Verbatim report of proceedings of 22 October 2020
Date: 2020-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202404897EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














9.8.2024







            22 October 2020
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 22 OCTOBER 2020
            
         
(C/2024/4897)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
3










2.

Announcement of voting results
3










3.

Request for waiver of immunity: see Minutes
3










4.

First voting session
3










5.

Gender Equality in the EU's foreign and security policy (debate)
4










6.

Serious security threats through the sale of EU passports and visas to criminals (debate)
13










7.

State of the Energy Union (debate)
23










8.

Aligning the Energy Charta Treaty with the European Green Deal (debate)
33










9.

Sakharov Prize 2020 (announcement of the winner)
37










10.

Aligning the Energy Charta Treaty with the European Green Deal (continuation of debate)
38










11.

Resumption of the sitting
41










12.

Announcement of voting results: see Minutes
41










13.

Resumption of the sitting
41










14.

Second voting session
41










15.

Resumption of the sitting
41










16.

Announcement of voting results: see Minutes
41










17.

Resumption of the sitting
41










18.

Third voting session
42










19.

Explanations of vote: see Minutes
42










20.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
42










21.

Petitions: see Minutes
42










22.

Consent Procedure (Rule 105): see Minutes
42










23.

Decision to draw up own-initiative reports: see Minutes
42










24.

Associated committees (Rule 57): see Minutes
42










25.

Change to the title of own-initiative reports: see Minutes
42










26.

Documents received: see Minutes
42










27.

Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
42










28.

Closure of the sitting
42




Verbatim report of proceedings of 22 October 2020
                  


PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: MARCEL KOLAJA


místopředseda

1.   Opening of the sitting

(The sitting opened at 09.00)

2.   Announcement of voting results

(For the results of the vote: see Minutes)


President. –
(addressing Lefteris Christoforou) There has been a request for a point of order. However, the President announced at the opening of the part-session that no points of order are allowed.
3.   Request for waiver of immunity: see Minutes
4.   First voting session

President. – Before opening the first voting session of the day, I would like, pursuant to Rule 59(4), to give the floor to Mr Peter Jahr on the referral back to committee for interinstitutional negotiations of his report on Common agricultural policy – support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States and financed by the EAGF and by the EAFRD.
I will also give the floor to Ms Ulrike Müller on the referral back to committee of her report on Common agricultural policy: financing, management and monitoring.
I will also give the floor to Mr Norbert Lins, Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the referral back to committee of the Andrieu report on Common agricultural policy – amendment of the CMO and other Regulations.

Peter Jahr,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident! Guten Morgen, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Herr Präsident, Sie haben es so wunderbar formuliert, ich könnte fast sagen, ich schließe mich Ihren Ausführungen an, aber ich möchte es trotzdem nochmal offiziell machen: Ich beantrage auf Basis des Artikels 59.4 Absatz 4 der Geschäftsordnung die Zurückweisung des folgenden Berichts an den Agrarausschuss für den Start interinstitutioneller Verhandlungen. Und zwar geht es hier um den Bericht ‘Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik: Unterstützung der von den Mitgliedstaaten zu erstellenden und durch den EGFL und den ELER zu finanzierenden Strategiepläne’, das ist der Bericht von Peter Jahr A8-0200/2019. Ich wäre Ihnen sehr dankbar, wenn Sie sicherstellen könnten, dass das Parlament nach Annahme der betreffenden Gesetzgebungsakte eine Entscheidung zur oben genannten Überweisung trifft.
               

Ulrike Müller,
Berichterstatterin. – Herr Präsident! Ich beantrage auf Basis des Artikels 59.4 Absatz 4 der Geschäftsordnung die Zurückweisung des folgenden Berichtes an den Agrarausschuss für den Start der interinstitutionellen Verhandlungen: ‘Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik: Finanzierung, Verwaltung und Überwachung’, Bericht Ulrike Müller mit dem Zeichen A8-0199/2019, und ich wäre Ihnen sehr dankbar, wenn Sie sicherstellen können, dass das Parlament nach der Annahme der betreffenden Gesetzgebungsakte die Entscheidungen über die genannte Überweisung an den Ausschuss trifft.
               

Norbert Lins,
Vorsitzender des AGRI-Ausschusses. – Herr Präsident! Ich beantrage auf Basis des Artikels 59.4 Absatz 4 der Geschäftsordnung die Zurückweisung des folgenden Berichts an den Agrarausschuss für den Start der interinstitutionellen Verhandlungen: ‘Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik: Änderungen der GMO-Verordnung und weiterer Verordnungen’, Bericht Eric Andrieu mit der Nummer A8-0198/2019. Ich wäre Ihnen ebenfalls dankbar, wenn Sie sicherstellen könnten, dass das Parlament nach Annahme der betreffenden Gesetzgebungsakte eine Entscheidung über die oben genannte Überweisung an den Ausschuss treffen könnte.
               

President. – This request will be put to the vote tomorrow, after the votes on the Commission's proposals.
I will now move to the first voting session of the day. We will vote on the files as indicated on the agenda. The voting session will be open from 9.15 a.m. until 10.30 a.m. The same voting method will be used as during the previous voting sessions. All votes will be held by roll-call.
I declare the first voting session open. You have until 10.30 a.m. to vote. The results of the first voting session will be announced at 1 p.m.
5.   Gender Equality in the EU's foreign and security policy (debate)

President. – The next item is the report by Ernest Urtasun, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on Gender Equality in EU's foreign and security policy (2019/2167(INI)) (A9-0145/2020).
I would like to inform Members that for all debates of this part-session, there will be no catch-the-eye procedure and that no blue cards and points of order will be accepted. Furthermore, possible remote interventions from Parliament's Liaison Offices in the Member States are foreseen.

Ernest Urtasun,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I'm very pleased to be presenting today, with my dear colleague Hannah Neumann, the first ever European Parliament report outlining all the political, institutional and funding aspects needed for the achievement of gender equality in EU foreign and security policy.
In light of the current global challenges, like the climate emergency and growing trends towards authoritarianism, where women and girls are the most impacted, the need for a gender-based EU foreign and security policy becomes more urgent than ever. Following the example of a number of countries, we want the EU and its institutions to follow a similar path. The EU has taken already some important steps in this direction, like the Gender Action Plans I and II or the women, peace and security agenda. However their implementation still displays a number of shortcomings.
In the report we present several recommendations to be considered in the upcoming new Gender Action Plan 2021-25 that will be published shortly. Starting with political representation and participation in decision-making processes, we ask for a gender quota of 50% at all levels of the Commission and EEAS management by 2024, including heads of delegation and heads of CSDP missions. Mandatory training courses on gender equality, with special attention to middle and upper managers of the EEAS and heads of CSDP missions and operations, should also be introduced.
More resources need to be assigned to the EEAS Principal Advisor on Gender to continue and reinforce her work. Therefore, we call on the High Representative to continue his efforts in this area by appointing a full-time gender adviser in each EEAS directorate and to establish gender focal points in all EU delegations. We also need to increase the efficient use of existing and future EU resources through gender responsive budgeting.
As we negotiate at the moment the proposed neighbourhood development and international cooperation instrument we should make gender mainstreaming and targeted actions clear objectives under that regulation and ensure that partners can count on sufficient political and financial support to implement it.
At the same time the EU needs to dedicate efforts to monitor the backlash against gender equality and LGBTIQ+ rights in the world, promote the human rights of women and protect women human rights defenders. In particular, sexual and reproductive health and rights are being threatened inside the EU but also outside; particularly, in crisis zones, women and girls are exposed to sexual violence, sexually transmitted diseases, sexual exploitation and rape as a weapon of war. Therefore, we call on the EU and its Member States to take steps to protect women and their sexual rights in their humanitarian aid response, as well as access to justice.
The year 2020 marks the anniversary of several key events: the 20th anniversary of the UN Security Council resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, the 14th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration on women's rights. The EU's role has been crucial in advancing on all these milestones, but it needs to stand out now in its commitment to make gender equality a priority in its foreign and security policy. I hope this report will contribute to achieving this goal and I would like to thank all the colleagues, also some of them present here in the room, for their support and their cooperation in achieving that draft report.

Hannah Neumann,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – Mr President, when Operation Sophia, the one that was actually still allowed to do search and rescue in the Mediterranean, was launched in 2015, there were long discussions about the operation plans because it was different, a new mission. Most of the discussion was about what kind of weapons this mission would need to overpower people on the boats and what kind of specific training to do that. At some point, it was a woman who asked about sanitary napkins and diapers because there would be women and small children on the boats and they would be on the ships with us for quite some days. In the end, the sanitary napkins and the diapers were used much more than the weapons.
This example just shows how more diversity leads to better decisions and, yes, sometimes it is that stereotypical. The same is true when we speak about peace negotiations because peace deals last longer if women are involved, because societies are more peaceful if they are gender equal, but still to this day negotiation tables and the whole field of peace and security is a male domain. I can't even remember how many rooms I walked into in the last 15 years where I was the only woman, either being ignored or stared at curiously.
That's why we dedicated large parts of this report to our own EU institutions and our own EU budget because there we actually have 100% of the power to change it and no excuses. That's why we ask for 50% of women in CSDP missions in our own services. That's why we want a specific part of the foreign budget to go into projects that empower women and girls to claim their spot because they know how it works.
There was an amazing spirit during our negotiations in the committee because I think we all agree that we want an EU foreign policy that is for everybody. But now it's time to change the reality out there and to really speed things up on women, peace and security. That's why, Ms Urpilainen, but also Mr Borrell and the whole Commission, you had better come up with an ambitious gender action plan towards the end of this year.

Jutta Urpilainen,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the debate on the participation and role of women in foreign and security policy is relevant at any moment and one I'm very attached to. I fully agree with your report on the necessity to accelerate our ongoing work on gender equality and women's rights.
First, the COVID-19 context – now more than ever – requires a response at the global scale which fully integrates a gender perspective in all our analyses and responses to the pandemic and in the recovery phase. The EU has been frontloading actions to support women and girls in the crisis, notably through the EU-UN Spotlight Initiative. Under this initiative, we were able to adopt priority actions on the elimination of all forms of gender-based violence as urgent needs. We prioritised helplines and shelters for victims of domestic violence and frontline support for women's grass roots organisations. We must transform this into an opportunity to review and accelerate our engagement to promote gender equality within the EU and around the world.
Second, I welcome your call for robust implementation of the EU Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. The EU is at the forefront of the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Allow me to highlight the importance of holding this discussion today a few days before the 20th anniversary of the adoption of this milestone transformative document. In this context, I fully – I fully – share your view on the importance of the gender advisers and we have already paved new ground through the establishment of posts for gender advisers and the creation of the gender focal points networks in military and civilian operations and missions of our common security and defence policy.
Finally, I am very glad to confirm that I will present with the High Representative in November a new EU Gender Action Plan (GAP) III. It will enable us to reaffirm gender equality and women's and girls' empowerment as a core priority of all EU External Action. GAP III takes the thread from the recent EU Gender Equality Strategy and is the first such EU policy framework on gender equality externally. It draws from the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on building back better from the crisis by addressing structural inequalities. It will integrate the Women, Peace and Security Agenda, as called for in your report. It will also expand action in key areas of engagement, addressing new challenges and opportunities in line with the Commission's political priorities, such as ensuring a fair and inclusive green transition and managing the digital transformation.
Last, but not least, it will very much – very much – draw on your recommendations regarding the need for the EU and its staff to set the example on gender equality and to promote gender-responsive leadership in achieving this.
Mr President, the EU must continue to reaffirm that women's rights are human rights. The ambition is there for a gender-sensitive and responsive geopolitical Commission and I thank this House for its support. I'm looking forward to our discussion.

(Applause)


Frances Fitzgerald,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, women's rights are human rights, indeed. It is critical that foreign policy, security and defence, peacebuilding, reconciliation and justice are viewed as domains where women's contributions are central. These areas can never again be seen solely through a male lens.
This report is yet another critical step and must be implemented. Women have always been affected by war and peace, as confidants, as victims and as the hidden advisors behind the men at the table: wives, daughters, sisters, soldiers and simply those experiencing the frontline. Whether we are speaking about the women in Rwanda, whether we are talking about Kurdish women, or indeed the women of Northern Ireland who came together to say ‘enough’, and who contributed hugely to, and guided, the peace process towards the Good Friday Agreement.
Foreign policy more and more – increasingly, but not enough – is guided by strong, brave and ambitious women. It is a statement of fact that women need to be involved, as strongly endorsed by the UN 20 years ago next week with the adoption of the Security Council resolution. I am very proud that Ireland's recent campaign for membership of the Security Council placed the advancement of the ideals in the resolution on women, peace and security at its core, recognising that building lasting peace is not possible without building a more equal and inclusive society.
That's what this report is about. Let's make sure that gender equality applies in these arenas with a critical mass of women. Let us take advantage of women's unique perspective and ensure the barriers that continue to keep women excluded from political decision-making fora are urgently removed. Let's act together here in the EU institutions to ensure that.

Alessandra Moretti,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, diciamo spesso che la questione di genere deve attraversare tutte le politiche europee, la Commissione con la sua Presidente l'ha dichiarata tra le sfide più importanti e noi parlamentari attraverso il gender mainstreaming network ci siamo detti pronti a perseguire questa strada e a chiedere le risorse necessarie per realizzare questo obiettivo.
               

                  Votando questa relazione possiamo finalmente muovere un passo concreto verso una politica che sia comprensiva dei bisogni, ma soprattutto delle risorse che le donne possono mettere in campo. Le donne sono un valore imprescindibile per la crescita e lo sviluppo della nostra società. La nostra azione deve essere uno strumento per garantire i diritti umani, compresi i diritti delle donne e delle ragazze, che sono i primi ad essere sacrificati. L'accesso ai servizi sanitari sessuali e riproduttivi è una precondizione per l'uguaglianza di genere e quindi per il progresso e il benessere.
               

                  E il cambiamento climatico è spesso la causa dell'erosione di questi diritti. Persistono stereotipi di genere che spingono le donne a migrare rischiando violenza, sfruttamento e traffico di esseri umani. Come si può quindi parlare di politica estera ambientale, di migrazioni, senza tener conto dell'uguaglianza di genere?
               

                  Ringrazio il relatore e tutti coloro che hanno collaborato alla stesura di un testo progressista, che guarda finalmente alle donne come agenti di cambiamento e non come vittime, che studia la questione di politica estera senza limitarsi ad una piatta descrizione dello status quo, ma che mette al centro le persone di qualsiasi genere, provenienza ed età.
               

Samira Rafaela,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, freedom, peace and stability are too valuable to leave in the hands of men alone.
Women make up half of our society. Their participation in foreign and security policy is not only a matter of representation, it is also vital for sustainable peace. Unfortunately, the idea of a gender sensitive and inclusive foreign and security policy is not engrained in our societies.
Worse yet, our very own EU institutions lack in this. I am astonished to learn that we have still not progressed on this. Our gender action plan is not implemented properly. We have a lack of gender responsive budgeting, and no gender sensitive institutional structure to reach these critical goals. How is it possible that men still hold 87% of senior management posts in the European External Action Service? We should be embarrassed, and as the EU we lose credibility as proponents of equal rights for men and women in Europe and abroad.
I have said this before and I will say this again: walk the talk.
That is why we as the EU Parliament call for corrective measures. We want binding political commitments for a target of 50% of women in management positions, including heads of delegation and in our common security and defence policy missions and operations.
Let me remind you, 2020 marks important anniversaries of the Beijing Declaration and the UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. This UN resolution stresses the importance of women's equal participation in the maintenance and promotion of peace and security around the globe. They know what is necessary for their own security and safety. These vital conditions contribute to an inclusive and sustainable future for all of us.
As we look for alliances in the region, and internationally, it is important that our institutions at home reflect our vision for abroad, where we reach out to women who have been left behind. The future will challenge us in new and unpredictable ways and it is important we adapt to this. I urge Member States in the EU to adopt a feminist foreign and security policy, leaving no one behind, as we strive for common peace and security at home and abroad.
Striving for equal representation means sustainable peace and security for everyone.

Guido Reil,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es geht heute um den Bericht zur Gleichstellung von Männern und Frauen im Rahmen der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik. Also diese Überschrift halte ich schon für einen Skandal, denn wir sprechen von Männern und Frauen und haben dabei die Diversen vergessen – also das ist politisch völlig unkorrekt! Gott sei Dank habe ich dann festgestellt, als ich den Bericht intensiv gelesen habe, dass natürlich die diversen Geschlechter und sexuellen Ausrichtungen eine ganz entscheidende Rolle spielen. Wie sollte die Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik denn auch sonst klarkommen, es ist ja selbstverständlich. Außerdem betont dieser Bericht, dass wir eine feministische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik brauchen. Außerdem ist natürlich ganz wichtig, dass wir eine geschlechterspezifische Asyl- und Migrationspolitik fahren.
               

                  Und selbstverständlich stellen wir uns auch wieder dem Endgegner – dem Klimawandel. Wir lernen, dass der Klimawandel besonders frauenfeindlich ist, denn er macht besonders Frauen und Mädchen Probleme. Wenn ich mir jetzt die Aktivistinnen von Fridays for Future ansehe, dann muss ich diesen Eindruck tatsächlich gewinnen, es sind tatsächlich viele Mädchen aktiv, die in der Regel aus sehr gutem Haus kommen, die reich sind, wie zum Beispiel die Sprösslinge der Reedereifamilie Reemtsma.
               

                  Aber nachvollziehen kann ich das nicht. Warum gerade sind Mädchen und warum gerade sind reiche Mädchen so betroffen? Und gerade vom Klimawandel? Ich habe im Lauf meines Lebens viele Frauen kennengelernt, die allermeisten von ihnen haben es gerne warm, weil Frauen frieren. Erlauben Sie mir diesen kleinen Spaß, denn ich kann den ganzen Wahnsinn schlecht ertragen. Es geht hier einzig und allein darum, gut bezahlte Stellen zu schaffen für Frauen und für Diverse. Stellen, die die Allgemeinheit bezahlen muss, und damit muss endlich Schluss sein! Schluss mit diesem ideologischen Wahnsinn!
               

Charlie Weimers,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, we used to think that sex should not be an obstacle, nor a factor, in recruitment. Not anymore. This report on gender in foreign policy obsesses over individuals' sex. It calls for binding quotas for management positions, it references gender mainstreaming, also known as radical feminism, 24 times, and intersectional analysis, a.k.a. Balkanisation, seven times. It calls for increased funding and staff to implement gender ideology, with a full-time gender adviser in each EEAS Directorate. I suppose the title ‘political gender commissar’ was already taken.
The irony is, of course, that you can't have your woke, gender mainstreaming cake and eat it too. What's the point of quotas anyway if gender is a fluid concept? If you, like I do, believe that merit, not identity politics, should be at the heart of recruitment policy, then vote against this report.

Έλενα Κουντουρά,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, πρώτα απ' όλα θέλω να ευχαριστήσω τον εισηγητή για την εξαιρετική δουλειά και τους συναδέλφους για την εξαιρετική συνεργασία. Η σημερινή ψηφοφορία επί της έκθεσης αυτής για την προώθηση της ισότητας των φύλων στην εξωτερική πολιτική και την πολιτική ασφάλειας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης συμπίπτει με την 20ή επέτειο της ιστορικής υιοθέτησης του ψηφίσματος 1325 των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τις γυναίκες, την ειρήνη και την ασφάλεια. Είκοσι χρόνια μετά, παρά την πρόοδο που έχει επιτευχθεί, οι γυναίκες εξακολουθούν να υφίστανται σημαντικές ανισότητες και αδικίες. Συνεχίζουν να υποεκπροσωπούνται στην εξωτερική πολιτική, ιδιαίτερα στις θέσεις ευθύνης και στα κέντρα λήψης αποφάσεων, και αποδυναμώνεται έτσι η ικανότητά μας να εξασφαλίσουμε βιώσιμη ειρήνη και να οικοδομήσουμε ανθεκτικότερες κοινωνίες.
               

