Speeches

Madam President, with eight hives per square kilometre, the Czech Republic is the fourth country in the world in terms of the number of hives. But the past few years have been catastrophic for pollinators. In winter, frost is increasingly alternating with rapid warming. Bees are disoriented, and if the temperature exceeds 10 degrees, they begin to fly out, brittle and die. Yes, pollinators are endangering agricultural chemicals. Cases of the death of poisoned beehives are not a rarity in the Czech Republic either. Pesticides, however, are far from the only and certainly not the biggest current problem of beekeeping. Pollinators are further harmed by drought, devastation of the landscape, insufficient pollen diversity, change in the structure of agricultural production and crop rotation. We must not forget about diseases. It is simply a set of measures that we need to take if we want to help. And I am very happy for the seventh successful European Citizens' Initiative in a row, and I very much hope that the Commission will not treat it like the previous ones and will address the problem properly. However, let's really approach this with intellect and comprehensiveness. One measure won't solve anything.

Madam President, today we are to vote on new CO2 emission limits for cars and commercial vehicles by 2035. The general public knows this regulation under the media abbreviation of the ban on the sale of newly produced cars with an internal combustion engine after 2035. I would like to say a few words about the whole negotiation process, which I consider to be unfortunate, and the more unfortunate is the result itself. In particular, it was presented by the Czech Presidency that this was not the real end of combustion engine cars, because the Council had, after all, promoted the possibility of using synthetic fuels. That's not the case. The only enforced reference to synthetic fuels is contained in a mere recital, i.e. a non-binding part of the text. The debates with the Commission have also been heard, and I think the Commissioner has also promised that if the production of new combustion engine cars comes to an end in 2035, manufacturers will live to see the current Euro 6 emission standard so that they do not have to invest additional resources in dying technology. This did not happen either, and the Commission tricked those Member States who believed it into coming up with the Euro 7 proposal, which will make new ICE cars significantly more expensive by imposing additional requirements not only on the engine, but also on the brakes, etc. The role of useful idiots was then played by the Czech government, which enforced the ban essentially without any defiance, contrary to the pre-election promises under its presidency. And now she realizes that, in combination with the Euro 7 proposal, she has voluntarily killed herself in an industry that makes up 10 percent of the Czech Republic's gross domestic product. The Czech Minister of Transport Kupka then recalled a month and a half after the end of the presidency that the Czech Republic cannot approve Euro 7, but it is of course too late. Not to mention that we are voluntarily and unthinkingly depriving ourselves of the competitive and technological advantage that we have had so far. We will depend on raw materials to produce batteries from China and Africa. For months, colleagues here have been hearing what a mistake it was to bet on fossil fuels from Russia. Today we are doing the same thing again, just with other great powers. The battery industry does not exist. In addition, the development years are behind the Chinese. We bet on electric cars, but how we produce electricity into them and at what price they are simply not solved here either. At the same time, electricity prices are currently crushing households across the EU. So I could go on for an hour. Colleagues, in light of this situation, I would like to ask you: Consider your vote on new CO2 emission limits for cars and commercial vehicles. People and the economy are already bad enough, and this could be fatal. Is this really the path that European industry should take? Aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot? I'm not convinced, and I don't think I'm alone here.

Madam President, corporations and the media have been censoring their websites for a long time. We all know it when we get banned. Previously it was for vulgarity, now it was for an inconvenient opinion. Now, however, the state also wants to censor. The Czech government is even going so far as to want, at a time when it is ordering its citizens to tighten their belts, to sponsor or more correctly bribe 150 million crowns every year, the right media that will spread the government's truth. Is it misinformation that the Czech government will not raise the retirement age? Well, of course it is, because we know it will be. At the end of November, the Prime Minister himself denied it. Is he a misinformer and will he be punished by the sites that quoted him? And what about the so-called disinformation that turned out to be true, and vice versa, the truth that we know today was disinformation, such as the presence of weapons of mass destruction that served as the US ticket to Iraq? Finally, a brief message to the government. Maybe it's time to think about why people don't trust you so much. Start solving citizens' problems and don't turn the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms into a tearing calendar.

