Speeches

Dear Chairman, Commissioners of colleagues, the protection of the family and parenthood, especially motherhood, are the most intimate values of each individual and it is therefore not surprising that many states attribute the highest protection, the constitutional one, to these values. At the same time, we must not forget that matters relating to substantive family law remain within the competence of the Member States. The European Union has very limited powers in procedural aspects involving citizens of different Member States. The EU has no competence to legally unify key elements in this area, such as the definition of the concept of family and parenthood. In other words, Member States, including those with more prominent values of the traditional family, have the right to determine what it represents, taking into account their own traditions and specificities. This proposal crosses that border and de facto through the process of binding mutual recognition, it forces states to give effect on their own territory to the definition of families that do not exist in their own legislation. The European Union remains a community of states that have the right to regulate key issues of their identity, such as the definition of family. An attempt to impose from above and unify on a small door will certainly not contribute to the stability of the EU, but can only jeopardise it. ‘United in diversity’ means that states have the right to regulate key identity issues themselves, whether you agree with them or not. So let's stop using the European institutions to impose our own worldview.

Madam President, I think this is a great day for healthcare in the European Union. After one year of very hard negotiations, I believe that we found a really good compromise – it’s not perfect, but I think it’s a good starting point for interinstitutional negotiations. It will make it possible to use the untapped potential of health data for research innovation, but also to have much faster and more efficient healthcare in the European Union. I would like to thank my co-rapporteur, also the shadows and all the staff for the great work that they’ve done. And I would like to ask you to refer the file back to committees for interinstitutional negotiations on the basis of Rule 59.

After committing the biggest crime in Israel's history two months ago, the terrorist organization Hamas still holds more than 130 detainees kidnapped on October 7. In addition, Hamas does not hesitate to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel, including the recent attack on civilians in Jerusalem. That is why it is shameful that even today in the international community, but also in this Parliament, there are those who relativize the crimes of Hamas and who want to equalize the guilt for the atrocities committed. That is why we should use this debate to unequivocally condemn, without a figment in our pocket, the terrorist attacks that Hamas has carried out and is still carrying out, and to give clear support to Israel, which has the right and duty to defend itself. Ladies and gentlemen, peaceful coexistence in the context of the two-state solution will not be possible as long as the continued terrorist threat posed by Hamas to the Israeli people is not eliminated. Also of particular concern is the rise of radical Islamist movements that threaten the security of citizens in the European Union and support Hamas terrorism across European metropolises. Members of such movements have no place in Europe, nor should Europe tolerate such movements.

Mr President, I would just like to answer some questions and concerns which have been raised here. So first we will not give anyone’s health data to banks and tech giants. So that’s completely clear in the draft report. So the data can only be used for very narrowly defined purposes relating to healthcare for the benefit of the patients, and we made it even more precise enough. So no giving away of health data to banks and tech giants. So that’s completely clear. Second, the notion that we are creating some kind of a European superstate which will decide about our data: all decisions on individual requests to access data will be decided on the national level. So we will have health data access bodies on the national level, and these bodies will make decisions on individual requests. So no super-European institution which will decide about individual requests to access health data. Three – what the Greens propose – so to have a consent-based system for secondary use. So if we have this, it will destroy the whole system. It will destroy the whole purpose of the EHDS, because we will not have enough data so that it is representative, unbiased and useful. The whole idea of the EHDS is to have more data available than we have now through the system of clinical trials. So saying that we already have clinical trials and that is great means essentially that we don’t need the EHDS. We believe that we do. I believe that what we have now is not enough. We need access to more data, and the EHDS is the way to achieve this. I think what is the best proof of our approach is that all patient groups unanimously support this. So patient groups do not want the consent-based or an opt-in-based system, because they understand that then data will not be useful. We will not be able to innovate, create new medical technologies to save lives. The last point is on the opt-out for primary use: as the Commissioner already said, we already have the safeguards in place prescribing that once we have an electronic health record, we as patients will be able to restrict access to all or part of this data, on mental health conditions, on sexually transmitted disease or whatever. So we believe that the safeguards that we already have in here are enough to protect patients’ right to decide and patients’ right to privacy. For that reason, there is no need to accept this amendment proposed by the German SPD.