                  Αυτή η προοδευτική έκθεση θα είναι η απάντηση που δίνουμε ως Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο για την προώθηση της ισότητας στην ευρωπαϊκή εξωτερική πολιτική, ενισχύοντας την ίση εκπροσώπηση, την προάσπιση των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών και την εξασφάλιση επαρκών χρηματοδοτικών πόρων γι' αυτόν τον σκοπό. Ενσωματώνοντας τη διάσταση του φύλου στη μεταναστευτική και εμπορική πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, καταπολεμώντας το trafficking, που πλήττει ιδιαίτερα τις γυναίκες και τα παιδιά, διασφαλίζοντας τη διαρκή συνεργασία και την πραγματική στήριξη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης σε οργανώσεις γυναικών και υπερασπιστές ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, υποστηρίζοντας ενεργά τη σεξουαλική και αναπαραγωγική υγεία σε τρίτες χώρες, προωθώντας την ενεργή συμμετοχή των γυναικών στις ειρηνευτικές διαδικασίες και βελτιώνοντας το πλαίσιο στήριξης των γυναικών στο νέο σχέδιο δράσης για την ισότητα GAP III. Για εμάς αυτά δεν αποτελούν απλώς ζητήματα δικαιοσύνης, αλλά καθοριστικούς παράγοντες για έναν κόσμο με περισσότερη ασφάλεια, αλληλεγγύη και δημοκρατία.
               

Pernille Weiss (PPE). – Mr President, ‘what people have the capacity to choose, they have the ability to change.’
               
Sådan har USA's tidligere udenrigsminister Madeleine Albright sagt. Det er faktisk rigtig tydeligt at høre, at hun er europæer. Sådan kan vi derfor også, i Europa-Parlamentet, vælge at gøre det, vi ikke kan eller ikke må acceptere, at andre skal acceptere. Derfor stemmer EPP naturligvis for, at EU skal steppe op for mere fokus på ligestilling i vores udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik. I vores egne institutioner og ikke mindst i måden, vi engagerer os i verden på.
Derfor har jeg som skyggeordfører lagt vægt på de værktøjer, der virker og skaber forandring. For mig, og for EPP, er viljen til og kravet om ligestilling naturligt og ufravigeligt. Det er hævet over køn og mange andre mere eller mindre moderne identitetskategorier og politisk korrekt sprogbrug. Derfor er det egentlig også forkert, at en ligestillingsorienteret sikkerheds- og udenrigspolitik måske i fremtiden skal kaldes ‘feministisk’. Lige præcis den del af betænkningen, som vi skal stemme om, er jeg ikke enig i, men jeg vil dog gerne kvittere varmt for et anerkendende og konstruktivt samarbejde med ordfører Urtasun. Vi er blevet enige om det meste, og resten lever vi med i respekt for den demokratiske kultur, som vi netop gerne vil udtrykke tydeligere gennem EU's fremtidige forsvars- og sikkerhedspolitik. Nemlig, at uanset køn og alt muligt andet, så gælder reglen: lige adgang, lige muligheder, lige rettigheder og lige behandling. Og må jeg ikke have lov at slutte med, at Madeleine Albrigt også har sagt og er mest kendt for at sige:

                  ‘there is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women’.
Jeg skal ikke stå her og true af nogen som helst, heller ikke af mændene, men jeg håber, at alle stemmer for betænkningen.

Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Mr President, since this great report stresses that EU foreign and security policy is dominated by men, it's crucial to engage them – us – in gender equality activities. Boys and men have a special role to play in promoting the empowerment of girls and women. Why? Because we men still – unfairly, of course – keep the power and so hold the key to solving the problem. Achieving gender equality is not possible without the inclusion and active involvement of men and boys in the process of making progress on gender equality. Men and boys must be invited to participate and contribute actively in promoting health and gender norms. Some might ask ‘why?’ Because besides bringing equality, it improves the health of families and economic well-being.
Let me stress the words my colleague Madeleine Albright just said (and I paraphrase): there is a special place in hell for men who don't help women.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ


Αντιπρόεδρος


Virginie Joron (ID). – Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, je souhaitais féliciter le personnel de Strasbourg et de Bruxelles qui a pu organiser dans de parfaites conditions une plénière à distance.
                  

                     Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, je voudrais commencer par rendre hommage à Samuel Paty, décapité parce qu'il voulait enseigner la liberté d'expression, en 2020, en France. Le meilleur hommage que nous puissions rendre à lui et à tous ceux qui sont morts de terrorisme islamiste, c'est de combattre et d'éradiquer l'islamisme.
                  

                     Le débat d'aujourd'hui porte sur l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes dans la politique étrangère de l'Union européenne. L'Union européenne étant si désireuse de toujours montrer l'exemple, il est légitime de se demander quel exemple l'Europe et la France donnent réellement au reste du monde. Est-ce avec Axelle, percutée et traînée sur 800 mètres par un jeune alors qu'elle promenait son chien? Est-ce avec Mya, rouée de coups par trois jeunes? Avec C., 15 ans, violée, étranglée et brûlée par un violeur multirécidiviste alors qu'elle allait chercher un colis? Ou encore Mila, harcelée et menacée de mort? Ces barbaries prennent de l'ampleur au même rythme que l'arrivée de migrants à Lesbos ou à Lampedusa. Tout aussi nombreux sont les mariages forcés ou précoces, l'excision et les certificats de virginité pour les femmes. Des pratiques obscures arrivées récemment avec ces vagues migratoires qui se fichent pas mal de vos rapports de 40 pages sur l'égalité pour accéder à des conseils d'administration.
                  

                     Au lieu de laisser l'Union européenne s'impliquer dans les questions de politique étrangère, je pense que l'Europe doit d'abord mettre de l'ordre dans sa propre maison et protéger toutes ses filles avant de vouloir imposer son idéologie égalitariste à l'autre bout du monde.
                  

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR). – Señor presidente, la ideología de género supone un asalto a la cordura, un virus que pretende meterse en todos los ámbitos, infectando las leyes y las instituciones, desconfigurando la propia realidad y creando una cultura victimista sin sentido ni esperanza, como ocurre en este informe, que mezcla temas muy importantes y serios, como aspectos que afectan a los derechos humanos —la trata de esclavas sexuales, la mutilación genital femenina, el matrimonio de niñas—, con teorías de género al servicio de otros intereses de poder, manipulando las conciencias, y se presenta como un lobo con piel de cordero.
                  

                     De esta manera, en vez de inspirar, exportamos fuera de nuestras fronteras filosofías y modelos que enfrentan y polarizan las relaciones entre hombres y mujeres, provocando conflicto, odio y resentimiento. Solo ofrecemos el aborto como fuente de progreso.
                  

                     Deseamos que nuestra política exterior y de seguridad sea reflejo de los principios y valores que dieron origen al proyecto europeo, sin caer en falsas teorías de moda que nublan la conciencia humana, impidiendo a una cultura liberar su mejor expresión.
                  

Πρόεδρος. – Όπως βλέπετε, συνεχίζεται με πολύ μεγάλη επιτυχία η καινοτομία αυτής της ολομέλειας: να υπάρχει το δικαίωμα των συναδέλφων να μιλούν εξ αποστάσεως. Νομίζω ότι αυτό πρέπει να το πιστώσουμε στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, που συνδυάζει την ασφάλεια στο πλαίσιο της πανδημίας με την ομαλή λειτουργία του θεσμού της κοινοβουλευτικής δημοκρατίας που λέγεται Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο.
                  

Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D). – Señor presidente, la importancia de este informe sobre la igualdad de género en la política exterior y de seguridad de la Unión Europea, por el que felicito a Ernest Urtasun, radica principalmente en tres cuestiones.
                  

                     Primera, se sigue manteniendo una infrarrepresentación de mujeres en los puestos de representación y de gestión de la política exterior comunitaria.
                  

                     Segunda, la socialización diferenciada, la vinculación histórica del movimiento feminista con el movimiento pacifista ha hecho siempre que la participación de las mujeres en la resolución de conflictos haya estado más vinculada a la vida, más vinculada a la paz. Por tanto, es necesaria esa visión diferenciada.
                  

                     Y tercera, porque esos conflictos nos afectan de manera desigual a las mujeres, y es necesario que se oiga nuestra voz.
                  

                     Este día coincide con el 20 aniversario de la Resolución 1325 de las Naciones Unidas sobre mujeres, paz y seguridad. Y veinte años después, si miramos a lo que está ocurriendo en Bielorrusia, constatamos que las mujeres seguimos afrontando la resolución de los conflictos de una manera diferenciada, muchísimo más pacifista, encarnando los valores de democracia y concordia que queremos que sigan siendo los valores que representan a la Unión Europea.
                  

                     Por tanto, es muy necesario que avancemos precisamente en la inclusión de la igualdad de género en nuestra política exterior.
                  

Elżbieta Kruk (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Deklarowanym celem niniejszego sprawozdania jest zwiększenie udziału kobiet w europejskiej polityce zagranicznej, która – przypominam – jest i powinna być kompetencją państw członkowskich.
                  

                     Analiza treści sprawozdania wskazuje, że jest ono w istocie wyrazem ideologii nieustannego dzielenia ludzi, która nakazuje szeregowanie ich według kryteriów płciowych, rasowych i, Bóg raczy wiedzieć, jakich jeszcze.
                  

                     Stosuje się tu tzw. dyskryminację pozytywną wymyśloną na potrzeby lewackiego feminizmu i nakazującą faworyzowanie jednej płci kosztem drugiej. Tymczasem już samo deklarowanie, że jakąś rolę odgrywa kryterium płci jest dyskryminacją w czystej postaci.
                  

                     A istotne jest po prostu, by wszystkie osoby miały te same szanse. Kompetentne osoby powinny znajdować się we właściwym miejscu ze względu na swoje predyspozycje. Należy zwrócić uwagę, iż faworyzowanie danej grupy nie tylko obniża stopień motywacji, ale też umniejsza jej wartość i kłóci się z elementarnym poczuciem równości i sprawiedliwości.
                  

                     Myślę, że ta udawana troska o kobiety ma zakryć fakt, że wszystkie te starania o równouprawnienie są tylko grą o władzę, którą lewica uprawia na zasadzie ‘dziel i rządź’.
                  

Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, dnes máme diskusiu o zahraničnej politike a treba povedať, že postavenie žien v zahraničnej politike v európskych inštitúciách je vcelku úspešným príbehom. Áno, vždy je čo zlepšovať, ale aj v samotnom Európskom parlamente zohrávajú v našich vonkajších vzťahoch silnú úlohu ženy vo vedení delegácií či samotného Parlamentu.
                  

                     Problém rodovej rovnosti v európskej zahraničnej politike je inde. Vo viacerých členských krajinách vrátane regiónu strednej Európy a mojej vlastnej krajiny, Slovenska. Ak chceme skutočne meniť postavenie žien v európskej zahraničnej politike, zmeny musia prísť hlavne v tých častiach Európy, kde rodová rovnosť zďaleka nefunguje tak ako v bruselských inštitúciách. V zahraničnej politike potrebujeme silné vzory, ktoré budú motivovať v práci na rodovej rovnosti.
                  

                     Kedy ste naposledy počuli o šéfke diplomacie v krajinách Vyšehradskej štvorky? Ak vás žiadne meno nenapadá, nie je to náhoda. O to viac dnes dievčatá a mladé ženy v strednej Európe môže motivovať úspešný príbeh slovenskej prezidentky Zuzany Čaputovej.
                  

                     Úspešná rodová rovnosť však nemôže stáť len na inšpiratívnych príbehoch a priaznivých okolnostiach. Je a musí byť o praktických opatreniach, ktoré podporia fungovanie rodinného života či predškolskú starostlivosť o deti tak, aby generácia mojej dcéry mala rovnocennú nádej postaviť sa na čelo diplomacie v strednej Európe, aby debata o rodovej rovnosti v európskej zahraničnej politike mala silný praktický základ naprieč členskými krajinami.
                  

Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Herr talman! Tack, kommissionär Urpilainen, för en väldigt progressiv inledning. 2020 skulle bli ett superår för jämställdheten. Det är 25 år sedan Pekingdeklarationen och det är 20 år sedan FN:s säkerhetsråd antog resolutionen om kvinnor och säkerhet. Men i stället för ett starkt år för jämställdheten så har vi fått en pandemi som flyttar fokus, samtidigt som kvinnors och flickors mänskliga rättigheter påverkas hårt. Det gäller inte minst tillgången till sexuell och reproduktiv hälsa och rättigheter.
                  

                     Det är hög tid att vi ställer om. EU behöver säkerställa ett jämställdhetsperspektiv på alla områden. Jag vill se ett slut på diskrimineringen av kvinnor och flickor världen över. Mitt land, Sverige, och min regering har haft en feministisk utrikespolitik sedan 2014 och nu, nu är det EU:s tur.
                  

Antonius Manders (PPE). – Voorzitter, gelijke behandeling begint bij jezelf. Dat heeft te maken met de vrijheid die wij hebben in onze cultuur en met opvoeding en beschaving. Ik steun dus van harte deze resolutie en ik merk dat het nodig is dat er aandacht komt voor gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen, want in de praktijk blijkt dat er buiten Europa, maar ook nog binnen Europa nog steeds geen gelijke behandeling is.
                  

                     Ik roep iedereen op die discriminatie van vrouwen of mannen of welke andere discriminatie ook constateert, die ook direct te melden bij de verantwoordelijke organisaties. En eventueel, als die organisaties niet willen optreden, aan de media, om voldoende druk te creëren om die discriminatie op te heffen.
                  

                     In dit geval wil ik aandacht vragen voor een vorm van discriminatie die ik heb geconstateerd bij een van de grootste organisaties van de wellicht grootste bijzaak van deze wereld, namelijk voetbal, de UEFA en de FIFA. Als ik Champions Leaguevoetbalwedstrijden zie, dan zie ik de Europese vlag. Vervolgens kijk ik in het reglement van de FIFA. En daar wordt gewoon knalhard het vrouwenvoetbal gediscrimineerd! Het staat letterlijk in artikel 20 van dat reglement. Ik heb de FIFA daarop aangeschreven. En wat blijkt? Ze geven antwoord en zeggen: meneer Manders, wij weten dat. Zij zeggen dus letterlijk: wij weten dat en we hebben een studiegroep ingericht om te kijken of we het moeten veranderen en om te zien of het ten gunste is van het vrouwenvoetbal dat we die discriminatie opheffen!
                  

                     Ik roep de Commissie en alle leden op om hier iets aan te doen. Schrijf alsjeblieft een brief naar de FIFA dat ze artikel 20 aanpassen!
                  

Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Spoštovani predsednik! Danes govorimo o ženskah, o njihovi nepogrešljivi vlogi pri reševanjih sporov in gradnji miru. Razprava je zelo pomembna, da okrepimo enakost spolov v zunanji politiki, tudi v odzivanju na epidemijo s koronavirusom.
                  

                     Po svetu so ženske in deklice najbolj izpostavljene nasilju, zato mora Evropska unija narediti bistveno več. Pozivamo visokega predstavnika Unije, da vložimo več finančnih sredstev, da spodbujamo usposabljanje žensk, da se bodo v večji meri vključile v humanitarne situacije.
                  

                     Spol ne sme biti ovira. Ženske in deklice so namreč na kriznih območjih pogosto izpostavljene spolnemu nasilju, ki se uporablja tudi kot vojaška taktika. Ženske ne smejo biti več žrtve, mir traja veliko dlje, če so v mirovna pogajanja vključene tudi ženske. Danes pa jih sodeluje manj kot 10 %.
                  

                     Zagotovimo pariteto, zagotovimo jim pogoje, če smo res zagovorniki ženskih pravic v Evropi.
                  

                     Želimo zavezujoče ukrepe, letos obeležujemo obletnico iz Pekinga in resolucije Združenih narodov o pravicah žensk.
                  

Željana Zovko (PPE). – Mr President, women remain largely unrepresented and undervalued in politics and the decision-making process in the EU and beyond. Nonetheless, the European Union has committed to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to promote and achieve gender equality. This also counts for our foreign and security policy.
Aside from the aspect of equal representation, women's participation also has an added value. Studies show that our contribution to peace negotiations has led to long-lasting peace agreements and improved human security. We can see some progress as almost all EU delegations have carried out a detailed gender analysis and the number of women deployed to security and defence missions and operations has increased, but we are still far from reaching a real balance.
As the PPE shadow rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) opinion to this report, I welcome the guidelines on gender mainstreaming for EU civilian missions and call to extend this concept to all other relevant missions, departments and delegations related to our foreign policy. Only in this way can we fully promote recognition of the significant role women play at the local, national and international levels.
To conclude, I would like to call on the High Representative and the Commission to intensify their actions to reach our ambition of a gender balance by the end of the mandate. Gender mainstreaming requires not only high-level policy statements but also a real political commitment.

Jutta Urpilainen,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I want to thank Members for this very, very good and interesting discussion. Women's meaningful participation in all matters related to foreign and security policy has a wider relevance to the central role of the European Union in contributing to efforts to achieve peace, security and sustainable development. The action plan will enable us to walk that talk by putting resources where our priorities are, including by reiterating our commitment that 85% of all new EU actions promote gender equality as a significant or principal objective. I would also like to re-confirm that the Commission and the External Action Service attach great importance to ensuring equal opportunities and diversity of staff in management positions and we are already taking concrete steps to this end.
Within the Commission, the gender equality strategy adopted earlier this year gives concrete steps to reach 50-50 equal gender balance in management positions at the Commission. At the External Action Service, the work is jointly done with the Member States as, by nominating one third of the staff, they have a direct contribution to our objective. Today, men hold 66% of middle management positions and 74% of senior management posts, while almost 27% of the heads of delegations are women.
Although this is an improvement, I fully agree with the Members on the need to further promote gender balance in the EU's external representation and reach full equality. This will be addressed as part of the Gender Action Plan (GAP) III, and work is already ongoing to work towards a similar target as for the Commission.
Mr President, putting women and young people in the driving seat of the recovery: I strongly believe this will be the most effective way to collectively respond to the global challenges that we are facing worldwide at this very critical moment of our human history.

(Applause)


Ernest Urtasun,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to start by thanking everybody who contributed to our debate. I think that the debate showed that there is a broad majority in Parliament behind what we are going to adopt tomorrow, and this is extremely good news.
I would also like to thank the Commissioner for her words and for being with us. Hannah Neumann and I liked a lot her mention that she wants to build a gender-responsive and geopolitical Commission. We liked that approach a lot. I think this is one of the good conclusions of our debates.
But I think in general that we are all worried about the backlash on women's rights that is happening all around the world, and that is really something that needs to be an additional motivation for us, to push for this feminist foreign policy that we all want.
Three things before I come to an end.
Firstly, as you mentioned, Madam Commissioner, I think that the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) Regulation is going to be an important tool to achieve gender equality and an important instrument for us. I hope that in the negotiations the targets on gender equality will remain as high as proposed. This is one of the key issues in the coming months.
Secondly, I think it's important to say that the commitment to improve the presence of women both in the EEAS, in the Commission, and in our delegations is an important target.
I would like to remind the House that the High Representative has committed to the 40% target of EU heads of delegation by the end of the term. I think that it should be a joint goal to achieve that, and so I'm very much looking for the actions that that you will be undertaking and, of course, we will be very attentive to the presentation of GAP III in November, which is going to be the most important tool that we will have to achieve all of these goals.
So, all in all, I just want to conclude by thanking everybody, thanking the Commissioner. Let's make a gender-responsive Commission and gender-responsive EU foreign and security policy a reality.

Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.
                  

                     Η ψηφοφορία επί των τροπολογιών θα διεξαχθεί σήμερα, 22 Οκτωβρίου 2020, και η τελική ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί αύριο, 23 Οκτωβρίου 2020.
                  
6.   Serious security threats through the sale of EU passports and visas to criminals (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η δήλωση της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τις σοβαρές απειλές για την ασφάλεια μέσω της πώλησης διαβατηρίων και θεωρήσεων της ΕΕ σε εγκληματίες (2020/2824(RSP)).
               

                  Θα ήθελα να σας ενημερώσω ότι για όλες τις συζητήσεις αυτής της περιόδου συνόδου δεν θα υπάρξει διαδικασία catch-the-eye και δεν θα γίνουν δεκτές ερωτήσεις με γαλάζια κάρτα και παρατηρήσεις επί της εφαρμογής του Κανονισμού.
               

                  Επίσης, προβλέπονται ενδεχόμενες εξ αποστάσεως παρεμβάσεις από τα Γραφεία Συνδέσμου του Κοινοβουλίου στα κράτη μέλη.
               

Didier Reynders,
membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, pour commencer, je voudrais réitérer ce que la présidente de la Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, a affirmé avec force le mois dernier dans son discours sur l'état de l'Union devant ce Parlement: les valeurs européennes ne sont pas à vendre.
               

                  Malheureusement, cette déclaration ne semble pas aussi évidente qu'elle devrait l'être partout dans l'Union. Certains États membres ont, en effet, mis en place des systèmes permettant à de riches investisseurs et aux membres de leur famille d'obtenir un passeport en échange du paiement d'une somme d'argent importante ou d'un investissement conséquent, sans avoir un lien réel avec l'État membre en question.
               

                  De tels programmes ont des implications évidentes pour tous les autres États membres et pour l'Union dans son ensemble. En effet, le fait de devenir ressortissant d'un État membre entraîne automatiquement l'obtention de la citoyenneté de l'Union ainsi que tous les droits qui y sont liés. Un investisseur étranger qui achète la nationalité d'un État membre de l'Union peut, sur cette base, se rendre immédiatement dans n'importe quel autre État membre, y exercer une activité économique et bénéficier du principe de non-discrimination entre citoyens européens dans une série de domaines. Il peut même participer au processus démocratique, notamment par l'exercice de son droit de vote et de celui d'être candidat aux élections européennes ou municipales.
               

                  For several years now, these programmes have been a source of great concern, notably for this House and the Commission. The Commission has worked hard on this matter, as it is also a European issue with European values at stake.
               

                  In January 2019, the Commission published its first-ever report on investor citizenship schemes and investor residence schemes operated in the EU. The report clearly spelled out the inherent risks of such schemes, in particular as regards security, money laundering, tax evasion and corruption. Since the beginning of this Commission's mandate, we have continuously raised this concern with the Member States concerned, urging them to reconsider their decision to operate such schemes.
               

                  Since the beginning of my mandate, I have had a constant dialogue with the relevant Member States where I repeatedly highlighted the Commission's concerns and urged them to reconsider their decision to operate such schemes. Before the pandemic, I met personally with the Ministers of the relevant Member States to discuss investor citizenship schemes. In April, I followed up with letters asking to reconsider the schemes. I also had several calls with the competent Ministers to follow up on their commitments to provide more information on their government's plan. While both Malta and Cyprus may have the intention to apply some changes to their investor citizenship schemes, they appear to be determined to continue their schemes in some form. We need to convince them not to do that.
               

                  Mesdames et messieurs les députés, une série de récents scandales à Chypre et à Malte ne font que confirmer les graves préoccupations que nous avions déjà exprimées. Dans son rapport, la Commission s'était engagée à surveiller la conformité des régimes en place avec le droit de l'Union et, le cas échéant, à prendre les mesures nécessaires. Aujourd'hui, je suis ici pour vous dire que la Commission tient cet engagement. La Commission a décidé cette semaine d'ouvrir des procédures d'infraction à l'encontre des programmes de citoyenneté par investissement mis en place par Chypre et Malte.
               

                  EU citizenship is a collection of shared rights that all Member States provide in solidarity. Together, the Member States create the conditions for the enjoyment of EU citizenship. The European Court of Justice has been clear: it is for each Member State to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality. But, as the Court has also ruled, this competence must be exercised having due regard for EU law.
               

                  EU law requires Member States to recognise the nationality of another Member State without imposing any other conditions. As a result, the decision to naturalise a person by a Member State is not limited to its own jurisdiction and is not neutral with regard to other Member States. Member States should, therefore, use their prerogatives to grant nationality with due regard for EU law and, in particular, to the principle of sincere cooperation which is laid down in the Treaties. A Member State fails in that obligation when it establishes a scheme which systematically grants naturalisation in the absence of any true link with the state and on the sole basis of a financial investment or, in other words, where passports are for sale.
               

                  Over the span of only a couple of years, Cyprus and Malta have naturalised several thousand persons based on their schemes. The price for a European passport in those Member States range between EUR 1 million and EUR 2 million. These investor citizenship schemes undermine the mutual trust of Member States in each other's naturalisation procedures. This trust is a precondition for the effective enjoyment of EU citizenship rights. By undermining this trust, these schemes threaten the integrity of EU citizenship and its proper functioning and violate the principle of sincere cooperation.
               

                  Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, Malte semble s'être engagée à remplacer le régime actuel par un nouveau programme, sur des bases a priori largement inchangées. À Chypre, alors que le gouvernement a annoncé la fin du régime actuel dans un avenir proche, la mise en place d'un nouveau programme est déjà évoquée. Mais la question est trop importante pour attendre l'aboutissement de ce processus. Nous prenons maintenant des mesures pour montrer notre détermination et notre engagement à ne pas accepter que la citoyenneté de l'Union soit mise sur le marché comme une simple commodité. Je pense que nous pouvons tous nous accorder sur un point important: les principes et les valeurs de l'Union sont affaiblis si l'appartenance au projet européen, les droits qui en découlent et la participation à sa vie démocratique font l'objet d'une simple transaction économique.
               

                  Let me also add a couple of words on Bulgaria, which also operates an investor citizenship scheme. This week, the Commission sent a letter to the Bulgarian authorities strongly urging them to phase out their scheme in the context of an ongoing national legislative procedure to change the Bulgarian citizenship law. We have also asked for additional information on the scheme. The Commission will not hesitate to consider an infringement procedure against Bulgaria if necessary.
               

                  Finally, the Commission has not forgotten about schemes that give foreign investors access to residence permits, also called ‘golden visas’. While golden visa schemes do not raise the same legal issues as schemes that result in the acquisition of EU citizenship, there is often a close interaction between the two types of scheme, as residence can be a prerequisite for the acquisition of nationality. Most of the inherent risks of such schemes, for example regarding security, money laundering and corruption, are the same. Third-country nationals with a valid EU residence permit can travel freely, in particular in the Schengen area. This means that if one Member State does not apply the necessary security checks, other Member States can be negatively affected. Member States should therefore ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to prevent security, corruption, tax evasion and money laundering risks. They must also apply rigorous and transparent criteria to identify and combat crime and corruption.
               

                  The Commission has expressed its concern about the risks inherent in residence schemes and about the fact that these risks are not always sufficiently mitigated by the measures taken by Member States. In this context, the Commission continues to closely monitor these schemes and their application, to ensure compliance with EU law, including the need to carry out all obligatory border and security checks, in line with the EU acquis prior to the issuance of any permit.
               

                  Il en va de même pour les régimes de citoyenneté gérés par des pays tiers, y compris quelques pays candidats à l'adhésion, qui bénéficient d'un accès sans visa à l'Union. Un tel accès ne devrait pas être utilisé comme un outil de marketing pour attirer de l'argent en échange de la citoyenneté. À la suite de l'adoption de son rapport de janvier 2019, la Commission a demandé des informations et a fait part de ses préoccupations à tous les pays tiers exemptés de l'obligation de visa qui appliquent ou planifient des programmes de citoyenneté par investissement et ce, en étroite coopération avec le Service européen pour l'action extérieure. En conséquence, certains pays ont déjà abrogé leur régime et d'autres ont mis fin à leur projet. Nous allons continuer de suivre la question de près afin d'évaluer tout risque éventuel en matière de sécurité lié à ces régimes. Je me réjouis en tout cas d'avoir pu expliquer la politique menée par la Commission, ce matin, devant votre Parlement et je serais très heureux de prendre connaissance, bien entendu, de vos observations et de répondre à vos questions.
               

Λουκάς Φουρλάς,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PPE. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, συζητάμε εδώ ένα πολύ σοβαρό θέμα, για το οποίο θα πρέπει να κάνουμε ορισμένες παραδοχές και ξεκινώ λέγοντας το εξής: το πρόγραμμα είχε τις αδυναμίες του, τις οποίες κάποιοι εκμεταλλεύτηκαν και θα πρέπει να αναλάβουν την ευθύνη, να απολογηθούν και να πληρώσουν το τίμημα. Την ίδια ώρα, δεν μπορούμε να παραγνωρίσουμε το γεγονός ότι αυτό το πρόγραμμα υιοθετήθηκε από κάποιες χώρες, όπως η Κύπρος, ως απάντηση στην οικονομική κρίση. Μην ξεχνάτε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, ότι η Κύπρος το 2013 έγινε το πειραματόζωο της Ευρώπης με την επιβολή του κουρέματος καταθέσεων για πρώτη και τελευταία φορά σε ολόκληρη την ευρωπαϊκή επικράτεια.
               

                  Θέλω να προσθέσω επίσης το εξής: η Κύπρος έχει τερματίσει —το είπατε κύριε Επίτροπε— με απόφαση του υπουργικού συμβουλίου το πρόγραμμα, μετά τη διαπίστωση ότι έτυχε εκμετάλλευσης από επιτήδειους, ενδεχομένως και από οργανωμένο κύκλωμα. Επαναλαμβάνω ότι οι ευθύνες υπάρχουν και πρέπει να αποδοθούν σε αυτούς που τους αναλογούν, όσο ψηλά κι αν βρίσκονται. Αυτό που δεν δέχομαι είναι η προσπάθεια κάποιων για στοχοποίηση —εσκεμμένα— της Κύπρου και του λαού της σε αυτήν την εξαιρετικά δύσκολη περίοδο που διανύουμε στην πατρίδα μου λόγω της τουρκικής επιθετικότητας, για την οποία κάποιοι εδώ δεν δείχνουν την ίδια ευαισθησία. Στόχος μας εδώ πρέπει να είναι, κύριε Επίτροπε, να χτυπήσουμε τη διαφθορά, όσους εμπλέκονται σε αυτήν και όσους έχουν παρανομήσει και όχι να εξευτελίζουμε έναν ολόκληρο λαό, ο οποίος δίνει αυτήν τη στιγμή μάχη επιβίωσης. Γι' αυτό πρέπει να είμαστε ιδιαίτερα προσεκτικοί.
               

Eero Heinäluoma,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, a new plenary, a new debate on money laundering and a tax scandal. This really is a very bad trend. At the same time, our voters are asking for just one thing: a fairer tax regime where everyone pays their fair share, and a society where money laundering cannot be a way for criminals to have a fast track to land in Europe.
Golden visas: research shows that EU Member States have attracted around EUR 25 billion in foreign investment over the last 10 years thanks to golden visa programmes.
Investments are important, but so are our values – today, more so than ever. Cyprus Leaks and the names revealed are worth discussing. With enough criminal money, you can buy legal entry to the European Union, and right-wing politicians in Cyprus seem happy to facilitate this. It's a disgrace for the whole of the European Union. The contrast and indifference with respect to the burning Moria refugee camp could not be bigger. I agree with the Commission that these schemes pose risks for the Member States and for the Union, so this habit must end.
In an equal Europe, there should be no room for golden visa programmes; EU passports and visas are not commodities. Therefore, Council Presidency, Commissioner, I urge you to get your acts together. Let's ban these programmes completely. Let's make Europe a better and safe place for ordinary people – not for criminals.

Sophia in 't Veld,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for coming here and for starting the infringement procedures. I think that is most welcome and we knew that it had been in the pipeline for quite some time. However, this House has been debating the problems with golden passport since 2014. Why did it take so long? Why did the authorities wait so long to intervene? Why did we have to wait for brave journalists to uncover the scandals that we all suspected for a long time? And some of these journalists have paid a very high price – the highest price, as we know. But journalists are not responsible for law enforcement. The authorities are, and the authorities are failing.
Those who have a legitimate interest in investing in the European economy can do so without problem, and no golden passport nor golden visa scheme can ever really be clean and legitimate – because due diligence that relies on cooperation with the Russian and the Chinese and the Saudi authorities, frankly, can never be watertight – and I'm being polite here. Despite the fancy names of the schemes – you know ‘residency by investment’ sounds nice, evokes these images of villas and yachts, and what have you – in reality, they are just a golden backdoor into the European Union for criminals, criminals. It's not investment; it is criminal money.
Now, we need a full ban, and we're calling on the European Commission, not for the first time, to propose legislation, and I'm proud to say that at the initiative of my group Renew Europe, the Committee for Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee is going to draft a legislative initiative calling for a ban on golden passports. But of course this is a national competence. You know, national governments cannot sell what is not theirs to sell, and that is EU citizenship. It isn't theirs, they cannot sell it. So are governments, is the Council finally also going to take responsibility, or will they continue to knowingly facilitate criminals? The final question, Commissioner: will you also address the ‘legacy’ of those who have already received a Cypriot or Maltese or other passport? Will there be a second screening to see what kind of people we have actually elevated to the status of EU citizen?

Dominique Bilde,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, je tiens à préciser que c'est toujours avec plaisir que j'interviens du Parlement de Strasbourg, où j'espère que nous aurons bientôt l'autorisation de revenir régulièrement faire nos plénières.
               

                  Faut-il s'étonner du scandale des visas dorés chypriotes, puisque l'acquisition onéreuse de la citoyenneté et de titres de séjour ne pouvait que servir à des objectifs véreux? Que le Monténégro, à nouveau pourvoyeur de telles facilités, continue de faire la course en tête pour le prochain élargissement européen démontre l'indifférence de la Commission face à une menace sécuritaire tangible. Des faits d'armes peu reluisants qui n'ont pas empêché le Pakistan, leader en matière de tels documents frauduleux, selon un diplomate britannique, de bénéficier, toutes aides confondues, de 4 milliards d'euros d'aide européenne depuis 2014.
               

                  L'Union déplore donc des effets dont elle chérit les causes. Au premier chef, son soutien à des États interlopes et, en l'occurrence, partisans avoués de l'islam radical. Ces visas ne sont toutefois qu'un pan d'un juteux business qui alimente la déferlante migratoire comme le terrorisme. En témoignent la vente possible de visas bosniens à des migrants pakistanais, alors que deux ressortissants de ce pays auraient été soupçonnés de terrorisme, ou bien le profil du faux mineur auteur de l'attentat de Paris.
               

Sven Giegold,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Der europäische Pass ist eines der greifbarsten Ergebnisse europäischer Zusammenarbeit. Er gibt Rechte an alle, die ihn haben, und deshalb dürfen dieses Recht und dieser Pass auch nicht verkauft werden.
               

                  EU-Pässe entscheiden darüber, wer Zugang zu unseren Bürgerinnen- und Bürgerrechten hat und wer nicht. Und wenn diese Entscheidung nach dem Geldbeutel getroffen wird und nicht danach, wer sich in unseren Gesellschaften integriert, hier arbeitet, hier lebt, dann herrscht nicht das Prinzip des europäischen Rechts, sondern das Prinzip der Mafia. Und deshalb ist es auch nicht akzeptabel, dass Bürgerinnen- und Bürgerrechte zum Verkauf gestellt werden.
               

                  Es kann nicht sein, dass ein einzelnes Land darüber entscheidet, wer Zugang dazu bekommt, dann aber in allen Ländern der EU entsprechende Rechte offengestellt werden. Denn so kassieren einzelne Staaten Milliardenbeträge ab, die aber eigentlich zu Konsequenzen in ganz Europa führen. Und deshalb ist es auch nicht akzeptabel, dass die Europäische Kommission faktisch jahrelang nichts gemacht hat. Umgekehrt danke ich Ihnen aber jetzt für Ihre Initiative. Diese Vertragsverletzungsverfahren waren überfällig. Endlich nehmen Sie sich dessen an – das ist gut, das ist richtig.
               

                  Aber Sie sollten nicht nur den Verkauf von Pässen in den Blick nehmen, sondern auch goldene Visa. Das portugiesische Programm zum Beispiel hat in den letzten acht Jahren für Investitionen von über fünf Milliarden Euro 25 000 goldene Visa verkauft, und häufig führt das dann eben auch zur Staatsbürgerschaft. Und deshalb dürfen wir unsere Augen nicht verschließen. Deshalb bitte ich Sie, Herr Kommissar, legen Sie keine doppelten Standards an! Auch Visa dürfen nicht verkauft werden, nicht nur Pässe. Und deshalb muss dieses Parlament einen legislativen Initiativbericht vorlegen, mit dem wir diese Forderung auch durchsetzen.
               

                  Ich bitte Sie, Herr Kommissar, aktualisieren Sie die Daten und Ihre Zusammenstellung der Programme. Die jetzigen Webseiten der Kommission sagen sehr wenig aus. Und schließlich – das ist übrigens nicht mein Pass, sondern der meiner Kollegin Hanna Neumann – sie hat ihn mir kostenlos geliehen.
               

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie może być miejsca w Europie dla przestępców, kryminalistów, terrorystów czy dyktatorów, a paszporty, obywatelstwa, wizy nie mogą być towarem. A że niestety jest to dzisiaj dla kilku krajów Unii Europejskiej olbrzymia gałąź dochodowa, najlepiej pokazują liczby. Dla Cypru to aż 5% PKB. Tylko w 2017 r. wpływy do budżetu tego kraju wyniosły ponad 1 mld euro. W Hiszpanii – 976 mln euro, w Grecji – 250 mln , na Malcie czy w Portugalii – około 700 mln euro.
               

                  Proceder ten stanowi poważne zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa naszych państw i obywateli. Są dostępne raporty, chociażby stacji Al-Dżazira, opisujące, jak łatwo i bezproblemowo przestępcy, w tym również osoby związane z Państwem Islamskim, przenikają w ten sposób do państw członkowskich. Wyłożenie przez handlarza bronią, narkotykami lub ludźmi czy też grup islamskich terrorystów 500 tys. euro za nieruchomość na Cyprze czy 350 tys. na Malcie naprawdę nie stanowi większego problemu. A takie kwoty w wypadku tych państw wydawane były, aby nabyć obywatelstwo pozwalające – podkreślam – na swobodne poruszanie się po całej Unii.
               

                  Dlatego niezmiernie ważna jest jak najbardziej rygorystyczna kontrola wnioskodawców pod kątem bezpieczeństwa ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem ich kryminalnej przeszłości.
               

