Oral explanations of vote

Report: Pervenche Berès (A7-0011/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, every time the situation seems to improve, new downgrades by the rating agencies shake up the international markets. Many European businesses are failing, and in terms of employment, the number of long-term job seekers is rising, especially among the young.

If austerity plans and safeguarding the euro are necessary measures, then drastic changes to the job market are even more important at national level in boosting economic recovery in Europe. Only by making the European Union competitive again will we restore faith to investors and promote the creation of new jobs.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the EU should not have responsibility over setting an EU strategy on jobs or for developing an EU-level strategy for employment. I fundamentally believe that Member States are better placed to make decisions on employment and develop their own employment strategy. A one-size-fits-all model really cannot be applied because the employment situation in each Member State – and indeed within each Member State as in the case of Wales within the UK – is affected by different factors.

A tailored and targeted approach must be adopted to ensure that we tackle priorities locally for employment and find specific measures that improve future employment opportunities, especially for our young people. Care needs to be taken with this EU-wide strategy.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, there is no doubt that the latest employment figures, especially among the young, generate particular social alarm. If unemployment is at 10.4% and rising, this clearly can only arouse particular concern.

Therefore, great care and attention needs to be paid to the initiative put in place by the Commission to create a task force, an action team to support individual governments – initially eight – in directing funding, including EU funds, towards the creation of new jobs, especially for the young.

The right to work is sacred and fundamental, and according to the Europe 2020 strategy, activities encouraging employment and growth should be actively promoted, also by linking migration flows to the labour market and, above all, by guaranteeing that preference is shown to EU workers.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the adoption of this resolution today has finally refocused attention on a topic that is central for the future of Europe. Work has been the main casualty of the crisis and the inadequate employment policies of recent years. The situation is, unfortunately, getting worse, particularly for young people.

On 1 March, the European Council will launch the new economic and employment policy guidelines. We therefore need to discuss a new employment programme, a market reform that will create new jobs backed by an investment policy targeting the new generations and providing them with practical responses; in other words, a new employment plan that will modernise education and training systems and finally promote the value of individuals.

Work must go back to being regular and stable, which does not necessarily mean working in the same place all one’s working life, but nor does it mean that people should be ‘disposable’ either. The real challenge will be to allow and encourage different professional experiences in one’s lifetime, while at the same time safeguarding and guaranteeing professionalism and pay.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, these guidelines for employment policies will be a great help in achieving the target of increasing participation in the labour market and reducing youth unemployment. Today, the future of young people is increasingly uncertain and insecure. There is no point in concealing the fact that sustained economic growth is crucial for the future of Europe. The youth unemployment figures are dramatic and unacceptable.

The European Union must be committed to a medium- to long-term strategy for better, full and good-quality employment, especially for young people and their mobility, but also in terms of gender quality. At the same time, there must be parallel efforts to improve education and training systems at all levels.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, one in five Greeks is now unemployed, 60 000 small firms have closed in the last year, the economy, which was scheduled to contract by 3% in 2011, has contracted by 6% and there is no end in sight as long as Greece remains in the euro. There is austerity and poverty and deflation without end.

I noticed in the debate this morning that it seems to be dawning on some of our colleagues on the Left that they have picked the wrong side, that they are lining up with the establishment, the bondholders and the banks against ordinary workers in Greece, and that this bailout money is going to rescue some very wealthy individuals from the consequences of their mistakes, but the repayment is going to come from ordinary taxpayers.

That is what happens when you base your whole policy on signalling your disapproval of nationalism. That is what happens when you take a position based on doing the opposite of people that you do not like. But it is never too late to come to your senses, my friends: ‘Joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance’.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, the current economic crisis, together with the austerity measures adopted in some countries, has created new social categories at risk of poverty, including young people and elderly people. Given the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Annual Growth Survey must ensure consistency between the various priorities in its political guidelines in order to ensure that budgetary needs are based on social justice.

I agree with the rapporteur on the need to act immediately in order to improve employment conditions for categories at risk of social exclusion and to make tackling youth unemployment a priority. Future national reform plans will need to include training programmes able to develop lifelong learning and to create qualified jobs with dignified pay and conditions.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I generally believe that the EU should not uniformly dictate employment laws across its Member States. I also remain sceptical about the need for an EU strategy on jobs or a reinforced coordinated strategy on employment. Forcing our Member States to adopt the same uniform policies across the board when their social structures and the economic problems they face are very different will do little to nothing to aid employment levels in the Union.

What is good for one country will doubtless prove unworkable for another, so I think it is best if Member States are left alone to define their own national reform programmes and to implement their own reforms as they see fit.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the Annual Growth Survey 2012 is quite correct in stressing that the success of economic governance will greatly depend on the budgetary rigour implemented by the individual Member States, but it is just as important to kick-start economic growth and, at the same time, complete the internal market. Unfortunately, this did not receive sufficient focus either in the ‘six-pack’ or in the current fiscal pact. Yet short- and medium-term cuts made by the Member States in public expenditures are futile if no structural reforms are implemented. The Commission is not sufficiently satisfied with Member State reforms and efforts. It wants quick results, pressing and forcing Member States to deliver them, which leads to unnecessary austerity measures and a continuing rise in unemployment. That is why this is a good report, and that is why it is important that the Commission is finally entertaining the idea of once again giving this matter focus in its country-specific recommendations.

  President. – Ms Gáll-Pelcz, next time, remember that you must register for an explanation of vote before the explanations of vote start. You registered when we had already started and, according to the Rules, you must do it before, so remember next time.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I accept your kindness and next time, I will do as you have said.

Recommendation for second reading: Czesław Adam Siekierski (A7-0032/2012)

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, the political signal the Parliament has sent with this report on the distribution of food aid to the most deprived persons is very important at this time when an economic crisis is affecting people who did not cause the crisis, but who are suffering from its consequences.

For that reason, I voted for this report, which concerns the most deprived people and also regional and local authorities which, in many cases, are the principal distributors of food aid.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, today is a great day because the food aid programme for the most deprived has been saved. There had been talk of abolishing it, which would have been sheer madness, sheer political madness. Who would have thought that Europe could lose interest in a matter of such importance?

We won this battle, and should be glad about that. We should congratulate all those who played a part in this victory and particularly the governments who helped us – I should like to thank the French Government in particular – and all the Members of Parliament who supported us. However, this is just a battle, and the war has yet to be won, since we have saved this programme for two years.

I would simply like to say, in the gentlest possible fashion, to our friends – the German, English, Swedish, Danish, Dutch and Czech Republic governments, which opposed the renewal of this programme, that in two years’ time, we are all going to be back together again. I would simply like to say that a certain number of MEPs – particularly the French MEPs from the presidential majority – despite this, and in any event, will formally oppose any undermining of this programme.

Europe cannot lose interest in those who are quite simply hungry. This is clearly a matter of European solidarity.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, although this proposal allows for the continuation of a scheme which provides food for deprived individuals in some EU Member States, I do not agree that EUR 500 million should be allocated for this scheme from the common agricultural policy budget. This essentially is a social policy which therefore should not be part of the CAP. Indeed, I question whether it should even be funded by the EU budget at all.

Social policy and its implementation should be a Member State competence and so this initiative should be funded by national, social and welfare programmes. CAP payments should support agriculture and rural development; Structural Funds should improve competitiveness. If this is to be funded from the limited EU budget, then it should only be sourced from within the existing ESF, which is for social purposes. I am pleased to hear today the Commission say they recognise this fact.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I certainly welcome this report. I commend the rapporteur for the huge amount of hard work put into it and for the very practical approach which allows this scheme – at long last – to come into operation as soon as possible.

I think it is an excellent scheme. It benefits over 18 million of the most needy people in 19 Member States. The programme is 100% EU-funded and the amount – EUR 500 million – is small in the context of the overall common agricultural policy budget. There is no state financing involved, and I welcome this.

The Council agreement of 15 December 2011 allowed for the implementation of the scheme over the period 2012-2013. The initiative was blocked, as has been said already, for far too long by seven Member States. I welcome the compromise that has been negotiated by the Council, but there is no guarantee that the economic situation will have improved by 2013. I welcome the clarification by the Commission today that it will use its initiative in terms of putting a further scheme in place.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, after a two-year impasse at the Council and some rather difficult negotiations, we have reached the conclusion that, in the absence of a better alternative, the compromise voted on today is the only way to reach a temporary solution and guarantee that the most deprived people in the EU can benefit from the food distribution programme for the 2012-2013 period.

Unfortunately, given the way in which it has been adopted, I believe that the programme financing, which will come entirely from the EU budget and has an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million for the Union’s financial contribution, will have to be discussed again after 2013.

  Vincenzo Iovine (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I was pleased to play a part in approval of the scheme for distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union. At a time like this, when the number of deprived people in Europe has risen as a result also of the economic crisis, I believe that an important signal like today’s can contribute to greater cohesion in the European Union.

This reminds me of the example of a Neapolitan saint. He was a doctor called Giuseppe Moscati. When he received patients in his surgery, he used to put his hat on the desk with the sides turned up, and a notice placed on it reading ‘Those who have please give, and those who don’t please take’.

  Salvatore Caronna (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Parliament’s vote relating to the scheme for distribution of food products to deprived persons for the next two years was, above all, a mandatory step, bearing in mind also the fact that a few weeks ago, we approved a report against food waste that had amongst its targets the fundamental objective of helping the most needy sections of the population.

It is unthinkable that at a time of economic crisis and social suffering like the present, we should not be responding, albeit partially, in such a way. In such a perspective, it is to be hoped that we will find a definitive solution for the entire 2014-2020 period.

As we are seeing at the moment in the squares of Athens, the image of a European Union capable only of imposing cuts and sacrifices is a devastating one. We need to offer an alternative Europe capable of solidarity and of taking care of those in difficulty, and we need to do it soon.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, malnutrition does not affect only developing countries, but also threatens 43 million people right here in Europe. In the context of the economic crisis, the number of people who are no longer able to provide for themselves is, in fact, growing rapidly. The most vulnerable are primarily the homeless, the elderly in poor material circumstances, the unemployed and the disabled, single parents with children, and large families.

I consider the programme for the distribution of food to the most deprived, which has, in its 22 years of existence, helped to provide food to the poorest people in the Union, to be a most commendable initiative. I am concerned that precisely this kind of tangible assistance to the needy has been blocked in the Council for more than two years, and even faces disbanding after 2013. It concerns me that countries such as Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Czech Republic are against it.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D). - (CS) Mr President, I very much welcome and fully support the compromise that has been reached over the continuation of food aid for the poorest inhabitants over the next two years. I also hope that an optimal way of funding it will also be found in the next financial period.

The fact that food aid to the poorest makes sense was confirmed this winter, for example, in Northern Moravia in the Czech Republic, in relation to delays with the payment of certain social benefits, which thrust many of these most vulnerable people into a real crisis situation. Thanks to the rapid and, in particular, humane response of social workers and non-profit organisations, the situation was kept under control.

These are precisely the situations where food aid helps. I am therefore sorry that the Czech Republic, which has had no problems in making use of European food aid, has failed to back the resulting compromise in the Council, even in this form.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, it would be truly strange if, at a time of such difficulties and problems in the lives of millions of people in Europe, the European Union were to impose further restrictions on food distribution. This would have a detrimental effect on basic social citizenship rights, the value of social cohesion and the very perception of the European social model.

The signal that Parliament and the Council are both giving is a positive one, but we need to work on giving a definite structure and future to this necessary initiative. I would like to point out that in my country, Caritas, local bodies and other not-for-profit organisations providing free meals have seen an exponential increase in the number of people joining the ranks of the deprived, who can no longer count on being able to feed themselves, and these include not just immigrants, but many elderly and young people as well.

I believe that, in the context of our ambitious fight against poverty and efforts to reduce poverty, this scheme is a prerequisite, and if we had not approved it, we would have gone against our own policy objectives.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at such a difficult time for Europe and after the blocking of the proposal at the Council and the tabling of a new amended Commission proposal, the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union is undoubtedly a positive act. It is a useful compromise that has resolved many of the issues that caused the impasse, such as the full financing of the scheme by the European Union, with the participation of the Union in the distribution point programme, an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million for the Union’s financial contribution, the notion of the Union origin of the foods that are then distributed and the requirement for the purchase of food products to be made on the basis of competitive procedures.

The scheme will therefore be operational from 2013 and will allow the supply of food products from reserves deriving from intervention in order to benefit the most deprived persons in the Union, thus also achieving one of the most important objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Today’s vote in favour is the culmination of this report’s complex and difficult path, and is an important sign of the Union’s support for its most deprived citizens.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this resolution because access to food is a fundamental right. It requires adequate funding in view of the warnings issued by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations concerning the increasing risk of global famine. In addition, extreme weather conditions this winter will certainly have a negative impact on the development of spring crops. I think we need to send a strong signal to the Commission and Council to release the funds required. In these difficult times, any delay in making a decision may cost European citizens dearly. The positive vote of the Council on 23 January is a step forward in the optimal continuation of the programme. A clear strategy must also be developed in this area for the next financial framework.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, it is a disgrace that people in the European Union are continuing to go hungry and we must not ignore this fact. We must help people who cannot feed themselves adequately. Therefore, I support the compromise that has been negotiated on aid for deprived people. However, in future, we also need to find a different basis for our efforts in this area.

It is also important to me to ensure that the Member States fulfil their responsibilities. We need a mechanism which calls for commitment from the Member States and does not simply pass the problems on to Brussels. Aid for people who are suffering should be provided on a regional and local basis because this allows it to be targeted more effectively. Brussels should only step in to help when, for whatever reason, the Member State is not able to do so.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, as this resolution was adopted with no proper vote being taken, I would like to say that, first of all, the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union a year ago jeopardised the entire future of food aid. Fortunately, based on the European Parliament’s resolution last June, we have now taken a decision, in conjunction with the Council, to avoid this dramatic cut in food aid, and now its continuation is assured until the end of 2013, with an annual budget of EUR 500 million.

Over this period, we will have to examine how this aid can be continued sensibly, because the number of destitute EU citizens will, if anything, increase in the years to come. We should also appreciate the voluntary work that is done by communities and aid organisations distributing EU food aid. Parliament’s actions and the outcome achieved were absolutely the right response to the plight of Europe’s poorest citizens.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, while this scheme has merit on a social and compassionate level, I would question whether the EU is the best level at which to define the needs of the most deprived and then address them in an efficient and cost-effective way. As a believer in the primacy of the Member State, I believe that this is where need is best defined and met.

But this is not only about poverty and social exclusion. In this Parliament, we are currently in deep discussion about a reformed common agricultural policy, a CAP which should be about food supply and security. We should ask the Commission to reconsider its proposals and put this at the heart of the policy. But is it not ironic that today in Greece, we see people going short of food, and farmers bringing food supplies into Greek cities to distribute for free, while at the same time we have demands for more austerity that we know Greece cannot meet? And all for that political project which is the euro.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, according to latest estimates, around 16% of the population of the European Union lives on or below the poverty threshold. Last Monday, when this part-session began, we talked about homeless, abandoned, marginalised and vulnerable people who are experiencing a particularly difficult time also because of the bad weather conditions. Six hundred people have died.

This is a partial response, and while significant, it is not entirely satisfactory. The Commissioner’s statement today that a plan will be put together, which did not contain details of the content, did not put our minds at rest. However, it is important that it should have been implemented. All in all, EUR 113 million is a limited amount. It is right to continue with competitive measures that put everyone in the same position, and by everyone I mean the third-party competitors.

However, a policy with a more solid approach to this problem is necessary.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I welcome today’s decision, because approval of the Council position at first reading is an extremely important step towards releasing aid for the most deprived citizens of the Union as quickly as possible. The Council position maintains full support for the programme from EU funds. The annual ceiling for the financial contribution will, therefore, be EUR 500 million this year and next year. Key amendments suggested by Parliament have also been accepted, such as specifying the EU origin of the foods, purchasing food products on the basis of competitive procedures and reimbursing charitable organisations for the storage costs of these foods. I am pleased that representatives of the Polish Presidency were among those who helped work out a compromise in the course of extremely difficult negotiations.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, once again, this House is in full Cartesian demon mode, imagining that somehow, with this sententious declaration about the needs of the hungry, we wipe out and efface the reality of our policies. The single policy which causes most indigence and hunger in the world is the common agricultural policy, a policy which doubly affects developing countries, both by denying markets to their chief exports and then by dumping surpluses upon them.

