Explanations of vote Oral explanations of vote Clemente Mastella (IT) Madam President, the aim of the Services Directive, which entered into force in December 2006, is to open up the market for service providers in the European Union and get rid of all protectionist barriers, arbitrary hindrances and any discriminatory rules. In any case, the European Parliament has always insisted that this directive must not form a pretext for dangerous deregulation and liberalisation of the sector, thereby harming workers' rights. The country of origin principle, which was criticised as paving the way for social dumping, was discarded and replaced by the destination country principle. I voted in favour of this report because, with regard to the implementation of the directive in question by the Member States, it puts particular emphasis on unjustified delays and failures, as well as a number of issues relating to its interpretation and application. I will finish here, Madam President, because speaking in these circumstances is rather difficult. Adam Bielan (PL) Madam President, development of the European services market plays an absolutely essential role in stimulating economic growth in the European Union. It is therefore very much to be welcomed that the European Parliament is closely examining the way in which the Services Directive is being implemented. Further measures to support the proper development of the European services market are also essential. Our overriding aim was to facilitate the provision of services throughout Europe. We are therefore alarmed to note that some of the Member States are showing a tendency to enact and apply laws which are in no way justified by the directive's provisions. Artificial barriers are thus placed in the way of the activities of service providers. At present, as many as 90% of new jobs are created in the services sector. I therefore believe that an efficiently functioning directive is an essential condition for the development of the single market, and a key project for the European economy. I am thus pleased that we are starting to see examples of the directive achieving measurable results, such as the huge number of notifications of amendments to legislation that we are receiving from the Member States. Claudio Morganti (IT) Madam President, I voted with great conviction against the adoption and application of the Services Directive, also known as the Bolkestein Directive. The aim of the directive should have been to create greater competition in Europe, assisting in the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Unfortunately, however, the real aim appears to have been to beat down and attack our small and medium-sized enterprises. In Italy, there are sectors that represent real strengths, such as beach concessions, in which the owners have invested all their possessions and made enormous sacrifices. Now, thanks to this directive, they have lost everything. This is not the system we should be bringing in, with a bureaucratic Europe and major corporations and multinationals that want to invade Italy and overpower our enterprises. We cannot allow it and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with these small and medium-sized enterprises and defend them, so that we look after our traditions and Italy's strengths. Sergej Kozlík (SK) Madam President, the Services Directive currently in force requires that all EU countries eliminate bureaucratic obstacles and make life easier for entrepreneurs. However, the implementation of the directive is stalling. The main problem areas are the failure to comply with the scope of the directive, delays in creating points of single contact, shortcomings in administrative cooperation and differences in mutual assessment. The report I have supported considers it very important to set up the points of single contact rapidly. They will be able to handle everything necessary for cross-border service provision, including information that is easy to understand on the formalities and administrative procedures of a given country. Services represent up to 40% of the gross domestic product of the Union. The elimination of unnecessary obstacles and delays could make a significant contribution to increased competitiveness and the creation of new jobs. Zigmantas Balčytis (LT) Madam President, I believe that the evaluation of the Services Directive has given us a good opportunity to check whether this directive really facilitates improved development in the services sector and whether the provisions of the directive are being properly implemented in the Member States. It is essential for there to be agreement throughout all stages of the implementation of this directive that public services should not be covered by the directive, but that it should ensure social rights and comply with the requirements of employment law. It is clear that the Commission and the Member States must increase their efforts to set up high quality points of single contact in the Member States. Adequate funding must be earmarked for this, in order to ensure that these centres provide high quality information which is accessible. Daniel Hannan Madam President, there has been a misunderstanding from the earliest days of the European Union as to what we mean by a free market in goods and services. When my constituents voted in favour of EEC membership in 1975, they understood the common market to mean mutual product recognition. If you can sell a bottle of mineral water in the UK, you should be allowed to sell the same water in France, Germany or Italy and vice versa. What they found in practice is that it means standardisation - that 'the mineral water has to contain the following minerals but not any of these', that 'the volume must be not greater than x and not less than y' and so on. You can then find that a product that was never intended for export can be criminalised in its own nation of origin. That is what we have seen again and again, both with goods and with services. Instead of having an increase of consumer choice, we have a restriction of consumer choice, often driven by one particular producer somewhere in the European Union which happens to meet a load of specifications anyway and which sees EU legislation