Verbatim report of proceedings of 13 February 2023
Date: 2023-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202301404EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C














8.12.2023







            13 February 2023
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 13 FEBRUARY 2023
            
         
(C/2023/1404)

Contents







1.

Resumption of the session
3










2.

Opening of the sitting
3










3.

Statements by the President
3










4.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sittings
4










5.

Request for waiver of immunity
4










6.

Composition of committees and delegations
4










7.

Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 71) (action taken)
4










8.

Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 71)
4










9.

Corrigendum (Rule 241) (action taken)
4










10.

Order of business
5










11.

EU response to the humanitarian situation following the earthquake in Türkiye and Syria (debate)
9










12.

REPowerEU chapters in recovery and resilience plans (debate)
21










13.

Electoral rights of mobile Union citizens in European Parliament elections - Electoral rights of mobile Union citizens in municipal elections (debate)
36










14.

Composition of committees and delegations
45










15.

EU funding allocated to NGOs incriminated in the recent corruption revelations and the protection of EU financial interests (debate)
46










16.

Following up on measures requested by Parliament to strengthen the integrity of European institutions (debate)
56










17.

Union Secure Connectivity Programme 2023-2027 (debate)
65










18.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
70










19.

Agenda of the next sitting
78










20.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting
78










21.

Closure of the sitting
78




Verbatim report of proceedings of 13 February 2023
                  


PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

1.   Resumption of the session

President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 9 February 2023.
2.   Opening of the sitting

(The sitting opened at 17.04)

3.   Statements by the President

President. – Dear colleagues, last week a devastating series of earthquakes hit Türkiye and Syria, causing almost unimaginable destruction. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, thousands more are injured or still trapped under the rubble.
I want to underline that Europe stands with the people of Türkiye and Syria. Our Civil Protection mechanism has been activated and help has – and continues to be –sent, and this will be debated as the first item on our agenda this afternoon. Right now, our thoughts are with the families of those killed, those trapped, those injured and with all rescuers fighting the clock – night and day – to save lives.
We will discuss that this afternoon – and I ask you to be present – but before that I invite you to join me for a minute of silence in honour of the many victims of this tragic earthquake.

(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)

Dear colleagues, 9 February was an important day for European unity. Before attending the Special European Council Meeting, the European Parliament had the honour of hosting President Zelenskyy – a true example of the bravery, courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people.
President Zelenskyy spoke from our Chamber, but his words really reverberated throughout Europe. It was a strong message and a reminder that the battle in Ukraine is not just one for territory, but also one in defence of our shared values.
I want to thank you all for attending this extraordinary plenary session last week. Ahead of the one-year anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, we have shown that the European Parliament stands, and continues to stand, in full solidarity with Ukraine and its people, and we will continue to do just that.
4.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sittings

President. – The minutes and the texts adopted of the previous sittings are available. Are there any comments? I see there are no comments. The minutes are approved.
5.   Request for waiver of immunity

President. – I have received a request from the competent authorities in Poland for the parliamentary immunities of Mr Patryk Jaki, Ms Beata Kempa, Ms Beata Mazurek and Mr Tomasz Poręba to be waived.
This request is referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
6.   Composition of committees and delegations

President. – The S&D Group has notified me of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations.
These decisions will be set out in the minutes of today's sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement.
7.   Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 71) (action taken)

President. – In relation to the decision by the LIBE Committee to enter into interinstitutional negotiations, pursuant to Rule 71(1), announced at the opening of the session on Wednesday 1 February, I have received no request for a vote in Parliament by Members or political groups reaching at least the medium threshold.
The committee may therefore start the negotiations.
8.   Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 71)

President. – Several committees have decided to enter into interinstitutional negotiations, pursuant to Rule 71(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
The reports, which constitute the mandates for the negotiations, are available on the plenary webpage and their titles will be published in the minutes of the sitting.
Pursuant to Rule 71(2) Members or political groups reaching at least the medium threshold may request in writing by tomorrow, Tuesday 14 February, at midnight, that the decisions be put to the vote.
If no request for a vote in Parliament is made within the deadline, the committees may start the negotiations.
9.   Corrigendum (Rule 241) (action taken)

President. – Pursuant to Rule 241(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to inform you that there was no request to put to the vote the corrigendum from the ENVI Committee announced in plenary on Wednesday 1 February.
The corrigendum is therefore deemed to have been approved.
I understand that our colleague, Marketa Gregorová, has a point of order.

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Madam President and colleagues, I want to bring to your attention the situation in Moldova. Moldovan President Maia Sandu just revealed that the Ukrainian intelligence services intercepted a document clearly showing Russia's plan for a coup d'état in Moldova.
Putin has an apparent goal to forcefully change the legitimate power from Chișinău to an illegitimate one, while also destroying Moldova's European aspirations. Three days ago, the Moldovan pro-European prime minister stepped down, also creating a turmoil which Russia can potentially use to destabilise our partner to whom we granted candidate status just a few months ago.
Madam President, on behalf of the Greens/EFA group, I would thus urge you to issue a statement of support to Moldova on its European path.

President. – Thank you, Ms Gregorová, I will.
10.   Order of business

President. – We now come to the order of business.
The final draft agenda, as adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 8 February pursuant to the Rule 157, has been distributed.
I would like to inform you that I have received a request for urgent procedure from the ENVI Committee, pursuant to Rule 163, on Transitional provisions for certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices. The vote on this request will be taken tomorrow and, if adopted, the vote will be held on Thursday.
We now move to changes requested by political groups.
For Monday, The Left Group has requested that a Commission statement on following up on measures taken by Parliament to strengthen the integrity of the European institutions be added on Monday, as the fifth point in the afternoon. The debate would be wound up with a resolution to be voted on Thursday, and as a consequence the session would be extended to 11 p.m.
I give the floor to Ms Aubry to move the request on behalf of The Left Group.

Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, voilà deux mois que le pire scandale de corruption de l'histoire du Parlement européen a éclaté, avec quatre députés et anciens députés poursuivis par la justice pour corruption par le Maroc et le Qatar. Voilà deux mois que les citoyens européens découvraient la culture de l'opacité et l'impunité qui règnent dans nos institutions, les centaines de cadeaux non déclarés, les voyages tous frais payés par les lobbys, les négociations à huis clos… Voilà deux mois que la quasi-totalité des députés européens ont promis ici, dans cette enceinte, la main sur le cœur, de restaurer l'intégrité du Parlement en votant une résolution avec quinze propositions de réforme.
               

                  Mais deux mois plus tard, cette feuille de route a été enterrée et, avec elle, onze de ces propositions: l'obligation de registre de transparence, la déclaration de patrimoine obligatoire ou encore la publication de l'origine des amendements. Voilà pourquoi nous demandons aujourd'hui ce débat et cette résolution pour assurer le suivi des engagements. Parce que, permettez-moi de vous dire, chers collègues, l'heure est venue de rendre publiquement des comptes. Pas au Maroc, pas au Qatar, mais aux citoyens européens à qui vous avez tant promis des réformes.
               

President. – I will now give the floor to any colleague who wishes to speak against this proposal. I don't see that to be the case. I will therefore put the request to the vote by roll call.

(Parliament agreed to the request)

We therefore have the Commission statement on following up on measures taken by Parliament to strengthen the integrity of the European institutions to be added as the fifth point this afternoon. The statement will be wound up with a resolution and the vote will be on Thursday. The deadlines are as follows: motions for resolutions, Tuesday 14 February at noon; amendments to motions for resolutions, and joint motions for resolutions, Wednesday 15 February at noon; amendment to joint motions for resolutions, Wednesday 15 February at 13:00; split and separate votes Wednesday 15 February at 19:00.
For Tuesday, the Green, Renew and S&D Groups have asked that the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the establishment of an independent EU ethics body be wound up with a resolution to be voted on Thursday. I give the floor to Mr Philippe Lamberts to move the request.

Philippe Lamberts,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la mise sur pied d'une autorité éthique indépendante au niveau des institutions européennes prédate, de beaucoup, le scandale qui nous occupe depuis le mois de décembre, puisqu'elle faisait partie du programme de travail de la présidente de la Commission européenne.
               

                  Comme ce Parlement n'a pas le droit d'initiative législative, il faudrait que la Commission s'active un peu. Or, on constate que, malgré le scandale, on attend toujours la proposition. Je pense qu'il est important que ce Parlement fasse entendre, par un peu plus qu'un débat, sa voix sur ce sujet et – si vous me passez l'expression – botte quelque peu le popotin de la Commission pour que les choses avancent. C'est le but de cette résolution que nous vous proposons.
               

President. – I put the request to the vote by roll call.

(Parliament agreed to the request)

The debate on the Council and Commission statements on the establishment of an independent EU ethics body will be wound up with a resolution. The vote will be held on Thursday. Deadlines are as follows: motions for resolutions, Tuesday at noon; amendments to the motions for resolutions, and joint motions, Wednesday at noon; amendments to joint motions Wednesday at 13:00; split and separate votes Wednesday at 19:00.
For Wednesday, the S&D Group has requested that the Council and Commission statements on ‘No EU funding for wars in Europe’ be added as the second item in the afternoon, after the topical debate.
I give the floor to Ms Gabriele Bischoff to move the request on behalf of her Group.

Gabriele Bischoff,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, who would have thought that, five years after we criticized President Trump for building walls to Mexico, the European Council would propose to build walls in Europe? And who would have thought that two decades and more after the fall of the Iron Curtain, we would have, or even have considered, proposals to build walls around Europe?
Okay, they call it, still very technocratic, ‘border protection’. They call ‘armour-like technocratic border protection capability and infrastructure’. But we are not fooled. We know what it is and let us see it straight, therefore. Every euro that will be put into fences and borders is a euro that cannot be used to help someone else and protect the vulnerable.
Therefore, we want to hear from the Commission and the Council their points of view about this term and the use of EU funds to build a fortress Europe. This is why we, as the S&D, urge you to support this – especially at a time also where we look, as the President said, with horror to the situation in Türkiye and Syria.
So please, I ask you to support this.

President. – I have received many other proposals.
I have, first of all, an alternative proposal from the ID Group.
I give the floor to Mr Jean-Paul Garraud to present the alternative proposal.

Jean-Paul Garraud,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, la semaine dernière, s'est tenu le Conseil européen, où de nombreux États membres ont réclamé que Bruxelles finance la construction de murs aux frontières extérieures afin de protéger leur territoire d'une immigration de masse, ce qui a été refusé par la présidente de la Commission.
               

                  Au même moment, le chancelier socialiste allemand Scholz se prépare à faire voter une loi qualifiée de ‘libérale’ pour faciliter l'arrivée de 400 000 immigrés par an pour combler, selon lui, les problèmes démographiques que connaît l'Allemagne. Il est question de plus de 5 millions de personnes qui viendraient d'ici 2035. Une fois arrivés outre-Rhin, ces immigrés seront libres de circuler partout en Europe.
               

                  Ce choix que veut faire l'Allemagne nous concerne tous et impactera toutes les politiques de nos territoires. Il est donc indispensable que nous en débattions, d'où notre demande de rajout à l'ordre du jour.
               

                  Il est inconcevable qu'au moment où il est urgent de renforcer nos frontières extérieures, un État membre de l'UE décide unilatéralement d'ouvrir en grand les vannes de l'immigration. Un débat ici même s'impose. Je vous engage donc à voter notre demande.
               

President. – I now give the floor to Mr Jeroen Lenaers, to present another alternative proposal, from the EPP Group.

Jeroen Lenaers,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, we are very happy to support a debate on last week's Council conclusions. In fact, we've already wanted to propose this last week, but then the socialists were still against it. So better late than never, I guess.
Happy to support the debate not under this title, because the level of hypocrisy is simply a bit too high. Have you ever seen the border fences in Spain? Have you ever seen the plans that the Finnish Government is doing to build a border wall? It is socialist governments rightfully using fences to manage migration. And yet, here you stand arguing that Europe should never help any other Member State to do the same. As always with the socialists it's ‘do as I say, not do as I do’.
So yes, we would like to have a debate on the Council conclusions under the words that the Council itself chose with the support of socialist prime ministers. And this is follow-up on the European Council conclusions: mobilising EU funds, reinforcing border protection capabilities.

President. – I now give the floor to Ms Sophie in 't Veld, to present another alternative proposal, from the Renew Group.

Sophia in 't Veld,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, it's always a joy to hear the EPP reproaching the rest of us for being hypocrites.
Just to frame the issue a little bit, I think we should have a debate and remind the European Council of the fact that their conclusions are actually a political statement; the European Council is neither a legislator nor the budgetary authority, contrary to the European Parliament.
The migration issue requires not grand statements and posturing and fake solutions – it requires real solutions. That is what we as a legislator and the budgetary authority are working on, very diligently, and that is why my group would like to propose a debate with the title ‘Referring to the EUCO conclusions and the need for a speedy finalisation of the roadmap’. Because we do serious work here, we work on real solutions, and I think that is what we want to debate with the European Council.

President. – Ms Bischoff, would you agree with the proposal from the ID Group, or the proposal from the EPP Group, or the proposal from the Renew Group? If your answer is ‘no’ then we will vote on the proposal from the S&D Group by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the S&D Group's proposal)

So now I ask, Mr Garraud, do you maintain your initial proposal? I see that you do, so we vote on the request of the ID Group by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the ID Group's proposal)

So now I ask Mr Lenaers, do you maintain your initial proposal? I see that you do, so we put the request of the EPP Group to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the EPP Group's proposal)

So I ask you, Ms in 't Veld, do you maintain your initial proposal? I see that you do, so we put the request to a vote.

(Parliament agreed to the Renew Group's proposal)

We will therefore have Council and Commission statements on ‘EUCO conclusions: the need for the speedy finalisation of the roadmap’ as the second item on Wednesday afternoon.
Still on Wednesday, the ECR Group has requested that a Commission statement on further repression against the people of Belarus, in particular the cases of Andrzej Poczobut and Ales Bialiatski, be added as the fifth item in the afternoon before the oral questions on adequate minimum income ensuring active inclusion. The debate would be wound up with a resolution to be voted in March I. I give the floor to Anna Fotyga to move the request.

Anna Fotyga,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, colleagues, in the course of criminal war of aggression against Ukraine waged by Russian Federation, Alexander Lukashenka, the oppressor of Belarus, launches his next wave of atrocities against society, in particular by convicting the very important member of the Belarusian opposition, an outstanding journalist, Andrzej Poczobut after 690 days in prison earlier, awaiting this judgment.
Now court proceedings have started against Ales Bialiatski, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and one of Sakharov Prize winners, together with other opposition members. He asked for the court proceedings to be conducted in Belarusian, it was rejected. That's showing the Russification of Belarus. I kindly ask you to support him.

President. – I give the floor to any colleague who would like to speak against. I see that not to be the case, so I will put the request to the vote by roll call.

(Parliament agreed to the request)

We will therefore have a Commission statement on further repression against the people of Belarus, in particular the cases of Andrzej Poczobut and Ales Bialiatski, to be added as the fifth item on Wednesday afternoon before the oral questions.
The statement will be wound up with a resolution, which will be voted on at the March I part-session.
The last request for Wednesday is that the Green Group has requested that the resolution on the oral questions on adequate minimum income ensuring active inclusion be postponed to the March I part-session.
I give the floor to Ms Sara Matthieu to move the request on behalf of the Green Group.

Sara Matthieu,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, as everyone is aware, I'm sure, there will be a strike on Thursday and that means that some Members will not be able to vote because they want to join the strike or perhaps they have other travel arrangements.
So, as the rapporteur on minimum income, I would urge you to postpone this vote to March. It's a very important decision when it comes to getting some action done on the eradication of poverty in Europe and I think it's important that all Members that want to vote can be present.

President. – Does anyone wish to speak against? I see that not to be the case, so I put the request to the vote by show of hands.

(Parliament rejected the request)

The agenda remains unchanged.
The agenda is adopted.
The order of business is thus established.

(The sitting was briefly suspended)


Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA


varapuhemies

11.   EU response to the humanitarian situation following the earthquake in Türkiye and Syria (debate)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana komission julkilausuma EU:n toimista Turkin ja Syyrian maanjäristyksen jälkeisen humanitaarisen tilanteen johdosta (2023/2561(RSP)).
               

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I wish to start by expressing my heartfelt condolences to the people of Türkiye and of Syria who have been hit by the devastating earthquake a week ago. Our thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones, the injured, those who lost their homes, and with the first responders working tirelessly to save lives.
Just hours after the earthquake, the European Union mobilised search and rescue teams for Türkiye. The European Union Civil Protection Mechanism has offered 32 search and rescue teams and 6 medical teams from 21 EU Member States and 3 other European participating states. Our teams arrived quickly and have participated in the rescue efforts alongside the Turkish first responders since.
Last Thursday, I visited Gaziantep. The scale of destruction is without precedent in recent times. In Türkiye alone, more than 13 million people have been affected. Many of them are left homeless in very rough, harsh winter conditions. There is a desperate need for relief materials, including tents and other items to ensure that people have shelter and are protected from the cold.
That is why I have decided to mobilise rescEU – the EU's own emergency stockpiles. We have sent 500 temporary accommodation units, 2 000 tents and 8 000 beds to Turkey from these European strategic reserves. In addition, 16 Member States have already offered various shelter items to help people in Türkiye. We have also allocated an additional EUR 3 million to humanitarian partners to meet the most urgent needs across the affected locations in Türkiye.
It is crucial that we also help the people of Syria, who have been greatly impacted. And millions of Syrians were already dependent on humanitarian aid before the earthquake, with almost 3 million displaced in northwest Syria alone.
Following a request for assistance from the government of Syria, as well as an activation of the Union's Civil Protection Mechanism by the World Food Programme, nine Member States so far, as well as one participating state, have already offered in-kind assistance: family tents, sleeping bags, mattresses, beds, food items, winter clothing and more. We are working to ensure that this assistance can be delivered rapidly and equitably to all people who need the assistance.
The Commission also allocated an additional EUR 3.5 million in emergency humanitarian funding to help our partners address urgent needs in Syria. They are already providing water and sanitation support, distributing blankets, hot meals, tents and hygiene items.
Emergency assistance is also being mobilised through a deployment of the European humanitarian response capacity. These are strategic stocks of emergency items, among others in Dubai and Brindisi, and they will be delivered to Syrians affected by the earthquake, including winterised tents, heaters, blankets, water, sanitation, hygiene kits and kitchen sets. We will also offer logistical support to deliver assistance.
Honourable Members, the European Union is determined to further scale up support in view of this unprecedented catastrophe. Considering the enormous needs, the European Commission and the Swedish Presidency of the Council will host next month the donors conference in support of the people of Türkiye and Syria. This is organised in coordination with the Turkish authorities to mobilise international funds, notably for reconstruction and rehabilitation.
I look forward to hearing your views in today's debate.

György Hölvényi,
a PPE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Úr! Most, egy héttel a Törökországot és Szíriát megrázó pusztító földrengést követően, mindenek előtt köszönetet kell mondanunk azoknak, akik az elmúlt héten és ezekben a percekben is testi épségüket kockáztatva küzdenek a bajbajutottakért. Tisztelet nekik!
               

                  A mi feladatunk, hogy mindenben támogassuk a munkájukat. Engedjék meg, hogy külön kiemeljem a szíriai humanitárius helyzetet. Itt rendkívül nehéz biztonsági és politikai helyzetben kezdődött meg a segítségnyújtás. Azonban sokkal átfogóbb szerepvállalására van szükség ahhoz, hogy a helyi humanitárius szereplők valóban hatékonyan tudják ellátni feladatukat.
               

                  A katasztrófát követően felvettem a kapcsolatot az ország egyik legnagyobb segélyszervezetével, a Szent Efrém Pátriárkai Fejlesztési Bizottsággal, valamint az AVSI olasz humanitárius ügynökséggel és más Szíriában tevékenykedő nem kormányzati partnereinkkel. A nemzetközileg elismert, az Unióval szorosan együtt működő szervezet elmondása szerint a banki tranzakciókra, elektronikai eszközökre és a romok eltakarításához szükséges gépekre vonatkozó szankciók súlyosan hátráltatják a humanitárius fellépést.
               

                  Módot kell találnunk tehát arra, hogy a szankciók politikai céljának feladása nélkül elhárítsuk, az életmentés időszaka után, az újjáépítés akadályait. Ez csakis a szíriai lakosság közvetlen segítését szolgálhatja!
               

                  Idő van! Tisztelt Biztos Úr! Ebben a kérdésben számíthat személyes támogatásomra és frakcióm, az Európai Néppárt támogatására is.
               

Nacho Sánchez Amor,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, en esta Cámara hemos tenido, en los últimos años, muchas oportunidades de ejercer la crítica más justificada con la gobernación turca; con sus autoridades, no con el país ni con su admirable sociedad civil. Lo he dicho muchas veces: Erdoğan no es Turquía y Turquía no es Erdoğan.
               

                  Es a Turquía, a la nación, a la sociedad, a su pueblo, a quienes debemos dirigirnos hoy con empatía y cercanía. La escala de la devastación es histórica, seguramente solo comparable con lo que sucedió en Haití en el año 2010. Y del mismo tamaño deben ser las dos respuestas: la respuesta doméstica y la respuesta europea.
               

                  Nuestra relación, la de la Unión Europea y la de los países miembros, ha estado a la altura. En pocas horas, los mecanismos europeos de protección civil se pusieron en marcha, algunos muy simbólicos que quiero destacar aquí, como el esfuerzo de Grecia como vecino inmediato de Turquía. Ahora toca mantener ese esfuerzo inicial creando los medios para acompañar la reconstrucción en condiciones seguras para el futuro.
               

                  Turquía no es Haití. Turquía es un país que exhibe su carácter de actor regional y sus enormes capacidades estatales. Es el momento de probarlo, protegiendo a su población y contando para ello con la ayuda europea, ayuda humanitaria y, por tanto, ajena a consideraciones políticas. Ya habrá tiempo para la política.
               

Malik Azmani,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner Lenarčič, dear colleagues, last week, southern Türkiye and northern Syria were rocked several times by very strong earthquakes, causing massive devastation of an unprecedented magnitude. Even now, a week later, it's difficult to realise the scale of this disaster and human suffering.
Last year, I got to know the beautiful cities of Gaziantep and Urfa. Very welcoming and energetic people who are working hard, not only for themselves, but also for the many Syrian refugees. And now so much that they worked for has literally collapsed. It's horrible. People sleep in parks or in tents, still in shock. All their future dreams are gone at once.
In these difficult times, Europe must stand up and lend a helping hand. Fortunately, the EU – and I would like also to express my gratitude to Commissioner Lenarčič – and also the Member States have responded quickly with emergency aid, which I applaud. But we know that more is needed. We must show our solidarity. More humanitarian aid is now needed and also for the years to come to offer perspective to the people in the affected areas.
We demand full access to northern Syria immediately. And also we call upon the Turkish authorities that their actions are just and lawful. Blocking Twitter is not a solution. Let's make it clear why Mustafa Kemal's choice for Europe was the right one by being there for Türkiye at its darkest hour.

Sergey Lagodinsky,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Liebe Freundinnen, liebe Freunde, liebe politischen Partnerinnen und Partner, Bürgerinnen und Bürger in der Türkei und in Nordsyrien! Liebe Parteifreundin aus Europa, die mir gestern offenbarte, dass sie vier Angehörige in der Türkei verloren hat. Liebe beste Freundin in Berlin, die mir gestern anvertraute, wie sehr sie ihre zwei Cousins vermisst, die nur deswegen überlebt haben, weil sie eine Raucherpause gemacht haben. Und sie wird auch immer die anderen 14 Familienmitglieder vermissen, die keine Raucher waren und deswegen nicht überlebt haben. Liebe Brüder und Schwestern in Idlib, Hatay, Afrin, Diyarbakır, Adıyaman, Gölbașı! Liebe Brüder und Schwestern in Kassel und in Köln, in Barcelona und in Stockholm, die ihre Brüder und Schwestern beweinen. Wir stehen mit euch, wir weinen mit euch.
               

                  Aber wir müssen auch handeln. Gut, dass die Kommission und Mitgliedstaaten Geld und Ausrüstung in die Türkei und nach Syrien schicken. Aber – ich habe soeben mit einigen Menschen aus der Türkei und aus Syrien gesprochen; sie alle fordern eines: Stellt sicher, dass diese Hilfe bei den Bedürftigen wirklich ankommt! Stellt sicher, dass die Bedürftigen für Behandlungen auch in die EU einreisen können – nicht irgendwann; sofort, so schnell wie möglich, ohne bürokratische Hürden! Und verteilt endlich europäisches Geld auch unter Organisationen, die nicht von Assads Regime anerkannt sind! Insbesondere rede ich von Weißhelmen. Lasst uns gerade jetzt nicht Assad auswählen lassen, wer überlebt und wer nicht! Lasst uns in dieser Stunde der Menschlichkeit geradlinig bleiben!
               

Thierry Mariani,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, depuis la tragique nuit du 6 février, tous les Européens expriment leur solidarité avec les peuples turc et syrien, qui traversent tous deux une terrible épreuve. Immédiatement, les chancelleries européennes et l'Union européenne ont annoncé leur soutien à la Turquie à travers divers mécanismes, c'est tout à notre honneur.
               

                  En revanche, nos atermoiements devant le sort des habitants du nord de la Syrie sont abjects. Oui, nous devons lever les sanctions qui frappent le peuple syrien. Oui, au nom de l'humanisme européen, nous ne devons reculer devant aucun partenariat pour sauver des vies humaines. 90 % des Syriens vivaient sous le seuil de pauvreté avant le séisme. Les sanctions européennes et américaines les maintiennent dans une crise économique perpétuelle qui accroît leur migration et coûte des vies humaines. Ces conditions étaient déjà révoltantes, elles sont aujourd'hui politiquement désastreuses et moralement insupportables. Même les États-Unis annoncent désormais l'assouplissement de leurs mesures coercitives. Qu'attend donc l'Europe?
               

                  L'Union européenne ne peut pas continuer à faire payer au peuple syrien la victoire de Bachar el-Assad face à la rébellion islamiste et ainsi continuer à maintenir le peuple syrien dans la misère, même après cette catastrophe. Aujourd'hui, les habitants d'Alep sont encore dans les rues, par crainte que leurs immeubles s'effondrent. Les organisations humanitaires prennent des risques juridiques immenses pour faire parvenir l'aide que les peuples européens veulent généreusement donner aux victimes. Et nous fermons les yeux en prétendant que les sanctions ne toucheraient pas les aides humanitaires. Mais vous savez que c'est faux, parce que toutes les banques refusent de faire le moindre virement.
               

                  Alors tous, les acteurs de l'aide d'urgence nous disent le contraire et demandent justement ce changement de politique, les victimes du tremblement de terre nous le demandent: levons les sanctions pour la Syrie.
               

Beata Kempa,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Ponad 35 tysięcy ofiar śmiertelnych, 2,5 miliona osób dotkniętych skutkami ostatniego trzęsienia ziemi, przebywających aktualnie w bardzo trudnych zimowych warunkach, to obraz z pogranicza Turcji i Syrii. Tysiące zamarzniętych i straumatyzowanych dzieci, z których wiele w jednej chwili stało się sierotami. Wszyscy czekają na naszą pomoc.
               

                  Cieszę się i dziękuję za uruchomienie pierwszych mechanizmów pomocy w Unii Europejskiej. Musimy wznieść się ponad granice, ponad trudne podziały polityczne i maksymalnie zintensyfikować naszą pomoc humanitarną. Musimy trafiać bezpośrednio na miejsce, w te najbardziej dotknięte regiony. Już tam są polskie organizacje, zarówno te katolickie, jak i te świeckie. Działają od lat w Syrii. Dzisiaj mówią, co tak najbardziej trzeba. Warto i zachęcam, aby włączyć ich w dystrybucję pomocy.
               

                  Jednocześnie z tego miejsca, chcę bardzo serdecznie podziękować wszystkim ratownikom z całego świata. W sposób szczególny, polskiej grupie strażaków Straży Pożarnej HUSAR, a także ratowników z Polskiej Grupy Górniczej, której udało się wydobyć już wiele osób i nadal pracują w ciężkich warunkach.
               

                  Wierzę, że uda się pomóc jeszcze wielu żywym osobom. Niech to dobro do Was wraca. Dziękuję, Panie Komisarzu i działajmy! Ma Pan wsparcie!
               

Özlem Demirel,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – (Beginn des Redebeitrags bei ausgeschaltetem Mikro) … aus der Türkei und aus Syrien. Meine Gedanken sind bei den Menschen in der Türkei, bei meinen Freundinnen und Freunden.
               

                  Städte sind zerstört – auch die Stadt, in der ich geboren bin. Mein Telefon brummt die ganze Zeit: Nachrichten von Menschen in der Türkei, die verzweifelt sind und nicht wissen, wohin sie sollen. Das Dorf, in dem ich noch im Oktober letzten Jahres war, ist zu 80 % zerstört, und gleichzeitig habe ich gestern ein Video gesehen auf Instagram, wie die AFAD, die staatliche Rettungsbehörde, Banktresore aus den Trümmern rettet – nicht Menschen. Daneben sah ich entrüstete Menschen, die schrien: Überall liegen unsere Familien, unsere Liebsten, und ihr sorgt euch um Banktresore?
               

                  Und ja, in der Tat, es ist eine toxische Mischung aus grenzenloser Profitgier und einer korrupten Einmannherrschaft, die aus dieser Naturkatastrophe, die nicht verhinderbar war, aber diese menschliche Tragödie hervorgerufen hat.
               

                  Die Menschen sind zu Recht empört. Ich bin auch empört. Hilfen in den wichtigsten Stunden und auch jetzt noch kommen nicht an. Der Erdoğan-Administration scheint im Moment ihre Macht wichtiger zu sein, als Menschenleben zu retten. Und es bleibt zu befürchten, dass das Regime auf die berechtigte Empörung des Volkes mit Repressionen reagiert. Bereits jetzt wird der Druck auf kritische Stimmen erhöht.
               

                  Deshalb braucht es zwei Dinge: Wir brauchen humanitäre und akute Hilfe – sofort. Die Hilfen müssen ankommen. Aber wir müssen auch weiterhin auf die Türkei schauen, was in den nächsten Monaten passiert.
               

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύρια Πρόεδρε, το χτύπημα των ισχυρών σεισμών στην Τουρκία και τη Συρία, σε συνδυασμό με την πολιτική που αφήνει τους λαούς αθωράκιστους για τα κέρδη των επιχειρηματικών ομίλων, οδήγησε σε μια ανείπωτη τραγωδία με χιλιάδες νεκρούς, τραυματίες και άστεγους. Χαιρετίζουμε το κύμα γνήσιας αλληλεγγύης των λαών στην οποία συμμετέχει ο ελληνικός λαός, όπως και το Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας. Απαιτούμε τώρα να αρθούν όλες οι απαράδεκτες κυρώσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, των ΗΠΑ και του ΝΑΤΟ ενάντια στη Συρία, για να φτάσει η ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια στον συριακό λαό που υποφέρει από την πολύχρονη ιμπεριαλιστική επέμβαση. Τονίζουμε ιδιαίτερα ότι σε σεισμογενείς χώρες, όπως για παράδειγμα η Ελλάδα ή η Ιταλία, με βάση την επιζήμια για τον λαό πράσινη στρατηγική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, οι κυβερνήσεις προκρίνουν την ενεργειακή αναβάθμιση κτιρίων γιατί είναι κερδοφόρα για τους κατασκευαστικούς και άλλους ομίλους και όχι τη διασφάλιση στατικής επάρκειας των κτιρίων με την αναγκαία αντισεισμική θωράκιση. Μόνο ο λαός σώζει τον λαό με την αλληλεγγύη και διεκδίκηση ολοκληρωμένου αντισεισμικού σχεδιασμού με επίκεντρο την πρόληψη κόντρα στα μεγάλα συμφέροντα.
               

Μανώλης Κεφαλογιάννης (PPE). – Κύρια Πρόεδρε, σήμερα στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο είναι η ώρα των αποφάσεων και της δράσης. Σήμερα είναι η ώρα της ανθρωπιάς. Είναι η ώρα της ανθρώπινης προσέγγισης. Είναι η ώρα της αλληλεγγύης. Σήμερα η πολιτική σωπαίνει. Υποκλίνεται μπροστά στον ανθρώπινο πόνο. Ο τουρκικός λαός και ο λαός της Συρίας βιώνουν μια οδυνηρή δοκιμασία, μια απίστευτη καταστροφή. Είμαστε συντετριμμένοι και βαθιά συγκλονισμένοι για τον ανθρώπινο πόνο και τις δραματικές συνέπειες αυτής της τρομακτικής καταστροφής. Ως Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να καταβάλουμε κάθε δυνατή προσπάθεια, να παράσχουμε κάθε δυνατή βοήθεια που θα ανακουφίζει τους ανθρώπους που επλήγησαν. Οι σκέψεις, οι ενέργειες, οι πράξεις μας είναι σήμερα με τους δοκιμαζόμενους λαούς της Συρίας και της Τουρκίας. Η Ευρώπη της αλληλεγγύης, η Ευρώπη της κοινωνικής προσφοράς πρέπει να σταθεί έμπρακτα και αποφασιστικά στο πλευρό των λαών της Συρίας και της Τουρκίας. Και αντιπροσωπεία του Ελληνικού Κοινοβουλίου πρέπει να επισκεφτεί αυτές τις περιοχές της Τουρκίας.
               

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, gospodine povjereniče, izražavam najdublju sućut građankama i građanima Turske i Sirije. Ovo je nezamisliva tragedija ogromnih razmjera i beskrajne tuge. Preživjelima želim da smognu snage za obnovu života iz ruševina, da ih ne svlada očaj, koliko god to teško bilo.
               

                  Pozivam Europsku uniju da pruži svu moguću pomoć kako bi olakšali patnje ljudima u Turskoj i Siriji. Veliko hvala spasilačkim ekipama iz cijelog svijeta!
               

                  Koristim ovu priliku i kako bih podijelio iskustvo stečeno nakon potresa u Hrvatskoj, u Zagrebu i Petrinji 2020. godine. Zahvaljujem institucijama Europske unije na upućivanju izdašnog paketa pomoći Hrvatskoj. Zahvaljujući njemu, grad Zagreb uspio je obnoviti određen broj zgrada javne namjene: škole, vrtiće i muzeje. No, naučili smo i neke lekcije na vrlo bolan način.
               

                  Nužno je administrativne kapacitete objediniti u jednoj instituciji kako bi se spriječilo da pomoć Europske unije ne bude iskorištena na vrijeme. Nažalost, sporost naše administracije na nacionalnoj razini obnovu je privatnih zgrada usporila toliko da će vjerojatno biti propuštena prilika za korištenje većine dodijeljenih sredstava Europske unije.
               

Dacian Cioloș (Renew). – Madam President, the mobilisation of the European Union and its Member States to support the people of Türkiye and Syria has been speedy and generous. And thank you, Commissioner Lenarčič, for what you have done till now. But we need all actors, international and on the ground, to put aside their differences and work together to ensure continuous and speed access so that humanitarian aid reaches all those in need in all affected areas. And this is especially pressing and necessary in northwest Syria, where the humanitarian crisis was already worsening before the earthquake.
Related to Syria, considering the disaster caused by the earthquake, I think a serious analysis is needed of the possibility of a general humanitarian exception clause that would allow aid to arrive more quickly without waiting for the various approvals that take time. And I call on the authorities in Damascus and all other actors on the ground not to politicise the delivery of humanitarian aid and to engage in good faith with all humanitarian partners and UN agencies to help people, because we need to act now beyond any political differences to help people.

Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). – Madame la Présidente, il y a des situations où l'humanitaire, où le salut des populations doivent prendre le pas sur toute autre considération politique ou diplomatique. L'Union européenne ne cesse de le dire quand il est question de migrants, mais elle abandonne hypocritement ses grands principes lorsqu'il s'agit de la Syrie.
               

                  Un séisme y a durement frappé. Nous avons tous ici une pensée pour les victimes et leurs familles en Turquie et en Syrie, qui attendent dans l'angoisse. La Turquie bénéficie d'une aide de la part des pays membres de l'Union européenne comme de la communauté internationale, ce que nous saluons sans réserve. Vous me permettrez de profiter de cette occasion pour saluer les équipes de sauveteurs français qui sont sur place.
               

                  Mais nous savons que la détresse est encore plus forte en Syrie, en raison du conflit, de la destruction du pays, mais aussi des sanctions édictées par l'Union européenne.
               

                  À l'heure présente, la priorité est de faire trêve aux rancunes diplomatiques, d'oublier la logique juridique aveugle des sanctions et de penser avant tout aux populations syriennes. Notre aide humanitaire doit également s'adresser à ces populations qui souffrent et qui en ont besoin. C'est une question d'honneur et d'humanité.
               

