- Report: Berès (A6-0136/2006)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) What clearly emerges from the answers given by the applicant Mr Stark to the questions put by the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is his acceptance of the monetary policy pursued by the European Central Bank, not least the ECB’s primary objective of price stability. This means that there will be no change of objectives, such as the inclusion of objectives relating to economic growth and employment.

He also offered qualified support for the 1997 version of the Stability and Growth Pact, and has stated that the 2005 reform weakened the Pact. This monetarist, neoliberal blinkeredness, which panders to the profits of the large multinational companies operating in the EU and which places the workers – and their jobs, their rights and their salaries – as an adjustment variable during crises, is in keeping with its role in creating the single currency and the Stability and Growth Pact.

In addition, it should once again be noted that the new faces on the ECB Executive Board are exclusively from the large countries (one German replacing another). If one adds the rotation of votes on the Council, the small countries are being pushed to the margins when it comes to monetary decisions in the Economic and Monetary Union.

Hence our vote against.

- Report: Rocard (A6-0166/2006)

  Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The illegal copying of designs is one of the causes of counterfeiting. It constitutes a theft of the intellectual property of businesses, which distorts international trade rules and is responsible for the loss of around 100 000 jobs each year in the EU. It also constitutes a danger for consumers when counterfeit products may harm their health or compromise their safety. Lastly, it constitutes a source of fiscal and social fraud that places a strain on the Member States’ accounts. All the resources used to fight against this scourge must therefore be continually strengthened.

Design protection – which characterises the creativity and innovation of businesses – is a crucial element of the battery of powers used to combat counterfeiting. Yet, the international registration of these designs is an often complicated and costly process, especially for SMEs.

All the measures aimed at simplifying these procedures and at making savings will therefore encourage businesses to comply with them and will have a positive effect on research and innovation.

Mr Rocard’s report on accession to the Geneva Act concerning the international registration of industrial designs is along these lines, and I therefore supported this report.

- Report: Sousa Pinto (A6-0144/2006)

  Lena Ek, Cecilia Malmström and Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SV) We have today voted in favour of Mr Sousa Pinto’s report on the Interinstitutional Agreement. The report states that the Interinstitutional Agreement that the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have managed to reach is compatible with primary European law and the Treaties. It is a positive thing that we have finally reached a settlement on the EU’s long-term budget. At the same time, it is disappointing that no further progress was made in respect of the reform of the budget. We should have liked to have seen a thorough overhaul of the agreement on agricultural funding and a methodical reform of regional aid. More of the EU’s resources should be spent in areas such as research and fighting crime, poverty and climate change, as well as on work to make the EU the most competitive economy in the world. The reform of the budget must be kept to the fore when the agreed overhaul is due to take place in 2008/2009.

There are also sections of the report that we would rather have done without. Amongst these we might mention what is known as the Globalisation Fund and the text relating to ‘own resources’. It is our opinion that it must continue to be the Member States that decide what resources the EU has at its disposal.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We endorse the rejection of the interinstitutional agreement tabled by our parliamentary group and voted for by 120 Members of Parliament because, among other reasons, we oppose:

- a mindset that gradually turns every defeat into a mystifying ‘victory’ on the grounds that things could always be worse.

- the blackmail perpetrated by the economically most highly developed EU Member States, the so-called ‘wealthy’ countries, which have imposed a relative reduction of the Community budget; this at a time when the EU has grown to include a further ten countries with an average level of economic development that is below the Community average and when preparations are under way for two more countries to join.

- this is a process that increasingly favours supranational level decision-making on monetary, budgetary, economic and social policy – pandering to the interests of the economically most highly developed countries and the large economic and financial groups, which are concerned less and less with the rights, needs and aspirations of the workers and of the people of the various EU Member States – and that, at the same time, entirely predictably, reduces the financial resources that could help minimise the consequences of (unacceptable) capitalist competition between countries with very different levels of economic development.

  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), in writing. (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot not support the conclusion of an interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline and on sound financial management, in particular.

We must be aware, however, that supporting the European Council's decision on the review of the budget means starting to reduce spending, particularly if we aim to use the Union’s own resources rather than the Member States’ contributions. It will then be easier to do away with that percentage that Parliament overpays on the lease of its seat in Strasbourg, precisely because it appears to be an undue and unwarranted cost. We must also recognise that the review will include a reduction in workplaces and in the various trips that are sometimes made merely to boost the self-esteem of a specific individual.

Although not exciting, the interinstitutional agreement must also be approved, and we approve of the fact that the negotiations have resulted in the political priorities and the financial requirements being combined. I wonder, however, whether the clear separation between an own resources budget and the provision of the Member States' contributions might not cause some technical problems in the financing of particular programmes, unless this separation is also applied to the programmes themselves and the political objectives to be achieved. We therefore hope for a great deal of clarity and transparency and for a clear and inflexible approach to separating expenditure and objectives.

- Report: Böge (A6-0150/2006)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, one particular reason why I gave my support to the Böge report was that it represents a landmark success on the part of this House in establishing that the European Union is social and educational in character. Whatever else may be said about it, we have succeeded, by negotiation, in getting EUR 800 million more for our young people, money that will make it possible for many young people within the European Union – we estimate that there will be hundreds of thousands more of them than last time – to get better education in another Member State and thereby protect themselves against unemployment.