Madam President, the absent President of the Commission stayed with us for exactly an hour. It also shows something about the Commission's interest in the views of MEPs. Thank you, Mr. Michel, for staying with us until the end. I'm terrified of what I'm hearing here. If you imagine supporting Ukraine by supplying more tanks there, I'm sad. Other sanctions, military support, €3 billion already mobilised from European money to support Ukraine, but no one knows to whom and what they serve. Can the European Council and the Commission really do nothing else? Will he not for a moment admit that they might be a mover and a peacemaker? Do you remember why the ECSC was created as the forerunner of the European Union? This is to prevent war. You've all forgotten that. In the end it will solve Green Deal. Do you know what's missing from your policy? A man. He won't drown your battle plans at home, he won't cure your weapons, sanctions won't pay him for overpriced food, and Green Deal They don't give him a decent wage. Think of him at least once, ladies and gentlemen. Or don't be surprised that more and more people across Europe don't trust you and doubt the very meaning of this institution.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem is the system itself, and all the adjustments we are making here are simply cosmetic and do not solve it. Under the current legislative situation, there are a number of measures that can at least mitigate medicine shortages. Let me remind you that years ago the Commission came up with a new Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe, in which it emphasised the need to bring part of pharmaceutical production back to the EU. However, neither the Commission nor the Member States have yet indicated who should pay for it. And so nothing happens for years. There is also a need to talk about the general anchoring of medicines and medicines in European Union law. Today, medicines are treated as ordinary goods, such as sugar, salt, flour, so they are subject to the rules of the common market and the principle of supply and demand. And that just has to change! We need to remove medicines from the free movement of goods and regulate movement more. After all, I proposed it already in 2018. In some Member States, they have now discovered with horror that there are even no central registers that would allow a person to look at which specific pharmacies they have a medicine available in and in which they do not. The system that would make this possible was proposed by me and my colleagues – some of whom are sitting here – for the new mandate of the EMA. Again, this was rejected, arguing that such a register would impose an excessive administrative burden. It is also necessary to mention the absolutely unsatisfactory, even tragic, regulation of European Union patent law, which is set up in such a way that only what is the highest margin is produced. The right does not want to talk about it at all. So we're just slapping around, and we have, and we're going to have, drug shortages until we change the system. It's up to us, colleagues, the proposals are here, it's up to us to have the courage to accept them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Czech Republic has long lacked essential medicines on the market. Unfortunately, this is not a result of an increased incidence of respiratory diseases, but rather a systemic problem. We mainly lack penicillin and other antibiotics and medicines for children such as cough syrups, etc. The blackout is the worst in 30 years and can last for several more months. There are many systemic causes: non-functioning patent law, production of medicines and extraction of the necessary substances for their production outside the EU, parallel re-export of medicines between Member States with different price levels, lack of central registers on the availability of medicines directly in individual pharmacies or lack of harmonisation of health law. The situation is not helped by the fact that we have a minister in the Czech Republic who is incompetent and invokes a solution at the level of the European Union. Unfortunately, all the changes we are making in the European Union or at national level are cosmetic. It treats the symptoms of the disease, but not its causes. From my point of view, this whole system needs to be broken down and rebuilt. At the very least, it is necessary to abolish current patent law and ensure that medicines are not subject to the free movement of goods. I will be happy to say more about this in the debate tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at first glance, the idea of a common European market is a great thing. Unfortunately, if we take a closer look at the veneer of one of Europe's great freedoms, we will find that everything is not as rosy as it seems at first glance. It is considered that the Czech Republic has clearly benefited from an open common market. However, the fact is that we live in a country where nothing belongs to the Czechs anymore. We are practically foreigners here, all of which are owned by corporations from other Member States. From the networks of virtually all petrol stations to parts of the energy system and major food chains and industry. You could tell it wasn't really a big deal. The problem is that this thesis only works if it is good. In a crisis, it always turns out that the shirt is closer than the coat. The current energy crisis has confirmed this. For years, the European Union has fought within the framework of the internal free market for the energy market to be fully liberalised. You have fought, colleagues. The result is that the Czech Republic, a country that is certainly not one of the richest in the European Union, now has the most expensive electricity prices. Electricity is cheaply produced in our country, exported to the stock exchange and bought there by companies from rich member countries. For the citizens of the Czech Republic and local companies, only the expensive ones at Western prices will remain. The problem is further accelerated by the fact that even Western companies will find relatively cheaply purchased electricity on the stock exchange expensive. This is followed by an attempt by countries such as Germany to replace this "preciousness" with their companies, which calls into question the propagated internal free market and further widens the gaps in competitiveness. If this is done, only another sale of companies will follow, and the colonial status of the Czech Republic will only deepen. Another example of a dysfunctional internal market can currently be found in the market for medicines. It was revealed to us by the lack of drugs against respiratory diseases. Since under European Union law pharmaceuticals are ordinary goods such as sugar, they are subject to the rules of the common market. Because they are cheaper in Eastern Europe, they are simply bought where they are more needed. And these countries, which are cheaper, so their patients pay for the fact that there are no drugs. And we need to really start talking about changes to primary law that would exclude medicines and pharmaceuticals from the freedom of movement of goods. There's a lot that went wrong. We have something to fix. I don't know if I want another 30 years. I would like 30 years to be better, especially for EU citizens, who would really benefit from the internal market.