Anna Fotyga (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Zeszłotygodniowa seria trzęsień ziemi dotknęła terytoria, które od lat są już doświadczają klęsk humanitarnych. Przede wszystkim w Turcji i w Syrii. To powodowało i powoduje, że szybkie i sprawne dostarczenie pomocy, poszukiwań jest tak skomplikowaną i trudną sprawą. Pomimo tego instytucje Unii Europejskiej i państwa członkowskie, w tym również w ogromnej mierze mój kraj, Polska, zadziałały bardzo szybko i sprawnie.
               

                  Chciałam podziękować wszystkim za tę akcję, ale przede wszystkim chcę powiedzieć, że moje myśli i modlitwy są z ludźmi, ludnością Turcji, Syrii i wszystkich innych dotkniętych państw.
               

                  Musimy podjąć kolejne wysiłki, bo skala zniszczeń i liczba ofiar jest po prostu niebywała, niespotykana w historii, a wcześniejsze klęski nie pozwalają tej skali określić precyzyjnie. Musimy być gotowi na długą pomoc.
               

Niyazi Kizilyürek (The Left). – Madam President, I am speechless. I will rather call Voltaire to talk on my part. I quote: ‘Entombed beneath roofs, and they die without relief from the horror of their suffering lives. As the dying voices call out, will you dare respond to this appalling spectacle of smouldering ashes with: “This is the necessary effect of the eternal laws freely chosen by God”? Seeing this mass of victims, will you say: “God is avenged. Their death is the price of their crimes”? What crime, what fault had the young committed?’
               
Voltaire wrote these lines in 1775 after the earthquake in Lisbon. By now, we know it is not God. Not even nature entirely. It is human society, bad governance and zeal for profit. And it can be only healed with solidarity. We must support the victims of this biblical catastrophe in Türkiye and Syria, support the Turkish-Cypriot families who lost their beloved ones who went to Turkey just for a volleyball match between schools. Let's help them, so that the kids can play volleyball again.

Kinga Gál (NI). – Elnök Asszony! A legnehezebb a történetek kezelése volt, amik megbújtak a sok fájdalom mögött, amiket ott láttunk – nyilatkozta a tegnap éjjel hazaérkező HUNOR magyar mentőcsapat. Együttérzésünk a földrengés áldozatainak, hozzátartozóinak, és bízunk a rengeteg sebesült felépülésében. Magyarország az elsők között ajánlotta fel segítségét, és küldött kutató-mentő csapatokat, valamint orvosi segítséget a térségbe. A katasztrófavédelem mentőcsapata a magyar jótékonysági szervezetekkel együtt 167 fővel és 29 keresőkutyával több mint 30 embert mentett ki élve a romok alól Törökországban. Köszönet áldozatos és kitartó munkájukért!
               

                  Magyarország egyetlen európai államként Szíriában is segít. A Hungary Helps Program támogatásával a Magyar Máltai Szeretetszolgálat mobil mentőállomásokat telepített az országba. Az életmentés után most az átfogó és gyors humanitárius segítségnyújtás a legfontosabb. Az emberi tragédiákon túl óriási károk érték az épített környezetet is. Európának a lehető leggyorsabban kell megadnia minden segítséget Törökországnak, de a katasztrófa sújtotta szíriai térségnek, lakosságnak is. Erre van most a legnagyobb szükség.
               

Janina Ochojska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Chcę zaapelować szczególnie o pomoc dla ofiar trzęsienia ziemi w Syrii, gdzie pomoc jest utrudniona nie tylko z powodów logistycznych, ale też politycznych. Tereny, na których doszło do kataklizmu, są podzielone między rząd w Damaszku i grupę rebeliantów.
               

                  Oto świadectwo medycznej organizacji pracującej w Aleppo. Ludzie boją się zawalenia większej liczby budynków, więc wiele rodzin śpi na zewnątrz. Czasem w samochodach, w parkach publicznych, na ulicach lub na dużych polach. W niektórych przypadkach schroniska społeczne i lokalne szkoły przyjęły wysiedlono rodziny. Ponieważ wiele rodzin dzieli jeden pokój, często jest bardzo mało prywatności, a pokoje są wilgotne i przenikliwie zimne. Tylko nieliczni mają koce lub materace. Wielu musi spać bezpośrednio na lodowatej podłodze. W wielu schroniskach zbiorowych brakuje dostępu do mydła i bieżącej wody, a jak dotąd brakuje jedzenia i koców, aby ogrzać ludzi.
               

                  Wszystkie strony syryjskiej wojny domowej powinny natychmiast wpuścić pomoc humanitarną i pozwolić na jej dostarczenie tam, gdzie jest potrzebna. Niezależnie od tego, kto kontroluje dane tereny.
               

Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, começo por apresentar as minhas condolências aos povos turco e sírio e o meu apreço pelo excelente trabalho que está a ser feito por todos aqueles que, neste momento, prestam auxílio humanitário no terreno.
               

                  No meu país, dizemos que uma desgraça nunca vem só e, no martirizado noroeste da Síria, este sismo veio somar-se à devastação gerada por 12 anos de uma guerra que provocou um rasto infindável de mortes, destruição e pobreza extrema. É, especificamente aí, onde 90% da população necessita de ajuda humanitária, que o apoio internacional está a faltar mais.
               

                  É importante restabelecer os dois corredores humanitários na Síria e alargar Bab al-Hawa ao transporte de sobreviventes. Mas isto não basta e não é aqui que está o problema. O problema está na vontade política e em intervir rapidamente, mobilizando-nos na ajuda que é necessária.
               

                  A ajuda humanitária não pode ficar refém dos senhores da guerra. Não podemos abandonar aqueles que se encontram em condições particularmente vulneráveis na Síria, sejam eles curdos, deslocados internos ou refugiados palestinianos.
               

                  É uma questão de humanidade.
               

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, commissaris, het ontroerende beeld van Mesut, de Turkse man die de hand van zijn overleden dochter maar niet wil loslaten, staat op mijn netvlies gebrand. De foto's van baby Aya, die geboren werd onder het puin in Syrië en haar ouders is verloren, laten mij niet los.
               

                  De ravage is enorm en de nood is hoog. De eerste Europese noodhulp was snel ter plaatse. Ik wil daarom alle hulpverleners bedanken, die zeer zwaar werk verrichten onder moeilijke omstandigheden.
               

                  De commissaris wil ik vragen meer te doen voor Mesut, Aya en alle getroffen families. Er moet een Marshallplan komen met opvang in de regio. Wij mogen onze ogen bovendien niet sluiten voor het wanbeleid van Erdoğan en moeten de censuur van deze autocraat veroordelen. Ten slotte mogen we Syrië niet vergeten en moeten we ervoor zorgen dat iedereen wordt geholpen. In veel gebieden waar geen hulp is, moet men strijden om te overleven.
               

                  Humanitaire hulp mag nooit een onderdeel van een politiek spel zijn.
               

Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-жо председател, г-н Комисар, природата ни сблъска с огромна трагедия, която ни показва още веднъж колко е крехък човешкият живот. Няма как да върнем над 35-те хиляди засега загинали в Турция, незнайно колко в Сирия, но поне можем да намалим страданието на преживелите този ужас. Европейският съюз показа на практика, че е основан на идеята за солидарност, състрадание и съпричастност. Тази наша подкрепа не може да бъде само мимолетна, трябва да бъде постоянна. Турция е наш комшия и нашите мисли са с нашите приятели. Европейският съюз трябва да удвои своите усилия, за да помогне на населението, пострадало на територията на Сирия. Подкрепата трябва да се увеличи, защото броят на жертвите нараства ежедневно, а ситуацията в Сирия се превръща в ужасна хуманитарна катастрофа, в допълнение към продължаващата 12 години война в региона.
               

                  Искам да изкажа моята благодарност към всички, които се притекоха веднага на помощ. Благодаря на Европейската комисия, на националните спасителни служби, включително и на българската такава, на милионите европейски граждани, които даряват всеки ден.
               

                  Всеки спасен живот е лъч надежда. Всяка помощ дава надежда, че нашата човешка цивилизация, със задружни усилия, ще успее да преживее всяко предизвикателство.
               

Ilan De Basso (S&D). – Fru talman! Låt mig inleda med att uttrycka mina sympatier till alla drabbade i Turkiet och Syrien. Förödelsen är ofattbar, vittnesmålen smärtsamma. För någon dag sedan nåddes jag av beskedet att en väns son omkommit i denna katastrof. Fikri Töre är ett av tiotusentals offer och räddningsinsatserna fortsätter dag och natt.
               

                  Den internationella närvaron är helt avgörande. Men vi ska inte glömma bort situationen i Syrien. Landet är sargat efter många år av krig. Detta har drabbat civila särskilt hårt. Hjälpen till Syrien har svårt att nå fram på raserade vägar. Husen är i många fall sedan tidigare sönderbombade. Bilderna från regionen talar sitt tydliga språk.
               

                  Hjälpen till Syrien måste intensifieras och här är behoven enorma och här behövs humanitär hjälp för att rädda liv. Den svenska regeringen är ordförande i EU. Jag förväntar mig att den tar ledartröjan och hanterar detta med den solidaritet och medmänsklighet som krävs i denna tid.
               

Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, lorsqu'un séisme cause la mort de plus de 30 000 personnes, il ne devrait plus y avoir de Turcs, de Syriens, de chiites, de sunnites, d'alaouites, de chrétiens ou de Kurdes, mais seulement des hommes, des femmes et des enfants à secourir.
               

                  Lorsqu'un séisme cause la mort de plus de 30 000 personnes, on est ému des gestes de solidarité qui transcendent les conflits: la Turquie a ainsi reçu le soutien de l'Arménie et de la Grèce, en dépit du poids de l'histoire et des tensions du présent.
               

                  Malheureusement, en Syrie, le tremblement de terre n'est qu'un malheur de plus. Un seul point de passage est ouvert vers le nord-ouest pour l'aide d'urgence, au motif que la zone n'est pas sous le contrôle de Damas. Les combats se poursuivent, y compris dans les zones touchées par le séisme. Le régime de Bachar el-Assad blâme les sanctions internationales pour la lenteur de l'aide, alors qu'elles n'ont jamais inclus l'assistance humanitaire.
               

                  Face à l'ampleur des dégâts et au nombre de civils en danger, il est temps que le Conseil de sécurité exige un cessez-le-feu complet et la circulation sans entrave de l'aide d'urgence, et que l'ONU mette en place un pont aérien vers la Syrie. La vie d'un enfant vaut autant que celle d'un autre, en Syrie ou en Turquie. Il serait temps de s'en souvenir.
               

Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, my thoughts are with all those affected by the earthquakes. One week has passed since the earthquakes deprived thousands of people in Turkey and Syria, especially in the Kurdish regions, of their lives and millions of people of their safety and security, among them many of my family members.
The force of nature is strong. But let's not fool ourselves that the force of humans hasn't anything to do with the humanitarian catastrophe. For many years, the regime has looked the other way when refusing to enforce building regulations in those areas that were affected by the earthquakes. For us with roots in the region it didn't come as a surprise.
It doesn't come as a surprise either that the regimes in Ankara and Damascus have prevented help and aid from reaching many of affected areas. Because what is a human life worth when refusing to send and when preventing help to reach people in need and letting more life extinguish? What is a child's life worth while letting them spend days under rubble? A week has passed for us, but a lifetime has passed for many of those affected.
Instead of sending condolences to the regimes in Ankara and Damascus, the EU heads of state should send their condolences to the people affected through ensuring that help and aid reaches them.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θέλω να εκφράσω τον συγκλονισμό και τα συλλυπητήριά μου στους πληγέντες του καταστροφικού σεισμού στη Συρία και την Τουρκία. Η Κύπρος έχει στη σκέψη της τους πληγέντες. Θρηνούμε 48 Τουρκοκύπριους, οι οποίοι χάθηκαν στα ερείπια, ανάμεσά τους και δεκάδες παιδιά. Ο πόνος τους είναι και δικός μας πόνος. Σε στιγμές όπου η φύση μας υπενθυμίζει ότι είμαστε αδύναμοι, απαιτείται ενότητα και αλληλεγγύη. Πρέπει ως Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να ανταποκριθούμε χωρίς καθυστέρηση για στήριξη των περιοχών που έχουν πληγεί. Πρέπει όμως να πω και τούτο. Ο κ. Ερντογάν αρνήθηκε την προσφορά της πατρίδας μου, της Κύπρου, να στείλει διασώστες και ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια, διότι δεν αναγνωρίζει την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία. Θα πρέπει κάποιος να του πει ότι μπροστά στον ανθρώπινο πόνο δεν χωρούν μικροπολιτικές σκοπιμότητες.
               

Costas Mavrides (S&D). – Madam President, the extent of destruction is still hard to grasp: tens of thousands of lives lost or missing, destruction and mourning. Among the lost, 24 schoolchildren, our children from the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus with their companions.
From the very moment, the Republic of Cyprus expressed readiness to contribute a team of rescuers with medical assistance. But the Erdoğan regime rejected it for politically motivated reasons.
There are many reasons indeed for not trusting Erdoğan regime, but indeed, Erdoğan is not the people of Türkiye. The humanitarian relief for the affected areas in Türkiye and Syria must involve civil society actors, trade unions, medical associations and other NGOs, away from the dirty hands of inhumane and corrupted autocrats.
Mr Commissioner, after all, solidarity and empathy for the people must prevail because humanity must prevail.

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, I also want to express my condolences to the people of Syria and Türkiye. I have to take issue with the MEPs who have characterised the slow response as being attributed to the sanctions. Repeating the Assad narrative, effectively. Yes, there has been a slow response, yes, we need to have a debate about sanctions, but the two issues are not connected. If there is a slow response, it's because there are too few border crossings and they've been blocked by Russia and China at the bidding of Assad. If the response has been slow it's because the Assad Government has deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure without stopping for a decade, deliberately, this is not an indiscriminate bombing. This is directed at bakeries, at health facilities, at hospitals and at schools. And it's hardly surprising, therefore, that the earthquake has had such a devastating effect.
And NGOs are really struggling. Bab al-Hawa has been blocked by virtue of the earthquake. All of the roads are blocked as a result of the earthquake, and I have to say a particular word of condolences to an agency I used to work for, Gold, who lost 28 staff over the last week. But they I know they will redouble their efforts to try and provide the greatest relief possible.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhora Presidente, choramos pelas vidas perdidas. A nossa solidariedade com as famílias dos mortos e os feridos. Toda a ajuda é pouca perante tanta desgraça e vidas destroçadas e desaparecidas.
               

                  Refúgio, água potável, alimentos, cobertores. Sim, Senhor Comissário, a resposta da UE foi rápida. Agora, a prioridade é organizar refúgios nas zonas afetadas e mais ajuda humanitária. Porque o que é inaceitável é que Erdogan esteja a dificultar as tarefas de apoio humanitário, mantendo o estado de emergência contra os curdos e a repressão que bloqueia caminhos, a imprensa e as redes sociais.
               

                  Apoiemos os povos turco, curdo e sírio.
               

                  A humanidade primeiro!
               

Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, καμιά εικόνα, κανένας αριθμός δεν μπορεί να περιγράψει τον πόνο. Δεν μπορεί να περιγράψει την τραγωδία στη Συρία. Είμαστε γείτονες και φτάσαμε από τους πρώτους, τα δικά μας σωστικά συνεργεία, οι δικές μας ιατρικές ομάδες, 1.500 άνθρωποι στην αρχή, 90 τόνοι ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια. Φτάνει; Μπορεί να μην φτάνει. Η Διάσκεψη των Δωρητών, με πρωτοβουλία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, οφείλει να προχωρήσει σε δεσμευτικά συμπεράσματα και να εκπονήσει γρήγορα τον οδικό χάρτη άμεσης υποστήριξης της Συρίας και της Τουρκίας για τους πολίτες, χωρίς τον συμβιβασμό με το καθεστώς Άσαντ, χωρίς τον συμβιβασμό με το καθεστώς Ερντογάν. Το οφείλουμε στα παιδιά που χάθηκαν, στους άντρες και στις γυναίκες που θάφτηκαν στα ερείπια και στα χαλάσματα. Η Τουρκία είναι υποψήφια χώρα, η επαναλαμβανόμενη παραβίαση του διεθνούς δικαίου, η καταστρατήγηση του κράτους δικαίου, η παραβίαση του εναέριου χώρου της Ελλάδας, η εισβολή και η κατοχή μέρους της Κύπρου δεν την οδηγούν σε καμία περίπτωση στον ευρωπαϊκό δρόμο. Αλλά η Τουρκία δεν είναι ο Ερντογάν. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι η οντότητα που δίνει το χέρι για να σηκωθεί η Τουρκία, για να ξαναζήσει. Και οφείλουμε να παρακολουθήσουμε βήμα προς βήμα, στιγμή προς στιγμή, τα επόμενα βήματα και τις επόμενες κινήσεις της τουρκικής ηγεσίας.
               

Nikolaj Villumsen (The Left). – Madam President, there is no words for the suffering the people of Türkiye and Syria are living through right now. So many have lost their lives, so many have lost their homes, so many have lost their loved ones; they need our support and solidarity.
What is the most heartbreaking to me is that not everyone is getting the help they need. Both Erdoğan and Assad are exploiting this crisis. Right now, the Assad regime is blocking humanitarian aid from reaching the Kurdish quarter of Aleppo, where around 70 % of the buildings have collapsed. Right now, Erdoğan is preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the liberated Kurdish area of northern Syria.
The EU needs to speak up against the inacceptable actions of Erdoğan and Assad. The EU must make sure that the aid reaches everyone in need without discrimination.

Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il violento terremoto che ha colpito la Turchia e la Siria, provocando decine di migliaia di vittime, segna l'inizio di una catastrofe umanitaria senza precedenti. Saranno le persone più fragili sopravvissute al terremoto a pagare il prezzo più alto. Penso, in particolare, alle donne e ai bambini.
               

                  La Commissione deve sostenere l'attuazione del processo di identificazione, di censimento e di ricerca dei minori separati dalle loro famiglie e deve intensificare la vigilanza speciale alle frontiere per contrastare la tratta e l'adozione illegale dei bambini.
               

                  Cara Commissaria, credo che l'Europa debba invitare gli Stati membri a modificare le procedure di adozione per aiutare in tempi brevi quei minori che, in seguito al terremoto, hanno perso la famiglia. Inoltre, possiamo già immaginare di costruire dei corridoi umanitari per agevolare gli affidi familiari che ebbero così tanto successo per i bambini, per esempio, di Chernobyl. Cara Commissaria, facciamo qualcosa di concreto.
               

Georgios Kyrtsos (Renew). – Madam President, the earthquake in Turkey and Syria created great devastation, also in regions inhabited by the very important Kurdish minority. We have to make sure that the assistance reaches the Kurds and is not used by the governments of Turkey and Syria to exert additional political pressure on them.
We know, for example, that Erdogan would like the percentage of the very important pro-Kurdish party to fall to fall below the 10% threshold which secures representation in parliament. Our assistance to Turkey and Syria is to be as massive and effective as possible. At the same time, our assistance has to be well targeted and non-discriminatory.

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Spoštovani. Potres v Turčiji in v Siriji je prerasel v katastrofo stoletja. Prizadeto območje je tako veliko, da bi lahko seglo od Amsterdama do Pariza. Gre resnično za človeške stiske. Hitra pomoč, ki tudi hitro doseže prizadete, je zato ključna.
               

                  Za […] marsikoga pomeni to mejo med življenjem in smrtjo. Na tem mestu je potrebno pohvaliti hiter odziv vseh držav članic in seveda evropskega mehanizma za civilno zaščito. Tudi moja država Slovenija se je odzvala. Iskreno hvala vsem reševalcem. Hvala tudi komisarju Lenarčiču za njegove napore in koordinacijo.
               

                  Evropski sistem civilne zaščite je ključen za hiter odziv na krize, ki jih je bilo v zadnjem času preveč. Od covida–pandemije do zgodovinskih požarov, poplav, ukrajinske vojne in zadnjega potresa. A potrebe po pomoči močno presegajo zmogljivosti. Zato na tem mestu moj odločen poziv k povečanju sredstev za civilno zaščito.
               

                  Zato moramo izkoristiti proces pregleda večletnega finančnega okvira. Solidarnost je ključna vrednota, na kateri Evropa je nastala in na kateri lahko tudi pade. Pomagajmo, ker je lahko, ker mi to lahko in ker je tako tudi prav. Hvala lepa.
               

Clare Daly (The Left). – (starts off-microphone) … and the horror of tens of thousands dead, the freezing conditions, the cries unanswered because the equipment wasn't there to get them out of the rubble. And as bad as all of this is, we know that the deaths that have already occurred are going to be met by many, many more.
So, rather than clapping ourselves on the back about how great we've been to respond, we should acknowledge that our response is far from adequate. And it pales into insignificance with the amounts that we are sending in to keep the conflict in Ukraine going.
And bad enough as our response is to Turkey, our response to Syria has been utterly disastrous. A country abandoned even before the earthquake hit. The UN Syria humanitarian programme last year was only 47% funded. We've let the people of that country die without medical provisions, without food because of illegal sanctions which are killing people.
And the earthquake has finally made people take notice. Aid agencies are screaming for the sanctions to be lifted. The UN special rapporteurs have said humanitarian efforts are hampered by sanctions.
We've got to lift the sanctions now or thousands more will die.

Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Kinder, die ihre Eltern nie wiedersehen werden, Frauen, die ihre Söhne betrauern, und ein Mann, der die Hand seiner verstorbenen Tochter einfach nicht mehr loslassen will. Die Bilder, die man in diesen Tagen sieht, und vor allem die Schicksale dahinter, sind verstörend, tragisch, und eigentlich machen sie sprachlos.
               

                  Und auch wenn wir wissen, dass nicht alles gut gelaufen ist bei der Hilfe, glaube ich, dass wir schon feststellen müssen, dass wir als Europäische Union versucht haben, schnell zu helfen. Dafür auch danke, Herr Kommissar Lenarčič.
               

                  Man kann nur hoffen, dass die Geberkonferenz jetzt erfolgreich ist. Aber ich glaube auch, dass Geld zu beschließen alleine eben nicht das Einzige ist. Die Hilfe muss am Ende auch ankommen. Und dafür brauchen wir gemeinsamen Druck gegen Grenzschließungen und Mittelmissbrauch. Aber wir müssen auch Wege finden, kleinere Organisationen wie die Weißhelme zu unterstützen.
               

                  Ich glaube aber auch, dass wir nicht allen Menschen in der Region helfen können – das wissen wir, glaube ich, selbst. Und ich kann mir vorstellen, dass es sehr wichtig wäre, jetzt auch zumindest für diejenigen Opfer, die Familie in Europa haben, schnell Visa auszustellen. Was spricht denn dagegen, dass Menschen aus Nordsyrien oder der Türkei, die Familie hier haben, von der Familie versorgt werden können, bis sie dann wieder ein Dach über dem Kopf haben und zurück können? Ich glaube, das wäre ein Zeichen der Stärke, und wir wären sehr schwach, wenn wir Angst vor den Opfern dieser Katastrophe hätten.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, sigur, încep și eu prin a spune condoleanțe familiilor care și-au pierdut un membru, doi sau chiar mai mulți și să felicit echipele de salvare - și din țara mea au fost acolo - echipe care și-au făcut datoria, au scos și după 100 de ore oameni care trăiesc, dar nu e suficient. Eu am văzut aici făcându-se politică. Eu cred că aici vorbim de umanitate, de omenie, de umanism.
               

                  Nu trebuie să mai facem politică, că e Siria, că e Turcia, trebuie să ajutăm oamenii, trebuie să ajutăm familiile, copiii, femeile. Și, domnule comisar, cifrele acestea nu sunt cifre, sunt oameni, și dacă nu vom acționa mai departe și în Siria, cu culoar, cu excepție de la sancțiuni, vor mai veni alte cifre, cu oameni care au decedat pentru că nu au ce le trebuie, stau în frig, nu au medicamente, sunt cei care au fost scoși după 100 de ore, care trebuie să aibă asistență.
               

                  Deci eu nu cred că trebuie să ne felicităm. Eu cred că trebuie să lăsăm politica la o parte și viața oamenilor nu trebuie să fie nici de dreapta, nici de stânga, nici de centru. Trebuie să acționăm pentru salvarea oamenilor.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, as the tragedy in Turkey and Syria unfolds, it has brought into stark relief the terrible impact of longstanding EU and US unilateral sanctions and interventions in Syria. The US, Israel and Türkiye each illegally occupied different parts of the country, stealing resources, food and fossil fuels that were essential before this crisis and are desperately needed now.
The sanctions have systematically deprived Syrians of the possibility to rebuild their war-torn country, and today the sanctions are blocking aid, equipment and essential materials from reaching Syria. The EU should end all sanctions now. We have punished the people of Syria more than enough. UN Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan has called on all sanctioning States to lift sanctions, to open all ways to deliver humanitarian aid and to ensure that no donor or bank or other actor is punished for humanitarian help to Syrians. It's time to park our geopolitical games and start giving a damn about people.

Katrin Langensiepen (Verts/ALE). – Geehrte Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir sprechen angeblich – ja, das darf hier kein Politikum werden. Aber seien wir doch mal ehrlich: Natürlich ist es ein Politikum.
               

                  Wir sprechen hier über einen Herrn Erdoğan, über einen Baschar al-Assad und über einen Herrn Putin, die da sehr lange ihre Hände über Türkei, Syrien und kurdisch Syrien halten, gehalten haben. Jetzt ist der Ruf laut: Wir müssen mit den EU-Sanktionen aufhören. Das ist ja nun mal – ich erkläre das gerne – nicht so wie mit den amerikanischen Sanktionen, sondern: Die EU-Sanktionen sanktionieren personenzentriert, also Assads Leute. Die Bevölkerung hat damit gar nichts zu tun.
               

                  Das Erste, was gesagt wurde – nach dem Erdbeben war die Stimme ja sehr laut: Wir müssen mit Sanktionen aufhören. Und die Bevölkerung hat gesagt: Bitte nicht! Und wenn ihr Hilfen schickt – wenn sie denn mal ankommen in Erbil in Nordsyrien, darauf warten nämlich die Leute in Idlib immer noch –, dann dürfen sie nicht in die Tasche von Assad oder in irgendwelche radikalen, undemokratischen – man kann es sich aussuchen – Taschen fließen.
               

                  Also wir müssen sehr genau hingucken, Herr Kommissar, wohin EU-Gelder gehen. Das ist ganz, ganz wichtig, sonst erwischt es die Falschen.
               

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I said it at the beginning, I'll say it again: the European Union is determined to assist the affected populations of Türkiye and Syria following the devastating earthquake. And I thank you for the very strong support that I heard from this House for this effort. You also raised several important issues, and I'll try to address some of them now.
First of all, the access to North-West Syria – that's really a big challenge. It's a challenge because the United Nations Security Council, on insistence of one permanent member, the Russian Federation, only authorises one border crossing point as an access point to North-West Syria. And it so happened that following the earthquake, this border crossing point was closed for a couple of days because the access road was damaged in the earthquake. The European Union has always advocated for opening additional access points, cross border and cross line. The latter, of course, we have noted that only about 2 % of the humanitarian aid to North-West Syria was able to go through cross line access, meaning from the government controlled area to non government controlled area. So the access from cross border is not possible to be replaced by cross line. That's why we believe there should be additional crossing points authorised by the UN Security Council so as to facilitate access to North-West Syria, where, as you know, almost 3 million people have been displaced for many, many years.
Which brings me to the second point: sanctions. Sanctions do not prohibit humanitarian aid to Syria. Sanctions do not prohibit the provision of food, medicines, medical equipment and the like to Syria. Actually, the European Union and its Member States have so far provided humanitarian aid for Syrian people since 2011 in the amount of over EUR 27 billion, and that includes all areas of Syria – government controlled and non government controlled. And we are ready, following this terrible earthquake, to step up the support and we are already doing so.
However, it is important, as some of you pointed out, to address the danger of diversion of the humanitarian aid and emergency assistance by the Assad regime. You know the record of this regime. You know the civilian targets that were bombed: hospitals, schools. How entire cities and towns were erased. How chemical weapons were used against the civilian population of Syria by the Assad regime. It is the Assad regime that was killing Syrian people. And that's why it got sanctions. And sanctions are not killing Syrian people.
I would like to assure you that through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre, we will continue to mobilise substantive assistance for the people of both Türkiye and Syria. Through the Union's Civil Protection Mechanism, we will put sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that this assistance is not diverted and that it reaches the people who need it.
In the same vein, we will continue to support our humanitarian partners on the ground in all parts of Syria delivering essential aid. And we will deploy additional resources – financial and in-kind – in support of the people affected by the earthquake. In doing all of this, we, of course, do count on your continued support.

Puhemies. – Paljon kiitoksia, komissaari. Tämä keskustelu osoittaa, että Euroopan parlamentti tuntee syvää järkytystä ja solidaarisuutta kaikkia heitä kohtaan, joita tämä järkyttävä onnettomuus Turkissa ja Syyriassa on kohdannut. Meidän tulee tehdä kaikki voitavamme.
               

                  Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               


Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)



Caterina Chinnici (S&D),
per iscritto. – Ad oggi, sono oltre 36.000 le vittime del disastroso terremoto di magnitudo 7,8 che ha devastato la regione di Gaziantep, in Turchia, colpendo anche la vicina Siria, e tra queste, moltissimi sono bambini. Decine di migliaia gli edifici distrutti, così come centinaia di migliaia le persone senza una casa. La solidarietà internazionale che da subito si è attivata è lodevole, tuttavia la regione colpita è estesissima, serve tutto e come ha denunciato UNICEF, sono migliaia i bambini orfani.
               

                  In qualità di copresidente per l'Intergruppo per i diritti dei minori ho, pertanto, inviato una lettera alla Presidente della Commissione europea per accogliere con favore l'iniziativa della Commissione di ospitare una conferenza dei donatori per mobilitare fondi della comunità internazionale ma, soprattutto, per sottolineare la prioritaria attenzione che deve essere riservata alle specifiche esigenze dei più piccoli nelle operazioni di soccorso accelerando, ad esempio, il processo di identificazione dei minori separati dalle famiglie, il controllo per contrastare il possibile traffico criminale o dando priorità al loro collocamento in famiglia o in comunità di tipo familiare. I bambini pagano sempre il prezzo più alto durante le crisi, l'UE deve alleviare in ogni modo le loro sofferenze: è un dovere morale oltre che politico.
               

Alfred Sant (S&D),
in writing. – The major catastrophe in Turkey and Syria hit the European space and areas contiguous to it. The humanitarian response to it has been significant and on the whole, timely. However questions will remain as to whether at EU level, a meaningful united response was deployed or could be. Such questions are being asked and merit full consideration. Should the EU have the instruments by which to deliver a European response to uncontrollable disasters like the earthquakes in Turkey/Syria? Or should relief measures be mounted by national authorities? Which would be most effective? Effectiveness should be the key measure by which a choice is made. Likely, relief action across the board at EU level for such emergencies would be the best way forward, for political as much as for logistical reasons. This was highlighted by the sanctions regime being applied to Syria, which aggravated the situation on the ground. Quick and concerted EU action to implement a moratorium on the Syrian sanctions was needed. Even in the face of an immense tragedy, political considerations must be kept in mind. Rightly or wrongly, the EU cannot afford to be seen as attaching lower priority to humanitarian interventions in one area of ‘its’ space rather than to another one.
12.   REPowerEU chapters in recovery and resilience plans (debate)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Eider Gardiazabal Rubialin, Siegfried Mureșanin ja Dragoș Pîslarun budjettivaliokunnan ja talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö ehdotuksesta elpymis- ja palautumissuunnitelmien REPowerEU-luvuista (COM(2022)0231 - C9-0183/2022 - 2022/0164(COD)) (A9-0260/2022).
               

Eider Gardiazabal Rubial,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, hace exactamente un año, Rusia invadía Ucrania declarando una guerra con terribles consecuencias humanas, geopolíticas y económicas.
               

                  El aumento de los precios de la energía ha provocado este año una subida de precios en alimentos, en suministros y en productos, con consecuencias muy negativas para familias y empresas. Pero, al igual que con la pandemia, hemos puesto en marcha un plan de choque, en este caso para rebajar el coste de la energía, reducir el impacto económico de la guerra y seguir avanzando en la transición verde.
               

                  Porque ese es el objetivo prioritario de REPowerEU. Para ello, los Estados miembros van a tener a su disposición los créditos existentes en el Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia, y 20 000 millones de euros adicionales para proponer medidas, luchar contra la pobreza energética, acelerar el despliegue de energías renovables, reducir el consumo de energía, aumentar la eficiencia energética y ampliar las capacidades de almacenamiento.
               

                  Cuando negociamos el plan de recuperación, el contexto era totalmente diferente. Por ello, en parte, los objetivos y necesidades de entonces también eran diferentes de los de ahora. Por eso, REPowerEU es un capítulo nuevo y específico del Mecanismo, que contiene condiciones especiales y acordes con el nuevo escenario. Por ejemplo, y en línea con las demandas de los Estados miembros, hemos negociado una derogación limitada al principio de no hacer daño. Pero, como digo, limitada. Porque la guerra no puede desviarnos de nuestros objetivos climáticos. Seguimos decididos a ser un continente climáticamente neutro para 2050.
               

                  Y, para ello, hemos introducido cinco condiciones para conceder esta derogación. Tienen que ser medidas verdaderamente urgentes y necesarias para asegurar el suministro eléctrico. Se tienen que proponer medidas compensatorias para las emisiones de carbono extra y no se pueden poner en peligro los objetivos ni del 2030 ni del 2050. Y, además, también hemos establecido un tope a la financiación europea.
               

                  Las negociaciones con el Consejo fueron intensas, pero hemos logrado introducir varios cambios en el Reglamento. Hemos introducido una cláusula de retroactividad al inicio de la invasión. Hemos acordado una prefinanciación del 20 % para dar liquidez a los Estados. Hemos introducido la necesidad de tener más transparencia y los Estados miembros tendrán que proporcionar una lista de los cien mayores beneficiarios. También hemos establecido como prioridad los proyectos transfronterizos, y al menos un 30 % de REPowerEU tiene que estar invertido en ello.
               

                  Estas necesidades de infraestructuras transfronterizas también vienen recogidas en la última Comunicación de la Comisión sobre cómo mejorar la competitividad de la industria. De hecho, esa Comunicación tiene mucho que ver con los planes de recuperación y con los objetivos de REPowerEU. Porque hablamos de transición digital, de transición verde, y también de fondos estructurales, de programas de infraestructuras y de programas de innovación.
               

                  Y no me malinterpreten: creo que es acertado hacer un análisis de todos los programas existentes, porque se puede ayudar a conseguir los objetivos de esta Comunicación. Pero no nos podemos engañar. Estos instrumentos responden a necesidades anteriores. Ya estaban programados, y sus fondos también. Es decir, que no podemos contar tres veces porque el dinero solo existe una vez.
               

                  Así que, cuanto antes mejor, pongámonos todos y todas a trabajar en cómo conseguir los objetivos que se incluyen en esa estrategia industrial. Pero diseñemos los instrumentos adecuados, dotémoslos de financiación y pongamos, de una vez por todas, en marcha una verdadera política de ingresos, para que aquellos que mayores beneficios están sacando de la Unión Europea contribuyan con su parte justa al éxito del proyecto europeo.
               

