategy, but the EU must now find the means to meet that target in order to remain an internationally competitive economy.

I welcome the adoption of the Audy report on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme, taking into account the impact of the recent economic crisis, which has particularly affected the capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in research and development. In order to avoid red tape and facilitate companies’ access to European funding, simpler and more transparent procedures are absolutely vital.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the publication of the Europe 2020 strategy, it became clear that commitment to research and development is crucial in order for Europe to return to economic growth and win the competitiveness game. That is why any evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities should be linked to the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and its implementation. I am convinced that, through research and development, Europe can manage to find efficient and effective responses to the energy problem, to the challenges of climate change, and to improving European competitiveness and productivity, leading us to a new growth cycle that is more sustainable this time.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Mr Audy is on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities. On 23 and 24 March 2000, the European Council, meeting in Lisbon, set the European Union an objective: to become, by 2010, the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world. It has not been possible to achieve this ambitious goal. I hope that the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy will be met, in particular, the EU’s commitment to invest 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) in research and development by 2020. Europe 2020 cannot wait for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF): it must start now. Therefore, this review is of crucial importance, since 50% of the funding for FP7 has still not been spent. I therefore agree with the rapporteur, specifically as regards the recommendations regarding the need to simplify mechanisms for accessing funds, making procedures simpler and more transparent, and facilitating the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises. It should also invest in flagship areas like health, energy and nuclear safety, responding to the new challenges of innovation and research.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report introduces several important aspects of the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Union for research and technological development. It also makes relevant observations, such as that the majority of the EU’s scientific work is still undertaken by researchers and technicians – mainly young people – in insecure jobs; the Portuguese case is paradigmatic.

We believe that there is a need to support public research and make its results available in a simple way, without bureaucracy, by promoting: productive and business activity, and small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular; the creation of skilled jobs, with rights; social progress and sustainable development. There is a need for a commitment to areas as diverse as, inter alia, energy efficiency, new energy sources, efficient resource use, recycling and new productive processes.

We cannot fail to express our concern about some of the principles guiding the European Research Area. We believe it should be founded on cooperation and mutual benefit, mitigating the currently existing inequalities in national research systems, and reversing any trends towards concentration of scientific and human resources in the more developed countries, which is the same as in so-called ‘centres of excellence’.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report introduces several relevant aspects of the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for research and technological development. Particularly important is its concern to ensure that 40% of those taking part in research are women, as this figure is currently no higher than 25.5%, and to recognise that ‘Europe continues to lag behind the US and is losing the lead it had over the emerging economies’. The report also ‘regrets that most of the scientific work carried out within the EU is still done under precarious working conditions’.

However, we are concerned about some aspects, not least the principles guiding the European Research Area, since it should be focused on cooperation between genuine research and collaboration networks, reversing any trends towards concentration of scientific and human resources in the more developed countries and mitigating the currently existing inequalities in national research systems.

Innovation in micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises requires support for public research and its results must be made available in a simple way, without bureaucracy, whether it be in terms of energy efficiency, using new sources of energy and new production processes, recycling and making better use of resources, or creating jobs with rights, or whether it be in human and social terms, with a view to social progress.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The report assesses whether the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development will offer the possibility of consolidating the golden triangle of knowledge, education and research, which is of key importance for Europe. Among other things, the programme welcomes the level of participation and excellent results in the selection of projects, but it is a pity that the success rate in the programme generally remains relatively low. The correct management of public funds within the framework of this programme is essential, and I firmly believe that every change or reorientation must take place in a way that respects stability, overall cohesion and legal certainty, which underpin the mutual trust of the participants.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The main point of this report is that the European Union must do its utmost to stay at the top of the research, innovation and science sectors. If we do not have the research foundation today, we will not achieve excellence in innovation in the future. Good research resources are needed to create and foster employment in the EU and to boost the EU’s competitiveness, particularly as the industrially developing countries grow in strength. Collaboration between the private and public sectors must be developed and SMEs encouraged to participate more fully in the programme. This encouragement must come from the high authorities. At a meeting on 4 February, the leaders of the EU and of Member States stated their commitment to the Innovation Union flagship initiative. Now, however, action must be taken to match their words. Research and innovation are what will help us escape from the economic deadlock which we are in at present.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Research and development play a large part in modernising our economies and strengthening our competitiveness. With a budget of EUR 54 billion for the period 2007-2013, the Seventh Framework Programme for research and development is the world’s largest programme of support for research.

The adoption of this report by a strong majority is testament to Parliament’s keen interest for the success of this programme and subsequent ones. Efforts still need to be made to ensure sound management of public money and prevent funds from being spread too thinly in projects that are not very efficient or that do not meet our needs.

The future of European research will involve simplifying how programmes are implemented, facilitating access to funding, the participation of small and medium–sized enterprises (SMEs) but, above all, adapting our priorities to society’s great challenges (ageing population, climate change, and so on).

