Speeches

Mr President, this is not a debate about values, this is not a debate about or against the green goals that we have all set ourselves and around which we have all united. This is a debate on whether to allow for the temporary financing of energy sources that are key for European citizens and industry. The question is not whether we will continue to invest in them because they are needed, the question is where the funds will come from. Will we make it easier for these projects to be privately funded? Will we create a regulatory framework to generate fresh money in the energy sector or burden state public finances, which are currently limited and need to be targeted to tackle more serious problems such as the economic and social crisis. I urge you to vote for the taxonomy.

Madam President, Commissioner, the precarious situation we are in since the start of the war in Ukraine requires us to think about our energy security. We need to develop our own technologies and produce the energy we need within the European Union. The European nuclear sector is one of the most innovative in the world. We must maintain our position and the European Union's high-quality jobs in this strategic sector. The goals of achieving a carbon-free economy are clear, but we need baseload capacity to ensure the stability of Europe's energy system. We still do not have enough technological capacity to rely solely on renewable energy sources, and this is clear with the reopening of coal plants in Germany and Austria. Nuclear energy will ensure affordable electricity prices and sufficient electricity for European citizens and industry. Pragmatic policies must be at the forefront. European citizens expect solutions from us. We must vote against the proposed rejection of the delegated act in the Taxonomy.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, Mr Omarjee, it’s been said many times that islands and remote areas are probably the regions that need our support the most. Some of those areas are so isolated that their economy relies only on agriculture and tourism. Two weeks ago, with colleagues from the Regional Development Committee, we visited the remote Spanish island of La Palma, part of the Canaries, where the volcanic eruption at the end of last year caused tremendous damage. 10% of the agricultural area was destroyed, which accounts for about 40% of the GDP of the island, and 7 000 people have been evacuated. The infrastructure has been destroyed and the total cost of the damage was about EUR 1.2 billion. The EU has provided EUR 5.4 million from the Solidarity Fund to help the restorations and the renovations of the island. More than EUR 1 billion are provided from cohesion policy funds to the Canary Islands, but they have to be invested appropriately. This is just one example, in the picture I’ve painted, to show you how much the EU actually does matter for those regions. This is just one example why we need to invest more in islands and in remote areas. But it also shows us the necessity of a comprehensive European strategy. We don’t need just emergency measures. We actually need a long—term, comprehensive, common EU strategy for islands and for remote areas.

Dear Commissioner, dear Members, the primary objective of any energy policy is security of supply and affordable prices. First, we need to ensure affordable prices. Competitive prices are achieved only if we work with all possible partners, and not through sole dependence on a single supplier. We also need to develop our own resources. This is the only way to ensure security and independence. We need diversification, not just the replacement of one dependency with another. Second, we need infrastructure. Over the years, we have missed the opportunity to build a sustainable gas transmission system. The interconnector between Bulgaria and Greece is not yet complete and we need to fix this error quickly. Thirdly, European solidarity will again be key to overcoming this crisis as well. Countries with reserved pipeline quantities will have to show solidarity and help countries such as Bulgaria, whose main supplies are currently cut off. Last but not least, the balanced energy mix we want to develop from now on must be green and sustainable. Decisions before us are limited. Renewable energy sources and stable baseload energy capacities in the face of nuclear energy.

Madam President, we welcome the work of the European Commission in 2020. Of course, we also take note of the Court’s findings, showing that there are still problems requiring improvement both at EU level and at Member State level. We ask the Commission to carry on taking measures to reduce the outstanding payments, as well as to continue to deal with outstanding issues, in order to increase the trust of the EU citizens when it comes to the EU budget and financing. However, we must not forget that 2020 was a very challenging year. The Commission managed to ensure good governance of the EU budget and had an adequate response to the consequences of the COVID—19 crisis. Despite the significant impact on the internal functioning and the management of the EU budget, we welcome the efforts on the temporary mechanisms such as Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) and the Corona Response Initiative. They helped to smooth the negative effects of the crisis. Therefore, S&D recommends to grant discharge to the European Commission for 2020.

Mr President, the energy crisis that began last year is now deepening and the situation in Ukraine is intensifying the situation, so we must find solutions now. Europe has only one way forward and this is energy independence and affordable electricity prices. We must develop domestic EU renewable technologies. We need additional funding for that and we need to guarantee stable renewable energy. The future, however, requires a baseload power, and the only path here is nuclear energy. We must now establish an accelerated procedure for the approval of the new nuclear projects in the EU without this being at the expense of the severe and strict safety requirements. Renewable energy and nuclear energy are the only path forward to the green transition and to energy independence. Only this would guarantee the energy autonomy of Europe. We should not allow ourselves to move from one form of energy dependency to another one.

Madam President, Commissioner, energy prices have been the biggest contributor to rising inflation in recent months. The most serious problem is that once again the most vulnerable citizens will bear the crisis the hardest. They expect quick solutions from us, not ideological disputes. To solve this problem, we need to offer strong and unified pan-European positions when negotiating the long-term supply of energy raw materials from third countries. We also need the development of proven technologies such as nuclear energy. The Taxonomy Delegated Act presented by the European Commission is a step in the right direction. We need practical and workable solutions so that we no longer fall into such energy and price crises.

