Acta literal de los debates

Martes 18 de octubre de 2022 - Estrasburgo

1. Apertura de la sesión

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.02 Uhr eröffnet)

2. Mantener bajas las facturas: repercusiones sociales y económicas de la guerra en Ucrania e introducción de un impuesto sobre los beneficios inesperados (debate)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zum Thema „Die Rechnungen niedrig halten: soziale und wirtschaftliche Folgen des Krieges in der Ukraine und Einführung einer Steuer auf Zufallsgewinne“ (2022/2867(RSP)).

  Ivan Bartoš, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, Mr Vice President of the European Commission, we welcome the Parliament’s initiative to keep this issue high on the agenda.

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the weaponisation of energy supplies have driven energy prices to an unprecedented level and created a very difficult situation for many households and companies.

Russia’s aim is clear: hit our societies and our economies to create internal dissent and to fracture social cohesion. We will not let this happen.

The EU is collectively doing all in its power to address various dimensions of the crisis and in particular to mitigate the effect of rising prices. I will address the main dimensions of this coordinated response.

A) The energy supply. First, we are taking all possible measures to avoid energy shortages this winter. In only a few months, we have diversified our supplies, replenished our storage facilities close to their maximum, ensured safety of supply, and taken steps whenever possible to encourage the economy to consume less.

We see that the price increases weigh more heavily on low-income families whose energy needs account for a higher percentage of their budget; without government support, many cannot afford that.

The explosion of energy prices is also hitting SMEs and energy-intensive companies hard. Many are facing an explosion of their costs. Many risk going bankrupt. Some production has been discontinued. Some companies have closed down. Others have no alternative but to move their production outside Europe. We must stop that.

In order to address these challenges, energy ministers at the end of September reached an agreement on allowing to offer regulated electricity prices also to small- and medium-sized enterprises, not only households and micro-enterprises. Demand reduction measures, including a voluntary overall reduction target of 10% of gross electricity consumption and a reduction target of 5% of the electricity consumption in peak hours. Capping market revenues obtained by power generators using low-cost technologies other than gas. Mandatory temporary solidarity contribution applying to the profits of businesses active in the oil, gas, coal and refinery sectors, which has significantly increased compared to prior years.

The second dimensions, or the ‘B)’ if you like: fiscal measures. At the national level. Member States are doing their part and have taken over the past few months numerous fiscal measures to alleviate costs for businesses and families. These include lower indirect taxes, social transfers to households, direct interventions on prices paid by consumers, and extraordinary taxes on windfall profits on which I will speak later.

We need to make sure that these measures are temporary and well targeted so that they make a genuine difference for the most affected parts of our society. Our fiscal resources are not unlimited. Let’s use them efficiently.

The third dimension: social measures. On the social front, the Czech Presidency decided to dedicate the informal meeting of employment and social ministers a few days ago, on 13 and 14 October, to a discussion on the impact of energy poverty and the Ukrainian crisis. In this context, I am pleased to mention that the recent adoption of the Minimum Wage Directive, which is a powerful and very concrete signal of the importance of the EU, attaches to ensuring a decent standard of living of all workers.

It is only, though, with our combined efforts that we can rise to this challenge, and I look forward to an efficient cooperation with you on all the proposals and initiatives we will work together on.

And, finally, the fourth dimension: windfall profits. Let me turn now to issues that that matter for windfall profits. On 7 October, a new regulation on emergency measures to reduce energy prices entered into force. The regulation introduces measures to collect and redistribute the energy sector’s surplus revenues to households and small- and medium-sized enterprises.

More particularly, the new regulation addressed two types of windfall profits. First, it limits revenues of the electricity generators, including intermediaries that use so-called infra-marginal technologies to produce electricity such as renewables, nuclear and lignite. This is done via the introduction of a cap on the market revenues of infra-marginal technologies at 180 eur/mwh. Member States will be able to redirect the surplus revenues generated via the introduction of such a cap towards supporting and protecting final electricity consumers.

Secondly, the regulation introduces a mandatory temporary solidarity contribution on the profits of businesses active in the crude petroleum, natural gas, coal and refinery sectors. The solidarity contribution will be calculated on taxable profits as determined under national tax rules in the fiscal year spending in 2022 and/or in 2023. The solidarity contribution will apply in addition to regular taxes and levies applicable in the Member States. This regulation was adopted in less than two weeks as an emergency solution to current crisis.

What I presented here today was an overview of what we, as the EU, managed to achieve in only a few months to ensure that families and companies are sheltered from the worst economic consequences of this unjustified war of aggression. We do not know what the future holds or how long the current conflict will last, but we will certainly maintain our resolve to seek collective and articulated responses to ensure a sustainable cost of living for our citizens.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Minister, honourable Members of the European Parliament. Russia’s illegal aggression against Ukraine is causing a socio-economic upheaval across Europe and beyond. Families and businesses face a surge in food and energy prices there are the financial and monetary implications.

Lower-income households are worst hit as they spend proportionately much more on food and energy. Businesses are also affected by rising energy costs, higher financing costs and lower consumer confidence. The current shock is very different from the COVID-19 pandemic, so our policies must be different too.

There are three questions to ask at the moment: how to minimise the costs caused by this war; how to distribute those costs fairly and how to lay the ground for future prosperity. I will address each one in turn. First, we need to work on the root causes of inflation in the energy markets. This requires action to secure alternative sources of supply, to reduce our energy demand and to address the current situation in electricity and gas markets.

The European Union has set up a platform for the joint purchase of gas, and we are increasing gas imports from reliable suppliers like Norway and the United States. Member States have agreed energy consumption reduction targets and exceptional measures while we prepare a broader review of the functioning of the electricity markets.

The Commission will present this afternoon additional measures to address gas prices and guarantees of security of supply for next winter. And we are also mobilising additional financial resources for Member States to introduce REPowerEU chapters in the recovery and resilience plans.

Honourable Members, the more successful we are regarding energy, the stronger the economic and social position will be. Second, we must protect vulnerable households and businesses. It will not be possible to shield everyone from the economic consequences of the war.

However, the public sector must protect those most exposed to high energy and food prices. Above all, this means providing income support to those whose purchasing power is most under threat and the worst-affected businesses. To achieve that, our support must be targeted, temporary and retain incentives to reduce energy consumption.

A price cap on market revenues for infra-marginal producers and the solidarity levy for the fossil fuel sector will allow Member States to channel these revenues from the very large profits gained through unexpected circumstances towards those who need support the most. To provide generalised fiscal support would be not very helpful. It would fuel inflation, bring even higher energy prices, and potentially further weaken the economy.

The European Central Bank is doing its job to contain inflation. The EU and the Member States need to do their job as well. Fiscal policy and monetary policy should not work at cross-purposes. This means providing effective support measures that are well-targeted and compatible with prudent fiscal policies that do not add to price pressures.

Honourable Members, we also must look beyond this crisis. So, lastly, we must stay on course with the current policies to build a solid basis for Europe’s future prosperity. I am referring in particular to the reforms and investments agreed by some Member States in the recovery and resilience plans.

Hundreds of billions of euros in grants will be disbursed to Member States over the next few years as a means of milestones and targets identified in their plans. And in the next months, we expect them to request EUR 225 billion in loans that remain available.

To conclude, honourable Members, although this has been a brief overview, I hope I outlined many initiatives on the comprehensive approach that the Commission is applying to the current situation. Thank you, and I look forward to the first debate.

  Markus Ferber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Ratsvertreter, lieber Herr Exekutiv-Vizepräsident, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Es ist ja nicht zum ersten Mal seit dem Ausbruch des furchtbaren Krieges in der Ukraine, dass wir uns mit der Frage beschäftigen: Was sind die Konsequenzen, die wir daraus ziehen? Und wir hören viel, was wir tun wollen. Aber bisher ist wenig getan worden. Wenn wir nüchtern analysieren, was zu tun ist, dann geht es zunächst mal darum: Wie kann man mehr Angebot schaffen? Wir haben eine hohe Nachfrage, aber ein reduziertes Angebot. Und wenn ich mir anhöre, was heute vorgetragen wurde, dann haben Sie viel vor. Das hören wir seit einem halben Jahr. Aber bis heute ist nichts gemacht worden.

Ich kenne ein Grünbuch der Europäischen Kommission aus dem Jahr 2000, wo bereits darüber nachgedacht wurde, eine Einkaufsgemeinschaft in der Energieversorgung zu schaffen. Das ist 20 Jahre lang vom Rat blockiert worden – jetzt ist die Not plötzlich da. Jetzt kommt was.

Heute beschäftigen Sie sich in der Kommission mit dem Arbeitsprogramm für das kommende Jahr. Wenn ich mir anschaue, was da für Schwerpunkte sind, um die aktuellen Probleme zu adressieren, dann finde ich nichts. Ganz im Gegenteil: weitere bürokratische Lasten, keine Entlastungen für die Unternehmen, keine Entlastungen für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Sie machen die falschen Schwerpunkte, und das, was Sie tun, machen Sie viel zu spät. Das ist keine vernünftige Politik.

  Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, estamos en tiempos difíciles. Sabemos que esta crisis del coste de la vida está impulsada por la guerra, la crisis de la energía y los excesos de beneficios, elevando la inflación a niveles que no habíamos vivido en Europa desde hace muchísimo tiempo. Eso deja a muchos hogares sin poder pagar sus facturas y de eso es de lo que tenemos que estar hoy aquí hablando.

Esta realidad nos apremia con una llamada desgarradora: la de la desigualdad social y el aumento de la pobreza y la de los más golpeados por esta crisis. Nuestras políticas —las de la Unión Europea y las de los Gobiernos nacionales— deben centrarse ahora mismo en dar respuesta efectiva a este problema, en que la gente pueda pagar las facturas.

Los socialdemócratas europeos tenemos ideas concretas sobre cómo apoyar a las familias y a las empresas, cómo reformar el funcionamiento del mercado de la energía y reforzar el bienestar social de una manera justa. En primer lugar —y más urgente—, hace falta un paquete de solidaridad de invierno de la Unión Europea, que incluya transferencias de renta para mitigar el impacto del alza de los precios de la energía. No podemos esperar más porque la gente no puede tener que elegir entre encender la calefacción o pagar la cesta de la compra. Los problemas que estamos atravesando confirman que hace falta una capacidad presupuestaria europea permanente de cara a las crisis, así como reforzar el instrumento SURE que pusimos en marcha durante la pandemia.

En segundo lugar, tenemos que asegurarnos de que haya redes de seguridad social fuertes y eficaces. Los Estados miembros deben aplicar de forma inmediata la Directiva de salario mínimo. Sabemos que el Reglamento ha previsto dos años para que los Estados miembros puedan hacer la transposición, pero, en estos momentos de necesidad, necesitamos —es evidente y es urgente— que se haga ya. Ningún hogar debe estar desconectado de la red eléctrica.

Y, en tercer lugar, necesitamos más ingresos para poder financiar estas ayudas. Se trata de una cuestión de justicia social y equidad fiscal. No puede ser que estemos pidiendo solidaridad a las familias, a los que más necesitados están, y no apliquen esa solidaridad quienes se están realmente llenando los bolsillos con los beneficios que esta crisis energética está provocando. Defendemos el principio de implementación urgente de un impuesto sobre los beneficios caídos del cielo y un impuesto mínimo para las multinacionales, no solo para las empresas del sector energético.

Por último, Europa tiene que presentar de manera urgente una reforma en profundidad de los mercados energéticos para diversificar nuestras fuentes de energía y para disminuir nuestra dependencia de Putin y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Los últimos años han sido los más difíciles para la Unión Europea. La guerra ha vuelto a nuestras puertas y trae consigo lo peor: el extremismo, el auge de los nacionalismos que esperábamos muertos en nuestra Unión. Necesitamos solidaridad europea. A la Comisión y al Consejo les pido que rompan el bloqueo y aporten soluciones. La ciudadanía lo está esperando.

  Dragoş Pîslaru, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Vice-President Dombrovskis, Commissioner Gentiloni, distinguished Members of the Council, dear colleagues, we are indeed living in difficult times and in difficult times what we need is three important ingredients: we need ambition, we need flexibility, and we need solidarity.

Ambition is important these days because regardless of the pain that we are feeling, all of us today, we need to be resolved and keep the important goals that we’ve set at the European Union level. And that means that the dual transformation, the green and the digital, the way we would like to get the strategic autonomy, we should not, you know, cancel our results on this.

On the second time, we need flexibility. We need to have creative instruments that can reunite the resources that we put together.

Then we also need in times of difficulty, a solidarity that only us at European level can achieve together. For that, it is important to have a view of the citizens, the entrepreneurs and the self-employed. And Renew Europe is proposing something that you have already seen in the public sphere: a shield, a shield that will not necessarily imply that states know everything for our citizens, but that we go close to them and allow them to have the necessary micro investments to do that.

And REPowerEU is exactly the instrument that we have been working together these days in the Parliament, we’ve seen the Commission, we’ve seen the general approach of the Council, and this is something that can go down and have the micro investments at the vulnerable level, at the SME and micro-enterprise level. This is a way of pushing forward with solidarity. This is the Renew way. This is the European way.

  Ernest Urtasun, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señor vicepresidente, hoy desde Estrasburgo quisiera trasladar, en primer lugar, todo mi apoyo a los y las trabajadoras francesas que hoy se movilizan en favor de una compensación salarial justa por causa de la inflación.

En Europa, la guerra de Putin no ha hecho más que recrudecer una bomba social que viene fraguándose tras décadas de neoliberalismo y una crisis financiera que puso en jaque nuestro contrato social.

La situación actual requiere enterrar de una vez por todas las políticas del pasado y afrontar sin complejos políticas de protección, redistribución y transición ecológica. Solo hace falta contemplar lo que está sucediendo estos días en el Reino Unido.

Esta nueva agenda económica, además, es una condición ineludible también para salvar nuestra arquitectura jurídica democrática de las garras de un renacido fascismo que amenaza hoy a todo el continente.

Por lo tanto, hay seis cuestiones que creo que son urgentes: reformar el funcionamiento de nuestro mercado eléctrico, sí, reformarlo y decretar la prohibición de los cortes de suministros; gravar los beneficios extraordinarios de las empresas y no solo de las eléctricas; establecer una moratoria sobre los desahucios —nadie debe quedarse en la calle este invierno—; contener los efectos de la subida de tipos, particularmente sobre la explosión del precio de las hipotecas variables; garantizar una cesta de la compra asumible para toda la población; y, por último, poner en marcha —sí— un nuevo fondo para la transición ecológica y la protección social, tal y como ha propuesto el comisario Gentiloni, entre otros.

Al Consejo, le decimos: no es el momento de arrastrar los pies. Las decisiones valientes deben tomarse ahora.

  Antonio Maria Rinaldi, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, di fronte ai problemi insorti dopo l'invasione dell'Ucraina, il nostro disappunto è rivolto verso la Commissione, perché non ha preventivamente effettuato uno studio sull'impatto sociale ed economico che si sarebbe generato a causa dell'ulteriore impulso impresso all'aumento dei prezzi e alla struttura dei costi delle imprese. Ritengo che la Commissione debba meditare la soluzione indicata da Keynes nel suo "How to pay for the war" del '39.

A otto mesi dall'inizio della guerra siamo ancora senza soluzioni condivise tra paesi membri e i cittadini europei sono nel dilemma se pagare le bollette o fare la spesa per mangiare, mentre le imprese se pagare i maggiori costi dell'energia innalzando i prezzi o cessare la produzione, licenziando i propri dipendenti. La situazione finanziaria appare precaria a livelli pubblici e privati, non avendo predisposto strumenti per affrontare sin dai primi sintomi una possibile crisi sistemica.

Questa condizione non può legittimare l'iniziativa indipendente di singoli paesi membri, che creano gravi asimmetrie all'interno del mercato unico. Se la Commissione permette che gli Stati intervengano direttamente con proprie risorse senza offrire proprie alternative, si stabilirà una concorrenza illecita nel mercato comune europeo, in palese violazione degli articoli 107 e 108 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea.

Il caso più evidente è il piano di aiuti per 200 miliardi di euro varato dalla Germania a supporto del proprio sistema produttivo. Le conseguenze differite di questa politica opererebbero contro il consenso delle popolazioni verso le istituzioni, causando disturbi per la stabilità degli accordi europei, proprio nel momento in cui si esamina finalmente la loro validità in un mondo in rapida evoluzione.

  Zdzisław Krasnodębski, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Dziś potrzeba odważnych i szybkich interwencji rynkowych, by ochronić konsumentów przed negatywnymi skutkami wysokich cen energii. Trzeba na przykład doprowadzić jak najszybciej do ograniczenia cen hurtowych gazu. Konieczne jest zamrożenie cen uprawnień ETS i wprowadzenie mechanizmów ograniczających wzrost ich cen. Jednocześnie Komisja powinna dbać, by najsilniejsze państwa nie utrudniały konkurencji na rynku wewnętrznym swoimi interwencjami i pomocą dla przedsiębiorstw. Ale trzeba, panie Przewodniczący, czegoś więcej niż tylko doraźne rozwiązania.

Konieczne jest przemyślenie i zmiana całej dotychczasowej polityki energetycznej i klimatycznej Unii. W swoim inauguracyjnym przemówieniu w 2019 r. pani Przewodnicząca mówiła, że jej Komisja będzie geopolityczna. Tymczasem ta Komisja w swoich szczytnych, klimatyczno-energetycznych projektach ignorowała polityczne realia, tak jakby nie było Chin i Rosji. I to także jest jedna z przyczyn obecnej dramatycznej sytuacji: ta polityka, tej Komisji.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, vous aurez sans doute remarqué aujourd’hui que la France est en grève. Un mouvement social qui grandit, comme la colère populaire monte partout en Europe. Parce que quand le prix des pâtes augmente de 40 %, l’huile de 127 %, le beurre de 32 % et que les salaires ne suivent pas, ce sont des repas qui sautent, des loisirs qui passent à la trappe et des familles contraintes de choisir entre faire le plein et se chauffer.

Alors, comme depuis que je suis toute petite, je sais que je vais entendre à la télé des éditos sur les responsabilités des syndicats et des reportages sur la prise d’otage des Français. Bien sûr, c’est la galère de ne pas pouvoir prendre le train, de ne plus avoir d’essence pour la voiture, que les enfants n’aient pas école. Mais qui est responsable de cette situation de blocage? Les salariés qui défendent leurs droits? Ou la poignée d’ultra-riches qui s’accaparent tout et s’accrochent à leurs privilèges?

Si vous la remarquez cette grève, c’est parce que ce sont des métiers essentiels qui s’arrêtent de travailler. Imaginez maintenant un instant ce qui se passerait si les actionnaires se mettaient en grève. Rien, absolument rien. Et pourtant, pendant que les utiles subissent l’inflation de plein fouet, les inutiles eux, multiplient leurs profits, leurs dividendes: plus 52 % pour le PDG de Total qui gagne déjà 312 fois le SMIC, plus 28 % pour les actionnaires des entreprises européennes. Alors je pose ici une question simple: et si c’était eux qu’on réquisitionnait plutôt que les salariés?

Vous avez enfin, et je m’en félicite, à la Commission européenne, commencé à parler du bout des lèvres des super-profits et c’est une victoire pour nous qui nous battons sur le sujet depuis des mois. Mais tant que la taxation que vous proposez sera limitée au secteur de l’énergie et repoussée à l’année prochaine, le pas en avant ne sera en réalité qu’un tout petit orteil. Je vous le dis, il faudra aller plus loin. Les peuples européens attendent un blocage immédiat des prix de tous les produits de première nécessité. Comme l’ont clamé les 140 000 manifestants contre la vie chère ce dimanche à Paris, l’urgence est claire, ce qui doit enfin augmenter, ce sont les salaires plutôt que les dividendes des actionnaires.

  Gilbert Collard (NI). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, rien n’a été fait. Rien ne se fera. Malheureusement et pour notre désespoir, cette Union européenne en laquelle on croyait tant nous apporte cauchemars, pauvreté et impuissance.

Impliqués dans une guerre qui n’est pas la nôtre, nos peuples souffrent, peinent. La crise de l’énergie n’a pas été abordée comme elle devait l’être. L’achat groupé d’énergie a été bloqué. Et aujourd’hui, on parle, on pérore, on essaie d’être les juges d’une guerre qui n’est pas la nôtre. Mais ce qui est nôtre, ce qui est vôtre, ce qui est mien, c’est la souffrance des peuples, leur manque d’argent, le froid qu’ils vont subir, la détresse dans laquelle ils sont. Et de cela, cette Union européenne étoilée est responsable.

  Christian Ehler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Es ist schon ein bisschen erschütternd: Wir spulen hier alle unsere alten Platten ab. Die Kommission betont, was sie alles machen wird, es hat aber noch nicht angefangen. Der Rat betont, was er machen wird. Er hat aber bei Artikel 122 sozusagen immer darauf gesetzt, dass die großen Jungs handeln – Olaf leiht Macron Energie, aber der gleiche Macron ist dann das Problem, warum es keine Leitungsverbindungen von Spanien nach Frankreich gibt, wir fordern den Sozialismus, wir fordern die Energiewende ...

Ich glaube, wir sollten uns wirklich mal gemeinsam dazu bekennen, dass die einzige Lösung für diese Fragen ist, dass wir ein gemeinsames Europa brauchen. Ohne einen vertieften europäischen Energiemarkt wird keine der vorgeschlagenen Lösungen in irgendeiner Weise realistisch sein – weder gemeinsame Steuererhebung, weder die Stärkung der Versorgung –, weil wir eben wissen, dass wir die LNG-Terminals in Spanien brauchen, um in Deutschland LNG zu haben, weil wir wissen, dass wir einen vertieften Strommarkt brauchen. Ich glaube, wir sollten uns heute zunächst mal zu Europa bekennen. Ohne Europa wird keine unserer Vorstellungen realisierbar sein. Dieses Europa ist die Lösung und nicht das Problem.

  Pedro Marques (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Comissários, Conselho, Colegas, travar os populismos na Europa é ajudar as famílias no momento em que sofrem. As famílias e as pequenas e médias empresas não aguentam esta escalada dos preços da energia e estão a falar alto, como hoje em França, dizendo-nos a todos que não aguentam. Precisamos de uma resposta europeia para que ninguém fique para trás, senão acabaremos a sofrer todos, porque somos só um mercado e só se rirão, outra vez, os populistas.

Saibamos aprender com o que fizemos mal na crise financeira e com o que fizemos bem na crise COVID. Salvámos a Europa com mais Europa na crise COVID. Vamos utilizar o que já temos e vamos construir uma resposta europeia para esta crise e para o futuro. E façamo-lo de um modo coeso e justo, construindo um mercado único de energia, comprando e transportando a energia em conjunto pela Europa, parando em conjunto a especulação nos mercados de energia e procurando os recursos onde eles estão. Estão a acumular-se nas mãos dos super ricos, estão a acumular-se nos super lucros de muitas empresas. E, por favor, não brincando com aqueles que estão a sofrer mais. Quem se lembraria nesta altura de pedir ao BCE que aumente ainda mais as taxas de juro? O PPE não conhece de todo a realidade da vida dos europeus, o seu sofrimento? Não sabe o que custa aquecer as casas e comprar alimentos hoje em dia? Tinha mesmo que pedir ao BCE que inflija mais sofrimento às famílias, aumentando mais os juros, levando ao aumento das prestações das casas? O PPE está pelas famílias e pelo emprego ou estamos de volta ao tempo dos moralistas do PPE que inventaram a austeridade como resposta à crise financeira? Quo vadis, PPE?

  Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Commissaires, Monsieur le Ministre, depuis le début du conflit, les citoyens européens font preuve de solidarité avec le peuple ukrainien. Et c’est bien notre devoir, notre responsabilité, notre honneur.

À l’heure où Vladimir Poutine utilise l’alimentation et l’énergie comme armes de guerre, nos concitoyens sont confrontés à des répercussions économiques sans précédent qui affectent tout le monde, tous les secteurs. Face à cela, l’Union européenne va notamment mettre en place la contribution sur les superprofits. Ainsi, près de 140 milliards d’euros permettront aux États membres d’accompagner ceux qui en ont le plus besoin.

Mais ne nous arrêtons pas à cela. Instaurons un bouclier énergétique européen, limitons les prix de l’électricité et du gaz, effectuons des achats groupés à l’échelle de l’Union européenne. Messieurs les Commissaires, chers collègues, les Européens nous regardent. Maintenons notre cap, celui du pacte vert et celui de notre indépendance. Oui, continuons ensemble à travailler pour une Europe plus solidaire, souveraine et écologique.

(L’oratrice accepte de répondre à une intervention «carton bleu»)

  Manon Aubry (The Left), intervention «carton bleu». – Monsieur le Président, j’ai été assez intéressée par votre intervention parce que – enfin, j’ai envie de dire – vous utilisez les mots «taxation des super-profits», «contribution». Vous avez dit taxation des super-profits, je l’ai entendu, et je me félicite que la République en marche et Renew acceptent enfin qu’il y a des super-profits faits par de grandes entreprises et qu’il faut les taxer.

Je pose donc une question: puisqu’il n’y a pas que le secteur de l’énergie qui fait des super-profits, êtes-vous favorable à la taxation des super-profits de l’ensemble des multinationales? Je pense notamment à des entreprises comme LVMH ou des grandes banques qui ont, elles aussi, fait des super-profits sur la crise.

  Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew), réponse «carton bleu». – Chère collègue, vous le savez, dans notre position que nous avons notamment envoyée à la présidente von der Leyen avant son discours sur l’état de l’Union, nous avons – notre groupe – défendu une taxation sur les superprofits, et même – et je reprends ce que j’ai dit, je pense – une contribution, parce qu’on le sait bien, ce sont les mécanismes internes à l’Union européenne.

Il nous semble d’abord important de nous focaliser sur ceux qui tirent profit de la situation telle que nous la vivons à l’heure actuelle. Pour nous, c’est cela qui est absolument prioritaire: se concentrer sur toutes les entreprises qui bénéficient du contexte de la guerre, donc notamment les entreprises dans le secteur de l’énergie. Ensuite nous devrons voir comment nous évoluerons en fonction du contexte.

  Sara Matthieu (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, collega’s, in mijn thuisstad Gent zie ik elke dag mensen die hun energiefactuur niet meer kunnen betalen of voor wie het transport te duur is geworden, en dat terwijl energiebedrijven en andere sectoren recordwinsten boeken. Dat is om razend van te worden, want we zitten niet allemaal in hetzelfde schuitje in deze crisis. Zij levert cynisch genoeg ook winnaars op. Die grote winnaars leveren geen ander product dan een jaar geleden, maar die worden wel slapend rijk door een oorlog. Daarom moeten we ervoor zorgen dat de overwinsten terugvloeien naar de kwetsbare gezinnen om hun huizen te isoleren, om zonnepanelen te installeren.

Het voorstel van de Commissie gaat echter niet ver genoeg. We moeten de helft van die overwinsten afromen in álle sectoren die nu slapend rijk worden. Dat moet met terugwerkende kracht, ook voor eerder geboekte winsten, bijvoorbeeld voor de farmaceutische bedrijven tijdens de COVID-crisis. We moeten ervoor zorgen dat de lidstaten die centen teruggeven aan de mensen die het echt nodig hebben, de mensen die vandaag moeten kiezen tussen eten en hun woning verwarmen.

  Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le conflit en Ukraine, que nous devons avant tout déplorer, est pourtant une aubaine pour les élites européistes. Ce conflit doit s’arrêter par la seule voie possible, celle de la négociation. Je salue en ce sens la proposition de Marine Le Pen qui appelle à une grande conférence pour la paix.

En France, d’autres voix s’élèvent enfin pour nous expliquer que l’application des accords de Minsk aurait pu nous éviter cette tragédie. Deux anciens ministres de Jacques Chirac et de Nicolas Sarkozy, Luc Ferry et Pierre Lellouche, se sont d’ailleurs très clairement exprimés dans cet esprit récemment.

Non, Madame von der Leyen, il ne peut y avoir de solution armée à ce conflit car l’issue en serait incertaine. Il y aurait à coup sûr un seul grand perdant: l’Europe, la nôtre, celle des nations, des peuples, dont l’Union européenne, mondialiste, immigrationniste et vassal des États-Unis, est la négation permanente. Mais sans doute, du côté de la Commission ou dans ces travées, certains préfèrent une bonne guerre à une mauvaise paix.

Pourtant, la paix n’a pas de prix. Et puisqu’on parle de prix, l’Ukraine ne doit pas être le prétexte d’un nouvel impôt européen ‒ puisque les Européens doivent, paraît-il, comme partout dans le monde, avoir vocation à payer des dégâts dont ils ne sont pas à l’origine. Le président ukrainien a lui-même estimé le montant de la reconstruction de son pays à 55 milliards d’euros ‒ en euros, pas en dollars, bien entendu.

Rappelons-nous tout de même le récent rapport de la Cour des comptes de l’Union européenne, pourtant particulièrement inspiré par des vues européistes, qui s’est montré d’une très grande sévérité sur la corruption gouvernementale en Ukraine. Voulez-vous un impôt pour financer une guerre sans fin? Nous, nous ne voulons ni un impôt de guerre, ni un nouvel impôt européen.

  Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissarissen, collega’s, we zijn terechtgekomen in de gevarendriehoek waar ik hier voor de zomer al voor waarschuwde. Klimaat, energiebevoorrading en koopkracht zijn de drie hoeken van die driehoek.

In plaats van nu onze tijd te verliezen met semantische discussies over sowieso inefficiënte prijsplafonds, moet er dringend een kader uitgewerkt worden dat op langere termijn zekerheid biedt en waarin kernenergie als stabiele en duurzame bron een prominente plaats verdient.

Inzake de overwinstbelastingen willen sommige lidstaten, waaronder België, zelfs nog verder gaan dan de Europese plannen en zij begeven zich daarmee op glad ijs. De energieprijzen zijn vandaag zelfs niet meer de hoofddeterminant van de inflatie. Het probleem is veel breder geworden dan enkel maar energie. Sociale onrust is op dit moment blijkbaar onvermijdelijk geworden.

Om die inflatie onder controle te krijgen moet helaas de broeksriem aangetrokken worden, zowel budgettair als monetair. Dat dit uitmondt in een recessie is vandaag – helaas, door het te lang aarzelen in sommige beleidsdomeinen – bijna onvermijdelijk geworden.

  José Gusmão (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, uma das principais consequências económicas e sociais da guerra foi o regresso da lógica da austeridade. E infelizmente, não é só no PPE que assistimos a esse regresso. Em Portugal, os salários e pensões vão ter uma das maiores reduções em termos reais dos últimos anos e a maior diminuição do peso dos salários no rendimento nacional da história da nossa democracia. E isto acontece com o governo socialista, com o mesmo governo que se opôs até à última hora, e só será levado arrastado, à tributação dos lucros extraordinários das empresas da energia e que ainda agora acaba de decidir uma redução na tributação das grandes empresas.

O mesmo governo socialista cujo ministro das Finanças acaba de apoiar o aumento das taxas de juro, também aí o PPE não está sozinho, e, portanto, aquilo a que assistimos é o regresso, um pouco por toda a Europa, das receitas que falharam espetacularmente na resposta à crise financeira e que estão novamente a ser adotadas por governos das mais variadas famílias políticas.

  Tiziana Beghin (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in tutta l'Unione europea il caro energia sta spingendo milioni di famiglie sotto la soglia della povertà e, siccome il mio è il paese delle piccole e medie imprese, da noi sta anche mettendo seriamente a rischio tre milioni e mezzo di posti di lavoro.

Quindi bene l'acquisto congiunto di gas, è quello che noi chiedevamo da tempo, ancora meglio l'abbandono dell'indice del prezzo del mercato di Amsterdam, dove ormai la maggioranza degli operatori non sono società energetiche ma speculatori. E infine ottimo fissare un tetto al prezzo del gas, è una misura che noi chiediamo dall'inizio della crisi e che potrà sicuramente aiutare i cittadini, se implementata correttamente.

Ma quello che farebbe davvero la differenza per imprese e famiglie sarebbe creare un nuovo Recovery Fund energetico, recuperando quindi congiuntamente i capitali sul mercato e trasferendoli agli europei in difficoltà.

Le misure contro il caro bollette non servono subito, servivano ieri, e una sola di queste non basterà, servono tutte e servono adesso.

  Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE). – Señor presidente, señores comisarios, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, sabemos que existe una enorme preocupación por la desorbitada subida de los precios. Necesitamos, por esta razón, una actuación decidida de la Comisión y de los Estados miembros que permita, mediante medidas temporales, actuar con carácter inmediato. La Comisión y el Consejo debaten imponer a las empresas del sector de combustibles fósiles una contribución solidaria. Es fundamental que una medida tan excepcional como esta cumpla su objetivo y que los fondos vayan directamente a los consumidores y las empresas que más lo necesitan. Además, las contribuciones deben focalizarse en los beneficios, no en la facturación. Son dos conceptos muy diferentes.

Es también sumamente necesario establecer medidas que permitan a la industria financiar los precios del gas con créditos fiscales, menos cotizaciones y una reducción del IVA. Hay que ayudar a nuestra industria, porque el primer objetivo de la Unión Europea y de los gobiernos debe ser preservar el empleo.

  Biljana Borzan (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, građani se lome pod teretom računa, a pohlepa je nerijetko jedini razlog rasta cijena.

Potrošačima svaki dan stižu računi koje oni ne razumiju. Moramo ih zaštititi dok sklapaju ugovore s energetskim kompanijama. Trebamo zajedničku nabavu energenata, ograničiti cijene plina, odvojiti cijene plina od struje, zaustaviti špekulacije na energetskom tržištu.

Odgovor na krizu je solidarnost, ali to ne znači da građani trebaju po tko zna koji put sami snositi teret. Vrijeme je da uzmemo onima koji imaju i da damo onima koji nemaju.

Nekima je kriza bogomdana. Digitalni divovi, premda ostvaruju goleme profite, otpuštaju radnike. Farmaceutske tvrtke su prodajom cjepiva postale bogatije od država koje su javnim novcem financirale ta cjepiva. Višak dobiti energetskih kompanija u ovoj godini bit će 200 milijardi eura. To je ratno profiterstvo.

Mi socijalisti u krizi ne predlažemo samo ideje, već dajemo i rješenja. Porez na neočekivanu dobit mora se odnositi na sve koji su značajno profitirali u ovoj krizi.

Pandemija je stvarala novog milijardera svakih 30 sati, a gurnula gotovo milijun ljudi u ekstremno siromaštvo. Samo deset najbogatijih ljudi ima više nego trećina čovječanstva. Vrijeme je da svatko plati svoj dio. Ne znamo zato što nam je novac potreban, a potreban nam je, već zato što je to prije svega pošteno.

  Jordi Cañas (Renew). – Señor presidente, señores comisarios, ¿es aceptable que, mientras se multiplican por 100, 200 o 300 las facturas eléctricas que pagan nuestros ciudadanos, autónomos, pymes y empresas, las grandes compañías eléctricas multipliquen por tres, por cuatro y por diez sus beneficios? La respuesta es bien sencilla: no.

¿Es aceptable que, mientras los ciudadanos pagan por esta crisis, haya compañías que se beneficien de ella? No, porque entonces no es una crisis. Es una crisis para los de siempre y la pregunta es: ¿deben pagar una vez más siempre los mismos esta crisis? La respuesta, obviamente, es: no.

¿La propuesta de gravar los beneficios caídos del cielo es suficiente? No. ¿Es necesaria? Sí, porque ¿son beneficios caídos del cielo? No. Son beneficios que salen del sufrimiento de los ciudadanos, de los autónomos, de las pymes y de las empresas, y que van a engordar las cuentas de beneficios de compañías que se benefician —¡sí!— de la crisis.

Luego, para que no paguen siempre los mismos, por una vez que paguen los que se benefician de esta crisis.

  Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Die Rezession und die hohen Energiepreise machen vielen Europäerinnen und Europäern Angst. Immer mehr Menschen haben Angst vor dem Winter. Deshalb ist es gut, dass Mitgliedstaaten ihre Ressourcen nutzen, um beispielsweise Gaspreisdeckel einzuführen. Das Problem ist nicht, dass Mitgliedstaaten handeln. Das Problem ist, wenn auf europäischer Ebene nicht gehandelt wird. Mit mehr europäischer Solidarität kommen wir besser durch diesen Winter. Das bedeutet für uns auch, dass wir eine europäische Deckelung beim Gaspreis und verpflichtende Energieeinsparung für alle Mitgliedstaaten jetzt brauchen.

Wir Grünen waren hier im Haus die Ersten, die sich für eine Übergewinnsteuer für Energiekonzerne eingesetzt haben. Wir freuen uns, dass die Kommission jetzt eine Abschöpfung von Übergewinnen auf den Weg gebracht hat. Wir müssen jetzt aber auch dafür sorgen, dass die Abschöpfung der Übergewinne national gut umgesetzt wird. Die Mitgliedstaaten sollten nicht 33 %, sondern mindestens 50 % der Gewinne von Ölkonzernen abschöpfen. Wir müssen Schlupflöcher schließen, damit die Gewinne nicht einfach in andere Staaten abwandern und sich die Konzerne arm rechnen können. Wir brauchen ein Abkommen mit der Schweiz, damit die Gewinnverlagerung nicht mehr stattfindet. Dafür müssen sich jetzt die Finanzministerinnen und -minister einsetzen.

  Paolo Borchia (ID). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, Luigi Einaudi, secondo Presidente della storia della Repubblica italiana, definì l'inflazione un'odiosa tassa sui poveri. Sono parole profetiche alla luce di quanto stia pesando l'aumento dei prezzi dell'energia sulle categorie a basso reddito e ritengo che, in un mondo normale, si inizierebbe a riflettere su quanto le politiche dell'Unione su clima ed energia siano state deleterie perché – siamo onesti – il Green Deal sta diventando una questione per ricchi. L'obiettivo è condivisibile, il percorso e gli strumenti non più.

È stata scatenata per anni una guerra al gas che ha ridotto gli investimenti e ha portato il nostro continente a essere sempre più dipendente dalla Russia. Non possiamo più aspettare, adesso serve un bagno di umiltà e di realismo e serve decidere se l'Unione vuole agire come un circolo ristretto per ricchi o viziati o se, al contrario, si abbandonerà l'overdose di ideologia e si inizierà a lavorare per la gente comune.

  Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il costo della bolletta energetica non è più sostenibile per le famiglie e sta dando il colpo di grazia alle aziende produttive, ancora sanguinanti per la crisi economica scatenata dal COVID-19.

Ci sono molte misure che l'Unione europea avrebbe potuto prendere per contenere il costo dell'energia: il tetto al prezzo del gas, il disaccoppiamento dei prezzi energetici, la tassa sugli extraprofitti, gli acquisti comuni dai paesi terzi, ma nulla è stato fatto fino ad oggi. Vi ricordo che fu proprio l'approvvigionamento di energia dal carbone a indurre le prime nazioni europee a unirsi settant'anni fa. Dunque, quando noi conservatori diciamo che l'Unione europea dovrebbe occuparsi meno di tante piccole cose, ma dovrebbe occuparsi meglio di poche grandi cose, evidentemente non stiamo sbagliando.

Il tempo a nostra disposizione è sempre meno. È questo il momento per dare un senso all'esistenza dell'Unione europea, dopo sarà troppo tardi.

  Sira Rego (The Left). – Señor presidente, a estas alturas nadie duda de que comer, vestir y vivir cuesta más porque ha subido el precio de la energía. Y tampoco hay duda de que esto se produce por un modelo de mercado eléctrico agravado por la guerra y la escasez de combustibles fósiles.

Podemos seguir debatiendo, podemos seguir lanzando titulares, pero es urgente empezar a hacer, porque la inacción lo único que demuestra es su complicidad con los oligopolios.

Fíjense, en España, mientras el oligopolio de la energía obtenía beneficios estimados en miles de millones, a cada familia, solo la cesta de la compra, le aumentaba 567 euros más al año. Es decir, sus beneficios salen de nuestros bolsillos porque aquí no se hace lo suficiente y eso genera un malestar que vemos, por ejemplo, en las movilizaciones de hoy en Francia.

Sin embargo, esto es evitable. Bastaría con cambiar el modelo marginalista, bastaría con anteponer el interés general y promover el control y la intervención pública, y bastaría con considerar la energía como un derecho y no como un negocio.

  Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αλήθεια, ποιον κοροϊδεύετε ισχυριζόμενοι ότι για την εκτίναξη των τιμών του ρεύματος, των καυσίμων, των τροφίμων και του πληθωρισμού φταίει μόνο ο ιμπεριαλιστικός πόλεμος στην Ουκρανία; Ξέρετε πολύ καλά ότι η κούρσα αύξησης των τιμών ξεκίνησε από το φθινόπωρο του 2021. Στο «σκαμνί», λοιπόν, να κάτσει η στρατηγική της πράσινης μετάβασης που προωθούν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και όλες οι κυβερνήσεις, επιβάλλοντας το χρηματιστήριο ενέργειας, την απελευθέρωσή της, το εμπόριο ρύπων, τα πράσινα τέλη και την απολιγνιτοποίηση. Αυτή είναι η ενιαία στρατηγική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των κυβερνήσεών της, παρά τις μεταξύ σας αντιθέσεις στα Ευρωπαϊκά Συμβούλια για το μοίρασμα της λείας.

Την ώρα που τρέφονται οι ενεργειακοί όμιλοι με τρελά κέρδη, επιδοτήσεις και κάθε είδους φοροαπαλλαγές, αποτελούν εμπαιγμό τα περί επιβολής φόρου απροσδόκητων κερδών. Τα επιδόματα-κοροϊδία που τα πληρώνει ο λαός από την τσέπη του δεν ανακουφίζουν το λαϊκό εισόδημα. Στη Γαλλία σήμερα, στην Ελλάδα στις 9 Νοέμβρη: απεργιακός ξεσηκωμός για αυξήσεις στους μισθούς και τις συντάξεις, κατάργηση των άδικων φόρων, ρεύμα και καύσιμα και είδη λαϊκής κατανάλωσης φτηνά, κανένα σπίτι χωρίς ρεύμα.

  Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, inflation is a big threat. When putting together fiscal support for the economy we should have in mind that if it leads to fiscal expansion, this inflation will be more difficult or more costly. And the highest cost for inflation is always paid by the people. So that’s why redirecting of existing money and using new resources like windfall tax is a must.

The second: energy savings are still in the centre. Issuer energy savings and quick build—up of new clean, effective resources is the best way how to reduce the risk and reduce the costs.

Last but not least, we should not forget about keeping single market functioning. We should rethink if more stringent or at least coordinated state-led rules are not the best way to promote efficiency of the single market and avoid disruptions.

Last but not least, we shouldn’t forget that Putin’s policy is likely leading to world global recession. If it happens, we shouldn’t forget that the highest price is paid by the least developed countries.

  Mohammed Chahim (S&D). – Voorzitter, terwijl ik hier voor u sta, dreigt er voor miljoenen huishoudens een donker scenario deze winter. Niet alleen de energierekening rijst de pan uit, maar ook de uitgaven voor dagelijkse boodschappen en transport. En deze energiecrisis vergroot de bestaande maatschappelijke ongelijkheden.

Tijdens de COVID-crisis kwam er elke 30 uur gemiddeld een nieuwe miljardair bij. Hoe zou dat nu zijn? Wie profiteert het meest van deze crisis? De rijken worden rijker en de armen worden armer, maar we gaan over tot de orde van de dag. Het geloof in de vrije markt is zo groot dat er weinig politici durven in te grijpen.

Maar nu worden ook mensen geraakt die tot nu toe het hoofd nét boven water kunnen houden, die niet direct afhankelijk zijn van de overheid om te overleven. En wat gaan we hieraan doen? Hoe zorgen we ervoor dat de energierekening betaalbaar wordt? Het prijsplafond in combinatie met overwinstbelasting is hierbij de sleutel, maar het is niet de enige stap.

Hopelijk komen de regeringsleiders komende vrijdag tot een akkoord om de losgeslagen energiemarkt te temmen. Waar wachten jullie op? Nú gezamenlijk inkopen en nú werken aan hervorming van de markt! Dan kunnen we met een geruster hart de komende winters tegemoet.

  Dita Charanzová (Renew). – Mr President, well, it’s our duty to back Ukraine against the terrorist Putin’s regime, but it is also our duty to protect and support our citizens and our companies in this energy crisis. Millions of Europeans don’t know how they will make it through this winter – steep increases in food prices, double-digit inflation.

What we need is a crisis management and we need it now. This House proposed concrete solutions: exempting staple foods from VAT, more money for SMEs and bigger companies, decoupling electricity prices from the prices of gas. And we know how to finance this plan: windfall tax. And this needs to be properly implemented by all Member States.

Winter is coming and all our talk must now be backed with concrete actions.

  Viola von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Während Putin militärisch verliert, hofft er mit dem Wechsel der Jahreszeiten auf einen Sieg. Er setzt auf kalte Temperaturen, auf sinkende Temperaturen und damit auch auf sinkende Solidarität in der EU. Auch wenn wir auf die Temperaturen keinen Einfluss haben, auf den Zusammenhalt in der EU haben wir Einfluss.

Mit Russlands Energieerpressung wissen Millionen nicht mehr, wie sie ihre Rechnungen bezahlen können. Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen müssen ihre Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter entlassen, aber Energieunternehmen erzielen Milliardengewinne. Im Zuge dieser riesigen Herausforderung ist es unbedingt geboten, eine vorübergehende Sondersteuer auf Mitnahmeeffekte zu erheben, um eben mit diesen Einnahmen diese meistverletzlichen Gruppen zu unterstützen.

Aber im Grunde müssen wir uns komplett unabhängig von Energie aus autokratischen Staaten machen. Erst diese Selbstemanzipierung wird den notwendigen Schutz vor Autokraten und deren Erpressungsversuchen gewährleisten. Dieser Winter wird uns alle in Bezug auf Solidarität und sozialen Zusammenhalt auf eine Probe stellen. Aber ich bin zuversichtlich, dass wir hier in der EU diesen Test gemeinsam bestehen werden.

  Tom Vandendriessche (ID). – Voorzitter, collega’s, deze energiecrisis overkomt ons niet zomaar. Het is het gevolg van een doelbewuste politieke keuze waarvan de gevolgen ook voorspelbaar waren.

Vanuit ecologisch dogmatisme werden kerncentrales gesloten. Vanuit liberaal moralisme werd een onbezonnen economische oorlog ontketend. Het ene na het andere sanctiepakket werd afgekondigd. Daarmee dacht men de oorlog te stoppen en Rusland zonder geld te zetten. Het omgekeerde gebeurde. De energieprijzen exploderen, waardoor Poetin precies méér geld ontvangt om zijn gruwelijke oorlogsmachine te financieren. Torenhoge inflatie is het gevolg. Spaargeld en koopkracht gaan in rook op. Industrie delokaliseert. Pensioenfondsen dreigen omver te vallen.

Europa is economisch zelfmoord aan het plegen. Gewone mensen betalen daar de prijs van. Een Vlaams gezin betaalt nu al vier keer meer voor energie. Zij worden vergeten en in de steek gelaten. En wat doet de Europese Unie? Nog meer sancties. Nog meer wapenleveringen.

De Europese Unie werd ooit opgericht om vrede en welvaart te brengen. Dit is helaas oorlog en collectieve verarming geworden. Ze hebben ons in het moeras van deze oorlog getrokken en hebben er geen flauw benul van hoe lang die nog zal duren en hoe we daar eigenlijk ooit opnieuw uitraken. Deze Europese Unie leidt ons naar de economische ondergang, als het al niet naar de loopgraven is. Deze waanzin moet stoppen.

  Alexandr Vondra (ECR). – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve told this over and over again. We can’t fight two wars, advance against Putin and carbon, it’s above our weight.

Yes, we must contain Putin at any price. Yes, we must support Ukraine. Yes, we must be independent of Russia supplies. Yes, we are capping the prices and introducing the windfall tax. But it’s not enough to keep social stability and prices under control.

Most liberal democracies is the home and friendly cooperation inside the EU are in danger. Therefore, we should slow down our radical decarbonisation effort by mitigating the ETS system, by allowing LNG long-term contracts, by capping the energy prices, the gas from the electricity. And finally, also by rehabilitating fully the nuclear energy as the stable source of baseload.

This is the way to cheaper ... (the President cut off the speaker)

  András Gyürk (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Európa súlyos válságba jutott, brutális rezsiszámlák, tönkremenő iparágak, létükért küzdő kisvállalkozások. Az ok egyértelmű, a háború és az arra adott elhibázott válasz, vagyis a rosszul megalkotott szankciós politika. Ezért elviselhetetlenek ma az energiaárak. A megoldás a szankciók újragondolása, mert az energiaellátás fizikai és nem ideológiai kérdés. Nem kockáztathatjuk Európa energiabiztonságát, nem sodorhatjuk veszélybe a munkahelyeket. Olyan politikát kell folytatnunk, ami bírja az emberek támogatását. Ezt a célt szolgálja például a szankciókról szóló magyarországi nemzeti konzultáció. Az egyre súlyosabb válságból ugyanis csak széles tagállami és társadalmi támogatottsággal tudunk kilábalni. Ezért is elfogadhatatlan, hogy ebben a helyzetben Brüsszel 600 milliárd eurónyi forrást tart vissza. Most minden tagállamnak azonnal meg kell kapnia a neki járó forrásokat, hogy azok a lehető leghamarabb eljussanak a polgárokhoz.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, Putin’s armed forces have underwhelmed. But he retains a strong grip on energy supply, for now.

