Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, I have been working on the subject of animals for a long time and I must therefore state, as do my colleagues, that in 5 years the Commission has not enforced any legislation that improves the status of animals. And there are so many questions. Colleagues said so. The topic of illegal trade in pets, dogs and cats, breeding plants in the eastern part of the European Union. Animals are smuggled west and sold under very strange conditions. Livestock, you have finally submitted legislation that will no longer be approved. It will be debated by the next Parliament. It's too late, then. The subject of cages, you despise citizens, there are 1.5 million signatures, and you will not submit this proposal. I am very sorry, but I must say that we have wasted 5 years and that we have a huge amount of work to do in the next parliamentary term, at least on the examples I have listed here, because if we do nothing about this, we will not do the will of the citizens. We are here to fulfill the will of the people. That's our duty.

Mr President, although it is an advanced hour, I consider this debate to be extremely important, because how public authorities, in this case the European Commission, provide information to citizens, is an important report on how much public power works in the European Union, how much the citizen is a partner of public authorities, in this case the Commission, how much he has the right to receive the documents he requests in good time, or how much the public administration simply does what it wants and does not respect the legal deadlines. And the citizen who is a partner becomes the one who waits and who simply cannot defend himself. I am very sorry, Commissioner, it is very important and extremely symbolic that in many cases the Commission does not respect the legal deadlines. This is especially unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable if we live in a democracy, if we live in the rule of law, where public authorities, public authorities, including the Commission, provide a service to citizens, provide a service to those who pay them out of their taxes. I am very much asking you to do everything you can to make this report that we are discussing here a thing of the past, so that there will be no such thing in the future. A solution is that the maximum number of documents will primarily be published and citizens will therefore not have to apply for them. Please, the symbolism of these poor statistics is extremely alarming.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to comment on this extremely important subject. The attack that we witnessed earlier this month, not only here in Europe, but also around the world, the attack against members of the LGBTIQ community in Thessaloniki is something that is so unacceptable and so serious that it is good that we are discussing and discussing it here in the European Parliament. It is not a ‘common crime’, it is not a common attack against someone who has taken physical form, but, unfortunately, it is an attack that has been motivated by hatred. It was caused because someone was a member of a certain minority, and therefore the attacker attacked him. And this is a very strong issue that we are here to discuss in this way. I think this is an issue that will also be important for the next European Parliament and the next Commission. It was implied and said here. Unfortunately, creeping intolerance towards persons belonging to minorities is something that we are constantly dealing with in Europe, and it will be necessary for the European Parliament, the European Commission, to be very active on this matter. There was mentioned the topic of strengthening the criminal legal framework, tightening the punishment of hate crimes. This is a topic that has been on the table for a long time. The Member States in the Council have still not resolved this issue, and we need to press the individual Member States to strengthen the protection of criminal law and to strengthen the sanctioning of hate crimes. It is a matter of social networks. After the attack in Thessaloniki, we are witnessing hate speech on social networks, on networks that are read by the whole public. Young people read it, children read it. We must be very active in this matter, and let this terrible case be another engine in our activity.

Mr President, I wanted to support the colleagues who have prepared this resolution. I think this is extremely important. We often debate the situation in Venezuela here in plenary. In the last 10 years, when I have had the privilege of participating in these debates, it has been the case several times that we have clearly identified the problems of the Maduro regime. Unfortunately, the situation is getting worse, the mode tightens the screws. We're talking about other political prisoners, and there are key elections to be held this summer. I don't know if there's a chance that the election will be free. This is my question to the Commissioner, to the Commission. If it turns out, and we see today, that the chances of free elections are not very strong, we should really consider what some colleagues have said, that is, tightening sanctions against Venezuela, because we are having a permanent debate here, but unfortunately the situation is getting worse. I would therefore advocate that we consider tightening sanctions against this country.

Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for explaining these circumstances. However, I do not wish to point out that, even if, according to the Commission, all the legal provisions for the application of that procedure have been complied with, I consider that a consultation and debate with the Parliament on the mobilisation of such a large sum would be an expression of a certain political culture. I believe that if an amount as large as EUR 150 million is mobilised, then at least some consultation with the European Parliament should be carried out. In a democracy, Parliament is the foundation of oversight and control over public funds, public money, and I think that should be the case here. I am convinced that the procedure to support Tunisia and provide it with money in the fight against illegal migration is the right one. I personally support us in this way to help financially the countries bordering the European Union, which are somewhat burdened by migration. This assistance is necessary and without it, these countries will not be able to cope with these problems in the future. On the other hand, I think that we should proceed properly and on such a sensitive topic, which has just a strong political aspect, money for Tunisia to fight illegal migration and to promote human rights, so I think that the procedure should be chosen in a different way. So thank you for your explanation, but in the future I think that a different procedure should be chosen than that which can be called an urgent written procedure. Thank you and in the future I hope that the debate will be different and that Parliament will be much more involved.

