Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, the situation is as follows: agricultural holdings have decreased by around 40% in the last 15 years. According to the data in the report, only 6% of farmers are under 35 years of age. Isabel Carvalhais's report explains the causes very well. The countryside is not attractive to young people. Low profitability, uncertainty, market access and difficult access to land are the main reasons. The permanence of women in the rural and agrarian world is even more difficult. What does this mean? In addition to causing a sustained exodus in rural areas, it can pose a clear threat to food security. According to demographic projections, the world's population is projected to increase by two billion over the next thirty years. However, agriculture is left without generational renewal. Solutions therefore need to be further explored because, although the CAP incorporated the objective, much remains to be done. The measures are not working, and that is obvious. And, all the while, large investment funds offer between 5% and 10% profits, acquiring large estates and rounding up professional farmers. I think this is to spend more than a minute. Congratulations to the rapporteur, Isabel Carvalhais, for her good work on this report.

Mr President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, I will tell you about Spain, where 70% of the geographical demarcations present water stress and the risk of desertification. This affects agriculture but, above all, it also affects human supply. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop as quickly as possible the infrastructure necessary for proper water planning and management. First of all, the focus needs to be changed. Some practices that overexploit aquifers, deteriorate our rivers and pollute water bodies are useless. These practices lead us to situations such as those suffered by Doñana, the Tablas de Daimiel or the Tagus River in Spain. When we talk about infrastructures suitable for Europe, we are not talking about those listed by Mr Buxadé. Nor of those that promote transfers that leave dry areas, sometimes supplied by tankers, to others that have alternatives to the use of water, such as desalination plants. Therefore, what needs to be done is to increase investment to make that change in the management model possible, advancing in efficiency, reuse, desalination and digitization of the water cycle. We have the support of the European Commission and also of the Presidency of the Council, which in this case holds the Spanish Presidency.

Madam President, in my country it is said, 'River scrambled, gain of fishermen'. I believe that we must stand firm and united in the face of the threat of corruption in the institutions, because, if not, this weakens us even more. I believe that this report has served to implement ways of improving it so that it can function better and use it as a kind of vaccine against corruption. I want to highlight the most important thing: the transparency register, the register of financial statements, the ethics body and the obligation to declare all meetings with the lobbies. I am surprised that, at this stage, the report proposes a cooling-off period of just six months, when most Member States have already set at least around 24 months. We also consider it necessary to ban outright the exercise of parallel professions incompatible with our parliamentary obligations in order to avoid, precisely, any kind of conflict of interest in the exercise of our mandate. Moving down this path, I think it's going to be possible for corruption to become increasingly difficult. But above all, it is very important to work and deepen a culture of zero tolerance for corruption and education, also within institutions, so that this can never be possible again.

Mr. President, a statement that is obvious: Without agriculture we cannot live. We need resilient agriculture. That's what the Commissioner said. Is it right now? There's a lot of talk about food security, but do we really have it? How long? Crops are being lost due to drought and climate change. To give an example: in Spain, 50% of the cereal harvest has been lost due to drought. And there is also – there has been a lot of talk here – about young farmers. How attractive can farmers be to engage in agriculture if they are in permanent crisis? Farmers therefore need to be supported and trade-offs between the Green Deal and agriculture cannot be offered. Both can be combined, but they need resources, they need support and the farmer does not have to be criminalized. But neither can agriculture be used as an element of confrontation and demagoguery and, above all, of anti-Europeanism.

Madam President, since the beginning of the war, the shopping basket has not stopped rising, among other things, because of the high price of fertilisers, where the cost of manufacturing gas is 80%. Putin knows what he's doing. But European citizens also need to know what the European Union is going to do to deal with this situation. Long-term measures are fine. You, Commissioner, spoke about the advance of ammonia-based fertilisers from green hydrogen. That's very good. In Spain we have the first company in the world to manufacture fertilizers with hydrogen and without emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. You are invited to meet her, by the way, in my region, in Puertollano. But of course, having great potential, he still has a long way to go in the medium and long term. Therefore, we need immediate help. I find it bad news to say that the European Commission has no intention of taking any further action in the short term. They cannot place the full weight of the aid in the Member States. My country has already done so: 300 million. But they must harmonise the response and aid is unavoidable. It has to come from the European Commission. We also call on you to make progress in improving the transparency of the fertiliser market in order to avoid market distortions. In short, they have to act now. Fast and accurate responses are what we ask of you in the face of an unsustainable situation.