I am convinced that the European Union has a leading role to play in the development of large research programmes and that it can bring real added value by consolidating the European Research Area (ERA). That is why I decided to lend my full support to this report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because it calls for the use of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) to take account of the different consequences in each Member State of the economic crisis for the final years of the programme (2011-2013), given the considerable sums (EUR 28.8 billion over three years) still to be programmed, the objectives to be achieved for EU 2020 and preparation for a European Research Area and the Innovation Union. It calls, in particular, for the alignment of the FP7 objectives with EU strategies on resource efficiency, raw materials and the Digital Agenda. The remaining sums should not be diverted from research and used for other programmes or instruments that do not come within the research and innovation sector or the objectives and scope of FP7. There is a need to enhance, stimulate and secure the financing of research and development in the European Union via a significant increase in relevant expenditure from 2013 onwards, because such an increase in funding, ideally by increasing the budget, must foster sustainable growth and competition via excellence. This increase in funds must be coupled with a more result-oriented, performance-driven approach and with a radical simplification of funding procedures. I believe that we need to support further cooperation between different EU research, technological development and innovation programmes, and feel that the continuity of the future programme, once established, is important for all actors involved.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Europe’s rapidly ageing society requires innovative solutions in diverse areas which will make it possible for it to function efficiently in spite of the reduced workforce. Similar challenges are posed by climate change, unexpected deficits of raw materials and biological threats, for example, the recent developments concerning E coli bacteria in vegetables. The way to find solutions to such unusual situations is investment in science and technological development. Although we have held many debates on this issue, the measures taken in Europe have, unfortunately, been ineffectual, despite the threat posed to our continent and our economy. The latter is not self-sufficient, and is additionally faced with the domination of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian economies, which are developing extraordinarily rapidly. Financial support and the simplification of legislative procedures for scientific development should be a priority for the EU. To stand still is to move backwards.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I support the report on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities because I believe that it truly reflects what has been achieved, as well as existing problems. The European Union has the potential to become the world leader in innovation and inventions. This would give a new impetus to our economic growth and an improvement in the standard of living of our citizens. We have the ability to meet this goal by performing a series of domestic tasks, the most important of which is the reduction of bureaucratic hurdles. In order to become the citadel of innovation, we must sacrifice the bureaucracy that does not allow for funds to flow to researchers and entrepreneurs. Saddled with the old and rigid system of bureaucracy hindering the development of new and dynamic businesses, the European Union will not reach its target – to invest 3% of GDP in research and innovation by 2020. The European Union must change with the times and must cast off the chains of red tape. This approach must be implemented beginning with the research programme, which is a source of funding for new inventions, for the realisation of new ideas, and new jobs.

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Paragraph 27 of this report contains information which contradicts the truth. The assertion that web sites and individual computer systems are constantly monitored by INDECT is false, as confirmed by the ethical review carried out on the INDECT project in Brussels on 15 March 2011, with the participation of specialists from Austria, France, Holland, Germany and the United Kingdom. The ethical review of the INDECT project had a positive outcome, and no infringements relating to the project’s ethical aspects were identified. INDECT has been subject to constant monitoring by the European Commission from the outset. The Commission has not identified any infringements to date. Furthermore, this issue is out of place in the report as a whole, and specific reference is made to the INDECT project, with no mention of other similar projects which receive European Union funds.

The main aim of the INDECT project (Intelligent information system supporting observation, searching and detection for security of citizens in urban environment), which is implemented by the AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków, is the development of research into information technologies which increase the safety of citizens of urban areas. The INDECT system is intended to identify threats by means of monitoring, including, in particular, pornography, arms trading and trafficking in drugs and human organs, and it is also intended to protect data and privacy.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities (FP7) is the largest research support instrument in the world and represents the primary tool of European Union research policy. The actions taken so far to develop knowledge in the most varied of fields demonstrate the ever more acute need to move towards spreading innovations and implementing them in our daily lives. It was precisely the direct impact of this instrument on everyday life that led me to vote in favour of the report by Mr Audy, in the hope that future innovation policies will make the absolute most of the synergies in the whole research and development value chain. The Seventh Framework Programme – which is mainly oriented towards research and technological development – is currently the only instrument for achieving the objectives laid down in the Innovation Union initiative and for expediting the transformation of Europe into a knowledge-based society. Thinking about the future of innovation implies creating jobs, leveraging research capital and translating it into practices that apply to normal life, as well as developing human resource potential – all of which are factors that should be included in the next Framework Programme.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Every year since 2007, the EU has spent over EUR 6 billion funding research and development on the continent. This will present a major challenge for the EU in the decades to come. Indeed, Europe lags behind the United States and is being caught up very quickly by the emerging countries; it must therefore quickly re-establish innovation at the forefront of its social model. The report by Mr Audy learns lessons from the first part of the Framework Programme for research. In order to achieve the Europe 2020 goals, it proposes that the rest of the programme should focus on the Union’s most pressing challenges within the sectors identified in the ‘Cooperation’ chapter of the Seventh Framework Programme: health, food and biotechnology, information and communication technology, nanoscience and nanotechnologies, energy, the SET Plan and the use of biogas, environment, sustainable transport, social sciences, economics and humanities, and space and security. I voted in favour of this report because it not only makes an assessment of the situation but also sets ambitious targets for the Union which live up to the expectations of European citizens.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – FP7 is a chance for the EU to make its research policy match its economic and social ambitions, in particular, by consolidating the European Research Area (ERA). Allocated a budget of around EUR 54 billion for the period 2007-2013, FP7 has, over the years, become one of the largest research support programmes in the world and represents the primary tool of EU research policy. Four main objectives have been identified and correspond to four specific programmes that must structure the European research effort: the Cooperation Programme, the Ideas Programme, the People Programme and the Capacity Programme. The aim is to enable the EU to respond to the great societal challenges that concern all Member States and to which they cannot respond alone (ageing population and health, energy, water and food supplies, sustainable development, climate change, and so on), as well as to develop the knowledge to enable our businesses to innovate more and enhance their competitiveness.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Over the years, the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for research and technological development has become one of the largest research support programmes in the world and represents the primary tool of European Union research policy. After the failure of the so-called ‘Lisbon strategy’, which aimed for the EU to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, we decided to consider whether the review of FP7 might offer an opportunity to consolidate the golden triangle of knowledge, education and research. We believe that FP7 is a chance for the EU to make its research policy match its economic and social ambitions, in particular, by consolidating the European Research Area (ERA). In addition, research and development policies need to be territorialised and the Union must adopt an ambitious European research plan for defence technology with a view to enhancing the sector’s industrial and technological base, while also improving the efficiency of military public spending. Lastly, we agree with the Committee on Budgets that the design and implementation of all framework programmes must be based on the principles of simplicity, stability, legal certainty, consistency, excellence and trust, while also strengthening links between European institutions for research and industry.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for research and technological development (R&TD) is the European Commission’s largest financial instrument for supporting and promoting research activity. It has a budget allocation of EUR 50 billion for the period 2007-2013. This report points to the paths to be followed as regards this Framework Programme for R&TD: it should be linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, but also to the Innovation Union initiative, and its main objective should be the areas of climate change, energy policy, competitiveness and population ageing. If we achieve the goals set out here, I have no doubt that we will enter a new economic cycle of growth.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The seventh EU programme aims to build a united European Knowledge Area based upon achievements of former programmes and to implement further research towards strengthening socio-economic factors in the development of Europe. Scientific research is one of the bases of the European strategy for economic development, ensuring competency, development of the social area and environmental protection. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Seventh Framework Programme is not just about research in general; it is also about a specific field of research that ought to be of particular concern to all of us following the Fukushima disaster. It is a question of funding from the Euratom programme. What is the use of productive reactors if they buckle under water masses and in the event of earthquakes? What is the use of the most productive nuclear power station if a minor fault is enough to make not only the immediate surroundings, but broad swathes of land, uninhabitable for decades? It is important for us to focus more on nuclear safety and to push ahead with the development of alternatives. Now that the Euratom research programme is shortly to be extended for the period 2012-2013, Fukushima ought to be taken as an opportunity for a rethink. We need to focus more on protection against radiation and final storage. It is a matter of life or death that we should not stick to the same priorities, in other words, the expansion of nuclear power, but rather that we should concentrate on safety aspects. The present research programme is, of course, unaffected by this. I have taken this into account when voting.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) During my time in Parliament, I have campaigned on many occasions for nuclear safety in the EU. Such a risky technology for generating energy with all its hazardous by-products and fatal consequences for both man and nature in the event of nuclear meltdown should not be glossed over under the pretext of climate protection. Unfortunately, the Seventh Framework Programme also includes funding for research in the field of nuclear power. However, the report also calls for stricter regulations for the EU’s INDECT programme. It states that the EU Commission should immediately publish all project documents and define a clear and strict mandate for the research goal, the application and end users of INDECT. This is an initial success in which the rights of the EU’s citizens are taken seriously on a rudimentary level at least. Having weighed up the issues, I abstained from voting.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Audy because the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) needs to be thoroughly revised in order for it to achieve and come into line with the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. The negative results of the mid-term review mean that we need to amend its priorities. I therefore agree on rewording the main objectives and stress the need for a more efficient research policy that cuts out the burden of red tape and provides for greater participation from small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as innovation and funding integration. By making these changes, we hope that the projects of the second phase of FP7 will end in success.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities is based on the premise of reconciling the public with science. The Lisbon strategy set an ambitious goal for the European Union: to become, by 2010, the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. The central role played by research was acknowledged in this strategy. This desire was not realised, for a number of reasons. The decade 2000-2010, which ended with an extremely serious economic crisis, will be evaluated in the future. It is now important, and I share the rapporteur’s ambition in this respect, to analyse the work done and reorganise future work. FP7 is another opportunity for the EU to put its research policy on a par with its economic and social ambitions, not least by consolidating the European Research Area. FP7 is one of the largest research support programmes in the world and represents the primary tool of EU research policy. The specific existing programmes, like the Cooperation programme, the Ideas programme, the People programme and the Capacity programme, can and should enable the development of knowledge to enable our businesses to innovate more and enhance their competitiveness.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) needs to be reviewed in order to bring it further into line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. If European research policy is to be more competitive and in tune with the EU’s economic and social ambitions, FP7 needs to be tailored to four major objectives: promoting the simplification of the framework programmes for research and cutting the burdens of administrative procedures; improving the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); strengthening the innovation dimension and intensifying the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility.

