Speeches

Colleagues, first of all let me say that as I am chairing the sitting I take note of the fact that our colleague Bartosz Arłukowicz has used an electoral banner during the intervention, which is against the rules. This will be considered by the Bureau. I have to make a second call to order pursuant to Rule 175(2), so I do insist with colleagues to listen respectfully to those who have the floor.

First of all, colleagues, I have to ask you to stick to the allocated time. Second, I would ask you once again to listen to the speakers, and to be silent so that we can listen to the speeches. You know the rules, so this is a warning and I hope you can respect that. You will all have time to express your views, but please don’t do it during the interventions of other colleagues.

Madam President, it is clear that the current European multiannual financial framework is no longer enough to respond to the consequences of unforeseen crises, such as the pandemic or the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, or to address the growing challenges of the European Union’s strategic autonomy and the green and digital transitions. It is very urgent to solve this problem. The Commission's proposal for the mid-term reinforcement of the multiannual budget is an important step in the right direction, but it does not address all needs. We need a more ambitious review, but also a more flexible one. That is why this Parliament must clearly support the proposal put forward by our co-rapporteurs for an additional budget reinforcement of EUR 10 billion to better respond to funding needs without undermining key priorities such as cohesion policies. We now trust that the Spanish Presidency will do its utmost to obtain in the Council the necessary political will for a good agreement and a swift agreement that can enter into force already at the beginning of 2024.

The next item is the debate (Rule 162) on the review of the protection status of wolves and other large carnivores in the EU. I would like to inform you that in this debate there will be no catch-the-eye procedure and no blue card questions.

– The minutes of yesterday's sitting and the texts adopted have already been distributed. Is there any observation? The minutes were approved.

Mr President, Russia's aggression against Ukraine is not only an unacceptable attack on the freedom and territorial integrity of a sovereign state, it is also a serious attack on global food security, which particularly affects the most vulnerable countries. Russia's attacks on Ukrainian ports and infrastructure linked to the grain trade, and now Russia's withdrawal from the Black Sea grain initiative, are irresponsible acts aimed at turning food into weapons of war. This Parliament stands in active solidarity with the tireless efforts of UN Secretary-General António Guterres to ensure a safe corridor for grain exports. The Black Sea Grain Agreement is very important and as long as it is blocked, we must ensure and strengthen alternative solidarity lanes between the European Union and Ukraine. But it is time to tell Russia that it must shoulder its responsibilities, because, even in time of war, it cannot be worth everything.

The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Iran: one year after the murder of Jina Mahsa Amini (2023/2836(RSP)).

Thank you very much. Point taken. Let me just recall that this is not a decision of the Chair. These are the rules of this debate. In Question Time, we had two questions for each speaker, and then the rules were changed in order to allow two questions in the first round of speakers. That’s what was done. The only speakers who had a chance to ask a follow-up question were those that, in accordance with the rules, were in the first round of speakers. It would also help if everybody sticks to the allocated time! But nevertheless, your point is taken. The debate is closed.

The next item is Question Time on the situation in West and Central Africa in the light of the recent coups d'état. This question time will last about 60 minutes. There will be one minute to ask a question, two minutes for the answer, 30 seconds for a supplementary question in the case of speakers in the first round of questions. I would like to remind the Honourable Members that any supplementary question must be linked to the initial question. I invite all interested parties to register their request via the catch-the-eye function on their voting machine. During Question Time, speeches will be made from your seat and I invite all speakers to respect the allocated speaking time.

The minutes of yesterday's sitting and the texts adopted have already been distributed. In the absence of any comments, the minutes shall be deemed to have been approved.