Madam President, we have been hearing from the European Commission all the time over the past year how we must be humbled so that we can then read in the press how much richer they have become again – the crisis of the non-crisis. And your solution? To pass on the economic burden to citizens, whose standard of living will in many cases fall fundamentally this year. In the Czech Republic, real wages will fall the most in the last thirty years and also the most among OECD countries. Yet the resources to prevent the crisis from hitting the most vulnerable again are there. We are suffering from capital outflows abroad and within the European Union itself, we are looking at tax havens and multinational giants are simply making us a good day because nobody regulates them. When will you finally take the courage to stand up for those for whom you should be here, Commissioner? When will the EU stop creating problems and start solving them? Enough words. We've been listening to this for almost a year and nothing's going on. People are living worse and worse. It takes something specific to do for them.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me first of all thank the rapporteurs for their exemplary cooperation in negotiating this resolution, which I have had the honour to chair. I hope that the consensus that we have had throughout the process can also be translated into a smooth vote. What has not been agreed on, however, and I regret it, is once again the issue of patent rights. It's been almost 100 years since insulin inventor Frederick Banting renounced his patent on this substance and uttered the famous phrase: “Insulin belongs to the world, not to me”. And it is sad that almost 100 years after this scientist's self-sacrificing gesture, some of my colleagues, especially from the right, are so ideologically blinded that they refuse even to mention this step in the resolution under discussion. Up to 32 million people in the EU live with some type of diabetes. Half of them don't normally have the right blood sugar levels, leading to long-term and serious health problems. On the occasion of World Diabetes Day and 100 years after the selfless gesture of a scientist, we must deepen our cooperation at European level in the fight against this disease.

