Oral explanations of vote

Recommendation for second reading: Rui Tavares (A7-0063/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, both the asylum issue and the immigration issue are unique to each Member State, so I fundamentally oppose any move towards creating any form of common European asylum system. A one-size-fits-all measure as suggested in the report on the European Refugee Fund is not the answer as it cannot possibly take into account the specificity which each Member State faces with asylum and immigration. I would like to highlight that some Member States, my own in particular, already have a number of measures to assist asylum seekers and those fleeing persecution.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, I voted against the report on the European Refugee Fund because I disagree with the arbitrary decision of Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs to invalidate Article 80 of the Treaty of Lisbon. In my view, the committee should have yielded on this matter, too. By failing to do so, we now have a situation where the legislator has sat in the chair of judicial authority. And that is wrong in any democracy.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, an obvious point about immigration is that people do not lightly uproot themselves and cross the world in order to settle in another country without having chosen that country with some care. The experience of countries which have run proper immigration policies is that new settlers are grateful and patriotic and happy to be there, which is why they came in the first place. The difficulty of a system which forces economic migrants into the category of claiming refugee status bogusly is that they begin the relationship with a new state on the basis of a lie. The experience of getting in under false pretences is bound to teach them to despise the authorities of the country in which they have arrived.

It seems to me crazy at a time when we are admitting a certain amount of labour that we are doing so through a route which is based on falsehood on both sides, rather than having, as Canada, Australia, and a number of other countries do, a points-based system where people are chosen on the basis of their skills.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, when we talk about refugees, I have the impression that too often we go to extremes on both sides of the argument. I say this because all those who say that very often, the right to political asylum is abused by people who are actually migrating for economic reasons are, of course, correct. On the other hand, however, it should be remembered that we must not – as we sometimes say – throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, I come from a country from which, over the centuries, very many people had to flee for political reasons, and they found a welcome in other countries. Europe is attractive because it is a place of freedom, and it should welcome all those who have defended freedom in their own countries but cannot live there.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, I voted against this report, which I see as an attempt to move towards a common European asylum system, which I am opposed to. Although cooperation between EU Member States regarding refugees and their resettlement is necessary, I do not wish to see a growing EU competence in this area. While we have the responsibility to deal with genuine asylum seekers, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I voted against the report on the European Refugee Fund as I strongly believe that both asylum and immigration should be individual Member State national responsibilities. I would therefore oppose any move towards creating a common European asylum system. Any such attempt at a one-size-fits-all measure created to cover all EU Member States would, I believe, end in failure. On top of this, in many Member States, including my own, the United Kingdom, which has already taken a disproportionate number of refugees in recent decades, this would not work. The UK has actually done much to help asylum seekers and refugees who already find themselves within its borders.

I accept that as much as possible must be done to help those who genuinely seek political refugee status, but the measures that this report proposes are not the best way of going about trying to improve matters.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of establishing the European Refugee Fund, even though each Member State is individually responsible for its own refugee policy. Furthermore, Member States should continue to be responsible in this way, but we also need European-wide coordination, as, in many respects, the influx of refugees has been uncontrolled. We need the system of resettlement that is mentioned in this proposal. Above all, however, the basis of our actions must be that we, as Europeans, support countries from which those people are arriving, in their efforts to establish democracy, because it is not good for anyone to have to leave their homeland and their roots. The basic approach should be that we work towards the resettlement in their home districts of people arriving from these countries under threat, building democracy there, and exporting European values there. As I said, however, in this situation, in which we have an uncontrolled immigration policy at European Union level, we need coordination. Nevertheless, Member States must retain their own decision-making powers regarding the number of immigrants each country admits.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, at a time of economic difficulty across the world, and particularly in the eurozone, and with the EU budget itself under enormous pressure, I cannot see the justification for shelling out huge amounts of cash this way. The report talks of up to EUR 6 000 per head per refugee, and a minimum of EUR 4 000. Britain has a noble history of providing shelter to genuine asylum seekers and takes more than its fair share of the load, but these common EU priorities of ‘resettlement’ are unwelcome, unhelpful and unaffordable. That is why I voted against this fund.

Report: Werner Langen (A7-0223/2011)

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, this is one small step towards the creation of a pan-European policy on financial services. The direction, however, is clear when you put them all together. We are moving invigilatory power from national authorities to the new regulatory institutions which we have set up in Brussels, and the result of that shift is a move away from the successful model that we have seen – which has made London the most successful financial centre in the world – to something far more government run and restricted.

I was talking to an Italian friend in the EPP just before the vote and he said, ‘What are you complaining about, you British? You will still have the most free market system in Europe,’ and I said, ‘Yes, well, that is rather like saying that we will have the best cricket team in Europe. It is not really where the competition is’. The competition is on other continents and it is a competition that we are losing.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I endorsed the report because while I am fundamentally sceptical and cautious when it comes to adopting new legislation, I think that in this specific area, we are talking about something very complicated, and the cooperation and regulation introduced by this regulation can be effective in reducing the risks involved in the financial markets. I would like to say that these risks are one reason why the citizens of Europe and investors do not have the same confidence in our continent today as was once the case, and that this is aggravating the crisis we are all having to face.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, I voted in favour of this report, which aims to reduce the risks posed by the derivatives market through increased transparency. This would fulfil the G20 commitment that all OTC derivative contracts should be cleared through CCPs at the end of 2012. When dealing with legislation which affects financial services, we should aim to find a balance between preventing unnecessary risky practices and still allowing the financial services sector to grow and do business in a competitive way.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this report because I support establishing a wider scope of application for standardised OTC derivative contracts. These provisions are needed to improve transparency and the management of systemic risks on the OTC derivatives market.

At the same time, standard requirements need to be introduced so that central counterparty and trade repository operations can be carried out in proper conditions. I endorse the need to create more powerful instruments so that companies can support better the risks they have assumed. A definite sense of proportion must be retained when applying regulations so as to avoid high costs and increased prices for consumers.

The clearing obligation also needs to be applied consistently in all Member States so that payment is made under normal terms.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, there are a number of lessons to be learnt from the financial crisis. One of the lessons is that governments should stop spending more money than they actually collect in taxes, and be more responsible. That is one of the reasons we find the levels of debt we do right across the EU. Actually, one of the problems with the whole eurozone crisis at the moment is that governments are simply spending more money than they have.

The other issue we should tackle is the balance sheets of banks. For far too long, these derivatives have sat on banks’ balance sheets and have not been properly accounted for. The directors of those banks often do not know what is on the balance sheets, and one of the problems is that the IFRS standards, which the Commission has been so keen to promote, actually give an inaccurate picture.

Another problem is that when one of these contracts blows up, the counterparties should have enough capital to make sure that they can pay out. Those are issues which we saw during the crisis when CDOs and CDSs blew up and not enough provision had been made. We need more transparency in banking and more transparency on the balance sheet, to make sure we learn the lessons of the crisis.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, I will use my explanation of vote – having voted for this report – to draw the attention of the House, or at least what remains of the House, to a very important statement, the statement by the Nobel prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, who – we read in the periodical of the University of Columbia, where he lectures in economics – has revealed that the decisions of the European Central Bank (ECB) are made according to instructions from a little-known organisation called the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

These statements are, at the very least, worrying. Does the European Union intend to find out whether these significant and weighty statements are true? Because of all the things we find out about derivatives, one thing is certain, and that is that there is an organisation and a mysterious trafficking that allows the system of major international speculation to decide on the policies which then affect actual people, working men and women who are responsible for producing in Member States, and this does not correspond to our vision of a Europe which needs to be a Europe of people and regions, not of bankers.

Report: Derek Vaughan (A7-0062/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, I welcome the fact that the report on revenue and expenditure for 2013 authored by a Welsh colleague, Derek Vaughan, suggests a more modest increase – of 1.9% – to the 2013 budget. Nevertheless, I would still maintain that there should be no increase in the budget, particularly due to the increased pressure and stress that national budgets are currently facing.

Within the report there are, however, many positive examples of how Parliament can reduce its expenditure for next year. In particular, I supported the proposal that the European Parliament should have a single seat. This would make substantial savings, as illustrated in a number of publicly available reports, and would further help to avoid the wasteful duplication of office space and the unnecessary journey to Strasbourg every month. It is high time that we demonstrate that we truly understand the necessity of making cost savings, especially when Member States themselves are having to significantly tighten their belts.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, the estimates for the 2013 budget show no evidence of any substantial savings. Even just the insistence that Parliament be given a single seat would be a step in the right direction to slim down this costly project. I will, therefore, vote against this report.

Madam President, the best form of saving would, of course, be to dissolve this Mickey Mouse parliament. All Member States already have excellent parliaments and they are represented in the Council through their democratically elected officials. If we were to do this, I predict we would save in the region of EUR 2 billion.

In the meantime, it is, of course, ridiculous that we should be spending huge amounts on licensing fees by using archaic Microsoft software whereas we should, of course, be using open-source software. Open-source software not only ensures that we do not have to pay licensing costs; it also means a significant reduction in IT support.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, in 2012, the UK contribution to the EU budget will be just over EUR 19 billion according to the Treasury’s Pink Book. To put that figure in context, all of the savings that we have made in our domestic spending – changes in child benefit, changes in housing benefit, the cut in local government grants – all of those things put together come to 8.6 billion. In other words, all of our austerity measures have saved only a third of our contributions to the EU budget. And where is that money going? If anyone is watching me on EuroparlTV at the moment, they may be the single most subsidised square yard in discovered space. EuroparlTV costs EUR 67 000 per hour of emission and attracts at peak 900 viewers. Or maybe some of the money is going to the House of European History at the cost of GBP 131 million. Maybe it is going on the 6.6 million of entertainment allowances that the Commission had last year.

It cannot be morally right, and it is surely economically indefensible at a time when all 27 Member States are struggling to make administrative savings, that every euro they spend is sent here to be squandered by the Brussels authorities.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Madam President, the report on estimates of revenue and expenditure for 2013 contains a number of cost-saving measures which I am happy to support in order to reflect the struggle of our own Member States, which they continue to face and have done on a year-to-year basis in their own budgets since the financial crisis in 2008.

I welcome efforts to change working methods in Parliament, which I feel can be done in very many ways. Perhaps the most important measure, however, is that a single seat for the European Parliament could lead to very substantial savings. The general public are rightly outraged at the staggering figure of over EUR 450 million per year it takes to maintain the Strasbourg seat. It is unacceptable and must be stopped, and I urge colleagues from all Member States to support this cause.

I look forward to upcoming reports detailing avenues for savings in Parliament’s budget for 2013 and I hope that they will find further possibilities for efficiency. In recognising the calls for savings and the importance of the paragraph on the Strasbourg seat, I have decided to vote in favour of this report.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, nothing the European Parliament can say, no call we make for savings, no amount of tilting at windmills – nothing we might do to persuade the citizens to have greater faith in the European institutions – will be sincere or effective if we do not, once and for all, carry out effective reforms which result in a single seat for the European Parliament. I would not like to say which seat – Brussels or Strasbourg – should be chosen, but the European Parliament should have a single seat. I do think, however, that all the arguments which were originally used, which were used in the early days of our Union to justify having two seats, are no longer valid today. Today, the great objective of achieving reconciliation between Germany and France – a very important objective – has now been accomplished, but today the European Parliament’s two seats very clearly symbolise the way in which our institutions have become distanced from the aspirations of the European Union’s ordinary citizens.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - (SK) Madam President, I was unable to support the submitted report as it contains misleading information on Parliament’s one seat. The European Parliament has had one seat since it was founded, and that is Strasbourg. I fully support cutting costs in a time of belt-tightening. Let us get rid of the expensive buildings in Brussels and cancel the unnecessary mini plenaries. We should also discuss whether the idea of one seat is compatible with construction of the Konrad Adenauer complex in Luxembourg. None of the supporters of the single seat have yet questioned this. Parliament’s budget for next year also includes funding for the House of European History. If we do not want this history to be trampled on and robbed of its meaning, we must stop questioning Strasbourg’s place as the seat of the European Parliament. The EU is about more than just money.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, this report on the budget by Derek Vaughan is certainly a step in the right direction. I was very pleased to see such a large majority in this House vote in favour of one seat, but we in Parliament have already taken some concrete steps in that direction by combining the August and September plenary sittings in Strasbourg into one instead of two trips in September. Next year, we could look at doing the same thing for a number of other months, so that we end up with bi-monthly visits rather than two per month, which would have the effect of cutting the budget.

I also voted for the procedure to verify all expenditure from the general expenditure allowance. I do not actually think that would save a great deal of money because we would probably need to employ a lot of staff to verify what was happening, but it would contribute significantly to accountability and greater transparency.

Finally, I believe that the establishing of a working group to take a full look at Parliament’s budget and to look into travel and other costs is a positive recommendation. We must then, of course, act on the recommendations that it makes.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, like Ms Záborská, I fail to understand why the Brussels supporters are so pleased about Article 2, because we have had one seat for a long time now. The Treaty states: the seat of the European Parliament is in Strasbourg. We simply need to implement this appropriately, as President Schulz has stated in his most welcome initiative, which we should support. I want to make one thing very plain: if we had dispensed with today’s nonsensical mini plenary sitting – as we could have done without any change to the Treaty – and if we had voted on all this business in the normal plenary in Strasbourg, then we would have taken a first step to save money. However, this was prevented by the same people who tell us that we need to save money. This is therefore nothing more than hypocrisy and propaganda.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, at a time when governments not just across the EU, but, in fact, across the world, are having to tighten their belts and look at every penny spent, it is shocking that here in the EU, we have actually increased the budget.

The budget should not even have been frozen – it should simply have been cut to reflect what national governments are having to do, which is to tighten their belts and act more responsibly. When you look at government expenditure, it is about time we had more transparency in all government expenditure, be it at EU level, national level, or across the world. It is time more governments published not only what they take in, but also what they pay out, so that citizens in the respective countries can hold those governments and politicians to account.

Therefore, I would welcome, as many people would, more transparency concerning revenue and expenditure under the EU budget, particularly with reference to Parliament. That would clearly show that having more than one seat for the European Parliament is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of euro. It is a disastrous waste and it sets a bad example to our citizens.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, regarding the individual situation, I voted against my group and in favour of what was proposed here. I have three reasons for this.

Firstly, in a time of economic crisis all over Europe, we cannot spend EUR 880 million per year travelling to Strasbourg.

Secondly, it is becoming more difficult to travel to Strasbourg every month. It takes me, for example, 13 hours to travel there.

Thirdly, prices are increased when the MEPs travel to Strasbourg; the cost of accommodation and even the prices in Parliament. For example, it costs EUR 1.60 to buy a glass of orange juice here. In Parliament in Strasbourg, it costs – as far as I can remember – EUR 3.20. This makes no sense. Therefore, the sooner we have one location, the better for us, the European Union and its citizens.

Joint motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0178/2012

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, I find the situation in Belarus of great concern. Over the past 15 years, we have watched from the EU as the situation for people’s personal rights, as well as their living standards, has gradually deteriorated in that country. Given that the Lukashenko government has returned to a system of repression and control, I welcome this latest round of EU sanctions and join the international condemnation of this regime. I hope that the EU is now working on a more long-term plan for helping the people of Belarus reform their own country and, over time, enabling them to rejoin the rest of Europe in a world of democracy and freedom.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, Belarus is also known as the Soviet Museum. President Lukashenko is doing his utmost to keep his collection of Soviet legacies in good condition. Given the flagrant violations of democratic principles and human rights by the regime, I agree with this report. However, I would like to comment briefly on the call for the 2014 Ice Hockey World Championships to be moved. In my opinion, this is an unnecessary form of gesture politics and, moreover, it comes a little too late in the day. This situation reminds me of the pointless controversy which arose about the Olympic Games in China.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, we often use excessive superlatives when talking about dictatorial regimes, but it is difficult to do so in the case of Belarus. Here is a Caligulan tyranny in the heart of Europe and on the borders of the European Union. A lot of this report today focused on the application of the death penalty. I am more concerned by the naked autocracy of a system where, to give one example, at the last presidential election, there were nine candidates, one of whom was elected, one of whom was left alone and the other seven of whom were imprisoned. It is extraordinary that we have a situation where people are habitually incarcerated for saying inconvenient things.

