# Euroopan unionin C 213/2023

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| ---------------------------------- | --------------------------- |
| Euroopan unionin
virallinen lehti | C 213 |
| European flag | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia |

---

| Sisältö | | Sivu |
| ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- |
| | IV   Tiedotteet | |
| | EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET | |
| | EUROOPAN PARLAMENTTIISTUNTOKAUSI 2022–2023Istunnot 9. ja 10. marraskuuta 2022BRYSSEL | |
| 2023/C 213/01 | 9. marraskuuta 2022 sanatarkat istuntoselostukset | 1 |
| 2023/C 213/02 | 10. marraskuuta 2022 sanatarkat istuntoselostukset | 99 |

---

| Menenettelyistä käytettävät symbolit
*
Kuulemismenettely ***
Hyväksyntämenettely ***I
Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (ensimmäinen käsittely) ***II
Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (toinen käsittely) ***III
Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (kolmas käsittely) (Menettely määräytyy säädösesityksen oikeusperustan mukaan.)
Valiokunnista käytettävät lyhenteet
AFET
Ulkoasiainvaliokunta DEVE
Kehitysyhteistyövaliokunta INTA
Kansainvälisen kaupan valiokunta BUDG
Budjettivaliokunta CONT
Talousarvion valvontavaliokunta ECON
Talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokunta EMPL
Työllisyyden ja sosiaaliasioiden valiokunta ENVI
Ympäristön, kansanterveyden ja elintarvikkeiden turvallisuuden valiokunta ITRE
Teollisuus-, tutkimus- ja energiavaliokunta IMCO
Sisämarkkina- ja kuluttajansuojavaliokunta TRAN
Liikenne- ja matkailuvaliokunta REGI
Aluekehitysvaliokunta AGRI
Maatalouden ja maaseudun kehittämisen valiokunta PECH
Kalatalousvaliokunta CULT
Kulttuuri- ja koulutusvaliokunta JURI
Oikeudellisten asioiden valiokunta LIBE
Kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunta AFCO
Perussopimus-, työjärjestys- ja toimielinasioiden valiokunta FEMM
Naisten oikeuksien ja sukupuolten tasa-arvon valiokunta PETI
Vetoomusvaliokunta DROI
Ihmisoikeuksien alivaliokunta SEDE
Turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikan alivaliokunta FISC
Veroasioita käsittelevä alivaliokunta Poliittisista ryhmistä käytettävät lyhenteet
PPE
Euroopan kansanpuolueen ryhmä (kristillisdemokraatit) S&D
Euroopan parlamentin sosialistien ja demokraattien ryhmä Renew
Renew Europe -ryhmä Verts/ALE
Vihreät / Euroopan vapaa allianssi -ryhmä ID
Identiteetti ja demokratia -ryhmä ECR
Euroopan konservatiivit ja reformistit The Left
Euroopan parlamentin vasemmistoryhmä – GUE/NGL NI
Sitoutumattomat | * | Kuulemismenettely | *** | Hyväksyntämenettely | ***I | Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (ensimmäinen käsittely) | ***II | Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (toinen käsittely) | ***III | Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (kolmas käsittely) | AFET | Ulkoasiainvaliokunta | DEVE | Kehitysyhteistyövaliokunta | INTA | Kansainvälisen kaupan valiokunta | BUDG | Budjettivaliokunta | CONT | Talousarvion valvontavaliokunta | ECON | Talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokunta | EMPL | Työllisyyden ja sosiaaliasioiden valiokunta | ENVI | Ympäristön, kansanterveyden ja elintarvikkeiden turvallisuuden valiokunta | ITRE | Teollisuus-, tutkimus- ja energiavaliokunta | IMCO | Sisämarkkina- ja kuluttajansuojavaliokunta | TRAN | Liikenne- ja matkailuvaliokunta | REGI | Aluekehitysvaliokunta | AGRI | Maatalouden ja maaseudun kehittämisen valiokunta | PECH | Kalatalousvaliokunta | CULT | Kulttuuri- ja koulutusvaliokunta | JURI | Oikeudellisten asioiden valiokunta | LIBE | Kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunta | AFCO | Perussopimus-, työjärjestys- ja toimielinasioiden valiokunta | FEMM | Naisten oikeuksien ja sukupuolten tasa-arvon valiokunta | PETI | Vetoomusvaliokunta | DROI | Ihmisoikeuksien alivaliokunta | SEDE | Turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikan alivaliokunta | FISC | Veroasioita käsittelevä alivaliokunta | PPE | Euroopan kansanpuolueen ryhmä (kristillisdemokraatit) | S&D | Euroopan parlamentin sosialistien ja demokraattien ryhmä | Renew | Renew Europe -ryhmä | Verts/ALE | Vihreät / Euroopan vapaa allianssi -ryhmä | ID | Identiteetti ja demokratia -ryhmä | ECR | Euroopan konservatiivit ja reformistit | The Left | Euroopan parlamentin vasemmistoryhmä – GUE/NGL | NI | Sitoutumattomat |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | --- | ------------------- | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | --------------------------------------------------- | ------ | --------------------------------------------------- | ---- | -------------------- | ---- | -------------------------- | ---- | -------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------- | ---- | ----------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------- | ---- | --------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------------ | ---- | -------------------- | ---- | -------------------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------------- | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------ | ---- | ----------------------------- | ---- | -------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------------- | -- | --------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------------------------------------------- | -- | --------------- |
| * | Kuulemismenettely | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| *** | Hyväksyntämenettely | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***I | Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (ensimmäinen käsittely) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***II | Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (toinen käsittely) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ***III | Tavallinen lainsäätämisjärjestys (kolmas käsittely) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AFET | Ulkoasiainvaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| DEVE | Kehitysyhteistyövaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| INTA | Kansainvälisen kaupan valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| BUDG | Budjettivaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| CONT | Talousarvion valvontavaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ECON | Talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| EMPL | Työllisyyden ja sosiaaliasioiden valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ENVI | Ympäristön, kansanterveyden ja elintarvikkeiden turvallisuuden valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ITRE | Teollisuus-, tutkimus- ja energiavaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| IMCO | Sisämarkkina- ja kuluttajansuojavaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| TRAN | Liikenne- ja matkailuvaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| REGI | Aluekehitysvaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AGRI | Maatalouden ja maaseudun kehittämisen valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PECH | Kalatalousvaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| CULT | Kulttuuri- ja koulutusvaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| JURI | Oikeudellisten asioiden valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| LIBE | Kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AFCO | Perussopimus-, työjärjestys- ja toimielinasioiden valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FEMM | Naisten oikeuksien ja sukupuolten tasa-arvon valiokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PETI | Vetoomusvaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| DROI | Ihmisoikeuksien alivaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| SEDE | Turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikan alivaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| FISC | Veroasioita käsittelevä alivaliokunta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| PPE | Euroopan kansanpuolueen ryhmä (kristillisdemokraatit) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| S&D | Euroopan parlamentin sosialistien ja demokraattien ryhmä | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Renew | Renew Europe -ryhmä | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Verts/ALE | Vihreät / Euroopan vapaa allianssi -ryhmä | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ID | Identiteetti ja demokratia -ryhmä | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ECR | Euroopan konservatiivit ja reformistit | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| The Left | Euroopan parlamentin vasemmistoryhmä – GUE/NGL | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| NI | Sitoutumattomat | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| FI | |
| -- | |

---

IV Tiedotteet

EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET

EUROOPAN PARLAMENTTI ISTUNTOKAUSI 2022–2023 Istunnot 9. ja 10. marraskuuta 2022 BRYSSEL

16.6.2023
FI
Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
C 213/1 9. marraskuuta 20229. MARRASKUUTA 2022 SANATARKAT ISTUNTOSELOSTUKSET (2023/C 213/01) Sisältö 1.
Istuntokauden uudelleen avaaminen
3 2.
Istunnon avaaminen
3 3.
Puhemiehen julkilausumat
3 4.
Edellisen istunnon pöytäkirjan hyväksyminen
4 5.
Parlamentin kokoonpano
4 6.
Poliittisten ryhmien kokoonpano
4 7.
Valiokuntien ja valtuuskuntien kokoonpano
4 8.
Neuvottelut ennen parlamentin ensimmäistä käsittelyä (työjärjestyksen 71 artikla)
4 9.
Tavallista lainsäätämisjärjestystä noudattaen annettujen säädösten allekirjoittaminen (työjärjestyksen 79 artikla)
4 10.
Käsittelyjärjestys
5 11.
Eurooppa-neuvoston 20.–21. lokakuuta 2022 pidetyn kokouksen päätelmät (keskustelu)
8 12.
Energiaperuskirjasta tehdyn sopimuksen uudistamisen tulos (keskustelu)
31 13.
EU:n vastaus Iranin mielenosoitusten lisääntyvään tukahduttamiseen (keskustelu)
34 14.
Elpymis- ja palautumissuunnitelmien REPowerEU-luvut (keskustelu)
37 15.
Tiedonanto lannoitteiden saatavuuden ja kohtuuhintaisuuden varmistamisesta (keskustelu)
57 16.
Yritysten kestävyysraportointia koskeva direktiivi (keskustelu)
65 17.
Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskeva säädös - Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskevista vaatimuksista annetun direktiivin muuttaminen (keskustelu)
73 18.
Schengenin säännöstön määräysten täysimääräinen soveltaminen Kroatian tasavallassa (keskustelu)
79 19.
E-urheilu ja videopelit (keskustelu)
85 20.
Minuutin puheenvuorot poliittisesti tärkeistä asioista
92 21.
Seuraavan istunnon esityslista
98 22.
Istunnon päättäminen
98 9. marraskuuta 2022 sanatarkat istuntoselostukset PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA President 1.   Istuntokauden uudelleen avaaminen President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 20 October 2022. 2.   Istunnon avaaminen (The sitting opened at 15.05) 3.   Puhemiehen julkilausumat President. – Today is 9 November, a date that will always be symbolic in Europe's history. Eighty-four years ago Europe lived through one of its darkest moments, but on the same day 51 years later, in 1989, we experienced one of the brightest moments in our recent history. This week I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, a quiet part of the world which provided the setting for the worst crimes that man has even seen. Eighty-four years have passed since Kristallnacht, but despite decades of effort we have not yet done enough to end the scapegoating, to end the discrimination. We have not yet done enough to make every citizen in Europe unafraid to be themselves. And today let me reiterate our commitment to fight hate, to teach tolerance and respect, to combat anti-Semitism and to always remember. The hallmark of our European Union has been the bravery, the political courage of women and men who put division aside and fought for unity, for freedom. That is what we saw 33 years ago with the fall of the wall in Berlin. It meant hope; it meant liberty; it gave a chance to 150 million people to live in democracy; and fundamentally it contributed to reconciliation and unity in Europe. Dear colleagues, we must never go back to a divided continent. Our Europe is one where we live together united, a Europe of peace, a Europe of hope and a Europe where we pull down walls. I would also like once again to raise the issue of the situation in Iran. The situation in Iran has deteriorated even further. The people in the streets of Iran need our support. They deserve our support. Women, students, intellectuals and so many others risk their lives in Tehran and other cities in their fight for basic human rights. The Iranian regime shows no mercy towards the protesters and now calls have begun for imprisoned women to be sentenced to death. This is why I have urged the High Representative in a letter sent yesterday to take a firm stance against these despicable actions. This House has made it very clear we need an international investigation to keep the oppressive regime accountable for its ongoing human rights violations. It is now time to impose further targeted sanctions. There can be no business as usual with the Iranian regime. 4.   Edellisen istunnon pöytäkirjan hyväksyminen President. – The minutes and the texts adopted of the sitting of 20 October 2022 are available. Can I ask whether there are any comments? As that does not seem to be the case the minutes are approved. 5.   Parlamentin kokoonpano President. – The competent authorities in Italy have notified me of the election of Lara Comi, Maria Angela Danzì, Elisabetta de Blasis, Matteo Gazzini, Paola Ghidoni, Alessandra Mussolini, Domenico Denis Nesci and Achille Variati to the European Parliament replacing Silvio Berlusconi, Eleonora Evi, Andrea Caroppo, Marco Dreosto, Mara Bizzotto, Antonio Tajani, Raffaele Fitto and Carlo Calenda respectively with effect from 2 November 2022. The competent authorities of Cyprus have also notified me of the election of Eleni Stavrou to the European Parliament replacing Lefteris Christoforou with effect from 2 November 2022. I wish to welcome our new colleagues and recall that they take their seats in Parliament and its bodies in full enjoyment of their rights pending the verification of their credentials. 6.   Poliittisten ryhmien kokoonpano President. – I would like to inform you that Marcel de Graaff is no longer a member of the ID Group and sits with the non-attached members as of 24 October 2022. Giuseppe Ferrandino is no longer a member of the S&D Group and joins the Renew Europe Group as of 9 November 2022. 7.   Valiokuntien ja valtuuskuntien kokoonpano President. – The PPE, S&D, Renew Europe, Verts/ALE, ID and ECR groups have notified me of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations. These decisions will be set out in the minutes of today's sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement. 8.   Neuvottelut ennen parlamentin ensimmäistä käsittelyä (työjärjestyksen 71 artikla) President. – The TRAN and LIBE committees have decided to enter into interinstitutional negotiations pursuant to Rule 71(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The reports, which constitute the mandates for the negotiations, are available on the plenary webpage and their titles will be published in the minutes of the sitting. Pursuant to Rule 71(2), Members or political groups reaching at least the medium threshold may request in writing by tomorrow, Thursday 10 November at midnight, that the decisions to enter into negotiations be put to the vote. If no request for a vote in Parliament on the decisions to enter into negotiations is made within the aforementioned deadline, the committees may start the negotiations. 9.   Tavallista lainsäätämisjärjestystä noudattaen annettujen säädösten allekirjoittaminen (työjärjestyksen 79 artikla) President. – I should also like to inform you that, together with the President of the Council, I shall today sign one act adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Rule 79 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure. The title of the act will be published in the minutes of this sitting. 10.   Käsittelyjärjestys President. – We now come to the order of business. The final draft agenda as adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 19 October pursuant to Rule 157 has been distributed. With the agreement of the political groups I wish to put to the House the following proposals for changes to the final draft agenda for today. A Commission statement on its communication entitled ”ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers” is added as the third item in the afternoon after the debate on the report on REPower EU chapters in recovery and resilience plans. As a consequence, the sitting today is extended until 23.00. On Thursday, tomorrow, the following reports on the appointment of the Chair of the Single Resolution Board and the appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board are added directly to the votes. If there are no objections – and I see none – these changes are approved. We now move to changes requested by political groups. Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhora Presidente, quero lembrar que este domingo faz 20 anos da catástrofe do afundamento do petroleiro ”Prestige” na costa galega. A maré negra produzida pela rotura do casco e a negligente gestão do governo produziram uma catástrofe com danos ambientais, económicos e sociais. O Parlamento Europeu falou, pedindo um reforço da segurança marítima na comissão temporária que foi aqui criada. Lembro este trágico evento para a Europa. President. – Thank you, Ms Miranda. I have received a request from The Left Group for a Commission statement on the outcome of the modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty to be added as a second item this afternoon. The debate would be wound up with a resolution to be voted on in November II. I give the floor to Ms Aubry to move the request on behalf of The Left Group. Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, au cours des dernières semaines, quatre pays européens – la France, l'Espagne, la Pologne et les Pays-Bas – ont annoncé leur intention de se retirer du traité sur la Charte de l'énergie, véritable assurance-vie des énergies fossiles. L'Allemagne, la Belgique et la Slovénie envisagent de faire de même. L'Italie avait déjà sauté le pas en 2016. Grâce à l'action initiale de quelques éclaireurs, un consensus est donc en train d'émerger, en Europe, contre ce traité, qui menace l'action climatique en protégeant les investissements dans les énergies fossiles. La proposition de modernisation qui est soutenue par la Commission, sur laquelle le Conseil doit se positionner d'ici quelques jours, est donc de plus en plus minoritaire. Dans ce contexte, et en pleine COP 27 – qui nous rappelle une fois de plus l'urgence de sortir des fossiles –, il est crucial que l'UE ait une position coordonnée et que le Parlement se saisisse de cet enjeu crucial. C'est pourquoi, au nom de notre groupe de la gauche au Parlement européen, je demande que ce débat sur la proposition de modernisation du traité ait lieu dès cette semaine, avant la prise de position du Conseil, et qu'une résolution soit votée lors de la deuxième session de plénière en novembre. President. – Thank you, Ms Aubry. I have received an alternative proposal from the S&D and Renew groups. I give the floor to Inma Rodríguez-Piñero to move the request on behalf of both groups. Inma Rodríguez-Piñero (S&D). – Señora presidenta, en primer lugar, agradezco la propuesta del Grupo The Left. No obstante, teniendo en cuenta que se trata en esta ocasión de un mini-Pleno con un orden del día repleto de cuestiones a debatir y que, además, se ha propuesto incorporar nuevas cuestiones en el orden del día, lo que mi Grupo propone es un debate de los ponentes de los grupos políticos, seguido de una resolución en el período parcial de sesiones de noviembre II, es decir, en lugar de un debate completo, un debate más reducido con los ponentes de los grupos políticos. President. – Thank you, Inma. I give the floor to Christophe Hansen to speak against. Christophe Hansen (PPE). – Madam President, indeed, this whole modernisation process has been launched in 2018 on a mandate by the European Council. So a lot of Member States now putting that in question have indeed mandated the Commission. And now, as the Commission has delivered, I'm a little bit surprised that many want to drop out. I think it's important that we state clearly the modernisation is going to help us to get the sunset clause down from 20 to 10 years. This would be very important. We could eventually support the request by Renew and S&D to have a debate only with one speaker per group and then have the resolution for December, because we know that the contracting parties are going to decide on 22 November, which would then just give us one day to discuss this very important matter. I think we should let quality prevail over speed, and that is why we could agree with part of the S&D and Renew proposal, but have the debate only in December. That would be the best way forward. President. – Thank you, Christophe. Ms Aubry, would you agree to the request by the S&D and Renew groups so we can vote on at least having this debate, which would be wound up with a resolution, the timing of which we will then discuss at the Conference of Presidents? I'll put this to a vote by roll call. (Parliament agreed to the request) Therefore we will have a Commission statement on the outcome of the modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty. As a second point this afternoon, the statement will be followed by a round of political group speakers and it will be wound up with a resolution later on. Let's now move to another request, also for today. The Verts/ALE Group has asked that the Commission a statement on the EU response to the increasing crackdown on protests in Iran be added as a third item this afternoon. The statement would then be followed by a round of political group speakers. I give the floor to Hannah Neumann to move the request on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. Hannah Neumann,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, last Sunday, 227 out of the 290 members of the Iranian Parliament called on the Iranian judiciary to severely punish protesters and political prisoners, including with executions. So people in the streets, people in prisons are beaten up, are raped, are killed – not by criminals but by people who claim to be the government of this wonderful country. And, colleagues, this needs a very strong signal from the European Union that we don't accept this, including targeted sanctions against exactly these 227 Members of Parliament. And we cannot have this debate some other time, colleagues, because the Council is right now preparing the sanctions package to be issued by the Foreign Affairs Council next Monday. And, as of now, this package has only 31 individuals. So we have to have this debate this week and not in two weeks or in a month. So now it was brought to our attention that apparently we cannot have this debate this week because neither the High Representative nor the Council would be able to be present. I mean, dear colleagues, imagine this in a national context! A parliament cannot have a crucial debate because the officials responsible are not showing up. We should not accept this and I really call on the Council or the HR / VP to make themselves available for this debate today or tomorrow. President. – Would anyone like to speak against this request? Michael Gahler (PPE). – Madam President, originally in the EPP we had a discussion and thought it would make more sense to have the High Representative present in a debate, and we therefore suggested that we have the debate in two weeks' time. But given the urgency and the urgent developments that we have seen – Hannah Neumann referred to the vote in the Majlis and the fact that most of those arrested are even facing the death penalty – I think we should have this debate now. We cannot construct now, from today to tomorrow, a resolution, but as the President has already made an introductory statement, perhaps she could, on behalf of all of us, make another statement focusing both on the fate of those arrested – facing the death penalty – and also calling on the Council to think of sanctions. So we would agree to have this debate and see that we get something official from the House at short notice. President. – Thank you, Michael. I see Mr Séjourné wants to take the floor. Stéphane Séjourné (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, force est de constater que les choses bougent très rapidement, en Iran, mais, au nom de mon groupe, nous souhaiterions avoir évidemment cette discussion en novembre I, et qu'elle ne se fasse pas en substitution d'un débat à Strasbourg en novembre II. Oui, donc, à un débat qui se tienne maintenant, mais qu'il faudra continuer – avec, éventuellement, un texte et une résolution – à Strasbourg. Nous sommes pour l'heure d'accord, évidemment, pour débattre de cette question essentielle lors de cette mini-plénière. President. – Thank you very much, Mr Séjourné. So that's clear. I see a majority, but we will vote. Who is in favour of having the debate in this session? (Parliament agreed to the proposal) Unanimity, I would say. OK, we will add it to the agenda. Thank you all. We move to Thursday. The Verts/ALE Group has asked that the Commission statement on the state of play in the negotiations between the Commission and the Hungarian Government linked to the Conditionality Regulation and the RRP be added as the first item tomorrow morning. As a consequence, the sitting would start at 8.30 and the statement would be followed by a round of political group speakers and then wound up with a resolution to be voted in November II. I give the floor to Terry Reintke to move the request on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, as you all know, the Conditionality Regulation has been activated by the European Commission for the first time in the case of Hungary. And also we have seen, in the recent weeks and days, movement on the negotiations on the RRP regarding Hungary. We believe that the European Parliament has to make its voice heard in these discussions and we are aware that there is a counter-proposal to move this to November II. I just want to give you the argument why we believe it's important to have a first round of speakers already tomorrow, because if we want to influence the ongoing negotiations before decisions are going to be taken, we should have a debate – at least a short debate – already tomorrow. And this obviously can then also be rounded up by a debate and a resolution in November II. So please vote in favour also of having a short discussion about this tomorrow. President. – Thank you very much, Terry. I give the floor to Ms Gardiazabal Rubial to speak against. Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D). – Señora presidenta, compartimos absolutamente la necesidad de que este Parlamento se pronuncie una vez más, porque creo que nos hemos pronunciado ya muchas veces sobre lo que consideramos que está ocurriendo en Hungría y sobre cómo hay que aplicar el mecanismo de condicionalidad. Es más, en octubre, también en Estrasburgo, nos posicionamos como Parlamento sobre la propuesta de la Comisión enviada al Consejo y sobre lo que creíamos que Hungría estaba haciendo con el mecanismo de condicionalidad. Precisamente, como le damos tanta importancia, creemos que mañana, simplemente en una ronda de un orador por grupo, no vamos a poder tener el debate completo que creemos que este punto se merece y, por lo tanto, como estamos en un mini-Pleno y no disponemos de tanto tiempo, creemos que es mucho mejor pasarlo al período parcial de sesiones de noviembre II y tener el paquete completo: debate completo más la Resolución. Esa es nuestra contrapropuesta. President. – Thank you very much, Eider. I'll put the request of the Verts/ALE Group to a vote by roll call. (Parliament rejected the request) The agenda therefore remains unchanged. The agenda is adopted and the order of business is thus established. 11.   Eurooppa-neuvoston 20.–21. lokakuuta 2022 pidetyn kokouksen päätelmät (keskustelu) President. – The next item is the debate on the European Council and Commission statements on the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 20 and 21 October 2022 (2022/2848(RSP)). Charles Michel,
président du Conseil européen. – Madame la Présidente du Parlement européen, Madame la Présidente de la Commission, très chers collègues, permettez-moi d'abord de rappeler que le devoir de mémoire est une exigence constante, et je voudrais vous remercier de porter la voix de l'Europe en ce jour marquant autant que mémorable. Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, our last European Council meeting was a pivotal one because our decisions are awaited. They are awaited by citizens and families facing astronomical gas and electricity bills. Awaited by businesses large and small, hit by unsustainable energy costs and inflationary pressure, and awaited by many European governments worried about their shrinking budgetary margins. And despite initial differing views, we overcame these differences and we agreed on a plan that covers the different paths of action. The European Council had on many occasions asked the Commission to make concrete proposals in three areas: to curb energy prices, to ensure security of supply and to reduce demand. And several proposals were put on the table some time ago and another package was tabled shortly before our meeting of the European Council. At our European Council meeting we set out a plan of action with a framework of nine concrete measures and asked the Commission to urgently put concrete legislative proposals on the table. The war in Ukraine and the energy crisis have directly impacted our economies and our citizens. It's time to act. Kicking the can further down the road is no longer an option. Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, when we join forces and buy together, we boost our bargaining power and we can get a better deal. Now it's also time to put our joint gas purchasing into action. This will be voluntary, except for volumes corresponding to 15% of the necessary stores. We should be subject to mandatory joint tenders. Finally, it's vital that we negotiate effectively and rapidly with our reliable partners. They are also our close allies, like Norway and the United States. Our EU prosperity and economic security are also key to their prosperity and economic security. It doesn't make sense that the exceptional profits due to the war in Ukraine should make Europeans poorer, our economies weaker and our industries less competitive – and this just to maintain our gas imports. So these negotiations must move forward without delay. Ladies and gentlemen, the price of gas on the international market has gone down substantially since August, but it remains much higher than before the war in Ukraine. It's critical that we get these prices down while also ensuring our security of supply. And the European Commission is tasked with preparing a new complementary benchmark by early 2023. And this new benchmark should better reflect the reality of the European gas market. The Commission is also tasked with developing a dynamic price corridor to reduce price volatility in natural gas transactions as soon as possible. And finally, the European Council awaits a proposal for a temporary cap on the price of gas for electricity generation supported by a cost-benefit analysis. Finally, we discussed how we can support the resilience of our economies, to protect our families, our businesses, and to preserve our single market, the pillar of our prosperity, while avoiding fragmentation. We also need to protect the competitiveness of our companies compared to other regions of the world. We are already seeing, for instance, the first incentives for our companies to relocate their factories, notably across the Atlantic. So we must closely coordinate our national policies. And you've also agreed to mobilise all appropriate financial tools at national and at European level to maintain a level playing field within our Union. The Council will monitor the situation closely and act to ensure an appropriate policy response. Yes, these issues are complex, but you have entered into these debates confronting any taboos. Mesdames et Messieurs, ce Conseil a aussi été l'occasion d'aborder, une fois encore, un sujet au cœur de notre mobilisation: la guerre contre l'Ukraine. Ç'a été l'occasion, après le long débat tenu à Prague, de réaffirmer notre unité – ferme – pour soutenir l'Ukraine autant que possible, sur le plan financier d'abord – et nous devons continuer à travailler pour mettre en œuvre la promesse des trois milliards d'euros supplémentaires d'assistance macrofinancière. Nous avons aussi pris l'engagement de travailler sur un financement plus structurel. La proposition de la Commission sera analysée très sérieusement pour l'année prochaine, afin qu'un signal de stabilité puisse être donné aux Ukrainiens. Nous souhaitons maintenir nos efforts également sur le plan militaire, sur le plan humanitaire et sur le plan politique. Par ailleurs, vous le savez, il a été question de la présidence allemande du G7, le chancelier Scholz avec la Présidente de la Commission ayant récemment engagé, à Berlin, une conférence sur la reconstruction. Et nous souhaitons ces efforts, qui sont portés au départ de l'Union européenne avec nos partenaires et nos alliés. Nous avons aussi eu l'occasion d'aborder, au Conseil, l'importance d'être mobilisés pour qu'il n'y ait pas d'impunité et pour soutenir, dans le cadre de la justice nationale et internationale, tous les efforts visant à ce que les responsables de crimes de guerre aient à répondre de leurs actes devant la justice, qu'elle soit nationale ou internationale. Enfin, nous avons eu dans ce Conseil européen un débat stratégique absolument essentiel à nos yeux sur la relation entre l'Union européenne et la Chine, et cela quelques semaines après un moment politique important pour ce pays. D'abord, nous voulons constater que le système politique et institutionnel chinois – c'est une évidence – est radicalement différent du modèle que nous portons sur le plan européen. En tant qu'Européens nous portons ces valeurs des droits de l'homme, ces valeurs de libertés personnelles fondamentales (la liberté de la presse, la liberté d'expression...). La censure n'a pas sa place au sein de l'Union européenne, et l'ensemble des dirigeants ont réaffirmé leur engagement à toujours être debout, à ne jamais baisser les yeux quand il s'agit de porter ces valeurs fondamentales, parce qu'en effet nous croyons que nous avons une responsabilité: celle de toujours défendre les droits de l'homme et les principes démocratiques. Deuxième élément: nous mesurons bien – et la guerre déclenchée par la Russie le montre de manière absolument brutale pour ce qui est de l'énergie – qu'il est essentiel que l'Union européenne soit tout aussi souveraine et autonome dans sa relation avec la Chine, et qu'elle n'accepte par conséquent aucun excès de dépendance, notamment dans le secteur technologique. La question des matériaux rares et celle des semi-conducteurs sont ainsi essentielles pour notre avenir en matière d'innovation technologique. Plus de réciprocité sur le plan économique et des conditions de concurrence toujours plus équitables: voilà des principes pour lesquels nous devons nous mobiliser fortement. Troisième point, enfin: il est certain que, sur des sujets d'importance planétaire – nous étions il y a quelques heures à cette COP, à Charm el-Cheikh – tels que le climat, il est essentiel de s'engager avec tous les pays qui, dans le monde, ont une responsabilité à assumer pour faire reculer cette menace climatique. Il en va de même, on l'a vu dans la crise de la COVID-19, dans le domaine de la santé, en se mobilisant, par exemple, pour tirer les conséquences de cette pandémie et avoir une réponse plus globale et plus solidaire à l'avenir. Cela implique, vous le comprenez, d'être mobilisés. Il y a, de la part du du Conseil européen, une lucidité sur la manière dont la Chine évolue, dont la Chine porte un regard et une action sur le plan international et sur le plan multilatéral, et dans ce cadre-là il est certain que notre intention, notre ambition est de faire valoir nos valeurs, nos principes, de défendre nos intérêts et de porter cette vision du monde qui croit profondément en la dignité de chaque être humain. Enfin, Mesdames et Messieurs, ce débat au Conseil européen a été aussi l'occasion – et je fais le lien avec les premières interventions ayant eu lieu dans cette assemblée – de s'exprimer dans le cadre des derniers développements survenus en Iran. De premières décisions de sanctions ont été prises, et en ce moment-même les États membres continuent à travailler pour mettre en œuvre des sanctions additionnelles. Je pense qu'il est essentiel qu'avec force et, je l'espère, avec une large majorité, les responsables de l'Union européenne se mobilisent pour condamner avec la plus grande force les répressions contre des manifestants pacifistes et saluer le courage extraordinaire de ces femmes et de ces jeunes filles qui se luttent pour leur dignité et pour la dignité que nous voulons défendre ici et partout dans le monde. Ursula von der Leyen,
President of the Commission. – Thank you very much, Madam President, dear Roberta, President Michel, dear Charles, honourable Members, indeed, the bulk of the discussion in the European Council was about the important topic of energy and the magnitude of the energy crisis calls absolutely for both a sense of urgency and strategic foresight. And I think we should not forget where we came from. We have made more progress than we thought ever possible because we should not forget that since the beginning of this war, Putin has cut 80% of the pipeline gas supply to the European Union – 80%. And in only eight months, we have managed to replace most of it. We have more than doubled, for example, the imports of LNG from the United States – from 22 bcm last year to 48 bcm this year so far. This has, among other things, made it possible for us to fill our storages by 95%. And, at the same time, we have reduced our gas consumption by 15%. I have not forgotten how at the beginning of this war Putin tried to put pressure on us through energy and how some feared that we would have blackouts in Europe when the war started. So, honourable Members, not only did this dark scenario not materialise but now we are fully prepared for the winter. And, crucially, gas prices have dropped by roughly two-thirds compared to the peak that we had in August. So Putin really tried everything to bring us down to our knees. He completely failed. We have all played our part to make this happen, and I think we can be proud of this. Meine Damen und Herren Abgeordnete! In den zurückliegenden Wochen haben wir ein ganzes Bündel von Maßnahmen erarbeitet, um die Preise zu drücken; zum Beispiel eine Preisbremse im Gasmarkt, die auf dem Weg ist. Wir haben den Mitgliedstaaten ermöglicht, Zufallsgewinne von den Energieunternehmen abzuschöpfen, um einkommensschwache Haushalte und besonders energieintensive Betriebe zu unterstützen. Wir haben inzwischen eine gemeinsame Plattform für den Einkauf von Gas, und natürlich haben wir die Arbeit an einem besseren Design für unseren Elektrizitätsmarkt. Das ist alles gut, das ist alles wichtig, und das bringt uns in eine gute Position für den kommenden Winter. Dennoch ist es mir wichtig, dass wir heute einmal diskutieren, weil schon absehbar ist, dass die nächste Füllperiode für unsere Gasspeicher eine mit Sicherheit noch größere Herausforderung wird als dieses Jahr. Denn wir müssen spätestens ab nächstem Frühjahr mit drei weiteren Faktoren rechnen, die zu unseren Ungunsten gehen: Zuerst ist da natürlich das Risiko, dass Russland die letzten 20 % der Gaszuflüsse auch noch stoppt. Zweitens steht heute schon fest, wenn wir uns die Investitionen in Flüssiggaskapazitäten anschauen, dass die zusätzlichen Flüssiggaskapazitäten, die nächstes Jahr auf den Markt kommen, nicht ausreichen werden, um diese Lücke zu füllen. Und natürlich müssen wir drittens damit rechnen, dass Asien – wenn die Wirtschaft wieder anspringt – den Löwenanteil dieses zusätzlichen Flüssiggasangebots aufsaugen wird. Das heißt, im Ergebnis können diese drei Faktoren dazu führen, dass wir ein erhebliches Risiko haben, dass Europa am Ende des kommenden Sommers etwa 30 Milliarden Kubikmeter Flüssiggas fehlen, um die Speicher auf die aktuellen Füllstände dieses Winters zu bringen – wie gesagt, wenn diese drei Risiken sich materialisieren. Aber wir müssen handeln, und wir müssen darauf vorbereitet sein. And therefore, honourable Members, as I was describing these three risks, we are now getting prepared to tackle these potential risks but we should not forget that in doing so we are also setting the right course for the future. Because our choices today will determine whether we have the right energy we need for 2023 and beyond. This is why today I would like to focus on two topics that are crucial. First, renewables. It is no exaggeration to say that we stand at a crossroads. We can decide right now either to ignore the lessons that we have learned in this crisis and fall again into the trap of a carbon lock-in for the future or we can use this crisis to leapfrog into clean energy. This is not only good for our climate but it is also good for our security and our independence, especially in times when gas is and will stay a scarce commodity. The good news is, in this scenario, that we are ready to accelerate. By the end of the year, we will have achieved the largest growth in renewables in the history of the European Union. This is almost a further 50 gigawatts that we will have additionally as renewables in the market, which is double what we had added last year. And we could accelerate even more. There are countless renewable projects that are just waiting to be approved. Some could deliver cheap energy immediately in a matter of weeks or months. I'm thinking, for example, of solar panels on existing buildings, or I'm thinking of repowering of wind parks. But we know that far too many of these projects are stuck because of long, long permitting procedures. Now, our new Renewable Energy Directive that you have already voted on in plenary addresses this topic. But it will take time – well over a year – before this directive is translated into national law by all Member States. With these extraordinary circumstances our citizens and industries are facing, we do not have the luxury of time. And this is why today we are proposing a new emergency regulation under Article 122, to immediately speed up permitting for renewable energy projects with a rapid impact. This proposal will be limited in time and scope. It will be in line with what you have voted on and it will bridge the gap until the new Renewable Energy Directive comes into force. And by doing so, we can unlock a myriad of renewable projects already in the next 12 months. So this is a very decisive move right now. According to the calculations by the International Energy Agency, we could replace 14 billion cubic metres of gas already next year, and that's almost half of our potential gap I was just describing, just by speeding up the permitting of these projects. This is realistic and we can all pull this off together and I think we should grab the opportunity right now. Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, mon deuxième point est que nous devons sauvegarder la compétitivité de l'industrie européenne. Ce travail commence chez nous, ici, en Europe. Nos industries intensives en énergie, comme la chimie, l'acier, le verre, ont besoin d'un accès sûr à une énergie bon marché. Mais, dans ces temps exceptionnellement durs, les prix ont augmenté considérablement par rapport à ceux de nos principaux concurrents. Beaucoup de nos entreprises sont en grande difficulté, et c'est pourquoi nous avons réactualisé notre encadrement temporaire de crise en matière d'aides d'État et avons augmenté les plafonds d'aides d'État pour les PME et les industries intensives en énergie. Mais, si tous les États membres ont besoin d'augmenter et d'accélérer leurs investissements pour réduire la demande en énergie et accroître la production de renouvelables, ils ne peuvent pas tous se permettre d'accorder des aides d'État. Et c'est là que REPowerEU entre en jeu. [...] Honourable Members, this is where REPowerEU comes into play. Because if we boost the financial firepower of REPowerEU, we will ensure that all Member States have the possibility to realise these critical investments. In other words, this would give every Member State the same opportunity to prepare for the future and at the same time some fiscal space to support vulnerable households and businesses. So let's go for it. And this work is also helpful against the backdrop of an intensifying global clean tech race because it will keep Europe attractive for industry. Let me be very clear: I do welcome global competition. This drives innovation, enhances efficiency and ensures progress. At the same time, in order to be effective, this global competition has to be fair. We need a level playing field. We do not want to see market distortions or discrimination against our companies. So let's make sure that this is not a race to the bottom, but this is a race to the top for our climate and for our industry. That's what Europe stands for. And I know that's also what this Parliament stands for. Long live Europe. Siegfried Mureșan,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I welcome President von der Leyen, President Michel back to the European Parliament. It is clear that following the last European Council in October, we shall work together now to make sure that we buy gas together, we store gas together, we improve our energy infrastructure, we improve interconnectivity, so we can move energy from where we have it, where it is stored, to those countries, those regions, those enterprises who will need it. We should make sure that we also work on the prices in Europe. In the future, increased gas prices should not lead automatically to increased electricity prices, as was the case in the past. The reform of our electricity market is something long due. European energy companies have made big profits because of how the European market is organised right now. We should make sure that vulnerable categories of people and of enterprises shall have access to the significant profits, to the significant revenues of these companies in this situation of emergency. Energy should be affordable, energy should be safe, energy should be secure for the people of Europe. We should continue working to reduce our dependency on Russian fossil fuels. We should improve our energy efficiency because the more efficient we are, the less energy we need to reach our objectives, the less we are dependent on foreign sources. And, of course, we should improve and fasten our framework for investments into renewables. We have enough solar, we have enough sun, we have enough wind here in Europe, we have enough hydro. This is the way clearly to go. We as a European Parliament will be voting tomorrow on our position on REPowerEU that will make available EUR 20 billion of additional funds for exactly this energy infrastructure, efficiency, interconnectivity, renewables, reducing dependency on Russia. Madam President, President Michel, we should also work with the governments of the Member States to use the unused loans from the Recovery and Resilience Facility – money still available to put to work, to make it available for those who need it to improve energy infrastructure. First point. Second point, since the beginning of the war, we said we want to stay united. We want to sanction the aggressor but we also want to support Ukraine, which is fighting for values, for democracy, with all we can. Today, the European Commission has put forward an important package of support for Ukraine. And I say this package is important for Ukraine, but it is important for all of us here in the European Union. The Ukrainian State will need the money which the European Commission proposes today to function – for hospitals, for schools to function, for public administration, for pensions and salaries to be paid. This is why the Group of the European People's Party will work with the Commission, and we call on colleagues here in the Parliament to stay united as a Parliament, to make sure that we stand by the side of Ukraine with all it needs over the course of the next year. It is the right thing to do. It will increase the credibility and the influence of the European Union if we, as a Union, are at the forefront of helping Ukraine in the upcoming months. But of course, in order to be able to help Ukraine, we need to make sure that our economy stays strong as well. And this is why, following the proposal put forward by the European Commission today on the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, we as the EPP Group say the following: we welcome the fact that we are looking at our rules now, but the objective needs to be clear. Growth in the European Union needs to be faster and more robust than the growth of our debt. We need to strengthen our economies. We need to reform them. We need to make sure that they remain competitive. We need to make sure that we respect the rules so that growth is faster for the economies than for debt. Our economies should go faster than debt because too much debt is a risk to our economies, is a burden to our economies. We should make sure that our economies are robust so that they can help people. And please count on us to work together on all of this. Thank you for the proposal on Ukraine. Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, tres semanas. Tres semanas han pasado desde la reunión del Consejo Europeo y es que el tiempo vuela, pero la única ventaja de hablar a toro pasado es que nos permite tener una mejor perspectiva de lo que se decidió hace tres semanas y de los efectos que pueden tener esas decisiones, porque la reunión del Consejo de octubre ha sido una ocasión perdida para actuar con determinación y atajar el tsunami que la crisis energética está provocando en la economía. La inflación afecta a todos los sectores económicos y el Parlamento lleva meses pidiendo algunas medidas que, por fin, hace tres semanas, el Consejo empezó a adoptar, aunque sea muy tímidamente. Si estas medidas se hubieran acordado en verano, habríamos llegado al invierno en unas circunstancias diferentes a las que estamos llegando. Frenar la especulación de los mercados de gas era el primer paso, el más fácil, y ya hemos visto que tan solo anunciar las medidas ha hecho caer los precios del índice TTF para la electricidad. Si se hubiera hecho antes, nos habríamos ahorrado millones de euros. Lo mismo que si por fin se desvincularan el precio del gas y el de la electricidad, lo que ahorraría mucho dinero a los consumidores. Las medidas que proponemos necesitan tiempo y tiempo es lo que las familias no tienen. Les estamos continuamente pidiendo tiempo y, ¿tiempo tienen las familias cuando les llega la factura de la luz o del gas y no pueden pagarlo? ¿Acaso vamos a impedir que les corten la electricidad si no pueden hacer frente al pago? Quizá es de eso de lo que deberíamos estar hablando también. Para hacer frente a la inflación y para reducir las facturas necesitamos una respuesta europea contundente. Un paquete de solidaridad europeo para este invierno con el desembolso de 100 000 millones de euros para apoyar a quienes más lo necesitan ante la brutal subida del coste de la vida. Necesitamos tener capacidad fiscal permanente. Hemos visto cómo han funcionado NextGenerationEU y el reaseguro europeo de desempleo. El problema que tenemos ahora, señorías, es nuestro tiempo de reacción, porque el tiempo pasa. Dimos un gran paso entonces, en su momento, con el COVID y ahora es cuestión de reconocer que también tenemos que actuar con una capacidad fiscal para esta situación. Hoy la Comisión ha presentado una Comunicación sobre la revisión de la gobernanza económica. Aprovechemos esta oportunidad para trabajar en un nuevo marco que nos sirva para afrontar el futuro. No les desvelo ninguna novedad si les digo que las previsiones para el próximo año no son buenas y, por eso, sigue siendo urgente garantizar que los hogares pueden afrontar el coste de la vida. La Directiva sobre el salario mínimo —que acabamos de aprobar en esta casa— debería comenzar a aplicarse por parte de los Estados miembros de manera inmediata. Es más, nadie en Europa debería quedarse sin un ingreso mínimo y ningún jubilado o jubilada debería tener una pensión por debajo del umbral de la pobreza. Nuestro principal objetivo, cuando hablamos de gobernanza económica, es la dignidad de las personas. Es una cuestión de justicia social; los que más se han beneficiado de esta crisis y también de la crisis del COVID deben arrimar el hombro y contribuir a un esfuerzo común. Los impuestos a los beneficios caídos del cielo son una buena manera de generar los ingresos que la sociedad en su conjunto necesita. No sé a qué esperamos para ponerlo en marcha. La dignidad de las personas debería de ser también nuestra guía para adoptar un nuevo Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo; ese es el espíritu de la Convención de Ginebra y también de los Tratados europeos, pero tenemos que hacer que sea una realidad y no puede ser solo responsabilidad de unos países. Tiene que ser una responsabilidad compartida. Solidaridad entre los Estados miembros y solidaridad con las personas que sufren y que vienen pidiendo auxilio a la Unión Europea. Solo así se avanza cuando cada miembro de la comunidad asume su responsabilidad y trabaja con solidaridad. Reconozco que no hay una solución fácil, pero es nuestra responsabilidad y tenemos que combinar tres importantes desafíos: liderar la lucha contra el calentamiento global, mantenernos firmes en la defensa de Ucrania y usar nuestras herramientas y nuevas para sostener la industria, las empresas y a las familias europeas. Y para eso —lo repito al Consejo y a la Comisión—, cuenten con nosotros, escuchen a esta Cámara y dejen también de utilizar el artículo 122, porque queremos ser partícipes de la búsqueda de las soluciones. Katalin Cseh,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, our group, Renew Europe, is once again calling on leaders in the Council to set their differences aside and deliver for our citizens. Putin's criminal war in Ukraine has unleashed an energy crisis on Europe. The cost of living has been dramatically rising throughout the whole continent. This is not the time for bickering. This is not the time for national selfishness, for kicking the can down the road. But, sadly, this is all that we have been seeing from the Council so far – apart from some agreements on principles: very little actual progress. This is unacceptable, because time is working against us. Families are struggling to make ends meet. Many businesses, even local governments, are on the brink of bankruptcy. It could not be more urgent to help them, especially the most vulnerable. We need European solutions and we need them now. Our group has outlined a set of concrete and bold proposals: a European energy shield with a windfall tax to redirect big firms' profits to consumers and struggling small businesses, with joint purchases of energy so that we can pool our negotiating power to bring down prices, with a temporary dynamic price cap for an immediate cut in utility bills and an emergency boost to energy investments because we need to expand supply, ease bottlenecks and speed up the transition to renewables. Sadly, there are Member States, just like my own, that are doing the exact opposite. It's against our interests and it's against common sense, but this is still happening. The Orban Government has basically put the brakes on the solar energy sector, not to mention wind energy, which is practically banned in our country. So we need, urge and support European solutions here, with regulation from the EU level and direct emergency funds. Finally, colleagues, let me also raise a broader, more strategic point. We now see what a huge and terrible mistake it was for Europe to create such a dependency on Russia, on an authoritarian regime that uses its economic power as a weapon. We cannot make the same mistakes with China. I really hope that German Chancellor Scholz and all heads of government in the Council hear this message from us. Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, what we have seen in the last weeks is that Putin is obviously realising that he cannot win the war in Ukraine on the battlefield and this is why he's resorting to other means. First and foremost, in Ukraine, where millions of people have been without electricity and water after Russia bombed civilian infrastructure. But the energy war has also reached the rest of Europe. And there is only one way that we can win this war, and that is to act united. This energy crisis is, in fact, a gas dependency crisis. It is a crisis of wrong political choices: wrong political choices denying the reality of the dangers of climate change; wrong political choices, denying the reality of the dangers of being completely dependent for fossil fuels on a dictator –a dictator who wants to destroy our freedom and our democracy. But the answer to this cannot be that we put band-aids on a broken system and simply try to import gas and fossil fuels from elsewhere – especially when this means from other dictators. The only answer can be to build a system that is reliable with energy that is cheap and sustainable: wind and solar. And, yes, for that we will need more money for renewables. But we will also need to invest in better insulation of buildings. Because despite this crisis, we are still wasting valuable energy every day in badly insulated housing and this costs households money and keeping warm in winter should not be just for those who can afford it. Massive investment in insulating homes is a win-win for everyone because it protects people's health and wallets. And it is a key pillar of our climate action and our responsibility to lead with when it comes to COP27. And, lastly, and I know that many of you don't want to be confronted with this, but this is real: (The speaker held up image on an A4 sheet of paper) A deputy minister of the new far-right government in Italy with a swastika armband, from a picture not too long ago. He said afterwards, apparently, that it was a joke, a prank. A joke about 6 million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. A joke about the countless victims of Nazi ideology of fascism in Europe, the Roma, the trade unionists, the queer men and women, the resistance fighters, the allied soldiers who died on the battlefield for freedom, the women who were raped, the many people who were killed and tortured, the people who lost loved ones and their homes. A joke about a continent that was in complete ruins with 55 million people dead across the world. Especially today colleagues, this is not a joke. This is serious and we have to stand up to it together. And the conservatives especially have to learn from history. Let us work together and stand up to the far-right across Europe. Marco Zanni,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Presidente von der Leyen, Presidente Michel, siamo preoccupati perché vediamo che quell'unità, quella concretezza, quello slancio che le istituzioni europee hanno avuto dopo il 24 febbraio, dopo l'invasione da parte della Russia dell'Ucraina, sta venendo meno. Il dibattito, la discordia tra due istituzioni europee, che mi sembra sia abbastanza chiara anche dall'intervento del Presidente Michel, non è un bel segnale, non è quel segnale di unità e di coordinamento delle istituzioni europee di cui abbiamo bisogno. Ne abbiamo bisogno in questo momento per programmare il 2023, che sappiamo sarà un anno ancora più difficile dei mesi emergenziali che abbiamo affrontato in questo momento. La Presidente von der Leyen ha ricordato le azioni intraprese, il raggiungimento di adeguati stoccaggi per affrontare questo inverno, alcuni provvedimenti che sicuramente ci aiuteranno ad affrontare la situazione emergenziale e ha ricordato l'abbassamento dei prezzi dal picco di quest'estate. Ma questo non è sufficiente! Non è sufficiente perché noi, probabilmente, riusciremo ad attraversare in maniera migliore l'inverno non tanto per quello che abbiamo fatto, ma per condizioni esogene: un inverno più mite di quello che era forse programmato e che ci ha aiutato a abbassare la domanda e, quindi, ad abbassare anche i prezzi in un'economia di mercato. Dobbiamo portare avanti azioni concrete per affrontare e dare risposte al 2023, quando i buyer asiatici torneranno sul mercato e il mercato del GNL sarà più competitivo; quando i flussi dalla Russia non saranno più disponibili, come è stato per una parte di quest'anno; quando gli stoccaggi saranno vuoti e i flussi saranno inferiori. Abbiamo bisogno di azioni oggi e abbiamo bisogno di azioni anche sul tema di quanto l'economia europea sta finanziando la Russia, perché è vero, come ricordava la Presidente, che i flussi dalle pipeline e alle condutture si sono portati quasi a zero, ma è altrettanto vero che ci sono altri dati preoccupanti: l'import di gas naturale liquido dalla Russia verso l'Unione europea è aumentato in maniera drammatica anche in questi mesi di guerra, in questi mesi di confronto, e su questo dobbiamo agire. Abbiamo bisogno di azioni concrete, anche pensando alle risposte che il mondo, che i nostri Paesi concorrenti stanno dando a questa crisi: Cina e Stati Uniti stanno sovvenzionando pesantemente le proprie industrie e allora cosa farà l'Unione europea? Cosa può fare l'Unione europea per proteggere industrie e famiglie in un momento di difficoltà e in un momento in cui è a rischio la nostra competitività? Su questo abbiamo bisogno di grande unità e abbiamo bisogno che, alle parole e alle dichiarazioni, seguano i fatti, fatti concreti e risposte concrete. Beata Szydło,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca von der Leyen! Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Nie ma dzisiaj ważniejszej sprawy niż wsparcie bezpieczeństwa Europejczyków i dobrze, że Rada Europejska porusza ten temat. Musimy być skuteczni i musimy działać szybko. Ceny gazu, energii są kluczowe dla gospodarstw domowych, dla przemysłu, dla przedsiębiorców. Co można zrobić szybko i skutecznie? Można zawiesić system ETS, który prowadzi do spekulacji i do spekulacyjnego zawyżania cen. To można zrobić bardzo szybko i w ten sposób doprowadzić do tego, żeby te ceny przestały szaleć. Jest też druga kwestia, którą pani przewodnicząca tutaj poruszyła, dotycząca solidarności i takich samych szans dla poszczególnych państw członkowskich przy przeprowadzaniu transformacji na rynku energii. Odnawialne źródła energii – oczywiście tak, ale bezpieczeństwo energetyczne, ten miks energetyczny, to odnawialne źródła, będziemy jednak potrzebowali jeszcze przez jakiś czas również źródeł kopalnych i atomu. Natomiast, jako Polka nie mogę tego nie powiedzieć, Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca. Żeby tę transformację przeprowadzić, Komisja Europejska musi uwzględniać uwarunkowania poszczególnych państw. Potrzebujemy czasu i potrzebujemy pieniędzy. A zatem, Pani Przewodnicząca, to jest ten czas, kiedy mówię ”sprawdzam”. Proszę zawiesić tę niepotrzebną, otwartą już prawie walkę z polskim rządem. Chcemy rozmawiać, polski rząd poszedł na kompromisy. To jest ten moment, kiedy możemy doprowadzić do tego, że Polska otrzyma fundusze w ramach KPO. Jest w tej chwili tutaj w Brukseli polski wiceminister spraw zagranicznych, który prowadzi rozmowy. Jest czas. Jeszcze raz mówię ”sprawdzam”. Nie słowa, a czyny, Pani Przewodnicząca. Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur Michel, l'Université de Strasbourg va fermer deux semaines de plus cet hiver. Un collège d'Avignon met carrément la clé sous la porte et ne rouvrira pas. Des écoles primaires risquent de ne plus pouvoir accueillir d'enfants en Slovaquie. Comment en est-on arrivé là? À cause des coûts de l'énergie et des factures d'énergie, nos gamins sont privés d'éducation. Au cœur même de l'Union européenne, dans la première puissance économique mondiale, nos gamins sont privés d'éducation parce que nos collectivités publiques ne peuvent plus payer les factures d'énergie. Et au lieu de prendre le problème à la racine, la Commission et le Conseil préfèrent se renvoyer la balle – et on a encore assisté à un bel exercice aujourd'hui. Cela fait plus d'un an qu'on assiste à peu près au même cirque. La Commission demande au Conseil son avis. M. Michel, encore aujourd'hui, demande à Mme von der Leyen d'agir, et des sommets sont organisés, des feuilles de route sont adoptées, et, finalement, pendant que tout ce petit monde se dédouane de ses responsabilités et perd du temps, les factures, elles, continuent d'augmenter. Vous avez dit, Madame von der Leyen, et vous avez raison, qu'il faut tirer les leçons du passé et accélérer le développement des renouvelables. Mais cela est-il compatible avec le vote de la taxonomie, qui vise à soutenir le gaz et le nucléaire en tant qu'énergies vertes, dans le cadre d'une alliance assez baroque entre la France et les pays d'Europe orientale? Bref, la bataille est déjà perdue pour cette année, et nous nous retrouvons aujourd'hui à croiser les doigts pour éviter que la catastrophe ne se répète l'année prochaine. Cela fait pourtant un an que l'on aurait dû découpler le prix du gaz et de l'électricité, reprendre le contrôle public sur le secteur, utiliser la force commune du marché européen face aux spéculateurs, développer massivement les énergies renouvelables et taxer tous les profiteurs de crise. Mais non, vous préférez en discuter cinq années de plus pour éviter d'acter que le ”tout marché” ne fonctionne pas et qu'il faut le réguler. D'ailleurs, vous faites de même sur les règles européennes d'austérité, qui devraient être soi-disant abandonnées, mais qui vont en réalité être maintenues malgré vos promesses. La Commission signe à ce sujet, dans sa proposition de réforme présentée aujourd'hui, le grand retour des sanctions, qui seront même renforcées pour tous les États qui oseraient désobéir à votre carcan absurde sur le déficit et la dette. Les flexibilités cosmétiques n'y changeront rien: c'est la saison deux de l'austérité en Europe, et elle arrive au pire moment. Madame von der Leyen, je remarque d'ailleurs que vous aimez bien les sanctions quand il s'agit d'austérité, mais pas quand il s'agit d'énergies renouvelables. Et pour conclure, Madame la Présidente, face à la faillite de ce modèle économique qui crée le désordre et le malheur, je pense aujourd'hui à toutes celles et tous ceux qui nous regardent et à qui vous aviez parlé d'Europe qui protège. Où est-elle aujourd'hui? Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Madam President, dear Presidents, I am deeply disappointed by the fact that the last European Council was silent on updates on South Caucasus, where Azeri troops occupied 220 square kilometres of Armenian sovereign territory, committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as executions and tortures. Here I see many similarities with what is happening in Ukraine, with a democratic country, Armenia, being attacked by an aggressive authoritarian regime – but there are also differences that I cannot tolerate. Indeed, while rightfully supporting Kyiv against the barbaric behaviour of Putin's regime, our Union is perceiving Azerbaijan as a reliable partner. And no, it's not, because realpolitik cannot replace our values, and these double standards are undermining our credibility. Armenia is a vibrant democracy that is not a Russian ally but, on the contrary, is simply a hostage of the Kremlin: its assertiveness and threatening attitude, and its decision to sacrifice Yerevan in exchange for a fully-fledged alliance with Baku and a complacency with Ankara. We must get out of this gas dependency trap, from all the authoritarian regimes, and the reluctance on a price cap is a huge mistake. The deployment of our monitoring mission is the first step, and its mandate should be extended permanently for all the time needed as well as the number of observers. But we need more, because blatant violations of international law should be condemned always and everywhere. I stand with democracy. I stand with Armenia. Ioan-Rareș Bogdan (PPE). – Doamna președintă, Excelențele Voastre, salut dorința Consiliului de a combate războiul informațional al Rusiei. În acest sens, vă informez că Kremlinul a activat mesajele otrăvite din timpul pandemiei. Pentru Putin, țara mea, România, este o miză uriașă, deoarece are nevoie ca pe frontiera Uniunii Europene să câștige teren euroscepticii. De aceea, orice întârziere a aderării României la Schengen, îi dă avânt. O altă miză a Kremlinului este ca sancțiunile impuse Rusiei să fie dezaprobate de cât mai mulți cetățeni europeni, în speță români. Iar aici, predicatul este următorul: români, energia este scumpă, deoarece Uniunea Europeană blochează furnizarea de hidrocarburi din Rusia. Din fericire, România are dependență de Rusia doar 9% din gaz, sub 30% din petrol, iar electricitatea o producem singuri în totalitate. Consiliul vorbește în sfârșit de securitatea alimentară. Cu România în Schengen, vor putea fi fluidizate lanțurile de aprovizionare cu cereale, sare, floarea soarelui, afectate serios de război, atât terestru, cât și naval. Excelențele Voastre, dacă blocarea românilor la frontiera Schengen ar fi avut loc și în materie de trafic de date, comerț cu energie, ingineri de comunicații sau medici, forța de muncă din multe țări ale Uniunii Europene ar fi fost mai puțin calificată. Statul român a plătit școală acestor specialiști, așa cum a plătit și pentru securizarea frontierei Schengen. Excelențele Voastre, spațiul Schengen are nevoie de România. (Vorbitorul a fost de acord să răspundă unei intervenții de tip ”cartonaș albastru”) IN THE CHAIR: PEDRO SILVA PEREIRA Vice-President Eugen Tomac (PPE),
