Ausführliche Sitzungsberichte

Mittwoch, 22. Juni 2022 - Brüssel

19. Umsetzung der Aufbau- und Resilienzfazilität (Aussprache)

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureşan und Dragoş Pîslaru im Namen des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung über die Umsetzung der Aufbau- und Resilienzfazilität (2021/2251(INI)) (A9-0171/2022).

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, ponente. – Señora presidenta, comisario Gentiloni, la Comisión tiene que presentar antes del 31 de julio la evaluación sobre el Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia. Y con este informe del Parlamento Europeo pretendemos contribuir de manera constructiva a dicha evaluación.

Es cierto que apenas llevamos un año en la ejecución de los planes de recuperación, pero creo que los datos de los que disponemos hasta el momento pueden ser considerados como bastante positivos.

La respuesta a la crisis ha sido, a diferencia de en 2008, contundente, coordinada y sobre todo innovadora, superando muchas barreras y rompiendo algunos tabúes. Porque no solo decidimos crear un fondo de casi 700 000 millones EUR, sino que ese fondo ha sido financiado con deuda europea y, además, será reembolsado con nuevos impuestos europeos. Es decir, un fondo que aplica una doble solidaridad tanto por el gasto como por el ingreso. Y esta vez sí, la Unión ha demostrado su claro compromiso con sus ciudadanos, sus empresas y sus territorios.

El fondo ya ha tenido y tendrá efectos muy positivos en las economías de nuestros países. Está dando estabilidad a nuestras economías y está permitiendo mantener altos niveles de inversión en un momento de gran incertidumbre mundial. La pandemia primero y la guerra después han sacudido muchas de nuestras estructuras organizativas y, sobre todo, han puesto de manifiesto la necesidad de una autonomía estratégica en las cadenas de suministro esenciales, en los servicios críticos y en las infraestructuras.

Este fondo no es la solución de todas nuestras necesidades, pero sí que está poniendo una base muy sólida gracias a las reformas e inversiones que se están financiando.

Acertamos cuando, como Parlamento, propusimos añadir a los objetivos de transición verde y digital cuatro pilares más que se han centrado en la economía, en la cohesión social y territorial, en la salud y la resiliencia institucional y, por supuesto, en medidas de apoyo y protección para nuestros niños y jóvenes.

Los seis pilares se han traducido, por ejemplo, en un objetivo ecológico del 37 %, que seguiremos muy de cerca para que sea real, algo que por el momento parece que puede estar en duda, y en un objetivo digital del 20 %, que ha sido superado con creces con los planes presentados y llegamos casi al 30 %, gracias al que pymes, servicios públicos o el sector sanitario se están viendo beneficiados.

En el ámbito social, según las estimaciones de la Comisión, estamos alrededor del 20 % del gasto, lo que no es un mal dato y gracias a él se están financiando, por ejemplo, incentivos al empleo para grupos desfavorecidos o se están modificando legislaciones laborales para dar mayor protección, calidad y estabilidad en los empleos.

Pero también hemos detectado que algunos Gobiernos no han tenido suficientemente en cuenta las repercusiones socioeconómicas de la pandemia ni en las mujeres ni en los grupos más vulnerables y que, por lo tanto, no han calibrado bien la dimensión social de sus planes.

Los sistemas sanitarios también se están viendo beneficiados por la inversión europea, con una notable mejora de la infraestructura hospitalaria, el refuerzo de la atención primaria y la prevención. Pero hay que dar un tirón de orejas aquí, por la falta de compromiso con la salud mental. Esto tiene que ser una prioridad europea.

Y me gustaría acabar con dos puntos transversales que considero esenciales. Primero, el respeto al Estado de Derecho. Este Parlamento se ha posicionado muy claramente —los Estados miembros tienen que cumplir con todas y cada una de las obligaciones derivadas del Estado de Derecho— y ha sido contundente en que no se deberían aprobar los planes de recuperación de los países que no cumplen.

Es el caso de Hungría y era el caso de Polonia, aunque aquí tanto la Comisión como el Consejo opinan que sí se dan las condiciones para seguir adelante, algo que como Parlamento no compartimos, y lo vuelvo a repetir: ni un solo euro desembolsado hasta que todas las medidas acordadas se hayan ejecutado.

Este es un tema de máxima prioridad e importancia para el Parlamento, para mi Grupo y en especial para mí, como ponente de los dos Reglamentos en materia de recuperación y resiliencia, pero también el de la condicionalidad presupuestaria en relación con el respeto al Estado de Derecho.

Y segundo punto, el nuevo escenario tras la invasión rusa a Ucrania. El impacto de la guerra se está traduciendo en millones de refugiados que tenemos que acoger, en tasas de inflación muy altas, en precios de la energía por las nubes. Esto añade mucha más presión a la situación creada por la pandemia.

Cuando negociamos este Mecanismo, éramos conscientes de la necesidad de una transición verde por ecología, pero también por economía. Hoy la urgencia es más evidente: por las olas de calor, por el precio del gas y por la necesidad de desconectarnos de Rusia. Y, con el REPowerEU, intentaremos ajustar necesidades con financiación disponible para maximizar el impacto, pero no nos hagamos trampas, no hay mucho más dinero. Es casi el mismo presupuesto y los presupuestos europeos también están al límite.

En pandemia hicimos lo más difícil: cambiar nuestro paradigma. Reflexionemos ahora juntos sobre cómo construir una nueva arquitectura financiera basándonos en estos últimos pasos que tan fructíferamente hemos dado todos juntos.

  Siegfried Mureşan, rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner Gentiloni, dear colleagues, the European Recovery and Resilience Facility is the biggest package of economic support ever launched at European level: EUR 672.5 billion for the people affected by the pandemic, for enterprises and regions affected by the healthcare crisis and by the economic and social consequences.

We have together adopted legislation one year ago, and since then 26 of the 27 Member States of the Union have put forward their national recovery plans, and 22 of the 27 Member States have received the 13% pre-financing before the end of last year and are now in the process of implementing the plans and presenting the milestones and targets fulfilled to the European institutions and are also in the process of receiving the next tranches.

This instrument was launched to help those affected by the pandemic, but also to improve the resilience of our economies, of our public systems, to make our hospitals more modern, to enlarge capacities, to digitalise the education system. We have established clear rules at European level – a clear direction, six pillars into which money can flow, clear rules at European level – but also allowed for flexibility for the priorities of Member States, knowing that the needs differ from Member State to Member State.

Eider Gardiazabal, Dragoş Pîslaru and myself as the three co-rapporteurs are putting now before this House the first implementation report in which we are issuing the opinion of the Parliament on the plans, on the assessment done by the European Commission and the process so far. And we are concluding that the Recovery and Resilience Facility has already made a positive contribution to the recovery of the European economy following COVID. It already has a positive contribution to the development of our economies, upon growth, and we expect its impact upon growth and upon job creation to increase in the months to come.

Once adopted, a national plan needs to be implemented. It should not be changed and amended on a permanent basis. This is why, in the European legislation, we have allowed for amendments and changes to the plans only on an objective basis. No to political changes. But the illegitimate invasion of Russian armed forces into Ukraine changes a lot in the European economy. And this is why if Member States intend to make investments in improving energy efficiency, reducing dependency on Russia, investing in renewables, in new sources of energy, in energy infrastructure in the Member State, in a way in which this helps the whole European Union, I believe we should facilitate this.

Food safety, food security: we have also seen we will be missing imports of agricultural products from Ukraine. We have to do everything we can to increase production here at home, at European level. If Member States intend to amend their plans into these directions, I believe we should be open.