Madam President, this is a very interesting debate. I understand, and it is certainly a very good intention, that we want businesses to be much more socially responsible, more responsible for human rights, more responsible for environmental protection. I'm sure the intent is right. The question is the means. And that is what some of my colleagues from my faction and from the right are criticizing. To what extent the means we set forth will lead in the direction we want, and therefore to what extent they are not paths to hell paved with good intentions, and to what extent these means will not lead to more bureaucracy. And ladies and gentlemen, let us not create the atmosphere here that many good measures taken by the European Union have not led to more bureaucracy. I see this in the debate that is now taking place in my country, perhaps with farmers. The debate is going on all over Europe and farmers are showing us or showing me how European Union measures have given them new responsibilities, new bureaucratic tables, new tasks. In other words, we may have a good intention, I agree, but I am afraid that, if this legislation is adopted, it will not only be about businesses acquiring new obligations and leading to a reduction in their competitiveness. That is, if the debate continues, I think that, even with the prism of how much the legislation will burden businesses, we should lead this debate to the end. I am in favour of legislation, but really when we are sure that it will not burden our businesses. (The speaker rejected the question Karen Melchior wanted to ask by raising her blue card.)

Madam President, I will follow up on the Commissioner's words. Indeed, this is a very serious case where several public interests intersect. There is a clear public interest, the right of the public to be informed, the right to information. There is the question of the right to freedom of expression, and on the other hand there is the duty of the state to protect the principle of observance of the law and to protect the legal order itself. That's the way it is. The situation around Assange is, in my opinion, very delicate, but we should have faith in the legal system of Great Britain as the rule of law and we should really monitor very closely the ongoing trials that will decide or will not decide on its final extradition. In any case, as a political body, we should respect the independence of the judiciary and the decision itself not to interfere in the process. That's what the Commissioner said. I'm confirming it. We should monitor this matter, be vigilant, but certainly not try to influence the court proceedings. This is simply not for us, and we ourselves often have debates about the rule of law, the states of law in individual Member States. It must be said that if the courts in Britain decide, it may not yet be the final decision. It is possible for Mr Assange to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg and, if suspensive effect is granted, this body will also review the case. So I would really exercise restraint with all due respect for the complexity of this case.

Madam President, I am going to speak in favour of wolves, so that the debate is a little balanced. Commissioner, I consider the decision to protect the wolf less to be a bad decision. There are no scientific arguments for this. Your analysis by the Commission does not contain any scientific arguments. This is only a result of pressure from farmers before the elections, who, as lobbyists, want to reduce the number of wolves. They want to reduce the number of wolves so that slaughter animals are less attacked. You're acting like goats and sheep are pets and like these animals aren't condemned to a slaughterhouse anyway. So let's deal with it by giving more money to build protective equipment, fences, and better protect the animals that are attacked by wolves. But if we want biodiversity, if we're serious about biodiversity and it's not just an electoral and political slogan, then we just can't shoot wolves. Twenty thousand pieces is not a large population, experts agree on this. So please, take your mind in your hand. Otherwise, it is hypocritical that the European Union protects biodiversity and protects species that have been lost from nature and are now returning to it.

Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for the Commission statement made here on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We can only agree to that. I think that the position of the European Union must be clear and strong, and that position has been clearly expressed here. This part of Africa, which suffers from great political instability and is very often at risk of conflict, whether at the level of civil war in one of the countries of the region or between countries. We need to push the key players in this area to resolve disputes through dialogue. That is what the whole debate is about, and I would like to thank the Commission for actively engaging and encouraging the Commission and its members with key political representatives in the region. It is good that we are providing humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable. We are talking about the humanitarian aid provided to the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is clearly important and necessary, but, in addition, we need to put extra political pressure on key players so that the tensions in the region do not turn into another war conflict. It is necessary to press Rwanda for its troops to leave the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We need to remember the tragedy, the genocide, that struck Tutsia in Rwanda a few years ago. It should be noted that unfortunately the region is very close to ethnic violence. So thank you for this report and I ask the Commission to continue its work, to continue the inclusive dialogue, which alone can lead to the hope that we can improve the living conditions of vulnerable civilians. We, as the unequivocal authority that provides great humanitarian assistance, have the moral integrity and the right to demand this from our partners.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I would like to recall one case in the Czech Republic. A truck full of cattle crashed here a few weeks ago. There has been a huge suffering of cattle, and both in the media and on social media, there has been a huge debate among citizens about how it is a big mistake that the European Union has failed to regulate the transport of livestock within the framework of animal welfare. And I want to say it here, it's our debt, we didn't make it in this legislature. Unfortunately, the Commission submitted this proposal late and I hope that the next Parliament, the next Commission will address this, because this one particular sad story that took place on the territory of one Republic, one Member State – the Czech Republic – shows how sensitive this issue is for European citizens, how they perceive the need to improve livestock conditions in Europe and how we should perceive and try to fulfil the voice of citizens.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I think this is an extremely important issue that we are discussing. The situation in Haiti in recent years, since the assassination of its president, in the last four years, is absolutely intolerable and is getting worse. As the Commissioner has said, there is a mission to be carried out by some Kenyan-led states under the auspices of the UN. A number of states have already pledged their support in this mission, such as the United States of America, Canada, and so on. And we certainly shouldn't stand aside. This means that if today's negotiations make us – the EU – more active in this initiative, support international missions there, provide more money as humanitarian aid, that is only good. The situation is utterly dismal. More than half of Haiti's population suffers from severe deprivation. There is not enough food and there is plenty of room for humanitarian assistance. Personally, however, I think that the aid can only be real when the international forces simply ensure the distribution of this aid. At the moment, there is a great risk that if we provide more humanitarian aid, it will be stolen, dismantled by gangs. The gangs that operate there – more than 80 gangs – which, in addition, cause enormous suffering to the local population, crime and so on. So it is necessary to ensure international action, to ensure at least the basic functioning of this state, which is in disarray, and then we can provide humanitarian aid for which I would intercede.

Madam President, I supported this report. I am glad that the position of the Ombudsman’s office is becoming more and more established and that we have approved the 2022 annual report, which dealt with 16,000 requests from European citizens. This is proof that this office is indeed burdened, that the citizens of Europe have found their way to it, and that they often turn to the Ombudsman to complain about how, for example, the European institutions and structures decide or do not decide transparently, how quickly or laxly they decide, and what documents and information are public. The Authority makes an exceptional contribution to the cultivation of public administration, to the cultivation of the institutions of the European Union and to greater transparency. And that should be his goal. And the debate that was there also praised this office. I am very pleased that the report has passed, has been approved and that the Office can continue.

Madam President, I also supported the report and, like my colleague, I consider it important that we talk seriously about strengthening the role of national parliaments in the adoption of European legislation. What I consider to be a major problem is a very short period of eight weeks for national parliaments to express their serious opinion on European legislation. This is a period which, when holidays and other days off are still needed, is in principle unacceptable and unmanageable. So I hope that the next Parliament, the next Commission, these objections, this debate, this decision, will take this Parliament resolution into account and we will seriously consider how to involve national parliaments more in the adoption of European legislation, and not just in a formal way, that we will create a very short deadline and not take these opinions too seriously.

Madam President, I supported this resolution. I am very sad about what is happening in Slovakia in the area of the rule of law. As a Member of Parliament for the Czech Republic, I can say that when I was Minister of Justice in the Czech Republic, we often consulted our Slovak colleagues on how best to combat organised crime, economic crime. Specialised police and judicial authorities in Slovakia were a great hope that serious crime would be suppressed, prosecuted and sentenced in Slovakia. And now we are witnessing a completely opposite course, where there is a risk that the fact that someone is suspected of serious crime will be somewhat downplayed in Slovakia, and therefore the state's ability to defend itself against various forms of organised crime will be significantly reduced. I think this resolution is extremely important.

Madam President, I also wanted to join my colleagues who proposed a resolution on Tajikistan. I think it is extremely important that we are also dealing with this region – Central Asia, where, in short, after the fall of the Soviet Union, states have emerged that try, in some cases, to follow the path of democracy, but unfortunately this is not always the case. And the situation in Tajikistan is deteriorating significantly. That's why the proposal here is on the table today. Freedom of speech is being suppressed, journalists' independence is being suppressed, and we are dealing with the case of a particular journalist, Mamadshoeva, who is simply imprisoned by the forces there. And we want and rightly want her to be released as soon as possible, because the attack on her only takes the form of an attack on independent journalism. So I support the proposal and I hope it will be voted on in this way.

