Speeches

Mr President, I would also like to express my support for the urgency of this topic. Even the debate here, the emotions, show how serious and important this topic is, but the main thing to emphasize is that there are between 10 and 12 million Roma living in Europe, who are our fellow citizens. They are Europeans who have huge social problems, and we simply have to deal with it, it is our duty. We are representatives of European citizens and we cannot be indifferent to the fact that such a large group of our citizens often live on the verge of poverty, that their children find it difficult to get an education. These statistics have already been mentioned by colleagues, 85% of Roma children are at risk of poverty. This is so serious information, so serious figures, that it is not an academic debate. This debate must take place, and it is a good thing that this is the case here today. And it is above all a call to you, Commissioner, to the Commission, as the executive body of the European Union, to do your utmost to ensure that we do not only have strategic frameworks for the Roma, that we do not only have strategies that are described in many papers, but that we actually do something. And I know that it is very difficult, I know it from my own country, how often it is difficult, for example, to draw European money for Romani projects. But we must do our utmost to improve the situation of the Roma. Time has passed for me, but consider it an appeal and a plea to the Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner, I want to welcome and support this report. I am very pleased that we will have a new evaluation mechanism of Schengen law, the Schengen acquis. In my country, the Czech Republic, I see the emotions it evokes when one of the Member States violates the acquis and there are incidents at internal borders, which often also violate the rights of citizens of our countries. This is a new mechanism that will result in a country in breach of the acquis being held accountable much faster and more effectively. The time-limits within which the Commission assesses the situation will be shortened and, most importantly, the time-limit within which the country will be forced to remedy the situation will be shortened. This is something that our citizens will greatly appreciate. Acquis, that concerns the Schengen area is a right that citizens perceive very sensitively. It has already been said that the possibility of free travel is a clear advantage that our citizens perceive. And if this mechanism removes the incidents and problems that have also been linked to the problems that we have dealt with, the pandemic, the refugee crises, then I think that this adjustment will lead to an even greater credibility of the European Union, and our citizens will trust us, the politicians in Brussels and the idea of European integration in general, even more.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to support the motion for a resolution here. I think it is extremely important to respond to the situation in Mexico. This is all the more important because Mexico is our key partner in Latin America. It is a long-term trade, political partner, a major country, and the situation in Mexico has recently deteriorated significantly in terms of human rights defenders and journalists. That's right, there's no point in repeating the facts, the facts are tragic. Six journalists died earlier this year alone, and unfortunately the situation is getting worse. We must therefore ask the president there, who is one of the causes of this dismal state, for the state, the political representation, to start solving the situation, for the judiciary to start investigating the cases, because most of the murders are not investigated. And we must link it to our dialogue between the European Union and Mexico, and we must link it to mutually beneficial trade. It is not possible to trade with a country where such violence is perpetrated against journalists and human rights defenders.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me say a few words on this subject. We have moved from a general debate on the transparency of European Commission documents to a concrete case. First of all, I would like to thank the Vice-President for the introduction, where she clearly described the Commission's efforts to make certain processes transparent, to introduce and strengthen a public portal, etc. But the topic eventually slipped into negotiating contracts for COVID-19 vaccines and possible SMS messages from the Commission representative with manufacturers. For me, it's not so much about transparency as it is about political culture. I don't think the debate should be about whether or not SMS messages from a high-level politician who negotiates a contract with a manufacturer should be public. I don't think there should be SMS messages at all, if there were. Such contracts should be negotiated transparently in clear documents during official negotiations and not through any SMS messages. Personally, I do not think that it is necessary to consider any change in the legislation, the 2001 regulation and the definition of exceptions are, in my view, sufficient. The question is in the app again. I think that if there are exceptions to transparency, then the Commission should interpret them restrictively, not broadly. Maybe that's where I see the different approach. In addition to the case mentioned here, I, as the representative of the Czech Republic, am concerned with the case of our former prime minister, where an audit was being conducted, which had not just been published with reference to these exceptions, even though some experts thought that the audit was to be published in the public interest. So again, there is the question of the restriction of the interpretation of exceptions. I think that in the case of the Czech Prime Minister there was just an extensive interpretation of the exceptions and that it was simply not used correctly. I say this in general terms, I do not want to make a policy out of it, but we are talking about how the 2001 Regulation is applied in practice.