Speeches

The minutes of this meeting will be submitted to Parliament for approval at the beginning of the next meeting. If there are no objections, I will forward the resolutions adopted at today's sitting to the persons and bodies referred to in those resolutions.

This closes this item on the agenda. Ladies and gentlemen, I very much regret that we have now reached the end of our meeting possibilities and that the explanations of vote are now suffering as a result. I like the explanations of vote very much, so please also contact your group presidents. On the one hand, the Conference of Presidents ultimately makes the agenda. Secondly, I allow myself the personal remark that the explanations of vote are actually there to say why, contrary to public promises, one has now voted a little differently than one might expect. Today everyone was in favour, except for Mrs Daly, who actually said, in accordance with the meaning of the explanations of vote, why she is actually in favour of the whole thing, but still abstained. This is the real meaning of the explanations of vote and not substitute speaking time, which may not have been obtained during the debate on the actual history. I would therefore now ask my colleagues who are no longer able to speak on the motions for resolutions on Russia’s escalation of its war of aggression against Ukraine, on the outcome of the Commission’s review of the 15-point action plan on trade and sustainable development and on ‘New impetus for a strengthened maritime policy and biodiversity conservation’, to understand and to point out that there is an opportunity to make these votes in writing.

I would like to point out that we are already very close in time. This is an important issue. The Commissioner has also introduced extensively in it. He will probably respond extensively as well. That's why we have certain time limits. We have 21 explanations of vote afterwards, and of the seven colleagues I have here alone, five are partly fully involved in the explanations of vote. I am actually determined to take all seven spontaneous interventions, but I would like to point out that in the explanations of vote I have to point out to some colleagues that they will then submit them in writing.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on COVID-19 – ensuring preparedness and an effective EU response: a Outlook – by Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the Special Committee on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations for the future, and Pascal Canfin, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (O-000024/2022 – B9-0020/2022) (2022/2735(RSP)).

The minutes of yesterday's meeting and the texts adopted are available. I see that there are no objections. The minutes have thus been approved.

Madam President, I just wanted to say briefly that I am working with the right voting card, but obviously it seems to be so coded that I am colliding with fellow Liberal Monica Semedo here. I don't want her to get in trouble or me because we vote wrong. But at least I would like it to be recorded. So I couldn't vote correctly today, I voted with plus everywhere.

Madam President, I try to do my job here in the house, if possible, as unexcited as possible. But today I was annoyed by one or two things. Commissioner, you have said that the recast is really only about regulating technical aspects. So when it comes to that, we wouldn't have had to raise the big stage here now. No, it's not just about changing technical aspects. We have also changed some of the content that leads to changes in the competition between the parties. And I really want to say that you have this Recast – the recast that you have chosen, which limits us – because you do not want Parliament to go where you do not want to go. And in the light of what the Commission wants to achieve with the Conference on the Future of Europe and has announced there, I must say that this matter was a missed opportunity for legislation. And then to the esteemed colleagues from the competitors: I would have liked to have asked Mr Saryusz-Wolski. So Mr Lebreton has spoken, Mr Lacapelle is no longer here. He said: We do not participate because things are discussed that we do not like. The ID Group does not even consider it necessary to appoint a shadow rapporteur and send him to the negotiations. You might get the idea that with legislation that I don't want at all, there are a few details I can work on to improve or worsen the story. It has been said here that you are the friends of freedom. You didn't take the proof. But you haven't been able to prove that you're friends at work. And some of your colleagues are already gone. And colleague Saryusz-Wolski, I will also say that he has not been there once and has also made a relatively strong statement here. Parliament is not enough. I would not come up with the idea of exposing colleagues who are often prevented from taking part in a debate here in the Chamber, because sometimes I don't have time either. But when I'm dealing with legislation and when I have speaking time, I'm there all the time. Incidentally, this also applies to the two representatives of the Greens, who are now perhaps clapping applause. Yes, the Greens pulled out a point, otherwise they took part in the compromises. Yes, but Mrs Delbos-Corfield said she had never experienced this or that. I have never experienced that in a shadow rapporteur meeting people are so often represented so differently and are not there at all. If you have to bite into every microphone outside, yes, then you have to make sure that you can also do the work inside. Wherever people take responsibility – in governments – yes, you can see how thin the paint is. So I simply do not allow certain things to be offered to me in this House anymore and, when you stand there and finally decide on legislation, I do not leave such a remark out there.