But European policies are no longer just exporting hunger: we have now brought it into the European Union too. According to news reports, well-dressed Greeks are rummaging through dustbins and farmers are bringing food supplies into the cities to their relatives – all in order to sustain the euro.

We, comfortable and well fed here, rather than admit our mistake, are prepared to inflict this terrible price on people outside, and then we dare to pass high-minded resolutions like this and pat ourselves on the back and feel good about ourselves. I am sure you are long past trying to convince your constituents but, my friends, I think you are now past trying to fool yourselves about this.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I voted for this report but I have been disappointed at how we got to this position and indeed about what the future holds. I think it says a great deal when we see that the Council decision is to phase out the current scheme after 2013. Unfortunately, Parliament itself had no real margin for any substantial renegotiation with the Council, because of the urgency of the situation and because of the fact, of course, that this proposal has been blocked for two years.

I have to say that it is very worrying when we look at social issues, which I believe have a European dimension: issues like the distribution of food products, the continuation of the crisis derogation for the EAGGF, the micro-finance programme, etc. It is very worrying when we see that all three met significant resistance in the Council. We are told that is a matter for the Member States. Well, in Ireland, whenever we are having a debate about social policy, we often use the phrase about the difference between Boston and Berlin. If you ask me, that difference is getting less and less every day.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against the report on food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Union. The scheme clearly does provide nutritious benefit to a certain number of deprived people and I do not deny that soup kitchens, many of which receive this money, are a lifeline for the homeless. What I find difficult to reconcile is that EUR 500 million of funding for the scheme comes from the CAP and is not used by many Member States. My country, the UK, does not use the scheme at all.

I firmly believe that a scheme such as this would be better managed by the individual Member States themselves from their social security budgets, as such a policy is clearly a social policy. Funding should not be taken from the CAP and the scheme should not be delivered through the EU but left to individual national governments to decide upon as a matter of subsidiarity. I believe in the principle that the EU should be doing less and should be doing it better.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE) . – (LT) Mr President, today in plenary, I voted in favour of food distribution to the most deprived. As the European Union experiences an economic recession and the level of unemployment increases, unfortunately, so too does the number of deprived Europeans, and it is therefore important to ensure that the food aid scheme continues, alleviating the situation for the most vulnerable. It is also important for this scheme’s principal funding to be met by European Union funds. Why? Because some Member States are going through particularly difficult times and it would be too challenging for them.

In this context, other actions are also important. The European Parliament has expressed its position on the introduction of double date labelling. This could simplify the distribution of food aid, but the main thing should probably be the responsibility of Member States, i.e. ensuring that food aid really reaches those who need it most and there is no room for abuse. The Member States and relevant authorities should guarantee this.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I am the rapporteur, but I did not speak earlier, despite asking to be given the floor. I would like to say a few words. Today in the European Parliament, we have completed the decision-making process related to the continuation, in 2012 and 2013, of the programme for the free distribution of food to the most deprived persons in Europe. This was possible thanks to the achievement of an agreement in Council during the Polish Presidency. The European Union provides EUR 500 million annually for the programme, which benefits 18 million needy people in 20 countries that have asked to be included. This means that the Union does remember the poorest and the excluded and that it puts the idea of human solidarity into practice on an everyday basis.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the continuation of this programme, which has been in operation for 25 years. We must do everything to carry on with the programme from 2014 to 2020. We have to do this. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is drafting a resolution on the need to continue the programme. I would ask Members who are opposed to or have doubts about the programme to read the report. I think that after familiarising themselves with its contents, they will change their minds. I would also like to explain that the programme has been financed from funds which were not taken up as part of the CAP.

Recommendation for second reading: Gunner Hökmark (A7-0019/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the EU radio spectrum policy makes sensible proposals in line with the digital switchover and will help Member States in driving innovation through the release of funds whilst safeguarding services at local level. Without doubt, the radio spectrum could be used more efficiently as we complete the transition to digital.

We need to ensure that the bandwidth previously required is now released for this spectrum to be allocated for use elsewhere. Measures which facilitate access to broadband in rural areas are to be welcomed. I know that this recommendation and subsequent actions will be particularly beneficial to my constituents in Wales, as there is currently a severe lack of broadband coverage in some of our more remote areas – a situation which needs to be urgently remedied.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to offer wholehearted support to the agreement between Parliament and the Council on radio spectrum policy. The agreement will enable the Union to take the global lead on broadband speeds. In practice, on 1 January 2013, the 800 MHz band will be freed up throughout the Union for wireless broadband Internet services. By 2015, at least 1 200 MHz will be allocated for mobile data traffic, which means that in the next few years, a completely new market will emerge in the Union with telecoms services on a new scale. This is very important for the people who live in the Union and for technological advance in all 27 of the Member States which make up the Union today.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, in contrast to many of the other subjects which we debate here in Parliament, developing broadband communications really is a European topic. The overall scope of the services which are dependent on radio frequencies is estimated to be around EUR 200 billion per year in the EU. For many users, ranging from telephone services and radio, traffic applications, the energy and research and development sectors, cultural organisations and the police through to people in rural areas, access to radio frequencies is essential.

The decisive factor here is a coordinated EU-wide approach, because it is clear that frequency usage continues to differ significantly, in particular, in border regions. Some frequencies which could be used for radio communications in Germany are used for television or for military purposes in Poland or the Czech Republic. This means that when the police follow suspects across the German-Polish border, they are no longer able to communicate by radio after travelling for 5 km. A European approach could be helpful in this respect.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I voted against the motion for amendment on rejecting the Council’s position. The EU’s frequency policy is a source of its competitiveness, and I therefore agree that the European Union should strive to take the lead in respect of the speed, mobility, coverage and capacity of broadband services. The legislative proposal reflects the emergence of a threefold set of priorities, which are consumers, content and competition. Consumers’ increased demand for services is an indication that additional frequencies are required in terms of both capacity and coverage.

Content, that is, universal access to digital services, facilitates the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Under efficient spectrum policy, consumers are free to choose between providers, which results in healthy competition. The method of selling frequencies varies from one country to another, and I believe that a common allocation mechanism is necessary. Finally, we must not forget that a well-elaborated spectrum policy and the broadening of frequencies is also one of the prerequisites for the growth of cultural and creative industries.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted alongside my group, the ECR, in favour of the report on the first programme of the radio spectrum policy. With the freeing up of a certain amount of the radio spectrum following the digital switchover, the spectrum can now be used more efficiently and we believe the proposals put forward by this report outline an effective way in which this can be achieved.

We back this proposal as we feel that its attempt to coordinate certain spectrum use is useful and it is done in such a way that it leaves enough flexibility to the individual EU Member States. This means that services can still be protected at a local level and also that innovation is not hampered as a result. I particularly welcome the fact that more Wi-Fi coverage for broadband Internet access is a development that may come about as a result of these proposed changes.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, I welcome today’s recommendation on radio spectrum policy harmonising the 800 MHz band across the EU because its value in terms of distance and penetrability enables access to broadband and will allow people in the remotest of areas across Europe to have access to faster Internet speeds.

Indeed, within the UK Conservative Party, we feel very strongly that broadband Internet is vital for growth, which is why we are aiming to vastly increase the number of households with access to super-fast broadband. We are looking to follow world leaders in the field, particularly in Asia, who have taken measures to open up competition in this sector, so that we can become European leaders ourselves.

This is a particular interest of mine as I represent the East Midlands region of England, where 88% of the land is classified as being rural, containing 30% of the East Midlands population. Initiatives such as this go a long way towards assisting individuals in their work and their daily lives and helping business to develop, and this is why I and my political group support this regulation.

Report: James Nicholson (A7-0262/2011)

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for this report because I am already starting to think about the next period, after 2015, when the milk quotas will come to an end and everything will be diversified. In order to secure a stable future for the sector, the bargaining power of producers needs to be strengthened, which should lead to a more equitable distribution of added value along the supply chain.

As well as formalising the contracts, the proposal is that farmers should collectively negotiate the terms of the contracts, including the price, through producer associations. At the same time, it is important to recognise the interprofessional organisations, which should play an important role in encouraging dialogue within the supply chain.

However, the nature of the contracts remains the most contentious issue between the Council and Parliament, and I hope that in the future, it will be possible for this to be clarified further.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, I come from a milk-producing region: Galicia. Today, Galician agriculture specialises in producing milk which is, for the most part, collected and processed by foreign companies. As has happened in other European countries, the agricultural sector there survives today because of heavy investment in innovation in order to be able to compete in the single market. When Spain entered the EU, 20% of jobs in Galicia were in the primary sector. Today, that percentage has dropped by more than half.

My region is having to make traumatic sacrifices for the benefit of other, more powerful countries, since the allocation of milk quotas has been much lower than its production capacity. I am voting against this report because the awarding of contracts in this report is aimed solely at the industrial dairies, as it does not require that increases in production costs and payments to producers to remunerate them fairly for their work be included in the contracts. Without public control of production to ensure a match between supply and demand, producers will have to face price volatility and the ruin of thousands of farms. It is unacceptable that the Commission does not have an up-to-date study on the impact of the quotas.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the report on contractual relations in milk and the milk products sector addresses the issue of the lack of bargaining power that smaller farmers have when they negotiate the price of their milk with retailers in particular.

Farmers in Wales should have greater bargaining power and control over the price they receive for their milk. This has become ever more important as the number of dairy farmers in Wales has halved over the past decade, from 4 000 to 2 000 farms. It is right that contracts should continue to remain voluntary at national level, and the Welsh Government could intervene in this way should that be deemed necessary. However, I would be opposed to introducing a mandatory EU-wide contract, as this would only increase the bureaucratic burden for Member States and farmers alike.

For those Member States that choose to impose contracts, it is sensible to require certain conditions to be met relating to the price to be paid and the duration of the contract. This would be particularly important for farmers in giving them a better sense of certainty and stability in the current economic climate. An increase of only a few pence per litre in the average price for milk would significantly change the economic position of the dairy sector in Wales and secure its future.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I welcome this report and I would like to thank Mr Jim Nicholson for the hard work he has done on it. However, a lot more needs to be done to obtain fair prices for dairy farmers. This report is important because it is the first step towards strengthening farmers’ marketing power and changing the rules to allow farmers to set their own contractual terms with dairies in relation to various matters, especially in relation to prices. Currently, farmers must deal with very powerful companies who want to obtain the very best produce, on the one hand, but also pay a lower price, on the other. Farmers must also give cheap credit while becoming overdrawn on their personal bank accounts. In terms of milk quotas, we must do a lot more to secure a soft landing given the pressure farmers will be under when this new policy is implemented.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, in recent years, there have, unfortunately, been many events that have had a significant negative impact on the milk and milk products sector and that have also led to price volatility. The European market for milk and its products requires a new, flexible legal framework, the strengthening of contractual relations, the protection of the rights of producers, and a fairer distribution of value-added along the supply chain.

Competition in the market will also contribute to the revitalisation of the sector, which is suffering from certain actors abusing their dominant position. I firmly believe that protecting the legitimate interests of producers is closely linked with promoting prosperity in rural areas, because many European regions, often the most vulnerable, are directly dependent on the production of milk and milk products.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the compromise reached on the milk package creates a satisfactory framework for contractual relationships in the dairy sector. I am pleased that we have succeeded in finding effective solutions for some of the central issues. One matter which was particularly important to me with regard to the milk producers who are affected was that Member States will, in future, be able to decide for themselves whether or not they introduce compulsory contracts.

Overall, these rules will put milk producers in a stronger position and improve the current situation.

However, we now need to prepare dairy farmers for the end of milk quotas. This means that dairy farmers must realise that the milk market is a market and must take a market economy-based approach. We must introduce mechanisms which allow farmers to regulate the amount of milk on offer depending on the price.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, as amended, because it encourages farmers to come together and increase their collective power within the supply chain. Large retailers have too much buying power and take a disproportionate amount of profit. This is an imbalance within the supply chain which must be addressed, and which impacts on the small family-owned farms characteristic of Northern Ireland.

The future of the common agricultural policy, and ensuring ‘safety nets’, must also be a priority in order to protect producers when the market fails. The safe landing for the industry which was promised after 2015, when quotas are to end, is another area which the Commission must look at and plan for. If we experience a dramatic increase in milk production which consequently reduces milk prices within the EU, we must have clear guidance as to how the Commission intends to protect producers. Altogether, this is a good start on the issues within the dairy sector. There is much more work to be done.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, the milk and milk products sector has been undergoing a terrible crisis for some years now, but there are internal imbalances that this report and its amendment – which I supported from the start – will determine to a lesser extent, by influencing how it works and putting an end to these internal imbalances, or at least remedying them in part together with other instruments.

This measure has been produced by the working group set up by Mr Cioloş, which produced some instruments for restoring balance to the added value for all operators in the supply chain.

In specific terms, the terms and conditions of contracts will have determined characteristics of form, requirements and duration, which will mainly be useful to producers. One important element will concern raw milk processed in less favoured areas (LFAs), mountainous areas, intermediate areas and islands, where any transfer of milk from areas which are not LFAs must be authorised in advance.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I supported this report by Jim Nicholson on the milk sector and I agree strongly with the fact that producers need much greater bargaining power. They are the weakest link in the chain: they are price takers, not price makers. Given that in 2015, there will be a major shift with the ending of quotas, we need to ensure a more stable future for the sector and, in this context, the bargaining power of producers is absolutely crucial. I also believe that the introduction of voluntary contracts is certainly preferable to introducing mandatory ones.

Finally, a soft landing for the ending of milk quotas is essential. It is worth noting that overall production in the EU is 6% below the quota but in some countries – like my own – that is not the case. In this context, it makes sense to find an overall EU solution, and that certainly should include some form of soft landing so that dairy farmers in all EU countries can look to a sustainable future.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted alongside my group, the ECR, in favour of the report on contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector. We believe that the report serves to address some concerns about the lack of bargaining power for farmers – yes, there are even some dairy farmers in the London region, which I represent – when negotiating with processors or retailers, and we back the move to recognise formally any inter-branch organisation at Member State level, provided they meet certain criteria.

EU Member States are left the choice to opt into the contracts, which we as a group also believe is extremely important. We believe that the proposals put forward in this report for those states that choose to comply are satisfactory and that the percentages requested for producer organisations are also realistic. Overall, we believe that the proposals in this report will not serve to lessen competition in the milk sector, which would be our main concern and which we would, of course, oppose as a group.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0016/2012

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, it is acceptable for 27 borrowers, all of whom are creditworthy, to get together to take out a joint loan and, as a result, to obtain better terms from the bank. Eurobonds could function in a similar way to this and I would like to say once again at this point that for me, Eurobonds are a fair-weather tool.

However, if some of the 27 bank customers are not creditworthy, then mixed financing is needed and the borrowers who are in a better position will simply have to accept less favourable terms. This means that we first of all need to clarify the ground rules in Europe. We must implement the stability criteria and then we can ultimately bring in Eurobonds as the icing on the cake, so to speak. Since we have not yet reached this point in the European Union, I was not able to vote in favour of this motion and this report.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, today’s vote is a first step in the direction of economic governance in Europe, as hoped for by Mr Delors as early as 1993. The introduction of Eurobonds, which I hope will come about within a reasonable timeframe, is part of a wider process that will lead the countries in the euro area to strengthen the coordination and achieve the integration of their economic and fiscal policies.