Mr President, Commissioner, as regards the newly announced initiative on mental health, I would like to see a comprehensive plan that protects the rights of people with mental health problems, raises awareness and puts an end to stigma and discrimination in the field of mental health. In order to do so, the EU must take the path of developing a comprehensive long-term strategy or mental health plan, ideally along the lines of the Cancer Plan. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown us that mental health care is often a neglected and underfunded area in our health systems. Access to appropriate care is steadily decreasing, the worst is for children and teenagers. Mental health is a cross-sectoral issue. Poor mental health often has its roots in the social, economic, physical and cultural environment and is not just a personal and health problem. We must bear in mind that the current bad economic situation and the confluence of various crises will continue to have significant repercussions on the mental health of the population and our problem will only accelerate further. My question to the Commission, then, is how will the Directorates-General concerned work together to make this initiative as effective as possible, and when can we expect any concrete plan?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the time to play with words has passed. The conflict in eastern Europe has entered our homes and threatens to savagely attack the quality of life of people across Europe in winter, and the dangers of nuclear war have increased dramatically. At the moment, the Czech government, the European Union and NATO are doing nothing but adding oil to the fire. There is an absurd competition on who will supply more weapons to the fratricidal war, who will show more courage to fight to the last Ukrainian. The recent terrorist attacks on gas pipelines from Russia to Germany did not damage the interests and property of only these two countries, they immediately threatened social peace across Europe and also showed in practice the disunity of the West, the different attitude of Washington and Berlin towards Ukraine. And you certainly remember the threatening words of US President Joe Biden in early February, when he threatened to ‘terminate’ the Nord Stream pipeline in the presence of the German Chancellor. I call on all EU institutions to use their influence, take the initiative and start peaceful and diplomatic negotiations. This is the only way to end the conflict. The sooner, the better.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that now we finally have the opportunity to come close to the end of the fight for common chargers for mobile phones and many other electronic devices. And it certainly wasn't a short fight. After all, we have been trying for over a decade to push the Commission from the ground of the European Parliament to take action and come up with a proposal for the introduction of common chargers. Eight years ago, in 2014, we approved the Radio Equipment Directive, in which we called on the Commission to introduce uniform chargers through a delegated act, but until recently the Commission was inactive in this respect. We all face the problem of different chargers for different electronic devices. Chargers accumulate in our homes, most of which are designed only for their specific device. And this is not only confusing, but also unnecessarily expensive for consumers and really very environmentally friendly. If the Commission really cares about the environment, the steps to introduce a common charger should have been taken a long time ago. So why did she face the problem only recently? Was she afraid to stand up to the interests of companies like Apple or Amazon? Was she afraid to stand up to the possible opposition of former US President Donald Trump's government? I would like to remind you that the Commission is supposed to defend the interests of the Union and not the US government or multinational corporations. And I very much hope that from now on the Commission will have a backbone and will no longer be afraid to really start defending the interests of the people who live in the Union. Yes, I think the ambitions contained in the proposal for a directive could have been higher. It could have applied to a lot more devices. Nevertheless, the adoption and unification of the USB-C standard within two years is a really important step to reduce electronic waste and will undoubtedly make life easier for all of us. That is why, as shadow rapporteur, I hope that we will approve the directive, and I would like to thank the rapporteur in particular for my work.

Madam President, Commissioner, by adopting these two regulations, we are completing the work that started with the COVID-19 pandemic. While I have strong reservations about the three main documents making up the European Health Union, I firmly hope that their timely and smooth implementation will allow us to prepare sufficiently for the next pandemic, which will undoubtedly come. Unfortunately, the legislation adopted has significant limits, which are mainly based on how little EU primary law deals with cooperation between Member States in the field of healthcare. In the long run, we have to change that. Cooperation in the field of public health and care would merit a fundamental overhaul in the Treaties. If this does not happen, we will forever be condemned only to cosmetically clothe the holes that constantly appear. However, I am currently looking at a possible upcoming revision of European pharmaceutical legislation. Only this can help us dampen the problems in European healthcare and its accessibility that the pandemic has only exposed. It is considered that the Commission has still not presented the expected revision for this decade. There is not much time left in this legislature. The current framework of both general pharmaceutical legislation and intellectual property rights or medicines for rare diseases and cross-border healthcare is no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the times. We are constantly deteriorating citizens' access to medicines and healthcare, divergences are widening across the EU and it can be assumed that the current confluence of different crises is only accelerating these problems. It is five minutes past twelve, and something needs to be done, first and foremost, for the citizens of the EU.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, this point is entitled ‘The EU response to the increase in energy prices in Europe’. And if you were to ask the citizens of your countries what the answer is, I guarantee you that a long silence would follow for most of them, just silence. Indeed, in this case – as in the case of pharmaceutical companies during COVID-19 – the European Union is just watching the crisis get richer, while people are falling to the bottom. It is true that some national states are not able to help either, among them, unfortunately, the Council chaired by the Czech Republic. Yesterday they happily announced that they had capped the price at almost three times what people were still paying at the beginning of the year! In the case of huge Czech inflation, it is simply a lethal cocktail. Enough of the policy that fed the richest 1% and impoverished 99% of citizens. There has been enough talk, it is eight months after we know about this trouble, and we are simply not dealing with it - neither the Commission nor the Member States. The only people who actually pay for it are EU citizens. Colleagues, let's recover!