Our report underlines that this is an instrument for investments, but also reforms, and it underlines that the implementation of the country—specific recommendations, of the reforms agreed by the Commission and the governments, will strengthen the economies, will make them more resilient. We would like to see more cross-border projects, particularly in the area of energy, because this will help us to bring the energy from where we have it to where we need it.

Commissioner, we will also work with the Commission and with the governments of Member States to make sure that the loans which were not yet accessed by some Member States will be accessed and preferably in areas which are linked to reducing the energy dependence.

The European Parliament also expects that local and regional authorities be involved properly, because the amounts of money are big, the time is short. The Recovery and Resilience Facility can much better be implemented together with local and regional authorities.

And one last thing: transparency and control. The European Union will spend more money than ever from its traditional budget and from the Recovery and Resilience Facility in the next years together. The more we spend, the more we need to make sure that money really reaches the beneficiaries for which it is intended; strong goals for the European Public Prosecutor, for OLAF, Europol, Eurojust, to make sure that money really reaches people in need and that the rule of law is observed before any payment is made from the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

We are united as a Parliament. Thank you, Eider, thank you Dragoş for the very good cooperation. Many thanks to the shadow rapporteurs of the other groups as well.

  Dragoş Pîslaru, rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner Gentiloni, dear colleagues, it is indeed a great privilege to see that today the Parliament takes one step further in ensuring, first and foremost, democratic accountability as a solid principle at the core of the largest financial instruments that the EU has ever seen.

The Recovery and Resilience Facility marks, and will mark for the generations that follow, a new chapter in the history of our European Union. It is indeed a beautiful symbol of solidarity in one of our darkest times, showing that only united we can emerge more resilient following crises such as the pandemic. It puts forward a new concept in EU funds that blends reforms with investments and guides EU Member States in how best to invest the allocated funds. And it has created ownership on responding to the country-specific recommendations that were not taken on board by Member States for years beforehand. It’s also setting the ambition higher for our economic governance framework in showing that the Parliament can and should have a greater role to play.

Back in 2020, this House stood united in negotiation with an amazing negotiation team of our rapporteurs and shadows. And we have been demanding at that time things that right now are already in regulation and in course of implementation. The Member States have been asked to draft the recovery and resilience plans in a balanced way, including measures on six pillars, also demanding from Parliament side that there will be proper consultations with stakeholders in the drafting and implementation of plans and, as has been underlined by my colleague, co-rapporteurs, demanding transparency in how money should be spent, highlighting beneficiaries, creating proper control mechanisms and setting up monitoring too.

We are right now halfway through this Facility, which we decided back then we would make it last until 2023. Where do we stand on the points that we so much defended? Until now, the Parliament had many initiatives to ensure the proper and effective implementation of the Facility. We organised, as you well know, several plenary debates, drafted several resolutions, expressing our position on key moments in its evolution. We organised much-needed recovery and resilience dialogues with Vice-President Dombrovskis and Commissioner Gentiloni and held recurrent RRF working groups, meetings and discussions with Commission representatives and civil society organisations.

Now in this initiative that we have today debated, related to our own implementation report, it’s an analysis on how we see the progress Member States registered so far. And together with my dear colleagues, Siegfried Mureşan from the EPP and Eider Gardiazabal Rubial from the S&D, together with all the shadows, we produced an extensive analysis on the current state of play.

We are glad to see that Member States made the effort and submitted their plans. It was not an easy task. We knew from the beginning that drafting a plan of reforms and investments will be a complex task with a lot of pressure and a lot of expectations. We are glad that almost all plans managed to obtain approval. But do not forget: a plan must never be approved at any cost. Always remember that EU values are essential, non-negotiable, and they must set the foundation of each action, project, reform or investment that uses EU funds.

The plans are much more than paperwork to justify the money. The plans in several Member States are a roadmap to development to further expand and develop their economies. The plans are the ways to launch important social reforms. The plans are important steps in being sure that children and youth are taken care of with enough attention. We have read many good ideas in the plans. We have seen investment that could easily be scaled up in other Member States.

But I just wanted to say that I am also having things that we could have done better. For instance, too many plans do not properly reflect the ambition set by the European Child Guarantee, and they reflect only partially those of the Reinforced Youth Guarantee. And there are even two Member States that have chosen not to include in their plans measures specifically dedicated to children and youth, but prefer to present measures that foster only skills and digital skills for all citizens.

We are living in challenging times, which require both unity and flexibility. Unity also means inclusiveness and Member States did little or not too much to include local and regional authorities, civil society organisations, social partners, academia or other relevant stakeholders in the design of the plans. Governments have now the chance, the opportunity, to prove that the implementation of the plans is done together with the stakeholders, in order to involve them in implementation and monitoring, based on clear and transparent principles.

And then flexibility. The current situation in Ukraine is having a heavy impact on energy prices and the need to strengthen this energy security. All these elements can be achieved through REPowerEU, a necessary instrument, which Member States will be able to add in their planned measures to achieve energy sovereignty and independence.

Finally, and I would like to end here, we need to choose if the RRF will be just the story or a legacy. And I think that right now the Parliament is doing that and we are doing since we started the work on the RRF, and all this work can be continued if the Parliament gains an increased role in future EU initiatives.

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, we jointly created the RRF to face the economic and social impacts of the pandemic. Today we face a new crisis provoked by Russia. Inflation has reached a record high, hitting both consumers and businesses across Europe. And we see a major increase in prices, especially in energy and raw materials. So we have to monitor closely the impact of these developments on RRF implementation.

But let me say very clearly that the situation confirms the importance and the timeliness of the Facility. The RRF ensures that the Union acts as one in such difficult times, creating effective and aligned measures to boost investments and reforms across all Member States. And this is especially important with the low level of growth that we have in these months. Of course, it is not easy to deliver under such a short time frame. As your report highlights, the Commission must and will closely monitor Member States’ progress in implementing the plans. And we will only disburse funds when Member States fulfil the milestones and targets they have committed to.

Overall, the RRF is supporting the green transition by allocating almost 40% of national plans to the climate and financing only measures that do no significant harm to the environment. Digitalisation is also crucial, with over well over 20% of the funds. The plans also contribute to social objectives and the implementation of the pillar of social rights. Around 30% of funds contribute to social expenditure for education, labour market, health and skills. So a swift implementation of measures across the six pillars of the regulation is key, and Member States are acting on all six pillars.

When looking back at the progress made so far, we have almost EUR 100 billion in RRF funds disbursed and EUR 114 billion issued in just one year. We can proudly say that implementation is well on track and I am happy that your implementation report expresses the same view. It acknowledges the work done by Member States and the EU institutions to bring the RRF to life, and I am glad that the Parliament has found our Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard and the first RRF annual report useful.

We take note of the Parliament’s call for better communication in the Member States. We will take up this call with our interlocutors in the Member States and discuss how each can be more transparent and proactive in communicating the implementation and the content of their plans with the stakeholders.

I would like to reaffirm that we will make no compromise when it comes to the protection of the Union’s financial interests. This is why we must also protect the Union’s budget against breaches of the rule of law. As you know, a few weeks ago we published our assessment of the Polish plan. The Commission has worked closely with the Polish authorities for more than one year since the submission of the plan and scrutinised each measure. Poland has committed to strengthen important aspects of the independence of the judiciary.

To leave no ambiguity on the matter, when the Council adopts a plan the real work begins. Poland needs to deliver on its commitments on the rule of law before any payment can be made. The positive assessment and adoption of the plan does not lead in itself to any disbursement. We will also continue to address rule of law issues through other instruments specifically designed for this purpose.