In addition, we need to focus on the importance of collaboration between the academic world, public research institutes and the industrial sector. We must place greater emphasis on proposals for collaborative research between the public and industrial sectors, ease cooperation between networks of SMEs, universities and public research institutes, and the main criteria for choosing FP7 projects must now include an assessment of the possible impact on the market, technology transfer and the commercial use of research outcomes. I voted in favour of reviewing FP7 for these very reasons and also so that the EU can be more competitive in the field of research without having to wait for the Eighth Framework Programme.

  Vincent Peillon (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Audy report on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme on research and development. With this text, the European Parliament confirms its support for this programme, which is of vital importance for developing European research and improving the competitiveness of our businesses. It defends the establishment of a permanent budget, which is essential if it is going to be able to meet its targets. This report then sets out specific proposals with the aim of resolving the programme’s weaknesses. It rightly highlights the need to simplify funding procedures and optimise existing instruments, so as to facilitate access for small and medium-sized enterprises. Finally, this report reminds us that the European Commission needs to ensure that promoting innovation does not endanger the progress made in basic research.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – This report considers whether the review of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7) may offer an opportunity to consolidate the golden triangle of knowledge, education and research that is the key to Europeans’ destiny. I welcome the level of participation and excellence in project selection but regret, however, that the success rate under this programme generally remains quite low and is a disincentive, particularly for SMEs. I support, within the framework of the ‘People’ chapter, the Marie Curie Actions, which are of great value to researchers in their career and acknowledge that ‘Joint Technological Initiatives’ (JTIs) assist the competitiveness of European industry.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – Given the economic crises the EU is facing, it is essential we identify which areas of our activities lend themselves to helping us overcome our difficulties. Research and innovation are central to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, so investment in R&D is the best possible response. Considering the numerous political and economic changes that have taken place since the Seventh Framework Programme was adopted, it is necessary to amend FP7 to reflect the situation of the new reality. Given the importance of knowledge-based industries to Europe and our thriving R&D sector, we cannot afford to wait until FP8 to take action. The ‘Lisbon strategy’ of becoming the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 may have failed, but this does not mean we should abandon it entirely. We must continue to work towards this goal by amending FP7. In doing so, we should address a serious failure under FP7 to provide funding for research in maternal and child health. Close to 400 000 babies are born prematurely annually, yet there is no funding for research in this area. Pre-term birth is the number one cause of infant death and premature babies are far more likely to develop lifelong chronic illnesses.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities should be evaluated with a view to the current state of the European Union, but with an eye on the future. The rapporteur rightly points out the failure of the goal set by the European Council in 2000 of becoming the most prevalent knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. However, although this same goal was not achieved by the deadline, it remains the true purpose of common action. Therefore, the evaluation of the Framework Programme can play a significant role in this respect: in other words, by seeking to reduce the obstacles to the European economy’s growth that have been emerging, specifically by cutting red tape in procedures for accessing research support programmes.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The report was already adopted unanimously by the ITRE Committee, takes on board the recommendations of the expert group and identifies further scope for improvement of the various EU research instruments. For instance: more open access and dissemination of research results, wider calls in the field of socio-economic sciences, more collaborative research, efforts to improve the mobility of researchers, more actions for innovative SMEs, better coordination with the Member States. The report does not cover the issue of ITER or of Galileo investments. On the negative side, the text is sometimes too much oriented towards the economic role and competitiveness of research and innovation rather than towards what research and innovation can bring to society as a whole.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Research is an essential component of the world of knowledge and, in a globalised economy, it is certain to bolster growth and employment levels in the European Union. The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) is a good opportunity for the European Union to develop its research policy, while also consolidating the European Research Area (ERA). Through this programme, Europe aims to satisfy the requirements of industry – and more generally, of European policies – for research and knowledge.