I wasn’t speaking about the red line, but I said that I believe that what we have in the draft report is sufficient enough in terms of protection of patients’ rights. So I never used the actual phrase ‘the red line’ – you can check my original wording. I just said, and I repeated this afterwards, that there is no need, there is no necessity to accept what you propose, because we already have enough safeguards to protect patients’ right to choose.

Dear colleague, thank you very much, but I do not understand how you can say that we are against additional patients’ rights because we are the ones who proposed an opt-out on secondary use. There was nothing there before. We actively added additional patient rights when compared to the Commission proposal. So definitely I do not see how you can say that we are against additional patient rights. My question is that we already have, for primary use, the provision that patients can limit access to all or part of their data according to their choice. So my question is: what does your proposal, your amendment add to that? Because we already have the possibilities for patients to limit access to data if they want to do that. So what do you want to achieve additional to that with your proposal?

You know that if we want data to be useful for research innovation, it needs to be representative, and you know what you propose is to have a consent-based system or an opt-in system whereby every patient whose data is part of a certain data set would need to give consent or an opt-in for this data to be used. So my question is: how do you plan to ensure representativeness, that this data is actually useful, that we can use it to develop new medicines to save lives if we go for your approach? Because everybody that I talked to – patient groups, stakeholders, healthcare professionals – all said that this is impossible to achieve what you propose.

The Honourable Chair shall at all times process and use key health data for the purpose of saving human lives by healthcare professionals, researchers and health regulatory authorities. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance of up-to-date health data for key public health decisions and timely crisis response, but also for treatment, research and innovation. However, many barriers remain in the Member States through complex rules and procedures that prevent the full exploitation of the potential of digital health and health data. The biggest problems stem from the lack of mandatory standards at Union level, which results in limited interoperability and inability to exchange data, not only between hospitals and practices in different countries, but often also within the same Member State. With the establishment of the European Health Data Space, we aim to remove precisely these barriers and problems. The objective of this Regulation is to establish a European Health Data Space to improve citizens’ access to their personal electronic health data. This is the so-called primary use of electronic health data. Secondary use, on the other hand, means the use of health data for innovation and research to develop new treatments and life-saving medicines and is also very important. The primary use of health data puts citizens at the centre by giving them control over their data to improve healthcare across the European Union. This means that we put all our health data in the EU in a digital space where citizens can easily and free of charge access their own health records in electronic form, recognised and accepted across the Union, via their mobile phones or computers. In doing so, they are able to share their health data with doctors in their own country or in other Member States, thus gaining access to better healthcare. The new rules will ensure better diagnosis and treatment, reduce medical errors and avoid unnecessary tests, and make the work of doctors more effective. This will not only provide better and faster treatment for our citizens, but also facilitate treatment abroad and facilitate access to equal healthcare in all EU Member States. When it comes to the secondary use of health data, industry researchers, together with policy makers, are currently facing major barriers in accessing the data they need to develop new products or make decisions. In this context, the EU lags behind other global players such as the US or China. With the adoption of this European law, the EU will reduce dependence on third countries and become more competitive in the field of medicine production. In particular, under strict conditions, researchers will be given access to large amounts of quality health data to better understand the various diseases. This is crucial for the development of new treatments and life-saving medical devices. It should be emphasized that the health data that will be exchanged will be anonymized and pseudonymized, which means that the possibility for citizens to be identified using health data is minimized and thus we achieve a balance between, on the one hand, the need to use health data in a way that we can save more lives, but also with the need to protect privacy and protect the health data of our citizens. As co-rapporteur for this legislative proposal, after more than nine months of negotiations between the political groups, I can say that I am generally satisfied with the final text adopted at the level of the committees responsible. In the negotiations, I sought to maintain the basic principles contained in the Commission’s legislative proposal, while at the same time improving certain essential parts. However, for secondary use, I do not think that the Commission’s proposal concerning patients’ decision-making rights was sufficient. Therefore, we have proposed provisions that would allow citizens to fully or partially exempt themselves from the system of secondary use of health data if they so wish. opt-out system. This gives citizens the option to decide, based on their own judgment, whether or not they want their health data to be used under strict measures for innovation research purposes. Ladies and gentlemen, today we are discussing a ground-breaking proposal that needs to be endorsed and the entire legislative process completed before the end of the mandate of this Parliament. Thereafter, the European Union and the Member States have a responsibility to ensure that the EHDS is easily applicable in practice and that the system works for the well-being of our citizens.