He will try to weaponise the winter to weaken resolve and support for Ukraine. The EU and Member States must introduce a range of measures and supports to help households and businesses and protect citizens from the worsening energy price hikes.

Immediate actions of the energy crisis should not be at the detriment of the future needs of our energy system. Yet the market should be for the benefit of society, not siphon the life from it. It is only right to apply a windfall charge to actually give that money back to citizens. To reduce energy bills for consumers in the longer term, the answer is clear: embrace the energy efficiency principle and get renovating the built environment. But for now, the windfall profits being made by producers and, above all, by traders of the energy system must be subjected to storm force taxes. These astronomical and immoral profits must be taxed as soon as possible.

  Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Viele haben es hier gesagt: Diese Energiekrise bedroht Millionen von Europäerinnen und Europäern in ihrer wirklichen Existenz, und normale Beschäftigte können solche Preissteigerungen nicht stemmen. Am schlimmsten trifft es die Ärmsten. 30 % in Europa können keinerlei Rücklagen bilden. Deshalb ist die erste Antwort: Löhne rauf, Preise runter und Solidarität mit den Streikenden hier in Europa. Die Übergewinnsteuer wurde bereits erwähnt, um das zu finanzieren.

Was mir aber wirklich riesengroße Sorgen macht, sind die explodierenden Energiepreise, die Millionen Arbeitsplätze in energieintensiven Industrien betreffen. Wenn man hier nicht schneller handelt und wenn man das hier einfach laufen lässt, dann bricht das das industrielle Rückgrat Europas. Und was ist die Folge davon? Nicht nur Arbeitslose und verarmende Regionen, sondern auch mehr globale Abhängigkeit und weniger strategische Autonomie. Deshalb muss Europa jetzt schneller handeln und kann nicht mehr nur darauf setzen, dass sich das Problem erledigen wird. Wer gute Zukunftsperspektiven will, handelt jetzt mutig.

  Nicola Beer (Renew). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Energie, Ernährung sind der Boden sozialen Friedens – und der ist brüchig allerorts. Die Menschen sind extrem verunsichert. Sie machen sich Sorgen über Preissteigerungen bei Energie, bei Nahrungsmitteln, und dass die Inflationsspirale sich weiterdreht. Das ist eine Situation, die Putin schafft, um Ängste zu schüren und den Zusammenhalt zu untergraben. Und umso wichtiger ist es, dass wir das eben nicht zulassen, dass wir nicht nur reden, sondern geschlossen handeln, schnell mit einem gemeinsamen Plan die Preise senken, die Inflation bekämpfen.

Wir erhöhen die Energieproduktion in Europa, und daher ist die deutsche Entscheidung zum Weiterbetrieb der Kernkraftwerke wichtig. Wir kaufen mehr gemeinsam ein bei verlässlichen Partnern. Wir bauen erneuerbare Energien schneller aus und entwickeln Zukunftsenergien weiter. Wir sparen Energie, wir bekämpfen Inflation durch strukturelle Maßnahmen. Wir entlasten Bürger und Unternehmen, bis alle Maßnahmen sicher greifen – von Strompreis- und Gaspreisbremse bis Bürokratieabbau. Das funktioniert nicht auf Knopfdruck, aber wir kommen voran. Und jetzt gilt es doch, durchzuhalten, mit Zuversicht unseren Zusammenhalt zu bewahren. Das beweist unsere Demokratie gegenüber dem Aggressor Putin und unsere unverbrüchliche Solidarität mit der Ukraine.

  Claude Gruffat (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je me réjouis de l’opportunité que nous avons d’appeler une fois de plus à la taxation des super-profits. Néanmoins, la situation est loin d’être réjouissante.

D’un côté, des millions de citoyennes et de citoyens font face à l’augmentation extrême des prix dans des secteurs vitaux comme l’énergie et l’alimentation; de l’autre, l’insolente santé des grands groupes leaders du secteur, qui s’enrichissent outrageusement, comme leurs actionnaires, sur les mêmes secteurs de l’alimentation et de l’énergie. 50 %, c’est l’augmentation du chiffre d’affaires de Total en 2022. 50 %, c’est l’augmentation du salaire du PDG de Total, Patrick Pouyanné, en 2022. Mais zéro, c’est le montant payé par Total au titre de l’impôt sur les sociétés en France depuis 2020.

Regardez en conscience, vous qui avez été élus par les Européennes et les Européens, et demandez-vous si nous pouvons laisser subsister une telle injustice. Il est urgent que cet argent qui dort dans les poches des actionnaires soit mis à la disposition des plus fragiles qui peinent à faire face à ce choc des prix qui va durer entre cinq et dix ans. Il s’agit d’un enjeu social, d’un choix de société. Nous devons limiter les systèmes de concentration de richesses et donc d’appauvrissement du plus grand nombre.

  Gunnar Beck (ID). – Herr Präsident! Die Ölpreise haben sich seit Anfang 2021 verdoppelt, die Kohlepreise haben sich verdreifacht und die Gaspreise mehr als verfünffacht. Laut dem Internationalen Währungsfonds werden die Preise bis mindestens 2026 weiter stark steigen. Ein Hauptgrund: die Verdoppelung des Preises für CO2-Zertifikate und ganz allgemein die EU-Klimarettungspolitik.

Es profitieren von den Preissteigerungen die Energieunternehmen und die EU selbst. Firmenübergewinne wollen Sie nun teilweise abschöpfen – so weit richtig. Doch wem zum Nutzen? Nicht den Verbrauchern, sondern der EU selbst für noch ehrgeizigere Klimaziele. Nur der EU-Anteil an den weltweiten CO2-Emissionen liegt bei rund 8 %. Keine andere Weltregion, nicht einmal die USA, teilen Ihre Klimaziele. Unser Einfluss auf das Weltklima ist gleich null. Wissen Sie was? Ihr Ziel ist gar nicht die Weltrettung, sondern Massenverelendung und zivilisatorischer Rückschritt für Europa.

  Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, mientras el responsable del 27 % de las emisiones globales —China— planifica nuevas centrales térmicas de carbón, ustedes siguen discutiendo cómo trasladar a los europeos los sacrificios que impone su agenda globalista.

Su fanatismo climático es responsable de la dependencia de Europa de terceras potencias. El sistema que ustedes crearon para beneficiar a las renovables es el que ha provocado esos beneficios. Gobiernos socialistas, como el de España, obtienen ingresos extraordinarios a costa del IVA, esquilmando a las clases medias y trabajadoras.

Piden sacrificios a todos, pero no están dispuestos a asumir ninguno. Quieren rebajar la factura climática, reducción drástica del gasto político de todas las instituciones.

Devuelvan a las familias y empresas el IVA que los Estados han obtenido de forma extraordinaria, del mismo modo que los beneficios de las eléctricas. Detengan su plan para ahogar a las empresas con nuevos impuestos, cargas, regulaciones y sanciones. Son tan hipócritas que, ayer mismo, se pedían nuevas sanciones a las empresas europeas contaminantes.

Incrementemos la producción de energía utilizando todas las fuentes conocidas. Pongan fin al comercio especulativo de los derechos de emisión de CO2 y permitamos que las familias puedan deducirse en renta el coste de las hipotecas para la compra de sus viviendas. Si no son capaces de hacerlo, déjenlo. Nosotros estamos preparados y dispuestos.

  Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, budžeti građana napadnuti su s barem tri strane: inflacija koja potječe još i prije rata, rast cijene energenata i na kraju urušavanje privrede, što će smanjiti zaposlenost i prihode mnogima.

Ovdje u Francuskoj sindikati su pozvali na opći štrajk od danas 18.10. Prošli tjedan smo bili u Bruxellesu. Tamo svako malo netko prosvjeduje oko Parlamenta, od poljoprivrednika do građana zbog povećanih cijena životnih troškova. A zima još nije niti počela. Dakle, još niti prvi od tri mjeseca jeseni nije prošao.

U našoj Hrvatskoj je i prije ove krize bitno veći dio kućnih budžeta odlazio na režije u odnosu na brojne druge europske zemlje. Cijene za građane uglavnom se nisu promijenile i najveći dio tereta pada na Hrvatsku elektroprivredu koja je počela gomilati velike gubitke, a prijeti joj i skori bankrot ako se ovako nastavi.

Ove troškove može se neko vrijeme sanirati iz proračuna i fondova koji će se pak recesijom i urušavanjem privrede sve teže puniti. Ta brana može držati vodu neko vrijeme, ali vrlo vrlo kratko.

Jedino rješenje je da se nabave dovoljne količine jeftine energije, inače će nam kolabirati i gospodarstva i kućanstva.

Kad je naša Hrvatska bila u ratu, nitko nije ovako dijelio krizu s nama, nego smo još dobili i embargo na oružje. Ovakva samoubilačka politika treba se dokinuti.

  Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Voorzitter, het werkwoord is “leven” en niet “overleven”, terwijl overleven voor steeds meer mensen de realiteit is. Steeds meer mensen weten aan het begin van de maand niet hoe ze aan het eind van de maand hun huur, hun rekeningen of hun boodschappen kunnen betalen.

De huidige crisis laat de kwetsbaarheid van onze essentiële diensten zien. Energieprijzen staan bloot aan de macht van de markt en aan de grillen van autocraten. De Europese plannen voor een energieplafond en een belasting op woekerwinsten helpen om de ergste klappen op te vangen, maar ik denk dat we niet alleen naar de symptomen, maar ook naar de onderliggende ziekte moeten kijken.

In de Europese pijler van sociale rechten staat dat we allemaal recht hebben op fatsoenlijke toegang tot essentiële diensten zoals energie, water en transport. Hier moet Europa garant voor staan, want dat is een stevig fundament waar mensen hun leven op kunnen bouwen.

  Morten Løkkegaard (Renew). – Hr. Formand! Politik består ofte af ubehagelige valg, og dette er sandelig et af dem. Europæerne er pressede, vinteren venter, Europa vil blive ramt historisk hårdt. Skal vi som politikere så gribe ind over for et velfungerende marked i forsøget på at lave nødløsninger? Umiddelbart vil svaret jo være nej. Men omvendt kan vi jo ikke lade europæerne i stikken. Vi står i en ekstraordinær krise, og det kræver ekstraordinære løsninger. Det afgørende nu er, at den løsning, vi kommer op med, rent faktisk sikrer, at energimarkedet fortsat fungerer, så priserne kan regulere sig selv, også i fremtiden, og så investorerne også i fremtiden har lyst til at investere i grøn energi. Men lige nu, der gælder det altså om at komme gennem vinteren, og det kræver ekstraordinære løsninger.

  Ciarán Cuffe (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, in an age of private yachts and super-jets, as the super—rich get richer, it is time for windfall taxes.

Five months ago this week, on 19 May, this House adopted a resolution calling for a windfall tax on energy companies. But two weeks ago, we rejected a call for a tax on the excessive profits of corporations benefiting from the crisis. While we’ve been debating this tax for five months, households across Europe have seen their energy costs soar, small businesses shut down, and millions are falling below the energy poverty line.

We have solutions: introduce a windfall tax, differentiate between fossil fuels and renewables and share the revenues with households. We also need to ban evictions and disconnections and we need to increase the minimum wage to a living wage.

The crisis is here right now. Households and small businesses are experiencing it and it’s not far off in the future. So now is the time for action.

  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, “Als de muziek stopt, wordt het qua liquiditeit ingewikkeld. Maar zolang de muziek speelt, moet je opstaan en dansen. En we dansen nog steeds.” Dit zijn de woorden van Chuck Prince, CEO van Citigroup, in 2007, vlak voor de financiële crisis.

Vandaag staan we opnieuw op die dansvloer. De mensen thuis kijken naar ons om in te schatten wat de muziek gaat doen over een week, een maand, een jaar. Maar als ik vandaag naar mijn ambtsgenoten luister, hoor ik meer van hetzelfde: meer roekeloze uitgaven, meer Europese schuldendeling, meer ondoordacht klimaatbeleid, meer regulering, meer overheid, meer EU.

Wat veel collega’s vandaag benoemen, is niet de oplossing, maar juist het probleem. We staan aan de vooravond van een wereldwijde recessie. Het is tijd om af te kicken van de verslaving aan gratis geld, subsidies en overheidsbemoeienis. De muziek is gestopt, het feestje voorbij.

  Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, os níveis históricos de inflação vão para além de números ou estatísticas. Mostram-nos as dificuldades das famílias sem dinheiro para fazer face aos seus gastos essenciais. Os aumentos dos preços dos alimentos, da energia ou dos transportes, estão a lançar famílias no desespero, famílias que a quem sobra uma grande parte do mês no fim do seu salário. E a fase crítica do inverno ainda está por vir. Mas há já muitas pessoas sem dinheiro para aquecer as suas casas, vivendo mesmo em situações de verdadeira pobreza energética.

E é por isso que, mais do que lamentos, precisamos de medidas concretas. Limites aos preços aplicados ou impostos sobre os lucros extraordinários têm de ser medidas concertadas a nível europeu e têm de ser destinadas a proteger as famílias e as empresas, garantindo o bem-estar das pessoas e mantendo a nossa economia funcional.

Uma palavra final aos governos nacionais, em particular ao português: não podem limitar—se a medidas superficiais e a culpar a conjuntura internacional. Exige-se muito mais, exige-se responsabilidade política na gestão desta crise.

  Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, los precios siguen altos, las facturas de la luz y del gas siguen en niveles muy elevados y el Banco Central Europeo está subiendo los tipos, y seguirá haciéndolo. Y yo creo que es importante que las autoridades políticas —la Comisión, el Consejo y el Parlamento— lleguemos al acuerdo de que no podemos dejar la inflación solo en manos del Banco Central Europeo, porque en esa situación los tipos subirían tanto que lo pasaríamos ciertamente mal.

Y, si no dejamos solo la responsabilidad en manos del BCE, ¿qué podemos hacer? Yo creo que, en el ámbito energético, aún hay mucho que hacer. Creo que recibimos positivamente los anuncios de la Comisión, pero la capacidad de consolidar el mercado energético europeo sigue estando pendiente. Tenemos mucho que hacer ahí. Además, necesitamos financiación para ayudar a las familias y a los hogares, y a la propia acción política de la Comisión. Y yo creo que la contribución solidaria que la Comisión ha propuesto bien podría ayudar a fondear un instrumento europeo que redujera, por cierto, los problemas dentro del mercado único.

  Guy Verhofstadt (Renew). – Mr President, Mr Commissioner, it has been eight months now since this energy crisis started. Eight months, and I have still not seen a coherent plan by the European Commission. I find it hugely disappointing because your job is not to come up with a fragment approach but with a global structural approach. And there isn’t one. You are talking about price caps, okay. You’re talking about windfall tax. But what is the whole picture? What will you do to tackle this energy crisis?

I think you have to do three things. That is an energy purchase platform that is completely different to what you are doing now. You will buy together 15% in 2023 – it is the opposite of what you have to do, to buy together 85%. Where is the security fund for the investments that we absolutely need? And where is the energy assistance plan for households or companies, the same as we did with COVID-19? Why do we not repeat it now?

You are right when you criticise in this op-ed the German approach with the 200 billion but it is not only necessary to criticise it, you have to also to come forward with an alternative. And we are going to do that with a number of MEPs. In a few moments, we are going to send you a letter about it, with these cross-party proposals.

  Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission, verehrte Ratsvertreter, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Der Winter steht vor der Tür. Viele Haushalte und Betriebe fragen sich: Wie kann ich meine Strom-, meine Gasrechnung noch bezahlen? Wie komme ich mit den hohen Lebenshaltungskosten zurecht? Es ist von vielen Kollegen schon gesagt worden: Wertvolle Zeit ist vergeudet worden. Aber jetzt haben wir endlich Vorschläge der Kommission auf dem Tisch – spät, aber, wie gesagt, es liegt was auf dem Tisch: Solidarabgabe, Erlösabschöpfung beim Strom, Gaspreisbremse, gemeinsamer Einkauf von Gas, neuer Benchmark für FFT, also einiges ist jetzt auf dem Tisch.

Ich möchte heute meine Redezeit nutzen, um die Mitgliedstaaten aufzufordern, doch endlich hier tätig zu werden, und um auch in Richtung der Ratspräsidentschaft noch einmal zu bitten, den Mitgliedstaaten endlich auf die Finger zu klopfen. Bislang hat jedes Land, jeder Mitgliedstaat sein Ding gemacht. Wir sind weit davon entfernt, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, einen europäischen Energiebinnenmarkt zu haben. Aber wenn wir die Probleme in den Griff kriegen wollen, dann müssen wir gemeinsam handeln, was auch heißt, dass wir alle verfügbaren Ressourcen, die wir im Lande haben, zur Energieerzeugung nutzen müssen.

  Irene Tinagli (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, for months, we’ve been saying to people that the rising cost of energy was something limited and temporary. But it’s not been like that. And, let’s face it, it will not be like this in the future. Governments had to intervene massively to support families and businesses and will have to do that again in the future. But it’s not going to be sustainable in the long term, we know that.

So what does it mean? It means that this will affect the competitiveness of our businesses, will affect the single market and bring about fragmentation and will also have spill-overs that will aggravate and accelerate a possible recession all over the European Union.

So we need to intervene very quickly, urgently, on two fronts: one, provide a genuine European instrument to provide support to those countries that don’t have the fiscal space, and also to restore the single market. And then we need an incisive intervention on the energy market – yes, the joint procurement. But we need something more ambitious on the gas price, decoupling gas from energy prices.

If we’re not ambitious now, we will regret it when it will be too late.

  Radan Kanev (PPE). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, Minister, colleagues, let me be, as usual, very straightforward. I am deeply concerned by the ease and speed with which the Council, including my own government, approved the windfall tax. I am concerned because a windfall tax does not necessarily reduce bills, which is the theme of our debate, but rather subsidises the most unsustainable of all forms of electric generation – those from natural gas, it distorts natural market incentives and eventually jeopardises the business plans and investments of more sustainable and viable alternatives. And I am extremely concerned by the populist zeal with which this House discusses extension of the windfall tax to other businesses. It is market—based innovation and competition that could lead us out of this crisis, and not breaking the free market.

  Dan Nica (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, intrăm în iarnă și din nou avem zeci de milioane de cetățeni europeni care nu știu dacă își vor putea plăti facturile în această iarnă și nu știu dacă nu cumva vor trebui să renunțe fie la a-și cumpăra mâncare, fie să-și cumpere medicamente, pentru că, ghiciți ce s-a întâmplat? Inflația asta ne-a adus într-o situație absolut imposibilă. Uleiul a devenit un produs prohibitiv, zahărul la fel, pâinea la fel, carnea la fel. Iar toate acestea se datorează unei lipse de acțiune a Comisiei Europene, care nu a luat măsurile pe care trebuia să le ia de un an de zile. Aceste măsuri au dus la inflație. 80% din inflație este datorită sau din cauza prețurilor la energie. Iar aceste măsuri, care nu au fost luate la timp, acum aduc costuri.

Vorbiți de profituri excepționale. Păi de un an de zile sunt profituri excepționale, iar profiturile excepționale s-au tradus în inflație. În loc să opriți posibilitatea ca toate companiile din energie să facă de un an de zile, în fiecare lună, profituri excepționale, le-ați lăsat să funcționeze și acum cu toții plătim acest preț.

Opriți posibilitatea de a face profituri excepționale de către aceste companii, taxați-le corespunzător și vom avea poate o posibilitate să traversăm și să supraviețuim în această iarnă.

  Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, ante la terrible crisis energética, la crisis de inflación, la dificultad para pagar las hipotecas por la elevada tasa de los tipos de interés o la crisis de suministros, ya existe una herramienta para empezar a hacerles frente: son los fondos de NextGenerationEU, que sé que el comisario conoce muy bien. Estamos hablando de 800 000 millones de euros que, en un altísimo porcentaje, están pendientes de ejecución, pendientes de gasto, de inversión.

Quiero aprovechar esta ocasión para animar a la Comisión a que ponga toda su capacidad para hacer que ese dinero, esos 800 000 millones de euros se ejecuten de una manera rápida y eficaz, y a que garantice que lleguen a la economía real, a las familias y a las empresas; también a que haga su labor de fiscalización con los Estados miembros para garantizar que esas reformas que acompañan esa inversión sean las reformas adecuadas. No más subidas de impuestos, sino incentivos fiscales y aquellas medidas que hagan nuestra economía más competitiva y ayuden a que entre esa liquidez tan necesaria.

Señor comisario, existe un instrumento y se llama NextGenerationEU y apelo a la Comisión a que haga su trabajo y de verdad consiga que los fondos se gasten rápido.

  Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αξιότιμε κύριε Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί και αγαπητές συνάδελφοι, η εισβολή της Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία σε λίγες μέρες συμπληρώνει 8 μήνες και αποτελεί το μοναδικό ενεργό μέτωπο επί ευρωπαϊκού εδάφους. Από εκείνη τη στιγμή, οι κοινωνικές και οικονομικές συνέπειες, κυρίως για την Ευρώπη και ευρύτερα για τον κόσμο, ήταν και εξακολουθούν να είναι σημαντικές. Κύματα προσφύγων έρχονται κατά χιλιάδες για να βρουν ασφάλεια στα κράτη μέλη, ενώ παράλληλα το ζήτημα με τις εξαγωγές της Ουκρανίας σε σιτηρά και πρώτες ύλες έχει δημιουργήσει προβλήματα στην εφοδιαστική αλυσίδα της ευρωπαϊκής αγοράς.

Ως επιστέγασμα, η ενεργειακή κρίση έρχεται να χτυπήσει εκ νέου τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες, με πολλές από τις εταιρείες ενέργειας να αισχροκερδούν σε αυτό το θολό τοπίο. Η κυβέρνησή μας στην Ελλάδα το έκανε: εισήγαγε έναν προσωρινό έκτακτο φόρο με σκοπό τη φορολόγηση των εταιρειών ενέργειας για τα υπερκέρδη που σημειώνουν οι εταιρείες όσο διαρκεί αυτή η κρίση και τα χρήματα που εισπράττονται κατευθύνονται απευθείας στους καταναλωτές με σκοπό την όσο το δυνατόν μεγαλύτερη ελάφρυνσή τους. Αυτό πρέπει να κάνουμε συνολικά ως Ευρώπη και πρέπει να το πράξουμε άμεσα, γιατί τα βάρη που σηκώνουν οι οικογένειες και οι επιχειρήσεις είναι άμεσα και συνεχώς αυξανόμενα.

PREDSEDÁ: MICHAL ŠIMEČKA
podpredseda

Vystúpenia podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky

  Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome the reactive measures, such as the proposed introduction of a windfall tax, but it should not have taken European leaders over 236 days of a crippling crisis to introduce such measures. While this debate focused primarily on using the windfall tax mechanism on fossil fuel companies, we must utilise this instrument for the large building suppliers and supermarkets. Ensuring families, feeding their families and building their homes and growing their businesses can survive the coming weeks and months.

In addition, it is incredibly important we recognise that the cost of living crisis is affecting people’s mental wellbeing. Following this debate, we will lead a dedicated discussion on mental health. These two discussions are connected now more than ever. This emphasises the need for a comprehensive EU approach to mental health and not just talking about in times of crisis, but as a cornerstone for all 27 Member States.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos narį, aš sutinku su kolegų pasakymais, kad mums iš tikrųjų šioje situacijoje reikia kuo skubiau apriboti viršpelnius. Tai yra įvesti mokesčius, apriboti viršutines dujų kainas, ypatingai tos, iš kurių gaminama elektra, ir teisingai paskirstyti gautas pajamas smulkiam ir vidutiniam verslui bei skurdesnėms Europos, europiečių šeimoms. Tačiau aš noriu atkreipti dėmesį į dar vieną dalyką, kad mums reikia labai atsakingai įvykdyti prisiimtus įsipareigojimus. Gaila, kad komisaras V. Dombrovskis išėjo, norėjau jam pasakyti, kad jo šalies ūkininkai gauna mažesnes tiesiogines išmokas, kaip ir mano šalies Lietuvos ūkininkai. Nors tas buvo pažadėta, kai buvo stojimo procesas. Todėl kviečiu Jus, Komisijos narį, ir Komisijos narį V. Dombrovskį pasirūpinti, kad visi įsipareigojimai būtų įgyvendinti. Tik veikdami solidariai galėsime atsikratyti priklausomybės nuo Putino energetikos šantažo ir sustabdyti nacionalizmą ir populizmą Europoje.

  Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (Renew). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μιλάμε πολύ, αλλά το αποτέλεσμα, κατά την άποψή μου, είναι αρνητικό για την οικονομία και την κοινωνία. Εάν θέλουμε να βγούμε από το αδιέξοδο, πρέπει πρώτα να αλλάξουμε τον τρόπο λειτουργίας της αγοράς ενέργειας σε σχέση με το φυσικό αέριο, που είναι το πιο αδύναμο σημείο μας εξαιτίας του Πούτιν. Δεύτερον, πρέπει να αποσυνδέσουμε τη χονδρική τιμή της ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας από το φυσικό αέριο. Τρίτον, πρέπει να περιορίσουμε —όπως έχει ειπωθεί— τα υπερκέρδη και να τα φορολογήσουμε γρήγορα. Τέταρτον —το οποίο θεωρώ πολύ βασικό, πρέπει να σταματήσουμε να στέλνουμε τόσα χρήματα στον Πούτιν. Είναι χαρακτηριστικό ότι η Ελλάδα, η χώρα μου, έστειλε τον Αύγουστο 1,2 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ για ρωσικό φυσικό αέριο και πετρέλαιο· τριπλάσιο ποσό σε σύγκριση με τον Αύγουστο του 2021. Δεν είναι δυνατόν να επιδοτούμε έτσι έναν επιθετικό πόλεμο. Τέλος, δεν μας φταίει, κατά την άποψή μου, η Ευρώπη αλλά η έλλειψή της στον στρατηγικής σημασίας τομέα της ενέργειας.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, it makes sense to tax the windfall profits of energy companies. But the rate proposed, 33%, is way too low. If the tax is calculated only on excess profits, the rate should be at least double that and in some cases 100%.

This should not be a one—off tax. We need a permanent windfall tax mechanism, one that applies to all sectors. It should apply to any company that makes excess profits off problems of others.

We need a windfall tax on the profits of weapons manufacturers. Just look at the profits and share prices of the EU arms industry of late – Rheinmetall, Thales, Airbus, Leonardo. And long before the war in Ukraine, these companies were making a fortune off the misery of the people in Yemen by supplying arms to the Saudi—UAE coalition that are committing a genocide there, the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet at the moment. Why do we allow these companies to make crazy profits off the misery of others?

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, discutăm despre stoparea creșterii facturilor, cu consecințe sociale și economice, dar acum, când noi discutăm, în foarte multe state membre se regularizează facturile, se ridică facturile, de 10 ori costul la energie.

Și iată, nu numai în țara mea, unde m-au sesizat cetățenii că au crescut prețurile la energia electrică de 10 ori, iată, și în Belgia am primit chiar acum, când este dezbaterea, o scrisoare de la un cetățean la care factura a fost crescută de la 35 de euro la 450 de euro pe lună și o factură de regularizare de peste 3 700 de euro.

Care sunt măsurile concrete? Pentru că nu putem să stăm în sezonul rece să discutăm de opt luni cum am putea să scădem facturile?

Vin de la o întâlnire cu SME Connect, în calitatea mea de vicepreședinte a Intergrupului pentru IMM-uri, și întrebarea concretă a întreprinzătorilor din Germania, din Austria, de unde au participat, din Slovacia, cum scădem facturile la energie?

Și acesta trebuie să fie răspunsul pe care noi trebuie să-l dăm și la cetățeni, și la IMM-uri, dacă vrem să nu avem consecințe sociale și economice.

  Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Mr President, these are not normal times. This is not a free market. This is a market that’s been held to ransom by Putin. So we do need to have extraordinary measures put in place. I very much welcome the proposals around a windfall tax. We do need to show in solidarity with citizens, with small businesses, with families that simply are unable to afford electricity bills and other gas utility bills in the weeks and months ahead.

Member States have gone to extraordinary levels in some countries to try and buffer the impact that inflation is having on people. But the European Union must do more in terms of bringing forward a windfall tax, a solidarity tax, that can be dispersed to people and entities and businesses that most need it.

We also need to be brave in the area of decoupling of the wholesale electricity price from gas prices. We can’t have a situation where we are continually blackmailed, held to ransom by Putin and his cronies in the efforts to keep the lights on, businesses going and families warm this winter. We do need to be brave. We do need to change how we price electricity in Europe.

  Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, táto kríza je výsledkom našej závislosti na fosílnych palivách, predovšetkým na plyne, a trápi ľudí po celej Európe, aj firmy. Závislosti, ktorá ničí klímu, a závislosti, ktorá dala všetky zbrane do ruky i najväčšiemu dealerovi, Putinovi. Závislosti sa však najlepšie zbavíme spoločne, a preto mi chýba silnejšia iniciatíva od Komisie, silnejšie kroky od Komisie, ktoré pomôžu, ako pomôcť obyvateľom a firmám, tak lepšie rozvíjať zelenú energiu a energetickú efektívnosť.

Daň z nadmerných ziskov nemôže byť len na národnej úrovni, pretože obchody s energiami sa dejú na celoeurópskej úrovni. Obchodníci nakupujú v jednej krajine elektrinu na budúci rok a predávajú v inej. Nákupy, ktoré boli pod 100 eurami, sa zrazu musia kompenzovať za vyše 300. Potrebujeme európske riešenie a ja ho očakávam ako od Komisie, tak od Rady v nasledujúcich dňoch.

(Ukončenie vystúpení podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)

  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by reiterating our support for the Ukrainian resistance. I don’t think that this is a formal—only statement because we also have to refuse the narrative that supporting Ukraine means not being able to support our citizens. We will not sacrifice freedom in favour of the economy. Putin will not divide us. He will not prevail if we act together, with ambition. Of course, we know that we are living through a multiple crisis – a geopolitical, energy, inflation crisis – with an impact on the real economy and with some risk of financial spillovers.

This global external shock is asymmetric in terms of its consequences. First of all, for low—income countries that have huge, huge debt and food—insecurity problems, but also among advanced countries, the EU is the most affected, by a large margin. We have risks for our competitiveness and risks of fragmentation, and social risks, of course, which we are discussing today. So we will assess the evolution of this crisis – I will present our economic forecast on 11 November, but for sure, the economy is slowing down and this multiple crisis has to be addressed. As you know, the Commission will adopt later today a new energy package. I have to say, it is a huge package. Gradually, we are finding common ways among Member States. Of course, it will not be the last.

I have three key words for the coming weeks and months on my side and the Commission side.

The first key word is coordination because of course all the national measures are facing the social consequences of this crisis. We know that the European family is spending 20% of their income on food and 15% of their income on energy, so 35%, but this is an average. Of course, we have several countries and several low—income households where food and energy are near to 50% of family expenditure. And the increase that we are looking at is putting these households in a very dangerous situation, and the same is happening for, especially, small and medium companies.

So we need to react to support, but also to ensure that this support does not undermine monetary policy efforts because reducing inflation is in the common interest and it is especially in the common interest of the most vulnerable households. So it’s an interplay that’s not easy because we need, of course, a monetary policy. We don’t need exactly the same monetary policy in all areas of the world because Europe has particular roots for its own inflation and needs a particular reaction, but this is for the ECB to decide, and our fiscal coordination should complete monetary policy and not compete with it.

My second key word is solidarity. From a social point of view, many things were raised in this discussion and I think that our solidarity contribution on windfall profits is a first step. It is connected to energy for the legal reasons that you know very well, but this doesn’t mean that Member States could not go further to address these issues. Solidarity also means looking at the risks of fragmentation, and we have the same concern that we had during the pandemic because, of course, we have different fiscal space in different countries and we should discuss the possibility of looking to further possible common financial tools based on loans to address these risks of fragmentation.

Finally, competitiveness – because the risk that there is in the asymmetric consequences of this crisis is for Europe to lose competitiveness. So our two main commitments, first, on the clean energy transition, and second, on implementing reforms and investments of Next Generation EU are not only important because we have to implement what we decide, but they are also important if we want to avoid a difficult situation for the Union in terms of global competitiveness.

  Ivan Bartoš, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you very much for this very timely debate on such a crucial topic. The cohesion of our societies is at stake. At the end of the day, there will be a price to pay for all of us as a result of Russia’s actions. Let us make sure that the burden is fairly distributed.

I completely agree with Ms García Pérez, who echoed the recent resolution of this House that citizens should not be obliged to choose between heating and eating. I also take good note of what many of you have said that everybody should contribute in a situation of crisis, especially those with higher profits.

Let me underline once again that Member States and the EU are doing their utmost to cushion the blow on our companies and citizens. We are closely following the evolution of the situation and will adapt our policies according to the needs. This is not an easy task, and it requires swift action across several policies and continuous articulation between Member States and EU institutions. In times like these, we should not forget that coordination between Member States is absolutely key to ensuring the integrity of the single market and maintaining a level playing field between our economies, as Mr Niedermayer said.

Finally, we look forward to receiving a new proposal, which the Commission is going to present this afternoon. Let me assure you that the Council will discuss them swiftly so they can be have a positive impact already this winter. Thank you very much once again for your attention and this debate.

  Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.

Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171)

  Clara Aguilera (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. – Europa yra atsidūrusi ant ekonominės ir socialinės krizės slenksčio. Karo Ukrainoje pasekmės Europai yra skaudžios. Dešimtmečiais nematyta infliacija ir kainų didėjimas bei iki aukštumų išaugusios energetikos kainos gresia itin dideliais praradimais bei ekonominiu nuosmukiu. Realybė yra tokia, jog mūsų žmonės ir smulkus verslas neišgali sumokėti išpūstų energijos sąskaitų ir dauguma rizikuoja atsidurti skurde. Žmonės negali būti priversti rinktis tarp šildymo ar maisto, todėl tos priemonės, kurias siūlo Komisija turi būti skubiai patvirtintos. Dabar ne laikas politiniams nesutarimams- mūsų žmonėms ir įmonėms reikia sprendimų dabar, kad jie išgalėtų patenkinti bent jau būtiniausius poreikius ar aprūpinti savo šeimas. Nepateisinama, jog energijos įmonės skaičiuoja viršpelnius, kai tuo tarpu sąskaitos paprastiems vartotojams išaugo dešimteriopai. Privalo būti užkirstas kelias manipuliavimui energijos rinkoje, o nepateisinami viršpelniai paskirstyti paremti tuos, kuriems labiausiai reikia paramos. Privalome apsaugoti savo maisto gamybos sektorių ir negalime leisti, kad nei mūsų žmonės, nei įmonės taptų energijos įmonių kreditoriais. Dabar yra laikas būti solidariems ir socialiai atsakingiems ir atsigręžti į savo žmones, kurie moka didžiulę kainą už karo Ukrainoje pasekmes.

  Marc Botenga (The Left), schriftelijk. – Dat overwinsten – de miljarden winst die boven op de normale winst van een multinational komen – vandaag op de agenda staan, is de verdienste van onze fractie. Laat daar geen twijfel over bestaan. In België, zoals in andere landen, ontkenden de traditionele partijen een jaar geleden nog dat overwinsten überhaupt bestonden. Ook vandaag gaan hier in het debat een aantal rechtse, liberale en extreemrechtse politici de kwestie liever simpelweg uit de weg. Onder druk van de mensen moeten jullie er vandaag over debatteren, maar nog steeds proberen jullie actie uit te stellen.

De Groenen willen grote multinationals nog steeds de helft van hun overwinsten laten behouden, terwijl de Europese Commissie met een eenmalige belasting op een klein derde van de energieoverwinsten al tevreden is. Nee, collega’s, overwinsten zijn onaanvaardbaar. Zoals een deel van het grootbedrijf profiteerde van de COVID-crisis als pandemieprofiteurs, zijn de multinationals die nu overwinsten incasseren oorlogsprofiteurs en crisisprofiteurs. Hoe komt het dat het zolang duurt voordat er actie wordt ondernomen? Omdat jullie vastzitten in een totaal neoliberaal dogma: de zogenaamde competitiviteit van het grootbedrijf – uitgedrukt in hun dividenden en winsten – is absoluut heilig. De werkende klasse – tja... die mag verdrinken. Dit kan niet langer zo doorgaan.

  Milan Brglez (S&D), pisno. – Države članice in posamezne skupine prebivalcev, še zlasti tiste najbolj ranljive, nimajo enakovrednega položaja pri soočanju z aktualno energetsko krizo, predvsem ko gre za oblikovanje ukrepov za blaženje učinka nepremostljivo visokih računov za elektriko in plin ter vsesplošne rasti cen. Prav zato pričakujem, da se bodo države članice združile v tej različnosti in s pomočjo Komisije usklajevale odzive na ravni Unije.

Na mizi imamo že precej izčrpen seznam političnih orodij, ki bi lahko prispevala k naslavljanju aktualne krize. Nekatera so se izkazala kot učinkovita že v času pandemije, kot je na primer program SURE za ohranitev delovnih mest, ki mora postati trajni mehanizem.

Kot ustrezen predlog ocenjujem tudi uvedbo davka na nepričakovan dobiček bančnega sektorja, energetskih, farmacevtskih pa tudi drugih podjetij, ki v času te krize ter od začetka pandemije in agresije na Ukrajino beležijo izredno visoke dobičke. Ti prihodki bi lahko predstavljali nove lastne finančne vire Unije, pri čemer bi akumulirana sredstva bilo potrebno skozi ustrezne mehanizme usmeriti do ljudi, predvsem tistih, ki jim najbolj preti zdrs v (energetsko) revščino.

Menim, da imamo dovolj možnosti izbire pri oblikovanju skupnih mehanizmov. Za to pa potrebujemo politično voljo in preudarnost, ki naj bo utemeljena na kolektivnem zavedanju evropske politike o izjemni odgovornosti za dobrobit vseh prebivalk in prebivalcev Unije.

  Estrella Durá Ferrandis (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Ibán García Del Blanco (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Isabel García Muñoz (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Nicolás González Casares (S&D), por escrito. – En un momento de crisis como el actual, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción o comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para eliminar nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Enikő Győri (NI), írásban. – Már tavasszal is láttuk, hogy a háború és a szankciók miatt romlani fog az Unió gazdasági teljesítménye, erre májusi plenáris hozzászólásomban már én is figyelmeztettem. Azóta azonban még inkább elszabadult az infláció és a kilátások is sokkal borúsabbak. Az IMF októberi világgazdasági előrejelzésében az áprilisihez képest kétharmadnyival alacsonyabbra becsüli az uniós gazdasági növekedést. A szárnyaló inflációnak 70%-ban a magas energiaárak a mozgatórugói. Ennek pedig beláthatatlan következményei vannak mind a lakosságra és a vállakozásokra, mind pedig az Unió versenyképességére. Ha ez a szankciós politika folytatódik, az Európai Unió teljesen lemarad a versenytársai mögött. Hiszen az USA önellátó energiából, Kína továbbra is hozzájut orosz gázhoz és nyersanyagokhoz. Ha minden így megy tovább, Európában cégek sora fog bezárni és iparágak fognak eltűnni. Ráadásul a tagállamok, miközben igyekeznek megmenteni a polgáraikat és a cégeiket, egyre jobban eladósodnak.

Itt az ideje, hogy észhez térjen az EU. Úgy kellene átalakítani a szankciós politikánkat, hogy ne Európa fizesse meg a háború árát. Máskülönben a jövő európai nemzedékei számára nem marad más, mint a felhalmozott adósságok visszatérítése egy hanyatló gazdaságú kontinensen.

  Robert Hajšel (S&D), písomne. – Nové opatrenia navrhované Európskou komisiou s cieľom bojovať proti vysokým cenám energií idú dobrým smerom, ale opäť neprispejú k okamžitému zníženiu zálohových platieb a faktúr za plyn alebo elektrinu na Slovensku. Štáty ako Slovensko potrebujú najmä uvoľnenie nevyužitých prostriedkov zo štrukturálnych fondov a ich využitie na okamžité sociálne kompenzácie pre podniky a samosprávy, ako aj pre zraniteľné domácnosti. Pokiaľ ide o budúcnosť, navrhovaný spoločný nákup plynu je pre menších hráčov ako Slovensko určite výhodný. Ja sa prihováram aj za zastropovanie cien plynu využívaného na výrobu elektriny, ako je to v Španielsku alebo Portugalsku, kde to malo za následok ozajstné zníženie cien. Zároveň musíme nájsť alternatívny mechanizmus k burze TTF v Amsterdame, ktorý - ak nie zabráni - aspoň obmedzí špekulácie generujúce ďalší rast cien.

  Alicia Homs Ginel (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left), γραπτώς. – Εδώ και έναν χρόνο η ακρίβεια πλήττει βάναυσα το σύνολο των επιχειρήσεων, νοικοκυριών και εργαζομένων και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση κινείται αμήχανα, χωρίς συλλογικό σχέδιο, συζητώντας ακόμη ποια μέτρα πρέπει να λάβει για την αντιμετώπιση αυτής της κρίσης. Εδώ και έναν χρόνο εμείς ζητάμε θεσμικές παρεμβάσεις που να διορθώνουν το παρωχημένο, γεμάτο στρεβλώσεις μοντέλο της ευρωπαϊκής αγοράς ενέργειας, το οποίο έχει αποδείξει με δραματικό τρόπο ότι η κρίση αυτή δεν λειτουργεί προς όφελος των καταναλωτών, νοικοκυριών και επιχειρήσεων αλλά προς όφελος των υπερκερδών. Η ΕΕ θα πρέπει επιτέλους να αποφασίσει αν θα πορευτεί στη βάση της αρχής της αλληλεγγύης, υιοθετώντας ρεαλιστικές λύσεις για την αντιμετώπιση ενός πολύ δύσκολου χειμώνα.

Διεκδικούμε μέτρα με άμεσο αντίκτυπο, όπως η δημιουργία ενός ταμείου αλληλεγγύης που θα τροφοδοτηθεί από ένα ευρωομόλογο και θα στηρίξει την άμεση αντιμετώπιση της ακρίβειας στην ενέργεια σε κάθε κράτος μέλος. Μέτρα για τον δημόσιο έλεγχο των ενεργειακών υποδομών, τον έλεγχο και τη ρύθμιση της αγοράς ενέργειας και τη δομική μεταρρύθμισή της, διότι δεν νοείται αντιμετώπιση της κρίσης με ασυδοσία και αισχροκέρδεια. Μέτρα για την υψηλή φορολόγηση των υπερκερδών που συσσώρευσαν ενεργειακές εταιρείες αλλά και άλλες πολυεθνικές στην πλάτη των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Μέτρα για την αποσύνδεση της τιμής χονδρικής από το φυσικό αέριο, όπως πέτυχε η Ιβηρική χερσόνησος, και για την προστασία των ευάλωτων καταναλωτών από τις αποκοπές ρεύματος.

  Javi López (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  César Luena (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Adriana Maldonado López (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Dan-Ştefan Motreanu (PPE), în scris. – Doresc să îmi exprim în primul rând sprijinul pentru propunerea Comisiei Europene de a flexibiliza politica de coeziune și de a oferi statelor membre posibilitatea de a aloca până la 10 % din alocarea națională pentru perioada 2014 - 2020 către măsurile de atenuare ale impactul actualei crize energetice.

Cele 40 de miliarde puse astfel la dispoziția statelor membre sunt extrem de necesare în contextul energetic actual și le vor permite acestora să-și consolideze intervențiile pentru sprijinirea gospodăriilor vulnerabile, acordarea de granturi pentru capital de lucru pentru IMM-uri, precum și pentru măsurile care vizează ocuparea și crearea de noi locuri de muncă.

Aș dori însă să atrag atenția, în contextul Summitului Consiliului European care va avea loc în această săptămână, asupra nevoii urgente de a decupla prețul la electricitate de prețul gazului. După cum bine știm, în organizarea actuală a pieței UE, prețul la electricitate este dat de producătorii care au costul de producție cel mai ridicat - în prezent de cei care produc electricitate - bază de gaz natural, ceea ce reprezintă o barieră ce trebuie eliminată numaidecât pentru a permite consumatorilor europeni să beneficieze de prețurile scăzute ale electricității produse din surse regenerabile.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D), în scris. – În contextul crizelor concomitente cu care ne confruntăm la nivel european, cetățenii nu ar trebui să se afle în situația de a alege între a se încălzi și a realiza alte nevoi de bază. Prețurile la facturi trebuie să scadă astfel încât cetățenii și IMM-urile să fie protejați de consecințele negative ale acestor crize. Pentru a veni în sprijinul lor, în special al categoriilor cele mai vulnerabile, Grupul social-democrat din Parlamentul European a propus soluții concrete, menite să contracareze efectele acestor crize. Trebuie să interzicem specula pe piața energiei și să introducem sisteme de taxare a celor care au profitat de acest context. Prin inițiativele noastre am propus, totodată, reglementarea în domeniul energiei, separarea legăturii dintre prețul electricității și cel al gazelor, plafonarea dinamică a prețului gazului și reforma piețelor de energie în Europa. Planul european pentru iarnă trebuie să vizeze o componentă de solidaritate, care să permită un răspuns european comun, coordonat și eficient.

  Inma Rodríguez-Piñero (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D), por escrito. – En este momento, nuestras políticas deben centrarse en que las familias puedan pagar sus facturas y no tengan que elegir entre encender la calefacción y comer.

La UE necesita una capacidad presupuestaria permanente para hacer frente a las crisis, redes de seguridad social sólidas y eficaces y un instrumento de seguridad laboral permanente, como el SURE, puesto en marcha durante la pandemia. Parte de la financiación necesaria podría proceder de un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias de las empresas que se benefician de la crisis, y de la implementación del tipo de gravamen mínimo para las multinacionales. Además, es necesaria una reforma profunda de los mercados energéticos para reducir nuestra dependencia de Rusia y de los combustibles fósiles en general.

Las medidas anunciadas recientemente por la Comisión Europea van en la buena dirección, pero no son suficientes. El Grupo S&D tiene una lista de reformas y medidas que aliviarían el sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y reequilibrarían la carga de la crisis. Esperamos que la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros trabajen con el Parlamento en las soluciones. Es inaceptable que la Comisión presente sus propuestas legislativas a través del artículo 122 del Tratado, dejando de lado a esta casa.

  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – The current crisis brings with it the need for extraordinary public sector action requiring the mobilisation of new funds in significant volumes. They must cover support to citizens and families badly hit by the surging inflation and aid to SMEs adversely affected in their competitive stance. For multiple reasons, the funds needed cannot only be raised by issuance of new debt. In such circumstances it makes sense to tax those economic sectors which contrary to the rest have seen their profits rise hugely as a result of the crisis. They should be identified in a stringent manner and the nature of their windfall receipts duly assessed. On this basis non-punitive taxes on their windfalls should be defined and charged, on a once only basis or for the duration of the crisis and their persisting high profitability. It is not clear that doing this on a European rather than on a national basis would be fairer or more effective. This is the problem that should be clarified as soon as possible, politically and economically. In implementing a windfall tax, no matter how structured, care must be taken not to unbalance markets in the medium term, even as it remains impossible to predict when the energy crisis will end.

  Edina Tóth (NI), írásban. – A Parlament végre az emberek mindennapjait érintő témában is folytat vitát, mégpedig a háború okozta válságról és annak gazdasági következményeiről. Az elhibázott brüsszeli szankciós politika miatt ma az embereknek, családoknak, vállalkozásoknak jelentősen megemelkedett árakkal, rezsiszámlákkal kell szembesülniük, mindezt a megkérdezésük nélkül. Nem engedhetjük, hogy Brüsszel rossz döntéseinek a polgárok, családok, vállalkozások fizessék meg az árát, nem engedhetjük, hogy Magyarország energiaellátása veszélybe kerüljön!

Brüsszel elhibázott szankciós politikáját ki kell javítanunk. A megemelkedett árakon az segítene, ha Brüsszel gyökeresen változtatna a rossz szankciós politikáján. Ehhez olyan megoldásra van szükség, ami széleskörű társadalmi támogatottsággal bír. Ezért a magyar kormány Európában elsőként fordul a polgárokhoz a nemzeti konzultáció révén. Csak így lehetünk erősek, csak így léphetünk fel határozottan és vethetünk véget az elhibázott szankciós politikának. Míg nincs béke, addig a lakossági fogyasztókat védelemben kell részesíteni. Meg kell védeni a családokat, meg kell védeni a vállalkozásokat!

  Anna Zalewska (ECR), na piśmie. – W wyniku rosyjskiej wojny na Ukrainie od 8 miesięcy nasi sąsiedzi zza wschodniej granicy przeżywają codzienne piekło. Morderstwa, gwałty, odgłosy wystrzeliwanych rakiet, alarmy bombowe ponownie zawitały do granic Europy. To ogromne wyzwanie dla nas, Europejczyków. Wiele Państw i całych społeczeństw włączyło się w aktywną pomoc dla Ukrainy, przyjmując miliony uchodźców, wysyłając broń, leki, wsparcie humanitarne. Wojna na Ukrainie to sprawdzian dla Unii Europejskiej, dla europejskich wartości, tj. solidarność, braterstwo, gotowość do wzajemnej pomocy. Wiele krajów, szczególnie w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej, zdaje go perfekcyjnie, w tym mój kraj, Polska, który jest liderem w niesieniu pomocy Ukraińcom. Wojna Putina z cywilizowanym światem to dla nas ogromne koszty społeczne i gospodarcze, rekordowa inflacja w państwach UE, rosnące w zatrważającym tempie ceny energii. Naszym obowiązkiem jest zminimalizować koszty tej wojny, chronić obywateli i ich portfele! Wojna to nie jest czas na realizację nierealnych, niepoliczonych politycznych celów klimatycznych UE, których konsekwencją będzie pogłębianie się ubóstwa w Europie! Musimy dziś zawiesić EU ETS! Musimy zrewidować politykę klimatyczną UE! Musimy zagwarantować Europejczykom bezpieczną zimę, bezpieczną przyszłość! Musimy nadal wspierać Ukrainę, musimy wygrać tę wojnę! Nie zrobimy tego, niszcząc gospodarki państw UE, zwiększając ubóstwo!