intervenție de tip ”cartonaș albastru”. – Domnule Bogdan, ați amintit de faptul că suntem expuși unei întregi campanii de dezinformare. Ce ar trebui să facă Comisia și Consiliul pentru a susține statele membre și statele candidate pentru a face față acestor campanii de dezinformare și fake news care-și au sediul la Moscova? Ioan-Rareș Bogdan (PPE),
răspuns la intervenția de tip ”cartonaș albastru”. – Vă mulțumesc, vă mulțumesc foarte mult. Am să vă răspund cu toată deschiderea. Cred că în primul rând trebuie să înțeleagă necesitatea de investiții în zonele vecine spațiului estic, și în primul rând este vorba aici despre zona România, Polonia, țările baltice, de asemenea Slovacia și, bineînțeles, Republica Moldova. Și, de asemenea, cred extrem de serios că Comisia ar trebui să se aplece extrem, extrem de serios, asupra investițiilor în presă de bună calitate și în informații corecte. Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, we have learned the lesson from the pandemic that from tragedies coming from outside we are able to find our unity and the soul of Europe. What we have done with the common debt, SURE and Next Gen has been revolutionary. Now, on gas and energy, we really have the same challenge and we cannot take the luxury of time. So we need again a stronger Europe for at least three things: a cap on gas; a centralised purchasing agency for gas; social investments for families and companies not able to pay their bills. But for all that we need a strong Europe, a stronger Europe. I am very tired of listening to anti-European, extreme right parties that are now asking for European money, European assistance, European aid. Where were you when we spoke about strengthening the competences of our European institutions? You always said ”no”. So now we need a united Europe, a Europe that delivers. We have to decide. We can do things if we are united – and please do tell the truth! Nicola Danti (Renew). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Presidente del Consiglio, signor Vicepresidente della Commissione, gli effetti dell'ultimo Consiglio europeo sono già visibili. Stiamo assistendo, infatti, a un calo del prezzo del gas. Questo dimostra due cose: la prima, che la componente speculativa c'è ed è molto rilevante; la seconda, che la risposta politica che l'Europa sta fornendo è quella giusta e che questa era la risposta da dare fin dall'inizio. Il pacchetto di proposte licenziato dal Consiglio europeo è frutto di mesi e mesi di faticoso lavoro: corridoi di prezzo per il gas, disaccoppiamento del prezzo dell'elettricità, acquisti congiunti e riforma del mercato dell'elettricità. Tutte richieste che Mario Draghi aveva messo sul tavolo da tempo con determinazione. Ogni paese, in questo periodo, ha cercato di studiare le proprie ricette per affrontare la crisi, ma è chiaro che le iniziative dei singoli non bastano e che si debba mettere al centro una vera solidarietà europea, sia nella condivisione del gas, sia in merito ai prezzi, tutto in un quadro di rafforzamento della nostra indipendenza energetica. In questo senso ci aspettiamo che i ministri dell'Energia traducano finalmente in misure concrete la linea politica decisa dai leader europei. Su questo non si può tornare indietro. Auspichiamo, infine, che il nuovo governo italiano metta da parte gli slogan elettorali e che mantenga l'autorevolezza necessaria affinché l'Italia possa continuare ad avere un ruolo centrale, contribuendo a creare risposte per imprese e cittadini, sostenendo così la causa ucraina. (L'oratore accetta di rispondere a un intervento ”cartellino blu”) Maria Grapini (S&D),
intervenție de tip ”cartonaș albastru”. – Domnule președinte, stimate coleg, am văzut că lăudați activitatea Consiliului și deciziile luate la ultimul Consiliu. Asta este și tema. Și ați spus că da, au scăzut prețul la gaze. Aveți cunoștință dacă a scăzut și factura la cetățean? Pentru că din informațiile pe care le am eu, cel puțin în țara mea, dar poate îmi spuneți dumneavoastră în Italia ce se întâmplă, facturile cetățenilor sunt exact la același preț. Nu este niciun efect încă la măsurile luate de Consiliu. Cum putem să rezolvăm această ecuație pe care dumneavoastră, iată, ați arătat-o că este deja rezolvată? Nicola Danti (Renew),
risposta ”cartellino blu”. – Sappiamo bene che le bollette dei consumatori non sono ancora diminuite e lo stesso quello delle imprese. Certo, noi dobbiamo investire su due fattori importanti: risparmio energetico e investimento sulle energie rinnovabili e, attualmente, diversificazione delle fonti di approvvigionamento del gas. È quello che, credo, stiamo facendo. Dobbiamo anche fermare la speculazione. Come ho già detto nell'intervento, la speculazione che viene fatta sui prezzi del gas è molto elevata e solo un'Europa unita potrà garantire che questa speculazione venga fermata. Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, at the last European Council – and President Michel mentioned this – there were lengthy discussions concerning EU relations with China, apparently with no definitive conclusions. But while the debate remains ongoing, Chancellor Scholz has rushed to visit China to promote stronger bilateral trade relations, leaving aside the wider European agenda. We see how China is becoming an increasingly assertive superpower, internally implementing aggressive nationalist policies that involve gross human rights violations. We also see how other big powers, indeed partners of our own, such as the US, surpass us when it comes to protecting their technological sovereignty. If we have learned anything from our relations with Putin's Russia, it is that strategic dependencies upon authoritarian regimes are extremely problematic and very difficult to redress, and that we need a single EU policy, not 27, when dealing with others. So it's time to agree on a clear and unified EU strategy towards China that allows us to strengthen our strategic autonomy and to be consistent with our fundamental values. Jordan Bardella (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président Charles Michel, alors que l'angoisse de la fin du mois et l'inquiétude de l'hiver s'enracinent dans toute l'Europe, le dernier sommet européen semble en ignorer l'urgence. Aucune mesure n'a pu en effet être prise pour soutenir tant nos entreprises que les familles en proie à une crise de l'énergie sans précédent. En France, jusqu'à présent, et malgré les promesses de réformes non tenues, le président Macron s'est soumis aux règles absurdes du marché européen de l'électricité – ces règles européennes, qui conduisent à indexer les prix de l'électricité sur celui du gaz, nous ont mis à la merci de l'explosion spéculative des cours à la suite de la guerre en Ukraine. La France, qui ne tire aucun bénéfice du fonctionnement de ce carcan, s'en sort, bien qu'affaiblie, grâce à sa production nucléaire. Nous pouvons aisément affirmer que, sans ce marché européen, nous aurions été en partie protégés des grands mouvements géopolitiques du monde. Il est donc urgent d'en sortir, ou, à défaut, d'y instaurer des dérogations sur le modèle de celles obtenues par le Portugal et par l'Espagne, qui disposent ainsi de prix de l'électricité en moyenne trois fois inférieurs aux nôtres. Sur la durée, le levier fiscal doit être utilisé par la baisse de la TVA sur l'énergie, comme l'ont fait l'Allemagne ou la Pologne. Hélas, le président Macron s'y refuse obstinément. Le risque de conduire l'Europe vers la désertification industrielle, avec une perte d'emplois et de savoir-faire, est réel dans les prochains mois. Agissez tout de suite et maintenant, car, lorsque les usines auront fermé leurs portes, il sera trop tard. Robert Roos (ECR). – Voorzitter, de economische crisis blijft voortduren. De stijgende energiekosten sijpelen door in de prijzen van alle andere producten, van voedsel tot goederen, met als resultaat monsterinflatie en een dreigende recessie. Desalniettemin spreekt de Europese Raad niet over dat wat in het licht van het energietekort juist nodig is, namelijk het vergroten van het aanbod, maar over het terugdringen van de energie. In Duitsland worden in april alle kerncentrales gesloten en in België dreigt hetzelfde te gebeuren. In Frankrijk is de helft van de kerncentrales wegens onderhoud buiten bedrijf en in Nederland wordt de gasproductie verder afgebouwd. De EU creëert een groter energietekort dan nodig is. We zitten in een energiecrisis omdat de meesten zowel tegen eigen fossiele energie als tegen kernenergie en Russische energie zijn. Je kunt ofwel betaalbare en betrouwbare energie, ofwel woke energiebronnen, ofwel een boycot van Rusland willen. Slechts twee van de drie zijn mogelijk. De energievoorziening, die voor de meeste Europeanen het belangrijkst is, sneuvelt. Het is onze taak om voor het welzijn en de veiligheid van onze burgers en bedrijven te zorgen. Betaalbare en betrouwbare energie is een basisbehoefte. Onze enige optie is alle energiebronnen te gebruiken die we hebben: kolen, gas en kernenergie. Burgers en bedrijven verlangen daadkracht. De Europese Unie moet van haar roze wolk afkomen, de groene ideologie afzweren en energiezekerheid garanderen. (De spreker aanvaardt een ”blauwe kaart”-reactie) Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE),
replika pagal mėlynosios kortelės procedūrą. – Ačiū, gerb. pirmininke, Jūs minėjote, kad brangsta maisto produktai. Ar jūs nemanote, kad maisto sektoriuje, kuriame lygiai taip pat prasidėjus energijos kainų kilimui, daug spekuliacijos tiekiant trąšas, tiekiant gamybos priemones, pardavinėjant ir perdirbant maistą. Ar nereikėtų pradėti taikyti jau dabar panašias priemones kaip ir energetikoje, tiek apmokestinant papildomą pelną, tiek, žinoma, nustatant kainų lubas maisto pagrindiniams produktams? Kaip jūs galvojat? Robert Roos (ECR),
”blauwe kaart”-antwoord. – We moeten veel meer energie produceren. Wij hebben in Europa betrouwbare energiebronnen, en met name fossiele energie, in een versneld tempo afgebouwd en kernenergie tegengehouden. Dit zorgt momenteel voor grote problemen. Energie is een basisbehoefte die met alles verweven is. Zo hebben wij voor elk productieproces energie nodig en vereist de productie van meststoffen bijvoorbeeld gas. We moeten de markt dus niet nog verder verstoren, zoals we dat met de energieproductie hebben gedaan, door allerlei subsidies te verstrekken en hernieuwbare energie te bevoordelen. We moeten de markt vooral zijn werk laten doen. Het is juist de tussenkomst van de Europese Unie, met al haar ideologieën, die voor grote problemen heeft gezorgd. Laten we de markt zijn werk laten doen, voor voldoende energie zorgen en niet proberen betrouwbare energiebronnen nog verder uit te bannen. Dat zal simpelweg niet werken. Nikolaj Villumsen (The Left). – Hr. Formand! Bliver der råd til julegaver? Er der overhovedet råd til mad og varme? Er der penge til medicin? Det er bekymringen for millioner af europæere. En bekymring, som EU-lederne endnu ikke har taget alvorligt. Stigende priser presser økonomien for mange, og for nogle er byrden allerede blevet ubærlig. Mens folk fryser, mens folk går fra hus og hjem - ja, så skovler virksomheder rekordstore overskud ind. Pengene er her. Vi kan gå solidarisk igennem denne krise. Vi kan hjælpe de hårdest ramte uden at puste til inflationen. Men det kræver, at politikerne tager ansvar. Beskat de overnormale profitter. Hjælp den enlige mor, så hendes børn kan holde varmen. Hjælp de syge. Hjælp de lavestlønnede. Tag ansvar, og lad os gå trygt igennem krisen. Kinga Gál (NI). – Elnök Úr! Európa súlyos gazdasági helyzetben van. Az egekbe szökő energiaárak miatt Európa-szerte nő az infláció, ezért semmilyen további olyan uniós intézkedést, szankciót ne hozzunk, ami ront a helyzeten, és azzal fenyeget, hogy kevesebb energiaforrás lesz elérhető. Figyelembe kellene venni, hogy az egyes tagállamok kitettsége, lehetőségei különbözőek, ezért elfogadható az a tanácsi megállapodás, hogy a gázársapka esetleges bevezetése nem veszélyeztetheti a gázellátást biztosító szerződéseket. Az eddigi, vagy bármilyen újabb energiaszankció ahelyett, hogy elhozná a háború végét, lassan Európa gazdaságát döntheti romba. Mi, magyarok, már a háború kitörése óta elítéljük az orosz katonai agressziót, és támogatjuk Ukrajnát és az ukrán menekülteket. Ma, 33 évvel a berlini fal leomlását követően, mégsem egységes Európa. Ideológiai okokból különböztetnek meg tagállamokat, így Lengyelországot és Magyarországot is, például a pénzügyi alapokhoz való hozzáférés tekintetében. Magyarország a konstruktívan vállalt kötelezettségeinek eleget tesz. Reméljük, hogy most már a Bizottság is teljesít majd. (A felszólaló hajlandó válaszolni egy kékkártyás felszólalásra) Michaela Šojdrová (PPE),
vystoupení na základě zvednutí modré karty. – Vážená paní kolegyně, nevím, jestli máte možnost poslouchat tlumočení. Já bych Vám chtěla položit otázku, která se týká právě situace v Maďarsku. My jsme navštívili minulý týden s delegací výboru CULT Maďarsko. Zaregistrovali jsme kampaň, která hovoří o tom, že bruselské sankce ruinují Maďarsko. Vy se domníváte, že to jsou sankce? Nebo je to ruská agrese na Ukrajině? Mě velmi mrzí to, že je zde zaměňována příčina za důsledek. Kinga Gál (NI),
kékkártyás válasz. – Köszönöm a kérdést! Nos, Magyarország az az ország, ahol, ha olyan kérdések merülnek föl, amelyek érintik az emberek mindennapi életét és gyakorlatilag az egész magyar gazdaságot, akkor megkérdezzük az emberek véleményét. Ez a nemzeti konzultáció, ahogy mi otthon hívjuk. Ez arról szól, hogy kíváncsiak vagyunk, hogy mit gondolnak az energiaszankciókról a magyar polgárok. Szerintem ezt számos országban meg lehetne tenni, az Európai Unió tagállamaiban. Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, Europa se jasno, ljudski i civilizacijski, opredijelila odmah na početku rata te pomaže ukrajinskom narodu u borbi za slobodu. Korištenje energije kao instrumenta rata protiv Europe, kao sredstva političke i gospodarske ucjene, poziva nas da odgovorimo još jedinstvenije i još inteligentnije. Zaključci Vijeća svakako idu u dobrom smjeru, ali neizvjesnost pred nadolazećom zimom, a još više pred nadolazećem godinom, još nije nestala. Potrebna nam je politička, vojna i financijska podrška, jer ovo je u konačnici ultimativni civilizacijski test za cijelu Europu. Trebat će nam još više solidarnosti, još više zajedništva i jedinstva u podršci ukrajinskom narodu, ali će nam trebati i mudrosti da izbjegnemo najgore teške posljedice i za europsko gospodarstvo i za europske građane. Međutim, ono što je ključno je da razumijemo da ishod rata itekako ima učinak, i imat će učinak, na cijelu Europu i imat će učinak na sve europske građane. I zbog toga se za zapadnu civilizaciju sada ne bori samo riječima, nego itekako i djelima. Pedro Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Presidente Michel, Senhor Vice-Presidente Šefčovič, seguimos com atenção, Presidente Michel, o último Conselho pela importância da sua agenda e pelas suas conclusões. Reconhecemos a evolução, embora tardia, nos dossiês da energia, mas estamos seriamente preocupados com a incapacidade revelada de manter uma frente unida no apoio à Ucrânia no que respeita ao apoio macrofinanceiro. Como é que a Presidente Ursula von der Leyen pode ter ido a Kiev, nestes dias, prometer mais 18 mil milhões de euros de apoio macrofinanceiro se nem as verbas comprometidas para este ano estão asseguradas e já com a promessa de um novo veto da Hungria. É absolutamente inaceitável. O apoio às famílias europeias, às pequenas empresas que sofrem com os custos da energia, tem também que avançar de uma forma determinada. Para quando uma resposta verdadeiramente europeia? A minha família política, através da sua líder Iratxe Garcia Pérez, acaba de apresentar um plano de solidariedade, para o inverno, para as famílias europeias, com 15 propostas concretas de ação que vão muito para lá do controlo dos preços de energia, embora ele seja necessário. Inclui um fundo de, pelo menos, 100 mil milhões de euros para apoiar diretamente as famílias que sofrem. Temos os recursos nos orçamentos que aprovámos. Vamos ver se temos a vontade política. Precisamos de um novo soro. Precisamos de ir buscar recursos onde é mais justo: aos que ganharam com esta crise, para ajudar os que menos têm. Senhora Presidente da Comissão, receberá as nossas propostas concretas. Os europeus não podem esperar mais. Valérie Hayer (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, chers collègues, face à la crise énergétique, l'Europe répond une nouvelle fois présente: plafonnement des prix du gaz, corridor de prix, achat commun de gaz naturel auprès de nos partenaires... Les chefs d'État ont confirmé des mesures que mon groupe politique, Renew, avait appelées de ses vœux. Alors oui, depuis le début de la crise, l'Europe avance et l'Europe est là. Mais, il faut le dire, les tentations de repli aussi. Et nous devons y répondre par une solidarité de fait et démontrer une fois de plus que l'Europe est aux côtés des Européens. C'était le cas pendant la crise sanitaire, ça doit l'être encore face à la crise énergétique, et nous devons accélérer les mesures pour protéger les Européens. Je pense au bouclier énergétique, à la réforme du marché de l'électricité ou encore au renforcement du mécanisme (nom inaudible). Alors, Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, la balle est dans votre camp. Les attentes sont grandes, et sachez que vous trouverez toujours le Parlement européen à vos côtés pour bâtir cette Europe qui protège. Mais au-delà de ces mesures, pour répondre aux défis auxquels nous devons faire face dans l'immédiat, nous devons également être lucides. C'est notre indépendance et notre autonomie stratégique qui sont en jeu. La présidente von der Leyen l'a évoqué dans son discours sur l'état de l'Union, mon groupe, d'ailleurs, et moi-même, l'avons proposé dès le début de cette année: nous avons besoin d'un vrai fonds européen consacré à l'autonomie stratégique de notre Union, un fonds pour ne plus dépendre des énergies fossiles, pour garantir notre sécurité alimentaire, pour investir dans les matériaux rares et dans les technologies de demain, et pour soutenir les secteurs clés comme la défense, la cybersécurité ou l'espace. Alors n'attendons plus! Nous n'avons pas ce luxe. Comme l'a dit la présidente von der Leyen, il s'agit peut-être du dernier coup de semonce avant qu'il ne soit trop tard. Sur cette question de l'autonomie stratégique, Monsieur le Vice-Président, nous attendons des avancées concrètes, bien au-delà des annonces. Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we need to provide energy security to our citizens this winter. Even more importantly, we need to hasten the Green Deal to deliver an energy transformation to solve both the energy-independence needs for Europe and the climate crisis. It is positive that the Council wants to address and hasten the transition to solar and wind power and heat pumps, also in permitting. However, this cannot be done at a cost to our environment and biodiversity. The Green Deal is not just about climate and energy security, but is also about environmental sustainability. The climate and biodiversity crises need to be tackled hand-in-hand in order for us to deliver long-term results. Therefore, we find the Council regulation based on Article 122 without Parliament's involvement, quite worrisome, especially on the aspect of overriding public interest. Parliament has been working on permitting and next week we should have a mandate to start trilogues on it. We urge the Council to move fast on this longer-term solution to hasten permitting while respecting our nature legislation. Emergency measures based on Article 122 are not the place to introduce long-term changes, and two parallel proposals on the same subject can also create insecurity for the market. So we have to introduce the aspects that deserve longer-term application and also considerations for nature within the negotiations of the Renewable Energy Directive. Harald Vilimsky (ID). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Knapp ein Jahr ist es her, dass in einer verurteilenswerten Art und Weise Putin über die Ukraine hergefallen ist. Und es ist innerhalb dieses Jahres nicht gelungen, hier friedensstiftende Maßnahmen zu implementieren, sondern vonseiten der EU ist der Ruf nach schweren Waffen und nach Geld Richtung Ukraine entsprechend gehört worden, und man hat diesen Konflikt auch befeuert. Aus meiner Sicht ein absolut falscher Weg. Heute ist es so, dass sogar von der US-Administration, in Person des US-Präsidenten Joe Biden, der Ruf nach Friedensverhandlungen laut und öffentlich gestellt wird. Ich verstehe auch nicht, warum von der ukrainischen Seite, von Selenskyj, als Reaktion darauf kommt, dass man diese Friedensverhandlungen nicht haben möchte, und auf der anderen Seite Richtung Europäische Union fordert, 2 Milliarden EUR pro Jahr in die Ukraine zu pumpen und die Kosten von 750 Milliarden Aufbauhilfe für die Ukraine von europäischer Seite zur Verfügung zu stellen. Ich appelliere an die EU-Entscheidungsträger, hier Frieden zu erzwingen, die Leute an den Tisch zu holen und zu garantieren dafür, dass in Europa die Menschen in einen Frieden gehen können, hier in einen Winter gehen können, wo die Energiepreise nicht explodieren und die europäische Währung auch wieder Stabilität findet. Carlo Fidanza (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l'ultimo Consiglio si è concluso con luci e ombre. Bene, la prosecuzione del sostegno finanziario, militare e umanitario all'Ucraina. Male, l'aver rimandato, ancora una volta, scelte chiare sul fronte dell'energia e questo dimostra che l'Unione europea, ancora una volta, è troppo lenta e divisa nella risposta alle crisi. Famiglie e imprese si attendevano e ancora si attendono risposte risolutive, che invece le rendite di posizione di alcuni Stati membri hanno ancora una volta rinviato. La cassetta degli attrezzi è nota: disaccoppiamento e tetto dinamico al prezzo del gas; sistema di quotazione alternativo al TTF; diversificazione delle forniture; accordi con i paesi alleati affinché nella crisi non ci sia chi si arricchisce indebitamente; strumenti finanziari comuni per proteggere il mercato interno dalle distorsioni. A questo aggiungerei l'aumento della produzione nazionale di gas e di rinnovabili e anche, perché no, una pausa di riflessione sulla transizione ecologica, che ci stiamo imponendo a tappe forzate con il rischio di consegnarci a nuove dipendenze strategiche. Servono ora proposte coraggiose e risposte definitive per evitare che la speculazione torni a far crescere i prezzi e a colpire le nostre famiglie e le nostre imprese. President. – Due to other commitments, President Michel has to leave now, so I would like to give him the floor so that he can comment on the interventions made so far. Charles Michel,
président du Conseil européen. – Monsieur le Président, je souhaite d'emblée remercier l'ensemble des parlementaires qui se sont exprimés dans le cadre de ce débat et qui ont partagé avec nous leurs convictions. Aujourd'hui, je voudrais réagir sur quelques points. Premier élément: c'est le Kremlin qui a décidé de déclencher une guerre absolument odieuse contre le peuple ukrainien, qui souffre sous les balles, qui souffre sous les missiles, et qui résiste courageusement avec notre soutien. C'est aussi le Kremlin qui, en parallèle, a décidé de déclencher à la fois une agression énergétique contre l'Union européenne et une agression sur la sécurité alimentaire, des pays en développement et des plus vulnérables essentiellement. Notre responsabilité, dès lors que cette agression fait mal à nos familles, à nos entreprises, notre responsabilité collective, sur le plan européen, sur le plan national, c'est de résister, c'est de se tenir droits et de prendre les mesures qui sont nécessaires afin de contrecarrer cette tentative de nous diviser et de nous appauvrir. C'est cela l'enjeu auquel nous sommes confrontés aujourd'hui. Vous le savez, et nous le savons: il peut y avoir des différences d'opinion – c'est là le débat démocratique. La question énergétique est également une question climatique – on le mesure bien et on ne le découvre pas aujourd'hui –, et nous sommes engagés pour une transition climatique, qui voit ses fondements mis à mal par cette agression – voici trois ans, nous avions élaboré notre objectif de neutralité climatique. Cette question énergétique, c'est aussi une question de compétitivité pour nos entreprises, et donc de prospérité et de robustesse pour le marché intérieur, et de capacité pour notre Union d'être robuste, solide et de se déployer vers un projet de progrès, de paix, de stabilité, de sécurité et de protection de la dignité de nos concitoyens. Mais c'est aussi un sujet – et cela a été très bien dit par Valérie Hayer – de souveraineté, d'autonomie stratégique. C'était, du reste, le sens de ce sommet de Versailles, il y a quelques mois, lors duquel nous avions identifié trois points clés: énergie – on en voit l'importance –, sécurité et défense, et base technologique. Trois points clés pour renforcer notre capacité de souveraineté et d'autonomie stratégique. Il est bon, il est nécessaire – on l'a dit au Conseil européen – d'agir pour les aides d'État. C'est essentiel, on le voit bien. Il est tout aussi bon et nécessaire d'agir pour les autorisations et les permis – il faut accélérer les investissements dans le renouvelable pour être plus rapidement indépendants –, c'est très bien. Mais nous avons besoin de propositions législatives. Il y a une décision qui a été prise sur le principe – neuf mesures concrètes –, il y a un mandat qui a été donné il y a trois semaines par le Conseil européen: nous avons besoin de propositions législatives. Vous avez le droit, bien sûr, de reprocher aux ministres de l'énergie de ne pas agir assez vite, mais, pour qu'ils puissent agir et prendre des décisions, nous avons besoin de propositions législatives afin de faire entrer en vigueur ce paquet de mesures ambitieux, pour lequel des décisions de principe politiques ont été exprimées par les membres du Conseil européen, qui, contrairement à ce qui a été dit, ont forgé leur unité autour de lui. Parce que, je le crois, même si nous sommes ébranlés, bousculés, nous avons la capacité de résister, nous avons la capacité de changer le cours des choses pour garantir l'approvisionnement et pour faire reculer cette menace sur les prix qui nous fait mal, qui fait mal à nos citoyens, à nos familles, et qui ébranle le projet européen. Enfin, je voudrais partager avec vous une autre conviction: nous avons deux leviers dans nos mains. Tout d'abord, les débats sur les types de prix (plafonnement des prix, corridors de prix...) et la question du lien entre le gaz et le marché de l'électricité – c'est un sujet, et il faut agir vite. Mais il y a un autre sujet – je l'ai dit, je le répète –, c'est la négociation avec ceux qui nous approvisionnent en ressources énergétiques. Là aussi nous avons des leviers, qu'il faut activer plus rapidement, me semble-t-il. Je conclus enfin – parce que cette leçon-là nous a beaucoup ébranlés, aussi – avec la COVID-19, qui aura été une crise brutale, qui nous a choqués, bousculés, qui a bousculé le monde dans son ensemble. Cette crise de la COVID-19 – je pense que beaucoup le reconnaissent aujourd'hui – aura été l'occasion pour l'Union européenne de montrer sa souveraineté, son autonomie stratégique et sa capacité d'action pour faire reculer une telle menace. Pourquoi cela? Parce que nous avons été capables, lors de cette crise, de faire preuve d'unité, de solidarité et de rapidité. Nous avons là aussi besoin, au cœur de la crise énergétique qui nous frappe, de faire preuve d'unité, de solidarité et de rapidité, de plus de rapidité. Le too little, too late ne peut pas être une option. Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι καθιερωμένοι πανηγυρισμοί και οι κούφιες διακηρύξεις περί αλληλεγγύης, μετά από κάθε σύνοδο κορυφής, δεν μπορούν να κρύψουν τους σφοδρούς ανταγωνισμούς στο εσωτερικό της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Γερμανία, Γαλλία, Ιταλία, Ισπανία και άλλα κράτη ερίζουν για τιμές, υποδομές, αγωγούς, αποθήκευση και ενεργειακή επάρκεια. Ταυτόχρονα, οι λαοί κάνουν αμέτρητες θυσίες, πληρώνοντας την κερδοφορία των πράσινων ομίλων και τις κυρώσεις στον ενεργειακό πόλεμο με τη Ρωσία. Τα λαϊκά προβλήματα, όμως, προϋπάρχουν του ιμπεριαλιστικού πολέμου, τα έχουν γεννήσει οι στρατηγικές της πράσινης μετάβασης και της απελευθέρωσης της ενέργειας που η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, οι κυβερνήσεις και τα κόμματα έχουν καθιερώσει για να θησαυρίζουν οι επιχειρηματικοί όμιλοι. Τα κουπόνια ενεργειακής φτώχειας και τα διάφορα καλάθια δεν αντιμετωπίζουν την αβάσταχτη ακρίβεια στο ρεύμα, στα καύσιμα, στα τρόφιμα. Οι λαοί στην Ελλάδα, στο Βέλγιο, στη Γαλλία, στην Ισπανία, αφήνουν πίσω τις ευρωενωσιακές ψεύτικες προσδοκίες, εναντιώνονται στη στρατηγική ακρίβειας και εξαθλίωσης, απορρίπτουν τη στάση αναμονής και απαιτούν σήμερα αυξήσεις μισθών, συλλογικές συμβάσεις εργασίας, φθηνή ενέργεια, κατάργηση φόρων. Κανένα λαϊκό σπίτι να μην μείνει χωρίς ρεύμα! Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, kolegyně a kolegové, jsme ve výjimečné době, která vyžaduje výjimečné kroky a není možné, abychom nechali občany, firmy, zemědělce v nejistotě před zimou v narůstající inflaci. Očekávají evropské řešení a Evropská rada se dohodla. Dohodla se na opatřeních pro boj s vysokými cenami energií. Já tato navržená opatření vítám. Myslím, že to je i dobrá práce českého předsednictví. Nyní ale je třeba tuto dohodu převést do praxe. A předseda Evropské rady Charles Michel zde hovořil o tom, že očekává od Komise konkrétní návrh. Jde o návrh, který by umožnil zastropování cen plynu, který je používán na výrobu elektřiny. Z informací, které máme, vyplývá, že Evropská komise váhá, respektive nehodlá tento návrh předložit. A já se chci zeptat zástupce Komise, jak tedy s dohodou Rady naloží? Děkuji předem za Vaši odpověď. Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident Šefčovič! Es ist ja gut, sich für den nächsten Winter vorzubereiten, und viele der Maßnahmen vom Europäischen Rat, die da diskutiert werden, greifen frühestens im nächsten Winter. Aber es ist auch sehr gewagt zu behaupten, dass wir schon gut aufgestellt sind, dass alle auch über diesen Winter kommen. Viele wissen nicht, wie sie ihre Rechnungen bezahlen sollen. Unternehmen, die energieintensiv sind, haben Kurzarbeit angemeldet, kleine Unternehmen stehen mit dem Rücken zur Wand. Deshalb müssen jetzt die Preise für die Energie runter, und die Kaufkraft muss gestärkt werden, und deshalb müssen die Übergewinne europaweit tatsächlich ausreichend abgeschöpft werden und genutzt werden, um die Schwächsten zu unterstützen. Das passiert doch gar nicht in Europa im Moment. Und deshalb können die Bürgerinnen und Bürger sich doch in diesem Winter nicht daran wärmen, dass sie im nächsten Winter unterstützt werden. Wir brauchen jetzt in Europa Maßnahmen, die sofort greifen, am besten ein europäisches Solidaritätspaket, wie es die S&D-Fraktion vorgeschlagen hat. Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Bei den Forderungen des Europäischen Rates zur Energie kann sich jeder mit einem gesunden Menschenverstand Ausgestattete nur wundern. Die Lösungen sollen mehr Energieeinsparungen und noch mehr nicht grundlastfähige erneuerbare Energien sein. Aber genau Letzteres hat uns die Abhängigkeit von billigem russischem Gas erst beschert. Es ist also die eigene irre grüne Ideologie plus Sanktionspolitik plus Energieverknappung und Verteuerung, die zur Energiekrise geführt hat – und genau das Gegenteil bewirkt, nämlich mehr CO2-Emissionen. Nicht weil wir jetzt eine Renaissance der Kohle in der EU erleben. Auch China verfeuert mehr Kohle als der Rest der Welt, auch um uns mit Batterien und Rohstoffen für angeblich emissionsfreie E-Autos zu beliefern. Nicht grüne Flatterenergie, sondern Kernenergie ist die Energie zukünftiger Industrienationen. Und darüber, dass man in der EU russisches LNG zehnfach teurer und mit zehnfach mehr CO2-Emissionen als Pipelinegas über den Umweg China einkauft, schweigt man sich auch lieber aus. Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący. Zadajemy sobie pytanie, czy ustalenia Rady w kwestii zwalczania skutków kryzysu energetycznego odpowiadają oczekiwaniom obywateli. Trzeba powiedzieć, że niezupełnie, bo, po pierwsze, są spóźnione, niewystarczające. O bezpieczeństwo dostaw Rada i Komisja powinny się zatroszczyć znacznie wcześniej. Jak to się stało, że dopiero teraz Rada i Komisja odkryły, jaka jest cena zależności naszego sektora energetycznego od Rosji? Naprawdę nie można było tego przewidzieć? Te setki czy tysiące bardzo mądrych urzędników nie były w stanie tego przewidzieć? Po drugie, proponowane środki, na przykład zmierzające do obniżenia cen, zwłaszcza cen gazu, wdrażane są bardzo opornie. Ale po trzecie, obywatele oczekują nie tylko środków doraźnych, lecz przemyślenia i przeformułowania całej naszej polityki klimatyczno-energetycznej. Trzeba odpowiedzieć sobie na pytanie, czy w obecnej sytuacji geopolitycznej, w obliczu wojny, która będzie trwała długo i może przenieść się także na terytorium Unii, cele założone na 2030 rok są do osiągnięcia i na jaki koszt, przez kogo ponoszony, gotowi jesteśmy społecznie zaakceptować ich osiągnięcie. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (NI). – Monsieur le Président, l'inquiétude des citoyens grandit concernant l'impact des prix de l'énergie sur leur vie, et il ne semble pas que les accords du Conseil européen puissent être de nature à les rassurer. Des grèves générales ont eu lieu aujourd'hui en Belgique et en Grèce, et d'autres se produiront demain en France. Les citoyens européens ont entamé un long voyage vers l'appauvrissement. Les données le confirment. Par exemple, en Catalogne, en 2019, le coût de l'énergie représentait 4 % du PIB. En 2022, ce coût s'élèvera à 16 %, soit 12 points de plus. Mais les institutions européennes ne sont pas en mesure de garantir que certains États, comme l'Espagne, profitent au mieux de l'aide – importante – qu'ils reçoivent de l'Europe. Et cela devrait aussi figurer à l'ordre du jour du prochain Conseil européen, parce qu'on ne peut pas se permettre de mobiliser des milliards d'euros et ne rien faire quand il y a une telle inefficacité structurelle. José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Caras e Caros colegas, tenho de realçar o facto de termos uma Presidente da Comissão Europeia, a Sra. Ursula von der Leyen, que é solidária, competente e proativa, o que contrasta com os governantes que temos, conforme podemos ver a partir das tímidas conclusões do Conselho Europeu. Nós temos de ter autonomia estratégica, mas isso não se pode fazer com governantes que só olham para o seu umbigo, com egoísmos nacionais. E daí é necessário e peço à Comissão que avance para a definição dos projetos transfronteiriços e interconexões necessárias para que um país como Portugal não seja prejudicado pelo egoísmo de um governante, de que é exemplo o Sr. Macron. Para além disso, é necessário que a Comissão faça também o seu trabalho no que diz respeito àquilo que deve ser o relacionamento com a China, que não pode ser bilateral, que tem que ser um relacionamento onde toda a União Europeia esteja envolvida. E, desse ponto de vista, considero negativa também a posição do Chanceler Scholz neste domínio. E, depois, o Conselho tem de fazer o seu trabalho. Há mais 100 mil milhões de euros do Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014–2020 que não estão a ser utilizados. O PRR tem uma péssima execução. Os governantes têm muito dinheiro à sua disposição. Devem utilizá-lo para ajudar as famílias e as empresas neste momento difícil. Dan Nica (S&D). – Domnule președinte, aș fi vrut să-i spun bună seara și domnului președinte Charles Michel. Nu este, cum a fost absent și Consiliul și domnia sa, în toată această perioadă a crizei energetice. Bună seara, domnule vicepreședinte Šefčovič. Știu că sunteți cel căruia chiar îi pasă de ceea ce se întâmplă în domeniul energiei și aș vrea să vă transmit dumneavoastră, și prin dumneavoastră Comisiei, un mesaj. Noi, de un an de zile, suntem de acord cu toate măsurile pe care le anunță Consiliul în fiecare lună și care niciodată nu sunt luate. Suntem de acord ca să avem o platformă comună de achiziție a gazelor, ca să putem avea un preț mai mic al gazelor. Suntem de acord. Suntem de acord și vrem ca să existe o plafonare a prețurilor la gaze. Nu suntem de acord ca de la bugetele naționale în continuare să compensăm profiturile companiilor care se ocupă de așa numitele tranzacții de energie. Nu suntem de acord ca să existe un nivel al facturilor pe care îl vedem astăzi și pe care fiecare cetățean european trebuie să le plătească. Firmele trebuie să le plătească și dau faliment, oamenii își pierd locurile de muncă și această situație a devenit inacceptabilă. Și nu mai suntem de acord cu încă ceva, domnule vicepreședinte Šefčovič, și vă rog să-i transmiteți doamnei Ursula von der Leyen, că transparența în tranzacțiile cu energie trebuie să fie obligatorie. Vrem să știm cine face aceste profituri pe baza unor speculații pe care le vedem cu toții. Unde se duc aceste profituri și de ce trebuie să plătim cu toții aceste prețuri speculative? Și, mai ales, de ce nu se ia nicio măsură nici astăzi, după un an de zile de când am cerut aceste măsuri? (Vorbitorul a fost de acord să răspundă unei intervenții de tip ”cartonaș albastru”) Bogdan Rzońca (ECR),
wystąpienie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Dziękuję za przyjęcie tego pytania. Mianowicie Pan i Pana grupa – która jest bardzo wpływowa tu, w Parlamencie Europejskim – zachwalacie bardzo odnawialne źródła energii. Pani von der Leyen powiedziała przed chwilą, że możemy zdobyć 90 nowych GW z odnawialnych źródeł energii. Czy Pan ma orientację, jaki jest koszt wytworzenia 1 GW energii i skąd weźmiemy na to pieniądze? Bo mówienie, że potrzebujemy 90, 180 czy 300 nowych GW jest ok. Tylko kto za to wszystko zapłaci? Jaki jest Pana pomysł i gdzie są pieniądze na to? Dan Nica (S&D),
răspuns la intervenția de tip ”cartonaș albastru”. – Mulțumesc pentru această întrebare. Mai departe, în seara aceasta, avem dezbaterea pe REPowerEU. Peste două săptămâni avem votul la RED IV. Ceea ce spunem cu toții este așa: dăm drumul la aceste proiecte pe energii regenerabile, pentru că sunt multe investiții care sunt finanțate și privat. Sunt multe investiții, 20 de miliarde în REPowerEU, investiții inclusiv în regenerabile. Sunt investiții în planurile naționale de redresare și reziliență cărora trebuie să le dăm drumul. Dar știți cât durează un proiect în Uniunea Europeană de regenerabile, panouri solare sau eoliene? Șapte ani de zile. Ăsta este motivul pentru care, începând de astăzi, începem această campanie. Jos cu tot ceea ce înseamnă bariere administrative, tot ceea ce înseamnă nevoia de a obține avize administrative care să împiedice de fapt instalarea oricăror energii regenerabile. Avem nevoie de aceste energii ieftine. Nu sunt singura soluție. Trebuie să meargă împreună cu partea de stocare, stocare, stocare și construcția liniilor de transmisie de energie ca să putem să facem funcționale toate aceste sisteme. Aceasta este o abordare serioasă și asta este poziția grupului meu politic. Εμμανουήλ Φράγκος (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το τελευταίο διάστημα, ο φτωχοποιημένος ελληνικός λαός βλέπει τα εισοδήματά του να συρρικνώνονται ακόμη περισσότερο λόγω του πληθωρισμού. Σε αυτή τη δύσκολη συγκυρία, αποφασίστηκε η διακοπή της αγοράς του φθηνού ρωσικού αερίου, επειδή η Ρωσία επιτίθεται στην Ουκρανία. Βλέποντας, όμως, αυτό το αέριο να αντικαθίσταται από το αζέρικο, θα ήθελα να σας ρωτήσω, για το Αζερμπαϊτζάν που επιτίθεται στην Αρμενία, γιατί δεν γίνεται το παραμικρό; Επίσης επιβάλλονται κυρώσεις στο Ιράν για την πώληση επιθετικών δρόνων προς τη Ρωσία. Ας υποθέσουμε ότι συμφωνούμε με τη συγκεκριμένη απόφαση. Στην Τουρκία που εδώ και τόσο καιρό πουλάει τα Bayraktar στους Αζέρους που τα χρησιμοποιούν για να δολοφονούν άμαχους Αρμένιους, γιατί δεν επιβάλλονται κυρώσεις; Ζητάμε, λοιπόν, να διακοπεί άμεσα αυτή η πολιτική του επιλεκτικού ανθρωπισμού. Ζητάμε την άμεση επιβολή κυρώσεων στην Τουρκία. Francesca Donato (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io dissento dalle conclusioni del Consiglio e, in particolare: sull'attribuzione alla sola Russia di ogni responsabilità per la crisi energetica, partita invero ben prima dell'inizio della guerra in Ucraina a causa di politiche europee insostenibili, che hanno demonizzato le fonti fossili e nucleari investendo tutto sulle rinnovabili, insufficienti a coprire il nostro fabbisogno energetico e consolidando la dipendenza dalle forniture estere, oggi immutata. Sulla condanna generica del sabotaggio dei gasdotti Nord Stream, che sorvola sulla sospetta matrice occidentale degli attentati. Sul persistere con sanzioni boomerang contro la Russia e su ulteriori prestiti miliardari all'Ucraina, paese ad alto rischio di default, minacciando la tenuta economica e finanziaria dell'Unione. Sul disconoscimento della volontà popolare espressa tramite referendum da popoli a cui dovremmo garantire la democrazia, perché i risultati divergono dai desiderata europei. E infine, sulla criminalizzazione del dissenso, comprese le istanze per una pace negoziata in Ucraina attraverso proposte normative lesive della libertà di espressione. Non è questa l'Europa in cui mi riconosco e rivendico il diritto di affermarlo e lottare per la democrazia e per la pace, oggi e sempre, qui e in ogni sede possibile. Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η ενεργειακή πολιτική τίθεται για πρώτη φορά ως σημαντικό ζήτημα στα ευρωπαϊκά δρώμενα. Μια ισχυρή Ευρώπη οφείλει να έχει ενεργειακή ασφάλεια και κοινή εξωτερική πολιτική. Η κρίση στην Ουκρανία ανέδειξε την ενεργειακή μας εξάρτηση από τη Ρωσία. Οφείλουμε να στραφούμε στο εσωτερικό της Ευρώπης και η χώρα μου, η Κύπρος, μπορεί να παίξει ουσιαστικό ρόλο μέσω και των σημαντικών κοιτασμάτων που βρέθηκαν στην κυπριακή ΑΟΖ. Έφτασε η ώρα να εξασφαλίσουμε το σπίτι μας με δικούς μας πόρους, έφτασε η ώρα να προστατεύσουμε τα συμφέροντα μας που απειλούνται από ξένες δυνάμεις που στέκονται απέναντι στις ευρωπαϊκές αρχές και αξίες. Η Τουρκία —και ας μην κρυβόμαστε— είναι ανάμεσα σε αυτές τις χώρες και αν δεν ενεργήσουμε γρήγορα, ο Erdoğan θα γίνει ο νέος Putin. Βοηθήστε μας να εξορύξουμε αυτούς τους ευρωπαϊκούς πόρους προς όφελος όλων μας. Δεν ξέρω αν θα πρέπει να ρωτήσουμε τον κ. Erdoğan αν μπορούμε να το κάνουμε κι αυτό. Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señor presidente, querido vicepresidente, tras la última reunión del Consejo Europeo caminamos en la buena dirección para superar la crisis energética, en la línea que venía marcando y de acuerdo con lo que reclama el Gobierno español. Pero ahora necesitamos acelerar y concretar las medidas en torno a la protección social. Nuestros ciudadanos y ciudadanas no pueden verse obligados a pasar hambre o frío y nuestras empresas no pueden endeudarse o tener que cerrar por el aumento de los gastos. Por eso, las cargas de esta crisis deben repartirse con justicia. No podemos exigir más sacrificio a los trabajadores cuando algunas grandes empresas están obteniendo unos beneficios desorbitados. Debemos gravarlos. Ya lo estamos haciendo en España y pedimos que se haga también en Europa. Por otra parte, tenemos que poner un límite al precio del gas y emprender la reforma del mercado energético, desvinculando los precios del gas de los precios de la electricidad e impulsando la compra conjunta, las interconexiones energéticas y los corredores de energías verdes, como el que va a unir la Península ibérica con Francia. Intervenções ”catch the eye” Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a aquisição conjunta de gás, as taxas sobre os lucros extraordinários das empresas durante esta fase são decisões positivas do Conselho Europeu. Mas, como disse Iratxe Garcia Pérez, foi a oportunidade perdida. Temos que estar preparados para o tempo da decisão, porque não podem ser os cidadãos a pagarem os custos desta guerra e nós não podemos abandonar os cidadãos. Nós conhecemos o tempo da decisão e, por isso, precisamos de ter mecanismos, de estarmos protegidos, sem pôr em causa o sistema democrático de decisão de agir mais rapidamente. É por isso que é fundamental se introduzir, o mais rapidamente possível, um mecanismo permanente no orçamento da União Europeia que possa ser ativado em momentos de crise no sentido de acelerar a decisão. Todos nós sabemos que entre a decisão de criar o NextGenerationEU e a primeira vez que a Comissão foi aos mercados passaram cerca de dez meses. Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, non-democratic regimes including Russia, Iran and the Chinese Communist Party continue to seek to weaken and divide our societies. Their use of hybrid threats, including disinformation, cyber or espionage, shows a wider context of operations aiming against us. The shocking revelation about the illegal Chinese police stations operating across 16 EU Member States show that we are not only lacking an effective response, but even close our eyes to serious threats. I welcome the Council's condemnation of attacks on critical infrastructure and measures to ensure their resilience. At the same time, we must see these attacks in a wider context of widespread hybrid warfare. We need a holistic approach, but above all a strong political will, to ensure that we address these grave challenges to our democracies. In this context, allow me to also welcome the principle decision of this House to have a debate and condemn the barbaric decision of the Iranian Parliament to execute about 15 000 protesters. Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, en este Parlamento Europeo todos somos conscientes de que el Consejo se enfrenta a decisiones muy difíciles para dar respuesta a la crisis de suministro energético y al encarecimiento de sus costes para empresas y familias. No obstante, eso no nos puede hacer olvidar ni descuidar la necesidad, que deriva de la ruptura abrupta de toda forma de cooperación con Rusia, de apoyar a los sectores que dependen no solamente del suministro energético sino también de la conectividad a través de puertos y aeropuertos, como es claramente el caso de los sectores que dependen del turismo. Tampoco nos puede hacer descuidar la necesidad de que, manteniendo la unidad en la no aceptación de documentos de viaje expedidos en los territorios ocupados, prestemos la protección humanitaria y el asilo que puedan demandar niños y personas vulnerables procedentes de esos territorios ocupados. Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Gerbiamas pirmininke, kažkas buvo pasakęs, kad tai - prarastos progos veiksmai. Gerbiamas Komisijos vicepirmininke, aš norėčiau, kad jūs labai aiškiai pasakytumėte, nuo kada pradės veikti šios visos priemonės? Kada pradės mažėti sąskaitos? Po mėnesio? Po pusės metų? Po metų? Žmonės to laukia šiandieną. Ir antras dalykas, panašu, kad ši tendencija, kainų kilimas pastebimas maisto sektoriuje, maisto tiekimo grandinėje. Pakankamai daug spekuliacijos vykdant maisto prekybą. Žinoma, aprūpinant gamybos priemonėmis, ypatingai trąšomis. Todėl siūlau Jums įtraukti į darbotvarkę, pradėti nagrinėti, taikyti panašias priemones ir maisto tiekimo grandinėje, kad tai nebūtų vėl prarastos progos veiksmai. Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, ascultând dezbaterea de astăzi, mă gândesc ce ar înțelege un cetățean dacă ar fi ascultat dezbaterea. Președintele Consiliului aruncă vina la Comisie că nu a venit cu propuneri legislative. Consiliul o fi aflat acum că vine iarna peste trei săptămâni? De ce nu a trimis mai repede cele 9 măsuri despre care vorbea domnul președinte? Pe de altă parte, doamna președintă a Comisiei, foarte straniu, spune că suntem foarte pregătiți pentru iarnă, că au scăzut cu două treimi prețul la gaz, dar la facturi nu s-a întâmplat nimic. Domnule vicepreședinte al Comisiei, totuși, putem să ne întoarcem acasă, să spunem ceva concret legat de această situație critică? Sunt cetățeni, sunt IMM-uri, sunt întreprinderi mici și mijlocii care își închid porțile, iar cetățenii stau în frig, spitalele stau în frig, copiii stau în frig. Ce să spunem acasă? Haideți să fim serioși și să dăm cetățenilor măsuri și răspunsuri concrete. Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Ačiū, gerbiamas pirmininke, gerbiami Komisijos vicepirmininkai, Iš tikrųjų pritariu pasisakymui, kad mes turime įveikti Putino Rusijos sukeltą karą Ukrainoje ir pasekmes, kurias kenčia žūdami ukrainiečiai, prarasdami savo gyvybes, ir europiečiai, kurie kenčia dėl energijos kainų ir maisto kainų padidėjimo. Iš tikrųjų čia keletas kalbėjo apie tai, kad reikalinga susitarti dėl derybų, taikos. Geriausia taika yra, jeigu ukrainiečiai laimės. Mes šiandien gavome žinią su Europos Sąjungos parama taip pat rusai jau traukiasi, Putino rusai, jau traukiasi iš Chersono ir ukrainiečiai toliau vaduoja savo žemes. Bet tuo pačiu mes turime padėti ir savo piliečiams, kur Putinas taip pat norėtų suskaldyti Europos vienybę, ir kad žmonės išeiti į gatves prieš savo valdžią. Mes turime priimti tas priemones, kurios čia buvo minėtos. Ir minimalaus atlyginimo, ir kainų apribojimų, ir šildymo kompensavimo, ir globalaus atšilimo, kad iš tikrųjų Europos piliečiai jaustų Europos Sąjungos paramą ir padėtų toliau Ukrainai kovoti už mūsų europines vertybes. (Fim das intervenções ”catch the eye”) Maroš Šefčovič,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank all of you for your interventions, which very clearly reflected the sense of urgency and worries of citizens you represent and what citizens feel about energy supplies, the cost of living crisis and the war in Ukraine. Indeed, as Mr Mureșan and Madam García Pérez, but also many others underlined, we are going through an unprecedented, multi-layered crisis. It's tough on our people. It's tough on our businesses and it's tough on our industry. But it is also very important to underscore that we've been working very hard to address all the challenges honourable Members highlighted in this debate. We filled our gas storages. We saved a lot of energy this year and we managed to get the prices of gas down. On top of that, we are learning fast from this crisis. We are already now working for the next winter to make sure that we would act in solidarity and unity and that we would proceed, as it was underlined by many – the last of the speakers referring to it was Mr Nica – that we would make sure that we would use our economic power, our economic weight, and we will purchase the part of our gas supplies together through the European energy platform. Today we propose the ways to further accelerate the build-up of renewables – exactly what Madam Reintke was calling for – so we can leapfrog and make sure that more and more energy that we will use in Europe will not only be clean, but we will be getting it from our genuinely indigenous European sources, because wind and solar is our energy. I would like to reassure all the honourable Members, Madam Šojdrová, Mr Moreno Sánchez and others, that we work very hard on different options which are being discussed by the European Council, including new electricity market design, where we want to decouple gas from electricity pricing. This morning we adopted a communication on fertilisers, and in the same way we are assessing all the options available to us to get a grip over current energy prices. Several of you been calling on all of us to learn from the last crisis, especially from the financial one. I just would like to inform you that we did. After the COVID-19 crisis, thanks to your help and your insistence, we introduced the Next Generation EU mechanism to overcome potential problems with financial liquidity, but also to modernise our economies and to modernise our Member States. As Mr Ropė was calling for, we are also working very hard – and you will be debating it today and tomorrow, the trilogues will start – on a very important measure, REpowerEU, which would help us to direct more financial resources to help vulnerable households, to help SMEs and to create more fiscal space for our Member States to provide necessary state aid for energy-intensive industry. Another lesson learned is reflected in our communication today for a reformed EU economic governance framework, which we debated and adopted this morning, and I'm sure that you will have in-depth discussions about it with my colleagues, Vice-President Dombrovskis and Commissioner Gentiloni. You will recall that President von der Leyen was calling for both a sense of urgency and strategic foresight. Indeed, based on strategic foresight, we are undertaking very tangible, concrete steps to avoid our dependency on the supply of critical raw materials from China and to further strengthen open strategic autonomy of the European Union. Mr President, allow me to conclude on the remarks made by Mr Pedro Marques, because he was rightly highlighting the important aspects of our assistance to Ukraine. Since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we stood by Ukraine. I was here with you when we had this very emotional address by President Zelenskiy via video link, when he was talking to all of us. But we not only stood by Ukraine, we've been helping them in a very concrete manner by almost EUR 20 billion in micro-financial assistance, by more than EUR 3 billion if it comes to the supply of weaponry – and we did it despite the very difficult current economic circumstances. But to make sure that we would bring additional clarity, additional predictability to Ukraine and Ukrainians, we adopted today the proposal to have regular tranches. We would help Ukraine throughout the next year in the realm of EUR 18.8 billion. Not only that, we are appealing to other international donors to match our example, to help them in the same way as we Europeans do, because this is what the Ukrainian people need to defend their country. Mr President, thank you very much for giving me the floor. I would like to thank all the honourable Members for stressing how important and how urgent all the steps we are undertaking in the field of tackling the current crisis are. President. – The debate is closed. 12.   Energiaperuskirjasta tehdyn sopimuksen uudistamisen tulos (keskustelu) Presidente. – Passamos ao próximo ponto da ordem do dia: a Declaração da Comissão sobre os resultados da modernização do Tratado da Carta da Energia (2022/2934(RSP)). Neste debate, está prevista uma ronda de oradores dos grupos políticos, pelo que não haverá perguntas ”cartão azul” nem intervenções ”catch the eye”. Valdis Dombrovskis,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty pursues the goal of enhancing energy security, facilitating diversification of investments into renewable energy sources. It also provides for an international platform for cooperation in the energy sector with key partners in Central Asia, the Balkans, as well as important energy partners such as Turkey, Japan and Ukraine. This is of particular importance today given the fragile geopolitical situation impacting the energy sector. The modernisation also pursues the reform of the investment protection system contained in the old Treaty. Under the mandate of the Member States, we initiated and successfully led other contracting parties to agree on substantial modernisation. We achieved all key EU objectives, notably the new Energy Charter Treaty is fully in line with the energy transition and climate goals. We have aligned the ECT with our environmental objectives by incorporating them in a modernised ECT. The modernised ECT is the first multilateral investment agreement which fully incorporates the Paris Agreement as objective. The modernised ECT is also the fastest route towards ending the protection of investments in fossil fuels in the EU. Fossil fuel carve-out for new investments kicks in already in August next year. Moreover, the modernised ECT also tackles in a definitive manner any risk of intra-EU investor state dispute settlement claims – solving one of the most sensitive problems for Member States, which is also a concern for the European Parliament. The modernised ECT also includes an explicit clause that preserves the right of states to regulate. This fully safeguards the EU's ability to develop our climate policies. There will be no possibility to interpret the agreement in conflict with our climate and green transition objectives. In short, the modernised ECT leaves the EU and the Member States in a much better position compared to the status quo or withdrawal. Withdrawing from the ECT would mean activating the sunset clause, thus applying the current unreformed ECT rules for another 20 years. This means that until at least 2044, the sunset clause would leave us exposed to possible claims by investors also in fossil fuels under the old ECT. We can look at Italy, which faced seven arbitration cases since its withdrawal in 2015. So let's also be clear there is no viable option of neutralising the sunset clause, which would shield the EU and Member States from potential claims from investors in all other contracting parties. On this basis, the Commission has made a proposal to the Council with a view to adopt the EU position on the modernisation ahead of the Charter Conference. The political decision is now with the Council and Member States. Danuta Maria Hübner,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, colleagues, in my view the question we should be asking ourselves is if we were to leave, when should we do it? We have three options ahead of us: withdrawing now; modernising and staying in the treaty; or withdrawing after the modernisation of the treaty. If we withdraw from the ECT now, taking into account that the EU is the leading force behind the modernisation process, the ECT will not be modernised. This implies that EU investments would be subject to old ISDS rules for 20 years. Member States' existing investments in fossil fuels will remain under the ECT's protection system for 20 years. Even if we have an inter se agreement among Member States, intra-EU cases under the ECT could continue to be legally brought. What would be the benefits of a modernised ECT? It explicitly forbids intra-EU disputes. This is, I think, the safest legal way to ensure that arbitrators cannot continue to allow intra-EU disputes. It explicitly protects our right to regulate and provides for the space to adopt ambitious climate policies. The modernised ECT is aligned with the Paris Agreement. It is the first ever investment agreement to end the protection of fossil fuels. If the ECT Conference approves the modernisation on 22 November, then by 15 August 2023 all new investments in fossil fuels will no longer be protected under the ECT. For existing investment in fossil fuels there is a ten-year phase-out. This means the EU would stop protecting all fossil fuel investments as soon as 2032. The modernised treaty would also incentivise European renewable energy companies to invest in other contracting parties' territories. If we live under a modernised ECT, new and existing fossil fuel investment will not be protected during the 20-year sunset clause. The sunset clause would in reality will be down to ten years. Intra-EU cases will still be forbidden and green investments will remain protected. We should take, in my view, all the necessary steps to modernise the ECT, and the best way is modernising and coming back to the question of leaving when the modernised treaty is in place. Inma Rodríguez-Piñero,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señor Dombrovskis, lamentablemente, el texto modernizado del Tratado sobre la Carta de la Energía no cumple ni con las ambiciones climáticas de mi grupo político, el de los Socialistas y Demócratas, ni con las demandas de este Parlamento, ni con los objetivos de emisiones acordados internacionalmente. El acuerdo incluye mejoras, sin duda, y por eso quiero agradecer el trabajo y los esfuerzos realizados por parte de la Comisión. Pero creemos que no son suficientes. El plazo para limitar, eliminar la protección de los combustibles fósiles es todavía demasiado largo. Y el antiguo modelo de arbitraje privado, la resolución de litigios entre inversores y Estados, al que este Parlamento se ha opuesto reiteradamente, se mantiene sin cambios significativos. Y quiero recordar que este modelo ha generado al menos 135 demandas y condenado a los gobiernos a pagar más de 50 000 millones USD a los inversores privados. Por estas razones, los Países Bajos, España, Francia y Polonia ya han anunciado que se van a retirar de la modernización del Tratado, como ya lo hizo Italia; y otros países van a seguir la misma vía. Apelo, por tanto, a que este Parlamento adopte una resolución que, al tiempo que ponga de manifiesto las carencias del texto, sea consecuente y coherente con la posición de este Parlamento y reivindique la necesidad de iniciar un proceso hacia una salida coordinada de la Unión Europea del Tratado sin poner en riesgo los intereses del resto de los Estados miembros. Marie-Pierre Vedrenne,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, Italie, Espagne, Pologne, mais aussi Pays-Bas et France: les leaders de ma famille politique ont compris, et ils doivent être rejoints par les autres États membres. Sur tous les bancs de cet hémicycle, prenons nos responsabilités: exigeons une sortie coordonnée du traité sur la Charte de l'énergie. Des entreprises qui investissent dans les énergies fossiles peuvent réclamer des milliards à nos États membres, alors que nous, nous faisons le choix responsable de la neutralité climatique. La conférence pour entériner la modernisation approche, et nous constatons, amèrement, que continue d'exister l'ancien système de règlement des différends, auquel le Parlement est farouchement opposé. Il y a toujours sur le long terme l'incompatibilité avec l'accord de Paris. Il y a toujours cette clause, et le Parlement s'est prononcé en faveur d'un retrait si les conditions n'étaient pas remplies. Et, clairement, le compte n'y est pas. Voulons-nous d'une situation bloquée, où, en l'absence de majorité au Conseil et au Parlement, la Commission n'ait pas de solution de repli? Voulons-nous rester bloqués dans un traité anachronique? Non! Et il en va de notre crédibilité! L'Europe est crédible quand elle prône la cohérence, et la cohérence, entre nos engagements dans l'accord de Paris et les contraintes de traités modernisés ou non, il n'y en a pas. Alors agissons en Européens, comme sur tous les autres fronts, et sortons tous ensemble de ce traité. Anna Cavazzini,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the absolute urgency of moving away from fossil fuels is now finally visible to everyone. I say the Energy Charter Treaty is the most problematic example of a structure that keeps us locked into fossil fuels, that makes us slow down the urgently-needed transition. Dear Commissioner, even under the reformed ECT, three private arbitrators will still have full power to condemn states to pay billions for the offence of curbing climate change. Existing investments in fossil fuels will stay protected for at the very least 10 more years, a period that can easily add up to 20 years with ratification time, and investors will still be able to get compensation for hypothetical lost future profits. We are continuing to give public insurance to stranded assets. If the modernisation ever enters into force for us, it will be as much of a trap as the current treaty, with the 20-year sunset clause remaining, which you also criticised just right now. In the current state of climate emergency these weaknesses of the modernised ECT are not acceptable. Dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I believe it is time to be bold and reconsider the EU's membership of this treaty. I also think this Parliament should be very clear on this demand in the resolution that we will negotiate for the next plenary. Jean-Lin Lacapelle,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues! Alors que les Français, par la faute de la politique folle de précarisation énergétique de l'Union européenne, vivent dans la faim et le froid, alors que les très grandes entreprises de l'énergie et de l'alimentation, quant à elles, font des superprofits records, Emmanuel Macron n'a rien trouvé de mieux que de laisser pour vingt ans l'État à la merci des multinationales devant des tribunaux arbitraux privés. Comment cela est-il possible? À cause du traité international sur la Charte de l'énergie. Ce traité constituait une grave entorse à la souveraineté nationale: il permettait aux entreprises d'attaquer les États dont les décisions affectaient la rentabilité de leurs investissements. Depuis 1998, il aura permis aux entreprises d'empocher plus de 85 milliards de compensations. Macron a quitté ce traité, certes, mais il prévoyait une clause, dite de survie, pour une durée de vingt ans, ce qui signifie que la France, pendant ce laps de temps, pourra toujours être attaquée par des compagnies. Et ce, alors que le traité était en pleine renégociation pour supprimer cette clause. Voilà comment nous devons une fois de plus subir les effets coûteux des fanfaronnades d'Emmanuel Macron. Une fois de plus, Macron aura, contre l'intérêt des Français, rempli sa mission de défense des intérêts venus d'ailleurs. VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND Vizepräsident Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, une fois n'est pas coutume, permettez-moi de célébrer une victoire dans cet hémicycle. Nos deux ans de combats, parfois bien seuls aux côtés des ONG, sont en train de payer contre le traité sur la Charte de l'énergie. Les États européens – France, Pays-Bas, Espagne, et d'autres – annoncent leur sortie les uns après les autres, car ce traité est une hérésie antiécologique qui protège les intérêts des multinationales polluantes et empêche les États d'agir pour le climat. Nous venons de vivre le mois d'octobre le plus chaud de l'histoire de l'humanité, mais rendez-vous compte que 53 États sont encore pieds et poings liés à cette véritable assurance-vie pour les énergies fossiles. Comment est-il encore possible qu'en 2022 les multinationales du gaz et du charbon puissent obtenir des milliards d'euros de dédommagement, quand les États mettent en place des politiques écologiques? Alors que ce traité prend l'eau de toutes parts, seule votre Commission, Monsieur Dombrovskis, le défend encore, en portant à bout de bras une soi-disant réforme qui ne changera rien au problème. Le glas de ce traité doit sonner, et c'est à la Commission et aux États de précipiter définitivement sa chute en acceptant enfin un retrait collectif. Valdis Dombrovskis,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission remains of the opinion that, looking at possible alternatives, the best outcome is to have a reformed Energy Charter Treaty in line with EU sustainable development and climate action objectives, rather than having an unreformed Energy Charter Treaty applying to the EU and the Member States during a 20-year sunset-clause period triggered by unilateral withdrawal. In view of COP27, and looking beyond the EU, a reformed Energy Charter Treaty will give a signal that investment policy can be fully aligned with our ambitious climate objectives. Backing the EU-driven results on modernisation is also a matter of the EU's credibility as an international partner. The Commission is looking forward to further exchanges on this issue with the European Parliament. Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen. Die Abstimmung findet während der nächsten Tagung statt. 13.   EU:n vastaus Iranin mielenosoitusten lisääntyvään tukahduttamiseen (keskustelu) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zur Reaktion der EU auf die zunehmende Unterdrückung von Protesten im Iran (2022/2936(RSP)). Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass im Zuge dieser Aussprache eine Rednerrunde der Fraktionen vorgesehen ist und dass es deshalb keine spontanen Wortmeldungen gibt und keine blauen Karten akzeptiert werden. Valdis Dombrovskis,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, first of all I would like to thank you all for your proactive stance in response to the killing of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini and the brutal repression of the ensuing peaceful demonstrations in Iran. The death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the Iranian morality police remains the most deplorable thing there is for anyone who generally believes in the duty of institutions to protect their citizens. The outrageous episode caused has resulted in a national protest movement that is putting in question the political, religious and cultural foundations of the Shiite clerical regime. There is a strong political unity in Europe in condemning the way the Iranian security forces are handling the current protests. Many have been injured and detained and there is still no clarity on the number of people who lost their lives in the protests. The decision to severely restrict internet access by the relevant Iranian authorities is a further cause of concern as it blatantly violates freedom of expression. Concern is growing over recent statements by Iranian lawmakers calling for the death penalty against protesters. This is unacceptable, and I would like to thank all of you honourable Members who have already publicly expressed their dissent. The EU has a strong unequivocal and long-standing opposition to the death penalty in all times and in all circumstances, and aims at its universal abolition. The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman punishment which fails to act as a deterrent to crime and represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. As the HR/VP said during his intervention at the European Parliament plenary on 4 October, showing a strong and united reaction by the EU is of the utmost importance. People in Iran and everywhere else have the right to peaceful protest. Fundamental rights must be respected in all circumstances. On 17 October, in a clear and strong message to Iran, the EU added 11 individuals and four entities to the list of those subject to restrictive measures in a context of existing Iran human rights sanctions regime for their role in the death of Mahsa Amini and in the violent response to peaceful demonstrations. At the same time as EU representatives, we continue to use every opportunity in our direction exchanges with the Iranian authorities to urge them to ensure the respect of fundamental rights of Iranian citizens, including the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, irrespective of religion, belief or any other status, and in full consistency with the principles enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party. Let us assure you, honourable Members, that the EU and its Member States will continue to closely monitor the situation of protests in Iran and will continue to consider all options at its disposal, including further restrictive measures to address the killing of Mahsa Amini and the violent response of the Iranian security forces to peaceful protests. David Lega,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, we have come to the point of no return in our relationship with the Iranian regime. The Islamic regime in Iran is barbaric and brutal. It despises everything that we defend. The Iranian people ask for freedom. They ask for respect and dignity. The Iranian people ask for their fundamental human rights to be recognised, but the Islamic regime would go to any length to crush the people's strive for freedom – detention, violence, torture and now mass executions. The Iranian Parliament has moved to execute all the tens of thousands of protesters arrested over the last two months. More than 14 000 people – 14 000 people! We must do everything in our power to support the Iranian people. The Iranian people deserve to live in a free, stable, inclusive and democratic country and we must ensure that they trust in our support. Therefore, we must put all the Iranian parliamentarians who voted for mass executions on our sanction list. We must suspend all political negotiations with Iran, including the JCPOA, because we cannot negotiate with murderers. I ask the Commission to stop legitimising the repression of mandatory veiling in Iran. Please stop all campaigns saying things like ”Freedom is in hijab”. Please, everyone in this House and the Commission and the Council, now we have to stand united and stand with the people of Iran. Pedro Marques,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Thank you, Mr President. Woman, life, freedom: that is the slogan under which the extraordinarily brave Iranian women and men filled the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities to demand respect for the basic human rights and dignity. These protests, sparked by outrage over the killing by the so-called morality police of the young Iranian Mahsa Amini for alleged improper veiling, were focused on women's rights, but they transformed into a broader movement against the oppressive rules and the authoritarian government, stifling the lives and freedom of the Iranian people. As the EU, we support strongly and unambiguously the aspirations of the Iranian people to live in a peaceful, democratic, free country, respectful of its international and domestic human rights obligations. We condemn in the strongest possible ways the brutal repression unleashed by the authorities of the Islamic Republic on its own citizens who only seek to live their lives in freedom and dignity. We are in particular outraged by the call of a majority of the Iranian Parliament to execute the protesters. This is absolutely unacceptable and we strongly condemn such incitement and mass state violence. We hope that more moderate voices will prevail and hear the voice of the Iranian people demanding respect for the human rights, rule of law and dignity. But we praise the leadership of our HR / VP on ensuring an unambiguous and consensual EU response to this situation, to the crackdown. And we call for new sanctions towards particularly those that are responsible by these recent acts. Bart Groothuis,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I'm a Member of the European Parliament coming from The Hague, the Netherlands. The Hague welcomes many people from around the world. But unlike any other city in the world, it actively welcomes war criminals by keeping them incarcerated behind bars. And I can tell you, there's plenty of room in The Hague, I can assure you. In my experience, their countries extradite their war criminals to The Hague when they want to come clean with the past, when they envisage a new, brighter future. The Iranian people are currently in a similar process, imagining a brighter future for their country. So the importance of today's debate here is not just about supporting the brave Iranian people, standing up to repression, to torture, and to the lack of freedom. It's that, but it's also about helping them imagine that bright future. Europe can do and should do exactly that by putting out new sanctions – sanctions to human rights offenders, to the IRGC – but also by actively hampering Iranian cyber operations. Let's also make a plan for that, for new sanctions on dual-use goods. Let's help the people in Iran by making the people in The Hague excited, by welcoming their new citizens behind bars. Hannah Neumann,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, what would a world without the so-called Islamic regime look like? This is exactly the question I asked Iranians on Twitter after 227 members of the Iranian Parliament asked for their execution. I got thousands of replies. I could use my real name on Twitter. I could walk in the streets without fear of being beaten up. I could finally go back home to my homeland, hug my old mother. Ukrainians wouldn't be killed by our drones. A peaceful Middle East. 14 000 Iranians who took to the streets for these demands are at the moment at imminent threat of execution. And the President of Iran is no stranger to that. He has killed in 1988. He has slaughtered thousands of political prisoners in Iran already. It is not on us to change the regime. But, colleagues, it is on us to be very clear that those who fight for political freedoms in the streets of Iran have our full solidarity and support. We need to sanction all 227 members of the parliament who made this outrageous call to execute political prisoners. And we need to designate the Revolutionary Guards as what they are – a terror organisation. We need to convene a special session of the UN Human Rights Council to set up a reporting and accountability mechanism. And dear colleagues, each and every one of us has to do everything possible to make sure that those dying at the moment in Iran every single day, for a different future, do not die for nothing. Hermann Tertsch,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, no nos vamos a poner ahora a hablar de lo malo que es el régimen criminal de los ayatolás de Irán. Llevan cuarenta años asesinando a la oposición. Por cierto, llegaron con ayuda occidental, recordémoslo todos. Treinta mil muertos asesinados solo en 1988. Y después hemos tenido regularmente —cada año, cada dos años, cada meses— matanzas, matanzas y matanzas todo el tiempo, y han sido siempre perdonadas por una Europa que está deseosa de hacer acuerdos con Irán, permanentemente; que tiene conexiones con Irán; que ha visto cómo Irán ha entrado en Iberoamérica de la forma que ha entrado, de la mano de Maduro, con el Partido Socialista Obrero Español, con los contactos con el partido comunista Podemos de España. Todas las infiltraciones que ha habido exteriores, las amenazas... ahora son la venta de los drones y de las armas a Ucrania. Agreden fuera, asesinan dentro; ahora nos amenazan a los parlamentarios y a las asociaciones de protección de derechos humanos. Nos están amenazando y hay silencio absoluto de Gobiernos como el español. ¿Por qué pasa eso? Esas complicidades nos han llevado aquí. Hay que cerrar las embajadas, poner sanciones de verdad a Irán y bloquear, llamar terroristas a los terroristas de la Guardia Revolucionaria y acabar con esta complicidad que ha existido todos estos años. Özlem Demirel,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Herr Präsident! Im Iran ereignet sich Historisches: ein Volksaufstand, eine revolutionäre Bewegung, die sich auf den Weg gemacht hat, das Alte, Unterdrückende und Reaktionäre abzulegen, um es mit etwas Neuem zu ersetzen. Wie weit das Neue gehen wird, ist noch unklar. Dennoch ist schon viel gewonnen. Es geht um Selbstbestimmung: Frauen und Männer in Stadt und Land gehen auf die Straße, trotz martialischer Gewalt – Jung und Alt. Auch in den Betrieben organisieren sich Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiter. Unsere uneingeschränkte Solidarität gilt dem iranischen Volk, das in der Vergangenheit auch seine brutalen Erfahrungen gemacht hat – mit dem Regime im Inneren, aber auch mit Interventionen von außen, wie zum Beispiel die der CIA, die überhaupt das heutige rückschrittliche Regime mit begünstigt hat. Allen ist klar, dass das Regime noch blutiger vorgehen wird, wenn sich die Volksbewegung zurückzieht. Deshalb ist internationale Solidarität von unten nun entscheidend – die hiesige geopolitische Eingriffe ebenso ablehnen wie auch wirklich effektive Maßnahmen gegen das Regime fordern. Die Menschen im Iran zeigen uns: Widerstand ist Leben; sie sagen: Jin – Jiyan –Azadi! Valdis Dombrovskis,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, this debate testifies to our shared interest in promoting tangible improvements in respect to the human rights situation in Iran, but also to our strong determination to react promptly to any attempt to crack down on fundamental rights and freedoms. The EU and its Member States continue to be united in their response. The HR/VP and the foreign ministers of the 27 will take stock at the next Foreign Affairs Council and will consider all options at their disposal, including further restrictive measures in reaction to the killing of Mahsa Amini and the current and violent response of Iranian security forces to peaceful protests. Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen. 14.   Elpymis- ja palautumissuunnitelmien REPowerEU-luvut (keskustelu) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureșan und Dragoș Pîslaru im Namen des Haushaltsausschusses und des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung über REPowerEU-Kapitel in den Aufbau- und Resilienzplänen (COM(2022)0231 – C9-0183/2022 – 2022/0164(COD)) (A9-0260/2022). Eider Gardiazabal Rubial,
ponente. – Señor presidente, vicepresidente Dombrovskis, comisario Gentiloni, en febrero de 2020, un virus paralizó el mundo y puso a prueba la resistencia de nuestros sistemas sanitarios, de la educación, de la investigación, incluso de nuestras instituciones. Al principio de la pandemia las respuestas fueron descoordinadas e insuficientes, hasta que, poco a poco, los Gobiernos fueron acordando actuaciones y desde la Unión también empezamos a tomar las primeras medidas conjuntas que permitieron una respuesta mucho más eficaz. Activamos SURE para financiar los ERTE, movilizamos fondos regionales para luchar contra la pandemia y, por supuesto, creamos el Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia. En un momento en el que estaba todo parado, en el que la demanda había desaparecido y en el que solo había incertidumbre, supimos lanzar un mensaje claro a la ciudadanía con los fondos de NextGenerationEU. No solo movilizamos una gran cantidad de dinero para reactivar la demanda, sino que diseñamos una estrategia de futuro con inversiones y reformas centradas en la transición verde y la transición digital, sin olvidar, evidentemente, el pilar social ni a los jóvenes, que, al final, son los que pagan esta crisis y la anterior. Cuando pensábamos que lo peor ya había pasado y que podíamos volver a una cierta normalidad, Putin ordena invadir Ucrania y provoca una crisis geopolítica, humanitaria, alimentaria, energética e inflacionaria a la que hemos tenido que reaccionar y responder a través de diferentes instrumentos. Y precisamente uno de ellos es REPowerEU, que es lo que hoy debatimos aquí. Con REPowerEU queremos conseguir tres objetivos concretos, que compartimos con la Comisión: independizarnos energéticamente de Rusia diversificando proveedores de energía, ahorrar energía y, además, acelerar la transición ecológica. Y tenemos que estimular para ello las inversiones en energías renovables y fomentar la sustitución del uso de energías fósiles en la industria y en el transporte. Para lograr estos tres objetivos, el Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia tiene que ser una pieza clave y va a ser una pieza clave. Pero para ello necesitamos modificar el Reglamento y poner a disposición de los Estados miembros aquellos recursos que todavía no se han comprometido en el marco del plan de recuperación. Esto no supone un problema porque los objetivos son compartidos, pero sí que demuestra, una vez más, que tenemos una cierta limitación para poner recursos nuevos ante necesidades nuevas. Por eso, aquí me parece importante, también, destacar que en nuestra propuesta incluimos la idea de poder complementar la financiación existente con parte de los impuestos que se recaudarían con la imposición a los superbeneficios. Muchos países ya están avanzando en el establecimiento de estos impuestos y creo que sería razonable que los que están sacando provecho de esta crisis contribuyan a financiar las inversiones y ayudar a los más vulnerables. Eso me lleva a otra propuesta que también hemos incluido en nuestro informe: que se añadan la lucha contra la pobreza energética y el apoyo a los hogares más vulnerables como uno de los objetivos de este nuevo capítulo. Porque somos muy conscientes del terrible impacto que está teniendo el precio de la electricidad en los hogares, en los comercios y en las pymes en general. El informe que hoy presentamos aquí tiene bastantes novedades con respecto a la propuesta inicial de la Comisión Europea. Hemos incluido, por ejemplo, una cláusula de retroactividad para aquellas inversiones realizadas por los Estados miembros al inicio de la guerra. Hemos reforzado el papel de las autoridades locales y de los agentes sociales, y también hemos incentivado la inclusión de proyectos transfronterizos. Pero me gustaría analizar nuestra posición sobre un punto relativo al principio de no causar perjuicios significativos al medio ambiente. Somos perfectamente conscientes de la urgencia que tenemos para desconectarnos energéticamente de Rusia, especialmente algunos países, pero eso no nos puede hacer olvidar que estamos también ante una emergencia climática. Por eso, lo que proponemos es que solo para el gas, solo en caso de que el proyecto sea crítico para garantizar la seguridad del suministro energético, solo en caso de que no exista un proyecto alternativo viable con energías limpias y de que sea verdaderamente urgente, solo cuando se den todas esas circunstancias, se pueda pedir una excepción a la Comisión Europea. Creo que, con todas estas condiciones y con estas limitaciones, hemos logrado encontrar un punto de equilibrio entre la urgencia energética —que la tenemos— y la emergencia climática. Siegfried Mureșan,
rapporteur. – Mr President, Executive Vice-President, Commissioners, welcome back to the European Parliament. Immediately after the beginning of the crisis generated by COVID-19, with all of its economic and social implications, we launched the biggest package of economic support ever launched at European level, NextGenerationEU, with the Recovery and Resilience Facility as its main part. We have been able to support people, enterprises, regions affected by the virus and by the economic and social consequences of the virus. And we have also embarked together on a trip to make our economies, our public systems – education, healthcare – more resilient, to make them stronger so that we can better face the next crisis. The next crisis has come and we are now seeing how important it is to be strong. We are seeing that any vulnerability is a weakness and costs and is a source of insecurity in terms of crisis. We have seen how our energy dependency on the Russian Federation can be a risk to our societies and to our economies. This is why the European Commission has put forward REPowerEU, which is a fund that foresees EUR 20 billion for investments into reducing our dependency on Russian fossil fuels, firstly. And, secondly, improving our energy efficiency – the more efficient we are, the less energy we need to reach our objectives and that also means that we are less dependent on foreign sources. To improve our infrastructure and to better connect our countries and our regions, because this will allow us to move the energy from where we have it to those countries and those regions who would really need it, from an LNG terminal to a country that needs gas from a different, more reliable source as it reduces its consumption of Russian gas. Infrastructure, energy efficiency, reducing the dependency on Russia, and also the transition to a green economy to renewables, these are our priorities. What did we do as a Parliament in this document, which is the position of the Parliament that we will be adopting tomorrow? Firstly, we are proposing that Member States receive a pre-financing of 20% for their REPowerEU chapters exactly as they received pre-financing for the National Recovery and Resilience Plans. It is now that Member States need money, firstly. Secondly, cross-border projects. We need to create an energy union. We need to be better connected. This is why the Parliament demands that 35% of the resources go into cross-border projects, into international projects, projects that would lead to benefits for more than one single country. Cross-border projects in countries which have such cross-border projects, of course, if a country does not have it, it shouldn't be obliged to do it. But all countries that have them, that can do them, they should do them. Thirdly, the Recovery and Resilience Facility. About EUR 200 billion of the loans are unused for the time being. We, as the Parliament, demand that 30 days after the entry into force of REPowerEU, Member States need to notify whether they intend to access their loans. If not, they should lose the priority in accessing their loans. In simple words, money available under the Recovery and Resilience Facility not used and not accessed should be made available for REPowerEU for countries which need to invest more. And we say no to transfers from agriculture and cohesion policy. There was an initial thinking at the level of the Commission to allow transfers from agricultural cohesion to REPowerEU. Yes, REPowerEU is important, but not at the expense of regions and not at the expense of farmers. This is why the colleagues in the REGI Committee and the AGRI Committee are proposing not to support these transfers and this is also the view of the majority of the Parliament. More transparency in accessing these funds properly involving local and regional authorities, as for smaller energy projects at local level – their involvement is beneficial. This is the position of the Parliament. Thanks to the two co-rapporteurs, thanks to the shadow rapporteurs that have worked with us. We are looking forward to a clear vote tomorrow and then to the trilogues between the Council and Parliament with the support of the Commission in the upcoming weeks. Dragoș Pîslaru,
rapporteur. – Mr President, Vice-President Dombrovskis, Commissioner Gentiloni, dear colleagues, today we deliver. We repower Europe. What we are debating today and what we will vote tomorrow is the pure definition of why we have been elected by our citizens – to find solutions to their problems. Today, we provide our citizens with the tools to overcome this winter. We equip our continent with projects that will cut our dependency on Russia. We will invest in our continent to make it more sustainable and green for our next generations. This House showed already that in challenging times, in crisis situations, we can find solutions. And this time is no different. Guided by the principle of solidarity, we delivered two years ago the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Now we compliment this work with REPowerEU, allowing governments to improve their recovery plans with extra investment for more energy efficiency, for tackling energy poverty and for green energy resources. We at Renew Europe envisage REPowerEU with three goals in mind: ambition, transparency and flexibility. All these ingredients can be found in the position we put forward to you today. The first goal: ambition. Ambition is when we find sustainable solutions for this winter, not only for the distant future. The Parliament wants to see the REPowerEU money directly in the pockets of vulnerable households. And SMEs that are scared about this winter – and they're already struggling with their energy bills – need micro-investment schemes to become more energy efficient now, not later, to reduce their energy bills now, not later. Second goal: transparency. Transparency is when we ask governments to disclose how they will use these new funds. The Parliament, together with civil society, is continuously signalling that we do not have enough clarity on the implementation of the plans on the beneficiaries. How many years need to pass until we finally have the data about the projects and beneficiaries of EU funds in a single interoperable format? But no transparency can be achieved without proper dialogue. REPowerEU measures will need to be drafted, designed and implemented together with civil society, with the private sector, with the local and regional authorities. We introduced the mandatory criteria in this sense – No REPowerEU money without proper consultation with stakeholders. Third goal: flexibility. Flexibility is when we think about the best use of new and existing funds. I know that governments may have many challenges that need to be solved with EU funds, but I also know that many of them have a lot of unspent funds from previous years due to bad absorption rates and change of circumstances. And instead of losing this money, why not use it for REPowerEU investment? I appeal to common sense and ask the governments to start counting and transfer all money that they were unable to spend in order to have more funding for the REPowerEU measures. This work would not have been possible without the cooperation among us, the colleagues that worked on this file – Siegfried Mureșan from EPP, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial from S&D. We struggled to find together the proper balance between the pragmatic projects that our citizens need right now and the green and sustainable society we want to leave behind for our youth and children. We overcame our differences and reached solid compromises, aligning our priorities. Rest assured, we will defend this mandate given by the House with responsibility, and we will show the same unity during the negotiation ahead as we did when we negotiated the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Ambition, transparency, flexibility – this is how we can emerge even stronger from this new crisis and build a truly resilient and energy-independent Europe. I urge you to vote tomorrow thinking of the next generation, of the legacy we will leave for the future, and of the solidarity with Ukraine and against Russia's aggression. Let's repower Europe together. Peter Liese,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als Verfasser der Stellungnahme für den Umweltausschuss möchte ich den vorliegenden Bericht von BUDG und ECON unterstützen, und zwar in allen Teilen. Auch ein kontroverser Punkt, wo der Umweltausschuss aber auch der gleichen Meinung ist wie die federführenden Ausschüsse: Wir sollten nicht Öl finanzieren aus REPowerEU. Unsere Aufgabe war vor allen Dingen, 20 Milliarden aus dem ETS zu generieren. Das ist vielen Kollegen schwergefallen. Aber wir haben einen Weg gefunden, wie wir die Ambitionen im ETS beibehalten können und trotzdem die 20 Milliarden bekommen: durch das sogenannte Frontloading. Dadurch werden die Preise im Emissionshandel gedrückt. Aber ich glaube, das ist ein guter Nebeneffekt in diesem Winter und im nächsten Winter, wenn viele Menschen sich Sorgen machen und auch viele Unternehmen vor großen Herausforderungen stehen. Die Klimaziele werden trotzdem erreicht, weil die Zertifikate insgesamt erhalten bleiben. Zum Abschluss möchte ich mich an die Kommission wenden. Bitte, Herr Vizepräsident, Herr Kommissar, helfen Sie uns gegen den Rat! Der Rat will den Innovationsfonds plündern. In einer Zeit, in der die Amerikaner 200 Milliarden $ auf den Tisch legen, um Industrie anzuziehen, reduziert der Rat unsere Mittel für diese Industrie, für die Innovation. Das darf nicht geschehen. Das Parlament ist hier auf dem richtigen Weg. Der Rat ist in der Sackgasse, und da müssen wir ihn rausholen. Dan Nica,
Raportor pentru aviz, Comisia pentru industrie, cercetare și energie. – Domnule președinte, domnule vicepreședinte, domnule comisar, REPowerEU, pentru noi, pentru Parlamentul European și ceea ce am produs în Comisia responsabilă pentru energie a Parlamentului European, înseamnă o abordare în sprijinul oamenilor: să aibă energie, să aibă energie care să fie ieftină, să poată să fie suportabilă, fiecare cetățean să poată să-și plătească factura, să avem energie care să poată să fie la un preț predictibil pentru industrie, pentru întreprinderile mici și mijlocii, ca să putem prezerva locurile de muncă. Iar fiecare stat membru, conform celor pe care le-am propus și mâine vor fi supuse la vot, înseamnă că trebuie să-și dezvolte sursele de energie, să aibă energii regenerabile care să fie puse în practică mâine. Fiecare stat membru să poată să își ajusteze planurile naționale de redresare și reziliență, pentru că efectul războiului din Ucraina a fost devastator pentru foarte multe țări, pentru foarte multe economii, consecințe sociale foarte importante. Iar ultimul lucru este acela că, pentru toți cei care au o problemă în a-și plăti facturile, sunt obligați să vină și să prezinte Comisiei Europene care sunt acele măsuri și sprijin concret pentru ca toți cei care au nevoie de sprijin să poată să primească sprijin în plata facturilor la energie în această iarnă. Pascal Arimont,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für regionale Entwicklung. – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Worum geht es bei REPowerEU? Bei REPowerEU geht es um galoppierende Energierechnungen und um die Frage, ob Europa seine Energieversorgung autonom gestalten kann. Wir haben dementsprechend in dieser Energiekrise schnell und zielgerecht gehandelt. Wir haben REPowerEU auf den Weg gebracht. Wir müssen das jetzt umsetzen. Bei dieser Strategie geht es unter anderem darum, von russischen Energiequellen unabhängig zu werden, und REPowerEU soll auch dazu beitragen, Menschen zu entlasten. Es geht um 300 Milliarden EUR. Das ist nicht nichts, sondern sehr viel Geld. In meinem Verantwortungsbereich, dem Ausschuss für Regionalpolitik, ging es konkret um 27 Milliarden EUR. Wir sind eine der Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten; heißt konkret: Wir sagen Ja für Geld für REPowerEU-Ziele, wir sagen aber, nach der Methode der Strukturfonds – das ist ganz wichtig. Und ein weiterer Vorschlag aus dem Ausschuss war, dass wir ungebrauchte Mittel aus der letzten Förderperiode benutzen können. Da spricht man von 40 Milliarden EUR, um Haushalte und kleine und mittlere Unternehmen zu unterstützen. Wir können damit sehr kurzfristig helfen. Ich glaube, das ist eine gute Idee. Diese Umwidmung der Mittel aus den Strukturfonds ist aber eine rote Linie. Für unseren Ausschuss ist wichtig: Das Parlament ist dementsprechend bereit. Wir dürfen das hier nicht vermasseln. Die Leute, die Menschen draußen, erwarten genau das von uns. Peter Jahr,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Landwirtschaft und ländliche Entwicklung. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren, Herr Kommissar! Als Verfasser der Stellungnahme für den Agrarbereich muss ich sagen: REPowerEU – eine gute Idee. Und auch wenn die Landwirtschaft nicht mitmacht oder, besser gesagt, nicht mitmachen muss, bleibt es eine gute Idee. Vielleicht noch die drei Aspekte, drei Argumente, warum der Agrarausschuss sich dagegen entschieden hat, Mittel für REPowerEU zur Verfügung zu stellen: erstens das Budget: 20 Milliarden insgesamt. Der Agrarbereich wäre hier im Unschärfebereich dabei gewesen. Aber der zweite, schon wichtigere, Punkt ist die Förderphilosophie: Förderung im ländlichen Raum, das heißt natürlich Bottom-up-Prinzip. Die Leute vor Ort sollen entscheiden, wofür das Geld verwendet wird. Es ist für die Landwirte und für small business, es ist für die Menschen gedacht. Und drittens, das Hauptargument: Alles, was in REPowerEU beschrieben wird – Nutzung von erneuerbarer Energie, Nutzung für den ländlichen Raum – ist in der Vorderkulisse ländlicher Raum heute schon möglich, allerdings für die Menschen, für small business. Und deshalb wünschen wir REPowerEU alles Gute. Der ländliche Raum macht mit mit seinen Förderprogrammen, und ich bitte auch hier den Kommissar, aufzupassen: Der Appetit der Mitgliedstaaten ist sehr groß, den Bereich Landwirtschaft als finanziellen Steinbruch zu benutzen. Das geht nicht! Valdis Dombrovskis,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, two years ago, we were working together on devising the Recovery and Resilience Facility – an unprecedented demonstration of EU solidarity arising from the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, today, two years later, we are faced with another crisis, triggered by Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Again, as the EU has set out a coordinated response, we are moving to stop our dependence on Russian fossil fuels. The Commission would like to thank the honourable Members for your intense work on the proposals to introduce REPowerEU chapters in the national Recovery and Resilience blocks. Essentially, it's focused on Green and Digital Transitions and the RRF remains the best-suited instrument to address the energy challenges emerging from the current geopolitical context. In fact, the RRF has already shown itself to be an efficient tool of quickly deploying financial support in times of crisis and bring about ambitious investments and reforms that respond to the common European priorities in a manner tailored to national circumstances. With a proposal to enable Member States to tap into additional funding and introduce REPowerEU chapters into their recovery and resilience plans, we will leverage the strengths of the RRF framework to respond to Russia's mobilisation on energy markets. Now, more important than ever, it is vital to accelerate a Green Transition, increase the use of renewables and raise the energy efficiency of our building stock and industrial processes. The Commission welcomes the strong work done by Parliament. We look forward to the expedient handling of the legislative process to make the REPowerEU chapters a reality. The Member States have already started to consider measures to feature in their REPowerEU chapters. They should now start to accelerate those preparations as the legislative process moves forward. It will also be important for these new investments and reforms to take into account the EU's collective energy security so that measures taken by one Member State can reinforce those taken by others. We hope that tomorrow's vote will again demonstrate the strength and determination of our European unity and solidarity. José Manuel Fernandes,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhores Comissários, Caras e Caros Colegas, a união da energia é essencial para a União Europeia e, neste sentido, o REPowerEU é muito positivo. No entanto, há aqui alguns problemas e chamo a atenção da Comissão para eles. Não haverá independência energética da União Europeia sem projetos transfronteiriços e interconexões. Fica aqui uma pergunta: quais são as interconexões e os projetos transfronteiriços que a Comissão Europeia defende? Já devíamos conhecê-los. Já deviam estar quantificados, para, depois, poderem ser financiados. O que a Comissão Europeia fez foi anunciar um montante, bonito, de 300 mil milhões de euros, mas não define aquilo que é verdadeiramente essencial, correndo um risco. É que isto vai ser adicional aos planos de recuperação e resiliência, que têm, neste momento, uma péssima execução. Um país como Portugal, por exemplo, precisa de interconexões, projetos transfronteiriços e uma boa execução destes fundos e é necessário que não haja egoísmos nacionais, de que é exemplo o Sr. Macron, em França, que impossibilitou a execução de um projeto que era essencial para a União Europeia e para Portugal. Costas Mavrides,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the current energy crisis and the high inflation require urgent decisions. Tomorrow, the European Parliament is called upon to vote on this regulation, which allows Member States to amend their national recovery and resilience plans by including new reforms and investments in energy related projects financed by additional requests for grants and loans. The urgency of the situation leaves no option but to proceed quickly to the negotiations with other EU institutions and deliver to our citizens. As the European Parliament, our proposal is to ensure that projects aim at tackling energy poverty for households and SMEs can benefit from this funding. This has been one of our group's priorities. We have also included a provision requiring mandatory consultations with social partners and other civil society stakeholders, as we have noticed the lack of proper consultation during the drafting of the national recovery and resilience plans. It is also important that we ensure that members are allowed to amend their plans due to the consequences of war inflation by including various measures such as social housing. We also support cross-border projects and include a reference for the EU to give particular consideration to remote, peripheral and isolated regions and islands which already experience additional constraints. The RRF, with the REPowerEU chapter, is an important instrument for Member States to cope with the short-term effects of energy crises, safeguarding security of supply and accelerating the long-term transition towards a decarbonised energy system. However, this is not the end, and for certain this is not enough. We need more courageous decisions immediately by the Council and the Commission, such as a reform of EU economic and fiscal governance, EU fiscal capacity and common tools to respond to economic shocks on a European level, learning from experience. Because, after all, our job is to deliver to the EU citizens. Eva Maria Poptcheva,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señor presidente, mañana votamos en esta Cámara otro hito histórico para la Unión Europea: REPowerEU. Con este texto adaptamos los fondos de recuperación a la crisis energética. REPowerEU no va de mejorar el suministro energético en Polonia o el almacenamiento en España; REPowerEU trata de que a ningún hogar o empresa le falte nunca energía en suelo europeo. Ahora bien, recibir fondos de la Unión Europea conlleva responsabilidad. Por eso, cuando aprobamos los fondos de recuperación hace dos años, esta Cámara pidió a cambio reformas. Conseguimos que países como España se comprometieran a realizar reformas importantísimas que llevaban pendientes desde hace décadas, por ejemplo, hacer su sistema de pensiones más sostenible o el mercado laboral más eficiente. Ahora los socialistas europeos pretenden tirar por tierra esas reformas; eliminan una frase de la propuesta de la Comisión que prohíbe explícitamente usar la crisis energética como excusa para modificar las reformas comprometidas. Si el texto de los socialistas es aprobado mañana, estaremos poniendo en peligro la credibilidad de nuestras economías, y buena suerte si queremos repetir en el futuro un paquete de recuperación como NextGenerationEU. Señorías, haremos lo que haga falta para superar la crisis energética, pero, por favor, no creemos otra crisis para pagar esta. Damian Boeselager,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioners, this week because of COP, climate dominates again the narrative and the minds of Prime Ministers and Chancellors, and that's great. But obviously it's not enough to just have speeches without clear action behind them. We need immediate and concrete action. And today, colleagues, and tomorrow is a point where we can actually make this happen. Right here with REPowerEU we can ensure that we act on climate. How? We can make sure that there's not additional money pumped into oil infrastructure. And we can do much better than throwing processed food at Rembrandts and Monets, because here we can actually vote on stopping billions of EU money flowing into the hands of the oil lobby and the oil industry. So this is where it counts and so I ask you, colleagues, please uphold the ban on any money flowing into oil infrastructure, because here today we have the chance to actually make this happen. It is true that we need to ensure energy security, but don't let yourselves be fooled: we need to be absolutely clear that the current energy crisis does not require investment in fossil fuel infrastructure that will be operational in five years. This does not help the current energy crisis, and we need to make sure that everyone understands that. Solving the current energy crisis means a fast transition to sustainable and renewable energy, and with our votes tomorrow we can make sure that this happens. So thanks a lot for the good cooperation to the rapporteurs. Thank you for the positive negotiations that we had, and I look forward to the vote tomorrow. Gunnar Beck,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Seit Angela Merkel verfolgt Deutschland eine fürwahr phantastische Energiepolitik: weg von heimischer Kohle und Kernenergie, hin zu Solar- und Windenergie. Die Folge: Abhängigkeit von russischem Erdgas. Jetzt legt die EU-Kommission einen Zuschussfonds, das sogenannte REPowerEU, von anfangs 20 Milliarden EUR, auf, um die Abhängigkeit von russischem Gas zu mindern. Die absehbaren Kosten auf lange Sicht: ein Vielfaches der 20 Milliarden. Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen will das Geld nach dem Corona-Fonds-Schlüssel verteilen. Das heißt: Deutschland bekommt wenig; kaum Russland-abhängige Länder hingegen bekämen weit mehr. Der Europäische Rechnungshof erwidert: Falsch. Sei der Zweck, die Abhängigkeit von Russland zu mindern, sollte das extrem abhängige Deutschland mehr bekommen. Europäische Solidarität heißt also: Deutsche zahlen für das Versagen anderer Eurostaaten. Versagt die eigene Regierung indes, verwehrt uns Deutschen die Kommission die so häufig gepriesene Solidarität. Das EU-Parlament will sogar, dass REPowerEU-Mittel nicht in fossile Brennstoffe und Kernenergie, sondern nur in wetterabhängige Solar- und Windenergie investiert werden dürfen. Das heißt: Statt von Russland werden wir dann von den Launen von Helios und Aiolos abhängig, von Sonnen- und Windgott. Damit retten Sie nicht das Klima, sondern schaffen nur mehr Abhängigkeit von der Natur, zivilisatorische Rückentwicklung und Massenarmut hier in Europa. Johan Van Overtveldt,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het spreekt voor zich dat een goed werkende Europese energiemarkt cruciaal is voor zowel burgers als bedrijven. Onlangs werd voor iedereen in ons deel van de wereld duidelijk dat energiezekerheid en energieonafhankelijkheid essentieel, van strategisch onschatbare waarde en noodzakelijk zijn voor onze vrije manier van leven. REPowerEU moet onze energieafhankelijkheid zonder taboes op korte termijn helpen afbouwen, ook op het gebied van investeringen in olie- en gasbevoorrading. Het Parlement dringt daarbij terecht aan op grensoverschrijdende investeringen om een solide Europees netwerk te vormen. REPowerEU is in het leven geroepen als uitbreiding van de nationale herstel- en veerkrachtplannen. Het moet zorgen voor een snelle uitvoering, maar mag onder geen enkel beding afbreuk doen aan de broodnodige hervormingen die reeds in het kader van de herstel- en veerkrachtplannen zijn overeengekomen. Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η αντιμετώπιση της ενεργειακής κρίσης απαιτεί δραστικά μέτρα και το RepowerEU είναι ένα θετικό βήμα. Αλλά, κύριοι Dombrovskis και Gentiloni, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, ενωμένο, από την κεντροδεξιά μέχρι και την αριστερά, ζητά σημαντικές και δραστικές βελτιώσεις στην πρόταση της Επιτροπής. Και πρώτα από όλα, αύξηση της χρηματοδότησης, διότι δεν φτάνουν τα 20 δισ. που ανακυκλώνει η Επιτροπή από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης, από το Ταμείο για τους αγρότες και από τις πολιτικές για την κοινωνική και περιφερειακή συνοχή. Η πρόεδρος von der Leyen υποσχέθηκε πρόσθετη χρηματοδότηση. Ζητούμε από την Επιτροπή να δεσμευτεί σε αυτή την κατεύθυνση γιατί το Συμβούλιο θέλει χωρίς λεφτά να υπηρετηθούν οι στόχοι, πράγμα που είναι ανέφικτο. Για να έχουμε μεγαλύτερη ενεργειακή αυτονομία, περισσότερες ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας και αντιμετώπιση της ενεργειακής φτώχειας, χρειαζόμαστε και περισσότερα χρήματα. Milan Uhrík (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, vážení kolegovia, chcete energeticky oživiť Európu? Ja vám poviem, čo treba spraviť. V prvom rade treba zrušiť tie kontraproduktívne energetické protiruské sankcie. Je mi jedno, koľkým miliardárom zhabete jachty. Je mi jedno, koľkým politikom zakážete vstupy, ale predstava, že ožobračovaním miliónov európskych rodín a likvidovaním európskeho priemyslu trestáte Putina, je s prepáčením zvrátená. Druhá vec, čo treba spraviť, je zracionalizovať tie nezmyselné európske zelené plány. Veď sa len nad tým zamyslite. Na jednej strane požadujete, aby sa produkcia elektrickej energie znížila, lebo ropa je zlá, plyn je zlý, jadrové elektrárne sú zlé, tepelné elektrárne sú zlé. Na druhej strane požadujete, aby sa spotreba elektrickej energie zvýšila a aby sa od roku 2030 predávali ľuďom len elektromobily. To sú dva logicky totálne protichodné koncepty, ktorých výsledkom musí byť kolaps. Viete, táto energetická kríza nie je dôsledkom toho, že by sa vo svete minula energia. Je to dôsledok hlúpych rozhodnutí hlúpych politikov. François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Commissaires, quelques nouvelles de France: fin septembre, le maire de Neuilly-sur-Marne, Zartoshte Bakhtiari, alertait sur le fait que sa commune allait devoir payer 32 fois le prix de ses factures d'électricité. Fin octobre, le groupe industriel Safran décidait de suspendre l'implantation d'une usine à Lyon et de se tourner peut-être vers les États-Unis. Il y a quelques jours, le groupe Arcelor fermait l'un de ses hauts-fourneaux. Nous voyons aujourd'hui que le prix de l'électricité en Europe est trois fois plus cher qu'aux États-Unis ou en Chine. Il est urgent de réagir si nous ne voulons pas que notre continent connaisse demain une désertification industrielle, un décrochage technologique, une dépendance commerciale encore accrue et, bien sûr, une immense détresse sociale. Pour cela, deux actions à mener de front. La première: augmenter par tous les moyens la production d'énergie en Europe. En tant que rapporteur adjoint sur le plan REPowerEU, j'ai déposé un amendement – j'espère que nous l'adopterons ensemble demain – pour inclure l'énergie nucléaire, sur laquelle nous devons pouvoir compter. Et la deuxième mesure, évidemment: remettre en cause maintenant les règles dysfonctionnelles du marché européen pour faire en sorte de sortir de cette spirale très dangereuse. Irene Tinagli (S&D). – Mr President, tomorrow's vote marks an important step ahead towards addressing some structural problems which are emerging in the current energy crisis by means of investments for new infrastructure, for example, for renewable energy production and for overcoming energy supply distortion. The resources at stake are important: EUR 20 billion in grants and more than EUR 200 billion in loans that are unused under the RRF. However, we asked – and we will keep asking – for more resources, because the challenges of the current energy crisis are much bigger than the resources that are finally allocated. Let's face it, we all know what is at stake: the competitiveness of our businesses; the fragility of our families and households; energy poverty. So more resources will be needed. And not only resources, as to address the energy crisis we will need reforms in the energy market – temporary ones and structural ones. We know what we are talking about: a new benchmark for gas prices; a dynamic cap that we've been discussing; the decoupling of gas and electricity prices. We know what we have to do, now it's time to deliver. Искра Михайлова, (Renew). – Г-н Председател, господа Комисари, Планът ”RePowerEU” е още една стъпка в цялостната работа на институциите на Европейския съюз след пакета ”Подготвени за цел 55” и като следствие от целия механизъм за възстановяване и устойчивост, и основно по директивите за енергийна ефективност, енергията от възобновяеми източници и енергийните характеристики на сградите, целта на които е повишаване на амбициите за енергийна ефективност, ускоряване на зеления преход и диверсификация на енергийните доставки. Синергията между всички тези инструменти е единственият реалистичен път за тяхното ефективно прилагане. Чрез включването на глава ”RePower EU” в националните планове за възстановяване и устойчивост на страните членки може да се постигне и осигуряване на допълнителни инвестиции и засилване на реформите в областта на енергетиката, които са необходими за цялостната трансформация на европейската енергийна система. Разработването и прилагането на тези глави в плановете ще доведат едновременно до актуализация на тези планове в контекста на ситуацията на енергийните пазари и войната в Украйна и същевременно до повишаване на ефективността на плановете и диверсификация и независимост. Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, señor vicepresidente, el mundo se reúne en Egipto estos días ante la aceleración del cambio climático. La Organización de las Naciones Unidas nos dice que la trayectoria actual son 2,6 grados. La Organización Meteorológica Mundial dice que en Europa es donde más han aumentado las temperaturas en los últimos años. Y una pregunta sobrevuela las negociaciones en Egipto: ¿la economía europea va a volver a girar hacia los combustibles fósiles? ¿Vamos a enterrar nuestra credibilidad en materia de negociaciones sobre la lucha contra el cambio climático? ¿Vamos a dejar de ser ese motor que hemos sido en las negociaciones internacionales? Por ello, el debate sobre REPowerEU que estamos teniendo ahora es muy importante. Porque nosotros, como Verdes, de ninguna manera podíamos compartir una derogación horizontal del principio de ”no causar un perjuicio significativo” para permitir que los fondos de recuperación, los fondos de cohesión, fueran a infraestructuras que nos ataran a los combustibles fósiles muy a largo plazo. Hubiera sido un grandísimo error y, por ello, celebramos que el Parlamento haya puesto límites a eso. Porque nosotros, como Verdes, entendemos perfectamente que la seguridad energética en los próximos inviernos es muy importante y que deberemos tomar decisiones dolorosas, pero deben ser decisiones acotadas en el tiempo, con un límite en el dinero que vamos a gastarnos, como vamos a proponer en la propuesta del Parlamento, porque no se puede utilizar ese pretexto para invertir dinero público europeo en inversiones que nos condenen a largo plazo a ser más dependientes de los combustibles fósiles, porque eso sería un grandísimo error. Así que quiero agradecer a los ponentes, también, que hayan tenido en cuenta nuestras propuestas en ese sentido. Espero que el Consejo nos escuche, porque ya no es una cuestión simplemente de política pública; nos estamos jugando la credibilidad de Europa en la lucha contra el cambio climático. France Jamet (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, mes chers collègues, depuis des décennies, une idéologie faussement écologiste sape systématiquement l'indépendance énergétique de nos nations et tente de nous faire renoncer au nucléaire. Pourtant, cette énergie décarbonée, dans laquelle la France a su investir et exceller, a fait ses preuves. Elle est jusqu'à aujourd'hui la plus efficace, que ce soit d'un point de vue environnemental ou économique. Mesdames et Messieurs, l'intérêt national de nos concitoyens doit primer sur le dogmatisme et les incantations fanatiques de maires verts. En ces temps de crise, écarter le nucléaire serait aller à contresens, à l'heure où des millions de familles, d'enfants, d'étudiants, de retraités, de personnes isolées doivent faire le choix entre manger ou se chauffer, et pour certains peut-être renoncer aux deux. C'est bien la peine de venir nous parler de souveraineté des États et du choix du mix énergétique, si l'Union européenne refuse d'inclure le nucléaire dans ses énergies vertes. C'est pour cela que nous avons déposé nos amendements: inclure le nucléaire dans les énergies vertes. Parce que ce n'est pas aux peuples d'Europe de payer la facture des erreurs et des errances politiques de la Commission, des Verts allemands et de Mme von der Leyen. Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu ! Cieszę się, że rozmawiamy o programie, który odwraca Unię Europejską i kraje członkowskie od surowców rosyjskich. Przez lata politykę uzależniania od surowców rosyjskich prowadziły Niemcy, a w ślad za tym także Komisja Europejska ją wspierała. Dobrze, że ten problem w związku z agresją Rosji na Ukrainę został wreszcie dostrzeżony. Po drugie, to jest wątek finansowania. Komisja ma skłonność pokazywania środków, które już raz zostały podzielone pomiędzy kraje członkowskie. Tak naprawdę rozmawiamy o bardzo małej kwocie 20 mld euro w sytuacji, kiedy sama Komisja pisze, że potrzebne do 2027 roku są pieniądze dziesięciokrotnie większe. No i wreszcie, po trzecie, w tym wszystkim mamy taką wewnętrzną sprzeczność. Z jednej strony dążymy do powiększenia udziału energii odnawialnej w miksie energetycznym, choć z drugiej doskonale wiemy, że tej energii odnawialnej musi towarzyszyć jakaś rezerwa stabilizacyjna. Jaka to może być rezerwa stabilizacyjna? Budowana szybko czy tworzona szybko rezerwa gazowa? A gaz podrożał kilkanaście razy. Tę sprzeczność też musimy rozwiązać. José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, a proposta do REPowerEU foi apresentada como favorecendo a transição energética e a independência energética da União Europeia em relação a outros territórios. Na realidade, para lá da propaganda, o que temos é uma proposta ínfima nos seus recursos e no seu financiamento, que, aliás, é garantido através da emissão de mais licenças para poluir, primeira contradição, e a alteração da garantia, já de si fraca, que tínhamos aprovado aquando do Fundo de Recuperação e Resiliência, de não provocar danos significativos, que, basicamente, desaparece e abre a porta, escancara, talvez seja melhor dizer, ao regresso das energias fósseis e do nuclear. E, portanto, enquanto a Comissão Europeia fala do magnífico compromisso europeu com o combate às alterações climáticas no Egipto, aqui, em Bruxelas, faz-se rigorosamente o contrário, mudando as dependências e fazendo regressar tudo aquilo que dissemos que íamos esconjurar. Enikő Győri (NI). – Elnök Úr! Szomorúan állapítom meg, hogy a Parlament már megint tönkretett egy eredendően jó kezdeményezést. Miről van szó? A Bizottság felismerte, hogy a gyorsított energetikai átállás, melyre az ukrajnai orosz agresszió következtében kényszerülünk, eltérő terhet ró a tagállamokra, hiszen adottságaik és az orosz energiaforrásoknak való kitettségük eltérő. Ezért támogatni kell anyagilag a tagállamokat ezen munka elvégzése során. A Tanácsban sikerült is kiegyensúlyozottabbá tenni a javaslatot, hogy miből és mi alapján lehessen forrást biztosítani, de az EP azzal, hogy kizárná az átállást segítő olajipari és nukleáris beruházásokat, azt bizonyítja, hogy nem érdekelt Közép-Európa sikeres energiaátmenetében, nem látja át, hogy vannak fizikai, technikai és földrajzi korlátok. Ha a parlamenti szöveg diadalmaskodik, akkor lassabb lesz a függetlenedés, ennek árát a lakosság a tartósabban magas energiaárakkal és inflációval fizeti meg, az európai ipar kitelepül, a versenyképességünk csökken. Tisztelettel kérem tehát a baloldali többséget, fogja fel: a zöldítésnek gazdasági racionalitáson kell alapulnia, nem ideológiai meggyőződésen! Kérem, ne akarják tönkretenni Európát! Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Natürlich braucht die Europäische Union wieder mehr eigene Energie. Und natürlich kann die Landwirtschaft dazu beitragen, dieses Ziel zu erreichen, und muss auch dazu beitragen. Biogasanlagen können einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten, und sie können auch Kreislaufwirtschaft im Düngerbereich wieder fördern. Aber der Vorschlag der Kommission, Geld aus der GAP, aus der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, in REPowerEU zu verschieben, gibt schlichtweg keinen Sinn. Dieses Geld ist im Rahmen der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, der strategischen Pläne bereits verplant. Und die Mitgliedstaaten können gerne – und das sollen sie auch tun – bereits heute im Rahmen der zweiten Säule der GAP Biogasanlagen fördern. Damit schaffen sie übrigens auch ein zusätzliches Einkommen für die Bäuerinnen und Bauern. Geht dieses Geld aber nun an REPowerEU, dann geht es eben nicht mehr zu den bäuerlichen Betrieben. Es geht zu den großen Energiegesellschaften in Europa. Den Bäuerinnen und Bauern wird Geld genommen. Es wird kein Anreiz zu Kreislaufwirtschaft gegeben. Gülle wird nicht mehr vergärt, wahrscheinlich eher Mais. Und deswegen sollten wir das Ganze lassen und sollten dieses Verschieben von Geld wirklich nicht fördern. Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Herr talman! Kommissionär! De höjda energipriserna har ökat Rysslands fossila intäkter från EU med över 100 miljarder euro. REPowerEU måste användas för att bryta det fossila beroendet, för Putin ska veta att det är stopp för mer fossila intäkter från EU. Därför är det så viktigt att hela EU snabbt ökar den förnybara energiproduktionen. Vi behöver vind, sol och hållbar biogas. Jag ser en stor potential för att ersätta fossil gas med grön, förnybar biogas i hela Europa. Därför välkomnar jag kompromisserna. Genom att inte skapa nya utsläppsrätter i utsläppshandeln sparar vi dessutom fem år av till exempel de svenska utsläppen. Vi riktar också tydligt in satsningarna bort från den fossila gasen och till det förnybara, vilket är bra. Vi behöver minsann högre ambitioner för klimatet. Martin Hlaváček (Renew). – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, váš návrh je dobrý, má pouze dvě chyby, které pokud odstraníte, bude skvělým příspěvkem k současné krizi. Prožíváme období stále rostoucích cen. Inflace ve vaší i mojí zemi je 20 %, u některých potravin dokonce ještě mnohem více. My hledáme všechny možnosti, jak pomoci. A vy tady navrhujete, abychom brali zemědělcům další finanční prostředky. To není dobrá zpráva pro naše občany, že to s cenami potravin myslíme v Bruselu vážně. Během let jsme snížili podpory zemědělcům už na 0,35 % HDP a teď, když mají zajistit dostupné potraviny pro naše občany, chceme další peníze. A ještě jedna věc. Neříkejte prosím členským státům, jak mají finanční prostředky utrácet podle Green Deal. Není na to doba, věřte mi. Nemáme v Bruselu patent na rozum a ony mnohem lépe vědí, kde je třeba investovat, aby lidé nemrzli, měli práci a peníze byly využity efektivně. Prosím, pokuste se o to. Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, this war in Ukraine clearly shows our vulnerability as Europe: geopolitically, being dependent of a fossil regime in Russia; economically, inflation being fossil-flation; and environmentally, exactly what we are trying to discuss at this moment in Egypt, trying to get rid of our fossil dependency. That is at stake and that's why it's also so important to have a credible European investment plan that can bring us out of this current energy system into a new system. And that's also why we commend the Commission proposal, because indeed, this enables us to invest in new energy infrastructure cross-border. However, Commission, don't make the same mistakes. Don't make the mistakes that we are creating another fossil dependency. Now it's called LNG. But just a very simple number: LNG imports from Russia are increasing this year with 46%. And this is why we need to limit the investment in fossil in time and in size in order to make sure that this investment plan is really into a new economy. Dorien Rookmaker (ECR). – Voorzitter, de Europese afhankelijkheid van Rusland voor de energievoorziening is een probleem dat niet moet worden opgelost met paniekvoetbal, maar met een goede analyse. De hoge energieprijzen als gevolg van liberalisatie en speculatie, alsook van de afkeuring van kernenergie, maken onze afhankelijkheid van Rusland ondraaglijk. Dit heeft de EU echter aan zichzelf te wijten. Deze zaken zijn namelijk het gevolg van EU-beleid. De EU maakt misbruik van deze energiecrisis, die zij zelf heeft veroorzaakt, om haar politieke macht op ongekende wijze uit te breiden. Het Parlement staat erbij en kijkt ernaar. De Commissie leent op de kapitaalmarkt miljarden voor het economisch herstel na de COVID-19-pandemie en wil dat geld nu aan andere zaken besteden, om de gevolgen van haar eigen wanbeleid op te vangen. Voorts degradeert zij de regeringen van de lidstaten tot uitvoeringsorganisaties. Ik adviseer daarom iedereen die tegen de uitbreiding van de macht van de EU is, morgen tegen te stemmen. Andor Deli (NI). – Elnök Úr! A mai globális politikai helyzet egyértelműen rámutatott arra, hogy Európának változtatnia kell az úgynevezett energiamixén. Az eredeti elképzelés alapján a REPowerEU a tagállamok energetikai függetlenedését és diverzifikációját támogatta volna. Mégis a zöldítésre hivatkozva, az olajra vonatkozó fejlesztések uniós támogatását a BUDG és ECON szakbizottságok elutasították. Ezzel sajnos ellehetetlenedik elsősorban közép-európai térségünk energetikai helyzetének átalakítása, energiafüggetlenségének megteremtése. A zöldítés lényeges, de a jelenlegi rendszerek fejlesztése is legalább ennyire fontos. Ebben a rendkívül nehéz energetikai helyzetben az olaj területére irányuló uniós beruházások leállítása egy újabb lábon lövés lenne, amivel Európa tovább gyöngítené saját megroppant gazdaságát. Vissza kell térni a REPowerEU eredeti céljához, ezért a holnapi szavazáson támogassák az olaj- és atomenergiára vonatkozó módosítókat! Andrey Novakov (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I voted in favour of CARE, FAST-CARE, CRII and CRII+, and I will vote in favour of REPower tomorrow: yet another initiative of European Commission which is going to address yet another crisis that is facing European Union. And nobody is against the willingness of the European Union to overcome the dependence on Russian gas and oil. That's sure. Nobody was against of the willingness of the European Union to overcome the consequences of COVID. Nobody was against to overcome the consequences of the flood, the war in Ukraine or the migrant crisis. But at some point we have to put everything on end because the European regional development policy and agriculture policy could not fund any new initiative that the European Commission will start. We know it's important, but we're not going that way because after all, we are going to end two major policies of the Union which are so important for every European citizen. Hannes Heide (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! REPowerEU hat das dringende Problem unserer Energieversorgung zu lösen, uns aus der Abhängigkeit von Energieimporten herauszuführen, erschwingliche, sichere und nachhaltige Energie für Europa zu garantieren. Somit ist eines der wichtigsten Instrumente für Europa, das Ziel der Klimaneutralität zu erreichen, den digitalen Wandel voranzutreiben, Wachstum anzukurbeln und Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen. REPowerEU deckt sich zwar mit vielen anderen Programmen und auch der Kohäsionspolitik, um erfolgreich zu sein, muss es aber alle betroffenen Ebenen national, regional und lokal verpflichtend einbinden und vor allem sozial inklusiv wirken. REPowerEU darf nicht auf Kosten der Menschen finanziert werden, indem es bei anderen EU-Programmen und -Projekten zu einer Unterfinanzierung und zu Versäumnissen kommt. REPowerEU ist weder Instrument der Kohäsionspolitik noch des Umwelt- und Klimaschutzes. Ein Abgehen allerdings von Klimaschutzmaßnahmen ist keine Option – gerade unter dem Eindruck der UN-COP-27-Klimakonferenz in Sharm-el-Sheikh. Emma Wiesner (Renew). – Herr talman! 250 miljoner ton. Det var med så mycket som kommissionen ville öka utsläppen för att dra in 20 miljarder euro. Det är helt oacceptabelt. Hör ni hur sjukt det låter? 250 miljoner ton ökade utsläpp! Det här var för mig helt oacceptabelt som förhandlare. Vi står mitt i en energikris till följd av vårt gasberoende – ett gasberoende som dessutom förvärrar klimatkrisen. Att då låta klimatet betala med 250 miljoner ton är helt ansvarslöst. Jag är därför väldigt stolt över att som förhandlare ha varit med och tagit fram en lösning som inte bara stoppar de ökade utsläppen, utan som också ser till att vi slutar finansiera fossila projekt och stramar åt möjligheterna att fortsätta finansiera gas och olja. Jag kommer stolt att rösta för det här förslaget, och jag hoppas att ni kollegor gör detsamma. Henrike Hahn (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Die Aufbau- und Resilienzfazilität ist eine große europäische Leistung, denn sie befördert auch gerade die notwendigen Investitionen für die digitale und grüne Transformation, die wir gerade so dringend benötigen. Der Krieg in Europa und die Energiekrise darf diese Investitionen nicht gefährden, denn wir in Europa wollen unabhängig werden von Diktatoren und von fossiler Energie. Und nein, trotz der positiven Punkte von REPowerEU macht es keinen Sinn, das neue Kapitel in den Aufbau- und Resilienzfazilitätsplänen zur Verschwendung von Steuergeldern zu benutzen und Geld in langfristige fossile Projekte zu stecken. Bei den neuen Investitionen müssen wir die Integrität des Emissionshandelssystems aufrechterhalten und gerade eben nicht finanzielle Mittel durch die Versteigerung von zusätzlichen Verschmutzungszertifikaten generieren. Ein langfristiges CO2-Preissignal ist gerade auch in diesen Krisenzeiten besonders wichtig für die ökologisch-soziale Transformation, für die Dekarbonisierung, für eine Zukunft Europas, in der Nachhaltigkeit und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Unternehmen zusammengeht. (Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Wortmeldung nach dem Verfahren der ”blauen Karte” zu antworten) Bogdan Rzońca (ECR),
wystąpienie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Bardzo dziękuję, Panie Przewodniczący, i bardzo dziękuję Pani za przyjęcie pytania. Moje pytanie polega na tym, że pochodzi Pani z Niemiec – od wielu lat macie bardzo dużo doświadczeń w budowie energii odnawialnej. Proszę mi wyjaśnić ten paradoks, dlaczego z roku na rok budujecie coraz więcej źródeł energii odnawialnej, uzyskuje coraz więcej energii odnawialnej i coraz więcej kupowaliście przez ostatnie lata gazu i węgla z Rosji? Dlaczego tak się działo? Henrike Hahn (Verts/ALE),
blue-card reply. – Thank you very much for the question. Actually I didn't understand it because I wasn't able to hear the interpretation, so would you be so kind as to summarise it in two phrases, maybe in English. I would be grateful for that. Bogdan Rzońca (ECR),