I am a souverainiste, I believe in the national independence of countries, but we also are sovereign countries and we have our own right to take a position on the democratisation of neighbouring countries. Belarus is also in our ‘near-abroad’. I think we should be proud of the fact that in this Parliament, and particularly in our group, colleagues from the PIS in Poland, colleagues like Mr Migalski, and British Conservatives have been in the front line pushing for the democratisation and freedom of that country. Those who believe in a pluralist multi-party system there should know that they have friends.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the two highly dubious executions carried out recently in Belarus are yet another example of how much the Belarusian nation is suffering today under the yoke of the cruel dictator, Aleksandr Lukashenko. It has to be said today that the trial of the alleged perpetrators of the terrorist attack on the Minsk metro was a show trial and, unfortunately, what happened at the trial does not engender confidence in the justice system in Belarus. However, in the light of what has happened following these terrible executions, and the complaint made by the mother of one of the men who were executed that she and her family have not been allowed to bury her son, it also has to be said that in our civilisation, this is something which has been respected even by the worst of dictators. Today, Lukashenko does not even care about the pain of a mother who has lost her son. Finally, I would like to say that unfortunately, this arrogance demonstrated by Lukashenko would not be possible if it were not for the help this dictator is continually being given by the Kremlin.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, we sometimes feel a little helpless when talking about Belarus because after all, this House has already seen a great many resolutions on the subject. However, we must not close our eyes to the fact that the situation there, instead of getting better, is getting worse. Worst of all, many opposition political activists have been cut off from contact with Europe and the world. They have been told they cannot leave the country, and many of those who would like to modernise and change the country have been put in prison. On the other hand, the recent executions already referred to by Mr Kamiński arouse our worst fears as to the direction in which Belarus is moving, for while it is difficult to accept executions, it is much more difficult to accept a lack of respect for the minimum standard of decency and the right of the family to bury the body of a loved one, even if it was someone who had been sentenced to death. It is the duty of the European Parliament to call for the release of all political prisoners and for greater democracy, even if we are sometimes in doubt as to whether the calls we make are effective.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, this resolution draws attention to the current situation in Belarus and the present diplomatic row between the European Union and Belarus, which has escalated with the expulsion of both the EU and the Polish ambassadors. I support the EU stance on this issue. It has to be a very tough stance, including the introduction of sanctions and the publication of lists of people involved in the Belarusian regime who are responsible for human rights violations; this regime, of course, must be strongly condemned at this time.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I, too, voted in favour of the statement made on the situation in Belarus. The current human rights and political situation in Belarus is extremely worrying. Also of concern is the fact that the economic standard of living of its citizens over recent years under the Lukashenko dictatorship has deteriorated. The increasingly repressive regime, which is basically a dictatorship, is really a deplorable one, so I welcome the extension of the EU targeted travel sanctions against representatives of the regime who are responsible for the violent repression of its citizens. Repression has also been intensified recently against civil society activists, democratic opposition and the freedom of the media.

Of course, we must all give out a strong signal that such repression today is not going to be tolerated in Europe by the European Union. I believe that targeted sanctions, as proposed, will serve to give a very strong signal to that effect to the last dictatorship in Europe. Belarusians, in my view, deserve much better.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, we have heard the relocation of sporting competitions described as ‘gesture politics’. However, to hold such competitions in a brutal dictatorship where people are randomly murdered would also entail gesture politics, by which I mean bad gesture politics. The decision to hold the Olympic Games in Nazi Germany was bad gesture politics. When it came to the Olympics Games in Beijing, people said that they would promote democracy and the rule of law. Exactly the opposite was true. The regime used the Games to enhance its profile. That was a case of bad gesture politics. That is why I am in favour of good gesture politics and of the relocation of the championship.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0188/2012

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, as far as I am concerned, enlargement of the European Union is not at all in order, certainly not at this time, when a major crisis is storming through Member States and the European Union is faltering. Although the report recommends Serbia be nominated as a candidate country, it lists all kinds of problems which, more than anything, mean that Serbia should not be recommended for promotion as a candidate country. All this shows that a country like Serbia is lagging miles behind the old Member States of the Union on all fronts, in the fields of economy, governance, human rights and crime.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, the Serbs will never be able to complain, as my constituents in the United Kingdom do, that the implications for national sovereignty were not clear when the European Union offered them membership, and I say the implications for national sovereignty in the fullest sense.

When Ratko Mladić was arrested and handed over, President Sarkozy made a statement on behalf of the European Union saying that Serbia had thereby proved its fitness to join. If you stop and think about it, the opposite really should be true: a country would have proved its democratic and liberal fitness when such a man could get justice in Belgrade or could be fairly extradited to Bosnia. But, of course, what we are doing is stepping in and saying, ‘we do not allow you even your internal domestic legal system’, something that has not happened in Serbia since the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum of 1914. That, of course, was the point that was rejected. We have to be fair in how we apply the rules to all of the applicant states. If Serbs vote in favour of joining, I will, of course, support them, but they should be in no doubt as to what the implications for their democracy are.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, Serbia has made significant progress over the past year. There are a lot of positive items in this report and I am therefore happy to support the continued progress that the country is making and hope that the government of Serbia will continue to do the hard work of reforming the judicial system and civil administration, as well as ensuring the continued fight against corruption and organised crime. It is attention to these fundamental issues that will really benefit the lives of Serbian citizens, whether or not they ultimately decide to join us here in the EU.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the Serbs deserve to be a political part of our European Union because they have already been a part of European culture and society for a very long time. I voted in favour of this report because I support Serbia’s aspirations to be in the European Union. I think the Serbs’ respect for values – their attachment to their national and cultural values – will strengthen the hand of all those in the European Union who, while they enjoy the benefits of European integration, point out that the nations of Europe should retain their identity and work together in peace for the common good. So, while I also note the progress which is being made in Serbia in many important areas, I would like to appeal to the authorities in Belgrade to make their pro-European stance even stronger, but also to fight hard against corruption and organised crime, so that the people of Serbia can benefit as quickly as possible from the same privileges enjoyed by all the European Union’s Member States.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Serbia has made great progress, and we have stressed this in this report. I voted for its adoption because I think Serbia’s place is among the Member States of the European Union. I also welcomed the decision to grant Serbia EU candidate status. This will intensify the efforts of all who support this option.

I would also like to mention a certain personal experience I had when I was a Council of Europe observer at the constitutional referendum. At the time – it was several years ago – many young Serbs did not believe that the possibility of European Union membership lay open to them. We tried to persuade them that it did. It seems to me that today’s report and the granting of EU candidate status are, in fact, the answer to the doubts they had then. I am profoundly convinced that their efforts will not be wasted and that at some point, we will be able to receive them into membership of the European Union. I sincerely hope this will be the case.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I supported the report. The future of the Serbs lies in Europe. This is also a question of stability in Europe. Serbia’s rapprochement with the European Union will benefit the entire Western Balkans region. The wars that were waged when Yugoslavia broke up still haunt Serbian society, but the youngest generation has grown up during a time of peace and wants a Serbia that is close to Europe.

The EU’s policy of unconditionality may, in the worst case, lead to dampening enthusiasm for Europe among the Serbians, and Europe cannot afford this. The Council should grant Serbia candidate country status. Serbia is well on the way towards European integration, both politically and economically, and it is leading the way in the whole of the Western Balkans region. As with the other Balkan countries, Serbia’s gradual integration into the European Union is the surest guarantee of peace in that region and in the future, and, at this critical time, this would also reinforce the Union’s own identity, one that has got lost, as a harbinger of peace and social justice.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I, too, voted in favour of the resolution on the European integration process for Serbia. Since Parliament adopted its report last year, Serbia has made good progress in the reform process and the present report calls on the Council to grant candidate status this month, which I back and so does my group.

This judicial authority has surrendered the last two remaining wanted fugitives so Serbia, in my view, has satisfactorily cooperated with the ICTY, which was one of the main requirements set by the Commission. I am still concerned with the tensions that remain in North Kosovo, particularly following developments last year, and I believe it is important that the Serbian Government looks for ways of alleviating and ultimately solving the problems in that region. Personally, I support a land-for-peace deal over Kosovo, which would settle the question once and for all.

There are also other serious outstanding issues, particularly where there will be requirements for further measures to be taken in ensuring the independence of the Serbian judiciary and the fight against corruption and organised crime. Also, as rapporteur for Montenegro, I welcome the good relations that now exist bilaterally between Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this resolution because I would like stability to be established in the Balkans. However, in order to progress on its European course, Serbia must meet the Copenhagen criteria fully, including with regard to the protection of minorities. I should emphasise in this regard the need for the rights of the Vlachs in the Timoc Valley to be respected. I am thinking, in particular, of their right to self-identification and preserving their ethnic and cultural identity, including through the provision of education in Romanian.

I should point out the protocol signed by Romania and Serbia on the protection of minorities. I urge the authorities in Belgrade to make every effort to ensure that this document is implemented according to a suitable timeframe.

I should also mention the importance of cross-border cooperation for regional prosperity, including as part of the EU strategy for the Danube region.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, naturally, I am in favour of clear compliance with the criteria, particularly in relation to minority rights and the rule of law. I would also call on Serbia finally to sign and implement the agreement with Kosovo. I nonetheless wish to use this explanation of vote to express my fundamental extraordinary sympathy for the Serbian people. I was in Belgrade on Sunday, when I met the Serbian-Orthodox Patriarch and the Catholic Archbishop and also attended the Congress of the Paneuropean Union. These people find themselves caught up in the middle of European change and our aim is to support them with all the resources at our disposal. We need to be clear that a people must never be abandoned to the abuses of a dictator like Milošević. The Serbian people are a great, freedom-loving European nation and will be an enrichment for us all when they are finally part of our Community.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0187/2012

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, as I said earlier, as far as I am concerned, enlargement of the European Union is not at all in order and certainly not at this time, when a major crisis is storming through Member States and the European Union is faltering. As in the case of Serbia, I wish to point out that Kosovo is lagging miles behind the old Member States of the Union on all fronts, in the fields of economy, governance, human rights and crime. I therefore voted against the report.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, if we want a picture of the culmination of the post-national dream which actuates so many people in this House, look at the provinces that the EU runs as colonies: Bosnia and, above all, Kosovo. Even in its trappings and its symbolism, you see the post-national nature of the state. Its flag is a version of the EU flag with stars on a blue background; its national anthem when it was first independent was Beethoven’s Ninth and then, when they eventually came up with their own, it was a wordless tune called Europe.

The whole thing has been put together in order to prevent the national principle. I favoured the right of the Albanians of Kosovo to determine their own future however they wanted: if they wanted independence, good luck to them. If they wanted union with Albania or confederation with Serbia, that was for them to decide. Of course, the flipside of that is that the Serbs in Kosovo have their own right of self-determination. In fact, we have a de facto border now. But accepting the validity de jure of that border would call into question the intellectual foundation of the European project, built as it is on the presumption that national loyalties are transient, arbitrary and discreditable. God help us when, like so many past empires, the EU applies the lessons learnt in its colonies to its metropolitan core.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, Kosovo still has many internal issues to face before it can really be seen as on the path to joining the EU. Its troubled history means it has a long way to go in order to meet the many criteria of EU accession. The continued problems over the return of internally displaced people, as well as the treatment of Roma and minority groups more generally, should be addressed as a matter of priority. Basic freedoms are still not the norm in Kosovo and the international community still has a large part to play in helping it establish the basic principles of independent statehood.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I have a huge problem with voting on enlargement of the European Union to include Kosovo because I think Kosovo should join the European Union as part of Serbia. This is because I do not acknowledge and cannot in good conscience countenance any argument which supports the terrible violation of the Serbian nation by a forced secession of this Serbian province from the country which gave it birth – a secession which, unfortunately, has received international support from some or even a majority of the European Union’s Member States. I would like to say that Kosovo today is not just a centre of organised crime, but is also a place in which persecution is being used against the ethnic Serbs who live there, and in which religious persecution is being used against Orthodox Christians, for whom the province has special and considerable significance. I would therefore like to say I am completely convinced that Kosovo is part of Serbia, and that it is as part of Serbia that Kosovo should become part of the European Union.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, the European Union’s most powerful tool of foreign policy is the prospect of EU membership. For it to achieve real change and reform, Kosovo should be offered the prospect of membership in a genuine, credible way. The European Union is committed to the defence of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious countries of the Western Balkans. This has to be based on democratic values, tolerance and multiculturalism.

Regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations are the main condition for countries wanting to join the EU. Good neighbourly relations are also uniquely crucial for stability and security in the powder keg that is the Western Balkans. President Ahtisaari’s plan is an excellent framework for the resolution of the conflict in northern Kosovo. Kosovo’s territorial and political inviolability must be respected and upheld. True democracy and a viable market economy can only ripen in a country that respects the rule of law. The main priority of the Kosovo Government, and of the EULEX operation that supports it, must therefore be to fight corruption and organised crime.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted against this resolution because it does not reflect the actual situation and does not respect my country’s official position. There are five Member States, including Romania, which do not recognise the independence of Kosovo. They have a sovereign right to do this because recognising a state is a national prerogative, and the European Parliament should not get involved in this issue.

In the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I proposed several amendments along with my colleague, Cristian Preda. They proposed neutral wording regarding Kosovo’s status so that the text of the resolution could obtain everyone’s support. I regret that this pragmatic approach was not supported.

I should remind you that the European Parliament’s objective must be to bring stability to the region and not to attempt to exert pressure on Member States regarding matters which come under national sovereignty.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0189/2012

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, as far as I am concerned, enlargement of the European Union is not at all in order and certainly not at this time, when a major crisis is storming through Member States and the European Union is faltering. Putting to one side the question of whether Turkey should be part of the European Union at all for geographic reasons, we ought to remember that we would be dragging in a Muslim country with a population of 80 million, which means that it will be able to assert great power inside the European Union. In addition, Turkey meets virtually none of the conditions required for it to be regarded as a serious democracy. I assume that we cannot welcome such a country with enthusiasm, can we?

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, a Turk watching the debate on this report would get a very partial and imperfect view of the real opinions of this Chamber. People say one thing when they are speaking on the record and they say a very different thing when chatting in the corridors. The real objection that a number of Members have to Turkish accession is based on numbers and based on voting weights. The last thing that committed euro federalists want is the admission of a populous, proud and patriotic Muslim country but, rather than saying that, we have played this game where we have enticed Turkey with a promise that we have no intention of fulfilling. In treating them in this way, we risk creating the very thing which we purport to fear, namely, an alienated and anti-Western state on our doorstep.

Turks are as entitled to their dignity as any other people. We have asked them in the past to safeguard Europe’s flank against the Bolshevist tyranny; we may one day ask them to do the same against the Islamic hegemony and the Islamist Jihadi hegemony. I think that they deserve better than the way they have been treated.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, although I welcome the moderate progress that has been made by Turkey since accession negotiations opened in 2005, further work on reform does still need to be carried out, as highlighted by this resolution. This is particularly pertinent in the reformation of its judiciary, ensuring there is a free press, freedom of expression for its citizens, and, importantly, the protection of minorities. Turkey is likely to be a vital ally to the EU in terms of security and ensuring prosperity in the longer term. It is therefore imperative that the EU continues to support measures to ensure lasting peace and stability.

Turkey is considered to be one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Given that its economy has tripled in size over the past decade, with 80% of foreign direct investment in Turkey coming from the EU and it being one of the largest trading partners for us, we should not underestimate its economic importance and value going forwards.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, Turkey is a modern secular state with a rapidly expanding economy. However, as the progress report shows, Turkey still has a long way to go before it meets the criteria to become an EU member. There are three main areas where I feel Turkey needs to make considerable improvements. Firstly, Turkey is still lagging behind when it comes to equality between men and women. Secondly, Turkey must do more to protect the rights of minority communities, especially the Kurds. Kurds must be allowed to be educated in their own language. Thirdly, the country’s Foreign Minister has indicated that Turkey will refuse to work with the Cypriot Presidency from 1 July. Any country that does not recognise one of the 27 EU Member States is a questionable candidate.