  Kader Arif (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Europe is undergoing two kinds of crisis: an institutional one and a political one. It is imperative that a strong relationship of confidence be built up again between Europeans and their institutions. The first signal that political leaders have a duty to send out to their fellow citizens in order to restore that confidence is one of equipping themselves with a budget that lives up to their much touted ambitions.

At a time when the EU is opening up to new countries and when we more than ever need a social and competitive Europe and one that is strong in the world, the budget now proposed to us is unacceptable.

The implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, progress in terms of research and development, education and training, external aid in the fields of development and cooperation, transnational infrastructure projects, and sufficient Structural Funds and a sufficient Cohesion Fund to demonstrate the necessary solidarity with the new countries: all of that will only be achieved to a minimal extent.

Moreover, any new policy is out of the question and any recovery unthinkable – this budget symbolises inflexibility and a desire to give in.

That is why I cannot vote in favour of the financial perspective. It overlooks the European interest to the advantage of national self-interests and disappoints our nations with regard to Europe’s future.

  Richard James Ashworth (PPE-DE), in writing. The British Conservative group acknowledge the benefits of the interinstitutional agreement and in particular applaud the provision for the parliament to take a more influential role in the 2008-2009 review. We also warmly welcome the requirement for the national authorities to accept greater accountability for the money they spend.

We would point out; however, that the compromise deal struck between the parties fails to adequately address the problems that confront the European Union today. In particular it has missed a rare opportunity to alter the political priorities and instead has continued to fund the traditional spending programmes.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing.– (FR) I voted in favour of the European Union’s financial perspective for the years 2007 to 2013 on the basis of the Böge report, and I did so having borne in mind the long, painful and arduous negotiations that have taken place since the first half of 2005. I did so not because I believe that this is the best or the least worst budget but because it is the only budget possible and so as not to side with those who would not have hesitated to exacerbate the crisis that the European Union is undergoing by creating a budgetary crisis that neither our fellow citizens nor the new Member States that joined in 2004 would have understood. I must point out that it is not the European Union that is in financial crisis but the Member States, some of which are on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of having spectacularly mismanaged their national public finances. We really need to get over this issue of the UK rebate, which has been poisoning European relations for too long. Lastly, I am delighted that this agreement, together with the 2008/2009 review clause, paves the way for the crucial reform of the European Union’s finances, which is becoming a crucial and urgent stage in European integration.

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM), in writing. – (NL) In the negotiations about the financial perspectives covering the period between 2007-2013, Parliament has managed to add another EUR 4 billion to the EU budget. This additional amount is unjustified, because those extra resources will benefit forms of policy that cannot be regarded as part of the EU’s core tasks. Just as I stated earlier, this House pays no more than lip service to the principle of subsidiarity.

The Interinstitutional Agreement contains valid points in terms of improving the management of the EU budget and the more effective combating of irregularities and fraud – areas in which the Member States have their own responsibility to shoulder. I am expressly opposed to resources being set aside for the globalisation fund, the flexibility instrument, the solidarity fund and perhaps also for European schools.

  Philippe Busquin (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting because I cannot accept the fact that the budget for research over the next three years has not increased in real terms, even though the Lisbon process and the declarations of the Heads of State or Government rightly consider research to be a key priority for Europe.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) We have today voted in favour of Mr Böge’s report on the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline. It is important that a settlement has finally been reached on the EU’s long-term budget.

We are, however, critical of the support in the report for what is known as the Globalisation Fund. Globalisation entails great opportunities for the Member States of the European Union and, insofar as it poses any challenges, these are best dealt with by the Member States themselves.

Furthermore, we reject the proposal in the report that the EU should have its own resources instead of relying on the contributions of the Member States. It must be for the Member States to decide what resources the Union has at its disposal. Any form of EU taxation would be a departure from this principle.

  Joseph Daul (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Böge report because the absence of an agreement on the financial perspective for the period 2007-2013 could undermine the European Union’s work as from next year. I should like to pay tribute to Parliament’s negotiators led by Mr Böge, who obtained an extra EUR 4 billion for important initiatives in the fields of competitiveness, education, research and youth exchanges.

I deeply regret the fact that the Council did not agree to grant more resources to European farmers, particularly in the field of rural development, in which a sum amounting to EUR 20 billion less than that proposed by the Commission will be made available. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to remind the Council of its obligations to ensure that the principles of the 2003 CAP reform are respected.

I am completely opposed to the Council proposal on voluntary modulation, which transfers 20% of direct aid to rural development without the obligation of cofinancing. A system of that kind is unacceptable, given that it could create an imbalance in the market and could constitute a first step towards the renationalisation of the CAP.

(The explanation of vote was abbreviated pursuant to Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Mia De Vits (PSE), in writing. – (NL) It is with but little enthusiasm that I have voted to approve the financial perspectives and the Interinstitutional Agreement. Whilst the budget lacks ambition, we would, without this agreement, be unable to offer the new Member States any prospects at all. Moreover, the many programmes would be at risk of grinding to a halt. A new crisis resulting from rejecting the financial perspectives would represent a huge blow to the European Union.

  Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Like the French Socialists, I voted against the Böge report, which ratifies the interinstitutional agreement on the 2007-2013 financial perspective.

In January, our Parliament rejected a budget that it regarded back then as mediocre, believing that it was not enough to provide employment, growth, research and the major trans-European networks with the financial levers they require.