Siegfried Mureșan,
rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, we have all seen over the course of the last year, since the illegitimate and illegal invasion by Russian armed forces into Ukraine, we have all seen how important energy independence is. We have seen that dictatorships, that autocrat leaders are not hesitating to use energy as a tool or political weapon against the people of Ukraine and also against the citizens of the European Union. And now, with the vote that we are giving this week for REpowerEU, we show clearly that we have learned from the past.
We are going to act together, united as the European Union, to reduce our energy dependency on Russia, to import no more gas, no more coal, and no more oil from Russia. All of this together, as soon as possible and forever. We should also learn from the mistakes of the past. Never again in the future should we depend on one single country which supplies energy to us, on one single route of transport or on one single energy source.
We should we should diversify our energy consumption. We should import from countries that we can rely on, from countries that are stable, from countries that are democracies, from countries that are partners. And we should produce as much energy as possible within the European Union because we have enough wind, we have enough solar, we have enough water for hydro energy.
These are the basic principles of REpowerEU, a new EUR 20 billion fund which the European Commission proposed last year and which the European Parliament has worked on. We have fundamentally improved and amended the proposal of the European Commission so that this fund now can enter into force in a way in which it helps the people, enterprises and regions of Europe, with EUR 20 billion in grants which will help us to improve our infrastructure, connect ourselves better, which means we can move energy from where we have it to where we need it, reduce our dependency on Russia and become more energy efficient. Because the more energy efficient we are, the less energy we need to consume in order to reach our objectives, and the less energy we consume, the smaller the bill for the citizens and for enterprises.
We have set clear European rules, but we have also allowed for flexibility so that Member States can use the money where they need it. We as a European Parliament have managed to obtain, in the negotiations with the Commission and the Council, a 20% pre-financing. That means that all governments of Member States will receive a 20% pre-financing at the beginning of the implementation of the programme. Now, when the situation is difficult, Europe will come and support with 20% pre-financing.
We as the European Parliament have also imposed that countries that have cross-border projects, which would benefit us all, shall be obliged to do them. Up to 30% of the money should go into cross-border projects – if, of course, countries have such cross-border projects – because we need to help each other.
We have seen countries that wanted to reduce their energy dependency on Russia last year, but they could not do it so soon. So we are going to work together. We are going to be together to reduce our energy dependency, and we are going to implement this programme in a way which helps people on the ground, in the regions. We want transparency on EU funds and we want the involvement of local and regional authorities because mayors, local and regional leaders know best what the needs of the communities are.
To conclude, I would like to thank my two co-rapporteurs, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial and Dragoș Pîslaru for an excellent cooperation, but also the rapporteurs of the other sectorial committees, because it was a joint effort: Peter Liese on behalf of the Environment Committee; Dan Nica on behalf of the Industry Research Committee; Peter Jahr from the Agriculture Committee and Pascal Arimont from the Regional Policy Committee.
We all worked together to make sure that this money is well spent and reaches people in need very soon.

Dragoș Pîslaru,
rapporteur. – Madam President, one year has passed since Putin decided to illegally invade and punish innocent people in Ukraine, and we still cannot recover from the impact his decision had. Fear, insecurity, darkness overshadow our borders. So much pressure was put on our economy, on our people; prices increased and inflation reached record peaks. And then so many questions started to emerge: How will we all heat our homes? How are we going to pay our bills? Will we have enough energy storage at EU level? Will we be able to produce our own energy?
But dear citizens, no winter lasts forever. Every winter has its spring. And this spring it is called REPowerEU. Together with my colleagues, Siegfried Mureșan and Eider Gardiazabal, we team up again and join our forces from different committees. We took each concern one by one and found answers to them.
How do we fight fear? With ambition! Citizens had a tough year, barely managing to buy food and basic goods with the increased prices, and now they have to struggle with high energy bills. We can't let our entrepreneurs, our small businesses alone, we need sustainable solutions now, not later. And we can do that thanks to the REPowerEU, this green instrument that delivers no less than EUR 20 billion to Member States, in addition to the money received through the RRF. Ask your government what energy measures they plan to include in the recovery plans, and make sure you will find how to become more energy efficient, how to diminish your bills.
How do we fight insecurity? With secure investments! Our industry is not resilient yet; we need more autonomy and less dependency, and we can achieve that through REPowerEU. The Russian gas and fossil fuels were used as a political and economic weapon. We do not need it because we are right now capable of increased storage, of producing our own energy, but not at any cost. We need to keep our green ambition, and the investment must respect the do ‘no significant harm’ principle.
We must use the full force of our natural resources: wind, water, sun to diversify our energy system because we need a clean net zero continent for our citizens, especially for our next generations. On this path towards the green transition, no one must be left behind. Let's use REPowerEU to renovate the buildings in which poor people are now freezing cold. Let's help the street corner shops to reduce their energy bills. Let's support our SMEs to work in energy efficient offices. Let's invest in reskilling and upskilling to equip our citizens with green and digital skills.
And how do we fight darkness? With transparency! How can politicians be credible in the eyes of our citizens, when we cannot show how EU taxpayers' money is spent. And we explained from the Parliament's side over and over again that all these billions of Euros must be spent by governments with responsibility, clarity and transparency. It was in vain in the RRF negotiations, and after two years, we still wonder who benefits from the recovery and resilience plans. And now, REPowerEU adds more investments in national plans. So we set up a clear requirement: as of now, each government will need to publish the top 100 beneficiaries receiving funding from the recovery plan.
In conclusion, ambition, secure investments, transparency – this is, in a nutshell, what REPowerEU proposes. And now we wait to see how governments will use the money. I hope to find in the updated plans innovative, disruptive and concrete measures for Europe's energy system. As Benjamin Franklin used to say, energy and persistence conquer all things. Thank you very much, and don't forget: let's REPower Europe!

Peter Liese,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Kompromiss ist ein wichtiger Teil einer umfassenden Antwort auf die drei großen Krisen der letzten Monate: dieser schreckliche russische Angriffskrieg und die Tatsache, dass wir durch unsere Abhängigkeit leider auch Russland weiter finanziert haben – das muss enden –, die hohen Energiepreise, unter denen immer noch viele Unternehmen und Bürgerinnen und Bürger leiden, und die Klimakrise. Durch diesen Kompromiss adressieren wir alle drei Krisen, und deshalb danke an alle, die geholfen haben.
               

                  Die exklusiven Kompetenzen des Umweltausschusses, für die ich zuständig war, waren besonders kontrovers. Viele haben sich ja gescheut, in den Emissionshandel einzugreifen. Aber wir haben das getan, und ich glaube, das ist unterm Strich auch richtig, weil das kurzfristig zu einer Entlastung der Bürgerinnen und Bürger und der Industrie führen wird. Aber für 2030 erhöhen wir sogar noch einmal die Ambitionen.
               

                  Das Signal ist klar: Wer jetzt kurzfristig Schwierigkeiten hat, Handwerker und Material zu finden, den werden wir nicht über Gebühr belasten. Aber man soll so schnell wie möglich investieren, dann kriegt man Rückenwind. Und das ist das richtige Signal, das morgen von der Abstimmung ausgehen soll.
               

Dan Nica,
Raportor pentru aviz, Comisia pentru industrie, cercetare și energie. – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, REPowerEU este răspunsul pe care îl așteptau toți cetățenii europeni la câteva preocupări majore, pe care aceștia le aveau și în acest moment primesc un semnal pozitiv: securitatea aprovizionării cu energie electrică, prețuri la energie electrică și la gaze care să fie bazate pe un element corect, și nu pe baza unor speculații sau pe baza unor minusuri în aprovizionare care au apărut, din păcate, din cauza războiului din Ucraina.
               

                  În același timp: sprijin pentru cei care nu își pot plăti facturile. În același timp: un element foarte puternic de sprijin celor care vor să-și reabiliteze casele, iar pentru țara mea, pentru România, un lucru extrem de important - noi suntem țara din prima linie, cu cea mai mare frontieră cu Ucraina, dacă sunt, și noi suntem puternic afectați, și economic și social - măsurile din Planul național de redresare și reziliență care sunt afectate de consecințele războiului din Ucraina să poată să fie ajustate țintele, jaloanele, astfel încât să putem să aducem acei bani de care are nevoie și economia României, și mai ales românii, să putem să ne îndeplinim și un mandat foarte, foarte important. Puțină lume știe că noi suntem cei care dăm și gaze și energie electrică Moldovei, mai dăm și în Ucraina, tocmai pentru că noi trebuie să fim solidari și să arătăm care este răspunsul european în fața unei agresiuni, cum a fost cea provocată de către Rusia în Ucraina.
               

Pascal Arimont,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für regionale Entwicklung. – Liebe Frau Präsidentin, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wer es schafft, Energie in ausreichender Menge zu zumutbaren Preisen nachhaltig selbst zu produzieren, wird den Kampf gegen den Klimawandel weltweit dominieren, die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit seiner Unternehmen garantieren und unseren Kontinent unabhängiger von schwierigen Partnern machen.
               

                  Ergo: Jeder Cent in solche Energieinfrastruktur ist daher richtig. Jede Beschleunigung in den Genehmigungsfristen für Windräder, Solaranlagen, Speicherkapazitäten oder Wasserstoffanlagen auch – genau das ist das Ziel von REPowerEU.
               

                  Die Energieinfrastruktur ist das Herz unserer Wirtschaft und unseres gesellschaftlichen Zusammenlebens. Wir müssen das da hinkriegen und keinen Infarkt riskieren. Die Menschen zu Hause, die Firmenchefs und die Arbeitnehmer Europas erwarten das, unsere Kinder – die nächste Generation – verdient das.
               

                  Der Ausschuss für Regionalpolitik hat hier Verantwortung übernommen und ein Paket von insgesamt über 90 Milliarden EUR gebündelt, um REPowerEU zu ermöglichen. Ich möchte mich bei allen Verhandlungspartnern hier im Parlament, in der Kommission, aber auch in der tschechischen Ratspräsidentschaft bedanken. Das war sehr intensiv. Wir haben in kürzester Zeit versucht, die Lebensbedingungen der Menschen in Europa zu verbessern. Auch hier gilt: Weniger reden und mehr machen. Wir haben gemacht.
               

Daniel Buda,
Raportor pentru aviz, Comisia pentru agricultură și dezvoltare rurală. – Doamna președintă, stimați colegi, cu toții suntem conștienți că, pe termen lung, Uniunea Europeană trebuie să își consolideze independența energetică. REPowerEU reprezintă astfel mijlocul prin care statele membre pot face investiții suplimentare în domeniul energiei. Acestea au înțeles deja propria lor responsabilitate, astfel încât sectorul energetic ocupă un loc predominant în planurile naționale de redresare și reziliență.
               

                  Nu în ultimul rând, REPowerEU sprijină schemele de investiții care vizează combaterea sărăciei energetice pentru gospodăriile vulnerabile, întreprinderile mici și mijlocii. Salut rezultatul negocierilor și apreciez faptul că banii din agricultură au rămas mai departe la dispoziția fermierilor.
               

                  Aceștia vor face tot ceea ce este necesar pentru asigurarea securității alimentare în aceste vremuri dificile pentru sector. Agricultura a fost și este un pilon important într-un complex de mecanisme care țin inclusiv de asigurarea independenței energetice și de combatere a schimbărilor climatice.
               

                  Este important însă ca sectorului agricol să-i fie alocate mai departe resurse financiare consistente pentru a face față provocărilor actuale, inclusiv celor legate de energie. REPowerEU este dovada că orice criză poate deveni o ocazie de a fi mai puternici.
               

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members. Next week will mark the second anniversary of the entry into force of the Regulation establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) which, as you know, has been our pandemic crisis response tool.
Today, the implementation of the facility is in full speed, with a total of over EUR 144 billion already disbursed to Member States. At the same time, we need to acknowledge that the implementation of the ambitious National Recovery Resilience Plans is taking place in a challenging context, already mentioned by many of you.
Russia's unprovoked and unlawful aggression against Ukraine has triggered a massive disruption of the global energy market. It is under these unprecedented circumstances that REpowerEU was devised with one clear objective: providing affordable, secure and sustainable energy for Europe. Thanks to its focus on the green transition and resilience, the RRF was put at the centre of the Union's coordinated response to the unprecedented energy crisis. In fact, REpowerEU showcases the facility's agility.
The Commission would like to thank the honourable Members for their enormous work on the proposal to introduce REpowerEU chapters in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans. After numerous rounds of intense negotiations, we believe that the compromise agreement strikes the right balance between urgency and ambition.
One of the key elements is the increased financial firepower of the facility. In addition to the EUR 225 billion of loans available under the RRF, Member States also have access to EUR 20 billion of new grants and up to EUR 23 billion of grant transfers from other EU funds. These funds can be used to finance a wide set of measures, such as investments in the critical infrastructure to increase energy security and reforms, speeding up permitting to accelerate the rollout of renewables.
Furthermore, the compromise agreement makes sure that no one is left behind. With high energy prices affecting some more than others, the facility can finance measures addressing energy poverty, providing targeted support to vulnerable households and businesses. The compromise agreement also increases transparency via enhanced stakeholder consultations and also, importantly, the obligation to publish information on the 100 largest final recipients of RRF funds. Having data from final recipients was a longstanding demand by the European Parliament, and the Commission is glad that the two co-legislators agreed to have such a list of the 100 largest recipients of the RRF funds published by the Member States. The Commission will use this information on the RRF scoreboard. This will help transparency.
Furthermore, as called for by this House, the proposal effectively encourages cross-border and multi-country projects. Since its inception, the Recovery and Resilience Facility has always been more than just a crisis response tool. Its key feature is transforming challenges into opportunities. The RRF already had the foresight to put the green transition at the forefront of the post-pandemic recovery. Now, with targeted amendments introduced by REpowerEU, the facility will also play a key role in accelerating the net-zero industrial transition.
As outlined in the New Green Deal Industrial Plan for the net-zero age, we need to address the structural challenges affecting the competitiveness of our clean tech sector. This is why the Commission encourages Member States to include in their REpowerEU chapters measures such as one-stop shops for permitting for clean tech projects or tax breaks for businesses undertaking clean tech investments. The facility can also finance investments to equip the workforce with skills necessary for this industrial transition.
Together with the Green Deal Industrial Plan, the Commission also published guidance to help Member States access the REpowerEU funds, explaining the process of modifying their plans and the modalities for preparing REpowerEU chapters. In this unprecedented context, the Commission is working hard with the Member States to make the implementation simpler and more efficient.
The Recovery and Resilience Facility is built upon one core European value: solidarity – solidarity in the face of the COVID pandemic, the energy crisis and the growing global competition in the transition towards a net-zero economy. As my colleague said before your last vote on the proposal, we are strongest when we stand together.

José Manuel Fernandes,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caras e caros colegas, os cidadãos europeus, as famílias, as empresas pagam um preço elevadíssimo por causa da nossa excessiva dependência energética.
               

                  Não faltam recursos aos Estados-Membros para apostarem na eficiência energética, nas renováveis. Mas, depois, temos de ter uma verdadeira união da energia e, para isso, são fundamentais os projetos transfronteiriços, as interconexões. E, em boa hora, insistimos para que 35 % do montante do RePowerEU fosse para este objetivo.
               

                  Espero que os egoísmos nacionais não triunfem e que o protecionismo não ganhe, porque há gente que fala muito em autonomia energética, mas, depois, nos Pirenéus, em França, não deixa passar a energia para a construção de uma verdadeira união da energia a favor de todos os cidadãos europeus.
               

                  Parabéns aos relatores. Mais uma vez, reforçamos os planos de recuperação e resiliência, damos ferramentas aos Estados-Membros. Espero que eles estejam à altura dos desafios.
               

Costas Mavrides,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, first of all, congratulations, especially to the three rapporteurs. This proposal aims to support Member States to become independent from Russian fossil fuel and accelerate the energy transition with access to loans and additional grants under the RRF.
It aims also to help them cope with the short-term effects of the energy crisis, bringing down the high energy bills European consumers face because of the war, increasing the energy supply by including natural gas projects and cross-border projects under certain provisions within the necessary energy transition, and also improving our infrastructure.
It is also important that Member States would be able to receive funding for addressing energy poverty for households and SMEs. There is also a provision that allows Member States to adjust their plan in relation with consequences of the war, including inflation.
And, a final word, having in mind the continuing high inflation and how this is affecting the living conditions of our citizens and small businesses, we are in need of adequate additional EU funding, and also with the revision of economic governance.

Eva Maria Poptcheva,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, in Europe, we're making a historic effort right now to achieve our energy autonomy as soon as possible and forever. Never again should a foreign country think that it has the European Union under its thumb.
Both REPowerEU and now the Green Deal Industrial Plan should greatly boost strategic investments in energy. However, the most difficult job remains ahead: getting the funds into the real economy in an effective way.
How? First, governments should take advantage of REPowerEU to introduce more effective measures in their recovery plans. They should follow the example of the US Inflation Reduction Act and replace complex calls for subsidies with simple tax reductions.
Let's also use the example of REPowerEU for the Green Deal Industrial Plan by turning state aid into an EU instrument. I propose that the new temporary framework for state aid should incentivise cross-border cooperation between our companies: more companies from different Member States involved, larger the state aid.
But let's face it, more money won't solve our problems unless we learn to use it smartly.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. PINA PICIERNO


Vicepresidente


Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the EU's reaction to the corona crisis was, in hindsight, quite impressive. It brought us the Recovery Fund, led to coordinated vaccine production and ultimately made sure that No EU country fell significantly behind. I'm therefore a big fan of the Recovery Fund, I'm a fan especially also because it basically conditioned all spending on green and digital investment and made sure that not a single euro would go into projects that harm the environment.
But now I have to admit that the recent reaction I don't find that impressive. To diversify from Russian gas, we are now subsidising private companies with public money to build LNG terminals and gas pipelines. We fought hard to limit these potential spendings in oil and gas, and I ask the Member States to make sure that they do not spend any dollar in these industries.
I think also, if I look now at the newest ideas of State aid, there's again the idea of potentially allowing gas and oil companies to benefit, and I would just repeat once again that innovation and competitive power come from good institutions and good competition and not by weakening State aid and furthering gas and oil.

France Jamet,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, ce plan, nous a-t-on dit, avait la prétention de renforcer l'indépendance stratégique de l'Europe en permettant à l'Allemagne de se passer du gaz russe en 2027. Aujourd'hui, nous sommes dépendants du gaz de schiste américain.
                  

                     Je vous l'ai dit, je le répète: l'inclusion catégorique, dans ce plan, de l'énergie nucléaire décarbonée, abondante et abordable, nous aurait permis de contribuer à notre réindustrialisation, condition de notre indépendance et de notre compétitivité, notamment face aux États-Unis, dopés par le plan Biden, à qui ce paramètre n'a vraisemblablement pas échappé.
                  

                     De la droite européenne de M. Weber à la gauche allemande du chancelier Scholz, en passant par la présidence centriste de la Commission européenne de Mme von der Leyen, tous, tous sont prêts à nous sacrifier. Parce que, en attendant, qui est sanctionné pour toutes ces erreurs, tous ces errements, toutes ces aberrations? Qui en paie le prix? Ce sont nos compatriotes, les plus jeunes, les plus précaires, les plus vieux et tous les autres. Ils ne vous disent pas merci.
                  

Johan Van Overtveldt,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, onze afhankelijkheid van goedkope energie uit Rusland is een dure geopolitieke les geworden. We moeten naar een strategische toekomstvisie die op termijn standhoudt.
                  

                     De verdere elektrificatie en de toename van het gebruik van waterstof zullen ons voor bijkomende uitdagingen plaatsen. Een duurzame transitie zonder een prominente rol voor kernenergie is naar mijn mening gedoemd te mislukken. Dit moeten we vroeg of laat onder ogen zien.
                  

                     Er is, zowel wat de financiering als de besteding van REPowerEU betreft, een aantal valkuilen dat leidt tot de versplintering van beleid en middelen. Het doel is om op het vlak van energievoorziening minder afhankelijk te worden, zelf te voorzien in duurzame alternatieven en solide interne energienetwerken op te zetten.
                  

                     Laten wij dan ook niet van deze doelstellingen afwijken. Ik pleit daarom voor grondig toezicht op de aanwending van de middelen, zoals ook voor de herstel- en veerkrachtfaciliteit wordt gedaan. Eerbiedwaardige instellingen zoals OLAF, de Europese Rekenkamer en Europol luiden in dit verband de alarmbel, op een moment dat de EU-begroting zwaar onder druk staat.
                  

                     Het is niet langer verdedigbaar dat in deze omstandigheden twee derde van de EU-begroting onaantastbaar en onbespreekbaar blijft.
                  

Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης είναι ένα θετικό βήμα και το REPower EU κάνει ένα θετικό και ανεπαρκές βήμα στηριγμένο σε έναν συμβιβασμό. Η διαπραγματευτική ομάδα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου πέρασε αρκετές από τις θέσεις μας σε αυτόν τον συμβιβασμό. Αλλά το μεγάλο πρόβλημα, το μεγάλο μειονέκτημα, είναι ότι προσπαθούμε να χρηματοδοτήσουμε την αντιμετώπιση του πολέμου στην Ουκρανία και της ενεργειακής κρίσης με τα χρήματα που αποφασίσαμε να χρησιμοποιήσουμε για την αντιμετώπιση της πανδημίας. Και αυτά δεν φτάνουν. Για αυτό και η λύση είναι ανεπαρκής για την αντιμετώπιση της ακρίβειας, της ενεργειακής κρίσης και της αύξησης των κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων. Χρειάζεται νέο, φρέσκο χρήμα, κοινή ευρωπαϊκή απάντηση με πρόσθετο κοινό δανεισμό, όπως κυρία Lenarčič προτείνει ο κ. Gentiloni, ο αρμόδιος επίτροπος, αλλά δεν υιοθετεί η Επιτροπή, για να αντιμετωπίσουμε τις πρόσθετες ανάγκες της και η θέση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου είναι ότι οι νέες ανάγκες και οι νέοι στόχοι πρέπει να χρηματοδοτούνται με πρόσθετα κονδύλια και όχι με ανακύκλωση των ισχυόντων και ανεπαρκών κονδυλίων.
                  

Enikő Győri (NI). – Elnök Asszony! A Tanács decemberben végre jóváhagyta a magyar helyreállítási tervet. Márciusra teljesíteni fogjuk a leegyeztetett szupermérföldköveket és mérföldköveket. A REPowerEU fejezettel kapcsolatban már kormányhatározat rögzíti, hogy energiahatékonyságra, az alternatív energiaforrások részarányának növelésére és a villamosenergia-rendszer megerősítésére kell fordítani a 700 millió eurót.
                  

                     Nem tett jót ugyanakkor, Biztos Úr, a kapcsolatoknak, hogy a Bizottság a korábban letárgyalt feltételek után újabbakkal állt elő. A jóhiszemű teljesítéshez nemcsak az kell, hogy a megállapodottakat jogszabályba öntse az egyik fél, hanem az is, hogy a másik ne találjon ki újabb akadályokat. Decemberben pedig sajnos ez történt.
                  

                     Bízom benne, hogy a Bizottság tartani fogja magát ahhoz, amit múlt hétfőn Dombrovskis és Gentiloni biztosok ígértek az illetékes EP-bizottságok ülésén. A vállaltak teljesítése esetén nem támasztanak újabb, pláne nem politikai feltételeket. Remélem, ezt garanciavállalásnak tekinthetjük. Bízom benne, hogy a források kifizetésével a Bizottság felszámolja a Magyarországot és Lengyelországot az egységes piacon jelenleg sújtó egyenlőtlen helyzetet.
                  

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, sin lugar a dudas, la aprobación del capítulo hoy de REPowerEU dentro del marco del Fondo de Recuperación y Resiliencia es una muy buena noticia, porque estamos dando soluciones a los problemas reales causados por la invasión ilegal de Rusia en Ucrania, dando resolución a la grave crisis de la inflación y a la grave crisis que están provocando los altos precios de la energía tanto para las familias como para los negocios europeos.
                  

                     Pero este es el inicio de la reacción de Europa y no podemos felicitarnos por un programa del que todavía no estamos siendo capaces de medir los resultados, de medir el impacto. Nuestra responsabilidad —la responsabilidad del Parlamento y la Comisión— no termina con la aprobación, que espero que mañana ocurra, de esta modificación. Termina el día que podamos contarle a los europeos en qué se ha gastado el dinero, garantizarles que el dinero se ha gastado bien y garantizarles también que se han acometido las reformas necesarias que estaban previstas en el diseño original de este programa.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, Comisión, apelo a que entienda que ahora es cuando empieza lo más importante. Tenemos que garantizar que cada céntimo se destina al objetivo para el que está previsto, que es hacer Europa más competitiva y crear unas empresas que sean más productivas. Y lo que es más importante, tenemos una responsabilidad inmensa con las futuras generaciones que tendrán que devolver este dinero.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, hoy empieza, y empieza con la responsabilidad que tiene la Comisión de garantizar que, con buena cogobernanza, contando con empresarios, contando con regiones, contando con municipios, somos capaces de garantizar una correcta ejecución de los fondos.
                  

Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, Venäjä hyökkäsi julmalla tavalla Ukrainaan. Se antaa Euroopalle aiheen lopettaa kaikkinainen energian tuonti Venäjältä. Tässä REPowerEU-hanke tekee todella tärkeän työn. Se mahdollistaa siirtymisen uusiutuviin energialähteisiin – päästöttömiin energialähteisiin – nopeammin kuin olimme ajatelleet. Tässä asiassa eurooppalaisten turvallisuus, ilmasto ja ympäristö lyövät samaa, yhtäaikaista kättä ja tekevät hyvää yhteistyötä.
                  

                     Uudet varat ovat tärkeitä, samoin vanhojen varojen uudelleenkohdentaminen, jotta Eurooppa vapautuu energiariippuvuudesta Venäjään. Tämä on myös tukea ukrainalaisille. Samalla on tärkeää, että me teemme tämän viisaalla tavalla. Pidämme huolta siitä, että uusi merkittävä saavutus, avoimuus, lisääntyy eli suurimmat tulonsaajat tulevat julkisiksi ja myös kansalaiset näkevät, mihin heidän varansa menevät. Kannatettava kokonaisuus.
                  

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, REPowerEU: derrière ce nouveau sigle, c'est la fin de la dépendance énergétique de l'Europe qui se joue. C'est un nouveau jalon historique: nous adoptons et adaptons les fonds de relance pour répondre à la crise actuelle. L'Union européenne fait enfin preuve de pragmatisme, de réactivité et de solidarité pour donner aux États membres les outils pour surmonter cet hiver.
                  

                     La guerre en Europe nous oblige à accélérer notre action pour réduire notre dépendance aux combustibles russes, mais pas à n'importe quel prix. La fin de cette dépendance doit se faire au profit de la transition verte et répondre aux objectifs que nous nous sommes fixés pour rendre notre continent plus durable. Nous le devons aux prochaines générations.
                  

                     Grâce à l'inclusion des chapitres REPowerEU dans les plans nationaux de relance et de résilience, nous donnons aux gouvernements nationaux des moyens, des investissements supplémentaires pour améliorer l'efficacité énergétique, le développement des énergies renouvelables et lutter contre la pauvreté énergétique. Nous mettons en place les conditions pour qu'aucune famille, aucune entreprise ne manque d'énergie sur le sol européen, pour cet hiver et au-delà.
                  

Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, el REPowerEU era un programa muy necesario para garantizar la independencia energética. Sin embargo, es bien conocido que desde el Grupo de Los Verdes no podíamos compartir que se utilizara esa necesidad para derogar el principio de no dañar significativamente el medio ambiente o para poner en jaque nuestros objetivos climáticos. Es por ello que estoy satisfecho de que en la negociación hayamos logrado limitar esa derogación a una pequeña parte del fondo y, sobre todo, también a proyectos que sean exclusivamente de emergencia.
                  

                     También tengo que decir que ha sido un grandísimo error tratar de hacer que la energía nuclear pudiera ser elegible para este fondo. Tengo que mostrar mi satisfacción por que esto finalmente no vaya a ser posible en el marco del REPowerEU. Lo digo, más que nada, porque hubiera sido un grandísimo error haber tratado de utilizar la emergencia energética y las necesidades que tenemos para derogar completamente nuestros objetivos de emergencia climática.
                  

                     Esto no es el fin del camino, tenemos aún mucho por hacer. Pero, desde luego, seguir avanzando hacia la independencia energética, respetando nuestros compromisos adquiridos en el Acuerdo de París, sigue siendo fundamental.
                  

Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pilna odpowiedź na kryzys energetyczny zawiniony przez liderów Unii Europejskiej jest potrzebna, z tym się zgadzamy. My jako ECR będziemy głosować raczej wstrzemięźliwie, będę proponował wstrzymanie się od głosu. Nie możemy poprzeć tej propozycji, ponieważ warunkiem jej poparcia z naszej strony jest możliwość finansowania inwestycji z zakresu infrastruktury gazowej z grantów. A jest propozycja, by to było inaczej. W obecnej sytuacji geopolitycznej propozycję, by takie inwestycje były finansowane pożyczkami, po prostu należy uznać za propozycję nieefektywną.
                  

                     Bardzo też sceptycznie oceniamy, że REPowerEU będzie finansowany z ETSu. Otóż naszym zdaniem pozbawi to możliwości te państwa członkowskie, które mają do dyspozycji pieniądze ze sprzedaży darmowych uprawnień, do przekształcania ich systemu energetycznego. Zatem biorąc pod uwagę to, że Polska może mieć pewne korzyści z tego programu, nasza pozycja jest na razie wstrzemięźliwa i będziemy mówić o wstrzymaniu się od głosu.
                  

José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, o RePowerEU é apenas mais um exemplo de uma proposta europeia que diz fazer uma coisa e, na realidade, vai fazer outra. Serviu para desviar fundos do Fundo de Recuperação e Resiliência para objetivos opostos àqueles que constavam do Fundo de Recuperação e Resiliência e, associado ao branqueamento da energia nuclear e do gás natural, vendidos agora como energias verdes, vai servir para acabar com a pouca decência ambiental que ainda existia na utilização destes fundos de resposta à crise.
                  

                     Entretanto, os lucros da indústria fóssil atingiram valores astronómicos suportados pelas pessoas e agora também por fundos comunitários. Crescem na proporção da hipocrisia das promessas e compromissos da Comissão sobre uma transição energética verde e justa.
                  

                     Quem é que pensam que estão a enganar? Os cidadãos? Enganam cada vez menos. E o planeta, esse, não dá mesmo para enganar.
                  

Andor Deli (NI). – Elnök Asszony! Fel kell gyorsítani a helyreállítási programokat. Az RRF a koronavírus hatásainak kiegyensúlyozására lett bevezetve. A koronának már rég vége, mégis csak az eszközök 28%-a lett eddig kifizetve úgy, hogy a kötvények tőzsdei kilátásai nem túl fényesek. Az RRF-hez kapcsolódó REPowerEU az orosz energiafüggőség enyhítéséről szól.
                  

                     Immár a tizedik szankciócsomagról folynak a tárgyalások, de a REPowerEU még csak tervezési fázisban van. A Bizottságnak maximális gyorsaságba kell kapcsolni, ami a tagállami tervek jóváhagyását és kifizetését illeti. A REPowerEU segítheti a tagállamokat abban, hogy enyhítsék a szankciók hatását, de ez csak akkor igaz, ha a Bizottság gyorsan kifizeti az eszközöket, és nem teszi politikai nyomásgyakorlás eszközévé egyes tagállamok esetében, mint amilyen Magyarország vagy Lengyelország.
                  

                     Az európai gazdaságok jelentősége meggyengült az elmúlt években, most az EU globális versenyképességének megőrzése a tét.
                  

Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou (PPE). – Madam President, the evolution of the Recovery and Resilience Facility perfectly represents what some refer to today as the ‘age of permacrisis’. It was established to tackle problems caused by the pandemic. Now we're retrofitting it in order to tackle the energy crisis.
As we now face the next challenge in Europe, the challenge of competitiveness, some have suggested an EU Sovereignty Fund. But maybe we should be looking again at the RRF for a solution.
We have a skills gap. We suffer from strategic dependencies, and we're a heavily regulated jurisdiction compared to other parts of the world. And the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States has added further pressure. But relaxation of State Aid rules alone will be insufficient and unfair to Members with less available fiscal space.
So if we can't agree on new funding immediately, we will need to repurpose the RRF as suggested by the Greek Minister of Finance, Christos Staikouras. And a viable option could be the conversion of some RFF loans into grants. This Greek proposal can contribute substantially to finding a viable and practical solution to Europe's competitiveness crunch.

Mohammed Chahim (S&D). – Madam President, let me first start by congratulating the rapporteurs, because I know it wasn't that easy and there were very tough negotiations. So from this place, Ms Gardiazabal Rubial, congratulations, Mr Mureșan and Mr Pîslaru.
It's very important to see people coming from political groups and really working hard to make a piece of legislation that really could get us to the next step. Because REpowerEU is not only our response to the energy crisis, but also creates a clear framework to enable clean tech, build our needed infrastructure and improve interconnectivity. It is built on strong financing and the direction is clear towards climate neutrality and improved autonomy – a shift away from Russian gas towards renewables.
It is important that we continue on our path, because we are on the right path. Deviation will only cause delays and will not help us decrease prices. We need to make energy clean and affordable. REpowerEU is an essential milestone for our green transition. It will help us shape the future of our energy system and create opportunities for greening our industry, making it more competitive.

Emma Wiesner (Renew). – Fru talman! 250 miljoner ton koldioxid. Kära kollegor, när vi nu röstar om energikrispaketet och finansieringen för att fasa ut den ryska gasen så kan vi vara riktigt stolta. Vi stod upp mot kommissionens klimatfientliga förslag, ett förslag som skulle ha ökat utsläppen i Europa med 250 miljoner ton.
                  

                     Att i det här läget – när vi står mitt i både en klimatkris och en energikris – öka utsläppen för att finansiera lösningarna på energikrisen, det skulle inte ha varit något annat än att kissa i byxorna. Varmt och bekvämt kortsiktigt, men långsiktigt ett rejält misstag. Det var ett absurt förslag som vi i Centerpartiet vägrade att acceptera i förhandlingarna och nu har vi lyckats göra om detta. Och i slutprodukten som vi ska rösta om så har vi nu finansierat energikrispaketet utan att massivt öka utsläppen och det ska vi vara stolta över.
                  

                     Vi i Centerpartiet och den liberala gruppen kommer att rösta för det här förslaget som äntligen ger oss möjligheten att fasa ut den ryska gasen utan att offra det viktiga klimatarbetet.
                  

Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Niestety dopiero agresja Rosji na Ukrainę pokazała, jak szkodliwą politykę uzależniania krajów unijnych od rosyjskich surowców energetycznych prowadziły Niemcy, a w konsekwencji także niestety Komisja Europejska. Dobrze więc się stało, że po agresji Rosji na Ukrainę został przedstawiony program REPowerEU i wpisany w krajowe KPO. Ale chcę poinformować Pana Komisarza, że mój kraj, Polska, od ponad dziesięciu lat prowadzi politykę uniezależniania się od rosyjskich surowców energetycznych: wybudowaliśmy Gazoport w Świnoujściu, Baltic Pipe, którym sprowadzamy gaz z Norwegii, interkonektory ze Słowacją i Litwą. Już teraz jesteśmy niezależni energetycznie, jeżeli chodzi o dostawy gazu.
                  

                     Podobnie z ropą naftową. Siedem lat temu byliśmy w stu procentach zależni od rosyjskiej ropy naftowej. Teraz w ponad 90 procentach ropa naftowa sprowadzana jest już z krajów trzecich. Najwyższy czas, Panie Komisarzu, żeby ten wysiłek, gigantyczny wysiłek Polski, został dostrzeżony wreszcie przez Komisję. I na koniec dwie uwagi do REPowerEU. Po pierwsze, właśnie duży udział finansowania tego programu z ETSu uderza w biedne kraje członkowskie, które przeznaczają przecież te pieniądze na politykę klimatyczną. I po drugie, brakuje derogacji od zasady nie czyń poważnych szkód, co podważa możliwość finansowania z tego programu infrastruktury technicznej, a ta przecież jest podstawą dywersyfikacji dostaw surowców energetycznych.
                  

Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Krieg, Inflation und ein extrem volatiler Energiemarkt zwingen uns, beim Ausbau von erneuerbarer Energie Tempo aufzunehmen. Für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger, unsere Unternehmerinnen und Unternehmer ist es nun von größter Bedeutung, dass die Europäische Union ihre Abhängigkeit von Energielieferanten aus Drittstaaten sowie von fossilen Brennstoffen drastisch reduziert.
                  

                     Das REPowerEU-Programm ist hier die richtige Antwort. Mit der jetzigen Trilog-Einigung wollen wir sicherstellen, dass alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten ihre nationalen Wiederaufbaupläne an die aktuellen Herausforderungen anpassen können. Das ist wichtig, denn die drastisch steigenden Energierechnungen schaden nicht nur unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern und unseren Unternehmen, sondern vor allem auch unserer europäischen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.
                  

                     Dieser Trilog-Einigung müssen jetzt Taten folgen, und zwar, dass unsere Mitgliedstaaten schnell über diese Mittel verfügen können für den Ausbau von Infrastruktur, für Forschung und Entwicklung, aber auch für Unterstützung für jene, die sie am meisten brauchen.
                  

Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia exige apoio à Ucrânia, mas exige também medidas que limitem as consequências económicas e sociais da guerra na União Europeia. Desde logo, combater a pobreza energética. São duas frentes de um mesmo problema.
                  

                     RePowerEU é a resposta da União aos cidadãos e às empresas para a energia. Tem de ser um instrumento-chave para construir a autonomia energética europeia e promover e consolidar o mercado interno da energia, apoiando o planeamento e o financiamento coordenados de infraestruturas e projetos transfronteiriços, apoiando projetos e reformas nos mercados de energia, bem como remover fósseis, substituí-los por renováveis e por energias verdes.
                  