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the floor on this extremely interesting report. Certainly the topic of health and safety at work is an important topic that we have to follow also at the level of the European Union. But perhaps my opinion will be a little different from that of the representatives of the left, what the European Union is supposed to regulate in this area. I think we should regulate less and leave it to the individual Member States, but there are certainly a number of issues where co-regulation makes sense and can be more effective than national regulation. And this is needed in the report, as I read it, on the issue of asbestos, where I find it very meritorious that there is an effort to act together against the consequences of asbestos in some of the buildings where employees work. What is truly shocking to me is the information that has already been given today, which is contained in the report, that up to 88 000 people die every year as a result of exposure to asbestos, i.e. exposure to asbestos in the workplace. So here, Commissioner, I would like to ask that this topic be seen and emphasised as extremely important because, although asbestos has been banned since 2005, the authors of this report assume that in the next two decades there will be an increase in the number of those who, as a result of exposure to this substance, will be affected by this serious and, unfortunately, in many cases fatal disease, i.e. they will be affected by lung cancer. I therefore think that common action by the European Union here can lead to more lives being saved and that we can therefore do more together than individual Member States on this issue. Of course, the interesting topic that has been opened here is teleworking caused also by the issue of COVID-19, but that is probably for another talk.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to support this 8th Environment Action Programme. It happened here several times in the debate, our planet is dying, there are huge changes in the climate, we need to find a solution. I will only hope that, in practice, these solutions will not harm European industry and lead our citizens into energy poverty. We should also see this and look for realistic solutions. What I want to add to this debate, and what makes me a little different from some of my colleagues, is to link this search for alternatives to fossil fuels to the current geopolitical situation and the attack by dictator Putin on Ukraine. I can hardly accept the thesis that by 2030 we will be taking fossil fuels from Russia and that, therefore, we will continue to finance Putin's offensive activities, in this case to Ukraine, in the future perhaps to some other country. I think we need to find a solution to the rapid shift away from taking fossil fuels from Russia, even at the cost of temporarily taking fossil fuels simply from another supplier, from some supplier who will not abuse the money against a free and independent state. And that it is therefore not possible to wait a few more years, but that it is necessary to end the consumption of fossil fuels from Russia this year. This does not in any way criticise this plan, which we are discussing here today and which, as I said, I will support in the vote, but please don't let the next years allow Putin to get money from us and use it for the war of aggression. Let's get fossil fuels from someone else in the transition period. The Commission noted in its report that up to two thirds could be replaced this year. Let's replace all fossil fuels from Russia this year.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to contribute to this rich debate and I also want to support this proposal for a regulation. I agree with what my colleagues here have said in that long debate in defence of and support for this proposal. For me personally, besides the environmental reasons, there is a very strong geopolitical reason, which we all feel, and which is being debated on various points during this session of the European Parliament, which is that we should very much reduce the supply of raw materials from Russia in the future, thereby weakening the influence of Putin's dictatorship on European countries. I would be in favour of reducing the consumption of these raw materials as soon as possible. Some are in favour of slower restrictions, but we all agree that dependence on Russia is wrong, and this regulation, which concerns batteries, will certainly contribute to this in its work. As I said, I very much support this proposal, because with the development of our green policy, with the development of electromobility, it is expected that up to 19 times more batteries will be needed in the future than are used now. And if we look at the current problems that some of you have inclined here, such as recycling batteries that don't work very well in practice, it's about half and half, half batteries are recycled, half are not, so we really need to adopt new tougher rules that will strengthen recycling. In my opinion, the regulation is of good quality, there are a number of positive things besides, let's say, the specification of battery recycling, there is the question of just recharging batteries, the interoperability of individual chargers. These are all specific practical provisions that, if we can put into practice, then I am convinced that we will better manage the issue of batteries in the new world of electromobility, so I support this regulation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to support the motion for a resolution on Burkina Faso. The whole debate that is going on here clearly shows that this is not just a problem of a particular military coup, even though we rightly condemn it and call for a return to democracy and a peaceful dialogue between the newly established military government and the population, but it clearly shows the desperation in which the country finds itself, in huge economic problems. It was also said that this is not just a problem for this country, but for the whole region, for the whole Sahel. The fourth military coup in this region, in this part of West Africa, in recent times, hugely increasing Islamic radicalism, fundamentalism – these are the problems that are weighing heavily on the region, leading to tragedies such as the 1.5 million inhabitants of Burkina Faso who have lost their homes in the last few years and are essentially refugees in their own country. It is difficult to find a solution to such a huge social and economic catastrophe. We can help to find a path to democracy, we can participate in that dialogue, but it is clear that the main thing we can help with is economic aid, so that at least the inhabitants who leave the countryside of Burkina Faso, which is increasingly displaced by environmental and natural changes, so that these people do not at least suffer from the worst – hunger. It is not an easy solution, it is a real tragedy and the Commission and the EU in general need to think about how to help the region more significantly. But again, it is not only about the departure of the soldiers who, even after the protests of the population, it must be said, took power a few weeks ago.