The three options indicated in the European Commission’s Green Paper propose three different types of Eurobond, with a decreasing degree of solidarity between Member States. The serious economic crisis we are currently experiencing shows that no country is safe from financial speculation. To sceptics, I say that Eurobonds are, to date, the only practical answer to reviving growth and development in Europe. This is why I voted in favour.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Mr President, I have today voted against the introduction of stability bonds. It is deeply problematic if we believe that stability bonds can resolve the economic crisis in Europe. We need reforms in order to create jobs. We need Member States to stop spending more money than they earn. Overspending over many years is the cause of the sovereign debt crisis and the markets’ lack of confidence in countries’ ability to pursue a responsible policy in order to be able to pay back the money that has been borrowed. This problem will not be solved by stability bonds. Taxpayers’ money must be spent in a smarter way in the Member States on research, innovation and education, and social welfare payments have got to be reduced. Believing that we can resolve the whole situation simply by lending more money without investing in the future will not help at all.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I think this resolution on stability bonds is a realistic and pragmatic approach to ensuring that we have a firewall to prevent future crises. I support the call for a European redemption pact. While it has its limitations, at least it is an effort to deal with the serious overhang of debt which is smothering recovery in many countries, including my own.

Yes, in Ireland we must deal with our deficit, but guaranteeing our banks in order to prevent contagion in other EU banks has meant that our debt-to-GNP ratio will increase to at least 147%, so without a redemption pact or some other mechanism, it simply means that Irish citizens will be unable to pay for casino banking in our own and other countries.

It is interesting that this mountain of debt was not just our own choice. Mario Draghi, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, refuses to publish a letter sent by his predecessor, Jean-Claude Trichet, to our Finance Minister on the bailout, and I am just wondering why. Will this show us the real face of the ECB, and what responsibility might this letter put on the ECB? So I am calling on Mario Draghi and the ECB to reverse this decision so that European citizens can see how Europe really works.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, in any crisis, the first instinct of the Eurocrat is to reach for his wallet – or rather to reach for somebody else’s wallet, because of course, as we know in this Chamber (although this is not widely known outside), employees of the European Union are exempt from paying national taxation. So somebody else is picking up the bill in order to cover this error.

It is a policy of excessive monetary integration and a policy of excessive spending that brought us to this pass; we are not going to get out of it by accelerating the very things that led us here. It really does seem extraordinary – even by the standards of this organisation – that the one solution we have to a debt crisis is more debt. We have got like a runaway train into this kind of momentum: bailout and borrow, bailout and borrow. There comes a point when you run out of track, and I think we have reached that point now.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, when we look at the state of the economies across the EU and even at many households – including in my own country of the United Kingdom – we see the consequence of Member States and their people living beyond their means.

It is therefore unwise, against this backdrop – which has entailed a more accountable lending process being instituted – for us to suggest a break or lessening in the link between the Member State and the investor in bond markets through the pooling of sovereign issuance. Irresponsibility put us into the financial quagmire we now find ourselves in, and my concern with stability bonds would be that irresponsibility would be given greater dispensation and investor confidence would be further diminished.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against EU stability bonds, or Eurobonds, as they fail to address the central problem: the euro itself. It is clear the euro is a dangerous and failed construct, and no political posturing or economic gesturing gets us away from the basic truth that the euro is disastrous for the world economy. The sooner troubled nations like Greece devalue and default, the better.

The cure is now more dangerous and deadly than the malady. Is there no end to these desperate measures to prop up this political currency?

The trampling of democracy in Greece, Italy and elsewhere by the EU’s new inner politburo, the Frankfurt Group, so that Europe erupts in flames. Barroso and Van Rompuy going cap in hand to China for rescue funds – and at what price? Gerrymandering Lagarde into the IMF so the IMF is misused as a new euro bailout fund. Weimar-like plans to print EUR 2 trillion to buy rubbish bonds; new wheelbarrows to carry all the notes. For God’s sake, for all our sakes, let the euro go.

  Martin Kastler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted against the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds. The name has been changed, but the content remains the same. These are Eurobonds.

We have now reached a stage in Europe where we need to ask ourselves the fundamental question of how Europe is to go forward. The Italian Prime Minister, Mr Monti, said today in a guest article in Germany that we need to ‘rethink democracy’. To this, I would add that we must ‘rethink Europe’. We must do this if we want to carry the citizens of Europe along with us. I believe that referendums are an important instrument. We need citizens to become increasingly involved in Europe, not only in the Member States, but also at a European level. This will enable us to discuss the major issues currently facing us which have led us into this crisis. It will take us further forward than simply tabling new motions for resolutions to distribute ever larger debts among ourselves. Every country is responsible for its own debts. We should not be transferring debts from one state to another.

Report: Marije Cornelissen (A7-0021/2012)

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I was able to vote in favour of this report with a clear conscience because Parliament took a very wise approach and voted against a few points which had seriously bothered me. I am thinking here about the punishments for countries which have a current account surplus to encourage them to take measures to abolish the surplus. Current account surpluses occur not only because one country is very good, but also because the others are very bad. We need a measure which will help the bad countries to make faster progress and to emulate those at the top of the list. That must be our goal.

Secondly, Parliament has recognised that private employment services are also very important and, therefore, has included them in the work which it is doing. I would like to mention one point which did not receive a great deal of attention during the debate. This is paragraph 13, which clearly calls for the European Parliament finally to make use of its right under the Treaty of Lisbon and for the national governments to do the same. The catastrophic situation we are currently in has been caused by the constant intergovernmental cooperation which has never been successful. The solution is here in this Parliament.

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, one of the most important issues highlighted by the European Union Growth Survey 2012 is the serious need for new and stronger social and employment policies, especially for young people. A country with a high level of youth unemployment is a country destined to perish.

In my country, Italy, the statistics are frightening. According to Eurostat data for November 2011, the youth unemployment rate is 30.1%. Young people who are often highly qualified with plenty of energy and motivation are allowed to wither away by a system where gerontocracy has become the norm.

The Commission’s commitment in allocating EUR 82 billion from unused Structural Funds to stimulate growth and youth unemployment is a good step that needs to be made in the right direction. Investing in young people means investing in the future. Guaranteeing work for young Europeans means guaranteeing a future for us all.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, I agree with the premise of this report that all Member States should be seeking to find ways to foster growth in order to get us out of this crisis. Ideally, the Annual Growth Survey would work in parallel with the economic governance package and the EU could add value by coordinating what is being done at the Member State level.

However, in this report, Parliament has decided instead to focus on broad-sweeping EU schemes and taxation, including the ludicrous financial transaction tax. Worse, it tries to come up with an EU approach to things like unemployment, as though it can be solved by some EU silver bullet. The reasons behind unemployment and the measures Member States may use to tackle it are culturally specific and market-specific. Other groups may be happy to agree to an EU policy. I am not.

  Joseph Cuschieri (S&D). – (MT) Mr President, in the separate vote taken on clause 29 of the Cornelissen report, I have voted against. I do not agree with the European Council establishing a tax on financial transactions. I have opposed this tax on account of the fact that the financial services sector in Malta accounts for around 15% of the country’s GDP and provides some 6 000 jobs in this sector. It is neither in the country’s interest nor in that of Maltese and Gozitan workers to increase taxes in this sensitive sector of the Maltese economy. This measure can lead to the delocalisation of financial activity away from Malta, with the consequence that instead of retaining capital and cash in the Maltese financial sector, these would be moved out into some other country.

I have also voted in favour of the remaining clauses of this report since, at a time of fiscal consolidation, this report addresses the creation of sustainable jobs through investment, an improvement in job quality, investment in education and training and combating poverty and social exclusion, and also the participation of workers in the labour market.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because the European Semester should include policies to create jobs. I share the concerns about high youth unemployment. In my country, it affects about 77 000 people aged up to 25 years. I believe that the introduction of a guarantee for young people to avoid prolonged unemployment is a timely measure. I would like to emphasise the usefulness of programmes that ensure transition from education to first employment.

I would like to point out in this context that Romania improved the apprenticeship law last year in order to facilitate labour market entry for young people. Appropriate programmes are required in order to support SMEs, including by reducing bureaucracy. I also welcome the focus on promoting worker mobility, but also on increasing the employment rate among women.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against this report because it aims to strengthen employment policy and economic governance at European level. These are clearly Member State competences, and this is the way it must stay. I also took exception to the report’s needless call for a tax on financial transactions to enhance sustainable job creation. This Parliament insists on a tax which will only damage the European economy. This Parliament is hell-bent on destroying the financial service industry in my constituency of London, and again, this Parliament refuses to listen to Member States that do not want to and will not accept this tax.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the Annual Growth Survey presented by the Commission covers priorities in the areas of the budget, economic policy, employment, social rights and reforms. In so doing, it stresses action as part of fiscal policy to mitigate the effects of the crisis and the negligence of public administration. The role of Parliament in the process related to the European Semester is, unfortunately, restricted to giving an opinion on the Commission’s guidelines on employment. The report in question only expresses a desire to increase that role.

I am critical of the proposal to oblige Member States which have a current account surplus to prevent a recessionary spiral by increasing internal demand. Another controversial matter is the call for the Commission to use gender disaggregated data in their reports. The call to set up a tax on financial transactions is worrying, while the implementation and enforcement of anti-discrimination measures will only cause an increase in legal regulation. In view of these matters and a number of other doubts, I voted to reject the report.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, at a time of weakened economic growth and increased uncertainty among citizens, the European Union must focus its attention on addressing the pressing social consequences of the crisis, which exacerbate poverty and social exclusion. Unemployment has risen sharply since 2008 and has reached the level of 23 million unemployed in the EU, while young people in particular face an employment rate of more than 20%. Some statistics give a higher figure. I am concerned by the fact, for example, that during the 2008-2010 period, the total number of unemployed young people in the EU increased by fully 1 million. In the context of recession, the priority objective of the EU must therefore remain the effort to preserve jobs and create new employment and, at the same time, to bring qualifications and skills into line with the current requirements of the labour market. That is why I have supported this report.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, the terms ‘growth’ and ‘employment’ roll off the tongue quite easily, but it is the policy pursued by Europe which is denying employment and denying economic growth to many of its citizens.

The euro area crisis is causing unemployment to rise across Europe. In Spain, there is over 40% youth unemployment and in Greece 50%. Within the economic straitjacket of the euro, what hope and what future do these young people have in an economy that simply will not grow while tied to the euro project? This is the scandal of President Barroso, the Commission and the euro establishment. It is a scandal that is manifesting itself in Greece in violence, and in the Greek Parliament where euro bureaucrats are pre-eminent over elected representatives.

I voted against this report also because of its support for a financial transaction tax, supposedly to support employment and growth. In reality, it will be a raid on the United Kingdom tax base to prop up the euro area’s profligate spending. If Europe is serious about employment and growth, it could start with very simple measures like cutting red tape and helping SMEs, but it certainly will not do it with the measures outlined in this report.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, I have opposed this own-initiative report on employment and social aspects of the Annual Growth Survey for the reason – amongst others – that it continues to support a European and not a global financial transaction tax. The report calls on the European Council to set up a tax on financial transactions to enhance sustainable job creation. I am afraid that this cannot even be considered by politicians claiming to represent the interests of the British people.

In fact, it is also ridiculous to talk of job creation as a result of such a tax, which would have a disastrous effect on some of the 1.9 million people employed in our financial sector in the City of London and beyond. I will not vote in favour of a report which proposes a tax that could harm jobs for the people from my constituency in the East Midlands, many of whom commute to London every day. It is time for the rest of Europe to wake up and realise that Britain will defend her interests and will not be bullied into accepting disproportionate responsibility for euro area failure.

(Applause)

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Mr President, there is a saying in Latvian that you cannot extract money from a beggar, however hard you try. In Europe as a whole, the greatest challenge we have at the moment is to increase economic activity and provide prosperity to our people. It is very important for us to take these austerity measures to put the budgets of our Member States in order, but we also need growth.

There are many people who think that the only path to growth is for Member States to print even more money, in order to stimulate the economy, but this would be at the cost of borrowed money, and is not the right path. The right path to foster growth is two-fold. Firstly, Member States must make the structural reforms required to reduce overall government spending. Secondly, we must continue to improve Europe’s single internal market, removing obstacles to cross-border activity. Ladies and gentlemen, without economic growth, we shall not have prosperity in Europe.

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0018/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we spent a long time discussing this report, and there is much in there on growth and innovation that I support. However, I cannot accept the central conclusion of this report, namely, that we need to change the EU Treaty in order to give Parliament codecision rights over the Annual Growth Survey.

I am not convinced that this is something we should be legislating for. It is fundamentally a matter for Member States and not a policy area where Parliament would add any value. I find it concerning that, yet again, the European Parliament is navel-gazing over its institutions and the interaction between them instead of seeking proportionate responses to the current crisis.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I do think that in the current economic situation in Europe, carrying out analyses of growth planned for 2012 is a good idea. However, an obvious weakness of this analysis is that it concentrates mainly on the financial and debt crisis. Measures to stimulate growth are only to be seen in the background. Also omitted are measures which would support employment by stimulating investment in the Union. I am worried, in particular, by the lack of measures to create Eurobonds for funding key infrastructure projects. For Member States like Poland, and for provinces like mine – the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Province – this may mean problems in the future with development and securing growth in employment.

Written explanations of vote

Recommendation: Timothy Kirkhope (A7-0013/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) The Schengen area, which brings together 22 EU Member States and four non-EU states (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein), offers its inhabitants the opportunity to move freely. The abolition of internal borders between these States in favour of a single external border leads them to harmonise their external border controls and step up their police and judicial cooperation. It is vital to associate these four non-EU States fully if we want to fulfil the objective underpinning the Schengen agreements, namely, the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. I therefore supported their participation in the work of the committees that assist the European Commission in the implementation of the Schengen acquis.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this recommendation, as it is vital to step up EU cooperation with, in this case, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland, particularly with regard to one of the most important legislative achievements of the EU, namely, the Schengen Agreement. At present, it is all the more important that we facilitate dialogue between countries, and between countries and the institutions, so that the EU runs smoothly and so that the objectives of the Treaties can be achieved in full.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this important result of negotiations with the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. I support the final outcome of the agreement by which, among other activities, the associated states will be associated as observers with the work of the current and future Comitology committees assisting the Commission in Schengen matters. I also support a Joint Declaration which stresses that this specific association shall not be regarded as a legal or political precedent for any other field of cooperation between the European Community and those countries.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Schengen area, which simplifies the everyday lives of our peoples and our companies by opening the internal borders of the European Union to people, capital and services, got bigger today. Indeed, I supported the request by Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway, countries at the heart of Europe but which do not belong to the European Union, to become associated states of the Schengen acquis. This text aims to formalise their participation in the process of drafting texts within the Schengen Comitology committees, made up of representatives of the governments of associated states, of the Council of Ministers and of the European Commission. The latter, in particular, have the opportunity to raise problems that any particular measure suggests to them and to provide answers to problems faced by the other delegations. They also enjoy the right to make suggestions. However, insofar as they only participate in drawing up actions, ‘the associated states do not vote within the Schengen Comitology committees, and withdraw when these committees proceed to the vote’, rapporteur, Timothy Kirkhope, reminds us.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The Schengen area is tangible evidence of European cooperation and integration. Enlargement of this arrangement to cover the entire European Economic Area has contributed to a strengthening of mutual relations between different countries of the continent. Unrestricted freedom of movement throughout Europe is the undisputed and greatly valued privilege of every citizen.