as the way to export its costs to its competitors. This is why our share of world GDP continues to shrink and how my country has shackled itself to a cramped and confined regional bloc. Syed Kamall Madam President, I remember when the Services Directive first went through this Parliament in the last mandate, how controversial many of the elements were. I also remember personally, as the rapporteur for the trade and services report, the great controversy when I spoke about the need to liberalise many services - financial services, health services, education services, water services - to provide consumers with more choice and better services, rather than relying on clapped-out old state monopolies, which quite often taxpayers were underfunding. Here, we have this definition of services of general economic interest, as if somehow the disciplines that allow us to have a wonderful choice when it comes to supermarkets or other types of services do not apply to water, education and health. It is time that we moved on from the politics of 30 years ago when certain things could only be state-provided. The implication has been that they have been underfunded and not provided well. Let us move towards more service liberalisation throughout the EU and throughout the globe. Gesine Meissner (DE) Madam President, I would like to explain why the majority of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has abstained from voting on this directive. It is good that we have made a decision and that the rights of people with disabilities are being respected. However, that is only the case over longer distances. Many of the other points are not worthy of a European directive. For example, because the directive only covers journeys over 250 kilometres, there are many countries where it does not apply. Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg have no rights, in just the same way as some other Member States which do not have bus routes that are longer than 250 kilometres. The free movement of people, goods and services is one of Europe's central principles. Now it is the poorer passengers who are not protected, because some Member States have no system of passengers' rights. This is why we have abstained. There are some positive aspects, but also many negative aspects, and this is the reason for our abstention. Clemente Mastella (IT) Madam President, the proposal for a regulation tabled by the Commission in 2008 aims to introduce new, Europe-wide rights to protect bus and coach passengers which are similar to those applied to other means of transport, thereby assuring equal conditions of competition between carriers and the various modes of transport within the different Member States. A long and difficult negotiation with the Council, including recourse to a conciliation procedure, was required in order to reach the text voted on today. The final text can be considered a very satisfying and well-balanced compromise, since it succeeds in guaranteeing passenger rights without simultaneously imposing heavy burdens on carriers, which - lest we forget - are mostly small and medium-sized enterprises. The result of the conciliation procedure can quite reasonably be considered a success for the European Parliament, since some of our main requests were incorporated, namely in terms of its scope, fundamental rights for passengers irrespective of distance, derogations and, lastly, providing for accidents, cancellations and delays with suitable forms of reimbursement, assistance and compensation for passengers. Guido Milana (IT) Madam President, a new season of rights is upon us, but these rights could have been more widespread. We must be aware that at distances of less than 250 km, the rights of the most vulnerable, of disabled people, old-age pensioners, and persons with reduced mobility, are not addressed at all in this measure. If it is true that homogenised quality standards are being established, it is just as true that excluding local transport seriously limits the number of passengers affected. Implementation over the course of the next four years will allow the sector to prepare itself as well as possible, but we will also need to monitor the establishment of the enforcement bodies. The result of this process represents a victory for Parliament and is a positive sign of our attention to citizens' needs. However, compromise always implies mediation - and in this case concessions - of this House's aims. Basically, we have shown that we are good interpreters of needs, in contrast to the Council which has shown that it only represents interests. Giommaria Uggias (IT) Madam President, I should like to congratulate Mr Cancian on his excellent work in bringing this measure to its conclusion. Mr Mastella will allow me to disagree with him on the idea that this measure represents a great victory for our citizens. One cannot but note that citizens are only protected if they travel further than 250 km by coach or bus. Where is the protection for the rights of citizens of Europe if - as Mrs Meissner has already stressed - entire States such as Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta are excluded from this protection? These are the reasons why our group abstained in the vote. We did not vote against the report because some rights are protected, such as those of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. That is why we abstained. As for the rest of it, we would ask to return to the issue as soon as possible in order to really protect our citizens. Hannu Takkula (FI) Madam President, first of all, I wish to say that it is excellent and important that we concern ourselves with the rights of our citizens. Whenever rights are spoken of, we must remember that obligations come with them and so there are no rights without obligations. There is a lot that is good and positive about the report on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport. We also need to remember that panEuropean bus and coach companies differ greatly from one another. For example, in Finland, there are many small family firms, and we might ask whether we should be continually burdening these small companies with new costs and obligations, since they are struggling to make their enterprises