Madam President, Prime Minister, it is not very often that I agree with something that has been prepared by the Czech right-wing government of Petr Fiala. I may surprise many, but I consider 4 out of 5 priorities of our government for the Presidency to be right. However, the problem lies elsewhere – the reality is often harsher than the high-pitched words of the Czech government. It's much tougher and more ruthless. Even so, the Czech government intends to quietly assist Brussels in abolishing the right of veto for member states. The government then mandates energy security for Czech citizens by forcing them to buy cheaply produced energy in the Czech Republic with multiple surcharges. Czech citizens with a one-third salary compared to their western neighbours are already forced to pay higher prices than they are. Cybersecurity is designed to shut down inconvenient websites without a court decision. And it strengthens the resilience of the economy by privatising the last remnants of state-owned and national enterprises. And the increase in prices is twice as high as in the rest of the European Union. She has no program for hard-tested families and left Czech companies behind in connection with the ban on the sale of internal combustion engines. And perhaps there is no point in talking about democratic institutions in a government made up of parties that are soaked in mega-scandals of corruption. I wish the Council of the EU and all of us that the Czech Government does not treat it as it treats its citizens. Indeed, the Czech Republic needs – and especially when it holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union – a government that will have the interest of the citizen in the first place and not a full mouth of excuses as to why what is not possible, when, moreover, we see elsewhere that it is possible. Not by words, but by works you will know them. Good luck not only to the Czech government, but to all of us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Timmermans, first of all, I would like to ask you to really consider how you will vote tomorrow on the proposal to reduce CO2 emissions for cars. I would like to stress that this regulation will have huge economic and social impacts across the European Union. The automotive industry in the European Union employs millions of people and generates up to 8% of GDP in my country, for example. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the sector is not fully in top shape and is facing a number of other serious challenges. In addition, the unavailability of passenger car transport for the poorest or the fall of this industry can cause huge social unrest. Before banning the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines, we must first offer people an affordable alternative to passenger transport. I would not like the revision of this regulation to be the same as last time, when Member States washed their hands of the development of clean mobility and its infrastructure. For Central and Eastern Europe, these cars are completely inaccessible economically, and the infrastructure for recharging them is tragic. The proposal also needs to be a bit proportional. If we are talking about the end of sales of cars with combustion engines, it is necessary to say that it makes no economic sense to adopt any new emission limits, whether in the form of the new EURO 7 standard or new transitional CO2 limits in the meantime. With the prospect of an early end to internal combustion engines, it makes no sense for their manufacturers to invest additional billions of euros in their development. On the contrary, they can be invested in the development of clean mobility and its accessibility.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, after two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the frequency of suicidal thoughts has increased enormously for up to 70% of hospitalised patients, the number of emergency services for self-harming children has increased by several hundred%, new depressive and anxiety disorders have developed, especially for children who have not yet been in psychiatric care, there has been an increase in eating disorders, there is a time when we need care for tens of thousands more children, and we do not have it. We're not going to solve this today, here and now. But I am very glad that the Commission is comprehensively starting to think about this problem, because this problem will be solved for decades. But it is impossible to accept the long-term shortage of child psychiatrists, which is associated not only with healthcare, but above all with education, because that is where it all begins, in medical universities. We need to motivate young doctors to study child psychiatry, to do it, and to make it interesting for them. These are all things that are on the table, and I firmly believe that the Commission will really take this seriously and that we may, in time, say that we have succeeded.