By adopting today’s report, Parliament shines a light on the results achieved by the research programme in these first four years. Yet to achieve bigger and better results in the future, we need to simplify the administrative process, improve the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises, support innovation and adopt risk-sharing finance facilities. The report also urges the EU and the Member States to adopt an ambitious research plan to consolidate the European defence industry.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Audy’s report because I consider investment in the research and innovation sector to be fundamental to competitiveness, growth and job creation in the EU. I consider the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and development 2007-2013 to be particularly useful for the purpose of drawing useful conclusions based on an evaluation of the current situation. I welcome the rapporteur’s proposal to simplify financing procedures and to adopt a performance-driven approach and the criteria of ‘excellence’ and ‘European added value’ in EU spending. The research sector is a sector which can bring maximum added value to the Union. Public budgets have been cut and, as such, private funding should be mobilised in order to finance the forthcoming Eighth Framework Programme for research. I therefore approve of the rapporteur’s proposal to increase the participation of industrial groups and small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Four years have passed since the introduction of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development. In the context of a changing global economic situation and at a time when Europe is slowly attempting to extricate itself from the economic crisis, it is becoming clear that the programme was put in place to solve legitimate and significant problems. The global competition of major economic powers such as China, India and Brazil is forcing us to take special measures, aimed at gaining a technological advantage allowing us to implement the European Union’s intended strategy effectively. The right investments in research and scientific development will translate into the long-term construction of a knowledge-based society, which is one of the most important components of economic power. The report touches upon the key issue of insufficient cooperation and exchange of information between Member States, which results in the duplication of individual projects. A further alarming matter is the unequal participation of the Member States, which results in greater imbalances in an area as important as research and technological development. This is a complete contradiction of the goals of the Seventh Framework Programme.

As a result of the economic crisis, some Member States no longer have as many opportunities to provide support for the programme, and this is a challenge to the EU to identify accurately those who need support, and to grant support to them. The programme’s implementation will last another two years, and the level of budgetary commitment has not exceeded 50% (of EUR 54 billion for the period 2007-2013), which should make it easier to involve the competent bodies and enable the funds available to be used as appropriately as possible.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I support the work done by the rapporteur in this report. I share his concerns that the Commission communication was delivered so much later than promised. The FP7 has delivered some excellent work and I am encouraged by the work done by the rapporteur to close the golden triangle.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for research and technological development (R&TD) is the European Commission’s largest financial instrument for supporting and promoting research activity, and it has a budget allocation of EUR 50 billion for the period 2007-2013. This report stresses that the FP7 for R&TD should be linked to the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy and to the ‘Innovation Union’ flagship initiative, and that it should focus, until its term expires, on the areas of climate change, energy policy, competitiveness and population ageing.

I am voting for this report because I understand that only by reinforcing European research, development and innovation policy will it be possible for it to increase its competitiveness and adopt an increasingly leading role at global level. I also consider it important that the Seventh Framework Programme contributes to establishing the European Research Area, pursuant to Article 179(1) of Title XIX of the Treaty on European Union.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Research and innovations are important for ensuring sustainable and inclusive growth in Lithuania. According to data from the World Bank, Lithuania has great potential to become a dynamic, knowledge-based economy. However, the study also states that in the research and development (R&D) sector, my country faces managerial, structural and regulatory problems. We must overcome these obstacles if we want to make real progress. This also poses problems for Europe. In Europe, R&D expenditure is low compared to other global powers, due to a lack of private investment and favourable conditions for innovation. I agree with the rapporteur that we really need better coordination of research projects and cofinancing within the Union. Furthermore, research facilities and infrastructure in Central and Eastern Europe must be modernised and expanded.

This will encourage European competitiveness and help to overcome infrastructural disparities between the old and new Member States. I also believe that research and technological development must become more accessible to ordinary Europeans. According to data from a European Commission survey, only 10% of Europeans feel they are well informed about science, while 65% feel that governments should make more efforts to interest young people in scientific matters. We should do the same.