Madam President, thank you to the rapporteur for the work done. I would also like to thank my colleague, Álex Saliba, as shadow rapporteur, for the work he has done. The Committee on Petitions is the most direct channel of communication between citizens and the European institutions. Thanks to petitions, Europeans can denounce the violation of rights or raise trilogues - with Parliament, the Council and the Commission - on certain proposals in which the European Union has competences. True, few parliaments in the world have this formula of accountability and rights assurance. The question is, is this valuable instrument fully enhanced? I agree with my colleagues that there is room for improvement, for example, greater involvement of the European Commission in providing its assessment of certain complaints. On many occasions it shows an equidistance that should not be such when it comes to positioning itself on issues that are within its competence. It should also be more proactive and faster and more diligent in dealing with such requests. I therefore take advantage of Commissioner Hahn's presence to convey that demand. In any case, are citizens sufficiently aware of the Committee on Petitions? Do they value it? Is it useful to them? It could be said that, in general terms, yes. It would be unfair to deny the serious and committed work of the majority of colleagues who work to give voice and response to citizens. It is our duty to ensure the proper functioning of the Committee on Petitions, which should be called the Committee on Full Citizenship. We should be shining the spotlight on the Committee on Petitions every day. However, certain Members, instead of shining it out, cut it out. Instead of going to their parties to make opposition, they use this commission to present petitions not only to defend the citizens, but mainly to attack democratically elected governments. There are petitions that have been debated up to three times without even having competence at European level, just because some decide to follow partisan strategies that do not respect the decision of the citizens. Along the way, many citizens wait years, even decades, without getting an answer from this Parliament. Let us make a joint reflection, going beyond the partisan sectarianism of a few, on how we can improve the Committee on Petitions. This is also democracy and this is also accountability and, above all, it is the rights of European citizens. Merry Christmas to colleagues and to all Members of the European Parliament.

Mr President, Parliament is not an impenetrable bubble. There are real threats from those who want to impose themselves against the rule of law and democracy. We know that they use sophisticated and cruder formulas to penetrate institutions, condition public opinion, whitewash tyrannized governments and alter the will of citizens in democratic processes. We live in times of shock and shame that have to make us react with all the forcefulness and strength that the situation requires. The burden of the law must always fall on the corrupt and the corrupt. And this Parliament, the most democratic in the world, must redouble its efforts to shield democracy. The Special Committee on Foreign Interference in All Democratic Processes in the European Union has made proposals in this direction and welcomed the announcement by Ursula von der Leyen of this democracy defence package to protect us against covert foreign interference. And the question is: By when? by when that independent ethical authority? by when the European law against influence-trafficking and corruption, which was announced yesterday by Mrs Johansson and today with Commissioner Hahn? The question is: By when? Let us make the European Union absolutely impervious to these attacks by our democracy, which are truly real.