On 6 March, the Committee on Budgets, for its part, unanimously adopted a resolution denouncing this financial perspective, in the hope that the negotiations between the Commission, the Council and Parliament would result in a budget that was more in keeping with Parliament’s wishes.

The budget is still not large enough now, and the budgetary wrangling needed to satisfy the justifiable and ever-increasing demands aimed at financing all of the EU policies will be very difficult over the next few years.

We shall have to explain to Europeans that this tight budget is down to the intransigence of the Heads of State or Government, who did not want to grant the Union the resources for its ambitions.

  Lena Ek, Cecilia Malmström and Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) We have today voted in favour of Mr Böge’s report on the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline. The report approves the budgetary and financial consequences of the agreement which the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have managed to reach. It is a positive thing that we have finally reached a settlement on the EU’s long-term budget. At the same time, it is disappointing that no further progress was made in respect of the reform of the budget. We should have liked to have seen a thorough overhaul of the agreement on agricultural funding and a methodical reform of regional aid. More of the EU’s resources should be spent in areas such as research and fighting crime, poverty and climate change, as well as on work to make the EU the most competitive economy in the world. The reform of the budget must be kept to the fore when the agreed overhaul is due to take place in 2008/2009.

There are also sections of the report that we would rather have done without. Amongst these we might mention what is known as the Globalisation Fund and the text relating to ‘own resources’. It is our opinion that it must continue to be the Member States that decide what resources the EU is to have at its disposal.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE), in writing. (PT) Parliament’s negotiating position on the financial perspective 2007-2013, as expressed in its resolution of 8 June 2005, enhanced the financial perspective with quantitative, structural and qualitative elements that were considered ‘non-negotiable points’. These were elements that Parliament claimed it was 'determined to defend', saying it was 'ready to start constructive negotiations with the Council’, in the Resolution of 18 January 2006, which rejected the agreement of the December 2005 European Council.

That was worthwhile.

Although I acknowledge that the final outcome of the negotiations, especially regarding the quantitative elements, fell short of the position adopted in June, this has, broadly speaking, been a success. Given the urgent need to obtain an agreement, ‘this was the only possible compromise’. In the negotiations, Parliament secured an increase for itself of EUR 4 billion of the total amount earmarked for priority policies, which goes directly to programmes, in accordance with the approach it put forward. Most of the qualitative elements were reflected in the new interinstitutional agreement. Of these I should like to highlight Parliament’s participation on an equal footing in the 2009 review, because this will enable it to find solutions to existing deficits and to improve the forthcoming financial perspective, thus helping us to meet the objective of the abovementioned negotiating position, which remains in place.

I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I was unable to resign myself to voting in favour of the amended financial perspective. Even though Parliament’s negotiators succeeded in obtaining an extra EUR 2 billion over seven years, the difference between Europe’s ambition and the sad reality of the budget is striking. Even though the needs identified for the trans-European networks come to EUR 18 billion, we allocate EUR 7.2 billion. The needs identified for Galileo total EUR 2.5 billion, while the appropriations provided for total EUR 900 million.

The intelligent part of the CAP, rural development, has seen its appropriations halved. Research, the Lisbon Strategy, social policy - in short, all of the key policies – have been curbed. Europe will not make progress with an annual budget that represents scarcely a third of what the US allocates to its military budget alone.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) Although this compromise, like every other of its kind, has its weak points, it is nevertheless a step forward and one worth supporting. Accession negotiations, new initiatives in research, and so on, demand more in the way of resources, and Europe would be sending the wrong message to the new Member States and to those with legitimate expectations of solidarity between Europe's regions if the countries had not agreed to this compromise.

It needs to be acknowledged, though, that negotiations of this kind need to be more open and more transparent. It is not acceptable that certain countries should demand solidarity in one area – agriculture, perhaps – while denying it to others in other areas, such as the structural funds, for example. It is in everyone’s interest that a Europe characterised by such ‘egoisms’ should steadily be done away with.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The proposals for the financial perspective 2007-2013 that we have been putting forward since the outset of negotiations are as follows:

- ensure a Community budget that, on the basis of national contributions commensurate with the relative wealth of each country (based on GNI), will have a redistributive role. Its priorities will be to bring the levels of economic development of the different countries closer together and to improve the living conditions of their workers and citizens.

- a root and branch overhaul of the common agricultural policy, with the aim of safeguarding each country’s right to food sovereignty and safety, by means of introducing modulation and a ceiling for agricultural aid, and delivering fair redistribution of agricultural aid among farmers, types of production and countries.

- an end to the conditionality of the Cohesion Fund to the Stability and Growth Pact and the non-application of the N+2 (or 3) rule to this Fund or to the Structural Fund.

- Complete compensation for regions that will suffer from the so-called statistical effect, such as the Algarve.

- Portugal not losing Community funding and the creation of a specific programme for modernising the Portuguese economy in the context of enlargement.

The Community framework that has been adopted runs counter to these objectives and needs.

Hence our rejection.

  Adeline Hazan (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the European budget planned for the period 2007-2013 because, in my opinion, it represents a tragic lack of European ambition and the return to intergovernmental practices of which I disapprove and which will paralyse all European public action, and this at the expense of Europeans.

With a sum of EUR 864 billion, or 1.05% of the gross domestic product of the 25 Member States, the financial perspective is not equal to Europe's historic enlargement to incorporate ten new Member States, or the challenges awaiting it for the future.