Let me end now with a glimpse to REPowerEU. You have seen the proposal for which we want to use the power and the available loan capacity of the RRF, as well as additional funds, to swiftly and effectively strengthen Europe’s open strategic autonomy, wean ourselves off Russian fossil fuels, support renewables, and reduce energy consumption overall. So I look forward to hearing your views also on REPowerEU during this debate, and to work with you in the coming months to bring this important proposal to life.

  Isabel García Muñoz, ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Control Presupuestario. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, en 2020 la Unión Europea estuvo a la altura y frente a una crisis sanitaria, económica y social sin precedentes, concibió los fondos Next Generation EU y el Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia como una oportunidad única para impulsar la recuperación de Europa; esta vez sin dejar a nadie atrás.

Ahora son los Estados miembros los que tienen que demostrar que están a la altura, cumpliendo sus planes de reformas nacionales aprobados por la Comisión. Y a medida que los países alcanzan los objetivos fijados en esos planes, la Comisión debe garantizar que las ayudas siguen llegando.

Es imprescindible que se lleve a cabo de una forma rápida, pero esto no quiere decir que tenga que haber menos control. La implementación del Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia debe ser transparente, eficaz y rigurosa, para lo que necesita mecanismos de vigilancia y control que aseguren que el dinero se utiliza según las reglas establecidas y que ni un solo euro se pierde por culpa del fraude o la corrupción. Solo así sacaremos el máximo provecho a los fondos para la recuperación, lograremos la transición ecológica y digital de Europa y mantendremos la confianza de los ciudadanos.

Con estos objetivos, desde el Parlamento, continuaremos realizando la supervisión democrática del mecanismo que nos corresponde.

  Niklas Nienaß, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. –Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, if we take a look back to the hard times when COVID hit us the first time, we remember probably two distinguished moments. One was when all cultural entities were closed, the other one was when schools were closed. I think those are the two most prominent and also the hardest hit structural entities that we see.

The cultural sector makes up 4.4% of Europe’s GDP. Over 8.7 million people are employed in the cultural sector. Every child goes to school, thankfully, but still we have asked for 2% of the RF to be spent on culture and 10% in education. We had to follow up on this, and see that this has not been done across Europe – the problem there being that some Member States actually invest money in culture and education while others don’t. They have not followed Parliament’s proposal to do the rightful investments, and what we see now is underfunded cultural entities in several Member States, especially those where freedom of speech is threatened by other means.

We are seeing a recovery of different speeds. We see Member States like Italy that have invested heavily in culture and others that have invested nothing and we know that this threatens the European diversity of culture. This has to be reversed, and therefore we are calling on the Commission to reuse the unused RF resources for culture and education to make sure that every European can enjoy diversity and can enjoy very well education.

  José Manuel Fernandes, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caras e Caros Colegas, os planos de recuperação e resiliência em termos de subvenções correspondem a 338 mil milhões de EUR que resultam de uma dívida que a Comissão Europeia fez. Isto significa que os nossos governantes têm de agir com responsabilidade. Tem de valer a pena. Isto é um esforço de solidariedade que, se necessário, deverá repetir-se no futuro. Para isso, esta ação e os resultados têm de acontecer e têm de ser positivos.

Por isso, é necessária uma maior execução. No meu Estado-Membro, Portugal, em 2021, recebemos 2100 milhões de EUR e executamos 90 milhões de EUR e há Estados-Membros que têm uma execução ainda pior do que esta. Para além disso, é necessário assegurar que não há substituição de despesa, que os PRR não substituem o Orçamento de Estado. Os PRR têm de ser adicionais e também não podem promover o centralismo ou concentração, quer em termos de investimentos no território, quer em termos de investimentos numa mesma empresa. É necessário que haja coesão territorial e que estes montantes sejam também eles bem distribuídos.

Por fim, termino com uma pergunta: há Estados-Membros que vão receber mais do que aquilo que estava previsto, porque reagiram de uma forma pior, digamos assim, e responderam pior à crise. O meu país, por exemplo, vai receber cerca de 1600 milhões de EUR adicionais, que vão ser somados aos 13,9 mil milhões de EUR em termos de subvenções. Significa que os programas de recuperação e resiliência vão ser mudados. A Comissão vai participar nestas alterações face à guerra e às novas exigências? Vai direcioná-los? É uma pergunta para a qual nós precisamos também de uma resposta, porque a Comissão Europeia tem de fazer cumprir o regulamento e tem de atender à nova realidade decorrente da situação que vivemos.

  Costas Mavrides, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, the Commissioner will need his headphones.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο μηχανισμός ανάκαμψης δημιουργήθηκε για αντιμετώπιση των επιπτώσεων της πανδημίας. Είχε πρωτόγνωρα χαρακτηριστικά και αντικατοπτρίζει ουσιαστικά την αλληλεγγύη και τη δυνατότητα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Και στο σημερινό ψήφισμα επισημαίνουμε τη σημαντική θετική επιρροή του, αλλά παραθέτουμε και στοιχεία για σωστή βελτίωση της επιτυχίας του, όπως είναι ο κοινωνικός πυλώνας με ποσοτικά κριτήρια, η αναθεώρηση των κριτηρίων για τα δάνεια και η συμμετοχή των κοινωνικών εταίρων με αποτελεσματικό τρόπο. Τέλος, τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν να διασφαλίσουν ότι η χρηματοδότηση θα φτάνει με ισότιμο τρόπο σε όλους, και ιδιαίτερα τους μικρούς και αδυνάτους.

Ακούγοντάς σας προηγουμένως διαπίστωσα ότι σωστά έχετε επισημάνει τις επιπτώσεις από τις κυρώσεις και την εισβολή της Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία. Ο μηχανισμός αυτός μπορεί να βοηθήσει μερικώς, για παράδειγμα με επενδύσεις στις εγχώριες πηγές ενέργειας, αλλά δεν αρκεί αυτό. Ο μηχανισμός σχεδιάστηκε για τις επιπτώσεις της πανδημίας και οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες αναμένουν παρόμοια αποφασιστική παρέμβαση βασισμένη στην αλληλεγγύη. Διαφορετικά, και τελειώνω, το οικονομικό και κοινωνικό κόστος θα διογκώνεται και η οργή των πολιτών θα διογκώνεται εναντίον μας για την απάθεια μας.

  Luis Garicano, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, it’s good to see Mr Gentiloni. Two years ago, we had to shut down all our social and economic activity to fight this awful disease, and our workers and entrepreneurs wondered if they could make it through the shock. But this time, Europe rose to the task. It had long been considered unthinkable for the European Union to issue common joint debt. But it did this time. And many workers today have a job, thanks to the SURE programme financed by the European Union. And many businesses survived thanks to the liquidity provided by Europe. And many workers will go back to work thanks to this Recovery and Resilience Facility that we examine today.

And it is precisely because issuing debt together is so unprecedented that we must succeed. The Commission must ensure, Mr Gentiloni, that the Recovery Facility is used to make our economies stronger and more resilient, and that our citizens are freer and our values are respected. Unfortunately, Mr Commissioner, the Commission has sometimes come up short in this task.

Three examples: first, the Commission gave the highest grades to most recovery plans on exactly the same old criteria, the same one in all of them, and the lower grade in most plans to the exact same other criteria. I don’t know, I’ve graded lots of exams and I’ve never seen that. Second, amidst massive internal disagreement, the Commission just a couple of weeks ago approved the Polish recovery plan, taking at face value the promises – very deceptive promises, I’m afraid – of the Polish Government. And third, the Commission has approved a change in the Spanish pensions that reverses the reforms led by the European Commission 10 years ago to make them sustainable.

Commissioner, we really understand the pressure that the Commission, that you all are under. But for this Recovery and Resilience Facility to succeed, the Commission must do its job. We must make future generations of Europeans proud of what we do here today.