The digital transition we are witnessing every day is yet to reach its full potential in the area of justice and cross-border cooperation in civil, commercial and criminal matters. For example, granting cross-border access to court registers would undoubtedly increase trust in legal transactions and contribute to transparency in business. As the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the digitalisation of public services, I also strongly advocated this in a report that was endorsed by a large majority of the European Parliament. A comprehensive set of instruments designed to improve judicial cooperation already exists in the European Union. However, most instruments do not provide for communication by judicial authorities to take place digitally. That is why I am particularly pleased that, through the Regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation, we will create the preconditions for access to the use of modern technologies in cross-border judicial cooperation and access to justice. The new regulation will enable the use of electronic means of communication, such as videoconferencing between individuals and legal entities, as well as courts and competent authorities, which will facilitate cross-border access to justice. However, in a context where the European Union is experiencing an unprecedented influx of migrants, I would like to use this debate to call for a stronger engagement of the European Union in the fight against mass migration, especially irregular migration. This also means better international cooperation on data exchanges on migrants. This is why it is important to reach a final agreement on the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will contain instruments to prevent uncontrolled and mass entry into the European Union, whereby the burden of migratory pressure cannot lie with the countries of first entry. It has long been clear that the European Union cannot admit to its territory all those who want to live in Europe simply because the quality of life here is better than in third countries. Colleagues, in defending the European way of life, cross-border cooperation in police and judicial matters is essential.

Dear Vice-President of the European Parliament, Vice-President of the European Commission, colleague and colleague, the implementation of the new pollinator plan is an opportunity to strengthen the position of European beekeepers, who produce first-class honey but are often exposed to unfair competition on store shelves. A recent survey by the European Commission found that 46 percent of honey imported into the European Union does not meet the criteria of the Honey Directive. That is why it is important to tighten the rules on honey labelling. In circumstances where the average price of imported honey from third countries is EUR 2.56 per kilogram, or EUR 1.6 per kilogram for honey imported from China, we need to work further to strengthen the position of our beekeepers and properly label honey packaging. In this connection, the consumer, when purchasing, must know exactly from which country the honey comes, and if it is a mixture of honeys, he must know what proportion of the honey from which country it comes. That is why, through amendments, I requested the introduction of an obligation to indicate the exact percentage of honey content on the packaging of products. To protect pollinators and European beekeepers, we need a proper implementation of the new plan for pollinators and an agreement on the revision of the Honey Directive as soon as possible.

Thirty years after their definition, the Copenhagen criteria continue to mark the key conditions that candidate countries must fulfil in order to become members of the European Union. After a lengthy phase of enlargement fatigue, the political will to continue this political process seems to have finally emerged. If the European Union does not offer a clear perspective to the neighbouring countries, they will be completely under the influence of foreign powers, which in the long run is a disaster for Europe's security. To be clear, in the process of enlargement, each country should be seen only individually and judged on merit. There is no entry into the EU through order. This must be understood in particular by Aleksandar Vucic, during whose reign Serbian hegemony became a major threat to the stability of Southeast Europe. And democracy in Serbia has taken not one, but three steps backwards. On the other hand, the Commission's decision to conditionally recommend the opening of accession negotiations for Bosnia and Herzegovina is an incentive to continue the reform process in the country, which should certainly be welcomed and supported by BiH in the difficult reforms ahead.