I believe that we are very far removed from the much-hyped demands made at the start of the negotiations (indeed, in June 2005, the European Parliament voted in favour of a budget totalling EUR 974 billion, or 1.18% of GDP); this budget, I am afraid to say, goes hand in hand with a reduction in the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and with a fall in competitiveness, growth and employment, and will rule out any modernisation.

As an MEP, it was therefore my responsibility to reject an agreement such as this, which runs counter to the idea I have of a great Europe.

  Jamila Madeira (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Böge report on the interinstitutional agreement because I feel that it represents the highest common denominator, following lengthy negotiations in trialogue.

I must register my deep concern, however, about the apparent discrepancy between what is stipulated in the agreement reached in December and its practical application.

It would appear that a discrepancy has now emerged in the funds earmarked for the Algarve region in the context of exceptional measures adopted for statistical effect regions. If the information is to be believed, the Algarve region will be seriously harmed by the Commission’s interpretation of the December Agreement, which could lead to the Algarve receiving far worse treatment than any other Objective 2 region, as it will no longer be eligible for phasing out.

In the name of transparency and good interinstitutional cooperation, I feel that it is extremely important that the bases of the interpretation of the content of the 2007-2013 financial package be clarified.

  Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL), in writing. (DE) My group has the following reasons for rejecting Mr Böge’s report. Since it rightly states that Parliament is disappointed in the existing financial framework, it is incomprehensible that this so-called compromise should meet with approval. Even though the concluding negotiations produced improvements in quality, the underlying problem has not gone away.

This paltry budget will do nothing to help the EU achieve its high targets in terms of cohesion and development.

Today has also seen discussion of the report on the budget for 2007, according to the first paragraph of which Parliament ‘expresses concern about the visible discrepancy between the challenges that the European Union faces and the means capable of being made available under the relevant headings of a backward-looking Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 in order for these challenges to be effectively addressed, especially in relation to competitiveness, research and innovation, which the Council and the Commission have categorised as priorities’.

It is to 2007 that the new Financial Perspective will first be applicable. The adoption of a far too tight framework plan, involving a reduction of 15% in the funds available for the period between 2007 and 2013 over against those originally considered necessary, followed immediately by complaints about the lack of financial resources, does not testify to political farsightedness.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of ratifying the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council of Ministers, for the following reasons:

1. The excellent negotiations by Portugal and Madeira achieved their goals.

2. Following pressure from Parliament, EUR 4 billion has been added to the spending limit.

3. Rules have been established with a view to the Member States taking greater responsibility for the management of European funds.

4. Parliament has been given a more prominent role in the review of the Community budget, which is to take place by 2009.

I wish to point out that I was one of those who, by voting, contributed towards Parliament’s decision to reject the budgetary agreement reached by the Heads of State or Government in mid-December 2005. This obliged the Council of Ministers to sit around the negotiating table with Parliament with a view to reaching a position that would express the common will of both institutions.

I should like to conclude by pointing out that this agreement falls well short of being completely satisfactory. It is, however, the agreement that was possible under the current circumstances.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome the Interinstitutional Agreement as providing financial stability for the 2007 to 2013 period. I also welcome the fact that Parliament has been able to add around EUR 4 billion to the original settlement reached by the European Council. This demonstrates Parliament's ability to negotiate effectively with other institutions.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. I voted in favour of the Böge report but would like to record my concern about certain elements of the budget agreement which may have a negative impact on the single market.

In particular, the possibility of using 20% modulation in the CAP to fund rural development without having to meet the agreed rules on co-financing and spending guidelines is regrettable and could lead to a distortion of competition between Member States.

It is an attack on the CAP and is effectively a move to renationalise agriculture policy.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) If politics is the art of the possible, the search for an agreement on the EU’s financial framework for 2007-2013 has proved to be the art of the minimum possible, which is not a cause for satisfaction.

The EU has over the last few years undergone a major enlargement process to include new countries and political integration. This needs to be matched by increased funding. For the prosperity and security project that the EU represents for its citizens to be a reality, it requires a financial framework to match that ambition and its new size. Furthermore, the notion of solidarity, which has always been an integral part of the make-up of the EU's financial institutions, is justified on the grounds that it is fair and that it seeks to promote a balanced and effective internal market.

In light of these considerations, and in particular the impossibility of going beyond the limited budgetary outcome, my vote in favour is coloured by this regret. It also comes, however, with the hope that the entire budgetary structure will in due course be rethought with a view to promoting a more development-friendly economy, via the review of the expenditure heading.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The final stage has been reached on the financial perspective for the period 2007-2013 with the vote in favour of an overall package of EUR 866.4 billion. I should like to quote a figure to you: Europe costs each European 26 cents a day.

After the standstills on the part of certain Member States – I am referring to the ‘Club of the six skinflints’ – which were hoping for a cut-price agreement, we can be satisfied with the compromise adopted, despite its being far below Parliament’s initial proposal of June 2005, namely EUR 975 billion.

Parliament nonetheless managed to extract EUR 4 billion more than what the Council had decided, EUR 4 billion that has been granted mainly to policies regarding education (an extra 40 000 Erasmus scholarships!), research, competitiveness and innovation.

On the other hand, other areas have been sacrificed, such as ‘Life +’, a far-reaching environmental programme that will only receive 16% of the total funds initially provided for.

To conclude, we have an unsatisfactory agreement and a subsistence budget, which will make it possible to ensure some continuity, but which are nowhere near providing Europe with the resources needed for its ambitions.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the proposed financial perspective for 2007-2013.