Mr President, to speak of cohesion policy is to speak of one of the most important pillars of the Union, as it is the guarantor of equality in Europe and the backbone of territories. The fact that more than a third of the European budget is earmarked is a measure of its importance. However, I would like to stress the need to maintain a correct approach to what is being pursued by cohesion policies. It is true that the current challenges have required emergency responses to the effects of the COVID-19 crisis and the consequences of the war in Ukraine, and cohesion policy funds have been there and it has been shown that, when you want, you can. But beware, let's not turn cohesion policy funds into the tailor's drawer. These crises we are talking about have further widened social and territorial gaps. That is why, Commissioner, we have to help people and regions with the greatest difficulties by strengthening the instruments that make us equal. By the way, I miss even more mentions of rural areas and depopulation policy. This issue I think has to be at the top of the agenda. Therefore, let us identify well weaknesses and challenges. Let us make their work easier for the institutions. Bureaucratic hurdles must be tackled. Bureaucracy does not have to be a guarantee of good management. On the contrary, bureaucracy is an element that exacerbates differences. Talk to areas that have fewer resources and the vicious circle that bureaucracy can lead them to. Therefore, let us facilitate the work of the different institutions. Cohesion policy is needed more than ever, so let us call for greater ambition to ensure that it remains an essential value of the Union. I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteurs for the work they have done.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, promoting a digital and intelligent transformation, placing us at the highest standards of intelligence, innovation and global competitiveness, is now more necessary than ever. We're seeing it in Putin's war, which combines conventional attacks with cyberattacks. They are hybrid wars that are doing serious damage to democracy and human rights. And we see this also in times of COVID, when the important role that online work has played in the workplace and in sectors such as education and health has been highlighted. This report addresses the need to advance in this more than necessary digital transition, but without losing sight of the most vulnerable. We want the incorporation into the digital age to be the same for everyone, from the field of social and territorial cohesion, but how to achieve that digital transition without generating inequalities or delving further into the already existing gaps? The challenge is important: Falling on one side or the other depends, for example, on where you reside. So much so that, according to the data offered by the European Commission itself, 41% of Europeans living in rural areas do not have access to high-speed networks. That is to say, there is a very deep geographical gap, which is further accentuated when we analyse the situation in the depopulated areas of the European Union. But we can also talk about a gender gap, which is palpable and reflected in numerous studies, which say that women are systematically underrepresented in the digital sector, as they occupy only 17% of the positions specialized in this field. There is also a generational and educational gap that is evident: 42% of the adult population in the European Union does not have basic digital skills. In addition, there is also a huge gap in the productive sector, with 37% of workers lacking digital skills to perform their jobs and only 17% of SMEs successfully integrating digital technologies into their businesses. In this sense, cohesion policy is undoubtedly an essential tool to overcome these gaps, but it is very important to do so taking into account the particular needs of each region and offering tailored assistance. In this report we set out a number of measures to achieve this. We consider it essential to exploit the potential of the European observatory for rural innovation and development, for the collection and identification of data, including at cartographic level, and for proper intervention in the regions and municipalities most affected. In the same way, we believe that it is essential that, once and for all, the commitment to universal access to high capacity networks is fulfilled, a basic resource to guarantee equality in access to basic services and guarantee entrepreneurship by prioritizing rural and more depopulated areas, where the greatest digital divide occurs. We must understand that the modernization of e-government is as necessary as the adaptation of traditional industries to new technologies. We also call for concrete actions to advance digital skills acquisition at all levels: older people, but also public servants and entrepreneurs. It is very worrying that many companies have problems finding qualified staff in new technologies and often have to resort to experts from outside their countries to fill positions of some specialization. Equally worrying is to observe the talent drain that occurs in certain areas due to lack of digital resources. We therefore call for more ambitious targets and, in particular, for the presentation of a digital action plan at European level, with short-, medium- and long-term objectives. The European budget and Next Generation EU funds provide the timely injection needed for this digital transformation. The European Union must be a leading power in this economic transformation and do so, at the same time, in a fair and cohesive way. We must not miss this enormous opportunity to make it a reality. I would like to conclude by giving my sincere thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs who have participated in this report for their rich and interesting contributions to it.

Madam President, the aromatic plants sector is of great importance in Europe; In addition to being beneficial and healthy, it is a sustainable crop due to its low water consumption and contributes to the protection of the environment. However, in the context of the chemicals strategy and the revision of the European Commission's REACH Regulation, there are those who intend to include lavender and lavandin, among others, within toxic chemicals. This decision would affect aromatic plant crops in Spain, Bulgaria, France, Croatia and Slovenia. And, especially, in the case of essential oils, it would lack all logic and scientific rigor, since all the elaboration is natural. In addition, it ignores the impact that this decision can have on the supply chain and on the economic activity that is being bet on in the line of defense of sustainable development. We therefore call on the European Commission to involve and guarantee the participation of washers and associated industries throughout this process and, above all, to provide a fair response to the continued existence and future of the sector.