wystąpienie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Powtórzę tylko: zadziwia mnie, dlaczego – pomimo tego, że w Niemczech mają Państwo duże doświadczenie w budowie energii odnawialnej – z roku na rok przez ostatnie lata kupowali Państwo dużo energii z Rosji? President. – Sorry, it seems there is no interpretation on the headphones at the rostrum so we will have to skip that question, unfortunately. Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario Gentiloni, quando furono elaborati e approvati i PNRR ci trovavamo in un contesto geopolitico molto diverso da quello attuale. Un anno fa in tutta Europa la produzione di energia non era una nostra priorità, purtroppo, neanche la produzione da fonti rinnovabili. Per esempio nel piano italiano, nella misura denominata ”rinnovabili e batterie”, fu stanziato soltanto un miliardo di euro rispetto ai 190 miliardi totali, 1 su190. Davvero poco! Ben venga, dunque, la possibilità di emendare i piani nazionali in modo da poter investire sulla produzione di energia anche da fonti fossili come il gas, finché sarà necessario. È stato un errore tragico rendersi dipendenti dall'importazione di energia dalla Russia e dalla Cina. Non facciamolo di nuovo, sbagliare è umano ma perseverare è diabolico. ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΕΥΑ ΚΑΪΛΗ Αντιπρόεδρος Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Caro Comissário, Caros Colegas, o REPowerEU veio dar uma resposta às consequências da guerra na Ucrânia. Pretendemos, agora, flexibilizar o reforço do mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência, de modo a facilitar o financiamento do REPowerEU. Na Comissão ITRA, apostámos no reforço do financiamento, mas também na construção de um verdadeiro mercado interno da energia, completando as interligações e interconexões, orientando-as para o futuro, permitindo que estas possam ser utilizadas também para o transporte do hidrogénio, aumentando a produção de eletricidade renovável, assegurando que os novos projetos serão implementados rapidamente e dando uma maior ênfase à questão da eficiência energética, bem como a projetos de armazenamento da energia. Pedimos ainda aos Estados-Membros para acelerarem, ao máximo, todas as licenças e procedimentos relativos à construção de novos projetos de energias renováveis. Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o REPowerEU é um instrumento-chave no imediato para mitigar o efeito dos aumentos galopantes dos preços da energia. Não podemos pedir aos cidadãos esforços adicionais para pagarem os custos da invasão ilegal da Ucrânia pela Rússia. É um instrumento para construir a necessária autonomia estratégica da União Europeia. É um instrumento de aceleração do mercado interno da energia, que não se fará sem cumprir objetivos ambiciosos em matéria de interligações. Para exemplificar, o investimento em interligações energéticas Portugal-Espanha-França é necessário. Acabar, definitivamente, com a ilha ibérica em matéria de energia é urgente. REPowerEU é um instrumento, tem de ser um instrumento, para acelerar a transição verde e a descarbonização energética. É um instrumento de apoio às energias renováveis. Finalmente, o capítulo socialmente inclusivo que alcançámos no REPowerEU terá um impacto significativo na vida dos cidadãos e das empresas e na prevenção e no combate da pobreza energética. Susana Solís Pérez (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, que hoy esta Cámara apruebe REPowerEU es una gran noticia; lo es porque demuestra nuestra capacidad de reacción y pone fondos concretos encima de la mesa para conseguir dos objetivos prioritarios: descarbonizar nuestro mix energético y cortar lazos con un Gobierno criminal como es el ruso. Nos proponemos en cinco años lo que preveíamos hacer en quince, pero no podemos quedarnos en el aplauso. Ningún europeo en su casa entenderá nuestra satisfacción si no saben si podrán calentar sus casas este invierno. Por eso, hemos luchado tanto para que REPowerEU apoye también a los hogares más vulnerables y a las pymes, pero necesitamos también pensar en el largo plazo y adelantarnos a los problemas, porque sabemos que la solución pasa por invertir masivamente en renovables. Pero, ¿cómo conseguir una verdadera unión energética si no invertimos en interconexiones? ¿Está preparada nuestra red para soportar el aumento de potencia renovable que viviremos en esta década? ¿Cómo evitar la dependencia de China cuando se dispare la demanda de materias primas como el litio? Abordar estas preguntas ahora, señor comisario, nos permitirá no tener que poner más parches en el futuro. Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, la Unión Europea siempre actúa ante las crisis: lo hizo al impulsar los fondos NextGenerationEU tras el COVID y lo hace ahora con el plan REPowerEU frente a la situación económica y energética que viven las familias europeas. ¿Pero de qué sirven esos logros si luego las ayudas no llegan a las empresas, ni a los trabajadores, ni a las familias? No podemos conformarnos con aprobar reglamentos y proyectos estratégicos y pensar que con esto hemos cumplido. La clave está en que los Estados miembros ejecuten con eficacia y transparencia los fondos que están recibiendo. Necesitamos un mecanismo de control que supervise que el dinero llega de verdad a quienes lo necesitan. Un plan de recuperación sin una ejecución real es papel mojado. Nos tacharon, al Partido Popular, de antipatriotas e irresponsables por exigir desde el primer día una ejecución rápida y rigurosa de los fondos para evitar un fracaso estrepitoso. Desgraciadamente, teníamos razón: el dinero no está llegando a la economía real. Cada día que pasa y el Gobierno de España no ejecuta los fondos, la economía sale perjudicada. REPowerEU puede ser un éxito, siempre y cuando los Gobiernos nacionales estén a la altura. Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, REPowerEU on ehdottoman tärkeä ja todella kannatettava aloite. Venäjän hyökkäyssota Ukrainassa vaatii nopeita vastauksia koko unionilta ja todella tarvitsemme aivan uudenlaista energiaomavaraisuutta. Kaikenlainen riippuvuus venäläisestä fossiilienergiasta on lopetettava. Venäläisestä tuontienergiasta luopuminen puolestaan vaatii kaikilta jäsenvaltioilta toimia. Investoinnit uusiutuviin ja päästöttömiin energialähteisiin on nyt laitettava etusijalle. Sitten meillä on yksi erityinen ongelma. Se on erilainen byrokraattinen ajanpeluu lupaprosesseissa. Koko unionin ja jokaisen jäsenvaltion on yksinkertaistettava lupamenettelyjään, jotta päästöttömiin energialähteisiin siirtymistä voidaan todella nopeuttaa. Neuvosto on tehnyt oman esityksensä. Parlamentin on syytä tähdätä nopeaan neuvottelutulokseen, jotta kansalaiset voivat nähdä tuloksia. Christophe Grudler (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, l'Europe fait face à une crise dont nous ne mesurons pas encore les conséquences économiques, sociales, géopolitiques et climatiques. Mais nous comprenons déjà l'urgence d'avoir un système énergétique stable et décarboné. Avec ce plan de soutien financier, je me réjouis que la Commission soutienne non seulement les renouvelables, mais aussi – enfin! – les autres énergies décarbonées et non fossiles, comme l'hydrogène décarboné, et, donc, l'énergie nucléaire. Je tiens toutefois à rappeler que ces mécanismes de soutien, que nous créons pour réduire une dépendance énergétique extérieure à l'Europe, doivent avant tout aider à produire en Europe, production européenne à privilégier évidemment avant toute importation. Comptez sur nous pour nous montrer vigilants à cet égard. Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Program REPowerEU to krok w dobrym kierunku. W odpowiedzi na trudności i zakłócenia na światowym rynku energii spowodowane inwazją Rosji na Ukrainę, Komisja przedstawiła plan uniezależnienia się od rosyjskich surowców. REPowerEU to także plan oszczędzania energii, produkcji energii ekologicznej i dywersyfikacji dostaw. Stoją za nim środki finansowe i prawne służące budowie nowej infrastruktury i nowego systemu energetycznego. Można powiedzieć, że historia zatoczyła koło. Dokładnie 70 lat temu powstała Europejska Wspólnota Węgla i Stali. Sęk w tym, że polski rząd nie dowozi żadnych pieniędzy europejskich wbrew obywatelom. Wczorajszy sondaż: 64 % obywateli Polski za brak środków europejskich obwinia polski rząd. Premierze Morawiecki, posłowie PiS-u, czy tych środków także nie weźmiecie ze względu na pana Zbigniewa Ziobro? Czy utrzymanie koalicji rządowej jest ważniejsze niż interes kraju i przyszłość młodego pokolenia? Zaprzepaściliście już dekadę transformacji energetycznej, więc teraz czas decyzji: albo jesteście z Unią Europejską, albo z Putinem. Catch-the-eye procedure Ramona Strugariu (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, am auzit de foarte multe ori cuvântul reforme astăzi în această sală. E bine ca aceste reforme să continue să se întâmple. Cel mai important vot de mâine este votul pe considerentul 22, split votul care ne permite să păstrăm textul Comisiei care face referință la continuarea acestor reforme, în timp ce integrăm REPowerEU în planurile naționale de redresare și de reziliență. România este direct interesată ca acest lucru să se întâmple. De aceea, apelul meu direct este către raportorii români, în primul rând domnul Mureșan, dar și domnul Nica, să păstreze această indicație de vot. E simplu: considerentul 22, plus, minus, plus, plus, asta este ordinea în care trebuie să votăm. E votul esențial, chiar dacă amendamentul Renew nu va mai ajunge să fie votat. În felul acesta, securizăm reformele și păstrăm interesul României și al tuturor statelor membre care vor să facă reformele în continuare. Acesta este scopul regulamentului, acesta este scopul facilității de redresare și de reziliență și sper că vom fi lucizi, solidari și uniți. Sper ca Comisia Europeană să aibă din nou în această discuție, care va fi complicată, toată puterea și susținerea pe care i-o putem acorda, în așa fel încât să discute cu fiecare stat membru în parte și să fim reformiștii Europei, nu cei care aduc antireforma în fiecare dintre aceste state membre. João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, esta proposta fica muito aquém das respostas necessárias no setor energético. Ignora as consequências das sanções que sacrificam os interesses dos países e povos da Europa. Quase nenhum dinheiro novo, mais empréstimos e endividamento. Redireciona verbas dos atuais Planos de Recuperação e Resiliência, da Coesão e do FEADER, suprimindo verbas necessárias para responder a deficits estruturais. Redirecionam dependências para outras mais longínquas, mais caras e ambientalmente mais nocivas dependências, como o gás de xisto por fratura dos Estados Unidos. Nem pensar em regular o mercado, que há que defender a todo o custo, permitindo o aumento especulativo dos preços do gás, da energia e dos combustíveis, e os lucros obscenos. Ganham os grupos económicos, financiados indiretamente; pagam os povos com língua de palmo. Mais condicionamentos às políticas energéticas e estratégias nacionais de desenvolvimento. Este não é o caminho. Regular o mercado, fixar preços e margens, recuperar o controlo público deste sector estratégico e de todas as suas dimensões - aí está a resposta necessária que clamam os povos. Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο νέος αντιλαϊκός ευρωενωσιακός κανονισμός για το RepowerEU επιστρατεύει πρόσθετα κονδύλια του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Ανάκαμψης που θα τα ”ξεκοκαλίσουν” οι ενεργειακοί και κατασκευαστικοί όμιλοι καθώς θα απολαμβάνουν μια τεράστια γκάμα προκλητικών ασυλιών, για την κατασκευή αγωγών, υποδομών παραγωγής ΑΠΕ και αποθήκευσης ενέργειας. Με την επίκληση της ”πράσινης” κούρσας ανταγωνισμών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με Ρωσία, ΗΠΑ και Κίνα, στο φόντο του ιμπεριαλιστικού πολέμου στην Ουκρανία, και ενώ ακόμη και εντός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης οξύνονται οι αντιθέσεις, αίρονται μέχρι και οι προσχηματικοί κανονισμοί της Πράσινης Συμφωνίας, όπως και η λεγόμενη υποχρέωση εφαρμογής της αρχής της μη πρόκλησης σημαντικής βλάβης του περιβάλλοντος. Για τον λαό προβλέπονται τα γνωστά ψίχουλα μερικών προσωρινών εκπτώσεων στους αβάσταχτους λογαριασμούς ενέργειας, πληρωμένα κιόλας από τον λαό αφού, στο όνομα της εξοικονόμησης, αυτός πάλι θα ξεπαγιάζει, ή θα μένει στο σκοτάδι. Με την ώθηση που δίνουν οι μεγάλες απεργίες και διαδηλώσεις σε Ελλάδα, Βέλγιο, Γαλλία και Ισπανία οι λαοί εναντιώνονται στην ευρωενωσιακή στρατηγική ακρίβειας και εξαθλίωσης, απαιτούν αυξήσεις στους μισθούς, συλλογικές συμβάσεις, φθηνή ενέργεια, κατάργηση φόρων. Κανένα λαϊκό σπίτι χωρίς ρεύμα! (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Paolo Gentiloni,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate, for the proposal and for the interesting ideas from the co-rapporteurs in the report today. We are reacting to a new crisis; this is obvious. We have a huge plan. The Recovery and Resilience Facility, Next Generation EU, was a very big achievement for us and it is not out-of-date. The elements, the pillars of this plan in terms of investments and reforms are still so important for our economies. I think we are delivering, we already disbursed something like EUR 137 billion for this plan. But at the same time, we have a new emergency. This is clear, I think, to all political parties, to all the citizens in the Union, and we react to this new crisis with REPowerEU. Again, I think, useful the fact that it's not so huge as Next Generation EU, but we have again a new common tool to respond. We propose a very targeted derogation for the ”do no significant harm” principle to meet the immediate concern of this emergency, and we take note of the fact that Parliament is proposing several amendments to frame this derogation. We understand the principle. The principle is that this emergency reaction should not weaken or undermine the global Green Transition we are working for. We know that this is something that for our targets in 2030 and 2050 we should continue to implement. So we need the balance with very limited derogations to face this crisis without weakening the global process. To unlock the potential of this proposal, of course, we are all aware that we need to have some urgency. So my call to Parliament – but I think you are much more aware than me – is that we need a political agreement by the end of the year on this dialogue that will start after your vote, because of the urgency. We don't have a mountain of resources on this plan, but we have urgent needs and this is, I think, what we owe to our citizens. Some of you have also raised the point of additional resources. Of course, I agree to this point. The President has also committed to come forward with further proposals to strengthen the firepower of this emergency intervention. However, this should not distract us from moving fast in finding the agreement. We work for further potential resources but, at the same time, we understand the urgency to give the answer as soon as possible, and I am sure that we will do this together. Eider Gardiazabal Rubial,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, comparto absolutamente las conclusiones que ha formulado sobre el debate que hemos tenido. Lo primero es que, como decía en mi intervención, tenemos que ser capaces de equilibrar la urgencia energética con la emergencia climática y creo que, ahí, la propuesta que hace este Parlamento con respecto al principio de ”no causar un perjuicio significativo” es bastante equilibrada. En cualquier caso, lo importante es que este Parlamento mañana ya va a votar una Posición que, por el debate que hoy hemos tenido aquí, quitando algunas voces discordantes, va a ser una Posición absolutamente mayoritaria y compartida por los grandes grupos de esta Cámara, y que, con esa Posición, vamos a ir a las negociaciones. Somos conscientes —y por eso hemos trabajado muy rápido en el Parlamento— de la urgencia de llegar a este acuerdo y, aunque también compartimos la necesidad de mejorar y de aumentar los recursos, por supuesto que esto no va a ser algo que paralice las negociaciones. Lo importante es que tenemos el instrumento y que yo creo que no estamos lejos de poder encontrar un acuerdo rápido; luego, ojalá no fueran necesarios nuevos recursos, porque significaría que el instrumento funciona y que estamos saliendo de esa dependencia del gas ruso, pero, evidentemente, si hiciera falta, siempre va a tener la mano tendida de este Parlamento para poder trabajar en ello. Concluyo dando las gracias una vez más a mis coponentes Siegfried Mureșan y Dragoș Pîslaru, porque trabajamos mucho en el mecanismo de recuperación y esta vez, que ya nos conocíamos más y ha sido más sencillo llegar a estos acuerdos, hemos tenido un trabajo que yo creo que se ha plasmado perfectamente en este acuerdo, y lo mismo con el resto de los grupos que han facilitado encontrar un acuerdo rápido, porque eran grupos políticos y comisiones con intereses legítimos muy diferentes, pero yo creo que al final en nuestra propuesta hemos encontrado ese equilibrio que tanto necesitamos. Así que mañana votaremos y abriremos rápidamente las negociaciones. Siegfried Mureșan,
rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you very much for the debate. Thank you very much for the constructive spirit tonight. We have witnessed today that Parliament is united on this important topic. We thank you for the debate and we are looking forward to the vote tomorrow. We are going with a clear united position into the negotiations of the Council and we know that Parliament will further improve this proposal of the European Commission by proposing prefinancing, which will make sure that Member States will receive sooner support, so that vulnerable consumers and enterprises can be helped sooner. We will be supporting the allocation key of the Council. We want to incentivise cross-border projects. We want to make sure that the EUR 20 billion in grants reaches the beneficiaries soon. We also want to make sure that the loans available are mobilised soon. We will fight for transparency. We will fight for the involvement of local and regional authorities. Commissioner, we count on you to stand with Parliament to make sure that governments are transparent when it comes to the final beneficiaries, to make sure that the governments do RePowerEU in an inclusive way involving local and regional levels where justified and having proper consultations. This is the position of Parliament, a united position of Parliament. We are ready to start negotiations with Council immediately. We are ready to formally start next week. Commissioner, we are united in the commitment to finalise, to conclude this process before the end of the year, because you are absolutely right, it is now in winter time that people need support, people need a direction. So we are ready and we are obliged to deliver fast on this. Thank you all for your support and for your participation. Dragoș Pîslaru,
Raportor. – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, REPowerEU nu este decât un angajament pe care îl luăm în fața cetățenilor că putem depăși această criză. Este un reper al solidarității Uniunii Europene. Avem o datorie morală să folosim acest instrument în folosul cetățenilor. Ei sunt prioritatea noastră, nu culoarea politică, nu jocurile de culise. Este foarte bine că am văzut că avem o poziție puternică a Parlamentului European în ceea ce privește conținutul acestui program și modul în care ne raportăm la scoaterea cetățenilor din sărăcie energetică, modul în care putem să avem surse de energie mai sustenabile și să nu mai depindem de gazele rusești. În același timp însă, este foarte important ca REPowerEU să nu fie folosit ca un obiectiv politic pentru a modifica reforme deja adoptate în planurile naționale de redresare și reziliență, care nu au legătură directă cu scopul REPowerEU. Acest lucru va fi un lucru crucial mâine și care va împărți Parlamentul între cei care vor susține reformele și agenda de reformă la nivel european și cei care vor căuta să găsească un pretext în negocierile pe REPowerEU pentru a subția modul în care aceste reforme trebuie să fie duse la îndeplinire. Niciun guvern responsabil, niciun stat membru nu trebuie să fugă de reforme. Calendarul de ținte și jaloane prevăzute în planurile naționale trebuie respectate, mai ales când este vorba de reforme care nu au fost făcute atâta timp. Este foarte important ca și prin ceea ce facem în REPowerEU să putem într-adevăr progresa înspre viitor și nu regresa înapoi, înainte de ceea ce am făcut prin mecanismul de redresare și reziliență. Mâine, votul pe recitalul 22 este un vot cheie care permite pe a doua parte a acestui recital să putem reveni la textul Comisiei cu un vot negativ. Votul de mâine + - + + este un vot cheie pe recitalul 22 și ne va permite să avem într-adevăr o poziție de reformă pe REPowerEU. President. – The debate on that important file is closed. It seems we have an alignment between Parliament and the Commission. The vote will be held tomorrow. Written statements (Rule 171) Daniel Buda (PPE),
în scris. – REPowerEU va fi introdus în planurile naționale de redresare pentru a sprijini independența față de combustibilii fosili ruși! Contextul generat de invazia Rusiei în Ucraina și efectele pandemiei de COVID-19 au condus la creșterea prețurilor la energie în Uniunea Europeană, subliniind astfel importanța utilizării energiei regenerabile. Pentru a atinge obiectivul pe termen lung, Uniunea Europeană nu trebuie să își reducă dependența doar de Rusia, ci de orice alt stat terț. Salut această inițiativă, dar vreau să subliniez că finanțarea oricăror programe din politica de coeziune sau din politica agricolă comună nu sunt o soluție viabilă pentru viitorul continentului nostru. Nu putem să vulnerabilizăm securitatea alimentară a Uniunii Europene sau dezvoltarea regiunilor. Pentru proiecte noi, avem nevoie de bani noi. Hidrogenul, care se bazează pe energia nucleară, va juca un rol important în înlocuirea gazului natural. Energia nucleară este o soluție viabilă pentru atingerea obiectivelor Uniunii Europene privind independența energetică și neutralitatea climatică. România va primi 1,39 miliarde de euro pentru investiții în eficiența energetică și investiții în surse de energie regenerabilă. Cu toate acestea, Uniunea Europeană trebuie să țină cont de specificul fiecărei țări. Milan Brglez (S&D),
pisno. – Neizzvana in nezakonita vojaška invazija Rusije na Ukrajino in njene neposredne in posredne družbeno-gospodarske posledice so vplivale na vse sloje naše družbe, še zlasti na tiste najbolj ranljive. Vojna je pokazala, da je energetska varnost Evropske unije ogrožena, dokler je ta za dobavo zemeljskega plina in ostalih energentov odvisna od Rusije. Še zlasti upoštevajoč socialne in gospodarske posledice pandemije COVID-19, ko je energetska neodvisnost Evropske unije nepogrešljiva za pravičen trajnostni razvoj v EU. Prav zato je Komisija maja predlagala načrt REPowerEU, da bi energetski sistem postal varnejši, cenovno ugodnejši, dostopnejši in z uvajanjem obnovljivih virov energije bolj trajnosten. Vendar se državljani in državljanke soočajo z vrsto novih izzivov, predvsem pri zadovoljitvi osnovnih energetskih potreb, katerih načrt ne naslavlja in katere je možno rešiti le s prehodom na zeleno energijo in hitrim zmanjšanjem energetske odvisnosti od Rusije. Potrebno je skrajšati predolge upravne postopke, poenostaviti zapletenost pravil za povečanje energijske učinkovitosti in prihrankov v stavbah ter hitrejše razogljičenje gospodarstva. Zato pozivam države članice in med njimi tudi Slovenijo, naj čim prej vključijo poglavja REPowerEU v svoje načrte za okrevanje in odpornost, da se zagotovi ustrezna finančna podpora za boljši odziv na energetsko krizo. Sara Cerdas (S&D),
por escrito. – A atualização dos Planos de Recuperação e Resiliência dos Estados-Membros é necessária na sequência da invasão da Ucrânia pela Federação Russa, e da crise energética despoletada, que demonstrou a necessidade de assegurar a independência energética e de aumentar significativamente a utilização de energias renováveis na União Europeia (UE). Para tal, foi apresentada a Comunicação RePowerEU com este mesmo objetivo e agora cumpre atualizar os Planos de Recuperação e Resiliência para direcionar os fundos para uma mais rápida transição verde. Neste processo não devem ser esquecidos os objetivos climáticos e de biodiversidade da União Europeia decorrentes do Pacto Ecológico Europeu, que são aliás em tudo coincidentes com a necessidade de independência energética da UE. Será importante inclusive assegurar, dentro do possível, o respeito pelo princípio de não prejudicar significativamente (”do no significant harm”), sobretudo na escolha dos projetos a serem financiados no futuro, devendo dar-se uma clara prioridade a projetos de energias renováveis, e não aos que têm por base combustíveis fósseis. O mais recente relatório da ONU sobre emissões reconhece preocupantemente que não estamos no caminho para cumprir os objetivos do Acordo de Paris, devendo-se aumentar os compromissos nacionais na redução de emissões e evitar infraestruturas de combustíveis fósseis. Robert Hajšel (S&D),
písomne. – Zahrnutie programu Repower do národných plánov obnovy umožní Slovensku a ďalším členským štátom čerpať ešte viac európskych peňazí na projekty spojené so zvyšovaním bezpečnosti ich energetických dodávok a podielu obnoviteľných zdrojov na výrobe energie. Aj keď v perspektíve piatich až desiatich rokov to isto prispeje k nižšej závislosti na dovoze fosílnych palív nielen z Ruska, ale aj vo všeobecnosti, Slovensku a jeho ekonomike to veľmi nepomôže v budúcom roku, ktorý ale pre prežitie desiatok podnikov z oblasti priemyslu, energetiky a dopravy bude rozhodujúci. Podľa odborníkov bude Európe budúci rok chýbať okolo 30 miliárd kubických metrov ruského plynu a nahradiť tento deficit iba vďaka opatreniam z programu Repower zameraním sa na rozvoj obnoviteľných zdrojov a zvyšovanie energetickej účinnosti pre rok 2023 určite nepostačí. Krátkodobým riešením, ktoré nám umožní prežiť, by bola okamžitá podpora ťažby zemného plynu, ropy a produkcie biometánu a najmä materiálov potrebných na vlastnú výrobu solárnych panelov, veterných turbín a autobatérií. Romana Jerković (S&D),
napisan. – Sutrašnje glasovanje označava važan korak naprijed u rješavanju nekih od strukturnih problema koji su se nagomilali i koji su isplivali na površinu s energetskom krizom. Tu prije svega mislim na potrebu za većim ulaganjima u razvoj nove energetske infrastrukture, poput one za proizvodnju energije iz obnovljivih izvora i vodika, ali i za prevladavanje poremećaja u opskrbi energijom. Financijska sredstva o kojima ćemo glasovati su značajna: 20 milijardi eura bespovratnih sredstava i više od 200 milijardi eura zajmova koji su neiskorišteni u okviru Mehanizma na oporavak i otpornost. Kako bismo ublažili posljedice energetske krize, tražili smo i dalje ćemo tražiti više sredstava, jer su izazovi sadašnje energetske krize mnogo veći od već alociranih sredstava. Izazova je mnogo: krhkost naših obitelji i kućanstava; energetsko siromaštvo, konkurentnost našeg poslovanja, te sama socijalna kohezija naših društava. Ali sama financijska sredstva nisu dovoljna: kako bismo imali dugoročno održiv odgovor na krizu, potrebne su mjere za reformu energetskog tržišta – privremene i strukturne. Znamo o kojim mjerama se radi: o novim referentnim vrijednostima za cijene plina, razdvajanju cijena plina i električne energije, dinamičkom ograničenju cijene plina kojim se trguje u EU te implementaciji zajedničke nabave plina u EU. Znamo što moramo učiniti, sada je vrijeme za isporuku na dobrobit naših građana i gospodarstva. Eugen Jurzyca (ECR),
písomne. – Napriek tomu, že návrh má svoje problémy, napríklad uprednostňovanie podpory pre malé podniky a mikropodniky, aj keď by tento raz podpora stredných a veľkých mohla byť efektívnejšia pre splnenia cieľa zníženia závislosti od ruských energií a zrýchlenie zelenej tranzície, zaň zahlasujem. Základnou myšlienkou je to, čo dlhodobo podporujem – presun zdrojov z digitalizácie a rôznych existujúcich európskych fondov na riešenia energetickej krízy, pri ktorých je pravdepodobnosť dosiahnutia výsledkov vyššia, než u fondov, z ktorých sa financie presúvajú. Dan-Ștefan Motreanu (PPE),
în scris. – Doresc să îmi exprim suportul pentru instituirea programului REPowerEU, cu obiectivele de a ne asigura securitatea energetică în aceste vremuri tulburi, de a ne diversifica sursele de aprovizionare cu energie către parteneri democratici și de a accelera atingerea independenței energetice în Uniunea Europeană. În ceea ce privește finanțarea programului, susțin propunerile Comisiei de a aloca statelor membre granturi în valoare de 20 de miliarde de euro proveniți din sistemul EU ETS cât și utilizarea celor 225 de miliarde de euro rămase în partea de împrumuturi cu dobândă avantajoasă din Mecanismul de redresare și reziliență. Aș dori însă să atrag atenția asupra propunerii Comisiei ca statele membre să poată transfera către REPowerEU până la 7,5% din fondurile de coeziune și până la 12,5 % din pilonul 2 PAC dezvoltare rurală. Subliniez că acești bani sunt extrem de importanți pentru progresul din următorii ani al regiunilor mai puțin dezvoltate și pentru dezvoltarea zonelor rurale rămase în urmă, tocmai de aceea susțin ferm că noile crize cu care se confruntă UE necesită noi surse de finanțare și nicidecum relocarea banilor din programele deja existente, atât de necesare pentru reducea decalajelor de dezvoltare. Victor Negrescu (S&D),
în scris. – Planurile naționale de redresare și reziliență au reprezentat un pilon central al răspunsului nostru în fața consecințelor economice și sociale generate de pandemie, însă, criza energiei cu care ne confruntăm în prezent necesită o abordare care să permită adaptarea acestora la contextul actual. Prin amendamentele pe care le-am redactat, aprobate în comisiile de resort, am prevăzut posibilitatea modificării planurilor naționale, astfel încât acestea să fie optimizate pentru a putea contracara efectele generate de războiul din Ucraina și crizele conexe. Trebuie să ne asigurăm că măsurile vizate vor fi aplicate rapid, iar, prin amendamentele noastre, modificarea planurilor naționale de redresare va putea fi realizată cu celeritate, scurtându-se termenul în care Comisia va analiza modificările solicitate de statele membre. Totodată, cetățenii europeni care se află în situația sărăciei energetice sunt cei mai afectați de creșterea prețurilor la energie, cu consecințe semnificative asupra nivelului de trai și asupra sănătății. De aceea, am solicitat ca măsurile incluse în capitolul REPowerEU să acorde un grad corespunzător de prioritate nevoilor acestora, astfel încât răspunsul nostru să conducă la reducerea vulnerabilităților în apropierea iernii. Ne-am asigurat, de asemenea, că vom avea măsuri care să contribuie la îmbunătățirea eficienței energetice și am inclus referințe la scheme de investiții adresate în mod special gospodăriilor vulnerabile, IMM-urilor și microîntreprinderilor. Ivan Štefanec (PPE),
písomne. – Bezprecedentná a ničím nevyprovokovaná ruská agresia voči Ukrajine nám ukázala, že energetická bezpečnosť Únie zďaleka nie je na požadovanej úrovni a spoliehanie sa na jeden zdroj energie je neprijateľné. Potreba uskutočniť rýchly prechod na čistú energiu v súlade s cieľmi EÚ v oblasti klímy do roku 2030 a jej cieľom dosiahnuť klimatickú neutralitu do roku 2050 nebola ešte nikdy naliehavejšia. EÚ pokrýva 90 % svojej spotreby plynu dovozom, pričom naďalej okolo 6 % tohto dovozu zabezpečuje Rusko. Plán REPowerEU má za kľúčový cieľ zníženie energetickej závislosti Únie. Vysoké ceny a riziká narušenia dodávok energie ohrozujú hospodársky výhľad, majú negatívny vplyv na malé a stredné podniky a oslabujú územnú súdržnosť všetkých členských štátov. Navyše by nestále ceny energie mohli zhoršiť konkurencieschopnosť podnikov a prehĺbiť nerovnosti aj energetickú chudobu, najmä medzi zraniteľnými domácnosťami s nízkymi a strednými príjmami. Je v našom záujme, aby sa podiel obnoviteľných zdrojov energie v energetickom mixe zvýšil a prijali sa opatrenia na riešenie nedostatku pracovných síl a chýbajúcich zručností, či infraštruktúry. Preto je tento návrh, ktorý má za cieľ posilniť našu schopnosť, podporovať reformy a investície zamerané na diverzifikáciu dodávok energie vrátane fosílnych palív, a tým posilniť aj strategickú autonómiu Únie súbežne s otvoreným hospodárstvom, nesmierne dôležitý. Carlos Zorrinho (S&D),
por escrito. – A adaptação dos regulamentos associados à aplicação da iniciativa REpowerEU às novas circunstâncias causadas pelo impacto da invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia e pela estratégia aplicada pela potência invasora, ao usar a energia como arma de chantagem e guerra, é oportuna e necessária. As alterações em debate são um compromisso possível, em contexto de enorme dificuldade, entre a necessidade de garantir o abastecimento e, ao mesmo tempo, continuar o esforço de redução de emissões de gases com efeito de estufa, de combate ao aquecimento climático e de mitigação dos seus efeitos. Realço a possibilidade de financiamento de projetos destinados a atenuar a pobreza energética. Realço ainda o envolvimento acrescido da sociedade civil e das autoridades locais e regionais na definição dos planos de ação. Em complemento, o regulamento de urgência anunciado pela Comissão Europeia para desburocratizar o licenciamento de novos projetos de produção, armazenamento, transporte e distribuição de energia renovável, associado a um novo modelo comum de garantias para facilitar o seu financiamento, é um contributo importante para preservar a ambição ambiental e de desenvolvimento sustentável associado à iniciativa. 15.   Tiedonanto lannoitteiden saatavuuden ja kohtuuhintaisuuden varmistamisesta (keskustelu) President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on ensuring availability and affordability of fertilisers (2022/2933(RSP)). Janusz Wojciechowski,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for including this very important point on the agenda. The communication was adopted today and thank you that, just after adoption, we have the possibility to present this communication to the European Parliament. The inspiration for this communication came from the European Parliament. I would like to thank you for that. Fertiliser prices, fertiliser costs, this is a very sensitive problem for our farmers. I would like to present the free numbers about the price of fertilisers. The increase of the price for nitrogen fertilisers: 149 %, when comparing September 2021 with 2022. The increase of the price for phosphate rock: 254 % compared to the 2016–2020 average. The increase of the price for potash minerals, compared with the same period: 141 %. We can observe the increase of input costs for the farmers. According to Eurostat data, comparing the second quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2022, the increase in agricultural input costs is almost 40 %. This is the EU average. At the same time, the increase of the agricultural output, the price of the agricultural products, is about 25 %. The increase of the price of products does not compensate for the farmers' increase of input costs. Only in three Member States can we observe that the increase of inputs was compensated by increase of the output. These are Estonia, Romania and the Czech Republic. In the rest of the countries there is a negative balance for the farmers. This is the reason that we need to propose action, and this is the substance of our communication adopted today. What we propose in this communication, the Commission points out that the Member States may prioritise the continued and uninterrupted access to natural gas for fertiliser producers in their national emergency plan in the event of gas rationing in line with the Commission communication ”Save Gas for a Safe Winter”. The fertiliser industry can be included in the emergency plan as a sensitive sector. State aid, this is what we mentioned in our communication. We have opened a temporary crisis framework for state aid, which enables a specific support for farmers and fertiliser producers. We increased the possible amount so that now there is EUR 150 million for the companies, fertiliser producers, and EUR 250 000 for one individual farm. I can say that this, that this state aid used from March, when we opened this this possibility, the total amount of the state aid has been more than EUR 450 billion, the majority of which – almost 90% – by two countries: Germany and France. But this state aid for agriculture including the fertiliser sector is less than 1 % of this amount. We identified only 18 programmes with a total amount of EUR 3.5 billion, which is less than 1 % of the total amount. State aid is open also for the fertiliser industry and also for farmers. Funds generated by measures such as the cap on market revenues, certain electricity generators and the solidarity contribution provided for under Union legislation can also be used – subject to the applicable conditions for purposes of national support schemes. This is the next opportunity. The crisis reserve. We are open also to this, and will discuss with the Member States to use the crisis reserve, which is EUR 450 million with possible co-financing by Member States to use also for the farmers affected by this increase of fertiliser prices. I'd like to add that maybe this very important and concrete proposal, public authorities could, for instance, purchase fertilisers and offer them at lower prices to farmers. It will be treated not as a state aid and, with that, the price will be the same as when the public institution bought the fertilisers and offered this at the same price to the farmers – at a lower price than normally in the market. The Commission will examine and discuss with Member States how to best use the CAP strategy plans to address the fertiliser situation. Sustainable fertilisation measures should be implemented in an accelerated manner. The Commission encourages Member States to ensure that revisions of their plans are sufficiently programmed, as of now, to help farmers to use fertilisers more efficiently and sustainably. Precision farming. This is an example. Unfortunately, only six Member States propose precision farming as an eco-scheme, but we recommend to use precision farming, which is a very important tool to use fertilisers in a more rational way. We are open to the amendment of the strategic plans and to use more precision farming to strengthen this support for this very good agricultural practice. It's better for the investment to the precision farming because in 24 strategic plans this possibility was included. The Commission will take steps to improve market transparency in the European Union fertilisers market by way of the new Market Observatory to be established in 2023 and the organisation of regular stakeholder consultation in the framework of the expert group of the European Food Security and Crisis Mechanism. Also important is better access to organic fertilisers and nutrients from recycled waste streams, especially in regions with a low usage of organic fertilisers, as is support for the conversion of the European nitrogen fertiliser industry to one based using renewable and fossil free hydrogen, and to assure that there is a stable and workable regulatory environment governing the production of renewable and low carbon hydrogen, thereby ensuring that the market for renewable and low-carbon hydrogen-based fertilisers can rapidly develop. Distinguished Members, they are the main proposals, which we present in the communication. I think it will be helpful to improve the situation because we fully understand that it's the cost of the fertilisers now which is creating risk for food security in the future. This is our proposal. Once again, thank you all for including this important point on today's agenda. Herbert Dorfmann,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Danke, Herr Kommissar, dass Sie sich um diese Mitteilung bemüht haben, sie jetzt vorgestellt haben. Und ich denke, gerade was die mittel- und langfristige Lösung des Problems angeht, haben Sie einige sehr wertvolle Inputs gegeben. Gestern haben Ihre Mitarbeiter der GD AGRI bei uns im Agrarausschuss eine erschreckende Zahl vorgestellt. Wenn man die Mehrkosten, die den Bäuerinnen und Bauern durch höhere Energiekosten und höhere Düngerkosten entstehen, zusammenzählt, dann kommt man auf 45 Milliarden EUR in diesem Jahr. Das ist sozusagen die gesamte GAP. Das heißt, diese Mehrkosten verbrennen alles, was wir als GAP ausgeben, und die wenigen Millionen, die in dieser Mitteilung drinnen sind, die geben halt dann wenig Fleisch her. Diese Zahl macht deutlich, wo das wirkliche Problem ist. Ich denke, das wirkliche Problem ist, dass Dünger zu teuer sind. Und man macht es sich ein bisschen einfach, wenn man einfach sagt: Ja, Energiekosten sind hoch, und deswegen sind halt auch Dünger teuer. Ich nenne Ihnen ein paar Zahlen. Zum Beispiel ein großes deutsches Unternehmen, Kali und Salz, hat im letzten Jahr den Gewinn im Vergleich zu 2020 von einem Verlust von 1,8 Milliarden auf einen Gewinn von 2,2 Milliarden gebracht. Borealis hat den Gewinn verdoppelt. Yara hat vor zwei Wochen eine Sonderdividende ausbezahlt, weil man das Geld nicht mehr losgeworden ist, und hat auch noch zugegeben im Bericht, dass man weltweit billig Harnstoff und Ammonium eingekauft hat und den Bauern in Europa teuer verschleudert hat. Und da müssen wir dran. Es gibt Übergewinne, es gibt Spekulationsblasen, es gibt Oligopole. Und ich denke, wenn wir das Thema wirklich angehen wollen, dann müssen wir auch an dieses Thema heran und müssen schauen, wie wir die Kosten insgesamt in Europa wieder nach unten bringen. Clara Aguilera,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, quiero agradecerle que haya traído esta Comunicación. Creo que era una demanda que habíamos solicitado en este Pleno y le agradezco el esfuerzo que ha hecho por traer una propuesta aquí, hoy. Yo y mi Grupo creemos que es importante que haya disponibilidad de fertilizantes. Es muy importante, no solo para los agricultores; es importante para poder tener alimentos, a ser posible a precios asequibles, para todos los ciudadanos. Eso es importante. Como es importante conseguir una autonomía estratégica y superar la dependencia de Rusia —sobre todo en lo que respecta a los fertilizantes nitrogenados—, impulsar la utilización de los bioestimulantes para optimizar el uso de fertilizantes gracias al mejor aprovechamiento de los nutrientes o facilitar el uso de abonos orgánicos en el transporte. A mí me gustaría que me respondiese a esta pregunta concreta: ¿vamos a poder utilizar abonos orgánicos y va a haber un cambio en la Directiva que lo permita? Porque hasta ahora no es posible. Y quiero felicitarle, porque creo que la propuesta es interesante. No sé si suficiente, pero es muy interesante. Ulrike Müller,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar, vielen herzlichen Dank für diese Mitteilung. Es ist ein gutes Zeichen – es wurde erkannt, dass die Preise und die Verfügbarkeit von Düngemitteln auf dem EU-Markt ein Problem darstellen. Auch die Marktbeobachtungsstelle kann nützlich sein. Mir fehlen jedoch konkrete Schritte, wie wir den Landwirten zügig helfen. Der Hinweis auf die GAP ist, glaube ich, gut gemeint, aber mir kommt es so vor, als wenn die GAP wie ein Weihnachtsbaum mit so vielen Kugeln behangen wird, dass uns die Äste langsam brechen. Was wir brauchen, ist Verlässlichkeit in der Erzeugung und die Verhinderung von Ernteausfällen. Stickstoff und Phosphor müssen differenziert betrachtet werden. Beim Stickstoff geht es um Energieabhängigkeit, beim Phosphor geht es um die strategische Abhängigkeit aus Drittstaaten. Es muss unser aller Ziel sein, Menge, Qualität und Sicherheit der nachhaltigen Versorgung mit hochwertigsten Lebensmitteln innerhalb der EU zu gewährleisten. Unabhängigkeit von Importen von Düngemitteln muss sein. Und für mich birgt die Inflation bei Lebensmitteln enormen sozialen Sprengstoff. Mir fehlt hier bei dieser Mitteilung tatsächlich die langfristige Strategie für Düngemittel in Europa. Herr Kommissar, wir arbeiten daran gerne mit. Thomas Waitz,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I wish to welcome the Commissioner here to the plenary. My colleague Dorfmann has already said it: we're having fertilizer companies across the European Union that are having windfall profits, enormous profits, as we have not seen before. So why should we now use taxpayers' money to support these companies? Luckily, our farmers had production prices for their goods which were substantially higher than in the years before. You mentioned that in many countries they were overweighting the additional costs of energy and fertilizer. So there's a pretty okay income situation in most of our countries. So why would you actually stop the diversification from artificial fertiliser to agro-ecological methods? High fertilizer prices are finally bringing our farmers to change their production methods, to use more leguminosae, to use crop rotation, to invest in a healthy soil. It's healthy soil that will provide us with food security in the upcoming years – a soil that is able to keep water, to keep the carbon and to sustain our plants without becoming dependent on Russian energy, on the import of substances from abroad. It's the independent agriculture, the self-sufficient agriculture that keeps our food security in the European Union, and why are we actually taking windfall profits of the energy companies to share them with the fertilizer companies? No, they are meant to help citizens to pay their high energy bills. Yes, also farmers to pay their high energy bills, but I can't really follow your strategy and don't understand in times of climate crisis why we are still supporting artificial fertiliser. Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, l'augmentation exponentielle du prix des engrais place les agriculteurs européens dans une situation très préoccupante. La Commission semble avoir pris la mesure de la gravité de la crise, mais ses réactions déçoivent. Elle vient certes de permettre aux États membres de l'Union de soutenir financièrement les exploitations agricoles à hauteur de 250 000 euros. C'est une mesure d'urgence bienvenue, mais elle ne suffira pas, et la Commission semble peiner à imaginer d'autres solutions à court terme. C'est ainsi qu'elle hésite à recourir à la réserve de crise pour 2023, qui me paraît pourtant prévue pour faire face à ce genre d'événement. D'autre part – et surtout –, elle vient de refuser de lever les surtaxes instituées en 2019 sur les engrais en provenance de Trinité-et-Tobago et des États-Unis, alors même que cette levée avait été demandée par le COPA et par la Cogeca, qui représentent un très grand nombre d'agriculteurs européens. L'urgence ne consiste pas à réfléchir sur la stratégie européenne des engrais à moyen terme – comme la Commission vient de le faire dans sa communication du 9 novembre, qui est d'ailleurs une belle communication –, elle consiste à secourir les agriculteurs le plus vite possible. Bert-Jan Ruissen,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, terwijl de wereld in brand staat en boeren hun bedrijven in rook zien opgaan, komt de Commissie met een uiterst teleurstellende mededeling. Zij gaat in Oman, Turkmenistan en Qatar op zoek naar kunstmest, terwijl de oplossing grotendeels gewoon in de EU voor het oprapen ligt: RENURE, voedingsstoffen uit dierlijke mest die wij zelf tot kwalitatief hoogwaardige, hernieuwbare meststoffen kunnen recyclen. Alle mooie woorden ten spijt laat de Commissie deze oplossing wederom onbenut. De voetnoten in de tekst liegen er niet om: als de door de Commissie gehanteerde voorwaarden niet veranderen, zullen kunstmestvervangers in veel delen van de EU niet van de grond komen. Geef circulariteit nu eindelijk eens daadwerkelijk een kans. Zorg ervoor dat in het aangekondigde actieplan voor het geïntegreerd beheer van voedingsstoffen daadwerkelijk ruimte wordt geboden voor kunstmestvervangers. Momenteel wordt namelijk niet meer geboden dan een lege huls. Norbert Lins (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal möchte ich Ihnen danken, Herr Kommissar, dass Sie unsere Anregung aufgenommen haben, sich um die Düngemittel zu kümmern, und die Mitteilung heute vorgelegt haben. Leider sehe ich bei dieser Mitteilung mehr Schatten als Licht. Kurzfristig sehe ich wenig Bemühen, die Düngemittelsituation in Europa zu verbessern. Man hätte die Antidumpingzölle für Trinidad und Tobago und die USA aussetzen können; dies ist leider nicht Bestandteil der Mitteilung. Ich sehe viele längerfristig gute Ansätze, die Sie auch beschrieben haben – so weit, so gut –, insbesondere die verstärkte Nutzung von organischem Dünger. Nur, die möglichen Lösungen, die schon auf dem Tisch liegen, die werden nur in einer Fußnote erwähnt, wie zum Beispiel RENURE, Struvit, Stripping oder regionale Flexibilitäten im Rahmen der Nitratrichtlinie; sie sind entweder nur nebensächlich erwähnt oder in einer Fußnote oder gleich gar nicht. Ich würde sagen, die Kommission ist leider hinter den Erwartungen geblieben, die ich mir bei dieser Kommission vorgestellt hätte. Ich appelliere an Sie: Schauen Sie sich noch mal die Lage in Europa, in der Welt an und handeln Sie entsprechend nicht nur längerfristig, sondern jetzt auch kurzfristig im Sinne der Ernährungssicherheit und unserer Landwirtschaft in Europa. Carmen Avram (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, vă mulțumim pentru această prezentare, dar vă pot spune de pe acum că ea va dezamăgi crunt foarte mulți producători europeni, mai ales cei din țări care nu își vor permite ajutoare de stat, fiind deja epuizate financiar pentru că trebuie să facă față unui război care se află foarte aproape de frontiera lor. Nu avem deci soluții reale, eficiente pentru fabricile europene care asigurau 70% din producția de amoniac și fosfor și care s-au închis. Avem soluții puține pentru campania agricolă de toamnă și nicio strategie privind asigurarea hranei anul viitor. Sunt bune promisiunile, sunt bune și indicațiile date statelor membre, dar și mai bune ar fi fost măsurile concrete, salvatoare pentru un sector vital care a fost îngenuncheat și care se zbate să supraviețuiască. Solicit deci Consiliului și Comisiei să urgenteze suspendarea tarifelor vamale pentru uree și amoniac, Comisiei și statelor membre să asigure cantitatea de gaz necesară producerii de îngrășăminte fără să afecteze continuitatea activităților agricole, și nu în ultimul rând, Comisiei Europene să diversifice sursele de substanțe necesare producției de fertilizatori, să ridice barierele tarifare pentru aceștia și să identifice în Uniunea Europeană noi zăcăminte de minerale necesare producerii de fertilizanți. Jan Huitema (Renew). – Voorzitter, het waarborgen van de beschikbaarheid en betaalbaarheid van meststoffen is niet alleen in het belang van de boer. Naast de hoge energieprijzen zijn ook de voedselprijzen een zeer grote aanjager van de inflatie in de Europese Unie. Desalniettemin omvat de mededeling geen concrete toezegging met betrekking tot de verheffing van het gebruik van RENURE boven de norm voor het gebruik van dierlijke mest. Alleen met een dergelijke toezegging kan RENURE doen waarvoor het ontwikkeld is, namelijk kunstmest vervangen en besparen. In 70 % van de EU worden boeren beperkt in het gebruik van hun eigen dierlijke mest. Deze beperking geldt echter niet voor het gebruik van kunstmest. Boeren moeten, vaak zelfs tegen betaling, hun eigen dierlijke mest afvoeren en vervolgens dure kunstmest kopen om aan hun gewasbehoeften te voldoen. Dit is uiterst onlogisch. Ik ben er niettemin van overtuigd dat dierlijke mest, en daarmee ook RENURE, met de vaststelling van het nieuwe actieplan voor het geïntegreerd beheer van voedingsstoffen opnieuw de waardering krijgt die dierlijke mest verdient. Daniel Buda (PPE). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, doamnelor și domnilor colegi, războiul din Ucraina și criza energetică au avut ca efect limitarea cantităților de îngrășăminte disponibile pentru fermieri. În acest context, sectorul agricol se confruntă astăzi cu una dintre cele mai mari provocări legate de creșterea prețului la îngrășăminte, cu o medie de aproximativ 200%. În multe cazuri, fermierii sunt puși în situația de a-și reduce activitatea, iar acest lucru înseamnă implicit reducerea producțiilor în viitor. Comisia Europeană identifică, prin comunicarea de astăzi, unele soluții pe care le-aș aprecia eu ca fiind insuficiente, domnule comisar. Utilizarea rezervei de criză pentru agricultură trebuie activată, în opinia mea, încă de la începutul anului 2023. Statelor membre le-a fost oferită posibilitatea de a acorda unele scheme de ajutor de stat pentru fermieri, ceea ce s-a și întâmplat. Însă trebuie să înțelegem, domnule comisar, că acțiunea statelor membre este una limitată de propriile resurse bugetare. Tocmai de aceea, în acest context, vă cer insistent să veniți cu bani noi, serioși, pentru sectorul agricol, dacă vrem într-adevăr să îl salvăm. Pe termen lung, obiectivul Comisiei Europene trebuie să fie dezvoltarea unor capacități de producție a îngrășămintelor în interiorul Uniunii Europene, dar pe termen scurt este vital să ne îndreptăm atenția către alte state terțe capabile să furnizeze îngrășăminte fermierilor din Uniunea Europeană la prețuri accesibile pentru acestea. Anne Sander (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, M. le commissaire a annoncé aujourd'hui même une communication sur les engrais, ce dont je me réjouis tant le sujet est explosif pour nos agriculteurs européens. Vous rappelez des mesures qui existent déjà: la priorisation de l'approvisionnement en gaz pour le secteur des engrais, la flexibilité en matière d'aides d'État... Tout cela va évidemment dans le bon sens. Néanmoins, ce sont essentiellement des mesures qui ont déjà été prises. Ce sont aussi des mesures qui renvoient vers les États membres. Ma question est donc simple, Monsieur le Commissaire: quelle stratégie réellement européenne, quelles nouvelles mesures pour faire face à cette explosion des coûts et favoriser l'accessibilité des engrais pour les agriculteurs? Le risque, avec ce renvoi aux États membres, est un risque de renationalisation, mais aussi de fragmentation et de concurrence au niveau du marché et au niveau des agriculteurs européens. Enfin, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous n'avez pas voulu lever les droits antidumping sur les engrais produits par des pays tiers. Là aussi, je crois que nous avons besoin d'une mesure qui aille dans ce sens. Au-delà d'une stratégie pour les engrais, c'est d'une stratégie pour la sécurité alimentaire que nous avons besoin. Catch-the-eye procedure Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Gospa predsednica, spoštovani komisar, hvala za sporočilo, ki smo ga danes dobili glede prehranske varnosti in pa povezave z mineralnimi gnojili. Včeraj na Odboru za kmetijstvo in tudi danes ste povedali, kako velike so bile te podražitve in kako so se povečali stroški za kmeta. In resnično tudi sam, pa tudi evropski kmetje pričakujejo od Komisije neko konkretno pomoč. V ukrepih, ki ste jih navedli, so ukrepi, s katerimi, moram enostavno reči, da ne vem, kaj naj povem kmetom, s čim si bodo pomagali? S tem, da bomo spodbudili naložbe v vodik zato, da bo proizvodnja amonijaka iz naravnih virov, ne vem, če bomo rešili evropske kmete, pa tudi prehranske varnosti ne, kajti bojim se, da bo padec porabe gnojil in posledično tudi pridelkov tako velik, da bomo naslednjo jesen bolj kot se bali, ali bo plin v evropski skladiščih, se bomo bali, ali bo hrana v evropskih kaščah. Na takšen način, kot ga rešujemo s tem sporočilom, mislim, da problema ne bomo rešili. Peter Jahr (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! In einer Minute kann man nicht viel loben. Deshalb vier kritische Anmerkungen. Das Erste: Wir haben es gehört vom Kollegen Dorfmann: ein Schaden von 44 Milliarden, unsere landwirtschaftlichen Katastrophen von 450 Millionen. Wir werden damit nicht alles klären können. Das Zweite: Ich bitte Sie, noch einmal gründlich zu überlegen – es ist mehrfach gesagt worden: Die Strafsteuer bei Importen bzw. die Anti-Dumping-Zölle als Signal an unsere europäischen Landwirte vorübergehend auszusetzen, wäre wichtig. Dritte Anmerkung: Kreislauflandwirtschaft fördern, organische Düngemittel, an der Stelle mutiger vorgehen. Manche Fußnoten wünsche ich mir dann im Originaltext oder umgekehrt. Ich bitte Sie, setzen Sie sich da in der Kommission durch, dass wir Kreislauflandwirtschaft brauchen, und dazu gehört auch, organische Dünger wieder ordentlich einzusetzen. Meine letzte Bitte – Stichwort Harmonisierung: Sie haben ein Bündel von Maßnahmen vorgestellt. Ich habe die Angst, dass verschiedene Mitgliedstaaten das extrem unterschiedlich anwenden und dann Wettbewerbsverzerrungen entstehen. Da müssen wir ein bisschen aufpassen. Nicht, dass dann die Dinge in den Mitgliedstaaten ganz unterschiedlich bei den Landwirten ankommen, und dann kommt die Kritik dann entsprechend zurück. Irène Tolleret (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, la communication de la Commission est vraiment la bienvenue, même si j'aurais préféré un texte qui articule une véritable stratégie au niveau européen. J'aimerais d'ailleurs en profiter pour demander que la Commission réfléchisse à la mise en place d'une telle stratégie européenne. En effet, ce n'est pas par les importations que nous allons résoudre le problème des engrais, c'est par la souveraineté industrielle, qui doit être renforcée dans notre Union, avec des incitations à l'innovation, pour développer des engrais qui ne dépendent pas des combustibles fossiles. Une stratégie européenne devrait également être entreprise pour augmenter la production de protéagineux. Ils sont moins gourmands en engrais, ce qui permettrait en même temps de réduire la dépendance de l'Europe vis-à-vis des importations de produits d'alimentation animale. La France a mis en place des incitations pour stimuler la production de protéines dans le cadre de son plan stratégique national. Je pense que nous avons besoin d'une initiative concertée au niveau européen. Enfin, je voudrais souligner la nécessité de promouvoir le changement variétal et les investissements dans l'agriculture de précision, pour mieux doser l'utilisation des engrais et accélérer l'introduction des nouvelles techniques génomiques dans l'Union européenne. Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, I welcome the statement from the Commission, but being truthful we have to live in the here and now in terms of food security and food supply, and a lot of the proposals and ideas coming forward from the Commission are looking beyond the immediate horizon. I mean the significant challenges are for the planting season next spring. Will there be sufficient amounts of fertilizer in place to guarantee that yields will be of sufficient nature to guarantee food security and food supply in the autumn of next year? That is a significant issue. Speaking of hydrogen and methane are longer-term projects, but we have to try and ensure that we have enough gas supply available for the production of fertilisers in the spring of 2023. Of course, when we are doing that we will also be using gas that we need for electricity. So we have to ensure that there's a greater capacity. I would just urge the Commission to look aggressively at the concept of ensuring that we have more than just enough gas for electricity production, but that we also start to fill our storage capacity for next spring, for the planting season, in terms of the production of fertilizer. That is the immediate priority. Food production, food security, increased yields in the time ahead. (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Janusz Wojciechowski,
członek Komisji. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Dziękuję wszystkim Państwu posłom za bardzo ciekawe, inspirujące wypowiedzi, czasem też krytyczne, pod adresem komunikatu. Spodziewałem się tego, bo temat jest trudny i w krótkim czasie przedstawiliśmy to, co Komisja była w stanie zaproponować, żeby poprawić sytuację. Nie o wszystkim powiedziałem w pierwszym wystąpieniu, więc może dodam tylko, że kwestia pewnych derogacji związanych z obornikiem, którego użycie podlega pewnym limitom – zastosowanie pewnych derogacji będzie rozważane w kolejnym dokumencie, jaki Komisja przedstawi na początku przyszłego roku. Integrated Nutrient Management Action Plan – taka jest nazwa tego dokumentu i ta kwestia będzie w tym dokumencie rozważana. Ona nie jest zamknięta, ale w omawianym komunikacie tego nie przedstawiliśmy, gdyż wymaga to większych analiz i w tym krótkim czasie nie byliśmy w stanie się do tej kwestii odnieść. Jeśli chodzi o cła antydumpingowe – była świadoma decyzja, żeby jednak nie zdecydować się na ich uchylenie. Musimy chronić naszą produkcję. Unia Europejska jest mocno uzależniona od importu nawozów: w przypadku nawozów azotowych jest to około 30%, a w przypadku nawozów fosforowych, potasowych większość stanowi import, więc ochrona producentów w Unii Europejskiej przed dumpingiem jest po prostu konieczna. Być może w bardzo krótkim czasie poprawilibyśmy sytuację, ale w dłuższej perspektywie moglibyśmy ją pogorszyć i zdecydowanie stracić to, co mamy – możliwość produkcji na miejscu. Jest rzeczywiście ciężar na pomoc publiczną, przyznaję to. We Wspólnej Polityce Rolnej, której budżet wynosi 58 mld euro rocznie (taka jest mniej więcej kwota do dyspozycji, którą w zdecydowanej większości rozdysponowuje się na płatności bezpośrednie, na programy z drugiego filaru), możliwości działania finansowego z budżetu Unii Europejskiej są niewielkie. Wszyscy o tym wiemy. Tak funkcjonuje Wspólna Polityka Rolna. Możliwości interwencji kryzysowej są niewielkie i w gruncie rzeczy to jest rezerwa kryzysowa, co do której jesteśmy otwarci. A poza tym rzeczywiście ciężar walki z kryzysem w dużej mierze przeniósł się na pomoc publiczną. Jeszcze raz przypomnę tę kwotę 455 mld euro, które państwa członkowskie przeznaczyły na pomoc publiczną dla gospodarki dotkniętej skutkami rosyjskiej agresji na Ukrainę. Podnosimy problem pomocy publicznej, żeby wskazać również państwom członkowskim, że należy w większym stopniu dostrzegać kwestie bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego i włączać ten sektor, choćby produkcję nawozów. To daje potem możliwość pewnej kontroli też nad tymi podmiotami (czy nie odnoszą nadmiernych zysków?), kreowania pewnej polityki w tym zakresie. Wiem, że to nie jest rozwiązanie długofalowe i że jest ono ryzykowne, gdyż tworzy też pewne nierówności konkurencyjne na rynku. Dziś jednak innego instrumentu nie mamy, dlatego stawiamy tak mocno kwestię pomocy publicznej. Myślę, że działanie, które wskazujemy w komunikacie, żeby organy publiczne spróbowały podjąć taką akcję, żeby zorganizować publiczne zakupy nawozów i dystrybuować je po niższej, dużo niższej cenie dla rolników, to byłoby jakieś rozwiązanie. Pomoc dla zakładów produkujących, dla przedsiębiorstw produkujących nawozy była konieczna – czy jest wciąż konieczna – choćby z tego powodu, że w pewnym momencie zakłady te przerwały produkcję. W sierpniu mieliśmy do czynienia z taką sytuacją. Część z nich, czy istotna część, przerwała produkcję, bo z powodów wysokich kosztów energii nie była pewna, czy rolnicy będą w stanie kupić nawozy, zatem tego rodzaju działania to konieczność. Myślę, że to, co na tę chwilę mogliśmy zaproponować, zostało zawarte w tym komunikacie. Oczywiście będziemy cały czas analizować i monitorować sytuację. Pewne rzeczy będą w tym dokumencie, o którym wspomniałem, który ma zostać przyjęty na początku przyszłego roku i nad którym Komisja pracuje. Jeszcze tylko dodam, że Komisja zaproponowała zniesienie taryf celnych na import amoniaku i mocznika. Czekamy teraz na stanowisko Rady w tym zakresie. Natomiast cła antydumpingowe służą jednak zapewnieniu produkcji nawozów w Unii Europejskiej, ochronie naszych producentów przed dumpingiem, który jest zawsze złym zjawiskiem i w dłuższej perspektywie bardzo niebezpiecznym. Jeszcze raz dziękuję Wysokiej Izbie i Szanownym Państwu Posłom za, po pierwsze, inspirację do tego komunikatu i, po drugie, za bardzo ciekawą, ważną debatę. President. – Thank you, Commissioner, for this very timely discussion. The debate is closed. 16.   Yritysten kestävyysraportointia koskeva direktiivi (keskustelu) President. – The next item is the debate on the report by Pascal Durand, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (COM(2021)0189 – C9-0147/2021 – 2021/0104(COD)) (A9-0059/2022). Pascal Durand,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais d'abord commencer – parce qu'on le garde souvent pour la fin, et puis après on oublie, on est pris par le temps – par remercier toutes celles et tous ceux qui ont travaillé sur ce dossier, avec un mot spécifique pour les advisors et pour tous les assistants qui ont travaillé dans des conditions d'urgence absolument incroyables, et par remercier également toutes les rapporteures fictives et tous les rapporteurs fictifs que je vois d'ailleurs présents ce soir dans la salle et qui m'ont aidé, qui nous ont aidés à faire en sorte que ce texte puisse être présenté à temps et qu'il puisse reprendre l'essentiel des éléments qui nous étaient chers. Cela, nous l'avons fait dans une volonté vraiment constructive, à tel point d'ailleurs que ce texte a été voté – vous le savez, Madame la Commissaire – à l'unanimité dans la commission JURI, ce qui est rare. J'en profite également pour remercier, au-delà de votre texte, les services de la Commission, qui nous ont aidés à trouver les réponses et à construire ce consensus avec le Conseil, puisque le Conseil a lui aussi adopté à l'unanimité cette proposition de directive. Alors, je ne vais pas être trop long: tout le monde connaît ce texte dans le détail; je voudrais simplement insister sur deux points. Ce texte est une évolution absolument majeure dans la vision que nous portons des entreprises et du rôle des entreprises dans la société. Nous avons la certitude que le monde dans lequel nous œuvrons actuellement est un monde qui change et qui bouge, et l'Europe a souhaité – c'est une question de souveraineté extrêmement importante –, sur ces questions extrafinancières, environnementales, sociales ou relatives aux droits de l'homme, être un law-maker, c'est-à-dire être à l'origine des règles et des textes, non pas pour s'isoler, mais pour pouvoir en discuter d'égal à égal et pour ne plus être simplement débitrice de textes qui nous étaient imposés de l'extérieur. Cette question essentielle, vous l'avez portée, Madame la Commissaire. Le Parlement vous a totalement soutenue dans cette démarche, dans cette volonté de faire que l'Europe, qui a développé son pacte vert, sa taxonomie verte et sa propre vision de la mise en œuvre de l'accord de Paris, le porte, y compris dans le monde économique. Vous le savez – je le répète à chaque fois, mais il ne faut jamais l'oublier –, l'Union européenne est certainement l'endroit de cette planète où nous avons le plus fort équilibre entre les trois piliers du développement durable – les questions environnementales, les questions sociales et les questions économiques. Nous essayons de faire en sorte que ces trois piliers ne soient jamais séparés les uns des autres et que l'on avance ensemble. Votre directive, Madame McGuinness, a parfaitement intégré cette contrainte. Elle a aussi parfaitement intégré le fait que la vision court-termiste, souvent cynique, d'une société dans laquelle on veut d'abord et avant tout produire à moindre coût, délocaliser, exploiter les gens, la nature et l'environnement, est désormais dépassée. Cette vision du monde n'est plus souhaitée par les investisseurs, qui désirent maintenant faire en sorte que la réputation de l'entreprise ne soit plus atteinte et que les risques et les effets qu'elle peut avoir soient pris en compte, pas plus qu'elle n'est supportée par la société, par les consommateurs, qui veulent connaître les conditions dans lesquelles les produits sont faits. Voilà à quoi répond cette directive: sortir de l'arbitraire de déclaration pour aller vers des standards qui soient partagés, qui soient normés, qui soient contrôlés. C'est la force de notre Union, c'est la force de l'état de droit. Vous l'avez mis en œuvre, nous l'avons également suivi. Ne reste maintenant qu'à attendre que les États membres prennent leurs responsabilités sur ce sujet et fassent en sorte que nous ayons un contrôle effectif de ces déclarations. Lídia Pereira,