Γιώργος Γεωργίου,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Αριστερά ήταν από την αρχή πολύ επιφυλακτική όσον αφορά αυτά τα προγράμματα, κυρίως λόγω των ανησυχιών της για νομιμοποίηση εσόδων από παράνομες δραστηριότητες, από τη διαφθορά και τη φοροδιαφυγή. Η GUE τονίζει ότι αυτά τα προγράμματα, ιδιαίτερα όταν δεν εμπεριέχουν ασφαλιστικές δικλίδες για διοχέτευση πόρων για την κοινωνική ανάπτυξη, ευνοούν τους πλούσιους και τα κυκλώματα και όχι τον απλό λαό στις χώρες που τα εφαρμόζουν.
               

                  Κύριε Επίτροπε, είμαι ευρωβουλευτής της Κύπρου και νιώθω διπλό το χρέος να τονίσω την ανάγκη να σταματήσουν όλα αυτά τα προγράμματα, που έχουν μετατραπεί σε νοσηρές εστίες διαφθοράς και διαπλοκής για κυκλώματα που εμπορεύονται την ευρωπαϊκή ιθαγένεια ή ακόμα για προγράμματα τα οποία καθίστανται δίοδος προς την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για απατεώνες απ' όλον τον κόσμο. Εκπροσωπώ τον λαό μου, τους απλούς πολίτες της Κύπρου, που ούτε είδαν, ούτε άκουσαν, ούτε ξέρουν γι' αυτά τα πράγματα και είναι άδικο να στοχοποιηθούν. Παραδέχομαι, όμως, ότι το πρόγραμμα παραχώρησης υπηκοοτήτων στην Κύπρο προκάλεσε στο νησί μου τεράστια προβλήματα, ιδιαίτερα με τον τρόπο που το μετέτρεψε και το χειρίστηκε η κυβέρνηση της Κύπρου, η οποία —δυστυχώς— δεν άκουσε τις εισηγήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής για να επιφέρει τις σωστές αλλαγές. Έτσι, μεταφέρω την καθολική απαίτηση της κυπριακής κοινωνίας να υπάρξει διαφάνεια και καταπολέμηση της διαφθοράς σε κάθε επίπεδο, σε όλη την ευρωπαϊκή επικράτεια.
               

Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, da diversi anni il business europeo dei passaporti e dei visti d'oro è un fenomeno ben conosciuto e in crescita, lo scandalo di Cipro è solo l'ultimo di una lunga serie.
               

                  Da tempo consentiamo a diversi Stati membri di lucrare con diritti di cittadinanza e di soggiorno, permettendo loro di dargli un prezzo, di scambiarli con investimenti da parte di ricchi cittadini stranieri. Di questo mercato che muove miliardi di euro, in cui non vi sono regole standard comuni, riescono ad approfittare anche criminali e personaggi che alimentano corruzione e intendono riciclare enormi ricchezze, spesso frutto di attività illecite, usufruendo di regimi fiscali privilegiati.
               

                  Le istituzioni europee da anni manifestano preoccupazioni sui programmi nazionali di soggiorno e cittadinanza per gli investitori nell'Unione europea, ma reagiscono decisamente solo in occasione di scandali oggetto di inchieste giornalistiche, come avvenuto di recente con la notizia di attivare procedure d'infrazione contro Cipro e Malta.
               

                  L'Unione europea non può tollerare che siano messi in vendita diritti e valori, consentendo a criminali di paesi terzi di ottenere passaporti o visti con cui circolare liberamente nel territorio europeo, con gravi conseguenze per la sicurezza interna e determinando gravi lacune nella lotta alla criminalità organizzata, al riciclaggio del denaro, alla corruzione, all'evasione e all'elusione fiscale.
               

                  L'Unione europea ha il dovere di porre fine alle gravi carenze di tali programmi in termini di trasparenza e di controlli rigorosi, salvaguardando la fiducia e il principio di leale cooperazione tra Stati membri e preservando i confini europei da criminali con disponibilità finanziaria.
               

Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Voorzitter, gouden paspoort, het klinkt bijna sympathiek, een beetje zoals de gouden wikkels uit Sjakie en de chocoladefabriek. Maar in dat boek worden we door Roald Dahl al gewaarschuwd dat ongewenste mensen met veel geld zich zo'n ticket gewoon toe kunnen eigenen, met alle gevolgen van dien. Dat is irritant voor een chocoladefabriek. Het is domweg gevaarlijk voor een Europese Unie.
               

                  Laten we dan ook ophouden met dat eufemisme, gouden paspoort, en laten we het beestje gewoon bij zijn naam noemen. Geen gouden paspoort maar een fraudepaspoort! Een rijke Rus of Chinees die zijn dubieuze geld rondstrooit en zich registreert op een tankstation in Malta is ineens EU-burger, met alle voorrechten en voordelen die daarbij horen. Voordelen en voorrechten voor rijke Chinezen en Russen, voor rijke criminelen, de risico's zijn echter voor ons allemaal: veiligheidsrisico's, witwassen, belastingontduiking, corruptie, ontduiken van EU-regels, risico's waar wij in dit huis al jaren voor waarschuwen.
               

                  Het is dan ook goed dat de Europese Commissie eindelijk stappen zet. Beter laat dan nooit, zullen we maar zeggen. Maar een inbreukprocedure tegen twee kleine lidstaten is niet genoeg! We hebben echt strenge en duidelijke regels voor de toekomst nodig om ervoor te zorgen dat dit soort fraudepaspoorten ook daadwerkelijk onmogelijk gemaakt worden in de hele EU. Een EU-paspoort, dat is de belangrijkste conclusie, is een voorrecht en geen handelswaar. Het wordt tijd dat we daar met zijn allen naar gaan handelen.
               

Paul Tang (S&D). – Mr President, over the years, millions risked their lives to gain an EU passport. If they only had 20 million! In fact, for that money, Cyprus would have welcomed them with open arms. In fact, Cyprus welcomed some of the very same people responsible for others fleeing their home. They welcomed the cousin of Assad, they welcomed the associates of Hun Sen, the dictator of Cambodia, and they welcomed known criminals and gave them safe access to the entire EU, so the EU is fully justified in taking action, and I applaud the Commission's infringement procedure. Better late than never.
But these alone won't do the trick. Criminals looking for a safe haven in the EU will find our weakest spots: today, Cyprus and Malta, tomorrow, Montenegro and Austria. This is why we need clear minimum requirements for citizenships and for residency. This means an end to fast-track procedures. This means – at least – strong anti-money laundering safeguards to ensure funds were legally obtained and this means clear requirements for the kind of investments allowed, investments that indeed require you to actually be here.
Most of all, instead of handing passports to criminals, I'd say we should save our passports for their victims.

Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señor presidente, dicen que una buena noticia no es noticia, pero cuando se trata de una decisión que pone las cosas más difíciles a los grandes evasores y delincuentes, a mí, desde luego, me parece una buenísima noticia. Y quiero que en mi país, en España, se sepa que la Comisión Europea, por fin, va a iniciar procedimientos de infracción contra Chipre y Malta por la venta de pasaportes a personas extracomunitarias.
               

                  Para los diputados —algunos estamos aquí— que formamos parte en la legislatura anterior de la Comisión de Investigación sobre los Papeles de Panamá, es una noticia no solo buena sino necesaria.
               

                  No es solo juego de ventaja sacar dinero por vender al mejor postor la residencia o abrir la puerta a la ciudadanía de un país que apareja la ciudadanía europea y la libertad de movimiento y de negocio. Es que eso está mal, es desleal; es un coladero para amigos de dictadores y delincuentes, intoxica nuestras democracias y facilita las redes de corrupción.
               

                  En los denominados Papeles de Chipre se habla de condenados por fraude y blanqueo de capitales, de personalidades públicas y políticos acusados de corrupción. No hay excusas: necesitamos datos contrastados.
               

                  Y, desde luego, es imprescindible lanzar una revisión de las adjudicaciones sospechosas, revisar los sistemas nacionales de adjudicación acelerada por inversión, sobre todo aquellos en los que no hay ningún requisito de residencia física. Y si Bulgaria tiene que ser aprehendida y si tiene que ser sancionada, que lo sea; y si mi país tiene que ser sancionado, que lo sea.
               

                  Señor comisario, para limpiar el campo de juego, tendrá nuestro apoyo.
               

Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Herr Präsident! Der Handel mit Staatsangehörigkeiten wie ihn Zypern, Malta und auch andere EU-Länder praktizieren, dient als Einfallstor für reiche Kriminelle in die EU. Interpol hat festgestellt, diese Pässe seien neben der Geldwäsche auch – ich zitiere – ‘sehr wertvoll für Terroristen und internationale Kriminelle, die sie benutzen, um unentdeckt Grenzen zu überschreiten’.
               

                  Eine Parallele zur Migrationspolitik der EU ist dabei offensichtlich. Während die weniger Reichen durch das Wegwerfen des eigenen Passes in die EU gelangen und sich danach, wie häufig geschehen, gleich mehrere Identitäten erschleichen, sind es im Falle der goldenen Pässe die Reichen, die durch den Erwerb eines Passes in die EU kommen.
               

                  Beides ist illegal, aber nur das eine scheint die EU zu stören, das andere wird da gefördert. Solange die EU es nicht schafft, ihre Gesetze in ganz Europa durchzusetzen, ist der Protest nur eins – eine erbärmliche Heuchelei. Beides, der Handel mit Pässen und die Einreise ohne Pass, gehören verboten.
               

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Mr President, deciding who enters, settles or becomes a citizen is a fundamental right of a sovereign state, but the Cypriot and Maltese golden passport schemes do not require a person to first live in the country before granting citizenship and the right to enter and settle in other European countries. The former Maltese Prime Minister's Chief of Staff was arrested last month as part of an investigation into a kickback for a favourable passport decision scheme. To this debate, I'd like to add that the sale of visas is just as serious. Over two years have passed since 27 Members of this Parliament demanded an investigation into reports of mafia-style sales of visas – papers that enable free movement in Schengen countries. These should be common concerns. The sale of passports and visas is criminal; it impacts us all and it must end.

Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Mr President, our passports are not for sale. I come from a country where hundreds of thousands of people have died because of their right to be a citizen of their country and today, a citizen of the EU. EU citizenship is about a protection of the European way of life. It is about the security of our people, about our defence. It is about the duties of citizens. We must stop money launderers and other criminals that abuse the existing system. We must stop third countries from exploiting the system for their influence on operations. Therefore, all EU Member States must end all existing ‘citizenship by investment’ or ‘residency by investment’ schemes as soon as possible.
I would also like to use the opportunity and to draw the Commission's attention to a security loophole in the European visa-issuance system which enables third-country nationals with hostile intentions to enter the EU. Their abuse is possible partly due to their continued acceptance of non-biometric passports for travellers. I invite the EU to take immediate action to address this security gap in the European visa-issuance system.

Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, as in a relationship, or any other kind of union, the basis of a functioning one is called trust. Welcoming criminals into our European Union with open arms, just because those criminals are rich, is totally outrageous and means forfeiting that trust because, regardless of what the Cypriot, Maltese, Bulgarian or any other government thinks, access to one EU country's passport also means access to the whole EU, with all the benefits that it takes years for normal people to enjoy, even though they might have been exemplary inhabitants. This is not having sincere cooperation, nor is it upholding the integrity of what EU citizenship should mean. Convicted oligarchs and corrupt businessmen have nothing to do here in the EU.
I am glad that the Commission has at last started to be active on this matter, even though it has taken a long time – too long a time – but I also have a question as to why has it taken such a long time. My second question is also why doesn't it include all the countries who have this kind of system in place, referring to the infringement process, of course. There are many reasons why one should be able to get an EU citizenship, but being rich and / or an oligarch aren't two of them.

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, bienvenido a este debate para poner de manifiesto las incoherencias de la Comisión.
               

                  Porque por un lado le abren un expediente a Hungría, a Polonia y a Chequia por no aceptar falsos refugiados, que luego degüellan cabezas de profesores en Francia y, sin embargo, sí que abren expedientes a Chipre o a Malta por dar visados a inversores sin vínculo con la Unión Europea. Bienvenido lo de los vínculos genuinos con Europa, pero aplíquenlo a toda la política inmigratoria. Porque ¿qué vínculos genuinos con Europa tienen los miles de inmigrantes agolpados en las costas de Argelia, de Libia o de Marruecos? 2 600 ilegales han sido traídos clandestinamente por las mafias en las últimas dos semanas a Canarias, más que en todo el año pasado.
               

                  Dejen de verlo todo en términos económicos y financieros. Dejen de decir que los europeos necesitan miles de inmigrantes para pagar las pensiones, porque no es cierto. Las naciones no son dinero. Las naciones son lazos espirituales, familiares y culturales de comunidades históricas y han de ser respetadas. No queremos visas para especuladores, narcotraficantes y mafiosos. Pero tampoco queremos visas para esos jóvenes soldados que vienen a Europa a delinquir y a combatirnos en la calle.
               

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, г-н Комисар, със сигурност проблемът с продажбата на паспорти, на т.нар. златни визи, е важен за Съюза, но много по-важен е проблемът за подмяната на европейското население чрез вкарването на мигранти от Африка и Близкия изток, наричани за политическа коректност бежанци тук. Вие, колеги от лявата част на залата, подкрепяте и продължавате да подкрепяте вноса на хора в Европа. По време на най-големия имиграционен натиск излязоха стотици, може би хиляди бойци на Ислямска държава в Европа. Днес те живеят тук и чакат момента, в който вашият краен марксизъм и либерален болшевизъм ще доведат до крах на европейските национални държави и те ще видят в този крах шанс да установят своя т.нар. халифат. Напомням ви националността на ислямиста чеченец, който обезглави френския професор. Той беше със статут на легален имигрант, бежанец.
               

                  Хората, които кандидатстват за гражданство, са образовани, с професии и идват от по-бедните от нас държави да търсят възможности, което предлага всяка една държава – членка на Европейския съюз. Не забравяйте, че за да се издаде един паспорт, човек подлежи на серия от проверки. Процесът е много пъти по-сложен и рестриктивен от това нелегален бежанец да получи документ за пребиваване и да прекосява свободно границите на Съюза. Най-големият и тежък проблем не са няколко случая на купени паспорти – всеки един от тях може да бъде проследен и разследван. Най-големият проблем е, че има хиляди престъпници, борци на терористични организации, които са непроследими и идват тук маскирани като мигранти и бежанци. И вината е ваша.
               

Didier Reynders,
membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, merci d'avoir partagé vos points de vue et vos préoccupations au sein de cette assemblée. La Commission partage la plupart des remarques qui ont été formulées, en tout cas à propos du sujet précis des passeports et des visas par investissement. La Commission a soulevé ces préoccupations de manière récurrente, y compris au sein de ce Parlement. Certains d'entre vous auraient peut-être souhaité que la Commission lance des procédures d'infraction plus tôt. La Commission a d'abord tenté de trouver une solution politique sur base d'un dialogue avec les États membres concernés, je l'ai rappelé. J'ai pris les contacts nécessaires à nouveau, depuis décembre dernier, pour demander aux États concernés de sortir de ces programmes. Le maintien des programmes en cause nous oblige aujourd'hui à lancer des procédures d'infraction.
               

                  The opening of infringement proceedings is the last step in efforts that have been ongoing for several years to address the concerns raised by monetary schemes that result in the acquisition of EU citizenship. The Commission encourages both Cyprus and Malta to continue their screening of successful applications that was launched following the recent scandals.
               

                  I know that there are many questions about the citizenship that Cyprus and Malta have already granted. In accordance with the applicable rules and respecting due processes, naturalisation should be revoked wherever necessary. The question concerning retroactivities needs to be carefully assessed and it's premature to take a position on this now. We have not even gone to the Court of Justice and are even further away from a judgment, but we need to continue to have discussions about such issues.
               

                  There were also some remarks about the necessity to finance the different budgets in the different Member States. Fostering investment is of course a legitimate goal for any country to pursue, in particular during these difficult times. However, this should not be done at any cost. EU citizenship is a collection of shared rights that all Member States provide in solidarity. Schemes that result in the selling of citizenship for the sole benefit of an individual Member State could be seen as exploiting this common achievement.
               

                  As you know, we have proposed a recovery plan of unprecedented size to protect lives and livelihoods, repair the single market and build a lasting and prosperous recovery. This is proof of strong European solidarity in the face of the enormous challenge our economies face. It would send the wrong signal if one Member State were seen to take economic measures that go against this solidarity among all Member States.
               

                  Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, la Commission continuera à défendre les valeurs et les droits liés à la citoyenneté de l'Union. Vous pouvez compter sur son engagement plein et entier et sur mon engagement personnel à défendre une citoyenneté européenne commune, fondée sur les principes de la liberté, de la démocratie, du respect des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales ainsi que de l'état de droit. Ces valeurs ne sont pas à vendre et la Commission prend ses responsabilités pour éviter qu'elles ne le soient. Nous allons poursuivre nos actions à l'égard tant des passeports que des visas par investissement octroyés dans l'Union européenne, dans les pays candidats comme dans les autres pays tiers.
               

                  Residence schemes, as I said in my introductory remarks, are different from citizenship schemes in terms of rights granted, but entail similar risks. They are governed by national law but interact with EU law. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely, notably to ensure that the necessary border and security checks are carried out.
               

                  Et je voudrais conclure, Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, en vous remerciant, non seulement pour votre attention, mais surtout pour votre soutien aux actions entreprises et à entreprendre dans ce domaine.
               

Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.
               


Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 171 του Κανονισμού)



Josianne Cutajar (S&D),
bil-miktub. – Jiena għandi rispett lejn l-istituzzjonijiet Ewropej u l-ħidma tagħhom, inkluż tagħna l-membri tal-Parlament, biex inħarsu t-trattati li jiddefinixxu l-identità u l-valuri Ewropej. Skont dawk it-trattati stess, iċ-ċittadinanza hija kompitu nazzjonali. Għalhekk m'għandux ikun hemm interferenza li tnaqqas mill-jeddijiet ta' pajjiż sovran. Nemmen li inizjattivi bħal dawn m'għandhomx jiġu politiċizzati. Diversi pajjiżi membri joffru skemi ta' ċittadinanza u residenza. Kull programm huwa differenti mill-ieħor. Allegazzjonijiet fuq programm wieħed, fondati kemm huma fondati, m'għandhomx jitfgħu dell fuq il-programmi kollha, meta dawn jinkludu l-aktar standard riġidu ta' verifika. L-Unjoni Ewropea tista' tirrakkomanda numru ta' elementi li tistenna li jkunu inklużi fi programm ta' residenza jew ċittadinanza offrut minn pajjiż membru. Għandna naqblu fuq l-għarfien u l-kwalifiċi li għandu jkollu professjonist liċenzjat biex ibigħ skemi bħal dawn. M'għandhiex imma tintervjeni biex twaqqaf l-investiment soċjali, edukattiv u mediku li sar f'numru ta' pajjiżi bis-saħħa ta' programmi bħal dawn. Id-diżapprovazzjoni ta' pajjiżi membri mhix raġuni biżżejjed biex jitwaqqfu skemi ta' ċittadinanza u residenza f'pajjiżi oħra. Id-diżapprovazzjoni tagħna ta' ċerti industriji li jiffomentaw kunflitti viċin tagħna, qatt ma naffret dawn l-industriji strateġiċi għal ċerti membri. Nistgħu ntejbu dawn il-programmi mingħajr ma neqirduhom.
               