profitable. I can say that we have shown flexibility on this issue in a variety of ways, and that the rights of different passengers have been taken into consideration. Acknowledging the needs of the disabled always brings with it clear added value. It is very important that we ensure that disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility are better able to travel and get about generally, and that greater account is taken of their needs. This is a good thing, but as I said earlier, the matter is slightly inconsistent, as when we talk about rights and obligations, it is also important to make sure that costs do not rise too high for those small companies in the bus and coach transport industry. Marian Harkin Madam President, I voted in favour of this regulation, even though I feel that it certainly does not go far enough. However, it is a start, and sometimes in this Parliament and in the EU, we take only baby steps. That is what we have done today. It is unfortunate that some Member States are outside this regulation and, indeed, that it applies only to journeys of distances greater than 250 kilometres. I certainly would have preferred the ALDE line, where passenger rights would have applied to journeys of a much shorter duration. I am, however, pleased to see that some of the basic rights in the regulation apply to passengers travelling over shorter distances. Those rights, in particular, apply to persons with a disability, or indeed, persons with reduced mobility. Some of these rights include non-discriminatory access to transport and disability-related training for staff on coaches and buses. Unfortunately, Member States have a derogation period of up to ten years and, while small businesses do need adequate time to comply, I would ask and encourage Member States to try to ensure compliance with this regulation as soon as possible. Pat the Cope Gallagher Madam President, I strongly support passenger rights and, in particular, increased rights for disabled people. I am not particularly happy with the compromise reached. I would have preferred, in contrast to my colleague, a threshold of 200 kilometres, as this would have enabled Ireland to exempt rural areas of my constituency. I am thinking of parts of North and West Donegal, Mayo, and indeed Galway. Most rural areas are outside the 250 kilometre limit. The level of rights being sought in terms of compensation is disproportionate to the type of service operating in rural areas. I also want to refer to the cost, and that is principally an insurance cost, that could cause some operators to leave the market. In many cases, there is no alternative public transport service available. Of course, we have to accept the decision that has been taken today and, hopefully, the derogation period could give the opportunity to those who are outside the 250 kilometre limit to adapt. So, while I agree in principle, I had to abstain for the foregoing reasons. Sergej Kozlík (SK) Madam President, every year, more than 70 million passengers in Europe travel by bus or coach. It is high time that a regulation came into effect protecting passenger rights in the same way as in air, water or rail transport. Passengers will have 12 basic rights applying to any length of journey. In addition to this, in the case of journeys in excess of 250 km, they will have the right to compensation for delays, assistance in case of accident or death, compensation for lost or damaged baggage, and better information. For small countries in particular, however, the 250 km minimum is rather extreme. I applaud the fact that passengers with reduced mobility will have the right to special assistance, as is already the case with air transport. In the future, I will certainly support the introduction of a common regulation to unify the already existing regulations on passenger rights in various transport systems, which will substantially clarify the entire system of passenger rights. Miroslav Mikolášik (SK) Madam President, passenger rights in bus and coach transport, which is frequently used in the European Union, require a clear legal set-up, as is the case in air, rail and water transport. I consider the final text of the submitted regulation to be a satisfactory compromise. I am particularly pleased about the adoption of the 12 basic rights of passengers, applying to all passengers on this form of transport, regardless of the distance. I particularly welcome the recognition and consideration of the special needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. Guaranteeing the right to compensation for loss or damage to a wheelchair or other device providing mobility, and the training of staff on buses or coaches in the area of transport for disabled persons, are becoming important tools in the fight against discrimination and against the social exclusion of these people. Peter Jahr (DE) Madam President, I have voted in favour of the report, because it represents a significant improvement in the current situation. We have been able to achieve a balanced solution which protects the rights of bus passengers and guarantees the continuing existence of small and medium-sized operators. The regulation covers journeys of more than 250 kilometres and gives bus and coach passengers the right to claim compensation if journeys are cancelled, overbooked or delayed by more than two hours. Bus operators are often small or medium-sized companies which would be brought to the brink of ruin by excessive claims for damages. This is one successful feature of the regulation which will ensure that compensation payments cannot get out of hand. As far as the distance of 250 kilometres is concerned, there is no reason why we should not allow the new legislation to come into effect and then see how it can be improved. Zigmantas Balčytis (LT) Madam President, firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Cancian, because the document we adopted today really is a very satisfactory and well balanced compromise. It manages to secure the rights of passengers without, at the same time, imposing a heavy burden on carriers, most of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. European Union citizens will be able to feel better protected. This agreement