Madam President, one more year we value the work of the Ombudsman, of this very important European institution, in this case the year 2020, a very complicated year for all, at the height of the pandemic and with the European authorities taking important decisions: measures that, as everyone knows, had to be taken against the clock to respond to the impact of this huge pandemic. But the urgency of the measures cannot justify laxities or non-compliances in the strict controls and demands that we have given ourselves in the public administrations and in the European institutions. Urgency is not at odds with compliance with procedures and procedures are not at odds with transparency, especially given the significant number of actions that have had to be taken by the European Commission and the Member States. To tackle COVID-19, it was necessary to be quick but to maintain rigour in the procedures. Because we must be very careful with those who fall into the temptation to appeal to freedom as an excuse to hinder the work of transparency that certain institutions must have, but for which, first of all, we have to watch over each and every one of us, and fulfill it. Here, therefore, I would like to reclaim the important role played by the Ombudsman's Office in this extremely significant year and, moreover, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the institution. I would like to highlight the important role played by this great institution after twenty-five years and that, now more than ever, we must claim for the guarantee of transparency which, in turn, is a guarantee of democracy and a guarantee of human rights. And I would like to congratulate the Ombudsman for the work she has done and also the rapporteurs for the work they have done in this annual evaluation report.

Mr President, whenever we take stock of the Committee on Petitions we often say that this is a very, very important committee because it is the tool that citizens have to enforce their European rights. It would be good if we all believed it, because some also think that, since it is not a legislative committee, it is a second committee. In my opinion, this is a top-notch commission. No other has the capacity to hear citizens as does the Committee on Petitions. No other has the capacity to require reports or to bring the European Commission or the Member States or their regions, or even local authorities, as does the Committee on Petitions. Of course, on many occasions we criticise the European Commission for not being more involved in its role as "guardian of the Treaties" when it comes to positioning itself on specific complaints where it is very easy to do so. That is why, for the umpteenth time, we call for greater involvement on the part of the Commission to respond and, also, on the part of all European bodies. And, looking at MEPs, I call on the right-wing groups in this House to stop shielding the instrumentalisation of the Committee on Petitions as a tool for attacking and opposing democratically elected governments. This is happening with Spanish deputies from the PP, Vox and Ciudadanos, who confuse the Committee on Petitions with a national Parliament or a television set. They are deputies who raise issues without competence or justification, with the intention of generating headlines about fictitious investigations of Europe against the Government of Spain. And they do it sometimes using militants or even public officials of their parties camouflaged as petitioners to simulate fabricated violations. Please stop usurping the right of citizens who really need us, but who fail to present their demands because other issues are admitted only because some do not know how to lose the elections. I know you're not all, ladies and gentlemen, you do a great job here. This is a minority of Members, but unfortunately, to date, they have the support of their groups to raise these issues, which is simply inadmissible and causes serious damage to the institution.