The Honourable Chair, while research has shown that 77% of EU citizens would rather repair their devices than replace them with new ones, the fact remains that consumers, when they decide to repair a product, face a number of problems such as the unavailability of replacement parts, the length and cost of repair, and the unavailability of repair services. With the adoption of the legislative report Right to Repair, we are one step closer to making repair more accessible to consumers. Manufacturers will no longer be able to claim that they do not have replacement parts for repair, as we have made it mandatory for spare parts to be available for the entire expected life of the product. In particular, I advocated that a replacement product must be offered to consumers during the period of repair of the product within the warranty period. Indeed, when a consumer, for example, takes a mobile phone for repair under a warranty, the producer is not obliged to give him or her a replacement mobile phone, which is a major problem for consumers. In this vein, I am pleased that part of this report is also my amendment, which will oblige manufacturers to give consumers a replacement product for the duration of the repair if repair cannot be carried out in the short term. In addition, it is important that we encourage the right to repair, which is why I particularly support the idea of vouchers that will make repair more accessible. Colleagues, the well-established model by which a product is bought, used and discarded, is no longer sustainable. That is why I support the adoption of this report and hope for a swift agreement with the Member States to make the right to repair a new standard of European legislation.

A pro-Serbian and pro-Russian government was formed in Montenegro. A Serbian nationalist who openly supports Russia has been elected President of the Assembly, his party is part of the parliamentary majority. This is the result of a series of events that began with lithiums organized by the Serbian Orthodox Church Aleksandar Vučić with the aim of returning Montenegro to the Serbian and Russian spheres of interest. Unfortunately, after three years, we can say that they have largely met their goals. The last act in effectively abolishing the Montenegrin nation and turning this country into another Russian gubernatorial is a census. In the changed geopolitical circumstances, a state deprived of its national sign would thus become a hybrid creation in which the Russian-Serbian axis would build Belarus in a small one. That is why it is crucial that the European Union supports a further postponement of the population census and closely monitors the steps of the new government, especially President Milatović, in their relationship with European integration. Ladies and gentlemen, the transformation of Montenegro into a small Belarus on the Mediterranean coast is the result of a disastrous policy of the European Union and I invite you to change it until it is too late. Let's stop Serbia destabilizing Montenegro and the whole of Southeast Europe.

The Honourable Chair, the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic crisis, rising inflation and armed conflicts around the world all place a heavy burden on the mental state of citizens, especially young people. Our fellow citizens feel uncertainty, change of daily routine, fear for existence and social isolation. In this context, there is a need to attach greater importance to the impact of work on mental health. Mental health is a prerequisite for the work ability and productivity of every person in the workplace. On the other hand, according to the European Commission, as many as 27% of workers reported experiencing work-related stress, depression or anxiety during the previous 12 months. Long-term exposure to stress in the workplace can have far more serious consequences in terms of developing mental disorders such as depression or anxiety. According to post-pandemic data, health and social workers are most exposed to work-related psychosocial risks in the context of mental illness. In addition, new forms of work as a result of digitalisation also affect mental health, so their flexibility can prove useful in certain situations. The Commission's communication is a step in the right direction, but much more is needed. The current legal framework on minimum requirements is over 30 years old and is far from being aligned with all the social changes and new forms of work that have emerged in the meantime. Its revision should be initiated as soon as possible. Furthermore, it is necessary to update the recommendation on the European list of occupational diseases to include mental health issues in the list. The social partners should also be strongly encouraged to negotiate a new agreement on telework and the right to disconnect. Finally, we all need to understand that protecting workers' mental health is not a cost, but an investment, better quality, more productive workers and a more efficient economy.

Dear Chairman, the world is increasingly reminiscent of the period just before the First World War. The war in Ukraine with its economic consequences, the global geopolitical shift to the detriment of the West and developments in the Middle East have made the European Union more vulnerable than ever. Europe's share of world GDP has fallen to less than 15%, and Nigeria alone will have more people in the middle of the 21st century than the entire European Union. In short, we don't have enough natural resources, we're uncompetitive, we're getting smaller and we're still divided. The EU must clearly define its key interests and act together. Strategic autonomy in the production of basic resources and energy is one of the priorities, where nuclear energy must play an important role, and let us only remember what mistakes have been made on this issue in the past. Robust protection of external borders, together with the deportation of illegal immigrants who do not have the right to stay in the EU, is essential for our security. In the long run, without a strong demographic policy, comprehensive stimulus measures that will raise the current catastrophic fertility rate to 2.1 by the end of the century will simply not exist. In the end, we must be clear in our relations with Russia, China, the Islamic world, keeping our common interests in the first place.