Madam President, thank you very much for the floor. Talking for one minute about such a crucial report is very difficult. There are a number of issues that I personally accept. Then there are things in the report that I personally wouldn't consider so important. But let me just say three things that I think are extremely important. First, the protection of freedom of expression, the protection of journalists. A topic that is extremely important, and it is good that it is mentioned in the report. Another topic that I consider important is the rise of anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe. This is a major problem that, unfortunately, we have been facing in many countries lately, and this must not be underestimated and must be combated more. It is alarming that in recent years, in some countries of the European Union, representatives of the Jewish minority have been leaving for Israel or other countries out of concern for their lives, lifestyles, values and health. And the last issue is the rise in homophobic sentiment, which unfortunately we also see in some states, see the law in Hungary, etc. This is also a problem that the European Union has to fight.

Mr President, we have here a joint debate on two very important topics – the role of national parliaments in the adoption of European legislation and then citizenship of the European Union. It is a bit of a pity that such important topics, which are not entirely related to each other, are condensed into one debate. I will therefore address at least the first issue, and that is the role of national parliaments. I consider it extremely important. I have always felt this way during my time in the Czech Parliament and then in the Ministry of Justice. And we should really analyse to what extent the role of national parliaments in the legislative process is important in the adoption of European legislation and to what extent the opinions of national parliaments really influence the final form of European legislation. And I also see it from the practice of my country that, in short, the deadline of 8 weeks for reasoned opinions of national parliaments on proposed European legislation is extremely short. It is obvious that we will probably not change it, because it is determined by primary legislation. On the other hand, for a long time there has been a reflection on the possible interpretation of this deadline, when it is possible to achieve that we will be more lenient towards this deadline. Unfortunately, the proposals are still only on the table and the Commission has not yet taken a position on this. I think that the deadline is really something that, from my point of view, significantly affects whether or not national parliaments are seriously concerned with drafting European legislation. Unfortunately, time is limited in this way, but we should continue to debate the issue of the opinions of national parliaments in the future, because I think there is a lot to improve on. It is also a matter of the yellow card process.

Madam President, Madam Ombudsman, allow me, like my colleagues here, to express my great thanks for your work and my great respect for the way you run this office. It is not always customary for all of us here in plenary to agree with one another on a particular social phenomenon. We are divided, right, left, more European factions, less European factions. But as I perceived the debate, there is essentially agreement in the evaluation of your work, and all colleagues here express admiration for how the Ombudsman works and for the specific things you do. So congratulations on that, because getting the respect of the majority of parliamentarians is not easy. In any case, I also want to support your work. I want to support the report we are discussing here today, the 2022 report. I hope that this report will be supported in the vote by all my colleagues. And I would like to say that I really appreciate how your office contributes to the cultivation of the exercise of public authority in the EU institutions, contributes to greater transparency in decision-making and also to greater availability of information and documents issued by the European institutions. The fact that your office is very important is also shown by the fact that more than 16,000 citizens asked your office for information in 2022. I think this is unequivocal and I want to thank you for that. So I will support the report and thank you for your work.

Mr President, let me say that I very much welcome the fact that today there is a debate on the one year after Qatargate and the measures that have been implemented or that we are debating. First of all, I would like to mention and emphasise that Parliament did not in itself wait for the Commission to prepare a possible proposal, which the Commissioner has referred to here, but a package of measures has been adopted, fourteen points of the reform plan prepared by the President of Parliament. And that, I think, is exactly how Parliament should have reacted to this affair, to this case. Of course, in addition to the self-regulatory rules I am talking about here, in addition to the 14 points, there is a proposal on the table for a special ethical body, which would have the character of an over-institutional, that is, standing next to the European Parliament and could therefore, depending on the powers given to it, interfere in the sphere of individual Members and control their asset and other declarations. Certainly we should debate such a body, but we should very sensitively weigh the potential powers of such a body, and we should very sensitively weigh when such a body should decide, when we approach the principle of the presumption of guilt, and where, on the contrary, we should respect a certain autonomy, the autonomy of legislators who receive a mandate from their voters. So this topic will need to be discussed in detail.