For implementation of the Schengen acquis to be effective, it is essential for there to be permanent cooperation with the signatories from outside the Union. The participation of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers in this area therefore seems obvious. By signing the agreement, we will enable these countries to take part in policy discussions concerning regulation of the Schengen area and to present their position and report problems. In accepting the resolution, I express consent to conclusion of the recommended arrangement.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The association agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union, on the one hand, and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway, on the other, resulted in the establishment of a mixed committee consisting of representatives of the governments of these countries. Consequently, the representatives of the associated states participate in mixed committees that meet as Council working groups, with extensive participation of representatives of the associated states. At Coreper (Committee of Permanent Representatives) or Council level, these are chaired alternately for six-month periods by representatives of the European Union and by the representative of the government of the associated state. Participation in the mixed committee gives the associated states the timely opportunity to express any concerns regarding developments in the Schengen acquis, which must be adopted by all the associated states, and the implementation of this acquis. Following discussions in the mixed committee, the measures taken to develop the Schengen acquis are adopted by the Council and the European Parliament through the appropriate decision-taking procedure laid down in the Treaties.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Although I do not support the extension of the Schengen acquis, I do, however, believe that EFTA Member States, in this case Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, have the right to join any compact they wish to without UK interference. I therefore chose to abstain from this vote.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the conclusion of this agreement between the EU and the four Schengen-associated states; namely, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This will enable these countries to participate in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. In my view, this agreement is important because it seeks to ensure greater consistency, while at the same time guaranteeing that all associated states are treated the same. The participation of the associated states gives them the opportunity to express, in good time, their ideas and concerns about the implementation of the Schengen acquis or potential changes thereto. The enlargement of the Schengen area to countries that are not EU Member States has brought significant economic benefits for European countries, as well as immediate practical results for the daily lives and travel of the European public.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the conclusion of this agreement between the EU and the four Schengen-associated states; namely, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This will enable these countries to participate in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. The conclusion of this agreement is of the utmost importance in ensuring greater consistency, while at the same time guaranteeing that all associated states are treated the same. The participation of the associated states gives them the opportunity to express, in good time, their ideas and concerns about the implementation of the Schengen acquis or potential changes thereto. However, their participation is restricted to contributing to the drafting of decisions; they cannot participate in the decision-making process itself, as they do not have the right to vote. They will be subject to a set of rules and obligations that will allow them real participation as observers, and they may also contribute financially to the administrative costs arising from their participation in the Schengen Comitology committees.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this agreement, which authorises the participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the work of the committee on the implementation of the Schengen acquis. This limiting and regulated participation will strengthen the EU area of freedom, security and justice and will make it possible to identify more quickly problems related to police and judicial cooperation as well as to the control of the external borders of Europe.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today’s vote aims to endorse the participation of the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation, which assist the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. Parliament has thus given its consent to the representatives of these associated states being able to comment on any proposed measure constituting a development of the Schengen acquis, or voice any problems encountered in implementing these measures. In addition, each of these associated states will decide on the transposition of all measures adopted by the Schengen Comitology committee procedures concerning the implementation and development of the Schengen acquis, thereby confirming the rules set out in the basic association agreements. This is a good thing.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I consider that as Schengen-associated states, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland should be involved in the procedure which assists the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the application and development of the Schengen acquis. Likewise, these states should also be involved in the reform process of the Schengen governance which is currently being negotiated, but which, unfortunately, faces opposition from several Member States.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the recommendation on the participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland and the Schengen acquis, as I consider it positive that there is agreement between the EU and these countries on their participation in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities, in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The participation of the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation in the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities, in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, is of the utmost importance for the complete transparency of information and, as such, for the security of the citizens of EU Member States and countries subject to the Schengen Agreement.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union, of the one part, and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other, on these countries’ participation in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. The Schengen Agreement, concluded in 1985 and integrated into EU law by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, establishes a geographical area of free movement of people, abolishing internal borders between signatory countries, and provides for cooperation and coordination between police services and the judicial authorities. The agreement provides for the participation of the associated states, as observers, in the work of current and future committees that assist the Commission through certain rights and obligations, including the payment of a financial contribution. Given that the participation of the aforementioned countries is provided for in the Agreement on the European Economic Area or based on the exchange of letters annexed to the association agreement with Switzerland, I am voting for this recommendation.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985 and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement was adopted in 1990. The agreement’s objectives were to abolish internal border controls between signatory states and create a single external border with common rules on external border controls and a common visa policy, and to establish police and judicial cooperation and to create the Schengen Information System.

We have always criticised this approach of building a ‘Fortress Europe’, which fosters and fuels the growth of racism and xenophobia, of other forms of intolerance, and of authoritarian and anti-democratic practices.

In the same way, we have criticised the security-focused, criminalising, exploitative and selective immigration policy. We advocate an immigration policy that respects immigrants’ rights, in particular, regarding access to work, health care and education. Despite these long-standing stances, we believe that the decision to join the Schengen acquis should arise from a sovereign choice by the countries in question; a view which we have also held for a long time. That is why we abstained.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Parliament, taking into account the draft Council decision and the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of these States in the work of committees assisting the Commission in exercising its powers in relation to the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, and also with regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, has granted approval for the conclusion of the agreement. It also authorises its President to convey this position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome the adoption of this report in my capacity as the Chairman of the European Parliament’s delegation to Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee. The arrangement provides for the participation by the Schengen-associated states in the work of the committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. The arrangement provides that the associated states will be associated as observers with the work of the current and future Comitology committees assisting the Commission in Schengen matters. The list of the Schengen Comitology committees will be regularly updated by the Commission and will be published in the Official Journal. Consequently, the arrangement establishes clear rights and obligations to ensure effective participation by the associated states in the Schengen Comitology committees.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Kirkhope report. By adopting this report, Parliament has given its consent to an arrangement made between the European Union, the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by these States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the implementation of the Schengen acquis. The arrangement adopted provides for these States to be associated with the work as observers, albeit without voting rights. Furthermore, they will be asked to make a financial contribution to administrative expenses. Finally, this arrangement contains a joint declaration which provides that this association shall not be regarded as a legal or political precedent for any other field of cooperation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. This is a consultation procedure to give the consent to the 2012 rollover of the guidelines for the Member States’ employment policies initially adopted in 2010. The aim is that the employment guidelines remain stable until 2014 to ensure a focus on implementation.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This arrangement, which has been under negotiation since 2006, associates the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis by the European Commission and the committees which assist it. It is right that these Schengen countries can comment on the application of the Schengen acquis that concerns them. These States will be able to participate in the work of the committees as observers and to voice any problems encountered. To associate all the countries participating in the Schengen area is also to work for greater uniformity in the application of the Schengen acquis.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the committees which assist the Commission in developing and implementing the Schengen acquis provides these associated states with the opportunity to express any objections to the application of the provisions concerned. Thus, these states participate in the development of the relevant legislation, but not in the decision taking. Therefore, it is necessary to formalise their association to the Schengen Comitology, following an appropriate procedure. The proposal for a decision in this regard is welcomed in order to ensure equal treatment of the associated states as observers, through a single agreement and based on clearly defined rights and obligations. The final decision on the implementation of the measures adopted by the committees is taken by each state individually, as stipulated by the original terms of the association agreements. As a Romanian Member of the European Parliament, I hope that the principle of equal treatment will be respected in all aspects of the Schengen process, including in the acceptance of the accession of states that have already fulfilled all formal criteria.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As they are participating in the Schengen Agreement, these countries also have to contribute to its development by actively participating in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. That is why I voted in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The arrangement between the European Community and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis should be concluded. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) For many Norwegians, the main reason for voting against joining the EU in 1994 was that this allowed them to retain their self-determination and democracy. Just as the Swiss did, they preferred to access the EU market only via the European Economic Area (EEA). A report on the 18-year Norwegian membership came to the conclusion that Brussels is exerting pressure on Norway by means of its access to the EEA. Switzerland has also made a similar accusation on the occasion of a variety of amendments. This is unacceptable. Nevertheless, there is nothing in this report which prevents me from voting in favour of it.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Schengen system currently comprises 22 EU countries and four non-member States – Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. The non-member States are integrated into the Schengen system on the basis of association agreements. These agreements set up a mixed committee consisting of representatives of the governments of the associated states, and of the Council of the European Union and the Commission. Consequently, the representatives of the associated states participate in the activities of the mixed committees, which meet in the form of Council working groups enlarged by the representatives of the associated states. In Coreper or the Council, these groups are chaired alternately for six-month periods by a representative of the European Union and by a representative of the government of an associated state. I consider the conclusion of agreements between the European Communities and the four States on cooperation in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis to be very important, and I therefore fully support the conclusions of the vote of the LIBE Committee.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. In order to ensure consistency between and equal treatment of all associated states, I believe that it is appropriate for a single arrangement to be concluded which would grant Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland the right to participate as observers in the work of current and future committees assisting the European Commission in Schengen matters. These countries will thus be able to express themselves on any questions concerning the development or implementation of provisions of concern to them, but representatives of these countries will not take part in the voting of these committees. This would thus ensure the application and uniform implementation of the new Schengen acts or measures.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Over the last year, we have often returned to the effective application of the Schengen acquis, and on several occasions, the cornerstones of the regulation on the free circulation of citizens in European Member States have, unfortunately, been questioned or specifically debated, as in the case of Romania and Bulgaria. Parliament’s recommendation, which I fully support, involves the implementation and application of the Schengen acquis through the conclusion of an agreement between the EU countries in Schengen and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation, non-EU countries considered suitable for compliance with the minimum security standards required for free circulation.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) This particular recommendation concerns an arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. Extending the Schengen area to countries which are not EU Member States has brought about considerable economic benefits for EU Member States and direct practical results and facilities in the daily lives and movements of European citizens. Certainly, States which are not EU Member States but which participate in the Schengen area must have a voice in debates on the future and the application of the Schengen area, which is why I voted in favour of this particular report, which will be forwarded to the Council for further action.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this recommendation of the European Parliament on the draft Council decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the agreement between the EU and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation in relation to the participation of these countries in the work of the committees that help the Commission with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Following the agreements reached between the European Union, the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation regarding their participation in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, I voted in favour of the participation of the Member States belonging to the agreement in mixed committees, in order to be able to examine any issues regarding development of the Schengen acquis promptly.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Council has submitted a draft agreement between the EU and Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation to Parliament on the participation of these countries in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive powers in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. As the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has not raised any objections to the conclusion of the agreement, which may help the Schengen area to run more smoothly, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The association agreements with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland set up a mixed committee consisting of representatives of the governments of the associated states as well as of the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities. Consequently, the representatives of the associated states attend mixed committees, which meet in the form of Council working groups enlarged by the representatives of the associated states. Participation in the mixed committee gives the associated states the opportunity to voice, in good time, any concerns they might have regarding developments of the Schengen acquis, which must be adopted by all the associated states, and the implementation of this acquis. After discussion in the mixed committee, the measures taken to develop the Schengen acquis are adopted by the Council and by the European Parliament through the appropriate decision-taking procedure laid down in the Treaties. Thus, the associated states participate in decision shaping but not in decision taking.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation provides for the genuine participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the work of the committees in which the Commission exercises its executive power in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. I support Parliament giving its assent to this recommendation, giving those associated states rights and obligations. The aforementioned countries have observer status in the Schengen committees, so their representatives cannot vote, although they should be informed about the acts and measures to be implemented and contribute financially to administrative costs. Finally, a joint statement has been appended, specifying that this agreement will not have repercussions in other areas. In order for the Schengen area to develop, its component countries need to meet their obligations in full. This will bring about a real European area without borders.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the effective involvement of the associated states Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway in the comitology committees in the Schengen area. This gives the associated states the opportunity to take part in formulating decisions without actually becoming involved in the decision-making process.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported Parliament’s resolution on the proposal for a Council decision regarding the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland on their participation in the work of the committees working with the European Commission in the exercising of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Schengen Agreement was established in 1985 and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement was adopted in 1990. The objectives of the Schengen Agreement were to abolish controls at the internal borders of the signatory states, to create a single external border with common rules on external border controls and a common visa policy, and to establish police and judicial cooperation and the Schengen Information System. We have always criticised this approach of building a ‘Fortress Europe’, which fosters and fuels the growth of racism and xenophobia, of other forms of intolerance, and of authoritarian and anti-democratic practices.

‘Fortress Europe’, the Europe of Schengen, is being constructed through a security-focused, criminalising, exploitative and selective immigration policy. We also advocate an immigration policy in which the Member States respect immigrants’ rights, in particular, in relation to access to work, health care and education. Despite our views, we believe that we should not make pronouncements on the choices of the countries in question, namely Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, in relation to agreements signed with the EU.

Report: Pervenche Berès (A7-0011/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Between now and 2020, there will be 73 million job openings in Europe. Nonetheless, it is essential that we think about how to fill these vacancies as efficiently as possible. I believe that this can be achieved through the provision of a skilled workforce, with training that will offer new opportunities, particularly to young people, who represent 20% of the total EU population. Let us not forget that, today, the crisis affects one in five young people.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as the guidelines suggested to support active employment policies should be the EU’s highest priority at this time. Austerity does not guarantee growth or liquidity, which would, in turn, create jobs, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ the vast majority of the EU population, and for which specific incentives should be devised. As such, the EU should ensure that all the Member States, especially those subject to Troika intervention, are able to implement these kinds of measures.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union finds itself in a highly critical situation that requires immediate, specific action. Parliament has accepted the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of Member States, adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties and in line with the Council’s conclusions at the end of January. As decided by the Council, employment policies are now, more than ever, a priority of the EU, in order to be able to deal with 23 million unemployed and revive the European economy, as well as meeting the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. I believe that coordination between Member States is fundamental, in order to develop a competent workforce throughout the EU, reduce unemployment, particularly among the young, and promote social inclusion, education, training and lifelong learning in order to reverse these effects of the crisis and combat the risk of poverty.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I endorsed the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2012, which provide for the continuation of the efforts embarked on two years ago. I support this policy, which is based on solid annual guidelines: labour market participation, the fight against social exclusion and poverty, as well as the quality and performance of education and training systems. We all agree that we need to step up our efforts to put Europe back on the road to growth and employment. However, that must not be to the detriment of the need to strengthen European economic governance and to reduce public deficits. We, centre-right Members, are convinced that we will only get out of this crisis by restoring our public finances to health in a sustainable way. Any other way of thinking is purely selfish, because it places the burden of our current well-being on the shoulders of our children, who will have to pay off our debts. Yet healthy finances do not mean decline and unemployment. Quite the contrary, they guarantee and are the necessary bases for ensuring a return to growth and full employment. I therefore insist on the need to combine a responsible economic policy and long-term growth objectives for the EU.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because the employment strategy needs to be modernised. • The EU needs a sustainable economy able to create jobs. • The reforms aimed at improving labour market flexibility and security need to be encouraged. • I would like to point out that the EU’s workforce is shrinking. Only two thirds of the active population currently have a job. • The employment rate is particularly low among women and the elderly. • The high rate of youth unemployment is also disturbing. • In this context, it is necessary to improve the performance of education and professional training systems. • Action must be taken to increase the appeal of education and professional training. • The implementation of the principles of lifelong learning is important.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Today, we are saying that the guidelines for employment laid down in 2010 are indeed still valid, but we are also saying, take heed, that this approval is not the equivalent of giving the Council and the Commission free rein: it is predicated on action. It is more than time we acted, outside austerity and budgetary rigour, to promote employment in our Member States. France, like many other EU countries, has seen a sharp rise in unemployment in recent years. We are then saying we should promote the quality of employment, develop a skilled workforce, promote education and lifelong learning, improve the quality of education and training systems, and promote social inclusion: all these objectives behind the guidelines are, more than ever before, relevant, but we want the means of achieving these objectives to be developed and made a reality. At the end of January, the Commission started something by launching a youth employment initiative. This must continue: the social consequences of the crisis are too serious for us not to devote to it all the energy and resources that we have at our disposal.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report asks for all the essential points of the programme outlined by the Council in 2010 for implementing the Europe 2020 strategy to be confirmed for this year as well. The programme contained elements about which I was sceptical at the time, and the events in Europe over the last two years have only served to reinforce my initial opposition. We now know that the measures against budgetary imbalances we were discussing in 2010 are austerity measures imposed from above that have had catastrophic effects on people, social systems and standards of living, without helping to resolve the problem in the slightest. Furthermore, there was, and continues to be, an emphasis I cannot share on the need to open up the labour market in our countries to immigration. Today, at a time of such a tough crisis, we must think, above all, and first of all, of our own citizens. I therefore voted against the report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Member States understand the needs and specifics of their own countries and, as such, should not be subject to one-size-fits-all legislation that affects the daily practices of the majority of the population and has a direct impact upon growth and economic stability. Thus far, employment policy emanating from Brussels has posed many difficulties for companies and organisations across the UK struggling to assimilate EU law into quotidian practice. It is also essential at a time of financial hardship that the legislative approach to work and productivity be dynamic in order to permit the flexibility to foster growth and develop the job market to cater for the greatest number of people. Parliament has not been consulted on the issue and has merely approved an EU-level strategy for employment, without full understanding of its potential repercussions. The regulation of employment within the UK and Wales must be fully coherent with the specific needs of the citizens affected in constituent regions and demands a targeted and measured approach that is undermined by the imposition of top-down generalised legislation. Westminster should remain the unique decision-making body on employment law, and the sole author of a development strategy for the UK, without restrictive infringement or interference from the unelected EU Commission.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) Member States’ employment policies and, especially, the creation of new jobs are among the most important aspects at this time, given that the increase in the unemployment rate has generated numerous protests in several Member States of the European Union last year and this year. I am aware of the labour market problems currently experienced in all EU Member States, which are accelerated by the financial crisis. This is why I believe that the objectives stated in the Europe 2020 strategy are very relevant in this respect. The EU must encourage Member States in their efforts to develop their economy, based on a labour market that is inclusive, highly trained, and, last but not least, meets the demands. However, the role of the Member States in this area should not be ignored either. Member States can find significant support in the European Social Fund programme that provides them with considerable sums to create an increasingly competitive labour market.