I call on Ankara to engage with the Cypriot Presidency. I also call on Ankara to prove it holds EU values and, as a sign of goodwill, withdraw its troops from the occupied part of Cyprus. Turkey needs to show statesmanship if it wishes to join the EU.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I have a problem, or rather two problems, with Turkey. Turkey’s membership of the European Union does not present me with any difficulties. This is on condition, however, that a solution is found to a problem which is, for me, an egregious violation of European solidarity: how can we propose membership of the European Union to Turkey in a situation in which Turkey supports the occupation of the sovereign territory of Cyprus – one of the European Union’s Member States? In addition to this, Turkey is still having huge problems with implementing the rights of national and religious minorities. On the one hand, we have the huge Kurdish issue, while, on the other, there are still instances of the persecution of Christians in Turkey. Without resolution of the two problems to which I have referred – the problem of the occupation of Cyprus and the problem of national and religious minorities – there can be no talk of European Union membership for Turkey.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I supported the report. The European Union and all its Member States and Turkey are already dependent on one another. Turkey has not reformed in the manner and according to the timetable agreed, and, unfortunately, negotiations have made sluggish progress. At the same time, Turkey is the only candidate country without visa waiver status. Access to the European Union should be made easier for researchers, students and members of civil society. Border control is Turkey’s stumbling block. The number of illegal immigrants entering the EU through the Greek-Turkish bottleneck is huge.

Turkey also has a role to play in achieving lasting peace, democratic progress, stability and prosperity, both in the Balkans and in the Middle East. Turkey needs to find a political solution to the Kurdish question. More effective political dialogue is required. There have to be greater opportunities for citizens of Kurdish origin to participate politically, culturally, socially and economically, and for them to feel that they are included. Children must also have the right to learn their own mother tongue in school.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, I have found this debate on Turkey very interesting. It is a great country, and undoubtedly impressive, but it must, however, make steps towards democracy, and one democratic step would be to bring the military occupation of Cyprus to an end.

One of our colleagues referred to the division in Nicosia yesterday. I once paid a visit there when I was the mayor of Oviedo, an ancient capital city of Europe, and I felt the same pain as with Berlin years ago. A foreign power cannot occupy the territory of a sovereign state. What I am saying in relation to Cyprus also applies to Gibraltar in my country, which is Spanish and should not be occupied, a fact that we Spanish will never forget.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this resolution because relations with Turkey are strategically significant in economic, energy, foreign policy and security terms.

The events taking place in the Southern Neighbourhood have highlighted even more the positive role that Ankara can play at a regional level. This is why I call on the High Representative and the Council to step up dialogue and cooperation with Turkey, especially regarding the areas in the EU’s immediate vicinity. At the same time, I call on the Turkish authorities to support and make an active contribution to implementing EU policies and programmes in the Black Sea region.

I should mention that Romania and Turkey signed a strategic partnership in December 2011 based on the following priority areas: strengthening economic cooperation, energy, foreign and security policy, and anti-terrorism.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Madam President, I abstained from the vote on this report today. It is good that there is progress in the dialogue with Turkey. We need to have close relations with Turkey, but we also need to realise that Turkey lacks European values. There is suppression of minorities, including religious minorities, imprisonment of trade unionists and there are huge problems with regard to the freedom of expression. The country’s relations with Cyprus speak for themselves.

I think that it would be more honest for the EU to say to Turkey that we would like to have very close cooperation with the country, but that membership of the EU is out of the question. It is like being engaged to a woman for a great many years, but never offering her marriage. It would be better to be frank and honest straight away.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0190/2012

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, the same goes for Montenegro that they are nowhere near ready to join the EU. The countries of the Balkans have a long way to go before they can measure up to the old Member States in the fields of economy, governance, human rights and crime prevention. For that matter, I am of the opinion that the European Union should no longer allow any other country in.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, Montenegro has made significant progress in making a number of reforms, in particular, to its national parliament, improving its electoral framework and working towards an independent judiciary, which is why I welcome the Council decision to begin accession negotiations. Moreover, I welcome the adoption of the anti-corruption legislation by the country and sincerely hope that these moves will encourage other accession countries to follow its example. Further progress still needs to be made, notably in combating organised crime. However, we are confident that these demands will be met and, in light of this, we would welcome Montenegro’s accession to the EU as a positive development to the country, should they choose to do so.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the Balkans need stability. There is no doubt that wherever enlargement of the European Union has taken place – from the Union’s very inception, when it was founded in Western Europe – it has always been a region of practically uninterrupted growth. Even though we are in the midst of a crisis today, the European Union has always enjoyed uninterrupted growth and, above all else, peace. I think the Balkans also need this growth and this peace – benefits brought by the European Union wherever it operates. I welcome the successes which have been achieved in the face of many difficulties in the Republic of Montenegro in the fight against corruption and in establishing a standard of government which is simply better, and I endorse this report and voted in favour of its adoption.

Report: Sebastian Valentin Bodu (A7-0051/2012)

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, once again, we have here an initiative where Europe wants to take on the role of national governments. The simple fact that the Commission only takes into account a one tier board speaks volumes. The differences between countries in terms of corporation tax legislation are such that it is much more effective to regulate on this at national level. It so happens that many countries have already regulated on this through self-regulation in the form of codes. I am simply against additional regulation in this area and definitely against any regulation by Europe. I therefore voted against this report.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Madam President, I voted against the Bodu report on a corporate governance framework for European companies. I could have accepted Mr Bodu’s original version, which emphasises the value of voluntary targets, but I am firmly opposed to specific legislation forcing companies to introduce quotas for women on their boards.

We have seen Norway do this, and it seems that companies are starting to de-list in order to avoid a 40% limit. Thus, it should be the shareholders who decide who is to sit on their boards, as it is their money after all. It is as if we politicians are now sitting in a bubble wanting to do something for companies without knowing what it is that the individual companies want to do.

I think it is disappointing when a matter ends with the vote that we obtained today. I think it is good for more women to sit on company boards. On a number of the boards on which I sit, for example, we have benefited greatly from the presence of women. However, women should not be given seats on the board on the basis of quotas. This is not a good solution and it is bad for the shareholders. We have already seen in the case of Norway that it causes problems.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Madam President, the report on the corporate governance framework for European companies can be supported due to its respect for national governance rules and its lack of a top-down, rules-based approach. The Anglo-Saxon ‘comply or explain’ model has been recognised in the report as an important tool and I fully agree that deviation away from the code of conduct within the Member States should be explained by the company in question. Better functioning of existing governance rules and recommendations is preferred to a new European strict rules-based system and I applaud the efforts of this report to maintain Member State jurisdiction in this area while having belief in the sharing of best practice.

I was, however, unable to support amendments tabled relating to the gender quotas. The gender imbalance is, without doubt, a major problem, but we should allow Member States and companies to address this issue without imposition of quotas from a European level. I voted in favour of this report and congratulate the rapporteur for his efforts, but I voted against measures on quotas from a European level.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, while I fully support access for women in politics and employment, I also always have doubts about quota solutions if this is in some sense an attempt to force achievement of the legitimate demand that all genders be treated equally. The history of our civilisation shows that wherever we attempt a kind of social engineering, we very often achieve the opposite effect to the one intended. This also explains why I voted against this principle. However, I did endorse this report, despite having initial doubts that it will take us in the direction of excessive regulation and of bureaucratic institutions interfering in business – and I think that nothing good comes of interference of this kind. I consider the report to be a good compromise and, accordingly, I endorsed it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this report as I think that it is timely in the context of the warnings about a new recession in the euro area. The European business sector needs a clear, predictable legal framework. Corporate social responsibility must be a priority in companies’ policy. I should mention the importance of rules governing the independent auditing of European companies. A higher degree of transparency is also required in order to avoid the mistakes which triggered the current crisis.

I also think that the dual administration model must be promoted, which is just as widely used in Europe as the unitary system. Incorporating both versions in the new legal framework will ensure consistency in the commercial chain.

As shadow rapporteur for corporate governance in financial institutions, I should mention how important stringent minimum standards are for good governance in the EU’s financial sector.

Report: Iliana Ivanova (A7-0058/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, over the past few years, the role of the EIB has extended beyond simply providing loans and assistance to countries’ businesses and projects within the EU. As the EIB begins to use more risk-based instruments and more complex types of leverage, we need to be very careful that the scrutiny of the EIB keeps pace with this change. While projects like Jeremie, in my own constituency in Wales, have been very effective in adding value to the initial capital provided by the EIB, thereby making money seem to go further, we must remember that more complex financial instruments can bring with them new risks. As the financial crisis has shown us, transparency is crucial to understanding the systemic importance and interconnectedness of financial products and institutions, yet I am concerned that there may not be sufficient financial supervision taking place over the operations and the balance sheet of the EIB itself.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, why is it that I can no longer read virtually any report these days which is not about climate change? It is climate change this and climate change that. How can we take ourselves seriously in policy development when we continue to base our judgment on scientifically questionable assumptions? This was enough of a reason for my vote against the annual report on the European Investment Bank.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, I welcome the work of the European Investment Bank, especially the funding it provides to small and medium-sized enterprises. Nevertheless, I abstained on the vote because, while the report calls for more funding for SMEs, this funding comes with too many strings attached. SMEs are the life blood of the European economy. If they are left to flourish, they can promote economic growth and create jobs. However, this report places too much emphasis on the greening of the economy. By deprioritising projects which fail to meet these exact criteria, the EIB is placing an unnecessary burden on small businesses. Loans should be made to companies which are most likely to boost the European economy, not just firms that meet idealistic environmental standards.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I abstained from voting on this report, although I rate the successes of the European Investment Bank’s work to date very highly. However, in my opinion, the basic criteria for appraising the work of the bank should be economic and financial ones, because banks exist – and I suppose this is how it should be – to make money from giving loans, but in the case of a bank like the European Investment Bank, it also exists simply to support economic growth in our continent. I am opposed to imposing on banks, and on business in general, even the most legitimate of ideological measures. I lived 18 years of my life in a country in which economics was not important apart from its ideological significance, and the people of Poland and of many other countries in Central Europe and in Europe in general found out personally that it is a very bad thing when ideology gets in the way of economics.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this report because I support the EIB continuing to pursue policies aimed at supporting the real economy at European level. I applaud the achievements of the EIB in 2010, which were aimed at Europe’s economic recovery against the background of the economic and monetary crisis. The efforts in this direction must be continued further mainly through support for the Europe 2020 strategy. The EIB’s financing operations are needed to carry out the EU’s activities.

I, too, endorse the position of the rapporteur, Ms Ivanova, on providing greater support to SMEs via the EIB. I also welcome the EIB’s initiative of coming into line with the EU’s climate change objectives.

In 2010, the EIB funded projects in Romania with a total value of EUR 410 million, with the energy and services sectors being the main beneficiaries of these resources.

Report: Adina-Ioana Vălean (A7-0047/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, whilst I fully agree with the EU’s principle of free movement of EU citizens across the EU, I have voted against this report as it proposes a number of measures to which I am opposed, including the harmonisation of national security schemes and the convergence of tax rules. Although I could support some of the other proposals put forward, I reject many others.

In particular, the report criticises the citizenship test which is currently used in the UK to grant citizenship. I reject that criticism and would argue that the test utilised is proportionate and fair, especially given the subsequent social benefits that are enjoyed by all UK citizens. The report claims that such issues are obstacles to EU citizens’ rights. However, given the very large inward mobility of EU citizens to the UK, particularly amongst younger EU citizens, this would seem to suggest that existing processes are not a barrier to the free movement of individuals into my country. The EU should be a welcoming place for all European citizens and I would suggest that the UK is the destination of choice for many of our young because of such a welcome.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, in keeping with the policy of the Dutch Government, I take the view that Romania and Bulgaria should not be admitted to the Schengen area. In the present report, the Netherlands is being called upon, amongst other things, to drop this blockade. I disagree with that, quite apart from the fact that the Netherlands is simply a sovereign country. What is more, I believe that the Schengen Agreement should be extensively revised in order to combat the influx of illegal immigrants and crime.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, I appreciate the work of the Committee on Petitions and I believe in the right of citizens to petition Parliament. Nevertheless, this report is a mess. It reads like a hastily compiled shopping list scribbled down on the back of an envelope. I am pleased that the report deals with the unacceptable Spanish coastal law. I hear regularly from my constituents who have been left homeless and penniless with no compensation. Yet the report also notes that property law does not fall within the EU’s area of competence.

The UK was not afforded the same courtesy when the report criticised our social security system, another area which clearly lies outside EU competence. I cannot support a report which wants the UK to ban the right-to-reside test on EU nationals before they take advantage of the generous British welfare system. We have a right to protect our taxpayers from the burden of benefit tourism.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I had a big problem with this report. This is because, on the one hand, it contains things which simply have to be supported. Generally speaking, the very fact that we are dealing with the rights of the European Union’s citizens is something which should be regarded very highly. However, I voted against the report because I think that too often, alongside things in it which are absolutely legitimate, we also address matters about which I do not even want to say whether or not they are legitimate, but they should be the exclusive competence of the Member States. I do not think it is either safe or good if the degree of harmonisation of our routes of development in the Member States of the European Union is to be greater that in the United States, where I think individual states have greater freedom in certain matters than this Parliament would like to allow the European Union’s Member States.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report. Unfortunately, citizens’ rights are not always implemented in practice, even though they are clearly provided for in EU legislation. This only makes Europeans even more disillusioned with Europe’s integration process. To remove obstacles to citizens’ rights, it is important to stress the importance of mobility and education. The European Union should also emphasise the significance of lifelong learning, vocational training and further training. Education is the main way to reduce inequality and poverty. The Commission should take active steps to guarantee all citizens of the European Union the right to a high-quality basic and vocational education.

The Commission should also take account of those especially vulnerable groups that are at risk of exclusion, such as the Roma and people from third countries. They also have the same citizens’ rights as others. Furthermore, if citizens’ rights are to be implemented, it is also important to give greater importance to the culture, language, history and value of the various minorities – indigenous groups – living in the European Union, both within the groups themselves and among the rest of the population.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I voted against the 2010 EU citizenship report. Whilst, of course, the fundamental freedom of movement for EU citizens across the whole of the EU is something I support entirely, along with the three other fundamental freedoms, this report is far too prescriptive on the Member States, including ridiculous ideas like harmonising tax rules and these are, in my view, completely unjustified.

I do not support the idea of allowing extra funding for the publicising of the European Year of Citizens, nor do I want to see more money given to Euronews from the EU taxpayers’ pockets. Euronews is a great news channel – I watch it myself – but it should be self-funding on a commercial basis. Furthermore, I do not feel that I can support a report which specifically criticises the United Kingdom – i.e. my own country – for its right-to-reside test, which is currently used to test candidates before they are granted welfare rights. I believe this to be an entirely fair process, especially given the benefits that can be received, once a test is passed, by all UK citizens equally.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for Ms Vălean’s report because it presents very timely proposals for dismantling the obstacles to European citizens’ rights. As a member of the Committee on Petitions, I am au fait with the main concerns citizens have regarding compliance with EU legislation.

I should point out the references to the promotion of the Roma minority’s rights in Europe, confirming this document’s endorsement of the European Union’s strategy in this area. I also welcome the resolution’s mention of the free movement of Romanian workers, which I initiated along with Mr Ungureanu and Mr Marinescu. I think that this matter needed to be included in this report, in view also of recent developments concerning the Schengen area and the PVV’s anti-immigrant website. I call on European decision makers to take into account the conclusions of this report and adopt suitable measures.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, I think this report dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights is a very worthwhile report and it could prove useful to citizens. I do not agree with everything that is in it but certainly, as a member of the Committee on Petitions, and indeed in my own general work as an MEP, I am very conscious of the problems and obstacles that are faced by citizens when they are trying to exercise their right to free movement and, indeed, that of their families as well.

Now in this context, I voted for the first part of Amendment 1 on freedom of movement for citizens, but the second part of Amendment 1 gave me some problems because I had some concerns about its wording when it asked that we recognise freedom of movement for all EU citizens, etc. on the basis of mutual recognition. I am very happy to support Directive 2004/38/EC, where freedom of movement for family members is guaranteed on the basis of legislation of the host Member State but not on any other basis. I also support that this directive should be strictly applied, as that will eliminate some of the obstacles I spoke of, when people are trying to exercise their rights to free movement, but I am not prepared to go beyond that.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, I voted against this report because it shows all so clearly that the British people were lied to about the true intention of the European Union project. It is about take-over, not about trade. This Vălean report wants harmonised tax, social security, state benefits, pensions, even divorce laws right across the EU. What is this to do with trade? What is this to do with the common market? It is about harmonising arrangements to create a single European state.

Well, I am not an EU citizen and I will not be an EU citizen. I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty The Queen, in her 60th year of rule, and this Vălean report is an insult to that loyalty.