Motion for a resolution (B7-0344/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this resolution as I believe there is a need for a comprehensive economic agreement capable of strengthening already existing strong bilateral ties in terms of trade and investment. However, I believe that the agreement should be balanced and encourage fair trade. Despite the strong consensus on an ambitious agreement, I argue that it should not affect public services or the EU’s rights to legislate on the Fuel Quality Directive. The agreement should also have ambitious sustainable development targets, with legally binding social and environmental parameters.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on EU-Canada trade relations. Canada is one of the EU’s oldest and closest partners, being the first industrialised country with which – in 1976 – the EU signed a Framework Agreement for commercial and economic cooperation. However, the EU-Canada economic relationship has not yet reached its full potential and I feel that an EU-Canada free trade agreement can strongly contribute to developing and realising this by improving trade and investment flows while removing tariff peaks and unjustified non-tariff barriers and supporting closer cooperation, particularly in the fields of regulatory cooperation, labour mobility and recognition of qualifications. I welcome an agreement with Canada going beyond the WTO commitments and being complementary to multilateral rules, provided that the negotiations produce a balanced, ambitious, high-quality agreement that goes well beyond tariff reductions, and other tools begin to be applied. For instance, the reciprocity principle should be applied in the context of the legal remedies available in the event of commercial disputes, and there is a need to improve the protection of intellectual property rights, including trademarks, patents and geographical indications.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By voting in favour of this resolution on the current trade negotiations between the EU and Canada, I wish to reiterate the importance of international trade (including with Canada) for developing our economies. As stated in the resolution, even though Europe must continue giving priority to the international trading system, that is, the Doha Development Round negotiations, the current negotiations with Canada can usefully complement this international approach with a bilateral approach, which is equally necessary. Thus, by discussing and negotiating, we are managing to find solutions on issues related to trade and respect for certain principles, such as those concerning the environment. However, as Vice-Chair of the working group on public services, I am concerned about the approach chosen for this sector. Indeed, by adopting a ‘negative list approach’ (a list that excludes certain public services from the liberalisation process) and not, on the contrary, ‘a positive list approach’ (exempting public services from liberalisation, except those featured in the list), we may well end up weakening public services. This resolution therefore urges the European Commission to abandon this approach.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. Canada is one of the EU’s oldest and closest partners, being the first industrialised country with which – in 1976 – the EU signed a Framework Agreement for commercial and economic cooperation. A number of bilateral agreements designed to facilitate stronger trade relations have been signed over the years and currently, the EU is Canada’s second most important trading partner and Canada’s second largest source of foreign direct investment. I agree that that the EU-Canada economic relationship has not yet reached its full potential. The free trade agreement planned could make a significant contribution towards advancing the EU-Canada economic partnership and would send a powerful pro-growth signal to investors and business within the EU and Canada.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Whereas a commercial agreement is currently under negotiation between the European Union and Canada, the European Parliament, through this resolution that we have just adopted, is expressing concern about the European Commission’s approach in relation to public services. Indeed, the European Commission, responsible for negotiating this agreement, seems to want all services to be included, in principle. By negotiating a ‘negative’ list of services that would not be included in the free trade agreements, and if it were to go ahead, the Commission would be reversing the rationale that has prevailed hitherto. Yet public services are not like other services: because they provide social and territorial cohesion as well as essential support to vulnerable populations, these services have features specific to the general interest they seek to attain. Consequently, it is crucial to continue adopting an approach that protects these services, particularly by protecting them from international competition.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Relations with Canada have long been profitable for both parties and, in commercial terms, are of mutual interest and involve good cooperation. Despite the fact that Canada is a developed country, where very few questions could be raised over the level of respect for social rights and the highest environmental standards, the Commission – before Parliament, even – has set out a basis for negotiations with the equivalent Canadian authorities which goes into detail on many issues that need to be modified in order for us to be satisfied.

I am voting in favour of this resolution, which relates to a chapter of the European commercial policy that should be taken as a model for negotiations with other countries – including India, China and Pakistan – which certainly do not guarantee fair competition, let alone respect for social rights and environmental standards, as Canada does. When we embark on negotiations with these countries, we should remember how strict and exacting we have been with extremely enlightened places like Canada and adopt the same direct and open attitude in defence of our interests.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the trade relationship between the EU and Canada as I feel any BIT could undermine the Commonwealth negotiation between UK and Canada. While I see no reason why the EU and Canada cannot trade freely, prior legislation has demonstrated the EU ambition is predisposed to usurp rather than parallel extant trade relationships between the UK and third countries.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution on EU-Canada trade relations aimed at establishing a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Canada is a close trading partner of the European Union: over 10 years, Canadian investment in Europe almost doubled, reaching EUR 119.5 million in 2009. It is therefore necessary to establish an advanced legal framework so as to ensure a positive impact on growth. I would like to highlight the issue of market access for agricultural products. Rules of origin are different in Canada and the EU, and the Commission must make sure that the interests and priorities of European agriculture are properly taken into account. In particular, efforts should be made to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of rules of origin so that products from other North American Free Trade Agreement members do not follow in the wake of Canadian products.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The multilateral trade system, based on rules and established through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), remains the most suitable means of regulating and promoting open and fair trade. However, given the historical and very successful economic relationship between the EU and Canada, I support an agreement that transcends the commitments made within the framework of the WTO and is in addition to the multilateral rules, so as to achieve the maximum potential of cooperation between these two powers.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on EU-Canada trade relations because it highlights the need to include social and environmental issues in the future Economic and Trade Agreement between the European Union and Canada. As far as environmental protection is concerned, I think that it is important for the European Union to refuse to import oil extracted from oil sands.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As part of the ongoing negotiations on the trade agreement between the EU and Canada, the Commission must undertake to comply with the European Parliament’s demands. In a free trade agreement, two things are vital: first, ensuring reciprocity in respect of social and environmental legislation; second, adopting a consistent and protective approach to services of general interest. European environmental and health standards should not be lowered just to satisfy our partner. The European Commission must consider the consequences of its decision to include all services automatically and by default. While this method allows certain public services to be excluded on a case-by-case basis and at the request of each Member State by establishing a ‘negative’ list, it nevertheless runs the risk of potential omissions. Parliament does not wish for this new model of negotiation to set a legal precedent. Up to now, the Commission has negotiated free trade agreements by providing a ‘positive’ list, listing services covered by the agreement one by one. This method, which is commonly used in international trade, provides a better safeguard for certain sensitive sectors for the EU and should therefore be the sole method used by the Commission.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Canada and the EU share a set of values, making us not just trade partners, but also natural allies in the global geostrategic situation. It is a fact that there is a single civilisation on both sides of the Atlantic which would gain a great deal from strengthening even further the ties between its peoples. It would not be productive to expound at length on the historical ties between Canada and Europe, and on the contribution that its citizens made to liberate the European continent during the two world wars that devastated it.