  Damian Boeselager, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I was informed there would be additional speaking time because my colleague Ernest Urtasun cannot come, so it will be a bit longer.

The Recovery Fund negotiations were extremely intense – and I can still feel parts of this mini—trauma when I see the colleagues here, because of all the all—night sessions that we spent – but they have also been extremely successful. For the first time ever, the European Union decided to take up common debt of such as size to invest us out of the Corona pandemic crisis and all the horrible social and economic effects that ensued. With a large majority in this House, we decided that we wouldn’t just build back in any way, but that we would build back better, that we would build back by fuelling the green transition, by fuelling the digital transition, by making sure that we have new standards for green investment when we do that, and that we also apply this new standard for green investment to cohesion funds.

Since then, actually, a lot of remarkable things have happened. We have seen countries implement reforms that have not been tabled for years. We have seen a lot of countries with very good and innovative ideas of how to actually do this green and digital transition. And we have seen that and we have also fought for the fact that no euro should actually go into any form of spending that would harm the environment.

That’s the positive side. But we have also obviously seen some issues and I think it’s really important that we point them out so that we can address them and also learn for the future. Some countries still did greenwashing, and I can name Germany with their hybrid cars is one example. Some Member States refuse to adhere to the necessary safeguards for our European taxpayers’ money when it comes to, for example, the rule of law. We have talked about this in the last session, obviously in the case of Poland, but also when it comes to corruption.

  President. – Excuse me just for a second. I have been informed that the additional speaking time has been given to Mr Boeselager.

  Damian Boeselager, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – So then I will wrap up very quickly. So what can we learn from this? I think we need more parliamentary oversight – that’s clear – so that such things can’t happen, like the Polish recovery plan. We need to make sure that we turn the tool into a permanent tool because we can see that new crises are coming up and we need a permanent fiscal architecture to be able to address the challenges that are coming. And we need to make sure that all conditionality, when it comes to the rule of law and green spending, are upheld.

Thank you very much for that additional time.

  Antonio Maria Rinaldi, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario Gentiloni, ritengo che allo stato attuale il Recovery and Resilience Facility abbia questi vulnus.

Primo: un modesto impatto di crescita per effetto degli investimenti programmati, così come nel rapporto del working group sull'RRF, e procedure troppo burocratiche.

Secondo: condizionalità troppo stringenti e scarsa flessibilità per ottenere finanziamenti, che hanno indotto molti paesi membri ad utilizzare spese in deficit invece di chiedere i prestiti.

Terzo: indisponibilità delle istituzioni a ricalibrare gli obiettivi ambientali del Recovery in modo che siano realisticamente sostenibili per garantire un'effettiva sicurezza energetica europea, avendo seguito eccessivamente l'ideologia green, la quale rischia di esacerbare le problematiche socioeconomiche, con l'amara prospettiva di essere ancora più dipendenti dalla Cina.

Pertanto auspico che l'RRF venga maggiormente implementato da RepowerEU, unitamente alla ridefinizione di obiettivi sostenibili e di uno snellimento delle procedure attuative, in modo da consentire ai paesi di riformulare i rispettivi PNRR rendendoli effettivamente realizzabili.

  Johan Van Overtveldt, namens de ECR-Fractie. – President, Commissioner, colleagues, het zijn onzekere tijden. De ene crisis volgt op de andere en niemand weet wat we de komende tijd nog mogen verwachten. En de mens doet in zulke gevallen wat hij of zij het beste kan, namelijk zich aanpassen. Op Europees vlak hebben we een herstelplan toegevoegd aan het meerjarig investeringskader. Dat herstelplan zal ook dienen voor een nieuwe focus op onze gezamenlijke energieonafhankelijkheid met REPowerEU. U wees er zelf op, commissaris, om dit actief in dit debat te betrekken.

De middelen die we hebben, zijn beperkt en dus moeten we ze uitgeven waar we als collectief het meeste rendement hebben. De EU moet zich dus concentreren op die domeinen – en dat zijn er heel wat – waar ze het verschil kan maken. In dat opzicht is die nadruk op energieonafhankelijkheid een zeer goede zaak.

Daarnaast roept REPowerEU toch ook op tot een versnelde groene transitie. En hier moeten we toch iets in ogenschouw nemen wat vandaag belangrijk is. De huidige inflatie wordt niet enkel gedreven door de stijgende prijs van fossiele brandstoffen en door de verstoring van de globale aanvoerlijnen als gevolg van de pandemie. We hebben ook te maken met greenflation, namelijk de opwaartse druk op het prijsniveau, juist door die transitie. Het gaat dan niet in het minst om alsmaar stijgende grondstoffenprijzen, zeker van broodnodige zeldzame metalen en mineralen.

Het Internationaal Energieagentschap, het IMF en de Wereldbank zijn eensluidend in hun conclusies: deze prijsstijgingen zullen zich nog een tijd doorzetten. Wat mij betreft, zijn de blinde verhogingen van klimaatdoelstellingen contraproductief. Ik vind het een beetje zorgwekkend dat bepaalde groepen in het Parlement zichzelf blijven verliezen in een opbod aan klimaatdoelstellingen. Die torenhoge ambitie zal de burger straks tegenkomen in de vorm van hogere lasten. En dat op een moment dat de koopkracht al, om een eufemisme te gebruiken, zwaar onder druk staat.

Ik zou de Commissie dan ook willen vragen verder de nadruk te blijven leggen op energieonafhankelijkheid en dus niet om de crisis aan te grijpen om de groene transitie te versnellen, met nog steeds verder stijgende prijzen als gevolg.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας είναι ένα σημαντικό θετικό βήμα στην ιστορία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, κύριε Gentiloni, και γι’ αυτό πρέπει να πετύχει. Και για να πετύχει πρέπει όλες οι κυβερνήσεις να καταλάβουν ότι αυτά τα χρήματα ανήκουν στους πολίτες και όχι στα κόμματα που κυβερνούν. Και πρέπει να πάνε για τους σκοπούς που έχουν διατεθεί, που σημαίνει σχέδιο, έλεγχοι, λογοδοσία, διαφάνεια, μακριά από πελατειακά δίκτυα και διαφθορά. Αυτά τα λεφτά να μην πάνε σε ολιγάρχες, αλλά να πάνε για την πράσινη και την ψηφιακή μετάβαση, για την ενίσχυση του κοινωνικού κράτους, της δημόσιας υγείας, για τη μείωση των ανισοτήτων, για τη στήριξη της απασχόλησης και ιδιαίτερα των νέων, για τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, που πρέπει να αντέξουν. Και να ξέρουμε ότι αυτά τα χρήματα είναι λίγα σε μια περίοδο με πληθωρισμό, πόλεμο, κίνδυνο ύφεσης και στασιμοπληθωρισμού.

Γι’ αυτό το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης πρέπει να πετύχει για να γίνει ένα μόνιμο εργαλείο, και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και η Επιτροπή πρέπει να προτείνουν και τέτοια νέα εργαλεία. Όπως για την πανδημία, έχουμε το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας για την αντιμετώπιση του πληθωρισμού και των αρνητικών συνεπειών του πολέμου. Χρειαζόμαστε νέα εργαλεία, και όχι να κλέβουμε λεφτά από το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης για να χρηματοδοτήσουμε το REPower EU.

  Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, o mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência é um dos motores da recuperação económica que queremos para a Europa. Não é, porém, o único. O compromisso dos governos nacionais com mais e melhor investimento público é igualmente essencial.

Por isso, espanta-me ver tantas reticências por parte de alguns chefes de governo sobre a revisão das regras de governação económica. Talvez seja egoísmo de uns ou oportunismo de outros. Talvez uns queiram agradar ao eleitorado. Talvez outros estejam mais preocupados com a Presidência do Conselho Europeu. Podemos discutir a suficiência e os prazos do mecanismo, mas não devemos perder tempo, que poderia ser investido na execução dos planos nacionais. Muitos deles estão atrasados.