Written explanations of vote

Recommendation: Vital Moreira (A7-0060/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) According to the contacts made by the rapporteur, the constitution and rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group seem to meet all the requirements. That being the case, Parliament should accept the Council’s proposal, while also suggesting that it would be important to try to bring all the world’s major rubber producers into this group.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which plans to revise the constitution of the International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) and which recognises the importance of this organisation. We need to revitalise cooperation between rubber producing and importing countries. As the rapporteur points out, the IRSG is an intergovernmental organisation first established in 1944 in the United Kingdom, and relocated in 2008 to Singapore. It offers a platform for discussion between rubber producing and consuming countries on all aspects of the rubber supply chain. This structure provides statistical information on the global market and promotes cooperation between its members. Currently, nine countries plus the European Union are contributing members: the Republic of Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, India, Japan, Malaysia, Nigeria, the Russian Federation, Singapore and Sri Lanka. Some 120 industry representatives are members through a Panel of Associates. Despite the fact that, in the past few years, major price rises and high volatility have impacted a number of commodities, including natural rubber, I thought it was necessary to reaffirm this international cooperation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this recommendation because I think that it is vital to clarify the EU’s legal status within international organisations. The amendments being proposed to the group’s constitution allow the European Union to participate effectively in the decision-making process within it. I should also emphasise the particularly important role played by the group in tackling the volatility of commodity prices in this industry. In the current economic climate, the transparency of both the primary market and derivatives market must be guaranteed. Another factor which must be taken into account is the environmental conditions, which have deteriorated significantly in the areas where the commodity is harvested. I would also like to mention the importance of providing free and affordable access to the international rubber market. In fact, enhanced cooperation between the main producers and the biggest consumers is vital with this aim in mind.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the past few years, major price rises and high price volatility have impacted a number of commodities, including natural rubber. For the European Union, which is dependent on imports and is, at the same time, the world’s second largest consumer of natural rubber, it becomes key to ensure fair, predictable and affordable access to this commodity. The International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) is an intergovernmental organisation that aims to collect and disseminate comprehensive statistical information on the global rubber industry. I believe that this activity plays an important role in improving transparency in rubber markets and market trends, a necessary condition for better understanding and, hence, taming price volatility for this commodity. However, I note that the fact that some of the world’s largest rubber producing and consuming countries are not members of the IRSG – Thailand, the United States and China – weakens the authority of this organisation and calls into question its purpose and, above all, its representativeness. Therefore, I am taking the opportunity to draw the Commission’s attention to the importance of making every effort to increase the membership of this group by engaging with the main rubber producing and consuming countries as a prerequisite for its long-term effectiveness on the market.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that the European Union should continue to participate in the International Rubber Study Group (IRSG). Recently, there have been serious doubts over the future of the IRSG because important countries like the US, Thailand and Malaysia have pulled out of the group. However, the International Rubber Study Group is an intergovernmental organisation whose principal function is to be a forum for discussion for all countries involved in the production, supply and consumption of rubber. Today, it is the only inclusive platform grouping both rubber producing and consuming countries, and, in spite of the organisation’s shortcomings, it still is the most appropriate body to work on increasing transparency, and one of the organisation’s most important objectives is to ensure fair, predictable and affordable access to rubber on the global market. The European Union is the world’s second biggest consumer of natural rubber and the organisation’s members also include Russia and Japan.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) is the only inclusive international platform grouping both rubber producing and rubber consuming countries. In addition, the IRSG is still the most appropriate body to increase market transparency and to ensure fair, predictable and affordable access to rubber all around the world. The fact that some of the world’s largest rubber producers and consumers are not members of the IRSG weakens the authority of this organisation and calls into question its purpose, its credibility and its representativeness. The United States, the third biggest consumer, and Thailand, the main rubber producer, pulled out of the IRSG in mid-2011.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that in the past few years, major price rises and their increased volatility have had an impact on a number of commodities, including natural rubber. This is why the analysis of this situation has demonstrated that the source of these developments is the ever-growing demand, particularly from China. I think that a restricted short-term supply, fewer rubber trees planted and heavy rains in the major producing countries have put the global supply of rubber under pressure.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) is an intergovernmental organisation first established in 1944 in the United Kingdom, the purpose of which is discussion between rubber producing and consuming countries on all aspects of the supply chain. The IRSG aims to collect and disseminate comprehensive statistical information on the world rubber industry. This activity is fundamental for improving transparency in rubber markets, and for better understanding and eventually taming price volatility for this commodity. It makes sense, therefore, for Parliament to consent to the conclusion by the Council, on behalf of the European Union, of the amended constitution and rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation, drafted by Mr Moreira, addresses the draft Council decision on the conclusion by the European Union of the amended constitution and rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group (IRSG). The IRSG is an international organisation established in the United Kingdom in 1944 (relocating to Singapore in 2008) which offers a platform for discussion between rubber producing and rubber consuming countries. The effectiveness of this organisation has been weakened because some of the largest rubber producing countries have pulled out of it, and major consumers such as China and the United States do not participate in the platform, either. In recent years, increased demand, especially from China, and falling production due to natural disasters and the low numbers of rubber trees planted have pushed up prices for this commodity. I voted in favour of this recommendation because the European Union is the world’s second largest rubber consumer and, despite its shortcomings, the IRSG is, in my view, the only forum in which the Member States, through their representatives, can demand greater transparency in this market and ensure fair, predictable and affordable access.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) is an intergovernmental organisation that seeks to offer a platform for discussion between rubber producing and consuming countries on all aspects of the rubber supply chain. The IRSG aims to collect and disseminate comprehensive statistical information on the world rubber industry. This activity is widely acknowledged as being fundamental for improving transparency in rubber markets and market trends, a prerequisite for better understanding and eventually taming price volatility for this commodity. The rapporteur expresses his concern at the shrinking membership of the IRSG and the fact that China, the largest rubber consumer, and Indonesia, one of the main producers, show no interest in participating in the group. The IRSG’s aims are laudable: to prepare current estimates and analyse future supply and demand trends, while undertaking statistical and economic studies on specific aspects of the industry. It should be mentioned, however, that the IRSG Panel of Associates, which is open to organisations involved in the rubber industry, will inevitably be exposed to the interests and influence of multinationals, which may even extend to the group itself. Such a relationship can only be pernicious, and it may undermine the group’s overall objectives.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In October 2011, the European Parliament was asked to approve a Council proposal to adopt, on behalf of the EU, the amended constitution and amended rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group (IRSG). The IRSG is an international organisation which has been based in Singapore since 2008. The group is a platform enabling discussion between countries which produce and consume rubber, and on all aspects of the rubber supply chain. Governments of individual states may become IRSG members. At present, the contributing members include the EU and nine countries: Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, India, Japan, Malaysia, Nigeria, the Russian Federation, Singapore and Sri Lanka. Almost 120 representatives of this sector have membership through the panel of affiliated members. The aim of the group is to collect and mediate comprehensive statistical information on the global rubber sector. It is generally considered that this activity is of fundamental importance in terms of increasing the transparency of the rubber market and market trends in this sector. In my opinion, it is right to try and take the necessary steps to expand the basic membership group, first and foremost, by negotiating with the states that are the largest producers and consumers of rubber. A strong membership basis is also a basic precondition for the long-term viability and effective functioning of the IRSG as an authoritative body.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the past few years, there has been a significant increase in the prices of natural rubber. Studies have shown these increases are caused by constrained short-term supply, rising demand (particularly from China), few rubber trees planted and heavy rains in the major producing countries. Such far-reaching problems need to be dealt with and resolved within the International Rubber Study Group (IRSG), the intergovernmental organisation of which the European Union is a member, the aim of which is to collect and disseminate comprehensive statistical information on the world rubber industry. The recent amendment of the constitution and rules of procedure will put the IRSG in a better position than ever to act as a forum for discussion in which to find shared solutions in order to deal more effectively with future problems in the rubber industry.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this document because Parliament consents to the draft Council decision on the conclusion by the European Union of the amended constitution and rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group (IRSG). It should be noted that the IRSG’s membership has been weakened by recent developments, and that the IRSG is the only inclusive platform grouping both rubber producing and consuming countries. Furthermore, in spite of its shortcomings, the IRSG is still the most appropriate body to work on increasing the transparency, which is lacking on the physical market, and also a body that is badly needed to ensure fair, predictable and affordable access to rubber all around the world. The revision of the constitution and rules of procedure of the IRSG can also provide an impetus for relaunching the group as an essential multi-stakeholder forum. All efforts possible must be made to increase the membership of this group, in particular, by engaging with the main rubber producing and consuming countries. A strong membership base remains a prerequisite for the long-term viability and effectiveness of the IRSG as an authoritative body. This will undoubtedly have an impact on greater sustainability in the industry and the development of quality standards, as well as alternative rubbers.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union is a member of the International Rubber Study Group, pursuant to Council Decision 2002/651 of 22 July 2002. On 14 July 2011, following several rounds of negotiations, the heads of delegation of the International Group approved the text amending its constitution and its rules of procedure. The adoption of the Moreira report allowed this new constitution and these new rules of procedure to be approved, a precondition for confirming the installation of the group in its new headquarters, its budget contributions and its decision-making procedures.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. While noting that the membership of the International Rubber Study Group has been weakened by recent developments, I am also aware that the IRSG is the only inclusive platform grouping both rubber producing and rubber consuming countries. Furthermore, the IRSG still is, in spite of its shortcomings, the most appropriate body to work on increasing transparency – something that is lacking on the physical market and is badly needed to ensure fair, predictable and affordable access to rubber all around the world.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of approving the amended text. I am also in favour of increasing the number of members of the International Rubber Study Group. The major rubber producing and consuming countries need to be involved.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) is an intergovernmental organisation first established in 1944 in the United Kingdom and relocated to Singapore in 2008. It offers a platform for discussion between rubber producing and consuming countries on all aspects of the rubber supply chain. The IRSG aims to collect and disseminate comprehensive statistical information on the world rubber industry. This activity is widely acknowledged as being fundamental for improving transparency in rubber markets and market trends, a prerequisite for better understanding and eventually taming price volatility for this commodity. I believe that the revision of the constitution and rules of procedure of the IRSG can provide an impetus for relaunching the group as an essential multi-stakeholder forum. I am therefore in favour of consenting to this draft Council decision on the conclusion by the European Union of the amended constitution and rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Since this report is aimed at giving the assent of Parliament to the amended constitution and rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group, of which the EU has been a member since 2002, we should support it. I voted in favour.

  James Nicholson (ECR), in writing. – My ECR colleagues and I decided to vote in favour of the report relating to the International Rubber Study Group. We believe that the report is key to ensuring fair, predictable and affordable access to rubber. We support the aims of the IRSG in wanting to collect comprehensive statistical information on the world rubber industry. This action will hopefully lead to increased transparency in rubber markets and market trends – a condition for better understanding and eventually taming price volatility for this commodity. We hope that, in time, we can combat the major price rises that we have witnessed impacting on commodities including natural rubber. We need the study group to identify ways to combat rising demand for rubber in the world, particularly in China. We need to see where else rubber trees can be planted, and how we can best address the problem of heavy rains that affect stock in producing countries.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The amendments that were made to the rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group in July 2011 take into account the developments and new legal status of the European Union within this worldwide organisation that was established in 1944. Over the years, membership numbers have fallen and some countries have left, despite its central role in market transparency and in fighting market abuse. The changes made seem to be effective and, as the rapporteur has specified, Parliament as an institution must support and approve the conclusions.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In October 2011, the European Parliament was asked to give its consent to the Council’s conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the amended constitution and rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group (IRSG). The rapporteur for this file convened a number of stakeholders for an exchange of views, which took place at the meeting of the Committee on International Trade on 20 December 2011. It was clear from this meeting that the IRSG is the only inclusive platform grouping both rubber producing and rubber consuming countries. Furthermore, the IRSG still is, in spite of its shortcomings, the most appropriate body to work on increasing the transparency that is lacking in the physical market and is badly needed to ensure fair, predictable and affordable access to rubber all around the world. For all these reasons, and in line with the rapporteur’s conclusions, I voted in favour of this report.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document because I believe it is vital to make every effort to increase the membership of the International Rubber Study Group by engaging with the main rubber producing and consuming countries. The fact that some of the world’s largest rubber producing and consuming countries are not members of the group weakens the authority of this organisation and its function as a platform for discussion. The revision of the constitution and rules of procedure of the group could ensure that it is relaunched as an essential forum for improving transparency in rubber markets and market trends, and hence for taming price volatility for this commodity.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The International Rubber Study Group (IRSG), founded in 1944, has suffered a loss of credibility in recent years since Asian countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia no longer belong to it. China and the United States, the world’s largest and third largest rubber consumers respectively, have also pulled out. Individual European countries are now represented in the IRSG by the European Commission. I am in favour of this report because the supply of rubber is a problem that affects Europe’s industry and is closely connected to the wider debate on raw materials. The risk that market supply will be constrained, as is occurring with rare earths, could cause problems for our industries and favour those in rubber producing third countries.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am, of course, voting in favour of this measure. The amendments to the rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group are a mere formality. I hope, however, that this vote will be an opportunity to take stock and decide whether it makes sense to remain in an organisation such as this, given that the largest producing countries and some of the largest consuming countries pulled out of the group some time ago or are doing so now.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the past few years, major price rises and high volatility have impacted a number of commodities, including natural rubber. Analysis has demonstrated that at the origin of these developments are: rising demand, particularly from China; constrained short-term supply; few rubber trees planted; and heavy rains in the major producing countries. These factors combined have placed the global supply of rubber under pressure. Greater transparency in rubber markets is therefore required. This vote strengthens the International Rubber Study Group, which is the most appropriate body to ensure fair, predictable and affordable access to rubber all around the world. Every effort should also be made to increase the membership of the group by engaging with the principal rubber producing and consuming countries.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament decision consenting to the conclusion of the amended constitution and rules of procedure of the International Rubber Study Group. I believe it is important to expand the membership of this international group to attract the main rubber producing and consuming countries, in particular. The workings of the group must be closely monitored, and any relevant developments must be reported back to Parliament within two years of the entry into force of the group’s amended constitution and rules of procedure.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) aims to collect and disseminate comprehensive statistical information on the world rubber industry, which is an important and commendable activity. We believe it is important that the participation of organisations involved in the rubber industry should not leave the group exposed to the interests and influence of multinationals, which would undermine the group’s objectives.

Report: Keith Taylor (A7-0053/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the Taylor report, which advocates a clarification of air passengers’ rights. Airline companies have a duty to provide information and assistance, particularly in the event of long delays and flight cancellations. They are also required to make their price-setting practices more transparent and to indicate the environmental impact of the trip on the air ticket.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) This report provides access to full, intelligible and accessible information, including information on CO2 emissions in particular. I would highlight the fact that the report also calls for price transparency, guarantees in the event of airline bankruptcy, and contact personnel or services at airports. It also advocates another very important point, which is barrier-free access for people with reduced mobility or disabilities. I am voting in favour for all these reasons.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air. This resolution is the European Parliament’s response to the recently published communication from the Commission on the regulation on common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. I agree with the rapporteur that information on passenger rights should be communicated in a simple, appropriate and understandable way throughout key stages of the journey. I believe that there must be qualified staff at airports who can be contacted and who can take immediate decisions in the event of disruption, with regard to assistance, reimbursement, re-routing and other issues. In the event of disruption to travel, passengers should be provided in a timely manner with information covering reasons for the delay or cancellation, the expected duration of the delay and alternative travel options, including other modes of transport if possible. The triple choice for the passenger between refunding, re-routing and rebooking, as a basic right, should also be highlighted. I believe that the European Parliament has adopted this resolution at just the right time because next year, the Commission intends to review legislation in this area. I call on the Commission to take this resolution into account in future when reviewing the Package Travel Directive and the Airport Package.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the Commission’s decision to amend the regulations governing air passenger transport, intended to enhance one of the most important services which makes the free movement of Member States’ citizens within Europe a reality. The amendments targeted by this legislative proposal outline a clear, consistent framework for protecting passengers’ interests and rights without, however, omitting the responsibilities incumbent upon them as beneficiaries of transport services. It is important for European passengers to be able to enjoy services provided in good time and have the means for disputing and obtaining redress for any losses caused as a result of interactions with airlines.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We introduced, several years ago, European legislation to regulate the practices of airline companies and to protect us from their abuse. However, our rights as air passengers continue to be flouted on a regular basis and that is why I supported Mr Taylor’s report. Air passenger rights in the event of delay, cancellation and overbooking must be respected and it is our duty to act as spokespersons for citizens on these issues. The rules will be more precise, particularly regarding the notions of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and ‘cancellation’. This lack of precision gives room for manoeuvre which still allows airline companies to misleadingly describe a plane which takes off 24 hours after the scheduled time as ‘delayed’ in order to avoid compensating the passenger. I also supported the idea of blacklisting unfair terms: for example, non-transferability of tickets, or the prohibition to use the ongoing part of a return ticket.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Efforts must be made to make air travel easier, safer and more efficient for all people of the EU. I fully support what is in the report regarding harmonising practices on complaints and providing redress mechanisms for the benefit of air passengers who have difficulties or problems with complaints, delays and cancelled flights.