Mr President, Commissioner, I support and support the resolution on the protection of children who are forced to flee the tragic war in Ukraine, because the position of the weakest in the war needs to be all the more protected. However, I will not forgive myself for commenting on this resolution. Central Europe, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania are facing an unprecedented number of refugees, even compared to the 2015 refugee wave. Poland granted asylum to more than 2 million Ukrainians in a matter of weeks. A much larger Germany granted asylum to 1.5 million refugees during 2015. I am not saying this to triumph over the number of refugees, but to underline the enormous strain on the entire system of government, health care and education. I think that these countries deserve recognition of how they are managing this situation. Even without compensation, people are housing refugees and trying to help them. I simply lack recognition of this ordinary human solidarity in the resolution. A resolution is often about what Member States are supposed to do without acknowledging what they have already done. In Ukraine, before the armed conflict, there were 2 million people with rare diseases and 13 times more people with HIV per population than the European Union average. Many of these people have already come or will come to countries like mine in the coming months. Specifically, with 4 million refugees, this is between 13 and 16,000 new cancer patients in Europe per month. And that's not the end of it. Children who come to us do not have mandatory vaccinations, which we consider to be the standard in the EU. We are talking about the need for hundreds of thousands of doses of live vaccines, which are mostly not stored in the EU and have to be produced. Colleagues, if you don't help us now, our health systems will not bear this onslaught and will collapse. I beg you, help us, please lighten our burden. Share your bed capacity and provide us with the necessary medical supplies. Show solidarity with our countries not only in words but also in actions.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Véronique, dear colleagues, I think we have managed to adopt a fairly good report in the special committee. It was a very long journey complicated by the pandemic. Unfortunately, the pandemic will continue to complicate the implementation of both the BECA plan and our report in the near future. Especially from the point of view of its financing. Each step in the plan and in the report is extremely costly. Unfortunately, public health budgets are very low and in a very poor state after the pandemic. However, what I think has been neglected in the report are hundreds of thousands of cancer screenings not carried out during the pandemic. And this is the biggest challenge for us politicians: cancer prevention in the coming years. This is a time bomb that will inevitably explode in our face one day. If we ignore the situation, we will have patients in worse health and their treatment will be very costly and unsuccessful. I welcome the emphasis given to cancer prevention and development in Europe's Beating Cancer Plan. However, I believe that, as a Parliament, we must be significantly more ambitious in the proposed measures. Prevention is very important, but not sufficient. Why? Because we have long failed to reduce the rate of risky behavior in our population, and the committee's report stubbornly sticks to the solution through higher tobacco taxation. This is despite the fact that it is clear that smoking is primarily a social problem in a certain part of our society, and no high tax will deter this group from smoking. Member States need to be able to effectively minimise health risks. A Europe-wide approach is needed. Colleagues, I sincerely hope that this does not end with a plan and a report. Now it is necessary to start to fulfill everything thoroughly.

Madam President, Commissioner, let us face it, we need a plan for 30 million of our fellow citizens living with a rare disease in the European Union for the next decade. The last one is 12 years old, and that's a shame. The needs of patients with rare diseases require a greater level of cross-border cooperation in healthcare. Despite the existence of a directive on cross-border healthcare to facilitate such cooperation, barriers remain that not only make it difficult to access healthcare in another EU country, but leave administrative, financial and emotional burdens on the patient. Improvements in diagnostics, data, research, integrated care and treatment should also be encouraged. We need massive screenings of newborns to give them a chance to live a normal life. It is quite clear that without EU-wide leadership, this fight simply cannot be done. I am so pleased that the upcoming Presidency trio in the Council, headed by France, the Czech Republic and Sweden, are positive about the new plan. However, I would like to take a brief look at the financing of the European Reference Networks, which we have heard so much about here today. About a month ago, I brought the issue of their financing to the attention of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. European Reference Networks (ERNs) are the most successful project of European health policy. Even though we have set clear rules for their funding under the EU4Health programme, they are now facing financial difficulties and a threat of extinction. It is necessary, Commissioner, to respond as soon as possible and provide them with the missing money for 2022. It is not about what will happen after 2023, where we probably have the money, but there is a big problem with the fact that we need to keep financing in 2022. I ask you to do everything possible so that this shining project of successful cooperation does not have to disappear just because it will be missing in the order of a few million euros. I thank all those who help in the care of patients, especially families and doctors who are trying to find the best way for their treatment.

Madam President, I ask myself: What year is it, anyway? Are we really talking for a year and a half about temporarily relaxing the rules on intellectual property protection in relation to COVID-19 vaccines and medicines at the WTO? We're discussing it from left to right while thousands of people are dying all over the world and we're happily creating new mutations. You just have to ask yourself the question: What is the point of an international treaty under which we are not able to respond satisfactorily for a year and a half to even the biggest health crisis in a century? And why? So our pharmaceutical companies don't lose their profits? So a few rich people can get richer? Who decides how this world works? State officials or multinational corporations? So let's answer this question. Personally, I am no longer sure. Today, it must be clear to even a small child that without giving the rest of the world the chance to vaccinate, we will simply not get rid of this crisis. Let's finally do something about it and not just talk about it.