On October 7, the terrorist group Hamas committed the worst crime in Israel's history. More than 1,400 civilians, most of them women, children and the elderly, were killed in the most brutal ways possible. The mass murders, unfortunately, are not something the Israelis have not already experienced. Since the beginning of its history, Israel has had to fight for bare survival, and it is fortunate that we have not had the opportunity to see what would have likely happened if Israel had lost at least one of the wars imposed on it. Today, we see that what is happening in the Middle East is not just an Israeli problem. Islamist terrorists have been killing people on the streets of European cities for years. Illegal migrants, who some want to let into European territory, are celebrating Hamas' crimes in camps. We see that some here on the left can hardly wait for the opportunity to relativize what happened and try to equate guilt. That is why it should be made clear once again: ‘No, but the sole culprit for this is Hamas’, which has killed and masqueraded a huge number of civilians, and is still using civilians as a living shield today, which is disgusting. Ladies and gentlemen, it is normal and humane to support Israel in eradicating terrorism, of course with respect to all norms of international humanitarian law. We must also stop illegal immigration that threatens the security of our citizens, without a fig in our pockets.

Dear Vice-President, Commissioner, Rapporteur, colleague and colleague, the political crisis in Montenegro caused by anti-European forces trying to form a pro-Serbian and pro-Russian government is in fact just a sequence of political chaos that lasts from the 2020 elections until today. Since then, Western powers, including the European Union, have largely supported those who are committed to European values only in words, but not in reality. In reality, however, we are witnessing faster and faster srbization of Montenegrin institutions with the consequence of the gradual suppression of the identity of Montenegrins as a separate nation. A certain formation of a government into which radical pro-Serbian and openly pro-Russian political forces would directly enter would constitute cementing this process. With the crown in the next census as the last step in deconstructing independent Montenegro. I'm afraid Mr. Spajic doesn't have the strength to resist it himself and that's why we need to help him. If this development were indeed to occur, the main cause would be in a series of failed moves by the European Union and other Western powers from 2020 to the present day. That should be clear to everyone. Let us be open, we are on a step towards the creation of a mini Belarus in the heart of Europe under the control of Vučić and Russia. Please, wake up and stop it until it's too late.

. Dear Vice-President of the European Parliament, Dear Vice-President of the European Commission, colleague and colleague, the European Union needs a uniform approach when it comes to lodging applications and introducing a digital visa. This will increase the security of the Schengen area by reducing the risk of visa fraud and forgery and by facilitating the process of checking them at the borders. Given the security challenges facing Europe, I strongly support the modernisation and further digitalisation of the visa procedure in order to better control who enters the territory of the European Union. How important it is to know who we are letting into the EU, unfortunately, we see every day. The number of recorded irregular attempts to enter is at a record level, migrants in a camp in Greece are shouting at Hamas, and migration is increasingly proving to be a potential source of terrorism. In the last few days alone, we have witnessed two terrorist attacks in Belgium and France linked to Islamism. That is why we need a comprehensive European response to migration through a final agreement on the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will contain instruments to prevent uncontrolled and mass entry into the European Union, as well as a mechanism for the accelerated deportation of those illegally staying on the territory of the Union. Only in this way will we be able to protect our European way of life.

Dear Chairman, the four dead, this is the epilogue of the visit of a Serbian terrorist group that attacked members of the police force in Kosovo. Serbian methods of attacks involving blockades and armed attacks on police are irresistibly reminiscent of the bloody raids carried out by Chetnik groups at the beginning of the Serbian aggression against Croatia. Unfortunately, a lot of evidence indicates that this terrorist attack was carried out under the auspices of Belgrade, and that Serbian attackers on the territory of Serbia were targeted and systematically trained to carry out the terrorist act. Speaking recently about the Kosovo report, I said that I hope that the European Union has learned something from the failed policies of the past and will stop Serbian hegemony before it is completely out of control, which unfortunately is not the case. Unfortunately, the Union has been lenient towards Serbia too many times and now we are again witnessing that the policy of Serbian hegemony destabilizes not only Kosovo but also neighbouring countries such as Montenegro. Therefore, if it is established that the Serbian government was behind this attack, the European Union must sanction Serbia most severely and thus prevent the destabilization of Southeast Europe. Aleksandar Vucic is responsible for this.