I still feel, however, that the proposal originally adopted by Parliament was far more beneficial to the EU, not only from the quantitative point of view but also, especially, on account of the methodology used.

Whilst the proposal adopted by Parliament is the consequence of defining policies and priorities and as such is the true expression of a policy, the Council’s decision, being more of a summary of claims made by the Member States, does not have the same quality.

In spite of this, I voted in favour of the proposal because it would be highly damaging if the European institutions did not have a medium-term financial framework in which to prepare development-related projects.

A further significant reason for voting in favour of the proposal concerns the commitment to review both revenue and spending. I consider this point to be of major importance, given that I have on a number of occasions expressed the view that the current method of funding the EU has run its course. For the first time, it has become clear that this reform will take on crucial importance and will require Parliament’s involvement.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) I have voted against the Interinstitutional Agreement.

For the period between 2007 and 2013, Parliament has asked EUR 112 billion more than the Council. During Mr Blair’s debriefing in December 2005, the group chairmen of the large groups screamed blue murder, claiming that they would not under any circumstances agree to this result. Five months down the line, it is evident that pressure from the capitals, and particularly from Berlin, has worked very well: all the big promises were taken back. Parliament has contented itself with an increase of a mere EUR 4 billion.

This agreement will be unable to adequately meet the major challenges that the EU is facing. Cutbacks are now being made on the second pillar of agricultural policy which is supposed to fund rural development and which puts quality, animal welfare and environmental care first. By the same token, not enough funds are being set aside for trans-European networks, programmes such as Erasmus (a mere 140 000 students will be placed from now on, compared to 170 000 in 2006) and Leonardo (36 000 placements compared to 50 000), the seventh Research and Development Policy programme, the social agenda, the structural funds, Life+ and Natura, cultural activities, external policy and our dealings with our neighbours. The people have their expectations of Europe, and it is extremely regrettable that we will be unable to meet them.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Between Parliament’s vote in June 2005 (EUR 974 billion) and the agreement reached under the UK Presidency in December 2005 (EUR 862 billion), there was a shortfall of EUR 112 billion. 

Following many meetings, the agreement reached by the trialogue has made it possible to secure an extra EUR 2 billion, which is far from satisfactory.

Yet, at a time when Euroscepticism is gaining ground within the old and the new Member States, mainly because of the uncertainties linked to the enlargements and to the institutional deadlock, it seems helpful to me to reassure people by adopting the financial perspective for seven years.

Solidarity mechanisms are being preserved, although we will not see them increase in importance, as I would have wished.

It is for these reasons that I will vote in favour of this financial perspective, but I will obviously be unenthusiastic about doing so.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. – (NL) I have voted in favour of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and good financial management, not because these were the financial perspectives of my dreams, but because I welcome the qualitative improvements in financial management and because, since the prospective budgets just about make the grade, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Parliament has, I believe, done a good job – better than ever before and, above all, better than the two other institutions. It is thanks to our preparatory work and negotiators that we, despite the Commission’s half-hearted commitment and governments’ tight-fistedness, have firm prospects. In the current circumstances, this agreement is better than the absolute uncertainty surrounding the entire financial policy.

There is one thing that still sticks in my throat, and that is the treatment meted out to rural development, along with the possible moves towards the renationalisation of agricultural policy. Since we have no guarantees, though, of being able to get agricultural policy on the right track without either the Constitution or financial perspectives, this was not a good enough reason to reject the whole initiative.

- Report: Sousa Pinto (A6-0144/2006), Böge (A6-0150/2006)

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure, because I believe that the outcome of the negotiations on the 2007-2013 financial perspective is a good one for the 450 million citizens of Europe.

There is no such thing as a perfect budget. In the current economic and political climate in the EU, this is a good agreement for Europe and for Portugal, which is set to receive EUR 22.5 billion over the course of this seven-year period.

In addition to the quantitative gains in relation to the Council’s previous proposal, there are also qualitative benefits that Portugal will enjoy.

What is more, any postponement of the decision would lead to delays in the use of Community funds to resolve people's problems. Europe’s citizens – the Portuguese in particular – would not appreciate any further delays.

  Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Sousa Pinto and Böge reports, which reflect the way in which Europe has taken a back seat to acts of national self-interest, destroy any far-reaching political project and seriously threaten existing public policies, not least the CAP and the Structural Funds, both of which are tools for showing solidarity with the most vulnerable regions.

As regards agriculture, there will thus be a shortfall of EUR 30 billion until 2013 to honour the CAP reform, the negotiators having failed to account for the fact that two new Member States will be joining the Union in 2009.

Having been presented as a way forward for the European agricultural sector, rural development is, for its part, showing a 21% decrease in the appropriations that were allocated to it in comparison with the previous period and is paving the way for the abuse of our rural territories.

The Union’s Cohesion Policy is undergoing the same drastic cuts, recording a 10% decrease in the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, despite the fact that many European regions are lagging behind in terms of development, and thus instead required a substantial effort to be made regarding Community solidarity.

Directly affected, as they are, by this climb-down on the budget, the outermost regions will, moreover, be unable to rely on the development of new regional synergies, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument having lost an extra EUR 6 billion.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We have chosen to vote against both of these reports as we consider that the total payment appropriations should be below 1% of the total GNI of the EU Member States in accordance with the proposal from the G6 countries. Nor do we see any reason to celebrate the fact that the EU’s budget has been increased by EUR 4 billion by means of yet another round of negotiations initiated by the federalist majority in the European Parliament. This money would have been better spent on the political priorities of the Member States in respect of expenditure. We therefore reject the agreement on the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013.

