Speeches

Madam President, I do apologise for taking so much of your time but in Malta, an author, Mr Mark Camilleri, published documents showing WhatsApp messages between an MP from the ruling governing party and Yorgen Fenech, who is the alleged mastermind behind the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Now these messages exposed abuse of power, bribery and trading and influence, and this information was known to the police for already three years, and nothing has happened. The only thing that has happened is that the author has been criminalised for publishing the documents, even forcing him to leave the country. It’s a disgrace, and it’s further proof of how the rule of law is being systematically undermined by this government in Malta. And, as such, it also warrants a debate with a resolution adopted in April.

Madam President, as we very much indicated, we believe this is a House to have European debates, but we have been inspired. So, if we are going to have a joint debate about rule of law with the Rule of Law report and rule of law in Greece, we believe there are some other issues that could be dealt with in this same debate. The first one is the rule of law in Spain, because the behaviour of this Spanish Government is moving further and further away from respect of the rule of law. When they don’t like the Council on the Judiciary, they simply adopt a law to prevent it from functioning. When they need an independent attorney general, they appoint their dear, loyal party colleague, the former Minister of Justice. When they don’t like democracy, when they find it too complicated, they rule by decree. Remember, the S&D stood here on other countries saying ruling by decree is ruling like a dictator. So either you are ruling like a dictator, or this is something we need to discuss in the European Parliament tomorrow. So our request is a debate on the rule of law in Spain, with a resolution to be adopted in April.

Madam President, we are not against a debate about the rights of children in rainbow families, because these are important topics to discuss, but we cannot pretend that they are restricted to only one particular Member State. Pretending that they are restricted to only one particular Member State – even though it might be politically convenient for some people here – doesn’t do anything to support rainbow families across the EU. We have to decide what kind of parliament we want to be. Are we a European, credible parliament where we discuss common European challenges? Or are we nothing but a theatre where national opposition parties can attack national governments because they are too weak to make an impact at home? Let’s leave national politics to national parliaments. I listened very carefully some time ago when Stéphane Séjourné said in Strasbourg, ‘We will systematically vote against any change of the agenda that targets national issues’. And I also heard Iratxe García Pérez say we need to respect the European debates in the European Parliament. Let us show today that those principles are there not only when they suit us. So we propose the following debate title: ‘The rights of children in rainbow families’.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, it’s an honour and mostly a pleasure to chair the Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware, set up a year ago with the important task to investigate one of the biggest threats to free democracies all over the world: the abuse of highly invasive spyware like Pegasus by governments, including in the European Union. From the first moments, we knew it would not be an easy task. It is a relatively new phenomenon. It operates in an extremely complicated international ecosystem and it has a highly technical and constantly evolving nature. But luckily, from day one, we could count on great support in conducting our investigation through information exchanges, during and outside our hearings, with a variety of stakeholders – from technical experts to the research community, from industry to journalists and civil society. We engaged with more than 180 interlocutors over the course of the last 12 months. I am frustrated, however, about the reason why I am standing here today representing the PEGA committee here in Strasbourg. Because, ever since the establishment of our committee, there have been two key stakeholders that have not fulfilled the duty of sincere and loyal cooperation, or that have refused to take decisive action in the face of a serious threat: the Member States and the Commission. As part of our fact-finding mission, the PEGA committee sent a questionnaire to the Member States on 14 July 2022, eight months ago. It contained questions about the use of spyware, the legislation governing such use and the establishment of ex-ante authorisation and ex-post supervision. A similar questionnaire was also sent to the Commission. A simple set of questions. We are not asking to divulge State secrets or for full openness on matters of national security. Simple, straightforward, factual questions that any government should be able to answer without any problem. On 12 October, we received a joint answer by the Czech presidency, which did not contain any of the information requested, but contained an assurance that the Member States would fulfil their obligations of sincere and loyal cooperation. So far, we have received answers from only 10 Member States’ governments out of 27. Thanks to parliamentary bodies, we have some more information about other Member States, but from Member States like the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy or Malta, we have no information, no response whatsoever and it is absolutely unacceptable. Hundreds of millions of Europeans that we represent as a European Parliament deserve answers to our questions, and answers are very difficult to give if governments who purchase and use this software refuse to answer even the most basic of those questions. It goes further than not just answering questions. In Hungary and Poland, governments were so afraid of checks and balances, so afraid of democratic dialogue and scrutiny that they flat out refused to meet with us. Also this is a scandal. But I also believe the European Commission should have a close look in the mirror. I know, Madam Commissioner, that you are not the responsible Commissioner here, but as a representative of the Commission, I do have to express my great disappointment and my frustration. From the very start of the Pegasus scandal, the European Commission has failed to take this threat seriously, has failed to fulfil its duties as guardian of the Treaty. The first response was ‘We will not investigate. We will not investigate because this is really something for the national authorities. The Commission cannot touch national security issues and people should instead seek justice at their respective national courts’. So the Commission, the same Commission that is taking the Polish Government to the European Court of Justice for depriving individuals of the full guarantees of effective judicial protection and for turning the highest court into a political body, that same Commission tells Polish victims of Pegasus to turn to the same judicial system to get justice. It does not make sense. This is not simply about national security. It is a rule of law issue, and the Commission should act because the Treaty is very clear: ‘Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.’ Now this Parliament is carrying out its tasks, but without any assistance from the Member States or the Commission. The principle is unfulfilled. What we see in practice is not sincere and it is not even cooperation. Therefore, the Parliament, which considers the duty of sincere and loyal cooperation to be unfulfilled, asks the following questions: What action has the Commission taken or will it take in response to this breach of the duty of sincere and loyal cooperation by the Member States? Has it initiated procedures to address this violation? If not, when will it do so? Can it explain what steps it has taken to fulfil its own duty of sincere and loyal cooperation with the PEGA committee?

