Speeches

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on water scarcity and structural investment in access to water in the EU (2023/2894(RSP)).

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 three IMCO corrections announced to plenary yesterday at the opening of the meeting. The corrections are therefore deemed to have been accepted.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the new European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children (BIK+) by Sabine Verheyen, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education (O-000030/2023 – B9-0029/2023) (2023/2670(RSP)).

Following the European Parliament’s decision of 30 March 2023 to waive the immunity of Ms Anna Júlia Donáth in proceedings pending before the Kecskemét District Court, the competent Hungarian authorities have informed, in accordance with Rule 9(10) of the Rules of Procedure, that the prosecution has ceased.

I would like to inform you that the President has received a request from the Portuguese authorities to waive the parliamentary immunity of Mr José Manuel Fernandes and Mr Paulo Rangel. That request shall be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.

Mr Torvalds, you have now the pleasure to conclude the debate and possibly you react on the 7 speakers out of the 29 speakers which are still in the room, to react and to tell them which conclusions you draw out of that debate.

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, contrary to my custom, I will now have two speakers who have missed their slot add their speaking time. But this already gives me the opportunity to say that this Parliament is a Parliament and not a Parliament. Speakers’ Corner and that a debate is a debate and not the playing of individual speeches and that one then disappears again. So when I look at who listened to the Commissioner at the beginning, and when I see now who will listen to the Commissioner at the end and who is actually there – we often talk about the dignity of the House, and I defend everywhere that here only those colleagues who have worked in committee are often there. But everyone should set up here, and it is a matter of priorities whether I have a committee in parallel or something else that you sort out. And you can expect to be there on time for the debate, and actually you can expect that when someone speaks in the debate, they will listen to the whole debate. This was important to me to say in principle, because otherwise there is a lively coming and going here, and then I can actually put the speeches on record.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the report by Nils Torvalds, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on urban waste water treatment (recast) (COM(2022)0541 – C9-0363/2022 – 2022/0345(COD)) (A9-0276/2023).

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the report by Arba Kokalari, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/83/EU as regards financial services contracts concluded at a distance and repealing Directive 2002/65/EC (COM(2022)0204 – C9-0175/2022 – 2022/0147(COD)) (A9-0097/2023).

The next item on the agenda is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the human rights situation in Afghanistan and in particular on the persecution of former government officials (2023/2881(RSP)).

Ms Miranda I have to tell you that we are giving you notice that following the rules of our House it is not accepted that you wear political notices on your clothes. This is a consensus in the House and I clearly communicated to you that you will not get the floor and you covered a bit, but what you are doing now is not accepted so I do not give you the floor.

There are no more questions now. Some ask how are the rules. The rule is, if the speaker accepts, and if I consider that we have enough time, and today we have enough time, and let me amend a personal remark that these questions are more a lively debate than only reading out speeches, what we saw before. We do not need to accept what somebody said, you might have an opposite decision, but for example Mr Dzhambazki, he spoke completely freely and Mr Pospíšil he partly reacted on what was said before. This a debate what I consider as a debate.

Madam President, dear colleagues, on behalf of the EPP Group and its Vice-President responsible, Paolo Rangel, I want to give this explanation. The EPP Group recognises the importance of the proposals to strengthen parliamentary democracy and citizens’ participation contained in this report. However, we also underline our reservations, mainly with the two following proposals. First, granting the European Parliament scrutiny powers over the European Council as this represents a questionable understanding of the institutional role of both institutions, insufficiently taking into account the democratic legitimacy of elected representatives of Member States. Second, the proposals for establishing a permanent European agora and EU-wide referendums, as we believe strengthening citizens participation cannot overthrow the principle of representative democracy.

The next item on the agenda is the vote. First, the report by Nicolás González Casares. Ladies and gentlemen, I want you now so that there will not be any trouble again – I have been asked –, ... We have a procedure under Rule 71 of the Rules of Procedure, and thereafter a colleague will speak in favour of and against the decision. And it is a constant practice here in the House that someone is taken into account by the Group with the intervention that initiated the procedure first. That is why I can give the floor to Mrs Mesure.

Thank you very much, Mrs Pereira. I will ensure that the responsible Directorate-General investigates this matter. We have already done so successfully in Brussels.

Mr Gahler, you have announced your complaint. The President has informed me that the matter has already been discussed this morning in the Conference of Presidents, in your spirit, and that the matter is being followed up. So, now we have another word on the business order, as I was told, from the fauna department. Mrs Pereira, please.

Mr Gahler has the floor. And if you don't sit down, I'll have you removed from the room. One minute to the Rules of Procedure. Please sit down! (Unrest in the room) Mr Gahler. And you only have one minute, Mr Gahler. (Unrest in the room) Mr Tertsch! I'll call you to order for the second time! I would like to point out that I will have you removed from the room afterwards. Please sit in your seat. Please, nice! Sit down please. Mr Gahler. (Unrest in the room) If Mr Tertsch sits down now, there is no reason to break out in triumph. That's not appropriate either! Mr Gahler, please.