I therefore support this report and believe that these guidelines are fully justified and absolutely necessary for the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and, in particular, of the employment-related objectives.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we debated and voted on the three reports by Ms Cornelissen, Mr Gauzès and Ms Berès drafted in relation to the Annual Growth Survey 2012, proposed by the Commission last November. My vote for the report by Ms Berès reflects Parliament’s decision to adopt the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of Member States as it is consistent with the economic and social growth objectives identified in the Europe 2020 strategy, which must remain in place until they have been met. The strategy, in fact, outlines a programme for intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth, with high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because the adoption of this resolution today finally draws attention to a matter that is vital to the future of Europe. Employment has been the biggest victim of the crisis and inadequate employment policy over recent years. The situation is becoming ever worse, particularly among young people. Market reform to stimulate employment, supported by a policy of real investment geared towards the younger generation will give them a concrete response: a new plan to modernise employment, education and training systems and, ultimately, to improve individuals. The real challenge will be enabling and encouraging diverse professional experience in life, preserving and ensuring professionalism and remuneration. There is an even greater need for major changes to national labour markets, with the aim of reviving the European economy. Only making the EU more competitive will give investors greater confidence and promote the growth of new jobs.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union makes provision for the Council to lay down general economic policy guidelines and employment guidelines. These particular guidelines must serve the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy and must be in keeping with general economic policy guidelines. As the EU 2020 strategy moves in a neoliberal direction, it fails to respond to the needs of European citizens, especially European workers, and especially following the outbreak of the crisis. The basic approach is to increase competitiveness at European level by dismantling labour relations. Furthermore, the general EU economic policy approach and answer to the crisis is to impose harsh austerity programmes and to cut back labour and social rights. At the same time, unemployment has broken all records. Therefore, the employment guidelines, within their framework, are not an important tool for containing poverty and unemployment. On the contrary, they serve policies that exacerbate social exclusion and impoverish European citizens. That is why I voted against this particular report.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) Parliament’s confirmation of the guidelines for the employment policies of Member States adopted by the Council in 2010 is an act that is not completed by a mere formality, even if the committee responsible voted to follow the simplified procedure. We have had the opportunity to hold another debate on the initiatives Member States will have to adopt in order to achieve the Europe 2020 strategy objectives, and to respond, in particular, to the by now unsustainable unemployment situation that young Europeans, more than anyone else, are facing. Opportunities such as this, and the Annual Growth Survey and its transformation into ‘annual guidelines for sustainable growth’, on which we are being asked to vote, allow us to make the future of the young generations of Europeans the focus of our debate and to play an active and immediate role in the interaction between Member States and the European Commission.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates that the Member States and the EU must develop a coordinated employment strategy and promote a skilled, trained, adaptable and capable workforce, as well as labour markets able to respond rapidly to economic change. The Europe 2020 strategy proposed by the Commission for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth sets out five main objectives guiding the action of Member States, including the European employment strategy. However, in the current economic crisis, there is a risk that all this will be nothing more than words on paper. I agree that the employment guidelines adopted in 2010 should remain in place until 2014, so that efforts are focused on their implementation, and that Member States should consider using the European Social Fund to implement the guidelines on employment. Unfortunately, I cannot share the Commission's optimism in this respect, given that while most of the measures adopted, as well as some of those envisaged, are necessary, they are not sufficient, as shown by the upward tendency of unemployment at European level.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is, and has always been, a very popular social model. However, there has been a recent decline in the right to work, in social rights, and in the employment policies of Member States. I consider it essential that Member States take action at the time of the current economic crisis in order to put into practice their commitment to increase employment levels, improve individual skills and create employment opportunities with a view to reducing poverty and increasing social inclusion.

I believe that a solidarity and cohesion policy is needed at EU level, with concrete legislative, fiscal and financial measures. It is vital that Member States observe these commitments to achieve more effective exchanges of best practices and experience in the area of combating social exclusion and reducing poverty, closely in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy related to the eradication of poverty.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Pursuant to Article 145 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Member States and the EU are working towards developing a coordinated EU strategy for employment and the promotion of a skilled workforce that is qualified, well trained and adaptable. The Europe 2020 strategy puts the EU on the right track with a view to the desired sustainable, inclusive and self-perpetuating economic growth, enabling higher levels, not only of employment, but also of social cohesion, productivity and competitiveness. In the context of the objectives set out in terms of increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment, of developing a skilled workforce and promoting good-quality jobs and lifelong learning, of improving education and training performance at all levels and increasing uptake of higher education, and of promoting social integration and combating poverty, I believe that these guidelines should remain unaltered until 2014, and that any updating thereof should be strictly limited after that date. I voted for this report because I agree with the rapporteur.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report on the employment policies guidelines for the Member States because it represents an important step in maintaining the continuity of the European Union’s strategy for growth and employment, Europe 2020. I am very much looking forward to the Member States following these guidelines while adopting employment policies, in particular, because of the stress on a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce – a real engine for the future growth of Europe. In these days of economic and financial problems for the European Union, employment and growth become probably the most sensitive issues for the whole political debate. I believe that Europe should recognise job creation as a central goal for the revitalisation of our economy.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which supports the Commission proposal to launch a new employment strategy based on greater coordination of economic policy. It is worth highlighting the importance of this strategy putting sustainable growth and competitiveness at the heart of the European agenda.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As yet, there are few signs that the economic and financial crisis that began in 2009 is coming to an end. On the contrary, it is affecting countries that initially seemed to be immune. It was against this background of uncertainty over the end of the crisis that the last European Council took place. The report drafted by Ms Berès concerns the draft Council decision on the guidelines that the Member States should follow with regard to their employment policies. I welcome the measures adopted by the Council to channel funds into programmes promoting growth and employment, particularly those targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises and jobs for young people. As it is vital that the EU has a strategy for growth and employment, I voted for this report, which sets out a range of measures for combating unemployment and promoting sustainable economic growth.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs simply recommends that Parliament accept and retain the 2010 employment policy guidelines and does not propose the necessary changes to the economic and social policy that the Commission has been following. It does so as though everything were going swimmingly; as though unemployment in the EU had not risen to more than 23 million people without work; as though youth unemployment had not reached its current tragic proportions. Such levels have never before been seen in many countries, such as Portugal, which has had its highest rates of unemployment since the revolution of 1974.

In other words, through this report, drafted by a Member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Parliament is endorsing neoliberal doctrine, which it often criticises in an opportunist way. This doctrine includes promoting flexicurity, raising the retirement age and so-called ‘austerity policies’; in short, increasing the exploitation of the workers. For our part, we do not accept the continuation of these policies and demand new guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States that do not attack workers’ rights, but rather increase them and bring them into line with scientific and technical progress. We therefore voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Article 145 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the Member States and the Union shall work towards the development of a coordinated strategy for employment and, in particular, the promotion of a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce. The Europe 2020 strategy, proposed by the European Commission, will enable the Union to steer its economy towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which will be accompanied by a high level of employment, productivity and social cohesion. The European strategy for employment has the leading role in meeting the objectives of the new strategy for employment and the labour market. I am of the opinion that it is necessary that the Member States continue their efforts to address the priority areas of increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment, strive to develop a skilled workforce in line with labour market needs, and strive to promote the quality of employment and lifelong learning. I believe that the employment guidelines adopted in 2010 should remain unchanged until 2014 to ensure their uninterrupted implementation. They should be changed as little as possible, except where absolutely necessary.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD) , in writing. – (IT) Our position with regard to the Europe 2020 strategy has traditionally been a sceptical one, and the need to maintain a critical approach in relation to it seems to require reconfirmation in light of the developments that have affected Member States over the last two years. If, in 2010, the Union was being asked to take corrective action to resolve macro-economic imbalances affecting Europe, particularly in the more vulnerable Member States, in 2012, the dramatic consequences of the austerity measures introduced by this action have confirmed our original scepticism. The amendments to the proposal also introduced the objective of increasing the number of immigrant workers in the Union, an objective I do not share. I therefore voted against the proposal.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) After the adoption of several European measures aimed exclusively at imposing budgetary rigour in Europe, this vote, which confirms the validity of the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2012, is a timely reminder that Europe needs growth and employment to revitalise its economy.

That is why I voted in favour of the report by Ms Berès. Indeed, it is vitally important that we focus our efforts on combating unemployment and poverty, which are increasingly affecting EU citizens. To this end, the Member States must continue to do everything in their power to increase the participation of women and men in the labour market and to promote quality education and training for young people in accordance with the objectives of the guidelines.

Moreover, I support this report because it proposes a more democratic form of governance for the European Union in terms of economic policy than that which seeks to impose financial sanctions on the Member States, through the institution of a dialogue on economic policies between the Council and the European Parliament, with the participation of national parliaments.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am pleased that the European Parliament has approved today the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States. We need enhanced coordination of economic policy which will focus on the key areas where action is needed to use Europe’s potential for sustainable economic growth. This is important so that we can create jobs, particularly for young people.

Let us remember that the Europe 2020 strategy places particular emphasis on action for work and growth. We need the guidelines so that we can increase employment. The labour market should be open and, above all, accessible to young people. However, it is, in fact, young people who have the greatest difficulties in finding work in a labour market which is so unstable. The Member States should continue to concentrate their efforts on priority areas, and this includes efforts to reduce unemployment. A joint action plan of this kind is an effective method to find a remedy for this currently growing problem.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I welcome this report. What we need to focus on now is implementation of the guidelines. We need to ensure effective governance of the employment and social policies by the Member States. Member States should involve stakeholders, the social partners and parliamentary bodies in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the national reform programmes. Above all, we need to focus on the implementation of the guidelines in order to ensure a coordinated strategy for employment which will promote a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce. I am confident that we will achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth with a high level of employment, productivity and social cohesion throughout the EU. These employment guidelines will remain unchanged until 2014 and their updating should remain strictly limited within the three years. However, we must ensure that the integrated economic policy and employment guidelines are the main focus of the annual review of the Europe 2020 strategy

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Berès report on the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2020. The Europe 2020 strategy makes it possible to gear the economic system of the European Union towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, with a high level of social cohesion and productivity.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The proposal put forward by the European Commission sets out ambitious tasks for the whole Union in relation to combating the painful effects of the economic crisis for the European labour market. I would like to express support for the amendments proposed in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which emphasise the fundamental role of European funds in coping with the crisis and recovering stability in the labour market, and propose simplification of systems for allocating funds so that they will be an attractive form of aid for potential beneficiaries.

However, even the most appropriate strategies and guidelines will not bring the expected result without close cooperation between all the European Union’s Member States. The greatest threat to achieving the aims of this strategy seem to me to be the announcements of reductions in the resources available from the Structural Funds in the next financial framework, for the years 2014-2020, which is a clear symptom of a particularistic mindset at the expense of support for the Union as a whole. Not even the best modified legal, institutional and systemic frameworks, even though they are consistent with the guidelines we have adopted, will bring the expected improvement in the labour market without a guarantee of the funds needed for their implementation.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report because I believe that the Member States should take action in line with the economic employment policies. The definition of the framework of actions covering the period from 2010-2014 involves limited intermediate amendments, and moves towards a standard approach that will make employment policies most effective. Control and monitoring of the execution of these policies by Member States is an equally important aspect that needs to be closely borne in mind when preparing the final considerations on the issue. I am convinced that these guidelines are valid indications that help to reconcile economic and employment policies. Indeed, we should not forget the value of employment at a time when every Member State is outlining its economic policies which, as well as necessarily restrictive measures to tackle the current crisis, also need to take into account the growth and development that will take place through a new boost to employment.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE) in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, taking into account the following considerations. In view of the economic and social difficulties faced by the Member States, it is absolutely necessary to coordinate economic and employment policies. It is important that, in their national reform programmes, Member States prioritise the development of the labour market, the reduction of unemployment, especially among young people, and the creation of new jobs. Now, more than ever, we need integrated policies addressing both the economic and the social aspects.

We cannot talk of sustainable economic growth without envisaging the creation of sustainable jobs. Member States must implement appropriate fiscal policies to support investments and encourage SMEs to create jobs, as well as make effective use of the Structural Funds. Thus, by supporting SMEs and using Structural Funds, new jobs will be created and youth unemployment can be combated.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Ms Berès as, in the light of the severe economic and employment crisis afflicting Europe today, the sustainable growth objectives have become extremely important and crucial. The European Union has set itself the long-term objective of creating seventeen and a half million new jobs through a common economic policy.

In this context, we need to focus our attention on certain groups of European citizens. In particular, those who are looking for their first job, in other words, young people who are really struggling to enter the world of work, those with few qualifications and people approaching pensionable age. In my capacity as Vice-President of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I have to point out that of these, women are still marginalised and discriminated against in the workplace.