Mr President, I am very pleased to be able to comment on this point. I have been pursuing the death penalty for years in my political activities, fighting against it, and I must say that what is happening in Iran at the moment is totally unacceptable. And that number, which has been repeated here, 275 executions last year, is really unprecedented. In addition to China, the death penalty is most used in this country, and it is advisable to use the word abused, because often, as has already been said, it is imposed on minors, women, people who are tortured to confess. We have cases of athletes who were somehow tortured and executed only to show the local political regime that if visible and well-known personalities support the opposite political social opinion in the context of civil unrest, it will be tragically retaliated against them. It is a disaster and how criminal law is abused in this country only points to the political regime there, which, in my view, cannot be a partner of the European Union. I have been convinced for years, and it was also the debates in the previous parliamentary term here in Parliament, that it is not possible to agree on some form of cooperation with Iran in the long term, because it is a country that does not respect the fundamental principles of humanity at all. There have been names of activists, Professor Jalali, etc. There are a number of names, personalities who have either been executed or are awaiting prison sentences. Of course, we must do our utmost to ensure that those who have not yet been executed are freed. But in general, I am very sceptical about this regime, and please keep this in mind in the various debates about the extent to which it is possible to strengthen trade cooperation with Iran, the extent to which it is possible to conclude further agreements with it. My opinion is similar to that of the representatives of the State of Israel, that it is simply not possible with Iran.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to support the motion for a resolution prepared by the draftsmen. I want to thank you for your excellent work. The Philippines is very sad. It is an example of how, under the guise of fighting drugs, it is possible to start, in principle, almost a civil war. Extraordinary violence, thousands of extrajudicial executions, killings of journalists, political activists, in short, the situation in the Philippines is extremely acute. This is what my colleagues said. I remember, I was also involved, that unfortunately this is not the first debate we have here about the atrocities of the current president's regime. Unfortunately, the situation is not improving. Our words to date have ended with the adoption of a resolution, but obviously the current president and his government are not going to make any changes in this direction. On the contrary, there are other negative shifts. It has not yet occurred that the current regime in the Philippines has withdrawn from the International Criminal Tribunal, that is, on the contrary, there is an effort to avoid this international judicial organization reviewing human rights violations in the Philippines and the responsibility of the current president and his government. The situation is very acute and we should make it clear that if this continues after the presidential elections, it will have an impact on economic relations between them. On the one hand, there are flagrant human rights violations in the Philippines. On the other hand, trade between the European Union and the Philippines is strengthening, and that is simply not normal and not acceptable to us. So I beg you not to let go of what some of my colleagues have said, that if the situation does not improve even after the elections this spring, there will be no investigation into the thousands of extrajudicial murders, then we must restrict the Philippines' access to our internal market. It is not possible to just talk about it in this way and do nothing, because then it really is a waste of time. So thank you for the motion for a resolution and I ask the Commission to draw the consequences if it is adopted, which it will.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for speaking in this very interesting debate. I listened very carefully to the speeches of most of my colleagues, there were a number of interesting suggestions. It is good that today we are discussing the problems of specifically young people. Personally and from my own political practice, I see three key themes where the EU could help young people. Firstly in the field of education, secondly in the field of employment, but also in the field of housing. The last topic was the least relevant here, and the Commissioner did not emphasise it too much. I understand that the issue of housing does not fall directly within the competence of the European Union, but it is a topic that is extremely troubling for young people, and if we do not also have a debate on it, then the debate will not be comprehensive. In the field of education, we have Erasmus. It's definitely a project that works, we can improve it further. In the area of getting a job, I would like to mention the European Social Fund Plus, where I would like to point out that the Court of Auditors, in its report of December last year, pointed out certain shortcomings, where it is possible to improve the employment of young people. It is therefore up to the Commission to take a look at the Fund's activities and to improve them. Again, housing is a topic that didn't come up very well here, but believe me, it's absolutely crucial for young people.