Julie Lechanteux (ID),
par écrit. – Les passeports de complaisance, dans les États membres de l'Union européenne, permettent à des personnages douteux de se propager comme une métastase dans le tissu social et économique français ou allemand. Une pratique qui doit absolument cesser!
               

                  Une récente enquête journalistique sur la vente de passeports chypriotes, avec implication de hauts responsables politiques, a fait éclater un scandale sans précédent à Nicosie. En effet, depuis 2007, Chypre offre la possibilité à de riches investisseurs non-européens d'obtenir le fameux ‘passeport doré’. Ces procédures d'attribution manquent de rigueur et de transparence, et font difficilement barrage aux investisseurs douteux. Le système devient ainsi une porte ouverte à l'évasion fiscale, au blanchiment d'argent, à la corruption et aux mafias de tous horizons. À Chypre, le ticket du sésame européen est à 2 millions et demi d'euros – le prix de l'investissement que le ressortissant extra-européen doit effectuer pour obtenir la citoyenneté de ce pays.
               

                  Chypre n'est évidemment pas le seul pays européen à vendre son passeport, Malte lui emboîte le pas. Le groupe d'experts mis en place par la Commission européenne en janvier 2019 pour étudier ce phénomène ne s'est jamais réuni en 2020.
               

Alfred Sant (S&D),
in writing. – Claims that the investment citizenship/visa programmes run by various Member States pose serious security threats would be more credible if placed in the context of cross-border criminality within the EU. OLAF and the Court of Auditors have repeatedly indicated the incidence of massive cross-border fraud in the Union's flagship policies. This has led to their operations being tightened, not cancelled. The same could be done with respect to citizenship/visa programmes if necessary, such as by appropriate AML legislation. Allegations being made against these programmes bear no comparison to ongoing criminal abuses attached to the Union's own policies.
Moreover, claims that the programmes contradict the EU's values become less credible in the wider context of how all European states accord citizenship and residence rights. Some of those who most endorse the claims, have arrangements by which such rights are given widely, non-transparently and with minimal security clearance. Investment citizenship/visa programmes form part of the sovereign rights of Member States and are strictly outside the competences of the Union. Any treatment at EU level of their application can be legitimate only if it forms part of a deeper examination overall of how all states – big and small – accord residence and citizenship to non-EU nationals.

Ramona Strugariu (Renew),
in writing. – I would like to welcome the initiative of the Commission to launch the infringement procedures against Cyprus and Malta regarding their ‘golden passport’ schemes, as well as to highlight its concerns regarding an investor citizenship scheme operated by Bulgaria. Besides the investor citizenship scheme, 19 Member States, plus the United Kingdom, are using investor residency schemes, which gives investors the chance to gain residency in a given country.
These schemes are posing a serious threat to our security and the fight against money laundering, tax evasion and corruption, and are undermining the essence of the European Union and the freedoms that come with citizenship and residence of a Member State. A country like Cyprus should avoid raising the suspicion that they are not cooperating sincerely with the European institutions on other justice matters, such as its participation in the EPPO. Notably, it should move swiftly to appoint full time European delegated prosecutors, as this is a guarantee of independence of the EPPO. It is time to stop criminals from entering the European Union and never allow them to launder their money if we really want to fight corruption efficiently.

Bettina Vollath (S&D),
schriftlich. – Was haben Ali Beglov, Pham Nhat Vu und Zhang Keqiang gemeinsam? Sie alle sind wohlhabend, einflussreich und vorbestraft; und sie alle sind zypriotische Staatsbürger. Ihre Pässe haben sie alle drei gekauft. Ganz legal. 2,5 Millionen Euro kostet so eine zypriotische Staatsbürgerschaft. Etwas billiger kommt man in Malta oder Bulgarien davon. Da reichen bereits sechsstellige Beträge für den Erwerb eines EU-Passes. Gezahlt werden die Summen durch ‘Investitionen’ in den betreffenden Staaten. Worin genau investiert wird und was es für Auflagen gibt? Unklar. Klar ist dagegen, wer von solchen Programmen Gebrauch macht: Menschen wie Ali Beglov, Pham Nhat Vu und Zhang Keqiang. Menschen, die Geld gegen eine EU-Staatsbürgerschaft tauschen. Eine einmalige Zahlung gegen den Schutz vor ausländischer Strafverfolgung und für alle Rechte als Unionsbürgerinnen und -bürger.
               

                  Wer versucht, bei diesen Programmen genauer hinzusehen, bezahlt das unter Umständen mit dem Leben. So erging es der maltesischen Investigativjournalistin Daphne Caruana Galizia, die vor ihrer Ermordung genau dazu recherchiert hatte. Der Verkauf dieser ‘goldenen Pässe’ muss endlich ein Ende haben! Daher bin ich froh, dass die Kommission nun ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen Malta und Zypern eingeleitet hat. Damit sich niemand mehr den Pass der EU einfach erkaufen kann – und damit niemand mehr deshalb sein Leben verliert.
               
7.   State of the Energy Union (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η δήλωση της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την κατάσταση της Ενεργειακής Ένωσης (2020/2825(RSP)).
               

                  Θα ήθελα να σας ενημερώσω ότι για όλες τις συζητήσεις αυτής της περιόδου συνόδου δεν θα υπάρξει διαδικασία catch-the-eye και δεν θα γίνουν δεκτές ερωτήσεις με γαλάζια κάρτα και παρατηρήσεις επί της εφαρμογής του Κανονισμού.
               

                  Επίσης, προβλέπονται ενδεχόμενες εξ αποστάσεως παρεμβάσεις από τα Γραφεία Συνδέσμου του Κοινοβουλίου στα κράτη μέλη.
               

Kadri Simson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am honoured to present to you today the State of the Energy Union Report. Every year, it's an opportunity to take stock of our energy policy and assess whether we are on track with implementing the energy union.
The 2020 report is the first one since we launched our new sustainability and growth strategy, the European Green Deal. A well-functioning energy union is the necessary basis to deliver our climate commitment by 2050. Together with this report, I presented three key initiatives on 14 October: the renovation wave, the methane strategy and the Commission recommendations on energy poverty. The initiatives of the 14 October energy package are important stepping stones to reach our 2030 climate target plan. They will make sure that we seize the significant decarbonisation potential of buildings and address energy poverty in order not to leave anybody behind in the clean energy transition.
National energy and climate plans (NECPs) will also remain an important tool in achieving the minimum 55% reduction in greenhouse gases. Together with the State of the Energy Union, we also published a detailed assessment of the plans of each Member State. The final NECPs are complete, robust and ambitious. Our analysis shows that each Member State still has some work to do, especially on energy efficiency. But overall we are heading in the right direction and the plans demonstrate that Europe can meet ambitious climate targets. The Commission will ensure a clear and inclusive follow-up of those plans, including on the progress of implementation and the need to revise the level of ambition of NECPs to reflect a higher carbon emission reduction target for 2030.
Let me now go back to the State of the Energy Union Report. This report provides an overview of the progress of the energy union across all its dimensions. I would like to focus on three areas today.
First, we know that delivering the higher climate ambition in the energy sector is a genuine investment challenge. The State of the Energy Union Report maps out the funding opportunities offered by the recovery and resilience facility and other EU instruments. In particular, the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy identified three energy-related flagships – clean energy technologies, renovation and sustainable transport – where Member States can focus their national renovation plans.
This shows that Next Generation EU offers an unprecedented opportunity to mobilise resources to promote the clean and digital transformation of our economies, and we should use it. The report, however, shows that national budgets devote a declining share to clean energy research and innovation. When we measure the volumes of research funding as a share of GDP, Europe has one of the lowest rates among the major global players. Private sector investment in energy union R&T priorities is also slowing down and I'm very concerned by this trend.
Second, the report shows that the volume of energy subsidies, in particular for fossil fuels, is still considerable. Fossil fuel subsidies amounted to EUR 50 billion in the EU in 2018. This is one third of all our energy subsidies. The European Green Deal is clear: fossil fuel subsidies have to end. They remain a major impediment to a cost-efficient energy and climate transition, but also to a functioning internal market. Therefore, the Commission will reinforce its cooperation with Member States to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce fossil fuel consumption. Energy subsidies should be targeted to boost the uptake of new energy technologies, to promote sustainable patterns of energy consumption, and to lower energy bills.
Third, this year's State of the Energy Union included for the first time a report on the competitiveness of the clean energy industry in Europe. The findings are quite significant. The growth of the clean energy technology sector has significantly outpaced that of the conventional energy sector. Clean energy technologies have created more jobs and added more to gross domestic product and labour productivity. This has been especially obvious in energy efficiency, where the number of jobs went up 17.4% between 2000 and 2017.
The Competitiveness Report also shows that EU industry holds a strong global position in some of the key technologies, namely offshore solar energy storage, batteries and hydrogen technologies, which have a major scaling-up potential over the coming years. In the coming months, we will take these elements forward and we will focus in our discussions with all relevant stakeholders on a value-chain-based approach to support our industries and innovators in the EU to maintain or achieve global success.
I will stop here and now I will take your questions.

Markus Pieper,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Danke an die Kommissarin für diesen Bericht. In diesem Bericht steht – und das ist schön –, dass wir 2020 CO2-Ziele schon übertroffen haben. Super auch, dass wir das Wirtschaftswachstum vom Energieverbrauch entkoppeln. Danke auch für diesen positiven Ausblick.
               

                  Wir sind mitten in der Energiewende. Wir dürfen jetzt aber keine Fehler machen, gerade in der Coronakrise. Gestatten Sie mir deshalb eine Frage an die Kommission: Als wir letztes Jahr den gleichen Bericht diskutierten, hieß es, ich zitiere: ‘The clean energy package forms a credible path to meeting its Paris agreement commitments’, Zitat Ende. Warum waren vor zwölf Monaten für Paris noch 40 % CO2-Reduzierung genug, und sogar die Ziele für LKW und PKW wurden vor zwölf Monaten positiv hervorgehoben, ich zitiere, als ‘ambitious policies on climate mobility’. Im Bericht für 2020 finde ich diese Antwort nicht – nur den Hinweis, dass es jetzt mindestens 55 % sein müssen. Das Parlament will ja sogar 60 %. Ich bin auch für stärkere Vorgaben, aber es ist wie in der Medizin: Viel hilft nicht unbedingt viel, und zu viel schadet.
               

                  Ja, unsere Menschen und Betriebe machen mit auf dem Weg nach Paris, aber sie brauchen Planungssicherheit und keine sprunghafte, manchmal von Panik geleitete Willkür. Anstatt die Ziele immer höher zu schrauben, müssen wir sorgfältig über den Weg beraten. Beispiel: Der Bericht sagt, dass Covid-19 das Problem der Energiearmut noch verschärft. Jetzt kommt die renovation base. Was können wir Mietern zumuten? Die Pandemie und eine höhere CO2-Bepreisung?
               

                  Der Bericht sagt, neue Energieinfrastruktur ist der Schlüssel für eine erfolgreiche Energiewende, aber die Kommission kündigt neue Klagerechte für NGOs und Umweltverbände an. Wir müssen uns schon entscheiden: Wollen wir eine schnelle Energiewende mit modernen Infrastrukturen, mit großer Wirkung, positiv für die Artenvielfalt, oder wollen wir – weil eine NGO-Klage es erfordert – eine Fledermausfamilie retten? Wir brauchen keine neuen Klagerechte. Wir brauchen schnellere, unbürokratische Genehmigungsverfahren und wir müssen die COVID-Gelder Recovery Fund verbindlicher für die Energiewende machen. Wir sind auf einem guten Weg, aber die Schraube der Klimaverpflichtung bitte nicht überdrehen, dann geht sie kaputt.
               

Nicolás González Casares,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la Unión de la Energía es crucial e importante para nuestra economía y nuestra transición hacia la neutralidad climática y, para que sea realidad, Europa debe comprometerse a resolver el cuello de botella que tiene. No hay unión sin interconexión y, por ejemplo, la península Ibérica está aislada en cuanto a este aspecto.
               

                  Vemos que los objetivos de reducción de emisiones para 2020 se van a cumplir. Esperemos que no sea un espejismo derivado también de la pandemia y recordemos que tenemos aún 34 millones de europeos que sufren la pobreza energética y no pueden calentar adecuadamente sus hogares.
               

                  En el informe también se ve que estamos perdiendo fuerza en investigación y desarrollo en Europa con respecto a otros bloques; debemos promocionarlos, estamos bajando el número de patentes.
               

                  Señora comisaria, el Parlamento acaba de fijar su compromiso de reducción del 60 %, tenemos una voluntad fuerte. Yo creo que el programa de trabajo de la Comisión es ambicioso para avanzar en el Pacto Verde.
               

                  Tenemos todos los asuntos bastante encarrilados; empujémoslos un poco más y no nos dejemos vencer por el escepticismo ni por el daño económico que está produciendo esta pandemia.
               

Morten Petersen,
for Renew-Gruppen. – Hr. Formand. Tak til Kommissæren for en fin rapport, der viser, at EU skal vise vejen i den grønne omstilling, og at vi skal gøre noget nu, og at det haster. Vi skal levere. Vi skal have mere vedvarende energi på tværs af landegrænserne.
               

                  Et egentligt indre marked for energi vil gøre det nemmere og billigere at integrere den vedvarende energi, eksempelvis fra havvindmølleparker ude på Nordsøen og ud i de europæiske stikkontakter og dermed fortrænge de fossile brændsler fra vores energiforsyning. Derfor bliver off-shore-strategien så vigtig, den som vi går og venter på med spænding, Kommissær.
               

                  Investeringerne fra hele genopbygningspakken skal være grønne. Vi skal i Europa i det hele taget opbygge en konkurrencedygtig, grøn industri inden for den vedvarende energi og sikre, at vores grønne virksomheder er i verdensklasse, og at de forbliver i verdensklasse. Vi skal skabe et mere integreret og effektivt energisystem, så borgerne kan få grøn og billig energi. ‘Renovation wave’ er et rigtig godt initiativ, der skaber arbejdspladser og bekæmper klimaforandringerne på samme tid, men det skal være ambitiøst, så vi kan renovere to til tre gange flere bygninger end det, som vi formår at gøre i dag.
               

                  Og så kommer vi ikke uden om at skulle revidere nogle af de direktiver, der allerede ligger på bordet, omkring vedvarende energi, energieffektivisering, bygninger og bygningernes rolle. Og de direktiver skal have nogle højere og mere ambitiøse målsætninger og forpligtende mål for medlemslandene. Ifølge det internationale energiagentur bør op mod halvdelen af de globale grønne investeringer rette sig mod energieffektivitet. Samtidig skal vi sikre, Kommissær, at medlemslandene leverer. Det gør de altså ikke i øjeblikket. Jeg vil opfordre Kommissæren til at skrue bissen på over for medlemslandene. Hvis ikke Kommissionen gør det i det kommende år, så svigter vi den grønne omstilling. Det skylder vi vælgerne ikke at gøre. Det haster, så lad os se at komme i gang!
               

Markus Buchheit,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Danke, Frau Kommissarin, auch für Ihre Darstellung vorhin. Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Die Energieunion hätte tatsächlich ein Projekt werden können oder könnte ein solches sein, das den Bürgern den Nutzen einer EU-weiten Kooperation der Mitgliedsstaaten nahebringt und das auch den Kritikern am Brüsseler Moloch, mir beispielsweise, endlich den Wind aus den Segeln nehmen könnte. Stattdessen bläst die Kommission leider, ebenso plan- wie ziellos, so scheint es manchmal, das Hohelied von Begriffen aus dem Bingo-Vokabular weltfremder Ideologen, statt sich der tatsächlichen Probleme der Bürger und Unternehmen anzunehmen – sprich, statt Realpolitik zu betreiben.
               

                  Versorgungssicherheit, Wirtschaftlichkeit und Nachhaltigkeit, das war der Dreiklang der Energiepolitik der vergangenen Jahrzehnte, und tatsächlich finden sich diese Begriffe natürlich auch innerhalb des Projekts Energieunion. Papier ist eben geduldig, und die Realität spricht eine andere Sprache. In den vergangenen zehn Jahren stieg der Strompreis für Privathaushalte in Deutschland um beinahe 28 %, die Netzentgelte um 26 %, die Steuern und Abgaben um ganze 65 %. Schon titelt die Bild-Zeitung von einem Heizkosten-Schock im kommenden Jahr, wenn auch die Benzin- und Dieselpreise aufgrund steigender Steuern explodieren werden. Wirtschaftlichkeit also, eines der drei zuvor genannten Elemente – Fehlanzeige.
               

                  Auch die Häufigkeit von Beinahe-Blackouts stieg in den vergangenen Jahren rapide und zwar mit der Zunahme der zuvor beschworenen grünen Energie. Immer häufiger musste zum Beispiel Deutschland Strom aus den Nachbarländern, häufig zu horrenden Kosten, importieren. Von Versorgungssicherheit kann also keine Rede sein.
               

                  Und wie verhält es sich mit der vielbeschworenen Nachhaltigkeit? Auch das ein Begriff aus dem Vokabular, der heute immer wieder fiel. In Deutschland werden allein in diesem Jahr 6 000 Windenergieanlagen stillgelegt. Dabei entstehen bis zu 4 Millionen Tonnen zum Teil giftiger und schwer zu entsorgender Schrott. Dasselbe gilt für die Solarenergie, wo wir bis 2035 etwa 2,6 Millionen Tonnen Schrott erwarten können.
               

                  Sie sehen also, die gegenwärtigen Zustände der sogenannten Energieunion genügen weder wirtschaftlichen Grundsätzen, sie genügen nicht den Grundsätzen der Versorgungssicherheit und schon gar nicht genügen sie der mantraartig vorgebrachten Nachhaltigkeit. Es wäre Zeit, dass auch wir in diesem Hause endlich anerkennen, dass unsere Solidarität und Verantwortung den Bürgern gelten muss und eben nicht der Kommission und dem Zeitgeist.
               

Ville Niinistö,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the State of the Energy Union report highlights both the successes and the failures of the European Union in this field. We have over-achieved the energy targets for renewable energy for 2020, but obviously these targets are still modest. Now when Parliament is pushing for a higher ambition of 60% emission reductions by 2030, we have to look for a similar target for renewable energy to hasten the energy transition and also to make sure that it is European industries that create those jobs in energy revolution.
But there are also a lot of failures and one is obviously the increasing amount of fossil fuel subsidies. We still have in 2018 even more subsidies for fossil fuels than in 2015. The EUR 50 billion we are using on fossil fuel subsidies is three times more than the amount that we are spending on wind power in 2018. So the Commission has to force change in this field and has to make sure that the Member States get rid of fossil fuel subsidies, as Parliament has pushed for.

Zdzisław Krasnodębski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Ja również chciałem zapytać o pomoc publiczną na energię ogólnie. Otóż rzeczywiście, jak wynika z tego raportu, ta pomoc publiczna rosła w ostatniej dekadzie. W 2017 r. wyniosła 159 mld euro, mimo że Komisja od dawna zapowiada, że zamierza tę pomoc likwidować.
               

                  Wiemy, że przyrost w różnych sektorach był bardzo różny, np. transport otrzymał w 2018 r. 20% więcej subwencji niż trzy lata wcześniej. Zróżnicowane są też subwencje w poszczególnych krajach. Jeżeli dobrze odczytuję tabelę, Niemcy wydały w 2018 r. prawie 45 mld euro pieniędzy publicznych na dotacje w dziedzinie energii, z tego na paliwa kopalne – 12 mld, co wniosło 1,2% PKB. Także Francja, Włochy, Belgia w liczbach bezwzględnych znacznie bardziej subsydiują paliwa kopalne niż na przykład Polska, która często przedstawiana jest jako kraj hamujący transformację energetyczną. W Polsce przeznaczono 2 mld euro i 0,2% PKB na paliwa kopalne.
               