relatora de parecer da Comissão do Meio Ambiente, da Saúde Pública e da Política do Consumidor. – Senhora Presidente, ao contrário de muitos, acreditamos que os investimentos privados lucrativos são fundamentais para financiar a transição climática de que precisamos e com a qual nos comprometemos. E, para isso, precisamos que os mercados de capitais e os grandes e os pequenos investidores orientem os seus recursos para investimentos sustentáveis e que promovam um crescimento económico que respeite o planeta. Mas, para que isto aconteça, os investidores precisam que a informação sobre as empresas seja mais transparente, permitindo conhecer o impacto da atividade da empresa no planeta, mas também os impactos das alterações climáticas nos seus resultados. Transparência e sustentabilidade são as duas palavras-chave. E esta é uma visão transformadora em que as grandes empresas deixam apenas de prestar contas dos seus resultados financeiros, mas passam também a reportar os seus resultados ambientais, sociais e de governança. Esta alteração legislativa representa um novo paradigma na prestação de contas das empresas e, embora por si só possa não ser suficiente, o reforço da comunicação de informações sobre a sustentabilidade constitui um incentivo importante para a tomada de decisões e uma governação mais sustentáveis por parte das empresas. Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, colleagues, honourable Members, I'm trying to catch the eye of our very committed rapporteur to say, at the very outset, thank you for your passion this evening and your commitment during the process. It is as a result of that and your collaboration with the shadow rapporteurs that we are able to have this debate and to sign off on this important piece of legislation. I think we are all reminded of the challenges we face, particularly this week as COP27 takes place in Egypt. There is so much to do around climate and biodiversity, and we need both finance and information to be successful, to change the scenarios which are so alarming. It is a huge challenge. This debate on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, in my view, represents a very important achievement in our collective efforts towards a more sustainable economy and society. It will support and steer companies as they make the transition to more sustainable business models and a more sustainable economy. The directive will strengthen the rules on the environmental and the social information that companies have to report. For the first time – and this is how significant this debate and this directive is – we are putting sustainability reporting on an equal footing with financial reporting, and this is hugely significant, as other speakers have already alluded to. We need accurate and reliable information to ensure that investments are being made towards a more sustainable future. Companies need the information to plan their transition paths, and investors need the information to have clarity about what they are investing in and to combat greenwashing. Because greenwashing, if left unaddressed, could reduce investor confidence in sustainable investment products, not to mention public confidence in sustainable finance and in companies' efforts to transition. Clear and consistent disclosure requirements, together with the new assurance requirement, will improve the reliability of sustainability information. The final text of the directive provides a good basis for alignment with the proposed Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which is currently in trilogues. The text also addresses the particular situation of SMEs. Only listed SMEs are subject to reporting requirements, and there are provisions to prevent SMEs in supply chains from being unduly burdened by trickle-down information requests from larger companies. The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group, EFRAC, is now in the process of improving its draft standards so that they are in line with the directive and implementable by companies. European standards need to strike a balance between providing useful information for investors and stakeholders and the potential cost and burden for reporting companies. The Commission is fully committed to ensuring that this balance is achieve, considering the current economic situation. EU standards must take account of global standards, including the standards currently being developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board, the ISSB. Technical discussions between the Commission, EFRAC and the ISSB are taking place to achieve as much commonality as possible between European and global standards. So I now look forward to the rest of this debate on what is a really ground-breaking piece of legislation that we must insist is implemented fully, and meets the needs of companies, investors and citizens. Pierfrancesco Majorino,
relatore per parere della commissione per lo sviluppo. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la nuova direttiva sulla comunicazione societaria e sulla sostenibilità è sicuramente un passo avanti importante per migliorare il livello di trasparenza sul comportamento delle imprese e anche una leva per indirizzare e migliorare il loro impegno. Questo è indispensabile per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi che ci siamo dati, per il contrasto agli effetti della crisi climatica, per il rispetto dei diritti umani, della vita, della dignità, della comunità, dello Stato di diritto, delle pratiche di buona governance. Quello della trasparenza non può che essere il primo passo verso un nuovo modo di fare impresa, verso comportamenti responsabili socialmente e per l'ambiente, comportamenti che non possono essere affidati solo alla buona volontà di alcune esperienze illuminate, che ovviamente già esistono e di cui va sottolineato il valore, ma che devono rispondere a regole precise, uniformi, regole valide per tutti. Siamo davanti a un progetto, dunque molto ambizioso, che fa riferimento a un'idea della globalizzazione più sostenibile, più umana e più giusta ed è una grande occasione che non possiamo sprecare. Karin Karlsbro,
föredragande av yttrande från utskottet för utrikesfrågor. – Fru talman! Fru kommissionär! Kollegor, åhörare! När vi handlar kan vi ta ansvar och göra hållbara val. Pris, märkningar och sunt förnuft räcker en bit, men inte hela vägen. En snygg tröja kan vara tillverkad med riktigt fula metoder. Korruption syns inte, men den kostar, i form av minskade skatteintäkter, dyrare varor och bristande respekt för lagar och regler. I en global ekonomi är värdekedjorna långa och komplicerade, men inte längre än att man, med rätt verktyg, kan följa och spåra innehållet. Till sist måste företag ta ansvar för att de varor som säljs i alla led tillverkas med grundläggande respekt för mänskliga rättigheter och skydd för miljö och hälsa och att mutor inte har förekommit i någon affärsmodell. Det ansvaret kan inte bara läggas på oss som enskilda konsumenter eller offentlig upphandlare. Det behövs också ett ansvar från företagen och en modern, uppdaterad hållbarhetsrapportering. Robert Biedroń,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. – Madam President, I thank Pascal Durand for his tremendous work on this dossier. The report is undoubtedly a big improvement in comparison to the initial Commission proposal, which, as we recall, laid out ambitious mandatory reporting requirements, but only in the field of corporate environmental sustainability. However, we must remember that sustainability does not only concern environmental matters. This is why it's important that the information disclosed by companies should also cover issues such as anti-discrimination, diversity, gender-equality measures, as well as instruments to achieve greater participation of women in leadership positions, just to name a few. I am very happy to have the clear reference to the existing references in the report, and thank you very much for that, but we must remember that this kind of approach will not help us to achieve full equality. The European Gender Equality Institute shows clearly we need 60 years in the European Union for reaching complete gender equality. And if we will not put it in our wider perspective, we will never achieve it, Commissioner, so we need to make some improvements in this directive. Daniel Buda,
în numele grupului PPE. – Doamna președintă, doamna comisară, doamnelor și domnilor colegi, salut rezultatul trialogului, pe care îl consider ca fiind unul echilibrat și felicit toți actorii implicați în negociere. Directiva privind raportarea de către întreprinderi a informațiilor legate de durabilitate își propune să instituie un mecanism transparent care să contribuie la construirea unei economii în interesul cetățenilor, cu tot ce înseamnă asta, din toate punctele de vedere. Pe parcursul negocierilor în trialog, am plecat însă de la premisa indiscutabilă că nu dorim să creăm o birocrație excesivă pentru întreprinderi și să le îngreunăm activitatea. Astfel, am optat pentru IMM-urile care nu sunt listate la bursă să facă această raportare în mod voluntar, iar pentru cele listate la bursă să aibă prima raportare în 2028, folosind evident standarde simplificate de comunicare. Pentru asigurarea unor condiții de concurență echitabilă au fost, de asemenea, introduse dispoziții care impun raportarea privind durabilitatea de către filialele sau sucursalele din Uniunea Europeană a unor companii cu sediul din afara Uniunii Europene. Cerințele de raportare le-am apreciat că trebuie să fie în același timp proporționale cu domeniul de aplicare și, bineînțeles, cu obiectivele prezentei directive. În ceea ce privește sectoarele de risc, reținem faptul că informațiile trebuie să fie corelate cu amploarea riscurilor, ținând seama că acestea pot să fie mai mari pentru anumite sectoare decât pentru altele. Atrag însă atenția Comisiei Europene să nu creeze prin actele delegate o birocrație excesivă pentru IMM-uri, deoarece acestea se confruntă deja cu o situație economică dificilă din cauza războiului și a crizei energetice. Lara Wolters,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, this Parliament has an ambitious agenda for sustainability in the broadest sense of the word, from curbing emissions under the Green Deal to improving minimum wages, ensuring responsible investing or achieving gender equality on company boards. But those ambitions around sustainability, they cannot be achieved without companies playing their part. And for that, we need quality information and transparency, because if we ask companies to be greener, we need to be able to distinguish those that are truly green from those that are greenwashing. And if we ask investors to finance responsible companies rather than cowboy companies, then investors need a way of properly assessing and comparing what companies do. I am pleased that with our vote tomorrow on new and better reporting requirements, we can make a very practical and tangible contribution to sustainability. What we are doing here is urgent. It is timely, because our climate problem won't wait, and I want to warmly thank Pascal Durand for the result we have been able to achieve under his energetic leadership. Barry Andrews,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner and Rapporteur Durand, congratulations on your work. I would agree with Mr Biedroń and Ms Wolters that sustainability goes beyond merely green issues and environmental issues. We talk about tackling greenwashing, but we could be talking about tackling ESG-washing. Whatever we call it, what it means is companies talking a good game and failing to deliver. At best, this is mis-selling of products and services by companies. At worst, it's fraud. And that's why regulators are getting tough, and that's why this directive is actually revolutionary, and it's why 50 police officers went into DSW, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank, earlier this year. It's why a USD 1.5 million fine was applied to BNY Mellon by the Security and Exchanges Commission. I welcome the clarity, the strictness and the enforceability of this and I would remind the Commission, as we prepare the standards that are going to be applied, that there is already an internationally agreed framework for those standards, which is the Sustainable Development Goals. And I would also agree with Ms Wolters that it's not just about companies reporting better, but acting better. And that's why it needs to go here with a corporate sustainability due diligence directive. Marie Toussaint,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, ”des failles assez grandes pour y faire passer une citerne de diesel”: voilà les mots avec lesquels Antonio Guterres a qualifié les écarts béants entre les engagements des entreprises en matière climatique et leurs actes. Nous adoptons aujourd'hui la législation européenne en matière d'obligation de reporting de la part des entreprises qui échangent des produits sur nos marchés. Et c'est essentiel. Car comment l'Europe peut-elle décemment prétendre défendre les droits de l'homme, les droits sociaux, syndicaux et ceux du vivant, sans se doter des outils solides pour encadrer l'activité économique? Les lois de l'économie ne sont supérieures ni aux lois de la nature ni aux valeurs constitutives de l'humanité. Mais j'en reviens aux dissimulations toxiques dénoncées par Antonio Guterres. Nous découvrions la semaine passée que Total, 19e pollueur mondial, aux profits faramineux, aurait amplement minoré le reporting de ses émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Ce ”Total gate”, parce que c'en est un, met en évidence deux choses: d'abord que nous devons élaborer démocratiquement les méthodes avec lesquelles ces entreprises calculent et présentent leurs émissions, mais aussi qu'il nous reste beaucoup de travail, beaucoup, pour faire en sorte que les règles que nous élaborons, que les valeurs que nous prétendons défendre soient enfin respectées. Ne laissons pas les multinationales dicter les lois du monde. Prenons au contraire toute notre part à la bataille visant à civiliser l'économie. Le plus dur est devant nous. Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la mondialisation du capitalisme favorise la violation des droits de l'homme et la dégradation de l'environnement. Les grandes entreprises de l'Union européenne, à l'image de celles des États-Unis, recourent en effet à des chaînes d'approvisionnement qui trouvent leur source dans des pays pauvres, donc vulnérables. Chacun a en mémoire le drame du Rana Plaza en 2013, bâtiment vétuste du Bangladesh qui accueillait les ouvriers travaillant pour de grandes marques occidentales et dont l'effondrement provoqua plus de 1 000 morts. C'est pour tenter de remédier à ce genre d'abus que le rapport Durand, dont nous débattons, propose de contraindre les grandes entreprises à publier des informations sur les répercussions de leur action sur les droits de l'homme et sur l'environnement tout au long de leur chaîne d'approvisionnement. Lors des discussions, j'avais posé deux conditions pour soutenir ce texte. D'abord, exonérer les PME de cette contrainte, sauf sur la base du volontariat, car la plupart d'entre elles auraient du mal à y faire face. Ensuite, y soumettre les grandes entreprises non européennes ayant des activités dans l'Union afin d'éviter de les faire bénéficier d'une distorsion de concurrence par rapport aux grandes entreprises européennes. Ces deux conditions ont été respectées. Je soutiens donc ce texte, qui devrait répondre aux légitimes aspirations des nations européennes en opérant un début de moralisation du capitalisme. Raffaele Stancanelli,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, innanzitutto desidero ringraziare l'onorevole Durand per l'ottimo lavoro svolto e, soprattutto, per avere sempre ascoltato le diverse posizioni politiche, tanto è vero che si è arrivati a un'unanimità di consensi. In un momento di grandi turbamenti economici dovuti all'aumento dei costi dell'energia e alle criticità presenti in alcune catene di approvvigionamento, siamo chiamati al difficile compito di trovare un equilibrio tra la competitività delle nostre imprese e la necessità di promuovere un comportamento aziendale sostenibile e rispettoso dell'ambiente. Per questo motivo, durante l'intero iter legislativo, a nome del gruppo ECR quale relatore ombra ho lavorato con l'obiettivo di raggiungere una soluzione pragmatica. Siamo riusciti a escludere le piccole e medie imprese dal campo di applicazione e a includere le società extraeuropee: un cambiamento molto importante. Nonostante l'esito dei negoziati interistituzionali includa alcuni aspetti che io avrei preferito escludere, ritengo che siamo riusciti a evitare pesanti oneri burocratici per le aziende europee attraverso il raggiungimento di un accordo maggiormente bilanciato rispetto alla proposta iniziale. Per questo grazie a tutti coloro che hanno contribuito a questo lavoro. Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, 1,6 milliard de tonnes de CO2: c'est là l'ensemble des émissions de gaz à effet de serre de Total en un an. Mais, publiquement, Total n'en a déclaré que le quart. Les entreprises pétrolières mentent sur le réchauffement climatique comme les vendeurs de cigarettes mentaient hier sur notre santé et comme les marques textiles mentent sur le travail forcé. Ces mensonges n'ont que trop duré. Alors, je salue bien sûr l'amélioration de la directive sur la publication par les entreprises d'informations sociales et environnementales, mais nous exigeons plus que des mots: nous exigeons des actes. C'est tout l'objet de la directive sur le devoir de vigilance, et la proposition de la Commission, de ce point de vue-là, est loin du compte. À ce titre, nous devrons poursuivre le travail que nous avons déjà entamé, car elle ne concerne qu'une poignée d'entreprises, remplace la lutte contre les violations des droits de l'homme par un passe-passe contractuel et ne garantit pas aux victimes un accès réel à la justice. Le commissaire, d'ailleurs, Thierry Breton, s'est apparemment fait le relais efficace des lobbies. À charge pour nous, dès lors – comme nous l'avons fait sur ce texte –, d'écouter les citoyens, les travailleurs et les défenseurs de l'environnement, pour que cesse enfin l'impunité des multinationales. Ce n'était que la première étape. La deuxième doit venir. Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'approvazione di questa direttiva è un passo importante verso un ambizioso sistema informativo aziendale pubblico, che fornisca a consumatori e investitori tutti i dati relativi all'impatto dell'attività aziendali sull'ambiente, sui diritti umani, sui diritti dei lavoratori, sui diritti delle popolazioni indigene e sul sistema di governance di tutti i paesi in via di sviluppo. È un modo per garantire che le grandi imprese europee agiscano nel rispetto dei valori e dei principi dell'Unione europea, quei valori che l'Unione proclama come blocco geopolitico, cioè la democrazia, i diritti umani, la lotta contro il cambiamento climatico, lo sviluppo dei paesi del Sud del mondo, perché ha poco valore che i nostri discorsi e le nostre politiche siano ispirati da questi principi se le pratiche delle nostre aziende, quando operano nel resto del mondo, li contraddicono apertamente. Il raggiungimento di questi obiettivi richiede non solo l'impegno delle pubbliche amministrazioni ma anche, essenziale, quello del settore privato. Infatti, i consumatori e gli investitori possono essere un formidabile motore di cambiamento verso un modello di business che superi le più palesi ingiustizie del capitalismo globale e questa direttiva aiuta chiaramente ad attivare questo motore. Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung ist sinnvoll, nicht nur für das Klima und die Umwelt, sondern auch aus der Perspektive der Unternehmen, die nachweisen können, dass sie nachhaltig wirtschaften. Bauchschmerzen bereiten mir jedoch zwei Umstände. Erstens: Gerade unsere mittelständischen Unternehmen werden zurzeit echt überfordert: Taxonomie, Entwaldungsverordnung, Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung, Lieferkettengesetz. All diese gut gemeinten Vorschläge bringen neue bürokratische Auflagen mit sich. Die Unternehmen müssen dokumentieren, sie müssen nachweisen, belegen, informieren, und das gerade in einer Zeit, in der jeder Betrieb durch Energiepreissteigerungen, Inflation, Lieferkettenengpässe und Fachkräftemangel ungemein herausgefordert wird. Das ist wirklich für die Unternehmen fast nicht zu schaffen. Deshalb fordere ich die Kommission mit allem Nachdruck auf, Frau Kommissarin, bitte bei den Standards, die nun für die Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung erarbeitet, entwickelt werden, den Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit ernst zu nehmen und kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen nicht überproportional zu belasten. Man kann bei den Berichtspflichten einen Mittelständler einfach nicht mit einem Großkonzern gleichsetzen. Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Die Berichterstattung von Unternehmen zur Nachhaltigkeit ist gerade jetzt in Zeiten von Klimakrise und sozialer Ungleichheit natürlich ein zentrales Anliegen. Vor allem aus Sicht der Beschäftigten entlang der oftmals undurchsichtigen, langen Lieferketten weltweit müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass Transparenz und die Einhaltung aller menschen- und umweltrechtlichen Verpflichtungen Kernaufgabe jedes einzelnen Unternehmens sind. Und die Transparenz dazu haben wir mit dem aktuellen Vorschlag deutlich verbessert. Es geht aber noch weiter. Die Verhandlungen zur Verantwortung der Unternehmen entlang der Lieferketten an sich beginnen erst. Aufbauend auf dieser Richtlinie über die Berichterstattung, die wir heute abschließen, müssen wir eine starke Richtlinie zu den Rechten und Pflichten der Unternehmen erkämpfen. Unternehmen, die Kinderarbeit oder Umweltverschmutzung in Kauf nehmen – egal ob als Subunternehmer oder Zulieferer –, müssen endlich in die Pflicht genommen werden. Karen Melchior (Renew). – Fru formand! Tak kommissær og særlig tak til min kollega Pascal Durand for at have ført denne forhandling igennem og nået det fine resultat. Denne her lovgivning er hele grundlaget for vores bæredygtige omstilling. Her sætter vi på ægte socialliberal vis rammer for vores virksomheder. Vi bruger konkurrence og markedskræfter til at skabe en bedre verden for alle - også fremtiden. Nu kan virksomheder ikke længere gemme sig bag bæredygtighedsslogans, men skal bogstavelig talt stå til regnskab for deres handlinger. Om de producerer bæredygtigt og i overensstemmelse med menneskerettigheder og uden støtte til tvangsarbejde, så alle vores gode intentioner kan blive til virkelighed. Sådan at vi kan sikre, at vores indkøbskurv og pensionsinvesteringer følger værdier og stiller krav. Med den nye lov har vi sikret, at Europa-Parlamentet løbende får indflydelse på rigtige rapporteringsstandarder, der skal sættes, og som vil sikre, at lov bliver til virkelighed. Det her er et liberalt, et europæisk fingeraftryk, ikke bare på EU, men på hele verden. Vi sætter rimelige krav til mindre virksomheder, samtidigt med at vi skaber lige vilkår for alle virksomheder på det europæiske marked. René Repasi (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Märkte sind nicht gottgegeben, sondern sie sind rechtliche Konstrukte, die wir als Gesetzgeber gestalten, aber eben auch umgestalten können. Märkte dienen nicht nur der Profitmaximierung, sondern vor allem den Menschen auf ihm – als Unternehmerinnen und Unternehmer, als Arbeitnehmerinnen, Arbeitnehmer, als Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher weltweit. Investorinnen und Investoren spielen bei der Gestaltung von Märkten eine besonders wichtige Rolle. Sie haben das Geld, das andere benötigen. Sie haben eine Hebelwirkung, die wir für das Erreichen von Menschenrechten, Umweltschutz und die Bekämpfung des Klimawandels in die Verantwortung nehmen können und müssen. Geld soll in die richtigen Tätigkeiten fließen. Deshalb Taxonomie, deshalb Offenlegungspflicht für Finanzdienstleister, deshalb jetzt Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung von Unternehmen, sodass Investoren wissen, wo sie sicher investieren können, damit das Ergebnis auch nachhaltig ist. Allerdings: Offenlegung reicht nicht aus. Es muss gehandelt werden. Wir brauchen daher neben der Offenlegung jetzt die Handlungspflicht im EU-Lieferkettengesetz gerade für Finanzunternehmen, und zwar nicht nur, bevor sie eine Investition eingegangen sind. Catch-the-eye procedure Enikő Győri (NI). – Elnök Asszony! Az európai cégekre újabb terheket pakolni megítélésem szerint békeidőben sem tanácsos, de háború idején, egy járvány után és egy újabb válság küszöbén, amikor sokuk a talpon maradásért küzd, óriási hiba. Mindez hatványozottan igaz a kkv-kra. Nézzük meg, mit is jelentene, ha a tervezetben foglaltak megvalósulnának. Vegyük mondjuk Joe digitális fejlesztéssel foglalkozó kisvállalkozását, amely növekedni akar, tervei megvalósításához már a tőzsdén jegyezteti magát. Hiába írunk már 2028-at, Európában még magas az energiár, az infláció – olvasgassák az IMF előrejelzését – s Joe hirtelen azzal szembesül, hogy évente beszámolót kell készítenie, cége miként járul hozzá az éghajlatváltozás mérsékléséhez, a tengeri erőforrások, illetve a biológiai sokféleség javításához. Be kell számolnia a munkahelyi erőszak és zaklatás elleni intézkedésekről, a sokszínűséghez való hozzájárulásról, de arról is, hogy mit tesz annak érdekében, hogy tiszteletben tartsa az őslakos népek jogairól szóló ENSZ nyilatkozatot. Joe összecsomagol és átrakja a székhelyét Ázsiába. Már nem érdekli az európai piac. Biztos, hogy ezt akarják, tisztelt képviselőtársaim? (End of catch-the-eye procedure) Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, this has been a really interesting debate. And I have to say that, despite some criticism, I think there's a shared view across all of the groups that what we're doing is not only important, but hugely significant. And I want to thank you for the strength of the presentations this evening. Maybe a point on SMEs, because Ms Niebler always does speak for SMEs, and we share that concern that SMEs should not be burdened with the same standards as larger companies. So we will be proportionate and there is a time difference as to when listed SMEs will have to report. We will be very vigilant when we get from EFRAG their standards to pay attention to this proportionality and we will do that before adopting the delegated act that will put these in place. Maybe a key point that few of us reference, but I think is hugely important, is that the information provided will have to be verified. And this is very significant because it does mean that we will not only look at the figures that companies produce in terms of profitability, etc.; we will be looking at the information around sustainability. Both sets of information will have to be verified and that will give confidence to investors and to companies about the information. Indeed, I have always regarded the taxonomy, for example, as a management plan for companies because those companies with an eye to the future know that sustainability is the only path to be on. And it's not always clear how you get there. And I think that together the Parliament, Council and Commission have put in place the tools to allow companies that want to be there for the long term to do the right thing and invest in a more sustainable future. Time is not on our side, so we do need to act fast. The crisis won't wait 10 years for us to hang around. And when EFRAG submits its first set of standards in the coming weeks, we will adopt those standards by the middle of next year. And as I say, we will be proportionate around the SME question. I do not share the pessimism of our colleague in the back, Madam – I hope I pronounce your name right, yes, we're waving at each other. I do not regard this as a cardinal error. I think it would be a cardinal error if the Commission and this Parliament and Council ignored the fact that we need sustainability information, that our companies want it, our citizens are demanding it. And I will end on an upbeat note. Our rapporteur is somewhere in the room, I know, but others refer to his commitment and passion and energy, and I want to applaud that. I think that he managed to bring you together as colleagues in a very constructive way, and I hope that I and my colleagues in the Commission – and I know we did – played our part as well. And let's move forward, making sure that this is implemented in a proportionate way for the betterment of our companies and our citizens. Pascal Durand,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, je repensais en écoutant le fait qu'il ne fallait pas trop déclarer, etc., je pensais à une phrase du Prix-Nobel de littérature qu'était Albert Camus, qui disait que ”mal nommer un objet, c'est ajouter au malheur de ce monde”. Je crois que le texte que vous nous avez proposé, le texte que nous votons aujourd'hui, celui que le Conseil a approuvé, ce n'est justement pas une erreur cardinale. C'est une tentative de soulagement, pour une part, du malheur du monde. Une tentative de savoir les choses, de les dire et de le faire intelligemment – évidemment, l'entreprise qui n'a aucun lien avec des pays du Sud, nous l'avons envisagée dès le départ, nous avons dès le départ posé le fait que l'EFRAG devait faire des normes qui soient spécifiques à certains secteurs eux-mêmes spécifiques. Qu'on laisse les entreprises tranquilles, pour le reste! Les PME ne sont pas dans le viseur, mais qu'on laisse tranquille les entreprises! De sorte qu'elles ne donnent que les informations qui sont nécessaires. Oui, le monde change, oui, l'économie a changé, oui le rapport des consommateurs, le rapport des jeunes, maintenant, dans les écoles de commerce, dans les écoles de droit ou ailleurs, ce monde a évolué. Nous devons faire en sorte que la législation évolue en conséquence. Il faut le faire intelligemment. Il faut le faire dans le respect de nos valeurs et de nos principes. C'est ce que nous avons essayé de faire. J'ai entendu tout à l'heure que c'était peut-être insuffisant, que c'était peut-être un début, mais je pense qu'un début, c'est déjà bien mieux que rien, et je pense que l'Europe est en train de montrer au monde entier que l'on peut effectivement faire en sorte que la finance, au sens étroit du terme, ne gouverne pas toute l'économie mondiale. President. – Thank you, Mr Durand, for your work. The debate on the corporate sustainability reporting directive is closed. The vote will be held tomorrow. 17.   Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskeva säädös - Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskevista vaatimuksista annetun direktiivin muuttaminen (keskustelu) President. – The next item is the joint debate on: —
the report by Billy Kelleher, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on digital operational resilience for the financial sector and amending Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009, (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 600/2014 and (EU) No 909/2014 (COM(2020)0595 – C9-0304/2020 – 2020/0266(COD)) (A9-0341/2021), and —
the report by Mikuláš Peksa, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2009/65/EC, 2009/138/EU, 2011/61/EU, EU/2013/36, 2014/65/EU, (EU) 2015/2366 and EU/2016/2341 (COM(2020)0596 – C9-0303/2020 – 2020/0268(COD)) (A9-0340/2021). Billy Kelleher,
rapporteur. – Madam President, first and foremost, I am delighted to be here presenting this particular report to Parliament. The financial sector has always been an attractive target for cyberattacks, given the potential lucrative gains, and cybersecurity, as all security has been a long-standing priority for the sector. However, the legal requirements and financial entities across the EU differed, depending on the services they provided or where they were located. There was just a patchwork of rules and regulation. Moreover, as the sector became more digitised, the interconnectivity with, and the reliance on, the tech sector has increased the chances and the risks of a cyberattack. DORA seeks to address both of these issues and to create a robust and harmonised security framework across the entire EU financial sector. I suppose that due to geopolitical issues, the importance of this framework has unfortunately been thrown into the limelight and become more pertinent since Russia has invaded Ukraine. It does indicate the great risk that we are at, if we have a very aggressive neighbour like Russia that is willing to attack people, destroy electrical infrastructure, to make people cold, to use food as a weapon and to weaponize energy, then be in no doubt that Russia would be willing and very capable of attacking our fundamentals in terms of financial services. We have to be very conscious of that. I approached this file with three principles. First and foremost, proportionality, then future-proofing and maintaining and encouraging the competitiveness of the EU's financial services and tech sectors. I think we achieved that in the final text. DORA takes an ambitious approach to third-party ICT providers, such as cloud computing providers to the financial sector, in that it introduces an oversight framework. It was very important to ensure this oversight framework had robust and just governance, and that we recognise that such oversight is novel and there will be many lessons to be learned from us and expertise to be developed in the period ahead. Therefore, despite some initial reluctance from Member States, the resulting governance structures ensures that all European financial supervisors are involved and that they don't start working in silos again at Member State level. In other words, there's a cross-fertilisation of ideas. I am proud to say that, as co-legislators, we avoided imposing location requirements. This was a quite a contentious issue early on. ICT providers building a ”fortress Europe” and making it unattractive for global companies to do business with our European companies will not strengthen the security of EU markets. I would urge the Commission to avoid undermining the approach taken to third-country ICT providers in DORA, for example, and in the upcoming EU Cloud Certification scheme. The agreement was voted in ECON on 20 July 2022, with 41 in favour, zero against and six abstentions. I have to say that I am extremely disappointed with the ID Group, who have tabled a number of amendments – and I don't mean to make an overtly political point on this, but time and again we see people on the left and on the very right tabling amendments on an agreed compromise text. I wouldn't mind if they were involved in the process, but they never engaged in it. My office was as open with every political grouping, and not once was there any engagement from the ID Group. So from that perspective, I am deeply, deeply disappointed that we now see amendments being tabled when there was an opportunity to engage in the process whereby we actually agreed a text between most political groupings. Therefore, I would urge the House to vote against the amendments and stick to the agreed text. Finally, I would like to thank Mikuláš Peksa, the rapporteur for the DORA amending directive, and my Renew colleague Bart Groothuis, the rapporteur for the NIS Directive, for their cooperation and alignment during the legislative process. Finally, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, including Frances Fitzgerald, who is also a colleague of mine, and all the others who engaged in the process. I will be summing up later on so will be able to thank you on an individual basis then as well. Mikuláš Peksa,
zpravodaj. – Paní předsedající, vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové, DORA se snad zdá být na první pohled něčím poměrně technickým, ale ve skutečnosti je to docela zajímavý soubor a přináší poměrně významný pokrok v naší společné kybernetické bezpečnosti. Je to harmonizace, která má potenciál ušetřit poměrně velké množství peněz, a tak je to jeden z dobrých příkladů, proč vlastně pro zajištění bezpečnosti našeho finančního sektoru potřebujeme Evropskou unii a proč mu Evropská unie dává podstatně větší odolnost. Takže čeho jsme dosáhli? Jednak jsme našli shodu nad několika základními principy, protože pravidla vyžadují jasné řízení a definovanou odpovědnost v řízení IT a mapování kritických a vedlejších funkcí. Pravidelné testy a jasné podmínky znamenají nejen jistotu odolnosti, ale i harmonizovaná pravidla po celé Evropě. Například banky teď nebudou muset pro každou národní pobočku řešit náročné a drahé testování znovu a znovu, ale můžou se spolehnout na tento společný rámec. Co považuji za zásadní: přesun z bezpečnosti typu nikdy nesmí nic proniknout k realističtějšímu modelu vytrvalosti, resilienci. My žádáme minimální časy, po kterých musí být služba připravena znovu fungovat. Zavazujeme banky, aby o útocích rychle reportovaly, a tím umožnily dalším aktérům se připravit na nové typy úderů. A zároveň chráníme práva bank rychle vyměnit nespolehlivého nebo jinak kompromitovaného dodavatele služeb. Oblast, kde je ještě určitě prostor pro zlepšení, je právě sdílení zkušeností. To rychlé a standardizované reportování je dobrý první krok, ale měli bychom určitě chtít víc, protože podporujeme jednotlivé hráče v tom, aby sdíleli informace, ale měli bychom chtít jít ještě dál a chtít jednotné reportovací centrum v rámci Evropské unie, které by umožnilo rychleji reagovat na hrozby a poskytlo platformu ke sdílení těch citlivých problémů na neutrální půdě. Text zatím nemá žádné vyhodnocení těchto možností, ale určitě lze doufat, že v budoucnu se do nich pustíme a odemkneme další úspory a zvýšení bezpečnosti, protože transparence a důvěra pomáhají a určitě pomáhají snižovat rizika v bankovním sektoru. Obzvlášť tedy vzhledem k té současné bezpečnostní situaci jsou zásadní pravidla pro poskytovatele IT služeb. Zjednodušeně, pokud mají firmy důvěryhodně poskytovat bezpečnost evropským bankám, musí mít jasnou přítomnost v Evropě, protože prostě nemůžeme svěřit naši kritickou infrastrukturu nedůvěryhodným aktérům. Dosáhli jsme návrhu pravidel pro bezpečnost finančních institucí na jednotném trhu. Určitě jsou v něm body, které se budou po několika letech přehodnocovat. A těžko v tuhle chvíli říkat, jaké to bude, protože DORA je přiznaně první dokument svého druhu na světě. Američané ani nikdo jiný nic podobného nemají. A to je, myslím si, na evropských řešeních podstatné, protože my jsme našli kompromis, který nás posouvá dopředu. Za pár let ho určitě dál zhodnotíme a vylepšíme, ale v tuhle chvíli je to prostě velmi významný krok, který činí náš finanční sektor jedním z nejpokrokovějších a nejbezpečnějších na celém světě. Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, colleagues, it's a pleasure to be here for the conclusion of the work on this Digital Operational Resilience Act, or DORA. My thanks to the honourable Members of the ECON Committee for their work. Of course, in particular, our thanks go to the two rapporteurs – Billy Kelleher, for the DORA Regulation, and you've just heard from the rapporteur on the DORA Directive, Mikuláš Peksa – and all of the shadow rapporteurs. DORA is really a cornerstone of our work on digital finance in the European Union, making sure that we support innovation and do it in a safe way. This work began just over two years ago and in fact it's become much more urgent as the digitalisation of the financial sector continues apace. Financial institutions are more and more dependent on technology. More and more people and businesses are managing their finances online. So protecting the financial system from cyberattacks and cyber-fraud is vital. So, when I look at the objectives, DORA aims to strengthen the overall digital operational resilience of all firms in the EU financial sector. It creates a regulatory framework on digital operational resilience for all financial companies. So these companies will need to make sure they can withstand, respond to and recover from all types of ICT-related disruptions and threats. DORA requires financial entities to set up a management process to monitor, classify and report major ICT-related incidents. Financial entities will need to regularly test their risk-management capabilities to ensure that they can identify weaknesses and address problems. Finally, DORA will, for the first time, give financial supervisors direct oversight over ICT providers that are critical to the EU financial system. I welcome the amendments to the proposal by the European Parliament steered by the honourable Members I've mentioned. You strengthen proportionality in DORA. You have introduced additional flexibility for financial entities in terms of resilience testing and you have provided for a coordinated approach to oversight through the Joint Oversight network. Given the rapid digitalisation of our financial system, strengthening its operational resilience is absolutely essential. President, honourable Members, I look forward to the rest of our discussion this evening. PREDSEDÁ: MICHAL ŠIMEČKA podpredseda Frances Fitzgerald,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, it is not possible to talk about security without talking about digital. Today, the threats to society and our way of life exist just as much online as they do on a battlefield. We are it seeing right now with the ever-increasing number of cyberattacks coming from places like Russia and China – we're seeing it right now. In Ireland last year, we saw an enormous and unprecedented cyberattack on our health service, with the personal data of thousands of people compromised. Imagine the same happening to an entire financial system. European citizens must be able to have confidence in the systems they use to save and invest their money. This is why this regulation is so important and essential. We need to implement it very quickly because of all the sensitive data that is held by our EU-wide financial services. Robust cybersecurity rules are essential to help the digitalisation of European finance and make this a sector fit for the 21st century. I want to thank all of the rapporteurs that we worked with, and in particular I would like to say that my colleague Billy Kelleher led so very well on this file and worked so cooperatively with all of us. If Europe wants to become a leading centre for financial services investment, we do need urgently a cybersecurity system in which people can have full and total confidence. It is an essential part of dealing with the future we are all facing. Alfred Sant,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, two years of work are being concluded, and thanks go to our rapporteur, Mr Kelleher. DORA will now set common rules for cybersecurity protocols and for good behaviour for all financial services in the EU. It aims to ensure that all companies which manage our finances have the tools by which to withstand all types of ICT-related disruptions and operational threats. For the financial sector, cyber-risks are being countered by performance and procedural requirements, and not only, as up to now, by regulatory guidelines defining how much funds to attach to cybersecurity. The latter is a moving target. As complex cyber-threats develop, new risks will emerge. As new technologies become part of the financial system, new opportunities will emerge as well. DORA should create a common market in financial security with harmonised ICT risk-management tools, testing procedures and testing reporting methods. From the beginning, proportionality was essential to our approach, clarifying the definitions of ICT incidents and critical functions to avoid adding unnecessary heaviness. DORA will now carry several challenges. Until now, big data and the cloud have been regulated from a data perspective. They will henceforth be strictly treated as extensions of financial entities if they provide critical services. Banks and financial services rely, in fact, on a few cloud service providers. The oversight over the latter must be rigorous. When the structure of the subsidiary changes, cloud providers will have to inform the supervisory authority. This ensures that DORA is enforced without restriction on geographical location. Still, while we must deploy DORA with maximum commitment, European financial institutions need to be able to access all possible new technologies available globally as well as outside European borders. Clearly, this constitutes – and will constitute – a considerable new workload for supervisors. Regarding the input impact of DORA on SMEs, although proportionality is embedded in DORA, in reality SMEs interfacing with banks and financial services could need stringent levels of cybersecurity compliance as they might otherwise pose a risk. The greatest care must be taken in this measure to avoid crippling SMEs. Stéphanie Yon-Courtin,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, après le vote sur le règlement sur les cryptomonnaies et celui pour faciliter le développement de la chaîne de blocs, c'est un pas de plus vers la souveraineté numérique de l'Europe que nous franchissons aujourd'hui. Avec ce nouveau règlement sur la résilience opérationnelle numérique du secteur financier, nous parachevons le paquet sur la finance numérique, et il était temps d'assurer la cyberrésilience de notre écosystème financier. Ce nouvel encadrement de la finance numérique va à la fois protéger les investisseurs européens et préparer les entreprises du secteur financier contre les cyberattaques. C'est bien la capacité d'innovation de l'Europe et son autonomie stratégique qui se jouent ici. Les cyberattaques peuvent ébranler notre démocratie et elles touchent également notre système financier, pourtant au cœur de nos sociétés. En renforçant la cyberrésilience des banques, nous leur permettons notamment de ne plus être dépendantes des fournisseurs informatiques. Alors que nous avons voté le règlement sur les marchés numériques pour limiter les comportements anticoncurrentiels des géants du numérique, nous réduisons désormais la dépendance des banques face à ces grandes entreprises technologiques. Bogdan Rzońca,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! W imieniu grupy ECR także wyrażam pozytywną opinię dla projektu ustawy na temat odporności operacyjnej i cyfrowej odporności operacyjnej. Chcę też powiedzieć, że pan przewodniczący Billy Kelleher bardzo transparentnie prowadził obrady. Mogliśmy wszyscy zgłaszać uwagi. Każdy, kto chciał zabrać głos, wypowiedział swoje uwagi. To, co cenne, to to, iż uprościliśmy trochę ten pierwotny system. Wprowadziliśmy kilka ważnych poprawek, np. co do niepotrzebnego, naszym zdaniem, uszczegóławiania. Udało się ominąć te zapisy, także co do zabezpieczenia własności prywatnej, do stosowania środków do poziomu ryzyka. To wszystko było przedmiotem naszych obrad. Mam nadzieję, że właśnie cały ten projekt pozwoli zwiększyć zdolność firm do przetrwania w razie hybrydowych ataków, zakłóceń czy różnego rodzaju problemów z cyberatakami. Wiemy wszyscy, że cyberbezpieczeństwo jest kluczowym elementem wspierającym stabilność europejskiego systemu finansowego, i dlatego grupa ECR popierać to rozwiązanie. José Gusmão,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, o DORA é uma iniciativa importante no sentido de reforçar a resistência das instituições financeiras a ciberataques e é uma iniciativa que, apesar de não ser tão ambiciosa como nós gostaríamos, nomeadamente nos deveres de informação das instituições financeiras aos reguladores, vai no sentido correto, no sentido de valorizar a regulação pública do setor financeiro para proteger o setor financeiro propriamente dito e os cidadãos, que são as primeiras vítimas do colapso do sistema financeiro. É uma iniciativa que vai, infelizmente, ao arrepio da tendência mais geral para a desregulação do sistema financeiro que, essa sim, é um risco real para as instituições financeiras e para os Estados e os contribuintes. Convém sublinhar que os colapsos financeiros dos últimos anos não tiveram nada a ver com ciberataques, tiveram a ver com a gestão dos bancos e com a política da desregulação financeira. E convém que tenhamos aprendido essas lições. Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kod pojave kriptovaluta ljudi su pohrlili jer su osjetili da tamo mogu biti slobodni od konvencionalnog financijskog sustava, koji je u suštini centraliziran, dužnički i nepravedan. Digitalna imovina i digitalni novac sada mogu ići u jednom od dva smjera: ili kao alati oslobođenja ili porobljavanja. Možemo živjeti u svijetu gdje će se lako doći do kapitala, olakšati financiranje malih poduzeća i ideja, gdje će se vrijednost lako i sigurno moći prenijeti s jednog kraja svijeta na drugi - ili - druga verzija je svijet u kojem će centralizirani entiteti kontrolirati što možemo kupiti, ili smijemo kupiti, i koja prava imamo sukladno socijalnom kreditu i biometrijskom nadziranju. Svijet u kojem će nam na temelju nepodobnih statusa na društvenim mrežama biti blokiran račun, digitalni kavez. Kripto tržište treba regulirati, ali na način kako bi došlo do što ranije implementacije i prihvaćanja kriptovaluta. Međutim, ovdje predložena regulacija će zahtijevati mjere koje podrivaju samu prirodu i ideju kriptovaluta - ideju o slobodi i decentralizaciji - što usporava, a ne potiče razvoj. Želimo sigurnost, ali ne pod cijenu slobode, nikada pod cijenu slobode. Također, građanima za plaćanje treba ostaviti pravo izbora. Apsolutno sam protiv toga da se ograničava, pa i ukida, plaćanje gotovinom. Bez gotovine, nemamo kontrolu mi, nego banke i država. Postup prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já velmi sleduji tuto bitvu o balíček, který má posloužit k posílení naší finanční stability. A je dobře, že po nařízení DORA sledujeme i další aktivity. Jsem přesvědčen o tom, že digitalizace finančního sektoru je krok správným směrem, ale přináší také významná rizika, zejména v podobě kryptoměn. Já osobně jsem přesvědčen o tom, že představují skutečně vážné ohrožení našeho finančního sektoru a je dobré, že na to reagujeme. Pro nás je prioritou stabilita finančního sektoru, a zejména bezpečnost. Musíme klást jasné podmínky pro finanční instituce při zajištění jejich služeb, ale také při zajištění transparentnosti jejich vystupování a bezpečnosti procedur, které provádí, protože jejich kroky mají dopad na všechno, dokonce na stabilitu měnového systému, samozřejmě na malé a střední podniky. Je důležité testovat také odolnost bank a samozřejmě předcházet hybridním útokům. To všechno se tento balíček snaží postihnout a já jsem rád, že jej mohu za toto podpořit. (Ukončenie postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky) Mairead McGuinness,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I think I can be brief and just say a sincere thank you to all of the honourable Members for this evening's debate. It is absolutely essential that we protect ourselves and our system against attack, and those financial entities in scope will be part of this process. There will be oversight also by EU supervisory authorities of big critical ICT providers to the sector. And I think this is really stepping up, taking responsibility. As more and more of us use online financial products and services, we need to have trust in the system and have the confidence to make sure that there is supervision and checks on ICT providers and that the financial system is required to check that they are not vulnerable to these attacks, which could be so damaging for the system itself, for individuals and for businesses. So again, my appreciation to the Members and indeed to the rapporteurs. Billy Kelleher,
rapporteur. – Mr President, just again, to acknowledge Frances Fitzgerald, Alfred Sant, Bogdan Rzońca and José Gusmão as shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation and help on this file. This is about ensuring the integrity of our financial services, it's about protecting the financial systems, but more importantly, it's about protecting citizens. It's about ensuring that citizens have confidence that their information, that their money, that the systems that they use every day in a modern, functioning, digitised world has the integrity at its heart in terms of cybersecurity protections. So from that perspective, I would urge the regulators now that are charged with the responsibility to engage with the major stakeholders and industry to ensure that they can bring forward second-tier proposals and guidance to ensure that we have seamless understanding of the obligations that will be placed on ICT third-party providers, on financial entities themselves, and all those regulated in the European Union to ensure that we have a swift move to where we need to get to, to ensure that that integrity, as I said, is there. We do also have to ensure that resources are made available, Commissioner. We need the regulators to be able to regulate, to be able to oversee. And in doing that, that requires resources. Also, Member States must be conscious of their obligations. And what we don't want is for regulators, even though we did put in an overarching framework, we don't want regulators and Member States to become siloed again. We want to have uniformity across the entire European Union in terms of regulation, in terms of oversight, in terms of obligations on financial entities and third-party critical providers as well. So in thanking everybody, I hope that over the next number of years we will see an evolving, exciting, enthusiastic engagement by regulators and the broader industry to ensure future-proofing, that our competitiveness is protected, but most importantly, that we have robust systems against cyber-attacks from nefarious actors who are willing to hurt us. Mikuláš Peksa,
zpravodaj. – Pane předsedající, já bych chtěl tedy této příležitosti ještě jednou využít k tomu, abych poděkoval jak paní komisařce, tak všem svým kolegům, zpravodajům, panu kolegovi Kelleherovi i všem ostatním, kteří se na přípravě tohoto dokumentu podíleli, i vám všem, kteří jste vystupovali nyní v debatě. Já věřím, že evropští občané to ocení, protože tohle je jeden z nejdůležitějších dokumentů pro zajištění bezpečnosti našeho finančního sektoru a přispívá k němu významným dílem, jak je ve zbytku světa nesporně nezvyklé. Predsedajúci. – Spoločná rozprava sa týmto skončila. Hlasovanie sa uskutoční zajtra. Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171) Andżelika Anna Możdżanowska (ECR),
na piśmie. – Prace nad operacyjną odpornością cyfrową to jedna z wielu spraw związanych z cyfryzacją finansów, którymi się obecnie zajmujemy. Postęp w tej dziedzinie, ilość oferowanych rozwiązań, a także zmiany w mentalności i zmiany nawyków konsumentów – wszystko to wymaga od nas szybkiej reakcji w celu zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa klientów i instytucji finansowych oraz przeciwdziałania praniu pieniędzy. Na ostateczną decyzję Parlamentu czekają m.in. dwa inne rozporządzenia, w pracach nad którymi miałam przyjemność brać udział: o rynkach kryptoaktywów (MiCA) oraz o informacjach towarzyszących transferom środków pieniężnych (FTR). Obie regulacje mają na celu dostosowanie reguł gry do nowych realiów i ”ucywilizować” obrót kryptoaktywami. Co charakterystyczne – największą trudność w tych pracach stanowiło wypracowanie odpowiednich definicji: mechanizmy spotykane w świecie finansów cyfrowych bardzo odbiegają od tradycyjnych i wymagają przemyślanych rozwiązań. W tle naszej dyskusji wciąż pozostają kwestie cyfrowego euro, które jest postrzegane także jako szansa na wzmocnienie znaczenia europejskiej waluty. W tym kontekście warto zauważyć, że cyfrowe euro mogłoby wesprzeć innowacje, cyfryzację gospodarki oraz stanowić bezpieczniejszą alternatywę dla kryptowalut. W pracach nad nim należy jednak brać pod uwagę potrzebę zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa i prywatności konsumentów: zwiększona kontrola z całą pewnością nie jest tym, czego obywatele UE od nas chcą i czego oczekują. 18.   Schengenin säännöstön määräysten täysimääräinen soveltaminen Kroatian tasavallassa (keskustelu) Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je správa, ktorú predkladá Paulo Rangel Úplné uplatňovanie ustanovení schengenského acquis v Chorvátsku (10624/2022 — C9-0222/2022 – 2022/0806(NLE)) (A9-0264/2022). Paulo Rangel,
rapporteur. – Mr President, Vice-Presidents, Schengen has been waiting for Croatia. The Croatian people have also waited and now the moment has arrived. It is time for the final steps towards full European integration. Croatia has shown it is fully prepared for the lifting of internal border controls at the same time that it is joining the eurozone. Croatia has successfully completed the most comprehensive and detailed evaluation for Schengen membership for any EU country so far. The Commission in 2019 and the Council in 2021 have formally confirmed Croatia's readiness to become a full member of Schengen following their respective evaluations and naturally the adoption of all required measures. In addition, Croatia is the only Member State that has so far implemented an independent mechanism for monitoring and controlling the actions of the authorities in the area of irregular migration. Let me now, only for a few seconds, speak in my native language exactly to give the signal that this is a European achievement. Senhor Presidente, a Croácia cumpre todos os requisitos. A União tem de cumprir e de honrar a sua palavra. Como é possível que nesta altura, depois de todas as avaliações e exames que foram feitos, depois de todas as medidas que foram adotadas no campo da segurança, mas no campo dos direitos fundamentais também, que haja Estados-Membros que No Conselho ainda hesitem ou estejam relutantes em aceitar a entrada da Croácia no espaço Schengen? É tempo de dar o passo final já em dezembro. Sem hesitações! A Croácia deve entrar no espaço Schengen em janeiro de 2023, no dia em que passa a integrar a zona euro. There are no legitimate excuses to delay this decision. Giving Croatians, and also Bulgarians and Romanians, full access to the Schengen Area and to the right of free movement is an imperative. The times we live in demand that we act, demand action. With a war on our borders, we must show our commitment to our value of unity, our European value of solidarity. To others who seek discord and division, we must show our strength and our unity. Croatian Schengen brings us together, makes us stronger, protects our external borders and also respects fundamental rights. This decision will also have a strong impact and will send a clear signal to the Western Balkan countries about their future European aspirations. As the youngest EU Member State, Croatia should serve as an inspiration for other countries in the region. It shows that it is possible for any aspiring new Member State to be fully integrated into our European family. And from the Parliament we say, I want to say: Dobrodošli u schengen. Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I suggest that we keep things simple tonight. Croatia is ready. Croatia is ready to join Schengen. Croatia has done everything that was needed to become part of this great area of freedom, security and justice. Back in 2019, the Commission concluded that Croatia meets all conditions to apply the Schengen acquis and to enjoy the benefits of the biggest obstacle-free, control-free area, which is Schengen. We also then stressed at the time the importance for Croatia to continue working consistently to implement all ongoing actions, in particular external border-management requirements. To monitor and to verify the implementation of those actions, we organised a targeted verification visit in November 2020, and since then Croatia continued to make tremendous progress and now is ready to join Schengen, as the Council of Ministers recognised last year in December, and as the Civil Liberties Committee of this House voted with an overwhelming majority recently – last month. What will happen when Croatia joins? And when will that happen? Croatia will join the largest area of borderless travel in the world. The people of Croatia will enjoy to the full the possibility to travel within the Schengen Area with no internal border checks as 420 million Europeans already do. Croatia has delivered on external border management. Croatia has delivered on returns and on visa policy, but also on police cooperation against the trafficking of firearms and by updating information systems. Once Croatia joins, it will have access to the Schengen Information System, allowing information exchange to fight crime, to fight against terrorism, and to monitor migration efficiently. Croatia has also made a lot of efforts on data protection and fundamental rights. It was the first Member State to set up an independent monitoring mechanism of fundamental rights, something that we proposed to all Member States within our proposal for a new EU package for migration and asylum. And we very much welcome Croatia's extension of the monitoring mechanism announced last week. And this was not an extension for yet another year, but for automatic renewal every 18 months until the screening regulation is adopted and implemented at the European Union level. And we do welcome the improvements to the mechanism: by taking up all the recommendations of the advisory board, including the possibility of unannounced visits to the green border, this mechanism that Croatia accepted and is now implementing could become a model, an example for all Member States, because we can only protect EU security and the EU border whilst we are able to uphold the EU values that bind us together. On this difficult journey to Schengen, Croatia did not travel alone. Every step of the way, the Commission and our Member States were there to support. To boost border controls we supported Croatia through the Internal Security Fund and the emergency assistance. After evaluations and on-site visits, based on the Commission proposal the Council issued nearly 300 recommendations, and Croatia has carried out all these recommendations! So let these be the fundamentals of confidence and trust of Member States and of EU citizens – of all of us. A trust in the belief that Croatia is ready, that we can count on our Croatian friends to protect people, to protect the border, and to protect European values. Honourable Members, together with my colleague, Vice-President Šuica, we call on all of you tomorrow to vote resoundingly in favour of this report, and by your vote to send a strong message to the Council that this is now the time to welcome Croatia to Schengen. This is now the time to enlarge the Schengen Area, and not only to Croatia, but also to Romania and Bulgaria, who have also met the conditions for full Schengen membership already since 2011 and who recently also volunteered: they agreed on a voluntary basis to a new fact-finding mission precisely to reassure Member States that both countries, Romania and Bulgaria, are still applying the Schengen acquis. And they passed this self-chosen test with flying colours. Honourable Members, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria have taken massive strides and they have won our trust, and the Schengen they will join will be a stronger Schengen compared to 2011, when this process started. A Schengen that was able to survive big, huge existential threats: the refugee crisis; terrorist attacks; the COVID pandemic. A Schengen that remains the jewel in Europe's crown. A stronger Schengen also due to the new rules for governance which have been included in the new Schengen border codes – one will be in place soon, we hope. And thanks also to the best border-management technology – the best in the world – that we are now implementing. All but one of the Member States are entitled to join the Schengen Area once they fulfil the conditions. It is their right. It is their right to be members of this Schengen borderless area. And the longer we delay, the more we risk distancing not governments, but citizens from the European project. Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria have done what it takes. The European Union must now also do what it takes and simply say just one word: welcome. Karlo Ressler,
u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, za nas hrvatske zastupnike ovdje u Europskom parlamentu, ovo je vjerojatno najvažnija odluka u ovom mandatu. Tri desetljeća od teško izborene neovisnosti, na pragu desete obljetnice našega članstva u Europskoj uniji. Ulaskom u Schengen, ali i uvođenjem eura kao službene valute u Hrvatskoj, zaokružujemo hrvatski povratak Europi i na neki način postajemo članica najelitnijeg civilizacijskog kluba. Kao jedna od samo petnaest zemalja koje su istodobno članica Europske unije, NATO-a, eurozone i Schengena. U vrijeme rata na europskom kontinentu, to nam, uz ravnopravnost, uz slobodu kretanja i jednu veliku razvojnu priliku, donosi i dodatnu sigurnost. I na to, kao nacija, možemo biti ponosni. Hrvatska je dokazala da može štititi svoje granice, europske granice, u skladu s najvišim europskim standardima. Zato je bitno da ovo izvješće ne ostavlja nikakva otvorena pitanja o tome da je Hrvatska spremna. I sada je na Vijeću da finalizira ovu odluku. Zahvaljujem Paulu, zahvaljujem svim kolegama koji su bili uključeni, zahvaljujem Komisiji na svemu što je napravljeno i ovdje u Bruxellesu, ali i osobito hrvatskoj policiji i hrvatskoj Vladi koja je najzaslužnija za ovaj uspjeh. Matjaž Nemec,