Mr President, on behalf of our Group of the European People's Party, I want to express my support and my joy at what the proposed material looks like. We have ideologically supported this initiative of the rapporteur, we are glad that at the end there is a compromise that is voteable for us, as adopted by the JURI Committee. In general, I want to say that it may be a bit of a pity that we are discussing such a key dossier at the end of the day, because it really is an extremely important and important matter. As the rapporteur has already said, the non-profit sector, non-profit organisations, civil society in the European Union will be given their legislation under which citizens' associations of a cross-border nature can be formed. It is therefore an important reinforcement and assistance to civil society by the European Union and will certainly contribute to better financing of this extremely important sector of society, which is important for any healthy and free society. I now want to legally express my joy at the compromise that was finally reached, because the debate was also about the level of European regulation, what a possible European office for European cross-border associations should look like, and I am glad that at the end there is a compromise between, say, the right and the left represented here in the European Parliament. This means that this authority will intervene in the very creation and registration only if such a civil association is not registered at national level. I think it is a sensible and correct approach to leave the first stage of adjustment to the nation-states. Only if we do not see problems with the non-profit sector at national level for some reason – often even vexatious – does this European office come into play. So we support the proposal and thank the rapporteur once again for the good work done. Oh, thank you.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened very carefully to the whole debate and I am very pleased that on such a sensitive matter, which has a strong ethical character, we all agree, in principle, that such regulation, such legislation, is extremely important. It is about the health of our children, and at a time when this directive has been in force for almost a decade, it is logical to revise it, to tighten up some institutes, to better adapt some rules. This applies in particular to the trade in children’s goods and toys on online platforms, as well as to the chemicals that toys may contain. I very much welcome it, then. I like the idea that has also been expressed here and I would personally support it if we were to transpose these rules from the directive itself into a regulation, because it is much more effective in terms of regulation, enforceability and effectiveness than the directive itself, which is then transposed by individual Member States into their own legal regimes. I agree with what has been said here. It is very important to address the issue of online platforms, sales of goods from third countries, where various lower-quality toys reach us. The issue of market surveillance authorities needs to be addressed, issues related to the labels on individual toys need to be addressed, so that parents are clearly informed about what the product contains, whether or not it can be harmful to children for certain applications. So this is certainly a good job and I want the Commission to translate our ideas into a new form of directive or regulation as soon as possible. Oh, thank you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the question of the handling of live animals is, in my opinion, a moral question, a question of human morality. They are living creatures. It is not an ideological question, it is not a question of the right or the left. In my opinion, the debate on how to deal with live animals does not stand up to economic arguments. That, in my view, is a shameful argument. We should do everything we can to translate moral rules into written, valid law. Commissioner, it is your responsibility to ensure that morality pays, so that it does not hide behind the economic interests of farmers and other economic groups. How do we defend the suffering that the transport of live animals brings today? How do we want to relativize it? I am very sorry to hear that, in principle, nothing is happening. I've been dealing with live animals for years. I have been dealing with animal suffering for years and I have to say that what happens during transports in Europe is really shameful. I will therefore vote in favour of the amendments intended to tighten up the report, which, in my opinion, is too compromised and too relativistic of what is really going on. And I beg you, Commissioner, to reflect the maximum of this in the applicable rules. Let's set a clear binding deadline for the transport of animals! Let's restrict the export of live animals to third countries and restrict the export of small animals and pups!