Mr President, Commissioner, special greetings to the President of the European Investment Bank in his last presence in this Parliament. Congratulations on your excellent work over the years. In this democratic scrutiny of the activity of the European Investment Bank, we cannot fail to recognise that the EIB confirmed itself, in the difficult year 2022, as a key financial institution in supporting the European economy and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises. It is also instrumental in supporting the digital, energy and climate transition, consolidating its status as the European Climate Bank, aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the challenges of Sustainable Development. The European Parliament has been calling for a fair, geographical distribution of investments and I am pleased to see the progress made. Portugal, for example, is already the sixth European country to receive EIB investment as a percentage of GDP. But the challenges are still there. The investment gap remains in Europe and we need a stronger EIB, with reinforced capital, because only a stronger EIB can do everything we need it to do.

The next item on the agenda is the report by Ms Montserrat on the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future’ (A9-0217/2023) (2022/2076(INI)).

Mrs Lídia Pereira, the PSD and the Honourable Member have decided to launch a fake news campaign on this Nature Restoration Law. One of his arguments is that this law prohibits clearing forests to fight fires. My question is whether you have actually read the law you are talking about and whether you have read why you lie about its content. You know the law doesn't say that. He knows that the law refers to the States the plans for nature restoration, which must be made according to scientific indications, which, of course, are different from country to country. What you say is false and the question is: Why do you lie?

Madam President, in 2015 this Parliament adopted a reform of the European electoral law. Eight years later – eight years – this reform has not yet entered into force because some Member States refuse to ratify an agreement that they themselves accepted in the Council already in 2019. This is not acceptable. Last year, in May, this same Parliament proposed a European electoral law to strengthen European democracy. A year has passed and the Council continues to ignore Parliament's calls to unblock the issue. The Council's refusal to even sit at the negotiating table with Parliament disregards the only European institution directly elected by the citizens and the principle of loyal cooperation with the European institutions. The Council must respect this Parliament. You do not have to agree with everything, but you have a duty to respond to Parliament and to open negotiations on the reform of the European electoral law. That is what we have been waiting for from the Council for far too long.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Lebanon (2023/2742(RSP)). The Commission is represented by Commissioner Janez Lenarčič.

Thank you very much for coming and for your answers, High Representative. Thanks also to all the colleagues who participated. That concludes the item.

That closes the first round of speakers, so from now on we won’t have follow-up questions. Some colleagues from the EPP are asking to confirm if they are on the list. They are on the list but I have seven requests from the EPP, so it won’t be possible to give you all the floor.

The next item on the agenda is Question Time with the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Armenia-Azerbaijan relations and the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Lachin corridor. I welcome Vice-President and High Representative Josef Borrell for this Question Time with Members. This question time will last about 60 minutes. There will be one minute to ask a question, two minutes for the answer, 30 seconds for a supplementary question in the first round and two minutes for the answer. I would like to remind you that the possible supplementary question is only allocated if it relates to the main question and if one of the Honourable Members wishes to ask a question, I invite you to register immediately using the catch-the-eye function as usual. During Question Time, speeches will be made from your seat – these are the specific rules for this debate – and I invite speakers to respect the allocated speaking time. Honourable Members may need a few moments to register the request for a question via their voting machine. I would therefore ask you to do so as soon as possible.

Madam President, Europe needs an independent ethics body, but it does not need another useless body. We all know that an ethics body that is common to the various European institutions is only possible on the basis of an interinstitutional political commitment, and we therefore understand well that its final version may not correspond exactly to what has been proposed by the European Parliament. But it must be said that the European Commission's proposal, which will serve as the basis for the interinstitutional negotiations, is far from being an acceptable compromise. In the Commission's view, this ethics body would essentially be a forum for discussion and exchange of experience. Discussion on what should be the minimum ethical standards to be applied by the different institutions and exchange of experience on the functioning of the rules for a common ethical culture. But this body would be divorced from reality, would have no power to assess specific cases or even to recommend preventive measures or sanctions in the most serious cases. Commissioner, your proposal is a step forward, but more and better will have to be done.

The next item is the debate on the report by Lara Wolters, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (COM(2022)0071 – C9-0050/2022 – 2022/0051(COD)) (A9-0184/2023).