Todo o debate tem o seu tempo e devemos, por isso, explorar primeiro todas as oportunidades de um mecanismo que ainda nem sequer foi chamado a emprestar todos os fundos que tem.

  Irene Tinagli (S&D). – Madam President, the reality around us, from the Russian aggression to the turbulence on the energy market, confirmed the genuine need for the Recovery Fund. Many of the decisions that we took during the negotiations, from the inception of the European instrument to avoid internal market fragmentation to fostering the renewables in the energy mix, were forward-looking, and the Parliament largely contributed to it. So I think this is something we need to learn from what we’ve done and be happy about it, but we also believe that further action is needed.

Fiscal capacity at the European level is currently missing. That’s something that would allow us to cope with external shocks like the Russian aggression, for example. REPowerEU represents a very good opportunity, absolutely. It’s an opportunity to drastically accelerate our energy transition and increase Europe’s energy independence. But its swift deployment is possible thanks to previous decisions taken in terms of budget and own resources. What would happen if we had new crises coming up? We wouldn’t have new tools. We wouldn’t have resources. That’s why I think we need to move forward. We need to complete our economic and monetary union, because when we are united and look forward, we are capable of great things. But we just need the tools.

  Valérie Hayer (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, parce qu’imaginé pour la première fois, le plan de relance européen était perçu comme politiquement infaisable. Et pourtant, nous l’avons fait. Et depuis son lancement, les effets sur notre croissance, sur notre PIB, sont significatifs. Le financement de «MaPrimeRénov'» ou du Ségur de la santé en France, la modernisation des hôpitaux en Roumanie, des lignes à grande vitesse en Italie: c’est du très concret pour les Européens.

Néanmoins, ces réussites ne sont pas le fruit du hasard. Si le plan de relance est un succès, c’est parce que les États qui en bénéficient partagent une chose en commun, Monsieur le Commissaire: ils ont respecté les objectifs et les conditions fixées en commun pour recevoir cet argent. Certains se sont engagés sur la voie de réformes courageuses et historiques. Ils ont respecté ce qu’ils avaient promis à leurs partenaires.

Aujourd’hui, Monsieur le Commissaire, la Pologne ne respecte pas les conditions qui lui ont été assignées, notamment par la présidente de la Commission européenne elle-même – réengagement des juges démis de leurs fonctions de manière arbitraire; fin de la réforme judiciaire; abolition de la chambre disciplinaire ou de toute autre instance similaire. Et donc nous, au Parlement européen, restons déterminés – et particulièrement chez Renew. Pas un seul euro ne doit finir dans la poche de ceux qui détricotent les institutions démocratiques de la Pologne qui ont été si durement arrachées à l’Histoire. Il en va de même pour la Hongrie, bien sûr.

Chers collègues, le plan de relance européen est une réussite, c’est incontestable. Nous devons désormais le parachever en finalisant les ressources propres pour son remboursement et en empêchant qu’il soit versé à ceux qui s’obstinent à ne pas respecter les valeurs qui fondent notre Union – Union qui est à l’origine de ces fonds.

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, NextGenerationEU, ook wel het coronaherstelfonds genoemd, is voor Nederland een sigaar uit eigen doos. De kern van het fonds bestaat uit de herstel- en veerkrachtfaciliteit en aangezien die is opgericht naar aanleiding van de coronacrisis zou men denken dat dat geld ten goede komt aan de zorg, aan onderzoek en ziektebestrijding. Maar wat staat er in de nationale herstelplannen? Frankrijk krijgt 41 miljard EUR en gebruikt het geld om bedrijven financiële steun te verlenen. Ook zijn er fiscale voordelen voor Fransen opgetuigd. Italië krijgt 69 miljard EUR en gebruikt het om huizen te isoleren en snel internet aan te leggen.

En Nederland? Wij krijgen 4,6 miljard, te besteden aan wat windmolens op zee en een heilloze investering als stikstofreductie, geconditioneerd met het beperken van de hypotheekrenteaftrek en de zelfstandigenaftrek.

Het ERF is geen coronafonds. Het is een herverdelingsfonds en een opmaat naar een transferunie, en een hoge prijs die Nederlanders betalen voor Europese solidariteit.

  José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, se há algum problema com a ambição climática do Fundo de Recuperação e Resiliência é a falta de ambição e não os sucessos. Infelizmente, no regulamento, o princípio da exclusão de financiamento à indústria fóssil não foi aprovado e as suas consequências já estão à vista nos planos de recuperação e resiliência dos vários Estados-Membros. E é curioso que aqueles que, no passado, contribuíram para adiar os objetivos climáticos na União Europeia apresentem, hoje, essa perspetiva como sendo realista. Se os tivéssemos cumprido há mais tempo, não estaríamos hoje na situação de dependência em que estamos. É uma curiosa perspetiva realista esta. A que opta por ignorar não apenas a evidência científica em torno da emergência das alterações climáticas, mas os próprios fenómenos meteorológicos extremos que já estamos a sentir hoje, que já se desenrolam perante os nossos olhos, e que essas forças políticas insistem em ignorar e insistem em não ver. Insistem também em não perceber que o futuro da economia europeia passa pela aceleração da transição energética e industrial do nosso continente. Não passa certamente por adiar essa transição inevitável, permitindo que outros o façam primeiro.

  Andrey Novakov (PPE). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear friends, I remember when MFF was initially proposed by the European Commission we all said that never before in the history of European Union our regions did not receive more investment than the current proposal. And then the COVID came and we all embraced Next Generation EU. And I think Next Generation EU and RRF are the correct medicine to cure the situation that the Union was back then. But as every good medicine, it has side effects. So one of the side effects that it caused was that the Commission created an internal competition between RRF and operational programmes. In the result of that, RRF is running very well and is achieving good results, but operational programmes and partnership agreements are not approved and they don’t deliver. So what is the solution?

In my point of view, first is that the European Commission should promise a no-cut policy to the existing policies that we have, such as cohesion policy. And then the European Parliament should have a say with a discharge on RRF.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, încep prin a felicita raportorii. Este un raport foarte bun, pentru că, practic, mecanismul de reziliență și redresare, instrument cheie pentru investiții și reforme, este mesajul de solidaritate al Uniunii Europene pentru a ajuta cetățenii, dar și companiile, pentru a diminua impactul negativ al crizei sanitare, dar și tot ceea ce înseamnă criză care s-a întâmplat ca urmare a agresiunii Rusiei în Ucraina.

Sigur că salutăm „REPowerEU”. Este o șansă pentru Uniunea Europeană pentru a-și asigura independența energetică, dar, domnule comisar, eu cred că este nevoie de o mai mare flexibilitate din partea Comisiei, astfel încât să le dați posibilitatea statelor membre să își readapteze planurile naționale de redresare și reziliență pentru a putea face față acestor crize: inflație, creșterea prețurilor, criza energetică.

  Искра Михайлова (Renew). – Г-жо Председател, г-н Комисар, механизмът за възстановяване и устойчивост е завоевание на Европейския съюз, което предлага както на страните членки, така и на европейските институции, нов механизъм и философия на солидарност, базирана на възстановяване чрез надграждане и постигане на целите на зелената и дигитална трансформация.