Policies to improve the budget indiscriminately affect women’s social and economic status. The policy for economic recovery proposed by the European Commission must remain a strategy for sustainable and inclusive growth, and not become exclusive as a result of the economic and financial crisis, to the detriment of women.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Berès. I agree with the Commission’s decision to maintain the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States in 2012, as per the annex to the Council decision of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which calls for the development of a coordinated strategy for employment and the promotion of skilled and trained workers across the EU. In the context of the financial crisis, it is important that a harmonised approach is adopted in order to address employment policies in the EU.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The 2011 guidelines for employment were synonymous with raising the retirement age, making the labour market more flexible and lowering wages. The terrible results of such a policy cannot have escaped Ms Berès. However, with the majority of this Parliament, she proposes maintaining them for 2012. I voted against this text, which I condemn.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Unemployment has been reaching worrying levels since 2008, with 23 million people now unemployed in the EU, which corresponds to 20% of the active population, and the EU will have to create jobs for a further 17.6 million people by 2020 if it is to hit its employment targets. In view of this, it is with concern that I am voting for this resolution. I would like to see more determination to hit the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets and to create sustainable jobs, by improving conditions for increased participation in the labour market, particularly regarding education and training.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against this report, as when it comes to growth and employment, I do not share the spirit of the 2012 Annual Growth Survey presented by the European Commission. The proposed solutions will not help to tackle the crisis, nor will they impede a generalised recession throughout the EU. Rather, they will worsen the effects of the crisis, increasing social inequalities, poverty, unemployment and the impoverishment of EU citizens. Both this survey and the EU initiatives are in line with the neoliberal policies that have led us into crisis. In the name of market confidence recovery, competitiveness and growth, salaries are being cut, the European social model destroyed and the basic rights of citizens infringed.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I am sure that continued use of the Guidelines is necessary in 2012, and I agree that EU Member States should use these Guidelines when implementing their own national employment policies. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Employment policy in the European Union is one of those areas of policy where the EU plays a coordinating role, in particular, by drawing up guidelines. However, the individual Member States are largely responsible for turning these guidelines into concrete measures and legislation. The key objectives of the new guidelines are increasing the employment rate of women to 75%, developing a labour force whose skills meet the requirements of the market, lowering the early school leaving rate to below 10%, increasing the share of people who have completed a university degree to at least 40% and combating social exclusion and poverty. I have abstained because, although the EU’s employment policy guidelines are ambitious, the requirements of the Member States in these areas carry far more weight and, therefore, need more support.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Growth and employment are certainly very sensitive issues, especially for our young people, but the way in which the Commission has presented its proposal is frankly worrying. Our warning refers to the Commission’s plan to channel up to EUR 82 billion in uncommitted EU Structural Funds into schemes to create jobs for young people and to support small firms, which could undermine trust in the EU’s regional policy. In fact, the plan proposes to use funds in specific regional projects, but without the necessary involvement of the local authorities. We have here a proposal which creates the false impression that cohesion policy was performing poorly, while noting, on the other hand, that two thirds of regional policy funding has already been used or legally committed. While supporting initiatives to increase the take-up of funds, help small firms and fight youth unemployment, it is right to wonder how the Commission’s approach could be improved: according to it, up to EUR 22 billion of allocations from the European Social Fund (a third of its budget for the 2007-2013 period) and up to EUR 60 billion in regional and cohesion funds have not yet been committed to specific projects.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported this report, as I consider it crucial that Member States immediately introduce measures to fulfil their obligations with regard to increasing employment, improving skills and reducing poverty. Unemployment remains very high in the Member States of the European Union, especially among young people, with the relevant figure already above 40% in some Member States. Such a situation, in which a large proportion of the working-age population suffers from long-term unemployment and discouragement, paralyses the European economy and saps its vitality. It is therefore essential to launch a so-called guarantee plan in cooperation with social partners, in order to ensure that every young person has the right to obtain work, an internship or training if he or she has been unemployed for four months. Instead of European companies consistently moving their manufacturing to Asia, they should devote more attention to their home region, and the European Union and its Member States should also promote this more actively.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Employment policy is one of the main factors increasing economic growth and jobs. I believe that every Member State should pay particular attention to extending flexicurity and removing obstacles to growth. Social inclusion and the fight against poverty constantly need to be strengthened and the functioning of the labour market improved. Above all, we need to increase opportunities to participate in the labour market and reduce structural unemployment. Furthermore, training systems should be adapted to the needs of the labour market and skills should be developed. Only by implementing these and other measures provided for in the employment policy guidelines throughout Europe will we create more and better quality jobs and foster employment-enhancing growth.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I am concerned about the low level of employment in the EU Member States and agree that EU policy guidelines are needed to address this issue. Youth unemployment in some countries is as high as 49%, and insecure and low paid jobs, the lack of suitably qualified workers, social exclusion and combating poverty are common challenges for EU Member States. Only by acting together and pursuing a coherent policy can we therefore ensure sustainable growth. I agree that the Member States must coordinate their national programmes and the implementation of these, and these programmes’ measures should be directed towards promoting entrepreneurship, and adapting education and training systems to market needs. We need to use money from the European Social Fund more efficiently and improve the system for granting micro-credits to small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Annual Growth Survey 2012 contains the plans for guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States. The economic crisis and the European common market’s need for measures to make it stronger and more competitive have brought about one of the most serious social problems of the present and the future: unemployment. I voted for the report by Ms Berès because we need special guidelines for employment policies in order to restore momentum to the economy and trust among our citizens. Europe needs guarantees for the future and the guarantee of work, particularly for young people, is the first step towards a better European Union.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since the major objectives and priorities set out in the guidelines for employment policy, adopted on 21 October 2010, remain valid, I voted for this European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States. In fact, in this document, Parliament is limiting itself to confirming the employment policies that, in line with the decision to adopt them, should remain stable until 2014, in order to ensure a focus on implementation.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The draft European Parliament legislative resolution on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, has merely rubber stamped the employment guidelines set out by the Commission in 2010. Despite the exacerbation of the economic situation since then, with unemployment rates that are increasing exponentially in almost all the Member States, the European Parliament has given up its right to demand that the Council and the Commission table new binding measures geared towards increasing investment in job creation. That is why I voted against.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Pursuant to the Europe 2020 strategy, provision has been made for a series of central objectives aimed at economic growth and social cohesion, in a policy of linking up the actions of the Member States and the EU institutions. I voted in favour because these guidelines are included in the Commission proposal.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In a fully integrating single market, in which the Member States are becoming increasingly interdependent, coordinating employment policies is an overarching objective in ensuring that actions are coherent and effective. In voting for the report by Ms Berès, I support this objective by approving the continuity of the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States adopted by the Council decision of 21 October 2010. These guidelines are essential if we are to achieve this objective: increasing labour market participation, reducing structural unemployment, promoting the quality of employment and social inclusion, promoting education and lifelong learning, improving the performance of education and training systems, and combating poverty. They are necessities that I have defended for a long time. Finally, I welcome the Commission’s desire, endorsed today by the European Parliament, to strive to maintain the stability of these guidelines until 2014 to ensure a focus not on the conclusions of endless negotiations on their minor modification, but on their practical implementation. It is now the duty of the Member States to take them into consideration in their employment policies.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We cannot support a text which seeks to resolve problems related to employment, and which deals with the employment policies of the Member States, with proposals which seek to ‘remove the barriers’ that prevent immigrants from accessing the EU’s labour market. We cannot accept these kinds of measures, since due precisely to the regulations helping legal immigrants, it is already more likely that they will be the ones asked to take on a job rather than an EU citizen.

We also realised that when the European Union proposes corrective measures for the Member States, it tends, in fact, to decide for them and, in the wake of the dramatic consequences of the austerity measures introduced by interventions like this, we are sceptical towards EU strategies such as the ones in question.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As part of the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU has drawn up a list of priorities and joint initiatives aimed at smart, sustainable and job-rich growth. Boosting employment has been identified as the main driver of growth and recognised, quite rightly, as a key factor in greater social cohesion at European level. Thus, since their adoption in October 2010, guidelines have guided national employment policies. The Member States must, in accordance with the provisions of the Europe 2020 strategy, reduce structural unemployment, train a skilled workforce, promote quality jobs and ensure lifelong vocational training. The European Parliament has declared its support for the continuation of these employment guidelines until 2014. This position, which I share, reflects increased awareness on the part of the European institutions: employment is our priority and we need to reflect upon the ways and means to promote it and to make it more sustainable. To this end, the Member States have the possibility of using the European Social Fund.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the Annual Growth Survey (AGS), the Commission has identified five priority actions for 2012: fiscal consolidation; restoring normal lending to the economy; growth and competitiveness; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and modernising public administration. Personally, I would like to underline my full support for the five priorities identified, as expressed with my vote in favour this morning. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that it is absolutely necessary to accelerate the initiatives to create the single market and to extend the reach of the AGS. Finally, I would like to underline my appreciation of the integrated structure of the document and the unprecedented attention to social issues.

A final word on young people: the fourth priority addresses youth unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, which is having serious repercussions on social inclusion and on levels of poverty. Keeping people active – whether through work, training or even in the search for a job – is fundamental, both for the economy and for society. Therefore, the text suggests revising wage-setting mechanisms to better reflect productivity, removing legal obstacles to the recognition of professional qualifications between countries, restricting access to early retirement schemes and promoting entrepreneurship.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to Eurostat, the European Union currently has around 23 million unemployed; that is 8 million more than in 2008, with the majority of them young people who cannot find a foothold in the labour market. The EU Member States with the highest unemployment rates are Spain, with 22.9%, followed by Greece, with 19.2% in October; Portugal is in sixth place, with 13.6%. At the other end of the spectrum, those with the lowest rates are countries like Austria, with 4.1%, the Netherlands, with 4.9%, and Luxembourg, with 5.2%. Article 145 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates that Member States shall work towards developing a coordinated strategy for employment, so they have agreed to the intention expressed by the European Commission and the European Parliament to strengthen guidelines on employment policy, pursuant to the Council decision of 21 October 2010.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States because, due to the financial and economic crisis, unemployment has increased alarmingly in the EU. According to Eurostat, over 23 million people are unemployed in Europe. The guidelines provided in Decision No 2010/707/EU will be applied by the Member States in 2012 as well. Employment policies should be directed towards increasing labour market participation, reducing structural unemployment and promoting quality jobs, developing a skilled workforce to meet labour market needs and promote lifelong learning, improving the quality and performance of education and training systems at all levels and increasing participation in tertiary education or equivalent forms of education, promoting social inclusion, and combating poverty. These guidelines are aimed at the implementation of the main EU objectives for 2020, such as increasing the employment rate to 75%, reducing the school dropout rate to less than 10%, achieving a tertiary graduation rate of at least 40% among young people, and reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion by at least 20 million.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Berès report calling on the European Parliament to approve the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States.

This vote is about ensuring the ‘compatibility’ of the employment guidelines with the economic policies of the EU. It is quite a programme and, every day, we are increasingly seeing what this means through the sad example of what is being imposed on Greece. It is about ‘implementing the Europe 2020 strategy’, ‘boosting Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness’, ‘promoting labour markets responsive to economic change’, ‘complying with the Stability and Growth Pact’ and ‘giving precise guidance to the Member States on defining their national reform programmes’.

This says it all. We can talk all we like about reducing structural unemployment, developing a skilled workforce and promoting quality jobs. These are just words, sacrificed at the altar of austerity policies.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is essential that the guidelines on employment policy measures in the Member States are retained in order to boost growth and competitiveness in Europe and to guarantee that the Europe 2020 objectives are achieved. We must focus, in particular, on increasing the labour market participation of men and women, eradicating structural unemployment, combating poverty and improving the performance of the European education system.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report comes direct from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. It simply recommends that Parliament accept and retain the 2010 employment policy guidelines, and does not propose the necessary changes to the economic and social policy that the Commission has been following. This means that Parliament is accepting the continuation of the neoliberal policies of promoting flexicurity, of increasing the retirement age, of so-called ‘austerity policies’; in short, of increasing the exploitation of the workers. We do not accept the continuation of these policies and demand new guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States that do not attack the sacrosanct rights of the workers, the right to collective bargaining, and the social rights they have won.

Recommendation for second reading: Czesław Adam Siekierski (A7-0032/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In a spirit of European solidarity, I voted in favour of maintaining the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for 2012 and 2013. This vote is taking place after agreement in Council. However, this agreement cannot, under any circumstances, be used as a long-term solution. Indeed, we need to consider now the period beyond 2013 and how to reform the food aid programme and to enable the most deprived to benefit from this programme.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour. One of the problems still demonstrated by the EU, despite the level of development we have reached, is that of the malnourishment that has a particular effect on the homeless, on families in difficulties, on the unemployed, whose numbers are increasing substantially at the moment, on single-parent families, on immigrants, on asylum seekers, on socially disadvantaged older people and on disabled children. Seven countries initially rejected the support programme under consideration, on alleged legal grounds. This was a lamentable decision that has, regrettably, only been put on hold until 2013. I would stress that the EU was very quick to help the banks, but is showing itself to be very insensitive when it is a case of solidarity with the most disadvantaged. This reflection serves to demonstrate that we live in a Europe with these contradictions, which urgently need to be abolished.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I was pleased to hear that the blocking of the Commission’s proposal at the Council, lasting some two years, has been overcome. Considering the urgency of providing support to the most deprived persons in the Union and the delay that has been seen, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Siekierski in order to allow a rapid distribution of food products to the most deprived citizens and, at long last, to offer them the Union’s support during this time not just of economic crisis but also difficult weather conditions. I am firmly convinced that the programme should be fully funded by the Union and that the programme should be accompanied by temporary measures to avoid a sharp cutback in food aid and to ensure that people who are dependent on food aid do not suddenly suffer from food poverty once again. I am pleased with the agreement reached for these reasons, but also due to the fact that the food to be distributed will be of Union origin, and will therefore support our production and growth.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This week, the European Parliament has made progress on a critical issue: a compromise has finally been reached with the Member States to maintain funding for the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for 2012 and 2013. This programme supplies food to more than 13 million beneficiaries across 15 Member States. We must now work to ensure the future of this programme after 2013, and I can assure you that the European Parliament will continue to fight for this. My colleagues and I have demanded that, in the short term, the European Commission and the Member States provide a transition mechanism and that, in the mid term, they change the legislation to enable this programme to continue. I proposed, in this regard, contributions from the European Social Fund (ESF). Finally, I believe that this programme is also an instrument for combating food waste. In any event, while we need to save money at a time of crisis, we should certainly not do so by leaving 13 million vulnerable Europeans by the wayside.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) For the time being, the most important thing has been saved. We have managed to secure the continuation of the European food aid programme for 2012 and 2013. The annual budget of EUR 500 million will be kept in its entirety for the next two years. While congratulations are in order, especially for all the organisations working on the ground, vigilance is still called for, because the issue is far from being settled. Europe, they said, is being built in small steps and gathers momentum in crises, when its back is against the wall. This time, it has failed miserably! The programme has only obtained a reprieve, which, during the current period, when austerity policies are taking a heavy toll on the people of Europe, and the European Union is in full existential crisis, amounts to a denial of the future of the EU. There will be no EU in the future without a social Europe, without a rebalancing of the economic dimension to take account of the social dimension. So there is much yet to be done. We must, right now, think of new, effective solidarity mechanisms in collaboration with the European Commission to ensure that we maintain this action in favour of the most deprived people in Europe.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I fully support what it has achieved. This European Parliament report confirms the EU institutions’ compromise decision, on the basis of which the European Union will be able to provide the most deprived citizens of the European Union with the same amount of food aid as before for the remaining two years until the new multiannual financial framework. Indeed, the Council’s desire to reduce the amount of food aid at this difficult time, when the number of people requiring aid has grown as a result of the crisis, was particularly difficult to understand. I agree that today, we have to make savings, both at EU level and in the Member States, but we cannot do this by reducing assistance for the poorest people who have increased in number. Savings in this area would not solve the problem of the financial crisis. Instead, we would be turning our backs on our citizens and undermining the goals that we set ourselves a year ago – of lifting as many as 20 million people out of the poverty trap. It really is disappointing that this has dragged on for so long.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Although the EU enjoys, on average, one of the highest living standards in the world, some people are unable to provide the necessary food for themselves. It is estimated that within the EU, there are 43 million people at risk of food poverty, meaning people who cannot afford to eat a complete meal every other day. The programme for the most deprived persons supports the provision of food to these highly vulnerable individuals or families who are in a difficult situation. Charities and NGOs are counting on the EU’s contribution to support these people in need. For example, 51% of the products distributed in 2010 by the European Federation of Food Banks came from this programme. Each year, more than 18 million people in 20 EU Member States receive food aid distributed within this programme. In Romania, over 2.8 million people benefited from this programme in 2010, including pensioners, people with no income or very low income, and people with disabilities. Therefore, I think it is essential to find rapidly a solution leading to overcoming the current problems and which can make use of the available funds.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Siekierski’s report which aims to protect and support the most deprived persons in the Union through a funding programme for the purchase of food products.

Due to the two-year deadlock in the Council, it was necessary to pass the proposal quickly without the addition of further amendments. In the Commission’s amended proposal, the programme will remain fully funded by the EU budget but, to secure proper coverage and financial stability, a ceiling of EUR 500 million has been put in place.

The programme will be active during 2012 and 2013, but it is to be hoped that Parliament will have more say on the programme’s future beyond 2013. Due to the economic and financial crisis, which continues to damage Europe’s economy through worrying repercussions on our social fabric, we need a strong voice from Europe to speak out on aiding a more vulnerable civil society.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I would like to express my satisfaction at the decision taken by the European Parliament, which, on 15 February 2012, adopted the recommendation of the Vice-Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Czesław Siekierski, of the Polish People’s Party, on continuation of the programme for the distribution of food to the most deprived persons. As a result of a long process of negotiations between representatives of Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and also due to the efforts among others of the Polish Presidency, it was possible to work out an agreement on the level of the budget for the programme for 2012-2013.