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D), por escrito. – O aumento do custo de vida e dos preços dos bens essenciais e as pressões inflacionistas que reduzem o poder de compra são fenómenos pós-pandémicos que a Guerra da Ucrânia agravou. Esse agravamento foi ainda mais notório devido ao contexto de desigualdades intersectoriais na economia europeia e às brutais diferenças de rendimentos entre os mais afluentes e os mais vulneráveis. Neste contexto, as medidas de emergência propostas pela Comissão Europeia são um contributo positivo e devem ser adotadas o mais rapidamente possível. As taxas solidárias sobre os lucros excecionais devem ser aplicadas nos setores em que eles ocorrem, designadamente na energia, no setor farmacêutico e no setor bancário e deve ser garantida uma eficiente redistribuição dos recursos com efetivo impacto na redução dos preços para as famílias e para as empresas mais vulneráveis. A aplicação destas medidas é também uma oportunidade para combater de forma mais estrutural as desigualdades e as iniquidades dos sistemas de rendimentos na União Europeia. As medidas agora tomadas devem ser mantidas enquanto se justificarem, devendo ser complementadas com outros mecanismos fiscais solidários e, em particular, com a concretização da taxa mínima efetiva de 15 % sobre os lucros em todos os Estados-Membros.

3. Salud mental (debate)

  Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je vyhlásenie Rady a Komisie o duševnom zdraví (2022/2868(RSP)).

  Ivan Bartoš, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr. President, honourable Members, Mr Commissioner, mental health is a topic of utmost importance. As the Director—General of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros, noted in the introduction of the World Mental Health Report of June this year: ‘Mental health is a lot more than the absence of illness: it is an intrinsic part of our individual and collective health and well—being.’ Ultimately, there is no health without mental health.

The topic of last week’s World Mental Health Day – Make mental health and well—being a global priority for all – is also testimony to its importance. I very much welcome all the initiatives organised to highlight the day, including the one focusing on inclusive, accessible mental health promotion, prevention and the services for refugees and migrants that took place in the European Parliament.

I do not need to go through all the list of the crises we have gone through in the past years and which are still ongoing. All of them have a serious impact on the functioning of our health system and on the mental resilience of our population – from the COVID—19 pandemic to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its subsequent humanitarian consequences, energy and food crises, as well as subsequent economic difficulties for populations all across Europe.

I would mention in particular the mental health impact of these crises on both the youngest and the eldest in our societies who will need specific support, allowing them to cope with the challenges ahead. Therefore, I very much welcome the ‘Healthier Together’ initiative of the Commission of December 2021, as well as the allocation of 27 million for mental health care.

Even though mental health is a primary competence of the Member States, it is a recurring topic for discussion about ministers in the Council, often in the framework of broader discussions. For instance, when ministers discussed the humanitarian and sanitary situation due to the war in Ukraine at the Council meetings in March and June this year, they exchanged views and best practices related to mental health support for the people of Ukraine.

Even before the COVID—19 pandemic, the Council approved a conclusion on the economy of wellbeing, which includes a dedicated section on mental health and which calls for a mental health strategy of the European Union.

Most recently, I welcomed the adoption of the EP’s first reading position on the regulations on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and on serious cross-border health threats in line with the agreement reached between the coordinators. Both texts recognise the impact of an important outbreak of a communicable disease on the continuity of health care, including mental health issues. The Council will adopt accordingly its positions on 24 October 2022.

To conclude, let me assure you that the Presidency of the Council we will continue to follow attentively the relevant developments and challenges in the field of mental health.

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen. Mental health is precious for each and every one of us. And I want to thank the European Parliament for shining a light on Europe’s mental health.

Even before the pandemic, mental health problems affected 85 million people in the EU, and COVID-19 only exacerbated the problem. Now with economic worries, soaring energy prices, rising food costs and daily images of a brutal war, these are all putting incredible pressure on people.

Many citizens and families are forced to choose between heating their homes and filling their fridges. We live in turbulent times, filled with uncertainty, and it is so easy to feel lost, to feel hopeless, to feel alone. Experts, not surprisingly, have warned of an approaching tsunami of mental health challenges. This warning was confirmed during the Conference on the Future of Europe, especially echoed by our young people.

I welcome that this House adopted the resolution already last July calling for action at European and national levels. We need to take urgent, ambitious and coordinated steps to protect the mental health of our citizens, especially for the most vulnerable amongst us – for children, for the elderly, for young people, for those who are suffering in silence, who do not have a voice.

I assure you that we are listening and we are playing our part. In the State of the Union Address, President von der Leyen committed to work on a comprehensive approach to mental health. We have started already to prepare this work, which will involve several EU policies and actions.

First of all, we need to improve our understanding of mental health issues and prioritise prevention and promotion of better mental health. We have to improve access to mental healthcare – one of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

We are supporting Member States in reforming mental health systems and implementing national programmes, including on suicide prevention. We have already allocated more than EUR 28 million to mental health actions under EU4Health programmes in the last three years. Some Member States have also used the Resilience and Recovery Facility to focus on mental health.

The key to success is ensuring that mental health is addressed in a comprehensive way at home, at school, at work, and in the healthcare system. Identifying children facing challenges, supporting parents and families are important to prevent mental health issues. And I can say that because I have worked in the mental health area as a psychologist for many years of my life.

We must build inclusive and equal societies that reject stigma and truly listen to citizens. Societies that hear cries for help, no matter how quiet these cries sometimes are, and respond with accessible care.

Together, I am convinced we can achieve more. We need commitment from all actors throughout our societies, in research, in employment, in media. We need to show how business, sport and education can constructively contribute. We need to work with all Member States, with NGOs, with healthcare professionals and Parliament. But, most importantly, we need to respond to the needs of our citizens and those of our health professionals.

Ladies and gentlemen, protecting mental health is an investment. It is an investment in our people. It is an investment in our economies. It is an investment in the future.

And let us not forget, there can be no health without mental health. So I truly look forward to working closely with you to prepare this comprehensive approach, to listening to you and to working together in order to promote healthy minds and build healthy societies.

  Maria Walsh, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, Council representatives, I welcome this much—needed debate and our Parliament’s support of it. Commissioner, you’ve been dedicated to our citizens’ mental health long before your mandate as our Health Commissioner began, and I want to thank you for your continued support.

At this very podium last month, in her State of the Union, President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a dedicated initiative for mental health. Finally, a Commission president who is listening to the thousands of Europeans who demand and expect their mental health to be supported by our EU.

In the past 10 to 15 years, our citizens have faced the great recession in 2008, Brexit and nearly three years of pandemic, and are now facing great uncertainty with inflation, the cost of living, an energy crisis, a climate crisis and multiple wars. We desperately need to understand that mental health is about being proactive and preventative in our care and should never solely focus on existing in a stressful cycle of reactive support.

We need the initiative introduced by the President to promote well—being. We need the initiative to protect the rights of people who live the experience of mental health and tackle the stigma and discrimination they face on a daily basis. We need each of our 27 EU ministers responsible for mental health, working collectively with experts and organisations, but not just in silo. Creating an EU mental health strategy is now needed more than ever, and we need that strategy to be implemented in weeks, not years. These are the actions we need to tackle to improve the daily lives of millions of our EU citizens.

  Estrella Durá Ferrandis, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, aunque las crisis económicas e incluso los conflictos bélicos son letales para la humanidad, siempre constituyen oportunidades para las políticas públicas y para nuestras instituciones europeas. Es el momento de cuidar de nuestra salud, de la salud mental de la ciudadanía europea.

El informe final de la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa incluyó la necesidad de una estrategia europea de salud mental a largo plazo. Y en mi Grupo —el Grupo S&D— llevamos tiempo pidiéndola: una estrategia que incluya la salud mental en todas las políticas —las educativas, las medioambientales, las de empleo— y, por supuesto, que garantice un acceso universal a servicios de salud mental de calidad. Una estrategia europea que incluya no solo recomendaciones a los Estados miembros, sino que legisle allá donde es posible legislar, como, por ejemplo, en la salud y la seguridad laboral.

Este Parlamento ya lo ha pedido: necesitamos una directiva sobre riesgos psicosociales en el trabajo, el reconocimiento de determinados trastornos mentales como enfermedades ocupacionales, la regulación, por supuesto, del teletrabajo y el derecho a la desconexión y una directiva sobre la aplicación de la inteligencia artificial al contexto laboral. Por lo tanto, podemos y debemos hacer mucho más.

  María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos, en nombre del Grupo Renew. –Señor presidente, desde el Grupo Renew saludamos este importante debate. Efectivamente, señora comisaria, la pandemia puso encima de la mesa este problema de la salud mental, pero también es verdad que no ha hecho más que empeorarlo.

Entre 2020 y 2021, en lo que respecta a la salud mental en personas de entre quince y veinticuatro años, todos los problemas se han duplicado y nueve millones de adolescentes de entre diez y diecinueve años se han visto afectados por problemas de salud mental, de tal forma que el suicidio se ha convertido en la segunda causa de muerte entre la población joven en Europa.

No podemos mirar para otro lado ante esta realidad. Por eso, es imperativo que trabajemos en la salud mental desde las edades más tempranas y desde aquellos espacios donde están los jóvenes y los adolescentes: en los colegios.

Pero, además, tenemos que luchar todavía contra el estigma que sigue existiendo en nuestras sociedades; tenemos que mejorar el refuerzo de los servicios de salud mental que deben ser considerados esenciales. Desde el Grupo Renew le pedimos una estrategia europea de salud mental. Llevamos haciéndolo desde hace tiempo, para asegurar una inversión adecuada en el tratamiento y la prevención de los problemas de la salud mental en Europa.

  Kim Van Sparrentak, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, young LGBTIQ+ people are often struggling with their mental health. Numbers show that they are four times more likely to be bullied in schools and are five times more likely to commit suicide because they do not feel accepted and have to deal with hate speech and violence.

What definitely doesn’t help is that we increasingly see hate and disinformation being spread about our community on social media. This hate is fuelled by far—right groups and amplified by social media algorithms. Worse, these lies about our community are then repeated in the political arena, also in this House, legitimising hate.

Online violence leads to offline violence. We see that with the increase in bomb threats against gender clinics and with the devastating recent shooting outside a queer bar in Bratislava, where two people lost their lives. We have to do better for our LGBTIQ+ community. We need to do everything that we can to stop the amplification of hate and disinformation online by banning these polarising algorithms. But we also have to collectively stand up against this hate being legitimized offline, especially in the political arena.

Let me be clear: if we tolerate hate against minorities, we tolerate the erosion of our values and our democracies, and we accept that young generations will grow up feeling unwanted and unloved. We have to do better.

  Ivan David, za skupinu ID. – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, jsem psychiatr, bývalý ministr zdravotnictví a ředitel psychiatrické nemocnice. Dlouhodobě se zabývám organizací péče o duševně nemocné. Bohužel musím konstatovat, že v této oblasti Evropská unie pokračuje po naprosto chybné cestě. Tzv. reformy, které začaly ve Spojených státech a Spojeném království před šedesáti lety, vedly k přemístění duševně nemocných z podfinancovaných psychiatrických ústavů na ulici mezi bezdomovce, do útulků a dále do vězení jako zvláštní formy sociální péče. Evropské státy tuto perverzní praxi bez poučení opakují a prohlubují. Stojí za tím nesmyslná ideologie. Cílem přestalo být vyléčení. Pokud jde o sociální příčiny duševních poruch, ty se v zemích Evropské unie stále zhoršují. Jde o materiální a duchovní bídu, zhoršení možnosti sociálního a pracovního uplatnění a rostoucí sociální izolaci, které vedou k nedostatečné odolnosti jedinců, kteří pak snadno podléhají stresu. Řešte příčiny a následky kvalifikovaně, ideologický přístup situaci nenapraví.

  Joanna Kopcińska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! To bardzo ważna debata. Liczba osób dotkniętych problemami zdrowia psychicznego stale wzrasta, a według ostatnich szacunków co trzecia osoba zmagająca się z problemami zdrowia psychicznego nie ma dostępu do profesjonalnej opieki medycznej. Dodatkowo stan ten pogorszyła pandemia COVID-19.

Z tego powodu właściwa reforma działań systemu ochrony zdrowia psychicznego musi być ukierunkowana na rozwijanie środowiskowego modelu opieki psychiatrycznej oraz wyrównywanie dostępu poprzez wdrażanie programów w centrach zdrowia oraz tworzenie odpowiednich modeli systemu ochrony zdrowia psychicznego dla dorosłych, dzieci i młodzieży.

Jeśli chcemy rzeczywiście i realnie przyczynić się do poprawy zdrowia psychicznego naszych obywateli, to tu w Parlamencie Europejskim nie zapominajmy o współpracy z państwami członkowskimi i organizacjami międzynarodowymi, wymianie informacji, dobrych praktykach lekarskich oraz kontakcie z wyspecjalizowaną kadrą medyczną.

Aktywnie twórzmy programy pilotażowe oddziaływań terapeutycznych, skierowane do osób z doświadczeniem traumy, uzależnionych od nowych technologii cyfrowych, programy wsparcia walki z depresją i zaburzeniami lękowymi i tym samym pomagajmy osobom z problemami psychospołecznymi budować własną autonomię i większą niezależność w społeczeństwie. Wsłuchujmy się w potrzeby obywateli, tak aby ośrodki zdrowia psychicznego były umiejscawiane blisko miejsca zamieszkania i oferowały wsparcie psychologów, psychoterapeutów i terapeutów środowiskowych.

Choć na efekty zmian wciąż trzeba będzie poczekać, to już dziś musimy myśleć o organizacji, o reorganizacji opieki psychiatrycznej, przygotowując i zwiększając wykwalifikowane zespoły terapeutyczne.

  Kateřina Konečná, za skupinu The Left. – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, co se týče nově oznámené iniciativy v oblasti duševního zdraví, ráda bych viděla komplexní plán, který ochrání práva lidí s problémy s duševním zdravím, zvýší povědomí a ukončí stigma a diskriminaci v oblasti duševního zdraví. Aby to bylo možné, musí jít EU cestou vytvoření komplexní dlouhodobé strategie, respektive plánu duševního zdraví, a to ideálně po vzoru Plánu pro boj s rakovinou.

Doba pandemie Covid-19 nám ukázala, že péče o duševní zdraví je v našich systémech zdravotnictví často opomíjenou a podfinancovanou oblastí. Přístup k příslušné péči neustále klesá, nejhorší je to u dětí a teenagerů. Duševní zdraví je meziodvětvové téma. Špatné duševní zdraví má často své kořeny v sociálním, ekonomickém, fyzickém a kulturním prostředí a nejde pouze o osobní a zdravotní problém.

Musíme mít na paměti, že současná špatná ekonomická situace a souběh různých krizí bude mít dále značné dopady na duševní zdraví populace a náš problém se bude jen dále akcelerovat.

Má otázka na Komisi tedy je, jak budou dotčená generální ředitelství spolupracovat, aby byla tato iniciativa co nejúčinnější, a kdy můžeme očekávat nějaký konkrétní plán?

  Ewa Kopacz (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! W Europie 9 milionów młodych ludzi żyje z zaburzeniami psychicznymi. Samobójstwo jest drugą przyczyną śmierci wśród młodych ludzi. Około 1200 młodych ludzi w Europie co roku popełnia samobójstwo.

Jest druga, równie bezradna grupa społeczna. To są ludzie starsi, seniorzy. Żyjący niekiedy w cierpieniu, ubóstwie. Zostawiają swoje listy pożegnalne, prosząc rodzinę o przebaczenie. Przy łóżku zostawiają kartkę i piszą, że właśnie zapłacili wszystkie bieżące rachunki. Zostawiają swoje numery kont bankowych. Odchodzą w ciszy. Popełniają samobójstwo.

Czekali na naszą pomoc, nie tylko krajową, ale również europejską. Czekali na naszą pomoc, która do nich na czas nie dotarła.

Jeśli nasza reakcja na te straszne fakty skończy się tylko na tej debacie, to będziemy mogli mówić, że będzie tylko i wyłącznie gorzej.

Liczę na panią, Pani Komisarz, i wiem, że Pani nie tylko zawodowo, ale i jako człowiek - bardzo wrażliwy - zrobi wszystko, żeby ulżyć szczególnie tym dwóm grupom społecznym.

  Radka Maxová (S&D). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, pane ministře, duševní zdraví je zásadní jak pro osobní pohodu, tak pro blahobyt naší společnosti. Dotýká se všech oblastí našeho života, ať je to zaměstnanost, veřejné zdraví, má dopad na začlenění, kvalitu a udržitelnost společnosti i hospodářství.

Problémy s duševním zdravím v Evropské unii a Spojeném království trpí 85 milionů lidí, což nás stojí ročně 600 miliard eur. Navíc všichni vidíme negativní dopady koronavirové pandemie, energetické krize a války na Ukrajině právě na duševní zdraví. I přesto duševní zdraví nemá na úrovni Evropské unie zaslouženou pozornost. Proto Evropský parlament volá po komplexní strategii Evropské unie pro duševní zdraví, která by zohlednila meziodvětvové dopady různých politik právě na duševní zdraví. A také potřebujeme rok 2024 vyhlásit jako Evropský rok duševního zdraví.

Jsem velmi ráda, že jsem mohla iniciovat poziční dokument frakce S&D, ve kterém po takové strategii voláme, a věřím, že Komise náš poziční dokument vezme při přípravě iniciativy v oblasti duševního zdraví v potaz, protože právě tuto iniciativu vyhlásila předsedkyně Komise ve svém projevu o stavu Unie před dvěma týdny.

  Jordi Cañas (Renew). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, la salud mental es la gran olvidada de las políticas públicas de salud en toda Europa. Es la gran olvidada que se mueve, además, en la incomprensión y el estigma de las personas que la padecen, muchas veces entre la soledad, la tristeza y el aislamiento.

Las crisis desvelan determinadas situaciones y esta crisis ha desvelado el profundo impacto que tiene la salud mental sobre nuestros ciudadanos y la incomprensión que sufren. Por lo tanto, es el momento de que la salud mental deje de ser esa gran olvidada y, por eso, es tan importante y tan necesaria la estrategia europea para la salud mental. Y ese marco es un marco muy importante, muy necesario, pero que requiere del compromiso de los Estados. Requiere también más profesionales, más recursos, más prevención y más inversión. Porque sin más profesionales, sin más recursos, sin más prevención y sin más inversión no podremos ofrecer la salud mental que necesitan nuestros ciudadanos, no podremos ofrecer los tratamientos y el acompañamiento que necesitan.

Por lo tanto, sí a esta iniciativa. Ojalá venga más pronto que tarde y ojalá se pueda implementar al conjunto de Europa en beneficio de nuestros ciudadanos.

  Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la salud mental es una pandemia silenciosa en aumento que no podemos ignorar.

En Europa, los suicidios crecen y la salud mental se deteriora. En España, el suicidio es la principal causa de muerte no natural; once personas se quitan la vida cada día y 220 lo intentan.

Cuando una persona dice que se quiere suicidar, no es una llamada de atención, está haciendo una llamada de auxilio. Los episodios que generan ansiedad, estrés o depresión entre los más jóvenes, como pueden ser el bullying, los cambios bruscos de hábitos —como ocurrió con la COVID-19— o la presión social, hacen que su salud mental se vea perjudicada. La vergüenza a hablar de lo que les afecta, el miedo al estigma, el pensar que no te creen: eso no puede ocurrir.

Hay que prevenir, hay que alfabetizar en salud mental en todos los ámbitos: familiar, educativo, sanitario y laboral. Obliguemos a los países a priorizar el cuidado de la salud mental. Utilicemos los fondos europeos para ello. Apostemos por la prevención de los trastornos mentales y las mejores terapias para los pacientes. Reclamamos la Estrategia europea de salud mental, porque, recuerden, no hay salud sin salud mental.

  Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Madame la Commissaire, chère Stella, la santé mentale des citoyens européens, en particulier des jeunes, est un enjeu de santé publique majeur qui a été révélé et aggravé par la pandémie. Le constat est partagé dans tous les pays européens et nous l’avons évoqué dans la stratégie européenne des soins: nous avons besoin d’une prise de conscience collective, d’actions de prévention coordonnées, d’aide aux parents, d’adaptation de nos systèmes de santé et de partage des données.

Chère Stella, nous regardons en effet la santé comme un investissement et la santé mentale comme un pilier de la santé en général. Merci de votre initiative. Mais si cette initiative ne s’appuie pas sur une gouvernance robuste et sur un système de financement adapté, alors nous échouerons à mettre en place une véritable politique de santé européenne.

Les soins de santé sont des prérogatives nationales. D’accord, mais lorsqu’un constat est aussi largement partagé, il faut avoir le courage de convaincre les États membres de dépasser ces prérogatives, comme ils l’ont fait dans le passé.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, pane ministře, desátého října jsme oslavili Den duševního zdraví a já jsem rád, že se toto téma dostává na pořad jednání Evropského parlamentu a dokonce i Evropská komise si ho vzala za své.

Já si myslím, že je důležité tady hovořit o tom, že lidé mají duševní problémy nejenom po covidu, že mít duševní problémy a žít s nimi, naučit se žít, jak tady říkali moji předřečníci, je normální, že je normální o těchto věcech mluvit a že je důležité, aby Komise více toto téma akcelerovala ve svých vyjádřeních.

Já budu rád, paní komisařko, když nezůstane jenom u slov, ale bude i u činů, kdy Evropská komise se zúčastní na permanentním zastoupení České republiky také semináře, který Česká republika k tomuto tématu s odborníky pořádá, a bude se snažit právě zohlednit ty nejnovější trendy v oblasti a bude se snažit toto téma více akcentovat ve svých vyjádřeních.

  Sara Skyttedal (PPE). – Mr President, at least one in four will battle depression at some point in their life, and I’m one of the people that have done so. It’s likely that dozens of members of this Chamber are going through it right now.

Politically, mental illness has been an area full of mistakes. Member States have limited what therapies public health services can provide. There have been politically motivated regulations prohibiting research in psychedelics, even though it has the potential to treat patients that don’t respond to traditional treatments. There are many restrictions on the legal possibility for families to get care for loved ones that don’t have the capacity to ask for help themselves. People are often left alone to tackle the darkness of their mind due to overregulated mental health. I am convinced that we can learn from one another in Europe to do this better. It is clear that we need more flexible care, closer to patients and their needs.

But some of you want to regulate more when you need to deregulate, centralise when we need to decentralize. Therefore, members of the left part of this Parliament, I know that your instinct is to regulate every area that you care about, but I am begging you: this time, back off.

  Cindy Franssen (PPE). – Voorzitter, geachte commissaris, beste collega’s, 10 oktober was de dag van de mentale gezondheid en deze problematiek kan niet genoeg onder de aandacht gebracht worden. De kosten van geestelijke gezondheidsproblemen in alle EU—lidstaten bedragen naar schatting meer dan 4 % van het bbp. De kosten van werkgerelateerde depressies worden geraamd op 620 miljard euro per jaar. Ander onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat het aantal kinderen en jongeren met mentale problemen is verdubbeld sinds de pandemie. Daarom moeten we af van het taboe dat nog steeds rust op mentale gezondheid.

Ik ben dan ook tevreden dat Commissievoorzitter Von der Leyen in haar State of the Union een initiatief rond geestelijke gezondheidszorg aankondigde voor 2023. Na de aanpak van de economische gevolgen van de pandemie, met onder andere het SURE—mechanisme voor tijdelijke werkloosheid en de succesvolle uitrol van de vaccinatiecampagne voor de fysieke bescherming van de gezondheid van onze burgers, is het nu de hoogste tijd om ook de gevolgen van onder meer de pandemie op het vlak van mentale gezondheid met dezelfde gedrevenheid aan te pakken.

Vystúpenia podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky

  Stelios Kympouropoulos (PPE). – Mr President, dear Commissioner Kyriakides, dear colleagues, mental health has been marginalised for a long time. The COVID—19 pandemic brought the spotlight to the importance of mental well-being. Young people, women, disabled persons and other people are at risk of being disproportionately impacted by mental ill health. We are also less likely to receive tailored mental health support.

To that end, a human rights—based European standard on mental health that addresses the socio—economic elements of mental health is imperative to achieve an equitable approach to mental health care. How will the European Commission assure that different communities, including vulnerable groups, are centralised in this work?

Moreover, decentralisation is a key priority in reforming mental health systems. There is still a substantial number of persons with psychosocial impairments living in institutions across Europe and lacking community—based services. This new European initiative should boost the decentralisation process towards the implementation of community—based services.

  Sara Cerdas (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Comissária, colegas, a doença mental abrange todos os estratos sociais e todas as faixas etárias e só se agravou com a pandemia da COVID-19.

Atualmente, é a segunda causa de morbilidade e durante os últimos dois anos os sintomas de ansiedade e depressão mais do que duplicaram. A questão que se coloca aqui é, fundamentalmente, se vamos acender a luz e ver o problema que temos em frente ou se vamos continuar às escuras, sem dar resposta aos cidadãos.

Eu apelo aqui a que haja um verdadeiro debate deste problema de saúde pública e que possamos trazer mais iniciativas legislativas para combater o estigma, melhorar a acessibilidade aos cuidados de saúde mental e contribuir para a reinserção de todos os cidadãos na sociedade de uma forma saudável e funcional.

Colegas, não ignoremos os cidadãos, dos mais jovens aos mais idosos. Temos de encarar o problema de frente, temos que ter mais ação e temos aqui que trabalhar para uma verdadeira estratégia europeia em saúde mental. Eu digo aqui, acendamos a luz.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, saúdo muito este debate, é um debate que sinto na pele, já que o meu finado pai foi internado por transtorno bipolar ao saber que minha mãe tinha Alzheimer. Nunca pensei estar na pele de tantas famílias. Por isso o meu apoio a este debate e ao movimento galego pela saúde mental.

No meu país estamos abaixo da média europeia. Faltam psicólogos e psiquiatras nos centros de saúde, unidades hospitalares para a infância e juventude. Mais de 10 000 galegos aguardam uma consulta. Falta a prevenção. E o ano passado houve 331 casos de suicídio.

Para lutar contra a alienação, o suicídio, a estigmatização, a discriminação, os estereótipos, as carências materiais e afetivas, a pobreza e o trabalho indecente que provoca muitas vezes as causas de saúde mental. Por isso, é tão importante reforçar a saúde pública para atender a saúde mental. Aqui e também no meu país.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, access to mental health care is a human right, and it’s linked to the fact that poverty is a violation of human rights. The right to timely access to affordable, preventive and curative health care of good quality is enshrined in UN and EU conventions.

Yet, in Ireland, more than 4 200 children are on the waiting list for the children and adolescent mental health service. More than 520 children are waiting for over a year. Ireland spends 6% of its health budget on mental health: less than half than a lot of other countries in Europe. Commissioner, I realise that health remains a Member State competency, but in Ireland, we have a medicalised mental health model that’s a disaster. Can the EU pressure Ireland to invest seriously in public health talk therapy? After all, the EU were able to pressure us into bailing out failed useless banks, which actually has had a huge impact on mental health in Ireland.

  Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ci sono due sfide principali per le nostre politiche di salute mentale.

Primo, essere pienamente consapevoli dei determinanti sociali. Tutti gli indicatori degli ultimi anni confermano gli effetti devastanti della crisi economica, sia quella del 2008 sia quella derivata dal Covid sulla salute mentale. I tassi di patologie acute e non acute, i tassi di suicidio, eccetera, salgono velocemente negli adulti, ma soprattutto nei bambini e nei giovani, ma questi impatti non sono distribuiti uniformemente, le classi sociali più vulnerabili sono quelle in cui la salute mentale peggiora più drammaticamente, le famiglie povere e disoccupate sono il ceto più debole della nostra società e i loro figli sono quindi l'anello più debole di queste famiglie. È proprio lì che la salute mentale è più minacciata.

La seconda sfida è la trasformazione del nostro sistema sanitario. Dobbiamo muoverci con decisione verso il paradigma comunitario e questo significa almeno tre cose: generare tutta la diversità dei dispositivi aperti, alternativi all'istituzionalizzazione, in modo che le persone con disturbi mentali possano sviluppare la propria vita senza essere separate dalla comunità, mettere i pazienti e le loro famiglie al centro della pianificazione del modello assistenziale e della salute in prima persona e, infine, promuovere il necessario cambiamento culturale affinché tutti noi impariamo a convivere con le persone con problemi di salute mentale nella nostra vita quotidiana, vedendole soprattutto come cittadini con il nostro stesso diritto alla felicità.

  Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, diljem Europe, prema podacima Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije, 110 milijuna ljudi živi s mentalnim poremećajima koji rezultiraju s gotovo 250 tisuća smrti godišnje. Ovo su strašne brojke.

Pandemija COVID-a 19, dodatni izvori stresa za naše građane, inflacija, pad standarda, rat u Ukrajini, prijetnje nuklearnim ratom, klimatske promjene, a posebno kod mladih, cyberbullying - međuvršnjačko nasilje... Sve to ima socioekonomsku pozadinu. Emotivna bol, kolegice i kolege, snažna je jednako kao i fizička, a mentalno zdravlje, odnosno mentalni problemi, nisu odredište već proces. U tom procesu potreban nam je integrirani pristup. Vjerujem da bi razvoj psihijatrije u zajednici bio dobar korak, neki pilot projekti napravljeni su već u Republici Hrvatskoj.

Trebamo graditi društvo koje terapije i razgovor s psihologom smatra normalnim i poželjnim. I da mentalno zdravlje ne bude tabu tema: ne možemo samo nekome reći bit ćeš dobro. Treba mu pomoći.

  Juozas Olekas (S&D). – Gerbiama Komisijos nare, iš tikrųjų noriu padėkoti už pranešimą ir dėmesį psichinei sveikatai. Būdamas gydytojas galiu pasakyti, kad iš tikrųjų psichinė sveikata nulemia ne tik psichinės sveikatos būklę, bet nemažai nulemia ir fizinę žmonių sveikatą. Pandemija, karas, įtampos parodė, kad psichinei sveikatai dėmesio iš tikrųjų nėra pakankamai. Todėl mes turime vienyti pastangas, kad ne tik šalys narės, bet ir europiniu lygiu priimtume sprendimą, kad žmonės su psichine negalia būtų labiau integruoti į kasdieninį mūsų gyvenimą, kad jiems būtų nuimtos tos stigmos, kurios dar egzistavo, netgi aplinka, kuri egzistuoja mūsų kiekvieno kasdieniame gyvenime, reikėtų taip pat būtų pritaikyta žmonėms su psichine negalia, kad jie galėtų lengviau orientuotis ir būtų labiau įtraukti į mūsų bendrą darbą, kad jie galėtų jaustis pilnateisiais Europos Sąjungos piliečiais.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Mr President, up until recently, we didn’t talk about mental health and we didn’t do anything for people with mental health. That’s changed now. Now we talk an awful lot about mental health, but we don’t do anything for people with mental health. We just talk about it. And now politicians have copped on that this is a popular thing to talk about and to pretend to do something about.

What I’m hearing today is a lot of rich people telling poor people maybe they should do a bit of yoga and think about wellness, when in fact their mental health is far more impacted by the fact that they don’t have a house, they can’t afford to rent a house and they have no hope of ever buying a house! There are families with children living in tents and we’re talking about mental health. Sort out the basic quality of life for people! If you’d done it for my mother, her mental health would have been a lot better, but all you do is talk about it. You’re not serious about it. This is pure fluff and bullshit.

  President. – I would also like to remind colleagues to mind their language, out of respect for everyone here and for our colleagues.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamna comisar, sănătatea, toți spunem că este prioritate. Sănătatea mentală, de asemenea, este o prioritate.

Dar chiar dumneavoastră, doamna comisar, ați spus că în perioada pandemiei, în perioada COVID, a crescut numărul de cazuri, și da, a crescut pentru că, sau din cauză că, ați luat măsuri care nu se justifică și chiar OMS a spus acest lucru. Răspunde cineva de aceste cazuri?

Acum oamenii sunt presați de costurile cu energia, de costul vieții. Din nou, vom avea o creștere a cazurilor, răspunde cineva de neluarea măsurilor? Nu puteți să vă spălați pe mâini și să spuneți: sănătatea este de competență națională, atât timp cât ați luat măsuri la nivelul Uniunii Europene în perioada de pandemie sau dacă o fi fost pandemie.

Doamna comisar, sănătatea nu trebuie doar vorbită, vorbele trebuie acoperite prin fapte, și de aceea eu aștept un răspuns concret. Am întrebat și la cealaltă dezbatere: avem sau nu soluții pentru rezolvarea costurilor la facturi? Avem sau nu soluții acum unitare, la nivelul Uniunii Europene, legate de sănătatea mentală? Pentru că da, acești oameni sunt marginalizați. Acești oameni nu își permit, și familiile lor nu își permit, să le asigure o îngrijire așa cum ar trebui să o facă.

(Ukončenie vystúpení podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)

  Stella Kyriakides, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, on 10 October we celebrated Mental Health Day. And that is why today I’m wearing a green ribbon, to raise awareness and to make sure that we don’t forget about mental health.

Now, I want to thank you for the many important interventions I heard today. MEP Walsh spoke about the need for us to be the voices and the need for us to finally do something about it now. And I think that the fact that we are having this discussion is exactly that. We need to be the voices.

MEP van Sparrentak spoke about the LGBTQI community struggling with mental health issues. Online violence, hate speech, bullying. We can and need to do so much more. I heard MEP Kopcińska and MEP Kympouropoulos – community models, that’s exactly where we need to be heading. it is crucial. We need to make mental health services community services. We need to reach out to the citizens to find the vulnerable and support them to work towards prevention.

We heard various colleagues speak about stigma. People are embarrassed to speak about mental health issues and I want to highlight MEP Miranda and MEP Skyttedal and thank them for sharing, because the more people speak out about mental health issues, the more we are able to highlight this, the more we are able to prioritise and do something about it. The darkness of the mind is something we need to overcome and bring light to it. And thank you for sharing light.

MEP Kopacz spoke about the elderly and MEP Monserrat spoke about the suicide risk and MEP Véronique Trillet-Lenoir spoke about the need to actually move forward with this. And I want to tell you that we will be coming forward with initiatives this summer.

So a great deal has been said. I don’t think I need to repeat it, but I cannot ignore what MEP Flanagan has also said. He said: ‘we’re all about talk and we are not doing anything about it’. I have been doing, trying, doing something about it and working in this area all my working life.

And I believe the MEPs in this room and many who are not in this room but have put their voices across today are doing this because we are doing something about it. And as a Commission we’re coming forward with an initiative this very summer. So let us all work together. We need to be on board together with this. We need to have strong cooperation and collaboration with everyone. We need to deliver mental health in an all-policies approach.

And the European Parliament will and can play a key role in this initiative.

  Ivan Bartoš, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you very much for your views. Our discussion confirmed that mental health is an issue which cannot be ignored. The Presidency of the Council is determined to contribute to the necessary cooperation in the area of public health and stand ready to facilitate discussion and cooperation.

As a matter of example, we are organising the conference under the auspices of the Czech Presidency on 14 November in Brussels, which focuses on resilient mental health in the European Union. And we are, of course, ready to examine the relevant proposals from the European Commission in this regard.

Although the urgency of the COVID-19 crisis is over for the time, other crises are seriously impacting the mental resilience of our population and those are ongoing. Therefore, public health, including mental health, should remain a political priority for all the reasons that we outlined here, that you outlined here today. Of course, there are many areas that are directly influencing the, let’s say, mental resistance of a society. It is a fear of the future. So a lot of delivery is done on the other areas that are going to the prevention of such situation.

But, of course, when we talk wellbeing historically and mental health, it is something that goes across the politics. That’s why so many discussions on the other topics also include the topic as relevant to the solution.

  Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.

Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171)

  Bartosz Arłukowicz (PPE), na piśmie. – Już dawno w Unii Europejskiej nie przeżywaliśmy kryzysów, mających bezpośredni wpływ na zdrowie i życie naszych obywateli. Jako lekarz z zawodu nie mogę pozostać na ten fakt obojętnym. Cieszę się, że dostrzegliśmy w tej Izbie problem narastającej od dłuższego czasu presji otoczenia na nasze zdrowie psychiczne. Dziękuję również Pani Komisarz za jej pełne zrozumienie problemu i obiecane działania. Wojna za naszą wschodnią granicą, potencjalne zagrożenie nuklearne, czy to z uwagi na okupowanie ukraińskich elektrowni atomowych czy wyrażane pośrednio, a dotyczące ewentualnego użycia broni nuklearnej, wreszcie codzienne obrazy z masakr, których doświadcza ludność cywilna Ukrainy z rąk rosyjskiego agresora tuż za naszą wschodnią granicą. Dodajmy do tego malejącą moc nabywczą, rosnące ceny energii i opału w przeddzień okresu zimowego oraz pocovidowe zaburzenia psychiczne, jakich wielu z nas, w mniejszym lub większym stopniu doświadczyło. W Polskich warunkach sytuacja ma się jeszcze gorzej. Z uwagi na konstrukcję systemu bankowego i liczoną w milionach liczbę kredytów hipotecznych zaciągniętych w czasach koniunktury we frankach szwajcarskich obecne zobowiązania hipotekobiorców wzrosły nawet dwukrotnie. Każdy z nas czuje dziś niepokój, który bezpośrednio rzutuje na nasze zdrowie psychiczne. Musimy zrobić wszystko, by chronić zdrowie naszych obywateli.

  Josianne Cutajar (S&D), in writing. – The past years have been extraordinary, but one thing has stayed the same: mental health disorders remain a silent issue affecting billions worldwide. It is undeniable that the effects of COVID along with the more recent war in Europe and the energy crisis are affecting us all. It is not once that citizens come to me disheartened, with a fear that they live in an unstable Europe, in an unsafe world. It is high time we put forward a comprehensive, holistic EU Mental Health Strategy. During her State of the Union speech, President von der Leyen committed to delivering a new EU-wide initiative on mental health. We must make sure that this initiative will come sooner rather than later. We must ensure that it will raise awareness, address the stigma, facilitate access to help for those in need and that it will pay special attention to vulnerable groups. Let us also teach our citizens, especially our youth, how to recognize bullying online and how to protect their mental health. We need to strive towards teaching tolerance and responsibility online amongst an uprising, negative and, at times destructive, culture.

  Jarosław Duda (PPE), na piśmie. – Zapowiedź Ursuli von der Leyen, że Komisja przygotuje kompleksowe podejście do kwestii zdrowia psychicznego napawa mnie wielką nadzieją. Już kilka lat temu 84 miliony Europejczyków zmagało się z problemami psychicznymi, doświadczało braku wsparcia i stygmatyzacji. Niestety zarówno pandemia i jej społeczne i ekonomiczne skutki oraz wojna w Ukrainie spowodowały zaostrzenie tego problemu. Ludzie młodzi są w szczególny sposób narażeni. W większości krajów liczba osób z problemami psychicznymi pomiędzy 15 a 24 rokiem życia podwoiła się. Według Eurofound, w zakresie dostępu młodzieży do wsparcia i usług specjalistycznych najbardziej problemowym obszarem jest zdrowie psychiczne. Dlatego też Europa potrzebuje strategii na rzecz zdrowia psychicznego, uwzględniającej zarówno badania naukowe, prewencję, jak i edukację nauczycieli, kadr medycznych i pracowników socjalnych. Ponadto strategia ta powinna ujmować podnoszenie świadomości, przeciwdziałanie dyskryminacji i stygmatyzacji osób dotkniętych zaburzeniami psychicznymi i ich rodzin, a także rozwiązania na rzecz dostępności wysokiej jakości usług specjalistycznych. Szczególne znaczenie ma efektywne reagowanie na problemy psychologiczne dzieci i młodzieży. To oni przesądzą o przyszłości Europy, dlatego najwyższy czas zainwestować w zdrowie i dobrostan młodego pokolenia.

  Krzysztof Hetman (PPE), na piśmie. – Izolacja i odosobnienie w trakcie pandemii u wielu osób doprowadziły do ogólnego pogorszenia zdrowia psychicznego, depresji czy lęku. W tym okresie jeszcze bardziej niż zwykle widoczne było, jak ważne jest odpowiednie wsparcie i opieka dla osób cierpiących na dolegliwości psychiczne. Niestety pandemia boleśnie uświadomiła nam braki i w tej dziedzinie, szczególnie jeżeli chodzi o dostęp do leczenia w zakresie zdrowia psychicznego dla najmłodszych. Ogromnym problemem jest niewystarczająca liczba psychiatrów specjalizujących się w pracy z dziećmi. Państwa członkowskie powinny podjąć niezwłoczne działania, aby ten problem rozwiązać. Bardzo ważne jest także odpowiednie wsparcie w szkołach. Nauczyciele i opiekunowie powinni otrzymać podstawowe przeszkolenie w zakresie zdrowia psychicznego dzieci i młodzieży, aby mogli na wczesnym etapie rozpoznawać niepokojące sygnały, stanowić wsparcie dla uczniów i wspierać działania prewencyjne. Pandemia była oczywiście trudnym okresem, który u wielu osób doprowadził do znacznego obniżenia kondycji psychicznej, ale i z tej sytuacji wyniknęło coś dobrego. Zmienia się nasze podejście do zdrowia psychicznego, które w przeszłości często było bagatelizowane. Widzimy, że bez zdrowia psychicznego nie ma zdrowia ogólnego. W ostatnich trzech latach UE wydała aż 28 mln EUR na promocję zdrowia psychicznego, a przewodnicząca Komisji zapowiedziała utworzenie nowej inicjatywy na rzecz zdrowia psychicznego. To duża i ważna zmiana.

  Romana Jerković (S&D), napisan. – Drago mi je što raspravljamo o ovoj ključnoj temi. Gotovo milijardu ljudi diljem svijeta, a čak 84 milijuna u Europi, nosi s poremećajima mentalnog zdravlja. Procjenjuje se da ukupni troškovi povezani s mentalnim bolestima u 28 zemalja EU-a iznose više od 4 % BDP-a, odnosno više od 600 milijardi EUR.

Depresija je danas jedan od vodećih uzroka invaliditeta, a samoubojstvo četvrti po redu uzrok smrti mladih od 15 do 29 godina. U Hrvatskoj čak 44 tisuće djece i mladih ima poteškoća s mentalnim zdravljem te se bilježi povećanje suicida i hospitalizacija u Psihijatrijskoj bolnici za djecu i mladež u Zagrebu za čak 30 %.

Europski plan borbe protiv raka značio je veliku prekretnicu diljem Europske unije, osigurana su i velika financijska sredstva. Voljela bih da se takav fokus stavi i na mentalno zdravlje i zato je važno da što prije usvojimo ovu strategiju te započnemo s provedbom akcijskih planova jer su brojke vezane uz poremećaje mentalnog zdravlja zaista alarmantne.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Hyvä mielenterveys kuuluu jokaiselle. Mielenterveyden hoitaminen ei katso ikää, sukupuolta tai elämäntilannetta vaan se koskettaa meitä kaikkia. Jokainen tarvitsee hyvää mielen hoitoa, ja meidän pitää tehdä töitä sellaisen yhteiskunnan eteen, jossa kaikki sitä myös saavat ja voivat elää tavalla, joka edistää omaa mielenterveyttä.

Koronaviruspandemian jälkeen mielenterveyden priorisoiminen on tärkeämpää kuin koskaan. Jos nuoristamme iso osa kamppailee mielenterveytensä kanssa, Euroopan tulevaisuus ei näytä valoisalta. Erityisesti nuorten mielenterveyden hoitamiselle on siis suuri tarve, joka pitäisi huomioida terveydenhuollossa. Samaan aikaan hoiva-ala on kaikkialla aliresursoitu, vaikka tarvitsisimme lisää resursseja myös mielenterveyden hoitoon. Meidän tulee ylläpitää rakenteita, jotka luovat edellytyksiä hyvälle mielenterveydelle. Näitä ovat muun muassa perheiden tukeminen, laadukas päivähoito ja koulujen palvelut. Aivan yhtä tärkeää on työympäristöjen ja johtamisen kehittäminen niin, että ne luovat ja tukevat jokaisen hyvinvointia.

Mielenterveys näyttää nyt kohoavan korkealle unionimme agendalla, mikä on hyvä uutinen. Merkittävä askel oli esimerkiksi komission puheenjohtajan Unionin tila -puheessaan esittämä EU:n mielenterveysstrategia. Odotan innolla komission ensi vuonna esittelemiä mielenterveystoimia. Mielenterveyspalveluiden pitää olla riittäviä ja laadukkaita, jotta ne voivat tukea meitä elämän tyrskyissä. Nopea pääsy palveluiden piiriin ja ennaltaehkäisy on ensiarvioisen tärkeää, jotta mielenterveyden hoitovelka ei kasaannu. Siksi mielenterveys pitää huomioida terveyspolitiikassa paremmin niin EU:n tasolla kuin myös kansallisesti. Mielenterveyden hoitaminen on investointi tulevaisuuteen.

(Rokovanie bolo prerušené o 11.43 h.)

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA
varapuhemies

4. Reanudación de la sesión

(The sitting resumed at 12.00)

5. Turno de votaciones

  President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details of the vote: see Minutes).

5.1. Disposiciones específicas para los programas de cooperación 2014-2020 tras una perturbación en la ejecución del programa (C9-0289/2022 - Michael Gahler) (votación)

5.2. No reconocimiento de los documentos de viaje rusos expedidos en regiones extranjeras ocupadas (C9-0302/2022 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar) (votación)

  President. – A second request for urgent procedure, on the ‘Non-recognition of Russian travel documents issued in occupied foreign regions.’ Before the vote, again, only the mover and one speaker against may be heard, along with the Chair or rapporteur of the committee responsible.

I will now give the floor to Mr López-Aguilar.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. – Madam President, colleagues, again, it’ll be short. Just to explain the subject matter of the issue, you know that Russia has decided to illegally annex some territories in Ukraine and recognise independence for other territories in Georgia, started to issue travel documents, namely so—called Russian passports, to the residents of those illegally occupied territories.

The Commission has decided to come up with a proposal to put an end to that illegal practice, with a common approach by all of the Member States. That is why the Commission is coming up with that decision – precisely to have a common approach not to accept those travel documents or passports illegally issued by Russia. And I simply suggest, in order to stand up to the kind of strong political signal that we have endorsed all the way against Russian aggression, that we also endorse the urgent procedure concerning the Commission’s decision.

5.3. Nombramiento de un miembro del Tribunal de Cuentas – Laima Liucija Andrikienė (A9-0239/2022 - Claudiu Manda) (votación)

5.4. Adaptación de una serie de actos jurídicos del ámbito de la justicia al artículo 290 del TFUE (actos delegados de la Comisión) (A9-0237/2022 - Jiří Pospíšil) (votación)

5.5. Orientaciones para las políticas de empleo de los Estados miembros (A9-0243/2022 - Alicia Homs Ginel) (votación)

5.6. Aprobación de la gestión 2020: presupuesto general de la Unión Europea – Consejo y Consejo Europeo (A9-0236/2022 - Isabel García Muñoz) (votación)

5.7. Aprobación de la gestión 2020: presupuesto general de la Unión Europea – Comité Económico y Social Europeo (A9-0238/2022 - Isabel García Muñoz) (votación)

5.8. Aprobación de la gestión 2020: Agencia Europea de la Guardia de Fronteras y Costas (A9-0235/2022 - Tomáš Zdechovský) (votación)

– after the vote on amendment 3:

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). – So the oral amendment reads as follows: ‘Deplores the unbearable modus operandi by the Turkish authorities in supporting human trafficking and non-cooperation with the Greek authorities; strongly condemns the inhuman and cruel operations, which often lead to life-threatening situations and severe injuries of refugees; highlights in this regard the impactful work of the Agency and its personnel, which operates under challenging and sometimes perilous conditions to fulfil its mandate and ensure the functioning of the Union’s external borders together with the Member States’.

  President. – Is there any opposition to the oral amendments? Yes, there is clear opposition, so the oral amendment cannot be taken.

5.9. Oposición con arreglo al artículo 112, apartados 2 y 3, del Reglamento interno: sustancias activas, en particular la 8-hidroxiquinoleína, el clorotolurón y el difenoconazol (B9-0460/2022) (votación)

5.10. Adhesión de Rumanía y Bulgaria al espacio Schengen (B9-0462/2022, B9-0463/2022) (votación)

  President. – Thereby we conclude our votes this afternoon.

(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)

6. Composición de las comisiones y delegaciones

  Puhemies. – Keskustelut jatkuvat. Ensimmäiseksi minulla on ilmoitus. ECR-ryhmä on toimittanut puhemiehelle päätöksiä, jotka koskevat muutoksia valiokuntien ja valtuuskuntien jäsenten nimityksiin. Nämä päätökset merkitään tämänpäiväisen istunnon pöytäkirjaan ja ne tulevat voimaan päivänä, jona tämä ilmoitus annetaan.