На национално ниво тази иновативност трябва да носят плановете за възстановяване и устойчивост. Два елемента са от изключително значение за ефективното прилагане на механизма и докладът за приложение, по който водим дебат днес, ги подчертава категорично. Това са партньорството и синергията. Партньорство между държавната администрация в страните членки, местните и регионални власти, академичната общност, гражданското общество, бизнеса и всички заинтересовани граждани. Това е ключово партньорство както за изпълнението, така и за контрола на изпълнението на плановете. Страни, които пренебрегват това партньорство или целенасочено го игнорират, са обречени на неуспех при реализация на техните планове.

Синергията е вторият елемент от ключово значение за националните планове, синергия с националните планове, енергетика и климат с оперативните програми, подкрепени от структурните фондове с националния бюджет. Апелираме Европейската комисия да бъде особено стриктна при следене на прилагането на тези принципи.

  Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, en el futuro nos juzgarán por la rapidez y la eficiencia con la que se gestionaron estos fondos; nos juzgarán por si, en este momento de tremenda incertidumbre económica, fuimos capaces de generar oportunidades y crecimiento.

Por eso, ahora es el momento de exigir a los Estados miembros una ejecución rápida, eficaz y transparente de estos fondos para garantizar que lleguen a las empresas, a los autónomos y a las pymes; para que lleguen a las familias y a las clases medias; y para garantizar que se llevan a cabo unas reformas que nos ayuden a ser más competitivos y que, entre otras cosas, faciliten la creación de empleo, no reformas que sirvan como pago político para mantener coaliciones de gobierno.

También es el momento de mandarles a ustedes ⸺a la Comisión y al Consejo⸺ que sean exigentes en sus evaluaciones.

Me preocupa en especial mi país, España, que es uno de los grandes receptores de fondos. No estamos logrando que lleguen al tejido productivo, tienen un bajísimo ritmo de ejecución, y no se está contando con las autoridades locales ni con las comunidades autónomas para implementar este plan.

Ni España ni ningún Estado miembro puede perder esta histórica oportunidad. Por ello, seamos exigentes y cumplamos con las normas y los objetivos que nos hemos marcado.

  Marek Belka (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Krajowe programy odbudowy, jak sama nazwa wskazuje, powinny być szansą dla całego kraju. Zważywszy, że w każdym planie należy przeznaczyć kilkadziesiąt procent zasobów na transformację energetyczną i cyfrową, z pozoru wydaje się, że jest to wprowadzenie naszych miast, wsi i społeczności w nową epokę, w nową cywilizację.

Wydaje się. Nie chcę zawodzić jak miastowa młodzież, choć to rzeczywiście ona będzie najbardziej dyskryminowana w KPO, ale podejście rządu PiS do większych ośrodków jest niesprawiedliwe. Trudno nie mieć wrażenia, że udostępnienie miastom takim jak Warszawa, Wrocław czy moja rodzinna Łódź pożyczek, a niemal całkowite odcięcie ich od grantów z KPO ma podłoże stricte polityczne. Dlaczego? Między PiS-em a włodarzami tych dużych miast oraz ich mieszkańcami po prostu nie ma fal. Już polityka podatkowa PiS uderza w duże miasta.

Zwracam się więc do Komisji, by w związku z wdrażaniem polskiego KPO zwróciła uwagę na to, że te pieniądze nie mogą mieć barw partyjnych. To jest krajowy, a nie pisowski program odbudowy.

  Katalin Cseh (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, the Recovery Fund Regulation forces the EU to finally confront democratic backsliding after one decade of inaction. And in case of the Orbán government in Hungary, the conditions could not be clearer: address the fact that the chief prosecutor is a party loyalist – joining the EPPO could be a good first step for her; reform the public procurement system; let journalists access public information. The conditions are very clear and the tools are there.

Now, all we need is credible enforcement, and sadly, it is not the Commission’s strongest suit. Non-transparent backroom deals will not get us results, as the Polish case very clearly shows. So this begs the question, why aren’t the Commission’s negotiations public ? Why aren’t local governments or civil society involved more? More transparency would go a long, long way to actually achieve results.

Hungarians suffer under a terrible cost-of-living crisis. Our currency exchange rate is in freefall. Hungarians need these funds, but they also need them to get to struggling schools, hospitals and businesses.

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, ο Μηχανισμός Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας αποτελεί αναμφίβολα μια τεράστια ιστορική επιτυχία και μια τεράστια κατάκτηση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Είμαστε ιδιαίτερα περήφανοι, γιατί το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο πρωταγωνίστησε και πρωτοστάτησε στη δημιουργία του Ταμείου Ανάκαμψης και έδωσε πραγματικά τη μάχη, γιατί πίστευε ότι με αυτό το ισχυρό όπλο θα μπορούσαμε να αντιμετωπίσουμε τις συνέπειες της πανδημίας και τις συνέπειες μιας πρωτοφανούς κοινωνικοοικονομικής κρίσης. Δικαίως απευθύνω τα συγχαρητήρια στον αγαπητό εισηγητή, Siegfried Mureșan, και στους άλλους αγαπητούς συναδέλφους, οι οποίοι πραγματικά έδωσαν μάχη για να φτάσουμε μέχρι εδώ. Ήταν πραγματικά μια τεράστια επιτυχία για όσους πρωταγωνίστησαν, που σίγουρα την πιστώνεται το δικό μας το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, αλλά σε συνεργασία πάντα με την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και με εσάς.

Όμως, ο Μηχανισμός Ανάκαμψης δημιουργήθηκε σε μια περίοδο που δεν προβλεπόταν η βάρβαρη ρωσική εισβολή στην Ουκρανία, η οποία δημιούργησε νέες κοινωνικοοικονομικές επιπτώσεις που σίγουρα, για να μπορέσουν να αντιμετωπιστούν αυτή τη στιγμή που οι κοινωνίες υποφέρουν πραγματικά μέσα από την ενεργειακή κρίση, την ακρίβεια και τον πληθωρισμό, πιθανώς να χρειάζεται ένα νέο Κοινωνικό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης. Γιατί αν καταρρεύσουν οι κοινωνίες και τα νοικοκυριά, πιθανώς να μην έχει και αυτό το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης την αποτελεσματικότητα που περιμένουμε. Η δική μου πατρίδα, η Κύπρος, υπέβαλε επιτυχώς το σχέδιο για το Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης και θα αξιοποιήσει και το τελευταίο ευρώ προς όφελος των Κυπρίων πολιτών, της κοινωνίας, της ανάκαμψης και της ευημερίας.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, flexibilidade. Esta é a palavra-chave para responder às incertezas e às ondas de choque que estão a atingir a economia europeia, uma economia duramente atingida pela guerra, quando ainda dava os primeiros passos no processo de recuperação e iniciava o seu programa de investimentos.

Foi, aliás, com flexibilidade na política monetária que o Banco Central Europeu respondeu logo aos primeiros sinais de turbulência nos mercados de dívida soberana, depois dos efeitos negativos das suas medidas de combate à inflação. E é também de flexibilidade que precisamos agora na execução dos planos de recuperação para responder à situação nova criada pela inflação.

O mundo mudou e a subida da inflação altera radicalmente as condições económicas e financeiras de execução dos planos de recuperação, o que implica alterar também metas e calendários. Que não seja por falta de flexibilidade que a Europa falha nos seus planos de recuperação e relançamento da economia europeia.

  Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, είμαι πολύ χαρούμενη που ως Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση υιοθετήσαμε και υλοποιούμε τον Μηχανισμό Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας, επιδεικνύοντας αλληλεγγύη, ενότητα και ετοιμότητα στην οικονομική ανάκαμψη μετά την πανδημία. Είμαι περήφανη που ο Έλληνας πρωθυπουργός, Κυριάκος Μητσοτάκης, πρωτοστάτησε στην πρόταση του συγκεκριμένου μηχανισμού και που η Ελλάδα είναι μία από τις πρώτες χώρες που κατέθεσαν μια ολοκληρωμένη πρόταση και ήδη λάβαμε έγκριση για το εθνικό μας σχέδιο ανάκαμψης και ανθεκτικότητας.