Mr Lacapelle, thank you for the opportunity to ask the interim question. I am quite surprised at the important arguments you put forward here. Would you be able to tell me why your group did not appoint a shadow rapporteur for the meetings of the shadow rapporteurs and did not take the opportunity to name the arguments you are presenting here to someone in the preparation of this important legislation?

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, fellow Members, ladies and gentlemen! Today, we are working on a report to better regulate European party financing. The financing of political parties is undoubtedly one of the mosaic pieces that together represent the image of European democracy or, which is not the same thing, of democracy in Europe. This overall picture will then also determine the extent to which it is possible to really form a European public. We want strong party families as those who also explain to the public what is happening in Parliament, who set out their programmes before the European elections and enter into competition for voter confidence. This legislation is an important step. But I want to say: This is not a milestone, it is another step. Further steps will have to follow. What the Commission has put forward is essentially what Parliament has also called for. However, Parliament had some ideas beyond that, and I should like to say explicitly, Commissioner: We dislike the fact that the Commission has adopted the stylistic instrument of the RecastThe novella was chosen. And the agreements between the Commission and Parliament stipulate that, in this Parliament, Parliament is limited to addressing the issues where the Commission has laid hands on the law and introduced changes. All other areas were somewhat taboo for us, so are the current rules. And from a parliamentary point of view, I find it extremely unsportsmanlike that the Commission should follow the path of Recast He has chosen. This is not the cooperation with Parliament that the Commission promised when it took office. Many applications concerned technical details. We have no quarrel at all. We had more than 300 applications. Most things are there to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, close loopholes, tighten sanctions, and facilitate operations. However, I would like to go into a few points that will certainly be very difficult in the future. Today, as my co-rapporteur, Mr Goerens, will do, we will ask for a mandate to enter into negotiations with the Council, Mr Minister. You don't need to be a prophet to say that these negotiations won't be easy. Parliament and the parties attach great importance to our being able to enter into political competition. And in my Member State – I want to say this quite frankly – if in a few weeks there is a state election in Lower Saxony, then it goes without saying that the parties, the party leaders drive to this federal state and also present political positions for their party in the respective country. This is perceived by some Member States as no-go, indecent, taboo, interference. And this has lost nothing in a modern European party democracy. We may not reach an agreement, but we will have to fight for it. The EPP Group, if I may add this, still has a difficult point: We have seen with some grumbling that the own resources have been reduced from ten percent to five percent. We did this in the interest of a package. But we have great concerns – as I have always announced in the negotiations – that in the election year, where the parties are always in danger, when it gets hot, difficult ways to go, that this own contribution will be reduced to zero in the election year. We do not understand this, we do not follow this path. And we want to show that in the votes. Otherwise, I would like to thank all those who have been involved in these negotiations with good will.

The meeting closed and will resume tomorrow, Thursday 15 September, at 9 a.m. with the debate on the report by Mr Goerens and myself on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations. The agenda has been published and is available on the European Parliament's website.

Thank you very much, Mrs Krehl. Thank you also from my side for your work. There are not many - certainly not tonight - who have been with me in this House for so long without us ever working together in a joint committee. But, of course, your reputation precedes you in other committees, and I wish you all the best. However, I assume that a few words will be found tomorrow at the end of the plenary session. All the best!

As regards the decisions of several committees to enter into interinstitutional negotiations pursuant to Rule 71(1), announced at the opening of the part-session on Monday 12 September, the President has not received requests to vote in Parliament from Members or one or more political groups reaching at least the medium threshold. The committees can therefore start negotiations.

In accordance with Rule 241(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to inform you that no request for a vote has been made on the IMCO Committee's corrigendum, which was announced to the plenary yesterday at the opening of the meeting. The correction is therefore deemed to have been accepted.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the report by Markus Pieper, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 (COM(2021)0557 – C9-0329/2021 – 2021/0218(COD))) (A9-0208/2022).