We also emphatically take exception to the debates in the European Parliament in relation to there being a need to reform the system for own resources and to the EU needing its own source of income, for example by means of a tax being levied on mobile phones across the entire Union. The EU budget must depend on membership fees from the Member States, and the size of these membership fees must be decided by the Council of Ministers.

  Alain Hutchinson (PSE), in writing. – (FR) In June 2005, Parliament estimated that the Union required a budget of EUR 974 billion in order to face up to the challenges of the future. The agreement on the financial perspective, which was reached on 4 April at the end of the trialogue between Parliament, the Commission and the Council, is EUR 112 billion below our position in June 2005. We have recorded a 35% decrease in the budgetary resources allocated to growth and competitiveness (heading 1a), a 10% decrease for the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund (heading 1b) and so on. With such a tight budget, it is very hard to imagine the Union’s being able to achieve the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. This is a minimalist agreement that does not provide the Union with sufficient leeway to conduct new policies for the future.

The only thing going for this financial perspective is the fact that it exists. We can no longer postpone our vote for fear of not being able to start the new programming period in time. The Member States and the regions must, in particular, be able to develop and launch their projects in good time so that the latter can be cofinanced as from 2007. It would, in fact, be tragic if the poorest regions in Europe were unable to have access to structural aid as from 2007.

Those are the reasons justifying my abstention.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I am not going to get into a dispute over figures in order to explain to you why I voted against the reports by Mr Böge and Mrs Sousa Pinto, both of which relate to the financial perspective. The advocates of this compromise, which they themselves describe as 'tolerable', will not hold it against me, I hope, if I harbour a different ambition for Europe and its citizens to theirs.

I do not want a Europe that is reduced to being a mere free-trade area copied from the Anglo-Saxon model, but rather a Europe founded on the values of solidarity and of sharing among nations, something that has always been the vehicle for European progress.

This financial perspective is tragically lacking in ambition for the future of the European project and merely helps to promote intergovernmentalism. With a 37% reduction under the heading of growth and competitiveness, and a 10% reduction in the Cohesion Fund, the financial perspective destroys any notion of a revival of Europe and precludes any new policy for seven years.

  Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) It is regrettable that the European Parliament has not heeded the 1% target of the G6 countries but has instead worked for a budget framework far in excess of this amount. The agreement also lacks ambition in respect of the necessary reforms of both agricultural policy and regional policy. Within the framework of a long-term budget of 1% of GNI, there must also be room to invest in scientific research and to support enlargement.

The overhaul of the EU’s system of financing must not under any circumstances cause the EU to be granted its own right to levy taxes, and it is therefore unfortunate that there are wordings that implicitly suggest that this is necessary.

I have therefore chosen to reject the financial consequences that would be associated with the Interinstitutional Agreement and have voted against the reports in their entirety.

- Report: Rack (A6-0408/2005)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Rack report even though I believe that traffic’s considerable impact on human beings and their environment makes it essential that more freight be carried by rail. This is an area in which there is ever-increasing, and ever-tougher, competition in the private sector, and, although the Austrian railways, among others, were able to increase the amount of freight they carry, it became evident at the same time that margins were becoming tighter.

A study has shown that an increase in the toll levied on HGVs would result in the transfer of scarcely any traffic onto rails, instead doing no more than speeding up the large-scale closure of small haulage firms at the same time as imposing burdens on the economy and businesses. The only thing that would promote the transfer of goods to rail would, it appeared, be qualitative and structural improvements. I believe that the only rational approach to resolving this problem would be a radical reshaping of our transport system, which has, to date, favoured transport criss-crossing the EU from one end to the other. If, though, this crazy approach to transport is to be maintained, then support should from now on go only to what are termed ‘roll-on roll-off’ trains.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) This programme is of great value as a means towards more 'environmentally friendly' mobility, but, if we want to take the pressure off the roads, other means of transport, ranging from waterways to railways, will have to be highly efficient. Even so, multimodal transport is as strong as every link in the chain, although railways in particular are still the weaker partner and a more recent inventory of the multimodal platforms clearly shows where the weak points are to be found. The Commission and Parliament would therefore be well advised to concern themselves with this issue over and above these programmes, failing which even the best support programmes will be pulled up short by a lack of efficiency in rail transport and elsewhere, and transport businesses will see no advantage in using railways.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The compromise adopted today introduces various amendments that improve upon the text of the Commission’s original proposal. For example, it includes in the scope of application of this regulation more environmentally friendly means of transport, such as rail and inland waterways, and it takes account of the needs of the SMEs and the more remote and vulnerable regions, with a view to delivering better economic and social cohesion.

Bearing in mind these important changes, and bearing in mind the fact that, as the text states, ‘the present regulation establishes a financing instrument … should reduce congestion, improve the environmental performance of the transport system and enhance intermodal transport, thereby contributing to an efficient and sustainable transport system’, we cannot accept the drastic reduction in the budgetary envelope laid down for the programme. Let us not forget that the initial budget came to EUR 740 million and the amount adopted today only comes to EUR 400 million, which means a 46% reduction.