I commend the rapporteur for his proposals on trade practices for the harmonisation of restrictions on cabin baggage so that air passengers are protected from unfair and excessive restrictions, in particular, in the case of cabin baggage and goods bought in airport shops. I welcome what is in the report on focusing attention on the case of disabled passengers or passengers with mobility disabilities and I support the provisions for affording better protection to the rights of those passengers.

EU air travel rights must be strengthened and the air travel sector in Europe should implement very high service standards when serving air passengers in the EU.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I welcome the fact that the rights of passengers travelling by air need to be given adequate protection. I should emphasise how important it is for all the information about the terms of travel to be accessible to passengers right from the time when they have bought their ticket, in the language in which the booking was made and in the easiest possible format to understand. I am also thinking about ensuring transparency regarding the ticket’s final price and all the extra charges and costs which can be applied. It is of paramount importance for passengers to be able to receive information and assistance quickly in the case of unforeseen events affecting the flight, such as cancellations or huge delays. In this situation, I support the proposals for having contact persons or services available at airports and setting up accessible and efficient telephone assistance centres by airlines. I should mention that simpler procedures are required for lodging potential complaints or submitting claims for compensation or refunds. I welcome the idea of introducing a European award for the most consumer-friendly airline. I think that this will boost competition and allow best practices to be fostered.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Knowledge of rights is essential in ensuring that passengers can access them. This information should therefore be communicated in a simple, appropriate and understandable way from the time the ticket is booked. This report, for which I voted, calls for contact personnel at airports who can take immediate decisions in relation to providing assistance, reimbursement or re-routing as a result of flight disruptions. It considers efficient, transparent and independent enforcement bodies to deal with passenger complaints, to help resolve disputes between passengers and air carriers, and to ultimately impose sanctions if necessary, to be vital. Equally important is the need for passengers to be fully covered in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency of the airline. Lastly, I would emphasise that one of the most basic rights of passengers is to a safe journey. The report therefore considers it essential that all passengers, including children younger than two years, are ensured a safe seat on the plane.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Reinforcing the rights of air passengers: that certainly is a job for the European Union! Over the last few years, the EU has already taken action to strengthen passengers’ rights; however, there is still more work to be done. This is especially true in situations where passengers are stranded or delayed, in which case air carriers have a duty to provide information and assistance, simplify claims and pay compensation. Rules on hand luggage are another bone of contention. Each carrier now has its own criteria on weight and size, and passengers find this very confusing. The rules should therefore be harmonised in order to make them more transparent. Lastly, it is essential that booking systems be made more flexible, with more facility for cancellations and alterations. In short, in this resolution, we have diagnosed the problem and are calling for action.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) There are currently many European laws on air passengers’ rights, but I would highlight the need for enhanced legal certainty, more interpretative clarity and uniform application of the regulations across the EU. I believe that information on passenger rights should be communicated in a simple, appropriate and understandable way throughout key stages of the journey, starting from when the passenger is considering whether to purchase a ticket. In my view, to help ensure that rights are upheld, there should be contact personnel at airports who can take immediate decisions in relation to providing assistance, reimbursement, re-routing and other issues that arise when flight disruptions occur. I agree with the rapporteur in calling for formalisation of a European network of efficient, independent bodies, coordinated by the Commission, and for these bodies to publish information on the complaints they receive from passengers. Lastly, I believe that passengers should enjoy the right to change the details on their ticket in case of a mistake without incurring a fee for doing so, thus counteracting the general proliferation of unfair terms in air carrier contracts, which is a widespread practice among many air carriers.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that the rights of people travelling by air should be improved. Air transport is a principal means of transport for people today and passenger routes at airports are only increasing. It is therefore particularly important to ensure that basic passenger rights are properly enforced in order to prevent possible abuse by airlines. The report adopted today by the European Parliament proposes that in future, passengers should be fully covered in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency of an airline and that price transparency should be ensured. It is also proposed that in future, passengers should have the right to change their details, if they have made an error when purchasing tickets, without incurring a fee. Finally, the report calls for passengers to be allowed access to the Passenger Name Record held on them by the air carrier, and which is later used by security services in different countries to combat terrorism.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Any person travelling by air needs to know their rights. This is why I think that information on passenger rights should be communicated in a simple, appropriate and understandable way throughout key stages of the journey, starting from when the passenger is considering purchasing a ticket. In case of disruption to travel, passengers should be informed promptly about the reasons for the delay or cancellation, the estimated duration of the delay and alternative travel options, including other modes of transport where applicable. I also think that the three options available for passengers to choose from, namely refund, re-routing or rebooking, should also be highlighted as a basic right. Last but not least, passengers with lost or delayed baggage should be entitled to rights equivalent to those enjoyed by passengers who are actually delayed.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) In revising Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, the Commission should clarify the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and define the concept of ‘flight cancellation’, and also adopt rules governing the provision of assistance and the right to financial compensation and damages. At the same time, I think it is a good idea to take account of the level of protection provided to passengers by the European Court of Justice, and also the Court’s interpretation of the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’. At present, there is some uncertainty over the rules on compensation, and the differing approaches to enforcement of these rules at Member State level cannot be considered acceptable in view of events such as the crisis in 2010 caused by volcanic ash. In this context, the Commission should create a unified, complete and detailed system for assessing the probative value of evidence presented by the airline companies for the purposes of demonstrating ‘extraordinary circumstances’. In this context, I believe there is an urgent need to establish clear rules regarding the content, accessibility, timing and accuracy of information provided to air passengers which might have a bearing on the reasons for flight delays or cancellations, the expected duration of flight problems and alternative means of travel that are available to passengers.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The number of passengers travelling by air has been increasing by an average of 4.5% every year. The number of passenger complaints has also been rising. Some 39 000 complaints were registered in 2009, 41% of them resulting from flight cancellations and 25% from delays. Spain was the Member State that received most complaints. Portugal had the second-highest number of complaints. I am voting for this motion for a resolution because I believe clarifying and strengthening the rules and rights concerning air passengers is extremely important to people with disabilities or reduced mobility who travel by air.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the number of passengers travelling by air has been increasing by an average of 4.5% every year, it is important to analyse and revise the existing rules on air passenger rights so as to make them clearer to interpret. At the same time, it is essential to raise the current level of legal certainty and ensure that there is more uniform application of the regulations across the EU. Uniform handling of complaints in the Member States is necessary, as their numbers have been rising considerably. Some 39 000 complaints were registered in 2009, 41% of them resulting from flight cancellations and 25% from delays. Spain received most complaints, with Portugal in second place. The most important passenger right is the right to services provided as scheduled. If they are not, there should be fast, simple and effective complaint systems, delivered by efficient and independent complaint-handling bodies. I am voting for this report, which seeks to increase accountability and transparency, to clarify and strengthen existing rights, and to make sure these rights are made clear to consumers. Special protection should also be provided for vulnerable groups of consumers, who need additional guarantees when exercising their rights.

  Lara Comi (PPE) , in writing. – (IT) I find the European Parliament’s initiative on the application of the rights of air passengers laudable, and I have therefore voted in favour of the own-initiative report that has been tabled. I believe the air transport sector needs stricter rules to protect consumer rights. In particular, I think it is essential to pay greater attention to the rights of disabled passengers, who must be guaranteed access to a barrier-free environment, and to the safety of infants, who currently do not have seats suited to their physical characteristics. I also find the current legislation lacking with regard to the measures that air carriers must adopt in the event of flight cancellations or severe delays, and therefore I am fully in favour of requiring them to provide information on alternative travel options and temporary accommodation in such cases. Lastly, I would stress the need for greater transparency regarding CO2 emissions and better information on passenger rights, because a right can only be called a right, in my view, if it is recognised as such by everyone involved.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that the European Commission must look into measures that would provide protection for both arriving and departing passengers in terms of ensuring that they are properly compensated in the event of their luggage getting lost or being subject to excessively long delays.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which proposes stronger and more uniform European legislation on air passenger rights. It will provide passengers with better price information, clarify the rules on compensation for lost or delayed baggage and protect passengers against the unfair commercial practices that they have to face today, such as additional charges for online reservations, unilateral rescheduling of flights or price discrimination against passengers on the basis of their country of residence. I have fought for these measures to be adopted. Passengers must not be left behind in the rapid development of the aviation industry and I believe all operators are well aware of this. I shall ensure that my proposals are taken up in future legislation.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By adopting this report, we really hoped to draw the Commission’s attention to the large number of grey areas that still exist in air passenger rights. The report has the merit of examining everything that really needs improving for people who travel by air, and the list of measures to be adopted is very long. The fact is that air passengers are all too often tricked when they book their flight tickets. For example, in the case of online bookings, I deplore the fact that some companies raise the stated price for a whole variety of reasons. Fares should therefore be more transparent, and purchasers should subsequently be able to change their reservations or correct minor errors at no additional cost. Another example relating to families is that children under the age of two years should be entitled to a seat and not have to spend the whole flight on their parents’ laps. People with reduced mobility should be able to travel with the equipment they need without being charged extra. The Commission would do well to draw on this report in its forthcoming revision of the regulation on air passengers’ rights (Regulation (EC) No 261/2004).

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air because it represents a very positive step forward in terms of protecting passengers’ rights, in particular, paying due attention to people with reduced mobility.

This document contains significant improvements on the previous EU Regulation No 261/2004 in terms of consumer-rights’ safeguards, security, transparency and privacy of the passengers, and pays attention to flight safety conditions and to complaint handling – introducing standards that companies will therefore have to comply with. In addition, further cooperation, collaboration, exchanges of practice, and a more uniform application of the EU rules by the Member States’ enforcement bodies will be called for. This will surely provide stronger guarantees, not only in terms of compliance with rules, but also in terms of delivering higher levels of protection for passengers – whose rights are often not respected and who have lacked information.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Irrespective of the means of transport they use, passengers are entitled to a good-quality, safe service. That is why I believe introducing harmonised rules on air passenger rights throughout the EU and strengthening passengers’ right of access to information are positive steps.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The number of flights in Europe every year runs into hundreds of millions. For a wide variety of reasons, such as strikes, weather conditions, breakdowns, etc., passengers often find their flights cancelled or considerably delayed, or they are prevented from boarding, causing them serious disruption and loss. This report, by Mr Taylor, addresses the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air, subsequent to the communication from the Commission on the application of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to such passengers. I voted for this report because I believe it is vital for all passengers to be provided with essential information, which should be communicated in a simple, understandable way from the time a passenger decides to book a ticket. In addition, it is essential to have efficient, independent bodies responsible for enforcing European rules on the right to complain, as well as on dispute resolution and/or guaranteed assistance, reimbursement or compensation. Lastly, I would mention the need to guarantee the right of people with disabilities or reduced mobility to travel safely and in comfort.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report reflects general concerns about air passenger rights. We believe these concerns are fair, albeit framed in the competitive context of this sector’s liberalisation, which, in itself, threatens one of the fundamental rights of these passengers: the right to safe, high-quality, public transport. We welcome the safeguarding of passengers’ rights, in particular, in relation to compensation and reimbursement for lost, delayed or damaged baggage, as well as for delayed or cancelled flights. We also welcome the reference to the rights of passengers with reduced mobility, pregnant women and children. On the other hand, we are concerned by the report’s attempt to impose uniformity in a number of services in order to create a ‘level playing field’, namely, by creating an official European network of national enforcement bodies with a clear mandate to improve cooperation on exchanging information, best practices and their databases. Moreover, we have further concerns about current security trends, such as the use of body scanners and behavioural profiling, amongst other techniques, which do not comply with passenger data protection or respect a passenger’s right to privacy, non-discrimination and public health.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report because it points out the need for enhanced legal certainty, more interpretative clarity and uniform application of the regulations across the EU regarding the rights of air passengers, including those with reduced mobility. Greater and more effective cooperation among the different actors must be secured so as to ensure that passenger rights are protected and to clarify their various responsibilities. It is also important to clarify and strengthen existing rights and to ensure that consumers are made aware of them. Knowledge of rights is essential in ensuring that passengers can access them. That is why information on passenger rights should be communicated in a simple, appropriate and understandable way throughout key stages of the journey, starting from when the passenger is considering whether to purchase a ticket. To help ensure that rights are upheld, there should be contact personnel at airports who can take immediate decisions in relation to providing assistance, reimbursement, re-routing and other issues that arise when flight disruptions occur.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The submitted report sets out to address the recent Commission communication on ‘the application of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights’ and the report from the Commission on ‘the functioning and effects of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air’. Knowledge of rights is essential to ensuring that passengers can access these rights. That is why information on passenger rights should be communicated in a simple, appropriate and understandable way throughout the key stages of a journey. Efficient, transparent and independent enforcement bodies are vital for dealing with passenger complaints, helping to resolve disputes between passengers and air carriers and ultimately imposing sanctions if necessary. There is a need to ensure consistency between the different legislations on air passenger rights, and thus follow travel market trends whereby consumers increasingly arrange their travel themselves. Concerning the rights of disabled air passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, I believe it is necessary to secure equal travel opportunities for these people and non-discrimination guaranteeing equal access and unrestricted services.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The rapporteur’s intention of encouraging greater transparency and effectiveness with regard to passengers’ rights by revising the 2004 regulation on the subject is commendable. It has been made necessary both by rapid changes in commercial practices and by the risks of unexpected natural phenomena, which, in recent years, have laid bare the many gaps in the system of passenger protection, particularly in relation to delays and cancellations. However, some of the proposals put forward in the report are contradictory and would prove inadequate in addressing the priorities in question. The rules designed to strengthen the Commission’s role in this field, for example, run the risk of introducing excessive interference in companies’ commercial practices, contrary to free-market principles, and increasing costly and pointless red tape. For these reasons, I decided to abstain.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I fully support this report on air passengers’ rights. The report is calling on airlines to provide better information and immediate on-the-spot assistance to air passengers who are seriously affected by delayed or cancelled flights. Moreover, the report requests that the European Commission harmonise cabin baggage rules.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Today, we adopted a report that will have an incredibly beneficial effect on the more than 800 million people travelling by air in the airspace of the European Union each year. This is a major step forward considering that the relevant regulations have hardly changed over the past few years and that, at the time of their adoption, the volume of air transport was lower than today. It is welcome that the report makes it clear that there is a need for enhanced legal certainty, more interpretative clarity and uniform application of the regulations across the EU. This is also relevant because the Commission is planning to review Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 next year. One of the most important measures is to provide passengers with information about their rights in a clear and appropriate manner and in a readily comprehensible language throughout key stages of the journey, starting from when the passenger is considering whether to book a ticket. The report is also notable for facilitating the future revision of other laws, such as the Package Travel Directive and the Airport Package.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – Air passengers lose time and money when their flights are delayed, overbooked or cancelled, but they are not always aware of their rights under EU law. In addition to the problem of awareness, passengers also struggle with drawn-out complaint procedures which delay access to redress. Therefore, I support a number of clauses in this report which call on Member States to ensure that passengers’ rights are enforced in a uniform way and within reasonable deadlines. Furthermore, I agree that passengers should be properly protected in the event of airline insolvency, bankruptcy or withdrawal of an operating licence, although I would point out that national authorities are already tasked with assessing the financial fitness of carriers licensed in their territory.