Madam President, 2020 was a difficult year, which affected Europe’s society and economy in an unprecedented way. It did, of course, affect the implementation of the EU funds in EU programmes. In this context, it is positive to note that the report concludes that the revenues for 2020 are regular, legal and free of material error. Of course, it is good that the estimated error in expenditure remained the same as last year, at 2.7%. I would like to mention that there are certain positive developments in significant areas of EU spending, including cohesion, where we see a decrease in the error rate this year compared to the previous year. The current crisis is not over. EU support must reach people and small businesses swiftly and without unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Digital and large—scale investments must offer a balanced and effective recovery, and this Parliament needs assurances on the achievements and the milestones of the targets we set so we can achieve the goals we have ahead of us.

Mrs. Simpson, I won't get tired of saying that the energy transition is necessary. I will also continue to argue that the different starting position of the Member States must be taken into account in this transition. The most vulnerable cannot bear the brunt of the burden. Every social system is as strong as its weakest link. Once coal plants are phased out, we will need stable baseload capacity. Nuclear energy needs to be developed in the Union in order to be able to guarantee low prices for end-users. We also need to ensure the livelihood and reskilling of coal workers in the future. To this end, we need to make effective use of the new European funds and financial mechanisms. In this context, I would like to ask you what stage the assessment of energy projects in the Bulgarian recovery and resilience plan is at. His presentation was delayed because of the need for changes in this particular area.

Madam President, thank you to the Commissioner for being here. We are in the middle of the economic and social crisis now, and I don’t think we speak enough about the European SMEs, which are the driving force of the European economy because they represent about more than 60% of the EU GDP and more than 100 million jobs. So they’re responsible for our economic and social integrity. The current crisis is still not over, and the European small businesses need immediate measures in order to prevent any further negative effects happening to our economy. Any future legislative proposal should focus on reducing administrative burden and providing liquidity and better financing. And, last but not least, we have to help the EU SMEs from all over the Member States to work together and to cooperate, in order to cope with upcoming changes and still to remain competitive on the global economic market.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear Ms Charanzová, first of all, I would like to thank you for the hard work and also to thank all the fellow shadow rapporteurs who’ve been working hard on this file and our respective teams. In May 2018, the European Commission proposed to amend the Motor Insurance Directive in five main areas. The first one was the insolvency of the issuer, where it was proposed to create a mechanism ensuring compensation of injured parties in case of insolvency. The second area was the right of the policyholder to obtain the statement of their claims issued in the past five years. The third was to introduce checks against insured drivers. The fourth was to set up an obligatory minimum amount of the cover provided by the insurance policies, where the Member States could add up and require a higher amount on a national level. And the final area was the clarification of the scope of the directive in line with the recent Court of Justice of the European Union rulings. The negotiations on the file were marked by the COVID—19 pandemic and lasted almost two years. However, I believe that together with my colleagues, we did manage to achieve several important changes in the interests of all the EU citizens. We, as S&D, did manage to deliver on several key priorities. The first one I would like to mention is that compensation to road accident victims is guaranteed even in case of the insolvency of the insurance company. This will ensure that we would not allow legal chaos to happen, even in the case of bankruptcy of any given insurance company. Each Member State is required to set up a body to compensate the insured injured parties for damage caused by vehicles when there is insolvency of the insurer. A second S&D priority that we fought very hard for was to exclude the new forms of sustainable transportation solutions like e—bikes and scooters from the scope of the directive. We believe that only by using such innovative solutions can we reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the carbon footprint. Therefore, we need to encourage by all means necessary, the usage of such alternative transportation solutions, and they shouldn’t be in the scope of that directive. Finally, another important aspect for us was the claim history statement. Insurers should not treat their policy-holders in any discriminatory manner based on their nationality or based on their previous Member States’ residency. We don’t believe that this should be tolerated or find any place in the directive, and we managed to achieve that. In that matter, I would like to urge you to vote in favour of the outcome of the trilogue because the EU consumers deserve a well—functioning single market that does not discriminate them but provides fair compensation for all.

Mr. President, in recent months we have witnessed alarming financial scandals. The sanctions against Bulgarian citizens under the Magnitsky Act and the massive revelations of abuses in the Pandora Papers, which involve a number of European and Bulgarian citizens, show that the problems are of an international nature and Europe must act with common efforts. The new legislative draft proposed by the Commission to combat money laundering and terrorist financing in the European Union is an imperative step. Creating a single European supervision is of the utmost importance, but it is also good to rely on the use of technology to actively combat these problems. This legislative draft proposes specific customer due diligence measures and also includes a sixth amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Directive. But my question is, shouldn't we use technology more effectively in the fight against financial fraud, and how exactly should we do that?

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I would like to start first by thanking Mr Arimont and all of my fellow shadow colleagues who worked hard on this file. During the short but tough negotiations, we did experience first-hand just how big an impact Brexit is having on the European economy. We saw that the negative effects and the commercial disruptions are unevenly distributed, even among the Member States. All of us involved in the negotiations knew from the very beginning that the EUR 5 billion would not be sufficient to cover and to compensate for the incurred costs, damages and trade profit losses following the UK’s withdrawal. However, we did manage to find the difficult balance that could help the most severely affected regions and sectors. First, we understood that it was important for the EU citizens to have a longer eligibility period for the funds, and thus we extended it starting from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2023. Second, I’m glad that we managed to agree on the mechanism for compensating the fisheries sector, which was the first one to experience the new reality of the changed borders. Finally, the funds of the BAR (Brexit Adjustment Reserve) are intended to support EU SMEs and the self-employed. We managed to include stronger involvement of the local and regional authorities in the management of these funds. Despite the reached trade agreement, it is now time for the national governments of the Member States to implement support measures locally. We should all adapt to the change with a long-term vision, but the Brexit Adjustment Reserve can provide adequate short—term relief that we all need now.