also improves travel conditions for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. It also lays down clear rules on compensation for damages and the facilitation of assistance. I believe that it will make a significant contribution towards improving conditions for our citizens when travelling, and will give them more legal clarity in the case of an accident or other unforeseen events. Alfredo Antoniozzi (IT) Madam President, I should like to congratulate Mr Cancian for his excellent work and, in particular, for the good result achieved in the conciliation procedure with the Council. Both from the point of view of the directive's scope as well as the incorporation of some 12 basic rights within the proposal, the compromise obtained represents an important step in protecting the rights of passengers. The proposal takes the rights and needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility into due account, particularly with regard to non-discriminatory access to transport, the rights to compensation in the event of loss of, or damage to, mobility equipment, submission and handling of complaints, disability-related training for staff on buses or coaches, and information to be provided during the journey. The final text has also managed to guarantee the rights of passengers without, at the same time, putting pressure on carriers, most of which are small and medium-sized enterprises and could not have borne heavy burdens. Diane Dodds Madam President, while I acknowledge that there are many positive aspects to this report - and I strongly support the right of those with disabilities to have access to transport and to compensation - I believe that these kinds of schemes should be put in place by national governments. I also believe that the financial burden associated with this proposal would be prohibitive for many transport providers. This Parliament must remember that many coach firms are privately owned, are relatively small and are under an increasing financial pressure as a result of the huge rise in fuel prices experienced over the last 12 to 18 months. For many private firms, and indeed government transport schemes, additional cost will only result in two things: higher ticket prices for customers and reduced routes. Indeed, it will put many in the voluntary sector - which runs many of the schemes for those with disabilities - out of business altogether. Carlo Fidanza (IT) Madam President, it has been a long road to today's vote on this report so I should like to echo the compliments of my fellow Members directed to Mr Cancian, who fought so doggedly to get us here. All modes of transport have now finally got their own regulation on the rights of passengers. I think that the next step is to come up with a proper consolidating act that brings together all these different regulations. The scope is reasonable, even though we negotiated it on other premises, but the fact that we managed to include all Member States but two is certainly positive, as is the fact that many clauses were made obligatory, even at distances of less than 250 km, while giving up some other forms of compensation. During this morning's debate, some Members stated that there was no provision for suitable protection for passengers with reduced mobility, but fortunately, this has been proved false by the latest speeches. On the contrary, this protection is a great step forward for the civility of this compromise and we ought to be proud of that. Siiri Oviir (ET) Madam President, I am voting against this document, because the current act does not guarantee equal treatment of passengers. It does not compare with other modes of transportation, nor with passengers of different states. As a result, several small European Union states are left out of the regulation zone. The act functions only partially in several other Member States. The problem in connection with cross-border coach travel is also unresolved. Coaches are used by those on a low income and the young, including students and schoolchildren. It is therefore not acceptable for implementation to be deferred to a later date. Andrzej Grzyb (PL) Madam President, a compromise between proposals by the Commission and Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has been reached with regard to commercial vehicles and emissions standards, whereby the latter will be reduced for such vehicles from 203 g to 147 g per kilometre over a period of 10 years. The new emissions standard which has been introduced is acceptable to manufacturers and users and is important in terms of the costs incurred by users as a result of increased prices for such vehicles. This group of users is made up, primarily, of small and medium-sized enterprises, tradespeople and family businesses, and we have just been discussing EU instruments aimed at providing financial support to small and medium-sized enterprises during this part-session. One of the goals in this area is to reduce barriers to the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises. We hope that increased costs for fleets of light commercial vehicles resulting from limits on emissions and higher manufacturing costs will not become a significant barrier. In 2014, we will be able to check whether the principles behind the regulation have been implemented successfully. Peter Jahr (DE) Madam President, the European Parliament has succeeded in putting in place an ambitious, long-term target in the face of opposition from the Council and the Commission, which will restrict the CO2 emissions of small vans to a maximum of 147 grams per kilometre by 2020. This ambitious and yet realistic limit can be achieved by means of innovative environmental technology. The vehicles will be considerably cleaner, but they will remain affordable for small and medium-sized companies. This was particularly important for us, because it will not help climate change if the price of new vehicles is so prohibitive that the old vans remain on our roads and, in particular, remain a burden on the environment. I am pleased that we have voted on this motion today and that it has been adopted with an overwhelming majority. Vicky Ford Madam President, we have just voted on a report called 'emissions performance standards for