7. Presupuesto general de la Unión Europea para el ejercicio 2023 - todas las secciones (debate)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Nicolae Ştefănuțăn ja Niclas Herbstin budjettivaliokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö neuvoston kannasta esitykseen Euroopan unionin yleiseksi talousarvioksi varainhoitovuodeksi 2023 – kaikki pääluokat (12108/2022 - C9-0306/2022 - 2022/0212(BUD)) (A9-0241/2022).

  Nicolae Ştefănuță, Raportor. – Doamnă președintă, eram un pic emoționat pentru că tocmai am dat un vot, istoric, un vot important prin care România este mai aproape astăzi de Schengen.

Dar astăzi vorbim despre bugetul Uniunii Europene, banii pe care îi avem și ce vom face cu ei.

Spunea Martin Luther King, domnule comisar, doamnă președintă, colegii mei raportori din umbră, că „măsura noastră nu este locul în care ne aflăm atunci când avem confort, când avem pace, ci locul în care suntem atunci când avem încercări și necazuri.”

Când am fost numit raportor pentru bugetul Uniunii 2023, m-am simțit onorat pentru că urma redresarea economică.

Însă, pentru mulți europeni, pentru majoritatea europenilor, anul acesta este anul inflației, este anul frigului din case, iar pentru milioane de ucraineni este cel mai negru an. Anul care le-a luat pe cei dragi, le-a luat casele, anul care i-a făcut pe oameni, din oameni normali cu casele lor, în strămutați, în refugiați. Anul în care viața li s-a schimbat. În această încercare, curajul și demnitatea lor ne-au emoționat. Ucrainenii ne-au adus aminte ce prețioase sunt democrația, pacea, libertatea. Ei pentru asta luptă și pentru asta trebuie să luptăm și noi.

Noi nu ne lăsăm bătuți, stăm în picioare și spunem azi uniți, că Uniunea Europeană arată curaj așa cum nu a mai făcut-o niciodată. Cu cuvinte, cu fapte, cu bani, cu arme, acolo unde distruge Putin, noi trebuie să reconstruim. Acolo unde alungă Putin, Europa trebuie să primească cu brațele deschise. Acolo unde Putin aduce spaima și teroarea, Europa aduce pace și liniște.

Bugetul Uniunii Europene trebuie să fie un scut pentru democrația europeană și trebuie să arate un lucru simplu: că suntem uniți și la bine, și la greu.

Dăm astăzi răspuns prin buget la trei mari probleme ale oamenilor, ale cetățenilor.

1. Avem un război la graniță care ne afectează și pe noi. Nu putem accepta ca dictatorii să câștige acest război. Ucraina trebuie să câștige pentru ca democrația și regulile să dureze. Dacă nu, suntem toți în pericol, suntem noi în pericol.

Acest război are consecințe în Ucraina, dar și în Moldova și în toate țările Uniunii. De aceea am mărit bugetul acolo unde războiul a lăsat consecințe grave. 853 de milioane de euro pentru consecințele războiului din Ucraina și Europa, pentru a ajuta refugiații, pentru a avea bani pentru propria noastră apărare, pentru mobilitatea noastră militară. Bani pentru tineri prin Erasmus+. Bani pentru Moldova care are mare nevoie de ajutor acum. Bani pentru ca toate statele noastre să facă față fluxului de oameni, și statul dumneavoastră, domnule președinte, a fost mult încercat în această perioadă.

2. Avem o criză energetică majoră, cu un preț foarte scump, pe care îl plătim. Pe toate facturile la energie din iarna aceasta ar trebui să apară fața lui Vladimir Vladimirovici Putin, pentru că oamenii, toți europenii, suferă și suferă din cauza lui. Dar noi nu putem doar să arătăm unde este vina. Trebuie să dăm răspunsuri clare oamenilor.

Așa că Parlamentul propune peste 533 de milioane de euro, mai mult de jumătate de miliard pentru energie, prin ajutor pentru facturi la energie, ajutor pentru surse regenerabile de energie și adaptare la schimbări climatice. Acești bani trebuie completați, desigur, cu programul REPowerEU și cu alți bani, pentru a nu lăsa economia europeană să cadă din cauza energiei.

Cetățenii trebuie să aibă acces la energie ieftină și sigură în această iarnă, iar dacă am învățat ceva ca europeni din pandemie, este că împreună suntem mult mai puternici. Atunci când statele au dat răspunsuri separat, Uniunea Europeană a avut de suferit și vedem asta și în cazul Italiei astăzi.

3. Ultima prioritate, doamna președintă, și vă rog să îmi permiteți să închei, este economia și societatea europeană. Sănătatea trebuie să rămână o prioritate în Europa, altfel nu am învățat nimic din pandemie. Statul de drept și valorile UE nu trebuie să se schimbe în vremuri de criză. Trebuie să susținem cultura și trebuie să susținem organizațiile societății civile și valorile europene. Churchill, în timpul celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial a spus așa: „Dacă nu susținem acum cultura, dacă tăiem banii, pentru ce mai luptăm cu arme?” Exact așa trebuie să fie și filosofia noastră și să nu renunțăm la valori.

Si vis pacem para bellum, dacă vrei pace, trebuie să te pregătești de război, iar noi trebuie să fim pregătiți astăzi să răspundem la ceea ce europenii așteaptă de la noi.

  Niclas Herbst, Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Der Kollege hat ja zu Recht kritisiert, dass dies kein Haushalt wie jeder andere sein darf – dass man es auch merken muss. Wenn wir uns Rubrik 7 anschauen, dann kommt man bei einer schnellen Durchsicht sehr schnell auf die Idee, es könnte ein Haushalt wie jeder andere sein. Aber ich will daran erinnern, dass wir bereits am Beginn dieses Verfahrens als Haushaltsausschuss eine Summe gegenüber dem Haushaltsplanentwurf unseres Präsidiums gekürzt haben, die mit 33 Millionen so groß war wie nie zuvor.

Wir wissen also sehr wohl auch in diesem Haus, dass wir viel zu tun haben und dass in diesen schwierigen Zeiten auch das Parlament und alle Institutionen vorangehen müssen. Ich glaube aber auch, dass am 24. Februar kaum jemand widersprochen hätte, wenn wir gesagt hätten, wir müssen hier unsere Resilienz stärken, wir müssen abwehrbereit sein gegen hybride Kriegsführung, wir müssen Cybersicherheit zu einem echten Schwerpunkt machen. Meine Damen und Herren, das müssen wir auch wirklich. Das ist der einzige echte Schwerpunkt, den wir personell setzen in diesem Haushalt: Cybersicherheit. Ich bin froh darum, dass wir fraktionsübergreifend hier einig zusammenstehen und das auch durchsetzen werden. Ich sage auch dazu: Ich bedanke mich für die konstruktive Atmosphäre – auch bei der Ratspräsidentschaft –, weil ich weiß, dass wir natürlich hier alle in einem Boot sitzen.

Wir haben mit CERT-EU bereits ein Instrument, das koordiniert, das vorangehen kann und das wir stärken können. Ich glaube sehr sicher, dass wir als Parlament zusammen – wenn ein konstruktiver Wille vorhanden ist – in den Verhandlungen hier gemeinsam einen Weg finden werden, um alle zum Nutzen aller Institutionen einen guten Weg zu finden. Aber – das sage ich auch – es ist keine Option, dass wir hier nicht handeln und die Risiken einfach Risiken sein lassen. Wir müssen abwehrbereit sein. Wir müssen unsere Resilienz stärken, meine lieben Freunde.

Gerade die anderen Institutionen zählen auch auf uns. Natürlich ist es unsere Rolle als Parlament, die anderen Institutionen ebenfalls zu stärken. Ich nenne hier den Gerichtshof, den Rechnungshof. Denn gerade in einer Zeit, und das sollten wir als Parlament auch selbstbewusst sagen, in der die Gemeinschaftsmethode immer weiter an den Rand gedrängt wird und zwischenstaatlich gehandelt wird, brauchen wir auch Kontrollinstrumente. Gerade wenn der Artikel 122 immer im Mittelpunkt des Handelns steht, müssen wir die Institutionen, die hier wirklich auch kontrollieren, wie zum Beispiel den Rechnungshof, stärken. Auch hier sollten wir als Parlament uns nicht auseinanderdividieren lassen und ganz klar die Meinung vertreten: Wenn es um 800 Milliarden Euro geht, dann sind ein paar Stellen an dieser Stelle wirklich nicht die falsche Investition. Es gibt genug zu kontrollieren, gerade bei dieser Summe.

Ich bin der Meinung, wir sollten uns anders als in den Vorjahren natürlich nicht an diesen Eifersüchteleien zwischen Institutionen beteiligen. Dafür ist die Lage zu ernst. Wir haben viele große Aufgaben, und ich sehe auch meine Aufgabe in meinem Bereich darin, dass die großen Linien, die der Kollege Ştefănuță ja gerade beschrieben hat, dadurch nicht in den Hintergrund treten und wir uns in kleinteiligen Diskussionen zwischen den Institutionen erschöpfen, sondern gemeinsam Lösungen finden, die dieser Haushaltslage wirklich angemessen sind – und da bitte ich auch alle Beteiligten darum. Wir sollen ja sparsam sein, meine Damen und Herren, und deshalb schenke ich dem Hohen Haus jetzt 57 Sekunden als Zeichen dafür, dass wir in den Verhandlungen hoffentlich gute Ergebnisse erreichen können.

  Jiří Georgiev, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured today to attend the debate in the plenary session of your House on the position of the European Parliament on the draft budget of the European Union for 2023.

We already had the opportunity to exchange views on this topic on 13 September 2022, when I presented the Council’s position. Meanwhile, the Commission has presented an amending letter to the draft budget, and this adjustment will have an impact on the positions of both institutions.

We live in very difficult times. The war on our continent affects the lives of millions of people. The severe energy crisis, combined with the historically high level of inflation, the enduring post-pandemic recovery and the disruption of the global supply chains have fundamentally changed our economies. All these developments have led to a large number of new needs: relief to Ukraine, humanitarian aid, food aid to third countries, support for refugees, cost of strategic autonomy, and measures to face the energy crisis.

At the same time, Member States are struggling with their public finances. Some Member States have difficulties in respecting the Stability and Growth Pact. Even if they could afford huge increases in public spending, be it on national or European level, carry the risk of bringing more inflation. In other words, we have many needs, but little leeway. We have to prioritise. We have to make choices. What’s more important and what we can wait for.

In a world that’s upside down, we cannot implement our activities and programmes like nothing has happened. As our Minister of Finance recently said, we have to identify negative priorities. It’s essential to back out of some policies and reinforce others, and to create margins in the budget to allow the Union to act.

To illustrate the importance of margins, I would like to come back to a discussion we had last week in the Budget Trialogue. In its position, the European Parliament has increased the budget line for humanitarian aid by EUR 250 million. In these troubled times, the Council also considers it very important to foresee sufficient money for humanitarian aid. But I question the proposal of the European Parliament last week. How robust is the proposed increase? What does it cover? More importantly in these unprecedented times, if this envelope is enough, what can the Union do?

The proposal of the European Parliament leaves no margins in the budget. Again, in these unpredictable times, we need margins to allow the Union to react.

Madam President, Honourable Members, Commissioner, please allow me now to make some preliminary remarks on the European Parliament’s amendments to the Council’s position that are subject to the vote of the plenary.

It’s clear that, in principle, the European Parliament and the Council share the same priorities for the entire MFF period and for next year as well. However, our positions are very divergent in terms of amounts. The European Parliament, at this stage, does not indicate an intention to reprioritise. The European Parliament proposes an increase above the Council position of EUR 3.3 billion in commitment appropriations and EUR 1.8 billion in payment appropriations.

As I explained earlier, the Council cannot accept the European Parliament’s requests for an almost full use of the margins for each heading, with the exception of heading three, as well as for the substantial use of special instruments. This year, we need to consider more carefully than ever before how the money should be allocated.

A very well balanced budget for 2023 is an essential condition to create trust for a more secure future, avoid unnecessary expenditure and foresee sufficient flexibility in order to promptly respond to new challenges that may occur next year.

Allow me now to touch upon a few points in more detail. Regarding heading one and, in particular, the financing of research and innovation. The Council recognises that Horizon Europe is an essential instrument to support a successful digital transition, and to contribute to the Union’s economic recovery, the Green Deal and a climate neutral economy. However, the European Parliament’s proposal to increase the allocation foreseen by the Council by almost EUR 1 billion considerably diverges from the financial programming and can put pressure on the sector to fully digest the amounts made available.

In these times of crisis, is this the area where we really want to use so much of our scarce resources? Moreover, the Council is surprised by the European Parliament’s proposal to make use of more than EUR 836 million resulting from research decommitments made under Article 15 of the Financial Regulation. This amount is not included in the MFF agreement, nor does it seem to correspond to the calculation of the Commission. The Council takes note of the European Parliament’s statement that new initiatives under heading one should be financed with fresh money. This means that such money would not be available for other policy ambitions.

Regarding the expenditure for natural resources and environment, the Council acknowledges the crucial role of the Life Programme, but it’s difficult to understand the European Parliament’s intention of frontloading this expenditure with the proposal to increase the allocation for 2023 by more than EUR 100 million, compared to the Council position.

The Council reaffirms its strong commitment to ensuring sufficient funding for the important areas of migration, borders, security and defence. However, we consider excessive the increases proposed by the European Parliament for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, as well as for the Border Management Instrument, given their real absorption capacities.

Regarding the external action of the union, the Council takes note of the proposed increase of EUR 415 million, as compared to the Council position and to the draft budget to be fully financed with special instruments. This reinforcement includes the European Parliament’s demands to increase humanitarian aid by EUR 250 million.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a sensitive issue. Indeed, like the European Parliament, the Council also wants sufficient means to provide humanitarian aid to the people in need, be it in Ukraine or elsewhere. But at the same time we must recognise that it’s almost impossible to make a robust forecast for these needs. Events will be unpredictable and unprecedented. We are ready to examine this issue closely, and I am sure we will find a common approach.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, some words on heading seven, administrative expenditure. I am very happy that the revised calculations of the automatic salary increase have created limited margins under this heading and that we do not have to use the little flexibility we have in the budget for this heading. At the same time, I will not hide from you that, after the significant increase of the establishment plan of the European Parliament in the Budget for 2022, the Council deeply regrets that your House proposes to increase the European Parliament’s establishment plan again in the budget for 2023, now with 150 posts. I am afraid this will complicate our discussions during the conciliation in the coming months.

To sum up, I think we have some work to do in the coming months. In the contacts I have had so far with the rapporteurs and several members of the Committee on Budgets, I have perceived an understanding for the Council’s position. Several of the proposals the European Parliament will vote on tomorrow show that we share the same priorities. However, we need to find a balanced compromise to bridge the huge difference between the figures proposed by the Parliament and by the Council. Moreover, I have a strong confidence in the Commission, which will act – I am sure – as an honest broker in the conciliation.

Thank you very much for your attention.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, first, I really would like to express my regret that I miss, due to this scheduled debate, the parallel college debate where we will discuss and decide about a long list of necessary measures related to the energy crisis and of course, some of them with some financial implications. But I understand, we are one week away from the start of the consultation on the draft budget for 2023 and that’s why, probably, this meeting was scheduled now.

It has become a habit for me to say that the negotiations on the annual draft budget take place in a context of multiple crises. First, COVID-19, now the unprovoked and unjustified Russian war against Ukraine and its consequences for the Ukrainian people, as well as its consequences in Europe and around the world. In such times, it is more than ever important to put aside our differences and to work together on reaching our shared goals and priorities.

I would like to thank the European Parliament, especially the Committee on Budgets and all specialist committees for the intensive work on the Commission’s proposal for the draft budget 2023. This resulted in more than 1200 proposed amendments. Therefore, I really congratulate two rapporteurs, Mr Ștefănuță and Mr Herbst for reaching wide support among political groups.

First, I appreciate that the amendments proposed by Parliament to reinstate the expenditure at the level proposed by the Commission in the draft budget.

Second, Parliament proposes more money for a number of programmes for 2023. This includes research and innovation, energy independence and the twin transition. It covers boosting competitiveness, including Parliament’s support for the future flagship programmes and employment opportunities, crisis response and health supporting our shared priorities.

Both the European Parliament and the Council have now set the framework of their respective negotiating mandates. As usual at this point, the positions of Parliament and the Council diverge substantially. But I can only reiterate my regret about the significant cuts proposed by the Council. They do not follow the Council’s own priorities, but at the same time Parliament requests substantially increases; this would require extensive mobilisation of special instruments thereby going significantly beyond the Commission’s proposal. We are not even halfway through the long-term budget. With the developments in the first two years, it has become clear that we must manage our resources carefully and preserve flexibility to be able to respond to unforeseen challenges.

Unfortunately, given the limited availabilities, we will have to face some tough choices between what we would like to do and what we finally can do. On the one side, we have a moral obligation towards our neighbours in Ukraine. We must also meet the expectations of our citizens to respond to geopolitical and economic challenges at Union level. On the other side, we have to use the available resources in the most efficient way to meet the most urgent needs. Today’s debate and the exchange of views should increase mutual understanding and facilitate, as always, a common approach.

So I am confident that the negotiations will continue in the positive spirit we had until now, and that Parliament and the Council will manage to reconcile their positions. Inevitably, a clear prioritisation of tabled amendments, as well as concessions from both sides, will be necessary.

As regards the next steps, we already presented the amending letter in last week’s dialogue. The amending letter addresses some elements included both in the Council’s position and in Parliament’s amendments. Therefore, I would like to ask the Parliament and the Council to consider this amending letter as a starting point in the negotiating process.

A timely agreement on a solid EU budget is the best way to stimulate economic recovery. Support our society, respond to the expectations of our citizens and, last but not least, respond to the consequences of the Russian war against Ukraine and, finally, another important and stronger assurance to our citizens that we are able to take decisions in due time.

  Michael Gahler, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Kommissar hat es richtig angesprochen: Letztlich bringt der russische Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine die gesamte Finanzarchitektur durcheinander. Wenn wir uns ehrlich machen, brauchen wir – nicht nur für den außenpolitischen Bereich – eigentlich eine neue finanzielle Vorausschau, damit wir den Aufgaben gerecht werden können, die wir tatsächlich auch angehen müssen.

Dazu gehört natürlich unmittelbar die umfängliche Hilfe für die Ukraine, also insgesamt auch für diese gesamte Region, wo alle Haushaltszeilen bis aufs Äußerste angespannt sind. Und deswegen können wir eigentlich nur darauf hinarbeiten, dass das, was an Prioritäten der Prioritäten nötig ist – und das ist unter anderem eben das, was wir für die Ukraine tun können –, dass das getan wird mit den begrenzten Mitteln, die wir haben.

Aber wir sollten auch in anderen Bereichen, ob es in Palästina ist oder in anderen dringenden Notlagen, die Mittel zur Verfügung stellen, die wir haben. Ansonsten werden wir unsere Glaubwürdigkeit in dem Bereich verlieren.

  Antoni Comín i Oliveres, rapporteur pour avis de la commission du développement. –Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, j’ai eu l’honneur d’être le rapporteur de l’avis de la commission du développement pour le budget de l’année 2023, et à ce titre, je tiens à souligner clairement que nous avons – je crois que vous serez d’accord – un problème très grave: la marge de dépense autorisée par le cadre financier pluriannuel de l’Union pour le cycle 2021-2027 est totalement épuisée, ce qui ne permet pas à l’Union de faire face aux défis urgents de son action extérieure.

Il y a d’abord eu la pandémie de COVID puis la brutale agression russe contre l’Ukraine, avec ses effets au niveau mondial, tels que la crise de la sécurité alimentaire et la crise énergétique. Tout cela a considérablement accru les besoins d’aide humanitaire et, surtout, placé les objectifs de développement durable dans une situation critique. À cet égard, la situation est particulièrement préoccupante pour ce qui est des objectifs liés à l’urgence climatique et à la nécessité d’aider nos pays partenaires à mettre en œuvre des actions d’adaptation et d’atténuation au regard du changement climatique.

Il y a évidemment un décalage entre les événements, qui sont arrivés de façon imprévue, et les prévisions financières et l’Union. Pour faire face à cette situation, il est pourtant extrêmement urgent que les États membres réforment le cadre financier pluriannuel. C’est un objectif difficile – c’est facile à dire, ce n’est pas facile à faire –, mais il faut assumer cet objectif et approuver une augmentation très ambitieuse du chapitre budgétaire consacré à l’action extérieure, surtout pour l’intelligence géopolitique. Si l’Union ne se montre pas comme un partenaire fiable pour le développement des pays partenaires, notre concurrent géopolitique qu’est la Chine ne va pas manquer l’occasion. Il faut avoir cette ambition géopolitique et la concrétiser à travers le budget.

  Dragoş Pîslaru, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear distinguished Members of the Council, dear colleagues, it is in times of crisis when the Union needs to be closer to its citizens with strategies, action and, most importantly, with the needed budgetary and financial needs.

As Chair of the Employment Committee, I wanted us to be more ambitious when it comes to the European Social Fund Plus, which is a key driver for strengthening the social dimension, investing in people and promoting employment. I wanted to see it in 2023, the European Parliament making the political call for the investment in children and young people by supporting additional allocation to Child Guarantee, by supporting the social dialogue. Not all these requests have been, right now, put together, but I still believe that this is important for the European Parliament.

I hope that in the context of the revision of the MFF, we can keep our ambitions and ask for more resources to invest in people and mitigate the increasing inequality, documented, evidence—based, support the implementation of the European Care Strategy and promote the upskilling and reskilling by allocating more resources to the European Year of Skills.

We need to put the resources in what we have been right now deciding to have in 2023. We need to have a strong call for increased flexibility and sufficient resources to respond to major crisis and accelerate the process of programming so that in 2023 we start finally, in all Member States, the implementation of 2021–2027 MFF funding.

We need the Member States to spend all available resources for people. We cannot afford to waste more time in not spending the money that we have, for the well—being of our citizens. Thank you all, especially to my colleague Nicolae Ştefănuță, for all the work.

  Christian Ehler, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Madam President, Let’s be realistic. I mean, what the Council has been suggesting is that no less than 40% of all the suggested cuts fall on Horizon Europe. So 40% is on innovation – the innovation we need for everything we are going to endeavour in the coming years. If you look a little bit closer, it is just 7% of the budget, but you impose 40% of the cuts. I mean, if you give a madman a nail and you puncture the Horizon budget, you come up with your proposal. You cut EUR 180 million off the proposal on Digital Europe. At the same time, you’re selling to the international audience a CHIP programme; you’re selling that. You promised already. You want to have 3.3 billion for that budget, and rightly so. It is one of Europe’s ambitions. But at the same time, you cut the digital budget before we even started the discussion of where and how to finance new ambitions.

So, let’s be realistic. Either you say ‘No’ to innovation in Europe, or we should start to negotiate.

  Andreas Schwab, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Binnenmarkt und Verbraucherschutz. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Ratspräsidentschaft, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Stellungnahme des Binnenmarktausschusses ist wie immer relativ ausgeglichen, weil wir ja ein Stück weit das Geld verdienen, das die Mitgliedstaaten und die Kommission ausgeben. Deswegen war es kein großes Problem, uns hier auf die Stellungnahme zu verständigen, aber ich möchte deswegen ganz speziell zwei Themen herausgreifen, die für die Kolleginnen und Kollegen des Binnenmarktausschusses von besonderer Bedeutung sind.

Wir wissen, dass wir im Haushaltsverfahren als Parlamentarier unseren Haushalt verteidigen, die Kommission ihren Haushalt verteidigt und der Rat versucht, möglichst wenig zu zahlen. Das respektieren wir. Aber bei der Gesetzgebung zum Gesetz über digitale Märkte und beim Gesetz über digitale Dienste geht es eben darum, dass wir in ganz Europa eine neue regulatorische Einheit schaffen, die uns gemeinsam nicht nur eine bessere Durchsetzung des Prinzips der sozialen Marktwirtschaft ermöglicht, sondern auch der Kommission Einnahmen beschert und den Mitgliedstaaten Zuständigkeiten abnimmt.

Deswegen plädieren wir gemeinsam – und ich bin hier als Berichterstatter des Binnenmarktausschusses nur einer von vielen – dafür, dass wir der Europäischen Kommission in dem Bereich, wo sie den Mitgliedstaaten Zuständigkeiten abnimmt, neues Personal zur Verfügung stellen, das bei den Mitgliedstaaten nicht mehr gebraucht wird. Das Parlament hat an der Stelle nur regulatorische Interessen und unterstützt ein Stück weit die Idee der Europäischen Kommission.

Wir wissen, dass es im Haushaltsverfahren nicht so ganz einfach ist, deswegen möchte ich den Kollegen, die sich um dieses Verfahren kümmern, Niclas Herbst und dem Kollegen Lewandowski, für ihre Unterstützung herzlich danken und wünsche, dass wir uns mit der Frage intensiv auseinandersetzen.

  Vlad Gheorghe, Raportor pentru aviz, Comisia pentru transport și turism. – Doamnă președintă, în 2023 și în fiecare an, bugetul Uniunii trebuie să răspundă nevoilor cetățenilor europeni, români, bulgari, germani sau olandezi. Banii trebuie să ajungă la oamenii care plătesc facturile de energie, inflația record, seceta, urmările pandemiei și ale războiului lui Putin.

Transport, turism, piața muncii, toate sunt decontate de cetățeni, mai ales dacă guvernele naționale și Uniunea Europeană le tratează prea birocratic, incoerent, insuficient și tardiv.

Au fost ani grei pentru noi toți, dar nu știu cum se face că unii plătesc mai mult. Șoferii de tir, profesorii, cadrele medicale, pensionarii în special, antreprenorii mici și mijlocii, fermierii și toate categoriile vulnerabile. Avem datoria să-i sprijinim mai mult, și în Comisiile mele, la buget și transport și turism, am reușit să obțin finanțare pentru parcări sigure și transport în comun mai bun.

Parchetul European condus de Laura Codruța Kövesi și toate instituțiile europene care opresc infractorii trebuie să primească bugetul cerut. Rezultatele lor se văd rapid, iar banii europeni sunt recuperați.

Bugetul 2023 respectă această linie și este bine că o face. Țările membre sunt bogate și Uniunea are bani ca toți să o ducem mai bine, dar trebuie să oprim corupția și toate infracțiunile care ne căpușează, inclusiv cele de mediu, de la tăierile ilegale la comerțul cu deșeuri.

La fel cum cei care ne atacă din exterior sau din interior, toți trebuie să plătească.

Încălcarea statului de drept, nerespectarea sancțiunilor impuse Rusiei, nu le mai putem tolera.

Am cerut ca Fondul pentru Reconstrucția Ucrainei să primească banii confiscați oligarhilor. Am cerut ca banii europeni să ajungă direct la cei care ajută ucraineni din prima zi.

  Pierre Karleskind, rapporteur pour avis de la commission de la pêche. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, la pêche a subi depuis quelques années plusieurs crises que toute l’Europe a subi, mais peut-être de façon plus aiguë pour la pêche. Je pense d’abord au Brexit qui a remis en cause un certain nombre d’accès aux eaux, mais aussi aux quotas. Je pense évidemment à la crise de la COVID et puis, maintenant, à cette guerre en Ukraine qui a des impacts directs sur le prix du pétrole et donc sur la capacité à retrouver des équilibres économiques.

Pourtant, le secteur de la pêche a été là. Les pêcheurs ont été vaillants. Ils sont même allés en mer dans des moments qui étaient particulièrement difficiles. Alors, après la gestion que je qualifierais de calamiteuse du Fonds européen pour les affaires maritimes et la pêche 2014-2020, le fonds le plus mal consommé de tous les fonds européens sur cette période de programmation, eh bien, il est temps, peut-être, qu’on se remue un peu sur la gestion de son successeur, le Feampa, parce que la pêche n’a plus besoin qu’on mette de petits pansements sur une hémorragie. La pêche a besoin de réformes et d’investissements profonds.

Il faut que ce fonds d’investissement soit effectivement structurant pour un secteur qui a un besoin profond de renouvellement, parce qu’on ne parle pas ici d’un secteur qui a besoin d’une vitalité économique et d’en retrouver le ressort. On parle tout simplement d’un secteur qui contribue à notre souveraineté alimentaire, à notre alimentation. Ce n’est pas substituable.

C’est pour cela, Monsieur le Commissaire, que nous comptons sur la Commission pour une mise en œuvre efficace et que, Monsieur le Ministre, nous comptons sur les États membres pour enfin adopter les programmes opérationnels et avoir une gestion efficace et rigoureuse de ce fonds.

  Monika Vana, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. – Madam President, Commissioner, Council, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM), I would very much like to thank the rapporteurs and the Budget Committee for their very good work. As was already mentioned, the circumstances for this year’s budgetary procedure are very challenging, and I very much acknowledge the efforts to achieve a very good compromise.

The FEMM Committee delivered a strong opinion, and I am glad that some crucial elements are reflected in the Parliament’s overall amendments in the budgetary resolution. First of all, the proposed increase of the Daphne Strand by EUR 2 million above the draft budget is a clear acknowledgement of the importance of tackling the alarming problem of gender based violence. Although this is considerably less than our Committee would have liked to see, it is a crucial signal to increase the funding for the Daphne Strand.

Secondly, the very good wording regarding the Commission’s efforts for a methodology to measure the gender impact of the Union’s funding. The budgetary resolution includes concrete demands on measures, on scope and on gender disaggregated data. This type of scrutiny is very important, and Parliament’s strong stance on the EU4 Health programme and the inclusion of our Committee’s perspective that universal health coverage across the Union needs to include quality access to sexual and reproductive health and rights is necessary to involve.

Lastly, specific support for equality for civil society organisations defending women’s rights and the rights of the LGBTIQ community under heading six ‘Neighbourhood and the World’ is very important, and I would like to stress that this will be crucial to defend in the upcoming negotiations.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. PINA PICIERNO
Vicepresidente

  Janusz Lewandowski, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Prezydent! Budżet 2023 to jest pierwszy budżet czasu wojny w pacyfistycznej ze swej natury Unii Europejskiej, ostatni budżet perspektywy 2014–2020, którą projektowałem, i ostatni rok na kontraktowanie krajowych planów odbudowy. Może dziwić, że w tak nadzwyczajnych okolicznościach pozycja budżetowa Rady to jest business as usual, czyli cięcia, w części przeczące preferencjom czy deklaracjom prezydencji czeskiej.

Stanowisko Parlamentu odpowiada na te nadzwyczajne uwarunkowania, bo kiedy, jak nie teraz, trzeba sięgnąć po wszystkie możliwości budżetu europejskiego, nie tylko skromne marginesy, ale też np. te commitments? A nasze jednomyślne praktycznie głosowanie oznacza jedność w Parlamencie, czyli to jest dobra przesłanka skutecznych negocjacji.

Priorytety Parlamentu Europejskiego są zrozumiałe dla ludzi. Trzeba zmierzyć się z następstwami społecznymi, ekonomicznymi pandemii i wojny, trzeba zwiększyć konkurencyjność i odporność antykryzysową Europy, wspierać inwestycje, które tworzą miejsca pracy w takich obszarach jak zielony ład czy gospodarka cyfrowa. Mam nadzieję, że właśnie taki budżet wyłoni się z koncyliacji. Ludzie nie czekają, nie oczekują sporów międzyinstytucjonalnych, ludzie czekają na efekty. Europe should deliver.

  Victor Negrescu, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Union is facing unprecedented challenges and a series of crises that directly affect citizens. The effect of the pandemic and of the war in Ukraine have led to rising inflation, rising energy prices and falling purchasing power across Europe. In this context, we must identify together the best solutions and endow our Union with the appropriate means to respond to citizens’ pressing needs.

The Socialists and Democrats Group requested that the 2023 European budget uses all financial and technical means available to protect citizens and SMEs from the effects of this crisis, offering the Union real prospects for development.

Our political group has pushed for increased resources of around EUR 300 million on energy—related measures, including research, investment and the development of green energy, designed to protect citizens against increased energy prices. In the same line, we propose the allocation of additional financial resources of EUR 60 million for SMEs by supplementing the specific related programmes but also by supporting the recovery of the cultural and creative sectors affected by the pandemic.

Increased attention has also been given to health by increasing by EUR 150 million the actions aimed, for example, at providing solutions for the long—term effects generated by COVID.

To these extremely important issues we added concrete actions related to the war in Ukraine: the support of States on the front line, such as Romania and Poland, and refugees, especially young people and minors from the conflict areas. The increase of EUR 250 million in humanitarian aid funds, the addition of funds for the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhoods, including the Republic of Moldova, and the allocation of an additional EUR 100 million for Member States to assist them in receiving migrants, will allow us to better manage the effects of the war.

An important aspect is the increase in funds for the management of the external borders of the Union and the fact that, once again, at the request of the S&D Group, the European Parliament calls for and includes additional amounts for the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen Area. To this measure is added an increase of EUR 210 million for the Erasmus+ programme, both for the access to education of young Ukrainians and for the continuation of mobility and educational programmes affected by the increase in living costs.

I am particularly happy that the pilot project that I have proposed together with Vice—President Kaili will allow us the monitoring of children coming from Ukraine in such a way as to prevent human trafficking and ensure a safe future.

I also welcome the inclusion of a reference in our resolution by which the Commission is invited to identify solutions for saving the unspent funds from the previous financial period and allocating these resources to the frontline countries affected by the war in Ukraine.

In these uncertain times of our workers, it is also of paramount importance to continue supporting social dialogue and workers’ training and ensuring a stable funding for those initiatives. Everyone is feeling the effect of the current crisis and the European programmes are seriously affected by the galloping inflation. That is why we call for the review of the multiannual financial framework in order to build an ambitious and flexible budget that provides concrete and common answers to the challenges we face in such a way no one is left behind.

  Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Représentant de la présidence tchèque de l’Union, chers collègues, 2023 est encore une année exceptionnelle pour le budget de l’Union européenne en raison, en particulier, des conséquences de la guerre en Ukraine. Je dis bien «encore» car 2021 et 2022 l’ont déjà été pour faire face à la crise sanitaire. L’Europe, chers collègues, a su se montrer à la hauteur.

Mais pour être à la hauteur, il faut se donner les moyens. C’est ce que nous avons fait avec l’achat groupé de vaccins et la mise en place d’un certificat COVID européen. C’est ce que nous avons fait aussi avec l’adoption d’un plan de relance exceptionnel et le principe d’une dette commune. C’est en étant plus solidaires, en assurant une meilleure coordination entre les États membres que nous sommes plus forts ensemble.

De nombreux défis nous attendent et nos concitoyens attendent que nous les relevions à l’échelle européenne. Toutefois, vous le savez, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous atteignons les limites du contrat financier pluriannuel seulement trois ans après son adoption. L’inflation et l’augmentation des prix de l’énergie ont des conséquences sur tout les budgets, en particulier sur ceux de nos institutions et de nos agences. Ce sont elles qui font fonctionner l’Union européenne. Nous devons nous montrer exemplaires dans la gestion de ce budget sans pour autant empêcher leur fonctionnement au service des citoyens. Je voudrais remercier mon collègue Nicolae Ştefănuță, qui a su trouver avec les différents groupes un compromis et proposer un budget ambitieux et nécessaire en fixant des priorités pour faire face aux grands enjeux à venir.

Le budget européen, c’est la clé de voûte de notre Union. Il est essentiel à son bon fonctionnement. Sans cela, les politiques et les réformes que nous votons ici n’auront aucune chance d’aboutir. Sans cela, par exemple, et c’est central, la mise en œuvre du paquet «Fit for 55» et du pacte vert ne serait qu’une utopie.

Ce budget, c’est ce qui nous permet d’être à la hauteur. Nous devons l’être face à la montée des populismes en Europe qui font de l’Europe un bouc émissaire. Ce budget, nous devons le protéger aussi contre ceux qui l’utilisent à leurs propres fins, sans respecter les principes fondamentaux de l’état de droit qui sont les fondements essentiels de la construction européenne. Pour cela, nous avons le mécanisme de conditionnalité sur l’état de droit et nous ne devons pas avoir peur, chers collègues, de l’utiliser. C’est pourquoi j’appelle encore une fois la Commission à utiliser ce mécanisme pour protéger, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce budget européen.

  Francisco Guerreiro, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear all, the European Union budget for 2023 is not a merely standard procedure where we should just present normal budgetary lines and carry on with our standard work. We live in times of urgency. We have to tackle the climate catastrophe that we are on. We have to address war in our borders. We have to prepare for possible humanitarian crisis. And we need to mitigate the huge impacts that energy prices and overall high inflation will have on our citizens’ life.

The EU budget is the most powerful tool that we as a Union have to try to influence also the rest of the world into doing what needs to be done. Although we understand the special circumstances that led to the timing of this year’s amending letter by the Commission, it does not employ the best practices and it influences the European Parliament’s ability to fulfil properly its role as a budgetary authority. We would hope that this doesn’t repeat itself.

Let me address just three main issues on this amending letter.

First, we will welcome the humanitarian aid increase, although it is still not as sufficient as we think. With the escalation of Russian attacks on civil targets in Ukraine, we have to expect further increases on humanitarian needs next year. Unfortunately, this goes also for humanitarian needs regarding climate change. In the amending letter, it is stated that further reinforcements in the course of 2023 are likely to be needed in the EU, so it has to sustain its 2022 humanitarian assistance and support the sharp increase of number of people in need. So we would like to question why this proposal was not made now, and will this be a proposal on the negotiations?

Secondly, it is a positive sign that we see a reinforcement of the Union civil protection mechanism. To be able to react to more severe impacts on climate change, although there should also be increases in the parts of the budget that invest on fighting climate change and speed up our efforts. In this regard, the EU budgets is the best way to do that.

Finally, on the issue of the European Union recovery instruments: the reinforcement of EURI of 450 million is extremely large. The European Parliament has warned repeatedly that having the EURI line in heading 2b is unsustainable, and that the NextGenerationEU interest costs and repayments should be counted over and above MFF ceilings. Will the Commission ever make this proposal? How is it planning to deal with the situation?

And also finalising the position on the Council for us is quite disappointing in conditions that we are living in. The Council calls for prudence in its approach, but for us it is quite questionable and disappointing. We need more ambition for next year’s budget, not blunt cuts.

And overall we believe that the European Parliament has presented a realistic and powerful proposal and with the rapporteur, Ms Ştefănuță, and all my shadow colleagues, I think we can push for a 2023 budget that properly reflects our priorities, our visions and our citizens’ needs.

  Joachim Kuhs, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, werte Kollegen! Machen wir uns doch ehrlich: Der Haushalt 2023 ist im Grunde genommen schon Makulatur, bevor er beschlossen wurde. Pflichtschuldig führt der Entschließungsentwurf zwar in Ziffer 2 Dutzende oder viele Probleme auf, aber die Lösungsansätze, die korrespondieren überhaupt nicht mit diesen Problemen. Anstatt der EU – den EU-Bürgern – eine Entlastung zu verschaffen, wirkt der Entwurf als Fortsetzung der derzeitigen rückwärtsgewandten Politik der EU.

Fast alle Länder in der EU sind mit einer explodierenden Inflation konfrontiert, die unsere Industrien zerstört und so viele Menschen in Armut, Elend und zum Teil sogar in Selbstmord stürzt. Wir werden mit Energiekosten konfrontiert, die sich viele Bürger wirklich nicht mehr leisten können. Vorgestern hat mir einer meiner Söhne berichtet, dass er jetzt gut die Hälfte seines Lehrergehaltes für Wohnkosten aufbringen muss. Das ist doch absurd! Außerdem haben sich viele Lebensmittelpreise verdoppelt. Doch was geschieht mit den Gehältern? Wenn man nicht zufällig in einer EU-Behörde arbeitet, dann bleiben die Gehälter vorerst gleich. Wie also hilft die EU unseren verzweifelten Bürgern? Beendet sie die Energiekrise? Beendet sie den Krieg? Stoppt sie den Klimawandel-Wahnsinn? Nein, leider nicht.

Der vorliegende Haushaltsentwurf verschafft der Ukraine, der Green-Deal-Politik und vielem woken Unsinn einen endlosen Geldfluss. Anscheinend finden wir es wichtiger, dass wir zu unserem Schaden Russland sanktionieren und einen tödlichen Krieg in der Ukraine finanzieren, als dafür zu sorgen, dass unsere hart arbeitenden Bürger und unsere Familien ihre Stromrechnung und ihre Lebensmittel bezahlen können. Nur für die Statistik: Das Wort Gender wird 98 Mal genannt, die Ukraine 92 Mal, das Klima 74 Mal. Das Wort Familie, das Rückgrat der Union, kommt kein einziges Mal vor.

Um die Sache noch schlimmer zu machen, fördert der Entwurf Militarismus und Russophobie. Einst pazifistische Linksparteien, auch hier im Haus, lehnen Diplomatie, Frieden und Neutralität ab und degradieren unsere Union zu einer Militärunion. Werte Kollegen, nicht, dass wir uns falsch verstehen, in dem Entwurf finden sich viele gute Ansätze, die ich auch unterstützen kann, und ich habe ja auch 300 Anträge gestellt auf Änderung. Aber wir setzen falsche Prioritäten. Wir handeln nicht für die Menschen, sondern wir nehmen immer mehr fremde Interessen wahr. Das darf nicht sein. Damit muss endlich Schluss sein!

  Bogdan Rzońca, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Dziękuję bardzo posłom sprawozdawcom, którzy w duchu kompromisu dotarli do pewnego wytyczonego celu. Mam nadzieję, że jutro rzeczywiście wszyscy razem przegłosujemy wspólne dobre stanowisko do tego budżetu na rok 2023. Oczywiście cały czas traktowaliśmy sytuację Komisji Europejskiej jako podejście bardzo konserwatywne. Obawiamy się, czy wystarczą środki na pokrycie wszystkich potrzeb w zarządzaniu dzielonym. Dlatego z zadowoleniem też przyjmujemy dołączenie do stanowiska Rady tradycyjnej deklaracji o płatnościach.

Efektem jesiennych negocjacji budżetowych powinno być wspólne stanowisko Rady, Komisji i Parlamentu Europejskiego w tej sprawie. Niestety w opublikowanym 5 października liście korygującym Komisji Europejskiej nie widać zwiększenia pomocy dla państw członkowskich przyjmujących uchodźców. Ubolewam nad tym. Polska i inne kraje tych uchodźców ciągle mają, uchodźców z Ukrainy. Rozwój działań wojennych w Ukrainie sugeruje, że niezbędne będzie wkrótce dalsze wsparcie humanitarne, niezależnie od tego, ile środków będzie dostępnych w ramach rezerwy na rzecz solidarności i pomocy nadzwyczajnej.

Z zadowoleniem przyjmujemy też wykreślenie tzw. instrumentu elastyczności w dziale siódmym, bo gdy jest wojna, to nie czas dyskutować o administracji. Dokumenty budżetowe dobrze odzwierciedlają sytuację w Unii Europejskiej, bo pokazują, że mamy do czynienia z inflacją, z Putinflacją, mamy do czynienia z agresorem rosyjskim, mamy do czynienia z drożyzną energetyczną, żywnościową, że jakość życia spadnie, że trzeba będzie te wszystkie długi, które Unia zaciągnęła, jakoś spłacać, a więc szukać fresh money, szukać nowych pieniędzy. Rozumiemy to, ale też oczywiście stawiamy pytanie, kto do takiej sytuacji doprowadził. I może ktoś w Polsce usłyszy o tej prawdziwej sytuacji w Unii Europejskiej, bo polska opozycja tu w Parlamencie mówi ciągle, że kryzys jest tylko w Polsce.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, κύριοι του Συμβουλίου και κύριε Hahn από την Επιτροπή, θεωρεί απαράδεκτη και κατώτερη των περιστάσεων την πρόταση του Συμβουλίου για τον προϋπολογισμό του 2023. Έχουμε πόλεμο στα σύνορά μας· έχουμε έναν πληθωρισμό που τρέχει στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με 10% —ρεκόρ δεκαετιών· έχουμε μια έξαρση της ακρίβειας και της φτώχειας· μείωση της απασχόλησης· ορατό τον κίνδυνο της ύφεσης το 2023 για την ευρωπαϊκή οικονομία. Και εσείς έρχεστε με έναν προϋπολογισμό γεμάτο περικοπές, κύριοι της τσεχικής προεδρίας.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, από τη Δεξιά μέχρι και την Αριστερά, είναι ενωμένο ζητώντας πράγματα απολύτως στοιχειώδη και αναγκαία. Είναι δυνατόν να αντιμετωπίσουμε τις ανάγκες του σήμερα και του αύριο με έναν προϋπολογισμό γεμάτο περικοπές της τάξης του 1% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ; Δεν βλέπετε ότι πρέπει άμεσα, εντός του 2023, να αναθεωρηθεί το πολυετές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο, που είναι ολοφάνερα κατώτερο των περιστάσεων; Πρέπει να ξεπεράσουμε, κύριε Hahn, το ταμπού του 1% για τον κοινοτικό προϋπολογισμό και πρέπει να τρέξουμε να δημιουργήσουμε πρόσθετους ίδιους πόρους χωρίς νέες καθυστερήσεις στη διοργανική συμφωνία, διότι αλλιώς θα κινδυνέψει και το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης.

Επίσης πρέπει, όπως δημιουργήσαμε το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης, να ενισχύσουμε την κεντρική δημοσιονομική ικανότητα της Ένωσης και με νέα εργαλεία. Ένα ευρωομόλογο ή ένα νέο ευρωπαϊκό ταμείο για την αντιμετώπιση της ενεργειακής κρίσης. Το προτείνει η Επιτροπή, το ζητά η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα. Δεν είναι δυνατόν ο εθνικός εγωισμός και οι νεοφιλελεύθερες ιδεοληψίες ορισμένων κρατών μελών να φρενάρουν την ευρωπαϊκή ενοποίηση. Δεν είναι δυνατόν η Γερμανία να λέει «200 δισεκατομμύρια για το δικό μου εθνικό πρόγραμμα». Δεν είναι δυνατόν να θέλουμε να έχουμε έναν πακτωμένο προϋπολογισμό του 1% για να αντιμετωπίσουμε όλες αυτές τις κρίσεις. Είμαστε ενωμένοι και διεκδικούμε σοβαρές βελτιώσεις στον προϋπολογισμό.

  Andor Deli (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Európa rendkívüli helyzetben van, ami rendkívüli megoldásokat kíván. A 23-as év nagyon nehéz lesz. Az orosz–ukrán háború minden tagállam gazdaságát megtépázza, a kilátások pedig cseppet sem rózsásak. Európa nem maradhat erős, és Ukrajnának sem tud hatékony támasza lenni, ha közben a gazdaságai meggyengülnek. Azonnali tűzoltásra van szükség. Ezért 23-ban legyen megkönnyítve minden tagállam számára a hozzáférés az őket megillető uniós forrásokhoz. A költségvetési és pénzügyi szabályokat adaptálni kell a jelenlegi rendkívüli helyzethez. Ideiglenesen teljesen fel kellene függeszteni a szokványos bürokratikus és politikai feltételeket. Az európai integráció egy 70 éves békeprojekt, így nem meglepő, hogy a költségvetési szabályozás eddig nem ismerte a háborús viszonyokat. De ennek immár vége. Európa gazdaságának sokkal gyorsabb és hatékonyabb támogatási rendszerre van szüksége a jelenleginél, ezen kellene dolgoznunk.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, caro Comissário, caro representante do Conselho, caras e caros colegas, o orçamento para 2023, segundo a nossa proposta, é um orçamento que ajuda as famílias e as empresas a responderem aos desafios, aos problemas que a invasão da Rússia na Ucrânia nos trouxe. Queremos mais crescimento, mais solidariedade interna.

Não nos podemos também esquecer da ajuda humanitária e do apoio à Ucrânia e a outros países em África, por exemplo, e a solidariedade externa é essencial. Mas falta uma coisa, Sr. Comissário. Temos de ter um orçamento que ajude a que a Europa tenha força, seja uma Europa geopolítica, que tenha autonomia estratégica e por isso precisamos programas para a união da energia, do digital, da saúde, reforçar o mecanismo de proteção civil, termos segurança e defesa.

É necessária uma revisão do Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, porque o nosso orçamento está a rebentar pelas costuras e não temos recursos suficientes para esta União Europeia autónoma de que precisamos.

Tenho também um pedido para o Conselho. Vocês têm muitos recursos à vossa disposição. Seria criminoso perderem um único cêntimo do que está disponível. Só no Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020, os Estados-Membros têm cerca de 100 mil milhões de EUR a executar até 2023. Têm de o fazer. Para além disso, é urgente que utilizem o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual atual. Os acordos de parceria têm zero de execução. As empresas precisam, as famílias necessitam. Os investigadores estão à espera dos recursos. As autarquias locais têm de avançar com investimentos que permitam, em conjunto, competitividade e coesão.

  Nils Ušakovs (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to talk today about the European Parliament’s buildings policy.

We see these days more and more kids all across Europe, from Latvia to Belgium, from Sweden to Portugal, many thousands of them coming to school with either empty lunchboxes or no money to buy themselves lunch in the school canteen. That’s because their parents have to make a choice between paying their heating bills and paying for their children’s food. It’s a hard choice, actually.