Η εμπειρία του Ταμείου Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας είναι ένα φωτεινό παράδειγμα και πρέπει να είναι οδηγός μας ως προς τον τρόπο αντιμετώπισης άλλων κρίσεων, όπως ο πόλεμος στην Ουκρανία και η ενεργειακή κρίση, για την οποία ήδη ο Έλληνας πρωθυπουργός έχει επίσης καταθέσει μια πανευρωπαϊκή πρόταση για κοινή αντιμετώπιση.

Κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, η εφαρμογή του Μηχανισμού Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας αποτελεί την έμπρακτη απόδειξη ότι όταν θέλουμε και όταν είμαστε ενωμένοι μπορούμε. Αυτός θα πρέπει να είναι και ο οδηγός μας για το μέλλον.

  Margarida Marques (S&D). – (início da intervenção com o microfone desligado) “...” levanto hoje três pontos. O primeiro, a guerra na Ucrânia, não reduziu, não pode reduzir as nossas ambições assumidas no MRR no pós-COVID, em termos de transição climática e digital e de economias e regiões mais coesas. Segundo, a proposta necessária da Comissão Europeia para criar o RepowerEU vem revolucionar o QFP e o MRR. Já aqui o referi em debate anterior. Temos de tirar daí as consequências e fixar os limites. Finalmente, calendário. É claro, hoje, que diversos fatores, alguns externos aos próprios Estados-Membros, como a inflação ou a evolução dos preços das matérias-primas e da energia, impedem o cumprimento do calendário do NextGenerationEU para 2023-2026. Por isso, deixo aqui um apelo à comissão, caro Comissário Gentiloni, para que faça o necessário para que este calendário seja revisto, de forma a assegurar que atingimos os objetivos políticos, económicos e sociais do MRR.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, mechanizmus na podporu obnovy a odolnosti je bezprecedentným nástrojom, ktorý má pomôcť pri zmierňovaní sociálno-ekonomických dopadov pandémie, ale aj pri zvládnutí ďalších výziev, ktorým čelíme. Je preto nevyhnutné, aby sme tieto financie využili čo najefektívnejšie a aby boli dostupné rýchlo a bez zbytočných administratívnych prekážok. Členským štátom by mali byť zo strany Komisie poskytnuté podrobné usmernenia aplikovateľné v rámci národných odlišností. Zároveň by som chcela apelovať na to, aby bola Komisia ústretová v prípade objektívnych zmien plánov obnovy. V dnešnej rýchlo sa meniacej situácii, v rámci ktorej pribúdajú mnohé výzvy spojené s dopadmi vojny na Ukrajine, ako aj ďalšími socio-ekonomickými dopadmi ako zdražovanie, inflácia, je potrebné, aby členské štáty mali dostatočnú flexibilitu a možnosť predložiť zmeny odrážajúce ich potreby. Práve flexibilita prepojená s rýchlymi procesmi a jasnými pravidlami je kľúčom k tomu, aby boli ciele mechanizmu na podporu obnovy a odolnosti úspešné a dosiahnuteľné.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, crizele pe care le traversăm și volatilitatea mediului economic actual fac ca planurile de redresare și reziliența aprobate anul trecut să nu mai corespundă în totalitate nevoilor noastre de astăzi. Fie că vorbim de zona de agricultură sau de sănătate, educație sau energie, de pensii sau beneficii sociale, lista de priorități s-a schimbat profund în cazul multor state europene.

Este și cazul României, unde am avut un plan făcut pe repede înainte, cu multe carențe, alocări de milioane de euro pentru consultanță și ținte care afectează stabilitatea socială a țării. De aceea, este important ca regulamentul european să permită o flexibilizare mai mare, o optimizare în funcție de nevoile statelor membre, dar și o distribuție echitabilă a fondurilor între domeniile de investiții și zonele beneficiare.

Nu în ultimul rând, am militat mereu pentru o alocare semnificativă de fonduri pentru educație și formarea continuă și am fost chiar autorul amendamentului prin care solicitam, noi, Parlamentul European, minim 10 % din fonduri pentru acest domeniu.

Mă bucur să constat că majoritatea statelor membre au respectat recomandarea noastră și că această propunere este preluată în noua perspectivă a Parlamentului European.

  João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, digam o que disserem, o mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência não é uma panaceia. Vejamos:

Uma dotação financeira largamente insuficiente para compensar os impactos da pandemia, a que agora se somam os impactos da guerra e das sanções, sendo ainda mais insuficiente para relançar e modernizar as economias dos Estados-Membros. Uma parte substancial sob a forma de empréstimos, a que os Estados não acedem para não contraírem mais dívida. Uma antecipação de verbas por conta de pagamentos futuros que rejeitamos, no contexto de debilitação dos orçamentos da UE e das políticas de coesão que deveriam, ao invés, ser reforçados pelas contribuições nacionais dos Estados-Membros segundo o seu rendimento nacional bruto.

Um mecanismo que amarra as políticas de relançamento da economia e de investimento aos constrangimentos dos instrumentos de governação macroeconómica como o Semestre Europeu, condicionalidades que urge eliminar. Uma resposta desalinhada com a realidade e com as necessidades mais prementes e estruturais dos países, que não se desliga das intervenções e pressões da Comissão, a que se somam os atrasos na disponibilização dos fundos, adiando a resposta que se quer urgente à criação de emprego, à recuperação do investimento e à promoção da capacidade produtiva.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I had a sense of pride in this debate. And I think that we the Parliament, the Commission, the European institutions, we should be proud of what we were able to decide in the circumstances of the pandemic crisis.

Is this plan for the previous crisis and not so useful for the situation we are in? I think this would be a big mistake that we should avoid. We are in a moment of low growth. We hear the decision-making persons speaking about the risk of stagflation or recession. We can avoid these risks. But these plans – reforms and investments, not digging holes and filling holes, but reforms and investments coordinated with common goals – are essential if we want to address the situation we are in now.

I am not saying that the Commission will not consider targeted and limited amendments to the plans. I am saying that it would be a mistake, in my view – and I think we agreed on this with the rapporteur – to restart the design of these plans. Now we have to implement, implement, implement with the necessary amendments, but implementing what we decided in the last one year and a half, and of course, respecting milestones. Milestones should be respected. I think that the Parliament control will help the Commission also to make the milestone respected in the plans where they are very challenging. And the Polish plan is one of them with very challenging milestones. They should be respected before any payment.

Last point, of course there is a discussion on how can we strengthen what we have on the table. This discussion is perfectly legitimate. We have now REPowerEU, which is part of the possibility to strengthen our tools. But honestly, the discussion on further tools, which I perfectly understand, is a discussion that will be stronger if we will be able to implement what we have. So let us work together to make RRF function well, because this will be the basis also to strengthen it in further initiatives.

  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, ponente. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, yo también he sentido ese orgullo que, como Parlamento y como Comisión, y supongo que como Consejo, todos tenemos de haber aprobado el plan de recuperación. Y aquí se ha visto un apoyo unánime y, además, una valoración muy positiva de los efectos que esto ha tenido.

También creo que hemos visto, en este debate, el compromiso por parte del Parlamento de seguir muy de cerca la implementación de los planes de recuperación y, sobre todo, de hacer sonar la alarma si vemos que nos estamos desviando de los objetivos. Pero creo que también —y aquí lo han dicho varias personas— tenemos que ser conscientes de que ha cambiado la situación de cuando negociamos el plan de recuperación a ahora, tras la crisis o la guerra de Ucrania, lo que hace que tengamos que ver los planes de recuperación con cierta flexibilidad. No nos podemos abstraer del contexto que estamos viviendo.