light commercial vehicles'. Like much EU legislation, it is a long-winded title for a real issue. Let me translate: light commercial vehicles are, of course, vans, and performance standards mean fuel emissions which depend on fuel burnt. Now, we have all seen the rising fuel prices at the pumps, but for sole traders like builders, plumbers and carpenters, running their van is a business-critical cost. They want fuel-efficient vehicles and fuel efficiency has always been a key part of their buying decision. On the production line in the General Motors factory in Luton, in my constituency, I have also seen that the innovation needed for improvements comes from the factory floor. There are some who think that just because targets are set in this House in Europe, they will be achieved. But the truth is that achieving those targets will mean the innovation comes, whether from vans or otherwise, and it will come from consumer demands and manufacturers' improvements and not just from European legislation. Seán Kelly (GA) Madam President, I was sorry that I could not attend this debate but I had other meetings at the time. So, thank you for giving me the chance to say a few words now. In the 2020 strategy, we have put much emphasis particularly on renewable energies, and that is only right. But equally important in meeting our targets will be energy efficiency, particularly in relation to motor vehicles - private and commercial. Commercial vehicles are on the road every day and they travel huge distances. Through a directive like this, we can help to comply with the 2020 strategy in relation to fuel efficiency because it will compel designers to produce more fuel-efficient engines, and while the cost may be big in the short term, the savings in terms of miles per gallon travelled, and also in terms of the environment, are huge. Clemente Mastella (IT) Madam President, the Council has sent us a proposal for a decision that authorises an enhanced cooperation procedure in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. The reason for this is that some Member States - including Italy and Spain - objected on a number of occasions to the adoption of the planned trilingual system of translation, which would end up becoming truly discriminatory, since it blatantly violates the principle of equal status for all official languages of the Union. Despite the numerous negotiations carried out so far and this morning's vote, it seems that the unanimous adoption of this regulation will be impossible. However, reasons of legal and institutional expediency would suggest, or seem to have suggested, that we should wait for the opinion of the Court of Justice, expected in the coming days, which might not only clarify numerous technical aspects of the unitary patent system, but also highlight all the jurisdictional consequences deriving from it. We did not choose this path and that is why I voted against. Jens Rohde (DA) Madam President, listening to the debate here in this Chamber on enhanced European cooperation with regard to a unitary European patent, it is difficult not to sit here with a smile - an indulgent smile - on my face. Politicians from certain countries, whose own language is, in their opinion, the most important one in the world, have claimed that we will destroy the internal market in this area if we enter into enhanced cooperation. This is, of course, an absurd claim inasmuch as we do not have an internal market when it comes to the unitary patent. It costs around ten times more to obtain a patent in the EU than it does in the United States, corresponding to an annual turnover of EUR 250 million for our enterprises. It is therefore a good thing that we have finally voted the enhanced cooperation through today, so that certain countries can no longer be obstructive. Enough is enough! We have not reached the goal, but today we have already made more progress in one day than we have done in the last ten years. Adam Bielan (PL) Madam President, we have been holding debates on the creation of a unitary patent protection system for over 20 years at European level. The very complex system currently in force for registering patents, which is time-consuming and expensive in comparison to the American system, is no help whatsoever to European entrepreneurs. Patents play a significant role in the development and growth of a modern economy and in supporting scientific research. Given that global markets are becoming ever more competitive, we cannot afford to put off decisions on this matter any longer. We therefore need to step up work on the creation of a unitary patent market. Yet although we should support the idea, we must not ignore the controversial nature of many issues, for example, the question of language. Our aim should therefore definitely be to combat discrimination against the smaller, less-populated and often poorer Member States. Alfredo Pallone (IT) Madam President, we live in a market in which our enterprises operate according to global competition. The basic premise of the reform of the language regime for patents, as announced by the Commission, is to reduce translation-related costs in order to be competitive on the markets where we compete with the United States, particularly the Asian market. I therefore wonder if it would not have been more efficient to produce a patent in just one language? That would really help our enterprises to compete on the global market. Moreover, it is well known that there are currently two legal systems in Europe, with different characteristics and rules. I think it would have been a better idea to start harmonising them. Lastly, starting enhanced cooperation is not only against the spirit of the European Union, but it also harms the internal market, which is thereby subject to geographic segmentation and distortion of competition between Member States, meaning that some States will certainly find themselves worse off than others. Mario Pirillo (IT) Madam President, whilst, on the one hand, I applaud the objective achieved by Europe of equipping itself - after many years - with an important instrument such as the patent, which will finally allow the European Union to compete on level terms with other territorial organisations, I must