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me briefly present this motion for a resolution and ask for your support. It is an extremely important motion for a resolution in which we express our unequivocal support for the Sudanese people who are fighting for their freedom and democracy. The situation in Sudan is very tense, since October last year, when the country's prime minister was overthrown, there have been permanent protests, the army and police have intervened hard. There are dozens of dead and many people missing. The situation really is extremely tense. As Europeans, the European Parliament cannot remain silent. We must clearly support those who want to live in freedom and democracy. These are the people of Sudan. At the same time, the military and its leaders, led by General Abdel Fattah Burhan, must be condemned for not respecting the will of the Sudanese people and for taking such harsh action against their fellow citizens. As you know, since dictator Omar al-Bashir was overthrown in 2019, the country is gradually coming to the early, extraordinary, but terribly important elections that were supposed to take place in 2023 under the agreement. Unfortunately, the problems we have seen in Sudan since October last year reduce the chances that these important elections will take place. We clearly say to the current leadership of Sudan that we insist that there be democratic elections in Sudan and that the Sudanese choose who will lead the country, who will represent them. We clearly say that the actions of General Abdul Fattah Burhan's army are illegal, illegitimate and that we reject them. We also make it clear that if the military continues to do so, it will lose the financial support that the European Union is providing to the country. Please support this resolution in the vote tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, as has already been said, more than a million Europeans have signed this citizens' initiative. I am very sorry that, in your speech, you stated in an essentially alibiistic manner that bans on the use of animals in circuses in individual Member States are sufficient. I do not agree with this, nor do those who signed it. For your information: According to activists, there are more than 250 circuses in Europe that use, from my point of view, wild animals. I am calling here for a Europe-wide regulation, for a Europe-wide ban. Only such adjustment can be effective. The current situation is not sufficient, it must be said. So, whoever here says ‘Leave it to the Member States, the situation is fine’ is more or less silently supporting the current animal cruelty. Please reconsider the situation! Citizens are interested in how animals are treated in Europe. We deal with a lot of things. There was a citizens' initiative to ban cage farming. There are activists who are fighting long-distance transports of slaughter animals. Europe really has a lot to catch up on. Unfortunately, animals are not treated as we should in Europe. This is a strong ethical issue, and we are repeatedly talking about it here in the European Parliament. Unfortunately, I see a reluctance on the part of the Commission to address the problems. Please, let's solve this problem! It's a strong ethical issue. An EU-wide ban will solve this problem. Let us not assume that different national laws will solve the problem. It's not like that. So please reconsider your position and propose a Europe-wide ban!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me make a few remarks on this subject. I often speak here as a defender of the rule of law, I consider it extremely important for the European Parliament to pay attention to this topic, and I am also happy for today's debate. It should be noted at the outset that the key problem that we are debating here today, and that is the Slovenian Government's approach to the European Prosecutor, the European Public Prosecutor, has been solved. However, it must be stated that it took the Slovenian Government an unreasonable length of time, that there were a number of unnecessary political debates around this, in my opinion, and that this could have happened earlier. Perhaps even under the influence of today's debate, the Slovenian government eventually appointed two public prosecutors in this way. In any case, I think the situation needs to be monitored. On the other hand, I do not think there is an adequate debate among colleagues on the left, who, in my opinion, too emotionally assess the situation of the rule of law in Slovenia, and perhaps reflect their political vision of the world a little. I am very pleased that the Commissioner has spoken here in general about the European Prosecutor. It's a new institution, we have high hopes for it. I am pleased with what has been said, that the public prosecutor is doing very well, that he is dealing with specific cases, but I want to say that five months is a very short time for us to be able to evaluate the work of this institution. So I hope that in the future our debates will be more general about how this institution works as a whole and that we will convince the remaining countries to join this institute.