v imenu skupine S&D. – Gospod predsednik, spoštovani! V skupini socialistov in demokratov podpiramo vstop Hrvaške v schengen. Schengen je eden izmed ključnih dosežkov Unije in eden od najbolj resničnih prednosti za državljane. Schengen je predvsem za ljudi. Hrvaška je svojo domačo nalogo opravila in si vstop v schengen tudi zasluži. Tako kot vsaka država, ko izpolni pogoje. A Hrvaška se mora soočiti tudi s črnim madežem glede spoštovanja človekovih pravic na svoji južni meji, ker vstop v schengen države ne odvezuje od spoštovanja zavez in dogovorjenih pravil. Nasprotno, Hrvaška bo morala z dejanji vsak dan dokazati in pokazati, da spoštuje mednarodno pravo in evropsko pravo. Tako kot vsem državam, pa ji bomo seveda v parlamentu gledali pod prste. Spoštovani, na vrsti so sedaj ministri, zato naš odločen poziv Svetu, da čim prej sprejme odločitev in poleg Hrvaški tudi drugim državam, kot je bilo rečeno s strani komisarja, v čakalnici odpre vrata v schengen. Torej welcome Croatia, dobrodošla Hrvatska! Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Kroatien hat sich echt angestrengt und hat es geschafft, innerhalb sehr kurzer Zeit die Kriterien zu erfüllen, die einen Beitritt zum Schengen-Raum ermöglichen. Und ich bin sehr, sehr froh, dass wir diese Entscheidung heute treffen können, dass die vier Millionen Kroaten Teil des Schengen-Raums werden können und dass Kroatien Teil des Schengen-Raums wird. Das heißt nämlich nicht nur, dass vier Millionen Kroaten in den Schengen-Raum reisen können, sondern das heißt auch, dass die Europäer visafrei nach Kroatien reisen können. Und wer die Staus an der Grenze kennt im Sommer, der freut sich darüber, dass das jetzt nach Kroatien einfacher möglich ist. Und dieser Schritt, mit dem 1. Januar 2023 nicht nur die Schengenfreiheit zu haben, sondern gleichzeitig auch den Euro zu bekommen, ist für Kroatien wirklich eine große Entscheidung, ist für Europa auch eine große Entscheidung und ein wichtiger, ein großer Erfolg. Die Freizügigkeit ist das größte Gut, das wir innerhalb der Europäischen Union haben. Und deswegen ist es so wichtig, dass wir die Regeln, die wir in Europa haben, an der Stelle auch einhalten. Und zu diesen Regeln gehört eben auch, dass die Grundrechte in der Europäischen Union eingehalten werden. Und das, was wir manchmal ja an Kroatien kritisiert haben – nämlich dass es Grundrechtsverletzungen gegenüber Migranten an der Grenze gegeben hat –, das können wir im Schengen-Raum noch besser kontrollieren an dieser Stelle. Und deswegen ist es gut, dass Kroatien Mitglied wird, und der nächste Schritt ist dann, dass Rumänien und Bulgarien auch Mitglieder des Schengen-Raums werden, denn die erfüllen die Kriterien ebenso. Erik Marquardt,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Lassen Sie mich deutlich sagen: Ich glaube, das ist für unser Haus – das Europäische Parlament –, für Kroatien, aber auch für die Europäische Union insgesamt eine tolle Entscheidung, die wir treffen – eine tolle Entscheidung, dass wir den Weg freimachen, dass Kroatien Mitglied des Schengen-Raums werden kann. Es ist so, dass dadurch die europäische Familie stärker zusammenwächst. Es ist so, dass für viele Millionen Menschen in Europa mehr Freiheiten existieren. Darüber muss man gar nicht viele schlimme Worte verlieren, denn es ist einfach eine gute Entscheidung. Es ist auf der anderen Seite aber eben auch so, dass der Raum der Sicherheit, der Raum der Freiheit und der Raum des Rechts, den der Schengen-Raum ja darstellt, eben ein Raum ist, in dem wir auch darauf achten müssen, dass das Recht gilt – das Recht auch an den Außengrenzen für die Menschen, die auf der Flucht sind, die rechtsstaatliche Verfahren verdient haben, die verdient haben, dass es Ordnung an den Grenzen gibt. Deswegen freue ich mich auch, dass wir in unserem Bericht an den Rat auch noch einmal darstellen, dass es diesen unabhängigen Menschenrechtsmonitoring-Mechanismus geben muss. Der kann Beispiel für viele Länder sein. Es kann auch sein, dass wir es – durch diese Berichterstattung von Kroatien an die Kommission und auch ans Europäische Parlament – schaffen, dass wir mehr Licht ins Dunkel bringen und endlich die Pushbacks an den Außengrenzen beenden. Deswegen freue ich mich, Kroatien schnellstmöglich willkommen zu heißen im Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und im Raum des Rechts, auch des Rechts für die Menschen an unseren Außengrenzen, die dort fliehen. Željana Zovko (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovana potpredsjednice Komisije, poštovani povjereniče Schinas, poštovana veleposlanice Andrassy, prije svega želim da čestitam ovdje i svojim kolegama i svima onima koji su ovdje skupa s nama da slavimo ulazak Hrvatske u schengensku zonu. Najzaslužniji za večerašnje slavlje je ovdje i naš izvjestitelj gospodin Rangel, ja čestitam za svu predanost koju je učinio da naglasi značaj i sve ono što je hrvatska policija, hrvatska Vlada u proteklom periodu učinila još jednom da pokaže da je Hrvatska najbolji učenik od svih zemalja, koji su se trudili, i nakon jednog teškog i mukotrpnog napora postigli, da dobiju ovako zadovoljavajuću ocjenu za ulazak u schengen. Hrvatska je zemlja koja je bez ičije pomoći obranila svoj teritorij, Hrvatska je zemlja koja pomaže zapadnom Balkanu, Hrvatska je zemlja koja vuče Bosnu i Hercegovinu naprijed i Hrvatska je zemlja koja će opravdati sva vaša očekivanja i ja zahvaljujem svim kolegama, od lijevog do desnog spektra ove kuće koju ću sutra podržati masovno i pokazati da Hrvatska treba da slavi u prosincu ulazak u eurozonu i ulazak u schengenski prostor. Još jednom čestitam i zahvaljujem i sretno. Biljana Borzan (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, teško je razumjeti ili prenijeti nekome tko nije morao čekati u redovima na granicama za sigurnosni pregled ili pregled putovnica, da zapravo postoje dvije kategorije europskih građana. Oni čije su države u Schengenu i oni čije nisu. Isto tako, teško je objasniti građanima Hrvatske da nemaju ista prava, premda smo ispunili sve uvjete koji su potrebni. Glasovanjem o ovom izvještaju, odnosno davanjem podrške ulasku Hrvatske u Schengen, profitirat će prvenstveno građani Hrvatske i proeuropska većina, ali i ona euroskeptična manjina koja će izgubiti jedan argument. Želim zahvaliti svima koji su dali svoj doprinos, a ponajprije hrvatskim kolegama koji su se angažirali unutar svojih političkih klubova, jer radi se o nacionalnom interesu i zaista velikoj stvari za hrvatske građane. Valter Flego (Renew). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovane dame i gospodo, pa ja nikada nisam bio sretniji ponosniji za ovom govornicom i teško da ću ikada i biti. Sretan i ponosan što je moja Hrvatska pred vratima Schengena, a što će moja Istra, naravno, od 1. 1. 2023. biti prava europska regija bez granica. Naime, jasno je da konačno postajemo dio najrazvijenijeg, najelitnijeg kluba. I to apsolutno zasluženo za sve hrvatske građane, za hrvatsko gospodarstvo. I konačno, smanjuju se čekanja na granicama naših prijevoznika, radnika, turista, prijevoznika i tako dalje. Smanjuju se, ustvari, gubici koji se tim čekanjima generiraju. Poštovani, sutra je itekako veliki dan za Hrvatsku, ali i za jednu jaku, snažnu, jedinstvenu Europu. Zato glasajte ispravno, za Hrvatsku, za Schengen, za Europu, za Europu bez granica. I hvala svima koji su nam pomogli na tom putu, a siguran sam kako će budućnost potvrditi da su bili na ispravnoj strani svi oni koji će sutra glasati za. Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući i poštovana potpredsjednice, poštovani povjereniče i poštovana veleposlanice, kolegice i kolege, dozvolite da najprije zahvalim kolegi Rangelu: hvala lijepo na punoj potpori na putu koji će sutra označiti tako dobar dan za moju Hrvatsku. Ovo će biti i emotivan dan za sve nas zastupnike koji predstavljamo Republiku Hrvatsku u Europskom parlamentu. 400 milijuna ljudi, jedna granica. I mi ćemo biti dio toga. U desetoj godini članstva Hrvatske u Europskoj uniji ispunjavamo posljednja dva cilja, a to je ulazak u europodručje i ulazak u Schengen. Veliku zahvalnost, naravno, dugujemo i našoj Vladi. Bez političke volje i predsjednika Andreja Plenkovića, to se sigurno ne bi ostvarilo, i ovako opsežan proces evaluacije. Kolegice i kolege, nemojte imati sumnje u Hrvatsku. Mnogo smo puta o tome govorili. Hrvatska je uvela i nešto novo: neovisni mehanizam kontrole. I ja vjerujem da će se to primijeniti i na ostale zemlje članice. Hrvatska tako postaje integrirana u povijesni, civilizacijski i kulturološki prostor Europske unije. Hvala vam lijepa na potpori, od srca. Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, nepunih deset godina nakon ulaska u Europsku uniju, Hrvatska je na pragu pune europske integracije. Ulazak u schengenski prostor za Hrvatsku i njezine državljane predstavlja ostvarenje strateškog interesa punopravne pripadnosti Europi i Zapadu. Višegodišnji napori koje je hrvatska vlada uložila rezultirali su ispunjenjem tehničkih kriterija za ulazak u schengenski prostor, što je lani utvrdilo i Vijeće. Time je potvrđeno da Hrvatska na najbolji mogući način štiti najdulju vanjsku granicu Unije od ilegalnih migracija sukladno europskom i međunarodnom pravu. Oni koji tvrde suprotno samo obmanjuju javnost zbog vlastitih sitnih politikanskih interesa. Važno je da Europski parlament velikom većinom podrži ulazak Hrvatske u Schengen. I zato zahvaljujem izvjestitelju na golemom naporu koji je uložio da bi se upravo to i dogodilo. Zaključno, ističem da je priključenje schengenskom prostoru u interesu kako same Hrvatske tako i cijele Europske unije. Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Mr President, dear Vice-Presidents of the Commission, dear colleagues, I'm very happy to welcome another Member State to the Schengen zone. I wholeheartedly support Croatia's Schengen accession. By widening the space for our principles and rules, we all become safer and stronger. As we fully support Croatia's place inside the Schengen zone, we also stand behind the Schengen accessions for Romania and Bulgaria. Citizens of all countries that have fulfilled the criteria should enjoy the benefits of Schengen. Schengen is Europe. If we weaken Schengen, we weaken Europe. It is as simple as that. Free movement of people is the cornerstone of our values and we must stand up for it as Schengen is facing internal threats through temporary border checks and huge external pressures. We must invest together in a better protection of the Schengen external border, support Frontex and insist that our accession partners in the Western Balkans work with us by harmonising their respective visa policies. I am very pleased, dear colleagues, that all European citizens in Croatia will soon be able to enjoy the full benefits of the free movement of people. Let us together make the Schengen enlargement a truly lasting achievement. Postup prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem přesvědčen, že Chorvatsko samozřejmě patří do Schengenu a je trochu s podivem, že pokud splnilo podmínky přistoupení do schengenského acquis již v roce 2019, tak by se dalo říci, že již máme tři roky zpoždění. Takže jsem velmi rád, že nás toto rozhodnutí posiluje, že jsme více jednotní, že nás také více přibližuje a dělá z nás skutečnou rodinu bezpečnosti, práva a svobody. To je nepochybné. Chtěl bych také zdůraznit, že zde máme určité dluhy nejen vůči Chorvatsku, ale samozřejmě vůči Rumunsku, Bulharsku. Na ně bychom také neměli zapomenout. Jsem rád, že dojde k posílení vízové politiky, návratové politiky, policejní spolupráce a výměny informací. A jsem samozřejmě také rád, že příští léto již nezažiji s mojí rodinou ty šílené fronty na chorvatských hranicích. Myslím si, že jsme si je mohli odpustit už možná několik let dozadu. Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani gospodine povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, Republika Hrvatska potpuno zaslužuje ulazak u Schengen jer je ispunila sve zadane uvjete, i tehničke i političke. Hrvatska ima najdužu vanjsku kopnenu granicu Europske unije i želi doprinijeti većoj sigurnosti na njoj, a Europska unija ovim dokazuje funkcionalnost i privlačnost svog modela. Govoreći o budućnosti Schengena, trebamo ga ojačati kao jedno od najvećih europskih postignuća, a novo širenje jedan je od najboljih načina, osobito u ovom kritičnom vremenu kada se vodi rat na europskom tlu i kada jedna kriza zamjenjuje drugu, ali važno je nastaviti s provedbom schengenske stečevine. To jača povjerenje među članicama schengenskog prostora. Jednako tako treba imati povjerenja i prema zemljama koje već dugo rade na ispunjavanju schengenskih kriterija. Radujem se što ćemo nadograditi naše članstvo u Europskoj uniji. Tako stječemo ista prava slobodnog kretanja za hrvatske građane i građanke koja već uživa 420 milijuna ljudi u 26 država. To je ravnopravna Europa za koju se zalažemo. (Ukončenie postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky) Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you, President, honourable Members, let me end this debate as I started it. Croatia is ready for Schengen, as Bulgaria and Romania are, and we at the Commission will do everything we can to make sure that all three Member States can join at once. Let me reiterate the importance of the Croatian commitment to set up and implement loyally an independent monitoring mechanism. This mechanism is the first of its kind and Croatia is the first Member State to put it in place, even before we have an agreement on the Pact for Migration and Asylum, which I hope would be sooner rather than later, because the pact requires all Member States to set up a monitoring mechanism to uphold fundamental rights, as demanded by our screening proposal regulation. So Croatia is doing this before we have to do it collectively as part of European legislation. And last week the Croatian Government also signed the extension of this mechanism, not a year-by-year, but an 18-month extension automatically renewable until we have this agreement on the pact. These are major – I repeat – major steps taken in this context. Also, all recommendations of the Mechanism Advisory Board that is monitoring the implementation of the mechanism have been followed, including – and that's also a first – the possibility of unannounced visits at the green border. Let me finish with a final comment that goes beyond Croatia. In these difficult, dark times, in which many of our enemies underestimate the added value of the European Union, many attack the European project, many try to discredit our successes, Croatia's accession to Schengen and tomorrow in the Euro simply shows that the prophets of doom, the Cassandras, les déclinologues, will once again be proven wrong. We are strong. We are many. We are united. And we are stronger and able to stand up against our enemies together. That's also a message of this vote you will be having tomorrow. Paulo Rangel,
rapporteur. – Mr President, dear Vice-Presidents, I'd like only to make two or three comments or remarks on issues that were raised during this debate. First, to say that all of us, we all agree that Schengen has two main purposes. One is to defend our external borders – security, safety. The other is to respect all the fundamental rights of European citizens and of the citizens that are non-European and that want to come to Europe. And there's something that is clear that applies to Croatia, but also to Romania and Bulgaria. If we want to monitor, to check, to be sure, that these two dimensions are fully implemented, bringing more security to our borders, but respecting our heritage of fundamental rights, this is much easier to do if these Member States are inside Schengen than if they are outside. And so, there is no ground and there is no reason to postpone, to delay this accession. And if some Member States are thinking that they can do that, they are doing it not for the common good of the European Union, but for only internal political reasons and we cannot accept that in these exceptional times. We need to have full freedom of movement within our territory and we have to have secure borders in the places where we have full European citizens. And so I say that I trust that at the very end, all the 27 Member States will approve this accession of Croatia and also, naturally, of Romania and Bulgaria. Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa týmto skončila. Hlasovanie sa uskutoční zajtra. Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171) Dominique Bilde (ID),
par écrit. – L'accession de la Croatie à l'espace Schengen pose avec acuité la question du contrôle des frontières extérieures de l'Union européenne. En effet, le pays se trouvera alors chargé de cette périlleuse mission. Et ce, alors même que la crise migratoire sur la ”route des Balkans” fait à nouveau rage, avec une augmentation de 205 % des passages illégaux, en un an seulement. Les récriminations, dont le rapport se fait l'écho, se suivent et se ressemblent. On déplore les ”refoulements” de migrants, au lieu de remettre en cause un modèle insensé. Signe des temps, la Slovénie envisagerait des contrôles frontaliers à l'issue de l'intégration de la Croatie au sein de l'espace Schengen. Une décision qui rappelle celle prise par l'Autriche à la frontière slovène, en 2015. Bref, il est urgent de reconnaître que Schengen est un dispositif dépassé, à l'heure où la vague migratoire repart de plus belle. Il faut souligner également la fuite des cerveaux et l'émigration dramatiques, qui ont affecté la Croatie depuis son accession à l'Union européenne. Il est dans l'intérêt de tous de ne pas contribuer à la perte par un État membre de ses forces vives. Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR),
na piśmie. – Chorwacja to kraj, który jak najbardziej zasługuje na to, by w pełni korzystać z tego, co daje przynależność do krajów strefy Schengen. W moim głębokim odczuciu kraj ten powinien móc korzystać ze swobodnego przepływu obywateli z krajów członkowskich, który pozytywnie wpływa na szybkie i bezproblemowe podróżowanie, a przez to na rozwój turystyki, w tym turystyki biznesowej. Jak wiemy, swobodny przepływ osób wpływa także na swobodny przepływ towarów, co jest bardzo istotne, szczególnie w aktualnej sytuacji ekonomicznej. Jestem przekonany, iż wątpliwości Komisji Europejskiej dotyczące rzekomych przykładów łamania praw migrantów przez Chorwację zostaną szybko wyjaśnione. Komisja zdecydowanie i ze spokojem powinna ustosunkować się do zarzutów Lewicy wzywających do poniesienia przez Chorwację konsekwencji i zaniechać wzmocnienia mechanizmów monitorujących. Łatwo jest oskarżać i zarzucać nadużycia, przemoc czy nielegalne zawracanie migrantów przez chorwackich funkcjonariuszy granicznych. Musimy jednak pamiętać, iż specyfika ochrony zewnętrznych granic Unii Europejskiej jest zdecydowanie bardziej złożona i trudna, niż lewicowi aktywiści mogą sobie wyobrazić, szczególnie podczas trwającej otwartej agresji Rosji wobec Ukrainy. Dlatego jako sprawozdawca-cień z ramienia grupy ECR i współautor tego sprawozdania uważam, iż Parlament Europejski powinien poprzeć jego tekst, zaś Chorwacja powinna jak najszybciej cieszyć się z korzyści wynikających z przynależności do strefy Schengen. 19.   E-urheilu ja videopelit (keskustelu) Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je správa, ktorú predkladá Laurence Farreng Elektronické športy a videohry (2022/2027(INI)) (A9-0244/2022). Laurence Farreng,
rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, il y a tout juste cinquante ans, un motif très simple apparaissait sur des écrans un peu partout dans le monde: il s'agissait de deux barres verticales et d'un pixel qui se déplaçait entre elles. Le concept de ce jeu – il s'appelait Pong – était très simple: se renvoyer la balle et marquer le plus de points possible contre son adversaire. Ce simple jeu marquait le début de la révolution du jeu vidéo. Cinquante ans plus tard, le jeu vidéo est devenu pour l'Europe une industrie majeure, qui pèse 23 milliards d'euros et emploie près de 100 000 personnes. Le jeu vidéo est le secteur de nos industries culturelles et créatives le plus dynamique, le seul à avoir connu une croissance pendant la période de la COVID-19. Le jeu vidéo est devenu une pratique culturelle incontournable pour un Européen sur deux et un métier à temps plein pour les professionnels du sport électronique. Pourtant, nous n'avons toujours pas de vision européenne consacrée à ce secteur. Aussi, nous, Parlement européen, demandons formellement aujourd'hui une stratégie européenne pour ce secteur, une stratégie pour promouvoir une industrie qui n'a eu de cesse de se réinventer artistiquement. Car oui, le jeu vidéo est un art, et même un art total. Il développe des récits uniques, souvent fondés sur notre histoire européenne. Il fait appel à des graphistes, à des musiciens de grand talent. Il est aussi une mine d'innovations technologiques. De la réalité virtuelle à l'architecture des métavers, il participe à notre souveraineté numérique. Des milliers de jeux vidéo à succès sont développés chaque année par des entreprises européennes et ils connaissent un grand succès à l'international. The Witcher, Assassin's Creed, A Plague Tale, Minecraft: nous pouvons faire plus pour faire connaître nos pépites au monde entier, avec – pourquoi pas? – la création d'un label du jeu vidéo européen – c'est là une recommandation. Nous devons aussi avoir une stratégie pour protéger. Protéger nos jeux, nos studios, nos talents et nos éditeurs, en favorisant l'investissement européen. Bon nombre de nos entreprises, comme beaucoup dans le secteur culturel et créatif, ont un fort potentiel de croissance, mais sont la cible de rachats étrangers, faute d'investisseurs européens. Je me félicite du plan Media Invest annoncé par la Commission européenne, mais, je le redis ici, il y a urgence: dans la période de consolidation que nous traversons, nos jeux vidéo sont des actifs culturels stratégiques, et ils doivent rester dans le giron européen. Nous avons aussi besoin d'une stratégie pour éduquer, parce que le jeu vidéo est un médium formidable, qui, lorsqu'il est combiné avec des programmes éducatifs, permet de faciliter l'apprentissage à tout âge, pour les plus jeunes comme pour les plus âgés. Il donne goût aux savoirs scientifiques, mais aussi à la lecture. Ainsi, l'Union européenne a besoin d'une stratégie européenne pour le jeu vidéo, mais elle devrait aussi se doter d'une approche commune pour le sport électronique, parce que le sport électronique est une discipline à part entière, qui ne ressemble à aucune autre. Il réunit des joueurs autour d'une même passion: pratiquer le jeu vidéo en compétition. Plus que dans tout autre discipline, l'Europe y transcende les frontières. Il est donc logique que l'Union embrasse ce phénomène en promouvant nos valeurs européennes, en faisant une juste place aux femmes, en fournissant des règles claires concernant le statut et les visas des professionnels. Je me réjouis notamment de voir que des compétitions mondiales sont prévues en 2023 sur notre continent. Mais nous pouvons encore faire mieux, en insistant sur le rôle des villes et des régions pour développer une nouvelle offre de loisirs pour des joueurs de plus en plus nombreux et développer par là même leur caractère attrayant. Chers collègues, je tiens à remercier la présidente de la commission CULT pour son soutien et les rapporteurs fictifs pour leur travail. Le jeu vidéo et le sport électronique ont d'importants défis économiques et sociétaux à relever. Aussi, avec ce rapport, nous marquons la première étape d'une véritable prise en considération du secteur au niveau européen. Thierry Breton,
membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les membres du Parlement européen, chère Laurence, le thème de cette initiative, qui certes n'est pas une initiative originale, est un thème ludique, mais pas seulement. Il s'agit là d'une initiative importante. Vous l'avez rappelé, chère Laurence, c'est un secteur très dynamique, important pour l'économie, qui emploie près de 100 000 personnes hautement qualifiées et qui évidemment occupe une grande partie de nos jours et parfois même de nos nuits, en tout cas d'un nombre important de nos de nos concitoyens européens, puisque près de la moitié, vous l'avez dit, entre 6 et 64 ans, joue aux jeux vidéo. C'est par ailleurs un secteur en croissance permanente – 6 % en 2021. Alors évidemment, au-delà de la performance économique, il y a un certain nombre d'axes tout à fait pertinents que nous devons avoir à l'esprit dans les réflexions qui visent à structurer, comme vous venez de l'appeler de vos vœux, une stratégie globale pour les jeux vidéo, mais aussi le sport électronique. Vous avez fait référence tout à l'heure aux compétitions. C'est là un domaine particulièrement dynamique, mais ce n'est pas le seul. Il y a le développement des talents – très important –, des savoir-faire, qui est un enjeu très significatif. Nous avons en Europe beaucoup de créativité, beaucoup de savoir-faire. Il faut accroître ces compétences; il est très important de les maintenir en Europe. Ce sont des talents souvent très recherchés, qui peuvent profiter de perspectives importantes en dehors de notre continent. Il faut évidemment les maintenir. C'est un sujet très important. La promotion internationale des jeux ainsi que leur utilisation en tant qu'outils éducatifs est un sujet capital, qui doit être au cœur de notre stratégie d'ensemble. Mais surtout, je voudrais souligner ici, devant vous, le rôle pionnier des jeux vidéo dans la création des mondes virtuels. On en parle beaucoup aujourd'hui. C'est vrai que c'est l'un des secteurs les plus mis en avant. On voit du reste que l'industrie des jeux vidéo a bien souvent développé des savoir-faire et des technologies – on peut penser par exemple aux cartes graphiques. Les cartes graphiques ont été développées pour les jeux vidéo et elles sont aujourd'hui au cœur des supercalculateurs – je ne citerai pas les entreprises concernées, elles se reconnaîtront. On ne peut plus s'en passer pour faire des supercalculateurs. Il en va de même aussi pour tout ce qui concerne les mondes virtuels et, évidemment, on peut avoir à l'esprit les applications du métavers. On est donc ici aussi en présence d'une industrie qui pousse les développements technologiques et qui va nous ouvrir de nouvelles frontières, ce à quoi il faut évidemment nous préparer. Ces développements doivent voir leur émergence et leur développement ici même, en Europe, sur notre continent. Vous voyez donc que ce sujet, qui peut avoir une apparence ludique, est en fait très sérieux: que ce soit au sujet des comportements, des talents, des technologies, des habitudes, mais aussi de la créativité que cela peut générer. Bien sûr la Commission soutient le secteur des jeux vidéo, qui est considéré, pour toutes les raisons que je viens d'énoncer, comme un secteur stratégique, qui fait partie du reste de l'écosystème audiovisuel, et qui bénéficie donc à ce titre du programme MEDIA dans le cadre d'”Europe créative”. Nous avons lancé, vous venez de le rappeler, le programme Media Invest, qui est un outil d'investissement visant à rendre l'industrie audiovisuelle, y compris celle des jeux vidéo, plus résiliente, plus dynamique, plus novatrice aussi. Par ailleurs nous mettons actuellement en œuvre un projet pilote que nous avons intitulé ”Comprendre la valeur d'une société européenne des jeux vidéo”, qui vise à bien saisir les contours de la valeur économique et sociétale de l'ensemble de l'écosystème des jeux vidéo, et dont nous comptons du reste présenter les conclusions avant l'été 2023. Voilà donc ce que je voulais vous dire préalablement aux débats qui vont suivre. Je vous remercie à nouveau pour cette résolution et me félicite de l'approche holistique qui est la sienne – on a vu que le sujet englobait de très nombreux éléments –, et en profite pour vous dire que la Commission est prête à travailler très étroitement avec vous, avec le Parlement, pour les suites que connaîtra ce rapport. Tomasz Frankowski,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Obecny rok jest Europejskim Rokiem Młodzieży. Dlatego cieszę się, że, myśląc o młodych ludziach, to właśnie nasza Komisja Kultury i Edukacji przygotowała pierwsze w historii Parlamentu sprawozdanie dotyczące e-sportu i gier wideo. W tym miejscu chciałbym pogratulować i podziękować sprawozdawczyni Laurence Farreng za jej zaangażowanie i świetną współpracę. Merci beaucoup! Gry wideo stanowią ważny ekosystem dla Unii Europejskiej, zarówno pod względem gospodarczym, jak i kulturowym. Jest to również jeden z niewielu sektorów kreatywnych, który odnotował wzrost w czasie kryzysu COVID. Warto podkreślić, że gry wideo pełnią pozytywną rolę edukacyjną, a e-sport może pomóc w rozwoju wielu umiejętności. Gry wideo mogą być cennym narzędziem dydaktycznym, angażując uczniów w program nauczania, rozwijając ich umiejętności cyfrowe i kreatywne myślenie. Prawie połowę graczy stanowią kobiety. Udowodniono, że dziewczęta, które grają w gry wideo, są trzy razy bardziej skłonne do podjęcia studiów matematycznych. Potrzebujemy ambitnej oraz długoterminowej strategii w Europie, gdyż pojawiają się wyzwania, jak np. niedobór talentów. Musimy inwestować w szkolenia i ułatwiać dostęp wizowy oraz zapewnić niezawodną infrastrukturę i łączność. Należy również opracować europejską strategię na rzecz własności intelektualnej w grach wideo, która jest kluczowa dla ich inwestycji i wzrostu. Ze względu na możliwość pojawienia się uzależnień oraz nieodpowiedzialnych zachowań w sieci, Unia Europejska powinna przyjąć odpowiedzialne podejście do gier wideo i e-sportu, promując je jako element zdrowego stylu życia i aktywności fizycznej. Heléne Fritzon,
för S&D-gruppen. – Herr talman! Kommissionär! Det började som en aktivitet för några få insatta personer, men på några årtionden har det blivit ett vanligt medium som inom EU används av varannan person mellan 6 och 64 år. Vi ser det på smarttelefoner, datorer och spelkonsoler. Datorspel och e-sport har vuxit till en enorm industri, och denna utveckling förtjänar vår fulla uppmärksamhet. Därför välkomnar jag att vi för första gången tar upp denna fråga här i Europaparlamentet. Det handlar om hur vi i EU kan stödja tillväxt och innovation. Men det handlar också om utmaningarna, dvs. att säkerställa inkludering och tolerans, att bekämpa trakasserier och hat, vilket ofta drabbar flickor och kvinnor som spelar, och att se till att fler kvinnor kommer till sektorn och att vi får en ökad mångfald. Avslutningsvis vill jag verkligen tacka vår föredragande, Laurence Farreng, för ett utomordentligt bra och konstruktivt arbete med betänkandet. Det är helt enkelt ett mycket, mycket bra betänkande. Vlad-Marius Botoș,
în numele grupului Renew. – Domnule președinte, domnule vicepreședinte, domnule comisar Breton, dragă Laurence, stimați colegi, în ultimii ani vedem o răspândire tot mai mare a jocurilor video și a așa-numitelor sporturi online. Este foarte important să ne dăm seama că aceste jocuri nu sunt doar o pierdere de timp, cum le numesc unii, pentru noua generație. Avem tineri care știu multe despre orașele Europei, despre accidente nucleare, despre hărți și coduri. Avem tineri care au cunoștințe digitale solide și toate acestea datorită pasiunii pentru jocurile video. În ceea ce privește sporturile online, este nevoie să abordăm o legislație specifică, pentru că acestea nu pot fi comparate și nu trebuie să fie tratate precum sporturile clasice. În spatele acestor jocuri și sporturi este o întreagă industrie, și domnul comisar Breton a menționat asta, de la scenariști, actori, muzicieni, până la specialiști în domeniul digital. Este important ca noi, în Uniunea Europeană, să avem un cadru care să asigure drepturile jucătorilor, dar și dezvoltarea unei industrii europene a jocurilor digitale, pentru a fi parte din această ramură industrială, care reprezintă până la urmă milioane de euro la nivel global. Niklas Nienaß,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, for far too long politicians from past generations have seen video games as an irrelevant field, as a weird hobby for freaks, nerds and geeks that needs little to no attention or support from politics. Well, scrap all of this. This time is over. The gaming industry is already bigger than Hollywood, with a revenue of over EUR 23 billion each year. Half of all Europeans consider themselves to be gamers of some sort. So let it be known that a new generation of politicians have taken this topic very serious and that actual gamers sit at the negotiation table. Thankfully we didn't start a console war, but instead brought together the interests of all gamers, be they the PCMR consoles or even mobile, we brought all of them together. The video game sector brings massive benefits for our whole society. Video games are great for educational diversity, bringing new learning methods to fascinate students for science, history and much more. Video games allow for inclusive participation in culture, education and in our whole society, and Europe must strengthen the industry, especially individuals and SMEs. It creates jobs and opportunities, bringing together artistic techniques and innovative technologies. But we also need to fight for a good gaming experience for all. That means inclusion, protection of minors and vulnerable groups. And in this light it is important that we clearly fight against loot boxes. The current use of loot boxes creates gaming addictions, threatening children, people with addiction problems, creating a harmful environment, and it's just bad for the gaming experience as a whole. With this report we will start to outlaw the use of loot boxes. Today is the start of a new era, an era in which we value the European gaming sector and start harnessing the multiple benefits that video games provide for our society. It's a very good start. Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, creativity, design, storytelling, animation and music – all of these components are key for a successful video game. However, as shared just now, society has perpetrated a stereotype of gaming as anti-social and very technical, without recognising its massive cultural and creative impact. Global gaming revenue in 2021 was billions of euro – that is bigger than Hollywood and the music industry combined. We here in Europe must recognise the potential of the video games sector in developing creative talent and upscaling cultural creators, as we see. A great example of the opportunities in this sector is Black Shamrock, a leader in gaming development globally, based in Dublin city centre, who just today announced 80 jobs due to growing demand in their work. GamerFest, Ireland's biggest e-sports festival, was held last month very successfully and outlined the endless creative industry and the strength of the gaming community as a whole. In order to maintain Europe's position as a cultural centre, we must look to the future and invest in our video game sector through Horizon Europe and Creative Europe. I welcome this finding and thank you very much to our colleagues for their work. Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, χαίρομαι ιδιαίτερα γιατί η παρούσα έκθεση όχι μόνο δείχνει ότι το Κοινοβούλιο οδηγεί τις εξελίξεις, αλλά κυρίως γιατί αναγνωρίζει τις εξαιρετικές δυνατότητες αυτού του οικοσυστήματος ως κομματιού της δημιουργικής και πολιτιστικής βιομηχανίας, αλλά και τα οφέλη που μπορούμε να αποκομίσουμε από τη χρησιμοποίηση τους στα εκπαιδευτικά μας συστήματα για την ανάπτυξη των απαραίτητων ψηφιακών δεξιοτήτων. Για αυτούς ακριβώς τους λόγους χρειαζόμαστε μια συνεκτική ευρωπαϊκή στρατηγική για να αναδείξουμε και να πολλαπλασιάσουμε την προστιθέμενη αξία αυτού του κλάδου, με επαρκή χρηματοδότηση, από προγράμματα όπως το Creative Europe, για να στηρίξουμε τους δημιουργούς και να τους δώσουμε τη δυνατότητα να ανταγωνιστούν με παγκόσμιους κολοσσούς επί ίσοις όροις, αλλά και με ειδική έμφαση στην ανάγκη προσβασιμότητας για τους ανάπηρους, δεδομένων των εξαιρετικών δυνατοτήτων των βιντεοπαιχνιδιών για την κοινωνικοποίηση και τη συμμετοχή στην κοινωνία. Postup prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já souhlasím s mými předřečníky, že se jedná skutečně o velmi progresivní oblast, která spojuje celou řadu odvětví a také propojuje znalosti, propojuje dovednosti, nepochybně také kreativně tvořící lidi, ať jsou to autoři počítačových programů nebo animátoři, autoři hudby a také autoři zvuku. Toto jsou všechno, myslím, velmi důležité aspekty této tvorby. A mají pravdu moji kolegové, kteří hovoří o tom, jak je toto odvětví důležité. Evropa je na špičce nepochybně i v tomto odvětví a je důležité, aby cítila tu podporu, o které hovořil i pan komisař, ať je to Kreativní Evropa nebo příslušné programy, program MEDIA Plus. Já bych chtěl upozornit na dvě problematické otázky, a to je právní zakotvení ochrany těchto výsledků tvůrčí duševní činnosti a celých postupů různých týmů, které pracují na těchto videohrách. Za druhé, jak neklást překážky na vnitřním trhu pro šíření těchto děl a samozřejmě jak také řešit závislosti případně na těchto hrách, které vznikají. To si musíme také přiznat. Nepochybně platí, že kdo hraje, ten nezlobí, ale přílišné hraní také není úplně nejšťastnější řešení. (Ukončenie postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky) Thierry Breton,
membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je remercie encore une fois sincèrement le Parlement de s'être saisi de cette question et Laurence Farreng de l'avoir portée. Merci pour le travail qui en a résulté. La question de l'écosystème des jeux vidéo est, on vient de le dire, tous avec nos mots, clairement importante. D'abord comme source d'innovation en Europe, car oui, c'est une réalité, le talent européen en la matière est mondialement reconnu. Nous devons donc nous assurer que nous organisons un environnement qui soutienne ce pôle d'excellence européen et qui protège la souveraineté qu'il y a autour – et donc nos pépites européennes. Mon objectif est évidemment d'inscrire cette ambition au cœur de l'approche européenne, notamment sur le métavers, puisque, vous le savez, nous sommes en train d'y travailler, à la Commission, dans le cadre d'un groupe de travail élargi. Je souhaite donc, bien sûr, que le Parlement y soit pleinement associé, et je tiens à le redire ici – c'est une évidence, mais les évidences sont souvent bonnes à rappeler. Alors, comme je l'ai dit en introduction, la Commission se félicite clairement et elle soutiendra pleinement cette initiative. On agit déjà à travers le programme ”Europe créative”, mais, évidemment, notre action ne peut pas se limiter au simple financement. Il faut regarder – c'est la démarche holistique que nous soutenons – les problématiques industrielle, technologique, d'experts, de compétences (éducatives, culturelles, de santé), mais aussi d'export – car c'est aussi un secteur qui exporte beaucoup, pour nous, hors d'Europe. Je tiens donc, en conclusion, à le redire: la Commission est prête à travailler main dans la main avec la commission CULT et le Parlement pour consolider cet écosystème d'excellence pour l'Europe. Laurence Farreng,
rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, merci beaucoup pour ces contributions. On voit combien les perspectives qu'offre le secteur suscitent l'intérêt dans tous nos États membres et à l'échelle de l'Union européenne. Je voulais en conclusion ajouter un dernier mot sur les défis que doit relever le secteur, qui sont majeurs. Certains de mes collègues en ont parlé. Nous avons la question de la féminisation, qui est un élément clé dans le jeu vidéo, puisque le secteur compte 50 % de joueuses, mais n'y emploie que 22 % de femmes. Nous devons donc faire mieux, indubitablement. Nous devons garantir aux femmes des perspectives de carrière dans ce secteur, mais aussi un environnement numérique sans harcèlement et respectueux des valeurs de l'Union – et je sais qu'aujourd'hui notre Union européenne dispose des instruments pour ce faire: on vient d'avoir un débat, notamment en France, sur le harcèlement des streameuses, et nous sommes mieux armés pour lutter contre ce phénomène. La prévention, d'autre part, doit demeurer au cœur de nos priorités pour garantir que le jeu vidéo reste un plaisir, sans contenu inadapté à l'âge du joueur, et que celui-ci ne s'isole pas dans un environnement numérique. Pour cela, nous avons d'ores et déjà le système paneuropéen PEGI, qui a fait ses preuves et qui doit continuer à être soutenu. Nous devons rester également attentifs au respect des règles européennes en matière de pratiques commerciales injustes. Enfin, le jeu vidéo et le sport électronique doivent également participer à la transition écologique, non seulement en réduisant leurs émissions de CO2, mais aussi en utilisant la puissance qu'offre ce média pour éduquer et sensibiliser les joueurs – on sait que la valeur d'immersion du jeu vidéo peut permettre de faire passer beaucoup de messages. Nous en sommes donc convaincus: le jeu vidéo et le sport électronique sont des atouts pour l'avenir. L'Union européenne, en prenant son destin numérique en main par davantage d'investissements dans ce secteur, pourra donner une véritable culture européenne aux univers numériques. Predsedajúci. – Rozprava s týmto skončila. Hlasovanie sa uskutoční zajtra. Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171) Caterina Chinnici (S&D),
per iscritto. – Il settore degli sport elettronici e dei videogiochi, rappresenta uno dei più promettenti dell'industria culturale e creativa europea. Nonostante la crisi del COVID-19, tale segmento di mercato nel 2021 ha registrato una crescita del fatturato, raggiungendo i 23,2 miliardi di EUR; un mercato che coinvolge soprattutto i giovani, visto che due terzi dei cittadini europei tra i 6 e i 24 anni, dichiarano di essere videogiocatori. Considerando che i criteri per ricevere finanziamenti dai programmi ”Europa Creativa” e ”Orizzonte Europa” non sempre sono applicabili alle specifiche esigenze degli sviluppatori di videogiochi di piccole e medie dimensioni, risulta necessario che l'Unione si doti di una strategia a lungo termine, che fornisca incentivi adeguati alle giovani start-up Made in EU e le renda competitive sul mercato globale, trattenendo così i numerosi talenti europei che contribuiscono alle diverse fasi, sia tecniche che artistiche, della realizzazione dei videogiochi. Ma accanto all'indiscusso potenziale economico e occupazionale, tale settore risulta particolarmente significativo anche sotto il profilo culturale e sociale. La nuova Strategia dovrà infatti invitare gli sviluppatori di videogiochi e degli sport elettronici, a promuovere gli stessi valori e competenze associate allo sport tradizionale, come il fair play, la non discriminazione, l'inclusione sociale e la parità di genere. Lívia Járóka (NI),
írásban. – Üdvözlöm a Kulturális és Oktatási Bizottság e-sportokról és videójátékokról (2022/2027(INI)) szóló, az Európai Parlament állásfoglalására irányuló indítványát. Az elmúlt évek egyik leggyorsabban fejlődő és leginnovatívabb kulturális ágává vált a videójáték-ökoszisztéma. Európa szerte számtalan fogyasztót érint közvetlenül a játékfejlesztők és stúdiók térnyerése. Ez az új kulturális termék számos lehetősége mellett azonban számos kihívás elé is állítja a fogyasztókat és a szabályozókat egyaránt. Az e-sportok eredményvédelme elengedhetetlen, a tiltott befolyásolás lehetőségét, az illegális szerencsejátékkal és teljesítménynöveléssel kapcsolatban felmerülő problémákat mihamarabb szabályozni kell, a visszaélések számát pedig redukálni. Emellett kiemelt figyelmet kell szentelni a videójátékfogyasztók körében felülreprezentált fiatalkorú fogyasztók jogvédelmének fontosságára is. Biztosítani kell az online térben felmerülő visszaélések, bántalmazások és megfélemlítések számának csökkentését, egységes, átlátható és jól ellenőrizhető jogi keret megalkotását. Mindezen feltételek megteremtése mellett ugyanis az e-sport és videójátékok világa számos lehetőséget hordoz magában az integráció terén, hiszen közös felületet képes adni Európa eltérő korosztályú, nemű és identitású fogyasztói számára. Az oktatási integrációba való beemelése lehetőséget teremt az egész életen át tartó tanulás, a kulturális sokszínűség népszerűsítése és a nyelvi korlátok leküzdésének területén is. A jelentés egy olyan ágazat hasznosításának fontosságát hangsúlyozza, amely kiemelt lehetőségekkel bír a jövő generációi számára. Így a jelentést támogattam, a terület hasznosításának lehetőségeit ajánlom megfontolásra. Elżbieta Kruk (ECR),
na piśmie. – Projekt drugiej dyrektywy w sprawie bezpieczeństwa sieci i informacji ma kluczowe znaczenie dla podniesienia poziomu cyberbezpieczeństwa w UE i w państwach członkowskich. Dyrektywa powinna być podstawową regulacją horyzontalną, ustanawiającą wspólne i co do zasady niezmienne ramy funkcjonowania systemu cyberbezpieczeństwa, w tym w szczególności wymagania i ramy instytucjonalne zgłaszania incydentów oraz wsparcia w ich obsłudze. Regulacje sektorowe nie powinny jednak zmieniać istoty i podstawowych zasad funkcjonowania systemu cyberbezpieczeństwa, w tym m.in. jednorodnego systemu raportowania incydentów, wymagań bezpieczeństwa ani ram współpracy właściwych organów. Należy unikać fragmentaryzacji regulacji w tym obszarze. Warte wsparcia są w szczególności propozycje: —
rozszerzenia zakresu dyrektywy o nowe sektory, w tym włączenie do niej administracji publicznej oraz wprowadzanie podziału podmiotów na kluczowe (essential) oraz ważne (important); —
wyznaczania jurysdykcji dla dostawców usług DNS (Domain Names System), rejestru nazw TLD (Top-Level Domain), dostawców usług w chmurze, dostawców usług ośrodka przetwarzania danych oraz dostawców sieci dostarczania treści; —
powiązania zarządzania kryzysowego z systemem cyberbezpieczeństwa; —
wypracowania mechanizmu współpracy pomiędzy państwami członkowskimi UE dotyczącej incydentów transgranicznych czy obejmujących wiele krajów UE; —
wprowadzania zasad określania wysokości kar za niewypełnienie nałożonych obowiązków w zakresie cyberbezpieczeństwa tak aby były odstraszające, ale równocześnie motywujące i proporcjonalne, oraz —
przyjęcia odpowiednich przepisów w zakresie bezpieczeństwa krytycznych łańcuchów dostaw. Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR),
na piśmie. – Wnioski płynące ze sprawozdania oceniam jako słuszne i niezwykle potrzebne dla branży gamingowej i e-sportowej. Przede wszystkim w zakresie dostrzeżenia istotności gamingu, gier wideo, e-sportu wśród Europejczyków oraz wpływu na kulturę i współzawodnictwo w tym zakresie. Biorąc pod uwagę powyższe, uważam również, że konieczne jest rozróżnienie gamingu (tj. w dużym skrócie: elementu rozrywki czy kultury związanej z wykorzystaniem gier wideo) od e-sportu (tj. w dużym skrócie: współzawodnictwa ukierunkowanego na osiągnięcie określonych wyników w grach wideo), których cechą wspólną jest uczestnictwo w określonej grze wideo. W sprawozdaniu czytamy też, że gry wideo stanowią dla Unii Europejskiej ważny ekosystem, zarówno pod względem gospodarczym, jak i kulturowym. Chciałbym też dodać, że przed e-sportem stoi wiele wyzwań np. tych związanych ze stosowaniem dopingu. Należy pamiętać, że gry wideo mogą nieść ze sobą zagrożenia, zwłaszcza dla młodych ludzi, i musimy temu zapobiegać. Dlatego doceniam mechanizmy samoregulacji branży, takie jak system PEGI (Ogólnoeuropejski system klasyfikacji gier), który stał się standardem uznawanym w całej Europie. Na przykład PEGI Online jest komórką tej organizacji zajmującą się ochroną dzieci i młodzieży przed nieodpowiednimi treściami zawartymi w grach online. 20.   Minuutin puheenvuorot poliittisesti tärkeistä asioista Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu sú jednominútové vystúpenia (podľa článku 172 rokovacieho poriadku), ktoré vykonávate zo svojho kresla. Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem chtěl využít této minuty k apelu na Komisi, aby ani v této těžké době neopouštěla téma welfare zvířat. Chápu, že teď řešíme jiné problémy, ceny energií, válku na Ukrajině, ale toto téma bychom kontinuálně dále měli řešit. A říkám to tady proto, protože jsem byl velmi nespokojený s odpovědí, kterou mně Komise zaslala na moji interpelaci, zda by Evropská unie neměla více řešit otázky stavu zacházení s dobytkem na jatkách. A odkazoval jsem na novou úpravu ve Španělsku, kde monitoring jatek povede podle mého názoru k tomu, že se zvířaty bude nakládáno lépe a odstraní se excesy, které jsou jak státnímu dozoru, tak i odborné a laické veřejnosti skryty. Takže moc prosím, aby i přesto, že odpověď, se kterou nesouhlasím a která byla velmi alibistická a vyhýbavá a v zásadě jsem nepochopil, zda Komise to téma chce či nechce dále rozvíjet a debatovat o něm, abychom toto téma nepodceňovali. Sándor Rónai (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Egyetlen egy EU-s kormány lassítja Svédország és Finnország NATO csatlakozását, ez pedig az Orbán-kormány. Pedig Svédország és Finnország csatlakozása nagyban erősítené Európa biztonságát. De akkor vajon miért teszi ezt, miért lassítja ezt a folyamatot Orbán Viktor? Azért, mert mióta Orbán nem lophat, azóta egy másik szenvedélyének, a zsarolásnak hódol. Engedményeket akar elérni, azt akarja kicsikarni önöktől, hogy a ratifikációért cserébe hunyjanak szemet a lopás és a visszaélések felett. Ne tegyék! Ne engedjék a lopást, és ne engedjenek a zsarolásnak se! Orbán Viktor fog engedni, éppen azért, mert pontosan tudja, hogy Európa nélkül nem tudja megoldani azt a válságot, amelybe éppen ő vezette Magyarországot. Magyarország ratifikálni fogja a NATO bővítését azért, mert mi, európai magyar demokraták ezt ki fogjuk kényszeríteni, ezt fogjuk kikényszeríteni napról napra, hétről hétre, amíg meg nem történik. Mert ez Magyarország, és ez Európa érdeke is. Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr President, I want to address the issue of the recently announced peace deal in northern Ethiopia. While it was announced seven days ago, there is still no humanitarian access to Tigray. The question I want to raise is impunity. Many experts have given evidence that genocide has taken place in Tigray. The crimes committed by the Ethiopian National Defence Forces amount to genocide – an attempt to destroy the Tigrayan ethnicity. Of course, there has been violence on all sides, but only the charge of genocide is laid at the door of the Ethiopian state. Genocide is a crime of universal jurisdiction so that any Member State has the capacity to investigate, but I'm not filled with hope. My own country, Ireland, was the only one to denounce the Ethiopian regime forcefully and was targeted, threatened and subjected to diplomatic expulsions. Our first priority must be humanitarian access and sustaining the peace, but surely the European Union cannot let genocide go unpunished in 2022. Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, quero enviar todo o apoio para as trabalhadoras da Plataforma Galega do Serviço de Atenção à Dependência e à Assistência Domiciliar no meu país, o SAD, que se tem manifestado, na semana passada, em diferentes vilas galegas, sobre um acordo coletivo que vai contra os seus interesses. Pedem um convénio justo, digno e que não torne este setor ainda mais precário. Um setor feminizado, o trabalho mal remunerado, setor essencial na pandemia. Um setor de ajuda que se tornou um negócio, um emprego que não tem doenças ocupacionais reconhecidas, em que as pessoas são tratadas como máquinas e não como trabalhadoras essenciais para as pessoas que precisam de ajuda habitual. Foi denunciada por estas trabalhadoras neste Parlamento a sua causa, pedindo condições de trabalho justas. Estas resoluções do Parlamento Europeu alertam para o aumento da pobreza destas trabalhadoras e apelam ao fim da sua situação, relatada em várias ocasiões/ações pelas trabalhadoras do Serviço de Apoio Domiciliário. Estamos convosco, trabalhadoras do SAD. Silvia Sardone (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie al nuovo governo di centrodestra in Italia l'immigrazione torna a essere argomento di discussione nell'Unione europea, e non più solo in Italia. Sì, perché in questi anni l'Unione europea è stata solidale ma con i confini dell'Italia. Facile così! La maggioranza dei migranti è di tipo economico. Pensate che le prime tre nazioni di appartenenza degli immigrati che sbarcano in Italia sono Egitto, Tunisia, Bangladesh, insomma paesi dove non c'è alcuna guerra. Soccorrere è un dovere; altra cosa, però, è aumentare il traffico degli esseri umani. L'Italia non può essere il campo profughi dell'Unione europea. Mi chiedo, dov'è l'Unione europea? Dov'è la rotazione dei porti? Dov'è la ricollocazione dei migranti? Da inizio agosto ad oggi sono sbarcati in Italia 44 000 migranti. Sapete quanti sono stati i ricollocati? 112 tra Francia e Germania. L'Italia vuole solo difendere i propri confini, che poi sono anche quelli dell'Unione europea. Stop all'immigrazione clandestina! Johan Nissinen (ECR). – Herr talman! Från år 2035 vill EU förbjuda försäljning av nya bensin- och dieselbilar. Detta vansinne kommer att få drastiska konsekvenser för miljön och ekonomin. Dessutom kommer det att öka vårt beroende av Kina, vilket i framtiden kommer att slå tillbaka väldigt hårt. Se bara på vad det naiva politiska beslutet att bli beroende av rysk gas har lett till. Batterierna består huvudsakligen av kobolt och litium. 80 % av kobolten kommer från kinesiska gruvor i Kongo, där barn arbetar för 1 dollar om dagen. Deras arbetsförhållanden är omänskliga. Litium finns i överflöd, men brytningen är en ekologisk katastrof. För att utvinna ett ton litium behövs det 1 miljon liter vatten! Varnade inte alla nyss för att det är torka i våra skogar? Denna politik är varken hållbar eller ansvarsfull. Man ignorerar totalt konsekvenserna för vår miljö, vår ekonomi och de mänskliga rättigheterna. Det är dags att ta av sig de ideologiska glasögonen och se sanningen i vitögat. João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, impedir o agravamento das desigualdades socioeconómicas e evitar uma profunda recessão exigem o reforço do investimento e despesa pública. Em sentido contrário, a proposta de reforma da governação macroeconómica, hoje apresentada pela Comissão Europeia, vai neste sentido contrário. Mantém os critérios de Maastricht, arbitrários, sem fundamento económico, usurpadores da soberania económica e que impõem o diktat neoliberal. Torna automáticos os procedimentos por défices excessivos dos países, simplificam-se e reforçam-se as sanções. Impõem opções de investimento e de desenvolvimento e tetos à despesa pública, adivinhando pressões ainda maiores sobre os serviços públicos, como a saúde ou a educação. Aprofundando a ingerência sobre opções soberanas, intromete-se nas políticas económicas dos Estados, muito além da dimensão estritamente orçamental. A dita reforma que esta proposta apresenta, afirmando flexibilidade, confirma apenas que se aperta ainda mais o garrote aos Estados e aos povos, agravando divergências entre países, seguindo, como sempre, a posição da Alemanha. Assim se vê quem manda. Perdem países como Portugal, perdem os trabalhadores e os povos. Atenta-se à soberania e atira-se, furtivamente, contra a democracia. Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μετά την επίσκεψη της Επιτροπής PEGA στην Αθήνα, θέλουμε να σημειώσουμε ότι το σκάνδαλο των υποκλοπών παίρνει διαρκώς μεγαλύτερες διαστάσεις. Τα γεγονότα επιβεβαιώνουν τη θέση του ΚΚΕ ότι βρίσκεται σε εξέλιξη μια μεθοδευμένη επιχείρηση συγκάλυψης της αλήθειας για το δυσώδες ευρωενωσιακό νομοθετικό πλαίσιο που όλες οι κυβερνήσεις και τα αστικά κόμματα έχουν συνδιαμορφώσει. Αυτό το πλαίσιο επιτρέπει τη μαζική παρακολούθηση των πάντων και κάθε είδους φακέλωμα από κράτη και μονοπώλια. Η όλη αντιπαράθεση ανάμεσα στη Νέα Δημοκρατία, τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, το ΠΑΣΟΚ-ΚΙΝΑΛ και τις αντίστοιχες ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές ομάδες διεξάγεται μέσω ξεκαθαρίσματος λογαριασμών επιχειρηματικών συμφερόντων και αφήνει αυτό το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο απείραχτο. Οι δε εξαγγελίες του Έλληνα πρωθυπουργού για απαγόρευση των λογισμικών προδιαγράφουν μια ακόμα επιχείρηση εξαπάτησης, αφού στη συνέχεια αυτά θα νομιμοποιηθούν ξανά, όμως με όρους και προϋποθέσεις. Το ΚΚΕ αποκάλυψε και θα συνεχίζει να αποκαλύπτει την αλήθεια στον λαό. Το αντιδραστικό πλαίσιο Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, κράτους και κυβερνήσεων που θωρακίζει τη δικτατορία του κεφαλαίου δεν διορθώνεται, μόνο ανατρέπεται από την ίδια τη λαϊκή παρέμβαση και δράση. Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the Russian aggression against Ukraine continues and children bear a particular toll. Ukrainian authorities confirm almost 11 000 deported children, while only 96 returned. However, the actual number of deported children is hard to confirm and might be higher. We had a chance today to hear the real testimony of Yulia Payevska. She's a Ukrainian paramedic who filmed the atrocities and was released after three months of captivity. She also spoke about children who are being kidnapped and put up for adoption by Russian families. Her message was clear: ”help them, please”. Therefore, I call for strong cooperation with the UN and international organisations such as UNICEF and the Red Cross to find these children and give them back safely to their families. There is our strong commitment. Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Mr President, dear colleagues, a nationwide movement is sweeping across Hungary, protesting against the crisis of public education. And we just had a group of teachers and students here in Brussels so they can get a platform and directly talk to EU decision-makers. Let me tell you, it was one of the most gratifying days of work in my mandate. Colleagues from the EU's side literally teared up as they listened to their testimonies, as they talked about teachers getting fired for striking or the environment of oppression and intimidation, where people are threatened and harassed only for raising their voices. Or the fact that the net salary of a teacher is around EUR 400. Yes, you heard me right. So why am I bringing this up here? Because it is a matter that belongs at Europe's table. Yes, public education is a national competence, but taking away basic rights is a rule-of-law issue. Access to education is a civil rights issue. State propaganda spreading falsehoods against protesters – it is a matter of media freedom. Hungarian teachers and students are EU citizens, and they deserve Europe's support as well. Gianantonio Da Re (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, secondo la sentenza dell'autorità antitrust italiana il Nutri-Score, ovvero il sistema di etichettatura che l'Europa vorrebbe imporci, è stato sviluppato in base a un algoritmo e a valutazioni scientifiche non riconosciute e condivise. Un sistema di etichettatura palesemente ingannevole, che si riferisce ai 100 grammi di prodotto e non a una porzione di consumo che va a incentivare comportamenti non salutistici. Obiettivo reale del Nutri-Score non è la salvaguardia della salute dei consumatori, ma il fallimento del settore agroalimentare italiano. L'Unione Europea deve prendersi cura della salute dei cittadini europei, promuovendo una corretta educazione alimentare e supportando le eccellenze del nostro territorio e della nostra tradizione. No a cibi sintetici in laboratorio. La sicurezza alimentare viene data da cibi naturali e assicurata dai nostri agricoltori. Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR). – Señor presidente, señorías, desde que salió a la luz la conocida ley trans en España, no han parado de saltar las alarmas pidiendo precaución. Por ello, les pido que escuchen a asociaciones, al sector médico, a padres y a personas arrepentidas, que nos advierten de los peligros de determinadas prácticas. Se quiere prohibir a los profesionales de la salud mental intervenir en el mal llamado proceso de autodeterminación de género en menores, dejando a los niños en la tesitura de dudar sobre quiénes son y si quieren iniciar una transición de cambio de sexo, que supone tratamientos irreversibles y medicación de por vida. Un adolescente está en desarrollo, en un momento a veces delicado, y desde las redes sociales, los medios de comunicación, sus colegios e instituciones se le pretende convencer de que acudir a la transexualidad puede ser la solución a todos sus problemas, cuando en realidad puede estar sufriendo otros trastornos como depresión, síndrome de Asperger o anorexia, que necesitan un diagnóstico concreto y un acompañamiento que en España se quiere prohibir. Enseñemos a los niños a quererse a sí mismos y a reconocerse en su ser natural. Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, mais uma conferência e as perspetivas quanto a um sério e efetivo combate às alterações climáticas não são animadoras. As conclusões das sucessivas COP têm servido para perpetuar injustiças. Enquanto uns continuam a sofrer, outros continuam a ver oportunidades de negócio e a negociar mecanismos para proteger os seus interesses, mesmo que seja à custa do futuro da Humanidade. Querem fazer crer no que já ninguém acredita: que as soluções são financeiras e de mercado; que as soluções se podem ficar pela boa vontade ou caridade dos países desenvolvidos ou, pior, das corporações financeiras. Como podem discutir uma redução de emissões, uma transição energética ou interrupção da destruição dos ecossistemas, não indo ao fundo da questão? Sejamos sérios. A alternativa é defender um outro sistema que racionalize a utilização de meios e recursos para que sejam colocados ao serviço da sociedade. Com a luta dos povos, cremos que esse dia chegará. Esperamos que mais cedo que tarde. O capitalismo não é verde. Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, με απογοήτευση είδαμε την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να σιγεί όταν οι τουρκικές αρχές, εντελώς καταχρηστικά, έθεσαν υπό κράτηση και απαγόρευσαν την είσοδο στη Σμύρνη στον περιφερειάρχη Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας, Απόστολο Τζιτζικώστα, το περασμένο Σάββατο. Η ενέργεια αυτή είναι απαράδεκτη, δεδομένου ότι, πέρα από Έλληνας αιρετός, είναι και Ευρωπαίος αξιωματούχος ως πρώτος αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής των Περιφερειών. Θέλω να ρωτήσω το εξής: ως πότε η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα τηρεί σιγή ιχθύος σε παρόμοιες απαράδεκτες ενέργειες της Τουρκίας; Η απερίφραστη καταδίκη είναι το ελάχιστο που μπορεί η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να κάνει, ώστε να σταθεί στο ύψος των περιστάσεων αλλά και αυτό δεν αρκεί. Καλώ, λοιπόν, την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να χρησιμοποιήσει όλα τα μέσα που έχει στη διάθεσή της, προκειμένου να υπερασπιστεί τα συμφέροντά της και τα συμφέροντα των κρατών μελών της, έναντι της ολοένα αυξανόμενης τουρκικής προκλητικότητας. Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Domnule vicepreședinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, cred că niciodată nu a fost mai importantă decât acum ideea unei identități europene care să fie asumată și îmbrățișată de toți cetățenii Uniunii Europene. Am văzut ce am arătat în ultimii trei ani, că a fi cetățean al Uniunii Europene înseamnă să fii solidar cu ceilalți, să apreciezi drepturile omului, siguranța concetățenilor și democrația. Din păcate, trăim vremuri în care propaganda antieuropeană care folosește dezinformarea și știrile false este tot mai răspândită, încercând să strecoare în mințile și în inimile europenilor, așa cum o fac și în inimile românilor, semne de întrebare cu privire la acest imens proiect politic, Uniunea Europeană. Este momentul ca această propagandă să fie pusă sub semnul întrebării. Este momentul să cerem socoteală pentru minciuni, pentru propagarea știrilor false, pentru încercarea de a răspândi ura între noi. Apreciez și susțin cu toată tăria dreptul la liberă exprimare, dar la fel de tare susțin că dezinformarea trebuie pedepsită. Gunnar Beck (ID). – Herr Präsident! Italien und Griechenland tragen pro rata die höchste Schuldenzinslast der OECD. Auch die anderen höchstverschuldeten OECD-Staaten sind meist Eurostaaten. Dank Corona, Ukrainekrieg, Energiekrise und der lockeren EZB-Geldpolitik wird die Verschuldung im Euroraum weiter steigen. Die EZB versucht, die Verschuldung durch Inflation zu mindern. Die Folge: Massenverarmung, Entwertung kleiner Sparguthaben und Mehrung der Großvermögen. Wirklich sanieren lassen sich unsere Staatsfinanzen nur durch Migrationsstopp, das Ende der grünen Energiepolitik und eine Vermögenssteuer für Staaten mit hohen Privatvermögen. Doch will das hier jemand? Nein. Daher wird Deutschland weiter zahlen, denn der deutsche Staat ist reicher als andere, weil seine Bürger ärmer sind. Das Problem: Irgendwann geht auch den Deutschen das Geld aus. Und was dann? Cristian Terheș (ECR). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, ”it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law” – this is what the preamble of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Europe of the Human Rights states. Thus, the rule of law is not a goal in itself, but a way to accurately protect the rights of all human beings. What happened during the COVID-19 crisis proved that the European Commission, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, will use the rule of law slogan to impose severe violation of human rights unseen in Western Europe since the Second World War. Von der Leyen is using the rule of law slogan to blackmail now sovereign EU Member States with guarding their deserved European funds if they do not comply with the ideology imposed by the Brussels bureaucracy. Under the ruling power of Ursula von der Leyen we are witnessing right now the Chinafication of Europe, where people cannot decide for themselves, even if or what to be injected with. Ursula von der Leyen is the biggest threat to human rights in the EU right now, which is why she must immediately and unconditionally resign. Άννα-Μισέλ Ασημακοπούλου (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ελλάδα σε ζητήματα κράτους δικαίου δεν κάνει εκπτώσεις. Η τιμή και υπόληψη των Ελλήνων πολιτών, αλλά και του δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένου πρωθυπουργού Κυριάκου Μητσοτάκη, δεν είναι διαπραγματεύσιμη και θα την διαφυλάξουμε ως κόρη οφθαλμού. Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση δεν χρησιμοποιεί κακόβουλο λογισμικό, έχει ενισχύσει το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο άρσης απορρήτου, έχει διερευνήσει θεσμικά και πλήρως τη νόμιμη επισύνδεση του κινητού του κυρίου Ανδρουλάκη και πρωτοπορεί και πάλι πανευρωπαϊκά, απαγορεύοντας καθολικά τη χρήση κακόβουλου λογισμικού στην Ελλάδα. Δεν θα επιτρέψουμε, λοιπόν, σε όσους σπεκουλάρουν πάνω στην Ελλάδα για μικροκομματικούς λόγους και για προσωπική προβολή, σε όσους είναι εχθροί της Ελλάδας, όπου κι αν βρίσκονται, σε όσους υπηρετούν σκοτεινές ατζέντες, σε όσους δηλητηριάζουν τον δημόσιο βίο της Ελλάδας με τοξικότητα, να συκοφαντούν την Ελλάδα χωρίς αποδείξεις και πειστήρια. Και προφανώς δεν θα ανεχτούμε την παντελώς ανυπόστατη προπαγάνδα ενός ελληνικού μέσου ενημέρωσης, του οποίου ο εκδότης συνδέεται με τη χρηματοδότηση εντός Ελλάδος τηλεοπτικού δικτύου με ρωσικά κεφάλαια. Για να συνεννοηθούμε, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, κάτω τα χέρια σας από την Ελλάδα. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señor presidente, José Barrionuevo, exministro del Interior español, ha aplaudido esta semana el error que se cometió allí durante décadas para combatir el terrorismo. Estaban en juego la democracia, el pluralismo, los valores que nos permiten convivir. Varios gobiernos compraron a ETA el discurso de la guerra. Prescindieron así de los valores prepolíticos amenazados. Cometieron graves delitos. Secuestros y fusilamientos extrajudiciales eran actos heroicos. Asesinos uniformados, capaces de enterrar en cal viva a personas que habían torturado, eran patriotas. Esa doble moral pudre gobiernos, tribunales y a quienes siguen aplaudiendo, perdonan, comprenden y alaban los crímenes de los ”buenos”, de los ”míos”. Pierden así toda legitimidad para criticar la misma actitud en los ”otros”, en los ”malos”. Pido a todas las instituciones y organizaciones europeas que velan por la calidad del Estado de Derecho más que el severo toque de atención que esta infamia conocida nunca recibió. Y denuncio que ese trágico error sigue animando la polarización, fractura la credibilidad del sistema y ofende a las víctimas, que merecen verdad, justicia y reparación. Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, wij kunnen de rest van onze economische problemen pas onder controle krijgen als wij de inflatie onder controle hebben. Dit vereist minder overheid, minder bureaucratie, minder schuld en minder geld bijdrukken. De plannen van de Commissie getuigen echter van het tegenovergestelde: meer regulering, meer schuld en meer EU. Dit zijn juist de oorzaken van de problemen waarmee wij vandaag te maken hebben. De burgers staan wat hun economische toekomst betreft voor een zeer simpele keuze: doorgaan met het huidige, gefaalde beleid of de weg inslaan van het gezonde verstand? Wij staan voor een ambitieus, alomvattend programma met minder overheid, minder EU, lagere lasten voor bedrijven en burgers, ruimte voor innovatie en groei op innovatieve gebieden, oftewel de vrije markt. Zoals president Reagan ooit zei, ligt er voor ons een beter leven in het verschiet. Maar alleen als we vooruitkijken. Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, despre Schengen vreau să vorbesc, pentru că mi se pare inacceptabil ca într-o perioadă plină de provocări, când criza de securitate a produs efecte dramatice pentru toate statele Uniunii Europene, țara noastră, România, dar și Bulgaria și Croația, să fie încă ținute în afara frontierelor Uniunii Europene. Este inacceptabil acest lucru, în condițiile în care Parlamentul de cinci ori a spus verde pentru România ca să adere la spațiul Schengen. Comisia Europeană consideră că îndeplinim toate criteriile, însă Consiliul Uniunii Europene pune sub semnul întrebării Tratatul Uniunii Europene și tratează în mod discriminatoriu o țară care îndeplinește toate criteriile și care își dorește să devină membră în spațiul Schengen. Este inacceptabil acest comportament și cred că ar trebui ca statele membre să renunțe la jocurile politice interne cu miză pe interese ce țin de strategia Uniunii și de politicile Uniunii în ceea ce privește libera circulație. Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já bych chtěl vyzvat členské státy Evropské unie k pokračování podpory Ukrajiny v její snaze potlačit agresora, potlačit nelegální a hanebnou invazi Ruska na její území. My musíme pokračovat v této podpoře a podpořit Ukrajinu v dodávkách výzbroje, v dodávkách zbraní, protože již začínají i podle zpráv, které jsme obdrželi, na Ukrajině chybět a je důležité, aby Ukrajina cítila podporu ze strany všech členských států Evropské unie. Vím, že to nebudou asi úplně všechny, ale myslím si, že ten bezprecedentní krok, ke kterému jsme se odhodlali – dodávky zbraní, musí dále pokračovat. Mám pocit, že trochu polevujeme, že trochu reptáme, stěžujeme si na nepohodlí, a to tváří v tvář situaci, kdy na Ukrajině denně umírají stovky lidí, kdy jsou ničeny majetky, infrastruktura. Toto naše nepohodlí nelze vykoupit tím, že jaksi odstoupíme od podpory Ukrajiny. To bych byl velmi nešťastný. Myslím si, že je se mnou celá Evropa. Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, Europska unija, kao jedno od najpoželjnijih odredišta za izravna strana ulaganja, otvorena je za strani kapital. Međutim ta otvorenost nije i ne smije biti bezuvjetna. Na snazi je Uredba za provjeru izravnih stranih ulaganja kao i propisi koji ograničavaju mogućnosti raspolaganja imovinom u ruskom vlasništvu. Iznenađuje stoga vijest da je 43 % udjela u kompaniji od sistemskog značaja za Hrvatsku navodno preuzeo investitor iz treće države, a da s time niti jedno nadležno tijelo nije bilo upoznato. Značaj spomenutog društva za hrvatsko gospodarstvo očituje se u činjenici da zapošljava više od 45 tisuća ljudi te upravlja važnim poljoprivrednim zemljištem. S obzirom na to da je akvizicija poduzeta bez ikakvog znanja nadležnih tijela, postavlja se pitanje je li pravni okvir Unije dostatan da bi se zajamčila sigurnost europske imovine. Stoga pozivam Komisiju da razmotri daljnje mehanizme kojima će se osigurati zaštita kompanija od sistemskog značaja od sumnjivih i nekontroliranih preuzimanja. Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, najchudobnejšie regióny Európskej únie sú zároveň najzraniteľnejšími regiónmi Európy. Súčasné krízy nám ukazujú, že najmenej rozvinuté regióny sú najväčšou slabinou Európskej únie. Dlhodobo zanedbávaná infraštruktúra, nízka miera vzdelanosti, vysoká nezamestnanosť výrazne zhoršujú šance ľudí, ktorí často nemajú inú možnosť, ako opustiť svoje domovy a odísť za lepším životom. Zvýšenie cien energií, potravín sa najviac dotýkajú práve tých najzraniteľnejších, najchudobnejších, resp. ľudí z najmenej rozvinutých regiónov. Napriek tomu, že dlhé roky presne vieme, ktoré regióny v Európe sú najchudobnejšie, nenachádzame dlhodobo správny liek, aby sa regionálne priepasti v Európe zmiernili. Ak do týchto regiónov neprinesieme prácu, kvalitné vzdelávanie, tak sa po všetkých krízach Európania v týchto regiónoch uchýlia ku krajným riešeniam. V súčasnosti v oveľa väčšej miere veria ľudia v týchto regiónoch hoaxom, dezinformáciám, populizmu, a dokonca aj fašistom. Preto je načase naozaj sa zobudiť a nájsť správny liek na to, aby tieto regióny sme výraznejším spôsobom podporili. Predsedajúci. – Tento bod programu je ukončený. 21.   Seuraavan istunnon esityslista Predsedajúci. – Schôdza bude pokračovať zajtra. Program schôdze je uverejnený na internetovej stránke Európskeho parlamentu. 22.   Istunnon päättäminen (Rokovanie sa skončilo o 22.59)

16.6.2023
FI
Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
C 213/99 10. marraskuuta 202210. MARRASKUUTA 2022 SANATARKAT ISTUNTOSELOSTUKSET (2023/C 213/02) Sisältö 1.