Despite the obstacles to trade liberalisation that still remain and the Union’s reservations regarding current practices in Canada, I hope that the necessary bases can be established for a mutually beneficial trade partnership sooner rather than later. A comprehensive economic and commercial agreement between Canada and the European Union could end up being the most ambitious and wide-ranging that we have yet concluded. I hope that will be the case.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution is on EU-Canada trade relations, whose negotiations are expected to be concluded by the end of 2011. The goal of the EU’s trade and investment policy is economic growth that is sustainable, generates wealth and creates jobs. Let us recall that the conclusion of trade relationships with our strategic partners will enable the EU to have added value of 1% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020, which was EUR 120 billion in 2010, benefiting consumers and businesses alike. To this end, and without questioning the role played by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), it is crucial to liberalise trade by concluding all negotiations under way within the framework of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), of which EU-Canada trade relations are part. Although some issues remain unresolved, such as the negative impact on biodiversity of tar sands extraction and of some seal-derived products, I voted in favour not only because the public procurement problem has practically been resolved, but also because of the benefits to the Member States, and to prevent the negotiations from suffering any delays.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The first item in the preamble illustrates the vision guiding this report: it states that the multilateral trade system established through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) continues to represent the most suitable framework for regulating and promoting open and fair trade. It continues by advocating the successful conclusion of the Doha Round.

This is a vision that is developed in the subsequent points of a resolution with which we naturally disagree. We disagree, in fact, just like the millions of workers, farmers, small and medium-sized business owners, and many others across the world who have, for years, been pointing an accusing finger at the WTO, at its goals of deregulating trade and at the interests it serves: those of the multinationals; of large companies and financial institutions, which rake in millions at the expense of sacrificing millions of jobs and labour and social rights, destroying small and medium-sized producers and degrading the environment.

The EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement, like the others, also covers services and worthy, but inconsistent concerns are being expressed relating to ‘negative lists’ or others, which do not remove the threats also hanging over public services. There are more than enough reasons to vote against.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Union continues to build its trade policy with consequences that affect the various Member States profoundly but differently.

The agreements that give concrete expression to this policy are essentially based on free trade, whose goals and effects are clearly demonstrated by the associated rhetoric: that of so-called ‘offensive interests’, as if we were talking about a war.

They are generally agreements that lack increasing democratic legitimacy as they are almost always negotiated in the greatest secrecy, behind the public’s backs, in an attempt to cover up their economic, social and environmental impact, and avoid informed debate and clarification.

With negotiations at a stage said to be fairly advanced and their conclusion envisaged for 2011, its impact on sectors and countries has yet to be fully debated.

However, the content of this agreement is nothing new: the opening up of markets, and the liberalisation of services, including increasingly commercialised public services, which are at the mercy of the interests of multinationals, and cause trouble for the people.

The consequences are well-known: the domination of markets by a few, the destruction of weaker production systems, and increasing pretexts for attacks on rights, and on living and working conditions.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The EU commenced talks on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada in 2009. The potential agreement covers a broad range of topics: trade in goods and services, intellectual property rights, public procurement, regulatory cooperation, investment, temporary migration, competition policy and employment and environmental standards. In my opinion, it is right for both sides to prioritise efforts to reach agreement over several fundamental points, such as the issues of public procurement, investment and public services.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the document because the EU and Canada have a close relationship as far as trade and foreign direct investment are concerned. The ongoing negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) aim at a very advanced agreement, exceeding in its level of ambition any trade and economic agreement negotiated either by the EU or by Canada to date, that could reinforce the already strong bilateral trade and investment relationship even further. I welcome an agreement with Canada going beyond the WTO commitments and being complementary to multilateral rules, provided that the negotiations produce a balanced, ambitious, high-quality agreement. I feel that agriculture chapters will constitute an important issue for both parties in these negotiations. I am concerned about possibly substantial concessions in the area of GMOs, milk and origin labelling. The interests and the priorities in agriculture should therefore be fully taken into account and the agreement must be beneficial to EU and Canadian consumers and to the agricultural sectors on both sides as well, and ensure, within a balanced overall outcome, greater – but fair – competition among EU and Canadian suppliers providing agricultural goods. I welcome the initial commitment from both parties not to maintain, introduce or reintroduce agricultural export subsidies on the agricultural goods traded, this being a positive step in the interests of ambitious and fair negotiations, as well as the agreement to cooperate in WTO agricultural negotiations.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The European Union and Canada have had good, solid trade relations for many years. However, the potential for economic cooperation is far from exhausted and I welcome the negotiations in relation to the CETA. Nonetheless, progress in WTO negotiations must be given priority over bilateral agreements. This resolution covers a range of important themes. I particularly support the reservations expressed by the European Parliament in relation to the possible negative impact on European agriculture. The principle of mutuality must be preserved in order to ensure a solid, sustainable agreement for both sides. In this context, I would like particularly to refer to the debate on origin labelling for slaughter cattle which needs to be resolved, as well as tariff-related and technical obstacles, such as protracted approval procedures for EU products. Clearly, the aim of the CETA must be fair competition.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In view of the fact that the European Union is Canada’s second largest trade partner, and that Canada is a major partner for the EU in the field of foreign direct investment, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on EU-Canada trade relations. At the same time, I would like to emphasise that Poland is Canada’s largest trading partner among the Central and Eastern European countries and, for a dozen or so years, has maintained a bilateral trade surplus which has grown year on year. Today’s vote is a key step forward which bodes well for the future.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I am delighted that my amendment, which ‘takes note of the recent legal developments regarding the EU’s ban on seal products, in particular, Canada’s request to the WTO for the establishment of a formal dispute resolution panel, and expresses its strong hope that Canada will withdraw the WTO challenge, which runs counter to positive trade relations, prior to the need for ratification of the CETA agreement by the European Parliament’, was carried.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Commercial relations between the European Union and Canada can go well beyond the commitments undertaken through the World Trade Organisation as long as they are based on a balanced agreement, a guarantee of proper reciprocal access to each other’s markets and improved protection for trademarks, patents and geographical indications. Fresh investments are, in our view, needed in order to ensure respect for the environment and good working conditions. Since the agricultural sector is of fundamental importance, we urge the Commission to negotiate an agreement that is beneficial for producers and consumers alike, and which ensures fair competition between providers of agricultural products from the European Union and Canada. Lastly, we think that the Council should obtain Parliament’s consent before signing any further international commercial agreements, and that Parliament should be kept informed throughout all phases of the procedure in order to guarantee greater democratic control. This is the only way that we can achieve higher growth in trade and investments between the European Union and Canada.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the resolution but against Amendment 10 which supports the ban on importing seal products imposed by the EU. This ban is not justified, neither scientifically nor legally. Indeed, the conclusions of the scientific opinion given by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) at the end of 2007 are based on data concerning the slaughter of animals in abattoirs and which are not reliable with regard to seal hunting. The legal base is also questionable, as the European Parliament’s legal opinion, dated 1 April 2009, shows: ‘It seems virtually impossible to justify the ban on the sole basis of animal well-being, since the Treaty contains no legal basis on animal well-being’. The protection of the species, for its part, is not at stake, its population having even tripled in Greenland over 25 years. Finally, an embargo on which the Commission gives assurances that there would be no impact on Inuit traditional hunting is unrealistic. In this context, the request submitted by Canada to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) concerning the creation of a special dispute settlement body in relation to the European embargo is justified.