                  Chciałbym więc zapytać, co Komisja zamierza zrobić, by zmniejszyć w najbliższym czasie dotacje. Jak zamierza to uczynić w stosunku do różnych sektorów? I jak te rosnące i zróżnicowane w zależności od potencjału ekonomicznego państw subwencje mają się do Zielonego Ładu i do zasad sprawiedliwej transformacji?
               

Marisa Matias,
em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Obrigada, Senhora Comissária, pela sua apresentação. É obvio que a transição energética é fundamental no combate às alterações climáticas e para a criação de emprego, mas gostaria de questioná-la hoje sobre a pobreza energética e sobre a remodelação dos edifícios.
               

                  A estratégia da Comissão Europeia para a pobreza energética que foi agora apresentada é uma estratégia que melhora, em muito, a nossa abordagem sobre esta questão. No entanto, creio que lhe faltam algumas dimensões importantes.
               

                  Nós sabemos que, nos agregados familiares mais pobres na União Europeia, a fatura energética representa quase 10% do rendimento mensal. Sabemos também, por vários números que existem, que estamos a falar de dezenas de milhões de cidadãos que na União Europeia vivem em pobreza energética – há relatórios que apontam para mais de 50 milhões –, e sabemos que quem vive em pobreza energética são sobretudo famílias monoparentais, são famílias com muitos filhos ou são idosos que estão, normalmente, isolados. E neste sentido, mesmo que os Estados-Membros tenham que ter medidas específicas para combater a pobreza energética, elas traduzem-se ou em tarifas sociais ou na definição de períodos críticos onde as pessoas estão isentas de pagamento.
               

                  A minha questão é muito simples: como é que a União Europeia pode definir o que é um período crítico para quem vive em situação de pobreza ou no limiar da pobreza? Falamos de cerca de 100 milhões, mais de 100 milhões de pessoas, na União Europeia que vivem em situação de pobreza, uma em cada 6 pessoas. Porque é que a União Europeia não define claramente quais são as medidas para evitar que tenhamos pobreza energética? Estamos a entrar no inverno, que é um período crítico, mas para quem é pobre todo o ano é um período crítico, e não apenas o inverno.
               

Traian Băsescu (PPE). – Domnule președinte, raportul prezintă situația de ansamblu, fără a analiza diferențele de resurse de care dispun statele membre. Dacă analizăm limitările impuse de Legea climei, proaspăt votată în Parlament, și de Regulamentul de taxonomie, constatăm că, în timp, trebuie să eliminăm energia produsă din cărbune, din hidrocarburi – inclusiv gaze naturale – și energia nucleară.
               

                  Asta înseamnă, spre exemplu, pentru o țară ca România, ca în următoarele decenii să elimine 60 % din sursele de energie pentru populație și pentru industrie, ceea ce o transformă dintr-o țară independentă energetic într-o țară care va trebui să recurgă la importuri masive de energie electrică.
               

                  De asemenea, dacă privim la Fondul pentru o tranziție justă, constatăm că este o mare discrepanță între obiectivele pe care ni le-am stabilit și resursele pe care le punem la dispoziție pentru ca tranziția să fie posibilă și să afecteze, să spunem în mod apropiat, în mod egal, toate statele Uniunii Europene.
               

                  De aceea, cred că se impun două concluzii: una, și cea mai importantă, este că trebuie să ne stabilim obiective realiste și cea de-a doua concluzie, obiectivele pe care ni le stabilim să fie în deplin acord cu resursa financiară pe care o alocăm.
               

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Mr President, the climate neutrality target for 2050 requires systemic change and involves citizens. The EU has taken steps in the right direction and decoupled economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions. In 30 years, the EU cut emissions by 25%, while the economy grew by 62%. National energy and climate plans show that most Member States have cut emissions according to the current reduction targets, but Europe lags behind in the energy efficiency target.
The renovation rates proposal could be one solution. We have to make it win-win-win: cut emissions, create local jobs, and make healthier homes and buildings. Renovation rates remain too low and renovations should be placed at the core of a sustainable recovery.
Another big question for the energy transition is how to get private investment to support the green transition. Climate neutrality by 2050 needs investments now. The policy measures need to support predictability and also support demand for clean energy, green products and investments.

Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Mr President, in the biggest energy transition in our history the biggest problem is not the technology to make it happen nor is it the political will to cut greenhouse gases. No, our biggest problem is that the perfect is becoming the enemy of the good. And just look at the political debates: no nuclear energy please, no carbon capture that entails fossil fuels, no biomass, no gas in a transition, no windmills in my backyard and no solar panels on agricultural grounds please. Well, altogether that is not a sustainable posture.
How can we possibly be serious in reaching our climate goals without technologies like carbon capture, biomass or nuclear? But luckily there's one technology we all agree on that has the potential to decarbonise at least our heavy industries and transport: hydrogen. It might not be a silver bullet but we all agree this energy carrier has enormous potential and our aim is clear: to create a new, clean produced, green hydrogen market and a long-term certainty for all parties involved, and that requires massive investments; in infrastructure, in the scale up of electrolysers, but also in carbon capture utilisation and storage, because we need to be realistic. If we want to pave the way for clean hydrogen we will initially need to invest in transitional technologies and these might not be perfect but they are good.
So, yes, in the beginning of this huge transition we will still need fossil fuels and, therefore, EU policies should support carbon capture, enable government support schemes for blue hydrogen, and I expect the Commission to move forward in this direction in its energy summer package. We have 30 years to reshape our entire energy system and we can do it, and we will fail if we demand to be perfect, but we will definitely succeed by doing it as good as we can.

Jordan Bardella (ID). – Monsieur le Président, la Commission européenne a fait de la transition énergétique un axe majeur de sa politique en affichant notamment l'objectif d'une neutralité carbone en 2050.
               

                  Si l'objectif est véritablement de décarboner l'énergie alors où est passé le nucléaire dans vos rapports? Il n'est nulle part reconnu comme une technologie essentielle à promouvoir, alors qu'on sait qu'elle est la source d'énergie la moins chère et la plus décarbonée aujourd'hui à notre disposition, faisant notamment de la France le second pays au monde le plus propre en matière énergétique, d'après un rapport de l'université de Yale. Vous ne jurez que par le dernier rapport du GIEC mais vous refusez de le lire entièrement. Tous les scénarios, je dis bien tous les scénarios, qui doivent permettre de limiter la hausse de la température à l'horizon 2100 incluent une augmentation massive du nucléaire.
               

                  Si l'hydrogène est probablement l'ambition la plus raisonnable, l'éolien, destructeur de nos paysages, comme les batteries électriques ont démontré leurs limites. Il est donc temps que la Commission européenne en revienne à la raison et à la science, cesse de se soumettre aux pressions des ayatollahs verts et à leur hystérie anti-nucléaire, il en va de notre indépendance industrielle et énergétique.
               

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, just some days ago, a study was released signalling that in Barcelona, the city from where I'm speaking today, air pollution still causes a thousand deaths a year, and this is largely due to the use of fossil fuels. However, despite the broad consensus on the need to accelerate the clean energy transition and step up our efforts concerning emissions reduction, fossil fuel subsidies actually continue to increase. This is one of the findings of the State of the Energy Union report.
It is very urgent that we put forward a strategy towards subsidies that is coherent with the Green Deal. The EU should stop subsidising fossil fuels – and should urge Member States to do the same – and should instead redirect public money to finance the green energy transition. This is all the more urgent given that, as the report points out and the Commissioner said, funding of green energy research and investment is slowing. This comes on top of the huge cuts that the Council is proposing to the research programme Horizon Europe, which, of course, we are opposing head-on.

Izabela-Helena Kloc (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Miesiąc temu Francja musiała ponownie uruchomić swoje elektrownie węglowe, ponieważ zamknięto starą elektrownię atomową Fessenheim, a farmy wiatrowe nie były w stanie wyprodukować wystarczającej ilości energii. Niemcy też sięgnęli do tradycyjnej energetyki i uruchomili elektrownię węglową w Datteln. Jak widać, stabilności i bezpieczeństwa energetycznego nie da się osiągnąć bez paliw kopalnych. Dotyczy to także gazu ziemnego, który powinien zostać uznany przez Unię Europejską za ważny surowiec przejściowy w procesie transformacji energetycznej. Niestety ekologiczny radykalizm w przepisach unijnych pozbawia państwa członkowskie niezależności energetycznej.
               

                  Apeluję więc do Państwa o więcej realizmu politycznego. Narzucając nieosiągalne standardy wymuszające absurdalne koszty, które pogłębiają zjawisko ubóstwa energetycznego, niestety prowadzimy do bardzo złej sytuacji ludzi w Europie. Na to wszystko nakładają się koszty pandemii. Trzeba opamiętania. Proszę spojrzeć na to z ludzkiej perspektywy, a nie tylko z perspektywy biznesu i ekoideologii.
               

András Gyürk (PPE). – Köszönöm a szót Elnök úr! Öt évvel ezelőtt jött létre az európai energiaunió, ezért időszerű a kezdeményezést három szempont: az elért eredmények, tanulságok és kilátások mentén megvitatni. Az eredmények ismeretében kijelenthető, hogy az energiaunió sikertörténet. A tagállamok többsége növekvő gazdaság mellett tudta csökkenteni károsanyag-kibocsátását, növelve a megújuló energiaforrások arányát az energiamixben. A sikeresen teljesített hálózatfejlesztési célok és az integrált energiapiac kialakítása okán az európai energiahálózat jóval felkészültebb ma a különféle sokkhatások kezelésére, mint korábban. A tanulságok közül a siker feltételeit érdemes kiemelni. Megalapozott célkitűzésekkel, tisztelettel és konszenzusra törekvő Bizottsággal igenis el lehet érni ilyen eredményeket. Ez utóbbiért köszönet Cañete biztos úrnak. Az energiaunió kilátásai viszont korántsem ennyire bíztatóak.
               

                  A baloldal az energiapolitikát hitvitává alakította. Az Európai Parlament baloldali többsége az ideológiai alapra helyezett klímarendelet megszavazásával egy olyan jövő felé terelné az Uniót, ami gazdasági stagnáláshoz, több százezer munkahely megszűnéséhez és a rezsiköltségek robbanásszerű emelkedéséhez vezethet. Ez kockázatos. Az európai emberek ennél jobb klíma és energiapolitikát érdemelnek.
               

Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pokonaliśmy już w Unii Europejskiej wiele nacjonalizmów – nie wszystkie, ale wiele. Jednym z tych, z którymi wciąż mamy do czynienia, jest nacjonalizm energetyczny. Ogromna większość państw członkowskich patrzy na kwestię bezpieczeństwa energetycznego przez pryzmat swoich granic, swoich interesów gospodarczych i finansowych. A przecież Unia to wspólnota wartości, to swoboda przepływu osób, towarów, usług i kapitału. To wspólna odpowiedzialność za unijnych obywateli, za ich bezpieczeństwo energetyczne. To wspólne zobowiązanie do zwalczania ubóstwa energetycznego.
               

                  Raport o Unii energetycznej pokazuje doskonale, jak bardzo potrzebujemy solidarności w tym obszarze. Mamy już jej elementy, np. Fundusz na rzecz Sprawiedliwej Transformacji, ale potrzebujemy więcej. Potrzebujemy rzeczywistego, wewnętrznego rynku energii. Nie potrzebujemy projektów godzących w solidarność energetyczną, takich jak Nord Stream 2.
               

                  I jeszcze słowo o dekarbonizacji. Tu musimy precyzyjnie zdefiniować, do czego chcemy dojść. I nie mówię tu o procentach, redukcji czy statystykach. Mówię o konkretnych ludziach, którzy, tracąc zatrudnienie w górnictwie, jak u mnie na Śląsku, muszą je dostać w innej branży. Pamiętajmy, człowiek jest najważniejszy. To człowiek musi stać w środku transformacji energetycznej.
               

Nicola Danti (Renew). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, la relazione sullo stato dell'Unione dell'energia nel 2020 mette un giusto accento sull'impatto della pandemia in questo settore e propone una fase di ripresa che sia in linea con gli obiettivi della transizione digitale e verde.
               

                  In questo senso, sono convinto che proprio lo strumento di ripresa e resilienza potrà dare un nuovo slancio agli Stati membri, che dovranno destinare almeno il 37 % delle risorse di ciascun piano alla transizione climatica. Il Covid inoltre ha messo ancora più in luce la necessità per l'Unione europea di ridurre la vulnerabilità e la dipendenza estera anche in questo campo, migliorando la resilienza e la diversificazione delle catene di approvvigionamento, nonché la capacità di stoccaggio.
               

                  Tutti gli Stati membri dovranno continuare a contribuire affinché i target del 2030 prima, e l'obbiettivo della neutralità climatica nel 2050 poi siano raggiungibili nella pratica, coerentemente con gli impegni presi con l'accordo di Parigi. Questo non significa imporre una strategia di decrescita industriale, ma avviare un processo di trasformazione energetica in modo deciso in tutti i settori, come ripensare radicalmente anche le nostre abitudini. Penso alla mobilità Smart, ai combustibili alternativi, alla conversione delle industrie ad alto impiego energetico e alla digitalizzazione delle infrastrutture energetiche; non ultimo, penso al ruolo giocato dall'idrogeno che, in un sistema energetico integrato ha la possibilità di favorire la decarbonizzazione dell'industria dei trasporti, della produzione di energia elettrica e dell'edilizia in tutta Europa.
               

                  Servono però le risorse adeguate, signora Commissaria, lo sviluppo di sistemi energetici ed economici sempre più sostenibili dipenderà dagli investimenti in ricerca e innovazione, investimenti in grado di aumentare ulteriormente la competitività delle energie rinnovabili, soprattutto in termini di fabbisogno energetico e di costi.
               

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS


Vizepräsident


Vincenzo Sofo (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Caucaso, Africa, Medio Oriente, Est Europa, tutte aree dalle quali dipendiamo energeticamente, tutte aree dove le potenze straniere alimentano instabilità e conflitti per metterci sotto scacco. Ecco perché l'Europa, se vuole essere un attore geopolitico, forte e autonomo necessita di una sovranità energetica, sovranità che deve dunque rappresentare il cuore della sfida ambientale del Green Deal, non la rincorsa ai capricci di Greta e di multinazionali che vogliono decapitare le nostre aziende, con tasse su carni, plastiche e follie varie. Non la sottomissione alla Cina come accadrebbe puntando solo sull'elettrico.
                  

                     L'obiettivo deve essere garantire l'autonomia dell'Europa, valorizzando il potenziale energetico di tutti i suoi Stati membri e l'Italia ha tutte le carte per essere protagonista, solare, eolico, l'idrogeno, per non parlare dell'energia da moto ondoso con realtà come il NOEL in Calabria, grazie alle quali potrebbe nascere nella Locride il primo porto turistico a impatto zero.
                  

                     Se dunque volete costruire un'Europa potenza, valorizzate questa realtà e noi saremo i primi a supportarvi. Se invece siete disposti a uccidere le nostre economie, pur di fare gli zerbini di Greta, ebbene noi saremo i primi a combattervi.
                  

Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE). –
(Beginn des Redebeitrags bei ausgeschaltetem Mikro) … wir heute hier sind. Ich möchte mich auf die Rolle der erneuerbaren Energien fokussieren: Wir haben ja drei gute Nachrichten, die auch in Ihrem Bericht drinstehen. Erstens: Erneuerbare liefern inzwischen mehr als 20 % der Endenergie in der Europäischen Union. Die Stromerzeugung aus Sonne und Wind hat sich von 2010 bis 2018 mehr als verdoppelt. Und – vielleicht für manche in diesem Haus am wichtigsten – die Erneuerbaren sind den fossil-atomaren Energieträgern hinsichtlich Wertschöpfung und Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen überlegen.
                  

                     Aber: Die Ausbauziele der Mitgliedstaaten reichen absolut nicht aus, um unsere Emissionen bis 2030 ausreichend zu senken, und deswegen brauchen wir eine riesige gemeinsame Anstrengung. Und viele Bürgerinnen und Bürger wissen das und sind dazu bereit. Und deshalb fordere ich Sie, Frau Simson, hier und heute auf: Bitte sorgen Sie dafür, dass die im Clean Energy Package verankerten Rechte für die Bürgerenergie schnell und wirksam in allen Mitgliedstaaten umgesetzt werden. Dann haben wir eine echte Energieunion, entfesseln die Erneuerbaren, demokratisieren die Energieversorgung, sichern lokale Wertschöpfung und erreichen unsere Klimaziele.
                  

Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Επίτροπε Simson, η έκθεση για την κατάσταση της Ενεργειακής Ένωσης επαναφέρει στο προσκήνιο το μεγάλο πρόβλημα της ενεργειακής φτώχειας. Αν και συνολικά στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έγιναν βήματα προόδου, στην πατρίδα μου, την Ελλάδα, η κατάσταση επιδεινώθηκε δραματικά τα τελευταία χρόνια. Ειδικότερα, το 2018, το 22,7% του πληθυσμού ανέφερε ότι δεν κατάφερε να διατηρήσει το σπίτι του επαρκώς ζεστό κατά τους χειμερινούς μήνες, ενώ ο αντίστοιχος μέσος όρος στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι μόλις 7,3%. Ομοίως, το 2018, το 35,6% του πληθυσμού δεν ανταποκρίθηκε στις οικονομικές του υποχρεώσεις για τους λογαριασμούς ενέργειας λόγω οικονομικών δυσκολιών, ενώ ο αντίστοιχος μέσος όρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι μόλις 6,6%.
                  

                     Τα εθνικά σχέδια για την ενέργεια και το κλίμα, κυρία Επίτροπε, είναι το κλειδί για να αντιμετωπίσουμε το μείζον θέμα της ενεργειακής φτώχειας. Χρειάζονται όμως ταυτόχρονα μεγάλης κλίμακας προγράμματα πολυδιάστατης αναβάθμισης των κτιρίων και των κατοικιών στις περιοχές που υποφέρουν, με έμφαση στη χρήση των κυκλικών υλικών, των ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας και των καινοτόμων τεχνολογικών λύσεων. Χρειάζεται να κινητοποιήσουμε όλα τα διαθέσιμα χρηματοδοτικά εργαλεία από το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης, τον κοινοτικό προϋπολογισμό, την Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων και τον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Μόνο με τέτοια δράση θα αντιμετωπίσουμε το πρόβλημα, θα δημιουργήσουμε δουλειές και θα αφήσουμε πίσω μας την ενεργειακή φτώχεια.
                  

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, estamos hoje a debater o estado da energia em circunstâncias muito diferentes daquelas em que o fizemos nos anos anteriores e, nestas circunstâncias, temos que colocar todas as políticas e ferramentas ao serviço da recuperação e da resiliência. A boa governação da União da Energia tem que ter em conta esta nova ambição de liderança verde.
                  

                     Tendo integrado a equipa de negociação do regulamento da governação da energia é com satisfação que verifico a avaliação positiva feita pela Comissão Europeia do conteúdo dos planos nacionais de energia e clima.
                  