At the same time, this House keeps moving forward with the plans to tear down the iconic European Parliament Spaak building in Brussels, because it’s 30 years old and is not energy efficient enough. Erecting new premises is already estimated to cost at least EUR 500 million. Taking into account skyrocketing prices, we can easily imagine that the final cost will be around EUR 1 billion. With EUR 1 billion, you can actually heat the Spaak building for roughly one century, irrespective of the level of energy efficiency in this building.

My country, Latvia, recently celebrated the arrival of the first Next Generation EU payment – EUR 200 million. It’s roughly 20% of the price of one planned new European Parliament building – one of many EP buildings.

The European Union budget is not only about money and lines; it’s about values. And what kind of values are we promoting, when we discuss spending EUR 1 billion on the new EP house in Brussels during the deepest crisis in recent history? What kind of message are we sending to European citizens during the first wartime winter, when we discuss creating a new hotel for MEPs in Strasbourg instead of the Madariaga building and new offices for MEPs and administration in the Osmose building via, frankly speaking, I would say a not-extremely-transparent deal with the private sector. Are we indeed talking about European values now?

Therefore, I urge you to vote in favour of the amendment that calls for reconsideration of the Spaak building project and a stop to the Osmose project.

  Moritz Körner (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Herr Kommissar! Wir haben hier einen schwierigen Jahreshaushalt vor uns. Wir sehen die Energiekrise, wir sehen Inflation, und wir wissen, dass unsere Möglichkeiten im Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen begrenzt sind. Deswegen gibt es drei Prioritäten auch in diesem Haushalt. Zum einen: Wir müssen alles tun, um Inflation zu bekämpfen, wir müssen die Bürgerinnen und Bürger unterstützen. Und wir dürfen gleichzeitig aber auch die richtigen Projekte für die Zukunft nicht vergessen. Denn das wäre ein Fehler, sich in einer Krise nicht auch schon tatsächlich auf die Zukunft vorzubereiten.

Jetzt haben wir hier eben eine große Rede der AfD, der ID-Fraktion, gehört. Das seien alles die falschen Prioritäten und man würde den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern ja gar nicht helfen. Das haben wir hier eben gehört. Deswegen will ich hier – weil wir das viel zu wenig machen – mal schauen: Was wurde denn konkret beantragt von der ID-Fraktion? Ich kann Ihnen das sagen: die gesamten Mittel für die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft zu streichen – ohne Begründung. Die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft hat alleine in ihren ersten sieben Monaten, in denen sie gearbeitet hat, 5,7 Milliarden Euro Schäden am EU-Haushalt und an den Haushalten der Mitgliedstaaten ermittelt. 576 Ermittlungen in nur sieben Monaten. Das wollen Sie nicht, das wollen Sie wegkürzen, wegstreichen.

Ihnen geht es nicht um die Steuergelder der einfachen Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Ihnen geht es nicht darum, den Bürgern zu helfen. Sie spielen immer noch Ihre Spielchen. Das können wir auch sehen. Sie stellen ja diese Anträge. Das ist lächerlich. Lassen Sie das einfach.

  Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich würde auch gerne dem Kollegen von der AfD, der nicht genug Zeit hatte, hier noch ein paar Minuten zuzuhören, mal sagen, dass es nicht die EU ist, die hier den Krieg finanziert. Und es ist auch nicht die EU, die die Energiepreise in die Höhe treibt, die unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger gerade den Schlaf kosten. Es ist Wladimir Putin, der mit seinem verbrecherischen Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine diese ganze Krise ausgelöst hat. Und das möchte ich gerne dem Kollegen sagen, der einer Partei angehört, deren Jugendorganisation sich 2016 mit der Jugendorganisation von Putins Partei verbündet hat. Und hier hinzukommen und solche Reden zu halten, das ist einfach eine Unverschämtheit!

Putins brutaler Angriff ist eben nicht nur ein Angriff auf die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine, sondern ein Angriff auf unsere demokratische und freiheitliche Lebensform und auf eine regelbasierte globale Ordnung. Er zeigt: Demokratien sind friedlich und Autokratien beginnen Kriege. Und deswegen ist es so wichtig, dass wir hier unsere maximale Solidarität mit der Ukraine zum Ausdruck bringen, auch mit diesem Haushalt, und natürlich auch die Länder innerhalb und außerhalb Europas unterstützen, die unter den Folgen besonders zu leiden haben. Und deswegen finanzieren wir mit diesem Haushalt auch das AMIF-Programm für Länder, die Geflüchtete aufnehmen, und haben das auch aufgestockt, aber natürlich auch Mittel für humanitäre Hilfe.

Die Verbrechen in der Ukraine dürfen uns aber nicht vergessen lassen, dass die größte Krise unseres Planeten unaufhaltsam voranschreitet, und das ist die Klima- und die Biodiversitätskrise. Die Überschwemmungen in Pakistan, aber auch die Dürre in Europa haben gezeigt, welche gravierenden Auswirkungen diese Krise bereits heute auf uns Menschen hat, wie schnell ganze Systeme zusammenbrechen. Man denke nur an die AKW in Frankreich, die aufgrund von Wassermangel zum Teil nicht mehr gekühlt werden können.

Und deswegen ist es gut, dass wir hier Mittel für den Übergang zu sauberer Energie, für die Kreislaufwirtschaft, für die Klimawandelmitigation erhöhen, und auch eben für das LIFE-Programm und die Biodiversität. Denn beim Erhalt der Biodiversität, da geht es nicht um das Überleben eines einzelnen schönen Schmetterlings. Es geht um die Wahrung der wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen für die kommenden Generationen. Dafür müssen wir hier in Europa die Weichen stellen. Wir müssten es noch mehr tun, aber das geht schon mal genau in die richtige Richtung.

  Matteo Adinolfi (ID). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il particolare momento storico in cui viviamo, con forti ripercussioni sul piano economico e sociale, ci obbliga a un'attenzione ancora maggiore ai temi legati alla gestione del bilancio comunitario.

La sensibilità dei cittadini, gravati prima dal Covid e ora dal caro bollette, imporrebbe quel richiamo a una condotta etica già ribadita dalla Corte dei conti nella sua relazione speciale n. 13 del 2019. Purtroppo ciò non corrisponde alla realtà dei fatti.

Negli ultimi giorni, in particolare, è tornata alla cronaca la vicenda dell'Agenzia dell'Unione europea per l'asilo. L'attuale Direttrice, Nina Gregori, incaricata solo tre anni fa di ripristinare la credibilità dell'Agenzia in seguito alle brusche dimissioni del suo predecessore, accusato di cattiva amministrazione e molestie al personale, è finita a sua volta al centro di una nuova inchiesta con accuse di nepotismo, irregolarità nella gestione finanziaria e insabbiamento di denunce interne.

L'Agenzia, lo scorso gennaio, aveva ricevuto un nuovo nome e un nuovo mandato rafforzato per contribuire a unificare il modo in cui gli Stati membri gestiscono le richieste di asilo, ma dopo solo tre anni dal precedente scandalo, la storia sembra ripetersi con una nuova inchiesta dell'OLAF ai danni della Direttrice Gregori.

Casi come questo, con un'Agenzia dell'Unione che conta più di 2 000 dipendenti e che finisce regolarmente sui rotocalchi e sui giornali per gli scandali che la coinvolgono piuttosto che per il proprio operato, minano la fiducia dei cittadini nelle istituzioni europee e, francamente signora Presidente, trovo inconciliabile questa cattiva gestione dei fondi dei nostri contribuenti durante la più dura crisi economica dalla Seconda guerra mondiale ad oggi.

  Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR). – Voorzitter, minister, commissaris, collega’s, het komende budgettaire jaar is zeker een sleuteljaar. Dit als gevolg van de uitdagingen waarvoor de Unie staat. Ze zijn welbekend: de oorlog in Oekraïne, de gevolgen van COVID, geopolitieke verhoudingen, energie et cetera, et cetera. Maar 2023 is ook een sleuteljaar omdat het een scharnierjaar is in onze meerjarige financiële planning. Volgend jaar is het laatste jaar met betalingen uit de vorige planningsperiode en het jaar waarin de Commissie een uitgebreide evaluatie – liefst revisie – van het huidige financiële kader zal voorstellen.

Maar de alsmaar stijgende prijzen zouden toch ook de goede huisvader in de EU wakker moeten maken. Zo is de EU op dit moment massaal aan het lenen op de financiële markten voor het herstelplan. De uitgaven daarvoor zijn – alhoewel aan bepaalde voorwaarden gebonden – toch redelijk goed gekend. Ik heb al herhaalde malen gewezen op de besparingen die kunnen bereikt worden door het leenritme in de nabije periode op te voeren, om zo gebruik te maken van de huidige, nog wat lagere rentevoeten.

Verder zijn er de verhoogde EU-uitgaven volgend jaar als gevolg van het EU-herstelplan. De kwaliteit van die investeringen en hervormingen is uiteraard cruciaal. Maar ook hier zouden we toch echt moeten opletten om die inflatiespiraal waar we in terecht dreigen te komen niet verder te stimuleren. Het frontloaden van uitgaven naar aanleiding van urgente noden kan vanzelfsprekend lijken, maar in het kader van reeds algemeen stijgende prijzen kunnen verhoogde uitgaven ook een zeer negatieve invloed op dat prijsniveau uitoefenen. We moeten opletten dat we niet in een helse vicieuze cirkel terechtkomen.

  Sira Rego (The Left). – Señora presidenta, después de las lamentables palabras del señor Borrell justificando la política de construcción de muros en Europa, con sus fantasías de invasiones, jardines y junglas, es más sencillo entender el escandaloso aumento de la partida presupuestaria destinada al control migratorio. No deja de ser contradictorio que, ahora que sufrimos con dureza los efectos del cambio climático y de la crisis energética, y que aún nos estamos recuperando de la pandemia, veamos incrementar las partidas para la militarización de las fronteras, mientras se recortan las de las políticas climáticas o las de los programas de salud. Seguramente nos iría mejor si, en lugar de incrementar un 13 % los gastos para el control migratorio, esos recursos se destinaran a reforzar los servicios públicos, el empleo y la acogida digna en los lugares de llegada, a luchar contra el cambio climático, a desplegar un escudo social frente a la crisis energética o a promover la paz. Esperemos que, en estas tres semanas de trabajo, el resultado final se ciña más a las necesidades reales y evite alimentar los discursos de la extrema derecha.

  Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Madam President, as we move on to the next budget, it’s important that we look at how the previous budgets have been used, but if we look at the use of Next Generation funds, what are the two pillars of fund management in Spain? Kafkaesque bureaucracy and obsessive centralism. That’s not news.

Let’s look at the figures. While Spain is the main beneficiary of the Recovery and Resiliency Facility, 80% – 80%! – are yet to be completed. It’s even worse than under the 2014—2020 multiannual financial framework, when 76 were failed. This was rock—bottom, but now they are even better. Now, for SMEs, which are the core of the Catalan economy, only 9% of the assigned net resources were distributed in 2021. This outrageous inefficiency of the Spanish management of EU funds makes one wonder whether it is an active boycott. Who knows? What is sure is that Spanish bureaucrats and politicians just don’t give a damn. They are just lost in translation. To them, Next Generation means no rush. Their job is to drive people in business crazy with endless red tape and paperwork until the next generation. Catalonia needs independence to get rid of this nightmare, and the European taxpayers would also be much better off.

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the budget is always one of the most important tools that we have to influence the lives of the people. This is valid at local level, at national level, and also at European level.

The budget of the European Union should be a budget for investments, for cohesion, for making our economy more modern, cleaner, greener, more digital, and also for financing our traditional priorities: farmers, rural development and cohesion amongst European areas. This is the primary scope of the budget. However, unforeseen developments always occur. Since the beginning of this multiannual financial framework, we had to cope with the COVID pandemic, with the economic and social consequences generated by this pandemic, and now with the war in Ukraine, which means we have to help many host communities which have received hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees. We have to invest in reducing our dependency on Russian fossil fuels, in improving our efficiency, and we have to invest in renewables more and faster than we thought.

The budget should never become just a budget of crisis, just a budget to react to unpredictable crises. It should still be allowed to finance investments. This is why the budget needs to be enough in terms of volume. This is also why, together as the Commission, as Parliament and as the Council, we will need to work on the revision of the multiannual financial framework, so that it can fund what we planned to fund before the crisis, but can also give answers to the people during times of crisis – because people expect us to react.

Congratulations to the general rapporteur for making the most of this tight budget under difficult circumstances.

  Margarida Marques (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Presidente do Conselho, Senhor Comissário, não passaram ainda dois anos desde que concluímos a negociação do QFP 2021-2027 e as suas insuficiências são já muitas. Estávamos confrontados com a COVID. Construímos uma resposta europeia ancorada no orçamento da União Europeia.

Temos agora uma nova realidade: a agressão da Rússia à Ucrânia. Agora, se queremos uma resposta europeia ao impacto da guerra, ao aumento dos preços da energia, ao aumento das taxas de juro e à insegurança alimentar, mitigar o impacto social, criar um pacote de solidariedade para o inverno, como? Criar um instrumento do tipo SURE? Se queremos capacidade de reação a consequências imediatas da guerra, apoio aos refugiados, distribuição justa dos encargos entre os Estados-Membros, apoio aos países da vizinhança; se queremos construir uma autonomia estratégica da União Europeia, desde logo autonomia energética; se queremos a ciência e a inovação a contribuírem para estes objetivos, para acelerar o investimento ambiental e socialmente sustentável em energias renováveis, em medidas de eficiência e poupança energética, em tecnologias sustentáveis que apoiem uma política industrial compatível com os objetivos de Paris; se queremos manter o bom funcionamento do mercado único europeu e impedir a sua fragmentação; se queremos dar continuidade às propostas que a Presidente Von der Leyen nos apresentou no debate sobre o estado da União: sem uma revisão do QFP, podemos querer, mas não conseguiremos dar resposta.

O debate sobre o orçamento de 2023 está a mostrar-nos a necessidade e a urgência de uma revisão abrangente do atual QFP e a posição expressa aqui pelo Conselho, no início deste debate, não nos deixa descansados. Há ainda um longo caminho a percorrer nesta negociação do Orçamento 2023, se queremos coerência entre ambição política e capacidade orçamental.

  Charles Goerens (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, le budget de l’année 2023 est tout sauf un exercice de routine. En effet, le contexte politique et géopolitique actuel nous place devant des défis inédits. Il s’agit ni plus ni moins de la question de savoir si nous voulons rester en première ligue.

Même dans les affaires a priori européennes, nous ne sommes pas toujours les premiers à intervenir, à proposer des solutions, bref, à jouer le rôle qui devrait être le nôtre et nous revenir tout naturellement. Les États-Unis, il faut le reconnaître, sont, budgétairement parlant, de loin, le premier soutien pour l’Ukraine. Cela ne veut pas dire que l’Union européenne ne fait rien. Au contraire, ce que fait l’Europe, c’est bien, c’est utile et indispensable, c’est à notre honneur, mais ce n’est pas assez. La question qui se pose à nous est la suivante: serons-nous encore à même d’apporter le soutien suffisant à l’Ukraine lui permettant de se défendre contre l’agresseur russe au cas où la direction politique des États-Unis ne serait plus la même que celle de 2022?

Les exercices 2023, 2024 et 2025 seront donc d’une importance capitale. Si nous voulons répondre à cette question centrale, il nous reste très peu de temps. La révision à mi-parcours du cadre financier pluriannuel – que nous, Parlement européen, sommes les seuls à réclamer à ce stade –, devrait être le point de départ pour une réorientation de la politique européenne et se traduire dans des choix budgétaires conséquents, aussi bien au niveau du volume que de la qualité, pour le moyen et le long terme.

  Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die Klimakrise, die Frage der Energiesicherheit, die Naturschutzkrise, die Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, ökonomische und soziale Folgen von diesem fürchterlichen Angriffskrieg durch Wladimir Putin – dies sind nur einige der großen Krisen und Herausforderungen, vor denen wir oder in denen wir als Europäische Union stehen. Und wir werden alle nicht müde darin, dies immer wieder zu betonen – wir Abgeordneten, die EU-Kommission oder aber auch die Mitgliedstaaten.

Gleichzeitig erleben wir aber auch, dass ein großer Teil der Institutionen in der Europäischen Union nicht dazu bereit ist, daraus die richtigen haushaltspolitischen Konsequenzen zu ziehen. Denn die Wahrheit ist, dass unsere Jahresbudgets gar nicht in der Lage dazu sind, mit diesen großen Krisen zu hantieren, genug Flexibilität für die großen Herausforderungen zu haben. Und deshalb möchte ich die EU-Kommission auffordern, die Revision des Finanzrahmens möglichst zeitnah Anfang des nächsten Jahres vorzulegen. Und ich möchte die Mitgliedstaaten bitten, darauf konstruktiv zu reagieren und nicht wieder Abwehrkämpfe zu halten. Ansonsten werden ihre Sonntagsreden unglaubwürdig.

  France Jamet (ID). – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs, les années passent, les budgets passent et, invariablement, se ressemblent tous.

Toujours prompte à en demander plus aux États, plus à leurs citoyens, l’Union européenne veut des sous, des sous et encore des sous. Tout ça pour quoi? Moins de souveraineté, moins d’entreprises, moins d’agriculteurs, de pêcheurs, d’emplois, de service public, moins de croissance, moins d’énergie et moins de pouvoir d’achat. En revanche, plus de bureaucratie, plus d’ingérence et une classe moyenne qui s’effondre. Sans oublier, cela n’a échappé à personne, une crise énergétique majeure, crise énergétique dont certains voudraient nous faire accroire qu’elle est le seul fait du conflit ukrainien. Mais la réalité, en France notamment, c’est qu’elle est due au démantèlement de notre filière nucléaire organisé par Bruxelles et à des décisions politiques qui vont plonger demain des millions de familles et de personnes dans l’indigence et le froid.

Alors, l’UE est-elle moins efficace parce qu’elle manque de moyens? Non. Elle atteint au contraire son but ultime: mondialisation, délocalisation, dérégulation, uberisation de notre société; et immigration de masse, sans laquelle il n’y aurait pas eu de Samuel Paty, sans laquelle il n’y aurait pas eu de Lola. Outre le laxisme et la docilité du gouvernement de M. Macron, le déclassement et l’ensauvagement de nos sociétés, c’est vous. Nous ne voterons pas un sou de plus pour cette Europe-là.

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Panie Ministrze! Chcę podnieść trzy problemy związane z tym budżetem. Pierwszy to moim zdaniem niedostateczny poziom płatności. Otóż realizujemy ostatni rok płatności związanych z poprzednią perspektywą finansową, a płatności w tym budżecie zostały zaprojektowane bardzo konserwatywnie. Co więcej, ten list korygujący zmniejszył tę kwotę wolną z pięciu i pół miliarda do niewiele ponad trzech. Co jeszcze zawęża pole działania. Niewypłacalność, Panie Komisarzu, to nie jest najlepsza reklama dla projektu europejskiego. Oczywiście mówię o potencjalnej niewypłacalności, ale mieliśmy te złe doświadczenia z lat 2014-2016 i trzeba o nich pamiętać.

Druga kwestia to inflacja. Ona przekroczyła już 10%. Pewnie na wiosnę przyszłego roku będzie o parę punktów procentowych wyższa. W projekcie dotyczy to wszystkich wydatków. W projekcie budżetu tego nie widać.

No i wreszcie ostatnia rzecz - pomoc dla Ukrainy. Ona nawet po tym liście korygującym jest absolutnie niedoszacowania, a już pomoc dla krajów sąsiadujących z Ukrainą na przyjmowanie uchodźców jest wręcz symboliczna.

Ja tylko chcę zwrócić uwagę, że Polska do tej pory wyłożyła na tę pomoc prawie 9 mld euro, a otrzymujemy wsparcie zupełnie symboliczne. W 2023 roku zwyczajnie tego tolerować nie można.

  João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, aí está mais um orçamento insuficiente para responder às necessidades com que se confrontam os povos e os trabalhadores. A proposta para o Orçamento de 2023, quando considerados os valores previstos para a inflação para este ano, representará uma diminuição real em relação ao orçamento de 2022. Situação agravada nas dotações para a política de coesão, pescas, agricultura e desenvolvimento rural, que, inalteradas e condicionadas por via dos seus regulamentos, ficarão aquém para responder à agudização da situação socioeconómica que enfrentam pequenos e médios produtores, micro, pequenas e médias empresas. Se para estes a resposta é curta, daqui denunciamos a opção pelo aumento das dotações para o militarismo e a guerra.

Avançámos propostas que pretendem mitigar estas limitações, entre outras, o aumento das verbas para os fundos da coesão e os apoios à produção no FAEMPA e no FEAGA, a criação de um POSEI de transportes para responder aos problemas das regiões ultraperiféricas, apoios aos serviços públicos e à reversão da liberalização e recuperação do controlo público do setor da energia - aí estão algumas de muitas propostas para responder aos problemas com que os povos se confrontam.

  Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani kolege, dragi građani, radi zaštite proračuna Europske unije, danas, s ovog mjesta, pozivam da odmah raskinemo ugovor o nabavki cjepiva protiv COVID-a 19 u vrijednosti od 71 milijarde eura.

Taj ugovor je upravo pod kriminalnom istragom europskog javnog tužiteljstva. Vjerovali ili ne, Europska komisija naručila je 4,6 milijardi doza za manje od 450 milijuna stanovnika Europske unije. Ovako izgledaju stranice, odnosno više desetaka stranica, ugovora kojim se namjerava potrošiti sedamdeset jedna milijarda.

To nisu stranice nebitne. Te stranice se odnose na kvalitetu cjepiva, na cijene, odgovornost proizvođača za štete nastale primjenom cjepiva i za opoziv cjepiva. Moramo raskinuti štetni ugovor odmah.

  Presidente. – Grazie, ricordo ai colleghi che non è consentito mostrare materiale in Aula.

  Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Madam President, I think that it's completely clear that for the past two years, Europe has really been deciding on its priorities in unprecedented circumstances in which we had to tackle the economic and social consequences of the pandemic.

Now, this year, the circumstances under which we are negoitating the annual budget for the next year are even more dramatic. Europe gave a clear answer to the unprovoked, brutal Russian aggression and took a stance together with the brave people of Ukraine. We all feel, we all see that a new and different Europe is being shaped by the war and that a new Europe is emerging, one that has to focus on key priorities and sound policies. This definitely means focusing on securing energy supplies, continued investment in security and defence and support for humanitarian aid, but also preventing the new migration crisis. The announced joint procurement act for the European defence industry is the right incentive for cooperation between the Member States, as well as for the industry that has been mobilised like never before. Likewise, with the European chips act, we have the possibility to increase Europe's independence with regard to semiconductor production in times when global supply chains are significantly disrupted.

But all these efforts require an appropriate budgetary architecture. They all require the revision of the MFF. This is something that is urgent, this is something that is crucial. In the end, this can only be achieved if Parliament is united in its message for this, but also for this annual budget. I hope that, together with our colleagues from the Commission, but also from the Council, we can continue in building a resilient and secure Europe.

  Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, as the S&D shadow rapporteur for the AFET and DEVE opinions, I would like to stress the importance of continuing to be a strong voice for democracy, human rights, rule of law and equality, especially in these times of backlash in the EU and beyond. It is important that the EU enhances its financial support for international partner organisations and ensure contribution is also made in core resources. It is important we step up our struggle to reach the Sustainable Development Goals. We have only eight years left until 2030. The Agenda 2030, with its 17 SDGs, contains our tools to save humanity.

We need to conduct a feminist foreign and development policy in defence and support of women and girls worldwide. The bravery women and girls have shown, among other places, in Iran, in Afghanistan, and different parts of Kurdistan demands our full support. The Middle East and North Africa are regions in need of extra support in order to turn backlash into progress. Therefore, the support for UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority is imperative. Putin’s heinous aggression in Ukraine is a hard reminder of that. We can’t take respect for international law and our multilateral systems for granted. We must defend it everywhere and at all times.

  Dacian Cioloş (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, pe două puncte aș vrea să insist.

În primul rând, Cadrul european financiar multianual pe care l-am adoptat în 2020 nu a fost creat pentru a face față crizelor succesive cu care ne confruntăm: pandemie, război, inflație ridicată, prețuri mari la energie, refugiați, insecuritate alimentară și criză umanitară.

Avem o flexibilitate a bugetului care este permisă, dar ea nu este suficientă. Și deci cred că trebuie să găsim un nou echilibru între predictibilitatea resurselor, pe de o parte, dar și capacitatea Uniunii de a interveni financiar la timp.

De aceea, e nevoie să ne concentrăm acum pe o revizuire a Cadrului financiar multianual și să găsim acel echilibru delicat care trebuie atins de buget. Cred că pentru perioada următoare trebuie să investim și să investim în tineri și în competențele lor, în tranziția industriei și în incluziunea socială.

În al doilea rând, aș vrea să atrag atenția că suntem la sfârșitul lui 2022 și în continuare multe state membre nu au adoptat programele operaționale pentru coeziune sau planurile strategice pentru agricultură și de multe ori, sunt aceleași state membre care se plâng că Uniunea Europeană nu își ajută suficient cetățenii.

Aș vrea deci să atrag atenția asupra faptului că responsabilitatea nu e doar a Uniunii, ci și a statelor membre, pentru ca banii europeni să poată să ajungă la cetățenii europeni.

  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Gerbiama pirmininke, Komisijos nary, Tarybos atstove, gerbiami kolegos,

mes galime daug kalbėti apie būtinas priemones krizei įveikti, bet jei tam nėra numatyta lėšų, vargu, ar pasieksime rezultatą. Rengiant daugiametę finansinę programą niekas negalvojo, kad užpuls pandemija, kad Rusija pradės karą, kad smogs infliacija, drastiškai pakils energijos kainos. Todėl akivaizdu, kad 2023 metų biudžetas visa tai turi atspindėti. Žemės ūkis suvaidino strateginį vaidmenį, užtikrinus maisto tiekimą visų minėtų krizių metu, jo gyvybingumas yra prioritetas. Turime kuo skubiau panaikinti diskriminacinę tiesioginių išmokų skyrimo tvarką, visomis priemonėmis remti jaunuosius ūkininkus, suteikti visiems prieigą prie technologijų ir tinkamos energetikos, investuoti į biologinės įvairovės apsaugą. Be maisto nebus ir Europos, todėl bet kokie siūlymai mažinti lėšas šiai sričiai yra nesuprantami ir nepateisinami.

  Patricia Chagnon (ID). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je voudrais à cette tribune dénoncer une pratique qui me paraît relever d’une forfaiture budgétaire. Je mesure tout à fait la dureté de ce terme, mais il ne m’en vient pas d’autre à l’esprit. Le budget est au service des habitants, des filières économiques, des collectivités territoriales et, oui, au service de l’avenir.

Cet acte, vous le détournez en transformant le budget européen en moyen de pression politique sur les États. Vous ne menez pas une politique budgétaire, mais vous menez une guerre idéologique contre les opposants de votre vision politique. Le chantage financier contre la Hongrie procède de cette méthode contestable. Et que dire des menaces de Mme von der Leyen adressées aux Italiens à la veille de leur élection quand elle prévient: «Si vous votez mal, on pourrait vous suspendre les versements des fonds européens».

Vos manœuvres désespérément autoritaires et impérialistes n’arrêteront pas la marche qui s’est engagée partout en Europe. Bien au contraire, elle s’accélère. Rien n’arrêtera les peuples des nations libres de l’Europe pour reprendre leur destin en main.

  Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, geachte commissaris, beste collega’s, het is toch te gek voor woorden dat de Europese Unie komend jaar opnieuw vele miljoenen wil betalen voor problematische Palestijnse schoolboeken – boeken waarin terrorisme wordt verheerlijkt, wordt aangezet tot haat en geweld en antisemitisme welig tiert.

De Commissie laat het allemaal gebeuren. Ze heeft de geldkraan richting de Palestijnse Autoriteit recent gewoon weer helemaal opengezet en stelt daarbij aan de schoolboeken geen enkele voorwaarde. Ik vind dat onbegrijpelijk. Bestrijding van antisemitisme behoort een topprioriteit te zijn, ook in ons externe beleid.

Nu de Commissie het laat afweten, moeten wij als Parlement onze verantwoordelijkheid nemen. Als ECR-Fractie stellen wij daarom voor 30 miljoen euro in de reserve te plaatsen en het geld pas vrij te geven als de problemen met de schoolboeken zijn opgelost. Ik roep u dan ook op om amendement 823 van de Begrotingscommissie te verwerpen en ons amendement 415 te steunen. Laten we de vrede bevorderen en het haatzaaien stoppen.

  Γιώργος Γεωργίου (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η ύφεση σπάει κόκκαλα. Σείεται όλη η Ευρώπη από τις κινητοποιήσεις των εργατών. Ακρίβεια, ενέργεια και ένας εφιαλτικός πληθωρισμός που εξανεμίζει το εργατικό εισόδημα. Δίνετε, βέβαια, μέσα από τον προϋπολογισμό κάποια ψίχουλα για τα φτωχά νοικοκυριά. Η αλήθεια είναι, όμως, ότι τη μερίδα του λέοντος τη μοιράζονται οι πολυεθνικές των φαρμάκων και της ενέργειας.

Εμείς θέλουμε έναν άλλον προϋπολογισμό· έναν προϋπολογισμό ο οποίος στην πράξη θα προστατεύει την ευημερία των πολιτών, θα προστατεύει τους μισθούς και τα εργατικά δικαιώματα και θα λαμβάνει υπόψη τις ανάγκες που δημιουργούνται, τις νέες ανάγκες στην παιδεία, στην υγεία, στη σίτιση, στη στέγαση. Γιατί —για να είμαστε ειλικρινείς— δεν έχουν όλοι τα ίδια προβλήματα. Γιατί κάποιοι κερδίζουν από τον πόλεμο, τον οποίον επιτέλους πρέπει να σταματήσετε. Όχι σε άλλη στρατιωτικοποίηση του Ουκρανικού. Όχι σε νέες πολιτικές λιτότητας. Και, επιτέλους κύριε Επίτροπε, φορολογήστε τα υπερκέρδη των πολυεθνικών. Τολμήστε μία φορά —μπορείτε;

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Panie Ministrze! Rok 2023 jest trzecim rokiem wieloletniej perspektywy finansowej. W normalnej sytuacji byłby to już rok bardzo poważnego zaawansowania w wydatkach. Niestety warunki zewnętrzne spowodowały, że wydatki się będą kumulowały w drugiej części, a więc rozpocznie się to zapewne w roku 2023. W związku z tym zakładamy, że na to będą potrzebne większe fundusze.

Na dodatek pojawiają się zupełnie nowe sytuacje, nieprzewidziane do tej pory, i zapewne będzie tak, że Komisja, podobnie jak w roku 2022, będzie reagowała na nadzwyczajne sytuacje w Europie i na świecie. Nie możemy wykluczyć, że pojawią się nowe zobowiązania, że pojawią się nowe obietnice, że pojawią się nowe deklaracje wydatków, w szczególności jeżeli chodzi o kwestie energetyczne czy kwestie dotyczące wojny.

Jeżeli tak będzie, to budżet musi być przygotowany na tego typu działania. Musi być bardziej elastyczny. Musi dać możliwość szybkiego reagowania i dostosowania się do sytuacji.

Dlatego też, tak jak mówili moi koledzy, jestem absolutnie za rewizją budżetu i chciałbym na ręce pana komisarza wyrazić zadowolenie, że po raz pierwszy w dokumencie dotyczącym planu komisji pojawia się sformułowanie rewizja. Było to dla mnie miłym zaskoczeniem, bo do tej pory Komisja używała tylko sformułowania przegląd.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

  Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Sur President, filwaqt illi l-Ewropa kienet qed tirkupra mill-kriżi tal-pandemija, sabet ma’ wiċċha numru ta’ kriżijiet oħrajn: minn dik tal-gwerra, inflazzjoni għolja, prezzijiet esaġerati tal-enerġija u tal-ikel, diżokkupazzjoni li kompliet tiżdied, faqar u inugwaljanzi soċjali li splodew. U waqt dawn l-isfidi kollha, irridu nibqgħu nindirizzaw l-isfidi tat-tibdil fil-klima u t-tranżizzjoni diġitali.

Din is-sitwazzjoni ser timpatta b’mod negattiv il-qagħda soċjali u ekonomika tal-Unjoni Ewropea u l-aktar li ser iħossu dan l-impatt negattiv ser ikunu ċ-ċittadini tagħna li ser jaraw il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħhom tonqos. U għalkemm qed naraw dan kollu jseħħ quddiem għajnejna, għadna xorta waħda m’aħniex preparati.

Il-baġit tas-sena d-dieħla huwa kruċjali sabiex jagħti soluzzjonijiet għal dawn l-isfidi. Din m’hijiex sitwazzjoni ta’ business as usual; għaldaqstant irid isir sforz biex ngħinu lil dawk l-aktar vulnerabli.

Għaldaqstant fid-dawl tar-rata ta’ inflazzjoni għolja li qed nesperjenzaw, nappellalkom sabiex tagħtu s-sapport tagħkom lil żewġ emendi li ħa nkunu qegħdin immexxu ‘l quddiem bħala grupp tas-Soċjalisti u d-Demokratiċi, li ser ikomplu jsaħħu d-djalogu soċjali u jagħtu aktar għodod lill-imsieħba soċjali, sabiex ikunu fuq in-naħa tal-ħaddiema f’dawn iż-żminijiet diffiċli.

  Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr. President, Commissioner, as a member of the Development Committee, I wish to express my deep dissatisfaction at the wholly inadequate allocation of humanitarian aid funding for 2023.

I do so in the context of the vast increase in humanitarian need: a further 40 million people in humanitarian need this year alone. I do so in the context of the many resolutions that we have passed expressing our solidarity with the women and girls of Afghanistan, with the floods in Pakistan, with the humanitarian consequences of the crisis in Ukraine. And I do so in the context of your own commitment, Commissioner, on 7 June, that the amending letter would be to better account for the impact of the war on humanitarian needs and food security.

And yet the proposal still stands at less than the 2022 allocation despite those factors. I recognise the difficulties that the rapporteurs have had to deal with. I recognise the collaborative approach of Mr Ștefănuță, and I really, really welcome that, and I acknowledge the difficulties here.

And I know that everyone loses in budget negotiations, but if we’re not careful, people will lose their lives because of this allocation.

  Eugen Jurzyca (ECR). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, pri riešení dnešnej energetickej a inflačnej krízy by nemalo byť tabu ani šetrenie v rozpočte Únie. Ani občan v ťažkých časoch nemôže riešiť svoje problémy bez šetrenia vo svojom rozpočte. Preto by sme časť zdrojov potrebných na zvládnutie krízy mali prioritne presúvať z neefektívnych fondov tam, kde cielene pomôžeme zraniteľným. Priestor na efektívnejšie využitie verejných prostriedkov máme. Na neefektívnosť vo viacerých fondoch Európsky dvor audítorov dlhodobo upozorňuje. Aj občan v ťažkých časoch hľadá možnosti na zvýšenie príjmov. Aj my by sme sa mali znova viac zamerať na skutočné zdroje hospodárskeho rastu. Akoby sme na ne rezignovali počas rokov spoliehania sa na lacné peniaze emisnej banky a na verejné dlhy.

  Andrey Novakov (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, I don’t remember the last time when we adopted the budgeting piece for an ordinary time. If somebody remembers, please let me know. But I do not. And it looks like this is the new normal.

I welcome the efforts to spend the unused 40 billion to support families and small businesses across Europe with these difficult times. I think we have a very important role as Members of this Parliament, and the role is to tell the story to a bus driver in Germany, to a farmer in Spain or a grocery store owner in Bulgaria. What is the European budget doing for them?

In order to tell the story, we need a key element of this proposal. How many families will be supported? With how much per family? Plus how many small businesses will be supported? For what? These are all questions that we seek answers to, and in order to be more efficient, we have to know.

We often debate here about the lack of energy resources, a lack of gas, a lack of liquidity in our funds. But we don’t speak about the lack of trust in the Union. So in order to be more effective, we have to explain in a very simple manner to our voters what is this Union doing with this budget for every single citizen in times of war?

  Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, ensi vuoden budjetti ei todellakaan ole tavanomainen. Venäjän käynnistämä hyökkäyssota Ukrainaa vastaan on asettanut niin Euroopan unionin kuin sen kansalaisetkin poikkeuksellisten haasteiden eteen. Unionin on tuettava Ukrainaa niin kauan kuin on tarpeen. Samalla tiedämme, että sodan seuraukset – korkea inflaatio, kohonneet energiahinnat ja toimitusvarmuuteen liittyvät riskit – heijastuvat myös Eurooppaan. Tämäkin on otettava huomioon lähiaikojen EU-päätöksissä.

Talouskriisi koettelee myös jäsenvaltioita ja kaikkia EU-kansalaisia. On tärkeätä, että EU-budjetissa vastataan näihin haasteisiin ja laitetaan menoja tärkeysjärjestykseen. Osaaminen, tutkimus sekä Ukraina tarvitsevat rahoitusta. Samalla parlamentin on syytä näyttää esimerkkiä ja olla pidättyväinen omissa menoissaan, nyt ei ole suurisuuntaisten rakennushankkeiden aika.

  Андрей Слабаков (ECR). – Г-н Председател, за мое съжаление все повече се убеждавам, че Европейският съюз цели да създаде общество от необразовани и ниско културни хора, които да се поддават лесно на манипулации и на лъжи. Иначе не мога да си обясня факта, че Комисията предлага бюджет за „Творческа Европа“ и „Еразъм +“, който е с 20% по-малък в следващите от предните две години.

Културата и образованието пострадаха най-тежко, твърдя го със сигурност, и продължават да се възстановяват бавно и трудно след Ковид пандемията. Творците и изпълнителите останаха без никакво препитание, учениците загубиха повече от година в обучение от дистанция. Сега пандемия няма, но има инфлация и енергийна криза, проблеми, за които е отговорна точно Комисията, според мен.

В такъв момент трябва да се погрижим точно най-уязвимите сектори да бъдат спасени. Както обикновено обаче, винаги първо се орязват парите за култура и образование. Въпреки опитите да коригираме този абсурд и пренебрежителен подход, парите за 2023 г. са вече направо смешни. За пореден път европейските политици обясниха ..... (председателят отнема думата на оратора)

  Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Minister, Herr Kommissar! Ich kann durchaus einigen Einsparungsvorschlägen etwas abgewinnen, aber mit Sicherheit nicht bei Horizon in Rubrik 1. Europas Zukunft hängt von vier strategischen Eckpfeilern ab: Forschung, Entwicklung, Innovation und Digitalisierung. Ich weiß, dass viele hier mit Wirtschaft und mit Technologie nichts anfangen können. Aber denken Sie an den Green Deal, der nur mit neuen Forschungsergebnissen und mit neuen Technologien überhaupt implementiert werden kann.

Nur 17 % der globalen Forschungs- und Entwicklungsausgaben stammen aus der Europäischen Union. Und auch bei den Investitionen in unsere Unternehmen haben wir noch Aufholbedarf. Hier liegen wir prozentuell hinter den USA, hinter China, hinter Japan und hinter Südkorea. Gerade jetzt, in einer Zeit des Wandels, gilt es, sich stark im globalen Wettbewerb zu positionieren und auch unsere Führung, unseren wirtschaftlichen Führungsanspruch zu untermauern. Daher muss der Fokus bei den Programmen liegen, die Europa im geopolitischen Umfeld mit Sicherheit stärken.

  Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Mr President, the general EU budget for 2023 is a powerful political tool. There is a lot of politics inside, not only economics. In times of skyrocketing inflation and economic recession, politics has to deliver. If politics does not deliver, we will have explosive populist upsurges, anti-system protests and nationalist outcries.

During the pandemic, we were able to basically double the budget of the EU: with Next Generation EU, SURE, REACT-EU, we got another EUR 1 000 billion – exactly like the multiannual financial framework. We were kind of magic. Now we have a similar challenge with the energy crisis.

Increasing resources for Erasmus+, the Just Transition, is good news, but it is not enough. We need fresh money coming from new own resources to provide on-the-spot responses to gas deprivation and energy prices. We cannot lose the credit we had during the pandemic. We cannot lose the battle against inequalities and social despair. We cannot lose face in front of our people’s expectations. We simply cannot.

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, σήμερα για εμένα είναι μια ιδιαίτερη στιγμή. Είναι η τελευταία φορά που βρίσκομαι σε τούτο εδώ το βήμα —το πλέον δημοκρατικό, φιλελεύθερο, αντιπροσωπευτικό, πλουραλιστικό βήμα, όχι μόνο της Ευρώπης αλλά και ολόκληρης της ανθρωπότητας— για να σχολιάσω τα του προϋπολογισμού του 2023.

Για 8 ολόκληρα χρόνια βρισκόμουν σε αυτό το βήμα για να εξάρω πραγματικά τις προσπάθειες του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και της Επιτροπής Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού. Σήμερα, το μόνο που έχω να απευθύνω από τα βάθη της καρδιάς μου είναι ένα τεράστιο ευχαριστώ σε όλους τους αγαπητούς φίλους και συναδέλφους που μαζί, μέσα από την Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού, δώσαμε μάχες και αγώνες για έναν πιο κοινωνικό, αναπτυξιακό, ανθρώπινο προϋπολογισμό της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης· για τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες, για τους λαούς της Ευρώπης. Ένα τεράστιο ευχαριστώ για τη συνεργασία, για τη συμπαράσταση που είχα όλα αυτά τα χρόνια από εξαίρετους συναδέλφους, αρχής γενομένης από τον πρόεδρο της Επιτροπής Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού. Θέλω επίσης να εξάρω τη στήριξη και τη συνεργασία των συναδέλφων μου από το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα, ιδιαιτέρως του αγαπητού μου συναδέλφου και συντονιστή, José Manuel Fernandes, και να ευχαριστήσω όλους και όλες ξεχωριστά στην Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού.

Όμως, ευρισκόμενος εδώ, θέλω να εξάρω τις τεράστιες προσπάθειες και να τονίσω ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο έχουν μεγάλη τύχη, διότι στο τιμόνι του προϋπολογισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης βρίσκεται ο αγαπητός Επίτροπος Johannes Hahn, ο οποίος πραγματικά συμβάλλει τα μέγιστα για να πραγματοποιήσουμε τα οράματα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Ευχαριστώ πραγματικά από καρδιάς ιδιαίτερα και εσάς, κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε, για την όλη συνεργασία. Δυστυχώς, είναι η τελευταία παρέμβασή μου εδώ, όμως θα έχω την ευχέρεια και την ευκαιρία από τα νέα μου καθήκοντα και τη νέα θέση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο να συμβάλλω στην υλοποίηση των οραμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

  President. – I left you a few segments since this was your last speech. But I know you will quite often in this House, so I wish you many happy returns.

  Ilan De Basso (S&D). – Herr talman! Det finns en enorm kraft i vår budget, och tillsammans med medlemsstaterna kan vi definitivt göra skillnad för vanliga människor. Men då måste vi orka prioritera – och det avgör på vems och vilkas sida vi faktiskt står.

Ojämlikheten fortsätter att plåga vår kontinent, och vi får inte låta dem som redan är förfördelade stå tillbaka också i denna kris. Ty de rika har alltid råd med smöret.

EU spelar en viktig roll. Gemensamma satsningar på energi, forskning – de kommer att underlätta längre fram. Men det tar tid. Här och nu är det trots allt medlemsstaterna som måste ta ansvar för dem som har det svårast.

Med en ny svensk regering som sluter avtal på slott, är jag minst sagt orolig. Ivern att minska anställningstryggheten och utförsäkra sjuka går före att hjälpa vanligt folk. ”Slottsregeringen” finns till för de egna. För att samhället ska hållas ihop måste alla hjälpas upp ur krisen i både Sverige och EU.

  Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, between 2021 and 2024, the European Union will allocate over EUR 1 billion in funding to the Palestinian Authority.

Fine, yet a proposal to condition just EUR 20 million of that funding is refused over and over by this House. I am referring, honourable colleagues, to the initiative which seeks to remove anti-Semitic references and incitement to violence propagated in the textbooks of Palestinian children.

The EU is very clear that it has a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism, and I would like to think that this is an approach that we all share. The Georg Eckert Institute study is clear that Palestinian textbooks do in fact contain anti-Semitic references. So I ask you, colleagues: why is it that a majority of this House refuses to condition EUR 20 million of the EUR 1 billion funding for the Palestinian Authority on removing the anti-Semitic references from the textbooks of Palestinian children?

It is utterly perplexing that we failed to take this action. Funding conditionality is a routine feature of EU programmes. We condition commitments on a host of indicators from gender-mainstreaming to sustainability. So why is funding conditioning to fight anti-Semitism resisted so heavily?

This is a question I put to colleagues ahead of the vote on the budget, and it is a question that I will continue to put in the times to come.

  Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, el debate que estamos teniendo hoy, y que repetimos cada año, sin duda es relevante, es interesante y alinea los intereses del Parlamento Europeo y, con ello, la representación de los ciudadanos. Pero es cierto también que en estos debates siempre echamos de menos los cambios estructurales que debemos acometer en el presupuesto de la Unión y, especialmente, después de haber emitido cientos de millones de euros en deuda. Una deuda que tenemos que repagar en los próximos años. Y, aquí, el debate de los presupuestos entronca con la discusión sobre los recursos propios. Algunos recursos propios están en camino: hay iniciativas legislativas, esperemos que en trílogo brevemente, para levantar esa financiación que nos permita amortizar la deuda. Pero hay otros que siguen pendientes. Algunos de ellos son: la tasa digital, que está en el aire después de los acuerdos de la OCDE; la necesidad de revisar algún tipo de imposición en el mercado único, vinculado al acuerdo también de la OCDE; y, quizás, también las contribuciones solidarias del sector energético que hemos aprobado, que hemos impulsado a través de esta Comisión y del Consejo, y que deberíamos, de alguna manera, ayudar a consolidar en el presupuesto comunitario.

  Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Spoštovani gospod komisar, spoštovane kolegice, kolegi, poročevalci.

Proračun za vsako leto je najpomembnejši politični dokument, ki ga sprejemamo in mora hkrati slediti viziji, razvoju in pa tudi odgovarjati na trenutne razmere, ki se pojavijo.

Zagotovo je leto 2023 nepredvidljivo leto, ki bo postreglo zagotovo še z veliko presenečenji. Zato je prav, da je proračun, ki ga pripravljamo, do določene mere fleksibilen in da odgovori na te izzive, ki jih povzroča vojna v Ukrajini.

Najprej pomoč Ukrajini v njenem boju proti agresorju, po drugi strani pomoč tudi državam, ki so sprejele begunce kot posledica te ukrajinske vojne, hkrati pa širom po Evropi odpravljanje posledic, ki jih ta vojna povzroča.

Poznamo problem energetske krize, ki ustvarja energetsko revščino, stisko pri ljudeh, povzroča padec gospodarske moči, konkurenčnosti naše ekonomije. Zato je tudi potrebno na to najti odgovore. Inflacija je poseben problem.

Ob vseh teh izzivih pa moramo seveda paziti tudi na to, da bomo ohranili te tako imenovane klasične politike, kot sta kohezijska politika in kmetijska politika. To sta politiki, ki izpolnjujeta najbolj dva principa: princip solidarnosti in subsidiarnosti. In ti dve politiki ljudje občutijo. Zato moramo narediti te politike enostavne in paziti, da bo črpanje teh sredstev v prihodnje še bolje.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Mr President, as Vice—President in charge of Parliament’s budget, I would like to reaffirm our political will to negotiate constructively with other European institutions to reach a budget that can respond to our political priorities in these challenging times. But as Commissioner Hahn rightly said, the budgetary cuts proposed by the Council don’t even respect its own political priorities and this is not acceptable.

From the point of view of Parliament’s budget, this context of war and high inflation implies the need to respond to the increase of expenses due to inflation, in particular the rise of energy costs; the need to strengthen our capacity to respond to the increasing cybersecurity challenges, including additional specialised human resources, and the need to be prudent in our building policy. That’s why I hope the amendment to this effect can be adopted. Finally, I hope that the budget, in its final version, can respond to these needs, meeting citizens’ expectations.

  Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, ministre, izvjestitelju, kolegice i kolege, Europska unija trenutno se suočava s iznimno složenim izazovima u vidu visokih cijena energenata, visoke inflacije, upitnog gospodarskog rasta te posljedica rata u Ukrajini.

Znanost i istraživanja imaju ključnu ulogu u poticanju budućeg rasta i jačanju otpornosti Europske unije i njenog gospodarstva na krizu. Jedini način da Europa ostane konkurentna na globalnom tržištu u ovim teškim okolnostima jest veće ulaganje u inovacije, posebno ona vezana uz digitalizaciju, gdje se sigurno ne možemo niskim cijenama natjecati s Kinom i drugim globalnim igračima. Zbog toga bilo kakvo smanjivanje proračuna za program Obzor Europa nije prihvatljivo.

Također, kohezijska i poljoprivredna politika ne mogu biti glavni izvor financiranja hitnih prioriteta tijekom naredne godine zbog toga što se time ugrožava provedba dugoročnih ciljeva. Potpora ruralnim područjima i slabije razvijenim regijama mora ostati jedan od glavnih prioriteta u skladu s istinskim ciljevima kohezije i ZPP-a.

Nema i neće biti jedinstvene Europe u kojoj su neki dvostruko bogatiji od drugih, imaju pristup vrhunskim zdravstvenim, obrazovnim i ostalim javnim uslugama, a drugi nemaju.