Madam President, organised crime is a major threat to the internal security of the European Union and to the safety of our citizens, and it requires a common European response. More than 70% of criminal networks are active in more than three European countries and they are becoming increasingly more violent. According to Europol, organised crime within the EU has never posed such a major threat to citizens and our societies as it does today. We need to disrupt the business models of criminal networks and ensure that crime never pays: follow the money in order to freeze and confiscate assets and target criminal leadership. For the EPP, the security of European citizens and the fight against organised crime is an absolute priority. Europe needs to show that we can deliver in real terms, and this is why last year we proposed 50 concrete measures to tackle crime and we will continue to put this high on Europe’s agenda. And we are happy to find in the Swedish Presidency a like—minded and a constructive partner in our mission to keep Europe safe. And we look forward to cooperate on our shared priorities: strengthening the role of agencies like Europol and Eurojust; better coordination of criminal investigations and prosecutions; implementation of the interoperability framework; further improving existing crucial legislation like the Prüm Framework; advanced passenger information; making e—evidence work in practice. We have to make use of all available instruments in order to fight crime, and we cannot expect law enforcement authorities to do this alone. Local authorities, tax authorities, labour inspectorates, can all play a major role in addressing certain challenges, but they face huge obstacles in cross—border cooperation. We have worked very hard to remove those cross—border obstacles for police and judicial cooperation. We need to do the same for the administrative approach to organised crime by denying criminals the use of the legal administrative infrastructure. More intense monitoring, better screening and proper cross—border exchange of administrative information to complement police cooperation and strengthen the law enforcement system should also be a European priority. Borders often still create obstacles for authorities, while criminals use them to their advantage. This needs to end right now.