We hear about the fight against climate change, honouring the Kyoto Protocol and developing more environmentally friendly means of transport, yet we note that insufficient support is given to implementing those objectives.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. Europe's transport system is expected to see an increase of road freight by 2013 of more than 60%. The results will be greater congestion and environmental degradation, more accidents and a loss of competitiveness of European industry, which must rely, for the management of its supply chains, on cost-efficient transportation. In this situation, a greater reliance on intermodality is necessary.

In my own constituency of Munster, I have just learned that the port of Limerick is to lose substantial facilities through sale of important land. This will cause an increase of heavy road traffic in the Limerick city area. I see my vote today as a support for not only maintaining existing water-borne freight traffic, but also for moving it from road to water. I know that there are no Marco Polo projects in Ireland, but I intend to urge the interested parties in Munster and Ireland to look for projects that are acceptable under Marco Polo.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The group of the Kommounistiko Komma Elladas in the European Parliament would point out that the drastic cut of 50% in the financial framework, from 740 to 400 million euros, and the criteria for the selection of projects for the implementation of the second Marco Polo programme for the period from 2007 to 2013 are designed to increase the profits of big business and will not mitigate – let alone resolve – the serious problems relating to the major traffic congestion which exists and is worsening in internal and international freight transport, resulting both in an increase in accidents and destructive consequences for the environment.

This choice forms part of the more general anti-grass roots policy of the ΕU, as applied to maritime cabotage in Regulation (EC) No 3577/92 on the responsibility of the Nea Dimokratia and Panellinio Socialistiko Kinima governments in our country, in collusion with shipowners, with painful consequences for workers in maritime and shore transport, professional artisans and small and medium-sized farm owners.

That is why the group of the Kommounistiko Komma Elladas in the European Parliament did not vote in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation establishing the second Marco Polo programme.

- Report: Roth-Behrendt (A6-0161/2006)

  Jan Andersson, Anna Hedh, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have voted to support the compromise amendments to Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s report on TSEs that have been jointly tabled by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left. We think it important that Parliament be able to demonstrate a broad majority in favour of measures to fight and eradicate TSEs.

Our view is that ruminants should not be fed animal protein. Experts in the field believe that this may, however, be justified in one exceptional case, namely fish bone meal as a protein replacement for calves. Our view is that, in such a case, this process must be preceded by careful monitoring in order to ensure that the feedstuff in question is fish bone meal rather than any other animal protein.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report follows the Commission’s original proposal of December 2004, which had two objectives: to prolong the validity period of transitional measures and to establish rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, one of the key issues of which is the ban on feeding livestock on processed animal proteins.

The compromise adopted today establishes a series of rules regarding breeding programmes to select for resistance to TSEs or to export and import animal feed.

Nevertheless, despite the food and veterinary crises that have struck in recent years, and their impact on public and animal health, the interests of animal ration companies have taken precedence insofar as they have been granted derogations to the existing general ban; for example, such companies are allowed to use fish flour, and the Commission is allowed to grant partial derogation for certain types of animal such as young ruminants. We oppose this position, which, apart from the problems already mentioned, raise issues as regards the intensive, verticalised production development model so prevalent nowadays in agriculture and fisheries.

Hence our decision to abstain.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The prevention, combating and elimination of the transmission of spongiform encephalopathy is needed in order to protect public health and livestock. This is the way to safeguard consumer confidence in the food chain.

Outbreaks of BSE are declining; nonetheless, we must aim to put the crisis well and truly behind us by adapting to the new circumstances and taking preventive measures which make use of scientific studies and findings.

Today's report has several positive proposals in this direction. However, it does not avoid contradictions with certain amendments that leave the way open for the adoption of the use of animal proteins in ruminants, thereby negating the positive points of the report.

Double standards are also applied, allowing the exportation to third countries of certain processed animal proteins from non-ruminants, in order to save the costs of destruction, thereby using third countries for EU rubbish.

This way of thinking disregards and puts public health in third place, setting profits above all. This is also the main element of the capitalist system, which is why it is barbaric and inhumane. It is also dangerous for the food chain and the public health of the peoples. We have every reason to fight to overturn it.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted in favour of this report which seeks to amend the EU’s current rules on controlling transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in order to bring the EU into line with international agreements reducing BSE risks categories from 5 to 3. TSEs are brain disorders in animals and include sub-categories such as BSE and other diseases. The aim is to streamline the risk categories while improving EU animal health controls and maintaining consumer protection.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE), in writing. – (NL) The People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) voted in favour of the Roth-Behrendt report today, even though it is not entirely satisfied with the compromise between Parliament and the Council. In the compromise, steps are being taken to relax the ban on feeding non-ruminants animal meal, provided that animals are not fed animal meal originating from their own species. In this respect, we would refer to the by-products regulation (1774/2002/EC) which lays down the ban on feeding animal by-products to animals of the same species for reasons of possible food safety risks.

While the VVD welcomes this development, we are dissatisfied with the fact that in the compromise, nothing is being said about imposing the same requirements on imported products. Indeed, non-ruminant products from third countries need not meet any conditions in terms of feeding animal meal. The VVD believes that third-country products should meet the same requirements, certainly where food safety is at stake.

Despite this, the VVD has voted in favour, because the compromise, in many ways, represents an improvement on the current situation. Approval of the compromise means agreement at first reading, which means that these improvements can actually be carried out in the short term.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) The extension of the prohibition on feeding animal-based feedingstuffs to animals other than ruminants is a positive development, but it is most unfortunate that an exception has been included to allow the feeding of fishmeal to calves. I am therefore voting against this part of the proposal, although otherwise this is a good compromise.