Madam President, I am not at all happy with the outcome of the negotiations on this report. First of all, the text has very little ambition in terms of reforming intellectual property rights both inside and outside the European Union. After two years of the pandemic, we basically stayed on the same challenges that we presented five years ago in the resolution on access to medicines in the European Union. I am convinced that patent protection does not and should not serve as a key incentive for innovation. I also believe that compulsory licences should be used more frequently. This must be the norm during the pandemic. For this reason, my colleagues and I have tabled an amendment to this report that introduces these aspects into the text. Secondly, I do not like the report's stance on public support for drug research. If the entire database on vaccine development and supply has shown us anything, it is that the public sector must have more control over the support it pays to pharmaceutical companies. We cannot allow the farce to be repeated again, where the vaccines we have paid for with our money belong to someone else and we are not allowed to know their price. Overall, the ambition to set new transparency rules in the pharmaceutical sector for pricing, research spending and quantification, and the publication of clinical trial results is disappointing. Unfortunately, for these reasons, I cannot support the report at the moment. It doesn't bring anything new.

Mr President, Commissioner, a year has passed and we are almost the same way. This is due not only to low vaccination coverage in some Member States, but above all to the reluctance of Member States to cooperate more in the fight against the pandemic. In fact, the only two successful projects in almost two years are the joint purchases of vaccines and the introduction of COVID passports. In order to be successful, we have to close both eyes. And I'm asking: What is our vision for the future? Even if, at the moment – and I am only in favour of voluntary vaccination, because I simply believe that radicalisation and forcing people to do so will only make them stop wanting to be vaccinated all the more, the more those people will fight for their rights and freedoms – we have vaccinated society as a whole, we will not stop this wave of pandemics. I ask you, Commissioner, to hurry up with the selection procedures for the treatment of COVID-19, so that you put new medicines on the European market as soon as possible and are able to buy them in the necessary amount. That's the only thing that can help us save lives right now.

Mr President, rapporteur, fellow Members, I am very pleased that we will be able to conclude work on the directive on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles today, and I thank the rapporteur, Mrs Dita Charanzová, very much for her work, as we have succeeded in removing the controversial requirement of compulsory liability for electric bicycles, scooters or garden tractions from the Commission proposal. This would indeed be a step in the wrong direction, which would certainly not help the reputation of the European Union. Some motor vehicles, such as electric bicycles and segways, are smaller in size and are therefore less likely than other vehicles to cause significant damage to health or property. In addition, this step would also largely affect older citizens, who do not have much money to lose. Vehicles intended exclusively for motor sports are also excluded from the scope of the Directive, as they are usually covered by other types of liability insurance and are not covered by compulsory motor insurance if they are used only for competitive purposes. In two years' time, there will also be a significant simplification in the negotiation of third-party liability for registered cars in another Member State. Indeed, motor insurance also has a significant impact on the free movement of persons, goods and vehicles and, therefore, on the internal market and the Schengen area. I believe that this directive will create legal certainty and harmonise what should be covered by insurance. Motorists therefore no longer have to worry about diverging rules between Member States. Negative impacts on a wide range of stakeholders, including accident victims, insurers, guarantee funds and motor vehicle policyholders, resulting from legal divergence will be eliminated. I think we have all done a good job, and I thank you once again for it, because it will be of particular benefit to the citizens of the European Union.

Madam President, I would like to begin by saying that I am certainly not doing political agitation here before the elections that await us in the Czech Republic, because the KSČM, my party, has been raising this issue as the only political entity on the Czech political scene for years. Once again, we have lists of the world's rich and politicians who, through various machinations and so-called optimisations, bypass the payment of taxes or, for some reason, hide assets that they have earned so honestly. And it really annoys me, because we're kind of used to it. It just seems completely normal to us! But how much longer are we going to suffer for them? How long will we allow our citizens, who pay for world crises mostly caused by the greed of these billionaires, to be robbed while they buy islands or fly into space for fun! Let's stop talking about it and start doing something about it! And nicely here with you, on the territory of the European Union! Let's not strangle tax havens, let's add responsibilities to them, and let's protect our citizens against them toiling and billionaires earning.