                     Para transformar, para autonomizar, precisamos de investimento europeu, a par com outras políticas europeias, sem as secundarizar ou asfixiar pela redução do seu financiamento, como a política de coesão.
                  

                     E termino, agradecendo o trabalho dos colegas Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureșan e Dragoș Pîslaru.
                  

Mauri Pekkarinen (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, EU:n tärkeimmät tavoitteet ovat varmasti EU:n Venäjä-riippuvuuden vähentäminen energiakysymyksissä ja uusiutuvan energian käytön edistäminen. Keskeisin tärkeä keino tähän kaikkeen on juuri uusiutuvan ja kestävän bioenergian käytön tukeminen.
                  

                     Tätä ei kuitenkaan tässä mietinnössä suoraan mainita, vaikka lähes kaikki muut vastaavat uusiutuvat energialähteet mainitaankin. Samoin tässä luvataan ei-biologista alkuperää olevan raaka-aineen tukikelpoisuus silloin, kun sitä käytetään vedyn valmistukseen. Tulkitsen kuitenkin asian niin, että 21 c artiklassa se kattaa myös bioenergian tukikelpoisuuden, koska pykälässä ilmaistaan kuitenkin tahto edistää ja lisätä uusiutuvan energian käyttöä. Toivon, että komissio tulkitsee tämän kohdan samalla tavalla.
                  

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, mecanismul de redresare și reziliență reprezintă singurul mijloc prin care Uniunea Europeană poate face față provocărilor pe care le întâmpinăm, în mod special pe zona de energie, dar și concurenței globale. De aceea, trebuie ne asigurăm că planurile naționale corespund nevoilor reale din fiecare stat membru și că toate resursele financiare disponibile sunt folosite integral.
                  

                     Mă bucur că, iată, prin eforturile Grupului Social Democrat din Parlamentul European, dar și cu sprijinul celor trei raportori, amendamentul meu și al colegilor din Partidul Social Democrat, datorită căruia planurile pot fi modificate mai ușor, a fost integrat în forma finală a regulamentului agreată cu celelalte instituții europene.
                  

                     Astfel, dacă un stat membru poate demonstra impactul generat de războiul din Ucraina, de inflație sau de fluxurile comerciale globale, acesta va putea modifica atât proiectele, cât și reformele din plan până la data de 30 aprilie anul acesta.
                  

                     De aceea, cred că România trebuie să își propună o optimizare mai amplă a PNRR, în așa fel încât toate țintele și obiectivele să fie realizate mai ales pe componenta de energie. Trebuie să fructificăm această oportunitate pentru a combate sărăcia energetică, a combate inflația, a ajuta IMM-urile, dar, mai ales, pentru a ne pregăti pentru viitor. Vreau să mulțumesc tuturor eurodeputaților pentru ceea ce am reușit să facem astăzi aici.
                  

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                        


Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, sigur, orice criză, orice tranziție costă cel mai mult pe cei săraci, cetățenii săraci, întreprinderile mici și mijlocii. Faptul că avem un plus de 20 de miliarde prin acest program REPowerEU, este foarte bine. Problema este să vedem cum îi cheltuim să ajungă acolo unde trebuie. Și mă bucur că prin efortul mai multor europarlamentari s-a putut introduce acest amendament prin care planurile de redresare pot fi modificate dacă sunt bine argumentate.
                  

                     Pentru că, domnule comisar, condițiile s-au schimbat și sigur că avem interesul să cheltuim eficient orice euro din acest program și cred că este foarte bine și pentru faptul că da, în sfârșit, s-a pus în acest regulament și faptul că trebuie să cunoaștem primii 100 cei mai mari beneficiari ai acestor bani europeni.
                  

                     Noi, în Comisia pentru Control Bugetar, am cerut să știm beneficiarul final la toate fondurile europene, dar este un pas și sper că putem să continuăm astfel încât banii să ajungă acolo unde trebuie.
                  

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, the idea that we should exempt new oil and gas infrastructure from the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle seems madness. As much as EUR 60 billion of the funds earmarked for COVID recovery could now be used to fund new fossil fuel infrastructure. Over 40 LNG terminal or gas pipeline developments have been identified, which could now be partly funded with the diverted COVID recovery money. This will do nothing to help security of supply this winter or next winter.
We are throwing money and contracts at fracking in the US and making export attractive in Nigeria and Qatar. What will happen then? In ten years it'll be 2033, by which time we should have considerably reduced our gas demand. Yet we'll still have these contracts with our energy companies. Instead of genuinely empowering the EU, REpowerEU is further fuelling the EU's dependence on imported fossil fuels. Are we learning anything from this?

(Fine della
procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this debate. In view of the pressing consequences of the current energy crisis, the REPowerEU chapters will be a key tool, allowing Member States to devise very concrete and much needed reforms and investments.
These measures will be vital to ensure the long-term security, sustainability and resilience of the EU energy system. As discussed in detail today, the new regulation on REPowerEU chapters will enable to do just that – providing additional funding to reach these goals together.
In a general climate of growing competition at the global scale, the REPowerEU can also make an important contribution to our transition towards a net-zero EU industry and support an even faster transition to climate neutrality. A swift adoption and entry into force of this regulation will send a powerful signal in this regard, showcasing the ability of the Union to act together in an effective and concerted manner in the face of new challenges.
Let me thank you once more for your intense work on this file and reassure you about the continuous commitment of the Commission to keep Parliament duly informed about the progress of the facility.
We look forward to tomorrow's vote as a further demonstration of this Parliament's continued support for the comprehensive economic and social recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.

Eider Gardiazabal Rubial,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, muchas gracias a todos por este debate. Yo quiero aprovechar estos últimos minutos para agradecer a Siegfried y a Dragoș, mis coponentes, una vez más, el gran trabajo que han realizado y a todos los que han colaborado en las negociaciones del REPowerEU.
                  

                     Hace algo más de un año sacamos adelante el plan de recuperación, que marcó un hito en la respuesta europea, en la política europea, y en este Pleno lo completamos con el REPowerEU. Yo creo que el acuerdo es bueno. Como hemos visto, la mayoría de los grupos políticos lo apoyan y espero que mañana ese apoyo que ya hemos visto aquí se vea reflejado en una votación mayoritaria.
                  

                     Pero, evidentemente, este no es el punto final, porque tenemos muchas más necesidades encima de la mesa. Antes hacía mención a ello, en mi primera intervención: la Comisión Europea ha puesto una estrategia de política industrial que necesita ser a todas luces financiada y no se va a poder contar, desgraciadamente, con el dinero ni del plan de recuperación ni del REPowerEU, porque los objetivos son diferentes y los Estados miembros ya tienen perfectamente determinado en qué van a utilizar la financiación europea.
                  

                     Así que animo a la Comisión, pero también a este Parlamento, a que trabajemos en nuevas herramientas, en nuevos métodos de financiación, y que podamos poner una estrategia potente, al nivel de lo que la Unión Europea necesita, para sacar adelante nuestra industria con unas condiciones dignas para todos.
                  

Siegfried Mureșan,
rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you very much for this positive debate. We have shown tonight that the European Parliament is united in applying REPowerEU. EUR 20 billion in fresh money coming from the European Union to the people of Europe so that people can easier face the difficulties that we all encounter nowadays: high energy bills; energy security.
The problems of the past, the problems of the last year should not be the problems of the future. We are going to spend these European funds well, to make sure that we reduce our dependency on Russian energy, to make sure that we become more energy efficient, to make sure that we connect ourselves better so that we can use primarily the energy that we have here in the European Union. Never again, in the future, should we become dependent on one country, one source of energy, one route of transport, particularly when this implies regimes, countries that we cannot trust.
Thank you very much, colleagues, for the fruitful cooperation. I'm looking forward to the vote which will take place this week. We are confident that a big majority will give a strong message from the European Parliament to the people of Europe.
I would like to thank also the European Commission and also the Czech Council Presidency for having worked with us.
Money is coming to the people of Europe; they will feel it soon. What will be important is for us to also spend these amounts well. REPowerEU, like the Recovery and Resilience Facility, is a plan for investments, but it is also a plan for reform. We will help those in need, but we should also make sure that we use this opportunity to modernise our economies, our public systems, to make them stronger, more resilient, more digital, to put them in a better position to help the citizens and to face crises in the future. Thank you for all your support, we're looking forward to the implementation of this plan.

Dragoș Pîslaru,
Raportor. – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, prezentul nostru va fi istorie pentru generațiile care ne urmează. Suntem direct responsabili de modul în care scriem acest capitol de istorie. Împreună cu colegii mei, Siegfried Mureșan și Eider Gardiazabal, am ales să răspundem îngrijorărilor și nevoilor cetățenilor prin soluții concrete.
                  

                     Oamenii din zonele sărace ale Europei au nevoie de locuințe renovate ca să nu le mai fie frig. Oamenii aflați în vulnerabilitate pe tot teritoriul Europei au nevoie de sprijin pentru renovare energetică, de instalații electrice și termice noi, ca să plătească facturi mai mici, de panouri fotovoltaice, de energie verde care să nu mai determine dependența de energie scumpă.
                  

                     Patiseria de la colț, micii antreprenori au nevoie de panouri, de pompe de căldură, ca să consume mai puțin curent. Mulți antreprenori și întreprinderi mici și mijlocii caută clădiri mai bine izolate, pentru ca angajații lor să poată lucra în condiții mai bune.
                  

                     Companiile mari vor angajați calificați, cu competențe în industrii de viitor. Acolo s-ar putea găsi mineri și persoane care sunt defavorizate, pe care ar putea guvernul să-i ajute pentru aceste locuri de muncă. Acestea sunt nevoile reale care trebuie să primească banii europeni.
                  

                     REPowerEU oferă toate aceste oportunități, dar vine la pachet și cu o condiție: responsabilitate. Dragi guvernanți, fiți responsabili! Respectați PNRR-ul și reformele acestuia! Reformele nu aduc voturi, dar aduc ceva mai valoros: o viață mai bună pentru oameni, un viitor pentru industrie, o economie mai puternică și adăugați investiții noi în PNRR care să poată fi finanțabile prin REPowerEU.
                  

                     Oameni buni, nu mai este timp de pierdut! România are la dispoziție cel puțin 1,4 miliarde de euro pentru a-și eficientiza energetic gospodăriile și IMM-urile. Întrebați-vă guvernul pe ce dorește să cheltuie banii din REPowerEU, solicitați să fiți consultați pe măsurile care vor fi incluse și asigurați-vă că banii din REPowerEU ajung la cei care au nevoie de ei. Haideți să aducem energia verde în casele noastre!
                  

Presidente. – Grazie al relatore e grazie a tutte e a tutti gli intervenuti.
                  

                     La discussione è chiusa.
                  

                     La votazione si svolgerà martedì 14 febbraio 2023.
                  


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 171)



Robert Hajšel (S&D),
písomne. – Čerpanie európskych prostriedkov bude podmienené konkrétnymi opatreniami, ktoré musia priamo a účinne pomôcť predovšetkým zraniteľným domácnostiam a malým a stredným podnikom čeliacim vysokým cenám energií. Doplnenie národných plánov obnovy o kapitolu REPower prinúti krajiny ako Slovensko prispôsobiť tejto dramatickej situácii investície z plánov obnovy. Ide najmä o opatrenia na zvyšovanie energetickej efektívnosti, diverzifikáciu dodávok energií a investície do obnoviteľných zdrojov.
                  

                     Odvolaná slovenská vláda na čele s povereným premiérom Hegerom zatiaľ ale iba diskutuje o nejakých reformách a investíciách a je otázne, či a kedy sa niečo aj zrealizuje. Vieme, ako sa vláde chronicky nedarí eurofondy čerpať, keď najnovšie nesplnila ani podmienky na využívanie grantov na boj s chudobou.
                  

Andżelika Anna Możdżanowska (ECR),
na piśmie. – Krótko mówiąc, mamy problem z energią. Jego źródłem jest nie tylko rosyjska agresja na Ukrainę, ale również nasz europejski ‘trup w szafie’: naiwne i lekkomyślne oparcie zielonej transformacji na rosyjskim gazie. Polskie przestrogi, wyśmiewane jako rusofobiczne, okazują się dzisiaj trzeźwą oceną sytuacji. Program REPowerEU powinien urealniać nasze ambicje, powinien skupiać się na przebudowie europejskich łańcuchów dostaw surowców, aby zapewnić bezpieczeństwo energetyczne Europie. A nie osiągniemy tego bez opierania się na realistycznym bilansie naszych potrzeb energetycznych. Ostatecznie jednak mamy kolejny ‘ambitny’ plan, oparty na mirażach zaspokojenia energetycznych potrzeb z ‘zielonych’ źródeł. W wielu przypadkach to wręcz okrutny żart z obywateli borykających się z horrendalnymi rachunkami za energię. 45% energii ze źródeł odnawialnych do 2030? Stuprocentowy wzrost fotowoltaiki do 2025? Drodzy koledzy, przecież sami w większości w to nie wierzycie! Zajmijmy się znalezieniem ekonomicznych rozwiązań na tańszy gaz i tani prąd z elektrowni atomowych. Ulżyjmy europejskim przedsiębiorcom, zamiast radzić jak oszczędzać energię! Bardzo chciałabym poprzeć ten projekt. Zależy mi na sprawiedliwej alokacji, realnych źródłach finansowania oraz na inwestycjach w infrastrukturę gazową. W pierwszej sprawie, głównie dzięki Radzie, udało się osiągnąć rozsądny kompromis. W pozostałych zwyciężyło jednak ideologiczne zaczadzenie. Apeluję o realny plan dla Europy! Dla bezpieczeństwa i racjonalnych wydatków obywateli.
                  
13.   Electoral rights of mobile Union citizens in European Parliament elections - Electoral rights of mobile Union citizens in municipal elections (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta,
               






—



                        la relazione di Damian Boeselager, a nome della commissione per gli affari costituzionali, sulla proposta di direttiva del Consiglio relativa alle modalità di esercizio del diritto di voto e di eleggibilità alle elezioni del Parlamento europeo per i cittadini dell'Unione che risiedono in uno Stato membro di cui non sono cittadini (rifusione) (COM(2021)0732 - C9-0021/2022— 2021/0372(CNS) (A9-0297/2022) e
                     










—



                        la relazione dell'on. Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, a nome della commissione per le libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni, sulla proposta di direttiva del Consiglio che stabilisce le modalità di esercizio del diritto di voto e di eleggibilità alle elezioni comunali per i cittadini dell'Unione che risiedono in uno Stato membro di cui non hanno la cittadinanza (rifusione) (COM(2021)0733 - C9-0022/2022 - 2021/0373(CNS)) (A9-0005/2023).
                     





Damian Boeselager,
rapporteur. – Madam President, President Zelenskyy reminded us last week of what it means to be European. Europe is the ideal of diversity, the rule of law, social justice and, above all, peace and democracy. A democracy that, for example, just in the previous debate, we can see where we are fighting for our political ideals rather than just for national interests, at least in principle.
But our democracy has left some space for improvement. Over the last 40 years, we didn't really update the foundations of how we vote, and over the last 15 years, we didn't update the functioning of the European Union as such. Why? Because our national leaders don't seem to care too much.
If you look at it last year, we triggered the treaty changes and there was no real effect yet until now. No national leader really reacted. We triggered electoral law reforms and, again, nothing. When we look at the right of initiative, there's also no improvement from the Council side and the same for the right of inquiry.
But we should really safeguard our democracy and so I'm happy that at least on this side, when we now look at the rights of mobile citizens, of those citizens that move from one Member State to the next, we do see some improvement. And I do want to thank the shadows for the good cooperation in trying to strengthen their rights.
What have we achieved in this report? We propose to the Council to allow for immediate registration so that whenever you come to a new country, you don't leave your rights as a citizen of the European Union at the borders, but you can actually take them with you and exercise them easily.
We want to make it more accessible to vote. So that means that we want to make information available in all languages. We want to make it easier for vulnerable and marginalised groups to vote. We want to make it easier for even people with disabilities, older persons, homeless people to cast their vote.
It's also important that we take note of what works well in different Member States. And so we also recommend to update electoral laws when it comes to postal voting, advance physical voting, proxy voting, mobile polling stations, and also electronic and online voting to make use of modern technologies.
We do believe that it should be possible for everyone without derogation to stand as a candidate, as an EU citizen in the different Member States. And it's now, I think, imperative that we stand together and try to put pressure on the national leaders to actually implement these rights. Because if you look at it, from the 11 million EU citizens who live in different countries right now, only a very marginal part actually stands as candidates. There's a low voters turnout as well but it's really striking that in the 2019 elections only over 1 % of the candidates were actually coming from a different Member State.
We can do so much more. We can be a real transnational, pan-European democracy. But for that, dear colleagues, we really need to make sure that our strong results that we got in our negotiations are also implemented by the Council and that we do get a treaty change and that we do get an update of our electoral law in general.

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński,
Sprawozdawca. – Szanowni Państwo! Traktat zapewnia każdemu obywatelowi Unii, który skorzystał z możliwości na przykład do zamieszkania, podjęcia pracy, studiowania lub prowadzenia badań w państwie członkowskim, którego nie jest obywatelem, prawo uczestniczenia w wyborach lokalnych w państwie członkowskim. Dyrektywa uszczegóływująca to prawo wymaga aktualizacji, dlatego Komisja zaproponowała zmiany. Zmiany te zaproponowane przez Komisję oceniałem i oceniam pozytywnie. Z tego względu w swojej propozycji sprawozdania skupiłem się jedynie na pewnych modyfikacjach.
               

                  W tym miejscu chciałbym podziękować wszystkim współpracującym kontrsprawozdawcom za wiele istotnych poprawek i za konstruktywną pracę nad sprawozdaniem. W pierwszej kolejności chciałbym tu wspomnieć o ułatwieniach dla osób z niepełnosprawnościami. Mam na myśli wdrożenie oraz wykorzystywanie technologii wspomagających, takich jak alfabet Braille'a, duży druk, informacje dźwiękowe czy komunikacja w języku migowym. Szczególnie istotną kwestią jest również zobowiązanie państw członkowskich do wyznaczenia właściwych organów, które będą proaktywnie informowały obywateli Unii o warunkach i szczegółach, zasadach rejestracji jako wyborca lub kandydat. Ważne jest według mnie ponadto zapewnienie jasnych, konkretnych i porównywalnych danych. Dzięki zobowiązaniu Komisji do ustanowienia wspólnych wskaźników kolejne oceny stosowania dyrektywy będą mogły lepiej odpowiedzieć na pytanie co do sprawności i jakości funkcjonowania jej przepisów.
               

                  Podczas prac nad sprawozdaniem kluczowe były dla mnie zapewnienia, aby nowe przepisy w sposób maksymalny zapewniały równość wszystkich obywateli Unii zgodnie z traktatową podstawą prawną. Jednocześnie dbałem, aby zmiany te nie wywoływały konieczności ponoszenia dodatkowych wydatków z budżetów państw członkowskich. Liczyłem również na pozostanie w ramach zaproponowanego przez Komisję zakresu przekształcenia dyrektywy. Wprowadzono jednak kilka zmian idących w przeciwnym kierunku, które nie pozwalają mi na poparcie finalnego tekstu sprawozdania. Jednym z nich jest obowiązek tłumaczenia większości informacji dotyczących wyborów. Z przygotowanych przez Komisję sprawozdań ze stosowania dyrektywy nie wynikało, by był to element powodujący utrudnienia w wykonywaniu swoich praw przez obywateli. Te zmiany stanowić będą znaczne obciążenia administracyjne i finansowe dla gmin.
               

                  Nie mogę być również zadowolony z chęci usunięcia obecnie obowiązującego na mocy dyrektywy odstępstwa, z którego od lat korzysta kilkanaście państw członkowskich. Chodzi mi o możliwość zastrzeżenia przez państwa członkowskie, że tylko ich obywatele mogą być wybierani na niektóre stanowiska. Takie państwa jak Austria, Belgia, Czechy, Estonia, Francja, Grecja, Włochy, Holandia, Polska czy Słowenia musiałyby wprowadzić istotne zmiany w przepisach, aby umożliwić wszystkim możliwość piastowania na ich terytorium niektórych tradycyjnych urzędów, np. burmistrza.
               

                  Sprawozdanie końcowe z jednej strony zawiera wiele ważnych elementów, które jednoznacznie wpływają na poprawę warunków wykonywania prawa obywateli, ale z drugiej strony zostały obarczone kilkoma nieakceptowalnymi z mojego punktu widzenia elementami. Z tego względu nie będę mógł go poprzeć.
               

Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the Commission strongly supports the Parliament's efforts on updating the rules on the electoral rights of mobile Union citizens.
The rapporteurs have made impressive progress on these files. The Commission believes there is still a window of opportunity to have these new rules enacted before the next, 2024, European Parliament elections. But this window will close soon. Union-level measures are needed to enhance the participation of mobile EU citizens. This group of citizens has grown steadily in the last ten years, reaching 13.7 million citizens. Yet Union citizens still face obstacles in exercising their right to vote and stand as a candidate in other Member States, such as low information levels and burdensome registration formalities.
The Commission has proposed changes to make it easier for mobile EU citizens to vote and stand in local and European elections without changing the overall balance of rights and competences involved in this area. Our proposals draw upon extensive consultations and respond to input received in the framework of the European Cooperation Network on Elections and the expert group on electoral matters.
Information is key for the effective exercise of electoral rights. These proposals will introduce increased responsibilities for Member States to proactively inform mobile EU citizens about their electoral rights in clear and plain language, which is accessible also to persons with disabilities. Voter and candidate registration procedures will be streamlined by introducing standardised templates for the formal declarations that mobile Union citizens have to produce when registering. These declarations will include additional data allowing Member States to accurately identify mobile Union citizens and keep them apprised of their registration status and their rights and obligations.
The Commission's proposals also ensure that mobile Union citizens are granted access to the same means of voting and remedies available to nationals. In the case of European elections, Member States will have to exchange a common data set to identify voters registered on electoral rolls of the Member States of residence and of nationality. This will reinforce the data exchange mechanism and contribute to the prevention of double voting by mobile Union citizens, an unfair activity that unfortunately happened in the past.
We will also collect relevant statistical data on the electoral participation of mobile Union citizens and a summary of the measures taken to support it. Thank you for your attention.

Domènec Ruiz Devesa,
ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior. – Señora presidenta Picierno, señora comisaria, una de las innovaciones más importantes del Tratado de Maastricht fue la introducción de la ciudadanía europea, incluyendo el derecho de sufragio activo y pasivo en las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo y también en las elecciones municipales.
               

                  Tenemos en este momento más de 13 millones de ciudadanos que viven en otro Estado miembro de la Unión Europea. Por eso, resulta imprescindible que estos ciudadanos puedan ejercer plenamente su derecho al voto y presentarse como candidatos en los procesos electorales, tanto al Parlamento Europeo como en las elecciones locales.
               

                  Desafortunadamente, estos ciudadanos se topan con demasiadas trabas administrativas y de información, especialmente las personas con discapacidad. Por tanto, es hora de eliminar estas barreras. Pedimos que se tenga en cuenta este informe para, al menos, incluir tres objetivos en particular: ofrecer más facilidades para inscribirse en el censo como residentes y votantes, facilitar más y mejor información sobre las elecciones en una lengua oficial comprensible para ellos, y, en tercer lugar, velar por las necesidades de los grupos más vulnerables, haciendo el voto accesible para las personas con discapacidad, las personas mayores y las personas sin hogar.
               

                  También creo que sería muy importante garantizar en todos los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea el voto por correo.
               

Alin Mituța,
Raportor pentru aviz, Comisia pentru afaceri constituționale. – Doamna președintă, avem peste 13 milioane de cetățeni mobili în Uniunea Europeană, din care o treime vin chiar din țara mea, din România. Toți acești oameni pot fi și ambasadori ai Uniunii Europene, pentru că sunt cei care beneficiază cel mai direct posibil de beneficiile cetățeniei europene.
               

                  Din păcate însă, doar o treime dintre ei sunt la curent cu dreptul lor de a vota sau de a candida la alegerile locale sau la alegerile europene. Lucrul acesta trebuie să se schimbe. Trebuie să informăm mai bine cetățenii mobili în legătură cu drepturile lor, încă din momentul înregistrării reședinței și înainte de fiecare alegeri.
               

                  Trebuie să eliminăm toate barierele administrative și discriminările care încă există și trebuie să scădem vârsta de vot la 16 ani, pentru a da șansa tinerilor să participe și ei la viața democratică a Uniunii. Doar așa putem îmbunătăți democrația europeană și putem întări acel spirit comun de apartenență.
               

Paulo Rangel,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, a livre circulação das pessoas na União é, sem dúvida, uma das maiores conquistas da cidadania europeia. E ela tem, também, como implicação que os cidadãos europeus que residem noutros Estados-Membros possam participar nas eleições europeias, o que, por si, já era, obviamente, um imperativo da cidadania europeia, mas também nas eleições municipais, porque fazem parte da vida da comunidade local. Portanto, é fundamental garantir que todos aqueles que gozam de cidadania europeia possam participar, seja como candidatos, seja como eleitores, nas eleições europeias e nas eleições municipais.
               

                  Esta reforma visa, precisamente, aumentar e facilitar o acesso das cidadãs e dos cidadãos a este direito de voto. Ela visa essencialmente que, hoje, em termos de registo e de recenseamento, em termos de acesso à informação numa língua que seja compreensível para os cidadãos, que são candidatos ou eleitores, e também os cidadãos com alguma deficiência possam ter muito maior facilidade no exercício do seu direito.
               

                  Não está aqui em causa o sistema eleitoral, qualquer que ele seja, qualquer que seja a lei eleitoral europeia ou a lei eleitoral de cada Estado-Membro para os municípios, os cidadãos europeus devem ter pleno direito de acesso à capacidade eleitoral passiva e ativa.
               

Gabriele Bischoff,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Kommissarin Jourová hat es gerade gesagt: Wir haben hier ein Zeitfenster, ein kleines Zeitfenster vor der europäischen Wahl, wo wir noch handeln können und sicherstellen können, dass die 11 Millionen EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürger, die wir haben in Europa, die in einem anderen Land leben, lieben, arbeiten, dass die auch wirklich an den Europawahlen teilnehmen.
               

                  Und ja, theoretisch können sie es. Es ist ein wichtiger Fortschritt gewesen, aber wir haben immer noch so viele Hürden, seien es sprachliche Hürden, die hier angewandt wurden, oder seien es bürokratische Verfahren manchmal, die es eben schwer machen für jemanden, der da arbeitet, aber sich nicht in den Bürokratien auskennt, tatsächlich auch sein Recht wahrzunehmen.
               

                  Und deshalb ist es richtig, dass wir jetzt noch mal einen Push machen, um die Demokratie für EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürger zu stärken, weil das Grundrecht, an Wahlen teilzunehmen, eben auch praktisch bedeutet, dass es signalisiert: Hier bin ich zu Hause, hier möchte ich mitbestimmen, wer meine Interessen in Europa, im Europäischen Parlament vertritt. Und deswegen gibt es hier noch starken Handlungsbedarf.
               

Yana Toom,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, I would also like, like other colleagues, to stand here and talk about all the good points that we have agreed on, like requiring electoral information to be available in more languages, asking more countries to automatically enlist new residents as voters and removing old and useless derogations.
But I also have to remind you of hundreds of thousands of Europeans who are left behind. Hundreds of thousands of stateless people in the Baltics do not have the right to vote in national and European elections. The non-citizens in Latvia do not have the right to vote, even in local elections, and I'm speaking about the people who were born and raised in that country.
In this House, we pride ourselves on the democratic mandate we get from Europeans. We say again and again how much we believe in democratic participation, yet our ambition with these voting rights paint a different picture. I hope that the next time we review these rules, we ensure that everyone permanently residing in Europe, everywhere in Europe, is entitled to vote. And I very much hope that we will not wait another 28 years for that.

François Alfonsi,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, le rapport sur les droits des citoyens de l'Union pour participer aux élections municipales conduit au renforcement de la démocratie européenne, à travers les droits des citoyens européens qui vivent en dehors de leur pays d'origine. Il va faciliter leur insertion dans la vie démocratique en général en améliorant leur capacité à s'impliquer dans la démocratie locale là où ils vivent, notamment à travers les élections municipales.
               

                  Le rapport propose de faciliter leur participation directe à la démocratie locale, aux élections municipales, que ce soit comme électeur ou comme candidat, en étant mieux informé et mieux incité à s'y impliquer.
               

                  Chaque État d'accueil devra améliorer l'information des citoyens concernés dans leur langue – y compris s'il s'agit une langue régionale –, faciliter la mise en œuvre de leurs droits et permettre leur implication dans les débats politiques qui sont aussi les leurs. Toutes les restrictions actuelles devront être levées.
               

                  Ce rapport fait donc progresser la démocratie européenne. Il apportera à chaque citoyen concerné un sentiment renforcé d'appartenance à l'Union et une meilleure implication dans la vie politique locale là où il vit. Notre groupe votera pour et demande au Conseil de le soutenir également.
               

Patricia Chagnon,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Commissaire, Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, ici à cette tribune, je souhaite rappeler que la citoyenneté européenne n'existe pas et n'existera jamais.
               

                  La citoyenneté est liée à une nation. L'Europe n'est pas une nation et par conséquent, la citoyenneté européenne ne peut pas exister et n'existera donc jamais. C'est une construction purement idéologique: l'Union européenne est composée des citoyens des différentes nations qui la composent.
               

                  Au lieu de tirer les leçons des contestations de plus en plus nombreuses des peuples d'Europe, qui se lèvent contre l'empire que vous avez créé, vous avancez avec arrogance et mépris dans votre projet d'intégration. Votre projet finira par se fracasser sur la réalité des peuples, car notre soif de liberté finira par triompher.
               

                  Les peuples ne sont pas interchangeables, ni intégrables à votre empire par une artificielle ‘citoyenneté européenne’. Les empires ne sont que des parenthèses dans l'histoire des peuples et notre Alliance européenne des nations est bien l'avenir.
               

Leila Chaibi,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, 12 millions d'Européens vivent dans un pays de l'Union européenne qui n'est pas le leur.
               

                  Ces Européens ont le droit de travailler, de vivre et d'étudier dans un autre État membre et ça, ils le savent. Ces citoyens mobiles ont également le droit de voter aux élections européennes dans leur pays d'accueil mais souvent, cela, ils ne le savent pas. Et donc, en pratique, ils ne votent pas du tout: ni dans leur pays de base, car ils n'y vivent pas, ni dans leur pays d'accueil, car ils ne savent pas qu'ils en ont le droit.
               

                  Ce rapport vise justement à rendre ce droit effectif, d'abord et avant tout en favorisant l'accès à l'information, qui sera donnée aux citoyens mobiles dès qu'ils s'enregistrent dans leur nouveau pays de résidence. Ainsi, ils pourront choisir en toute connaissance de cause, dès leur arrivée, de voter dans leur État membre d'origine ou depuis leur État membre de résidence.
               

                  Dans un contexte où l'abstention est massive à chaque élection européenne – je ne dis pas que la révision de cette directive est une solution magique –, nous ne pouvons pas rechigner à ce que davantage de citoyens puissent se rendre aux urnes lors des élections européennes et ce rapport y contribue.
               

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, moja Hrvatska je zemlja birača duhova. Birački popisi su neuređeni, često glasaju mrtvi ili oni koji su iselili, a birača ima mnogo više nego što ima stanovnika.
               

                  Kada sam se prvi puta kandidirao, bilo je desetak birača registrirano na mojoj adresi, od kojih većinu nikada nisam poznavao niti imaju ikakve veze s tom adresom. U Hrvatskoj se birač nigdje ne potpisuje pa niti nema dokaza je li ikada glasao ili nije glasao.
               

                  Izborne jedinice su toliko nakaradne da je napokon i Ustavni sud prije nekoliko dana, nakon tužbe, srušio i Zakon o izbornim jedinicama. Neki zastupnici birani su s desetak tisuća glasova, dok iza nekih stoji svega nekoliko stotina glasova u 12. izbornoj jedinici. Taj neustavan sustav dojadio je i Bogu i narodu, i stručnoj i političkoj javnosti. Narušena je jednakost biračkog prava odnosno svačiji glas ne vrijedi jednako niti svatko u jednakoj mjeri ne utječe na ishod izbora.
               

                  Sve navedeno i još mnogo toga ide na ruku onima koji su takav sustav i gradili da ostanu na vlasti. Sav taj nered i nepravdu Europa je prepoznala pa nam je dala Dubravku Šuicu, komesara za demokraciju.
               

                  Međutim, ovdje danas imamo prijedlog o uvođenju elektroničkog i on line glasovanja, doduše samo za lokalne i europarlamentarne izbore za sada. To je poticaj da se urede i birački popisi i u Hrvatskoj. To je poticaj da i oni Hrvati koje je vlast istjerala u inozemstvo mogu mnogo lakše izaći na glasovanje i birati, i to bez obzira koliko su udaljeni od konzulata. Konačno, jedna korisna iz Bruxellesa!
               

Loránt Vincze (PPE). – Madam President, dear Commissioner Jourová, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Damian Boeselager, for the very good cooperation in preparing Parliament's position.
Available data makes it evident that the participation rate in elections among the mobile European citizens is much lower than that of the nationals in a Member State. There are many factors influencing the decision to vote or not, and certainly the registration process is the most significant.
We need to close this representation gap in which the views of citizens making use of the freedom of movement are less reflected than those of other EU citizens. Mobile European citizens need to know about their right to vote and the steps they need to take for the registration in the electoral roll.
I am glad that the report of the Parliament has improved the language on the possibility of immediate registration as a voter or candidate at a time of requesting a residence permit, has made it clear for voters that they have the choice of expressing their political preference in either the home state or the country of residence, and it has strengthened the references to information provision on the prohibition of double voting.
And, in this regard, it is regretful that not all Member States have ratified the Council's decision of 2018 amending the 76 electoral rule, which requires effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in Member States in the event of double voting. In its absence, strengthening the information provision through this Directive is most useful.

Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Caros Colegas, a liberdade de circulação das pessoas é das mais importantes vantagens concretas da cidadania europeia, e os cidadãos conhecem e reconhecem-na bem. Mas, a mobilidade não pode pôr em causa o exercício dos direitos de voto e de participação política dos cidadãos europeus que fazem uso da sua liberdade de residir em países diferentes do seu país de origem.
               

                  Por isso, o Parlamento Europeu faz hoje uma chamada de atenção à Comissão e ao Conselho para que tomem medidas que eliminem barreiras e facilitem o direito de voto dos imigrantes nas eleições europeias. Mecanismos de recenseamento automático, mecanismos de voto antecipado, de voto por correspondência podem fazer toda a diferença para muitos imigrantes e outros cidadãos em mobilidade.
               

                  São também muito necessárias e urgentes medidas de informação sobre os direitos de participação política no próprio momento do registo, sempre que possível em língua acessível, e campanhas de sensibilização. Ainda vamos a tempo de ter mais cidadãos imigrantes a votar nas próximas eleições europeias, mas para isso é preciso fazer, e fazer agora o que ainda não foi feito.
               

Sandro Gozi (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice-Présidente de la Commission, chère Věra, chers collègues, en 2019, s'est déroulé un événement démocratique très inquiétant – lors des élections européennes – dont personne n'a parlé. Que s'est-il passé?
               

                  Les abstentionnistes chez les expatriés étaient 9 millions de personnes, soit l'équivalent de 70 % de la population d'un État de taille moyenne en Europe (13 millions). Il s'agit d'Européens résidant dans un État membre autre que leur pays d'origine. Leur droit fondamental de participation démocratique a été lourdement limité par des incohérences bureaucratiques et par le manque d'informations.
               

                  En tant que citoyen italien, résident et élu en France, je suis convaincu que nous passons ainsi à côté de la plus belle opportunité offerte par notre Union: être citoyen à plein titre, partout dans notre Union. Notre rapport va exactement dans ce sens: nous devons éliminer, et ce très rapidement, les obstacles inacceptables à la participation démocratique en vue des élections européennes de 2024.
               

Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, come è stato detto sono ancora troppi i milioni di cittadini europei che vivono e risiedono, anche per motivi di lavoro o di studio, in uno Stato diverso da quello di origine, che purtroppo non riescono a esercitare i loro diritti elettorali.
               

                  Bassa è la loro affluenza alle urne rispetto ai cittadini nazionali, e ancora più bassa è la percentuale di coloro che decidono di candidarsi in un paese diverso da quello di origine. In realtà, questi cittadini rappresentano quella mobilità sociale tanto aspirata per rafforzare il progetto di integrazione europea, ed è per questo che oggi il Parlamento si esprime in modo chiaro perché essi possano e debbano essere favoriti e facilitati a candidarsi e a poter votare, soprattutto con riferimento alle persone con disabilità.
               