- Report: Pleštinská (A6-0107/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague, Mrs Plestinska, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing of European standardisation. The text proposed by the European Commission and adopted at first reading makes it possible to give a crucial legal basis to the financing of European standardisation. Standardisation is one of the tools needed for applying Community policies, especially those concerned with the internal market and with increasing the competitiveness of businesses. I am delighted that access to this financing has been extended beyond the traditional beneficiaries that are usually referred to as 'European standards organisations’ and will include more activities. This is a significant show of support, particularly for those European standards that are in competition with other standards worldwide.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Technical measures implementing standardisation are a precondition for the satisfactory functioning of the internal market. It is thus necessary to grant funding to those institutions that are to develop such common standards. The financing of the institutions and organisations in question should nonetheless be debated and established within the framework of the regular budget negotiations. It is irresponsible to lay down at this stage the indicative amounts that the institutions in question are to be granted. We have therefore voted against this report.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) This legislation is based on the fundamental misconception that the aim of standardisation is to increase the competitiveness of businesses rather than to make life easier for consumers. What is more, it is only logical that industry should pay for standardisation itself if, indeed, it is only businesses that are to benefit. I therefore oppose the EU granting funding to this work, which should be self-financed through charges. I am thus voting against the proposal.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. The proposal is constituted by a series of technical and procedural regulations that aim at improving competition. It creates a framework for financing standardisation activities for the implementation of Community policies.

One more proposal, which, if seen as what it is, introduces a better financing framework and facilitates the adoption of European standards, particularly for very small enterprises and manufacturers.

The Commission must be subject to censure, not only for what it does but equally for what it does not do. Obviously, for the Commission, the prosperity of citizens and the harmonisation of social models and systems of social protection – upwards not downwards – is not a priority. This Commission continues to ignore the voice of the people calling for harmonisation of social systems before any such internal market is put in place, resulting in social dumping. Instead it presents a new Lisbon strategy and a directive on liberalisation of services (Bolkestein) as the panacea to all our problems.

Abstention would be the best choice, as a protest vote against the general policy of the Commission and especially the fact that European citizens are at the bottom of its list of priorities.

- Report: Rosati (A6-0162/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing.– (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my fellow Member, Mr Rosati, on public finances in economic and monetary Union. It was crucial to declare that the public finance situation is very worrying to say the least, with some Member States going bankrupt. Furthermore, it must be noted that Community procedures, whether we are talking about the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) or the excessive deficit procedures (EDP), only partially resolve this tragic situation and are, indeed, ineffective in a context in which weak economic growth and social demands are compromising the European Union’s capacity to reform itself. The absence of political will to bring some sense back to the crucial budgetary adjustments is reflected in a tragic increase in debt. How long is this irresponsibility going to last? It has become impossible to comprehend how the leaders of the executives in the Member States concerned cannot understand, by using their common sense and by looking at the world's success stories, such as Canada and Demark, that healthy public finances are crucial to achieving higher growth and employment.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Recent developments in public finances in the ΕU show an increase in deficit and debt, and yet no mention is made of the increase in the profits of the plutocracy and of who wins from this policy.

Similarly, there is no mention of the elements of poverty and unemployment for the peoples, who are called upon every time to pick up the bill, so that big business can maintain its profitability and exploitation.

The slow rate of the structural reforms ordered by the anti-grass roots Lisbon Strategy is presented as the cause of the debt and deficit. That is why the measures proposed are a higher retirement age, flexible forms of work, lifelong learning and the strengthening of companies, in other words measures and objectives that want slave workers to work without rights to employment, a pension and the basic human necessities, so that euro-unifying capital can increase its competitiveness and profits.

That is why deficits and debts are used as a pretext for new waves of austerity programmes and for the removal of vested rights, which will bring more poverty, unemployment and uncertainty to the workers.

These are the results of the capitalist barbarity from the policy of the ΕU and the governments. This policy is inhumane and must be overturned. The message from the grass-roots fight is the need for grass-roots prosperity.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I wish to congratulate Mr Rosati on his important and timely report on public finances in the economic and monetary union, to which I give my full support. I especially welcome the reference to the need to channel efforts into increasing the effectiveness of the preventative and corrective political measures for strengthening and consolidating the EU's public finances.

The fact that the necessary reforms were not carried out reduced growth and jobs and put pressure on public finances. This question will only be resolved when a question of common interest to the EU is addressed by all Member States.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Europe’s public finances remain in a precarious state. European growth remains worryingly slow.

The drop in deficits that we have seen is more an indication of the economic adjustments following expectations of greater growth in the economy, rather than the necessary structural reforms that are so vital to the future of the European economy.

Against this backdrop, this report highlights the effects on growth, employment and macroeconomic stability of public finances and calls on the Commission and the Member States to work together to take measures to reverse the slow growth of the European economy and to pave the way for the smooth functioning of the single currency. These measures are crucial for the European economy to grow strongly on sound foundations, in such a way that it can provide fresh business and job opportunities for its citizens.

We cannot, however, overlook the difficulties that some Member States have had in recent years in keeping public deficits within the levels of the Stability and Growth Pact. A further reason for us to follow this issue with concern and to call on the Commission and the Member States to take structural measures and be prepared for genuine coordination of economic policies.

I therefore voted in favour of the Rosati report.