Mr President, I, like my colleagues, want to support Guatemalan democracy and clearly reject the deliberate attempt to challenge the results of the presidential elections. The election took place a few months ago. It is quite clear that they were conducted according to local laws, that there is no doubt about the outcome of these elections. They were confirmed by the local judicial authority, the supreme electoral tribunal. Foreign missions, including the European one, have clearly confirmed that the conduct of the elections was in order, and we are now witnessing one of the state departments in Guatemala, the Public Prosecutor's Office, trying to deliberately disrupt these elections or to question their outcome, thereby causing enormous damage to Guatemala's democracy. It is very good that we are standing here today, expressing ourselves in this way. We are on the side of the Guatemalan people, of Guatemalan democracy, and we really must do everything we can to ensure that these elections are not called into question.

Mr President, I also want to congratulate the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteurs and the Commission for having agreed on this judicial package. I think that this is an extremely great success and that it will bring about a great acceleration of litigation, which has a cross-border element and where we often wait months for some evidence to be taken in the requested country or for one judicial authority to reply in writing to another judicial authority. These are lessons learned from practice. For example, I myself perceive that we are also waiting weeks for the Czech judicial authority of another EU country to respond to a specific question, a suggestion. The main fault is that we deliver in writing, that we do not deliver electronically, that electronic communication basically does not work properly today. This package will bring a clear change, a change for the better. Justice will be able to function faster in cross-border disputes, and fast justice means, my friends, fair justice. That is why I welcome this and congratulate you once again. I want to say that certain elements, such as the use of videoconferencing, have been discussed in the European Union for years. Fifteen years ago, when I was Minister of Justice, there was a conference on the use of videoconferencing in cross-border judicial disputes. And see, we finally have this proposal materialized in this way, and dreams and visions become reality. So I think this package is a very good compromise. I am not afraid of being abused in any way. In my view, the procedural rights of the parties are protected there. There is also enough data protection to work with. So I support it and congratulate the authors once again.

Madam President, I also did not support this proposal, and the main reason, although I think I always advocate a clear pro-European policy here, is that I do not agree with strengthening qualified majority decision-making. Indeed, I think that if we were to push for such an option in the proposal prepared by our fellow rapporteurs here, we would be doing a terrible harm to the unity of the European Union. If there are countries that will be overridden in decision-making on a key agenda within the European Council, then we must count on the growing frustration of the population in these countries, the abuse of this position by the political forces there, this atmosphere in the fight against Brussels, in the fight against European integration, and this will weaken Europe's unity in the long term. In other words, in my view, strengthening the principle of qualified majority, with some countries being overruled, has long been detrimental to the unity of the European Union. That is why I did not support this proposal.

Madam President, I also supported this proposal. I think that, despite some compromise provisions, it is good that we have adopted a regulation that will lead to a reduction in packaging. It's a huge problem. But I still think that even more ambitious goals can be achieved. I am not a supporter of such regulations, where some percentage is set here and some year is burned into which something is to be achieved. Maybe I have a certain allergy to it from the time when I was still living in communist Czechoslovakia when I was young, and the communist party there also gave various resolutions and goals. But it is good that this proposal has passed, that there is a clear philosophy to combat packaging waste, that there is a clear philosophy to recycle such packaging, and hopefully this proposal will help in practice, and that it will not only end with unfulfilled intentions.

Madam President, I also want to address this point because I thought the vote was extremely important and unfortunately the result is unfortunate. I voted in favour of the final compromise, despite the fact that I am convinced that some of the amendments, which brought about faster and more significant reductions in pesticides, would help and benefit Europe's nature. I respected the fact that these more ambitious proposals did not pass, even though, as I said, I voted for them in opposition to some colleagues from my faction. But what I regret is that in the end at least this compromise, from which I repeat, I was not enthusiastic, did not pass. It still seems to me better to have some pesticide restrictions here than to have basically no restrictions at all. Politicians have won. I understand that some colleagues wanted a more ambitious project, but sometimes in politics there is a better compromise solution that does not satisfy a person completely than no solution at all. Unfortunately, we don't have a solution right now.

Madam President, I would like to thank my colleagues for clearly interpreting the murder of Tamaz Ginturi in the context of the conduct of Putin's Russia. Ginturi is a victim of Putin's Russia, as are thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians who are murdered by this insane regime. We have to see how Russia is behaving in the areas of the former Soviet Union countries, how it is trying to destabilize these countries, supporting various non-democratic regimes there or attacking them directly, see the case of Ukraine. Ginturi is a victim of Putin, he is a victim of Putin's Russia. This is how it should be seen and constantly remembered. Because if we forget what Putin and Russia are doing, unfortunately, Putin may win, defeat Ukraine and start directly threatening Europe and the European Union.