                  Non dimentichiamo che la partecipazione alla vita politica è il presupposto fondativo di ogni democrazia e le norme nuove che proponiamo intendono avere anche un effetto di europeizzazione per cambiare il modo in cui i cittadini dell'Unione europea vedono la democrazia europea, rafforzandone il sentimento di appartenenza e combattendo quello che, a mio avviso, è il vero nemico che dobbiamo affrontare: l'astensionismo.
               

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich entschuldige mich für die Verspätung bei den außenpolitischen Debatten, aus denen ich gerade komme.
               

                  Es ist mir aber wichtig, mich zu dieser demokratiepolitischen Debatte noch zu äußern, denn das Wahlrecht ist ein staatsbürgerliches Recht – eines der wichtigsten staatsbürgerlichen Rechte in unseren demokratischen Systemen, die von innen und außen so unter Druck sind. Und es ist auch ein unionsbürgerliches Recht, weil auch Unionsbürgerinnen und Unionsbürger nicht nur ihre europäische Vertretung – das Europäische Parlament – wählen, sondern auch auf der kommunalen Ebene wählen können, wenn sie in einer europäischen Kommune in der Europäischen Union leben. Das ist viel wert.
               

                  Und es ist besonders viel wert, dass man die eigene Vertretung im Europäischen Parlament aus dem eigenen Land wählen kann, egal wo man lebt auf der Welt, oder auch dort mitwählen kann, wo man in der Europäischen Union lebt, wenn man nicht aus diesem Land kommt und Unionsbürgerin oder Unionsbürger ist.
               

                  Wichtig ist: Es ist nicht nur das aktive Wahlrecht, sondern auch das passive betroffen. Wir sollten junge Menschen motivieren, alle Generationen motivieren, mitzumachen beim Wählen, aber auch beim Kandidieren, um die Demokratie zu stärken.
               

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                     


Stelios Kympouropoulos (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, today were talking about the ultimate threat to democracy. In a Union like ours, especially when it comes to the participation of disabled persons in the European Parliament elections, we need the establishment of a more coherent approach across Member States.
It is irrational for a disabled person with a specific impairment to have the right in a Member State and hindered or deprived of it when residing in another Member State, whether it is the same person or someone with the same impairment. It is the same Union, the same election, the same fundamental right.
The EU should not only ensure the accessibility of the procedures, it is the best opportunity for the Union to grant this right to those disabled persons who are deprived of their legal capacity, no matter of the legal framework of the home Member State or their residence. This is a symbolic occasion for the EU to show their way.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el año pasado, 2022, celebramos setenta años de la Constitución de la Primera Asamblea Parlamentaria de las Comunidades Europeas. Este Parlamento Europeo es un salto adelante en la medida en que es la única institución democráticamente electiva, legislativa y supranacional del mundo.
               

                  Pero es imprescindible saber que la participación electoral en los cuarenta años que este Parlamento ha sido directamente elegido por sufragio universal ha declinado, rebotando al alza, y debemos celebrarlo, en las elecciones de 2019.
               

                  Es mucho lo que tenemos que hacer para continuar estimulando la participación electoral y este derecho electoral de los ciudadanos móviles, es decir, de esos trece millones de ciudadanos europeos que residen en algún otro país del que no son nacionales. Es un paso en la dirección correcta y hay que hacerlo con todas las garantías: información, campaña, lengua que les sea comprensible, remoción de todos los obstáculos burocráticos y facilitación del voto anticipado y del voto por correo, particularmente para las personas con discapacidad. Es un paso, por tanto, correcto.
               

                  Termino diciendo que he escuchado decir en este debate que no existe la ciudadanía europea. Eso es negar el Derecho europeo. La ciudadanía europea existe porque la consagra la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea y el Derecho de la Unión. Y este Parlamento la representa.
               

Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, gerbiama Komisijos nare. Čia jau buvo pasakyta, kad iš tikrųjų vienas iš pagrindinių ir didžiausių Europos pasiekimų ir teisių – jos piliečiams laisvai judėti visos Europos Sąjungos teritorijoje, jauniems žmonėms įgyti mokslą, kitiems darbuotis, o kai kam ir gauti gydymo paslaugas. Tačiau taip pat viena iš pagrindinių Europos žmonių teisių yra teisė balsuoti. Ir mes jau pastebėjome, kad beveik 13 milijonų žmonių gyvena ne savo kilmės šalyse. Todėl šios direktyvos peržiūra ir galimybė sudaryti geresnes sąlygas Europos piliečiams, gyvenantiems kitose, ne savo kilmės šalyse, ir dalyvauti tiek aktyviai, tiek siūlant savo kandidatūras, tiek pačiuose rinkimų procesuose. Taip pat prisidedu prie tų kolegų, kurie sakė, kad mums ypatingai svarbu pritraukti žmones su negalia, nes mes galime matyti, kiek stiprūs tie žmonės, kiek šitie žmonės turi iniciatyvų, kurių reikalinga, kad jos būtų girdimos Europos Sąjungos Parlamente. Todėl kviečiu visus palaikyti šią iniciatyvą ir labiau sustiprinti demokratiją, leisti mums atstovauti visiems Europos piliečiams.
               

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, these two files are obviously part of the Commission's priority for a new push for European democracy, and I mean ensuring a right to vote and stand for election throughout the EU is grand, but it's hardly the biggest problem with European democracy. In fact, it's the technical fix for what is deep-seated problems of a disconnect between the citizens and the institutions, where in seven Member States, less than 30 % of people bothered to vote in the last European elections.
The reason for that wasn't because they were mobile. It's just that they couldn't be bothered because they felt that the European Parliament and the EU didn't represent them. And the reason for that at its very heart is the neo-liberalism which is enshrined in the policies and the treaties of the EU, which have led to a massive increase in inequality and undermining of public services, privatisation, a cynicism in terms of national governments, national health and so on. And unless we go back to basics and bottom up democracy, we're kidding ourselves that these type of fixes are going to make any difference whatsoever.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, the voting process does need to be simplified and barriers reduced for mobile EU citizens to vote in European and local elections. However, these provisions are not enough to address democratic deficits when it comes to electoral rights.
This report excludes millions of EU mobile citizens from voting in national and regional elections, as well as referendums. EU citizens residing and paying taxes in other Member States have no say in the country they live in over the politics that affect their daily lives in that particular country. I mean, why should it be okay to vote for a mayor or a European representative, and yet not in national elections.
Now, this legislation is supposed to be a new push for European democracy. Well, what about addressing the increasing concentration of mainstream media in the hands of fewer and fewer elite bodies? We were witnessing a race to the bottom in how news is being presented to us. And this has nothing good to do for democracy.

(Fine della
procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I took due note of this debate of Parliament's proposals to provide more possibilities for mobile EU citizens to exercise their electoral rights and to improve inclusiveness thereof for persons with disabilities.
We are dedicated to the same goals. These proposals are only a part of the Commission's larger efforts to increase the resilience of elections and promote broad and inclusive democratic participation. There is still time to get this done ahead of the European Parliament elections next year.
The Commission will work with the Council and the Presidency to find suitable solutions and achieve the unanimity required by the special legislative procedure as soon as possible.

Damian Boeselager,
rapporteur. – Madam President, thank you, colleagues, thank you also, Commissioner, for the positive words. Just one quick word upfront to our colleagues from the far right. I think you've still not really understood history because nations were created to overcome smaller units called kingdoms and dukedoms, and back then being a nationalist was being for progress. And I think you really misunderstood the concept of progress.
When I started thinking about the theory of democracy, basically when I started building the movement, I heard very often that people don't really care about the theory of democracy or voting. And I do think that's absolutely wrong. I think people care very much if they exercise their freedom to move across borders and then are deprived of the democratic rights. I think people care a lot if they're trying to vote or stand as a candidate and they can't do that because the voting booth is not accessible. I think people care very much if their vote is unjustly stolen because of unjustified thresholds. I think they care very much if candidates don't have the chances to present themselves.
So, colleagues, democracy is fragile and I think we should really use every opportunity to create trust in democracy, to improve our democracies, and ensure that we strengthen it with all our power. And so I'm very happy that we take this step here now, also as a step towards better democracy, against autocracy and for our common European values.

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński,
Sprawozdawca. – Szanowni Państwo! Chciałbym bardzo podziękować za wszystkie głosy i ciekawą debatę. Wszyscy się chyba zgodzimy, że demokracja jest jedną z wartości, na których opiera się Unia i wszyscy obywatele mają prawo uczestniczyć w życiu demokratycznym Unii na równych i przejrzystych zasadach. Tu chciałbym zaznaczyć, że podstawa prawna z traktatu jest jasna. Traktat nakazuje zapewnić równy dostęp do możliwości głosowania na takich samych warunkach jak obywatele danego państwa członkowskiego. Chodzi o zniesienie barier i nierówności, na które napotykają przemieszczający się obywatele.
               

                  Uważam, że aktualizacja, doprecyzowanie i wzmocnienie obowiązujących przepisów, w tym poprzez nałożony obowiązek proaktywnego informowania migrujących obywateli o ich prawach i obowiązkach wyborczych, są w pełni uzasadnione. Takie rozwiązania umożliwiają szeroki i pluralistyczny udział w wyborach lokalnych oraz wesprą przemieszczających się obywateli Unii, w tym osoby z niepełnosprawnościami, w korzystaniu z przysługującego im prawa do uczestnictwa w życiu demokratycznym Unii Europejskiej.
               

                  Jestem przekonany, że moje sprawozdanie, pomimo pewnych wspomnianych na wstępie wątpliwości, zostanie uważnie przestudiowane i będzie stanowić ważny głos w dyskusji, którą musi przeprowadzić Rada. Tym bardziej, że Rada musi osiągnąć konsensus i zagłosować jednomyślnie za wprowadzeniem zmian do dyrektywy. Jeszcze raz chciałbym podziękować wszystkim koleżankom i kolegom za możliwość wspólnej pracy nad sprawozdaniem i za debatę, a słowa szczególnego podziękowania kieruję również na ręce moich współpracowników, szczególnie chciałbym podziękować Panu Marcinowi Drwięckiemu za wszelką pomoc.
               

Presidente. – Grazie a tutte e a tutti gli intervenuti per questo dibattito davvero molto interessante.
               

                  La discussione è chiusa.
               

                  Come sapete la votazione si svolgerà martedì 14 febbraio 2023.
               


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 171)



Ádám Kósa (NI),
írásban. – A magyar választójogi szabályozás megfelel az akadálymentességi követelményeknek: aki látás-, hallás-, vagy mozgásszervi-fogyatékossága miatt, vagy értelmi képességei okán a kommunikációjában korlátozott, segítséget vehet igénybe választójoga gyakorlásához. A politikai reklámokat feliratozni kell, vagy jelnyelvi tolmácsolásról kell gondoskodni, hogy a siketek is hozzájussanak a szükséges információkhoz, a vakok pedig kérhetik Braille-írással készült tájékoztató megküldését, de készül tájékoztató könnyen érthető formában is. A szavazás napján: lehet Braille-írásos szavazósablont kérni, a mozgásukban korlátozott személyek akadálymentes szavazóhelyiségekben szavazhatnak vagy kérhetnek mozgóurnát. Aki pedig nem tud olvasni, illetve akit testi fogyatékossága akadályoz a szavazásban, általa választott segítő – ennek hiányában a szavazatszámláló bizottság két tagjának együttes – segítségét veheti igénybe.
               

                  Üdvözlendő, hogy az irányelv tervezett módosítása is ebbe az irányba mozdul és szorgalmazza olyan segítő technológiák és formátumok használatát, mint a Braille-írás, a nagybetűs írás, a hangalapú tájékoztatás, a tapintható írásrendszerek, a könnyen olvasható információk és a jelnyelvi kommunikáció. A javasolt módosítás azonban a fogyatékossággal élők szükségleteire hivatkozva olyan új dolgokat is bevezetne, amelyeket nem lehet a fogyatékossággal indokolni, mint az előzetes fizikai szavazás, a meghatalmazott útján történő szavazás, valamint az elektronikus és online szavazás. Ez trójai faló lehet, amelyet nem kívánunk a kapunkon beengedni.
               

Katarína Roth Neveďalová (S&D),
písomne. – Odhaduje sa, že približne 13,3 milióna občanov EÚ žije v inom členskom štáte EÚ ako v tom, z ktorého pochádzajú, pričom viac ako 11 miliónov z nich môže voliť alebo byť volený vo voľbách. Ak by to boli občania jednej krajiny, išlo by až o stredne veľký členský štát.
               

                  Napriek tomu, že títo občania aktívne využívajú svoje právo na voľný pohyb a často si uvedomujú výhody spojené s členstvom v EÚ, je ich účasť vo voľbách v štátoch, v ktorých žijú, v porovnaní s občanmi hostiteľských štátov veľmi nízka. Cieľom úpravy tejto smernice je odstrániť prekážky spojené hlavne s registráciou voličov či prístupom k informáciám tak, aby sa migrujúci občania EÚ viac aktívne zapájali do demokratických procesov v krajine, v ktorej žijú. Zároveň požaduje, aby členské štáty zabezpečili zohľadňovanie potrieb zraniteľných a marginalizovaných skupín, ako je prístup k hlasovaniu pre osoby so zdravotným postihnutím, staršie osoby alebo ľudí bez domova.
               

László Trócsányi (NI),
írásban. – A más tagállamban letelepedett uniós polgárok európai parlamenti választásokon való részvétele kapcsán érdemes a felmerült problémákat áttekinteni, és uniós szinten együttműködni. Ilyen a hátrányos megkülönböztetéstől mentes szabályozás és gyakorlat fontossága, a megfelelő tájékoztatás nyújtása a választópolgárok számára, a felesleges adminisztratív akadályok csökkentése, valamint a kettős szavazás megelőzésének problémaköre.
               

                  Üdvözlendő, hogy a jelentés kitér a fogyatékossággal élők választójogának gyakorlásával kapcsolatos gyakorlati nehézségekre: ezek felszámolása kiemelkedően fontos az általános és egyenlő választójog valódi megvalósításához. A javaslat tehát releváns kérdéseket vet fel, és éppen ezért sajnálatos, hogy az európai parlamenti álláspont tervezete sokkal inkább ideológiai szempontból közelíti meg a problémakört, félreértelmezve az egyre szorosabb egység elvét.
               

                  Az előadó a tagállami szuverenitást háttérbe szorító, centralizált, uniformizált, föderális Európa-koncepciót kívánja erősíteni egy olyan jelentésben, amely nem a választójogi reformjavaslathoz kapcsolódik. Feleslegesen, politikai elfogultságból, és a ház jelentős részének álláspontját figyelmen kívül hagyva, hivatkozik az egységes választókerület, azaz a transznacionális listák bevezetésére. A jelentésnek sokkal inkább a valódi, választópolgárok előtt álló gyakorlati problémákkal kellene foglalkoznia, figyelembe véve az előadó álláspontjától eltérő véleményeket is, ahogyan azt a pluralizmus elve is megkövetelné. Számomra ez jelentené az európai népek közötti egyre szorosabb egység megvalósulását, a gyümölcsöző együttműködést a felesleges intézményi reformkövetelések hangoztatása helyett.
               

VORSITZ: EVELYN REGNER


Vizepräsidentin

14.   Composition of committees and delegations

Die Präsidentin. – Die EVP-Fraktion hat der Präsidentin einen Beschluss über die Änderung von Ernennungen in eine Delegation übermittelt. Dieser Beschluss wird in das Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung aufgenommen und tritt am Tag dieser Ankündigung in Kraft.
               
15.   EU funding allocated to NGOs incriminated in the recent corruption revelations and the protection of EU financial interests (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zu Finanzmitteln der EU für bei den jüngsten Korruptionsfällen beschuldigte NGOs und zum Schutz der finanziellen Interessen der EU (2023/2563(RSP)).
               

Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to discuss funding for civil society organisations today in the context of the recent revelations. The Commission is politically committed and legally bound to ensure that organisations and projects involved in criminal unethical practices or those incompatible with human values don't receive EU financial support. This, of course, includes upholding the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of sound financial management. The Commission also acknowledges and supports the key role that independent civil society organisations play for the well functioning of our democracies by upholding the common values on which the union is founded: the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy.
NGOs monitor this and draw attention to threats to our values. NGOs also play an important role in the detection, prevention and fight against corruption. However, there can be bad apples in the bunch, and the legal framework set by the financial regulation aims at ensuring the protection of the union financial interests. In this regard, this framework applies fully to NGOs, that are subject to the same rules and the financial regulation as for any other entity receiving EU funding. Prior to the award of EU funding the Commission carries out rigorous selection processes, ensuring that funding is in line with EU values. During their lifetime, EU funded projects are closely monitored to ensure that they are implemented in accordance with the agreements and the description of works. The Commission has not and will not hesitate to take appropriate action against any beneficiary of EU funding that is confirmed to be in breach of applicable rules.
All relevant agreements establish various mechanism to safeguard the proper use of union funds. Controls or audits are put in place to identify irregularities, fraud or a breach of obligations. And in the event of these occurring, including the violation of EU values, contracts may be suspended, terminated or reduced and funds may be recovered.
As an example of applying the above mechanism and in view of the ongoing criminal investigation, the Commission has suspended all payments for the projects in Libya contracted with the NGO ‘No Peace Without Justice’ as a precautionary measure. The Commission ensures also that EU funds do not end up benefiting organisations that breach EU values, so the implementation of the early detection exclusion system. The exclusion grounds for applicants and recipients of union funds include grave professional misconduct, terrorist financing, fraud and corruption.
Lastly, all entities implementing EU funds also subject to EU restrictive measures stemming from Article 250 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the connected Council regulations. Those who allow targeting of governments of non-EU countries, companies, groups, organisations or individuals, and prohibiting listed entities or persons from receiving EU funding. If an entity is engaged in any criminal or unethical practices or acts against the EU values, we have the legal framework in place to prevent such entity from receiving EU funding.

Monika Hohlmeier,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, lieber Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal: Nichtregierungsorganisationen sind ein ganz wichtiger Bestandteil unserer Gesellschaft, und – der Kommissar hat es sehr deutlich zum Ausdruck gebracht – sie übernehmen unerlässliche und wichtige Aufgaben. Ich bin selbst in mehreren Organisationen engagiert und bin mir deshalb sehr bewusst und weiß aus erster Hand, wie wertvoll die Arbeit von NGOs und auch von Stiftungen ist.
               

                  Deshalb ist es umso schlimmer, dass einige schwarze Schafe nun die Arbeit und den Ruf von seriösen Organisationen zu diskreditieren drohen. Der Korruptionsskandal um die ehemalige Vizepräsidentin Kaili hat gezeigt, dass NGOs viel zu einfach und unbeobachtet von Drittstaaten oder kriminellen Strukturen als Vehikel für ihre Interessen und kriminellen Unterfangen missbraucht werden können.
               

                  Daher brauchen wir klare Regeln bezüglich der Transparenz, der Finanzierung und der Tätigkeiten von NGOs. Wir brauchen ein europäisches Äquivalent zum US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Es darf nicht vorkommen, dass Drittstaaten und Kriminelle NGOs als Tarnorganisationen dazu nutzen, um verschleiert Einfluss auf politische Entscheidungsprozesse zu nehmen, Bestechungsgelder zu zahlen und EU-Gelder abzugreifen.
               

                  Es ist zudem schon mehrfach vorgekommen, lieber Herr Kommissar, trotz aller angeblicher scrutini, dass selbst Organisationen, die vom Verfassungsschutz beobachtet werden, noch finanzielle Mittel erhalten haben. Hier müssen wir deutlich wachsamer sein.
               

                  Die finanziellen und nicht finanziellen Zuflüsse von NGOs müssen entsprechend offengelegt werden. Ich muss ehrlich sagen, bei den Organisationen, die ich vertrete, ist es überhaupt kein Problem, dies zu tun. Das heißt nicht, dass man sie in einer öffentlichen Liste preisgibt, sondern dass man sie entsprechend für die Auditoren und die notwendigen Organisationen zur Prüfung vorlegt.
               

                  Als Zweites müssen aber auch die Ausgaben letztendlich überprüft werden dahingehend, ob sie auch dahin fließen, wo sie tatsächlich hinfließen sollen.
               

                  Dann als Drittes: Die Einhaltung der demokratischen Rechenschaftspflicht und Achtung der europäischen Werte ist für mich sine qua non. Ich möchte sagen, dass NGOs die Grundwerte der EU respektieren müssen und dies auch in ihrer Organisationsstruktur widerspiegeln müssen. Und das erwarten wir von der Kommission, dass sie das auch systematisch überprüft.
               

Udo Bullmann,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ja, dieser Korruptionsskandal muss rückhaltlos – rückhaltlos heißt: ohne Wenn und Aber – aufgeklärt werden. Das gilt in Bezug auf ausländische Regierungen, die Einfluss genommen haben. Das gilt in Bezug auf Abgeordnete oder Ex-Abgeordnete, die, so wie die Sachlage ist, Einfluss genommen haben. Und es gilt auch für Schein-NGOs, die sich das gute Attribut der Nichtregierungsorganisation, das gute Attribut, die guten Eigenschaften der Zivilgesellschaft zunutze gemacht haben.
               

                  Ich kann für den Unterausschuss, den ich übernommen habe, den Menschenrechtsausschuss, sagen, dass die Kolleginnen und Kollegen wild entschlossen sind, nichts durchgehen zu lassen, was unsere Arbeit in irgendeiner Weise in Misskredit bringt. Ganz im Gegenteil. Wir sind für die Menschen da, die keine Stimme haben, deren Rechte verletzt werden, aber nicht für diejenigen, die Geldkoffer durch die Gegend tragen.
               

                  Frau Kollegin Hohlmeier hat Recht: Wir müssen sorgsam sein. Aber lassen Sie uns vielleicht noch ein bisschen radikaler werden. Es sind nicht Nichtregierungsorganisationen alleine, die im Verdacht stehen, dass sie Gelder veruntreuen oder missbrauchen. Alle, die Gelder von uns bekommen, gehören auf die gleiche Bank gesetzt und in gleichem Maße untersucht und müssen in gleicher Weise Rechenschaft leisten. Und wir müssen unsere Praktiken überprüfen, aber nicht nur in den Ausschüssen und nicht nur in der Kommission. Mitunter, Frau Kollegin Hohlmeier, müssen wir – und das wird Sie überraschen – bis in die Spitze dieses Hauses in unseren Diensten sorgsamer sein, wenn wir Genehmigungen erteilen, die wissenschaftlichen Dienste oder andere Ressourcen des Hauses in Anspruch zu nehmen, ohne dass die entsprechenden zivilgesellschaftlichen Einrichtungen registriert werden. Das wird es nicht mehr geben dürfen.
               

                  Ich erwarte eine konstruktive Debatte, aber eine ohne Hexenjagd gegen die Menschen in der Zivilgesellschaft, die wir dringend brauchen.
               

Nathalie Loiseau,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, tous ici, nous sommes encore sous le choc d'avoir appris que la corruption aurait trouvé son chemin auprès de certains de nos collègues. Tous ici, nous sommes déterminés à ce que cela ne soit plus possible. Très bien! Mais alors, chers collègues, je nous engage à être cohérents.
               

                  Nous savons que des pays du Proche et du Moyen-Orient, le Qatar en tête, sont prêts à payer de fortes sommes pour nous influencer. Alors ne les laissons pas faire, quelle que soit leur méthode. Il est temps de nous interroger sur certaines associations islamistes qui ont non seulement pignon sur rue à Bruxelles, mais que nos institutions accueillent à bras ouverts, légitiment et, parfois même, financent.
               

                  Il ne se passe pas une semaine sans que la Femyso nous adresse un courriel, pas une année sans que la Commission européenne ne la subventionne. Pourquoi? Pourquoi choisir une fédération dont les liens avec les Frères musulmans ne font de doute pour personne? Pourquoi financer une association religieuse pour s'adresser à la jeunesse lorsqu'on est une institution européenne par essence laïque?
               

                  Autre exemple: pourquoi Erasmus+ laisse-t-il une association frériste – Al Sharq – coordonner quatre, quatre de ses projets?
               

                  Toutes ces associations ont des liens avec le Moyen-Orient ou avec la Turquie, ou avec les deux. Toutes contestent notre mode de vie européen. Combien de temps encore l'Union européenne leur déroulera-t-elle le tapis rouge? Sur cela aussi, le Qatargate doit nous ouvrir les yeux.
               

Hannah Neumann,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, what we are looking at at the moment, is a criminal network that misused the organisational shell of an NGO for its corruption activities. So let's be very clear: this is a corruption scandal and it's not an NGO scandal.
So rather than attacking NGOs, not just in this debate today, and some of these NGOs are actually our biggest allies when it comes to fighting corruption, we should fix our own problems. As so often, if you point with one finger to the others, there are at least the pointing back to you. We need this ethics body that President von der Leyen promised three years ago. We need a culture in which whistleblowers feel safe enough to finally speak up. We need more resources for OLAF, and we need to apply the same rules for everybody, regardless of big names, regardless of good connection when it comes to access, for example, to this Parliament and this Parliament's resources, because frankly said that was the biggest problem with Fight Impunity.
The voters want us to clean up this corruption mess. They don't want us to engage in cheap party politics nor in scapegoating, and this debate feels a bit like this.

Alessandro Panza,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, fa piacere che alla fine, ancora una volta, i fatti ci abbiano dato ragione. Abbiamo passato anni a porre il problema delle ONG, ma abbiamo ricevuto solo insulti e offese, anche da parte di qualcuno che veniva in quest'Aula a fare il moralizzatore, quello con la schiena dritta. Ecco, quel qualcuno oggi è in galera, spiace. Restiamo comunque garantisti, ognuno saprà dimostrare la propria innocenza, forse.
               

                  Alla fine anche la sinistra europea ha dovuto scoprire l'acqua calda, meglio tardi che mai. Resta però una domanda: se non fosse successo tutto questo caos, avreste fatto questo dibattito? Avreste permesso di far luce sulle ONG? Ovviamente no, perché il legame che c'è tra ONG e sinistra è troppo forte. Lo sappiamo bene che ci sono migliaia di ONG che lavorano veramente per il bene del prossimo, senza scopo di lucro, senza fare politica, con spirito di abnegazione, che non possiamo fare altro che ringraziare per il loro impegno. Ma proprio per questo ci chiediamo perché. Perché non avete fatto delle regole per proteggere le ONG sane da quelle usate per fare altro? Perché tutti noi siamo giustamente sottoposti a controlli rigidi dal punto di vista finanziario e le ONG no? Perché i lobbisti sono sottoposti, altrettanto giustamente, a severi controlli e adempimenti e le ONG no? Perché abbiamo delle regole che ancora oggi permettono a una ONG come ‘No Peace Without Justice’ di avere già incassato oltre 1,3 milioni di EUR e a cui ne spettano ancora altri 1,4 senza che nessuno abbia mai controllato?
               

                  Invece avete provato a mistificare la realtà, perché questo è il vostro modo di fare. Lo avete fatto quando avete accolto Carola Rackete come una sorta di eroina dentro questo Parlamento, facendole raccontare la sua verità. Lo avete fatto con la Conferenza sul futuro dell'Europa, dove avete coinvolto associazioni di cittadini che nessuno sa chi o cosa rappresentino e soprattutto chi e come le finanzi. Lo avete fatto ogni volta che vi voltate dall'altra parte quando i vari Soros finanziano i parlamentari e i partiti come se nulla fosse. Forse avreste dovuto fare una commissione per lui sulle ingerenze, non sulla Lega.
               

                  Ma purtroppo, per qualcuno in quest'Aula, la realtà e la verità sono più forti e alla fine vincono sempre, come è successo oggi in Lombardia e in Lazio. E quindi buon lavoro ad Attilio Fontana, buon lavoro a Francesco Rocca e, soprattutto, grazie a Matteo Salvini.
               

Patryk Jaki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Mówicie, że fakt, że jako Unia finansowaliście organizację będącą pralnią brudnych pieniędzy dla katarskiej korupcji to tylko przypadek, z którego wyciągacie wnioski. Otóż nie. To tylko naturalna konsekwencja świata, który stworzyliście. Świata, w którym pielęgnujecie własne uwielbienie z jednej strony i nienawiść do ludzi i demokracji z drugiej strony. Po cichu i fortelem odbieracie ludziom suwerenność i ich prawa. Bo jak poddaliście zmiany w traktatach pod referendum, to przegraliście z kretesem. Pamiętacie Konstytucję dla Europy?
               

                  Zamiast słuchać ludzi chcecie im siłą zmieniać rządy? Prof. Józef Gerliński napisał w swojej książce ‘Oświęcim walczący’: żeby przeżyć to piekło, trzeba było mieć dwie rzeczy. Silną wiarę w Boga i miłość kogoś bliskiego oczekującego naszego powrotu. Boga chcecie uśmiercić, a kochacie tylko siebie. Na pewno nie bliźniego, skoro wprowadzacie eutanazję i aborcję na życzenie. Chcecie uśmiercać ludzi wbrew ich woli, odbierając im godność, bo mogą zakłócić rzekomy komfort waszego życia. Wspieracie cenzurę w mediach społecznościowych i ostracyzm dla myślących inaczej.
               

                  Nienawidzicie Europy i jej tradycji, dlatego z przyjemnością wpuszczacie tu ludzi, którzy chcą ją zniszczyć, i atakujecie wolność, chrześcijaństwo, tradycyjną rodzinę i wszystkie państwa, które je wspierają. I wystarczyło, że byle organizacja przyszła i wam powiedziała, że najważniejsza dla niej jest walka o praworządność w Polsce, i już dawaliście jej miliony, nie widząc jak sama niszczyła praworządność. Więc nie ma przypadku w tym co się stało, bo korupcja, Rosja, wojna czy niszczenie praworządności wcale wam tak nie przeszkadza jak tradycja i jej obrońcy.
               

Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, quand le sage montre la Lune, l'idiot regarde le doigt. Au lendemain du pire scandale de corruption de l'histoire du Parlement européen, je dois dire que la droite fait honneur au dicton en accusant les ONG de tous les maux.
               

                  La police saisit des valises de billets chez les députés? C'est la faute aux ONG! Le Maroc et le Qatar envoient leurs ambassadeurs corrompre nos institutions? C'est bien sûr la faute aux ONG! Les règles de transparence du Parlement ne sont pas respectées et les sanctions inexistantes? C'est toujours la faute aux ONG!
               

                  Mais rassurez-vous, chers collègues du PPE – vous qui n'êtes pas très nombreux ce soir –, je sais que vous n'êtes pas idiots. Vous savez bien qu'Amnesty International, la Croix-Rouge et Greenpeace n'y sont pour rien. Mais les désigner boucs émissaires vous permet de faire d'une pierre deux coups.
               

                  D'abord, vous venger de ces associations qui défendent l'environnement et les droits humains plutôt que les profits des grands patrons. Ensuite, mieux détourner l'attention de votre opposition à tout projet de réforme éthique et de vos propres magouilles.
               

                  Mais à vrai dire, en réalité, c'est une belle aubaine pour passer notamment sous silence le salaire de 20 000 euros que s'offre le président de votre groupe, en plus de son indemnité de député. À moins que, là aussi, ce soit la faute aux ONG?
               

Balázs Hidvéghi (NI). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, this debate, first of all, is not about real civil society organizations. There are thousands of them working in Europe for people. It's not about them. It is about the political manipulators that have taken the EU hostage. It's about the shady NGOs that produce politically-biased reports, which are then copy-pasted into European Union positions and documents.
The current corruption scandal highlights the severity of this issue. Some of these NGOs – to whom the EU has left the doors wide open and has given them thousands and millions and millions of European taxpayers' money – it turns out that they are really front organisations involved in criminal deals and activities. That's the real scandal here!
The Commission should have demanded maximum transparency from these NGOs – as the EU Court of Auditors demanded years ago, in a document. Instead of that, NGOs are continuously given privileges and exemptions. That must stop immediately!
We cannot allow NGOs to continue manipulating European positions – especially on topics such as human rights and the rule of law. It is time for transparency and accountability!

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues. The accusation in the room, made by prosecutors, is that a small number of individuals have created a so-called non-governmental organisation and have used this so-called NGO to influence democratic processes in the European Parliament. The accusation is also that money has flown, and this is grave.
I believe that we, as Members of the European Parliament have, the obligation to protect European democracy, to understand exactly how this was possible and to make sure that this will not happen in the future.
NGOs are a very important part of our democracy, of our societies. Very often, NGOs give voice to those who need support. Very often, NGOs fight for democracy, for freedom of speech, for human rights. The many honest and strong and good NGOs are, of course, to be distinguished from the small number of NGOs who have tried in an illegitimate and unlawful way to influence the opinion of the European Parliament.
As we have rules here in Parliament, for Members of Parliament and for everyone entering, we should have rules for NGOs as well. These rules should allow us to identify wrongdoings, to prevent wrongdoings, and to make sure that never again in the future a process which happened recently will happen again. It should allow us to make sure that such a case remains an exceptional case, and it should allow us to make sure that in the future Members and NGOs can work well together in a predictable environment, but based on the rules.
Particularly in the case of NGOs which obtain financial support from the European Union and participate in the EU public debate, I need to say we need transparency. We need to know who is behind these NGOs and how they obtain their financing. This is important for the credibility of NGOs, for the credibility of our European Parliament.

René Repasi (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich höre der Debatte hier zu, und ich stelle mir die Frage – schon die ganze Zeit: Worum geht es hier eigentlich? Warum diskutieren wir das hier heute? NGOs, die im Transparenzregister stehen, müssen ihre Finanzierung offenlegen. Ja, tun sie jetzt schon. NGOs, die ihre Finanzierung nicht offenlegen, sollen nicht mit uns Abgeordneten sprechen – sehr gerne. Machen Sie bitte mit, das zu verschärfen. Sollen NGOs schärfer angepackt werden als kommerzielle Lobbyistinnen und Lobbyisten? Nein, absolut nicht. Warum denn? Alle schärfer anpacken? Aber sehr gerne.
               

                  Nein, meine Damen und Herren. Es geht um Folgendes: Zum Tangotanzen gehören zwei. Es geht darum, ob und wie wir diejenigen, die Verantwortung tragen, uns beeinflussen lassen. Der Kollege hat von Manipulation gesprochen. Deswegen liegt es an uns, dass wir diese Beeinflussung zurückweisen. Und da kann es nicht sein, dass es Kolleginnen und Kollegen gibt, die von Änderungsanträgen von Unternehmenslobbyisten – etwa im EU-Lieferkettengesetz – copy and paste machen und sie hier ins Verfahren reinbringen. Das ist der Skandal. Dagegen muss man vorgehen und nicht ein einseitiges blame game of NGOs hier spielen.
               

Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). – Madame le Président, chers collègues, l'Union européenne, ne pouvant plus ignorer le scandale, s'interroge aujourd'hui sur le financement des ONG. Après n'avoir rien vu venir, dans les rangs de sa majorité, à propos du Qatargate, il était temps.
               

                  Bien sûr, les interrogations se limitent aux ONG déjà publiquement compromises. Hors de question de regarder plus loin, car on pourrait y découvrir bien des turpitudes. Pas un mot non plus sur l'orientation politique souvent identique des corrompus: socialistes, fédéralistes, droits-de-l'hommistes et, bien sûr, adversaires de notre groupe politique.
               

                  Pour combler ces lacunes, je vous invite à lire l'excellent rapport de mon collègue allemand Joachim Kuhs sur le financement des ONG par l'Union européenne. Ce rapport montre comment l'Union européenne a sous-traité sa politique aux ONG, utilisées comme agents d'influence, à tel point qu'on peut parler d'organisations quasi gouvernementales.
               

                  L'Union européenne a recours à ces ONG qu'elle appelle ‘société civile’ par préférence aux autorités nationales, et ce, paradoxalement, parce que les autorités publiques seraient orientées, voire corrompues – dit-elle –, alors que les ONG seraient, elles, indépendantes. Quel comble, quand on voit quelle idéologie et quelle corruption y règnent!
               

                  Ainsi, les ONG du célèbre George Soros ont-elles reçu plus de 25 millions d'euros. Plus grave encore, le soutien financier à des ONG proches des islamistes. Par exemple, 550 000 euros donnés au Secours islamique en Allemagne, lié au Hamas, au Hezbollah et aux Frères musulmans. Ou encore 1,16 million d'euros donné au Réseau européen contre le racisme, dont le directeur a été membre des Frères musulmans jusqu'en 2008.
               