Madam President, as shadow rapporteur for my EPP faction, let me comment on the text. I want to say that we are ready as a faction to support this motion in the form of a resolution by the two committees responsible that have discussed this text. Let me say that I personally welcome the fact that, after so many years, we have finally managed to move this material, and that this is another concrete expression of how we here in the European Union are fighting tax evasion, profit diversion and what we recently talked about at our plenary meeting in Strasbourg, where we commented on the international scandal and the Pandora Papers case. This measure, which we are discussing today and approving tomorrow, will also help to reduce the circle of those who do not want to pay taxes honestly, who speculate and invent how to divert their profits, how to prevent their profits from being taxed fairly. One form of defense against this is the disclosure of information, and that is what this material is about. This has already been said by both fellow rapporteurs, to whom I would like to thank for their work, and it has also been said by the Commission representative. If enough information is disclosed, it will simply be difficult to divert profits, hide profits and tax them in tax havens. I believe that this proposal is in the public interest. Citizens of the European Union should know what profits and what taxes are paid on these profits by large multinational companies operating in the territory of the European Union. Plus, other information that is important for collective bargaining, for example, will be published. I am convinced that this level of information will not harm large multinational companies in any way. There is therefore a principle of proportionality, sufficient privacy and disclosure of information that needs to be disclosed in the public interest. We support this material.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me also comment, in a few words, on the compromise reached on the revision of the motor insurance directive. It has been four years since the Commission presented this initiative to Parliament, and I must say, as shadow rapporteur, as I have followed and participated in the process, that it has been an extremely difficult process. And I want to thank the rapporteur, Charanzová, here – and I stress that, by no means formally, but very strongly. The situation wasn't easy. We have come back to different points many times. She did it with great nobility and brilliance, and she's so grateful, not just social, formal, but real. If it had not been for her work, I am afraid that the compromises that were contained would not have been of such high quality. This also prejudges our position on behalf of our political faction, on behalf of the European People's Party. We are very satisfied with the compromises that have been reached after such difficult negotiations over many years. We are convinced, as the rapporteur has already described, that the new proposed form of the directive will make life much easier for European citizens and motor vehicle owners who simply use their vehicle cross-border or move to another European country. This means that there are clear benefits. On the other hand, at the end of the negotiations there is a compromise that is not too bureaucratic and does not unnecessarily burden and bully European citizens. It was said that there was – or was – a group of small motor vehicles that were ultimately excluded from compulsory insurance. I think this is just a reflection of the common sense that the rapporteur has been talking about. In the same way, the rules for sports, motorsport and insolvency of insurance companies have been clearly clarified. All this has been described and I very much welcome the final form and recommend its approval.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to speak here against the ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court, which severely restricts a woman's chances of opting for abortion. On the one hand, abortion really belongs to the national policy of individual Member States, but on the other hand, it must be said that the freedom of women to choose is a universal right of women who are not only Poles, but also citizens of the European Union. And that is why we should address this, why I welcome this debate and why the European Commission should discuss this issue with the Polish Government. The universality of human rights, the protection of human rights is the agenda of the European Union. This is one of the values on which European integration is based, so I beg you, Commissioner, let us pay attention to this. Let's push the Polish government, let's deal with the Polish government. It is necessary to find legislation that is defensible in today's European context. It is not possible for nationals of one Member State to have such limited rights as compared to nationals of other Member States. This is unacceptable in the long term, also because then there is hypocrisy, and women who want to have an abortion have to travel from Poland to other Member States. This means that the solution is completely disadvantageous, inappropriate and, in my opinion, indefensible.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, Prime Minister, using justice for political struggle is a game of fire. I say this as a man who has been Minister of Justice in the Czech Republic for years. I am really sorry that the Constitutional Court in Poland delivered this politically motivated judgment. This verdict is not the natural outcome of a specific litigation that would eventually end up in your Constitutional Court, Prime Minister. You have directly appealed to the Constitutional Court, your government, and the Court has issued this politically motivated decision. Unfortunately, you didn't say in your speech what was going to happen next. There is now a stalemate. Your Constitutional Court questions the fundamental principles of the functioning of the European Union. It calls into question the primacy of EU law over national legal systems. So what's going to happen next? Is this the beginning of the destruction of the European Union? Is it just a gesture of strength? I am very afraid of this. If this is to be a precedent, and if constitutional courts in other Member States should also start to rule in this way, European integrity is seriously threatened. So I ask you to think about whether it is appropriate to use an independent judiciary for the political struggle. In my opinion, it is not, and you are, unfortunately, questioning the essence of European integration.