However, I would like to have seen more acknowledgement of the unique realities faced by small-island Member States on the periphery of the Union. When reviewing transport policy, the Commission should be aware that one size does not fit all. While providing an even playing field and ample competition, the Commission should also properly consider the individual particularities of airlines requiring State aid, for example, those that provide necessary transport services for citizens, or the cargo services that are fundamental to economic activity.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Cancelled flights, lost baggage, delays, overbooking, etc. are all dysfunctions that are currently poorly addressed by the regulations in force. What was needed, therefore, was a new framework and new instruments to guarantee air passengers’ rights in all circumstances. That has now been achieved through this resolution, which, above all, provides greater transparency both in the information given when flights are delayed or cancelled and also in the prices that airlines advertise. Together with this need for transparency, there was also a need to improve the assistance given to passengers. Accordingly, this resolution states that passengers in difficulty should be able to talk directly to contact personnel who can provide immediate solutions and answers. In addition, the report considers that, if luggage is delayed by more than six hours, compensation should be offered that is proportionate to passengers’ needs so that they have the items they need while waiting for their luggage to arrive. Lastly, the resolution stresses that persons with reduced mobility should be given easier access to aircraft.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) This report strengthens the rights of airline passengers in relation to compensation and assistance to passengers (in the event of cancellations or delays) and the rights of passengers with reduced mobility. In addition, it also contains important requirements in terms of price transparency, which is why I am expressly in favour of it.

Above all, I welcome the fact that it emphasises the need for greater legal certainty. We cannot have a situation where passengers need a lawyer in order to enforce their passenger rights. The regulations must include clear definitions and be subject to uniform interpretation, so that passengers receive information that is complete, easy to understand and transparent.

In addition, passengers must also be able to exercise their rights as quickly as possible, which is why I welcome the calls for effective enforcement bodies.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which is a positive step forward in terms of protecting air passenger rights. There is a need to enhance their legal certainty, enforce sufficient and simple means of redress and provide passengers with accurate information. However, the measures soon to be applied must not serve to add unjustified and excessive costs to the fares currently charged, to the detriment of consumers.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome this report, which provides a first step towards ensuring fairer arrangements for air passengers who are stranded or delayed. The inadequate nature of existing legislation was highlighted by the volcano ash crisis in 2010, and today’s vote begins the process of rectifying the shortcomings. I hope the Commission will incorporate this report’s very logical approach when updating the relevant regulation later this year.

This report also proposes other new measures which will benefit EU citizens, such as the right to amend Internet bookings free of charge and the harmonisation of hand-luggage rules. Finally, the report calls for highly desirable new rules on accessibility for people with disabilities and reduced mobility.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Thursday, 29 March, the European Parliament adopted by a very large majority the report on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air. This report proposes concrete measures in favour of air passengers which should influence the version that will be presented by the European Commission in 2013 during the revision of the legislation on air passengers’ rights. Faced with regular delays and a lack of information, Parliament has drawn up recommendations guaranteeing full recognition of passengers’ rights. Among its demands, Parliament has called for better provision of information for passengers with contact personnel from each company to be present at airports, price transparency, a clamp-down on the proliferation of abusive clauses, clarification of passenger compensation criteria and improvements in the handling of persons with reduced mobility.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this report because it is aimed at enhancing the legal certainty of the regulations, as well as interpreting them more clearly and applying them uniformly across the EU. This report looks at the broader context of air passenger rights, including several current proposals for better protection of the rights of people travelling by air, ensuring greater clarity and certainty for passengers with regard to their rights, as well as increasing the liability of airlines. I agree that passengers need to be fully covered in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency of the airline and that price transparency should be ensured and existing legislation on price transparency effectively implemented and enforced, so that the advertised price on airline websites is a fair reflection of the final price.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Taylor report on the rules protecting air passengers was adopted by 509 votes to 20, with 53 abstentions. I welcome that. First of all, the report deals with common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. It also addresses the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. It also identifies the need for enhanced legal certainty, more interpretative clarity and uniform application of the regulations across the EU. Lastly, the report seeks to increase accountability and transparency, to clarify and strengthen existing rights, and to make sure they are made clear to consumers. The European Parliament is once again flying to the aid of air passengers!

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed this report because it will make a contribution to harmonisation of the law in this area. Passengers’ rights are currently governed by Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006, and also on the grounds of judgments handed down in this area by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Our objective is to achieve the greatest degree of transparency in applicable legislation and to improve the rights of passengers travelling by air. Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights are very important to guarantee that passengers who use air transport in the Union have the right level of insurance and to safeguard respect for their rights. I am therefore convinced that further action in this area will help ensure that passengers travelling by air have the rights they need.

  George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. – I supported the Taylor report on air passengers’ rights. I believe it is of paramount importance that EU passengers are better aware of their rights when faced with flight cancellations, long delays or sudden announcements of airline bankruptcy. EU regulations must be equally and uniformly enforced across Europe, with clear rules which do not place a disproportionate burden on airlines in the event of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, while offering adequate, transparent and consistent guarantees for the protection of passengers’ rights.

All airlines operating in the EU must inform passengers of their rights and respect the rules in good faith. We cannot continue with the present chaotic situation in respect of enforcement, where levels of protection vary widely depending on the Member State of departure and the operating company involved. Passengers are also affected by the proliferation of unfair terms when purchasing their tickets and by air carrier contracts: the Commission, when reviewing the current legislation, must provide appropriate solutions to these concerns.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In view of the fact that increasing numbers of European Union citizens are giving considerable importance to their mobility in terms of both work and recreation, it is extremely important from our point of view to ensure the highest possible quality of travel. Air travel, because of the much shorter journey times and greater convenience involved, attracts a considerable amount of interest from our citizens. It is therefore extremely important to ensure that people travelling by air have a full range of rights. The European Parliament has already used its law-making powers to bring in several pieces of legislation which protect people travelling by air.

As we all know, carriers have repeatedly taken advantage of gaps in the law, manipulating the final price of tickets, for example. I, too, am a passenger, and because I think we should all have the right to reliable service in connection with the air tickets we buy, I will always support such proposals, and in this case too, I endorsed the report.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report on the rights of passengers travelling by air because I think that it is important not only for us to guarantee passenger rights through legislation, but also to ensure that they are effective and, in particular, that they are properly enforced. The role of enforcement bodies has been increased, and the demand for merging them into a European network will help improve cooperation between them and, therefore, the results achieved. I voted in favour of increasing transparency and accountability, and for improving the process for resolving complaints. On this point, I called for a single complaints form to be introduced at European level. I called for operators and airlines to provide regular reports with the aim of making the enforcement bodies more efficient and boosting competition. Clarification and enhancement of existing rights, along with explaining them to consumers, have encouraged Parliament to call for the passenger information campaign launched by the Commission in 2010 to continue. I also voted for a clear interpretation and consistent enforcement of the regulations on passenger rights in the European Union.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which says that airlines should give stranded passengers better information and immediate help. It also calls on the Commission to tighten the rules on help and compensation for flight cancellations or delays, including luggage delays of longer than six hours.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air, so as to provide the basis for future common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of flight cancellations or long delays, and concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. We hope that air carriers will ensure that there is an immediate, simple, accessible way, at no extra cost, for passengers to lodge complaints in writing, as well as the opportunity to make a complaint via other electronic means. It is also essential to provide passengers with full, comprehensible and accessible information, including on CO2 emissions.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully agree with Parliament’s report, which welcomes the Commission’s commitment to analyse and revise the existing regulations on air passenger rights with a view to improving the situation of passengers, especially in cases of long delay or cancellation. Member States and air carriers need to apply the existing rules properly. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report sets out to address the recent Commission communication on the application of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and the report from the Commission on the functioning and effects of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. Furthermore, because passenger rights are touched upon in many different EU laws, this draft report also looks at the broader context of air passenger rights at a European level. It seeks to achieve accountability and transparency, to clarify and strengthen existing rights, and to make sure they are made clear to consumers.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) There needs to be more uniform application of regulations throughout the European Union, and it is essential to make sure that consumers are well informed about them. Indeed, citizens have to become aware of their rights before they can assert them. Passengers must be informed of their rights in a simple and accurate way. Independent, transparent bodies should be established to enforce these regulations. Disputes between air carriers and passengers, as well as passenger complaints, could be settled in this way. Lastly, it is vital that passengers enjoy appropriate safety conditions, especially safe seats.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, drafted by Mr Taylor, on rights for passengers travelling by air, as it calls for enhanced legal certainty in the interpretation and application of EU regulations. Air travel has greatly increased in Europe, but there has not been a policy to increase information along with it, and there are still major shortcomings in observing passengers’ rights. The most important passenger right is the right to services provided as scheduled, based on the contractual obligation which arises from selling a ticket. It is vital that passengers are aware of their rights in order to ensure that they can exercise them. I am voting in favour as I agree that people with reduced mobility should benefit from greater accessibility and be aware of their rights. I agree that passenger rights should be communicated in the language used during the booking of the ticket, throughout key stages of the journey. It is important to ensure the rights of passengers with children, enabling them to board easily with pushchairs, and to board and disembark first. It is also vital to ensure the triple choice for the passenger between refunding, re-routing and rebooking in the event of a disrupted journey as a basic right, as this report advocates.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report calls for price transparency, guarantees in the event of airline bankruptcy, the presence of contact personnel or a contact service at airports, time limits for handling passengers’ complaints and clarification of definitions such as ‘extraordinary circumstance’ and ‘cancellation of a flight’. For people with reduced mobility and disabilities, it advocates ensuring barrier-free access and the right to be accompanied by a recognised guide or service dog. Complete, understandable and accessible information, including on CO2 emissions, is also of key importance for passengers. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In principle, the EU has strengthened the rights of travellers in recent years. Although corresponding arrangements for airline passengers already exist, the question of whether airlines have to offer general compensation to their passengers in the event of major delays is still the subject of dispute. A landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice is also pending in this regard. Airlines are refusing to pay financial compensation if ‘exceptional circumstances’ arise, referring to an obligation under international law whereby they may be required to provide their passengers with hotel accommodation and food in the event of a delay, but not compensation. Also in dispute is the question of whether an airline has to compensate passengers if they miss their connecting flight due to a delay. It is therefore important that the EU should deal with this issue again, although a number of issues nevertheless remain unresolved, such as the rigorous security provisions. I took this into consideration when voting.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Not so long ago, we supported guaranteeing the rights of people with disabilities when travelling by bus or waterway transport. The natural next step is to guarantee the same rights when travelling by air transport. I therefore congratulate the rapporteur who has included provisions in his report, indicating the need to ensure appropriate travel conditions for people with disabilities, above all, with regard to accompanying persons, assistive devices, access to information and airport infrastructure.

  James Nicholson (ECR), in writing. – The report has many positive points which aim to improve the experience of air travel for all. It calls for transparency, which is urgently required with regard to the pricing of fares. It is all too common for the price of a flight to escalate as you go through the different stages of a booking process, and tax and other charges are added. These charges should be made clear at the very beginning of booking, and in advertising, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion.

The report also calls for guarantees to be put in place to support passengers when travel companies file for bankruptcy. This has become an increasingly common phenomenon, leaving passengers stranded and sometimes with little prospect of compensation. There are further positive aspects in the report in relation to disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility.

However, some areas of the report proved problematic for my group. We believe that the section of the report which would allow bookings to be cancelled up to two hours after the original reservation could be problematic for airlines and travel companies.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the adoption of this resolution, especially some of the requirements expressed in it, such as harmonising the rules on hand luggage or bans on displaying prices which are not transparent or on additional charges at the time of booking. Other important measures include establishing rules against the unilateral rescheduling of flights and discouraging price discrimination against passengers based on countries of residence. I think that such measures are beneficial to citizens travelling in ever increasing numbers every year.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The regulation on the application of air passengers’ rights establishes a uniform level of assistance that should certainly mitigate the difficulties that are often caused by cancellations, long delays or denied boarding. It is essential that passengers can be made aware of their rights in a simple and understandable way; that they are able to change the details on their tickets at no extra cost; that they are informed promptly in the event of cancellation or breakdown of the aircraft; and that they can choose from the options of refunding, re-routing and rebooking. Another requirement that deserves to be highlighted and with which I agree is barrier-free access and equal travel opportunities for persons with reduced mobility. The lack of trained staff and facilities to overcome the obstacles that these people often encounter is an urgent problem that must be addressed.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report sets out to address the recent Commission communication on the application of the regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and the report from the Commission on the functioning and effects of the regulation concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. This report identifies the need for enhanced legal certainty, for more interpretative clarity and uniform application of the regulations across the EU. There is also a need for judgments of the European Court of Justice to be incorporated into the upcoming revision of the regulation. I voted for this report as it aims to increase accountability and transparency, to promote the clarification and strengthening of existing rights, and to make sure these rights are made clear to consumers.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. – (FI) I voted in favour of this report because it is important that high standards of consumer protection are also ensured in the area of air transport. Transport by air raises several matters of concern from the perspective of consumer protection. One example is the unfair contract terms generally in use and relating to the transferability and cancellation of tickets. I welcome the call for measures that would make it possible to correct minor booking errors free of charge and without having to engage in laborious procedures. In the matter of air travellers’ rights, the main focus needs to be on the importance of informing passengers of their rights and on simplifying processes. Many travellers do not exercise their rights, either because they do not know of their existence in general, or because they worry about the awkward complaints procedures involved. For this reason, the information given must be timely and comprehensive. The importance of announcements is all the greater when services are disrupted, as they were in the flight chaos caused by the ash cloud.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr Taylor’s report was put to the vote today during the Brussels plenary session. His report seeks to strengthen the rules on assistance and reimbursement in the event of flight cancellations or delays, including baggage delays of more than six hours. EU legislation has done a great deal to enhance air passengers’ rights, but it needs to do more to ensure that they are treated fairly and that all travellers are afforded more extensive rights. The salient points of the resolution include calling on the Commission to draw up a standard complaints form, translated into all EU languages; to harmonise the rules on hand luggage; to put an end to unfair commercial practices, unilateral rescheduling of flights and price discrimination on the basis of a passenger’s country of residence; and to detail the environmental impact of travel on air tickets. In addition, passengers should have the right to cancel or change a reservation free of charge within two hours of the time of booking. The resolution also seeks to focus attention on passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility, who should have barrier-free access to air transport services, including the right to use mobility devices.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe the existing rules on air passenger rights need revising in order to improve the situation of passengers, especially in the event of long delays or cancellations. I would argue that proper application of the existing rules by Member States and air carriers, enforcement of sufficient and simple means of redress, and providing passengers with accurate information concerning their rights should be the cornerstones of regaining passengers’ trust. Lastly, there is a need for a better definition of the role of the enforcement bodies set up by the Member States, since they do not always ensure effective protection of passenger rights.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Taylor’s report because I consider that his proposals will help to improve services to passengers and safeguard their rights. In my opinion, the proposal that equal opportunities should be provided for people with reduced mobility is important, as is the need for a supervisory body responsible for managing complaints and helping to serve passengers.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Consumers and passengers are often one and the same. That is why I expressly welcome the call for compensation and assistance for delays and cancellations, as well as rights for passengers with reduced mobility. I welcome not only price transparency – as already stated in my report – but also the establishment of a simplified conflict resolution procedure. Airline passengers and passengers in general must be able to exercise their rights effectively.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) In today’s vote, I supported the own-initiative report of the rapporteur, Keith Taylor, on the functioning and application of the established rights of people travelling by air, as this involves an important challenge to the Commission to submit proposals as quickly as possible for addressing the ever increasing number of complaints by European air travellers. It is not acceptable that, according to statistics, 57% of the total number of 44 000 transport complaints in 2010 concerned passenger rights in air transport. Airline companies must start treating their customers more fairly, providing them with clear information in a language they understand, and in case of problems or of their own bankruptcy, organise their payment-free and rapid transport back home. The Commission must submit amendments to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 along these lines, as a result of which, the obligation incumbent upon airline companies, above all, to fulfil their obligations vis-à-vis passengers will also be more enforceable in the event of bankruptcy, insolvency or loss of licence. I also support the creation of a unified system for assessing the evidence demonstrating ‘exceptional circumstances’. This is the excuse most often put forward by airline companies unwilling to compensate passengers for damages. The demand for passengers to be entitled to comprehensive information on their rights in the language in which the reservation was made is also an important challenge.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On the subject of air passenger rights, the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and the definition of ‘cancellation’ both need clarification. The lack of uniformity in the Member States’ regulations and the behaviour of the various airlines make it necessary to develop a unified, complete and detailed system to assess the value of evidence submitted by airlines in order to demonstrate the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances’. With this vote, we are, in fact, seeking to harmonise the field and guarantee passengers all their rights and the greatest possible transparency. There is a need for timing and accuracy in the information communicated to air passengers, which should cover the reason for any delay or cancellation, the expected duration of disruptions and what happens in the event of overbooking, not forgetting the alternative travel options available to passengers.

  Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I am extremely pleased that this report has been adopted, as it strengthens passenger rights across the board. However, in my original draft report, I urged the Commission to propose an obligation on air carriers to provide a final guarantee covering their liabilities towards passengers in the event of insolvency, bankruptcy or removal of an operating licence. The reference to a final guarantee was weakened at the vote in the Transport and Tourism Committee, confining the proposal to support for stranded passengers to be repatriated in the event of insolvency, bankruptcy, ceased operations or removal of an operating licence. Although I welcome this measure, it is not as strong as the original wording, and I call on the Commission to look into the possibility of proposing a final guarantee to protect passengers when they revise Regulation No 261/2004.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report is aimed at serving as a basis for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. It also seeks to provide greater legal certainty and interpretive clarity of the legislation, as well as its full and uniform application in the Member States. Finally, it puts particular emphasis on the rights of people with reduced mobility, including families with children and disabled persons. Price transparency and compensation if airlines go bankrupt should be uniform rights across the various Member States. In the event of disruption to travel, the triple choice between refunding, re-routing and rebooking should be offered to all passengers immediately. Moreover, information should be accessible and a permanent point of contact should be available for any changes after booking. In addition, I believe that it is important to consider protective measures in relation to lost and delayed baggage, as well as allowing the consumer to correct booking details free of charge or cancel an online reservation within two hours.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I decided to endorse the report on the review of two regulations: on establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and on the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air.

In view of the continually rising number of people travelling by air, it is essential that we urgently adopt regulations allowing passengers’ rights to be protected more effectively. In this regard, the report contains a proposal that information on passenger rights be communicated in a more transparent and understandable way throughout key stages of the journey. Passengers should have the opportunity to correct obvious mistakes made when making a booking or even to withdraw completely from a reservation within two hours of booking. Airlines should be banned from collecting excessive fees when passengers make payments by credit card and we should be uncompromising in enforcing the rights of parents travelling with young children. Furthermore, carriers must be required to consider all passenger complaints within a maximum of two months.

The European Commission should also establish a central Internet site on passenger rights, accessible in all the official languages of the European Union. I am certain that delivery on the proposals contained in the report which has been adopted will help improve the situation at airports.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air because it is vital for both air carriers and tourism operators to provide passengers with complete, comprehensible, accurate and timely information. We call on air carriers to ensure that they have at every airport from which they operate contact personnel or a service that can make immediate decisions, in particular, with regard to assistance, reimbursement, re-routing, lost or delayed luggage and rebooking, and with whom complaints can be lodged. We call on the Commission to implement and enforce the existing legislation on price transparency effectively in order to ensure that the advertised price is an accurate reflection of the final price. We call for passengers to be protected against unfair contractual terms, such as contractual issues related to damaged/delayed/mishandled luggage, the transferability of tickets, force majeure circumstances, the unilateral rescheduling of flights, the ban on using the ongoing part of a return ticket, and excessive hand luggage restrictions. We support putting an end to abusive practices whereby persons with reduced mobility (PRMs) are required to sign a document waiving the air carrier’s liability for any damage caused to their mobility equipment.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Taylor’s own-initiative report because it calls on the Commission to intervene both to enforce existing legislation and to promote and simplify the use of the instruments that protect air passenger rights. This report emphasises the legal certainty of passengers’ rights, their right to information, and the independence and operational transparency of the independent enforcement bodies that can impose penalties for infringements and resolve disputes between passengers and the industry. All too often, passengers find that they are the victims of the abusive practices of air carriers, which take advantage of passengers’ lack of information about their own rights in order to delay or cancel flights arbitrarily without accepting the liability that they should accept by law. I hope, therefore, that this report can provide useful suggestions for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, which is expected to take place next year.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I believe further legislative measures to protect air passengers’ rights are necessary, particularly in cases of long delays or cancellation. That is why I voted in favour of the report on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air. Airlines should give stranded passengers better information and immediate help, and this can be achieved if the Commission tightens the rules on help and compensation for flight cancellations or delays, including luggage delays of longer than six hours. I believe, along with fellow MEPs, that passengers with reduced mobility or with disabilities must be granted barrier-free access to air travel, including the right to use mobility devices. More needs to be done to ensure a fair deal and broader rights for all travellers.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I did not vote in favour of the report. This is not because I am opposed to passenger rights. It is not because I am opposed to the demand for unified complaint handling. It is not even because I am opposed to greater awareness and more information for passengers. When Wizzair left 180 Czech passengers in Barcelona in February this year, announcing that it would not refund their money, I realised how toothless a right can be in the real world, and how powerless passengers are in reality. However, we need to understand that nothing is for free. If wonderful rights are defined for passengers in relation to delayed flights, delayed baggage, assistance for people with disabilities and so on, we need to understand that someone will have to pay for it. The demand for financial costs to be borne only by carriers and not by passengers, as the report proposes, is unrealistic in my view. When we buy a ticket for EUR 1 from a low-cost airline, we should not expect that if the flight is two hours late, we have an automatic entitlement to refreshments, telephone calls or another form of compensation exceeding the original price of the ticket. In this regard, we should create a dual system in the future, enabling passengers to choose when it comes to the price of the ticket and the related comfort and certainty of travel. We cannot simply protect passengers regardless of the cost.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Air traffic has expanded hugely in Europe with the increased competition in the sector, new and shorter routes and cheaper fares. Slashing prices, however, is no justification for trampling on passengers’ rights. I therefore welcome the adoption of this report, in which I have invested a great deal of effort and which sets out our demands for the revision of the rules protecting passengers. Following this vote, what I expect from the Commission most of all is that it guarantees the right to board an aircraft with purchases made at the airport without incurring abusive charges. In my view, the restrictive commercial practices in this field are actually a step back in time for passengers and create a form of unfair competition for ground-based duty-free shops. I also believe the Commission should come up with concrete proposals to curb the practice of overbooking, which leaves thousands of passengers waiting every year. It is vital to find a better way of reconciling this technique for filling planes with provision of the service according to the conditions stated when the ticket was purchased, which is the most basic right there is.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – Passengers’ rights are touched upon in many different EU laws, and this report also looks at the broader context of air passengers’ rights at a European level. The rapporteur identifies the need for enhanced legal certainty, for more interpretative clarity, and for uniform application of the regulations across the EU. Greater accountability and transparency are needed in order to clarify and strengthen existing rights and to ensure they are made clear to consumers. Therefore, I voted in favour of the report. Its adoption will improve passengers’ rights.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the adoption of this document, for which I served as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). This review afforded us the opportunity to call the attention of the European Commission to the numerous irregularities which occur at European airports. We want the Commission’s new proposals to include solutions to these problems. We should take care to ensure that all passengers travelling by air in Europe have better, safer and cheaper journeys.

For passengers, the most important issues covered in the document are the opportunity to correct obvious mistakes made when making a booking or even to withdraw completely from a reservation within two hours of booking, a ban preventing airlines from collecting excessive fees when passengers make payments by credit card and enforcing the rights of parents travelling with young children. I am sure the European Commission will show understanding in its response to Parliament’s proposals.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. – (LV) As regards air passengers’ rights, many EU legislative requirements are no longer new; they are well-known, and the situation has improved in recent years. However, the charges made by airlines for payment administration and for the use of bank cards, especially credit cards, for example, are still problematic and confusing. These extra payments are not included in the price of the ticket, and when buying their ticket, passengers are not informed on time: they see these extra charges only when they have already chosen the ticket and are making the purchase. That is why airlines are being asked, especially with respect to credit cards, to recoup only what it really costs them to service the credit card or other card. The second topical issue is the wide variation in weight restrictions currently applied to hand luggage by airlines. Passengers find it difficult to navigate their way around these, which is why these rules should be harmonised. The EU should likewise simplify the method for investigating complaints, and it should be uniform. Currently, both the procedures and the time limits for investigating complaints differ from country to country. Although many of the proposals contained in the report, including the review of various definitions, have already been appropriately solved at an international level in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), on the whole, nevertheless, the leitmotiv of the report on the functioning and application of the established rights of people travelling by air – that it is still necessary both to monitor airlines even more closely and to develop clearer and stricter regulations – is right and needs to be supported.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The liberalisation of the aviation sector calls into question the right to good-quality and safe public transport. This is a vital issue that has not been considered in this report. However, the report does have some positive aspects, such as safeguarding passengers’ rights, in particular, in relation to compensation and reimbursement for lost, delayed or damaged baggage, as well as for delayed or cancelled flights. However, we are concerned that it seeks to standardise a range of services in order to create ‘a level playing field’ relating to the exchange of information and data, as this could jeopardise passengers’ rights to privacy and non-discrimination.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0070/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for the report, which defends the parliamentary immunity of Mr de Magistris, who has made allegedly defamatory statements which have a direct and obvious connection with the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Rapkay, concerns the request for defence of the privileges of the Italian Member of the European Parliament, Luigi de Magistris. Mr de Magistris, who was elected as a Member in 2009, was summoned before the Court of Catanzaro, Italy, by Maurizio Mottola di Amato in connection with two legal documents that Mr de Magistris had published on his website in early 2011, which formed part of a criminal case from the time when Mr de Magistris was a public prosecutor. Mr di Amato accuses Mr de Magistris of making ‘false and libellous accusations against him and his wife’, who worked as a judge at the Court of Catanzaro. Mr de Magistris submits that in his role as Member of the European Parliament, he had a duty to inform Italian citizens about what was happening at the court of Catanzaro, and that the documents, which have since been removed from his website, were not of a confidential nature. Given that the facts of the case demonstrate that the details published ‘have a direct, obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament’, and in view of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I am voting in favour of defending the privileges and immunities of Mr de Magistris.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted to defend the immunity of Luigi de Magistris in this case. The statements made by Luigi de Magistris related to an investigation into the use of EU funds and he held the position of Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control when he made them. The statements were therefore directly and obviously linked with a general interest of concern to citizens and they thus constituted an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties. Against this background, the committee considered that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Luigi de Magistris’s written submissions and oral presentations to it, indicate that the statements made do have a direct, obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as an MEP. The committee therefore considered that, in publishing the articles in question, Luigi de Magistris was acting in the performance of his duties.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Defending the independence of the mandate of Members of this House is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. According to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. The request by Luigi de Magistris relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Catanzaro on behalf of Mr Maurizio Mottola di Amato in connection with two articles that Mr de Magistris published on his website in early 2011. The articles were published on the website at a time when Mr de Magistris was a Member of the European Parliament, following his election at the 2009 European Parliament elections. In publishing the articles in question, Mr de Magistris was acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. I therefore support defending the immunity and privileges of Mr de Magistris.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In this report, Parliament decides to defend the immunity of Mr Luigi de Magistris. I think MEPs’ immunity should not be waived until a serious crime has been committed. Mr de Magistris is accused of libel. I think we need him to be able to work effectively in the European Parliament. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Luigi de Magistris, a Member of the European Parliament, was summoned before the Court of Catanzaro by Mr Maurizio Mottola di Amato in connection with two articles that Mr de Magistris had published on his website in early 2011, which featured copies of legal documents. Mr de Magistris considers it altogether proper to inform Italian citizens about court documents and, in this case, the documents were not covered by any confidentiality provisions. This happened after Mr de Magistris had become a Member of the European Parliament. The Committee on Legal Affairs concluded that Mr de Magistris was acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, and has therefore decided to defend the privileges and immunities of Mr de Magistris. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0073/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of not defending the immunity of the Member, as in this case, in which he is accused of libel through publishing a book, Mr de Magistris was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – In this case, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that Parliament should not defend the parliamentary immunity of Luigi de Magistris and I have supported them.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Defending the independence of the mandate of Members of this House is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. According to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. The request by Luigi de Magistris relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Cosenza on behalf of Dr Vincenza Bruno Bossio in connection with statements made by Mr de Magistris in his book Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato (‘Attack on the public prosecutor – the story of a bad magistrate’), which was published in April 2010. The facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Mr de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements made do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. In publishing the book in question, Mr de Magistris was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. I therefore support not defending the immunity and privileges of Mr de Magistris.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This case relates to a writ of summons filed against Luigi de Magistris before the Court of Cosenza on behalf of Dr Vincenza Bruno Bossio in connection with statements made by Mr de Magistris in his book Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato (‘Attack on the public prosecutor – the story of a bad magistrate’), which was published in April 2010. Given that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Mr de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements made do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament and therefore, he was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, it was decided in this case not to defend his privileges and immunities. I voted for this report because I agree with this line of reasoning.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0074/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) There is a case against Luigi de Magistris in relation to allegedly defamatory statements issued by him in his book Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato (‘Attack on the public prosecutor – the story of a bad magistrate’). I am voting for the report, which advocates not defending the Member’s parliamentary immunity, as in making these statements, he was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Rapkay, concerns the request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity of the Italian Member of the European Parliament, Luigi de Magistris. Mr de Magistris, who was elected a Member in 2009, was summoned before the Court of Milan, Italy, on behalf of Giancarlo Pittelli, due to the fact that in April 2010, he published a book called Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato (‘Attack on the public prosecutor – the story of a bad magistrate’), in which, on pages 27, 58-60, 88-90 and 113-114, he questions Mr Pittelli’s ability to act as legal counsel for a defendant in the ‘Shock’ criminal case. Mr Pittelli considers the statements to be ‘very offensive to him’, since he is presented therein ‘as a member of a white-collar mafia, upholding inappropriately close relationships with the judiciary, businessmen and politicians’. Mr de Magistris maintains that he merely expressed his opinion ‘on important matters relating to the public interest’, and that the book is ‘an expression of the political activity of an MEP’. Given that the statements contained in the book do not ‘have a direct, obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament’, and in view of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I am voting in favour of not defending the privileges and immunities of Mr de Magistris.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which proposes not to defend the immunity and privileges of Luigi de Magistris, as in publishing the book in question, he was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Defending the independence of the mandate of Members of this House is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. According to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. The request by Luigi de Magistris relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Milan on behalf of Dr Giancarlo Pittelli in connection with statements made by Mr de Magistris in his book Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato (‘Attack on the public prosecutor – the story of a bad magistrate’), which was published in April 2010. The facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Mr de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements made do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. In publishing the book in question, Mr de Magistris was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. I therefore support not defending the immunity and privileges of Mr de Magistris.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This case relates to the writ of summons filed against Luigi de Magistris before the Court of Cosenza on behalf of Dr Giancarlo Pittelli in connection with statements made by Mr de Magistris in his book Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato (‘Attack on the public prosecutor – the story of a bad magistrate’), which was published in April 2010. Given that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Mr de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements made do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament and therefore, he was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, it was decided in this case not to defend his privileges and immunities. I voted for this report because I agree with this line of reasoning.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0075/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The request by Luigi de Magistris for the defence of his immunity, which relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Lamezia, in connection with allegedly libellous statements made by him, should not be granted, as in making these statements, he was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. I therefore voted for this report.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Rapkay, concerns the request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity of the Italian Member of the European Parliament, Luigi de Magistris. Mr de Magistris, who was elected to the European Parliament in 2009, was summoned before the Court of Lamezia, Italy, on behalf of Mr Antonio Saladino following an interview published in the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano on 9 March 2011. Mr Saladino, the main defendant in the ‘Why not’ criminal case, conducted by Mr de Magistris when he was a public prosecutor, accuses the Member of claiming that he had unlawfully interfered in this case ‘by membership in a secret network set up for this purpose’. Mr de Magistris maintains that he merely expressed his opinion ‘on matters of legitimate public interest’, and that he did so as part of his political activity as a Member of the European Parliament. Although he gave the interview in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament, the issues addressed in it are not related to his parliamentary activity. As such, and in view of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I am voting for this report and for not defending the privileges and immunities of Mr de Magistris.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The statements made by Luigi de Magistris in this case relate to allegations of improper conduct of third parties in connection with criminal investigations which he was conducting before he became a Member of the European Parliament. The statements therefore appear to be rather far removed from the duties of an MEP and hardly capable, therefore, of presenting a direct link with a general interest of concern to citizens, and even if such a link could be demonstrated, it would not be obvious. I have therefore backed the committee in not defending Luigi de Magistris’s immunity.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Defending the independence of the mandate of Members of this House is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. According to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. The request by Luigi de Magistris relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Lamezia on behalf of Mr Antonio Saladino in connection with statements made by Mr de Magistris in an interview published in the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano on 9 March 2011. The facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Mr de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements made do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. In making the statements in question, Mr de Magistris was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. I therefore support not defending the immunity and privileges of Mr de Magistris.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This case relates to a writ of summons filed against Luigi de Magistris by the Court of Lamezia on behalf of Mr Antonio Saladino in connection with statements made by Mr de Magistris in an interview published in the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano on 9 March 2011. Given that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Mr de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements made do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament and therefore, he was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, it was decided in this case not to defend his privileges and immunities. I voted for this report because I agree with this line of reasoning.