Istunnon avaaminen
101 2.
Rodullinen oikeudenmukaisuus, syrjimättömyys ja rasismintorjunta EU:ssa (keskustelu)
101 3.
Yhteinen korkea kyberturvataso koko unionissa (keskustelu)
112 4.
Istunnon uudelleen avaaminen
123 5.
Äänestykset
124 5.1.
EU:n ja Ukrainan välinen maanteiden tavaraliikennettä koskeva sopimus (A9-0263/2022 - Marian-Jean Marinescu) (äänestys)
124 5.2.
EU:n ja Moldovan välinen maanteiden tavaraliikennettä koskeva sopimus (A9-0262/2022 - Marian-Jean Marinescu) (äänestys)
124 5.3.
Palvelukaupan yleissopimuksen mukaisten erityisten sitoumusten luetteloiden muuttamista koskevan sopimuksen tekeminen (A9-0257/2022 - Bernd Lange) (äänestys)
124 5.4.
Sisämarkkinoita vääristävät ulkomaiset tuet (A9-0135/2022 - Christophe Hansen) (äänestys)
124 5.5.
Yritysten kestävyysraportointia koskeva direktiivi (A9-0059/2022 - Pascal Durand) (äänestys)
125 5.6.
Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskeva säädös (A9-0341/2021 - Billy Kelleher) (äänestys)
125 5.7.
Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskevista vaatimuksista annetun direktiivin muuttaminen (A9-0340/2021 - Mikuláš Peksa) (äänestys)
126 5.8.
Yhteinen korkea kyberturvataso koko unionissa (A9-0313/2021 - Bart Groothuis) (äänestys)
126 5.9.
Elpymis- ja palautumissuunnitelmien REPowerEU-luvut (A9-0260/2022 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureșan, Dragoș Pîslaru) (äänestys)
126 5.10.
Schengenin säännöstön määräysten täysimääräinen soveltaminen Kroatian tasavallassa (A9-0264/2022 - Paulo Rangel) (äänestys)
126 5.11.
Yhteisen kriisinratkaisuneuvoston puheenjohtajan nimittäminen (A9-0259/2022 - Irene Tinagli) (äänestys)
126 5.12.
Yhteisen kriisinratkaisuneuvoston jäsenen nimittäminen (A9-0258/2022 - Irene Tinagli) (äänestys)
126 5.13.
E-urheilu ja videopelit (A9-0244/2022 - Laurence Farreng) (äänestys)
126 5.14.
Rodullinen oikeudenmukaisuus, syrjimättömyys ja rasismintorjunta EU:ssa (A9-0254/2022 - Evin Incir) (äänestys)
126 6.
Istunnon uudelleen avaaminen
127 7.
Äänestysselitykset
127 7.1.
Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskeva säädös (A9-0341/2021 - Billy Kelleher)
127 7.2.
Yhteinen korkea kyberturvataso koko unionissa (A9-0313/2021 - Bart Groothuis)
128 7.3.
Elpymis- ja palautumissuunnitelmien REPowerEU-luvut (A9-0260/2022 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureșan, Dragoș Pîslaru)
129 7.4.
Schengenin säännöstön määräysten täysimääräinen soveltaminen Kroatian tasavallassa (A9-0264/2022 - Paulo Rangel)
129 7.5.
Rodullinen oikeudenmukaisuus, syrjimättömyys ja rasismintorjunta EU:ssa (A9-0254/2022 - Evin Incir)
131 8.
Tämän istuntojakson pöytäkirjojen hyväksyminen ja hyväksyttyjen tekstien edelleen välittäminen
132 9.
Seuraavien istuntojen aikataulu
132 10.
Istunnon päättäminen
132 11.
Istuntokauden keskeyttäminen
132 10. marraskuuta 2022 sanatarkat istuntoselostukset VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS Vizepräsident 1.   Istunnon avaaminen (Die Sitzung wird um 9.03 Uhr eröffnet) 2.   Rodullinen oikeudenmukaisuus, syrjimättömyys ja rasismintorjunta EU:ssa (keskustelu) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Evin Incir im Namen des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres über Rassengerechtigkeit, Diskriminierungsverbot und Vorgehen gegen Rassismus in der EU (2022/2005(INI)) (A9-0254/2022). Evin Incir,
rapporteur. – Mr President, colleagues, first and foremost I want to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for the very fruitful and successful discussions and agreements reached. I am happy that we will be able to say to all the people of our Union that they matter and that democratic political groups here in this parliament care. I am proud to be able to say that we are on the right side of history and that we do not look away when people are facing human rights violations because racism is not an opinion: it is a crime; it is a human rights violation. Colleagues, exactly 84 years ago, the night between 9 and 10 November 1938 embodies racism in its worst form, anti-Semitism. If we close our eyes and listen very carefully, we still hear echoes from a dark chapter in our European history, a period of our history that we must do everything in our power to ensure never repeats itself. We owe the victims of the horrific Holocaust to never forget. We are obliged to act. The EU is built on the notion that nobody is free before everybody is free. Our Union exists as a counter force against hate and all those striving for polarisation and trying to divide our communities. To those undemocratic forces I want to say we will do everything to ensure you are forever consigned to the dustbin of history. Friends, the former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme's words from 1965 are still relevant today. He said: ”We like to think of ourselves as open minded and tolerant, but it is yet not that simple. Prejudice does not need to be anchored in some hideous theories. It has much simpler origins. Prejudice always has its roots in everyday life. It grows in the workplace and in the neighbourhood. It is an expression of one's own failure and disappointments. It is, above all, an expression of ignorance and fear: ignorance of other people's uniqueness; fear of losing a position, a social privilege, a pre-emptive right. A person's skin colour, race, language and place of birth have nothing to do with human qualities. Grading people with such standards is in stark contrast to the principle of the equal value of people.” Friends, we still face a reality today in the EU where our people are victims of racism, discrimination and harassment. Reports of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights highlight that discrimination and harassment is a daily reality all over the European Union. Minorities face racism in the EU every day. In the five years preceding the respective surveys, 41% of Roma, 45% of persons with a North African background, 39% of sub-Saharan Africans, 60% of Roma and travellers and 25% of Jews felt discriminated against because of their ethnic or immigrant backgrounds. Harassment due to ethnic or immigrant backgrounds was common for one in four Muslim respondents. Of these individuals, nearly half suffered six or more incidents during the year prior to the study. Racism is a threat to our European democracy and violates human rights. Racism and discrimination kills, deprives people of their fundamental rights, and deprives society from fully enjoying the competence and experience of all our citizens. It is time to go from words to actions. It is time to implement the motto of the European Union: ”United in Diversity”. It's not only about uniting the states and countries: it is about uniting our people to ensure that we end all the discrimination, hatred and violence that they are facing every year, every month, every week, every day. President. – Thank you very much for your introductory speech, rapporteur. I now warmly welcome our Commissioner, Helena Dalli. Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the report that we discuss today is an important initiative of the European Parliament. I thank you for acknowledging the work of the European Commission in tackling racism and for highlighting the importance of continuing our concerted efforts and mainstreaming our work in legislation, policy-making, funding and practice. Discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin is prohibited in the European Union. The European Commission is acting to address the high rates of experiences of racism at 29% in access to work, 23% in access to housing, 12% in access to education, and 22% in access to goods and services, and the worrying incidences of racist harassment at 24% and racist violence at 3% over a 12-month period. This severely affects racialised communities and ethnic minorities across our Union. This is why our work programme for 2023 states that the Commission will continue its work to ensure effective protection against discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin. This work is to be seen in the context of the implementation of the EU anti-racism action plan presented two years ago. This action plan takes a horizontal approach covering all different forms of racism and sets out measures that cover a comprehensive range of policy areas. The acknowledgement of the structural dimension of racism and the significance of intersectionality is at the base of the action plan. In this context, the EU anti-racism action plan emphasises the importance of mainstreaming the fight against racism into all EU policies. The Commission's Task Force on Equality plays a key role in this respect. The European Union has a strong legal acquis and mandate to fight racial and ethnic discrimination, with legislation covering all areas of life and addressing hate speech and hate crime. Last year, the report on the application of the Racial Equality Directive concluded that Member States must provide greater attention to the implementation of the directive in relation to protection against victimisation and the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. In this respect, we are preparing a proposal for a law strengthening equality bodies that will be presented before the end of this year. Amongst others, the new standards will cover the equality bodies' mandate, their powers, independence and their resources, importantly. Racist and xenophobic hate crime and hate speech are prohibited, as you know, under Union law. The framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia obliges Member States to criminalise public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin, and to ensure criminalisation of the racist and xenophobic bias motivation when committing a crime. Extensive efforts have been made to ensure enforcement of legislation through targeted support to Member States and their law enforcement agencies. The Commission takes the proper transposition and implementation of this legislation, of course, seriously, through dialogue with Member States and where needed by initiating infringement proceedings. In December 2021, the Commission continued pushing for legislative progress and proposed to extend the current list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime. The EU is deeply concerned with the rising rates of this form of crime. Yet legislation is, of course, only part of the answer and policy efforts need to complement it. Education is key for addressing racism. The Commission is committed to supporting Member States in identifying good practices, lessons learned and success factors in building inclusive and equitable quality education. At its last two meetings this year, the Working Group on equality and values in education and training within the European Education Area, consisting of experts appointed by EU Member States, discussed different ways to address discrimination in and through education and training, including stereotypes, prejudice and hate speech. The Erasmus+ programme already supports projects to raise awareness among young Europeans of the importance of respecting each other in our diversity. Since 2014, more than 2 800 projects, supported by the programme across Europe, have dealt directly with the fight against racism. The EU anti-racism action plan also foresees strengthened participation of civil society organisations working with racialised groups. To this end, the Commission set up a permanent forum of anti-racism civil society organisations to participate in the consultative processes and support the Commission in the implementation of the action plan. Besides, the new Commission Coordinator for Anti-Racism also interacts with many other stakeholders like Member States, the European Parliament and academia to strengthen policy responses in the field of anti-racism. Supplementing this work, the European Commission has adopted two specific approaches addressing the challenges faced by Roma and Jewish people. The adoption of the EU Roma strategic framework in 2020 and the unanimous adoption of the Council recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation in 2021 marked important milestones in the fight against antigypsyism. They strongly encourage Member States to increase their efforts to combat antigypsyism. The Commission is planning to issue a first report assessing the national strategies for Roma equality, inclusion and participation this year. In addition, with anti-Semitism worryingly on the rise, the Commission adopted the first ever EU strategy on combating anti-Semitism and fostering Jewish life, in October of last year. We are working to prevent all forms of anti-Semitism and combat violent extremism and terrorism targeting Jews and to foster a European society aware of Jewish life, culture and history, past and present and where Jews feel safe. Member States are invited to develop national action plans against racism and racial discrimination by the end of this year addressing their specific domestic realities while linking to the European mainstream strategies and action plans. To date, 16 Member States either have a stand-alone action plan or have integrated measures on combating racism as an integral part of more general national human rights action plans or other instruments and strategies. A report on the implementation of the national action plans against racism is due by the end of next year. Equality data disaggregated by racial or ethnic origin are of great importance, of course, as we all know, and this in building effective policies to tackle discrimination. In this context, the Subgroup on Equality Data are made up of representatives from EU Member States and Norway also, the European Commission, Eurostat and FRA help Member States improve the collection and the use of equality data. It has produced key policy documents to step-up efforts such as the non-binding guidelines on improving the collection and use of ethnic and racial equality data presented at the roundtable on equality data held earlier this year. As to the Commission personnel policy, last year data on the diversity of the Commission staff was for the first time collected via a dedicated, voluntary and anonymous diversity and inclusion survey. Its results are paving the way for evidence-based internal policies and measures under the human resources strategy. A dedicated diversity and inclusion office has been created to oversee the development and implementation of all relevant actions and human resources. And, finally, the citizens, equality, rights and values programme now has a budget of EUR 1.5 billion, more than double than in the previous cycle. It specifically focuses on the protection and promotion of Union values by providing support to civil society organisations active in this field. Racism and discrimination have no place in our Union of equality. We can and we must put an end to this scourge through joint and comprehensive action across the European Union. Seán Kelly,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – A Uachtaráin, Madam Commissioner, we must listen to those affected and recognise that racism, xenophobia and discrimination are still prevalent in the EU across all Member States. Research from the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency has shown that racism comes in various forms, and unfortunately, harassment and discrimination remain a harsh reality in the daily lives of ethnic minorities and marginalised groups across Europe. The EU has taken action through its anti-racism action plan, and many sports organisations, including my own, the GAA in Ireland, have introduced programmes such as Show Racism the Red Card. It is vital we do not lose momentum in the fight against racism. The EU needs to develop a comprehensive approach to tackle all forms of racism and discrimination and to ensure that measures to combat racism are implemented effectively. European values and freedoms should pertain to all people of every race and ethnic group. Our motto has always to be ”equality, not superiority”. Let's show racism the red card. Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, este debate sobre la justicia racial y la estrategia y el plan europeo contra toda forma de discriminación y racismo está muy bien traído, al igual que la ponencia de nuestra compañera Evin Incir. Usted lo ha dicho, el racismo no tiene ningún lugar en Europa y hay un plan europeo contra el racismo y la discriminación 2020–2025 que incluye un coordinador antirracismo; hasta el momento arroja el preocupante balance de que solo doce Estados miembros han presentado sus planes y tenemos un número muy considerable que aún no ha mostrado ese compromiso. El otro día debatíamos en el Parlamento Europeo el crecimiento de la extrema derecha y uno de sus rasgos más distintivos: el discurso del odio que conduce al crimen de odio. Por eso, quiero señalar que, además de invertir los fondos necesarios para sostener este plan, es imprescindible que se cumpla el compromiso de —sobre la base jurídica del artículo 83— incorporar a la lista de los eurodelitos el crimen de odio. Crimen de odio: delito europeo incorporado al Código Penal de todos los Estados miembros. Maite Pagazaurtundúa,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señor presidente, el racismo está prohibido en Europa, pero existe. Por eso estamos aquí. Y no sabemos si los Estados hacen todo lo que pueden. Creemos que no. El odio social se dirige hacia personas que forman parte de colectivos vulnerables a causa de sus odiadores y definidos principalmente por sus odiadores. Les retiran la individualidad y los diferencian por raza, lengua, ascendente étnico, ideológico, lo que sea. Se ataca a personas reales sobre la base de prejuicios. Y los que construyen al enemigo basándose en la intolerancia y el prejuicio se consideran a sí mismos víctimas. Es así como se justifican y actualizan la excusa para seguir odiando. Esto es muy importante en esta Cámara porque tenemos una responsabilidad sobre esos discursos. Así justifican la deshumanización del que no les gusta y piensan que ejercen la legítima defensa, pero es falso: son prisioneros de esos prejuicios. Por ello, no solo legislando se pueden atajar estos comportamientos, pero también es necesario legislar y es necesario que los Estados actúen. Lo ha dicho Juan Fernando López Aguilar: solo doce Estados miembros han presentado planes. Y la Directiva horizontal contra la discriminación está bloqueada en el Consejo desde 2008, señorías. La Decisión para ampliar los delitos de odio es un imponderable y sigue bloqueada. Y Chequia no responde. Romeo Franz,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Heute schreiben wir Geschichte. Zum ersten Mal setzen wir in diesem Parlament einen so starken Schwerpunkt auf den Kampf gegen strukturellen Rassismus und Diskriminierung von Minderheiten. Mit diesem Bericht fordern wir nachdrücklich, die eigentlichen Ursachen von strukturellem Rassismus und Diskriminierung endlich anzugehen. Der Kampf gegen Rassismus muss endlich in der EU angegangen werden. Dafür setzen wir einen wichtigen Meilenstein. Mit meinen eigenen Augen habe ich in den Wäldern von Lwiw in der Ukraine gesehen, wie Rassismus und Diskriminierung Menschen verhungern lässt. Ich konnte nicht glauben, dass Menschen – darunter eine große Anzahl von Kindern – unter diesen Bedingungen in Europa leben mit einer Lebenserwartung von circa 40 Jahren. Die Reisen in die Ghettos von Tinca in Rumänien oder Kjustendil in Bulgarien, wo massiver Antiziganismus Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu Menschen zweiter Klasse macht, haben mich sehr geprägt. Doch Lwiw war kaum zu beschreiben. Dieses Ausmaß an Entmenschlichung durch Rassismus ist grausame Realität, die durch den Krieg noch verschlimmert wird. Wir, das Europäische Parlament, dürfen die Schande der Entmenschlichung nicht weiter tolerieren. Nur so können wir unsere Menschlichkeit bewahren. Und dafür setzen wir heute ein Zeichen. Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le racisme et l'antisémitisme sont inacceptables. Chacune de leurs manifestations doit être sanctionnée avec la plus grande sévérité. L'universalisme républicain français et les valeurs de l'Union exigent que les individus soient tous traités de façon égale, indépendamment de leur origine ethnique et de leur couleur de peau. L'égalité de l'homme et de la femme est aussi un principe fondamental, qui doit être défendu sans faiblesse. Toute discrimination, toute violence à l'égard des femmes doit être combattue et réprimée. Les pratiques barbares comme le mariage forcé ou les mutilations génitales doivent être éradiquées et non pas tolérées sous prétexte de respecter des traditions ou des religions. Le rapport Incir a le mérite de rappeler ces grands principes. Il est hélas dommage qu'il gâche tout en cédant aux outrances du wokisme. Rien n'y manque. Il dénonce pêle-mêle, je cite, le ”racisme structurel et institutionnalisé”, les ”discriminations intersectionnelles”, la ”violence policière envers les groupes racialisés”, les ”stéréotypes négatifs aux connotations raciales des médias” et même les ”préjugés structurels des systèmes judiciaires”, ce qu'il résume dans la formule choc de ”justice raciale”. Je dénonce ces accusations ignobles, qui jettent le discrédit sur les États membres de l'Union et notamment sur mon pays, la France. Non, chers collègues, la France n'est pas un État raciste. La justice y respecte pleinement le principe d'égalité. Quant à la police, je rappelle qu'elle travaille sous son contrôle et que chaque faute personnelle d'un policier est réprimée pénalement. Soyons fiers de notre civilisation. Regardons-la en face sans la défigurer. Assita Kanko,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik sta achter de poging van Evin Incir om het probleem van racisme te benoemen en aan te pakken. Het verslag bevat een aantal zeer belangrijke elementen, waaronder een alinea over vrouwenrechten, en met name vrouwenbesnijdenis, huwelijkse gevangenschap en eerwraak, waaraan ik heb bijgedragen. Desalniettemin schiet het verslag op een aantal vlakken tekort. Zo krijgen de Europese instellingen hierin een te grote rol toebedeeld op een gebied dat aan de lidstaten toebehoort. Voorts wordt de politie eenzijdig bekritiseerd, terwijl onze politie- en justitiële diensten juist hard werken om de samenleving te beschermen. Een punt dat mij persoonlijk sterk raakt, is het racisme van lage verwachtingen. Om racisme daadwerkelijk aan te pakken, moeten we ambitieus durven zijn voor iedereen. We zijn immers meer dan onze kleur of ons geslacht. We mogen niet geloven dat we minder kunnen omdat we een kleur hebben. Malin Björk,
för The Left-gruppen. – Herr talman! Rasismen och diskrimineringen är strukturell i våra samhällen, inte ett undantag. Några exempel på detta är migrations- och flyktingpolitiken. Flyktingar och migranter görs till syndabockar och görs i extremhögerns berättelse till roten till allt ont. Icke-vita människor lämnas till havs utan att få komma i land och söka skydd i Europa. Det är förödande. Det kostar människoliv – och det är rasism. Vi har också en diskriminerande arbetsmarknad där rasifierade människor utnyttjas. Uppehållstillstånd och familjeåterförening knyts till din anställning och gör att arbetsgivare kan utnyttja rasifierade människor runtom i Europa. Det är rasism. Vi har polisvåld och vi har rasprofilering. Ni har säkert alla sett det. Det är rasism. Rasifierade kvinnor utnyttjas på prostitutionsmarknaderna runtom i Europa, utan att någon verkar tycka att det är ett problem att det är just de här kvinnorna som ska köpas av vita män. Det är rasism. Högern tillsammans med extremhögern för en politik som utarmar arbetarområden i mitt land, Sverige. Bostäder, skolor, utbildning – allting rustas ner när det egentligen måste rustas upp. När sociala problem uppstår skyller extremhögern på människors kultur och människors etnicitet och på människors invandrarbakgrund. De gör det till svart eller vitt. Det är också en form av rasism. Den antirasistiska kampen för oss i vänstern är också att bygga ett jämlikt samhälle. Vi ställer inte människor mot varandra. Vi bygger ihop samhället. Vi satsar på alla. Och medlemsländerna och EU måste göra mer. Politiken ska motverka hat och hot. Politiken måste få ett stopp på den strukturella diskrimineringen – och politiken måste bygga ihop. Det är vår uppgift. Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani kolege, poštovani građani Europske unije. Rasizam i diskriminacija su u posljedično - uzročnoj vezi s ilegalnim imigracijama. Kada vam ilegalni imigrant uđe u vašu državu, kršeći sve propise te države i pristane raditi za duplo manje novaca od građanina i starosjedioca Europske unije. Kako će se osjećati ta osoba koja je ostala bez svog radnog mjesta zbog nekoga tko je, ne poštujući i kršeći sve propise te države, ušao u nju. Ako vam netko provali u kuću i uzme nešto vaše, naravno da ga svaka normalna osoba neće poštovati. Ista je situacija i ovdje. Moramo zaustaviti ilegalne migracije i nećemo imati problema sa rasizmom i sličnim situacijama. Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, som rád, že Európsky parlament pomenúva, priznáva existenciu praktík inštitucionálneho rasizmu. Sú to praktiky na strane orgánov, ktoré majú v Európskej únii chrániť, vzdelávať či rozvíjať. Neprimerané násilie počas policajných zásahov proti Rómom či iným menšinám, segregácia a neoprávnené umiestňovanie rómskych detí do špeciálnych škôl s mentálnym postihnutím, diskriminácia v oblasti zamestnávania či zdravotnej starostlivosti, nedostatočný prístup k základným potrebám, ako je pitná voda či kanalizácia. To sú len niektoré prípady, ktoré odrážajú realitu dnešných dní, ktorá je často založená na diskriminácii, na etnickom či rasovom princípe. Musíme si uvedomiť, že všetky tieto praktiky nielenže podkopávajú dôstojnosť ľuďom, proti ktorým sú namierené, ale aj maria všetky naše snahy o prosperitu a blahobyt, ako aj vzájomnú súdržnosť a bezpečnosť. Žijeme v časoch mnohých výziev. Ak však chceme tieto výzvy ustáť a posunúť sa vpred, tak rasizmus v našich spoločnostiach jednoducho nesmie byť v žiadnom prípade tolerovaný, a to v záujme nás všetkých. Marc Angel (S&D). – Mr President, let me start by thanking Evin Incir for this excellent report on racial justice. And it is right that the report mentions cases of double standards and discrimination at the EU borders based on skin colour, including recently against some people fleeing Russia's war in Ukraine. Therefore, the call for equal treatment at the European Union's borders is so important. And this is not only a call of the European Parliament, but also to citizens during the Conference on the Future of Europe, and the Migration Working Group demanded this. I want to thank Commissioner Dalli for the Commission's commitment to the Union of Equality. The European Parliament is an ally supporting all the Commission's equality strategies, be it the anti-racism action plan, the gender and LGBT equality strategy, the EU Roma strategic framework, the disability strategy. We are also an ally when it comes to intersectional discrimination, and it is therefore important not only to address intersectionality in documents and in speeches, but also in EU legislation. And here I urge the Council, which is unfortunately absent today, to stop banning intersectionality. To fight racism and discrimination in the European Union, we need our Member States on board. Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, racisme en discriminatie op grond van ras of etnische afkomst zijn voor miljoenen Europeanen een dagelijkse werkelijkheid. Er zijn zo veel mensen die slecht worden behandeld vanwege hun huidskleur of godsdienst. Zo ook mijn kinderen en man, vanwege hun donkere huidskleur. Als moeder en politica maak ik mij dan ook grote zorgen over de opmars van extreemrechts in Europa. Zij herinnert mij eraan hoe diepgeworteld racisme en discriminatie zijn in onze maatschappij, hoe individuen erdoor worden ontmenselijkt, hoe mensen erdoor in monsters veranderen en hoe dodelijk haat kan zijn. Wij moeten opstaan en dringend actie ondernemen. In Europa is geen plaats voor racisme. Het is niet onze afkomst die telt, maar onze toekomst. Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Rasism och diskriminering är en verklighet som präglar människors hela liv – deras uppväxt, deras skolgång, deras möjligheter och deras vardag. Men rasismen drabbar inte enbart enskilda individer. Den drabbar oss alla, hela samhällen och hela länder. Rasismen står i vägen för utveckling. Det finns de som lever och agerar i tron att rasism inte är något problem. De har fel. Det visar all forskning och all vår historia. Att låta rasistiska idéer få inflytande i ett lands politik, vilket sker i EU, bland annat i Sverige, är dumt. Det är en kortsiktig, dyrköpt vinst för några få. Rasismen är destruktiv. Den förgör. Därför kommer vi att fortsätta att bekämpa den, överallt och hela tiden. Tom Vandendriessche (ID). – Voorzitter, volgens het verslag behoort racisme tot de kern van onze unieke Europese beschaving en is het ingebakken in onze samenleving, en zelfs in wie wij zijn. Hierdoor ontstaat een waar ”blankenprobleem”: onze universiteiten, onze bedrijven en onze cultuur zijn te blank en te zwarte gevangenissen, criminaliteit of werkloosheid zijn de schuld van de blanken. Er is slechts één echte vorm van structureel en systemisch racisme, namelijk positieve discriminatie. Hierbij wordt de oorspronkelijke Europese bevolking structureel en systematisch gediscrimineerd op grond van huidskleur en worden Europeanen tweederangsburgers in eigen land. Dit wordt inclusie en diversiteit genoemd, maar er is niets positiefs aan. Dit is racisme tegen blanken en dit druist in tegen onze Europese waarden. Alle burgers moeten gelijk zijn voor de wet. Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Jak zwykle, Szanowni Państwo, w sprawozdaniu o walce z dyskryminacją wśród wielu słusznych postulatów promujecie prawdziwą dyskryminację. Mianowicie na przykład, odwołując się do sprawozdania o praworządności – rzekomej –, gdzie, jak Państwo bardzo dobrze wiecie, jest wprost napisane, że to, co mogą robić w wymiarze sprawiedliwości jedne państwa, inne państwa nie mogą. Sami piszecie, dlaczego – dlatego że mają gorszą kulturę i gorsze tradycje. Co to jest, jak nie rasizm? Pytam, co to jest, jak nie rasizm? A dyskryminacja finansowa całego narodu, Polski, pod wymyślonymi zarzutami, tylko dlatego, że ludzie wybierają tam inaczej? Że ludzie są bardziej konserwatywni, bronią tradycyjnych wartości, bronią Boga, wolności religijnej, prawdziwej definicji płci? Tylko dlatego są dyskryminowani. Proszę państwa, jeżeli chcecie walczyć z prawdziwą dyskryminacją, to atakowanie narodu za inne poglądy jest tego absolutną i wypełniającą definicją. Dlatego, zanim będziecie potępiać innych, najpierw warto zwrócić uwagę na siebie. Nicolas Bay (NI). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, depuis maintenant des décennies le prétendu antiracisme est devenu une véritable religion, destinée à culpabiliser les Européens et à leur faire accepter ce qu'aucun autre peuple n'accepte nulle part sur la planète, c'est-à-dire une immigration massive, anarchique, dont les flux s'amplifient et contre laquelle il est désormais interdit de s'exprimer. Nous sommes priés de nous pousser et de faire de la place aux nouveaux arrivants, priés de laisser notre histoire être insultée, priés de laisser notre mémoire être effacée, priés de laisser nos peuples être remplacés. Et pendant ce temps, qui est-ce qui bénéficie de la mansuétude des juges, y compris après des dizaines d'interpellations par la police? Qui a droit à quatorze deuxièmes chances? Qui est toujours excusé par les médias et par la gauche? Qui bénéficie de la discrimination positive à l'embauche? Qui a droit à des quotas raciaux à la télévision ou au cinéma? Ce sont bien sûr ces minorités dont vous parlez tant. Tandis que certaines minorités ethniques, sexuelles ou religieuses ont droit à toutes les attentions, que leurs revendications, y compris les plus incompatibles avec l'intérêt général, sont promues et valorisées, il existe une catégorie qui n'a droit à rien, à part le droit d'être culpabilisée, de s'autoflageller: c'est l'homme européen, blanc, chrétien et hétérosexuel. Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Mr President, it's incredible the hate that comes out of certain speeches. Two years ago, this parliament declared that ”Black lives matter” but, let's be frank, even judging by the three previous speeches, do ”Black lives matter” in our politics, in our policies and in our implementation of them? Are persons of colour, minorities and others only remembered in our thoughts and prayers? Right now, authorities have the power to discriminate through laws, and we are tired of this systematic racism and discrimination embedded in policies, and ineffective remedies. Big statements are very attractive, but lack of action is deadly. What about the prediction of criminality in minorities due to their immigrant background? This is a human rights violation. Let us introduce concrete follow-ups to ensure effective implementation. Governments must give the support that many NGOs struggle to give – yet they still do it. Let us ensure equal treatment, distribution of wealth, and let us be the ones to initiate a model of real inclusion and dialogue between citizens. Colleagues, we do not need preachers and speakers; we need decision-makers and game-changers to address the systemic roots of institutionalised racism – also in this European Parliament! Samira Rafaela (Renew). – Mr President, we live in a world where digital surveillance has become common. CCTV and face recognition are part of our daily lives, whether we want it or not. However, we fail to understand and address how these already uncomfortable circumstances can become very dangerous for members of racialised groups. There is ample evidence that artificial intelligence tools heavily discriminate against black people and people of colour in general, and women of colour in particular. After all, AI is built by humans and deployed in systems and institutions that have been marked by entrenched discrimination, from law enforcement to housing, to the workplace, to our financial systems. And this racial bias is even in the data used to train the AI data that is often discriminatory or unrepresentative for people of colour, women and other marginalised groups and can rear its head throughout the AI's design, development, implementation and use. Therefore, I want to state that the monitoring of racial bias as proposed in this report is not enough. We need a clear directive that specifically states that institutional racism is unlawful. Only then we can make sure that victims of unlawful discrimination get justice. Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, le racisme est une réalité qui affecte une vie entière. Il est contraire à notre plan d'action, que nous avons adopté afin d'abolir toute forme de discrimination au sein de l'Union européenne. De nombreuses organisations de la société civile nous ont fait part des discriminations dont sont victimes les personnes issues des minorités. Les inégalités de traitement sont toujours plus grandes entre les différents réfugiés qui pourtant fuient la même guerre d'Ukraine: l'intégration et l'accueil dans les pays hôtes sont ainsi refusés aux personnes d'origine africaine tout particulièrement. Des milliers de personnes réfugiées sont confrontées à des procédures administratives lourdes et à une politique migratoire européenne discriminatoire. Certains d'entre eux ont fait état de sévices, et les femmes nous ont confié qu'elles avaient enduré des violences sexuelles durant leur fuite. Cela est inacceptable. La nationalité, la couleur de la peau, la religion ou encore l'orientation sexuelle ne doivent pas être des critères de sélection, qui sapent la dignité humaine. La mise en œuvre de la législation antidiscriminatoire de l'Union européenne et un soutien financier aux groupes qui combattent le racisme sont nécessaires. Par ailleurs, une collecte de données – par l'intermédiaire d'un sondage par exemple – justifierait notre action. L'Union européenne doit garantir les valeurs humanistes, qui sont la base de la démocratie et de l'état de droit, dans une approche intersectionnelle. Susanna Ceccardi (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è vero, il razzismo in Europa esiste. Esiste nelle periferie abbandonate, dove i poveri si fanno la guerra per avere un sussidio o una casa popolare. Una battaglia tra gli ultimi, dove chi partecipa non gioca per vincere ma lotta per sopravvivere. È il razzismo del mondo dei vinti. Esiste però anche un altro razzismo, più subdolo. È il razzismo delle zone a traffico limitato, quello dei radical chic; il razzismo del centro che discrimina i razzisti di periferia; il razzismo di quelli con la macchinetta elettrica da 40 000 euro contro quelli che inquinano con la macchina nel 2005 a diesel che non possono cambiare; il razzismo contro quelli che non hanno il vocabolario inclusivo di chi ha studiato nelle scuole esclusive. Voi che parlate di ”includere” e avete esteso un cordone sanitario nei confronti dei colleghi, qui dentro, che non la pensano come voi. Questa relazione è piena di parole incomprensibili da chi vive ai margini. Loro non vi capiscono e voi non li capite. Non voteremo questa relazione non perché non condividiamo la lotta al razzismo, ma perché non ne condividiamo l'ipocrisia. Pier Paolo Pasolini diceva: ”Il razzismo è l'odio di classe inconscio”. E aveva ragione. Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, razzismo e pratiche discriminatorie nell'Unione europea rappresentano, per chi ne è vittima, un grande ostacolo al conseguimento di diritti e di opportunità, compromettendo gravemente la dignità umana, il benessere e la sicurezza personale. Minoranze e gruppi sociali, comprese le persone LGBTQI, continuano a subire diseguaglianze socioeconomiche che incidono in ambito lavorativo e nell'accesso a servizi essenziali riguardanti salute, istruzione, alloggio e giustizia. A 14 anni dall'adozione della decisione quadro sulla lotta al razzismo e alla xenofobia, non tutti gli Stati membri hanno recepito correttamente le disposizioni per criminalizzare le condotte generate dall'odio e dall'incitamento all'odio. La legislazione europea si sta evolvendo per contrastare tali fenomeni dilaganti anche online, ma ciò non basta. Il piano di azione dell'Unione europea contro il razzismo dovrebbe avere obiettivi misurabili e meccanismi di follow-up. Cultura e mezzi di informazione dovrebbero avere un ruolo prioritario nel combattere pregiudizi e stereotipi razziali, così come nella promozione dell'uguaglianza e dell'inclusione sociale. Un'Europa unita nella diversità si costruisce senza intolleranza e discriminazioni. Theresa Muigg (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Auch ich möchte mich als Erstes bei Kollegin Evin Incir für diesen Bericht bedanken. Das Thema Rassismus und die damit verbundene Diskriminierung, werden im politischen Diskurs häufig zu eindimensional beleuchtet. Rassistische Gewalt und Diskriminierung sind keine individuellen Einzelfälle. Sie sind auch nicht großteils harmlos, und sie dürfen auch nicht instrumentalisiert und umgedeutet werden. Die tatsächlichen Auswirkungen von struktureller und systemimmanenter Diskriminierung sind Realität, und sie werden von rechten Parteien als Grundlage von Ausgrenzung und Spaltung verwendet. Wir befinden uns in einer Zeit des Umbruchs: Die Nachwirkungen der Coronakrise, die Auswirkungen des unmenschlichen Kriegs – sie werfen Schatten auf die nächsten Jahre. Es ist jetzt umso wichtiger, dass wir uns gegen jede Form von Ausgrenzung aussprechen. Es ist jetzt der Moment, auf europäischer und auf nationaler Ebene Handlungsschritte zu setzen. Denn wie ernst wir alle mit der europäischen Vielfaltsidee umgehen, wie ernst wir sie nehmen, werden wir daran messen lassen müssen, wie wir als Gesellschaft damit umgehen, wenn sie angegriffen wird – immer und überall. Pietro Bartolo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, da qualche giorno la voce dell'odio contro i migranti si è arricchita di nuovi vocaboli: ”sbarchi selettivi” e ”carico residuale”. Non in riferimento a merci difettose o carne avariata da rispedire al mittente ma per definire i naufraghi, persone a cui veniva vietato di sbarcare in un porto sicuro. Parole odiose, che assumono un significato ancora più grave se pronunciate da un ministro della Repubblica italiana. Parole che incitano all'odio e alla discriminazione, che contribuiscono a consolidare il razzismo strutturale e istituzionalizzato. L'Europa è a un bivio. Se vogliamo prendere la strada dei valori e dell'uguaglianza, allora dobbiamo condannare, senza se e senza ma, tutti i comportamenti discriminatori e radicati anche all'interno delle istituzioni e dare seguito a questa risoluzione, e ringrazio la collega Incir, che traccia un binario su cui procedere, un percorso fatto di cultura e politica, formazione e diritto, perché le razze non esistono. Esiste solo il genere umano. Spontane Wortmeldungen Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamna comisară, stimați colegi, tema este extrem de importantă pentru umanitate: ură, rasism. Din punctul meu de vedere, făcând parte dintr-un partid umanist, social-liberal în țara mea, cred că omul trebuie pus în centrul oricărei acțiuni a noastre, a Consiliului, a Comisiei, a Parlamentului, a tuturor. Dar mă întreb, Consiliul European nu discriminează țara mea, o națiune întreagă, că nu intră România în Schengen, deși întrunește condițiile, deși Parlamentul a votat? Ce exemplu poate să dea Consiliul European atunci când folosește dublă măsură? Ce exemplu poate să dea Comisia când folosește dublă măsură? Și ce exemplu poate să dea Parlamentul atunci când sunt eurodeputați care, iată, și în dezbaterea de astăzi, au stigmatizat o țară întreagă nedând exemplu pozitiv? Eu aparțin unei majorități, dar mă simt discriminată alături de cetățenii din țara mea, chiar de Consiliul European. De aceea, politicile de discriminare, de eliminare a rasismului și a urii trebuie pornite de aici pentru a da un exemplu cetățenilor și pentru a considera că orice om este important, indiferent de religie, de națiune, de culoare. Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, a resolução sobre o aumento do neofascismo, da violência neofascista na Europa alertou que vários partidos europeus são abertamente fascistas e xenófobos, incitando ao ódio e à violência na sociedade europeia, como a extrema direita deste Parlamento que acabámos de escutar. Senhores eurodeputados, ser racista é ser cobarde. Lula, o Presidente eleito do Brasil, diz que o racismo é uma doença e que, como presidente, lutaria contra o racismo; que é importante ter discursos antirracistas em política. O racismo mata, abusa, põe a culpa no outro, paga menos por igual trabalho, usa e abusa, discrimina, usa e maltrata o institucional. O racismo é um problema europeu. Na Espanha, um em cada quatro jovens admite comportamentos racistas nas redes. Educar para combater o racismo é a nossa obrigação. Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, I do not see how we can address the deeply serious topic of racism in the EU with any credibility as long as the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs publicly espouses some of the most racist sentiments uttered in public for many years. The billions of people who live where Europe has invaded and butchered millions, plundered and committed genocide, overthrown and murdered revolutionaries, backed brutal dictators, imposed murderous sanctions; where the very same EU institutions that Borrell says distinguish us and them have used financial imperialism to keep brutal colonial power structures in place. When those who live under the boot of the global capitalist system heard Borrell's now infamous ”gardeners in the jungle” comments, they knew exactly what he meant. They recognised the racism and brutality that Europe was built on and sadly, a mentality that hasn't gone away. Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiamas pirmininke, gerbiama Komisijos narė. Rasizmas yra ir gėda. Sveikinu Komisijos nusiteikimą tęsti darbą dėl rasinio diskriminavimo panaikinimo. Europos žemynas, išgyvenęs Holokaustą, negali leisti bet kokio diskriminavimo lyties, orientacijos, odos spalvos ar tautiškumo pagrindu. Dabar Europa kenčia ir nuo brutalios karinės Putino agresijos, bet be karinės agresijos, mes matome didžiulę propagandą, Putino propagandą, nukreiptą prieš ukrainiečių tautą. Kai kurios kraštutinės dešiniosios jėgos bando naudotis socialine neapykanta prieš karo pabėgėlius ir skleisti tą propagandą. Gerbiama Komisijos narė, manau, kad mes turime ir toliau stiprinti savo pajėgas, nukreiptas prieš diskriminavimą, ir tą daryti kasdieniame savo darbe, bet taip pat daugiau skirti dėmesio edukacijai, kad mūsų jaunoji karta suprastų, kad visi Europoje galime gyventi taikiai ir vieningi. (Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen) Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you honourable Members, as we have heard this morning, racism remains too present I would say in European society and it must be addressed at all levels of governance through different measures and by effectively consulting with relevant stakeholders. I thank Evin Incir and the European Parliament for this important report and for remaining a key and attentive partner in the European Commission's efforts to fight racism and to deliver a Union of equality for all. Let us continue our work upon the fundamental principles and values of our European Union to protect its people, to grow stronger, and to shape a better future for generations to come, the European Commission's efforts to fight racism and to deliver a Union of equality for all. Let us continue our work upon the fundamental principles and values of our European Union to protect its people, to grow stronger, and to shape a better future. Evin Incir,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I'm not surprised that the far right here in the Parliament gave their intervention and just left this room. This shows what they stand for, and I'm not surprised that the far right are talking against this important report that demands action to end the human rights violations, to end racism that still exists in 2022 in our Union. It is actually their horrific ideology we are talking about today, an ideology that must be consigned to the dustbin of history. In Hungary, in July, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán made an abhorrent speech criticising the mixing of European and non-European races. Last week, in France, a far right MP was temporarily suspended from the Assemblée nationale after shouting go back to Africa when a black MP was speaking during the debate on migration. The leader of the Sweden Democrats in Sweden has said that Muslims are our biggest foreign threat. This shows that racism is here and now and present. The EU was built to prevent these kinds of views from winning ground. The EU was built to prevent these people from repeating history. Colleagues, I expected the far right not to be here today or that they would only have their interactions and leave, but I didn't expect that the Council wouldn't be here with us today, and that is very shameful. I want, however, to thank Commissioner Helena Dalli for being with us today and showing leadership in the Commission against these heinous violations of human rights and crimes that are taking place in our Union. I'm happy that we have the first ever anti-racism action plan in place in the EU. However, it needs to reach or be prolonged to post-2025 and it right now lacks proper follow-up mechanisms and measurable targets. We need to strengthen it. It is a shame that only 12 Member States in the European Union have national action plans against racism in place. They are to be in place before the end of 2022, but only 12 have until now adopted them. And I also want to recall the long-standing call by the EP for the adoption of a horizontal anti-discrimination directive that has been blocked in the EU since 2008. And finally, colleagues, structural problems require a structural solution. Let's now move from words to actions. Let's implement the motto of the European Union – United in diversity – fully. Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen. Die Abstimmung findet heute, Donnerstag, 10. November 2022, statt. Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171) Andrus Ansip (Renew),
kirjalikult. – Tehisintellektil põhinevatel süsteemidel on suur sotsiaalne ja majanduslik mõju, kuid need võivad viia ka inimõiguste rikkumiseni ning süvendada struktuurset diskrimineerimist ja ebavõrdsust. Uued tehnoloogilised ja õiguslikud arengud suurandmete algoritmilises analüüsis ja selle kasutamises tekitavad rändekontrollis ja õiguskaitses suurt ennetava politseitegevuse ohtu, mis mõjutab ebaproportsionaalselt teise nahavärviga inimesi, kuna see taasesitab meie ühiskonnas juba olemasolevaid eelarvamusi. Algoritme ei tohi kasutada diskrimineerival viisil. Leian, et sotsiaalmeediaplatvormid on viimastel aastatel oluliselt tõhustanud võitlust rassismi ja diskrimineerimise vastu, kuid seda võitlust tuleb jätkata. Pedro Marques (S&D),
por escrito. – A palavra é feia, má e desagradável quando é dita. Ainda assim, achei que o uso da palavra repugnante por parte do meu grupo político foi uma boa escolha. Porque quando falo de racismo, essa é uma das primeiras palavras que me ocorre: repugnante. E estamos no momento em que devemos refletir sobre o que se passa à nossa volta: no que lemos, vemos e ouvimos, por exemplo acerca de migrantes e refugiados, especialmente quando não são brancos. No que significa ouvir um Primeiro-Ministro de um país da UE criticar a ”mistura” de raças europeias e não europeias. No que significa um Deputado de extrema-direita, da Assembleia Nacional francesa, gritar ”volte para a África” quando um outro Deputado, negro, usava da palavra. Fica aqui registada a minha posição: o racismo é absolutamente repugnante e, neste Parlamento Europeu, tem de ter tolerância zero. 3.   Yhteinen korkea kyberturvataso koko unionissa (keskustelu) Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Bart Groothuis im Namen des Ausschusses für Industrie, Forschung und Energie über den Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über Maßnahmen für ein hohes gemeinsames Cybersicherheitsniveau in der Union und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie (EU) 2016/1148 (COM(2020)0823 – C9-0422/2020 – 2020/0359(COD)) (A9-0313/2021). Bart Groothuis,
rapporteur. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, it is with pride I stand before you here today in Brussels, the result of two years, almost two years, of fierce debates, hundreds of consultations with so many stakeholders from around the world. It resulted in the best cybersecurity legislation this continent has yet seen. And today, we are not just voting on that legislation that significantly enhances Europe's cybersecurity – it makes it a safer place to work, do business and live. We are also introducing a new mindset in Europe, a new phase in our common European digital future. From pioneering to professionalisation, from cybersecurity as a niche subject to making it Chefsache – a good German word. The CEOs matter, and that goes for Commissioners and also for ministers. And most important, from reactive information-sharing after an incident, which is still important, to proactive prevention and actively stopping new accidents from occurring. Europe has suffered enormous costs of being attacked on an almost industrial scale, yet still we invest 41% less than our American businesses and the sharing of information in the cybersecurity community from which I stem, has been hampered. This legislation is reversing that. But meanwhile, because of the encouragement of the Kremlin, Russian hackers, criminal ransomware groups are trying to weaken economic wellbeing and economic structures. With the support of Beijing, many dozens of hacker groups try to steal our intellectual property and trade secrets to weaken our economies and strengthen theirs. Many of this is not directly seen with the eye or is in the media that often. It often happens that companies do not wish to go public, but it happens every day and that's why we ask critical infrastructure to invest. That's why we make a sound legal basis for information-sharing between governments, businesses, experts and countries outside the EU. And for those who think this is expensive, remember that the American credit rating agency Moody's recently valued the NIS2 and said it's credit-positive for doing business in Europe. Although this is the best cybersecurity legislation this continent has yet seen, let us not congratulate ourselves too much. Here's what still needs to be done. First, if ransomware is an instrument of, let's say, foreign policy of the Kremlin, then technical controls like this legislation will not stop Russia. We have to indict the hackers, track them, make sure when they travel, they get incarcerated behind bars. We need diplomatic and counterintelligence offensives as well. Secondly, yes, the NIS2 asks, demands that Member States put forward an active defence cyber posture. It means that, in practice, cybersecurity centres will have to cooperate with internet service providers to block malicious domains when people accidentally click on it, because it does happen. Thirdly, supply chain security. Yes, within the NIS2 there is a good possibility for reviewing risky software and hardware vendors. But we need new legislation to protect us. When countries with an offensive intellectual property theft programme directed against us and their companies enter our markets, we need legislation. Fourth, our sub-sea infrastructure. The NIS2 marks optic fibre cables below sea as vital infrastructure, but the plans to protect it are hardly sufficient yet. In the Defence and Subcommittee and Industry Committee, we will put forward new plans to do just that. Last but not least, colleagues, let me also take this opportunity to say that the last European cybersecurity vendor – endpoint security antivirus – that we have is European, and let's keep it that way, Commissioner. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs present here for their constructive political work on this file. The staff – I will buy you a drink afterwards! But let me just mention the most important people that have to be mentioned today in this plenary room: the cybersecurity community to whom this work is dedicated. I came to Brussels to make cybersecurity legislation, to create a safe place to work and to do business. That safer place is mainly the result of the hard work of those many cybersecurity professionals out there. And to all you computer nerds out there: we hear, we see you, we are keeping you enabled to do your business. You keep us safe, we see you and we support you. Now, let's vote today on this important legislation and thanks for the good cooperation, everyone. PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. PINA PICIERNO Vicepresidente Margrethe Vestager,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, it's a wonderful start for this debate, as we just heard from the rapporteur. The debate today about the NIS2 Directive, I think it is an important debate and I want wholeheartedly to thank the European Parliament for taking the topic of cybersecurity so seriously. So let me start by congratulating indeed the rapporteur, Bart Groothuis, his team and the shadow rapporteurs for this rigorous and very thorough work, and also for your constructive approach during the entire legislative process, because it has allowed, I think, a very successful conclusion on this important file in a swift manner. The politically agreed text shows the determination of the European Parliament, of Member States, to deliver an ambitious and future-proof European framework for cybersecurity, where Europe can lead by example. The implementation of the directive will be key in effectively addressing the challenges brought by rapid digital developments and the constantly developing number of severe cyberattacks. The agreed directive will reinforce the applicable security and incident-reporting obligations for companies while expanding the scope. I think that is really important that new sectors become part of it and also that new types of services ensure a coherent and harmonised cross sectoral approach to cybersecurity. So we will have the streamlined legal obligations for essential, important entities in our single market. I think also in the run-up to the celebration of the 30 years of the single market, this marks a milestone to make sure that this single market that increasingly becomes a digital single market has the necessary cybersecurity provisions. And NIS2 introduces the possibilities of a coordinated EU supply chain risk assessment based on the very positive experiences that we have had with the 5G toolbox. And here I want to call on your support, because we still need to encourage the few Member States who have not yet adopted necessary restrictions on high-risk suppliers, because they ought to do so without delay. It's not sufficient to pass legislation. It is needed to put legislation into effect and is a matter of urgency. And following that, also let me underline the importance of this directive in view of the latest geopolitical developments. We have seen recent attacks on critical infrastructure in the Union. The legal transposition of the directive –well, that will take its agreed time. But the Commission believes that we should front-load, as much as possible, the benefits already now on a voluntary basis, because people who attack us, they do not wait for transposition of a directive, if they even understand or appreciate that legal wording. So we need to see action as fast as possible. And this is what we have proposed for now a draft Council recommendation on the security of critical infrastructure. Of course, we do hope that Member States share our sense of urgency. As I see it, the European Parliament and the Commission have a common approach to this and a sense of urgency to make sure that we are well protected. Because the thing is that there is No European defence without cyber defence. It doesn't exist. We have seen it with the Russian attack on the Viasat satellite. Here you can deeply effect military forces by attacking civilian infrastructure. The cyber defence policy, therefore, will put forward new instruments reinforcing our collective ability to address cyber threats from early detection of possible attacks to deterring future threats. Because I completely agree with the rapporteur, this agreement on the NIS2 Directive is a major achievement, but we need to push forward as fast as possible on next urgent matters. So we will propose to increase cooperation on three main fronts: cooperation between Member States' military, cooperation between civil and military, and cooperation between the private and the public sector. We cannot protect ourselves without cooperating on it. And we will also propose to use EU instruments and policies with dual use, such as our investment in cyber research and innovation, or on skills that can benefit military actors as well. The Commission welcomes warmly the vote today on the agreed NIS2 text. It maintains the overall ambition of the original proposal and we are convinced that this text will enable us to raise the growing and pressing cyber-security challenge towards our economies, towards our societies, and make it obvious that protecting is cheap: facing the risk, paying for the attacks, these costs would be astronomical. Markéta Gregorová,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner – really difficult to go after this amazing speech, by the way – thanks to this legislation the number of essential and important entities we will need to protect just in my country, the Czech Republic, will be around 6 000. Currently we protect 350. Now imagine other Member States. The scope and enforceability of this regulation is unprecedented and is a success. In a world where ransomware attacks increased by 600% last year and where cyber teams in Ukraine just so protected 1 million households from an attack on their power grid, I don't have to talk about the importance of cybersecurity. It has never been clearer and I am proud we react. Let me also express pride that open source and end-to-end encryption are finally getting the recognition in our fight they deserve. I do hope this House won't go against itself in the future. Morten Løkkegaard,