                  Alors la collusion et la corruption grouillent dans ce monde opaque des ONG, mais l'Union européenne n'y fera rien, car elle en profite. Je vous remercie.
               

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señora presidente, señor comisario, ha tenido que suceder el escándalo Qatargate, es decir, han tenido que robar a plena luz del día, para que este Parlamento haga como que hace algo y admita que, a lo mejor, tal vez hay que investigar un poco a estas entidades. Llevamos toda la legislatura advirtiéndolo: hay que revisar toda la normativa comunitaria referente a la financiación de las ONG y poner freno a la sangría de fondos públicos.
               

                  Si las ONG fueran un país, serían la 5.a economía del mundo, un poder opaco que gestiona miles de millones de euros públicos sin control por parte de los votantes, capaz de influir en elecciones y desestabilizar gobiernos. Operan libremente en los pasillos de este Parlamento y de la Comisión y, cuando no están a sueldo de Qatar, de Marruecos o de China, trabajan al servicio de multinacionales y oligarcas, como Soros, o directamente a las órdenes de abyectas mafias como las del tráfico de seres humanos en el Mediterráneo, o promoviendo la islamización de Europa y el sometimiento de las mujeres, como FEMYSO, vinculada a los Hermanos Musulmanes.
               

                  A cualquier empresa europea se le audita hasta el último euro público que recibe. Pero las ONG viven en el paraíso de la impunidad. Tal vez sea la hora de que los Parlamentos nacionales empiecen a pedir misiones a Bruselas para saber cómo y en qué se gasta aquí el dinero.
               

Markus Pieper (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Der S&D-Kollege hat sich eben vertan: Das Lieferkettengesetz, das war eine glatte Fehlinformation. Das waren die Grünen, die das beim Thema Biomethan gemacht haben; von einer NGO wörtlich abgeschrieben, wörtlich abgeschrieben.
               

                  Die Arbeit von Nichtregierungsorganisationen ist ansonsten aber wertvoll. Ehrenamt, Sozial-, Umwelt-, Menschenrechte: Ich glaube, da müssen wir uns überhaupt nicht drüber unterhalten. Ein kleiner Teil der NGOs bringt ihren guten Ruf aber in Gefahr, wenn es keine Demokratie innerhalb der Organisation gibt. Wenn man nicht weiß, wer die Geldgeber sind, wenn die staatliche Unterstützung nicht transparent ist, wenn NGOs in Parlamenten ein- und ausgehen können, ohne registriert zu sein.
               

                  Viele dieser Missstände sind offensichtlich. Wir müssen jetzt was tun. Vier kurze Punkte:
               

                  Erstens: die Benennung von Transparenzbeauftragten im Parlament, Transparenzverantwortlichen in jedem Ausschusssekretariat, im Wissenschaftlichen Dienst. Für jede Direktion, für jedes größere Referat muss es einen solchen Verantwortlichen geben.
               

                  Zum Zweiten müssen die Verträge der Agenturen und der Generaldirektionen mit den NGOs veröffentlicht werden. Diese Verträge müssen veröffentlicht werden. Es kann nicht sein, dass Kommissionsbeamte das Geld der Steuerzahler hier nach Belieben einsetzen, möglichst vielleicht sogar nach eigenem politischen Duktus diese Gelder verwenden, um bestimmte Ziele zu erreichen. Wir wollen, dass das veröffentlicht wird.
               

                  Drittens müssen wir die Geldgeber der NGOs kennen. Welche Interessen stecken hinter den Organisationen? Das muss bei NGOs genauso klar sein wie bei den Firmenlobbyisten.
               

                  Und viertens: Was passiert bei den NGOs mit dem europäischen Geld? Wir wissen es schlicht nicht, weil die Projekt-Empfänger – nicht wie bei den Strukturfonds – eben nicht veröffentlicht werden müssen. Warum nicht? Weil Sie, meine Damen und Herren von der linken Seite des Parlaments, das seit fünf Jahren verhindern, weil Sie entsprechende Transparenzvorgaben immer wieder gestoppt haben. Das ist der Skandal. ‘No Peace Without Justice’ hat fast 4 Millionen EUR aus dem EU-Haushalt bekommen. Ob dieses Geld auch in Kailis Koffern ist, das wissen wir noch nicht mal. Ist das die Endbegünstigtentransparenz? Das ist wirklich der Skandal.
               

                  Und bitte helfen Sie endlich mit: Unterstützen Sie den Vorschlag für einen Initiativbericht zur Transparenz von NGOs!
               

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Vi er stadigvæk ikke i mål, når det kommer til at bekæmpe korruption i EU og heller ikke i dette hus. Det er Qatargate et tydeligt vidnesbyrd om. Hver en sten må vendes, og ingen løsninger må afvises på forhånd. Det gælder også, når det kommer til NGO'er. Vi kan ikke vende det blinde øje til, at det netop var en NGO, der drev og organiserede den korruptionsskandale, som stadig spøger og ryster i vores Parlament, og derfor bliver vi nødt til at kigge på, om reglerne skal strammes. Men ligesom vi ikke kan vende det blinde øje til NGO'ernes rolle i korruptionsskandalen, så må de heller ikke forblænde os. Manglende gennemsigtighed gælder nemlig ikke kun NGO'er men også erhvervsorganisationer. Det så vi f.eks. i forbindelse med forhandlinger om DSA'en og DMA'en, hvor organisationer, der angiveligt repræsenterede små og mellemstore virksomheder, i virkeligheden var finansieret af Big Tech. Så Qatargate handler ikke kun om enkelte MEP'er eller NGO'er, det handler om struktur, og her er mere gennemsigtighed og mere kontrol nøglen til at løse det problem.
               

Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Nichtregierungsorganisationen werden medial immer positiv besetzt, das hat mit der Realität aber wenig zu tun. Der Korruptionsskandal hier in diesem Hause wurde erst durch NGOs, die – nebenbei bemerkt – von der EU finanziell gefördert wurden, ermöglicht. Dadurch konnten sich mafiöse Strukturen etablieren.
               

                  Vor allem einige Sozialisten hier im Hause haben säckeweise Bargeld von Staaten angenommen, die islamistischen Terror unterstützen. Dass NGOs generell nicht im Dienste der Gesellschaft agieren, sondern überwiegend linksgrüne Ideologie verbreiten und sich auf Steuerzahlerkosten bereichern, ist durch zahlreiche Beispiele belegt:
               

                  Im Mittelmeer agieren NGOs als kriminelle Schlepper, um ihre Ideologie der offenen Grenzen durchzusetzen. Dafür werden sie von der Kommission sogar noch unterstützt und hofiert, obwohl Umfragen eindeutig belegen, dass die Bevölkerung die unkontrollierte illegale Massenmigration ablehnt.
               

                  Die sogenannten Klimakleber terrorisieren in Deutschland die arbeitende Bevölkerung, blockieren Rettungsdienste. Strafzahlungen können sie nicht beeindrucken, weil sie großzügige Unterstützung von den Erben amerikanischer Ölmilliardäre erhalten. Selbst die deutsche Regierung unterstützt die Klimaextremisten, obwohl die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung dies ablehnt.
               

                  Und auch die EU-Kommission ist keinen Deut besser; das zeigt nicht nur der aktuelle Korruptionsfall. Im EU-Migrationspakt wurde explizit der Einfluss der asylfreundlichen NGOs hervorgehoben. Gleichzeitig wurden tausende kritische Kommentare von europäischen Bürgern nicht berücksichtigt.
               

                  Wie kann es sein, dass nicht gewählte NGOs einen größeren Einfluss ausüben als die Bevölkerung, obwohl die Mehrheit der Bürger die Ideologie der NGOs ablehnt? Was hat das bitte noch mit Demokratie zu tun?
               

                  Die staatlich finanzierte Unterstützung der NGOs gehört generell abgeschafft, weil vor allem linke Regierungen dazu tendieren, nur ihnen genehme NGOs zu unterstützen. Linksgrüne NGOs erhalten also die Subventionen, die konservativen und rechten NGOs verwehrt bleiben. Und auch die Finanzierung aus dem Ausland muss verboten werden, um die Bürger vor der Ideologie der NGOs, die sie mehrheitlich ablehnen, zu schützen.
               

Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! W październiku ubiegłego roku Biuro Analiz Parlamentarnych wydało streszczenie raportu promowanego przez organizację Panzeriego o stanie bezkarności na świecie w 2021 roku, którego autorami są między innymi Antonio Panzeri, Maria Arena i Mark Tarabella. W tym raporcie przedstawia się Polskę jako kraj niedemokratyczny. I to opracowanie, proszę Państwa, jak tutaj napisano, ma służyć jako materiał źródłowy dla posłów i pracowników Parlamentu.
               

                  To na podstawie tego rodzaju dezinformacji toczone były debaty, tworzone były sprawozdania o rzekomo łamanej praworządności w Polsce. Co ostatecznie, Panie Komisarzu, doprowadziło do zablokowania środków z KPO dla Polski. Parlament zlekceważył przy tym słowa byłej ambasador USA w Polsce, która oświadczyła, że kłamstwa dotyczące Polski mają źródło w rosyjskiej dezinformacji. To oczywiste, że zbrodniczy reżim Putina zrobi wszystko, by zaszkodzić Polsce, która jest krajem przyfrontowym, w której schronienie znaleźli uchodźcy wojenni z Ukrainy. Polsce, która jest ambasadorem w świecie wsparcia dla Ukrainy. I jak widać, niestety i w Parlamencie Europejskim i innych instytucjach unijnych Rosja ma wielu pomocników.
               

Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich denke, es ist relativ offensichtlich, dass beim Korruptionsskandal, der dieses Haus leider erschüttert, das kriminelle Handeln einer Nichtregierungsorganisation eine ganz wichtige Rolle spielt.
               

                  Und trotzdem weigert sich die linke Seite dieses Hauses seit Wochen mit Händen und Füßen, über Transparenz genau dieser Nichtregierungsorganisationen zu reden. Und ich verstehe nicht, warum. Jene Nichtregierungsorganisationen, die ihre Arbeit ordentlich machen, die haben ja nichts zu befürchten. Ganz im Gegenteil. Sie sind ein wichtiges Element unserer Zivilgesellschaft, und sie müssten ja eigentlich selbst ein Interesse haben, dass die faulen Äpfel aus dem Obstkorb heraussortiert werden. Und es gilt im Übrigen – ist ja genau gleich wie bei uns Politikern: Jene, die ihren Aufgaben ordentlich nachkommen, brauchen sich vor Transparenz ja nicht zu fürchten.
               

                  Wenn Nichtregierungsorganisationen in ein Transparenzregister eingetragen werden, wenn sie öffentlich unterstützt werden, ganz besonders, wenn sie von uns selbst, von der Kommission unterstützt werden, wenn die Vertreter von Nichtregierungsorganisationen dieses Haus betreten, in diesem Haus arbeiten, dann müssen meiner Meinung nach zwei Transparenzkriterien gelten. Erstens: Die Nichtregierungsorganisation muss effektiv jemanden vertreten. Sie muss Mitglieder haben. Und zweitens: Wir haben das Recht zu wissen, woher sie das Geld nehmen und was sie mit dem Geld tun. Ich denke, diesem minimalen Anspruch an Transparenz sollten sich die Nichtregierungsorganisationen nicht verweigern, wenn sie weiterhin glaubwürdig bleiben wollen.
               

Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Vielen Dank, dass wir diese Debatte heute führen können.
               

                  Ich glaube, zuallererst kann man erst einmal den NGOs danken. Wir hatten heute schon eine Diskussion über die schreckliche Situation in Nordsyrien, in der Türkei. Ja, wo würden wir eigentlich stehen, wenn wir hier nur das Geld beschließen würden und es dann keine Menschen geben würde, die diese schwere Arbeit machen, die auch so flexibel sind, die sich teilweise mit ganz viel freiwilliger Arbeit in diese grausamen Situationen begeben und versuchen, noch so viele Menschen wie möglich zu retten?
               

                  Auf der einen Seite müssen wir, glaube ich, dankbar sein und sagen, also allein das Geld zu beschließen, wie schwach wären wir? Wir brauchen die Menschen, die das vor Ort umsetzen, sei es in der Ukraine, sei es in Nordsyrien, sei es in anderen Gebieten der Welt, wo wir ohne NGOs überhaupt nicht die Arbeit machen könnten, die so wichtig ist.
               

                  Auf der anderen Seite ist es aber natürlich auch so, dass die Transparenz bei der Finanzierung mit EU-Mitteln sehr, sehr wichtig ist. Und ich würde mir wünschen, dass wir da eben nicht nur über die NGOs reden, sondern über Kommissionsfinanzierung allgemein. Ich glaube, dass wir schauen müssen, wie wir auch diese Debatte so nutzen können, dass wir auf der einen Seite möglichst viel Transparenz haben, auf der anderen Seite aber dann eben auch bürokratische Hürden immer wieder hinterfragen.
               

                  Wir haben jetzt gerade die Situation, dass zum Beispiel einige NGOs in Nordsyrien nicht gut agieren können, weil dort Hürden sind, wo man sich auch wieder fragen muss: Also mehr Transparenz, mehr Anforderungen sind nicht immer perfekt. Ich glaube aber, dass wir auf der anderen Seite eben auch sagen müssen: Also schön, dass wir alle an der Transparenzfront sind.
               

                  Wir können uns darauf einigen, und wir wollen wissen: Wo wollen NGOs Einfluss nehmen? Wer bezahlt eigentlich Geld für die NGOs? Wofür wird das Geld ausgegeben?
               

                  Ich würde mir aber auch wünschen, dass, wenn man diese Fragen so wichtig findet bei der Finanzierung mit EU-Geld, dass man es dann auch wichtig findet, wenn zum Beispiel Abgeordnete, die ja auch mit NGO-Geld finanziert werden, sagen: Wofür wird das Geld in der NGO eigentlich ausgegeben, wer bezahlt eigentlich die Nebeneinkünfte, wie viele genau, und wo versuchen NGOs, auch auf die Abgeordneten Einfluss zunehmen? Das wäre mir wichtig, dass wir da auch konsequent bleiben.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já také musím samozřejmě důrazně odsoudit skandál. Udělali jsme to již všichni v našich proslovech. Bohužel tento skandál dopadá na jednu z klíčových institucí Evropské unie.
               

                  Je evidentní, že změny měly přijít už dříve, že změny jsou skutečně nutné, ale nelze házet samozřejmě všechny do jednoho pytle. Stejně jako to nemůže být u nevládních organizací, tak to nemůže být ani u poslanců. Tento skandál se týká, pokud jde o Parlament, především levice. A je třeba říci, že i levice bránila tomu, aby právě neziskové organizace byly pod transparentní kontrolou.
               

                  Musíme zavést jednoznačně změny, zejména v oblasti transparentnosti. Je evidentní, že ten, kdo chce podporu Evropské unie, kdo chce přijímat peníze od Evropské unie, tak musí být absolutně otevřený, všechny smlouvy musí být veřejné a všichni dárci těch nevládních organizací musí být dohledatelní a nemůže být žádné financování ze třetích zemí. Myslím, že toto jsou minimální požadavky, které bychom měli mít.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, sigur, dacă nu era cazul acesta de corupție pe care cred că oamenii de bună-credință îl regretă, noi îl regretăm pentru că aduce o pată pe instituția pe care o reprezentăm, nu știu dacă aveam o dezbatere. Și cred că trebuie să ne propunem periodic, și Comisia, și noi, să analizăm și activitatea ONG-urilor.
               

                  Pe de altă parte, ar fi o greșeală să spunem că toate ONG-urile sunt corupte. Problema este că trebuie să avem transparență, domnule comisar, și spuneați dumneavoastră de merele acelea putrede. Cum le găsiți? Doar ați spus trebuie, trebuie, trebuie… dar nu ne-ați lăsat măcar o idee: cum faceți să identificați acele mere putrede care strică și pe celelalte.
               

                  Apoi trebuie să pornim … - la noi, în România, este un proverb: peștele de la cap se strică. Comisia însăși nu are transparență la anumite contracte. Cum încheiați contracte, cum a fost cazul în pandemie? Cum încheiați contracte pentru anumite studii? Cum se fac acele licitații? Nu știm nimic, nu știm noi, membrii Parlamentului. De aceea, eu cred și propun în același timp să existe periodic o analiză a activității ONG-urilor care lucrează cu banii europeni, transparență, trasabilitate a celor care finanțează ONG-urile.
               

Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovane dame i gospodo, prvo, raspravljamo o nevladinim udrugama, a dobrom dijelu tih udruga većinu budžeta pune upravo vlade, tako da bi se one u stvari trebale zvati vladine udruge, a ne nevladine udruge.
               

                  Drugo, nazivaju se civilnim građanskim društvom, a vrlo često imaju svega nekoliko članova, tako da se teško može reći da su jako bliske građanima. Puno su bliže politici koja ih financira.
               

                  I treće, iznad svega, ova afera ‘Katargate’ je pokazala da te udruge imaju ogroman utjecaj na politiku, potpuno nesrazmjeran broju članova koji imaju te udruge, tako da je to i nedemokratski.
               

                  Dakle, način na koji funkcionira naš sustav civilnog društva je potpuno izokrenut. On je fake, on je manipulativan, a korupcija je, u stvari, samo posljedica toga.
               

                  I ako ne riješite te temeljne probleme, ako nastavite financirati te elitističke vladine udruge i ako centralizirate svu moć i sav novac u Bruxellesu, korupcija će se sigurno samo povećavati!
               

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, many NGOs are weaponised, but what's going on here is that groups who for years have wanted to choke off funding are seizing the opportunity of Qatargate to revive their campaign.
Yes, we do need to learn the lessons, and transparency around NGO funding is one thing. But what about broader transparency around all the lobbying in EU institutions? Surely that should be a bigger priority. We've heard a call for crackdown on NGOs, but what about crackdown on the lobbying from the arms industry, from big tech, big pharma, big agri? This place is full of lobbyists, 48 000 of them registered, with a budget of 1.8 billion.
Only the very clumsy resort to bags of cash. Everyone else knows you don't need to do that to get your way. You just need to know the right people, whisper in the right ear and dress it all up in a kind of vaguely plausible argument that's easy for politicians and policymakers to copy and paste into their policy documents.
NGOs aren't perfect. They're definitely not neutral. But we should be going after the big fish, not harassing the little ones.

Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos nary. Mes visi iš tikrųjų buvome sukrėsti Qatargate'o skandalo, tačiau turime čia sutikti visi, kad mes pasiruošę kovoti su korupcija ir stiprinti atsparumą korupcijai. Tačiau negalime nueiti pačiu lengviausiu keliu – už visą korupcijos skandalą nukreipti atsakomybę nevyriausybinėms organizacijoms. Nevyriausybinės organizacijos turi deklaruoti savo pajamas. Tačiau turime suprasti, kad nevyriausybinės organizacijos nėra tolygu komerciniams lobistams. Nevyriausybinės organizacijos šiuo metu iš tikrųjų talkina mums visur nelaimių atvejais – ar tai būtų Turkija, Sirija, ar tai būtų karo pabėgėliai iš Ukrainos, ar parama čia po Europą išsiblaškiusiems žmonės. Todėl manau, kad mes turime suprasti, kad nevyriausybinės organizacijos yra mūsų tikras talkininkas kovoje už žmogaus teises, sąžinės laisvę ir taip pat kovoje su korupcija. Todėl kovodami su korupcija iš tikrųjų palikime erdvės nevyriausybinių organizacijų veiklai.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, the Qatar scandal should not be instrumentalised in order to discredit the work of all NGOs. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that there's a lot of MEPs that would like to do that. Sure, not all NGOs are perfect. Certain so-called human rights NGOs are in fact often guilty of instrumentalising human rights in the service of Western interests and imperialism, as we've seen in Syria.
What we should be looking at are institutional and structural failings within the Parliament, not tarring all NGOs with the same brush. Many in this Parliament will be more than happy with the eradication of NGOs and civil society groups in order to clear an unimpeded path for business interests.
We need transparency and accountability for all lobbyists, not just for NGOs. The corporate sector has a far greater lobby footprint in the EU than civil society. So why are we singling out NGOs and giving free access to lobbyists?
One could be forgiven for thinking that people in this area are looking to promote the interests of big business rather than the interests of their own citizens.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I hope we are not exhausted yet on this issue, because I think some further discussions are needed.
Today I have the opportunity to set out the rigorous legal framework in place under the Financial Regulation that ensures the protection of Union financial interests, including as regards the EU funding allocated to NGOs.
The Commission has highlighted the thorough ex-ante selection processes in place for applicants for EU funding, the contractual obligations in place safeguarding respect of Union values and the ex-post mechanism to take action upon violation of such values.
This framework continues to ensure that projects and entities that are incompatible with European values or pursuing an irreconcilable agenda do not receive EU funding. In application of this framework, the Commission has taken concrete actions against the NGO ‘No Peace without Justice’.
The Commission will present an anti-corruption package in April, including a proposal to update the EU rules on fighting corruption by criminal law. Before the summer 2023, the Commission will also present the Defence of Democracy package that will deepen the action under the European Democracy Action Plan to promote free and fair elections, including by developing civic space and citizens' participation to bolster democratic resilience from within. In particular, it will include proposals to protect our democracies and strengthen trust by defending our democratic system from outside interests.
Let me finish by emphasising the continuous commitment of the Commission to work together with the European Parliament in ensuring adequate protection of the Union's financial interests and Union values.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171 GO)



Gunnar Beck (ID),
in writing. – In 2018, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) released a report about the lack of financial transparency of NGOs. In this report, the ECA remarks that the EU delegates 1.7% of its budget to NGOs, including 6.8% of the European Development Fund. That is a total amount of 11.3 billion euros over the 2014-17 budget that is attributed to NGOs. According to the ECA, the lack of a European legal framework for NGOs hampers an effective oversight of the use of the funds. The report states that ‘the European Commission does not have sufficiently detailed information on how the money is spent’, and asks for the establishment of an EU-wide definition of NGOs to improve transparency and oversight. The ECJ has consistently annulled any attempt by Member States to improve transparency of NGOs, as a violation of the free movement of capital guaranteed by Article 63(1) TFEU. Yet, increased transparency requirements for citizens and undertakings are systematically upheld. Despite reports from FATF, Europol, Eurojust, Moneyval, and various reports from national competent authorities, clearly showing that NGOs are often used as fronts for terrorist financing, the EU won't make a move on NGOs. This appalling policy of NGOcracy must end now.

Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D),
por escrito. – Los socialistas defendemos que lo sucedido no debe cuestionar la integridad y la contribución de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que participan en la elaboración de las políticas de la UE ni el trabajo en particular de la Subcomisión de Derechos Humanos del Parlamento. Algo que sí que ha puesto en duda la ultraderecha durante en el debate y VOX en particular. En revancha, los socialistas reclamamos que debemos ser mucho más exigentes y precavidos para que este tipo de organizaciones fraudulentas no reciban ni ayudas financieras ni puedan colaborar activamente con las instituciones de la UE.
               

                  Asimismo, los socialistas creemos que la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas constituyen una condición previa para la confianza de los ciudadanos en las instituciones de la Unión y que, por lo tanto, la corrupción y el fraude representan un peligro constante para la integridad de la toma de decisiones públicas.
               

                  Por ello, y con el objetivo de ser una organización ejemplar en lo que se refiere a transparencia, responsabilidad e integridad, hemos adoptado un conjunto de normas que se sumarán a las adoptadas por el Parlamento.
               

Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro (S&D),
por escrito. – Los socialistas defendemos que lo sucedido no debe cuestionar la integridad y la contribución de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que participan en la elaboración de las políticas de la UE ni el trabajo en particular de la Subcomisión de Derechos Humanos del Parlamento. Algo que sí que ha puesto en duda la ultraderecha durante en el debate y VOX en particular. Por el contrario, los socialistas reclamamos que debemos ser mucho más exigentes y precavidos para que este tipo de organizaciones fraudulentas no reciban ni ayudas financieras ni puedan colaborar activamente con las instituciones de la UE.
               

                  Asimismo, los socialistas creemos que la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas constituyen una condición previa para la confianza de los ciudadanos en las instituciones de la Unión y que, por lo tanto, la corrupción y el fraude representan un peligro constante para la integridad de la toma de decisiones públicas.
               

                  Por ello, y con el objetivo de ser una organización ejemplar en lo que se refiere a transparencia, responsabilidad e integridad, hemos adoptado un conjunto de normas que se sumarán a las adoptadas por el Parlamento.
               
16.   Following up on measures requested by Parliament to strengthen the integrity of European institutions (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zur Weiterverfolgung der vom Parlament geforderten Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der Integrität der Organe, Einrichtungen und sonstigen Stellen der Union (2023/2571(RSP).
               

Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the European institutions have a mission to serve the general interest of the European Union.
All European institutions need to ensure the highest standards of integrity and independence for themselves and for their members. This is essential to maintain public trust in the European Union and to preserve the integrity of the decision-making process in each institution. The institutions and we, as members of these institutions, must work to deserve the trust of European citizens. Citizens can only keep faith in the EU if the principles of ethics, integrity and transparency are upheld by the European institutions and by their members.
This is why the Commission has been uncompromising in delivering the highest standards of transparency and ethics. The Treaties and the Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission, which the Commission adopted in 2018, require them to observe the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct during but also after their mandate.
Most institutions of the EU have a framework which regulates the individual ethical obligations applicable to their members. They are based on general institutional principles and on provisions of the treaties, and they are set out in more detail either in the rules of procedure or in codes of conduct of the institutions. It is, of course, part of the institutional autonomy of each institution to decide for itself on the rules applicable to its members. But it is of the collective interests of all institutions that each of them has a strong ethical framework in place for its members.
The President mentioned already in her political guidelines in 2019 that the Commission is also supporting the creation of an independent ethics body common to all institutions. This work has entailed contacts and discussions with the other institutions, and I look forward to our debate on this topic tomorrow afternoon. The Commission follows with great interest the developments on the new measures which are being discussed within the European Parliament.
In the field of transparency, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission reached a major milestone with the adoption of the Interinstitutional Agreement on the transparency register in 2021. The register is the recognition of the importance of a common framework to coordinate the approach to transparency amongst the participating institutions. The reputation of the European Union as a whole depends on the reputation of each institution and on the ethical conduct of each member. This is a common responsibility for all of us.

Jan Olbrycht,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! W tytule naszej debaty dzisiaj mowa jest o wszystkich instytucjach europejskich, ale oczywiście wiemy, że pretekstem do tych działań i dyskusji jest afera korupcyjna w Parlamencie Europejskim. Zadajemy sobie pytanie, czy to, że dochodzi do tego typu przestępstwa, jest wynikiem słabości natury ludzkiej, to znaczy podatności na przestępstwo, czy też jest to słabość systemu, systemu organizacyjnego?
               

                  Parlament Europejski bardzo szybko zareagował na tego typu działania i wszyscy wiemy, że pojawiła się propozycja 14 punktów zaproponowanych przez Panią Przewodniczącą, i ta propozycja była dokładnie analizowana i w tej chwili jest na etapie wdrożenia. Stąd też chciałbym powiedzieć, że dlatego Europejska Partia Ludowa, nasza grupa, była przeciwna tej debacie, ponieważ w zeszłym tygodniu Konferencja Przewodniczących podjęła decyzję dotyczącą uruchomienia procesu wdrożenia punktów, które mają poprawić sytuację w Parlamencie Europejskim. Jest tam kilka elementów niezwykle istotnych dotyczących właśnie transparentności, dotyczących uprawnień posłów oraz byłych posłów, są tam również elementy dotyczące funkcjonowania rejestru wszystkich lobbystów i w jaki sposób ten rejestr, który jest przecież wspólny dla wszystkich instytucji europejskich, ma być organizowany? Rozumiem, że Pani Komisarz o tym wspominała, że wszystkie instytucje powinny się wspólnie zastanowić, czy nie trzeba tego systemu rejestracji poprawić.
               

                  My jako parlamentarzyści w tej chwili jesteśmy na etapie zastanowienia się nad wdrożeniem określonych zmian, jak również przystąpieniem do reformy Parlamentu Europejskiego. Żadne przepisy nie dadzą tamy przestępcom. Natomiast musimy się zastanowić, czy w naszym systemie są luki, które trzeba usunąć. Powinniśmy rozpocząć oczywiście od tego, żeby wszyscy członkowie Parlamentu Europejskiego posiadali niezbędne informacje dotyczące już istniejących przepisów, istniejących reguł i istniejących instytucji. Ponieważ rozmowy, które prowadziłem, wskazują na to, że wiadomości na temat istniejącego systemu przepisów nie są wszystkim znane. Przed nami bardzo wiele prac do wykonania. Mam nadzieję, że te prace będą wykonane razem z Komisją Europejską.
               

Marc Angel,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, dear Vice-President of the Commission, dear colleagues, the scandal of corruption put all of us in a state of shock. This is now not the moment to defend the status quo that allowed the poison of corruption to fester. We have to act quickly and forcefully to protect the integrity and increase transparency of the Parliament and the European Union as a whole.
That is why my political group has been so proactive when dealing with the case and supporting the judicial investigation. That is why we welcome President Metsola's commitment and her proposals on strengthening integrity, independence and accountability as a good first step. And that is why we, the S&D Group, have set up an internal inquiry and put forward a 15-point plan to prevent and combat corruption and corruptive political interference to complement President Metsola's proposals. And that is why we as the S&D Group will unilaterally start to implement our plan where possible to lead by example.
We hope that our proposal can also be the basis for stronger rules for the Parliament as a whole, and we are looking forward to having that discussion with the other political groups. My political group strongly supports the revision of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure to align them with the EU Whistleblower Directive.
We will also continue to advocate for an ethics body overseeing EU institutions and agencies to be set up before the end of this legislature. We therefore call on the Commission to urgently come up with a proposal in this regard. It is indispensable that we tighten the screws when it comes to the implementation of the current provisions of the interinstitutional agreement on the transparency register. And we must also increase the information for the public, for example, by making it compulsory to publish all scheduled meetings with lobbies and interest representatives.
We equally welcome the proposed strengthening of the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, including Disinformation, allowing it henceforth to identify measures to remedy shortcomings in the European Parliament's rules on transparency, integrity, accountability and anti-corruption.
Madam President, a high level of transparency can minimise the possibility for corruption and restore the trust that was lost by the criminal acts of a few. Let us all work together to restore that trust.

Nathalie Loiseau,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, lorsque le Qatargate a éclaté, nous avons tous été sous le choc et nous avons tous dit que nous allions nettoyer les écuries d'Augias. Mais très vite, le naturel a repris le dessus.
               

                  À l'extrême droite et à l'extrême gauche de cet hémicycle, on n'a plus que les mots ‘Qatar’ et ‘Maroc’ à la bouche. Plus rien, plus un mot sur ces députés qui se rendent en voyage en Crimée, annexée par la Russie, sur ces membres de notre Parlement qui trouvent tous les charmes à Bachar el-Assad ou qui se rendent en Irak auprès des milices iraniennes. Comment voyagent-ils? Comment se financent-ils? On n'en entend pas parler.
               

                  Rien non plus sur ces députés qui refusent de désigner le Holodomor comme un génocide commis contre l'Ukraine par la Russie ou qui refusent de soutenir l'aide à l'Ukraine.
               

                  Au PPE, on nous a d'abord dit que le meilleur moyen de lutter contre les ingérences de pays étrangers, c'était de ne plus dénoncer les violations des droits de l'homme des pays étrangers. En voilà une bonne idée! On a failli voir disparaître nos résolutions d'urgence.
               

                  Au PPE encore, on s'est satisfait de dire que cette histoire, au fond, c'est un problème de corruption chez les socialistes. Ah bon? Est-on absolument certain que nulle part ailleurs dans cet hémicycle, personne, jamais n'a fauté?
               

                  Je n'en sais rien. Mais ce que je nous enjoins à faire, c'est balayer chacun devant notre porte, nettoyer chacun notre jardin, être enfin dignes de la confiance que les électeurs nous ont donnée, du mandat que nous portons, avant que ces mêmes électeurs se disent, finalement, qu'avec nos petites querelles, dans le fond, nous serions tous pourris.
               

Tineke Strik,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the Qatar and the Morocco scandal has shocked our societies and shaken the confidence of citizens in the Democratic Institute of the EU. If directly elected politicians appear not to be resistant to external attempts to buy their votes, buy their influence and their political activities, our credibility is heavily under attack, because it not only ruins the reputation of the MEPs concerned or that of every single Member among us, people's trust in the EU as a whole, as you rightly said, may be affected as well, unless we are determined to learn from these scandals and to resolve all weak spots in our systems.
Transparency and public oversight are imperative for a functioning democracy. We welcome the first steps proposed by the president, but we need additional, substantial measures. A reform of the transparency register, which also discloses lobbying activities, including their foreign funding. Stronger obligations for Members to declare their assets and to register every side job, gifts and travels paid by external actors. Introduce much stronger protection for staff members and APAs, so that they can safely share their observations of unlawful behaviour. Establish an impartial ethics body fully competent to investigate allegations of corruption in all EU institutions and agencies.
But the rules alone will not solve it. Compliance with them must be much better monitored and enforced. An oversight mechanism where complaints can be filed should not only be composed by ourselves. Advice from external experts is key to prevent favouritism and to give oversight more credibility. Sanctions for non-compliance must be determined enough to enforce the norms.
Integrity cannot be taken for granted, and even the suspicion of non-integrity is toxic for an effectively functioning democracy. It is first and foremost for this democracy that we need to restore the trust and to subject ourselves to these rules, oversight and accountability.

Ryszard Czarnecki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Bardzo dobrze, że tutaj padły ze strony Pani Loiseau słowa o Krymie, bo rzeczywiście ta destynacja została przypomniana i bardzo źle się stało, że niektórzy europosłowie, stąd zresztą obrona, tam byli, i myślę, że ta sprawa nie powinna być zapomniana nawet w nawale informacji o Katarze.
               

                  Myślę, że trzeba przypomnieć, że mamy regulacje, które już w tej chwili służą transparentności. Mam wrażenie, że nie zawsze wszyscy o tym wiedzą. Zgadzam się z Panem Przewodniczącym Angelem. Też trzeba uważać, żeby nie wylać dziecka z kąpielą. Ponieważ na przykład frienship groups są różne. Mamy np. grupę przyjaciół z Białorusi, ale nie Łukaszenki, tylko trzydziestu europosłów, którzy współpracują ze społeczeństwem obywatelskim, z dziennikarzami niezależnymi tam, z organizacjami społecznymi, które są prześladowane. Trudno żeby taka grupa przestała istnieć, np. grupa Friends of a free Iran, która walczy o prawa kobiet w Iranie.
               

                  Myślę więc, że trzeba podchodzić do tego z pewną chirurgiczną precyzją. Ale na pewno zgoda, że jest to największa afera w historii Europarlamentu. Chociaż nie największa w całej Unii Europejskiej, bo przypomnę przed dwudziestoma laty zdymisjonowano w całości Komisję Europejską.
               

                  Dobrze, że jest wola zmiany i tę wolę trzeba poprzeć.
               

Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, les corrompus sont comme les vampires: ils détestent la lumière. Alors ce que je vous propose, chers collègues, c'est de braquer tous les projecteurs sur la culture d'opacité généralisée qui fait tant de mal au Parlement européen et qui a conduit à ce scandale de corruption que l'on connaît tous.
               

                  Si ce n'est que, en réalité, depuis deux mois, depuis que ce scandale a éclaté, on voit bien comment certains groupes politiques essaient tranquillement de vite cacher la poussière sous le tapis et de continuer leur business as usual. C'est pratique, vous allez me dire, l'opacité: ça permet de ne rendre de comptes à personne, surtout pas aux électeurs qui nous ont élus, mais bien plus à des groupes de lobbys privés ou à des États tiers.
               

                  Alors permettez-moi de vous raconter quelques extraits choisis de la Conférence des présidents, qui se déroule à huis clos et qui a précisément enterré les réformes que notre Parlement a votées au mois de décembre dernier.
               

                  Vous avez le PPE – absent, ici, maintenant –, qui enterre la régulation des lobbys mais lance une chasse aux sorcières contre les ONG. Vous avez Renew, qui parle beaucoup de réformes publiquement, mais profite du secret de la Conférence des présidents pour ralentir toute évolution. Et puis l'extrême droite, fidèle à elle-même – encore absente d'ailleurs, ce soir –, qui se contrefiche littéralement des enjeux d'éthique. Résultat: onze des quinze propositions que notre Parlement a votées ont été enterrées.
               

                  En décembre dernier, tous ensemble, ici, on disait la main sur le cœur: notre démocratie est en danger. Et la première chose que fait notre Parlement est de s'asseoir littéralement sur un vote démocratique.
               