  Arlene McCarthy (S&D), in writing. – Parliament has given a strong signal in its resolution on the EU-Canada trade negotiations that it will rigorously defend its legislation to ban seal products from the EU market. EU citizens demanded we take action to keep the products of the cruel commercial hunt out of the EU. Canada has no right to try and undermine the democratic will of European citizens by taking our clearly non-discriminatory seal ban law to the World Trade Organisation. Closer trade ties between the EU and Canada can only be built on a basis of respect for the wishes of the European public and for European law.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Commission is about to conclude negotiations with Canada on a free trade agreement of unprecedented scope. It has been negotiating since 2004. European citizens were never consulted or even informed. The report welcomes this harmful agreement whose content has only been revealed through leaks. This is unacceptable. I shall vote against the report and I condemn this agreement, which gives the people of Europe a subordinate role, following the example of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The historical relationship between Europe and Canada is long, and even predates the EU. Moreover, we share the same values and principles, making us preferential allies in the global geostrategic situation. There has been significant progress with trade relations, although there is still no comprehensive agreement. I believe that we should continue to make every effort to reach an agreement that suits everyone, since it will be very important for both sides’ economic development.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The potential agreement covers a wide range of issues: trade in goods and services, intellectual property rights, public procurement, regulatory cooperation, investment, temporary migration (mode IV), competition policy and labour and environmental standards. Both parties still need to find an agreement on several crucial chapters of the negotiations, among others, on access to government procurement, investment and public services. There are two other issues that came up in the negotiations that are quite sensitive in the EP. The first issue concerns the Canadian oil sands and the EU’s Fuel Quality Directive. The Fuel Quality Directive has been highly debated in the Committee on the Environment. As yet, the Canadian Government believes this directive discriminates between Canadian oil imports and oil imports from other countries. I consider the agreement to be too early. The second issue is the EU’s ban on seal products and it is highly important. This agreement could reinforce the already strong bilateral trade and investment relationship between the EU and Canada; however, it should be mutually beneficial and therefore, I have abstained from voting as yet.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) A progressive agreement will encourage and accelerate active trade and investment relations between the EU and Canada. The liberalisation of trade relations will bring mutual benefits for business actors and will create more favourable investment conditions. To achieve a comprehensive, high-quality agreement that goes beyond the WTO commitments, neither party should express requirements that conflict with their internal policies or institutional arrangements. Furthermore, in the event of commercial disputes, the reciprocity principle should be applied, the protection of intellectual property rights should be improved and there should be reciprocal access to the services and public procurement markets. Particular attention should be paid to the agricultural sector and consumers. We must maintain a firm stance on GMOs, milk and origin labelling. We must ensure fair and greater competition among agricultural goods suppliers. I feel that the Commission should begin negotiations with Canada on investment once Parliament has expressed its position on the future EU investment policy. We must protect the parties’ most sensitive sectors, so that they are excluded from the scope of investment agreements. The Commission must take a firm stance on the ban on seal products and, in this regard, Canada should withdraw its requirement for the WTO to establish a formal dispute resolution panel. Such a requirement does not conform with the principles of positive trade relations.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome this European Parliament resolution on EU-Canada trade relations. There is a natural partnership between the EU and Canada founded on cultural similarities and a long shared history. It is only natural, therefore, that the private sectors in both the EU and Canada have shown strong support for an ambitious and comprehensive economic agreement, and believe that advancing a closer EU-Canada economic partnership would send a powerful pro-growth signal to investors and business within the EU and Canada as well as internationally. I therefore welcome an agreement with Canada that transcends the World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments and is in addition to the multilateral rules, provided that the negotiations produce an ambitious, high-quality agreement, based on reciprocity and that goes beyond mere tariff reductions. I would, however, warn of the need to consider the economic impact of this opening up, especially on the Member States whose economies are more vulnerable.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At the present time, the trade system of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) seems to be the best way to offer a reference framework for economic relations between states. However, it does not prevent states or supranational organisations from increasing their economic relations beyond that common regulation. Therefore, a particularly close economic relationship between the EU and Canada seems justified. As stressed in the report, the EU is Canada’s second most important trade partner. For its part, in 1976, Canada became the first industrialised country with which the EU signed a framework agreement for commercial and economic cooperation, and it is the EU’s fourth largest source of foreign direct investment. An agreement could lead to relations between the two areas reaching even greater levels of economic cooperation, creating even stronger links between these two areas, which are already profoundly linked by a common cultural approach.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Negotiations with Canada on a far-reaching Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) are well advanced and could be concluded this autumn. The CETA is by far the most ambitious bilateral FTA the EU has ever negotiated under the 2006 ‘Global Europe’ trade strategy. It includes far-reaching chapters on Services, Procurement, Investment Protection, Intellectual Property and Regulatory Cooperation.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Economic relations between the EU and Canada are of key significance for the development of dialogue between the two parties. After the US, the EU is Canada’s biggest trade partner, whereas Canada is the EU’s 11th biggest trade partner. The aim of the ongoing negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is the conclusion of a very wide-ranging agreement, with more ambitious goals than any of the economic and trade agreements negotiated to date by either the EU or Canada. Bilateral trade and investment links are already strong, and this may result in them becoming even stronger. According to the joint report by experts from the EU and Canada, the conclusion of a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement is intended to provide tangible economic benefits, which will result from trade liberalisation and the elimination of tariff barriers. Nevertheless, certain problems still remain regarding this agreement, which may have a negative impact on the EU’s agricultural sector.