Za kraj, posebno ističem zdravstvo kao jedan od prioriteta na kojem se ne smije štedjeti. Pri tome osobito je važno jačati dugoročno ulaganje u europske referentne mreže. One predstavljaju ogroman iskorak u omogućavanju dostupnosti vrhunske zdravstvene zaštite za sve građane EU-a, bez obzira na državu ili regiju u kojoj žive. Na taj način ulažemo i postavljamo temelje za stvarnu europsku zdravstvenu uniju.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

  Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar Hahn, evident că toate speranțele sunt spre bugetul Uniunii Europene în aceste momente de grea încercare pentru Uniunea Europeană.

După criza de sănătate, ne-am trezit cu acest război care a pus și pune la grea încercare securitatea europeană. Evident că nu a fost suficient doar războiul. Avem această criză energetică.

Și fac apel pe această cale către dumneavoastră, domnule comisar, pentru că înțelegeți foarte bine provocările la care sunt expuse statele din imediata vecinătate a Uniunii Europene.

Ați fost recent la Chișinău, ați asigurat-o pe președinta Maia Sandu de susținerea Uniunii Europene. Republica Moldova, Ucraina, Georgia și celelalte state au nevoie de susținerea Uniunii Europene pentru a depăși toate aceste provocări care vin din partea Moscovei, pentru a-i ține în zona sa de influență. Avem obligația să menținem același ritm de susținere financiară pentru aceste state.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we have well noted the different positions expressed by the honourable Members of this House and also by the Council. The Commission services are examining thoroughly all the amendments proposed by the Parliament, together with those proposed by the Council.

To facilitate the upcoming negotiations, the Commission will present a detailed assessment of the amendments proposed by the Parliament and of the Council position in the so—called letter of executability. We will send this letter shortly after tomorrow’s vote on the Parliament’s amendments.

Our three institutions succeeded over the past years to agree on many ground—breaking files that have changed the Union’s budgetary and financial landscape. I believe that successful negotiation requires both institutions to set clear priorities, including negative ones, so that we can focus our discussions in the conciliation on a limited number of programmes where meaningful adjustments could be made. My team and I are at your disposal, like ever, and ready to facilitate the work of the rapporteurs and the Presidency during the conciliation procedure.

  Jiří Georgiev, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President. honourable Members, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, I listened really carefully to arguments raised during this interesting debate and I will inform my colleagues in the Council subsequently.

I am convinced that the debate has certainly helped to clarify the European Parliament’s position and your priorities. And let me assure you that the Council will do its best to engage in a constructive dialogue allowing us to come to an agreement on the budget for 2023 within the deadlines foreseen by the Treaty.

  Nicolae Ştefănuță, rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner, thanks for being here today in the House of European democracy. Thanks to all the colleagues who have supported a reasonable, strong budget that responds to the European citizens.

Domnule președinte, noi am plecat la război acum câțiva ani cu un arc și cu săgeți. Dar noi trăim în epoca în care suntem atacați cu drone, în care lumea a luat foc, în care avem cinci crize consecutive: pandemia, inflația, energia, noi state candidate, toate aceste lucruri trebuie să găsească un răspuns astăzi în ceea ce facem noi. Trebuie să schimbăm armele pe care le avem în dotare, nu să dăm vina pe săgeți.

În acest moment avem păreri instituționale diferite pe buget. Consiliului i se pare că trebuie să facem economii pentru a avea bani rezervați pentru crize viitoare. Însă eu mă întreb care criză viitoare, că deja avem cinci crize pe care le-am menționat. Ce să le spunem oamenilor: mai puneți o geacă peste sau o să le spunem că Uniunea Europeană încearcă să vă ajute acum?

Noi, Parlamentul, credem că trebuie să răspundem acum și de aceea punem acei bani pe care-i mai avem, puțini cum sunt, îi punem spre politicile care contează pentru oameni, pentru Uniunea Europeană și suntem uniți în asta. Am avut în Comisia pentru buget un vot de 31 la zero. Nici măcar euroscepticii domnului Kuhn, care spunea că Uniunea Europeană nu ar trebui să mai aibă bani și să acționeze, nici măcar ei n-au îndrăznit să voteze contra.

Și chiar vreau să îl întreb pe domnul Kuhn, care nu mai este în sală, evident, cum ar arăta Europa dacă noi nu am reacționa? Costul inacțiunii nu este oare mai mare?

Și atunci, domnule președinte, și atunci, domnule comisar, eu vă încurajez să găsim împreună soluțiile care trebuie, să găsim soluțiile acum pentru criza politică în care ne aflăm. Pentru că lupta este una dreaptă, este una dreaptă, este pentru oameni, este pentru democrație și este pentru libertate.

  Niclas Herbst, Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, die Debatte hat mehrere Punkte gezeigt. Zum einen waren es gerade die Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus den Fachausschüssen, die die Prioritäten der Ratspräsidentschaft verteidigt haben und dafür auch einstehen wollen und das auch finanzieren wollen. Ich glaube, das ist eine ganz gute Botschaft.

Das Zweite ist: Ich glaube, es ist auch angekommen, dass das Parlament hier in großer Einigkeit steht, dass wir hier natürlich über das eine oder andere Thema, wie zum Beispiel die palästinensischen Schulbücher, lebhaft diskutieren, aber bei den großen Punkten absolut einig sind und als Parlament hier auch geschlossen stehen.

Und das Dritte ist: Ich habe festgestellt, dass sowohl Kommissar Hahn als auch der stellvertretende Minister Georgiev die ganze Debatte – diese lebhafte Debatte – die ganze Zeit verfolgt haben. Das heißt, sie haben die nötige Zähigkeit, damit wir auch in den Verhandlungen zu einem guten Ergebnis kommen. Ich freue mich darauf.

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Mittwoch, 19. Oktober 2022, statt.

(Die Sitzung wird um 14.43 Uhr unterbrochen)

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

8. Reanudación de la sesión

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.01 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

9. Modificación del orden del día

  Der Präsident. – Gemäß Artikel 158 Absatz 2 wird auf Vorschlag der Präsidentin und im Einvernehmen mit den Fraktionen die morgige Sitzung aufgrund der gestrigen Änderungen der Tagesordnung bis 23.00 Uhr verlängert.

Wenn es keine Einwände gibt, gilt diese Änderung als angenommen.

10. Aprobación del Acta de la sesión anterior

  Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar.

Gibt es Einwände?

Im Moment nicht. Das Protokoll ist damit genehmigt.

11. Programa de trabajo de la Comisión para 2023 (debate)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zum Arbeitsprogramm der Kommission für 2023 (2022/2841(RSP)).

Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass im Zuge dieser Aussprache eine Rednerrunde der Fraktionen vorgesehen ist und dass es deshalb keine spontanen Wortmeldungen gibt und keine blauen Karten akzeptiert werden können.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, indeed, it is my pleasure to present to you the Commission Work Programme for 2023, immediately following its adoption by the college literally a few minutes ago.

Let me begin by saying that the programme is a true testament to our commitment to build a Union that stands firm and united in the face of a unique set of crises whose effects are being felt so acutely in the everyday lives of Europeans.

The work programme sets out a bold agenda, explaining how we intend to tackle the most pressing challenges, including the energy crisis. At the same time, it outlines how we want to double down on the long-term generational tasks, making our European Union green, digital, fairer and more resilient. I would like to underline how much we appreciate the valuable cooperation with this House in preparing the 2023 Commission Work Programme.

We have engaged closely through our structured dialogues in the Parliamentary committees and through our exchanges in the Conference of Presidents and the Conference of Committee Chairs. I particularly appreciate the priorities outlined by these two bodies in the statement and the 2022 summary report respectively.

Honourable Members, the 2023 Commission Work Programme is unique in more ways than one. First and foremost, it was shaped following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that brought the horrific reality of war back to Europe. At the same time, this Commission Work Programme is the first since the successful end of the Conference on the Future of Europe. This inevitably means that the Commission’s work will be guided by the need to support people and businesses through the testing times, while we will strengthen citizens’ engagement as a part of our policymaking. To underline this approach, I would like to underscore that four out of five new initiatives outlined in the Commission Work Programme directly or indirectly follow up on the proposals made by the Conference on the Future of Europe.

I am also pleased to announce that several initiatives in the work programme come in response to proposals from this House, from Article 225 resolutions adopted by this House. These include further action on asbestos removals, a common statute for European cross-border associations and action against the piracy of live online content.

Honourable Members, for the year ahead, we are announcing 51 flagship initiatives grouped under 43 policy objectives or packages.

Before I touch on some of these key initiatives, it is worth noting the unique circumstances in which the 2023 Commission Work Programme was drawn up. The terrible human suffering caused by Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine has been accompanied by social and economic turmoil. Our response to the invasion has been swift, determined and united. The EU has already adopted over 180 measures hitting Russia where it hurts while offering strong support to Ukraine and its people. We have mobilised over EUR 7 billion to strengthen Ukraine’s economic, social and financial resilience and an additional EUR 3.1 billion in military support under the European Peace Facility. We will not falter in our continued support for Ukraine, even as Russia continues to use energy as a weapon, causing hardship in Europe and beyond. It is clear we cannot afford to take a ‘business as usual’ approach, while a united front is our only chance to successfully tackle the current challenges.

Honourable Members, our work next year will be far-reaching and impactful. We are feeling first-hand the increasingly severe effects of climate change. Our continent suffered severely from heatwaves, droughts, forest fires this summer. This has further strengthened our determination to implement the European Green Deal.

We propose to create the European Hydrogen Bank to invest EUR 3 billion into kick-starting a hydrogen market in the EU. We will also reform the EU electricity market to decouple electricity prices from the effects of gas prices, to ease the pressure on households and businesses.

We will propose legislation to contribute to a more resilient and sustainable food system, and we will overhaul the EU’s animal welfare laws in response to both the Conference on the Future of Europe and the European Citizens’ Initiative.

We will propose a targeted revision of the legislation on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals, which is known by REACH, to promote sustainable chemicals.

And we will work on further greening of the freight transport. Digital solutions will be key in making our economy more efficient and less resource intensive and without critical raw materials – very simple – no green and digital solution. So we will therefore present the European Critical Raw Materials Act with measures to boost Europe’s strategic autonomy on the critical raw materials to help ensure an adequate and diversified supply while prioritising re-use and recycling.

We will propose the common European mobility data space to boost the digitalisation of the mobility sector. And we will also continue to help businesses thrive in our single market with a patent licensing package that provides a stable regulatory environment and the revision of the Late Payments Directive, which will help reduce burdens in particular for SMEs. The European Year of Skills will help businesses with the challenges of reskilling and upskilling their workforce.

To strengthen our security in an increasingly multipolar world, we will adopt a space strategy for security and defence and update the EU maritime security strategy as well.

We will continue to push our ambitious trade agenda to come forward with a new agenda for Latin America and the Caribbean.

And to further promote our European way of life, we will continue to focus on the key areas of education, health, migration and security.

We will adopt a comprehensive approach to mental health and other key initiatives to emerge from the Conference on the Future of Europe, which I particularly appreciate having been the chair of the Group on Health and I particularly appreciated because I saw personally how important this is for our young people, for our young generation.

We will also put forward a prevention package with initiatives on smoke free environments and vaccine preventable cancers, a new cybersecurity skills academy and proposal on the digitalisation of travel documents.

We will continue to push for European democracy, including with the defence of democracy package to bolster democratic resilience from within and defend our democratic systems from outside interests.

And we will present a proposal for the European Disability Card.

Honourable Members, to close, let me underline that good policymaking is clearly a team effort. Faced with a unique set of crises this year, our Union has shown once again just how much it can achieve when it is united. As we enter the final two years of this mandate, it is all the more important to have constructive negotiations in good faith on the key pieces of legislation which will shape our shared future. Thank you very much for the great cooperation so far. I am very much looking forward to your interventions and I am ready to answer your questions.

  Jan Olbrycht, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, let me first express my thanks on behalf of the EPP Group for the very good cooperation with the Commission on the programme from last year. And I think that it is important, especially in this Chamber, to remind all of us that this is the third year of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) – I mean, 23 – but this is our fourth year of this term. So the end of the term is coming. And the question is, how will we be judged? How will we be evaluated? How did we behave facing this completely new situation? I mean, ‘we’ as in Parliament, preparing legislation, and you the Commission.

I think how well you are prepared to adapt to the new situation is very important. So when we look at the European Commission programme, we can see, of course, the ongoing processes, the pending elements which we will have to finalize, and we will have the new initiatives which are proposed by the Commission. But there is also the part which is not written in the programme which is the question of the capacity to adapt to completely new, unexpected situations. This is probably next year’s activity. So we will be, as you will be, evaluated for the response to completely unexpected situations concerning the war, climate change, food crises, etc.

So that’s why we have to take care of everything that can happen – not only everything that is planned but all that can happen. So that’s why we as the EPP would like to concentrate everything on the jobs, especially the jobs for citizens, farmers, SMEs, businesses. This is also about the functioning of European energy markets. This is also the question of protecting EU citizens from outside threats. So I think this is very important. And the question of how to fight foreign interferences and the attack against democratic values and our way of life. This is for us two basic elements, because when we speak about the social market economy, we are speaking about people. So we have to take care of their life. And we have to take care of the programmes but, of course, take care not to create victims of the programmes. We cannot have people falling victim to our ambitions. We have to be very rational and very clear.

Let me finish, Mr Commissioner, by expressing that I found in your documents, for the first time, the expression that you are not ruling out a revision of the MFF. This is the first time we have heard this from the Commission. Up to now, it has been only a ‘review’ or even an ‘ambitious review’. But this is the first time I have read about the possibility of revision. I can keep your promise and we will see how it will happen.

  Pedro Marques, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Vice—President Šefčovič, colleagues, I’d like to thank the Commission for its strong work on the assistance for Ukraine, the sanctions against Russia and the measures responding to the disruptions in the energy markets. However, this coming winter, in the next year, will be one of the hardest in our memory. Our response must be adapted to the unprecedented circumstances, as my colleague Mr Olbrycht just said, and I fully concur.

If I’m honest with you, Commissioner, I’m concerned that what is being proposed falls short of what European citizens expect, specifically in terms of the economic and social response to the crisis. At the initiative of my group, the Conference of Presidents adopted in June a clear set of demands for this work programme. Commissioner, we are left wondering if the President of the Commission even received a copy of such demands. Those demands included the strengthening of the social rights action plan, the urgent organisation of a new social summit, and a comprehensive European anti-poverty strategy adapted to the current situation. They are nowhere to be found in this document before us today. It is not acceptable that on this matter, on the social dimension, we might be satisfied with generic lines on the need to deliver on the Porto social agenda and summit.

My group firmly believes that the successes of temporary instruments like SURE and like Next Generation EU should be built upon and converted into a permanent fiscal capacity and common crisis response instruments. We must learn from the lessons that the past brought us. Jumping from one ad hoc temporary instrument to another is simply not good enough. We hope the Commission will accept the need for a full reform of the economic governance review, including the fiscal rules, sooner and not later. We expect the proposals to be delivered rapidly.

For the electricity market, it’s exactly the same. The market system ‘does not work any more’, said the President of the Commission in this Parliament four months ago. Two weeks ago, she committed to presenting proposals for the reform of the electricity market by the end of the year. It is disappointing that, in this proposal for the work programme, it is delayed now until the third quarter of next year. We need reforms now, not a year from now. It’s very important that we can deliver now on this matter. With difficult times comes the risk of the rise of the extremists, of the populists, of the anti—democratic. We need to be able to deliver towards the central democratic forces and we cannot be taken hostage by some governments in Europe, particularly those subject to Article 7.

Let me remind you that, in the candidacy of President von der Leyen, she committed to and I quote, ‘make use of the clauses in the Treaties that allow proposals on taxation to be adopted by co—decision and decided by qualified majority’. Will the Commission live up to these promises on the matter of qualified majority voting? Commissioner, I will conclude by urging the Commission to turbocharge its ambition on the socio—economic response to this crisis. We must do more, we must do it better, and we must do it now.

  Malik Azmani, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, we are living through extraordinary times. A still lingering global pandemic, war in Europe and all its profound consequences, uncertainty and economic headwinds. 2023 will be the last year before vital European elections, and we need to be in sixth gear and not in neutral. Now is the time to double down on delivering for the citizens of Europe.

What does this mean in practice? It means turning challenges into possibilities. Let us be honest, Putin does not just want to destroy Ukraine; he wants an international alliance to reinvent the world order. China has a similar ambition. We must make sure Europe shapes the world of tomorrow, not dictator Putin and autocrat Xi.

This is a turning point moment. Our way of life must prevail, and that’s why we need a more sovereign, strong and independent Europe, on food security, on industrial competitiveness, on energy and raw materials, and on security and defence. We need increased possibilities for defence cooperation on the MFF; a hydrogen alliance that will power Europe and make us more independent; a euro that is as powerful as the dollar, with a willingness to use the power of our single currency to enforce secondary sections globally.

We must use our economic power to become the geopolitical force we should be. We need a complete asylum and migration package adopted to ensure a thriving economy and shape a changing world with our values. We say yes to new trade agreements, yes to more support for citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises, and yes to increased cooperation with our allies and friends colleagues.

We are a threat to the autocrats of the world, because we harness the forces of our citizens instead of suppressing them. That is why we must act upon the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, and we await the Commission’s proposals. Friends, this has been a parliamentary mandate unlike any other in the history of this House. Thank you, Commissioner Šefčovič, for your continued dedication and hard work.

In 2023, let’s keep our foot on the accelerator and seize the chance to mould the changing world around us. Let’s deliver. Let’s renew Europe together.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, really striking to see how much interest a debate on the Commission work programme for 2023 elicits here in this House. I’d like to spend my two and a half minutes talking to my friends of the European People’s Party, arguably the biggest group in this Parliament.

Let me just tell you a story. Forty years ago, the European car industry convinced the European Union not to regulate them. They promised: ‘We are going to reduce emissions, improve our product and all the rest of it. Trust us. Don’t regulate us’. And they succeeded.

Now, when they failed to deliver, the European Union started regulating them and putting them emission targets. And then they fought tooth and nail against really ambitious targets. When that failed, then they started fighting to make sure that the measurements – the way we would measure the emissions – would be totally removed from reality. They succeeded. But of course, when the European Union reconsidered and started measuring real emissions, then they started cheating.

What is the net result of that? Well, the world champions of the electric cars are Tesla (US), Build Your Dreams (Chinese). That is the net result of such a strategy. And the European People’s Party was aiding and abetting the strategy of the European car industry, not least Angela Merkel, who even destroyed a trilogue deal just to weaken the objectives.

Now the EPP does it again, targeting the REACH regulation. And of course in the name of moratorium, one in, one out, because all this, you know, is a burden on our companies. A burden? Are you serious? We are talking about keeping this planet liveable for humanity. You call that a burden or the hobbyhorse of the Greens? It is about life and death – right? – and also about leadership, industrial leadership. And your calls have been partly heard.

Maroš, I regret to say that, because indeed the European Commission delayed by three quarters the revision of the landmark Chemicals Regulation of the European Union, whereas actually this text is almost ripe. Don’t do this. I mean, don’t listen to the, not the sirens, but the cries of the European People’s Party. By the way – when I have to judge as to their presence – they do not carry a lot of weight. Ignore them.

I mean, yes, I know you put that on the fourth quarter, but there’s no legal obligation for the Commission not to be earlier if you already do it. And so at least this Parliament will be able to adopt it in the first reading before the end of the term.

  Jean-Lin Lacapelle, au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, nous débattons aujourd’hui sur les orientations de la Commission pour 2023. Sur bien des domaines cruciaux, sur l’énergie, sur l’économie, sur la santé, mes collègues se sont déjà exprimés avec talent. Je vais vous parler d’autre chose, d’une priorité absolue qui n’est pourtant mentionnée qu’en passant dans un misérable paragraphe de votre texte.

Cette année, Frontex, l’agence de surveillance des frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne, a dénombré une hausse de 70 % des entrées irrégulières entre janvier et septembre par rapport à la même période en 2021. Face au constat de cette déferlante migratoire, votre seule réponse est de limoger le directeur de Frontex ‒ dont je rappelle qu’il était français ‒, de refuser honteusement aujourd’hui même de valider ses comptes et d’imposer encore plus de migrants aux États membres à travers le pacte sur l’asile et l’immigration.

Je vois déjà nos adversaires qui ricanent et qui nous accusent d’être obsessionnels. Mais parmi ces clandestins, chers collègues, il y a les terroristes du Bataclan. Il y a ceux de Bruxelles, il y a ceux de Nice, il y a ceux de Londres, il y a ceux de Berlin. Parmi ces clandestins, il y a les assassins de Lola, douze ans, violée, égorgée, mutilée et découpée en morceaux vendredi dernier à Paris. Pour vous, pour la Commission, ces migrants ne sont peut-être que des sujets de droit abstrait ou un simple problème statistique. Mais pour les parents de Lola, qui aurait pu être notre fille, c’est une vie brisée dont vous portez collectivement la responsabilité.

Avec ces clandestins qui arrivent, combien de futurs tueurs? Combien de futures victimes? Ceux qui se moquent de ce sujet sont odieux, indignes, irresponsables. Ils ont le sang des morts sur la conscience. Vous devez en faire votre priorité. Vous devez l’inscrire urgemment dans votre programme d’action. N’attendez plus, réveillez-vous, agissez!

  Hermann Tertsch, en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señor presidente, es una tragedia que realmente no se sepa aquí reaccionar con una enmienda, una enmienda en general. Tenemos a la mitad del continente amenazado por una guerra real, tenemos a parte del continente ardiendo, tenemos a la otra parte del continente aterrado ante una inminente crisis como no se ha conocido, con miedo al hambre, con miedo a los cierres, con miedo al desempleo. Y nosotros seguimos en la misma senda, con esta sobredosis de ideología, de sostenibilidad, de los mismos planes que teníamos antes, cuando no había nada de lo que estamos hablando.

La postura de Ucrania: en Ucrania estamos en el lado bueno de la historia, pero no lo están Francia y Alemania, que han estado retrasando insistentemente todo lo que es una defensa real de Ucrania, como se tenía que haber hecho.

Y, en cuanto a las vacunas, ¿qué pasa con las vacunas? ¿Vamos a tener claridad sobre las vacunas en algún momento aquí, en este Parlamento, sobre lo que ha pasado con las vacunas, o vamos a tener un silencio absoluto aquí, sin ninguna transparencia en absoluto?

Aquí estamos viendo que no se cambia: seguimos con la obcecación de los planes de ingeniería social; estamos con los planes del ecologismo radical, que tiene atrapada a toda esta Cámara y que no tiene en cuenta, para nada, los intereses de los trabajadores.

Acaban de quitarle los caladeros a todos los pescadores de las provincias vascas, de las provincias gallegas y de las andaluzas, por unas cuestiones que no vienen al caso. En estos momentos de alarma alimenticia, están haciendo cosas de ese tipo. Ideología pura.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το πρόγραμμα της Επιτροπής για το 2023 είναι άτολμο, αναβλητικό και κατώτερο των περιστάσεων, κύριε Šefčovič. Δύο αρμόδιοι Eπίτροποι, ο κύριος Gentiloni και ο κύριος Breton, πρότειναν ένα ευρωομόλογο με κοινό δανεισμό, με εγγύηση της Επιτροπής για την αντιμετώπιση της ενεργειακής κρίσης, όπως κάναμε με το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Ανάκαμψης για την αντιμετώπιση της πανδημίας. Τι λέει για αυτή την πρόταση η Επιτροπή στο πρόγραμμά της; Τίποτα.

Η Πρόεδρος von der Leyen μας είπε ότι με την ενεργειακή κρίση δεν δουλεύει καλά η αγορά στο φυσικό αέριο και έχουμε ακρίβεια, φτώχεια και τα πρόθυρα μιας ύφεσης. Τι πρότεινε η Επιτροπή για την αντιμετώπιση αυτού του προβλήματος; Μέχρι τώρα, τίποτα.

Μέχρι και ο κύριος Charles Michel, ο Πρόεδρος του Συμβουλίου, ασκεί κριτική στην Επιτροπή για την αδράνεια. Έχουμε μια επικίνδυνη αύξηση των κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων και των ανισοτήτων ανάμεσα στα κράτη μέλη. Τι έχει κάνει η Επιτροπή γι’ αυτό; Τίποτα ουσιαστικό.

Η κοινωνική ατζέντα παραμένει μια άδεια ετικέτα εδώ και χρόνια, μετά τη Σύνοδο στο Γκέτεμποργκ. Και τι κάνετε για να αναθεωρήσετε —όπως σας ζητάει ομόφωνα το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και η Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού— το Πολυετές Δημοσιονομικό Πλαίσιο; Μπορούμε να συνεχίσουμε με έναν προϋπολογισμό της τάξης του 1% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ όταν αυξάνονται οι προκλήσεις;

  Mario Furore (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea è di fronte alla sua più grande sfida, quella della revisione della sua governance economica.

Il patto di stabilità ha mostrato negli anni le sue debolezze e non risponde più alle esigenze dei cittadini europei. È arrivato il momento di una profonda riforma che archivi l'austerità una volta per tutte e favorisca gli investimenti verdi e la transizione sostenibile ed energetica, che sono peraltro necessari per raggiungere quegli obiettivi che ci siamo fissati proprio in quest'Aula.

Notiamo tuttavia con rammarico che, nel programma di lavoro della Commissione, mancano anche quest'anno interventi per una piena uguaglianza delle persone LGBTQ+, una promessa fatta dalla Presidente Ursula von der Leyen proprio qui nel 2020. La paternità e persino l'unione di molte coppie gay non vengono riconosciute ovunque in Europa e questa è un'ingiustizia alla quale dobbiamo subito rimediare.

Aspetto quindi che la Commissione europea presenti al più presto un'iniziativa legislativa per difendere i diritti di tutti. Basta con le discriminazioni.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would also like to thank all honourable Members for their interventions, for their support, for their critical remarks, for their encouragement to work on some of the files faster than we propose in the Commission work programme. And I can assure you that we will do our utmost to come up with the proposals as soon as they are ready, as soon as they are of good quality.

If you would allow me to be a little bit more concrete, I would also like to thank the honourable Members and subscribe to what Mr Olbrycht said that indeed we had good cooperation and a good exchange of views between the committees, between the Conference of Presidents, and I think that such good cooperation, that this spirit of partnership, would be very important this year and the whole of next year because, as Mr Olbrycht rightly points out, now we are working for the legacy of this legislator, of this Parliament. The people will judge us in the future on how we managed to cope with these unprecedented crises: COVID-19, economic challenges, Russian aggression against Ukraine, and how we demonstrated that we can adapt to these new challenges and the new situations. And I think that if you look at it from the perspective of how we dealt so far with the crisis, we managed the COVID-19 situation, we introduced the Next Generation EU budget, we are really coming up with unprecedented proposals when it comes to energy. And we will have a whole-morning discussion on this tomorrow, and the discussion on this package in the College in the Commission was just about to conclude as I was leaving to meet you and address the plenary on our Commission work programme. So we will have the whole debate about this tomorrow. But I can confirm to Mr Olbrycht that, yes, another analysis and revision of the MFF will be presented in the second quarter of the next year. This will give us an opportunity to look at how we managed with the MFF that we have at out disposal, how it works in combination with Next Generation EU, and what are the challenges we have to meet in this regard in future years to come.

To Mr Marques, I again would like to reassure you and, of course, the S&D Group that the social dimension is very important to the European Commission. We are already preparing for what most probably will be another social summit to be held again in Porto in the spring of next year. And that when it comes to the concrete deliverables, you are very aware of the action plan on how to implement the European Pillar of Social Rights, which was adopted and which we are gradually fulfilling and bringing to fruition one by one, and we will definitely continue with that.

What I think would be very important – and this would be my request to the whole European Parliament – tomorrow we will be debating the energy situation. Mr Papademos and also several other honourable Members asked to intervene on this topic. So you will see the package we are proposing. But I think what will be very important for all of you, especially for citizens of Europe, is how can we help them also financially in this very difficult situation when it comes to the vulnerable households, when it comes to the to the SMEs, when it comes to big industry. I think for the SMEs and households, we would have a recipe for how to help. But we need your assistance to get REPowerEU to be finally adopted by the Council and the Parliament. We need to push it over the finishing line because it creates the possibility to use the financial firepower we have to help SMEs and households. And it would be my plea that we should treat this file as the top priority of all of us, because that is the vehicle we can use to help the SMEs and to help the households, and to liberate space for the governments across Europe to use State aid to help the energy-intensive industries, because we know that it’s very important.

I totally agree with Mr Azmani that we should be masters of our destiny. We should be those who shape the world, because we Europeans value human rights, we value the rule of law, we are fighting for the environment, we are fighting to make sure that rules and international law are respected across the world. And for that we need to do much more, we need to be – I totally agree with you – more autonomous, stronger in energy, stronger in critical raw materials, to be sure that we can invest even more and become stronger when it comes to all future-oriented new technologies – be it renewables, be it hydrogen or be it electric vehicles.

To come back to Mr Marques on some of the concrete responses on social policies and social measures, I think one which will be clearly felt by every single citizen across Europe is our proposal, which we are going to present to you, to digitalise and create a European social security pass. This would be something like a European social card, which would again help our citizens to use the freedoms of the European Union, offer the guarantees, increase the flexibility of how they can benefit from the size of the European labour market. And we are also looking in great depth at how SURE was used. What are the results, what are the conclusions and how can we use that experience for our future work?

Mr Azmani also referred to the trade agreements. You will see from our Commission work programme that we would like to push further our cooperation in the field of trade with Chile, with Mexico, with New Zealand, with other countries too, just to simply make sure that we remain this very important trading superpower that we are, and to bring also our approach with a new type of trade agreement where we take care of sustainable development, high-quality environmental standards and respect for social standards too.

To respond to Mr Lamberts, I totally agree with him that the future is electric, and you know how much we have worked on this through our European Battery Alliance. It would seem we set a very good example because we see the focus the United States of America is putting on this very technology. We have to make sure that we would be absolutely competitive in that regard.

Concerning REACH, right now we are finalising our impact assessment, we are finalising our consultations with the key stakeholders and we are also creating the space, a good feed-in, for our regulatory scrutiny board. I can assure you that once this file is ready, we will not hesitate to present it to Parliament and to the Council.

If you allow me to close with one additional request: if you would look through our annexes, you will find not only the annex about what we want to do next year, but also one on the pending files which we now have at different stages of trilogues. It’s 116 files. 116 files! So I think that we again have to talk between us, the two communitarian institutions, the European Parliament and the Commission, on how we are going to accelerate the work on these spending files. So that next year, when I come to see you, we can say that this list is much shorter, that we delivered on the spending files and that we would focus on the right priorities and we will have the next occasion when we will be working on this joint declaration of priority files for the next year. So to repeat my two requests at the end: REPowerEU and pending files, because this would help us to move to better territory and to respond to the expectations of our citizens.

  Der Präsident. – Danke, Herr Vizepräsident, und uns allen viel Erfolg bei der Umsetzung des Arbeitsprogramms.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)

  Sara Cerdas (S&D), por escrito. – A estratégia renovada para as regiões ultraperiféricas, publicada em maio de 2022, «define as prioridades da ação da UE para apoiar a recuperação e o crescimento sustentáveis nas suas regiões ultraperiféricas, concretizando o seu potencial de crescimento e ajudando a colmatar o fosso de qualidade de vida entre estas regiões e o resto da União». Para tal, e como reconhecido na referida Comunicação, cumpre que a legislação a ser adotada no próximo ano tenha em atenção as especificidades destas regiões, sem se esquecer de analisar os impactos da legislação nestas regiões. Vimos tal acontecer nas negociações do pacote legislativo «Fit for 55» e coube aos colegisladores – o Parlamento Europeu e o Conselho da União Europeia (UE) – garantir a proteção destas regiões, assim como assegurar que se atinja o potencial da transição climática nas mesmas, sem deixar ninguém para trás.

Apela-se a uma melhor consideração das especificidades nas propostas legislativas vindouras, em áreas como o ambiente, a governação económica, a digitalização, entre outras. Só desta forma se assegurará uma maior proximidade do trabalho da UE aos cidadãos, mesmo àqueles que vivem nas regiões mais remotas, demonstrando que a legislação europeia é inclusiva e responde às necessidades de todos os cidadãos.

  Alin Mituța (Renew), in writing. – Today, the Commission presents its Work Programme 2023 in the European Parliament. Hopefully, next year the citizens will be directly involved in the creation of the Work Programme, together with the other European Institutions. The Conference on the Future of Europe showed us that the citizens want to be more involved in the decision making process at the EU level. Not only 5 years, when they vote, or every 20 or 30 years when something similar to the Conference happens. And not only on specific legislative proposals, but also in agenda setting processes, such as the creation process of the European Commission Work Programme. A permanent consultation mechanism should be created as a result of this key request, that will integrate the citizens in the political discussion revolving around the Work Programme. In this way we can provide a substantial path of involvement for the citizens that need to be at the centre of European politics. Representative democracy should be reinforced by a meaningful participatory democracy in order for the EU to stay connected to its citizens.

  Christine Schneider (PPE), schriftlich. – Ich begrüße, dass die Kommission komplexe und belastende Gesetzesvorhaben wie z. B. die Chemiekalienregulierung REACH verschieben wird. Auch die Ankündigung einer Prüfung der Gesetzgebung im Hinblick auf die europäische Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ist ein positives Signal. Ich bedaure aber, dass die Kommission nach wie vor an dem umstrittenen Naturschutzpaket festhält, ohne auf die europäische Landwirtschaft zuzugehen. Wir brauchen weniger Belastung und Bürokratie und mehr Planungssicherheit für unsere Betriebe. Ansonsten riskiert Europa die Schwächung der eigenen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.

12. Turno de preguntas a la Comisión - Protección de las infraestructuras críticas en la Unión frente a ataques y lucha contra los ataques híbridos

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Fragestunde mit der Kommission zum Schutz kritischer Infrastruktur in der EU vor Angriffen und zur Bekämpfung hybrider Angriffe.

Wie Sie wissen, wird diese Fragestunde etwa 90 Minuten dauern. Die Redezeiten sind 1 Minute für die Frage, 2 Minuten für die Antworten, 30 Sekunden für eine Zusatzfrage und 2 Minuten für die Antwort. Ich möchte eigentlich eine sehr lebhafte Debatte – Frage, Antwort, Frage, Antwort, Frage, Antwort. Wir sind alle gefordert. Ich weise darauf hin, dass eine mögliche Zusatzfrage nur dann zulässig ist, wenn sie in einem engen Zusammenhang mit der Hauptfrage steht und keine neue Frage enthält.

Wenn Sie eine Frage stellen möchten, ersuche ich Sie, Ihren Antrag jetzt zu registrieren, falls Sie das noch nicht getan haben, indem Sie die Funktion Ihres Abstimmungsgerätes für spontane Wortmeldungen nutzen, nachdem die Stimmkarte schon eingeschoben war. Während der Fragestunde erfolgen die Wortmeldungen vom Platz, und ich bitte vor allem, die Redezeit einzuhalten.

  Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Thank you, Commissioner. It was almost three years ago that Russia disconnected itself twice from the internet with success – because it didn’t hurt their economy, it didn’t hurt their society. At the same time, they invested about 3 billion in a new submarine, the Belgorod, which is for deep seawater investigation. It’s not to win a Nobel Prize, I can guarantee. The GUGI institute was also erected and was invested in significantly.

Despite the several calls from Parliament to do something about protecting our infrastructure below sea, nothing happened, so what we did, Commissioner, is ask for an academic study. The universities of Copenhagen and Oslo created a good study, with dozens of recommendations on what to do about protecting our subsea infrastructure. I was wondering whether President von der Leyen has read this great study because what I heard from her was not half of what is needed. I would suggest that we work together on this and reach out to the Commission and make a plan for this to even better protect our infrastructure.

But the real question, dear Commissioner, is this: the favourite weapon of President Putin will be gas and it will be alternative gas paths and our LNG terminals are being recognised and reconnaissanced by cyber actors from Russia at this point in time. I would really like an effort from the European Commission to protect our LNG structures in Netherlands, in Germany and in Spain as well.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by welcoming this debate, I think it is very timely. Let me also say as an opening statement that the era of Europe’s naïveté and innocence on security matters is over.

And I’m very happy that this awakening of the European Union to security is something that happened before the war. We have enacted two massive legislative packages: the Common Entities Resilience Directive and the Network and Information Systems 2 Directive, on which Groothuis was the rapporteur, precisely because we didn’t expect for the war to remind us of the need to act.

And I think that for the first time now at the European Union level, we have a robust set of rules that allow us to align protection against digital and physical threats at the same level of intensity and protection. And this is remarkable. This is new, this is remarkable.

Is this the answer to all our problems? No. First of all, the political agreements on these two texts have to be incorporated into EU law. But a few hours ago in the College of Commissioners, we adopted a recommendation, a Council recommendation that asked precisely Member States to frontload this new tools and these rules already now. And we are also asking them to enact crisis coordination mechanisms that were absent from the text, because you would remember that the Member States resisted a crisis coordination mechanism; we had to fight in conciliation together to make this happen.

So to cut a long story short: yes, we are much better prepared than ever before in the European Union. No, we are not yet where we want to be in the sense of countering every possible threat, especially against the state actors. But we will get there.

And with your help, I am confident that we shall make it.

  Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Thank you, Commissioner, for that answer. I believe I agree with you, but it’s much, much more than the NIS2 and the Critical Entities Directive. It’s about placing sensors in our sea; it’s about connecting civilian coastguard capabilities with military attribution capabilities; it’s also about PESCO projects, for example. To make our submarines work for this task. It’s not there yet. And I’d really like to see industry data for any cable cut that we have in Europe, to be reported, that you have oversight, insight and then do something. It’s much more than we had, and I’d really like for the Commission to do more than the proposal of NIS2 and the Critical Entities Directive.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, in our network information system to the directive, we have introduced – you would remember – the specific requirement for Member States to include undersea cables in their cybersecurity strategies, so we are going underwater for the first time, and we have a legal avenue to go underwater.

I would also agree with you that, given the emphasis on LNG as an alternative source of energy to Russian gas, yes, we need to do more. The problem there is that we still have to see these new LNG terminals emerging in some of our Member States. There is expertise around these facilities. In others, since we are constructing these terminals now, we have a golden opportunity to make them security-proof from the start.

In our recommendation today, we specifically reiterate the need for Member States to work on undersea cables. We have some challenges. You are very experienced. You know that one challenge, one difficulty that we have is the issue of length and shared jurisdiction. These are issues that we need to approach intelligently, not dogmatically; not as lawyers, but as security practitioners. In this new emerging world of geopolitical reality, after everything that has been happening around us, I’m sure that this growing awareness on security under the sea will be something that is a given, not something that will be have to be asked about.

  Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Mijnheer de vicevoorzitter, goed dat dit debat hier op de agenda van onze plenaire vergadering deze week in Straatsburg komt te staan. Want inderdaad, al te lang zijn we blind geweest voor de bescherming, de noodzakelijke bescherming, van onze kritische infrastructuur. Het is pas wanneer er ongelukken gebeuren dat we beseffen hoe slecht het eigenlijk gesteld is met onze mogelijkheid om dat te doen. Ik denk – eerlijk gezegd – dat de bescherming van onze kritieke infrastructuur in Europa een van de grootste uitdagingen binnen ons gemeenschappelijk veiligheids- en defensiebeleid zal zijn van de komende jaren.

Voor die bescherming van de kritische structuur hoop ik dat we allemaal samen ook naar partners, naar bondgenoten, kijken om samen die uitdaging aan te pakken. Mijn vraag aan u, mijnheer de vicevoorzitter, is dan ook hoe u de samenwerking met de NAVO ziet wat betreft het beantwoorden van die uitdaging van de bescherming van de kritieke infrastructuur. Dus, hoe kan onze EU-NAVO-samenwerking helpen in het aanpakken van deze uitdagingen?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you. Tom, yes, you are absolutely right. This is a battle that we will never win alone. As Europeans, we have to align our brainpower and our firepower, if you like, to broader international entities, work with international organisations and like—minded partners and allies.

And this is precisely – when you have the time to read the Council recommendation that we just adopted from the College – you will see that we have specifically introduced this dimension, the external dimension on protecting critical infrastructure, working with third countries and neighbours.

And most importantly, I think, is the commitment that we have obtained to set up a joint EU—NATO task force on protecting critical infrastructure. I think this is a very important, significant novelty. NATO is very well placed to help us in that regard. And we also cover the cyber elements, not only the physical infrastructure in this very important task force with our NATO partners.

Equally, we will come forward with a blueprint on critical infrastructure incidents and crises that would allow Member States to have a playbook each time a crisis scenario develops or a threat situation unravels.

And part of this playbook or blueprint ecosystem would be the EEAS – I’m in contact with my colleague, High Representative Josep Borrell, who is preparing the EU hybrid toolbox which has been announced in our Strategic Compass Initiative.

So there again, as you see at the international dimension, there is a new alignment of planets, if you like, that goes in the right direction.

  Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Mijnheer de vicevoorzitter, dank u wel, ook voor dit antwoord. Ik ben blij te zien dat we actief naar bondgenoten stappen om hieraan samen te werken. We verwachten later dit jaar de derde gemeenschappelijke EU-NAVO-verklaring. Mag ik aannemen dat dit ook allemaal verwerkt zal zijn in deze verklaring?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, the task force arrangement with NATO is something that has already been agreed upon and the actual terms of reference will be announced soon.

Let me add to this NATO dimension that we also need to engage more closely with our neighbours and accession countries. I was in the Western Balkans last week. I met all leaders along the Western Balkan Road. One of the things that came out very strongly is that they have to be an integral part of our security arrangements.

The Western Balkans and in our neighbourhood countries the threat landscape is equally important and threatening as it is against us. So, we have to create this broader ring of friends that would have an increasingly similar level of protection against any type of threat towards our critical infrastructure and our cybersecurity.

  Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Thank you. And hello, Vice-President. I have a question on the attacks, but you already responded. My question will be, therefore, on money.

I mean, how can you tell us that what happened with Germany and the strategic gas storage owned by Gazprom cannot happen anymore? And what do we do about Huawei investments, for instance, in critical infrastructure? Is there any plan to actually address the fact that such kind of companies cannot have any say in our infrastructure?

And second point, what’s inside this defence of democracy package that President of the Commission came and announced in front of the Parliament? We were all very happy about it. But what will you put in it that would make sure that infrastructure that is critical for democracies – like, for instance, the Belgian Parliament which could not actually have a debate on Uyghurs – will not be attacked anymore? What kind of sanctions, what kind of protection?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, let me repeat what I said in my opening statement, which I think covers partly your question: the era of naivety is over. For many years, for decades now, there was a certain feel-good factor in the European Union, a certain innocence about the type of threats that we were facing; a feeling that somehow it will work out well.

It took a pandemic to find out that we do not manufacture masks and ventilators anymore, and that the raw materials of the pharmaceutical industry are not under our control. It took a war to realise that we need our own umbrella and reliable energy providers. Now, it takes this hybrid, constant threat against our critical infrastructure to make sure that we have a level of protection that is commensurate to the threat.

On your first question: yes, when the Critical Entities Resilience Directive and these two Directives are implemented – now frontloaded, as we’re recommending today – this would require all Member States to have automatic coverage and notification of all critical entities that matter to the Single Market. That would give us this level of protection, this shield that we were lacking.

As to your second question: yes, I appreciate also the great work you did on disinformation on the ad hoc committee that you chaired. However, you should prepare for a meaningful set of rules under the Defence Protection and Defence of Democracy Initiative that the President announced, which would cover the issues of foreign intervention, propaganda and fake news, which are tarnishing our democracies.

  Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Mr President, very good question. Thank you for your response. I like it very much. It has been fun, by the way. My second question is: of course the era of naivety is over, but how do you react when you learn that the German head of cybersecurity is actually working with Russian interests? When will we have a total clean—up of our institutions that are supposed to protect and guarantee our security?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – In my view of security, what matters is to have in place robust systemic regulatory rules, systems that allow us to defend ourselves regardless of the individuals involved. And I think this is a golden rule for security.

Any kind of individual with any kind of pathologies, real or alleged – it is not up to me to issue an opinion – would have a much more difficult role to be a ‘loose cannon’ if the system in place is robust.

And to also link this answer to your first question – you were asking about Huawei and the way of foreigners, including attempting to control our critical infrastructure – we have precisely set up these rules, like the 5G toolbox. That was an ideal, I think, in my view, framework that we developed, together with Thierry Breton, to set up the parameters within which each Member State could proceed with 5G technology instead of decreeing one single model, top down, ‘take it or leave it’.

So I think that through these intelligent approaches to security, which combine very strong regulatory measures and, at the same time, this new awareness about the need of security, the possibility for individuals to play games would be significantly reduced.

  Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Mr Commissioner, well, of course, we know all that this debate we are having today is partially because of the Nord Stream attacks, but our critical infrastructure is vulnerable and has many vulnerabilities towards other means rather than physical attacks, also coercion, sabotage, espionage, etc.

And partially because some colleagues already covered, let’s say, the physical aspects, we will be discussing next plenary the NIS 2 Directive. So cybersecurity will be also done in our session. I want to focus on the aspect of espionage. Our information services in the Czech Republic, where I am from, uncovered a certain Russian spy within our institutions. But this is a problem for even European institutions, for national Member States and, of course, for our companies.

And I don’t hear often that we are dealing with espionage and how are we dealing with it? Not only, of course, from Russia, from China, too. And I would like to hear from your perspective and from the Commission what is being done in this regard.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes. As you may understand, the European Union does not have its own intelligence agency, and I do not think it would be wise that we create an additional layer on intelligence agency at the European level.

What I think is much more valuable, and it is happening, is to be able to harvest from the richness of the intelligence information that our national agencies develop so that we can all pool resources and face common challenges. For this, there is an element of trust that is needed.

Our national intelligence agencies do not always feel this need to share. I think this is something that is changing increasingly. But then we should not forget either that these national intelligence agencies are crafted in a way not to share even, very often, within their national situation. So my job within this EU Security Union that we are constructing is to create a synergetic culture of exchange, information and awareness between our intelligence bodies. I think this is happening.

Europol is also emerging as a hub of information exchange on very dubious practices, and I think that we are reaching now a point where this level of trust is emerging naturally as a result of the commonality of threats that we are facing.

  Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Thank you very much for the answer. I do understand that, of course, the European Union cannot have its own intelligence services. And I thank you for the information about the cooperation for national Member States. But if we were very specific and let’s say there was a Russian spy in the European Commission, who is the one who would uncover that?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, this is nicely put. It’s a lateral question to your previous one, but not the same.

Indeed, for all our security, for all our personnel employed in the institutions, not only the Commission, but in all the European Union institutions, we have very strong internal rules not only of screening and determining threat profiles depending on the type of jobs that our staff assumes, but also very comprehensive training courses from the start of the professional career in the institutions that inform our staff of the risks involved, of the dangers involved.

And I would like to see, working together with my colleague Johannes Hahn, who is in charge of our administration and our budget, I would like to see that the very successful level of expertise that we have in the Commission in these areas is also shared broadly amongst the institutions, including this House, which by its specificity as being an assembly, has more openness, more people coming in, more exposure if you like, to security risks.

I take this opportunity of your very hospitable reception this afternoon to reiterate our call for a common security approach between institutions against these kind of threats or risks. We are doing, by the way, exactly this: working together on cybersecurity through the EU-CERT Network, which is a success story.

I am sure that we can build on top of this EU-CERT success to do more, including in the sensitive area you just mentioned.

  Antonius Manders (PPE). – Mr President, we are talking now about protecting critical infrastructures and we all talk about material infrastructures. But we also have to talk about immaterial infrastructures, because if we want to have a future in Europe, a future of the EU, we need to promote EU emotion and identity.

I am nearly 50 years with my wife together. Do you know why? I love her, and I hope she loves me. That’s why we are together. We are connected. Fans are connected to their club in the EU and due to the UEFA’s policies now the Premier League is the so-called Super League and this will kill the EU football clubs in the EU.

Are you prepared to start an open dialogue with UEFA – how to save the football clubs within the EU, to give them more EU identity and emotion? Because in the future we need the people to love the EU.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, I agree with you that when it comes to protecting our Union, it does not only concern critical infrastructure, being physical or cyber, but it’s also a Union of emotions. We very often come across as something very rigid, very dry, very technocratic, and I’m all for introducing these emotional elements, both in our policies and in our communications. Eurovision moments, if you like.

Now on UEFA and European football in general, I agree that football is a vector of cohesion, of diversity, of richness in our societies. Football is something that is happening as we speak in our villages, in playgrounds, in schools, in stadiums. It’s something that does not have to do with football clubs or elites or money or its owners, it has to do with us, with who we are. And your question allows me to reiterate our collegial common commitment in this Commission to protect at any cost the European model of sport.

European sport and European football will always be open to competition linked to amateur sport, part of our way of life, of the type of society we stand for. It will never be a game between elites, rich owners of clubs that play amongst themselves, share huge gains of the TV rights at the expense of the national championships. This is something that will not happen, and I understand there are other options, I fully respect, but I’m here to defend the European model of sport as an element of our identity as people of Europe.

  Antonius Manders (PPE). – I agree completely with you. It’s not about money, it’s about emotion. And my question was, at the moment, the Premier League is the super league, which is only filled with money and the EU clubs cannot compete anymore.

All the money is going to the UK nowadays. My question is: are you willing to set up an open dialogue with UEFA and the Commission and perhaps some people who are entrusted to save the EU football clubs in the future to ensure that they are not completely eclipsed by the clubs from the Premier League, which is the case nowadays with their loads of money from all countries of the world

Nobody knows where the money from Qatar is coming from who invested in clubs in the UK. It’s not possible in Europe. How can we save the EU competition?