                  Alors, je vous le dis, chers collègues – et désolée de ce coup de gueule –, combien de fois va-t-on encore débattre, scandale après scandale, faire semblant de s'émouvoir, alors que ces pratiques continuent?
               

                  Nous avons une résolution du mois de décembre et il faut l'appliquer. Sinon, il ne faudra pas s'étonner que les électeurs nous disent qu'on est tous une belle bande de corrompus, si on n'est pas capable d'agir après le plus gros scandale de corruption de l'histoire du Parlement.
               

Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Madame Aubry! Ich bin von der EVP, und ich bin noch da; insofern herrscht da bei der EVP keine Leere. Der Kollege Olbrycht war auch da, muss aber jetzt noch zu einem weiteren Gespräch. Insofern müssen Sie jetzt mit mir vorliebnehmen, auch wenn es Ihnen nicht passt.
               

                  Zu den Maßnahmen, die zu ergreifen sind – es gibt immer wieder den Vorschlag eines Ethikgremiums. Zunächst einmal möchte ich das wiederholen, was vorhin einmal sehr deutlich gesagt worden ist: Es waren hier kriminelle Energien unterwegs, auch bei einer sozialdemokratischen Kollegin und auch bei einigen anderen Personen, die Gelder entgegengenommen haben und sie illegal bzw. nicht rechtmäßig verwendet haben. Insofern ist es nicht so, dass wir das Problem mit einem Ethikgremium lösen können.
               

                  Was ein Ethikgremium hingegen kann, ist, was es in etlichen anderen Ländern auch schon tut: Rat geben, Empfehlungen aussprechen. Was es allerdings nicht kann – was manche hier von den Grünen vorgeschlagen haben –, ist, die Gewaltenteilung aufheben.
               

                  Wir wollen eine klare Gewaltenteilung. Das bedeutet, dass wir kein Disziplinargremium oder irgendetwas haben wollen, das staatsanwaltliche Rechte, richterliche Rechte und auch vielleicht noch die des Parlaments und der Kommission auch noch gleichzeitig beinhaltet. Wir haben hier eine Gewaltenteilung. Ein Ethikgremium kann nur Empfehlungen geben.
               

                  Zweitens muss es eine blacklist von Organisationen geben, die durch gewisse Aktivitäten wie Hassreden, Aufstachelung zum Terrorismus, religiösen Fundamentalismus oder Extremismus aufgefallen sind, strafrechtlich verurteilt wurden und EU-Mittel missbraucht und unterschlagen haben. Denn vielfach sind diese Organisationen nach einiger Zeit nicht mehr bekannt und die Personen auch nicht. Es wäre für alle hilfreich, wenn es eine solche blacklist gäbe. Dann würden wir uns auch leichter tun mit dem Transparenzregister, wen wir da reinnehmen und wen wir nicht reinnehmen.
               

Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per il Parlamento europeo è il momento di agire. Dobbiamo prendere in considerazione le proposte sul tavolo e chiedere che vengano finalmente messe in atto. La fretta non deve essere cattiva consigliera, però. Saremo il più esigenti e ambiziosi possibile nel rendere le nostre istituzioni più trasparenti e impermeabili alla corruzione, insieme a misure da attuare subito e su cui vigilare.
               

                  Vogliamo anche riforme strutturali profonde, i cui risultati saranno visibili solo nel medio periodo. Penso al nuovo organismo etico indipendente, che come Socialisti e Democratici abbiamo sempre chiesto insieme ad altri gruppi politici, ma che invece alcuni altri gruppi hanno sempre ostacolato. Su questo serve l'impegno concreto della Commissione europea.
               

                  Le proposte della Presidente Metsola sono un buon passo avanti, ma non sono ancora sufficienti, in primis per affrontare la questione delle porte girevoli, per le quali è necessario un periodo di raffreddamento, di distanza di cinque anni. Oggi vengono proposti solo sei mesi, troppo pochi, soprattutto rispetto ai ventiquattro mesi attualmente in vigore per i Commissari europei.
               

                  Dobbiamo produrre un risultato bilanciato, non intaccando la libertà di mandato dei deputati, principio cardine della democrazia, ma avendo la certezza di evitare radicalmente qualunque tentativo di inquinamento e di manipolazione dei nostri organismi democratici.
               

Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, it has been two months, two months since bags of cash were confiscated. Since then, multiple of our colleagues, people who we work with, people who make laws or who have made laws for all Europeans have been jailed. Every household across the European Union knows about this. But there is a second scandal. And the second scandal is that we haven't done anything since then. Nothing has happened. What have we done? We have written resolutions. We have a new task forces. We have working groups for transparency, working groups for the rules of procedure. But we haven't tangibly changed a thing. This is, for me, a second scandal.
We need to act now and we need to get back the trust now. We need to win back trust now by implementing the changes we all know. Further protection for whistle-blowers. cooling-off periods for MEPs, stringent transparency on conflict of interests and financial declarations, biting sanctions. But also transparency on every meeting that every one of us has, no matter the capacity, with lobby groups and interest groups. This is simple. Let's win back trust now, let's win back trust for the European Parliament.

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the corruption scandals directly affect the image of the European Union and the trust our citizens have in the European construction. The populist and anti-European movement use all of that to blame the EU, but they do not care about solutions, they are even absent here today.
But Europe did not steal. The European Union is not corrupted. But you speak about people that abused citizens trust and their functions for their own interest. All the EU institutions have to show zero tolerance on corruption, and this is what our political group is saying. It is not complicated and we should not hide behind bureaucratic arguments.
I come from a country, Romania, that did important reforms with the support of the European Union, and we did it. All the Romanian MEPs have to present annually integrity and wealth reports that are heavily checked. So we can do that at European level. So the European Union has to show coherence and apply, of course, strict rules on all integrated issues at European level.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, en diciembre, ante los actuales escándalos de sacadas de dinero, el Parlamento decidió crear una comisión de investigación para los casos de corrupción por parte de terceros países y eurodiputados, y también una comisión de transparencia, que los representantes de los intereses de Qatar no accedieran al Parlamento y un llamamiento a la prohibición a nivel de la UE de las donaciones de terceros países a eurodiputados y a partidos políticos.
               

                  A mediados de enero volvimos a debatir, pero no se tomaron medidas contundentes. A fin de enero, treinta eurodiputados le escribimos a la presidenta Metsola pidiendo rapidez y acción por parte del Parlamento Europeo y trasladando que este escándalo de corrupción no se limitaba solo a Qatar. Hay cada vez más indicios de que Marruecos habría actuado de la misma manera, interfiriendo en el proceso democrático del Parlamento Europeo, previo pago a eurodiputados, lo que demuestra que Marruecos está también involucrado con eurodiputados en una red de corrupción organizada durante años para influir las decisiones europeas.
               

                  Varios diputados al Parlamento estamos siendo atacados en las redes por denunciar esto. Incluso, el jueves pasado, la Cámara de Representantes de Marruecos nos ha dedicado una sesión con nombres y apellidos, señalando con el dedo a varios eurodiputados que denunciamos esta interferencia y cuestionando al Parlamento Europeo. La integridad es un valor que aquí ha faltado y es tiempo de recuperarla con medidas firmes y contundentes que acaben con las prácticas corruptas, las de dentro y las de fuera.
               

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Sinjura President, jiena qiegħed hawnhekk f'isem iċ-ċittadini kollha tal-Unjoni Ewropea, aħna qegħdin hawnhekk f'isem iċ-ċittadini kollha tal-Unjoni Ewropea. U allura kull laqgħa li aħna jkollna mhux qed nagħmluha f'isimna, iżda qed nagħmluha f'isem iċ-ċittadini Ewropej sabiex nifhmu eżatti x'inhuma l-bżonnijiet u l-ħtiġijiet taċ-ċittadini kollha tal-Unjoni Ewropea. U allura, kif qalu sħabi mill-partiti politiċi kollha, illum hawnhekk f'dan il-Parlament illi l-proposti ta' Roberta Metsola kienu tajbin però huma dgħajfin ħafna. Huma l-ewwel pass 'il quddiem però għad baqa' ħafna 'l fejn irridu mmorru.
               

                  Illum xtaqt niffoka biss fuq il-laqgħat li jkollna aħna ma' dawk li għandhom xi interess, ma' dawk li jiġu jirrappreżentaw interessi differenti u aħna niltaqgħu magħhom għaliex dak huwa d-dmir tagħna. Għaliex fil-proposti li ressqet quddiemna l-President Metsola mhux qed tgħidilna li għandu jkollna reġistru, mhux qed tgħidilna li għandna nirreġistrawhom kollha dawn, ikunu pubbliċi, iżda għandna nagħmlu dawk biss li huma leġiżlattivi. Dan huwa xi ħaġa li jmur kontra anke dak illi l-Kummissjoni Ewropea, fl-2016, kienet ipproponiet bħala r-reġistru tat-trasparenza mandatorju.
               

                  Nemmen ħafna illi kull laqgħa li aħna jkollna, tkun ma' min tkun, dwar xiex tkun, għandha tkun laqgħa pubblika. Hemm min jgħid li dan huwa impossibbli – inħeġġeġ lil kulħadd, idħlu fil-website tiegħi, xorta jiltaqgħu magħna minkejja li nippubblikaw anke l-minuti ta' kull laqgħa li jkollna ma' dawk li jirrappreżentaw l-interessi.
               

(Il-kelliem aċċetta li jwieġeb diskors ‘karta blu’)


Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE),
blue-card speech. – Mr Engerer, I very much agree with your idea of having transparency in all meetings that all MEPs have. I was wondering what you think about the transparency on staff meetings. So for assistants, but also for the administration.

Cyrus Engerer (S&D),
blue-card reply. – I think that we could go back to the original proposal of the Commission, when it proposed in 2016 the interinstitutional agreement for a mandatory transparency register. Already there it was stated that while Members of the European Parliament should be transparent and register all their meetings, the same should be done for staff of the European Parliament, for the Council, as well as for the Commission. I think that everyone who is going for meetings on behalf of citizens should be transparent and have all those meetings public.

Paul Tang (S&D). – Madam President, first, our spouses, our parents, our children, and we ourselves are politically exposed persons and banks already apply enhanced due diligence on every single one of us. They check sources of our financial wealth for illicit activities. 17 years after we have obliged banks to do this, we still don't do it ourselves. Now, the good thing is, of course, that in a December resolution Parliament calls for mandatory declarations of MEPs assets at the start and at the end of the mandate. It's time to introduce this. Just like in Romania.
Second, we need to be alert for shady, dubious lobby methods. The launch of lobby leaks hotline by several cross-party MEPs and NGOs aims to get early signals of these opaque methods. It's just two examples. Just two examples where others do what the European Parliament fails to do. That is frustrating. Yes, it's time for action. Time for transparency and public oversight. Time to restore trust. It's time to step up to the plate, hit the ball and very hard.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem se cítil trochu vyzván kolegyní Aubryovou, jestli zde je PPE. Tak my zde jsme, hovoříme v této diskuzi, vystupovala i kolegyně Hohlmeierová, samozřejmě Jan Olbrycht a další.
               

                  K tomu meritu věci: my podporujeme většinu návrhů, které předložila paní předsedkyně Metsolová. Myslím si, že větší transparentnost ohledně schůzek je naprosto možná. Já proti ní nic nenamítám, blacklist nepochybně také, to znamená, že všichni, kteří poruší pravidla, musí být umístěni na takovou listinu, zpřísnění přístupu do Evropského parlamentu a tak dále.
               

                  Jenom se ptám, jestli takový výkaz svých schůzek bude vést i pan Panzeri, který je účasten tohoto skandálu a už není poslancem EP. Musíme to domyslet do všech detailů. Bohužel ta debata na mě taky trochu působí tak, že se jeden vymlouvá na druhého. Přestaňme se prosím vymlouvat jeden na druhého a zkusme udělat něco s tím mechanismem. Myslím si, že nelze to uspěchat, to nesouhlasím s kolegou ze skupiny Zelených, ale je třeba mít reálný výsledek skutečně co nejdříve.
               

Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Vielen Dank auch, dass wir die Debatte führen. Ich bin sehr dafür, dass wir schauen, welche Regeln wirksam sind und wie wir diese Regeln dann verschärfen können. Aber ich bin auch dafür, dass wir uns klarmachen, dass immer neue Regeln allein eben nichts helfen, wenn wir diese Regeln nicht durchsetzen.
               

                  Ich sage noch etwas ergänzend: Manche Regeln müssen wir vielleicht auch noch einmal genauer betrachten. Es geht uns ja nicht darum, ob der Kollege dann zu Weihnachten dem anderen Kollegen mal eine Schokolade geschenkt hat. Irgendwann blickt man ja auch selbst nicht mehr durch, was nun alles eventuell Probleme erzeugt und was nicht.
               

                  Wir haben gerade über NGO-Transparenz gesprochen. Also, wenn Kollegen dann sagen, die NGOs müssen ins Transparenzregister, dann ist das richtig. Aber wenn die gleichen Kollegen – habe ich gerade noch einmal geschaut – seit einem Jahr ihre Treffen mit Lobbyisten nicht eingetragen haben, dann frage ich mich schon, ob das zur Integrität dieses Hauses beiträgt. Ich glaube auch, dass wir uns klarmachen müssen, dass man gegen wirklich kriminelle Energie nicht besonders viel machen kann, außer die Strafverfolgungsbehörden gut auszustatten.
               

                  Ich glaube auch – wir reden ja über die EU-Institutionen allgemein –, dass es nicht hilfreich ist, wenn beispielsweise der Rat einfach nicht veröffentlicht, welcher Mitgliedstaat wie abstimmt. Ich will als Bürger wissen, wie meine Regierung abstimmt. Und ich glaube, dass wir da auch den Blick weiten müssen und schauen müssen, wie alle EU-Institutionen dazu beitragen können, dass wir das Vertrauen in die EU stärken und als Europäisches Parlament das Vertrauen dann auch zurückgewinnen.
               

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Věra Jourová,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you very much for today's debate. I heard from many of you that you were speaking about trust, because this is the core thing in our debate, I guess.
What we see in many different researches and data and different own observations is that the source of the decline or lack of trust from the sight of the citizens is always either abuse of power and/or corruption and/or a lack of communication or direct lying to people.
I regret to say that we must be doing something wrong because the trust of the citizens is declining in almost all the Member States. In some Member States around or up to 40 % of people are giving us the report that they think that the democracy does not work for them.
When we should have stronger democracy and stronger trust of the people in the institutions than now in the time of deep crisis. We already saw it in the pandemic time that we needed the trust of people. And now in the time of war, there is even a stronger demand for the trust of people.
That's why I myself was very shocked when the scandal appeared last year. Because what we all know, the people do not differentiate as to whether it is the European Parliament, the Commission or the Council. They just think there is something rotten in Brussels or the EU as such is wrong.
And it's very dangerous. And it's unfair because the reputation of the EU institutions, which was built over many years, can be very much devastated by only one scandal.
I said many times in public speeches or to media that I believe that this very scandal is the failure of several individual people. But this is not enough to say that. We have to look into the system, whether it works. And I don't believe that we can introduce a system which will discourage those who will want to steal from doing that. Sorry for being that blunt.
But I believe we have loopholes in the system. We can increase transparency. We can increase the anti-corruption measures. We can increase many different measures – some of them are also presented by President Metsola – to make the system more robust and more trustworthy. That's why we are discussing today, and I heard from many of you, that you also feel that it's our obligation to look into the system and to improve it.
The Commission is now working on four things, which will come soon. And I think that we will be discussing the systemic changes which the Commission will propose over the rest of this year at least.
One of them is the work on the creation of the inter-institutional ethics body. I believe that we need the body, which will be pragmatic and meaningful, which will create the layer on which we need something, something which will connect the EU institutions by working on the common standards and many other things. I will be more detailed in explaining that tomorrow because we have a special plenary debate about that. We will be discussing the format and the scope of the ethics body with, I think, seven EU institutions, so it should not be only the Commission, Parliament and the Council. More about it tomorrow.
We will also propose the revision of the transparency rules. Some of you spoke about it here. I think you remember the heavy debate we had 2020 and 2021 about how to increase transparency in the work of the Commission, Parliament and the Council. I heard a lot about the freedom of the mandate of the Members of the European Parliament. Indeed, we have to recognise fully the autonomy and specificity of each institution but, at the same time, I think that there is quite a bit of room for improvement of the transparency and to do it without damaging the efficiency of our work.
The last two things we are working on are the anti-corruption strategy, where we should cover the EU institutions, and the defence of democracy package, which will focus on foreign interference – it will be connected with the topic which Commissioner Hahn before me covered here and where you had the discussion about the need to increase the transparency of foreign financing.
So I wanted to complement what I said at the beginning to be now more concrete on ethics body, more tomorrow and on all the other things. I am very much looking forward to cooperation with Parliament because what I felt here in this room today is that there is a very strong political will to improve the system.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2023, statt.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171 GO)



Andrus Ansip (Renew),
kirjalikult. – Euroopa Parlament võib küll luua uusi registreid, andmebaase või deklaratsioone, kuid eeldusel, et ka Euroopa Parlament hakkab järgima enamikus ELi liikmesriikides seadustatud üks kord küsimise põhimõtet. See tähendab, et riik või institutsioon võib üht ja sedasama infot küsida vaid korra. Esitatud info tuleb meeles pidada ning kodaniku loal kasutada seda uuesti. Paraku ei tea Euroopa Parlamendis üks teenistus seda, mida teine on otsustanud. Informatsioon üksuste vahel ei liigu. Assistendi lähetus Lõuna-Koreasse kiideti heaks, saatkond soetas piletid ja kahe päeva pärast ütles eetikaüksus, et sõit pole aktsepteeritav. Või lennupiletite kompenseerimiseks esitati 20 lehekülge dokumente, sealhulgas visiidi programm, kuid vastavasse deklareerimise registrisse selline informatsioon ei jõua. Olukord, kus parlamendiliige või assistent peab oma probleemiga pöörduma parlamendi eri üksustesse, ei sobi digiajastusse.
               

Eugen Jurzyca (ECR),
písomne. – Podľa môjho názoru by riziko korupcie v Európskom parlamente pomohlo znížiť:
               






1.


Transparentné hlasovanie





                  V EP väčšina hlasovaní prebieha ručne, a teda bez záznamu. Občania tak nemajú nástroj, ako by mohli skontrolovať, ako hlasoval ich europoslanec a či sa nespreneveril svojim sľubom. Som za to, aby boli všetky verejné vecné (neprocedurálne) hlasovania zaznamenané elektronicky podľa mien. Ako je to napríklad na Slovensku, kde sa dá ľahko pozrieť, ako hlasoval každý poslanec Národnej rady SR.
               






2.


Jednoduché vyhľadávanie výsledkov hlasovaní





                  Hoci je v EP zaznamenaných hlasovaní podľa mien len obmedzené množstvo, ich výsledky nie sú na parlamentnej stránke zobrazené prehľadne. Sú uverejňované až hodiny po hlasovaní a nedá sa v nich dobre vyhľadávať. Občan či novinár potom len veľmi ťažko môže skontrolovať túto dôležitú aktivitu europoslanca. Považujem preto za užitočné, aby sa dali hlasovania EP vyhľadávať podľa hlasujúcich europoslancov, predkladateľov alebo témy hlasovania. Opäť je dobrým príkladom NR SR, ktorá výsledky hlasovania uverejňuje takmer okamžite a má prehľadnejšie vyhľadávanie v hlasovaniach.
               






3.


Stransparentnenie tvorby materiálov





                  Materiály EÚ sa pozmeňujú na rokovaniach, ktoré sú neverejné. Ak je tvorba materiálov EÚ netransparentná, ťažšie sa odhalí, kto presadzoval jednotlivé zmeny. Rokovania o návrhoch by mali byť preto verejné. Napríklad tak ako v NR SR.
               
17.   Union Secure Connectivity Programme 2023-2027 (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Christophe Grudler im Namen des Ausschusses für Industrie, Forschung und Energie über den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Einrichtung des Programms der Union für sichere Konnektivität für den Zeitraum 2023-2027 (COM(2022)0057 – C9-0045/2022 – 2022/0039(COD)) (A9-0249/2022).
               

Christophe Grudler,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, ce moment est historique. Nous allons voter pour de nouveaux satellites européens, qui vont rendre l'Union européenne plus autonome dans l'espace. Des satellites qui serviront à communiquer de manière ultra-sécurisée, qui seront conçus pour être durables et qui seront détenus par l'Union européenne, pour communiquer à la fois partout en Europe, mais aussi dans le monde entier. Des satellites qui pourront aussi aider les alliés et les amis de l'Europe.
               

                  En effet, imaginez que vous soyez un soldat ukrainien en ce moment, sur le terrain, dans le froid de l'hiver, et là, subitement, votre connexion internet disparaît. Plus moyen de communiquer avec vos camarades ou votre commandement pour partager les informations que vous avez recueillies: quelqu'un a coupé votre connexion. Ce quelqu'un, aujourd'hui, c'est Elon Musk, car la connexion internet était fournie par les satellites de son entreprise privée Starlink. Ce scénario est celui qui se passe en ce moment même en Ukraine, et c'est totalement inadmissible. Nous n'avons pas à dépendre des humeurs d'un seul homme. C'est notamment pour cela qu'il est indispensable que l'Union européenne se dote de ces nouveaux satellites européens IRIS.
               

                  Alors, en quoi vont-ils consister? En quelques centaines de satellites, qui vont servir à mieux communiquer. Tout d'abord pour les usages gouvernementaux, que cela soit pour nos ambassades, nos pompiers, nos services de secours, nos militaires: tous ont besoin de communications sécurisées pour mener à bien leur tâche, y compris par la cryptographie quantique et post-quantique, et cela dans le monde entier, de la mer Baltique aux Antilles.
               

                  Deuxièmement, ces satellites serviront directement les citoyens européens. En effet, des services commerciaux seront proposés, permettant de connecter par Internet nos concitoyens qui habitent dans des zones isolées ou reculées. En tant que rapporteur pour le Parlement européen, je suis fier des avancées que nous avons obtenues. Je veux ici chaleureusement remercier mes collègues eurodéputés pour ce travail transpartisan mené en bonne intelligence. Sous notre impulsion, ces satellites européens IRIS seront un exemple mondial en matière de durabilité spatiale et environnementale. Concrètement, ces satellites devront être conçus pour émettre le moins de CO2 possible lors de leur fabrication et de leur lancement. Ils devront prévoir des systèmes pour éviter la production de débris et éviter ainsi de transformer l'espace en une déchetterie géante.
               

                  Enfin, le fait que ces satellites soient répartis sur plusieurs orbites, à différentes altitudes, permettra de réduire leur nombre. Ici, les satellites IRIS seront un contre-modèle par rapport aux mégaconstellations, constituées de milliers de satellites. Il est possible de faire différemment sans encombrer l'espace, et l'Europe le prouvera. Maintenant, il est temps de mettre en œuvre rapidement ce programme. Pour cela, j'attends une compétition saine et raisonnée entre les acteurs industriels européens. Il est de leur responsabilité de travailler en bonne intelligence pour proposer une mise en œuvre rapide et innovante de ces satellites.
               

                  Pour conclure, je me réjouis que ces nouveaux satellites européens IRIS renforcent considérablement l'autonomie stratégique de l'Union européenne, avec une vraie impulsion pour notre base industrielle spatiale européenne et des critères stricts d'admissibilité pour garantir la sécurité de ce programme. Après Galileo, le GPS européen, Copernicus, nos yeux sur la Terre, nous avons besoin des satellites IRIS pour permettre à l'Europe de communiquer de manière sécurisée en tout point du globe.
               

Thierry Breton,
membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, tout d'abord, à mon tour, je voudrais dire que je suis extrêmement heureux de prendre la parole dans cet hémicycle pour ce débat, avant le vote formel de demain, portant accord sur le lancement d'une infrastructure spatiale de communication sécurisée, IRIS.
               

                  Je voudrais remercier chaleureusement l'ensemble des députés qui ont travaillé d'arrache-pied sur ce dossier et en particulier son rapporteur, Christophe Grudler, qui a fait un travail exceptionnel entouré de ses rapporteurs fictifs. Neuf mois après la proposition de la Commission, grâce à ce travail acharné, nous sommes parvenus à un accord en trilogue et le Parlement votera demain, c'est-à-dire juste un an après cette proposition, ce qui permettra à la Commission d'initier la mise en œuvre rapidement. Le rapporteur vient de rappeler, du reste, le contexte dans lequel nous nous trouvons et l'urgence, aussi, qui est la nôtre.
               

                  Les efforts qui ont été consentis pour faire aboutir ce dossier dans de tels délais traduisent, à mon sens, le consensus profond que partagent la Commission et les co-législateurs sur l'urgence – que je viens de rappeler – de ce programme pour consolider notre souveraineté technologique et offrir à l'Union une capacité de communication sécurisée qui, on le voit bien, lui fait clairement défaut aujourd'hui.
               

                  Les amendements qui ont été portés par le Conseil et par le Parlement clarifient, enrichissent et précisent nombre d'aspects de notre proposition, et je tiens à m'en féliciter. Je voudrais, en particulier, rappeler quatre éléments, si vous le permettez.
               

                  Tout d'abord, l'objectif premier d'IRIS, tel que défini dans le règlement, est clairement d'assurer aux États membres de l'Union un accès garanti à une communication ultra-sécurisée, globale, autonome, qui réponde à leurs besoins opérationnels. Et c'est vers ce seul objectif que seront mobilisés les fonds du budget de l'Union.
               

                  Cela veut dire concrètement que notre objectif premier – et je tiens à le redire ici – est de construire une constellation souveraine pour des usages gouvernementaux de services publics et notamment, évidemment, dans la sécurité et la défense. Le rapporteur vient de le rappeler – on l'a revu en Ukraine, on le vit tous les jours en Ukraine – la connectivité par des satellites LEO dans des zones de conflit est absolument cruciale. C'est un élément désormais déterminant des théâtres d'opérations et c'est une capacité essentielle, on l'a vu, que l'Europe n'a pas et que fournira IRIS.
               

                  Les critères d'éligibilité, pour les entreprises qui développeront IRIS, seront donc évidemment exigeants, on le comprend, et du reste conformes au règlement. Et nous ne compromettrons en aucun cas la sécurité et la souveraineté de cette infrastructure. Je tiens à le dire très clairement. Ce sera donc aux industriels de s'adapter, et pas l'inverse. Nous souhaitons par ailleurs intégrer l'état de l'art en matière de sécurisation de la connectivité, en envisageant une utilisation du cryptage quantique.
               

                  Deuxième point, IRIS permettra, en plus des services gouvernementaux, de développer des services commerciaux innovants et complémentaires, permettant ainsi l'émergence d'une nouvelle offre, pour tous les Européens, de services s'appuyant sur cette connectivité mobile. Pour ce service, IRIS sera construit sur la base d'un partenariat public-privé, qui sera ouvert à un ou à plusieurs partenaires.
               

                  Bien entendu, la guerre en Ukraine change tout, et de façon durable, voire définitive, disent certains; en tout cas sur le très long terme. Il est donc évident qu'à ce titre, nous ne pourrons accepter aucun risque d'interférence directe ou indirecte avec ceux qui présentent une surface de risque avec la Russie.
               

                  Je voudrais également dire qu'IRIS est aussi une infrastructure qui a des visées géopolitiques. De par sa couverture potentiellement globale, comme l'a rappelé le rapporteur tout à l'heure, nous pourrons apporter de la connectivité là où c'est nécessaire, et je pense bien entendu à l'Afrique, où je souhaite qu'IRIS puisse jouer un rôle important pour l'ensemble du continent.
               

                  Enfin, IRIS est aussi l'occasion pour l'Union de faire de l'espace différemment, en mettant à profit le tissu de start-up du secteur, en donnant leur chance à des nouvelles technologies, peut-être plus risquées, mais qui seules peuvent permettre une véritable rupture, une disruption qui va bénéficier, j'en suis personnellement convaincu, à l'ensemble de l'écosystème spatial, aux entreprises plus traditionnelles, mais tout autant à l'ensemble de notre écosystème de start-up.
               

                  Et pour cela, je mettrai en place une stratégie de passation de marchés publics qui permettra aux start-up de développer des services spécifiques pour l'Union.
               

                  Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, votre vote de demain nous permettra de lancer sans délai ce programme ambitieux. Je compte ainsi lancer le principal appel d'offres d'ici un mois, pour pouvoir avancer vite. Nous envisageons des services initiaux en 2024 et des services complets en 2027.
               

                  Après Galileo et Copernicus, l'Europe va se doter, avec IRIS, d'une troisième constellation souveraine, complétant ainsi l'offre européenne et renforçant l'Union comme un acteur majeur de l'espace.
               

Massimiliano Salini,
a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l'impegno dedicato a questa enorme sfida che completa l'imponente programma spaziale europeo è degno degli obiettivi che ci siamo proposti di fronte alle sfide più complesse di sistema, alcune determinate da fattori gravissimi come ad esempio l'aggressione russa in Ucraina oppure l'aggressivo espansionismo cinese, grandi sfide di sistema nelle quali finalmente la risposta dell'Unione europea si mostra realmente determinata.
               

                  Determinata come non può che essere di fronte al possibile protagonismo geopolitico di una grande potenza come l'Unione europea, che in questo caso si comporta da grande potenza, capace di tenere conto delle esigenze più strategiche ma anche delle esigenze degli ultimi, dei soggetti più deboli, perché il programma spaziale europeo questo risultato ottiene, in questo caso garantendo la sicurezza nella comunicazione, la connettività e l'accesso alla banda larga, anche dalle zone più remote.
               

                  È una partita che è stata gestita, a mio modo di vedere, e va dato atto innanzitutto al relatore Grudler, nella maniera migliore, perché non solo tiene conto di una spinta strategica, ma tiene anche conto, come diceva giustamente il Commissario, del tema dell'autonomia strategica dell'Unione europea, includendo anche le imprese più piccole. Infatti, una parte importante degli appalti sarà riservata alle piccole e medie imprese.
               

                  Bene, di fronte a queste sfide qualcuno in giro per il mondo ha risposto proteggendosi con nuove forme di protezionismo. Noi abbiamo deciso di puntare sulla vera innovazione e di questo va dato atto innanzitutto al Commissario Breton per averci creduto in modo così trasparente. Buon lavoro a tutti noi e grazie ai relatori per il lavoro che abbiamo svolto.
               

Иво Христов,
от името на групата S&D. – Уважаема г-жо Председател, уважаеми г-н Комисар, приветствам институционалната воля за разгръщане на първата по рода си Европейска програма за сателитно покритие за периода 2023-2027 г. Осигуряването на независимостта ни от трети държави по отношение на критичната инфраструктура е от стратегическо значение за бъдещето на Съюза. Войните, бедствията и климатичните промени налагат Европа да се сдобие неотложно със собствен капацитет за добиване и трансфер на информация в космоса. Считам за успех налагането на Черно море като основен стратегически регион в програмата, що се отнася до сателитното покритие. Време е Европа да излезе от ролята на зависим наблюдател и да се позиционира като лидер в сферата на сателитните комуникационни услуги и данни, осигурявайки собствената си автономност от глобални конкуренти като Съединените щати и Китай. Достъпът до високоскоростен интернет, увеличаването на капацитета за устойчивост на кибератаки, както и надеждната ситуационна осведоменост, представляват други очевидни достойнства на програмата.
               

Susana Solís Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, hoy Europa fija su mirada y sus ambiciones en el espacio. Y lo hacemos con un ambicioso plan para desplegar nuestra propia constelación de satélites. Un proyecto que tendrá, en la seguridad y en la conectividad, sus dos pilares maestros. Se trata de asegurar nuestra soberanía también en el espacio para garantizar que no dependamos de la infraestructura de terceros países, como nos ha pasado en la invasión de Ucrania. Con esta constelación seremos capaces de dar acceso ininterrumpido y seguro a servicios de telecomunicaciones y así proteger nuestras infraestructuras críticas. También tendremos ojos propios ahí donde haga falta en tiempos de crisis, ya sean catástrofes naturales, misiones diplomáticas o estrategias militares.
               

                  Pero, además, este programa permitirá el acceso a banda ancha en toda Europa, evitando que las zonas rurales o aquellas más remotas estén desconectadas. Las políticas de despoblación no pueden entenderse sin una conexión a Internet estable, vía satélite, como la que proponemos hoy.
               

                  Y, por último, esta será una constelación ejemplar en términos de sostenibilidad espacial y medioambiental.
               

                  Solo me queda, querido Christophe, darte las gracias por tu excepcional trabajo para que esta constelación sea posible.
               

Niklas Nienaß,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, IRIS will give Europe a seat at the table on the new space age. We saw this constellation as an opportunity to prepare the European space industry for its new challenges. And IRIS will not only provide a secure internet connection, but will also establish a competitive space industry, ensuring Europe's independent access to space.
The significance of this can be seen every day in Ukraine. The space sector requires investment just as much as it requires a change of policy that we are about to make. We want to see creative minds competing to create the smartest services, superb satellites and the most revolutionary rockets the world has ever seen.
The space-based internet provided by IRIS will eliminate any coverage gaps and bring internet access even to rural and the remotest areas all over Europe. This will drive the European economy. But this internet must also be affordable to all citizens. So, colleagues, why did you not support the Green amendment that would have ensured that this internet connection would have cost not more than 10 euros per month?
However, my colleagues, I must also praise you very much because not only have you adopted, but even embraced my proposals for sustainability criteria, which shows that you truly have a revolution in space in mind. These sustainability criteria are not only essential to continue engaging in space, but they are the first step for an international and for European space law and even lead towards a revision of international space legislation as a whole. In this sense, IRIS2 truly is revolutionary.

Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, o programa Conectividade Segura visa lançar uma constelação de satélites. A infraestrutura IRIS vai permitir reforçar a cibersegurança europeia, integrando tecnologias emergentes, como as tecnologias quânticas, melhorar a oferta tradicional de comunicações via satélite, incentivar a inovação e abrir novos mercados. Ao aumentarmos a nossa frota de satélites, seremos mais competitivos e teremos acesso a ligações mais estáveis e rápidas.
               

                  As órbitas baixa e média são um setor ainda com uma grande margem de desenvolvimento. A este respeito, o arquipélago dos Açores tem grandes projetos para o espaço, nomeadamente um novo porto espacial, que tem, precisamente, a ambição de servir de base para o lançamento de pequenos satélites. As ilhas dos Açores reúnem um conjunto de características únicas com um enorme potencial para o setor espacial. Merecem, assim, o nosso suporte e uma maior aposta por parte da União Europeia.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich habe mir den Entwurf des Legislativberichts durchgelesen. Und man verliert ja manchmal, wenn man so die Artikel sieht und die Details sich anschaut – und da finde ich auch toll, dass so intensiv verhandelt wurde und offenbar ja auch eine breite Mehrheit im Europäischen Parlament dafür sein wird –, da verliert man manchmal so ein bisschen den Blick für das Große.
               

                  Und ich glaube, dass bei diesen Weltraumfragen – der Weltraum ist ja selbst recht groß –nicht untergehen darf, dass wir zum Beispiel auch mit Blick auf diejenigen, die vor uns schon den Weltraum erkundet haben, damit auch immer große politische Ideen verbunden haben. Als John F. Kennedy 1962 seine Rede hielt, wo er sagte: We choose to go to the Moon – wir haben uns entschieden, zum Mond zu gehen –, da hat er ja nicht gesagt: Wir versuchen mal vielleicht im nächsten Jahrzehnt anzugehen, dass wir vielleicht auf dem Mond landen. Nein, er hat gesagt: Wir haben uns entschieden, zum Mond zu gehen.
               

                  Und eigentlich finde ich auch an den Reden, die ich gerade gehört habe, diesen großen Gedanken sehr schön: Wir haben uns entschieden, dass wir auf diesem Politikfeld mitmachen, dass wir im Weltraum mitmachen und dass wir da auch versuchen, unsere ganz eigenen Akzente zu setzen. Das wollte ich Ihnen einfach mitteilen.
               

Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, I just wanted to also chime in here one second, because as a former negotiator of the European Space Programme, it obviously makes me happy to see that we are taking the successive steps to actually make this European moonshot a reality.
We all know that we can try to save old industries, curb state aid and really try to preserve what's already there, but I think what's much more fascinating is to build on the innovative capacity of the European Union. We have amazing start-ups in the space industry, and I'm very happy that you also mentioned the downstream commercialisation. If we make data available, if we make the internet available, what kind of opportunities, possibilities do we have for new bright minds across Europe to actually make use of that and make us competitive by new ideas, by new frontiers, that we can obviously best see in space?

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Thierry Breton,
membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, les interventions de ce soir, y compris les dernières, ont vraiment montré tout l'intérêt que le Parlement porte au domaine spatial en général et à ce programme en particulier.
               