Reports: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0073/2012, 0074/2012; 0075/2012)

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report is on Parliament’s decision not to defend the immunity of Mr Luigi de Magistris. I abstained.

Reports: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0070/2012, 0073/2012, 0074/2012; 0075/2012)

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The veil of hypocrisy that has, until now, characterised Mr de Magistris’s presence in Europe has been lifted. The former public prosecutor first played the critic, pontificating against class privileges in the television talk shows that he organised himself. Then, having become an MEP, he repeatedly claimed immunity so as not to have to appear in court to answer the complaints made against him. Now a mayor, he still claims immunity to avoid being prosecuted. With this vote, we have said ‘no’ in relation to three sets of proceedings against him. Now Mr de Magistris will have to defend himself in court.

Recommendation for second reading: Rui Tavares (A7-0063/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the proposal to amend the decision on the European Refugee Fund in order to allow the Member States to resettle refugees in line with the categories set out by the EU. In order to be able to forecast these resettlement movements, the Member States should provide the Commission with an estimate of the number of people that they will resettle over the course of the next calendar year.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on the European Refugee Fund 2008-2013 at second reading. I support the proposal to set up a list of priority refugees (independently of annual priorities with respect to geographic regions and nationalities): children and women, unaccompanied minors, persons with serious medical needs, survivors of violence and torture, etc. We, Members of the European Parliament, endorsed the idea that in order to encourage more Member States to take part in resettlement activity, additional financial support should be given to those participating in the resettlement programme for the first time. I support the proposal that the fixed amount for each resettled person shall be EUR 6 000 in the first calendar year, EUR 5 000 in the second and EUR 4 000 in subsequent years – the funding to be invested in the development of a sustainable resettlement programme. I urge the Council to continue the process of adoption of this important legal act.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the new European programme for the resettlement of third-country refugees, which will provide additional funding for Member States that wish to resettle refugees fleeing from war, famine or persecution. I supported this programme, which, in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, seeks to strengthen the European Union’s role in providing international protection. Consequently, in 2013, the ‘priorities’ will be Iraqi refugees in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, Afghan refugees in Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, Congolese refugees in Burundi, Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia, Somali refugees in Ethiopia, Burmese refugees in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand, and Eritrean refugees in Eastern Sudan. The Europe I defend is also the Europe that protects vulnerable people, children and women at risk, unaccompanied minors and people with serious medical needs.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the European Refugee Fund, which should deliver funding for actions in the interests of the European Union as a whole, but also actions at international or merely national level, with a view to creating a joint European Union resettlement programme. The reception and protection systems of a number of Member States have been drastically put to the test, owing to the unexpected arrival of a large number of people requiring international protection, particularly from countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Côte d’Ivoire. The statistics show the urgency of the situation: there was a 15% increase in 2011 compared with the previous year. The 27 EU Member States as a whole received around 280 000 applications for asylum. It is therefore crucial that the Member States be able to make use of EU funds to improve their reception systems and to encourage resettlement.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Managing migratory flows is one of the great challenges of our time. The European Union has struggled to build a common migration policy that is progressive and ambitious, so I welcome the adoption of a new joint programme for refugee resettlement. According to figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 200 000 people are forced to flee their country every year. It is our responsibility to support them. This new programme strengthens the European Union’s role in terms of international protection and encourages the Member States to step up their refugee resettlement efforts and to focus on the most vulnerable groups, such as women and children. To date, 13 European countries have set up resettlement programmes. Finally, thanks to the adoption of this new programme, the Member States will receive additional funding from the European Union to enable them to resettle refugees in their territory, by way of the European Refugee Fund, set up in 2000.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I consider it of the greatest importance to toughen up EU rules protecting refugees and to maximise the strategic impact of resettlement, by gearing it more towards the people in the greatest need of resettling. It is crucial to formulate common priorities for resettlement at EU level on a regular basis. The modification of the decision establishing the European Refugee Fund in the light of the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme, contained in this resolution, has been duly weighed up by the Committee on Legal Affairs. I am voting for this motion for a resolution for the above reasons.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Congratulations to my fellow Member, Mr Tavares, on his excellent work. Finally, an agreement has been reached with the Council, a process that was too long, owing to the inexplicable deadlock in the Council. The thousands of refugees living through humanitarian tragedy needed greater speed from the Council, as they waited in camps, the majority of which are in sub-human conditions, and ran the risk of feeding human trafficking networks. The European Refugee Fund should deliver funding for actions in the interests of the EU as a whole, but also actions at international or merely national level. The reception and protection systems of a number of Member States have been drastically put to the test, owing to the unexpected arrival of a large number of people requiring international protection, particularly from countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Côte d’Ivoire. It is crucial that the Member States be able to make use of EU funds to improve their reception systems and to encourage resettlement by the Member States. At a time when the lack of solidarity between the Member States has been notorious, it is crucial to adopt measures to ensure that effort is shared between them in a balanced way with regard to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and to bearing the consequences of this reception.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I welcome Parliament’s approval of the proposal to amend the 2007 decision establishing the European Refugee Fund (ERF). The UNCHR estimates that over 170 000 people will need to be resettled in 2012, whereas the EU at present resettles fewer than 5 000 annually, compared to over 80 000 in the US. Ireland is one of the EU Member States that already takes part on a voluntary basis in resettlement programmes for refugees who have been granted refugee status in third countries. The revised decision should encourage more Member States to take part in resettling refugees next year, the final year of the current ERF, by increasing the amount of financial support Member States receive from the ERF for resettlements and by enlarging the list of those whose resettlement will be financed by the ERF next year to include vulnerable people such as children, women at risk, unaccompanied minors, persons with serious medical needs, etc. I would encourage all Member States to notify the Commission by the agreed deadline of 1 May of the number of refugees they will resettle next year.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The new European programme for the resettlement of third-country refugees, adopted today, will provide additional funding for Member States that wish to resettle in their territory people fleeing from war, famine or persecution. This programme, implemented by the Member States on a voluntary basis, is aimed at resettling in the EU people who have been given refugee status in third countries (such as the Libyan refugees in Tunisia in 2011). For 2013, the list of people whose resettlement will be funded by the European Refugee Fund (ERF) has been extended to include vulnerable people (children and women at risk, unaccompanied minors, etc.). The programme will also establish a series of annual geographical priorities. For example, the priorities for 2013 will be Iraqi refugees in Syria, Afghan refugees in Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, Somali refugees in Ethiopia, etc. The EU will also provide additional financial support for the resettlement of refugees. The Member States will receive EUR 6 000 per person for the first year, EUR 5 000 for the second year and EUR 4 000 for subsequent years (compared with the current amount of EUR 4 000 in total per person resettled).

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this draft legislative resolution because I firmly believe there is an urgent need for a Europe-wide system based on enhanced solidarity, which also has to be extended to third-country nationals as well as citizens of Europe.

A crucial point, in my opinion, must be highlighted: the European Union should help those Member States willing to undertake reform of refugees’ resettlement by providing them with sufficient funds. EU policy in this regard should also follow a more efficient and rationalised pathway, in particular, by pursuing a set of key priorities. I strongly believe that the first of these priorities should be to provide help and assistance to the most vulnerable people, who face traumatic and precarious living and social conditions. In conclusion, I positively welcome this document, which constitutes an important step towards greater solidarity in the management of migration flows.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report to encourage the Member States of the European Union to resettle more refugees, enlarging the list of beneficiaries and the size of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Solidarity between EU Member States has been the fundamental principle of the Union since its creation. The extension of the European Refugee Fund to a joint EU resettlement programme for the period until 2013 is based on this principle and on Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Parliament acknowledges the need to establish a list of priority people, particularly women and children, who should be resettled in places that ensure them the most basic fundamental rights. This list should go beyond the number of refugees protected by each Member State.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Refugees are normal people who find themselves in difficult situations for political, racial or socio-economic reasons. Around 200 000 people need to be resettled every year. Although the ideal situation would be repatriation, the truth is that they cannot return to their country of origin the majority of the time. This recommendation for second reading, by Mr Tavares, concerns the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. In the past, Europe was a desirable destination for many refugees, who sought security and the chance of a new life in the EU. As solidarity is one of the EU’s oldest values, it is crucial that the Union continue to practise it, despite the present economic and financial crisis. I voted for this recommendation because it confirms a programme that will enable many more people at risk to enter the EU, thereby giving them a new opportunity.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The involvement of the EU in the asylum area is based on the need for solidarity between Member States in solving the challenges which individual Member States cannot address effectively in an EU without internal borders. The creation of a common EU programme for resettlement will ensure that a greater number of EU Member States participate in resettlement, which, at the same time, will help to show greater EU solidarity with third countries in the reception of refugees. With regard to the creation of a joint EU resettlement programme aimed at boosting the success of EU efforts in the area of resettlement, by providing protection to refugees and maximising the strategic impacts of resettlement through better targeting of those persons who are in greatest need of resettlement, common priorities should be formulated in the area of resettlement at EU level on a regular basis. It is therefore right that the Commission has decided on common annual priorities of the EU, taking into account specific geographic regions, specific nationalities and specific categories of refugees who must be resettled. Bearing in mind what is needed in the area of resettlement, I take the view that it is also essential to provide people with additional financial support (when resettlement is considered the most appropriate solution to their personal needs) in connection with specific geographical regions, specific nationalities and specific categories of refugee who must be resettled.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In the negotiations with the Council, Parliament succeeded in securing a number of key points: the explicit reference to regional protection programmes, especially the visibility of North Africa, the addition of ‘survivors of violence and/or torture’ to the vulnerable persons category and a reference to refugees from Iraq. I therefore voted in favour of this agreement at second reading. In addition, the negotiations on this text, aimed at amending the decision establishing the European Refugee Fund in the light of the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme, have been going on for nearly two years. We cannot allow this situation to continue when there are thousands of refugees who could benefit from this programme. Indeed, resettlement is the only viable and safe solution as these people are often in an extremely vulnerable situation. The European Union must step up its resettlement efforts in order to protect refugees and maximise the impact of resettlement by focusing, where possible, on those most in need, in accordance with the common priorities established at EU level.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this proposal because the objective of this document is to increase the impact of the EU resettlement efforts in providing protection to refugees and to maximise the strategic impact of resettlement through better targeting of those persons who are in greatest need of resettlement, and to formulate common priorities of resettlement at EU level on a regular basis. The proposal aims to amend the decision establishing the European Refugee Fund in light of the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme. Priorities for resettlement are identified, including annual common EU resettlement priorities (specified in an Annex for 2013, i.e. the only remaining year covered by this decision). Member States will receive additional financial assistance for each person to be resettled according to these priorities.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the Tavares report, which was aimed at amending the decision establishing the European Refugee Fund in the light of the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme. Resettling means transferring refugees from an initial third country of asylum to an EU Member State where they can receive permanent protection. The Tavares report recommends, in particular, financial support for the Member States who participate in resettlement and the establishment of a list of priority refugees.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution. The proposal aims to amend the decision establishing the European Refugee Fund in the light of the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme. In the explanatory memorandum and the accompanying communication, the Commission explains that the efforts to establish a joint EU resettlement programme are a response to requests by the Council to come forward with such a programme to remedy current shortcomings. The idea is to increase the impact of EU resettlement efforts in protecting refugees, to maximise the strategic impact of resettlement through better targeting of those persons in greatest need of resettlement, and to formulate at EU level common priorities for resettlement on a regular basis.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This new programme provides financial support for the resettlement of refugees, especially resettlement by Member States participating in the programme for the first time, and in doing so, it encourages more countries to show solidarity. Only 10 Member States, including France, currently take part in the programme, and that figure is too low. The resettlement programmes are necessary: they enable refugees who cannot return to their country of origin or stay in the country where they have been granted international protection to be resettled in a country where their lives are not at risk. Moreover, this new framework identifies vulnerable persons, such as unaccompanied minors and the victims of torture, to whom special attention should be paid.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Only 10 EU Member States – one of which is Portugal – currently accept refugees for resettlement. The resettlement of refugees is a procedure whereby, at the request of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees based on a person’s need for international protection, third-country nationals or stateless persons are transferred from a third country to a Member State. The purpose of adopting this recommendation is to increase the number of Member States that resettle refugees, to which end those that do so for the first time will benefit from increased financial assistance for the first two years. The resettlement of the following must take priority, irrespective of any geographical priorities that the EU may have set for a given period: children and women at risk of violence or psychological, physical or sexual exploitation; unaccompanied minors; persons with special medical needs; survivors of violence and torture; and persons who need emergency resettlement for legal and protection reasons. The creation of the European Refugee Fund is essential in order to increase the number of countries that accommodate refugees. That is why I voted as I did.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (PT) The history of Europe is a history of emigration. For centuries, millions of Europeans have left seeking refuge, better living conditions or hope. Many travelled within Europe, but many more left for other continents. What country has not, at points in its history, had very difficult times when many of its nationals had to seek refuge outside its borders? People fleeing wars, democrats persecuted by fascist regimes, and economic emigrants from Ireland, Poland, Galicia, Italy, etc. It is therefore a moral imperative for Europe to create a European Refugee Fund that helps people in situations of extreme vulnerability to actually integrate. That is why I voted for this report. However, there is a need to go much further. Every day, children are arrested for being illegal immigrants. This practice is, unfortunately, widespread in countries like Malta, Greece, Italy and Hungary. These are children of only eight years’ old who are detained alone in reception centres or prisons. The Commission, Parliament and Council should take urgent steps to bring an end to this horrendous human rights violation quickly.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – At present, only 10 Member States take part in resettlement (the transfer of refugees from outside the EU to a Member State). The aim is to get more Member States involved in the resettlement effort as well as to increase the amount Member States receive per resettled refugee. It is therefore proposed that the ERF Decision should be amended, so that Member States which resettle according to the common EU annual priorities would receive financial assistance if they pledge to resettle refugees who fall within the specific categories. In favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Commission established the European Refugee Fund (ERF) for the period 2008-2013. It totals EUR 628 million. Among other things, the fund is to be used to support the resettlement of refugees from third countries. ‘Resettlement’ means the process whereby, on a request from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) based on a person’s need for international protection, third-country nationals or stateless persons are transferred from a third country to a Member State whereby they are permitted to a) reside as a refugee or b) be given a status which offers them the same rights and benefits under national and Community law as refugee status. I did not vote in favour of the report because there is a danger that the proposed changes to resettlement provisions could make European countries even more attractive to migrants, resulting in a massive influx.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Union is ploughing vast sums of money into image campaigns aiming to highlight the benefits of the Union to its citizens. Any wise businessman knows that good products need no advertising. The precise nature of the EU’s error is made implicitly clear when it comes to the ‘expansion of the resettlement programme’: the discrepancy between the everyday reality for the citizens of the older EU Member States at least and the pathological mania for change among many Eurocrats. Despite the huge integration problems experienced by many immigrants from completely different cultural backgrounds, resettlement programmes are to be expanded and granted even more funding. Anyone looking to bring refugees from safe third countries into the EU is demonstrating stupidity rather than solidarity. The most effective assistance would be to support third countries that are taking in refugees in both financial and structural terms and to back projects that promote peace and democracy, as well as humanitarian causes. The crazy idea that it is possible to offer every displaced person in the world a cosy refuge in the EU is simply self-destructive. It is only possible to offer sustainable aid at local level. The idea of aiding refugees is taken to absurd levels by permanently identifying certain groups as victims of persecution and pursuing this policy of resettlement. Anyone forced to leave their homeland because of the horror of war must be able to find sanctuary in a safe country. However, this should not involve permanent resettlement with a guarantee of prosperity. That is why I am voting against this report.