                     As metas definidas para 2030 continuam ao nosso alcance. As metas de interconexões estão atrasadas, precisam de um forcing político. Apelo a que, sem perder de vista as metas, nos foquemos no processo e no seu impacto, em garantir energia limpa a preços mais baixos para as empresas e as famílias, em reduzir substancialmente a pobreza energética, em apostar em novos modelos de distribuição e armazenamento e em novas tecnologias, como o hidrogénio verde, que permitem envolver todos os setores do Pacto Ecológico e reforçar o mercado único da energia.
                  

Jakop G. Dalunde (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att också tacka kommissionen för en viktig rapport, som visar vilken roll energipolitiken har i våra ansträngningar att minska klimatförändringarna. Och årets ‘Energy State of the Union’ visar att vi runtom i EU fortfarande lägger mer pengar på fossila subventioner än vad vi gör på att bygga ut förnybar energi – till och med dubbelt så mycket. Det är 50 miljarder euro årligen som vi lägger på att pumpa in konstgjord andning i gårdagens teknik.
                  

                     Klimatpolitiken får aldrig vara någonting som stannar vid retorik eller pompösa tal. Därför vill jag påminna om att vi i Europaparlamentet bara för några veckor sedan röstade om EU:s klimatlag, inklusive nya mål till 2030. Och dessa nya mål måste innebära ett paradigmskifte i vår lagstiftningsprocess. Klimatkrisen är akut och framtiden är 100 procent förnybar. Och det är det vi måste arbeta för.
                  

Cristian-Silviu Bușoi (PPE). – Mr President, the European Green Deal and green recovery are of rather strategic importance for the Union, not only to reach our climate ambitions and respond to climate change, but also in terms of ensuring a fair, yet competitive, energy transition.
Since last year, the Commission has presented initiatives to step up climate ambitions, not only to reach the target for 2030, but also for the long term. I think that we need to update existing legislation, but we also need new proposals as well, for example, in the field of renewables.
For Member States to achieve the decarbonisation target, we need first an achievable target for all Member States, taking into consideration also the different starting points of each. We need an agreement that would be beneficial for everyone.
Secondly, I may say that we, the policymakers, need to ensure that transition is possible for all regions, including those dependent on coal, and that no sector of industry should be further affected, especially given the COVID-19 economic pandemic impact. We need to back the green transition with a consistent and horizontal energy policy, and a modern, climate-neutral, highly resource efficient and competitive industrial base in the EU.
As a conclusion, along this way, in the process, we need to ensure consistency across policies, streamlined Green Deal ambitions, with a feasible transition leaving no region behind, ensuring the resilience of our energy system and the security of our energy supply.

Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Mr President, renewable energy and energy efficiency are the cornerstones of the energy transition. Renewable energy will provide the majority of clean electricity in the decades to come. However, huge capital will also be needed to transform Europe's energy infrastructure. Strategic choices about where to invest must be made now, taking into account the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
But take gas as a fossil fuel: it can be a helpful bridging transitionary medium to be used in many Member States if we want to achieve our ambitious climate targets. The gas infrastructure can be used also for the clean hydrogen technology if slightly modified. We need to stop talking only about the energy targets, we have to speak about how to implement these. Today our role is to facilitate a just transition, and also recovery, by linking those opportunities with the needs of people who don't want to fall into energy poverty, where there are already about 50 million Europeans.

Manuela Ripa (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Nahezu täglich beschwören wir den European Green Deal, nahezu täglich beschreiben wir minutiös, wie genau wir nun den Klimaschutz angehen – und dann kommt diese Zahl, für die wir der Kommission dankbar sein müssen. 50 Milliarden Euro jährlich geben die Mitgliedsstaaten für die Subvention von fossilen Energien aus. Das ist der dritthöchste Betrag an Subventionen, den wir in der EU aufwenden. Das macht einen fassungslos und zeigt, dass die Regierungen komplett widersprüchlich handeln. Einerseits wollen wir mit dem ETS die CO2-Preise erhöhen, wir alle wissen, dass sie viel zu niedrig sind. Andererseits geben die Mitgliedsstaaten diese unglaublich hohe Summe für die Verbilligung von CO2 aus. Auch in der Energiepolitik müssen wir das Gesamtbild sehen.
                  

                     Daher – lasst uns sofort Energie-Subventionen für Fossile verbieten! Lasst uns diese Subvention unmittelbar und sofort in Erneuerbare stecken! Die Kommission ist aufgefordert, mit einem derartigen Vorschlag auf das Parlament zuzukommen. Dafür würden Sie Applaus bekommen.
                  

Kadri Simson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the State of the Energy Union is an opportunity for all of us to take a close look at our energy policy, to assess the progress we have made and identify the areas where we need to do even better. It is an extremely thorough exercise to make sure that all the dimensions of our energy policy are delivering and this year's report is not only the first one since the Green Deal, it is also the first one since the delivery and assessment of the final national energy and climate plans. There will be many opportunities to engage with Member States, stakeholders, and of course with the European Parliament, in the coming months on our clean energy transformation and its challenges, and I trust that this report is a good basis to kick off such a dialogue.
As already mentioned during my introduction, the State of the Energy Union contains important additional reports, notably, let me highlight again, the first competitiveness report that is part of the State of the Energy Union. It shows that green energy is outperforming the conventional energy technologies; also the price of renewables has come down significantly, and the energy efficiency first principle in the renovation wave helps us to create jobs across all the EU. So lower heating bills for households, and it also helps us save energy, and energy poverty across EU has declined but this is still 34 million people too many who struggle to afford a comfortable temperature in their homes. So the Green Deal and the clean energy transition is an opportunity also for the economy to relaunch investment and jobs.
Our programme for the next year is to strongly build on these conclusions and we have just adopted the renovation wave, the hydrogen strategy, and we will very soon present our offshore renewable strategy. But we also made a commitment to look at and assess all our basic instruments when it comes to the energy efficiency and renewables. All of these actions are now part of our work programme for 2021.
And this is what the Green Deal means – a cleaner, more competitive, fairer Europe. The EU's current framework will not allow us to reach our 2050 goals and meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement. Simply continuing to implement the clean energy package would see the EU achieving a 60% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This is not enough to get to the Paris Agreement. The EU needs to raise its ambition for this decade now and the impact assessment we have conducted shows that a balanced realistic pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050 requires an emissions reduction target of 55% by 2030. This is why the Commission proposes to cut emissions faster by 2030.
Now let me briefly also touch upon the importance of nuclear safety because I received yesterday a letter from 40 Members of Parliament expressing their concerns regarding the safety of the Astravets nuclear power plant in Belarus. I would like to reiterate the Commission's commitment to ensuring the highest levels of nuclear safety globally, and especially in the EU's closest neighbourhood. In the case of Astravets power plant this means verifying that all key safety recommendations from the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) are implemented prior to the start of commercial operations of the power plant in early 2021.
The 7 November event is a one-off operation to test the generation of a small quantity of electricity. The peer review by ENSREG's nuclear safety experts is well underway. It is important that the experts are able to complete their work, which would allow them to draw their own independent conclusions. The peer review is expected to be completed prior to the commercial operation of the plant.
The Commission is making great efforts to maintain engagements with Belarus in this regard. However, we will need to operate within the current political reality of the political developments in Belarus. Nonetheless, the Commission is prepared to apply increased political pressure to see that the key recommendations are not implemented before the start of the commercial operation of the plant. This is also about our energy union.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Csaba Molnár (S&D),
írásban. – Örömmel fogadtam az Európai Bizottság által készített jelentést. Az uniós energiapolitika integrálása polgáraink alapvető érdeke, mivel az energiaunió létrejötte alapfeltétele annak, hogy a klímavédelemmel kapcsolatos kötelezettségvállalásainkat 2050-ig teljesíteni tudjuk.
                  

                     Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! A klímavédelem mellett az energiaunió másik fontos célja az európai uniós tagállamok kiszolgáltatottságának csökkentése az energiaforrások terén. A megújuló energiaforrások támogatása és kiépítése tehát nemcsak klímavédelmi célokat szolgál, hanem elősegíti azt is, hogy az európai uniós tagállamok saját maguk képesek legyenek biztosítani polgáraik energiaellátásának biztonságát. Míg az európai uniós irányelvek a stratégiai célú, uniós szintű önellátást szorgalmazzák, néhány tagállam kormánya, mint például az Orbán-kormány egyre inkább függővé teszi magát Oroszországtól az energiaellátás terén. Ha éppen nem gázt vesz tőlük, akkor olyan atomerőművet, amely soha nem lesz képes piaci árakon áramot termelni. Mi azért küzdünk, hogy az Unió egy élhető hely legyen ma, holnap és 50 év múlva is, ezért sürgető az energiaunió mihamarabbi felállítása.
                  

Susana Solís Pérez (Renew),
por escrito. – El estado de la Unión de la Energía es un instrumento clave para medir nuestra progresión hacia una energía más limpia, que nos permita cumplir los compromisos de descarbonización aprobados en la Ley Europea del Clima para 2030 y 2050. El estado de la Unión de la Energía nos permite analizar las debilidades de nuestro sistema energético y, sobre todo, mostrarnos en qué puntos debemos invertir más.
                  

                     Los nuevos fondos de recuperación y de cohesión deben ser un arma clave para garantizar una mejor eficiencia energética de los edificios, para invertir en planes de movilidad sostenible y para reducir el uso de los combustibles fósiles para particulares e industria, a través de una progresiva electrificación e inversión en fuentes alternativas como el hidrógeno verde y las energías renovables.
                  

                     Es el momento de involucrar a la sociedad civil, fomentar la innovación y la colaboración público-privada para poder alcanzar una mayor independencia energética y una Europa más verde y digital. Los fondos de recuperación, unidos a programas como MCE o el Fondo de Transición Justa, ofrecen una oportunidad única para abordar los retos del futuro sin dejar a nadie atrás.
                  
8.   Aligning the Energy Charta Treaty with the European Green Deal (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zur Anpassung des Vertrags über die Energiecharta an den europäischen Grünen Deal (2020/2827(RSP)).
               

                  Ich möchte Sie davon in Kenntnis setzen, dass bei sämtlichen Aussprachen wie bekannt weder spontane Wortmeldungen noch blaue Karten oder Wortmeldungen zur Geschäftsordnung akzeptiert werden können. Und wir werden auch bei dieser Debatte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die online ihre Wortmeldungen aus den Verbindungsbüros abgeben, zuschalten.
               

                  Sie wissen ebenfalls, dass im Laufe dieser Debatte zum Tageordnungspunkt Präsident Sassoli kommen wird, um uns nach der Sitzung der Konferenz der Präsidenten den Gewinner des Sacharow-Preises mitzuteilen.
               

Kadri Simson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to debate on this important topic today.
The Energy Charter Treaty is in need of substantial reform. In the past years, the European Union, including this Parliament and the Member States, have repeatedly called for a modernisation of the charter. The need for reform is also considered necessary by most of the other contracting parties.
Based on its negotiating mandate, the Commission has engaged in this negotiation with determination and a clear position. However, we know that a successful modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty will be a challenge, and it will require that all the contracting parties and stakeholders contribute to this collective result.
For the EU, the objective of making the Energy Charter Treaty green is at the heart of the modernisation process. Member States have given their permission, a mandate to negotiate, which reflects the EU's reformed investment project protection standards, and ensures strong sustainable development provisions.
The Commission also has a duty to make the Energy Charter future-proof, so that it can help us address climate change, and clean energy transition goals, and facilitate a transition to a low carbon energy system in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
With the adoption of the European Green Deal and the EU commitment to move to climate neutrality by 2050, the European Commission has now stepped up its climate ambitions.
Once confirmed by the co-legislators, the revised greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2030 will need to be reflected in our negotiations. A level of ambition, as proposed by the Commission for at least 55% greenhouse gas reduction, requires transposition into concrete actions, including in the external dimension of the UN energy and climate policies.
Honourable Members, let me update you on the progress of the Energy Charter Treaty's modernisation process.
The negotiations with the energy charter's contracting parties have started in 2020. We had two rounds of negotiations so far, in July and September. A third round is scheduled for 3 until 6 November, another round is already planned for the end of February, or March 2021.
Based on the negotiating directives adopted by the Council in July 2019, the Commission submitted in advance of the first round of negotiations, a proposal addressing specifically investment protection and dispute settlement.
The text proposed also puts forward new provisions on sustainable development in the area of climate change, and clean energy transition in particular. These provisions recognise the urgent need of pursuing the Paris Agreement in order to effectively combat climate change and its impacts, and to regulate to that effect, at national level.
Our ambition in the modernisation reflects the EU's leading role in ensuring that the energy transition happens also in partner countries, in line with the Paris Agreement goals. For this reason, we will proceed with a pragmatic and realistic approach to ensure successful outcomes.
The complex negotiations ahead of us involve a variety of factors, and require increased cooperation, and accelerated efforts, in order to achieve the necessary consensus among all contracting parties, some of which are at different stages of development of their energy and climate policies.
We can trust that the European Green Deal is at the core of our EU policy. It is our political aim, to ensure that the Energy Charter Treaty only protects those investments that support transition to a climate neutral energy system.
I want to make the European Charter a tool also for a clean energy transition that is aligned with our EU agenda and with our collective goals under the Paris Agreement.
We count on the European Parliament to support us in this process.

Maria Spyraki,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the Energy Charter Treaty provides a multilateral framework for energy cooperation that is unique under international law.
Today 81% of investments protected by the Energy Charter Treaty are intra-EU investments. However, it is important to recognise that the Treaty is outdated, notably when it comes to arbitration clauses between foreign investors and Member States. The Treaty must reinstate Europe's rights to regulate, particularly on the issue of climate change. We must insist on the establishment of a multilateral investment court.
Our response to the voices asking to withdraw collectively from the Energy Charter Treaty, in order to allow for the implementation of Europe's clean energy package, must be a deep revision of the Treaty, addressing the Paris Agreement deals and aligning with our Green Deal road map, in order to reshape our economy into green and digital, and finally secure that this alignment will provide sustainable and affordable energy prices for all consumers.
But we are not naive. Unanimity requires compromise. We must work multilaterally in finally concluding a forward-looking Energy Charter Treaty, with the clear provision of phasing out fossil fuels, with the safeguarding of energy security through the operation of more open and competitive energy markets, while respecting the principles of sustainable development and sovereignty over energy resources.

Kathleen Van Brempt,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, let me be quite clear, crystal clear, the Energy Charter Treaty is not in line with the Green Deal. It's an instrument of the past, it's even an instrument of a former decade.
Favouring large fossil fuel companies over the environment is not the way forward. It's not adapted to the current reality, and not to our climate ambitions.
As has been stated also in the former debate, there's a fundamental reform necessary in our energy system and we will not succeed doing that if the ECT continues to protect fossil fuel investments.
Moreover, and that is very interesting and very frightening to see, that it is expected that more cases targeting climate policies will arise, once Member States start to implement the commitments that they have made in line with the Green Deal and the Paris Agreement, and that is unacceptable.
So we need a fundamental reform of the ECT. This will not be easy, as for instance, Japan already stated that it is not in favour of a fundamental reform. I want to be also crystal clear on what the next step should be, that if it is not possible to have a fundamental reform, I think it's absolutely necessary that the EU prepares itself to withdraw from the ECT.
We've made that clear also in a former debate, and in a former a vote on the climate law, where we clearly made a statement on the ECT.
So my question to the Commission is very simple. The Commissioner thinks it is possible to align the ECT with the Green Deal. I do not doubt the good intentions that the Commissioner has, and the Commission overall, but I do doubt that we have the good partners in place to make that reform possible: will you be able and ready to withdraw from the treaty the moment that you see there is no possibility for a good reform?

Martin Hojsík,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, it's great that we are having this debate, but this should be only the start. We need to put the spotlight on the Energy Charter Treaty and ensure that it receives the attention that it needs.
And it deserves attention, because as they say ‘Houston, we have a problem’. Problem, that the Treaty that we only experts only really know about can cost us billions in compensation for private companies, often shell companies. If we want to prevent catastrophic climate change costs us public money that we urgently need to avert the climate crisis. Because the Energy Charter Treaty as it stands is not and, I repeat, not compatible with the European Green Deal nor several international legally binding commitments, let's say, for example, the Paris Agreement.
We have a problem if we, for example, invest now in gas and in twenty years, we need to shut it down because we have available alternative and ran out of the carbon budget. What do we do then? Start compensating all the investors? To put it simple, we cannot and should not protect investments into fossil fuels. The risk of climate crisis is already known to all investors; they don't need the protection and they should not get it.
Now this is where you might expect me to tell you the solution, but I will not. Right now, I want the Commission and the Member States to tell us, the citizens of Europe, what you want to do about it. You want to renegotiate – that's good to hear, but what do you do if the negotiations fail? Because when it comes to climate, we cannot afford to fail. We would not be forgiven.

Markus Buchheit,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Welcome back. Schon scheint es, als ob die Fridays for Future-Demos langsam von den Titelseiten der Boulevardblätter verschwunden wären, doch zombieartig hallen ihre Forderungen hier im Alltagsgeschäft der Union fort. Welcher Wahnsinn muss uns als politische Entscheidungsträger reiten, den in seinen Ausmaßen noch gar nicht überschaubaren exogenen Schock der globalen Pandemie durch den Grünen Deal noch weiter anzufachen?
               

                  Wir reden hier von einem Alignment mit dem Grünen Deal – wunderbare Worte! Sie verkaufen den Bürgern die vielbeschworene grüne Wende hier als das europäische Men on the Moon-Projekt, als absolute Notwendigkeit – jetzt sofort – mit CO2-Reduktionen von 55 oder 60 %, ganz egal, ohne Folgenabschätzungen, was für Auswirkungen diese Zahlen auf unsere Industrie und Gesellschaft tatsächlich haben werden.
               

                  Schon heute ist der Strompreis für unsere Industrie in Deutschland fast dreimal so hoch wie in den USA, und er wird weiter steigen. Das wird uns Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, am Schluss natürlich auch Wohlstand, kosten. Das wissen Sie bei der Kommission, und deswegen wird eine absurde Idee durch die nächste absurde Idee ergänzt. Und zwar der Green Deal zum Beispiel durch den carbon border adjustment mechanism oder, wie wir jetzt heute auch gehört haben, durch den Ausstieg aus dem ECT.
               

                  Haben wir jahrelang hier in der EU andere Staaten für Protektionismus und Isolationismus verurteilt, so betreiben wir diesen jetzt selber. Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben vorhin vom Glauben an den Green Deal gesprochen. Glauben ist schön, doch was sind die Zahlen? Was werden uns diese Maßnahmen am Schluss tatsächlich kosten?
               

Anna Cavazzini,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, whenever I speak to citizens about the Energy Charter Treaty they are shocked. The Energy Charter Treaty allows investors to bring EU Member States in front of private arbitration panels because those governments want to fulfil the requirements of the Paris Agreement.
The Energy Charter Treaty makes governments pay billions of taxpayers' money just because they want to fight the climate crisis and implement the Green Deal. And does this sound completely insane? Yes, it does, but it is the truth and the Energy Charter Treaty is the embodiment of a fossil era that has to come to an end. And this is why the reform by the Commission is so overdue and also welcomed.
But I have two major concerns to bring before the Commissioner. First, we need an effective reform. So the Commission must delete fossil fuels from the definition of economic activities and thus end the protection of fossil fuels. And second, we have to face the reality. An effective reform is very unlikely, given the anonymity required. So I urge the Commission to set a clear deadline and prepare for leaving the Treaty. And I know, Madam Commissioner, you will come now with a sunset clause. Yes, the sunset clause is bad; it protects investment for another 20 years if we leave the Energy Charter Treaty now. But better leaving earlier than later. At the very least, we need to end inner EU application and thus eliminate already half of the cases. I count on your support.