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues, shortages of medicines pose a growing threat to public health in the EU, especially in less developed and smaller Member States. The consequences of such shortages include reduced quality of treatment and create inequalities between patients, depending on the country in which they live. Between 2017 and 2019, notifications of shortages of medicinal products in the Union increased by as much as 60%, with medicinal products for the treatment of cancer, infections and nervous system disorders accounting for more than half of the medicines that are insufficient, which is absolutely inadmissible. I hope and believe that the revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation will help to solve the problem of genuine shortages at all times. With the new legislation, we need to improve the monitoring and mitigation of shortages of medicines, especially critical ones. Provisions requiring pharmaceutical companies to report shortages of medicines more quickly and to put in place plans to prevent shortages are generally a step in the right direction, although there is certainly room for improvement, especially in terms of deadlines. In doing so, it is essential that all citizens of the Union have equal access to medicines and not that we have first- and second-class citizens as is the case now, which is in any case unacceptable. On the other hand, everything that has happened in the last three years has shown that the EU must seriously work on its own strategic autonomy in the field of health if we do not want someone else to decide our lives and our health in the future. A few decades ago, Europe had a very strong position in health research and innovation, but to a large extent lost this advantage. Today, despite some exceptions, most innovations and innovative companies are located elsewhere. The EU is increasingly lagging behind in the development and production of innovative medicines compared to the US. If we take into account China's explosive growth, we see that the situation is extremely worrying and dangerous in the long run. We need to create an environment that attracts and does not create barriers for manufacturers of new innovative medicines, especially in challenging areas such as rare childhood diseases where we are weakest. This includes incentives, protection of intellectual property, but also industrial policy measures that go far beyond the pharmaceutical package that we have been discussing so much recently. The bureaucratization and regulatory burdens that are unfortunately increasing must not become so great as to undermine the foundations of our health care, reduce the availability of medicines, thus endangering people's lives. Overall, I think the pharmaceutical reform proposed by the European Commission is a step in the right direction. I think it addresses those key issues that we have to face, but, of course, there is room for improvement. However, what is particularly important is that this is not the only solution, that there are other areas of European legislation that need to be considered, such as the transparency directives, such as the revision of the rules on cross-border healthcare, in order to create what we want, namely the single market, a truly single market for medicines in the European Union and to enable all citizens of the European Union to have access to medicines in the same way at the same time. We still have a lot to do. The European Union can indeed provide added value compared to the situation we have now, when much is still fragmented, but we all need to work together to truly enable our patients to get the medicines they need, to get the best quality medicines as soon as possible and to have the right to equal healthcare for all.

Dear Chair, we will all agree that we want European citizens to breathe clean air in the future. For example, the introduction of a mechanism of regular review of air quality standards in line with the latest scientific evidence should be welcomed. On the other hand, when setting targets, we must be ambitious and realistic, not guided by populism and propose drastic changes that will do more harm than good. The binding targets we set at Union level must be achievable in reality, not just on paper. European industry is currently facing a difficult economic situation and increasingly stringent rules on CO2 emissions. Imposing new rules that will lead to the shutdown of individual industrial plants or their transfer to, for example, China will lead to the collapse of the living standards of our citizens, and will not result in the desired reduction of emissions. Also, I am against the ban on cars in entire city districts and city centers. Instead of bans, we need incentives for our citizens and investment in public transport. We also have to reward those who pollute less. In the current situation, we need to give European companies a wind in their backs, not put a knife in their backs, which some here obviously want.