In my opinion, more work needs to be done in terms of the differences between the sanitary and phytosanitary standards in force in the EU and in Canada. Furthermore, more work needs to be done to ensure the compliance of environmental standards in Canada with those in force in the EU. In connection with the above, I believe that it is necessary to carry out a detailed analysis and evaluation of the abovementioned standards.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I welcome today’s resolution, which highlights progress in negotiations for an EU trade agreement with Canada. Canada is an important potential trading partner for the EU, and both parties will profit from such an agreement. However, there are some concerns which the Commission needs to take into account: the environmental impact of extracting oil from tar sands and the health of workers mining asbestos are just two issues which need to be looked at carefully. I support calls for Canada to withdraw its WTO challenge on the EU’s ban on seal products and am pleased that amendments outlining this position were adopted by Parliament. The Commission also needs to take a strong position to protect the ban. Intellectual property rights must also be adhered to with the use of trademarks and patents. I am confident that these problems will be dealt with and taken into account by the Commission and that an effective trade agreement will be agreed.

Report: Wolf Klinz (A7-0081/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this own-initiative report since it tackles the current issues in the interminable debate on the ratings industry: specifically, the lack of competition, oligopolistic structures, and the lack of accountability and transparency, primarily as regards rating sovereign debt.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on credit rating agencies: future perspectives. Credit rating agency (CRA) ratings fulfil several useful purposes: they aggregate information about the credit quality of issuers in a global environment. Ratings allow issuers to assess global and domestic markets, reducing information costs and widening the potential pool of investors, and this provides markets with liquidity and helps to set prices. The recent financial crisis has highlighted three problems in the industry: a lack of competition, over-reliance on external ratings in the regulatory framework and no liability for ratings on the part of CRAs. I agree with the rapporteur’s opinion that credit ratings are not just pure opinions and that CRAs should be accountable for their ratings. Therefore, their exposure to civil liability should be enhanced in order to provide a credible threat.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Klinz’s report on credit rating agencies. Credit rating agencies are useful: they provide information about the quality of credit products, enabling debtors and investors to access global and domestic markets and ultimately help fix prices. However, the crisis has demonstrated the dangers created by the current system: the lack of competition and a lack of accountability and transparency of agencies in particular. This is an own-initiative report which calls on the European Commission to clearly identify the shortcomings of the current framework and to provide an impact study outlining the potential different alternatives for improving the system, including new legislation if necessary. I urge the Commission to respond to our request as soon as possible.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important document. Rating agencies assess not just private equity companies and their products, but also countries. The conditions under which a country can expect to borrow on international markets depend on the rating it receives. Negative ratings in the face of financial difficulties send a country into a kind of debt spiral, because a falling rating increases the cost of borrowing even more and makes the country’s financial situation even worse. All market participants and their supervisors must know the criteria used to set ratings and be able to check these themselves. The Commission and the G20 countries are asked to establish a new global approach to assessment, which would reduce the likelihood of errors, would regulate the activities of companies involved in ratings and would reduce the risk associated with financial assessment. I welcome and have, on several occasions, repeated the proposal that Europe urgently needs to establish its own credit rating agency, which would produce objective and independent assessments. I welcome the report’s call to establish our own independent rating agency, which, according to the proposals, would initially be called the European Credit Rating Foundation.

The possibilities for all EU Member States to borrow in international markets under the right conditions, as well as the stability of the whole global financial system and the effectiveness of crisis prevention, will depend on how successfully we can reform financial assessment.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Credit rating agencies (CRAs) assess countries, institutions and companies, assigning risk ratings regarding their ability to pay their debts on the agreed date. Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on CRAs was adopted as a first reaction to the financial crisis. This regulation dealt with the most pressing issues, subjecting CRAs to oversight and regulation. However, it did not solve all the problems.

Indeed, the financial crisis has demonstrated that there are three key problems in how these agencies operate: lack of competition, over-reliance on external ratings and no accountability. This report, which I voted for, calls on the European Commission to identify the failings and provide an impact assessment on the possible alternatives, including further legislative proposals. It also calls on the European Commission to assess the costs and benefits of creating a fully independent European Credit Rating Foundation.

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) I supported the proposed report because I think that creating credit rating agencies will boost competition in this sector, which is a prerequisite for enhancing quality, reducing information costs and, last but not least, increasing the relevant agencies’ accountability. This will also help reduce regulatory dependence.