also express my great regret that this result has been achieved to the detriment of other areas, like Italy, which has been a perennial advocate of strengthening the role of the Union. The decision to issue the patent in just one of the three working languages of the Patent Office will actually create inequality between Italian enterprises and those countries that form part of the proposed linguistic regime. I would recall that some months ago, I submitted a question to the Commission to defend the use of the Italian language. In the meantime, 25 countries out of 27 fell into line, which has led me to abstain. Andrzej Grzyb (PL) Madam President, no one is satisfied with the present answers to the problem of patent protection in the EU and the Member States. The introduction of a unitary patent protection system is therefore essential, both for the economies of our Member States and for the economy of the EU as a whole. In particular, the new system should help stimulate scientific research and innovation. The introduction of a relatively simple system based on a standardised form - although this is the subject of controversy - using three languages, although there has been talk of using one language or many languages, with translation into the mother tongue of the applicant, represents an important step. This will be particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises, many of which do not have sufficient financial resources to apply for patents. I hope that it will prove to be a key step in spurring into action the group of small and medium-sized enterprises which we frequently refer to as 'sleeping innovators'. We often discuss how to encourage this very group of businesses to introduce innovations and patent their own inventions, particularly in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. We want this new regulation to both mobilise these small and medium-sized enterprises and also to provide better protection for patented inventions in the European Union. Constance Le Grip (FR) Madam President, I voted in favour of Mr Lehne's report, which gives the European Parliament's consent to enhanced cooperation in order to create a unitary patent within the European Union. It is about time too! Twenty years of effort to achieve a result, to arrive at the point where we start to take concrete action for European businesses, both our SMEs and our large companies, which have been waiting a long time for this major instrument for their competitiveness and growth. By giving its consent to enhanced cooperation, the European Parliament is showing just how interested it is in this particular enhanced cooperation procedure - and I would point out that this is the second time it has been applied - but it is also sending a very positive and very specific message to promote the innovation and competitiveness of our businesses. As has already been said, 25 of the 27 Member States have chosen to go ahead with this enhanced cooperation procedure so as to create a European Union unitary patent. I do not underestimate the difficulties that some of our Member States may still be experiencing, but let us move forward and set an example. That is what businesses are expecting. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ES) Madam President, I abstained because I think that the decision to create a unitary patent through enhanced cooperation is another failure by the Council. There is only agreement between nine Member States and the document itself acknowledges that the objectives cannot be achieved within a reasonable timescale. Competitiveness? Efficiency? In addition, the judgment of the Court of Justice on jurisdiction in terms of the language rules is pending. The Council should have made the effort to reach a common position, and perhaps it should have done more work on using a single language, taking into account the number of registrations and the language used in the majority of them, in order to make us more competitive in our global context. Once again, the national perspective of the Member States has resulted in a fragmented decision with no clear criteria regarding the use of three languages. If we implement measures such as this, we shall never make progress in consolidating the European project. Miroslav Mikolášik (SK) Madam President, if the European Union is to boost competitiveness and become a world leader in innovation, its creative potential must be adequately secured. The EU patent system, however, suffers from many deficiencies, preventing the establishment of unitary patent protection, but also the development of the internal market, thereby reducing legal certainty for inventors and innovative firms. The provision of unitary protection of inventions in all Member States through the existence of a single European process for granting patents on the basis of a unitary system of patent law would expressly clarify a complicated system while, at the same time, reducing costs, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are having to pay up to three times higher costs than in the US, for example. Since the attempts to create unitary patent protection throughout the EU have failed to fulfil expectations, and in view of the fact that all of the legal preconditions stipulated for enhanced cooperation in the area of creating individual patent protection are fulfilled, I agree with the European Parliament giving its consent. Giommaria Uggias (IT) Madam President, when, a century ago, Antonio Meucci's patent was not recognised by the American telephony industry, it was not because of a lack of English or his use of Italian, but instead the failure to meet a condition: he did not have the money to register his patent for another year. In a similar vein, we are now in a paradoxical situation and, quite apart from the vote, I think that the fact that a trilingual patent system is to be adopted, which excludes Italian, is basically a sign of the weakness of our government, its inability to make its voice heard in European politics, and the weakness of our political system, which reflects, above all, on research and innovation. On this issue, we need only recall the competitiveness study published last December, which shows that in recent