Beata Szydło,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Realia polityki energetycznej i klimatycznej zmieniają się bardzo szybko. Rośnie potrzeba zacieśniania współpracy regionalnej i globalnej w tym zakresie. W ciągu tylko pięciu ostatnich lat przyjęliśmy porozumienie paryskie i została ogłoszona strategia Zielonego Ładu, a więc rzeczą naturalną jest, że musimy również przystąpić do zmiany Traktatu karty energetycznej.
               

                  Powinniśmy jednak czynić to realistycznie, szczególnie w tym trudnym momencie, gdy panuje kryzys spowodowany pandemią, gdy liczy się każde miejsce pracy, gdy trzeba wspierać gospodarkę. Postulaty przyświecające modernizacji traktatu powinny zatem być realistyczne. Musimy chronić inwestycje i dokonywać zmian zgodnie z wypracowanymi wcześniej strategiami i przede wszystkim z myślą o wsparciu gospodarki.
               

Silvia Modig,
GUE/NGL-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, kun ECT-sopimusta nyt ollaan modernisoimassa, on välttämätöntä, että se saadaan tukemaan siirtymää kohti hiilineutraaleja yhteiskuntia. Tällä hetkellä se ei sitä tee, vaan päinvastoin, se antaa yhtiöille mahdollisuuden nostaa kanne niitä valtioita vastaan, jotka haluavat muuttaa lainsäädäntöään ja siten energiapalettiaan kohti kestävää hiilineutraalia mallia.
               

                  Sopimuksen investointisuoja suojaa fossiilisia polttoaineita huolimatta siitä, että me tiedämme, että ne merkittävästi pahentavat ilmastokriisiä. Tämän lisäksi investointisuojalauseke sisältää valtavan ongelman demokratian kannalta. Lainsäädännön muutoksia tekevät hallitukset, jotka ovat päässeet valtaan vaaleissa kansan tahdosta. Kun yhtiöille investointisuojan nimissä annetaan mahdollisuus kyseenalaistaa nämä demokraattiset päätökset, annetaan niille oikeus kyseenalaistaa kansan vaaleissa antama mielipide.
               

                  Tälläkin hetkellä yhtiöt voivat pitää hallituksia panttivankinaan uhkaamalla välimiesmenettelyllä, jos kyseinen valtio haluaisi esimerkiksi kieltää kivihiilen käytön. Se mahdollistaa sen, että ilmastotoimia estetään, vesitetään tai hylätään siinä pelossa, että ne johtavat miljardien eurojen kanteeseen.
               

                  Kun hyväksyimme ilmastolain, hyväksyimme sen kirjauksen, jonka mukaan kaiken politiikkamme on oltava linjassa ilmastolain tavoitteiden kanssa eli Pariisin sopimuksen kanssa, kuten ilmastolaissa kirjoitetaan. ECT-sopimus on täydessä ristiriidassa Green Dealin tavoitteiden kanssa. Se ei sisällä minkäänlaisia tavoitteita päästöjen vähentämiseksi tai ilmastokriisin ratkaisemiseksi, ja tämän on muututtava perustavan laatuisella tavalla.
               

                  Komissaari, oletteko valmis luopumaan ja irtautumaan sopimuksesta, mikäli yksimielisyyttä perustavanlaatuisista muutoksista ei riittävässä aikataulussa saada?
               

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, zastarjele odredbe Ugovora o energetskoj povelji trebaju se modernizirati u skladu s posljednjim ciljevima Europske komisije u namjeri da se ograniči utjecaj klimatskih promjena. Kako bi se zapravo dao doprinos postizanju klimatskih ciljeva zacrtanih u Pariškom sporazumu o ciljevima održivog razvoja te ambicijama Europske unije, ECT bi trebao poticati ulaganja u održivu energiju s niskim udjelom ugljika i, jednako tako, podržati mjere za promicanje pravedne tranzicije.
               

                  Međutim, u svjetlu hitne potrebe za klimatskim djelovanjem, ono što ECT stvarno treba temeljita je preinaka. Današnja rasprava, vjerujem, možda može pozitivno utjecati ne samo na razmišljanje o nužnim promjenama za ostvarenje klimatskih ciljeva nego i na druge odredbe ECT-a koje imaju također značajan negativan utjecaj na međunarodni pravni poredak. Moramo zaustaviti ulaganja u fosilna goriva i ukloniti nepovoljne odredbe koje zapravo investitorima daju mogućnost podnošenja tužbi protiv država pred privatnim arbitražnim sudovima. O tome smo već danas nešto čuli.
               

                  Najveći izazov možda s kojim se države članice suočavaju jest klauzula o zaštiti investitora. Ona, naime, omogućuje da u slučaju promjene politike i regulative imaju pravo na naknadu štete ako nisu u mogućnosti realizirati investiciju. Ova klauzula često se zloupotrebljava. Prema podacima tajništva ECT-a, ukupno su uložene 134 tužbe energetskih tvrtki protiv država, a gotovo polovica postupaka još uvijek traje. Zaključit ću, Europska unija se temelji na vladavini prava i poštivanju pozitivnih zakonskih propisa. Interesi naših građana moraju biti prioritet.
               

Der Präsident. – Ich kann im Moment nicht mit der Debatte fortfahren, weil ich jetzt unterbreche für die Bekanntgabe des Gewinners des Sacharow-Preises durch den Präsidenten. Wir setzen nach dieser Mitteilung sofort die Debatte wieder fort.
               

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID MARIA SASSOLI


Presidente

9.   Sakharov Prize 2020 (announcement of the winner)

Presidente. – Signore e signori, è per me un grande onore informarvi che la Conferenza dei presidenti ha deciso di conferire il Premio Sacharov per la libertà di pensiero ai rappresentanti dell'opposizione bielorussa: il Consiglio di coordinamento, l'iniziativa delle donne coraggiose Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Svetlana Alexievich, Maryia Kalesnikava, Volha Kavalkova, Veranika Tsapkala, e le personalità della politica e della società civile Siarhei Tsikhanouski, Ales Bialiatski, Siarhei Dyleuski, Stsiapan Putsila e Mikola Statkevich.
               

                  Le massicce proteste di piazza in Bielorussia che hanno commosso il mondo intero sono in corso ormai da 11 settimane. Man mano che cresce la nostra ammirazione nei confronti della popolazione bielorussa, cresce anche il nostro sgomento per le violente rappresaglie di Lukashenko e per i suoi atti di tortura e negazione della verità. Concedetemi di ribadire quanto già affermato dalle nostre istituzioni e dal Parlamento con una sola voce: il governo e il presidente hanno perso le elezioni ed è giunto il momento di ascoltare la voce del suo popolo.
               

                  Ma, cosa più importante, desidero congratularmi con i rappresentanti dell'opposizione bielorussa per il loro coraggio, la loro resilienza e la loro determinazione. Essi incarnano quotidianamente la difesa della libertà di pensiero e di espressione che il Premio Sacharov gratifica. Si sono dimostrati e continuano a dimostrarsi forti di fronte a un avversario molto più potente. Ma ciò che li sostiene è qualcosa che la violenza non potrà mai sconfiggere: la verità. Ecco dunque il mio, il nostro messaggio per voi, cari vincitori del premio: continuate ad essere forti e non rinunciate alle vostre battaglie, noi saremo al vostro fianco. Sappiate che siamo con voi. Spero di potervi accogliere presto al Parlamento per consegnarvi il premio che oggi vi abbiamo assegnato.
               

                  Vorrei aggiungere una parola anche sulla recente uccisione di uno dei finalisti di quest'anno, il signor Arnold Joaquín Morazán Erazo, leader del gruppo ambientalista di Guapinol, il gruppo che si sta opponendo a una miniera di ossido di ferro in Honduras. Una battaglia significativa molto importante. È imperativo che venga immediatamente avviata un'indagine credibile e indipendente e che i responsabili siano chiamati a risponderne.
               

                  In Honduras, in Bielorussia, in Iraq e in qualsiasi altra parte del mondo, nessuno deve essere perseguitato per aver espresso le proprie opinioni. E questo è il messaggio che oggi vogliamo lanciare dal Parlamento europeo.
               

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS


Vizepräsident

10.   Aligning the Energy Charta Treaty with the European Green Deal (continuation of debate)

Der Präsident. – Wir setzen nun unsere Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zur Anpassung des Vertrags über die Energiecharta an den europäischen Grünen Deal (2020/2827(RSP)) nach der Erklärung von Präsident Sassoli über die Sacharow-Preisträger fort.
               

Aurore Lalucq (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, cher Commissaire, chers collègues, la Commission européenne a fait de la question écologique son projet phare à travers le pacte vert pour l'Europe. Ce Parlement a déclaré l'urgence climatique l'an passé. Nous avons voté, il y a quelques semaines, la loi climat. Pourtant, tout cela ne sert à rien si la charte de l'énergie perdure car vous savez aussi bien que moi qu'à chaque fois qu'un État souhaitera mettre en place une législation environnementale ambitieuse, il sera attaqué ou menacé d'être attaqué devant des tribunaux d'arbitrage privés, avec les conséquences que l'on sait, soit la loi est balayée, soit elle est allégée, soit les États doivent débourser des millions voire des milliards d'euros, un argent public, celui des citoyens, un argent dont nous avons besoin pour mettre en place la transition écologique. Un argent dont nous avons plus que besoin dans un moment de crise.
               

                  Ce traité archaïque et climaticide fonctionne comme une véritable assurance vie pour les industries fossiles, assurance vie contre nos vies. Puisque les négociations sont actuellement en cours, nous aimerions connaître, nous parlementaires, quelles sont les lignes rouges de la Commission? Et si ce traité n'est pas renégociable, ce qui est vraiment notre crainte, nous aimerions savoir si la Commission est décidée à organiser une sortie concertée de ce traité, pour que nous puissions mettre en place la transition écologique.
               

Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, une évidence que nous partageons tous: nos politiques commerciales et d'investissement doivent contribuer au respect de l'accord de Paris et à la mise en œuvre de nos engagements définis dans le pacte vert. Une conséquence: l'actuel traité sur la charte de l'énergie est inadapté avec nos objectifs de lutte contre le dérèglement climatique. Alors deux priorités dans les négociations que vous avez déjà évoquées.
               

                  Premièrement, être engagé pour exclure les énergies fossiles du champ d'application du traité. Combien d'entreprises opérant dans ce secteur ont attaqué nos États et ont obtenu gain de cause! Et ces cas risquent de se multiplier avec notre objectif de neutralité climatique.
               

                  Deuxièmement, être engagé pour l'abandon, dans ce traité, de l'ancien mécanisme de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États. Le droit à reculer des États doit être protégé. Mais une réalité: malheureusement peu voire aucun des signataires actuels de ce traité ne partagent cette volonté d'adaptation.
               

                  Alors une seule conclusion, Madame la Commissaire, il est urgent de se préparer à toutes les situations, dont le retrait organisé de ces négociations.
               

Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, la Commission européenne a adopté un ambitieux pacte vert pour l'Europe. Le Parlement européen a voté, il y a à peine 15 jours, la loi climat qui prévoit de réduire de 60 % nos émissions d'ici à 2030. Et pourtant nous sommes coincés dans des textes qui datent des années 1990, qui n'intègrent pas l'urgence climatique.
               

                  Il faut arrêter de tergiverser et sortir du traité sur la charte pour l'énergie, qui prévoit la protection des investissements dans les énergies fossiles et le mécanisme de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États, qui prévoit également une clause de suprématie, donc une supériorité de ce texte sur tout texte postérieur, comme l'accord de Paris, et qui prévoit aussi l'unanimité des décisions entre 50 membres. Un peu plus de 50 membres qui n'arrivent pas à se mettre d'accord sur des questions de durabilité. C'est particulièrement problématique avec un pays comme le Japon, avec qui nous avons pourtant conclu un accord commercial et négocié des chapitres de développement durable, qui devraient nous permettre d'avoir des positions communes sur la scène internationale.
               

                  Alors, Madame la Commissaire, après deux rounds de négociations dont on ne voit pas le bout et compte tenu des hostilités face à la modernisation de ce traité, quel est le plan B de l'Union pour en sortir et se prémunir des effets du traité?
               

Manuel Bompard (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le traité sur la charte de l'énergie a été signé en 1994. Il protège les investissements dans les énergies fossiles, en permettant aux multinationales d'attaquer les États devant des tribunaux d'arbitrage.
               

                  C'est, par exemple, Vattenfall qui poursuit l'Allemagne pour avoir durcit sa réglementation environnementale; c'est Uniper qui s'en prend aux Pays-Bas pour avoir décidé de fermer ses centrales à charbon; c'est l'entreprise canadienne Vermilion qui menace la France de poursuites si elle devait s'engager à en finir avec l'extraction des combustibles fossiles d'ici à 2040. Ce traité protège aujourd'hui 30 gigatonnes d'émissions cumulées, c'est l'équivalent du budget carbone qu'il reste à l'Union européenne d'ici à 2050 pour respecter la trajectoire de l'accord de Paris. Or, notre Parlement a décrété l'objectif de neutralité carbone d'ici à 2050. Serons-nous à notre tour traînés devant un tribunal? Ça suffit, les intérêts financiers des multinationales ne doivent pas primer sur la souveraineté du peuple. Alors mes chers collègues, il est temps de déchirer le traité sur la charte de l'énergie.
               

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Mr President, the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) has been rightly criticised. Modernisation to make it compatible with the Green Deal is a necessity. I hope, however, that the Treaty's shortcomings do not blind us from seeing how much we need a modernised treaty to cover renewable energy investments. The Commission estimation shows that for reduction of emissions by the goals we have set, the EU needs annually EUR 350 billion more energy-related investments than were made in the past 10 years. It is clear also that most of this will come from private investors. If we get the true ambitious modernisation that is sought in the EU text proposal, the ECT would then, in effect, become the enforcement tool for the Paris Agreement that we currently lack.
We should recognise that in the multilateral investment treaty covering renewable energy investments, and that no other treaty exists than the ECT. With the modernised treaty we could offer private investors protection and the stable investment environment that is needed to increase investments in renewables. It will not be easy to find an ambitious modernised treaty – unanimity is required among 54 parties to the agreement – but we have to push this and we have to convince our partners that all need an Energy Charter Treaty that is in line with the Green Deal.

Kadri Simson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, once again I would like to thank you for this opportunity to debate on this important topic today. It is a sensitive one and you can trust that the Commission is following it very closely. The Commission will also need to address the definition of economic activity in the energy sector. In line with our mandate, the Commission wants to send a strong signal. Our aim is to ensure that economic activities related to the use of fossil fuels are phased out from the scope of the Charter's investment section.
The transition to a climate neutral energy system requires that the use of fossil fuels should be greatly diminished and eventually phased out. This approach is at the core of the European Green Deal and it is the approach we are following in the modernisation process. We have made it clear and engaged in very good faith in the reform. A successful Energy Charter Treaty negotiation outcome requires consensus. A proposal to remove the investment protection of fossil fuels from the Energy Charter Treaty would certainly be met with fierce resistance from many of the non-EU-ECT contracting parties, many of which are big fossil fuel producers. At the same time the EU has a duty to act in accordance with its long-term energy transition and climate goals which would require that the EU-ECT should only cover investments needed to support transition to a climate neutral energy system.
A balance needs to be struck and we believe that our approach does that. The Energy Charter Treaty protects not only investments in fossil fuels but also investment in electricity, irrespective of the energy source generating that electricity, which means that it also protects investments in renewable energy sources. Therefore, the Commission believes that the ECT could still play a positive role in the future by supporting the investments necessary for the energy transition in particular outside of the EU if all contracting parties accept the necessary changes to the treaty.
So right now, no option is off the table. The EU should first engage in the negotiations and see if partners engage. We must be aware that withdrawal is difficult, indeed the ECT has a 20-year sunset clause, therefore if the EU were to get out now, it would face the application of the unreformed ECT for the next 20 years in relation to investments in existence at the time of withdrawal. So, first, we negotiate and we are ready to assess all options if negotiations do not deliver the result.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Łukasz Kohut (S&D),
na piśmie. – Europejska Karta Energetyczna od przeszło dwóch dekad reguluje współpracę ponad pięćdziesięciu państw świata, jak również Unii Europejskiej, w kwestiach energetycznych. To traktat potrzebny. Ale to również traktat wymagający pilnej renegocjacji. Państwa członkowskie i regiony Unii, które podejmują obecnie heroiczny wysiłek sprawiedliwej transformacji, tak jak mój Śląsk, nie mogą być osłabiane przez przestarzałe, nieadekwatne regulacje. Unia Europejska wycofuje się z węgla i innych paliw kopalnych. Tymczasem Europejska Karta Energetyczna, w obecnym kształcie, może chronić znacznie ponad 2 biliony euro inwestycji w paliwa kopalne do roku 2050. Inwestycji nie naszych, ale państw trzecich, które dodatkowo mogą powodować odpowiedzialność odszkodowawczą państw Unii. To sytuacja nieakceptowalna. Pilna renegocjacja zapisów Karty jest koniecznością.
               

(Die Sitzung wird um 12.26 Uhr unterbrochen)

11.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

12.   Announcement of voting results: see Minutes

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.09 Uhr unterbrochen)


PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ


Wiceprzewodnicząca

13.   Resumption of the sitting

(Posiedzenie zostało wznowione o godz. 14.30)

14.   Second voting session

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest druga część głosowania.
               

                  Będziemy głosować nad punktami podanymi w porządku obrad. Głosowanie będzie otwarte od godz. 14.30 do godz. 15.45. Przyjęto taką samą metodę głosowania jak w poprzednich głosowaniach. Wszystkie głosowania będą imienne. Ogłaszam otwarcie drugiej części głosowania. Można głosować do godz. 15.45. Wyniki drugiej części głosowania zostaną ogłoszone o godz. 18.15.
               

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone o godz. 14.31)


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

15.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 18.17 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

16.   Announcement of voting results: see Minutes

(Die Sitzung wird um 18.25 Uhr unterbrochen)

17.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 20.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

18.   Third voting session

Der Präsident. – Wir kommen nun zur dritten Abstimmungsrunde.
               

                  Wir stimmen über die Dossiers ab, die in der Tagesordnung aufgeführt sind. Die Abstimmungsrunde ist von 20.00 bis 21.15 Uhrgeöffnet. Es kommt dasselbe Abstimmungsverfahren zur Anwendung wie in den vorangegangenen Abstimmungsrunden. Alle Abstimmungen sind namentliche Abstimmungen.
               

                  Die Sitzung wird heute um 21.15 Uhr geschlossen und morgen um 8.45 Uhr mit der Bekanntgabe der Ergebnisse der dritten heutigen Abstimmungsrunde wieder aufgenommen. Die Tagesordnung wurde veröffentlicht und ist auf der Website des Europäischen Parlaments verfügbar.
               
19.   Explanations of vote: see Minutes
20.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
21.   Petitions: see Minutes
22.   Consent Procedure (Rule 105): see Minutes
23.   Decision to draw up own-initiative reports: see Minutes
24.   Associated committees (Rule 57): see Minutes
25.   Change to the title of own-initiative reports: see Minutes
26.   Documents received: see Minutes
27.   Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
28.   Closure of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 21.15 Uhr geschlossen)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)