Mr President, after three years of intense negotiations, we finally voted on the political agreement on the CAP, and I would like, first of all, to congratulate the architects, because it has been complex, it has not been easy, and, after meetings and disagreements, we have managed to improve what was initially proposed. It is true that it is not perfect, but today we are voting for a more ambitious CAP, a fairer CAP, a greener and more sustainable CAP, in line with the new environmental requirements, and therefore more committed, and we are voting for a more social CAP in which the role to be played by women in the countryside is finally recognised, and in which young people are supported, favouring generational renewal and stimulating life in rural areas, and also, very importantly, the rights of agricultural workers are guaranteed. Not without difficulties, we have struck the right balance to defend that social and environmental commitments are not at odds with the economic profitability of farms and the future of the countryside. This CAP especially supports family farming, professional farming, small and medium-sized European farms, and gives support and certainty, necessary in times of crisis, to continue offering consumers the best agri-food products in the world from a more innovative, more competitive and healthier agriculture.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have already said: If there are 87 million people with disabilities in the European Union and only 1% of the petitions we are debating here, in this Parliament, have to do with people with disabilities, does that mean that everything is all right? No, it means we're not doing everything right. And here we have talked about many deficiencies that highlight the enormous inequalities that people with some type of disability still suffer. And the report of the Committee on Petitions is very, very explicit: ensure compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. And with this report - by the way, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the other rapporteurs for the magnificent work they have done - we want to exercise that responsibility by exercising the role that the European Parliament and the rest of the institutions have to play, opening ourselves up to the rest of the citizens, facilitating sign language, facilitating accessibility measures for people who come to us and, above all, guaranteeing the rights of people with disabilities, which, today, in the 21st century, are still not completed. I therefore congratulate the rapporteur and also encourage the European Commission to exercise its responsibilities and its commitments here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is beginning to leave behind the hardest months of this pandemic, and this is happening, without any doubt, thanks to the extension of vaccination and the responsibility shown by the vast majority of citizens, European and European, who have turned with all their hopes to a vaccination process that is making history and that has managed to immunize more than 70% of the population of the European Union, as the Commissioner commented. I think it is important to start precisely by praising this magnificent level of immunisation and congratulating the health professionals and authorities of the Member States on the magnificent data. But celebrating this success is not at odds with the proper exercise of our political and institutional responsibilities and, in line with this, today we are debating the mistakes made - intentional or not - such as the lack of transparency and opacity in access to information on the process of acquiring and distributing vaccines, both by the European Commission and by pharmaceutical companies, because we cannot ignore that part of the miracle of these vaccines has been achieved thanks to the large investments of public money advanced by the European Union to companies that have hardly taken risks. Europeans therefore have the right to know the conditions under which their money has been spent. How can it be that at this point we still do not know how much the vaccines have cost us? How can it be that European citizens still do not know under what conditions contracts with pharmaceutical companies have been negotiated? It is difficult to respond to citizens who come to Parliament with requests for transparency in this regard, and we can only agree with them when they ask us for more information. This is especially serious, and more so knowing that, with everyone's money, some pharmaceutical companies defaulted on delivery commitments, causing vaccination delays, uncertainty and mistrust. I do not think that, at this stage, we have to reason about a right, which the Court of Justice of the European Union itself recognizes, which is the right to health protection, which prevails over other economic considerations. Nor do I think that, at this stage, this Parliament has to denounce the limitations to which we have been subjected in our control tasks in the management and implementation of the funds that have been allocated to vaccination. And it is also easy to draw another important conclusion in the absence of information and transparency: Fake news, disinformation have been rampant, and that, in the end, has an impact on the vaccination process. Even today, health authorities have to make an effort to make certain citizens understand that getting vaccinated is the best option to defeat the virus. Although the European average is good, this is achieved thanks to countries with excellent vaccination rates, such as Malta, Portugal or Spain, where, together with other countries, we far exceed the European average of the immunized population. But it is no less true that there are countries, such as Bulgaria or Romania, where, today, they only reach 18% or 27% respectively. These latest data show that many citizens of the Union choose not to get vaccinated and, in many cases, they do so because of that distrust that has been generated and to which I am mentioning. This could have been avoided if, since the start of negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies, as much transparency as possible had been offered. That is why we are asking for information on the conditions under which contracts with pharmaceutical companies have been concluded and what the implications are. It is information that not only citizens deserve to know, but also this House, in which we are debating this issue today. During this process, the European Commission has forgotten that the European Parliament is mandated by the Treaties to scrutinise the European budget, a role which has been severely hampered by a lack of data. The European Commission can no longer respond with opacity to a situation of this magnitude. It is necessary for this House to be a key part of future negotiation processes and for us not to be 'guests of stone', which is what we have been so far.

Mr President, almost 600 days have passed since Brexit materialised and thousands of citizens are still suffering the consequences of the UK leaving the European Union. Some economic sectors are being more adversely affected than others, such as the fisheries sector, which is affected by a significant reduction in the fishing quota and significant losses. The Adaptation Reserve Facility Brexit, which is conceived with the intention of compensating the most affected sectors, started with a limited ambition. It had an improved allocation and a distribution that was unfair to some affected countries, such as Spain. The good news is that wanting is power and, in front of those who preferred nothing to change, we have prevailed those who considered it worth making an effort to help those most affected. The result? A more ambitious fund, more aid, but also a fairer distribution system. The parties should therefore be congratulated on their good work and willingness.