years, Italy has willingly handed over EUR 4 billion to other countries that have welcomed our researchers. These researchers certainly no longer have any need for Italian, since they have learnt English, French and German and have all the tools required to submit these patents, to the detriment of Italian products. Antonello Antinoro (IT) Madam President, I am speaking in order to explain why I voted against the report today. The creation of the patent will certainly bring advantages for the patent system in Europe, but the result would have been far better if we had gone through a different procedure. Using enhanced cooperation is, in my opinion, an absolute dead end. Indeed, the current procedure is merely the latest phase in the long history of the adoption of the patent in the European Union, which goes all the way back to 1990, and has only been requested by 12 Member States. I voted against the resolution because it is incompatible with the requirement of last resort set forth in Article 20(2) of the Treaty. The Commission's proposal does not establish a uniform patent for the entire territory of the Union as required by Article 118, and enhanced cooperation has a negative effect on the establishment of enterprises and the free movement of capital. In addition, in political terms, it would have been much more elegant and just as convenient to wait for the decisions of the Court of Justice, scheduled for 8 March. In the light of this decision, we shall probably be forced to revise our position. David-Maria Sassoli (IT) Madam President, once again, we have witnessed the inability of the Italian Government to protect the pro-European reputation of Italy and the interests of its businesses on a crucial point such as the adoption of the European patent. Twenty-five countries out of 27 and the overwhelming majority of Parliament support a proposal that regulates the field of patents and that has a real effect on the most innovative enterprises and those that are most orientated to international markets. By ruling ourselves out of this decision, we in Italy will expose our enterprises to the risk of not being suitably protected in Europe and across the world. It is quite incredible that a government that does nothing to spread Italian culture throughout the world, that cuts funds to cultural institutes and fails to value the language of the country that is host to the largest number of World Heritage Sites, can ride roughshod over the language issue while our enterprises have actually always asked for patents to be drafted only in English, which is now the lingua franca of the global economy. However, we have reached a result that allows anyone submitting patents to do so in their own language. Madam President, there was nothing that made it compulsory for Mr Barnier to force this through with such a hasty vote before the opinion of the Court of Justice which, as we know, will be expressed during the first week of March and will deal mainly with two crucial points: the use of one's national language to defend oneself before the European Union Patent Court and the very legitimacy of creating a patent court. As we well know, these are important issues to resolve before taking any decision. Hence, the Italian delegation of the Democratic Party (PD) decided to abstain. Seán Kelly Madam President, this proposal is certainly not perfect, and indeed may have to be revisited as a result of the ECJ judgment in a few weeks. Nevertheless, I think it is a step in the right direction, and for that reason I supported it. I have attended a number of seminars here at the European Parliament in relation to innovation. General Electric have done some surveys right across the European Union which show that most people believe that progress out of recession can only be achieved through innovation. Innovation means research, development and new products. New products have to be patented, and the easier it is to do that, the better. We have to try and aim for a system right across the European Union that is as easy and as cost-effective as it is in the USA. We are a long way from that yet but, at the same time, we are at least trying to move in that direction. Therefore, I supported today's proposals. Philip Claeys (NL) Madam President, I have abstained from voting on the Lehne report, not because I have any objections to the creation of a unitary patent protection scheme. Quite the contrary. Businesses in Flanders have been clamouring for such a scheme for a long time. The idea itself can only be welcomed, especially if we consider how costly and cumbersome the current procedure is, having to apply for a separate patent in each Member State. I abstained from voting because the language arrangements are still not entirely clear. It remains to be seen to what extent the draft Commission regulation will allow for the use of the official languages other ​​than English, French and German. In any case, I am, and will continue to remain, of the opinion that it should also be possible to submit a dossier in Dutch. Miroslav Mikolášik (SK) Madam President, the codification of the previously mentioned provisions of applicable texts, together with the previously mentioned changes, will undoubtedly bring the necessary clarification to legal arrangements on radioactivity in food. In my opinion, however, in the context of adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, it would be desirable to reassess the legal basis of the proposed regulation, which must also take account of the new powers of the European Parliament in the area of public health protection. In this case, I agree with the opinion that Article 168(4b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides a legal basis for the proposal, since the direct aim of the measures passed on this basis is to protect public health, which is the case when (and I quote) 'laying down maximum permitted levels of contamination of foodstuffs and feedingstuffs'. Giommaria Uggias (IT) Madam President, I mostly support the amendments proposed through this text, which in any case essentially does nothing more than codify previous legislation regarding the maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and animal feedingstuffs. We are forgetting