ordfører for udtalelse fra Udvalget om det Indre Marked og Forbrugerbeskyttelse – Fru Formand! Fru Kommissær! Forleden var den gal igen. Et stykke kritisk infrastruktur, De Danske Statsbaner, DSB hedder det, blev angrebet af cyberkriminelle. Angrebet betød, at den danske togtrafik var lammet i op til syv timer. Og det her angreb er jo desværre ikke enestående. Cyberangreb er blevet hverdagskost i Europa. Hospitaler, elforsyning, vandværker, alle er i fare. Derfor er det forslag, vi stemmer om i dag, - opdateringen af EU's regler for cybersikkerhed - et meget, meget vigtigt skridt, som også ordføreren og kommissæren har været inde på. Men lad os være ærlige, det er jo først nu, det virkelige arbejde begynder. Testen skal laves nu. At få gennemført loven i medlemslandene. Kommissær, du er selv inde på det; det er medlemslandene, der skal føre det her ordentligt ud i livet. Jeg vil på det kraftigste opfordre alle medlemslande til at sørge for, at lovgivningen gennemføres så ambitiøst som muligt. For lad os være ærlige, vi ved jo godt, at implementeringen ofte er dér, hvor skoen trykker. Det er dér, at alle de gode hensigter, som vi kommer med, ikke kommer fuldt ud til udfoldelse. Vi skal alle med, ikke bare statslige styrelser, men myndigheder helt ned på lokalt plan. Vi skal have virksomhederne med, som råder over den kritiske infrastruktur. Pointen er vel, at vi aldrig bliver stærkere end det svageste led i kæden. Og det skal vi være bevidste om, specielt nu. Så der skal følges op på den bindende opgave, at vi løfter cybersikkerheden lige meget i alle medlemslandene. Kære venner, lad os nu se at få det gjort. Tak for ordet. Jakop G. Dalunde,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. – Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, the growing threats posed by digitalisation and the surge of cyberattacks underline that the weakest link is often the one from which a chain reaction can happen, and in an economy increasingly dependent on the digital domain, this can have catastrophic results on our society. We need to increase our collective readiness and ensure that a high common level of cybersecurity is attained across our Union. In this proposal I welcome the strengthening of the security requirements, reporting obligations, the more stringent supervisory measures and stricter enforcement requirements, including harmonised sanctions across the European Union, and in this work we Greens focused on interoperability, transparency, open source and encryption. On these issues we made some important steps forward, but there is more work to be done to ensure that we are fit for fighting the cybersecurity challenges of tomorrow. Eva Maydell,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, rapporteur, I think we find ourselves today in the face of a full-blown hybrid warfare in Europe. Just in 2020 alone, cybercrime cost the global economy around EUR 1 trillion and this figure continues to rise astronomically day by day. This is why cyber resilience is no longer a topic we can pay lip service to. Without it, Europe's economy and security will simply crumble. This updated directive, I believe, is an important step towards better preparing Europe's defences. It must mark the beginning of our journey towards effective cyber resilience, not the end. I believe this is a piece of legislation of an ever-growing jigsaw puzzle and not a silver bullet necessary by itself. We need the resources, we need the skills, but also the political will to ensure intentions become a reality. We also need all Europeans, businesses, governments and individuals to work together. And, last but not least, with the growing appetite of some global players such as Russia, that are trying to rewrite the rule-based order and attack our critical infrastructure, I believe cybersecurity is also about protecting our democracies. Failing to do so will simply hand the keys to the backdoor of our democracies to countries like Russia, Iran or China. Eva Kaili,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, European businesses and governments every day need to deliver essential services to citizens in a safe and trusted manner. In the face of increased exposure, escalating cyber warfare campaigns fuelled by geopolitical tensions and wars, but also mounting pressure of private and public entities to prevent, deter and respond to such sophisticated threats, NIS2 represents an important breakthrough for our European digital strategy. The cost, indeed, as you said, is going to be unbearable, even astronomical, not just for our economy, but also for our democracy. Geopolitical tensions actually from the war and attempts to compromise our essential services like healthcare, they make the political agreement today, and thanks to the rapporteurs for the work that was achieved and also presented. These are proof of the ambition to set stronger risk and incident management measures, harmonise reporting processes and actually futureproof national strategies to basically include also, by widening the scope, public administration entities. So the NIS2 Directive modernises our rules to secure critical services for society in the economy and provides us with a basis for increased cooperation at all levels actually in the digital transformation. So a major step forward for our resilient digital Europe. Thank you all and thanks to the rapporteurs for the work we achieved. Maite Pagazaurtundúa,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señora presidenta, comisaria Vestager, muchas felicidades y gracias, Bart. Estamos trabajando contra reloj para que nuestras normas estén a la altura del momento histórico. Los cambios tecnológicos implican nuevos y peligrosos riesgos y la nueva Directiva es absolutamente necesaria, porque se nos ha quedado vieja la anterior. Ahora bien, vamos a completar la Directiva con el Reglamento aplicable a instituciones y organismos europeos y, después, faltará aplicarlo y que funcione eficazmente. Para eso, la ciudadanía tiene que entender los riesgos, lo que nos jugamos si este escudo no funciona. Nuestra economía está en riesgo, nuestros sistemas sanitarios lo pueden estar, nuestra protección como consumidores puede estarlo, pero también lo están, como se ha dicho hoy aquí, nuestra seguridad y la estabilidad de nuestras democracias. Garantizar unos elevados niveles de ciberseguridad servirá para defendernos de las amenazas, conflictos y guerras híbridas en las que estamos envueltos. Nos toca hacer mucho, nos toca abrir los ojos y decir algo que es muy importante. Supongo que existe en todos los idiomas: más vale prevenir que lamentar. Rasmus Andresen,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Angriffe auf Sicherheitsbehörden, kritische Infrastruktur wie Energie-Pipelines, Parlamente und aber auch sehr viele Unternehmen. Auch bei uns in Norddeutschland sind immer mehr Unternehmen betroffen: Unternehmen mit Millionenumsätzen, aber auch soziale Einrichtungen wie Werkstätten für Menschen mit Behinderungen. Cybersicherheit wurde viel zu lange ignoriert. Mitgliedstaaten waren lange nicht bereit, gemeinsam zu handeln. Das Ergebnis ist, dass wir leider sehr verwundbar sind – seit Jahren. Jetzt ist Cybersicherheit aber kein Thema mehr für Nerds, sondern ein sehr wichtiges grundsätzliches Thema, was uns alle angeht. Und die NIS-2-Richtlinie ist eine ambitionierte Richtlinie, um gemeinsame Standards und Anforderungen für Cybersicherheit zu schaffen. Wir brauchen im Fall von Cyberangriffen schnelles reporting an die zuständigen Behörden. Und wir begrüßen auch ganz besonders, dass wir es geschafft haben, uns darauf zu verständigen, den Anwendungsbereich auszuweiten auf die öffentliche Verwaltung, auf soziale Medien und auch auf Telekommunikationsunternehmen. Auch die Aufnahme von Verschlüsselungskriterien und Open Source als Stärkung von Cybersicherheit hat es in die Richtlinie geschafft. Und das ist wirklich sehr zu begrüßen. Es gibt ein Thema, das uns als Grüne weiter Sorge bereitet, und das ist, dass bei der Registrierung von Internet-Domains zukünftig auch ein Verifizierungsprozess stattfinden soll. Das hat aus unserer Sicht wenig mit Cybersicherheit zu tun, aber sehr viel damit, dass Freiheitsrechte in Gefahr kommen können. Wir haben diesen Punkt immer sehr kritisch begleitet, sind in dem Punkt mit dem Ergebnis nicht zufrieden, werden aber insgesamt natürlich für die Richtlinie stimmen und bedanken uns für die sehr gute und vertrauensvolle Zusammenarbeit. Ich glaube, wir kommen beim Thema Cybersicherheit einen wichtigen Schritt weiter. Paolo Borchia,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, innanzitutto faccio i complimenti al relatore per il buon lavoro svolto. La trasformazione digitale della società e dell'economia ha ampliato e differenziato la gamma delle minacce, creando nuove sfide che richiedono risposte rapide e innovative. Il numero di attacchi informatici continua ad aumentare, con incursioni sempre più sofisticate sia dall'esterno che dall'interno dell'Unione. Il gruppo ha lavorato al rafforzamento delle garanzie e degli incentivi per le piccole e medie imprese, elemento che poi è stato incluso nell'accordo. La direzione più adeguata è quella che va verso la riduzione degli oneri amministrativi e burocratici e verso il miglioramento delle segnalazioni degli incidenti legati alla sicurezza informatica, garantendo soprattutto un sostegno adeguato a tutte le micro e piccole imprese che rientrano nell'ambito di applicazione della direttiva. Resta il problema del deficit di competenze, sulle quali serve intervenire e naturalmente in tempi rapidi. Evžen Tošenovský,
za skupinu ECR. – Paní předsedající, vážená paní komisařko, kolegyně, kolegové, jsem velmi rád, že dnes bude schválena směrnice NIS 2 jako velmi důležitý element posilování kybernetické bezpečnosti. Posíláme tím další zprávu dovnitř i ven Evropské unie, že Evropská unie bere tuto oblast vážně a další legislativu již přitom máme rozjednánu. Myslím tím samozřejmě obdobu NIS pro unijní instituce a agentury a Akt o kybernetické odolnosti produktu. Kybernetické hrozby mají stále stoupající tendenci, a tak musíme postupně vykrýt všechna slabá místa. Všichni sledujeme, co se odehrává na bojištích, ale bohužel tato válka běží i v tom kybernetickém prostoru. Velké poděkování patří Bartovi, našemu zpravodaji, za výbornou spolupráci a hlavně za velmi dobrý kompromis dojednaný s Radou. Nemyslím si, že to je kompromis, je to snaha najít společnou řeč. Kompromis někdy bývá negativní. V tomto případě si myslím, že se podařilo najít skutečně velmi dobré řešení. Konečnými vítězi zde budou firmy důležité pro naši společnost a ekonomiku, které budou odolnější proti kybernetickým útokům, ale také národní kybernetické úřady a týmy CERT lépe připravené doma pomáhat a dohlížet napříč Unií a jejichž úkolem bude efektivněji spolupracovat. Myslím si, že se podařilo najít rozumnou hranici, pokud jde o firmy, které budou pod NIS 2 spadat, i pro požadavky na opatření, která by měly přijímat. Bude pár let trvat, než si celý ekosystém sedne samozřejmě, a pro všechny zapojené subjekty to bude bezpochyby znamenat zvláštní úsilí a prostředky, ale také velkou školu života. Ale rozhodně se to vyplatí a jsem přesvědčen, že do budoucna toto je dobrý základ, ze kterého vycházíme. Marisa Matias,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhora Presidente, quero também começar por agradecer ao relator o trabalho que foi feito. É indiscutível a importância da cibersegurança num mundo cada vez mais interligado e onde as nossas relações são cada vez mais dependentes do mundo digital. A cibersegurança é uma garantia fundamental e termos a capacidade de defesa e de resposta conjunta é uma urgência. Os ciberataques passaram a fazer parte das nossas vidas quotidianas, sejam eles pessoais, mas, sobretudo, em relação a entidades e organizações das quais dependem a nossa segurança e as nossas garantias. E isso põe em risco também o nosso bem-estar, a nossa democracia, os nossos dados e a nossa privacidade. As medidas apresentadas são importantes e são passos que são dados no bom sentido. No entanto, gostaríamos de ter visto propostas mais concretas em algumas áreas, nomeadamente para melhorar a proteção, a formação e o conhecimento quer dos consumidores, quer dos trabalhadores neste mundo digital. Gostaríamos também de ter visto uma maior preocupação com os constrangimentos que enfrentam as entidades, especialmente aquelas que estão nas regiões rurais ou mais remotas. E, por fim, gostaríamos de ter visto uma maior proteção aos dados pessoais e à privacidade. De todas as formas, quaisquer que sejam os passos curtos ou mais largos que se dão nesta proposta são bem-vindos, porque nós precisamos mesmo de ter capacidade de resposta conjunta. Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Vice-Presidente, Caros Colegas, os ciberataques são uma ameaça crescente para todos nós, especialmente à luz da transformação digital da nossa sociedade. Nos últimos quatro anos, o número de ocorrências aumentou mais de dez vezes. No meu país, Portugal, já foram visados grupos de comunicação social, operadoras móveis, companhias aéreas, entre outros. A diretiva que agora discutimos visa melhorar a capacidade de resposta de entidades públicas e privadas que fornecem serviços essenciais, nomeadamente introduzindo a obrigação para os Estados-Membros de melhorarem as suas estratégias nacionais em termos de cibersegurança e também de aumentarem a coordenação entre si no caso de incidentes graves. É, ainda, pedido aos Estados-Membros que tenham em especial consideração a proteção das pequenas e médias empresas em matéria de cibersegurança. Este é um problema de todos, até porque a maior vulnerabilidade de um Estado-Membro pode ter efeitos em toda a União. Precisamos, por isso, de agir rapidamente e em conjunto. Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Vice-Presidente, a cibersegurança é uma questão transversal a toda a União Europeia. A aplicação de um padrão comum de resposta é a fórmula racional para atingir os objetivos que pretendemos. A abordagem da nova diretiva e neste excelente relatório tem uma importância estratégica vital para a União, para os seus Estados-Membros, para as empresas e para as organizações em geral. E é verdade que os cidadãos europeus também têm cada vez mais consciência que só uma resposta comum da União lhes pode assegurar níveis elevados de segurança e de confiança. A implementação do novo quadro regulamentar reforça as garantias de segurança e supervisão, combinando uma abordagem baseada no risco e na proporcionalidade, incluindo sanções harmonizadas em toda a União Europeia. Reforçar os requisitos de segurança através de melhor comunicação, menos burocracia e mais transparência é um caminho adequado para tornar cada ator mais responsável e mais capacitado para aumentar a sua própria ciberproteção. Contribuindo assim todos, desta forma, para que a Europa desenvolva, em sintonia com os seus valores comuns, um ecossistema digital capaz de responder aos complexos desafios que tem que enfrentar no domínio da cibersegurança. Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, voy a apoyar este informe porque reforzar una normativa armonizada, precisa y potente para potenciar la ciberseguridad nos ayudará a prevenir enormes amenazas, a estimular los procesos de digitalización y a incentivar inversiones que crecen al amparo de la seguridad y las certezas, tanto materiales como legales. Creo que mejorar las definiciones de lo que consideramos sector esencial e importante a efectos de ciberseguridad es una muy buena idea. Igualmente, son aciertos el tratamiento que se dispensa a las instituciones de investigación y educativas, la mejora en la comunicación de los incidentes y un intercambio sincero, sistemático y permanente de conocimiento. Por último, quiero apostar por los incentivos positivos, que son tan importantes como las sanciones para sensibilizar a la ciudadanía. La formación desde edad temprana en riesgos y conductas seguras, test gratuitos que blinden la configuración de las herramientas básicas y campañas intensivas deben impulsarse. Johan Nissinen (ECR). – Fru talman! Cyberhot blir alltmer gränsöverskridande. Samarbete är en viktig del för att hantera det. Ingen enskild stat kan garantera cybersäkerhet utan internationellt samarbete, utbyte av information och erfarenhet från andra. Vi behöver mer benchmarking som möjliggör att stater lär sig genom jämförelse med andra. En sådan positiv och inspirerande konkurrens mellan stater gör i slutändan alla starkare. Det är det enda alternativet till en annars låg, genomsnittlig och centraliserad EU-standard som i praktiken är full av kompromisser, ineffektiv byråkrati och som framför allt riskerar att motverka sund konkurrens mellan stater. Jag välkomnar denna debatt och undrar hur vi ska kunna konkurrera med Kina och USA i längden om vi alltid satsar på en one size fits all EU-approach, full av kompromisser. Det är hög, inte lagom, cybersäkerhet som leder till värdeskapande. Cristian-Silviu Bușoi (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Executive Vice-President, I would like to start by thanking and congratulating our rapporteur and our whole team for the ability to negotiate this file since adoption in the ITRE Committee some time ago, and to thank the European Commission for the good initiative. Yes, a common level of cybersecurity in the EU is crucial for the functioning of the internal market, and yes, NIS2 needed to widen its scope significantly to include sectors that previously were not considered essential or important due to the mostly increased challenges of cybercrime, espionage or sabotage. And we need to implement this without fragmentation. We need to strengthen the security requirements, address the security of supply chain administrations, streamline reporting obligations, and introduce more stringent supervisory measures and stricter enforcement requirements. Of course, all this means investments, and the Commission needs to accept that investment in infrastructure is needed and Member States need to be supported with that. That's why the ITRE Committee will stand for more funds for the implementation of the directive and for the EU Cybersecurity Agency, ENISA. Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru Formand! Kommissær Vestager! EU skal helt i front i den digitale udvikling. Det sikrer nemlig vækst, velstand og velfærd. Men med digitaliseringen, så følger også nye udfordringer. Vi er blevet mere sårbare over for digitale trusler. Som for eksempel, som vi også hørte Hr. Løkkegaard sige, så er vores land Danmark forleden blevet ramt af et hackerangreb, som satte store dele af togtrafikken i stå. Og eksemplet er desværre ikke enestående. Dagligt udsættes europæiske virksomheder og myndigheder for hackerangreb. Vi er nødt til at opruste i kampen mod de digitale trusler, som kommer fra alverdens Putin'er. Ikke mindst, når det kommer til vores kritiske infrastruktur. Og det er lige præcis det, vi gør med Nice II-direktivet. Med direktivet bliver der stillet helt konkrete krav til virksomhedernes IT-sikkerhed, til sikkerheden omkring forsyningskæder og til leverandørforhold. Og det er helt nødvendigt. Opbakningen til digitaliseringen er nemlig i fare, hvis ikke vi giver borgerne, virksomhederne og forbrugerne vished for, at cyber- og informationssikkerheden i EU er helt i top. Tak for ordet. Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, cyber-terrorism is a very real threat to both our economy and our society. Firstly, I'd like to congratulate and thank Bart Groothuis, my colleague, for his excellent work today and keeping cybersecurity at the top of the political agenda in my Group and in this Parliament. If people are in any doubt about what cyber-terrorism is, I would like to remind people that on 14 May 2021, there was a massive cyberattack on the Irish health services. It has cost our health services to date about EUR 120 million, and to put IT systems in place to ensure that we have integrity in our health systems with regard to cyberattacks it will cost at least another EUR 700 million. But it was an attack on citizens; it was an attack on people. Irish citizens will die because of delayed diagnosis in radiology departments, delayed outcomes and in terms of treatments as well. So this has cost lives already. So we have to be very conscious that we are not talking about some abstract form of cyber threats. We are talking about real threats to real people that are being carried out by nefarious actors, both in terms of countries and criminal organisations throughout the world. So we must be vigilant and we must always be prepared and ready, and consistently improve our cybersecurity in both financial services, but in every other aspect of public services in Europe. Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora vicepresidenta, las instituciones europeas vienen realizando un esfuerzo continuado en materia de ciberseguridad. La creación, hace dos años, del Centro Europeo de Competencia Industrial, Tecnológica y de Investigación en Ciberseguridad es un buen ejemplo de ello. Ahora la Directiva SRI 2 da un paso más y, ¿cómo lo da? Al abordar la seguridad de las cadenas de suministro, al reforzar la coordinación entre las autoridades nacionales y al simplificar también las obligaciones de las empresas. Los retos en materia de ciberseguridad son, por otro lado, tan dinámicos como la propia digitalización. En el año 2025, habrá más de 75 000 millones de objetos conectados, lo que exige mejorar la capacidad de prevención y vigilancia de manera continuada. Es necesario intensificar la coordinación y la cooperación en todos los niveles (nacional, europeo, internacional) y, por ello, hay que aprovechar la oportunidad de reforzar la coordinación con los Estados Unidos a través del instrumento del Consejo de Comercio y Tecnología (TTC). Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Vizepräsidentin der Europäischen Kommission! Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst ein herzliches Dankeschön an unseren Berichterstatter Bart Groothuis für seinen exzellenten Bericht und auch an die Kolleginnen und Kollegen in den Fraktionen, die alle an diesem Dossier mitgearbeitet haben. Wie wichtig das Thema Cybersicherheit ist, zeigt ja ganz aktuell die hybride Kriegsführung Russlands mit Computerangriffen und massiven Desinformationskampagnen. Wir müssen unsere kritische Infrastruktur schützen und unsere Unternehmen – die kleinen wie die großen – besser unterstützen, damit sich diese auch gegen Cyberangriffe, gegen Sabotage, gegen Spionage gut zur Wehr setzen können. Es ist gut, dass wir in der Europäischen Union eine Strategie gegen Cyberangriffe haben. Und die Richtlinie, über die wir heute Mittag abstimmen werden, ist ein ganz wichtiger Baustein in dieser Strategie. Cybersicherheit ist eine Gemeinschaftsaufgabe. Es gelingt nur, uns da besser, effizienter aufzustellen, wenn wir zusammenarbeiten – Unternehmen, Verwaltung, Sicherheitsbehörden. Das wollen wir mit dieser Richtlinie erreichen. Ich begrüße es, dass wir mit der Richtlinie eine neue Meldepflicht für Cyberangriffe einführen, dass es eine enge Frist von 24 Stunden gibt, binnen derer notifiziert werden muss, dass es zu einem Cyberangriff gekommen ist. Nur wenn wir auf europäischer Ebene engmaschig schnell zusammenarbeiten, haben wir wirklich eine Chance, die Cybersicherheit für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger und unsere Unternehmen zu garantieren. Danke an alle, die geholfen haben, dass wir diese Gesetzgebung heute auf den Weg bringen. Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Madam President, this directive seeks to improve levels of cybersecurity across the European Union and it's a welcome response to some of the most consequential cyberattacks which Ireland and Europe have faced in recent years, threatening our information and communications technology and supply chains. And Commissioner, as you said this morning, you've outlined that this is a particularly timely directive given that we're marking 30 years of our single market, which is a key milestone for the European Union. Our digital single market is in need of protection, and this cybersecurity law will oblige more organisations and sectors to take measures and to assist in increasing the level of cybersecurity in Europe. In May 2021, the Irish health system suffered a major ransomware attack, causing all of its IT systems nationwide to shut down. It caused chaos for the systems; importantly, it was a very stressful and difficult, challenging situation for the patients. So this directive will strengthen our safeguards now and help bolster against future attacks. So this law will now protect citizens, protect businesses, and ensure that organisations protect themselves against the serious consequences of a cyberattack. And thank you to the rapporteurs for their work. Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, komission varapuheenjohtaja, lämmin kiitos kaikille kollegoille, jotka ovat työskennelleet tämän tärkeän verkko- ja tietoturvadirektiivin, NIS2:n, parissa. Tämä on erittäin tärkeä osa lainsäädäntöä. Tiedämme, että kyberturvallisuus on hyvin keskeinen osa kokonaisturvallisuutta yhteiskunnissa. Ja nyt kun olemme vauhdittaneet digitalisaatiota, ihmiset, palvelut ja monet kriittiset toiminnot ovat siirtyneet verkkoon, olemme entistä haavoittuvaisempia. Siksi on tärkeää teknisesti varmistaa, että prosessit eri jäsenvaltioissa ovat kunnossa näillä tärkeillä toimialoilla, joista tässä puhutaan: energia, liikenne, terveydenhuolto ja digitaalinen infrastruktuuri. Tarvitsemme tietyt yhteiset prosessit ja minimistandardit, kuinka varmistamme sen, että olemme varautuneet kyberuhkiin ja -hyökkäyksiin. Seuraavaksi meille tulee käsittelyyn laitteiden ja ohjelmistojen kyberturvallisuutta koskeva lainsäädäntö Euroopassa. Erittäin tärkeää lainsäädäntöä niin ikään, mutta vähintään yhtä tärkeää on nyt kiinnittää huomiota osaamiseen tällä alueella. Tiedämme, että kolmasosalla työssä käyvistä Euroopan alueella ei ole riittäviä digitaalisia taitoja. Erityisesti kyberalan asiantuntijoista on todella kova pula jo nyt, joten koulutukseen tällä alueella on tärkeää investoida kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa, niin perustaitoihin kuin asiantuntijatyöhön. Procedura ”catch the eye” Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, doamna comisară, sunt de acord cu ceea ce ați prezentat aici. Acum, la 30 de ani de când sărbătorim piața unică, voi vorbi din perspectiva pieței unice, dar și a cetățeanului. Sigur că nu există o piață unică sigură dacă nu avem și o politică de apărare cibernetică. Problema pe care eu o văd acum că o avem, este că cele 27 de state sunt în stadii diferite de digitalizare, pentru că nu putem să desprindem politica de apărare cibernetică de digitalizare, și cum putem aplica acest slogan, nimeni nu este lăsat în urmă, în practică? Cum putem să ajutăm statele membre care nu au încă digitalizarea la nivelul la care trebuie încât să poată să intervină în acest lanț de apărare cibernetică? Și cred că aici trebuie să ne gândim la dirijarea fondurilor țintite, pentru a putea să avem într-adevăr lanțul complet, pentru că o singură verigă, dacă lipsește, evident că apare acest atac cibernetic care duce la insecuritate și pentru cetățean, și pentru companii și, în ansamblu, pentru Uniunea Europeană. Morten Løkkegaard (Renew). – Fru Formand! Jeg tager ordet igen, fordi jeg lyttede med stor interesse til, hvad kommissæren fortalte os om de nye initiativer på cybersikkerhedsområdet fra Kommissionen. Og jeg synes, at det måske var passende her i debatten lige at få præciseret og måske uddybet, hvis kommissæren vil gøre det, hvad det mere konkret handler om? Vi hører jo rygter, og vi er meget nysgerrige. Og herunder selvfølgelig også, om de nye initiativer kræver ny lovgivning? Og i givet fald, hvad det er, vi skal til at kigge på efterfølgende med hensyn til eventuel ny lovgivning. Det kunne være dejligt at få lidt mere uddybende at vide om. Tak. (Fine della procedura ”catch the eye”) Margrethe Vestager,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you very much for this encouraging and also insightful debate. I hope that those who listen, they say, oh my God, maybe we should give up in digitisation since it's so dangerous. On the contrary, what we are doing today is to make sure that we can get all the benefits from digitisation. We can fight climate change. We can get health benefits. We can get easier from A to B. We can fight pollution in our cities. We can make sure that agriculture is as efficient as possible without harming the soil. The digital opportunities for bettering our lives and increasing the livelihoods at they are enormous – if we make sure that it's safe. And I very much appreciate the question here posed lastly, because not everyone is at the same level of digitisation. Some are newcomers. Some have long experience. Here, I think we are, to very large degree, helped by the recovery and resilience plans of every country because digitisation is a high priority both when it comes to the rollout of infrastructure and the skills to be provided. But, of course, now when we have the legislation necessary to make sure that it's all made safe in the same go. So hopefully those who have the potential to leapfrog, they will do that with cybersecurity in mind. What we do today is only the beginning. As it was just mentioned, today we are presenting a European cyber security and defence package. It is military mobility. We have the first generation of action plan here. Next generation will ensure that in digitisation of all the paperwork that is still needed for military personnel and equipment to move, so that it can be smooth and swift. That we will also look at the fuel supply chain. You just saw what happened in Ukraine. When fuel is lacking, then there is not much mobility. And, of course, insisting and accelerating that infrastructure is built so that it can support heavy duty military vehicles be that bridges, be that be roads. And then, of course, on the cyber security part of the package to make sure that we reinforce the cooperation and that we make sure that when civilian infrastructure is dual use, that we use our resources so much better. So far, no new legislation is foreseen, but a lot of activities that would be ongoing for Member States to enable this and for a Commission use of funding that has already been set up. The encouragement today, I think, comes from the fact that everyone here has seen this as a major step but as a beginning. Because now there is a legal framework, now there's work to do for Member States and for the new sectors in particular. And I hope that everyone has listened to this debate and seen how the representatives of European citizens insist that it is a top priority for this to be safe. We have seen the attacks on the Irish health sector, which was just, I think, very timely mentioned. This is absolutely crucial because it is a question of literally life and death. We will do what we can to frontload what is now being decided by Parliament and the Council because we have seen that this is a matter of urgency. And, with that, I would like to thank everyone who has spoken today and, of course, the rapporteur in particular for being able to gather this support so that we could pass this important legislative text so swiftly. Bart Groothuis,
rapporteur. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, my commitment in the first term to buy drinks for all shadow rapporteurs and the excellent staff has been reinforced by this debate. So you owe me one! I have two comments to make for the Green Party and especially the Pirate Party. They fear that the free and open internet is at stake. Well, let me just mention two things here. First, on my personal – my personal – journey to regulate root-level DNS servers, my personal journey was to get that out of scope, and we've managed: no regulation, no government controls of the root-level DNS. So be happy with that. The second thing is that the internet will be free, but if hackers hire anonymous infrastructure, then we want to know with what bitcoin address did you do it, what session cookie was placed, what IP address was used, what domain was used. We want to know those technical terms so we can track you and defend ourselves. The only thing I'd like to mention again to them is that it's not just public information: it's only there for legitimate access-seekers, and it means that cybersecurity experts and law enforcement get this information, but also journalists, and journalists are important. Why? This democratises the debate. Journalists can verify cyberattacks, verify what has happened. And democratising the debate on cybersecurity is one of the goals that we have also here in this Parliament. Last but not least, this is the best legislation we've yet seen in this continent. We go from a passive stance to an active stance. We're shaping our digital environment in our atmosphere and therefore our digital future. I will leave you with one thought, which is food for thought. With the attack on Colonial Pipeline in the US, the malware, the malicious software, would not have gone live if the computers would have had Russian language settings or Russian time settings. Just remember that this is not just a technical problem, this is also a geopolitical problem, a problem for diplomacy, a problem for counter-intelligence. So the NIS is a good step forward. We're not there yet. Russia will not stop with this legislation. We need to do more. That's why I encourage the Commission with the new plans they came with today, we will work on it together. Thank you, and let's vote. Presidente. – Ringrazio il relatore e i colleghi e le colleghe che hanno partecipato a questo dibattito molto interessante. La discussione è chiusa. La votazione si svolgerà oggi. La seduta è sospesa per alcuni minuti e riprenderò tra pochissimo con le votazioni. Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 171) Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Χαιρετίζουμε την οδηγία για τα μέτρα για υψηλό κοινό επίπεδο κυβερνοασφάλειας σε ολόκληρη την Ένωση και πιστεύουμε πως αντικατοπτρίζει το μεταβαλλόμενο τοπίο των απειλών για την κυβερνοασφάλεια. Σαφώς θεωρούμε πως υπάρχουν ακόμη περιθώρια βελτίωσης, καθώς οι ευρωπαϊκές αστυνομικές δυνάμεις αντιμετωπίζουν προκλήσεις που σχετίζονται με την απότομη αύξηση των περιστατικών κυβερνοεγκλήματος. Ταυτόχρονα, νέες απειλές όπως ο υβριδικός πόλεμος αλλά και οι εκστρατείες παραπληροφόρησης/fake news, καθιστούν την ανάγκη για πιο αυστηρό θεσμικό πλαίσιο επιτακτική. Θεωρούμε πως η οδηγία αυτή αποτελεί ορθό βήμα προς την εναρμόνιση της εσωτερικής αγοράς και τη βελτίωση της κυβερνοασφάλειας στην ΕΕ. András Gyürk (NI),
írásban. – A mai kor globális technológiai kihívásaira egy egységes, erős nemzetállamok közötti, kölcsönös tiszteletre építő Európai Unió képes a leghatékonyabb válaszokat megadni. Ehhez az ezen elvekre építő jogszabályi keretre van szükség. A módosított kiberbiztonsági irányelv (NIS 2) ebbe az irányba tesz egy lépést, illetve javítja Európa felkészültségét a kibertérből érkező újtípusú fenyegetések elhárítására. A javaslat egyrészt, a tagállami és vállalati sajátosságok tiszteletben tartása mellett, kiterjeszti a kiberbiztonsági kockázatkezelési intézkedéseket és bejelentési kötelezettségeket többek között az energiaszektorra, a közlekedésre és az egészségügyre is. Ezek a mindennapi élethez nélkülözhetetlen ágazatok. Védelmük a különféle kibertámadásoktól megkérdőjelezhetetlen fontossággal bír. Másrészt a NIS 2-irányelv tiszteletben tartja a tagállami hatásköröket is. A határokon átnyúló kiberfenyegetések kezelésére minimumszabályokat állapít meg, és mechanizmusokat alakít ki a tagállamok illetékes hatóságai közötti hatékony együttműködéshez. Különösen fontos, hogy a javaslat megfelelő garanciákat tartalmaz az arányosságot illetően és nem terjed ki a nemzet- és közbiztonság, a bűnüldözés és az igazságszolgáltatás területeire. Végül, az új kiberbiztonsági irányelv egyik fontos eredménye a szakértői tanulásra vonatkozó önkéntes koordinációs programok megteremtése. Ezek növelni fogják a kölcsönös bizalmat, és a különféle jógyakorlatok elsajátításának lehetőségeit is. Mindez pedig tovább emelheti a kiberbiztonság szintjét Európában. Karol Karski (ECR),
na piśmie. – Głosowany projekt drugiej dyrektywy w sprawie bezpieczeństwa sieci i informacji (tzw. dyrektywa NIS2) to krok w dobrym kierunku w celu zagwarantowania odpowiedniego poziomu cyberbezpieczeństwa w Unii oraz w państwach członkowskich. Jest to szczególnie istotne w kontekście coraz częstszych oraz poważniejszych w skutkach ataków cybernetycznych, które zagrażają sprawnemu funkcjonowaniu wszystkich sektorów gospodarki oraz administracji, w tym sektorów krytycznych, jak na przykład szpitali czy urzędów administracji państwowej. W odpowiedzi na te wyzwania NIS2 rozszerza obecnie obowiązującą dyrektywę oraz ubogaca jej treść poprzez m.in. rozszerzenie zakresu dyrektywy o nowe sektory, a w szczególności włączenie do niej administracji publicznej, która w obecnej sytuacji geopolitycznej może być wyjątkowo podatna na cyberataki, oraz wprowadzenie podziału podmiotów na te o statucie ”kluczowym” (energetyka, transport, zdrowie oraz infrastruktura cyfrowa) oraz ”ważnym” (usługi pocztowe, elektronika, pojazdy samochodowe). Z zadowoleniem przyjmuję zaproponowane w dyrektywie wprowadzenie mechanizmu szerokiej współpracy pomiędzy państwami członkowskimi w Unii w sprawie incydentów transgranicznych czy tych obejmujących wiele państw Unii jednocześnie (czyli tzw. mechanizm współpracy CyCLONe). Ponadto dyrektywa zwiększa również rolę grupy współpracy w procesie kształtowania strategicznych decyzji politycznych oraz ułatwia wymianę informacji między organami państw członkowskich. Z uwagi na fakt, iż obecnie coraz więcej cyberataków ma charakter ponadnarodowy, pogłębiona współpraca odpowiednych organów w tym zakresie jest niezbędna. Urmas Paet (Renew),
kirjalikult. – Euroopa Liit peab oma ettevõtteid, valitsusi ja ühiskonda vaenuliku kübertegevuse eest kaitsma. Liikmesriikidele hakkavad küberjulgeoleku valdkonnas kehtima rangemad reeglid ning ühtlustatakse ELis kasutatavaid karistusi. Uue õigusaktiga kehtestatakse rangemad küberjulgeolekunõuded riskide juhtimisele, aruandlusele ja info jagamisele. Muu hulgas puudutavad uued reeglid intsidentide ohjamist, tarneahelate turvalisust, krüpteerimist ja nõrkustest teatamist. Samuti kohustatakse senisest rohkemaid üksusi ja sektoreid enda kaitsmiseks meetmeid võtma. Näiteks hakkavad uued sätted kehtima sellistes elutähtsates sektorites nagu energeetika, transport, pangandus, tervishoid, digitaristu, avalik haldus ja kosmosetööstus. Reeglid peavad olema ettevõtete jaoks selged ja täpsed. Uute reeglitega kaitstakse lisaks olulisi sektoreid, nagu post, jäätmekäitlus, keemiasektor, toiduainetööstus, meditsiiniseadmete, mootorsõidukite ja masinatööstus, elektroonika ja digiteenused. Uue õigusakti kohaldamisalasse kuuluvad kõik loetletud valdkondades tegutsevad keskmise suurusega ja suured ettevõtted. Ühtlasi luuakse õigusaktiga mitmesuguste ametiasutuste ja liikmesriikide jaoks tõhusam koostöö- ja infojagamisraamistik ning Euroopa nõrkuste andmebaas. Edina Tóth (NI),
írásban. – A digitális környezet hatékony védelme komoly kihívás, hiszen egy gyorsan és folyamatosan változó környezetre kell megfelelő szabályozást kialakítani. Az európai polgárok életük egyre nagyobb részét töltik az online térben: ez egyszerre a munka, a hivatalos ügyek, valamint a személyes kapcsolattartás színtere is. A koronavírus-járvány kezdete óta ez fokozottan igaz, ráadásul a világjárvány időszaka során nagyon sok intézménynek, szervezetnek szinte egyik napról a másikra kellett átállnia a digitális működésre. Fontos, hogy az Európai Unió polgárai számára a digitális térben is magas szintű védelmet biztosítsunk, ezért nagy örömmel üdvözlöm ezt a jogszabályt. Tekintettel a digitális tér határokon átnyúló jellegére különösen fontosnak tartom a hatékony végrehajtást és a tagállamok közötti magas szintű együttműködést annak érdekében, hogy a jogszabályban előirányzott célok maradéktalanul megvalósulhassanak. Bízom benne, hogy a jogszabály gyors és kézzelfogható eredményeket hoz majd. (La seduta è sospesa alle 10.58) PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA President 4.   Istunnon uudelleen avaaminen (The sitting resumed at 11.03) President. – Colleagues, I have one sombre announcement to make, for which I would ask for your attention. Dear colleagues, it was with great sadness that I learned yesterday about the passing of our former colleague Werner Schulz. We have lost a pioneer of German unity and a committed defender of European democracy and freedom. On behalf of the European Parliament I send my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Werner Schulz. I understand, Terry Reintke, you would like to take the floor. Terry Reintke (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! In der Tat, gestern, am 9. November, diesem denkwürdigen Tag deutscher und europäischer Geschichte, ist unser ehemaliger Kollege Werner Schulz bei einer Gedenkveranstaltung im Schloss Bellevue überraschend aus dem Leben gerissen worden. Wir erinnern Werner als einen Streiter für Bürgerrechte, beginnend in der früheren DDR, aber dann auch auf seinem Lebensweg. Er war ein Streiter für die wehrhafte Demokratie, für eine kritische Zivilgesellschaft und für Menschenrechte. Werner war ein Freiheitskämpfer, ein überzeugter Europäer, ein scharfer Kritiker Putins und vehementer Verteidiger der Ukraine. Ich glaube, das sollte uns allen zu denken geben. Wir werden Werner sehr, sehr schmerzlich vermissen, gerade in diesen Zeiten. Aber sein Wirken wird für uns alle, auch hier im Europäischen Parlament, unvergessen bleiben. President. – Thank you very much, Ms Reintke. 5.   Äänestykset President. – The next item is the vote. (For the results and other details on the vote: see minutes) 5.1.   EU:n ja Ukrainan välinen maanteiden tavaraliikennettä koskeva sopimus (A9-0263/2022 - Marian-Jean Marinescu) (äänestys) 5.2.   EU:n ja Moldovan välinen maanteiden tavaraliikennettä koskeva sopimus (A9-0262/2022 - Marian-Jean Marinescu) (äänestys) 5.3.   Palvelukaupan yleissopimuksen mukaisten erityisten sitoumusten luetteloiden muuttamista koskevan sopimuksen tekeminen (A9-0257/2022 - Bernd Lange) (äänestys) 5.4.   Sisämarkkinoita vääristävät ulkomaiset tuet (A9-0135/2022 - Christophe Hansen) (äänestys) — Before the vote: Christophe Hansen,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, pendant trop longtemps les entreprises européennes, soumises à un contrôle rigoureux des aides d'État, ont dû entrer en concurrence avec des entreprises étrangères qui avaient un accès sans entrave aux subventions étrangères. L'instrument sur lequel nous nous apprêtons à voter donne à la Commission le pouvoir d'agir contre ces offres gonflées par de l'argent issu de gouvernements étrangers. Il protégera la compétitivité européenne et évitera la fuite des savoir-faire et de l'innovation européens. Ce ne sont pas là des discours creux: un récent exemple allemand me vient d'ailleurs à l'esprit, à ce sujet. Une fois cet instrument en vigueur, il sera difficilement imaginable que la vente d'une participation stratégique dans une infrastructure européenne aussi essentielle que le port de Hambourg à une société d'État chinoise se fasse sans que la Commission examine de plus près l'origine des liquidités avancées. Le moment choisi pour cette accusation n'est peut-être pas un pur hasard. Il reflète plutôt la crainte de l'instrument que nous nous apprêtons aujourd'hui à mettre en place. Grâce à l'insistance du Parlement quant au dialogue avec les pays tiers, bilatéralement et dans ses forums multilatéraux, ce règlement placera un outil supplémentaire dans la main de la Commission pour lutter contre la marée montante d'une course mondiale aux subventions qui s'avère destructrice. Cet instrument ne sera toutefois rien sans ressources humaines consacrées à sa mise en œuvre. C'est pourquoi, outre le fait que je vous remercie, Madame la Commissaire Vestager, pour l'excellente collaboration qui a été la nôtre sur ce dossier, je vous demanderais également de veiller à mettre en place suffisamment de ressources pour que cet instrument n'en soit pas uniquement un sur le papier, car nous avons vraiment besoin de ressources humaines pour le faire vivre et le rendre efficace. Si nous voulons sérieusement protéger l'égalité des chances dans une économie ouverte, il est temps de joindre le geste à la parole. Margrethe Vestager,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I would warmly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Hansen, for his excellent work in the INTA Committee on this report. Also, all the shadow rapporteurs of the associated committees, Ms Yon-Courtin for ECON and Mr Doleschal for IMCO. This is an important piece of legislation. It is much needed as an addition to our toolbox to make sure that businesses have a level playing field, that they compete on their merits, on their ideas, on their innovation, on how they serve their customers. Because this is how the single market should work. Now we have a tool to defend fair competition, to work against subsidies, and I think it's a very good example of how Europe can work together to deliver ground-breaking legislation. The trilogues: they have shown that we have a common goal and that we can achieve great results and that we can achieve them swiftly. I think that is what makes the admiration of the European democracy increase – that we can deliver when we do it in common. I think, even more so now when we are in the process of preparing the celebration of the 30 years of the single market, the timing of having this instrument is just excellent. Thank you very much for the cooperation and for the swift adoption of this proposal. 5.5.   Yritysten kestävyysraportointia koskeva direktiivi (A9-0059/2022 - Pascal Durand) (äänestys) 5.6.   Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskeva säädös (A9-0341/2021 - Billy Kelleher) (äänestys) — Before the vote: Gunnar Beck,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! DORA ist eine lobenswerte Initiative, denn sie soll unseren digitalen Markt gegenüber Terror und hybriden Angriffen resistenter machen. Doch es ist wichtig, unsere kritische Infrastruktur nicht nur vor solchen Bedrohungen zu schützen. Um diese Lücke zu schließen, möchte ich Sie bitten, über die Änderungsanträge der ID-Fraktion zum Gesetz zur digitalen betrieblichen Resilienz abzustimmen. Denn der europäische Digitalmarkt sollte auch für IKT-Dienstleister, die von Drittstaaten kontrolliert werden, geschützt werden. Trojanische Pferde brauchen wir gerade in diesen Zeiten nicht. Deswegen bitte ich Sie um Ihre Mitarbeit. (Parliament rejected the request) 5.7.   Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskevista vaatimuksista annetun direktiivin muuttaminen (A9-0340/2021 - Mikuláš Peksa) (äänestys) 5.8.   Yhteinen korkea kyberturvataso koko unionissa (A9-0313/2021 - Bart Groothuis) (äänestys) — Before the vote: Patrick Breyer,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, in accordance with Rule 53(3) and (4), on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group I request that the order of votes on this file be changed and our request for separate votes be put to the vote today before the provisional agreement. We understand that the House will have to vote on this request and we ask for a roll-call vote. This is to allow for a separate vote, notably on the proposed mandatory identification of all internet domain registrants. (Parliament rejected the request) 5.9.   Elpymis- ja palautumissuunnitelmien REPowerEU-luvut (A9-0260/2022 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureșan, Dragoș Pîslaru) (äänestys) — After the vote on the Commission proposal: Siegfried Mureșan,
rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, in accordance with Rule 59(4), I would like to request that the matter be referred back to committee for interinstitutional negotiations. (Parliament approved the request for referral back to committee) 5.10.   Schengenin säännöstön määräysten täysimääräinen soveltaminen Kroatian tasavallassa (A9-0264/2022 - Paulo Rangel) (äänestys) President. – Congratulations, Mr Rangel, well done Croatia. This is a historic vote and a historic moment. Congratulations. 5.11.   Yhteisen kriisinratkaisuneuvoston puheenjohtajan nimittäminen (A9-0259/2022 - Irene Tinagli) (äänestys) 5.12.   Yhteisen kriisinratkaisuneuvoston jäsenen nimittäminen (A9-0258/2022 - Irene Tinagli) (äänestys) 5.13.   E-urheilu ja videopelit (A9-0244/2022 - Laurence Farreng) (äänestys) 5.14.   Rodullinen oikeudenmukaisuus, syrjimättömyys ja rasismintorjunta EU:ssa (A9-0254/2022 - Evin Incir) (äänestys) — Before the vote on the motion for a resolution as a whole: Assita Kanko (ECR). – Madam President, my name is Assita Kanko indeed, and my life was full of seemingly impossible things. If I had listened to all those who said things were impossible, I would not be with you here today as a colleague. Imagine if I had listened to those who told me the path I wanted was too difficult and that I should aim lower. Imagine if I believed them and accepted the low expectation adapted to my case. Then I wouldn't be here. Then I would have not gone to university. Then I would have zero ambition and accept being a victim simply because I am black. Being black is not a problem. It's just a detail. That's why I would like to ask you to support this oral amendment, so that people like me can have bigger dreams: ”Warns against the racism of low expectations and woke misconceptions that deny people their individual autonomy and instead push people into imagined minorities and majorities and see only racism when human interaction is often much more complex; calls to see people as persons and not to reduce them to one aspect of their identity.” (Parliament declined to put the oral amendment to the vote) Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, je souhaiterais prendre la parole. Je suis aussi une femme noire, comme Mme Assita Kanko, notre collègue, et je suis horrifiée de ce que je viens d'entendre. Ce n'est pas du tout correct, ce qu'elle vient de dire. Ce n'est pas vrai. Le racisme existe. Nous sommes confrontés à ce racisme en permanence. C'est inadmissible! President. – That concludes the vote. (The sitting was suspended at 11.30) VORSITZ: EVELYN REGNER Vizepräsidentin 6.   Istunnon uudelleen avaaminen (Die Sitzung wird um 11.33 Uhr wieder aufgenommen) 7.   Äänestysselitykset Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Erklärungen zur Abstimmung. 7.1.   Digitaalinen rahoitus: digitaalista häiriönsietokykyä koskeva säädös (A9-0341/2021 - Billy Kelleher) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, bhí áthas orm vóta a chaitheamh ar son na tuarascála a d'eagraigh mo chomhghleacaithe Uí Ghearailt agus Ó Céileachair as Éirinn ar an rialachán leasaitheach tábhachtach seo. Tá an gníomh um Athléimneacht Dhigiteach Oibríochtúil tábhachtach lena cinntiú go bhfuil na coimircí is gá i bhfeidhm i sholáthar seirbhísí airgeadais chun cibirionsaithe agus rioscaí eile a bhaineann le TFC a mhaolú. Is fíorchontúirtí iad cibirionsaithe sa lá atá inniu ann. Tharla ceann in Éirinn anuraidh nuair rinneadh ionsaí le bogearraí éirice ar Fheimeannacht na Seirbhíse Sláinte. Bhí tionchar fadréimseach agus fadtréimhseach aige sin chun freagairt ar an ualach mór airgeadais a bhí ar íocóirí cánach ina dhiaidh sin. Is céim sa treo ceart í reachtaíocht a chinnteoidh go gcosnaítear ár ríomhchórais. 7.2.   Yhteinen korkea kyberturvataso koko unionissa (A9-0313/2021 - Bart Groothuis) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. Higher EU ambition on cybersecurity and in protecting critical infrastructure is vital. Recent incidents have revealed the fragility of the EU's infrastructure and emphasised the danger of cyberattacks, including the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines and last year's massive cyberattack on the health system in my own country. European critical entities are more interconnected and interdependent, which makes them stronger and more efficient, but sadly also more vulnerable. In the case of an incident, a common level of cybersecurity in the EU is crucial for the functioning of the internal market. We must take the necessary steps to harmonise our internal market and improve cybersecurity throughout the EU. I was pleased to vote in favour of this report, like many others in the Parliament. Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, the cyberattack on the HSE in Ireland last year was a traumatic national event; an assault on public health and an urgent reminder that the more digitised our societies are, the more vulnerable they are to network intrusion. Cybersecurity, of course, is the rapporteur's field, and nobody would fault his understanding of the technical issues or in terms of increasing resilience and his determination. But we had concerns about the correct balance between privacy and security here. And for that reason, we abstained. We also have to take on board the point, the economic paradigm that we live under, which systemically under-funds our public services such as health services, expects them to choose then between adequate IT and saving lives. And that obviously isn't a fair choice. We can't have proper cybersecurity if we don't pay for it. Technical fixes only go so far. Second-rate funding and investment in the public sector means second-rate protection for our IT systems and our citizens' data in them. This has to stop. Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamna președintă, cred că Uniunea Europeană are obligația de a-și proteja cetățenii în fața infracțiunilor informatice și am observat în această perioadă, când Rusia duce mai multe războaie pe mai multe fronturi, inclusiv atacând infrastructura critică a Uniunii Europene în repetate rânduri prin atacuri cibernetice. Tocmai de aceea, cred că este esențial să consolidăm cadrul legal la nivel european pentru asigurarea securității cibernetice. De aceea, am votat cu toată convingerea și cred că este absolut necesară o reglementare riguroasă, care să ne garanteze un mediu digital sigur și demn de încredere și care să le garanteze tuturor cetățenilor europeni servicii esențiale pentru funcționarea pieței digitale unice și a infrastructurilor critice, pentru că este absolut important să evităm orice atac ostil din partea unor actori statali. Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem přesvědčen, že je důležité, abychom se skutečně zaměřili na ochranu naší základní kritické infrastruktury. Ty útoky, které přibývají, jak jsme slyšeli z řady členských států, se nezaměřují na státní instituce, ale naopak míří na zdravotnické služby, na zdravotnická zařízení. Míří na naše podniky, na krádeže dat duševního vlastnictví. To všechno bude realita 21. století a my musíme být připraveni na ochranu našich podniků, našich občanů. A jsem velmi rád, že toto nařízení bylo podpořeno. Já jsem jej také podporoval. Je důležité si srovnat, že pouze 41 % výdajů, které dávají Spojené státy americké na kybernetickou bezpečnost, dáváme my v Evropské unii. To se musí zvýšit. Musíme nepochybně zvýšit i počty hlášení incidentů podle tohoto nařízení. Některé incidenty nejsou hlášeny. Jsem rád, že se v tomto balíčku nastavila dobrá poloha toho, jak se mají hlásit a v jaké lhůtě. 7.3.   Elpymis- ja palautumissuunnitelmien REPowerEU-luvut (A9-0260/2022 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureșan, Dragoș Pîslaru) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Seán Kelly (PPE). –
A Uachtaráin, I thank my colleagues for this timely report. The mobilisation of funds through the RePowerEU chapters of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, will provide Member States with much-needed financial support to achieve our energy diversification goals. Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis in Europe has shown that we must end our dependency on Russian energy supplies and ramp up homegrown renewables. In Ireland, one million homes have the roof space and orientation suitable for the installation of up to ten solar panels. This could translate into 8 % of Ireland's renewable energy targets. We take this opportunity to harness the potential of renewable technologies. The benefits from a climate and energy security perspective would be immense. I thank my colleagues Mr Mureșan, etc., for the good job they have done. Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamna președintă, planurile naționale de redresare și reziliență, create ca răspuns la pandemia de coronavirus și consecințele pe care le-a produs această pandemie, au produs consecințe pozitive în rândul statelor membre. Însă nu doar criza de sănătate a lovit Uniunea Europeană. Avem criza de securitate declanșată de Federația Rusă și mai avem o criză a energiei care, la fel, a fost declanșată de către Kremlin și cu scopul de a șantaja Uniunea Europeană. Avem nevoie de mecanisme noi prin care să susținem statele membre pentru a susține cetățenii să facă față acestor scumpiri fără precedent și, evident, pentru a crea mecanisme noi de protejare a pieței interne și, evident, soluții care să ne permită să fim independenți total energetic pe viitor, să nu mai depindem nicio clipă de sursele energetice care provin din Federația Rusă. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, въздържах се от подкрепата на този доклад заради неговото съдържание. Многократно чухме тук за това, че има повишени цени, за това, че енергията е скъпа. Защо е скъпа енергията? Заради гласуванията в тази зала. Защото години наред систематично хората, които гласуваха в тази зала, правеха едно-единствено нещо: правеха така, че токът да е по-скъп, горивата да са по-скъпи и животът на гражданите да е по-скъп. Защо го правеха? Бяха водени от една зеленистка, климатична, алармистка утопия и истерия. Твърдяха, че не може да има добив на собствен газ. Твърдяха, че не може да има производство на електрическа енергия от атомна енергия и направиха така, че нарочно цените на енергоносителите да бъдат високи. Тук никой друг не ви е виновен, нито Русия, нито Китай, нито другите държави. Виновно е гласуването в тази зала. В тази зала бяха повишени цените и сега същите хора ни казват, че трябва да се борим с външните зависимости - тези, които направиха Европейския съюз изцяло зависим от външни енергоизточници. Това е глупаво. 7.4.   Schengenin säännöstön määräysten täysimääräinen soveltaminen Kroatian tasavallassa (A9-0264/2022 - Paulo Rangel) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamna președintă, consider că este un vot istoric, este un vot extrem de important pentru Croația. L-am dat cu toată convingerea, pentru că îmi doresc foarte mult ca în acest an Croația, România și Bulgaria să-și atingă acest obiectiv de etapă de integrare mai profundă în Uniunea Europeană. Uniunea Europeană întotdeauna și-a depășit problemele ce țin de crizele interne atunci când a luat decizii curajoase, fie prin extindere, fie prin mai multă integrare, și cred că Croația, Bulgaria și România trebuie să se integreze în acest an în spațiul Schengen, pentru că așa putem ajuta și statele aflate în imediata noastră vecinătate, expuse acestor amenințări venite în mod constant din partea Federației Ruse. Îmi doresc foarte mult ca Croația să se bucure, la fel ca toate celelalte state, de libera circulație, pentru că este un drept prevăzut în Tratat. Este o obligație a Consiliului să ducă mai departe această implementare, pentru că, din păcate, România și Bulgaria de mai bine de 11 ani, sunt blocate în Consiliul Uniunii Europene pe nedrept. Vlad Gheorghe (Renew). – Doamna președintă, am votat astăzi pentru ca Croația să intre în zona Schengen, pentru că croații, românii, bulgarii au dreptul și trebuie să intre în Schengen. Și nu știu dacă vă dați seama, dar avem această discuție despre granițe, despre ziduri, la 33 de ani după căderea Zidului Berlinului. Și trebuie să ne aducem aminte că timp de 50 de ani, jumătate din Europa a fost despărțită, jumătate din Europa a fost plină de granițe și de bariere. Și noi știm foarte bine, atât românii, cât și croații și bulgarii, cum a fost asta. Și cred că acum, în 2022, discutând despre granițe și bariere, ne facem de rușine. Pentru că Europa unită nu este o Europă cu granițe. Și am un singur mesaj pentru Consiliu și pentru cei care încă se mai opun la intrarea tuturor țărilor în zona Schengen: dărâmați acest zid acum! Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, I actually was a shadow on this file and I want to put on record that the messing that went on behind the scenes around this file makes it very, very hard for me to shake the feeling that Parliament has been steamrolled into this process, which has been riddled with procedural irregularities at every step of the way. The violence, the abuse, the lies from Croatia and the Commission – all of them have been swept under the rug. What we have is a few little gentle calls to deal with human rights, but let's be honest about this, both Croatia and the Commission have form in this regard. Both of them have brazenly lied about human rights violations. Both of them have showed zero interest in tackling them, in zero interest in accountability. For God's sake, Croatia even slandered the Committee for the Prevention of Torture after their monitoring visit and tried to suppress their report! And we think they're going to change their spots? I believe in free movement for everybody, but I also believe in human rights and accountability, and until we have that I had to vote against this file. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, подкрепих този доклад не само защото Хърватска е изпълнила всички условия и заслужава да бъде част от Шенгенското пространство, а и защото искам да напомня на тези държави членки, които продължават да нарушават правилата. Абсолютно лицемерно, двулично и нередно е те да спират по свои икономически причини Румъния и България от членство в Шенгенското пространство, защото те нарушавали договорите. 11 години България и Румъния изпълняват категорично всички изисквания на Шенгенското пространство. Преди няколко дни български граничен полицай загина в престрелка на турската граница с турски контрабандисти, защитавайки тази зала тук. Преди два месеца други двама полицаи загинаха отново в преследване с контрабандисти и на хора и трафиканти на мигранти, но България и Румъния все още не са част от Шенгенското пространство. Защо? Защото държави като Холандия преследват своя личен интерес. Тук има лобисти на големите транспортни фирми, които натискат България и Румъния да не бъдат приети, за да може техните фирми да работят и техните фирми да печелят повече пари. Това е лицемерно. И това е двулично. Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu podpořil, protože jsem přesvědčen, že Chorvatsko patří do našeho schengenského prostoru. Nepochybně v každé zemi najdete v určité míře příklady porušování lidských práv. To se stalo a stává opravdu v každé zemi v různém rozsahu intenzity porušování. Ale jsem přesvědčen, že Chorvatsko splnilo základní podmínky, které přináší naše pravidla. Už v roce 2019 to bylo konstatováno Evropskou komisí. A také se těším na to, že ustanou ty příšerné fronty, které nás dělily od vstupu na chorvatské území. A myslím si, že to je dobrá zpráva pro evropskou rodinu, že se prostor svobody a práva rozšiřuje o další zemi. Chorvatsko je pro nás velmi důležitou zemí, která může daleko lépe chránit náš společný evropský prostor, naši vnější hranici. 7.5.   Rodullinen oikeudenmukaisuus, syrjimättömyys ja rasismintorjunta EU:ssa (A9-0254/2022 - Evin Incir) Mündliche Stimmerklärungen Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, I was really happy to support this report, its very strong language on the intersection between oppressions and the ethos that the fight against any racism is against all racism. In that regard, I find it very concerning that the communication on anti-Semitism last year from the Commission called on Member States to adopt the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism, a controversial and flawed document which has been criticised by hundreds of Palestinian academics and journalists because it allows for the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and is used to prevent Palestinians from speaking about their own oppression. As they say, the fight against anti-Semitism shouldn't be turned into a stratagem to delegitimise the fight against the oppression of Palestinians, the denial of their rights and the continued occupation of their lands. Our report rightly calls for zero tolerance for EU support for projects inside or outside the EU that directly or indirectly promote xenophobic or racist views. Therefore, I call on the Commission to recognise the consensus that exists, that Israel's treatment of Palestinians meets the definition in international law of the crime of apartheid, and therefore to review Israeli participation in EU programmes and EU support for projects that might give rise to complicity in Israel's apartheid regime. Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, за разлика от колегата, гласувах абсолютно убедено против този доклад, защото този доклад не е нищо друго, освен едно лицемерно, едно двулично измъкване и закачане на една значка. Когато тази зала разбира и вижда, че в Битоля, в Охрид се развива истински расизъм, истинска ксенофобия, истинска омраза на основата на националния произход на местните българи там, тази зала мълчи и се прави, че не е чула, не е видяла и нито лук е яла, нито лук е мирисала. Това е нередно. Това е двулично. Това е абсолютно лицемерно. Когато сръбските власти спират отбелязването на Деня на Западните покрайнини и продължават тяхната незаконната окупация, ние пишем и казваме: ”Хора, това е истински расизъм, това е истинска ксенофобия”, а някой си там прави някакви измислени декларацийки, за да му е чиста съвестта и да се направи на повече, повече и повече човеколюбив от останалите. Колегата каза преди малко, че не може да има избиране кой расизъм е по-лош, кой е по-добър. Или осъждаш проявата на такива действия или не осъждаш. Не може да се правиш на сляп с едното око, не можеш да не видиш неща, които се случват под носа ти в държава, която иска да бъде кандидат за член на ЕС. Това е просто позор. Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu z vlastního podnětu podpořil. Jsem přesvědčen, že jakákoli rasová diskriminace je v Evropské unii nepřijatelná. Je nepřijatelná kdekoli od úrovně státu počínaje přes diskriminaci z důvodu rasy na pracovišti. Je nepřijatelná samozřejmě i v soukromí, v médiích, kdekoli. Jsem překvapen růstem např. antisemitismu v rámci Evropské unie. Myslím, že je to velmi alarmující. My máme zakotveno jako základní pravidlo v našich základních dokumentech rovnost před právem, před zákonem a je důležité, aby rasová diskriminace byla považována za jednu z těch nejohavnějších diskriminací, která může existovat. Nechci je srovnávat, ale opravdu pokud je někdo posuzován předpojatě jenom podle toho, jaké je barvy pleti, tak je to ohavné. A jsem rád, že jsme se zaměřili na podporu organizací, které tuto rasovou diskriminaci potírají, samozřejmě na akční plány v jednotlivých státech, které mají proti rasové diskriminaci být přijaty. Toto všechno jsem rád podpořil. Die Präsidentin. – Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen. 8.   Tämän istuntojakson pöytäkirjojen hyväksyminen ja hyväksyttyjen tekstien edelleen välittäminen Die Präsidentin. – Wir kommen nun zum Ende unserer Sitzung. Die Protokolle der heutigen Sitzung und der gestrigen Sitzung werden dem Parlament zum Beginn der nächsten Sitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt. Wenn es keine Einwände gibt, werde ich die in der heutigen Sitzung angenommenen Entschließungen den in diesen Entschließungen genannten Personen und Gremien übermitteln. 9.   Seuraavien istuntojen aikataulu Die Präsidentin. – Die nächste Tagung findet vom 21. bis 24. November 2022 in Straßburg statt. 10.   Istunnon päättäminen (Die Sitzung wird um 11.57 Uhr geschlossen) 11.   Istuntokauden keskeyttäminen Die Präsidentin. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.