–The Honourable Chair, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed structural shortcomings that make it difficult for the European Union to respond to the crisis in a swift, efficient and coordinated manner. Let us recall the scenes of empty shelves in shops from the beginning of the pandemic, shortages and closed borders of Member States. The unprecedented crisis led to a chaotic initial response from Member States that lacked coordination and solidarity, without taking into account the devastating impact of the restriction on the proper functioning of the internal market. We want to avoid such a scenario in the future and that is why I am pleased that today we are discussing an instrument that will guarantee the normal functioning of the Single Market also in the conditions of crisis. The activation of this mechanism will prohibit Member States from imposing restrictions on exports of products to other Member States, but also from imposing restrictions on the movement of workers. In order to make the Single Market resilient also in times of crisis, it is important to preserve the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the founding Treaties. On the other hand, I particularly welcome the creation of strategic reserves aimed at addressing the challenges of commodity shortages. In addition, through joint procurement with priority delivery of goods and services also in the event of a crisis, the European Union will improve its mechanism of action and prevent the recurrence of empty shelves in shops. This means that in crises, companies operating in Europe will have to deliver the necessary goods to Member States as a matter of priority, which is normal and of course in the interest of all. Ultimately, this act guarantees solidarity between Member States, which was challenged as never before at the beginning of the pandemic. I therefore welcome the adoption of this report and call for further building a resilient, single market for citizens and businesses.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, as many as 6 out of 10 consumers have encountered financial difficulties. In such circumstances, we need strong mechanisms to protect citizens from over-indebtedness, and the current rules do not provide sufficient certainty to consumers in this regard. That is why I am proud that tomorrow we will finally vote on the Consumer Credit Directive. The new rules will no longer allow banks to send unsolicited credit cards to home addresses or unilaterally increase the limits of permissible and tacit overdraft. The novelty is that banks will not be able to request a refund of tacit overdrafts from citizens without notice and without giving the possibility of instalment repayment. In particular, banks will have to inform citizens in advance of any planned reduction or elimination of tacit overdrafts and leave them the possibility to repay in instalments in 12 equal instalments, and Member States may also introduce stricter consumer protection rules. This is certainly an improvement, since a study carried out by the European Parliament on my proposal has shown that over 340 million bank accounts of citizens in the European Union are burdened with the problems of the so-called minuses and that overdrafts are one of the most expensive forms of debt for citizens. In addition, it is important that consumers continue to have a period of fourteen days within which to withdraw from the credit agreement without giving any reason. Finally, it is important to note that this is the first piece of legislation to codify at European level the right to be forgotten and to be protected from discrimination for cancer survivors. Overall, this directive is indeed a step in the right direction for consumers and I therefore call on you to support it.

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues, the full potential of AI applications, especially generative ones, has not yet been realised. While we are aware of the obvious benefits that the use of artificial intelligence brings, such as better traffic regulation, a more precise diagnosis of malignant diseases or a more rational use of energy resources, we must not forget about the dangers and its abuses. In order to prevent the possibility of manipulation of artificial intelligence, we need to regulate it well. That is why I welcome the fact that we are finalising the work on the first European AI law that will regulate the actions of generative AI such as chatGPT by preventing the generation of illegal content through IP infringement and by informing users that content has been generated through AI. It is justifiable to expect that in the future generative AI will increasingly be used in medicine, the creative industries or even public administration, and we should not be afraid of this. However, we must insist that, in such circumstances, the citizens of the European Union are protected from all the risks that the use of AI entails. We also need to ensure that our entrepreneurs can reap the benefits of AI to create innovation and safely test it under controlled conditions. Research has shown that generative AI can raise global GDP by as much as 7 percent in the next 10 years, and we need to make the most of that. We don't need to be afraid of artificial intelligence, but we need to regulate it properly. In doing so, we must do our utmost to make the European standards we are now establishing global standards and I support all the Commission’s efforts in this regard.

Colleague Glavak, you spoke, and I agree, about the impact of artificial intelligence on the economy and various segments of life, but also the fact that there are great fears that artificial intelligence could lead to both, and in general automation and the development of technologies can lead to the loss of many jobs because many jobs will become unnecessary. Are you afraid of such a scenario? What do you think we can do, that public authorities can do to prevent or facilitate this transition to new technologies and prevent many people from losing their jobs and their livelihoods from being threatened?