                  Je voudrais vous assurer ici que la Commission va tout mettre en œuvre pour que la phase de réalisation, de mise en œuvre de ce programme se passe également dans un temps record. Je voudrais, si vous le permettez, confirmer trois ou quatre points qui ont été soulevés ce soir.
               

                  Tout d'abord, l'usage premier d'IRIS, je le répète – je crois que c'est très important – sera gouvernemental, et ceci impose donc de restreindre la participation aux acteurs européens tels que définis le programme spatial. On sait le faire – on le fait avec Galileo, par exemple, donc on saura évidemment le faire.
               

                  Deuxièmement, il s'agira bien entendu d'attirer un ou plusieurs partenaires privés. Mais ne nous y trompons pas, et je le redis, IRIS est bien avant tout une infrastructure gouvernementale, à laquelle on ajoutera donc des services supplémentaires et, potentiellement, une infrastructure complémentaire ou des services commerciaux.
               

                  On veillera, sans compromettre la sécurité du système, à ce que le partenaire ou les partenaires commerciaux bénéficient de synergies avec l'infrastructure gouvernementale ainsi que l'opportunité, évidemment, de business, si je puis m'exprimer ainsi.
               

                  Je voudrais également qu'on n'oublie pas que le marché du Satcom croît de 5 %, avec un rôle de plus en plus prépondérant des satellites non géostationnaires. IRIS peut être l'occasion pour un acteur privé de servir des segments comme la bande large, la bande étroite, ou évidemment l'internet des objets.
               

                  Enfin, le dernier point, c'est l'objectif de 30 % dévoué aux start-ups et aux petites et moyennes entreprises, qui est évidemment atteignable. Il va s'agir, cependant, que nos acteurs innovants se mobilisent pour pouvoir vraiment saisir ces chances qu'on leur donne. Je suis confiant, bien entendu. On fera tout pour les attirer, notamment au travers de contrats flexibles et avec une stratégie dite d'anchor customer.
               

                  Voilà, nous sommes donc prêts à développer IRIS rapidement, de manière innovante, tout en respectant évidemment les exigences, que j'ai rappelées tout à l'heure, d'objectifs de souveraineté.
               

                  En dernier lieu, je saisis cette occasion pour vous signaler qu'ensemble avec le haut représentant, Josep Borrell, nous présenterons début mars notre stratégie d'espace et de défense, suite directe de la boussole stratégique. Ce sera le premier texte de ce genre intégrant toute la dimension spatiale dans notre nouvelle approche de défense et proposant une doctrine spatiale – et de défense, donc –, tel que cela nous a été demandé.
               

                  C'est une stratégie importante, un changement de paradigme au cœur duquel IRIS, évidemment, sur son volet gouvernemental, jouera pleinement son rôle. Je compte donc sur le Parlement pour soutenir une approche ambitieuse en la matière.
               

Christophe Grudler,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, je remercie mes collègues pour leurs remerciements, pour leur excellent travail et leurs propositions constructives.
               

                  Alors, pour répondre un peu aux questions ‘catch-the-eye’ et aux interventions, je suis aussi favorable à des prix abordables pour cet accès à l'internet que nous aurons demain, sans oublier cependant que nous sommes sur un marché libre et qu'imposer des prix fixes, ce n'est pas possible.
               

                  Je suis par contre heureux de voir que le système IRIS permettra de fournir le service universel dans les endroits les plus reculés, les plus difficiles d'accès, contribuant ainsi à la démocratisation du système pour le plus grand nombre.
               

                  Alors, pour finir, en conclusion de ces débats, chers collègues, je souhaiterais faire un vœu: que le programme IRIS soit un tournant pour une politique spatiale européenne plus ambitieuse, plus unie et plus cohérente.
               

                  Alors, une politique spatiale plus ambitieuse, pour moi, c'est notamment davantage de budget européen pour l'espace. L'Europe, c'est un budget cinq fois moins important pour l'espace que celui de nos amis américains. La prochaine révision du cadre financier pluriannuel doit, à ce titre, être l'occasion de mettre plus de moyens dans notre politique spatiale européenne.
               

                  Ensuite, une politique spatiale européenne plus unie, cela veut dire moins de compétition stérile entre les pays européens et davantage de collaboration, car c'est ensemble que nous réussirons.
               

                  Enfin, une politique spatiale européenne plus cohérente, cela veut dire avoir une stratégie européenne plus identifiée et des compétences peut-être moins éclatées entre les différents acteurs: l'EUSPA, l'ESA, la Commission, les agences nationales.
               

                  L'espace est un domaine stratégique dont nous ne parlons sans doute pas assez dans cet hémicycle. Il est temps que cela change.
               

                  Je voulais, pour terminer, répondre au collègue qui a fait une intervention ‘catch-the-eye’ sur la volonté affirmée. Je citerai un auteur français qui disait: ‘j'essayerai’ n'a jamais rien fait, ‘je voudrais’ a fait de grandes choses, et ‘je veux’ a fait des miracles! Et bien, nous voulons qu'IRIS soit un grand succès européen.
               

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2023, statt.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171 GO)



Karol Karski (ECR),
na piśmie. – Unijny program bezpiecznej łączności zakłada m.in. rozmieszczenie satelitów UE do ochrony komunikacji rządowej. Pierwsza europejska wieloorbitalna konstelacja satelitów – IRIS ma zapewnić bezpieczeństwo komunikacji władz czy służb kryzysowych i zwiększyć autonomię UE, zwłaszcza w kontekście zagrożeń w cyberprzestrzeni. Program o budżecie rzędu 2,4 mld euro jest bardzo ważnym krokiem w kierunku zwiększenia naszego bezpieczeństwa, zwłaszcza w okresie wojny u granic Unii, a także wobec konfliktów w innych częściach świata, które mogą mieć jednak przełożenie na sytuację w obrębie UE. Dlatego popieramy tę inicjatywę i liczymy na szybkie zatwierdzenie tekstu porozumienia przez Radę.
               
18.   One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Ausführungen von einer Minute (Artikel 172 GO), also zum bunten Bogen der Themen, die in einer Minute abgehandelt werden können.
               

                  Ich möchte alle daran erinnern, auch wirklich diese Minute zu nutzen, sie aber nicht überzustrapazieren.
               
I just repeat it also in English for those not using headphones. Stick to one minute, please. I just say that to everybody because, as you see, it's already quite late in the evening and we have really a lot of speakers.

                  Ich möchte Sie darauf hinweisen, dass Sie für die Ausführungen von einer Minute von Ihrem Platz aus das Wort ergreifen können.
               

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, esta semana, el miércoles día 15, se cumple un año del naufragio del barco pesquero Villa de Pitanxo. Se trata de uno de los mayores siniestros de la pesca europea en los últimos cuarenta años. Es una tragedia que nos sigue conmoviendo a todos.
               

                  Desde el Pleno del Parlamento Europeo quiero reiterar mis más sinceras condolencias a las familias y allegados de las veintiuna víctimas. También rindo homenaje a su perseverancia y empeño en la búsqueda de la justicia.
               

                  Este Parlamento, a través de la Comisión de Peticiones en otoño y de la Comisión de Pesca esta misma semana, ha apoyado la necesaria bajada al pecio del Villa de Pitanxo, operación de vital importancia para conocer mejor los motivos del naufragio, intentar recuperar los cuerpos de los fallecidos y también para avanzar en la investigación penal.
               

                  Hace pocos días el Gobierno de España por fin inició los trámites para inspeccionar el buque hundido. Esperemos que se baje al pecio cuanto antes. Atender a las reivindicaciones de la familia es una cuestión de legalidad, pero también de humanidad.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, din 2014, de când sunt aici, am vorbit de mai multe ori despre drepturile copilului, drepturile copiilor români, care trăiesc în diverse state și care au fost luați, răpiți, pur și simplu, în mod brutal, din familiile lor, că a fost în Danemarca, Norvegia, în Finlanda.
               

                  Acum avem cazul unui băiețel terorizat în Israel, deși și tribunalul a dovedit că tatăl poate să îngrijească copilul. De la 7 ani - și acum are 13- de cinci ani, practic, tatăl dorește să își recupereze copilul. Ce putem să facem pentru drepturile copilului? Începem să nu mai aibă cetățenii încredere în noi.
               

                  Avem raportul serviciilor sociale din 2021, avem, de asemenea, din 2022, expertiza medicilor făcută, care recomandă returnarea imediată a copilului Ben către tatăl său. Ce putem să facem noi, Comisia Europeană? Ce putem noi să facem, instituțiile europene? Pentru că sunt copiii noștri, europeni, care trăiesc în unul dintre statele membre sau în țările terțe.
               

Nicolae Ștefănuță (Renew). – Doamna președintă, dragi colegi, Moldova și Ucraina sunt două organe atacate de aceeași boală. De cancerul Putin. Dar Moldova și Ucraina sunt și ultimele scuturi care ne separă de maniacul Putin.
               

                  Azi, președinta Moldovei, Maia Sandu, a vorbit despre planul dejucat al Rusiei. Printr-o lovitură de stat, Kremlinul avea să schimbe ordinea politică din țară. Rușii au plănuit să șantajeze Moldova prin prețurile la energie, așa încât oamenii să nu mai poată, să trebuiască să iasă pe străzi, apoi să răpească prin mercenari oameni politici, să instaureze un regim de păpuși la Chișinău.
               

                  Vă dați seama că lui Putin nu-i pasă de Bruxelles, de Washington, de întreaga lume civilizată? Vă imaginați că ei voiau să o bage pe Maia Sandu într-un portbagaj, la fel cum a făcut Brigăzile Roșii cu Aldo Moro? Vă imaginați cât de maniac este acest om? Lupta pentru Moldova și Ucraina este vitală, este însăși bătălia pentru Europa noastră.
               

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhora Presidente, a conexão natural da Galiza com Portugal e, portanto, com a Europa, está impedida pela falta de apoio e investimentos.
               

                  Muitas palavras e promessas, mas continuamos a ser periferia por vontade política do Estado, da Europa e dos governos ineficientes, como recentemente se viu no encontro dos presidentes da Galiza, Astúrias e Castela e Leão ou nos poucos investimentos do Estado espanhol, ao criar coordenadores para o Corredor Atlântico com falsas promessas.
               

                  Passa o tempo, uma década e outra, e a conexão ferroviária Vigo-Porto continua sem estar na rede básica do Corredor Atlântico de Mercadorias. Por agora, só é prioridade para o governo português. Para nós, continua a ser uma exigência histórica das galegas e galegos como desenvolvimento estruturante do eixo Atlântico, como ponte com Portugal e a Europa, como fonte de desenvolvimento territorial e económico.
               

                  Depois de muitas pressões, aqui na Galiza e também no Parlamento Europeu, a Comissão Europeia propôs que o troço Vigo-Porto fizesse parte da rede básica alargada. Mas isso não chega. Devemos ser tratados com igualdade.
               

(O Presidente retira a palavra à oradora.)


Gianantonio Da Re (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, secondo la proposta di revisione della direttiva sulla prestazione energetica nell'edilizia, i nuovi edifici dovranno essere a emissione zero entro il 2030, mentre gli esistenti nel 2050, con passaggi intermedi per gli immobili residenziali, che dovranno raggiungere la classe energetica E nel 2030 e la D nel 2033.
               

                  In base a tali criteri, in Italia non sarebbero in regola oltre 9 milioni di edifici su 12 milioni, con la conseguenza che agli italiani verrebbe imposta la ristrutturazione urgente di due case su tre, con ripercussioni negative sull'economia del paese. Non saremo e non possiamo essere complici di un isterismo verde che vuole mettere in ginocchio milioni di famiglie italiane. Non accettiamo nessuna delle imposizioni dell'Europa, perché questo vuol dire strangolare le nostre famiglie.
               

Kateřina Konečná (The Left). – Paní předsedající, korporace a média cenzurují na svých stránkách už dlouho. Každý z nás to zná, když dostane ban. Dříve to bylo za vulgarity, teď už i za nepohodlný názor. Nyní se ale do cenzurování chce pustit i stát.
               

                  Česká vláda jde dokonce tak daleko, že chce v době, kdy svým občanům ordinuje utahování opasků, sponzorovat či správněji uplácet každý rok 150 miliony korun ta správná média, která budou šířit vládní pravdu. Je dezinformace to, že česká vláda nebude zvyšovat věk odchodu do důchodu? No samozřejmě že je, protože víme, že bude. A přitom to ještě na konci listopadu sám premiér popíral. Je tedy dezinformátor a budou potrestány weby, které ho citovaly? A jak to bude s takzvanými dezinformacemi, které se nakonec ukázaly jako pravdivé, a naopak s pravdou, o které dnes víme, že byla dezinformací, jako například přítomnost zbraní hromadného ničení, které posloužily jako vstupenka USA do Iráku?
               

                  Na závěr krátký vzkaz pro vlády. Možná by bylo načase zamyslet se, proč vám občané tak moc nevěří. Začněte řešit problémy občanů a nedělejte z Listiny základních práv a svobod trhací kalendář.
               

Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, sinds 2019 ondervinden burgers de klimaatagenda van commissaris Frans Timmermans, de Europese Green Deal: een agenda van CO2-belastingen en steeds strenger wordende klimaat- en milieuwetten die boeren en burgers verstikken.
               

                  In Nederland is nu een rood-groen syndicaat opgestaan dat van mening is dat dit nog niet ver genoeg gaat. Dit syndicaat pleit voor nog meer belastingen, bureaucratie, wetten en regels.
               

                  Premier Rutte waarschuwt terecht voor deze linkse wolk. Het was echter premier Rutte die commissaris Timmermans in 2019 op de Europese klimaatpost wilde hebben en zijn benoeming als een belangrijke mijlpaal beschouwde.
               

                  Brussel loopt vaak voor op de nationale politiek. Laat dit de komende maand niet het geval zijn. Het is tijd voor een realistisch rechtse koerscorrectie. Het is tijd voor verandering.
               

Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'alcol è una droga, ed è una droga legale ma che può nuocere gravemente alla salute e causare dipendenza psicologica e fisica, aumentare il rischio di tumori, malattie cardiache, disagio sociale.
               

                  Il modo migliore per combattere l'abuso di alcol e tutte le sue possibili nefaste conseguenze è quello di fare informazione corretta su questa sostanza e su tutti gli alimenti che la contengono. Pensare di combattere i possibili danni dell'alcol equiparando nelle etichette il vino e le sigarette è la cosa più sbagliata e antiscientifica che si possa fare ed è esattamente il contrario di ciò di cui abbiamo bisogno. Il vino contiene alcol e dunque il consumo di vino va certamente controllato, ma su questo prodotto, che in Europa e in Italia in particolare ha delle eccellenze inarrivabili, va fatta un'informazione corretta, creando quella cultura sana del vino che accompagna da secoli chi sa gustarlo e consumarlo con la giusta moderazione, senza cadere nella dipendenza.
               

                  Non faccia l'Europa gli stessi errori già visti con il Nutri-Score, e abbia il coraggio, piuttosto, di lavorare seriamente alla prevenzione degli abusi da alcol e alla corretta informazione alimentare, a partire da quella riguardante il vino.
               

Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, χθες την Κυριακή φιλοξενήθηκε συνέντευξη σε εφημερίδα που στηρίζει την αξιωματική αντιπολίτευση στην Ελλάδα της εισηγήτριας της Επιτροπής PEGA με τίτλο στην πρώτη σελίδα ‘Έχουμε σοβαρές ανησυχίες για το κράτος δικαίου στην Ελλάδα’. Σε άλλη συνέντευξη, συνάδελφος, επίσης μέλος της PEGA, αναφέρει την Ελλάδα ως χώρα που οδεύει στην απολυταρχία και δηλώνει ότι μπορεί η αντιπολίτευση να ζητήσει παρατηρητή από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για την εποπτεία των εκλογών. Αν είναι δυνατόν. Είναι τυχαίο; Διότι όσα δήλωσαν οι συγκεκριμένες συνάδελφοι, παρεμβαίνοντας αθέμιτα στην προεκλογική περίοδο, ταυτίζονται απόλυτα με τους ατεκμηρίωτους ισχυρισμούς της αντιπολίτευσης στη χώρα μου. Το γεγονός αυτό είναι πρωτοφανές και δεν συνάδει με το έργο των ευρωβουλευτών. Δεν έχουμε δικαίωμα να επεμβαίνουμε με αυθαίρετες εκτιμήσεις στα εσωτερικά των χωρών, δημιουργώντας αρνητικές εντυπώσεις, ιδίως εν όψει βουλευτικών εκλογών. Είναι απαράδεκτη η εξωθεσμική απαξίωση του έργου της δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένης κυβέρνησης της Ελλάδας, όπου η δημοκρατία λειτουργεί αποτελεσματικά εδώ και 50 χρόνια.
               

Иво Христов (S&D). – Г-жо Председател, на 19 януари в Охрид македонският българин Християн Пендиков бе жестоко пребит от свои съграждани. Това е трагично напомняне, че в държава - кандидат за член на Европейския съюз, да си българин е опасно.
               

                  И това не е първият случай на насилие. Изненадва липсата на каквато и да било реакция от Брюксел. Европейската комисия и някои европейски лидери игнорираха предупрежденията на българския президент, че политиците в Скопие нямат воля да решат отворените въпроси. Българското вето върху преговорите бе снето с натиск отвън, при това в нарушение на съюзните критерии за членство. Днес българите в Република Северна Македония плащат цената на европейското безразличие към историческите травми и културните посегателства на Скопие.
               

                  Призовавам Европейската комисия и комисаря по разширяването да заемат твърда принципна позиция, за да се спазва стриктно духът и буквата на европейската интеграция.
               

Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Renew). – Madam President, it's a matter of humanism that we provide strong support to Türkiye and Syria in these difficult times. And I would like to particularly thank Commissioner Lenarčič for his decisive work and great support coming from his people, his team, through a civil protection mechanism. I would like also to applaud and thank the thousands of EU rescuers and the volunteers that are fighting for miracles on the ground. And I would like to call for full mobilisation of Europe's civil society, for each European citizen to help people in Türkiye and Syria, who are grieving while trying to survive without homes and sanitary conditions. They need power generators, blankets, warm clothes, fresh water, food. They need our support. It's a matter of solidarity. It's a matter of uniting our forces in helping those people in Türkiye and Syria, in order to come back to the real life. We need that support from this House, politically, on a humanitarian level, but also morally.

Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, so I asked an artificial intelligence to tell me how to regulate artificial intelligence in Shakespearean English and here is what it said, ‘Good people all, lend me thine ears. A tale of import I bringeth here, of something great that cometh nigh, an age of AI that dost defy. It hath the power, and speed as well, but also doth bring a weighty tale to tell. We cannot stand idle and let it be, but must regulate it, lest it harm thee. Regulation we need of this device, to guide its course and set the right prize. It must not bring bias to the fore, nor infringe upon our rights, that's more. Transparency must be its guiding light, and accountability with all its might. And not just some, but all shall gain. Equality and fairness shall not be in vain. So let us act with heart so true and regulate AI as we ought to do. It is not a hindrance, but a path made clear, to make progress sustainable and bring good cheer.’
               
Thank you very much. I think it's very insightful into how AI works.

Marie Dauchy (ID). – Madame la Présidente, je tenais à prendre la parole au sujet de la stratégie pour la compétitivité industrielle, sur laquelle nous aurons à nous prononcer cette semaine. Ne soyons pas dupes: cette stratégie n'a de stratégie que le nom. Les derniers mois nous ont plus que jamais montré que le monde change d'époque et qu'il change très vite.
               

                  Alors que la Chine subventionne massivement ses industries nationales et bloque certains marchés mondiaux, comme celui des technologies solaires, les États-Unis sont, eux, en train de mettre en place une politique protectionniste massive, dont nos entreprises sont les premières victimes. Finie la pseudo-mondialisation heureuse, fini le libre-échange sans contrainte, finis les espoirs de réciprocité: il est grand temps de convenir que le processus de mondialisation reflue, et qu'il est désormais nécessaire de changer nos modes de raisonnement.
               

                  Ne soyons pas, une fois de plus, à la traîne des grands défis qui nous font face. Mettons en place de véritables politiques de rapatriement de nos capacités industrielles. Investissons massivement dans les capacités de production des technologies du futur. Développons des projets industriels ambitieux au niveau européen, où chaque État qui en a la volonté pourra apporter sa pierre à l'édifice.
               

                  Mes chers collègues, les enjeux sont colossaux. Il en va évidemment de notre capacité à être souverains en matière économique, mais, plus largement, il en va de la stabilité de nos sociétés. Alors, soyons à la hauteur et protégeons nos industries.
               

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Madam President, politicians rarely give their opponents advice on how to win elections, but the Irish protests against mass migration actually call for an exception. People are taking to the streets to alert the political establishment of communities overwhelmed, unable to handle the volumes of people entering Ireland. The answer? Labelling opponents ‘far right’. They did the same in Sweden. As the Sweden Democrats entered parliament, the centre-right government made an open borders pact even with the Greens.
Smears instead of solutions is a big reason my party became the leading party right of centre last year in Sweden. I urge the Irish establishment to listen to the people. Avoid Sweden's mistake for the sake of the Irish people, but also for the sake of Europeans. The battle over EU migration policy is right here, right now. Join us in the fight for secure borders and controlled migration, and avoid the fate of those who bitterly cling to open borders.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, since September, the lack of interest in finding answers to who was behind the Nord Stream gas explosion has been, frankly, astounding. This was an act of sabotage, an act of unrivalled vandalism, economically and environmentally. And not a word. No discussion, no questions.
Then along comes Seymour Hersh, the world's most acclaimed, distinguished living investigative journalist. He produces a detailed claim that the United States executed this explosion with the help of Norway. Planned months before the invasion, a Norwegian navy P-8 surveillance plane dropped a sonobuoy on 26 September, which triggered explosions planted by US navy Panama City divers three months earlier under a NATO exercise, and still nothing.
I don't know what happened, but I want to know. This is a man who doesn't make claims lightly. A man with contacts. And I find it, frankly, jaw dropping that the EU is not asking questions as to who is responsible for sabotaging the livelihoods of our citizens. I am ashamed to be a European.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já se chci připojit k mému kolegovi Ștefănuțovi a jednoznačně důrazně odsoudit ruské aktivity, které nyní směřují vůči Moldavsku. To, co dnes pronesla prezidentka tohoto státu Maia Sanduová, je skutečně mimořádně závažné a není důvod jí nevěřit.
               

                  Všichni víme, že Rusko má s touto zemí dlouhodobé plány. Představa násilného převratu v zemi, zostření situace konfliktu, přenesení konfliktu ještě do další země, destabilizace celého regionu, nepochybně okupace Podněstří, to jsou prostě velká rizika, která my musíme dnes důrazně odmítnout.
               

                  Moldavsko svobodně nastoupilo svoji evropskou cestu. My musíme udělat všechno pro to, abychom Rusko od případné agrese odvrátili a zároveň jednoznačně ubezpečili Moldavsko, že má plnou naši podporu a jeho budoucnost je u nás v Evropské unii.
               

Vlad-Marius Botoș (Renew). – Doamna președintă, stimați colegi, domnule comisar, avem o strategie europeană de luptă împotriva cancerului, avem planuri și programe pentru a ajuta pacienții și supraviețuitorii acestei boli crunte, dar avem încă diferențe majore de la o țară la alta și chiar de la o regiune la alta în felul cum sunt tratați pacienții.
               

                  Un pacient din România, din țara mea, are mult mai puține șanse de supraviețuire decât un pacient din Germania sau din Italia. Accesul la medicație și la tratamentele de ultimă oră este greu și de multe ori prea costisitor. Informarea, controalele de rutină și prevenția sunt aproape inexistente în zonele sărace, în zonele îndepărtate de marile centre urbane.
               

                  Știu că sănătatea este atributul statelor membre, dar consider că este de datoria noastră să găsim metode de a aduce normalitatea și în regiunile mai puțin dezvoltate, că vorbim de Uniunea Europeană echitabilă, de șanse egale și ne mândrim cu sloganul nostru: ‘Nu lăsăm pe nimeni în urmă!’
               

Patricia Chagnon (ID). – Madame la Présidente, jeudi dernier, j'ai été invitée à participer au congrès annuel de France Grandes Cultures, à Provins, en pleine crise de la filière betteravière.
               

                  L'interdiction brutale de l'utilisation des néonicotinoïdes pour l'enrobage des semences de betterave a comme conséquence l'interdiction brutale et totale de ce pesticide indispensable. Tous les professionnels que j'ai rencontrés sont unanimes: le risque d'effondrement de toute la filière betteravière en France est réel.
               

                  Alors que vous interdisez l'utilisation de certains produits phytosanitaires chez nous, pourquoi autorisez-vous les importations provenant des pays qui les utilisent? Pourquoi, alors que l'on parle de l'importance de l'autosuffisance et de l'indépendance agricoles, tuez-vous l'agriculture française à coups de directives et de décrets?
               

                  Votre stigmatisation de nos agriculteurs est insupportable, tout comme votre soumission au modèle mondialiste est destructrice. Pour nous, nos agriculteurs sont les cœurs battants de nos campagnes, les piliers de la nation et les garants de produits de haute qualité dans les assiettes des français, comme dans celles des consommateurs qui ont la chance de pouvoir consommer les produits français aux quatre coins du monde.
               

Manu Pineda (The Left). – Señora presidenta, la derecha, una vez más, ha bloqueado un debate en este Pleno sobre la brutal represión que sufre el pueblo peruano por protestar contra la destitución de un presidente elegido por el voto popular. Los peruanos están en la calle luchando contra la Constitución del dictador Fujimori, que blinda la corrupción, perpetúa el racismo y permite que las multinacionales sigan expoliando los recursos naturales.
               

                  La semana pasada estuve en Lima en una misión organizada por mi grupo y hemos podido constatar sobre el terreno el resultado de dos meses de gobierno de facto. Casi setenta muertos, cerca de 2 000 heridos, una cantidad desmesurada y creciente de detenidos y desaparecidos, la persecución y criminalización de sindicatos, organizaciones de derechos humanos, campesinos e indígenas y el allanamiento de universidades con tanquetas.
               

                  La Unión Europea no puede mirar para otro lado. Por todo ello, le pedimos que cese toda venta de armamento y material antidisturbios, que están utilizando contra su propio pueblo, y que envíe una misión de alto nivel que denuncie estas violaciones de los derechos humanos.
               

Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, pe 8 decembrie 2022 Consiliul JAI a luat o decizie nedreaptă și discriminatorie, de fapt, un abuz de drept față de extinderea spațiului Schengen pentru România și Bulgaria. Consider că acest abuz de drept trebuie sancționat. De aceea am acționat în această săptămână cu un demers către Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii Europene prin care cer ca această decizie nedreaptă să fie anulată, pentru că este în contradicție totală cu Tratatul Uniunii Europene și legislația Schengen.
               

                  Parlamentul European a obținut dreptul de a fi reclamant privilegiat printr-o decizie a Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene și, de asemenea, doresc ca prin această acțiune la Curtea de Justiție să obțin și calitatea de reclamant privilegiat pentru toți membrii Parlamentului European.
               

                  Dreptul european este într-o continuă evoluție și el se reglează în funcție de deciziile Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene. Să sperăm că vom reuși să ne atingem acest obiectiv.
               

Philippe Olivier (ID). – Madame la Présidente, le plus grand échec de l'Union européenne est d'avoir raté la révolution numérique. Vous n'avez pas vu arriver les data, les portables, les tablettes et l'IA. L'Europe ne dispose ni des GAFAM ni des BATX, et, en matière technologique, vous n'avez à présenter que le piteux et interminable dossier Galileo. Votre réponse, strictement normative, ne nous fait pas rattraper le retard numérique.
               

                  L'irruption de la technologie ChatGPT nous indique la solution. ChatGPT, c'est cette intelligence conversationnelle qui traite les données pour en faire des textes. Elle menace directement Google. Le ticket d'entrée pour cette technologie était financièrement accessible: un milliard, sachant que le prix monte vite.
               

                  La morale de cette histoire, c'est que nous pouvons revenir dans la course numérique si nous savons profiter des interstices technologiques et trouver des innovations révolutionnaires qui contournent les géants du numérique. L'intelligence, nous l'avons, en Europe. Il nous faut une volonté politique et la mobilisation des moyens. C'est cette démarche-là qui doit mobiliser l'Europe.
               

Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, a ação golpista que levou à destituição do Presidente Pedro Castillo, no início de dezembro, no Peru, provocou protestos desde então nesse país. O povo peruano saiu à rua e foi a Lima exigir a demissão de Dina Boluarte, a convocação de eleições antecipadas e a convocação de uma Assembleia Constituinte.
               

                  As manifestações prosseguem, há mais de dois meses, apesar da repressão policial e militar que já provocou dezenas de mortos e centenas de feridos, assim como a perseguição a dirigentes políticos, sindicais e sociais. A brutal repressão sobre as manifestações populares em defesa das liberdades e da democracia só pode merecer condenação e repúdio.
               

                  No Peru, cresce a tomada de consciência dos direitos que não se têm, de que os recursos naturais do país só servem os grandes grupos económicos e que é necessário mudar a Constituição neoliberal de 1993.
               

                  Daqui, reafirmamos a nossa solidariedade para com os trabalhadores e o povo peruano, os comunistas e outras forças progressistas e democráticas, que lutam pelo respeito da vontade popular e pela reposição integral dos direitos e da legalidade democrática.
               

Peter Pollák (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, opäť vás vyzývam, nedajte si pošpiniť svoje meno a zbavte sa strany Smer, ktorá vám robí hanbu. Vylúčte zo svojej frakcie stranu, ktorej predsedá. Fico sa len pred pár dňami vyhrážal policajtom, ktorí vyšetrujú smerácke korupčné kauzy, že ak bude skladať budúcu vládu, urobí s nimi poriadky.
               

                  Keďže vám doteraz nevadilo, že strana Smer dehonestuje princípy demokracie, vysmieva sa ľudským právam, tancuje na hroboch obetí Ukrajiny, šíri Putinovu propagandu, dlhodobo koordinuje svoju činnosť s fašistami, ktorých si vie Fico predstaviť ako svojich ministrov v budúcej vláde. Bez hanby hovorí o partnerských armádach ako o jednotkách Wehrmachtu.
               

                  Keďže to všetko vás nepresvedčilo, tak vás musí presvedčiť o ich vylúčení, že sa Fico vyhráža policajtom, chce zavrieť ústa vyšetrovateľom a udupať spravodlivosť kvôli tomu, lebo policajti vyšetrujú korupciu z čias vlády Fica a Pellegriniho. Vážení sociálni demokrati, ak chcete chrániť svoje meno a povesť, naberte odvahu a vylúčte týchto mafiánov zo svojej frakcie.
               

Alessandro Panza (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, apprendiamo da fonti di stampa che l'ennesima trovata della Commissione è quella di mettere fuori gioco le caldaie a gas.
               

                  Forse la crisi peggiore non è rappresentata dalla guerra in Ucraina, dalla COVID o dall'inflazione, ma è proprio incarnata dalla Commissione europea stessa. Perché dopo aver messo in ginocchio l'automotive europeo, messo sotto attacco la dieta mediterranea e le eccellenze italiane e aperto la via per affossare il mercato immobiliare, adesso vuole togliere ai cittadini quella che per decenni ha dipinto come la fonte di riscaldamento pulita, cioè il metano. Direi che siamo di fronte all'ennesima genialità degli euroburocrati, che come sempre vivono nella loro bolla distaccata dalla realtà, una realtà fatta di bollette sempre più alte e tasse sempre maggiori e sfide quotidiane sempre più ardue per arrivare a fine mese.
               

                  Non oso immaginare la ricaduta economica ed occupazionale di questa roboante idea. Penso sia venuto il momento di tornare con i piedi per terra e strutturare politiche realizzabili con tempistiche realistiche, senza affossare interi comparti e senza che tutti i costi ricadano sui nostri cittadini.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, only last September, Commission President von der Leyen stated that it was ‘paramount to now investigate’ the Nord Stream pipeline attack and that ‘any deliberate disruption of active European energy […] is unacceptable and will lead to the strongest possible response’ – the strongest possible response!
Well, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh, probably the most legendary investigative journalist alive, has just published a report that presents detailed claims that, on President Biden's orders, the U.S., with Norway's help, blew up the Nord Stream pipelines. Hersh has a long track record of journalistic integrity. This was a premeditated terrorist attack on European critical infrastructure. It was also environmental terrorism.
Does the EU care? Do yous need to know who did it? Or do yous want to know? Hersh says the U.S. did it. Did yous ask them? Did yous ask them did they do it? Or do yous not ask them questions anymore? Have we become so subservient, has the EU become so subservient to the US Empire that don't even ask them if they did it? It's really a fucking joke!

Gunnar Beck (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! Ein Gespenst geht um in Europa, das Gespenst der politischen Vernunft. 13 EU-Regierungen wehren sich gegen Masseneinwanderung und fordern eine befestigte EU-Außengrenze – bislang abgetan als ideé fixe sogenannter Rechtsextremer. 13 Mitgliedstaaten – das ist die halbe EU, die jetzt einer Kernforderung unserer ID-Fraktion zustimmt.
               

                  Dies bedeutet erstens: Die Debatte verlagert sich – nicht nur die europäischen Bürger, sondern die Hälfte der EU-Regierungen lehnt desaströse Einwanderung ab.
               

                  Zweitens: Jede Stimme für Parteien wie die AfD, das Rassemblement National, Vlaams Belang, FPÖ und Lega zählt, denn schon jetzt beeinflussen wir Politik in und außerhalb von Regierungen.
               

                  Es ist höchste Zeit, dass der Rat endlich von der Leyens Migrationspakt beerdigt, unsere Außengrenzen schützt und einen klaren Rechtsrahmen schafft, der Pushbacks und Remigration forciert.
               

João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, na semana passada, em Portugal, foram muitos os milhares de trabalhadores que saíram à rua, que se envolveram em processos de lutas diversas.
               

                  No dia nove, houve uma grande jornada de luta com variadas ações por todo o país: greves, paralisações, plenários, marchas e manifestações, enchendo ruas em vários distritos. Saíram à rua por melhores salários, contra a precariedade e o aumento do custo de vida, pela regulação de preços, pelo direito à saúde pública, à habitação. É esta massa imensa de trabalhadores que produz a riqueza do país, que merece uma vida melhor e digna.
               

                  No dia onze, também houve uma grande ação de luta dos professores e educadores, em defesa da escola pública, pela valorização das carreiras e pela recuperação dos anos de progressão roubados.
               

                  Lutas onde estivemos presentes, com que nos solidarizamos, e que são expressão de crescente mobilização dos trabalhadores pelo que é justo, pelo que é seu, por outras políticas que garantam o desenvolvimento soberano dos Estados, os direitos, a justiça e o progresso social.
               

Thierry Mariani (ID). – Madame la Présidente, les relations entre l'Union européenne et le Maroc sont au plus mal.
               

                  Le vote de la résolution du Parlement européen remettant en cause la décision de la justice marocaine au sujet d'Omar Radi a été le détonateur d'une crise qui couvait depuis longtemps. Alors que le Royaume du Maroc est un pilier de notre politique en Afrique et en Méditerranée, cette situation est particulièrement inquiétante.
               

                  À l'heure où toutes les réunions sont analysées pour savoir si elle relève ou non de l'ingérence étrangère, je note par ailleurs que le groupe d'études sur le Sahara occidental continue à promouvoir régulièrement les thèses du Front Polisario et à relayer celles de l'Algérie dans cette partie du monde.
               

                  Après les événements judiciaires de ce week-end, la commission paritaire UE-Maroc n'est plus dans les conditions de poursuivre son travail. Il est absolument nécessaire que le Parlement nomme vite un nouveau co-président. La dernière réunion de cette commission remonte à mai 2022 et elle serait aujourd'hui particulièrement utile pour que la diplomatie parlementaire puisse jouer son rôle au milieu des tensions.
               

                  Notre relation avec le Maroc est essentielle au plan migratoire, économique, sécuritaire et géopolitique. Nous devons absolument la préserver et renouer le dialogue.
               

Die Präsidentin. – Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen.
               
19.   Agenda of the next sitting

Die Präsidentin. – Die nächste Sitzung findet morgen, Dienstag, den 14. Februar 2023, um 9.00 Uhr statt.
               

                  Die Tagesordnung wurde veröffentlicht und ist auf der Website des Europäischen Parlaments verfügbar.
               
20.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting

Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament morgen zu Beginn der Nachmittagssitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt.
               
21.   Closure of the sitting

Die Präsidentin. – Die Sitzung ist damit geschlossen. Ich wünsche allen noch einen schönen Abend und eine gute Nacht.
               

(Die Sitzung wird um 23.14 Uhr geschlossen)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)