  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege, darf ich nur sagen, die Fragen sind nicht in einem direkten Zusammenhang mit dem Thema, das wir heute in der Fragestunde behandeln, aber ich merke, dass hier zwei Fachexperten auf dem Gebiet der Champions League miteinander reden, und daher darf ich noch einmal dem Herrn Vizepräsidenten das Wort erteilen.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – I do not want to repeat myself. Simply to clarify that the national football championships are under the remit of the national arrangements. This is not part of EU law, and UEFA has the autonomy to liaise with national football associations and regulate the national championships, like the Premier League.

What is of European competence, and where my previous reply applies is to any idea of a pan-European arrangement like the so-called ‘European Super League’. That would be a closed circuit of the richest clubs that would share among themselves something like EUR 5 billion per year at the expense of the rest. This is what is fully against the European model of sport.

So, replacing national arrangements is not our job, but safeguarding the openness of European football at European level; yes, it is, and it is linked to the European model of sport, which needs protection.

  Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Nord Stream 2 wurde angegriffen, und es wurde hier ein schwerer Schaden hervorgerufen, der die Energieversorgung Europas und vor allem Deutschlands massiv beeinträchtigt. Schweden wollte zusammen mit Dänemark und Deutschland eine Untersuchungskommission machen und diesen Vorgang untersuchen. Schweden hat sich nun daraus zurückgezogen und hat unter Verweis auf die nationalen Interessen hier diese Informationen nicht weitergegeben. Das ist also europäische Solidarität? Ich glaube nicht, denn da verstehe ich etwas anderes darunter.

Hier entsteht bei mir der Eindruck – und nicht nur bei mir, sondern bei vielen Menschen –, dass bewusst etwas unterdrückt werden soll, weil es nicht in das Narrativ passt, das hier verbreitet wird. Deshalb meine konkrete Frage an Sie: Hat die Kommission Informationen über den Sachstand der Ermittlungen, und wenn ja, welche sind das? Und wenn nein, warum nicht?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Sorry, I wouldn’t like to use this occasion to play detective. It’s not my role. And I think that we have to rely on the authorities that are investigating through regional and collective arrangements. When the CR Directive is in place, all this would happen automatically. We would be notified, we would have involvement, we will know what happened.

But now are in this area that our Council recommendation aims to complete, to fulfil, by introducing the obligation to work together to investigate similar incidents. And we had a first meeting of stress tests in our energy sector with Member States’ security experts, and there was unanimous support from our security experts to continue working together to investigate the real causes of these incidents.

An additional difficulty that we are having in this specific incident, which we tried to remedy also with a recommendation, is that this incident took place not in the territorial waters of Denmark. It was extraterritorial. So this adds an additional layer of complication. That’s why in our recommendation today, we keep open the issue of territoriality, or extraterritoriality if you like, that would allow us to investigate similar cases together, including in situations that fall outside the territoriality clause.

  Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – (Beginn des Redebeitrags bei ausgeschaltetem Mikro) … nicht mit Ihrer Antwort zufrieden. Denn das grenzt nicht nur an Naivität, die Sie am Anfang angesprochen haben in einem anderen Zusammenhang, sondern das ist schlicht und ergreifend ein Boykott, Ihre Aufgaben zu tun. Denn Sie müssen hier sicherstellen, dass unsere kritische Infrastruktur geschützt wird. Und wenn das nicht der Fall ist, müssen Sie die Schuldigen benennen. Und wenn Sie diese nicht benennen, dann schaffen Sie hier einen Fall, wo kein Mensch mehr der Europäischen Union glaubt, wenn Sie dann hier irgendjemanden beschuldigen. Nennen Sie die Schuldigen! Sagen Sie, wie der Sachstand ist, denn das kann – nach drei Wochen – mit Sicherheit nicht zufriedenstellend sein. Ich möchte Sie jetzt noch einmal fragen, und ich wiederhole meine Fragen: Ist das alles, was Sie bisher haben? Ist das alles, was Ihnen vorliegt? Hier geht es um massive Beeinträchtigungen des stärksten Landes in Europa.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – I’m not sure whether the honourable Member was here with us from the beginning when I had the chance to explain the new regulatory architecture we are building in Europe to defend ourselves against any threat to our critical entities’ resilience. I explained in great detail, I would say, what is for the European Union to do and what is for the Member States to do. The question that she asks me requires me to position myself outside of my institutional role as the Member of the Commission in charge of the Security Union.

I am not in charge of the investigation. I’m in charge of establishing, together with the co-legislators, a European architecture for security within which we can find out the truth. This is the crucial difference that apparently you are missing.

  Der Präsident. – Der Herr Kollege Zimniok war zu dem Zeitpunkt, als Sie Ihre einführenden Bemerkungen gemacht haben, noch nicht da, daher konnte er das nicht wissen.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor comisario, sé que me comprende bien si le interpelo directamente sobre una cuestión relacionada con el objeto de este turno de preguntas, en vivo y en directo, pero seguramente no expresada hasta el momento, y es la de que se pueda no solamente proteger las infraestructuras críticas frente a ataques híbridos, sino compartir la información, no solamente entre los Estados miembros, sino con la ciudadanía.

Resulta chocante que exista todavía controversia con respecto a la secuencia fáctica que conduce al ataque en el gasoducto Nord Stream, que conduce a la interrupción de las comunicaciones o que permite el espionaje a primeros ministros o a dirigentes de la Unión Europea y a altos funcionarios de la Unión Europea, lo que impide explicar al conjunto de la opinión pública europea, de manera clara y transparente, cuál es la secuencia fáctica detrás de esos hechos claramente escandalosos.

La pregunta es: además de invertir en la protección de las infraestructuras críticas, ¿tenemos algún plan para poder hablar de lo que realmente sucede y explicárselo a la opinión pública europea?

  Margaritis Schinas, vicepresidente de la Comisión. – Señor López Aguilar, sí, estamos construyendo una arquitectura institucional, por primera vez a nivel europeo, que nos permitirá tener un sistema, que no tenemos hoy, dentro del cual los Estados miembros tendrán que notificar a la Unión Europea su nivel de protección para todo tipo de empresas, entidades, expuestas a este tipo de amenazas, y también una obligación de trabajo conjunto entre los Estados miembros y las instituciones para determinar soluciones y depurar responsabilidades.

Sí la tendremos: tenemos el acuerdo político y espero que sea votado y puesto en marcha lo antes posible. Lo que no se puede es, en el momento en que estamos, con todas estas investigaciones aún en curso con los Estados miembros implicados, ofrecer aquí, en el Pleno, una apreciación. No sería correcto, no tengo la información necesaria para hacerlo.

Lo que sí puedo afirmar —y se lo he dicho a su colega— es que tuvimos por primera vez la reunión de los expertos de los Estados miembros, y les pedimos que funcionasen como si la Directiva ya se hubiese puesto en marcha. Y estamos muy satisfechos de que esta primera reunión de expertos nos haya mostrado que los Estados miembros empiezan a converger y se dan cuenta de la necesidad de trabajar juntos en relación con este tipo de incidentes.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (inicio de la intervención fuera de micrófono) ... vicepresidente Schinas expresaba claramente que la aspiración es, efectivamente, que no vuelva a pasar que, sobre un suceso tan conmocionante como la interrupción del suministro de gas o un atentado contra el Nord Stream, se puedan tener dudas prolongadas en el tiempo con respecto de la causalidad, de quién lo ha hecho, de la responsabilidad, y de qué es lo que la Unión Europea puede hacer, no solamente para trasladar esa información de manera transparente al conjunto de la opinión pública, sino para protegerse en su conjunto frente a la reiteración o la reproducción eventualmente en el futuro de un suceso de esa gravedad.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – The only thing that I could add – and I think it is an important piece of information that President López Aguilar requests me to provide – is that when I announced that amongst the novelties of the Council recommendation that we’re presenting today, we have this idea of blueprints on critical infrastructure playbooks that our Member States can use when they are faced with these types of situations and incidents.

These blueprints, let me assure you, will include timely communication and information to citizens. So to clarify your concern, this would not only be a situation where security experts discuss among themselves and investigate jointly, but as part of these blueprints that will be developed there will be an obligation to communicate externally to citizens. This is an important element.

  Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – President, Vice-President, I am going directly to the two questions which I have. It is common sense that a perpetrator who is guilty of destroying infrastructure and making a lot of casualties needs to pay for this destruction.

We talked a lot about the assets of the Russian Federation – state and local authority assets – in the territory of the European Union, but also the assets of the Russian National Bank. And when we talk with High Representative Borrell, who was answering that the EU is looking for a possibility to seize or use these assets for the restoration of the damages in Ukraine.

Where is the stage now? What we are going to do in this direction? And many of these assets, the properties are used for espionage in the territory of the European Union, pretending this is cultural or educational entities where they are using them for espionage. And I will ask my second question on the on the Internet.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you, Mr Kovatchev. Let me start by reiterating that I am personally very much in favour of using the frozen assets of the Russian Central Bank for the reconstruction of Ukraine. I think this is morally, politically and, yes, also legally, right, because we could have doubts if we were in a different situation. But we are in a situation of an all-out war where the Russian army is bombing schools, maternity wards, hospitals, churches, monasteries, households, apartment blocks. So this is the type this is the type of war we are obliged to deal with and to use these frozen reserves of the Russian Central Bank for the reconstruction of this damage. It makes perfect sense.

But, you know, we do not live in a world of politics. We live also in a world of lawyers and insurance brokers and experts and international arbitrators. So when my colleague Josep Borrell told you that we have to get it right, this is what he has in mind. So let us distinguish between what is politically, morally, legally, ethically correct and how we can best organise it.

Let me remind this House that there is a precedent. The Americans used frozen assets from the central Bank of Afghanistan to finance the restoration and reconstruction of Afghanistan. So this has happened before. It’s not something that is totally alien in the world of international relations.

  Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – Thank you very much, Vice-President, for this answer. One second issue on the responsibility of big platforms, Internet platforms. We have now the DSA and the DMA, but we see that these big platforms, especially private companies, US companies, are monetarising disinformation. Democracy cannot fall victim to a business model of a private company.

We see that the fact—checkers, content moderators and trusted flaggers, especially in small—language markets, are not good enough to fight against disinformation campaigns started by the Russian Federation. Especially in small—language markets like in central and eastern Europe, we see a lot of spread and visibility of such Russian propaganda on the Internet platforms, especially on Meta, on their platform Facebook.

So, the implementation of DSA/DMA: how can we push these companies that they do their best to demonetarise the visibility of disinformation?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you for this question.

Let me tell you that as Vice-President in charge of promoting our European way of life, I feel very proud that in this political cycle, we managed to have this agreement on the DSA and DMA, which is the European way of digital governance. This is something that we should be collectively proud of, this House, the Commission and the Member States. This was not given and it was done. In Europe, through the DSA and the DMA, we were able to ask questions that have not been properly answered in certain parts of the world and have never been even asked in another part of the world. We found the right balance, and I think this would be the answer to the problems you raise.

Of course, we are in a situation, like with the Critical Entities Resilience Directive, where these rules have to be enacted. This would be the final protection against it.

Until then, I also want to be fair with the platforms. I have met many of them and I also attended a plenary debate here in the last plenary session. I think the platforms are increasingly aware of the need to deliver on Russian propaganda and disinformation. They know, and they know that we are watching them, and I think that they are making a considerable effort to live up to the expectations bestowed on them. But I would agree with you that their ever—increasing fact—checking capacity and rebuttal capacity should cover all linguistic sections, and especially some of our lesser spoken words on the continent, where the battle of narratives is even more acute. So I fully agree with you on the need for them to do more in these particular settings.

  Der Präsident. – Ich habe noch drei Fragesteller. Wenn sich sonst jemand noch zu Wort melden möchte, bitte ich, dass er von seinem Registrierungsrecht Gebrauch macht. Ich habe auf der Liste Herrn Adam Bielan, Frau Karen Melchior und Herrn Billy Kelleher.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! W ciągu ostatniego roku wschodnia granica Unii Europejskiej i NATO stała się obiektem bezprecedensowej agresji ze strony Łukaszenki i Putina. W czasie brutalnego ataku Rosji na Ukrainę Kreml nasilił jednocześnie taktykę wojny hybrydowej, w tym zakrojonej na szeroką skalę kampanii dezinformacyjnej, której mój kraj, Polska, stał się ofiarą już w sierpniu zeszłego roku.

Nikt nie ma wątpliwości, iż obecny reżim rosyjski zagraża stabilizacji i bezpieczeństwu nie tylko w regionach sąsiednich, ale i w całej Europie. Już dawno Unia Europejska, uzupełniając NATO, powinna podjąć zdecydowane działania na rzecz zwiększenia zdolności zapobiegania zagrożeniom hybrydowym w obszarach takich jak terroryzm państwowy, cyberataki czy bezpieczeństwo energetyczne.

Jakie są dalsze kroki w celu umocnienia współpracy Unii Europejskiej i NATO w zakresie zapobiegania atakom hybrydowym ? Czy i jak Unia minimalizuje niepotrzebne powielanie działań obronnych? I czy Komisja rozważa wprowadzenie obowiązkowego poziomu wydatków na cyberbezpieczeństwo, aby wzmocnić krajowe zdolności w tym zakresie?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you, Mr. Bielan, for reminding me of this particularly painful experience that we have witnessed three times in the current Commission of the weaponisation of human suffering and migration by authoritarian leaders who use the pain of people to hurt the European Union.

We saw it for the first time in the Greek-Turkish border in Evros in March 2020, where 20 000 desperate people were put in buses from Istanbul to the border under the promise that they will be in Munich soon. We saw it again when Lukashenko was selling visas, tariffs and airplane tickets, promising Iraqi Kurds a German residence permit and instead abandoning them in a —5°C forest in the borders with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania.

So this weaponisation, this instrumentalisation of migration is in itself a major hybrid threat. And I fully agree that this is something that we need to face. But I must also say that I am very proud because the European Union rose to the level of this threat. We stopped this phenomena both in Evros, we arranged with countries of origin and transit to stop all incoming flights to Minsk, and we held our Spanish partners to face similar events in the Spanish cities of Delta and Melilla.

So these hybrid threats will not be something that we will take lightly. We are aware, we know and by now, if I may say, we have also developed a know-how on how to cope with these situations.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – Dziękuję Panie Komisarzu, szczególnie za Pańskie słowa dotyczące sytuacji na granicy polsko–białoruskiej. Chciałbym dopytać Pana Komisarza o ochronę infrastruktury krytycznej. Działania sabotażowe na Nord Stream wskazują na konieczność podjęcia wszelkich dostępnych środków mających na celu zwiększenie odporności podmiotów krytycznych. Pomimo że projekt dyrektywy w sprawie odporności podmiotów krytycznych nie został jeszcze formalnie przyjęty, czy Komisja Europejska zamierza uruchomić mechanizmy współpracy wskazane w tym projekcie?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – The answer to your question is yes, absolutely. Precisely, this Council recommendation that the College of Commissioners has adopted an hour ago is precisely meant to frontload the regulatory provisions of the directive, now when we are facing this incident, so that we can cope as of now, before these texts are published in the Official Journal.

And let me again, I think I will not repeat everything I said on the essence of this protection, but I would concentrate on three important elements that can be very helpful.

First, risk assessments. We need to be able to have comprehensive risk assessments on the type of threats, on the origin of threats and the likelihood of threats.

Two, as I was telling President López Aguilar earlier, we need blueprints, playbooks for response. What do we do in what situation? And this is also provided for.

And finally, stress tests. We need to be able to test the limits of our resilience, work together, bring expertise together. And this is something that is particularly relevant in the area of energy and pipelines.

  Karen Melchior (Renew). – Thank you Commissioner for being here today in this very important debate. As mentioned previously by colleagues, the recent Nord Stream attacks have shown the fragility of our physical critical infrastructure. However, we must not forget the significant increase in cyber attacks since Russia again invaded Ukraine.

Also here in particular, it has been on energy infrastructure. We welcome, I welcome, the work done on ensuring security both online and offline. And we must look at Ukraine that has been dealing with such attacks from Russia since 2012. In 2017, a group of Russian hackers managed an attack which took down the IT systems of the Danish shipping company Maersk. The global cost of this attack was to the tune of USD 10 billion.

So it is not a question about if we will be hacked; it is a question about when, and how strong our defence will be. When we saw in 2017 that even one of the largest shipping companies was not spared, how can we then make sure that our European companies have the defences that they need? How can we support them? And also, finally, how can we, as Europe, learn from Ukraine’s experience on cybersecurity, and how can we continually exchange with Ukraine also before they become a member of NATO?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Let me thank you for bringing up the Maersk incident, because actually I was saying that we started with this package of CER Directive and NIS2 Directive physical and digital together before the war. And one of the reasons that we started with this parallel track of protection was precisely because we had this pattern of attacks to companies.

You mentioned Maersk, but the most blatant, if you like, universally known attack was the attack on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States, where there was a combination of a digital attack against the critical infrastructure. So the combination, including ransomware, although our American friends were very effective at dismantling this and also recuperating the ransom paid.

But the guiding, the original idea of this parallel protection track between the Critical Entities Resilience Directive and NIS2 Directive was precisely that – to make Europe a place where similar incidents and threats would not be so easy as they were in the case of Maersk’s and in the case of the Colonial Pipeline. So, yes, I was saying it earlier and I repeat it proudly now, we are now better prepared. We are much better prepared from the time where these incidents happened.

Now, on Ukraine. The Ukrainians are doing a great job in defending themselves against the cyberattacks. And this is something that they are not doing alone. They are doing it with the help of their friends. And without going into much detail, let me assure you that the European Union is part of this ring of friends that allows Ukraine to defend themselves successively in the cyberwar.

We are not alone. Other international partners and entities help Ukrainians in this struggle. And the only thing that I can tell you is that when this war is over, there will be many pilgrimages to Kyiv to find out how precisely this battle was so successful. Because I can assure you that we have very good results in the fight against cyberthreats.

  Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Europe’s age of innocence came crashing down around us on 24 February this year. But in advance of the invasion of Ukraine by our psychopathic neighbour in the Kremlin, the Russian navy were off the south—west coast of Ireland the previous month, in January 2022. They were observing undersea cables where the most dataflow between the United States of America, Europe and the UK takes place, where there is the most critical infrastructure in terms of communications, digital flow, dataflow, financial transactions, law, the internet and all the connectivity of a modern world in terms of digital connectivity.

From that perspective, Commissioner, I would like to ask, how do you see this particular directive assisting the Irish Government, the Irish Defence Forces and others in ensuring that we have some level of resilience, we have some level of observance as to what is happening in the vast oceans around the west coast of the European Union and how we will put measures in place? Bearing in mind not every country there is a member of a military organisation.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, Mr Kelleher, I have the fullest respect for the constitutional arrangements of our Member States, and I’m not here to express any opinion on the neutrality status or the membership that any Member State can have with international organisations - in the case of Ireland, NATO and others -, but you are raising a very important, relevant element, namely how all Member States can be covered against these types of threat. And you gave me the opportunity to reiterate that Ireland will be fully, fully covered by this shield that we are building with the Critical Entities Resilience Network and the infrastructure and the Network Information System Directive. This would be a parallel shield, if you like, against digital and physical threats that would cover all Member States regardless of their being a member or not, of international security arrangements and organisations. This is EU law that would cover all our Member States.

Now, on the specific incident that you mentioned, I am aware of it. I think this pertains more not to the security/homeland competence, which is both mine and the Commission’s, but both on the defence side, but in case that these threats would materialise against the critical infrastructure of Ireland in its territorial waters, the CR Directive would fully cover it. And even if there was an extra territoriality element to it, I was telling earlier your colleagues that with our Council recommendation today we leave open the issue of territoriality coverage so as to be able even to go beyond in cases like that.

  Billy Kelleher (Renew). – On the 14 May 2021, there was a devastating cyberattack on the Irish healthcare system, on the HSE. It ground it to a halt and cost lives in loss of data, loss of information, cancellation of appointments for people. So from that perspective, I just urge the Commission, knowing fully that they are very conscious of the threats in terms of cybersecurity, that this would be put front and centre as well as to the physical elements with regard to the digital concerns that are out there. NIS, DORA and the many other areas that this Parliament has debated must be a critical part of any measures we put in place to address cyber attacks, both physical and digital.

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Yes, I fully agree with the honourable Member that, first of all, we are of course, very well aware of the attack against the Irish health system, and this is also the type of attack which is now becoming very common - for a very simple reason that the attackers prefer attacks against our health systems, hospitals, because these are places that hold a huge amount of data and this is gold for them. So we have seen recently a shift from the traditional attacks against financial institutions, banks, towards national health systems, hospitals and so on and so forth.

So yes, we are fully aware that we have to prioritise under our shield of NIS 2 related instruments the attacks against health systems. This is an area which is particularly sensitive in our coverage. This is an area that is even more important because you would have seen that a few months ago we have proposed, for the first time ever, and I think it’s also a world first, a new initiative for an EU health data space that would give access to citizens and researchers to our health data potential that would facilitate research, but also mobility in the internal market. Of course, under the full protection of GDPR and privacy laws. But to get it right in the area of health data is one of the most important priorities of our cybersecurity strategy, let me assure you.

  Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie Vicepresidente, è stato davvero molto interessante ascoltare le Sue parole e io mi auguro che Lei abbia ragione nel costruire rapidamente questo scudo per i paesi europei, composto dalla direttiva CER, dalla NIS 2, dal Cyber Resilience Act, che sia davvero efficace, altrimenti avrà ragione il collega Glucksmann, che ha messo già in evidenza i nostri ritardi.

Allora Le domando: questo impianto normativo riuscirà a essere rapido tanto quanto rapidi sono gli attacchi? E la seconda domanda è: il peso amministrativo sulle nostre aziende, sulle imprese, per poter allinearsi alla riduzione del rischio, ridurrà anche la loro competitività rispetto ad altre imprese nel mondo? E quindi cosa può fare l'Unione europea per sostenere lo sforzo di queste imprese?

Sì con le linee guida, ma anche con risorse.

  Μαργαρίτης Σχοινάς, Αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ναι, η κυρία Bonfrisco έχει δίκιο όταν ρωτάει πόσο σίγουροι είμαστε ότι αυτή η νέα ασπίδα προστασίας θα παραγάγει τα αποτελέσματα που χρειαζόμαστε. Η απάντηση είναι ότι είμαστε πολύ πιο σίγουροι ότι τώρα έχουμε ένα επίπεδο προστασίας που δεν είχαμε ποτέ στην Ευρώπη. Αυτό βέβαια δεν σημαίνει ότι αυτοί που μας επιτίθενται θα σταματήσουν να μας επιτίθενται —το αντίθετο, θα εντείνουν τις προσπάθειές τους. Είμαστε στόχος και θα συνεχίσουμε να είμαστε στόχος, αλλά την ίδια στιγμή θα έχουμε ολοένα και καλύτερες άμυνες, ολοένα και πιο πειστικές άμυνες.

Στη δεύτερη ερώτησή σας για το πότε όλο αυτό το νομοθετικό περιβάλλον, το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο, θα εφαρμοστεί στην πράξη, είμαστε τώρα σε μια «άχαρη» στιγμή, διότι έχουμε την πολιτική συμφωνία σε αυτά τα δύο πολύ σημαντικά νομοθετικά κείμενα, αλλά δεν έχουμε την τυπική συμφωνία που τα θέτει σε εφαρμογή. Αυτό θα συμβεί μόλις περάσουν από τις ψηφοφορίες εδώ, στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, τα αντίστοιχα κείμενα και εγκριθούν και τυπικά από το Συμβούλιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Αλλά είμαστε στο τέλος.

Και τρίτον, συμφωνώ απόλυτα. Προσυπογράφω και με τα δύο χέρια τη διαπίστωση της κυρίας Bonfrisco ότι αυτό δεν είναι μόνο ένα θέμα εθνικής ασφάλειας. Είναι και ένα θέμα οικονομικής ασφάλειας και ανταγωνιστικότητας για τις ευρωπαϊκές επιχειρήσεις —έχει απόλυτο δίκιο να το επισημαίνει. Κάθε φορά που μπορούμε να βοηθήσουμε σηκώνοντας αυτό το τείχος προστασίας, δεν βοηθάμε μόνο κυβερνήσεις και πολίτες. Βοηθάμε και επιχειρήσεις να μπορέσουν να είναι ανταγωνιστικές σε αυτό το ολοένα πιο αβέβαιο παγκόσμιο σκηνικό ασφάλειας.

  Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signor Vicepresidente, Lei sa che l'Italia è il settimo paese al mondo per cyber attacchi? Il primo paese in Europa. C'è bisogno quindi di sostenere un processo importante perché l'Italia è un paese strategico rispetto ad alcune grandi infrastrutture; all'inizio del dibattito venivano citate quelle sottomarine, ma ce ne sono anche molte altre. Cosa intendete fare?

  Μαργαρίτης Σχοινάς, Αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν έχω καμία αμφιβολία ότι η Ιταλία είναι ένα πολύ σημαντικό κράτος μέλος για όλα αυτά τα θέματα που συζητάμε, τόσο λόγω μεγέθους όσο και λόγω πολιτικής σημασίας, όπως επίσης και διότι πάρα πολλές δυνάμεις ενδεχομένως να μπουν στον πειρασμό να δημιουργήσουν τέτοιου είδους απειλές για ένα κράτος όπως η Ιταλία.

Επαναλαμβάνω, όμως, αυτό που είχα πει και στον κύριο Kelleher, ότι πέρα από τις εθνικές συνθήκες και καταστάσεις, αυτό το ρυθμιστικό πλαίσιο που τελειοποιούμε, το πλαίσιο για την προστασία των κρίσιμων υποδομών και το πλαίσιο για την ασφάλεια των δικτύων, θα καλύπτει επαρκώς όλα τα κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ανεξαρτήτως μεγέθους και έκθεσης στον κίνδυνο επιθέσεων στον κυβερνοχώρο και επιθέσεων εναντίον των κρίσιμων υποδομών της κάθε χώρας.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Dear Commissioner Schinas, ευχαριστώ πολύ – thank you very much for being here today with us. I believe this debate is extremely timely indeed.

The sabotage of Nord Stream 2 can be seen as an alarm bell that is telling us that we can be hurt substantially through physical actions, not to mention the already well—known capacity of third actors to interfere in our democratic processes through hybrid means.

While it is certainly true that we must create and empower ad hoc bodies and entities such as the hybrid response team, I have always considered it essential to follow a whole—of—government and whole—of—society approach in order to increase our resilience. To this extent, the strategic compass clearly states that one of the main points will be a reinforcement of the cyber diplomacy toolbox. Therefore, I would like to ask you to elaborate further on the way forward for moving this will from paper to concrete actions.

Will it be possible to include provisions on cyber actions in the international agreements that we signed for trying to prevent cyber attacks as much as possible?

And what about the diplomatic responses to be put in place in case these efforts fail?

  Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Thank you for this question. It’s a last question, but indeed, it covers an area that has not been covered so far, an area which is not under my remit of EU security Vice-President, but an area which is particularly relevant to the issues we are discussing today.

This diplomatic toolbox is a fantastic instrument that we have at our disposal to be able to hit, to be able to act. And we used it, as you know. We used it against a few cases, but we used it effectively each time that we had solid evidence on the perpetrators and the culprits of these attacks. This is an instrument which is in the remit of our foreign policy head, Josep Borrell, with whom I’m working very closely on all of these areas. What I can tell you is that, as far as I am concerned, I would plea for more frequent and effective use of this facility, although we have the difficulty of unanimity, as you well know, because each time that we have to use it, we have to find and seek unanimous agreement in our Member States, which is not the easiest thing to do at European Union level. But the instrument is good. The instrument is good.

This also reinforces my perception that when we are discussing security and threats, the threats we are facing are mutually dependent. So if we have a failure in a high—voltage line in Germany, for example, then we have millions of customers in France, in Italy, in Spain, cut off from the grid. And if we have an undersea gas pipeline being attacked, this would have an impact on many countries far from the scene of the attack. So this interconnection of threats and the fact that they are mutually dependent compels us to use every instrument we have at our disposal, both within the remit of EU law and in the remit of our foreign policy.

  President. – I think this Question Time has been a big success, we will close it now.

13. Aumento de los delitos de odio contra las personas LGBTIQ en Europa en vista del reciente asesinato homófobo en Eslovaquia (debate)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Zunahme der Hassverbrechen gegen LGBTIQ-Personen in Europa angesichts des jüngsten homophoben Mordes in der Slowakei (2022/2894(RSP)).

  Ivan Bartoš, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to this debate. The Czech Presidency deeply deplores the terrible attack at an LGBTIQ establishment in Bratislava, which caused the death of two young people on Wednesday, 12 October, and the hateful anti-Semitic manifesto which led to this horrific act of unjustifiable violence.

Let me be very clear from the start. There is no place for homophobia anywhere in Europe. Sexual orientation and gender identity are aspects of who we are. No one should feel a need to conceal their true selves in order to avoid discrimination, hate or even violence. All citizens of a Union are equal and should live freely, safely and without discrimination, regardless of their sex, race, colour, religion or sexual orientation.

These are principles and values solemnly enshrined in the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU legislation. They are not up for discussion. Our common European commitment to decency, tolerance and equal treatment is the very foundation of the idea of a just society. This is a source of pride of Europeans and for good reason.

It is also necessary not to overlook the anti-Semitic motivess that are expressed in his manifesto. There is no place for anti-Semitism anywhere in Europe, and the Czech Presidency is determined to keep working on fighting this form of hatred.

If we look over the past years, progress is undoubtedly made on LGBTIQ rights. However, the most recent survey by the Fundamental Rights Agency has shown that as many as 43% LGBTIQ persons feel discriminated against. One in ten LGBTIQ respondents were physically or sexual attacked and trans and intersex respondents experience attacked at higher rate. What makes matters even worse is the fact that most of these injustices go unreported. Overall, across the EU, only 11% of discrimination suffered is reported and only a small percentage of hate-motivated incidents are reported.

At the same time, we have seen in recent years a sharp rise in hate speech and hate crime in Europe. Those developments are linked to a number of factors, including disinformation as well as the growing use of internet, including social media. EU action to address the dissemination of hatred content, including all forms of violent extremism and terrorism online, is therefore particularly relevant.

In this regard, much has been done to cooperate with internet companies, but this cooperation needs to be stepped up. In particular, more information about how they handle borderline content would be useful. The Council has discussed violent extremism and terrorism in light of the increasing polarisation in our societies. The conclusion is clear: we need further efforts to prevent radicalisation leading to violent extremism and we as politicians, should lead by example.

So the discourse that somehow covers those things that I mentioned should not be a part of the political discourse in a democratic society the way it was described. So how to address the situation that is currently raising not only on the internet, we need to cooperate on the EU and internationally to counter those extremist narratives, always in full respect for the principles of freedom of speech and expression.

As requested by European Parliament in some of its resolutions, the Commission proposed the extension of the list of EU crimes to cover hate speech and hate crime. The Presidency will continue to seek the necessary consensus to reach an agreement.

  Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I am really grateful that you have included this debate on growing hate crimes against LGBTIQ people across Europe on the agenda, considering the recent homophobic murders in Bratislava. My thoughts are with the families and friends of 23-year-old Matúš Horváth and 26-year-old Juraj Vankulič, the victims of the shooting in Slovakia, but also with the LGBTIQ community all over the world.

This attack reminds us of this summer’s terrorist attack prior to Oslo Pride, killing two and injuring several others, and other attacks that have targeted the LGBTIQ community in recent years. These abhorrent murders are a threat to our societies built on human rights and equality.

In recent years, hate speech and hate crime targeting persons based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, but also targeting organisations supporting LGBTIQ rights have increased globally, including across the European Union.

As we have already heard from the minister, the 2019 FRA LGBTI survey clearly documents that one in ten LGBTIQ respondents in the EU were physically or sexually attacked in the five years before the survey because they are LGBTIQ. Trans and intersex respondents experienced attacks at up to twice the rate of the rest of the community, while only one in five incidents of physical or sexual violence was reported to any organisation.

The European Commission is determined to ensure that everyone feels safe and free to be who they are and love who they want, wherever they are. The Commission has taken important steps to end the exclusion of and discrimination and violence against sexual and gender minorities. Two years ago, we adopted the LGBTIQ equality strategy, which combines targeted actions with the mainstreaming of LGBTIQ equality in all policy areas.

As part of the strategy the Commission adopted last December a communication accompanied by a draft Council decision to extend the current list of EU crimes to hate crime and hate speech. If this Council decision is adopted by Member States, the Commission will be able in a second step to propose secondary legislation which would allow the EU to criminalise other forms of hate speech and hate crime than the ones currently laid down in the framework decision on combatting racism and xenophobia.

The Commission is also focusing on creating dialogue and exchanges of good practices among Member States. We have set up an LGBTIQ expert subgroup, which meets regularly and agreed on guidelines for strategies and action plans to enhance LGBTIQ equality, which also covers hate crimes. And on hate speech and hate crimes since 2016, a high-level group on combating hate speech and hate crime provides a forum for dialogue and good practice exchange among national authorities.

The work has focused on better support of victims, stepping up hate crime, training for law enforcement and enhancing reporting and hate-crime data collection. The high-level group has just adopted key guiding principles on cooperation between civil society organisations and law enforcement, in particular, to address the persistent underreporting of hate crimes.

This summer, these two work strands came together in a dedicated session on tackling hate crime and hate speech against LGBTIQ people. The sessions served to highlight promising practices from both Member States and civil society organisations. The Commission also continues to provide funding under the citizens equality rights and values programme to initiatives aimed to tackle hate crime and hate speech, as well as to enhance LGBTIQ equality.

Equality bodies can play a key role to collect reports of discriminatory acts. This is why we will soon present a new proposal on equality bodies to strengthen their independence and to make sure that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, at least in the field of employment and occupation, is part of the remit in all EU Member States.

We continue to push for the adoption of the 2008 proposal for a horizontal anti-discrimination directive that would extend protection against discrimination to all other areas of life.

Dear members, hate has no place in Europe. All institutions must join forces to put an end to it.

SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE
Priekšsēdētājas vietnieks

  Frances Fitzgerald, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, colleagues, the brutal murder of two young men in Slovakia last week was chilling and shocking. Chilling and shocking because in 2022 many of us were hoping that hate crimes such as this were a thing of the past.

And let us be clear, this was a hate crime. This attack took place outside a well-known gay bar in the city centre, a safe haven for many people in Bratislava. This was not only an attack on the LGBTQI+ community, but this was attack on all of our European values – let’s make no mistake about that.

This is one serious case. But attacks on the LGBTQI+ people are happening in all EU countries with alarming regularity. The LGBTQI+ community in Slovakia and indeed across Europe are still subject to hate-filled rhetoric, which is often driven by some politicians – let’s be clear, they don’t show much leadership on this, quite the opposite – and by extremist groups, which in the end leads to the sort of situation that we have just seen. Hate, intolerance and intimidation towards this community still exists in Europe, and it must be challenged on every opportunity and every place that we see it being used.

I commend the immediate, massive and positive response of Slovak civil society and citizens to the murders as seen in the many marches across the country and abroad. And I call on all European governments and the European Commission to show a genuine commitment to making meaningful progress in the protection of the LGBTQI+ people by ensuring a zero-tolerance approach to the physical, verbal and psychological abuse that the community is suffering. We need to continue to work on these issues.

  Cyrus Engerer, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, it started with a word – they call us ‘poofter’, ‘dyke’, ‘faggot’ – but it ended with a knife, a fist or, in this case, a gun. That is the reality we face when our communities and our leadership do not take hate speech seriously. This is the result of inaction in the face of growing radicalisation of far—right and conservative narratives.

Last Wednesday, Slovakia, Europe and the world lost two of our siblings to hate and intolerance. Hate and intolerance which many of us saw coming. Our community saw the warning signs in every tweet and every post and every alt—right hand gesture hidden in photographs. Our community has lived lives where phrases have turned into fists and insults have turned into injuries. And we have begged you to pay attention while many have accused us of only seeking attention.

Commissioner, Juraj and Matúš were killed because we have allowed the right—wing to distract our political discourse with talk of pronouns and wokeness in the face of rising radicalisation and violence by their supporters. Madam Commissioner, Deputy Prime Minister, I urge you to take more action on the rising hate. Once again, our community is begging you.

  Michal Šimečka, za skupinu Renew. – Vážený pán predsedajúci, nikdy sme túto debatu nemali mať. Matúš s Jurajom sa mali aj dnes po práci alebo po škole vrátiť domov za svojimi milovanými. Mali mať nedotknuteľné právo žiť, žiť naplno, žiť slobodne a bez strachu.

Chcel by som preto aj z tohto miesta vyjadriť úprimnú sústrasť najbližším obetí tohto teroristického útoku v Bratislave, vôbec prvého na LGBTIQ komunitu v Európskej únii. Ak v tomto hrozivom čine vôbec dokážeme nájsť nejaký záblesk nádeje, tak sme ho videli práve v uliciach slovenských miest posledné dni, kde sa desaťtisíce ľudí prihlásili k rešpektu, rovnosti a prijatiu. A vidíme tu nádej, aj tu, tento týždeň v Európskom parlamente, kde moji kolegovia a kolegyne naprieč celým kontinentom, naprieč ideologickým spektrom vyjadrujú solidaritu s LGBTIQ komunitou na Slovensku a vyzývajú na skoncovanie s jazykom nenávisti, ale aj s realitou diskriminácie.

Áno, tento odporný čin spojil Európu a jej odkaz je jasný. Nikdy, nikdy sa nezmierime s tým, že v dnešnej Európskej únii sú ľudia, ktorí len kvôli odlišnej sexuálnej orientácii musia žiť v neustálom strachu bez plnohodnotných práv, ktorí musia byť večným terčom a obeťou politických hier a ideológií, a že Európa a tento Parlament budú vždy stáť na ich strane.

  Terry Reintke, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, so many moments have passed now where we had to express our condolences and our solidarity with victims of hate crime and terror. Of course, first and foremost, also today our love and solidarity goes to the victims, their loved ones and the whole LGBTI community in Slovakia.

But I want to take this opportunity and say something else as well. Words have consequences. This attack did not start when the shooter picked up the gun. This attack started long before. It started with words, with words of hatred, uttered on social media, on the Internet, but also unfortunately uttered in places in this Parliament. Words that deny us fundamental rights. Words that deny us equality. Words that go as far as denying our very existence. Words that frame us as a threat to society and that dehumanise us, just because we love someone or because we were assigned the wrong gender at birth.

I want to say this to the far right: stop these hate campaigns. Your words have consequences. And I want to say to all of us: we cannot start at launching investigations after terror attacks like this have happened. We have to start when these words of hatred are being uttered. We have to stand up to this hatred in our societies and not just as queers, but everyone who believes in democracy, freedom, fundamental rights and peaceful societies.

  Johan Nissinen, för ECR-gruppen. – Herr talman! Tack för ordet i denna mycket viktiga debatt, som också är min första, mitt första tal i kammaren.

Nyligen sköts två homosexuella män till döds utanför en gaybar i Bratislava. Det är en mycket tragisk händelse. Som hbt+ person tycker jag att det är väldigt hemskt att se detta, för jag kan tänka att det skulle kunna vara både jag och min pojkvän som var utsatt för det här eller någon av mina vänner.

Även om Europa är väldigt öppet och tolerant, känner jag mig inte trygg att gå och hålla min pojkvän i handen när jag är ute i det offentliga, för jag vet att man kan bli utsatt för både hot, hat och trakasserier. Jag är långt ifrån ensam om att känna samma sak.

Det som hände är ingen isolerad händelse. Vi måste alla jobba för att göra samhället tryggare, oavsett politisk tillhörighet. Som ordinarie ledamot i utskottet för kvinnors rättigheter och jämställdhet mellan kvinnor och män kommer jag att arbeta över partigränserna för att göra samhället tryggare. Jag sträcker därför ut handen till er andra att vara med i det arbetet.

  Malin Björk, on behalf of The Left Group. – My thoughts and hearts go out to the families and loved ones of Juraj and Matúš. My heart goes out to all my LGBTQI siblings in Slovakia who, rightfully so, feel scared and threatened. We in the European Parliament, we stand with you and we stand up for you. But the kind of hatred that ends up taking lives does not appear from nowhere out of the blue. We all know this. We know that this kind of hate against LGBTI people, it exists in far right circles where an ideology of hate and an ideology of violence meet each other. And it is being legitimised by words and deeds, by political leaders that fuelled the discrimination by using hateful rhetoric, scapegoating LGBTI communities. Words matter. Matúš and Juraj, saying your names is to remember you, saying what killed you, far right LGBTQ phobia commits us all to do everything we can to stop it. We need legislation. We need education. We need institutions. We need that every politician and public figure to stand up against this hatred. And we have to start this now.

  Miroslav Radačovský (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, som zo Slovenska, som predsedom strany Slovenský patriot. Strana Slovenský patriot ako jediná strana na Slovensku má v piatom bode svojho volebného programu, a vôbec programových cieľov, uvedené boj proti všetkým formám extrémizmu a hnutiam smerujúcim k potláčaniu základných ľudských práv a slobôd. Netvrdím, že keby každá politická strana si osvojila tento program a dala si to do základných priorít, že by sa dalo predísť tomu, čo sa udialo v Bratislave, ale snáď by to pomohlo. Snáď by to pomohlo viac ako zvolávať rôzne schôdze a rozprávať, o čom si spisovať deklarácie do programu každej politickej strany, tak ako to má politická strana Slovenský patriot, ktorej som predsedom.

Na druhej strane sa však musím ohradiť voči určitej časti spektra liberálneho, ktorí sa snažia navodiť situáciu, ako keby Slovensko bolo štát xenofóbov, homofóbov, rasistov: nie je to pravda. Slováci to nemajú v génoch. My sme nikdy neboli strojcami zvrátených ideológií fašizmu, rasizmu, svetových vojen, gilotíny, otrokárstva. Na veľmi krátke obdobie Slovensko malo obdobie rasizmu, fašizmu, ale s tým sme sa dokázali v Slovenskom národnom povstaní rýchlo vysporiadať. Jednoducho chcem tu z tohto miesta prehlásiť, že Slováci nikdy neboli, nie sú ani nikdy nebudú národom extrémistov, homofóbov a rasistov. Konanie jedného poloblázna, kto je, o ktorom ani nevie ... (Predsedajúci odobral rečníkovi slovo)

  Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, Matúš a Juraj sa stali obeťami mladého extrémistu a naše myšlienky sú stále s nimi a s pozostalými. Je šokujúce, že sme dnes svedkami terorizmu voči menšine. Je šokujúce, že vrah na sociálnych sieťach beztrestne propagoval rasizmus a nenávisť, a je šokujúce, že sa vyhrážal aj celej spoločnosti, osobitne aj zvoleným predstaviteľom. Len si uvedomme, že tento vrah aj v deň činu čakal dokonca na premiéra. 19-ročný vrah, mimochodom študent elitnej školy, pred svojím teroristickým útokom zverejnil manifest vyjadrujúci nenávisť voči ľuďom inej rasy, iného náboženstva, inej sexuálnej orientácie a aj svoj obdiv k masovým vrahom. Všetci sme ale iní, každý odniekiaľ pochádzame, každý máme svoje názory, vieru, predstavy, ale čo nás spája, to je schopnosť počúvať sa a tolerovať sa. Je potrebné hovoriť aj o úlohe škôl vo vzdelávaní, o nezastupiteľnej úlohe rodiny vo výchove, o nešírení nenávisti na sociálnych sieťach, ale aj o rešpektovaní demokraticky zvolených predstaviteľov. To, čo dnes potrebujeme, je tolerancia, tolerancia jedného k druhému, tolerancia k inému vierovyznaniu, k inej sexuálnej orientácii, len tak dokážeme poraziť zlo extrémizmu, nenávisti a netolerancie.

  Monika Beňová (S&D). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, podobne ako moji predrečníci, aj tí, ktorí budú hovoriť po mne, aj ja by som chcela vyjadriť hlbokú spoluúčasť za to, čo sa stalo v Bratislave. A musím povedať, že pre mňa bolo také príjemné prekvapenie, že všetky relevantné politické strany a hnutia na Slovensku tento hanebný čin odsúdili. Bolo to veľmi dôležité posolstvo pre verejnosť, že aj politické strany a hnutia, ktoré sa hlásia ku konzervatívnejšej politike alebo ku konzervativizmu, povedali, že nie, toto nie je cesta.

Stojí teraz pred nami otázka, že ako naložiť s tým, čo sa stalo. Nemôžeme povedať, že slovenská spoločnosť by bola iná ako ostatné európske spoločnosti. My nie sme viac homofóbnejší alebo viac rasistickejší, alebo čokoľvek viac oproti iným európskym národom. Sme úplne rovnakí. Ja som chodila podporovať dúhové pride-y v čase, keď väčšina z dnešných politikov Európskeho parlamentu ešte chodila do škôlky alebo do školy. Som tu 20 rokov a pamätám si, ako sme s Kingou Gál pripravovali fundamental rights report po prijatí Lisabonskej zmluvy, ako sme hľadali každé jedno slovo na ochranu práv menšín, ale aj na sociálne práva. Takže moje záverečné slovo, pán predseda, by bolo o tom, aby sme hľadali spoločnú reč, aby sme hľadali spoločné riešenia, aby sme nevyužívali plénum na to, čo nás rozdeľuje, ale na to, čo nás môže spojiť, ako môžeme zlepšiť situáciu ...

  Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señor presidente, no podemos devolver la vida a los jóvenes Matúš y Juraj. Su asesino de diecinueve años se suicidó, pero, antes de hacerlo, le parecía cómico no sentir remordimiento. Había deshumanizado la mirada hacia las personas a las que asesinó por una mezcla de prejuicio, intolerancia y fanatismo.

Las autoridades investigan los asesinatos tal vez como el primer caso de terrorismo con lobo solitario en Europa por motivación homófoba. Por tanto, un crimen ideológico, meditado, en el último eslabón del odio organizado. Veintiuna personas murieron, al menos, por algún tipo de homofobia solo en cinco países europeos entre 2015 y 2020.

La intolerancia verbal genera monstruos. Es el momento, señorías, de abrir los ojos. Y las instituciones europeas tenemos que afrontar nuestra responsabilidad, la tipificación de los delitos de odio de motivación social como eurodelitos. Para ello, Hungría y Polonia deben dejar de bloquear su adopción y Chequia, en su calidad de actual presidencia del Consejo, tomar las riendas de este dosier para un acuerdo necesario.

No podemos devolver la vida. Por eso, debemos prevenir el crecimiento de la intolerancia y evitar la impunidad, la social, la institucional y la judicial.

  Marcel Kolaja (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Mr Vice Prime Minister, Juraj and Matus, two young Slovak boys whose lives were violently ended just for being who they were.

So first I have a message for everyone who spreads hatred – be it politicians, media or organisations fighting against equal rights – your words do not just hurt LGBT people, their families and their friends, hatred leads to violence and violence leads to murder.

Second, as a matter of fact, LGBT people feel often insecure. How can we as a society accept that there are citizens who do not feel secure in their countries, in their hometowns? As European politicians, we share the responsibility to ensure that Europe is a safe space for everyone. And, therefore, I call on the national governments that block the inclusion of hate crime on the list of EU crimes to stop that.

  Silvia Modig (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, Bratislavan murhat ovat järkyttäneet koko eurooppalaista sateenkaariyhteisöä. Homobaarin edustalle murhatut nuoret ihmiset joutuivat viharikoksen kohteeksi vain ja ainoastaan siksi, että he kuuluivat sateenkaarivähemmistöön, koska tämä oli ainoa asia, jonka murhaaja heistä tiesi.

Vaikka murhasta on vastuussa oikeudellisesti vain tekijä, vastuu on silti meidän kaikkien, koska meille poliitikoille sanat ovat tekoja. Niin Slovakian poliitikoilta kuin tässä salissa olen kuullut toistuvasti vihapuhetta. Olen kuullut, miten minä ja olemassaoloni on uhka niin lapsille kuin koko yhteiskunnan perustalle. Olen kuullut, miten olen epäkelpo vanhemmaksi ja miten minulle ei kuulu samat oikeudet kuin muille ihmisille. Bratislavan murhat ovat se pahin lopputulema, johon vihapuhe voi johtaa.

Ihmisoikeudet ovat kokonaisuus. Niitä ei voi kannattaa valikoiden. Jos olet valmis polkemaan yhden ryhmän ihmisoikeuksia, olet valmis heikentämään ihmisoikeuksia, myös omiasi. Jokaisella tulee olla oikeus elää itsenään, omana itsenään, ilman pelkoa väkivallasta ja syrjinnästä. Tämä ei valitettavasti toteudu tämän päivän Euroopassa.

(Puhuja suostuu vastaamaan sinisen kortin puheenvuoroon)

  Hynek Blaško (ID), vystoupení na základě zvednutí modré karty. – Pane předsedající, dovolte mi, abych vyslovil plnou podporu tomu, co říkal zde pan kolega Radačovský.

Jsem Čech. Můj táta byl Slovák. Takže vlastně mám polovinu příbuzných na Slovensku a nikdy jsem se nesetkal s tím, co je tady popisováno. Všichni pochází z různých společenských vrstev. Samozřejmě tento akt všichni odsuzují, ale nejstrašnější na celé věci je to, že se tady paušalizuje, že tím, že se to stalo, tak že je česká nebo slovenská společnost špatná? To přeci nemůžete myslet vážně.