and letting it pass somewhat unnoticed that we are talking about waste from nuclear accidents. This means that we have to continue to pay close attention to the risks of nuclear plants and to the fact that these are the consequences of the rotten and poisonous results of what, in certain States, we insist on developing. It is therefore a measure that must inspire us all to be as vigilant as possible. Getting to the heart of the matter, I do, however, think that more could be done to bring in compulsory immediate notification, which would allow all risk factors to be dealt with together. Furthermore, there should be no way to avoid the requirement to notify government authorities in the event of an accident. Andrzej Grzyb (PL) Madam President, regulations ensuring that foodstuffs are not contaminated by radioactive substances came into being after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. This is a very important issue, in particular, from the point of view of public health, but it is, at the same time, a difficult subject. Implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon means that certain regulations need to be updated, including these ones, even though there is a dispute between the European Commission and Parliament's proposals as far as the legal basis is concerned. Parliament cites Article 168(4) of the Treaty of Lisbon, whereas the Commission cites Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty. It is important to reiterate the need to protect consumers, but also to emphasise the need to protect farmers, who should receive compensation for the losses they suffer following an accident. The debate we have held has also shown the large differences in opinion when it comes to assessing possible threats, including levels of radiation caused by accidents or those from natural sources. The fact that an increasing proportion of the European Union's market is occupied by imported agricultural products and foodstuffs from various parts of the world should also be highlighted, since public health standards, including those ensuring that foodstuffs are not contaminated by radioactive substances, must be met. Alfredo Antoniozzi (IT) Madam President, the insertion of a new recital in the proposal for a codification of three regulations adopted between 1987 and 1990 laying down levels of radioactive contamination in case of radiological emergency brings the necessary ex post motivation to an existing article and justifies the right for the Council to exercise direct power in terms of adopting a regulation to promptly endorse the emergency measures proposed by the Commission. I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Belet, that this cannot be disassociated from the article to which it refers. In any case, in the light of the new rules introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, we need to clarify whether this justification provides sufficient motivation for the reservation of implementing powers to be exercised by the Council and whether those implementing powers delegated to the Council are properly defined and framed. Citizens' interests in the effective management of post-accident situations must be guaranteed. The measures designed for this purpose include streamlining the procedure in the event of nuclear emergency and the clear assignment to the Commission of a supervisory role, which, at the same time, clarifies the regime of its acts. Written explanations of vote Luís Paulo Alves I agree with the rapporteur's position regarding the consensus needed to conclude the agreement, now with new provisions in line with the EU's development cooperation objectives, as set out in Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. On the other hand, I believe that this approach was overly focused on commercial and economic concerns, and on free trade, to the detriment of a more robust approach to development, and I welcome the new provisions, which should be included in the revised agreement, especially as regards combating poverty, aid efficiency, the Millennium Development Goals and the link between migration and development. However, I am voting for this proposal because I believe that relations and trade with South Africa are essential for both parties. Laima Liucija Andrikien I voted in favour of this document, because it includes important amendments. It has to be welcomed that disarmament becomes an essential element of the agreement - to be more precise - on a par with democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law. These are very important provisions, contributing to peacekeeping and security in the region, as well as respect for human rights and the development of democracy. The principle of aid effectiveness (as a development cooperation objective) and priority for operations, which contribute, in particular, in the fight against poverty, towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), have been added to the agreement. It should be noted that obviously, from a South African development perspective, extending cooperation to many new areas is a point in the revised agreement's favour; and, moreover, extending cooperation in this way, which was provided for in the original 1999 agreement as simply a possibility, is what both sides wanted. Moreover, it is also important that much attention is focused on commercial, economic and free-market concerns, which should contribute to the region's economic development. Elena Oana Antonescu This revised agreement introduces a number of amendments, especially regarding the development of democratic principles and cooperation on the aspects relating to disarmament and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I welcome the initiative for prioritising the operations which help achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), namely: the strategies aimed at reducing poverty, improving living and working conditions and creating new jobs. I think that an in-depth political dialogue needs to be established on combating terrorism and money laundering, on the financing of terrorism and organised crime, and on combating the manufacture of, trade in and accumulation of weapons. In addition, I advocate the need for
{'language': 'en'}