I am profoundly convinced that the importance of this programme has grown during the current economic crisis, at a time when European society is becoming increasingly impoverished. At present, over 40 million people in the European Union are affected by poverty, while a further 40 million are under threat of poverty. Among those who benefit from this aid are people who are unemployed, homeless people, migrants, elderly people, disabled people and those who are in a difficult material situation, including families with many children and single parents, and in all, there are around 18 million deprived people who have received help from the European Union.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I do not, of course, oppose any measure that aims to combat poverty and hunger in the EU; however, the policy laid before us is both legally unsound and fails to address the real issue of the causes of poverty. The money should not come from the CAP budget as a social policy, which, in the opinion of at least the United Kingdom, should be a Member State domestic competence. What is so mind-boggling about this proposal is that it has failed to acknowledge the leading factor in poverty creation in the EU. Reports from Athens demonstrate that EU policy adherence to the erroneous single currency project is, in fact, one of the key drivers in poverty creation. Greening of CAP will also undermine the potential for self-sufficiency in Europe and exposes Member States to the possibility of food shortages and dependency upon importation. The creation and expansion of PEAD sets a dangerous precedent in permitting such erroneous and damaging legislation to continue to be made by issuing an illegal ‘back-up plan’.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE) , in writing. – (RO) The programme for the distribution of free food to the most deprived citizens of the European Union, started in 1987 as part of the common agricultural policy (CAP), currently grants support to 18 million people living in poverty in 20 European Union Member States. In the EU, 43 million people are at risk of food poverty, and this figure will rise due to the economic and financial crisis and rising food prices. If no action is taken, the funds for this programme will have to be reduced in 2012 to EUR 133 million, compared with EUR 500 million in 2011. The interruption of the aid programme without notice or preparations will have serious repercussions for the most vulnerable EU citizens. It is necessary to find a way to continue the food distribution system for the needy in 2012 and 2013 (the remaining years within the current funding period), and also in the funding period 2014-2020.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The programme distributing free food to the most deprived EU citizens, set up in 1987 under the common agricultural policy, currently provides food aid for 18 million people suffering from poverty in 20 Member States. The present economic crisis, alongside difficult climate conditions, has been hitting poor people hard. Around 18 million people in Europe currently benefit from the food aid programme for the disadvantaged. I voted for this programme to be continued until the end of 2014, with a maximum annual budget of EUR 500 million, intended to aid 18 million of the most deprived people in 20 EU Member States.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this draft amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, intended to improve the general rules on supplying certain organisations with food products from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union. This reform is essential, not just because of higher demand resulting from the recent EU enlargements, but also because of increased problems due to high food prices in Europe and the cost of supplying it. In order to ensure that the supply of foodstuffs will continue to reach at least those already benefiting from this support, the priority has now changed, with greater emphasis given to the long-term sustainability of agriculture at the expense of the primary goal of increasing food production.

The following are the two most important of the amendments tabled. Now more than ever, there needs to be a long-term perspective when national authorities are planning distribution schemes, so distribution programmes lasting around three years will be implemented in order to increase levels of efficiency and flexibility. Secondly, I agree with the need to set out priorities more clearly. The Member States will have to draft their requests for aid on the basis of objective and pre-established national programmes for distributing food to the most disadvantaged.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I supported the recommendation because it guarantees the continuation of the food aid programme, which currently provides food to more than 18 million people across Europe, for 2012 and 2013. However, I am opposed to the position of the conservative German and French governments to discontinue this programme after 2013. The Commission should come forward with proposals that comply with the Court of Justice’s April 2011 ruling to allow the continuation of the programme from 2014 onwards. I welcome the Irish Government’s support for this stance. The subsidiarity argument should not be used to suggest there is no role for measures such as a food aid programme at European level. In reality, we need a much stronger social dimension to Europe and a greater emphasis on growth and jobs to ensure that citizens do not have to depend on food aid to help them make ends meet. We can only consider ending this type of programme when there is no demand from the public for it.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The report follows the controversial confirmation of the European programme for providing aid to the needy. The text is a compromise between those who were in favour of the programme’s continuation and those who wished to see it come to an end. Therefore, the compromise reached avoids the risk of a sudden end to the programme which would have threatened the survival of that sector of the population which is dependent on this food aid. Recent statistics have shown that the crisis is affecting increasingly large and central areas of the continent. This means that increasingly wide sections of the population in rich countries risk finding themselves in poverty. In this context, the attitude of those who, in the name of futile austerity, insist on rejecting such important interventions which have such a limited impact on the EU budget seems increasingly short-sighted and counterproductive. This compromise is very welcome and a new agreement to guarantee the programme’s funding for the future would be especially welcome. In any case, the hope is to investigate the possibility of strengthening the campaign against food wastage, with a programme capable of using recovered food through distribution and rational use, and redistributing it to the weakest and most at-risk sectors.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think it is vital to continue the provision of this support in the future, and that it is necessary to support the European disadvantaged people at a level comparable to that of this year, knowing that the common agricultural policy has social components, too, and that poor people must continue to be assisted. Based on the principle of European solidarity, Member States that oppose this must show understanding of the situation of poor social categories and accept that it is necessary to continue the programme within the required parameters. This would also demonstrate solidarity within the EU.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of maintaining the funds of the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for two additional years (2012 and 2013). Indeed, it is our responsibility to ensure the survival of such a programme, which has helped more than 18 million deprived people in 19 Member States of the European Union since 1987 (under the CAP). This programme will therefore continue to supply food to numerous charities working to eradicate hunger, with an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million. At present, our new fight, in which I wish to be fully engaged, is to ensure the long-term sustainability of this important solidarity programme by guaranteeing its funding beyond 2013.

  Michel Dantin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This is the culmination of intense diplomatic work on the part of Bruno Lemaire, French Minister for Agriculture, at Council level, and of the Members of the European Parliament at the level of our institution. Europe has thus demonstrated that it is capable of being an area of solidarity for the citizens of Europe.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I used my vote to approve the Council’s position, which will make it possible to extend the European food aid programme at its current level of funding for an additional two years. It would have been inconceivable to reduce it, now that the crisis has increased the number of people dependent on food handouts. This solution remains a temporary one, however. The validity period of the compromise for which we voted is two years. Two years is what was needed for the more than 13 million Europeans for whom this programme is vital. However, two years is not enough. I will remain fully committed to finding a lasting solution and to ensuring that this programme, which is essential to the maintenance of solidarity, is kept in the European budget.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text enabling the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) to be maintained and funded for 2012 and 2013. I will continue to work actively in the European Parliament and call on the European Commission and the European Council to find a solution, so that this programme, which provides food aid to more than 18 million of our fellow citizens, and which we need more than ever in these times of crisis, can continue after 2013.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Council position at first reading because the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons is too urgent an issue to be delayed any further. A second reading procedure would only have meant more suffering for the people in need, a scenario which is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I think that the position voted for, by overcoming the stalled situation in the Council, has to be considered as a valid transitional solution for the remaining years of the current MFF. I would also like to express my desire for such a crucial programme to be maintained, or even enhanced, after 2013. Too many people still depend on food distribution in Europe and we – as representatives of the European people – must undertake this as a personal commitment.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Union, as I believe it was crucial to reach an agreement that broke the two year deadlock in the Council on this issue and to ensure that this programme will continue in the next financial framework. European solidarity for those with the least protection is even more necessary at times of crisis. The right-wing majority in the Council has demonstrated great social insensitivity.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Social Democrats are opposed to extending the food distribution programme to the most deprived persons in the Union, as we believe that poverty and social exclusion should be tackled in the social sphere and not within the framework of the EU’s agricultural policy.

The programme was introduced during a period when there were large stockpiles of agricultural products and it was considered to be a fair solution to distribute this food to those in need. As the EU’s agricultural policy has been adapted to the market, these stockpiles have dwindled and the option of using EU funds to stockpile commodities has been abolished for several products.

We would have liked to have seen other forms of support for the most deprived persons in society, as the EU and the Member States need to take responsibility during times of economic crisis, not only for the financial institutions, but also for their own people.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to data provided by the Commission, 43 million people in the EU are at risk of food poverty, making aid programmes essential for providing them with a minimum level of subsistence. For this very reason, it is neither comprehensible nor defensible that the issue of distributing food to the most deprived people has been deadlocked for more than two years, at a time when the crisis is threatening to increase poverty levels, nor is it comprehensible or defensible that the decision we have adopted today is to retain the food aid programme only until 2013. A programme is needed beyond 2013. Once again, I would reiterate that the need to reduce expenditure cannot justify a lack of social sensitivity, especially when it comes to the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation for second reading, drafted by Mr Siekierski, concerns the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the European Union. Following a delay in solving this problem, it has, in the end, been possible to reach an agreement on freeing up the EUR 500 million to support deprived people through food banks. I welcome the fact that this aid has been made available and hope this will continue after 2013.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Poverty and social exclusion have been on the increase in the European Union. Their growth goes hand in hand with the massive backwards strides currently being taken by society. The latest Eurostat figures, for 2010, show that we are in a tragic situation: 26.9% of children aged 0-17 and 19.8% of older people are at risk of poverty. In total, 115 million people in the EU are at risk of poverty; that is equivalent to 23.4% of the population. These figures will certainly be worse today, owing to the impact of so-called ‘austerity’ and, particularly, of the sordid IMF-EU pacts of aggression against Portugal, Greece and Ireland. There is more unemployment and wages are lower. Moreover, decreased social rights, and the increased prices and privatisation of public services have further exacerbated this situation.

It is in this context that it becomes even more pressing to continue with and step up the food distribution scheme programme for the most deprived persons, so as to ensure that those dependent on food aid – and the many others currently becoming so – will not suffer food poverty. That is why we voted for this report. That is why the stance of countries like Germany in the Council blocking the continuation of this programme is unacceptable.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 laid down the general rules for the supply of food to the most deprived persons in the EU. This regulation was subsequently repealed and incorporated into the regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products. Rising food prices are currently adversely affecting the food security of the most deprived persons and, moreover, increase the cost of providing food aid. The objectives of the common agricultural policy therefore include market stabilisation and, in particular, ensuring supplies for consumers at reasonable prices. With regard to the distribution of food, however, the EU scheme cannot be the only response to the growing need for food aid in the EU. From the perspective of food security, national policies implemented by public administrations and the mobilisation of civil society are also necessary. The scheme could nevertheless serve as a model for the distribution of food to the most deprived people and could help encourage public and private initiatives aimed at increasing food security for those in need.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) According to the most recent statistics, around 16.3% of the EU population lives below the poverty line. As the crisis continues, the situation even looks set to deteriorate: indeed, it is estimated that from one day to the next, millions of Europeans could find themselves without even enough money for food. Thanks to today’s vote, the European food aid programme will remain operational until at least 2013, offering concrete and direct support to needy citizens who do not have sufficient means to feed themselves.

I think that now more than ever, and in the light of the worrying economic, financial and social situation, we need to guarantee the right to food for all Europeans and continue to ensure proper funding for this programme, which today supplies food aid to around 18 million people in 20 Member States. I hope therefore that this scheme can be improved with increased efficiency, even beyond 2013.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) 25 years ago, Coluche went to see Jacques Delors, then President of the Commission, to request his support for the Restos du Coeur. Mindful of its image, the European Community agreed to make some of its existing agricultural stocks available to charitable organisations to enable them to distribute meals to those who, already victims of policies emanating from Brussels, no longer had any means of feeding themselves. It was buying itself a conscience on the cheap.

Today, this aid represents EUR 500 million. This shows the extent to which poverty has exploded. However, the systematic dismantling of the common agricultural policy (CAP) has hit stocks and, against the backdrop of the current economic crisis, a number of Member States have sought to save money on a budgetary item which, however, only represents a fraction of the EU’s EUR 150 billion budget.

The Court of Justice in Luxembourg, to which the matter was referred, wanted to cut 80% of the aid. This decision created such a public outcry that here we are today voting on extending this programming for two years, with no assurance that it will continue beyond 2013. That does not solve the problem. For those of us who voted in favour of this aid, it is only a stop-gap measure.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – This agreement is to be welcomed as it will ensure that we avoid the abrupt halting of the European food aid scheme, and the suffering that would entail for those dependent on food aid. It is vital to ensure that food aid continues to reach the most vulnerable Europeans, and that they are not subject to crippling food poverty. Making food available to those most in need will help them better their lives and, in turn, better the community around them. After a two-year deadlock, I am glad that the Member States at last came together to continue this worthwhile programme for 2012 and 2013. Nevertheless, we must now find a solution within the forthcoming financial framework to safeguard the long-term future of the European food aid scheme. Such a worthy scheme should not be subject to disruptions due to political disputes within the Council.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This is a major success for the Members of the European Parliament, who, on 15 February, saved the food programme providing food aid to the 18 million most deprived European citizens in 20 Member States. Last April, it was estimated, under the auspices of a number of Member States, that the programme needed to reduce its funding from EUR 500 million in 2011 to EUR 133 million in 2012, which would have been catastrophic in these times of crisis for millions of European citizens, the survival of whom depends on this programme. We therefore opposed this decision and, last July, the European Parliament sought a temporary solution to save the programme and to prevent a reduction in food aid. As a result of the intervention of the European Parliament, the programme will be effective until the end of 2013, and it will benefit from an annual budget of EUR 500 million.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I strongly support the EU food aid regulation for the most deprived people, because it enables Member States to use products from intervention stocks to provide food aid.

Charitable organisations and, in particular, the deprived people they help are reliant on this ongoing programme. It is of the greatest importance for us to guarantee that this aid will still be available after 2013 and to enable charities to continue their work.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, through which the European Parliament gives its agreement to the continuation, in 2012 and in 2013, of the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD), in view of the extremely urgent situation facing charities and food banks.

However, I find that continuing this programme for just two years is unacceptable, and I very much regret the Franco-German agreement, which, admittedly, has broken the deadlock in the medium term, but which threatens the survival of the programme after 2014. This is simply unacceptable, especially since the economic and social crisis is jeopardising the jobs of more and more Europeans and reducing them to poverty.

My fellow Members in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and I repeat that we need to build a more social Europe. It is our duty to ensure that our citizens can feed themselves and live in dignity. This means that we need to set to work immediately and to take action to guarantee the continuation of the food aid programme, placing it on an appropriate legal basis in the next financial period 2014-2020. Time is of the essence.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) provoked strong and passionate reactions throughout 2011 following the decision by the European Court of Justice to repeal the provisions authorising the purchase of food products on the market under the common agricultural policy for the benefit of redistribution associations. This scheme had been set up in 1987 because there were surplus stocks of farm produce, which is no longer the case today. Following this decision, which had been introduced by Germany, France and the members of the majority in Parliament took action to preserve this essential programme supplying food to more than 13 million people. In November, a compromise was finally reached between the Member States guaranteeing the existence of this programme for 2012 and 2013. In turn, the European Parliament, fully aware of the urgent need to release funds to relaunch the supply process in a particularly difficult period combining an unprecedented financial and economic crisis with extreme weather conditions, supported this agreement on 15 February.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because, given the particularly unusual situation created by the blocking of the proposal at the Council for two years, the European Parliament has no real margin for an extensive negotiation in order to amend the Council position. It should also be remembered that Parliament, in its resolution of 7 July 2011, had called on the Commission and the Council to develop a transitional solution for the remaining years of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) so as to avoid a sharp cutback in food aid as a result of the reduction in funding from EUR 500 million to EUR 113 million and ensure that people dependent on food aid do not suffer from food poverty. At a trialogue organised on 6 December 2011, the European Parliament negotiating team recognised, in its majority, that in view of the explanations given by the Presidency and Commission representatives on the absence of a better solution in this particularly difficult situation, it saw itself obliged to agree to the Council compromise as the only means for achieving a transitional solution for the remaining years of the current MFF. In view of those arguments, also shared by the majority of MEPs at the AGRI special meeting of 12 December 2011, I welcomed the rapporteur’s proposal that the Council position should be accepted without amendments, so that it can finally be adopted in its current form at the European Parliament Plenary (as a so-called early second reading).