  President. – Under the new procedure we can have statements or questions. That was a statement, in my opinion; there was no question. Would you like to reply? Under the new rules you have a right to reply.

  Silvia Modig (The Left), vastaus sinisen kortin puheenvuoroon. – Edelliselle puhujalle haluan todeta, ettei yksikään jäsenvaltio ole vapaa viharikoksista. Ei Slovakia, ei minun maani Suomi. Sitä on kaikkialla ja juuri sen takia se on meidän jokaisen vastuulla huolehtia siitä, että me emme tue vihapuhetta. Me nousemme vastustamaan sitä joka kerta kun me sitä kuulemme. Tässä salissa olen toistuvasti kuullut vihapuhetta sateenkaarivähemmistöjä kohtaan, etnisiä vähemmistöjä kohtaan, romaneita kohtaan, kielellisiä vähemmistöjä kohtaan. Me voimme aloittaa tästä huoneesta. Se, että tätä yritetään kääntää siihen, että nyt teitä tai jotain tiettyä kansallisuutta syyllistetään, on asian ohi puhumista. Vastuu on meidän jokaisen, ja me voisimme aloittaa tästä huoneesta.

  Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, smútok, ktorý cítime po tom, čo chladnokrvný fanatik vzal život dvom mladým ľuďom, bude trvať ešte veľmi dlho. Matúš a Juraj, nikdy nezabudneme. Chcem dnes pripomenúť, že máme jeden recept na nenávisť, ktorý je okamžitý a účinný. Naše slová majú veľkú moc. Ľudia vo verejnom priestore, dávajme si, prosím, veľký pozor na to, ako s LGBTIQ+ ľuďmi hovoríme, aké odkazy im v politike posielame. Každý z nás nielen môže, ale hlavne musí byť hrádzou proti posmeškom, zraňujúcim narážkam a podlej nenávisti. Ohraďme sa proti neslušným slovám a postavme sa za ľudí, na ktorých iní útočia. Ako politici musíme prichádzať aj s opatreniami, ktoré uľahčia život našim LGBTIQ+ spoluobčanom, susedom či priateľom a skutočne zrovnoprávnenia ich každodenné fungovanie. Máme voči nim dlhodobý dlh, ktorý je načase splácať, zvlášť v krajinách, ako je Slovensko. Dámy a páni, verím, že na to máme.

  Marc Angel (S&D). – Dear President, Commissioner, Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues, hate speech, especially when coming from public figures, leads to hate crime. This must stop. Last Wednesday it was Matúš and Juraj who were brutally murdered by a far-right radicalised student in Bratislava. Today our thoughts are with their families and friends. Next week, anyone belonging to the queer community – one of your kids, one of your grandkids, someone from this Parliament – could be a victim of a coward homophobic or transphobic crime.

 

In too many Member States, far right, conservative and populist parties and religious fundamentalists spread LGBTIQ-phobia, copying the Kremlin’s narrative. They scapegoat and publicly target the LGBTIQ community to divide societies. This must stop.

And therefore, I urge the Commission to take concrete sanctions against Member States not complying with EU values. I call on the Council to finally unblock the horizontal anti-discrimination directive, to come forward with an agreement on the Gender-based Violence Directive and to unblock the inclusion of hate crime and hate speech to the list of EU crimes.

 

I encourage the Members of the Slovak National Parliament to establish – just like recently in Hungary – an LGBTIQ intergroup to work closely with civil society and monitor discrimination, hate speech and hate crime. LGBTIQ rights, just like women’s rights and children’s rights are human rights.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Pierre Karleskind (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, «sale pédé», «vieille gouine», «travelo»: à force de s’accumuler, les mots et les insultes finissent par devenir des actes, finissent par devenir des balles et tuent. Matúš et Juraj, Malte, le mois dernier en Allemagne, Samuel en Galice l’année dernière, David dans un parc en Belgique en 2021.

Alors, je me tourne vers les bancs de l’extrême droite, qui sont totalement vides. Aucun orateur du groupe ID n’est venu, probablement par honte, par honte que ce jeune ait été influencé par vos idées d’extrême droite, qu’il soit le fils d’un leader de l’extrême droite slovaque. Peut-être est-ce par honte que vous n’êtes pas là.

Mais je veux me tourner aussi vers le Conseil et vers la présidence tchèque du Conseil. Parce que, je le dis, à force d’accepter que s’accumulent les propos et les crimes de haine, alors même que la Commission fait une proposition pour en faire un crime européen et que vous bloquez les débats, eh bien, vous vous rendez complices de ce qui est en train de se passer. Réveillez-vous! Il est temps d’agir, d’avancer. J’espère que la prise de conscience est brutale; pour nous tous, elle l’est.

  Magdalena Adamowicz (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Po raz kolejny nienawiść zabiła. Homofobiczna mowa nienawiści zabija. Dosłownie, nie w przenośni.

Nie możemy pozwolić na sączące się z ust polityków nawoływania do nienawiści w ramach testowania nowych pomysłów na haniebną kampanię wyborczą. Nie możemy pozwolić na nawoływanie do poszukiwania i zwalczania wspólnego wroga niczym na najhaniebniejszych kartach naszej historii. Nie możemy pozwolić na czasem cichą, a innym razem szyderczą akceptację tłumu dla nienawiści do drugiego człowieka. Nienawiść rodzi nienawiść! Akceptacja dla mowy nienawiści rodzi zbrodnię przeciwko konkretnym ludziom.

Dlatego wzywam Radę: zdecydujcie wreszcie o dodaniu mowy nienawiści i przestępstw z nienawiści do listy przestępstw unijnych!

Mowa nienawiści i przestępstwa z nienawiści niszczą fundamentalne prawa i wartości, na których opiera się Unia.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, hate kills. Tepláreň bar, once a safe space for Bratislava’s LGBTI+community, has now fallen silent, with flowers lining the pavement outside following the homophobic murder of Matusz and Juraj. Backsliding on LGBTI+ rights is a growing issue within our EU, with Europe’s LGBTI community increasingly living in fear and experiencing high levels of verbal and physical violence. Words prompt actions and rhetoric incites hatred. This gunman was motivated by far—right ideology, which has been fuelled by the reckless and irresponsible statements of politicians.

I stand with the two victims and the thousands of people who took part in the vigil for them, demanding action on LGBTI+ rights, demanding safety and demanding respect. I send my sincerest condolences to the family and friends of both victims. We continue our work for equality in their name.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, este Parlamento ha debatido muchas veces acerca del incremento en la Unión Europea de los delitos de odio, pero no podía faltar a este debate que no es solamente sobre un delito de odio, sino sobre un crimen contra la comunidad LGTBI por razón de orientación sexual perpetrado por un pistolero de extrema derecha.

Por tanto, además de lo que se ha dicho y de la declaración del Consejo que creo que suscribimos y apoyamos desde este Parlamento Europeo, hay que decir que cualquier forma de complicidad con la extrema derecha lo es directamente con el incremento del discurso del odio, que conduce directamente al delito de odio.

También hay que decirle al Consejo que tiene que moverse a fondo para levantar el bloqueo impuesto por Polonia y Hungría a la inclusión de los delitos de odio que proceden del discurso del odio en los eurodelitos contemplados en el artículo 83 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea. Necesitamos cuanto antes una legislación europea contra los delitos de odio.

  Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, Matúš Horváth a Juraj Vankulič, dovoľte mi v prvom rade popriať úprimnú sústrasť všetkým ich blízkym a priateľom. Matúš Horváth a Juraj Vankulič boli zavraždení, pretože nenávisť sa stala úplne bežnou vecou. A nehovorím len o extrémistoch, akých máme aj tu. Hovorím aj o vrcholových predstaviteľoch strán na Slovensku, ktoré patria do skupiny EPP a SND. Hovorím o bývalom predsedovi vlády, ktorý je predsedom najsilnejšej politickej strany v terajšej koalícii a patrí do EPP, a hovorím o predsedovi strany, ktorá je členskou stranou SND, ktorí normalizujú nenávisť voči LGBTIQ komunite na Slovensku. Nenávisť zabila Matúša a Juraja. Nenávisť môže vraždiť ďalej, pokiaľ sa im nepostavíme, ale musíme si upratať aj u nás doma.

  Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Der brutale Mord an Juraj und Matúš in Bratislava setzt unsere gesamte Community unter Schock. LGBTI in ganz Europa haben Angst – Angst davor, Opfer von ekligem Hass und von Gewalt zu werden.

Der Mord in Bratislava ist keine Einzeltat. Er reiht sich ein in unzählige Gewaltverbrechen allein in diesem Jahr gegen unsere Community in ganz Europa: der Mord an Malte C. in Münster, der Anschlag auf den London Pub in Oslo mit mehreren Verletzten und Todesopfern. Und auch auf Prides in Deutschland wurden Transpersonen angegriffen, Regenbogenfahnen angezündet, und es wurde mit Pflastersteinen nach Menschen geworfen. Europa ist leider keine Freiheitszone für queere Menschen. Menschen trauen sich nicht mehr, sie selbst zu sein. Hasserfüllte Rhetorik und das Anzweifeln von Menschenrechten für LGBTI bilden dafür einen traurigen Rahmen. Man kann bei Menschenfeindlichkeit nicht neutral sein. Man muss Haltung zeigen, Stellung beziehen – in ganz Europa. Das ist unser Auftrag.

  Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, v prvom rade chcem vysloviť úprimnú sústrasť príbuzným a blízkym týchto dvoch mladých ľudí. Hanebný teroristický čin, ktorý sa stal na Slovensku, je odsúdeniahodným skutkom zúfalého mladíka, ktorý podľahol extrémizmu a neonacistickej propagande. Nikdy nesmieme pripustiť šírenie nenávisti voči žiadnemu človeku, žiadnej menšine či komunite, v tomto prípade LGBT. Z manifestu vraha vyplynulo, že nenávisť prechovával aj voči rôznym náboženstvám, rasám či ďalším skupinám.

Žiaľ, musím konštatovať, že vulgarizácia verejného diskurzu v posledných rokoch na Slovensku, a to aj vplyvom izolácie spôsobenej pandémiou, má nesmierne negatívny vplyv na našu spoločnosť, a priamo tak stupňuje obrovskú polarizáciu či nenávisť. V KDH sme na tento trend dôrazne poukázali a už dávnejšie sme spustili kampaň Za čiarou. Želám si, aby sme v dôsledku tejto obrovskej tragédie viac vážili svoje slová a skutky.

  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señor presidente, la noche del 12 de octubre, un estudiante de diecinueve años de Bratislava atacó y mató a tiros a dos jóvenes de Bratislava, a Matúš y a Juraj. Es un crimen de odio. No es un ataque hacia el colectivo LGTBI. Es un ataque hacia toda la humanidad. Es un ataque hacia todos nosotros porque se dirige a todo lo que es el corazón de nuestros valores. Se dirige a lo que defendemos como Europa. Y por eso hay que reflexionar.

Lamentablemente, el miedo, la violencia y la discriminación siguen siendo una realidad a la que se enfrentan muchísimas personas del colectivo LGTBI en una gran parte del mundo. Sigue siendo peligroso para muchos integrantes de este colectivo enseñar sus sentimientos y simplemente ser ellos mismos. Por eso hay que defender que los derechos humanos no son una ideología. Los derechos humanos son nuestra prioridad y, por eso, tenemos que estar a la vanguardia de su defensa.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Deputy Prime Minister, honourable Members, you have all pointed out, rightly so, that words have consequences. And especially what is said by us politicians, which is far reaching, and thus we should speak responsibly and face consequences when we fuel hatred.

You are right that hate speech and hate crime have seen a sharp rise across Europe and have become a particularly serious and worrying phenomenon. Resolute action is needed to tackle the EU-wide challenge. We must strengthen our set of regulatory and policy tools. The extension of the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime would be a crucial step to ensuring minimum common rules on how to define criminal offences and sanctions applicable in all EU Member States.

There is no time to lose. I call on Member States to swiftly adopt the Council decision after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament so the Commission can present a legislative proposal that would ensure protection of all individuals and groups at risk of experiencing hate crime and hate speech.

This terrible shooting is not an isolated incident. Several such incidents happened in the past. They are a threat to all LGBTIQ persons against our democracies and our open European societies. It is unacceptable that people have to pay a price for who they are, sometimes even pay with their lives, as in this case.

What is happening to our brothers and sisters only strengthens my resolve to continue working for and marching with the LGBTIQ communities around Europe and beyond, even where we are not welcome. We know that we are doing the right thing. This is about people and their human rights. The right to live and have the good quality of life which every human being should have. The right to live and fighting hate is not an ideology.

  Ivan Bartoš, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Madam Commissioner, I share the frustration expressed by many of you regarding the lack of progress on several files, including the extension of the list of EU crimes.

However, as you know, the proposal did not receive yet unanimous support within the Council, as required by the Treaty. If the Presidency receives indications that unanimity could be achieved, it will bring back this file to the table of the Council.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, LGBTIQ people all over Europe look at us. They expect and demand that we do all we can to ensure that their basic rights are protected. And they are right to do so.

Let us continue to work together towards this goal by doing everything we can to protect the LGBTIQ community and to ensure that they can enjoy full acceptance and inclusion.

  Sēdes vadītājs. – Esmu saņēmis divus rezolūciju priekšlikumus, kas iesniegti saskaņā ar Reglamenta 132. panta 2. punktu.

Debates ir slēgtas.

Balsošana notiks ceturtdien.

14. Mantenimiento de los controles en las fronteras interiores del espacio Schengen a la luz de la reciente sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (C-368/20) (debate)

  Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par Padomes un Komisijas paziņojumiem par robežkontroles turpināšanu pie iekšējām robežām Šengenas zonā, ņemot vērā Eiropas Savienības Tiesas neseno spriedumu (C-368/20) (2022/2871(RSP)).

  Ivan Bartoš, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you for inviting me to this debate.

I’m sure you all agree that the Schengen Area is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union. But this key achievement has been under considerable strain in the past years due to successive, at times simultaneous, threats: terrorism, illegal and uncontrolled migration, COVID-19 and, most recently, hybrid attacks, including instrumentalisation of migrants.

The rules governing the movement of persons across borders are enshrined in the Schengen Borders Code. As you know, the code is part of a more general framework of an area of freedom, security and justice. This framework is intended to strike a fair balance between the free movement of persons and the need to safeguard public policy and internal security.

The Schengen Area, without internal border controls, has been made possible thanks to effective external border controls, as well as a whole range of compensatory measures, for example, on police cooperation, migration returns and visas. In a crisis situation, those compensatory measures are not always sufficient to safeguard public policy or internal security. Therefore, the Schengen Borders Code provides for the possibility to reintroduce and prolong internal border controls, always as a last resort, taking into account the principles of necessity and proportionality, and limited to the time that is strictly needed to respond to serious threat.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of 26 April 2022, confirmed that it is up to the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to issue an opinion when it has concerns as regards the necessity or proportionality of the planned reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls.

Last but not least, when it comes to finding long—lasting solutions to the challenges we face at our borders, I should recall the importance of the proposal for an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code presented by the Commission in December 2021. In the view of the Council, the proposal contains appropriate new tools to address the security threats which the EU is facing, in particular hybrid threats at our external borders. It also contains a wider array of alternative measures, notably in the field of police cooperation, which would reduce the need to reintroduce internal border controls. In addition, it creates a solid legal basis for travel restrictions in case of threats to public health.

The Council considers this a priority file and reached a general approach on it in June 2022. We stand ready to start negotiations with Parliament as soon as you are ready.

  Ylva Johansson, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Deputy Prime Minister, honourable Members, Schengen is dead: that is what some people claimed and other people feared in the spring of 2020, when Member States set up internal border controls to stop the spread of COVID-19 but at the same time caused a lot of problems for individuals and transports.

At the time, we worked very hard to keep internal borders open. And, I assure you, Schengen is very much alive. Those COVID-19 border shutdowns did show us that we should never take free movement for granted.

So we embarked on an ambitious Schengen reform to learn from past crises – migration, terror and COVID-19 – and equip Schengen for the future. Our area of freedom, security and justice; the most valued achievement of our Union and the foundation of our prosperity.

A reform to jointly take responsibility for Schengen. A move from administrating Schengen to governing Schengen, as we outlined in the Schengen strategy last year: introducing an annual cycle of governance managed by the newly appointed Schengen Coordinator; kicked off by the new State of Schengen report showing the health of the Schengen area, good and bad; monitoring progress with Schengen parameters; and now implementing the new Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism that we proposed to help quickly identify problems and correct them.

We set up the Schengen Forum to give Schengen strong political direction with a key role for you, the European Parliament, and in dedicated Schengen Council meetings, Ministers decide on priorities, building trust and cooperation.

An area without internal border controls must have strong external border controls fully compliant with fundamental rights. External border controls are a common responsibility.

And let us be clear we need to do more to protect our external borders. We are putting in place a European integrated border management with a strategic approach to border management for the next five years. We are looking forward to receiving Parliament’s input.

For better protecting the external borders, we also need a fully functioning agency. Frontex now have a stronger mandate and more resources, with soon a new Executive Director. Giving the agency a strong governance framework.

We also share common responsibility for security and our improving police cooperation. Europol’s new mandate is fully in place and we are building state-of-the-art digital security systems.

The new Schengen Information System will soon be online, followed next year by Entry/Exit and ETIAS, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System. Once all these systems are operational and interoperable, our Union will be more secure. Protecting Europe by connecting Europe.

Honourable members, the court is clear: internal border controls must be temporary, exceptional and only happen when necessary and proportionate. My message to ministers at last week’s Justice and Home Affairs Council was also clear: I expect Member States to comply with the court judgement. There is a growing awareness in the Council and growing resolve to address the long-lasting problem, to address it sustainably, and we are doing that by putting our new system of Schengen governance in action.

I asked our new Schengen Coordinator to develop a roadmap to swiftly move away from internal border controls. He had a very constructive first meeting with Member States last week. They now need to follow the roadmap, address internal border checks and restore this area of free movement and they need to do so with no further delay. If not, the Commission will consider necessary next steps.

And while it is good and right to enforce the rules, we must also adapt our rulebook to changing times to meet evolving challenges. That’s why we proposed to revise the Schengen Borders Code. Learning the lessons of the 2015 migration crisis, of terrorist attacks and of the pandemic, reinforcing the rules to make internal border checks truly a measure of last resort, subject to clear conditions and safeguards.

Member States must assess the risks for border regions and look for alternatives first. Reinforced police cooperation is better than passport controls. Everyone must now do their part. The Council has already agreed its mandate to start negotiations on the Schengen Borders Code, as we just heard from the representative of the Council. Now is Parliament’s turn.

Let us pass this legislation. We need to make sure that when new Member States join Schengen, which I hope can be possible soon, the only proof you need, by the way, that Schengen is still very much alive and we fully welcome the millions of proud new citizens into the Schengen. Everyone can enjoy free movement to the full in a fully functioning Schengen area.

  Lena Düpont, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Der Schengen-Raum ist einer der wichtigsten Bestandteile unserer Europäischen Union. Er ist noch nicht perfekt. Er steht enorm unter Druck. Ihn zu bewahren, diese Errungenschaft zu schützen, ist vielleicht die Aufgabe unserer Generation.

Dazu gehört allerdings auch eine ehrliche Bestandsaufnahme. Drei Mitgliedstaaten wollen Teil des Schengen-Raums werden und sollten endlich auch aufgenommen werden. Die Anziehungskraft – Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben es gerade erwähnt – ist also ungebrochen. Gleichzeitig finden in mehreren Mitgliedstaaten interne Grenzkontrollen statt, ausdauernder, als es der Schengener Grenzkodex vorsieht. Warum ist das so? Weil uns klar werden muss, dass die Zeiten, in denen wir ausschließlich von friedlichen oder freundlich gesinnten Nachbarn umgeben waren, vorbei sind. Alles, was um uns herum passiert, hat Auswirkungen auf die Außengrenzstaaten, hat Auswirkungen auf den Schengen-Raum, hat Auswirkungen auf alle Mitgliedstaaten.

Das anzuerkennen, braucht eine mentale Einstellung, aber es braucht vor allem praktische Lösungen. Denn warum halten einige Mitgliedstaaten interne Kontrollen für notwendig? Weil wir im Bereich Stärkung und Sicherung der Außengrenzen besser werden können und müssen. Weil wir den Kampf gegen Schleuserkriminalität und Schmuggel, gegen illegale Migration, gegen grenzüberschreitende Kriminalität und organisierte Kriminalität verstärken müssen. Weil wir uns noch nicht so eng abstimmen, wie wir es sollten.

Was brauchen wir also, um Schengen zu schützen? Eine bessere Zusammenarbeit der nationalen Behörden. Starke Agenturen, die die Mitgliedstaaten bei der Sicherung der Außengrenzen und im Kampf gegen jegliche Form von Kriminalität unterstützen. Und ein Asyl- und Migrationspaket, das funktioniert, das belastbar ist und zu dem im Übrigen auch der wichtige Vorschlag gegen instrumentalisierte Migration gehört.

  Matjaž Nemec, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, it’s about time. Today Parliament is discussing, at my request, this groundbreaking ruling on Schengen. It has been six months since the European Court of Justice ruled that Austrian and Italian border controls have been illegal under EU law since November 2017. But despite this ruling, nothing has changed. Austria and five other Schengen states again blocked the controls for another six months, breaking EU law yet again. I strongly condemn these controls. We need to act now, dear colleagues, because the Commission has said nothing so far about this ruling, because the Commission also never issued an opinion on these controls as law demands.

While the Commission itself said in court that these controls were not in line with European law, I want to know: what will the Commission do now? It’s time to step up and protect the rule of law and Schengen. Start infringement procedures, issue opinions on the controls? Can you really accept this complete disregard for rule of law just because France and Germany are breaking it? Are we going to let Schengen slip away in front of our eyes?

Ladies and gentlemen, the law needs to be respected. The court decision needs to be respected. Dear colleagues, we have to cherish and protect our Schengen, because if we lose Schengen, we lose the European Union.

  Jan-Christoph Oetjen, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Der Beschluss des Europäischen Gerichtshofs ist eine Ohrfeige, eine Ohrfeige für die Mitgliedstaaten, die Grenzkontrollen eingeführt haben. Aber er ist genauso eine Ohrfeige für die Kommission. Denn es ist eigentlich Aufgabe der Kommission, zu überprüfen, ob die Grenzkontrollen wirklich als letztes Mittel genutzt werden, ob es wirklich keine andere Alternative zu den Grenzkontrollen gegeben hat. Das tut die Kommission nicht. Und die Mitgliedstaaten tun es auch nicht, weil es bequem ist, einmal Grenzkontrollen eingeführt zu haben, und dann schwierig, politisch wieder davon runterzukommen. Das ist doch die Wahrheit, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen.

Deswegen erwarte ich nach diesem Urteil, dass jetzt genau das passiert, was die Frau Kommissarin gesagt hat, nämlich, dass die Mitgliedstaaten kritisch überprüfen: Ist das wirklich notwendig? Das gilt für mein eigenes Land, nämlich Deutschland, genauso wie für Frankreich, für Schweden, für Österreich und für alle anderen Mitgliedstaaten, die diese Grenzkontrollen eingeführt haben. Denn ansonsten ist das Schengen-Versprechen ein hohles Versprechen. Wir wollen, dass Schengen lebt. Deswegen wollen wir, dass Bulgarien und Rumänien und Kroatien Teil dieses Schengen-Raums werden. Aber dafür muss der Schengen-Raum funktionieren, und dazu gehört, dass es keine Grenzkontrollen gibt.

  Erik Marquardt, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, dass wir uns noch einmal darüber im Klaren sein müssen, dass, wenn wir über die Kontrollen an den Außengrenzen reden, am Ende eigentlich ein Satz gilt: Grenzen sind nur geschützt, wenn Menschenrechte an diesen Grenzen auch geschützt werden. Was wir jetzt aber erleben, ist, dass auch durch diese Menschenrechtsverletzungen an den Außengrenzen, durch dieses Chaos, auch dadurch, dass wir nicht nur Mauern an unseren Grenzen bauen, sondern auch eine Mauer aus Lügen über die Situation an den Außengrenzen, dass wir durch diese Situation eigentlich ein Chaos haben, was sich auch auf die Binnengrenzen überträgt.

Wir können Migration besser organisieren, wir können Asylanträge besser aufnehmen, wir können das alles gut organisieren, wenn wir diese Aufgabe auch wirklich einmal annehmen. Dass wir es nicht tun, dass die Mitgliedstaaten es nicht tun und dass wir auch dabei zugucken – auch als EU-Kommission –, dass EU-Regeln verletzt werden, das sehen wir auch an den Binnengrenzen.

Ich komme aus Deutschland, und ich muss sagen, dass ich mich ehrlicherweise auch in diesem Haus hier ein bisschen schämen muss. Ich finde es nicht richtig, dass die Bundesregierung – meine Partei gehört dieser Bundesregierung an – die Binnengrenzkontrollen zu Österreich einfach verlängert. Und ich muss deutlich sagen, dass ich mich eigentlich sogar freuen würde, wenn wir das nicht nur dem politischen Wettstreit überlassen, sondern wenn endlich nicht mehr das Recht der Stärkeren in Europa gilt – und die Mitgliedstaaten fühlen sich vielleicht manchmal stärker –, sondern wenn wir wieder die Stärke des Rechts nach vorne holen würden.

Deswegen glaube ich sogar, dass Vertragsverletzungsverfahren das richtige Mittel sind, um am Ende eine Entscheidung zu haben: Wie können wir EU-Regeln am besten umsetzen? Um auch eine Entscheidung zu haben: Wie können wir den Schengener Grenzkodex am besten reformieren? Ich glaube, es geht jetzt auch darum, bei den Mitgliedstaaten dafür zu sorgen, dass diese wunderbare Errungenschaft an den Binnengrenzen, die wir haben, am Ende eine Errungenschaft ist, die nicht leichtfertig aufs Spiel gesetzt wird.

  Patricia Chagnon, au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, vous êtes toujours très rapides à vanter les avantages de la libre circulation, de l’espace Schengen, mais bien plus discrets quand il s’agit d’admettre le lien avec les infractions, voire avec les drames liés à l’absence de contrôles aux frontières.

Toutes sortes de réseaux criminels, terroristes et mafieux, ainsi que des trafiquants de toutes sortes profitent de la libre circulation entre pays et donc entre juridictions. Et la conséquence la plus dramatique est peut-être l’arrivée, l’installation et la circulation de migrants clandestins, de plus en plus nombreux sur le continent européen. En réalité, l’espace Schengen, qui devrait être un espace de libre circulation protégé, est un espace de libre circulation ouvert à tout vent.

Vos propositions d’étendre l’espace Schengen aujourd’hui à la Roumanie et la Bulgarie, demain aux Balkans, de passer de 27 à 30, voire 36 États membres, avec une poussée vers l’Est, comme le déclarait le chancelier allemand Olaf Scholz samedi dernier, témoignent de votre obstination à avancer votre projet idéologique. Après votre camouflet de 2005, votre refus de référendum, depuis, sur le sujet de l’avenir de l’Europe confirme vos velléités impérialistes et votre mépris pour la volonté des peuples, que vous avez décidé d’ignorer.

  Rob Rooken, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, Raad, “Als je geen grenzen hebt, heb je geen land.” Dit zei voormalig Amerikaans president Trump, en hij had gelijk. Schengen – en dat is zojuist al eerder gezegd – kan alleen voortbestaan als de buitengrenzen van de EU streng worden bewaakt, als de muren van Fort Europa geen scheuren kennen. Maar op dit ogenblik bereikt de illegale immigratie record na record. De mensensmokkel-ngo’s brengen tienduizenden illegalen naar Europa. De EU laat het allemaal gebeuren in naam van de humaniteit. Het is dus niet meer dan logisch dat landen opnieuw grenscontroles gaan invoeren. Het is ook goed dat de rechter nu heeft erkend dat die grenscontroles ook wettig zijn, ook als ze langer dan een half jaar duren.

Maar laten we de achterliggende problemen niet vergeten.

Allereerst, zelfs vandaag nog, de sabotage van de bescherming van de EU—buitengrens door een links-liberale meerderheid hier.

Ten tweede, de continu gedoogde mensensmokkel.

En ten derde, de niet-naleving van het Dublin-akkoord.

Het wordt tijd dat we de industriële mensensmokkel beëindigen, Dublin nu eindelijk eens gaan naleven, en onze grenzen veel steviger gaan beschermen. Laat Fort Europa maar werkelijkheid worden.

  Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Mr President, the continued border controls and closures in some Member States must end now. The Court of Justice has now indisputably established what we knew all along: that continuous border controls and closures are illegal.

The latest extension of border controls by France until 23 April, arguing new terrorist threats, makes a mockery of the Union’s law and the court. Worse, by keeping controls and blocking crossing points in Catalonia, France is endangering the livelihood and personal ties of thousands of Catalans north and south of the border. One month ago, I stood here asking that the border at Banyuls be open, but the rocks blocking the road are still there. France shows no intention of changing course.

Now I ask you, Commissioner, to act. I ask you to uphold a cornerstone principle of this union and protect the freedoms of European citizens. Make France open the borders now.

  Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, when you ask the citizens of Slovakia what they see as the biggest benefit of the European project, Schengen has for years topped the list of their answers. Schengen is Europe. If we weaken, undermine or dismantle Schengen, we weaken, undermine and ultimately destroy Europe.

Free movement of people inside the European area is the cornerstone of our values. We must cherish it and stand up for it, especially when Schengen faces existential threats. Unfortunately, temporary border controls between Member States of the Schengen Area have become a new norm. They complicate travel, work and freedom for many central Europeans. Any Member State should use internal border checks only in exceptional circumstances and as foreseen by the Treaties.

Dear colleagues, as the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice tells us, we as European lawmakers must insist on the principle of rule of law and its due application. Member States must work on the basis of common rules.

There is only one Schengen and there are no bilateral solutions, only joint European solutions, to safeguard it. We must invest together in a more effective protection of the Schengen external border, give more power and resources to Frontex and insist that our accession partners in the Western Balkans are serious and work with us by harmonising their respective visa policies with the EU. Schengen is European freedom that we must protect and spread.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, depuis 2015, plusieurs États membres, dont la France, ont réintroduit des contrôles aux frontières intérieures en lien avec le terrorisme et la guerre en Syrie. Mais ces contrôles, censés être temporaires, durent depuis sept ans. Cette durée est inadéquate et le maintien des contrôles remet en cause le fonctionnement fluide de l’espace Schengen, qui est l’un des acquis principaux de l’Union.

Par ailleurs, le maintien indéfini contrevient au droit de l’Union. C’est ce qu’a rappelé la Cour de justice à l’égard de l’Autriche dans son jugement d’avril dernier. Il y a donc un message très clair à passer aux autorités nationales pour qu’elles se conforment au droit et cessent ces contrôles dont l’efficacité n’a d’ailleurs jamais été réellement évaluée.

Ensuite, il serait utile de savoir pourquoi la Commission, en sept ans, n’a pris aucune mesure en infraction. Comme rapporteure sur la révision du code frontières Schengen, j’essaierai de contribuer à encadrer strictement les réintroductions de contrôles aux frontières intérieures afin de revenir à l’esprit d’origine de l’espace Schengen, à savoir celui d’un espace de libre circulation.

  Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Herr talman! Fru kommissionär, representanter från rådet, kollegor! Schengen är utan tvekan en av de största vinsterna vi har med EU. Och när man frågar våra medborgare vad som är vitsen med EU är den fria rörligheten en av de första saker som våra medborgare nämner.

Det är vad ett fördjupat samarbete betyder och vad det leder till. Det är detta förtroende vi får för varandra, när vi gör det vi har bestämt att vi ska göra. Det är det det blir: Våra medborgare får nytta. Men tyvärr är den här friheten ständigt under attack och hotad i flera medlemsstater, när man plockar kortsiktiga och billiga poänger genom att införa och förlänga gränskontroller i en blek ansats att visa styrka och auktoritet.

Resurserna för att upprätthålla dessa olagliga gränskontroller kan användas på så många andra sätt. Ring mig om ni vill ha tips på hur ni kan använda dem, istället för att hindra vanliga svenskar från att åka till Danmark för att jobba och tjäna sitt levebröd.

Det man ofta glömmer att säga är att de här gränskontrollerna är skadliga ekonomiskt för våra gränsregioner. Jag vill därför uppmana EU-domstolen att slå ned på dessa godtyckliga och olagliga gränskontroller nu.

  Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Herr Präsident! In Österreich wurden dieses Jahr 75 000 illegale Migranten aufgegriffen. Das sind so viele wie in den Jahren 2017 bis 2021. In Deutschland wurden bis Ende September bereits über 150 000 Asylanträge gestellt. Dabei sind die Aufnahmekapazitäten durch die siebeneinhalb Millionen Ukrainer in Europa – allein in Deutschland circa eine Million – schon völlig überlastet. Im Landkreis Fürstenfeldbruck in Bayern werden deshalb zur Unterbringung von Flüchtlingen Beschlagnahmungen von Privatimmobilien bereits geprüft. Offensichtlicher kann man die Interessen unserer eigenen Bevölkerung, die zudem noch zunehmend verarmt und verelendet, doch gar nicht mehr verraten.

Das Problem sind nicht die vom EuGH als illegal eingestuften Grenzkontrollen im Schengen-Raum, sondern dass wir eine Grenzschutzagentur namens Frontex haben, die alles tut, außer die Außengrenzen wirkungsvoll zu schützen. Grenzschutz heißt: illegale Migranten an der Grenze abweisen, und illegal sind sie, weil sie aus sicheren Ländern einreisen. Ich mache den Migranten keinen Vorwurf. Wir sind es, die Fehlanreize hier schaffen wie Rundumversorgung und so weiter. Das ist seit 2015 offensichtlich, aber statt hier grundlegende Änderungen in der Migrationspolitik im Sinne unserer Bürger vorzunehmen, wird weiterhin die unkontrollierte Masseneinwanderung forciert.

Eines muss jedem klar sein: Die Migrationsfrage ist die Schicksalsfrage Europas. Wir können ein zerstörtes Land wiederaufbauen, eine durch grüne Realitätsverweigerung erzeugte Energiekrise meistern, auch die Fehler der EZB ausbügeln. Ein Bevölkerungsaustausch, wie er hier seit Jahren rigoros durchgezogen wird, ist aber irreversibel. Daher mein Appell an euch alle: Stoppen wir diesen Wahnsinn – jetzt!

  Ernő Schaller-Baross (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Az Európai Bíróság ítélete megerősítette, az Európai Unió legfőbb vívmánya egy belső határok nélküli olyan térség létrehozása, ahol a személyek szabadon mozoghatnak. A belső határokon történő határellenőrzés visszaállításának kivételes és arányos intézkedésnek kell maradnia, amelyre csak végső lehetőségként kerülhet sor. Ha azt akarjuk, hogy polgáraink számára fontos maradjon az Unió, akkor elengedhetetlen a schengeni rendszer megőrzése.

Évek óta hangoztatjuk: annak érdekében, hogy békét és biztonság legyen a schengeni belső határokon belül, külső határainkat kell megvédeni. Magyarország hosszú idő óta komoly személyi és anyagi ráfordítással hatékonyan szavatolja az EU külső határainak védelmét. Ezt mi az egész Európai Unióért vállalt szolidaritásunk jegyében végezzük. Azonban támogatást nem, csak bírálatot kapunk érte. Az idei esztendő határvédelem tekintetében is rendkívüli. 2015 óta a legerőteljesebb év az illegális bevándorlás tekintetében. Az Európai Unió ismerje fel, a válság időszakában kifelé védekezés, befelé összetartás szükséges.

  Ioan-Rareş Bogdan (PPE). – Domnule președinte, excelențele voastre, distinsă doamnă comisar Ylva Johansson, pe mine m-au trimis aici românii, iar ei știu cel mai bine cum e să stai la ușa Schengen, în ciuda regulilor care ți-ar permite să călătorești fără restricții. Țara mea, România, este umilită și nedreptățită de 11 ani.

Orice decizie am lua, orice temă am avea pe masă, interesul cetățeanului trebuie să fie superior celui de grup, mai ales atunci când acest cetățean reclamă încălcarea valorilor Uniunii Europene. Când împiedici libertatea de circulație și invoci rațiuni superioare fără să aduci argumente, nu ești decât un șmecher în costum. Iar oamenii simt asta și renunță să mai creadă în politicieni și în eurosistem.

Vă mai dau un motiv pentru care crește euroscepticismul. Facturile la energie sunt consecința faptului că Uniunea Europeană a închis ochii la abuzurile lui Putin și i-a acceptat cadoul otrăvit, care nici nu era cadou, costa scump. Și asta pentru că șmecherilor în costum nu le-a păsat de prețul energiei și de consecințele sale.

Trebuie să-i putem privi pe toți cetățenii europeni în ochi. Putem toți să facem asta? Cine-i poate privi în ochi pe românii cărora le-a fost refuzat 11 ani accesul în Schengen?

Votul de azi din Parlament e un semnal pozitiv, dar nu suficient. Românii au dreptul la libertate deplină, la fel ca toți europenii. Nu trebuie să existe europeni de rang unu și europeni de rang doi. Marea familie europeană nu trebuie să rămână la stadiul de discurs.

  Birgit Sippel (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Grenzfreies Reisen im Schengen-Raum – eine unserer größten Errungenschaften ist gefährdet. Denn ganz unabhängig von dem Corona-Flickenteppich im Frühjahr 2020 – es gibt Probleme. Da sind die jahrelangen Binnengrenzkontrollen, die manche Mitgliedstaaten eingeführt haben und scheinbar ewig verlängern. Wir Sozialdemokraten haben diese beliebig verlängerten Grenzkontrollen seit Jahren als das bezeichnet, was sie nun auch aus Sicht des Europäischen Gerichtshofes sind: schlicht illegal. Binnengrenzkontrollen müssen zeitlich befristet sein. Der EuGH hat hier klare Grenzen aufgezeigt, die einzuhalten sind. Und wenn nötig, muss es endlich auch Konsequenzen geben. Mitgliedstaaten und Kommission müssen mehr tun, um diese eine unserer größten Errungenschaften effektiv zu schützen. Denn wir wollen, dass sich die Menschen in der Europäischen Union frei bewegen und sich begegnen können.

  Valter Flego (Renew). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, Schengen je jedan od najvećih uspjeha Europske unije, a jačanje Unije ne radi se rušenjem postojećih elemenata, nego dodavanjem i nadogradnjom istih i jasno je da u mozaiku zvanom Schengen nedostaju Hrvatska, Rumunjska i Bugarska.

A znate li koliko nas koštaju troškovi takozvanog non-Schengena? Svakih dodatnih sat vremena čekanja na granici između Hrvatske i Slovenije naše vozače autobusa košta oko sto eura po satu, a autoprijevoznike dodatnih 50 eura po satu. Ako bi opet uveli, ne daj Bože, granične kontrole u svih 27 država članica, izgubili bi između 2,5 i 5,1 milijarde eura, a ukidanjem Schengena, na primjer, prosječan Slovak izgubio bi 100 do 350 eura godišnje.

I nemojte zaboraviti da je čekanje na granici također razlog zašto neki turist ne želi ići u neku turističku destinaciju. Zato, molim vas, prestanimo se zatvarati i jako se jako veselim 1.1.2023. godine i proširenju Schengena na Hrvatsku pa da mogu ovdje u Europski parlament iz svog Buzeta doći, a da me nitko ništa na granici ne pita.

  Susanna Ceccardi (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ormai molti anni fa, l'Europa ha deciso di rimuovere le frontiere interne che separavano gli Stati membri, per sviluppare lo scambio di merci e persone a livello continentale. Una scelta che ha favorito lo sviluppo di reti, le infrastrutture e il commercio all'interno delle diverse aree europee. Il benessere e lo sviluppo economico, però, non si realizzano se non sono accompagnati dal rispetto di un dovere fondamentale: la sicurezza.

L'impero di Roma si basava sulla pax romana, che garantiva ai popoli al suo interno di prosperare, mentre le legioni dell'imperatore ne vigilavano i confini, amministrando la possibilità per i barbari di accedere o meno. Quando è venuta meno la sicurezza dei confini, è venuta meno anche la prosperità dei popoli. Domandiamoci allora questa pax europea come pensiamo di amministrarla e di difenderla se rinunciamo alla sicurezza interna e alla difesa delle frontiere esterne.

Da anni i paesi che si affacciano sul Mediterraneo sono quelli che regolano gli ingressi che poi si riversano in tutta Europa. Negli anni in cui ha governato la sinistra, le politiche dell'accoglienza indiscriminata hanno fatto entrare centinaia di migliaia di irregolari.

Ora, per nostra fortuna, proprio al confine meridionale dell'Europa è tornata al governo la Lega in Italia e questo immenso lavoro di controllo e vigilanza dei nostri confini europei lo faremo noi italiani. Ci aspettiamo il vostro sostegno.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria Johansson, nunca como en esta legislatura habíamos discutido tanto sobre Schengen: «en problemas», «bajo presión», «en muy mal estado»... Tenemos razones para estar preocupados porque Schengen se identifica como el activo más preciado de la construcción europea. Significa libre circulación de personas, sin fronteras interiores. Y ¿qué ha sucedido? Que una sucesión de episodios de crisis, y particularmente la pandemia, han puesto de manifiesto que los Estados están simplemente violando Schengen, que hace tiempo que dejó de ser un acuerdo, como a menudo se le evoca. No, es Derecho europeo legislado. Hay un código de fronteras Schengen. Y, este debate sobre la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia, lo que pone de manifiesto es que un Estado miembro en particular violó el código de fronteras Schengen frente a otros Estados miembros. Y lo ha hecho, además, discriminatoriamente con respecto de sus ciudadanos. Y esto nos recuerda, por tanto, que las condiciones para la interposición de fronteras interiores tienen que estar objetivadas, tienen que ser correctamente comunicadas a la Comisión y estar coordinadas por la Comisión y, además, tienen que estar limitadas en el tiempo. Y eso es exactamente lo que dice la sentencia. No nos sorprende porque es lo que venimos diciendo en este Parlamento Europeo una y otra vez. Por tanto, la conclusión es clara: necesitamos deducir las lecciones, necesitamos una gobernanza Schengen a la altura de este gran activo de la construcción europea y, sobre todo, necesitamos no solamente un Schengen plenamente operativo, sino un Schengen en conjunto, que incluya de una vez a Croacia, a Rumanía y a Bulgaria antes de final de año.

  Vlad-Marius Botoş (Renew). – Domnule președinte, doamna comisar Johansson, domnule viceprim-ministru Bartoš, Uniunea Europeană are chiar în numele ei, ideea care a stat la baza acestei construcții economice și politice: uniunea.

Pot fi momente în care poate părea că e mai bine și simplu să fii singur, fiecare pe cont propriu. Dar chiar această pandemie prin care am trecut ne-a arătat că soluția este unitatea. Programul NextGenerationEU este o altă dovadă că împreună avem mai mari șanse de a face față provocărilor cu care ne confruntăm.

Războiul din Ucraina vine să accentueze această demonstrație. Fără sprijin de la toate statele care prețuiesc democrația și respectarea legii, Ucraina nu ar fi reușit să țină piept Rusiei și îi ține, zi de zi. Toate statele membre ale Uniunii Europene, odată cu semnarea tratatelor, au semnat pentru unitate, pentru respectarea legilor, pentru o Uniune în care este adevărat, avem provocări, dar care ne aduce mai multe beneficii.

Controalele la granițele interne ale Uniunii și ținerea în afara spațiului Schengen a unei țări precum România, care a îndeplinit toate criteriile tehnice, nu fac decât să anuleze această unitate de care avem atâta nevoie.

Așa cum s-a pronunțat Curtea Europeană de Justiție, controalele la granițele interne trebuie să înceteze. Acum.

  Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospod predsedujoči!

Če kdaj, smo v času najhujših covid restrikcij lahko res vsi videli, katera prednost Evropske unije je med najbolj ključnimi.

Videli smo, kako je, ko so praktično vsi državni mejni nadzori spet nazaj, v Sloveniji so nas zaprli celo v občine.

Zdaj pa povejmo bobu bob še enkrat: mejni nadzori znotraj schengna – brez upravičenih razlogov – so nedopustni. Onemogočajo prosti pretok ljudi. Otežujejo življenja tistim, ki delajo v sosednji državi. Predvsem pa vnašajo nepotreben razdor med državami. Še več, po tem, ko to stori ena država, morajo še ostale.

V skladu z regulacijo je možen samo začasni nadzor za pol leta in vsi razlogi za podaljševanja tega obdobja, ki ponekod traja že več let, so v bistvu za lase privlečeni.

Komisija naj v teh primerih poda uradno javno mnenje in zaščiti interes Unije z dejanji, z odločnostjo. Države članice pa naj se dogovorijo o skupnih rešitvah – zakonitih in upravičenih.

Meje glede tega, ali je to mogoče ali ne, so namreč samo v glavah.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, en la Europa de Schengen y de la cooperación transfronteriza, cinco enormes piedras cortan desde enero de 2021 el paso fronterizo del Coll de Banyuls, entre la parte norte y la parte sur de Cataluña, en la frontera entre Francia y España.

Fíjense que estamos hablando de un cierre total, general y absoluto, no de una reintroducción de controles; un cierre que tenía que ser temporal, pero que ya lleva casi dos años; un cierre que afecta a la comunicación y al día a día de las poblaciones limítrofes, pero también, por ejemplo, a la prestación de servicios de emergencia.

Los criterios aducidos por Francia, en su momento, para justificar el cierre y prolongarlo tres veces de ninguna manera pueden ser compatibles con los criterios de necesidad y de proporcionalidad a los que se refiere la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea.

Señora comisaria, haga que se cumpla esta sentencia, haga que se reabra el Coll de Banyuls y se restablezca allí también la libertad de circulación.

  Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I suppose the first thing to say is it’s very nice to be vindicated. For years, we’ve been raising the illegality of internal Schengen border controls, and it’s really good to see the ECJ rule unequivocally that they are illegal. And congratulations to Stefan Salomon, who took the case in the first place.

But the issue actually is what has happened since the ruling was made in April. And the answer, of course, is absolutely nothing. Countries with illegal border controls still have them. Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, all the countries that cry blue murder about rule of law in Hungary are just ignoring the judgment and doing whatever they like regardless. And the Commission has done nothing to force them to implement it. France has had its Schengen border controls for seven years, for God’s sake, it’s absolutely farcical. And the latest thing they want is to change the law to suit themselves so that they can keep their border controls as long as they like. So ignoring the law, ignoring ECJ rulings on the law, and changing the law to suit yourself, it’s what you give out about Poland and Hungary for . We can’t have one rule of law ...

(The President cut the speaker off)

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, the Court of Justice finds that border controls within Schengen are incompatible with EU law. It criticises the Commission for being so slow to intervene when Member States decide to impose internal border controls. Why doesn’t the Commission hold Member States to account for breaches of the free, agreed movement of people within the Schengen area? Why does the EU give Member States a wide latitude to do what they want as long as they’re keeping out migrants? It’s the external borders where the greatest abuses occur, where the EU tacitly endorses migrant pushbacks unless Member States build steel walls against people, many of whose homes and communities and environments we have helped to destroy in the first place. It is positive that the Court has reaffirmed the illegality of internal border controls. But are we going to see the EU respect human rights of the people that we are talking about? And are the EU going to start respecting their own EU law?

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Ylva Johansson, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for your intervention and thank you for your strong vocal commitment to the fully-functioning Schengen area and the free movement. We have a common goal, a stronger and resilient Schengen area without internal border controls. Many of you have raised the importance of now welcoming Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria into Schengen, and I fully agree.

Mr President, any legislation is only as good as its effective implementation. And you have raised this many of you. It is not in line with the Schengen acquis to maintain internal border controls for years if there are no new threats. The Court of Justice made it clear, internal borders controls are a temporary exceptional measure and should be interpreted strictly.

As I mentioned, I have entrusted our new Schengen coordinator to work with the concerned Member States on how they now must align with the Court judgment. Depending on this outcome, the Commission may come up with an opinion on necessity and proportionality, and to do that swiftly. And I hear the clear voice from you in the European Parliament.

Can I also say that there is a clear link with the strengthening of police cooperation and the renewal of the Schengen Borders Code to make sure that Member States have access to better tools to protect citizens. Internal border controls are not the best use of resources.

We need to reinforce the security of the Schengen area. We need to reinforce the scrutiny of the Schengen area to ensure the proper functioning. This is also part of making Schengen resilient and strong. Thank you very much for the debate.

  Ivan Bartoš, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Madam Commissioner, the Council remains committed to upholding the integrity of the Schengen area. As Commissioner Johansson said, at the Home Affairs Council last week, we held an exchange of views on the overall state of the Schengen area and indeed the Member States committed to implementing a series of recommendations which would reduce the need to reintroduce internal border controls.

There is also a strong consensus around the fact that internal border controls are exceptional measures and must obey to the principles of proportionality and necessity. Respecting these principles is key to the protection of Schengen and is fully in line with the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Let me also underline once more the importance of the proposed amendment to the Schengen Borders Code, which contains several elements that will equip us to deal more efficiently with the current challenges at our borders. We look forward, therefore, to engaging with this Parliament to negotiate the revised Schengen Borders Code and to continuing our open, constructive discussion on this important topic.

  President. – The debate on this item is closed.

Written statements (Rule 171)