Y también creo que se ha destacado, y creo que ese es el camino por el que tenemos que transitar y sobre el que tenemos que debatir —compartiendo las palabras del comisario—. Pero hay una voluntad de explorar que este Mecanismo, que ha sido una respuesta coyuntural, se convierta en algo estructural. Evidentemente, tiene que funcionar para que podamos trabajar sobre esas bases, pero creo que la voluntad está ahí, y desde luego nuestra apuesta por ello.

  Siegfried Mureşan, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you very much for this positive and constructive spirit during this debate. This was also the spirit, an inclusive spirit, this was the spirit through which Eider Gardiazabal, Dragoş Pîslaru and myself tried to work. And I am confident that when we will be adopting this report tomorrow, it will be supported by a large majority of colleagues.

We, when adopting it, will want to make sure that money reaches beneficiaries, it reaches the people in need it, it reaches the people it was intended for, and it was well spent. Now we will need to work all together to make the Recovery and Resilience Facility a success up to the end of its implementation – European Parliament, the Commission and the governments of Member States. We expect the Commission to make sure that the regulation is applied properly. We intend to make sure that the governments absorb the funds without delays. And the Parliament will, of course, ensure the democratic accountability and the supervision. We shall all work together on this.

And Commissioner, you have asked us for the opinion on REPowerEU. We as a European Parliament want to make sure that the money which was not yet accessed by Member States from their loan component from the Recovery and Resilience Facility will be accessed, will be made good use of, particularly in the area of energy efficiency. We believe REPower EU is the right proposal to incentivise the absorption of those funds.

Money should be used where it is needed, but it should not be taken away from where it is needed as well. This is why we will be working together with our experts, our colleagues from the Agriculture, from the Regional Development Committee, to make sure that money is not transferred away from other priorities which are already in the plans where it is needed.

Of course, last word, implementation of reforms will be important and we are aware that the Member States have planned the most difficult reforms towards the end of the implementation, and this is why we call on the Commission to provide to the Member States all technical assistance, all assistance that it has available to make sure that the Member States can also implement those reforms, which are good for the countries which strengthen their economies.

Once again, thank you, dear colleagues, and we are looking forward to the vote tomorrow. Commissioner, thank you again for being with us tonight.

  Dragoş Pîslaru, rapporteur. – Madam President, I have listened very carefully in these late hours of the evening to the Commissioner’s concerns and ideas and am sure that the Commission will put all efforts into ensuring that this Facility will be properly implemented. But its success, to be very honest, relies mainly on the Member States, and it can only happen through more transparency, better involvement of stakeholders and strong monitoring tools.

Rest assured, the Parliament will continue its oversight. We will not stop the activity of our working group. We will soon start our work to ensure that the REPowerEU, as you have mentioned, is properly introducing the objectives of this Facility. It is in indeed an important appeal that goes towards the Commission – and thank you very much for your openness on that: we truly hope that you will fully take into account the views adopted today in the upcoming review report on the implementation of the RRF, which you will soon present to us.

One last word relating to how the RRF is seen outside the EU. It is an exercise of economic governance, of accountability, of legitimacy and, even more important, an exercise in which we would like to give a model worldwide. I have been attending two high—level conferences at United Nations level, and it’s very important to say that the international community looks at the RRF as an important model of how to deal with crises and to boost resilience. The Sendai framework that relates to disaster risk reduction, and all the other things that are done right now – and we had the earlier debate on SDGs – are very much linked to how we how successful we will be with the RRF. So the European Union, of course, needs the RRF for its internal development, but it is also very important to give a model worldwide that will put the EU leadership again in the right place at the global level.

I would like to thank my co-rapporteurs, Siegfried Mureşan and Eider Gardiazabal, and all the shadows, the Commission and all the people that have worked towards preparation and adoption of this report.

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2022, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)

  Gunnar Beck (ID), schriftlich. – Die Aufbau- und Resilienzfazilität ist ein illegales mit EU-Schulden finanziertes Instrument, das ohne angemessene Prüfung durch die Europäische Kommission oder das Europäische Parlament Milliarden von Euro in zweifelhafte Projekte in der Union gesteckt hat. Die Kommission weigert sich, die nationalen Reformpläne in die offiziellen Arbeitssprachen der EU zu übersetzen, und stellt damit sicher, dass die Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments die Hunderte von Milliarden Euro an Almosen nur sehr eingeschränkt prüfen können. Bisher haben die Mitgliedstaaten über 500 Milliarden an Darlehen und Zuschüssen aus der Fazilität beantragt, was die Inflation weiter anheizt und damit die wirtschaftliche Erholung nach der COVID-Krise untergräbt. Kroatien erhielt 2021 1,6 % seines BIP als Vorfinanzierung. Gemessen am BIP-Prozentsatz können wir mit Sicherheit sagen, dass für die EU 1 Kroate etwa 26 Deutsche wert ist. Pro Einwohner erhielt Italien bisher 420 Euro pro Kopf. Deutschland erhielt 27. Gemessen am Geld pro Kopf bedeutet dies, dass 1 Italiener 15,5 Deutsche wert ist. Zusammengefasst: Die RRF heizt die Inflation an, untergräbt die wirtschaftliche Erholung und das Wachstum und festigt die EU als Transferunion.

  Eugen Jurzyca (ECR), písomne. – V minulom roku som vyjadril vážne pochybnosti, že hodnotenie Fondu obnovy bude založené na posudzovaní efektívnosti (Nástroj technickej pomoci – písomné vysvetlenie hlasovania, 2021). Tento nedostatok zjavne prispel aj k enormnej byrokracii, o ktorej som bol informovaný od úradníkov pracujúcich na realizácii plánov obnovy na národnej úrovni. Apelujem preto na Komisiu, aby pri manažmente národných plánov obnovy urýchlene presunula dôraz z kontroly plnenia administratívnych požiadaviek na posudzovanie hodnoty za peniaze pre občana.

  Andżelika Anna Możdżanowska (ECR), na piśmie. – RRF miał być szybką reakcją na kryzys COVID, ochronę rynku wewnętrznego UE i zapewnienie państwom członkowskim środków do zwiększenia odporności w perspektywie długoterminowej. Blokowanie środków m.in. dla mojego kraju Polski pokazało, że mechanizm ten stał się polem brudnej politycznej gry. Sprawozdanie z wdrażania miało być rodzajem wskazówek Parlamentu dla Komisji przygotowującej raport z wdrażania RRF. Tekst zawiera szeroki wachlarz zagadnień, w tym potrzebę większej niezależności energetycznej, kwestię zasobów własnych, jak i zagadnienia dotyczące płci. Mimo, że polski Krajowy Plan Odbudowy został zaakceptowany przez Komisję Europejską oraz Radę, koledzy z Parlamentu Europejskiego nie mogą pogodzić się z tym faktem. W sprawozdaniu bezczelnie zrzucają odpowiedzialność za nieuruchomienie środków na Polskę, stwierdzając, że „z powodu działań polskiego i węgierskiego rządu finansowanie z RRF wciąż nie dotarło do mieszkańców i regionów Polski i Węgier”. Jest to stwierdzenie oburzające i krzywdzące dla Polski, która przy każdej okazji jest atakowana i wobec której stosuje się podwójne standardy. To swoiste bezpardonowe „odbijanie piłeczki” można porównać do wystąpień rosyjskiego ministra Ławrowa, który obwinia Ukrainę za utrudnienia w eksporcie ukraińskiego zboża, czy rosnącą liczbę ofiar działań wojennych. Stanowczo sprzeciwiam się takiemu traktowaniu mojego kraju!