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – The economic crisis and the resulting rise in food prices are having a serious negative impact on the food security of the most deprived EU citizens. I therefore welcome the fact that Parliament opted to accept the Council’s position without amendments since, following a two-year obstruction, any further delay would worsen the situation and undermine the credibility of the programme. Both the Commission and the Council have taken on board most of the EP’s recommendations at first reading, so the scheme will be based solely on food of Community origin, purchased on a competitive basis, with preference given to locally produced fresh products, and with a clear obligation for distribution points to advertise the EU’s involvement. It is also very important that storage costs incurred by charitable organisations will be reimbursed and that, by doubling the sources of supply, distribution will no longer be limited to products to which intervention applies, so Member States, in cooperation with civil society, can make their choices on the basis of nutritional balance. Further issues, such as the review of the 100% ratio of EU funding and the introduction of cofinancing, might be discussed again later, given the possibility of reviewing the plan in exceptional circumstances.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) The Danish Liberal Party is able to accept the fact that we now have a legal basis for this budget line in 2012 and 2013 but, as a matter of principle, we do not believe that the EU should pursue a social policy of buying up food products on the open market and distributing them to the poor. It is therefore a good thing that the agreement expires at the end of 2013.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today’s vote is a success for Europe and will help 18 million deprived European citizens for a further two years. However, we must not drop our guard; we must stand together and continue to support people in need. France also undertakes to continue to provide food aid through charities. Food aid to the most deprived was doomed. It is thanks to France’s action that the European Parliament has recently saved it. With Nicolas Sarkozy, Europe also stands for solidarity.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) After lengthy discussions, the supporters and opponents of the programme have finally reached a compromise. Without this, it would not have been possible for the planned programme for deprived people to continue. The resolution is a response to the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. We should definitely consider whether the Agricultural Fund is the right area to enable this programme to meet its objectives or whether it would not make more sense to move the programme to the Social Fund.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I cast my vote in favour of Mr Siekierski’s report, through which we have made excellent progress on helping the millions of EU citizens who face difficulties in their everyday lives. I am delighted to point out that Parliament played a crucial role in reaching this outcome, in full compliance with the decision of the Court of Justice. We have managed to find a transitional solution capable of unblocking food aid for the poor this year and next, thereby avoiding a dangerous reduction in funds from the current level of EUR 500 million per year, which was to be cut back to roughly EUR 113 million per year. Obviously, we felt duty-bound to take this step to protect the less fortunate among us, particularly in view of the ongoing global crisis. It is absolutely clear, however, that this step does not resolve the issue of funding the programme to help the poor after 2013, when we will also be engaged in negotiations over the new multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted that the European Parliament has endorsed the agreement reached in the Council last December extending the funding for the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for 2012 and 2013 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2012. The food aid programme is indispensable in helping charities to fulfil their missions. Consequently, its continuation is a great relief. Nonetheless, we should not make do with this compromise. An emergency solution has been found. Priority should now be given to finding a lasting solution. We cannot be satisfied with this partial solution. It is important for the Council of the European Union to assume its responsibilities and to stop hiding behind legal arguments.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Czesław Adam Siekierski approving the decision taken in the EU Council on 23 January 2012, maintaining funding for the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for an additional two years in 2012 and 2013.

I welcome the fact that a solution could be found to break the deadlock and not to deprive the charities and the most deprived persons of this crucial support. It would have been completely incomprehensible, especially in view of the serious economic crisis we are going through, had we not been able to find a solution to maintain this European programme, which is a symbol of European solidarity towards the most deprived. However, the battle is not yet won, and we must now continue this fund beyond 2013.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) While the European Union comprises developed countries, almost 20% of its population lives below the poverty line and abolishing food aid to the most deprived from 2014 is not going to improve the situation.

Abandoning this programme, which, however, represents just 1% of the total CAP budget, will simply accelerate the growing impoverishment of populations. This says a lot about the current situation of Europe. When it comes to supporting the banks, agreements are reached, but when it comes to alleviating poverty, European solidarity no longer exists, reducing the contribution to 23 centimes per person.

Yet this comes as no surprise, since the European Union appears to go on as usual, dominated by the desires of Germany, the ultraliberal policies of which leave thousands of people in unbearable misery. As was the case with John I of France, social Europe is stillborn and will simply remain in the imagination of my dyed-in-the-wool Europhile colleagues, who stubbornly believe in this social utopia.

I voted for this recommendation and for extending this aid, but, in the conviction that it will be abolished in 2014, I ask that the appropriations earmarked for France under the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) (EUR 73 million) be deducted from our contribution.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed this report, among other reasons, in view of the huge contribution made by the rapporteur, Mr Siekierski. Extending the programme by two years is the right decision. In relation to this, I would like the Commission to submit in the near future a proposal for the method of distributing the food and the main objectives in terms of geography and social groups. At least until the end of the crisis, this aid, which is addressed to those who are affected by poverty and social exclusion, is particularly important.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Over time, it has been proved that intervention stocks provided by the Community have been a secure and stable food supply source for the most deprived persons. The need to provide food has increased considerably due to the substantial growth in the number of deprived people and the increase in food prices, affecting the food security of these people.

I think that we need both appropriate national policies and the mobilisation of the civil society to provide food security for all people. In addition, changing the community programme will generate a strong element of cohesion and serve as a model for distributing food to the most deprived persons. This proposal seeks to maintain full funding from the EU for the programme. The maximum level of community funding will continue in the future. However, in order to ensure budgetary stability, an annual cap of EUR 500 million is envisaged for the financial contribution of the EU.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the recommendation on the distribution of free food to the most needy citizens of the EU with full conviction. I have supported the work of food banks, social committees and non-governmental organisations operating in Poland, particularly in the Podkarpacie region, for a long time. The EU programme is an important initiative that should be continued and developed, which is why I think we must conduct further talks with all the EU institutions so that the programme does not end in 2013.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – In July 2011, I supported the Parliament’s Committee on Employment resolution calling on the Commission and the Council for a transitional solution for 2012 and 2013 and a new programme beyond. I do not like the fact that cofinancing has been removed from the proposal, as it would ensure that Member States spend the money efficiently and effectively. We also understand and share concerns of our Scandinavian colleagues. However, at a time of economic crisis, it is important that we have a mechanism at European level to ensure that we are able to get food to those most in need. Furthermore, it is a good thing that money from the agricultural budget is being used to meet the needs of all citizens, not just farmers.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Full Union funding for the programme to distribute food to the most deprived persons must be maintained We think it is worth ensuring that the current rate of 100% EU funding for the programme is retained for the future but, in order to ensure its budgetary stability, an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million for the Union’s financial contribution is foreseen.

We welcome the inclusion of a number of substantial changes suggested by Parliament, namely: the notion of the Union origin of the foods; the obligation for distribution points to clearly display the participation of the Union in the plan; purchase of food products to be made on the basis of competitive procedures; reimbursement of storage costs incurred by charitable organisations.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have voted in favour of a procedure that can take important steps to help the most deprived EU citizens. The European institutions are duty-bound to intervene financially to support the charitable organisations that look after the disadvantaged and the needy among the population. Due to the harsh winter, many people have died as a result of the lethal combination of cold and malnutrition. Confronted with these deaths, we cannot continue to stand by and take no action. That is why I am pleased that the Council has adopted a number of substantial amendments suggested by Parliament, especially the amendment providing for full Union funding for the food distribution programme.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Union is facing a grave crisis of poverty and social exclusion. With the impact of the economic and social crisis, and of the austerity being implemented, this problem is worsening, resulting in more unemployment, pension cuts, low wages, greater vulnerability and more poverty. In this context, it is crucial to support stepping up the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons. I therefore voted for this report.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Food aid distribution in the EU is necessary as a result of the increase in the number of people in precarious situations, as new Member States joined the EU, but also due to the rise in food prices. Every EU citizen has the right to be granted access to food. Thus, funds must be allocated to cover the cost of procurement on the intervention stock market adequately. It is the EU’s responsibility to provide food resources and reduce food insecurity among its citizens. Investment in people’s welfare is an essential component of the healthy development of each individual, contributing to the prosperity of the EU. The cold wave during this period that has hit the centre and south-east of the continent, including my country, Romania, confirms the importance of implementing a rigorous plan for food distribution. Preventive measures, such as the one we are debating today, can reduce the suffering of the poor and, in the long term, can remove some of the barriers to the development of the EU to its full capacity. These are some of the reasons why I support the report on food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Union.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As many of my fellow Members pointed out during the debate, the future of the programme after 2013 remains unresolved. Accordingly, I think that Parliament, together with the Commission and the Council, should immediately start working on concrete proposals that will allow the programme to be continued and that demonstrate that the EU takes care of its most vulnerable citizens.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – The food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the Union provides food aid for nearly 18 million Europeans with an aid package of EUR 500 million per year. I voted in favour of this report and welcome this important step towards assisting the 40 million people currently living in poverty in Europe.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The decision taken by the Council under pressure from certain governments is totally unacceptable. At a time when the Council is imposing unprecedented restrictions on the people of Europe, it is destroying one of the rare solidarity mechanisms of the European Union. It is even withdrawing charity from those it is starving. It is shameful. Today, it has left Members with a single choice: let good people starve to death in the days to come or accept aid today and its disappearance tomorrow. This Europe is not worth anything any longer. We are going to rebuild it.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The food distribution scheme for the most deprived individuals, set up in 1987 under the common agricultural policy, currently provides food aid for 13 million people suffering from poverty in 19 Member States and has distribution chains encompassing some 240 food banks and charities. According to the Commission’s own estimates, 43 million people in the European Union are at risk of food poverty, a number set to rise due to the economic and financial crisis and the sharp increase in food prices. We must therefore try to avoid an immediate and drastic reduction in food aid as a result of the reduction in funding for the programme from EUR 500 million to EUR 113 million. Halting an existing and functioning aid scheme abruptly and without prior notice or preparation will have a major impact on the most vulnerable EU citizens. It is therefore necessary to find a way to continue with the food distribution scheme for the most deprived people in 2012 and 2013 – the remainder of the current funding period – and also for the new funding period, 2014-2020. Following a number of deadlocks in the Council that have led to delays with this programme, there is an urgent need to overcome the problems, if those in need of aid are not to continue being harmed.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) A positive political signal is being sent through this report to the most deprived people who are personally suffering from the crisis. Given that the crisis in Europe has meant that the number of people who are on the threshold of poverty has increased exponentially, I have voted in favour of this report. I believe it could lead to temporary assistance for these people. Charity is not the solution, however. The solution will involve structural changes and the abandonment of the neoliberal policies that have led these people into poverty, together with a commitment to a social Europe. That means a Europe which places its citizens at the heart of its concerns and which uses European resources to promote the well-being of its citizens, rather than big business and the financial sector.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In this period of economic, social and financial crisis, the EU needs to show solidarity towards the more than 18 million most deprived persons in Europe. That is why I voted for extending this aid programme, which has been in existence for more than 25 years. This decision is the right one, because the EU is far more than an economic project. It is a way of living together and sharing values. Without solidarity, Europe loses all legitimacy. A growth strategy only makes sense if it is accompanied by a social strategy. We need to think about what will happen after 2013. We need to establish a European strategy to help the 3 million homeless people in Europe. The European model is a social model. If proof were needed, the Europe 2020 strategy counts combating poverty and social exclusion among its five priorities. We must not forget our commitments during the establishment of the new financial framework, which will be up and running from 2014. A lasting solution will have to be found which leaves no one by the wayside.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – If there is a possibility of market purchases of food products in the event of unavailability of suitable intervention stocks for food distribution, then it is important to guarantee continuation of the food aid programme, on the most appropriate legal basis, in the next financial period. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Although the EU is one of the wealthiest regions in the world, around 16% of the people in the EU live on or just above the poverty line. This means that 43 million people in the European Union are affected by food poverty and cannot afford a proper, balanced meal every second day. As many as 18 million people rely on the EU ‘Food for Free’ programme. Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic took a case concerning the legal basis for the programme before the Court of Justice of the European Union and, last April, the court ruled in their favour. The reason for this is that, according to the court ruling, the programme does not fall within the scope of agricultural policy, but should instead be part of social policy. This will be resolved at the level of the individual Member States. In the absence of a new resolution by the Member States, the EU must now bring the food aid programme for the most deprived people to an end. In past years, EUR 480 million has been available on an annual basis for the programme. Now the figure is only EUR 113 million and, from 2013, no more funding will be forthcoming. I have voted in favour of the report because I agree with the rapporteur that any further delays will affect deprived EU citizens and this would definitely not be a responsible way to behave.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By voting for this text, I supported the need to reassure MDP recipients. The blocking minority gave way to the need not to take away vital support from associations and the most deprived people they help. However, we should not be satisfied with this compromise. It was necessary to find an urgent solution, but the priority now is to identify a long-term solution. We cannot content ourselves with this partial agreement and the Council of the European Union must not hide behind legal arguments. Between the economic crisis across Europe and the particularly harsh winters this year, our fellow citizens must find in Europe the solidarity they expect.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal on distributing food to the poor has remained blocked in the Council for some two years. For people who live in misery, two months, two weeks or two days would have been too long. It is also worth considering that the Commission’s amended proposal of 3 October 2011 and the Council’s position being discussed in this House have incorporated all the substantial amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading, supporting the funding for the programme, which the Union will continue to pay for in its entirety. We have maintained full Union funding for the programme for the future, but in order to ensure its budgetary stability, an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million for the Union’s financial contribution is foreseen. Other substantial changes suggested by EP amendments have been accepted in their essence, namely: the notion of the Union origin of the foods; the obligation for distribution points to clearly display the participation of the Union in the plan; and purchase of food products to be made on the basis of competitive procedures. Furthermore, storage costs incurred by charitable organisations will be reimbursed. Finally, this is a compromise that we think is worthy of support, and we hope it gets the green light in short order.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (BG) I voted in favour of the report by Czesław Adam Siekierski on ‘Distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union’ because I am convinced that this is an important step towards improving the conditions of the most vulnerable citizens in the EU. I believe that it is these people who have been affected most directly by the economic crisis, and that now is the time for us to send an important political message by showing that the EU is doing everything in its power to help the most deprived at one of the most difficult times. The programme serves to show that the EU is responsible for its citizens not only in terms of progress and stability, and this is an important message not just for us but for the entire world. It provides concrete support to over 18 million people in 19 Member States in a similar way to the ‘School Fruit Scheme’ and ‘School Milk Scheme’. This is a rather large percentage of the EU population, and I am of the opinion that any further delays will have a negative impact on all the programme’s beneficiaries, which is the last thing we should be doing to them. Finally, I would like to add that we need to be more ambitious in our intentions to find a way for us to guarantee support to the needy after 2013 as well.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report and welcome the fact that it was passed with such an extraordinary majority of votes. This programme is one of the most important social protection programmes undertaken by the European Union, and the majority vote today allows us to hope that Parliament, the Council and the Commission will find solutions in the course of this year to ensure its continuation after 2013. The fact that every thirtieth European citizen is dependent on this programme is enough to give us food for thought in this regard, and Parliament’s efforts in this direction should start straight away.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Given that an estimated 43 million people in the EU are currently threatened by food poverty and that, as a result of the economic and financial crisis and the dramatic increase in food prices, this figure is continuing to grow, I support this report and all the measures which it proposes. For me, the focus should be on creating jobs and sensible social security systems.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. The right to food is a fundamental human right, and is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economically feasible access to suitable, safe and nutritious food. Food aid measures are one element in a larger integrated policy to combat poverty. Given the current economic, financial and social crisis, the provision of aid at European level to the most vulnerable and poorest members of society is vitally important and cannot suddenly be reduced or cancelled. Only through joint efforts, by implementing coordinated and effective measures, will we be able to ensure that people dependent on our food aid do not suffer from food poverty simply because there was a significant reduction in funding for food aid.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The food aid programme is used by 18 million EU citizens. It has become even more important during the crisis. In Lithuania alone, more than half a million citizens on low incomes ask for food aid. With increasing energy prices due to high heating costs, an increasing number of working families and families with children are falling into poverty. The unemployed, and some elderly and disabled people and single mothers are living in poverty. The extension of this programme is therefore vitally important. It is to be welcomed that the European Commission and the Council have found a consensus on the extension of the programme during 2012-2013 and have provided EUR 500 million for its implementation. This decision by the EU institutions proves that European solidarity is not a paper principle. I welcome this report, which underlines the importance of food originating in the EU, and the proper and transparent purchase and distribution of foodstuffs. Following this transition period of several years, we also need to ensure the continuation of the programme and the work of non-government organisations like the FoodBank.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text on the adoption of the regulation on the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union because it involves the realisation of one of the main objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The text has been drawn up on exactly the same lines as the Council’s position and sets out the Commission’s responsibilities to fund the programme in its entirety. The EU will have a EUR 500 million budget to fund the project from 1 January 2012 until the end of 2013, with a particular view to stepping up future funding in line with the Europe 2020 strategy. Another important goal that has been set is that of ensuring that all the food to be distributed is of Union origin.