Madam President, I welcome this debate today. I am a great supporter of freedom of expression, but unfortunately we are living at a time when we are witnessing the targeted spread of disinformation, hybrid wars, attempts to influence, manipulate public opinion and thus weaken our democracies. The time is different, the champion in this is Putin's Russia. I see it here in the Czech Republic trying to influence disinformation in public opinion, and we have to respond to it, we have to respond to it by tightening the rules and tightening the rules for individual online platforms, which have to be much more accountable for the content of their messages. It is a necessity for them, and this is a matter for the Commission, a matter for you, Commissioner, to find a solution to protect freedom of expression on the one hand and to prevent freedom of expression on the other. fake news They threatened our democracies.

Mr President, Commissioner, I do not want to interrupt your crocheting, but let me say an important thing here. In addition to the reasons that have already been put forward by colleagues, why contracts and the entire process of renegotiating contracts that guarantee vaccines for Europe should be transparent, it is also the fact that, at a time when the whole process was not yet very transparent and the public did not have clear information, political forces that criticise the European Union, criticise the European integration process, often used disinformation to criticise the work of the European Commission and the European Union, and noted that the European Union had failed to deliver vaccines. Despite many mistakes, I don't think that's the case, that the process is successful. This has already been said several times, 70% of the vaccinated public is a success, although the outcome is different in each country. But I beg you, if we don't want to strengthen fake newsIf we do not want political forces that oppose European integration, that do not want Europe to work together on the basis of common European values, that these forces have the fuel to attack the entire vaccination process and the European Commission's work here in this area, then I ask you, transparency is the only possible way. That all the information will be made public, and it will be so clear that the European Commission has negotiated the best possible terms in time, that vaccine distributors and manufacturers are doing their best to develop the highest quality vaccines with public money, and that there really is no room to believe that the European Commission has failed and that vaccines, if any, may be harmful to human health. This significantly affects, for example, the atmosphere in the Czech Republic, where still 40% of people have not been vaccinated. And if we were more transparent, I think the number of people who don't want to get vaccinated will be lower.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened very carefully to the whole debate and I thank the Commissioner for his comments. He talked about vulnerable people here, as did some of you about women, young people. I certainly agree with this, that is the area on which we should focus, but I would like to add to this debate the idea that I personally consider even the smallest entrepreneurs, self-employed people who feed themselves, their families, possibly one or two employees, and then even free professions in the field of culture, to be socially endangered. Again, self-employed people are not in employment and the COVID-19 crisis has often shaken their position very much. I say this from my experience in Prague, where I am a representative, I manage a large museum of fine arts and I see how it was very socially depressing for those who feed on culture in the field of culture and how it damaged social statutes. So I would also like to focus on this area, Commissioner. I would like to point out that the solutions that you have presented here will certainly help a great deal, but be careful that, as part of our efforts to help the most socially vulnerable, such as the example of the minimum wage that you have mentioned, if it were to have a uniform European character, I would like to point out that, for example, in my country, such as the Czech Republic, this would lead to the threat of the smallest tradesmen who employ one or two employees, and a possible European minimum wage standard would lead to the need to lay off one or two employees, and that, on the contrary, it could bring some problems. So I welcome your vision, but I am only making a small point about certain aspects that not only women, men, employees, but also the smallest self-employed have been put at risk in this crisis.

Madam President, when I was Minister of Justice in the Czech Republic, I was dealing with the fight against violence against women, and I know very well that this is an extremely serious crime that is often not punished. Women-victims are afraid to turn to the police, their pleas are often downplayed by the surroundings, and the court proceedings themselves often do not end with a conviction of the aggressors. It's hard to prove the offender's guilt in court. That is why I believe it is right that we are discussing this initiative today, I support this initiative, and I believe that a single European action will lead to all Member States punishing violence against women and finally eliminating violence against women from our society – if not eradicating it – so strongly. I believe that there is a need and a need for a single European procedure, because there are also countries in the European Union that do not have sufficient legislation in their legal systems to regulate this extremely dangerous behaviour.