Mr President, every death at sea is an unspeakable tragedy. Men, women and children losing their lives in the Mediterranean is truly heartbreaking. And yes, we need, as this debate title suggests, a common EU response. And it starts by breaking the lucrative business model that smugglers have built at the expense of vulnerable people. We need to fight against these ruthless criminals who put hundreds of people on far too small, unseaworthy vessels in the most difficult of conditions at sea. Thank God, luckily, most people are saved like the 1300 people last weekend. But for some, like the more than 70 people that perished off the coast of Calabria, help tragically came too late. We need a fundamental change of policy. No matter how many search and rescue operations are deployed at sea, if hundreds of thousands of people continue to embark on this dangerous journey, help will never be able to reach all of them on time. Arrivals by sea in Italy have increased three times compared to last year. It means the risk of accidents has also tripled. So we need a common but also a holistic approach. No oversimplification of complex challenges by focusing on one solution only. Most asylum seekers arriving in Europe are not in need of international protection and they will most likely continue to risk their lives to come here irregularly, regardless of the legal pathways we put in place for those who need it. At least until we change the automatism that paying a smuggler equals entry to the territory of the European Union. Changing that needs to be the core of the policy Europe finally adopts because there is no silver bullet: fighting smugglers, creating pathways, code of conduct for search and rescue, strengthening external borders, discouraging illegal migration, improving cooperation with third countries, increasing returns – these are all intertwined. They’re all part of the same puzzle. And we need to complete this whole puzzle. We need to adopt the migration pact in full if we want to make debates like the one today a thing of the past.

Madam President, it was about time that the European Council put migration on its agenda. 70 % of Europeans are concerned about migration, and the EPP has been warning for months now that we are sleepwalking into a new crisis, with the numbers being the highest since 2016, so it’s good that everybody seems to have finally woken up. Let me welcome the unity that the European Council showed. Political leaders from our party, from the Liberals, from the Socialists, from the Conservatives all agreed that this is a European challenge that needs to be addressed at the European level, and that more efforts are needed to adopt the pact, to properly protect our external borders and to pay full attention to the external dimension of migration. All 27 leaders agreed on this, so I hope we can also mirror that same spirit here today. I want to make two concrete points. First, our external borders need to be strengthened. This was our main EP call for months, and we welcome the Council’s call on the Commission to immediately mobilise substantial EU funding to support Member States in reinforcing border protection capabilities and infrastructure. I also welcome the immediate follow—up on this call by the Commission, and I look forward to seeing the concrete results on the ground as soon as possible. We need to have control of our external borders, and since these are our common European borders, their protection must also be a common European effort. I am glad that all leaders, from north to south and from left to right, have put their support behind this. Secondly, the pact on migration needs to be adopted. Progress is being made, but both the Council and Parliament need to step it up a notch. In this House, we truly need to work in a spirit of compromise between all the constructive parties on all the files. I want to be very clear on this – we either have a real compromise on everything, including screening, for instance, or on nothing at all.

Madam President, this is not the first time we are having this debate and, to be quite frank, I was not convinced about its added value. Unfortunately, so far nothing I’ve seen has changed my mind. This Parliament has a dedicated committee with a specific assignment to look into the abuse of spyware in the whole of the European Union, because this is not an issue of one individual Member State, but it is a European issue, and the bigger committee is doing its job. We already spoke to almost 200 people, including a lot about Greece, and we should also let it get on with its job. And as much as I understand the political appeal of bringing specific countries to this podium, especially with elections approaching, I really think the focus should be on our common work in the committee. Now, we travelled to Greece and we had many fruitful exchanges with government representatives, journalists, civil societies. We received a lot of useful information. What we did not find was evidence of corruption or the kind of authoritarian practices we witnessed in Poland. But, of course, more can and should always be done to ensure transparency, and any allegations of abuse, of surveillance, have to be thoroughly investigated and necessary safeguards must be in place. I would like to point out, though, that unlike some other countries, the Greek Government actually makes an effort to actively cooperate with our committee. They received us. They share their proposals for reforms to improve transparency and judicial oversight. And I look forward to seeing the results of those reforms in practice. We need to investigate before we draw conclusions. There is plenty of work still to do, and we must continue that work in a thorough but also an objective manner.

Madam President, we are very happy to support a debate on last week’s Council conclusions. In fact, we’ve already wanted to propose this last week, but then the socialists were still against it. So better late than never, I guess. Happy to support the debate not under this title, because the level of hypocrisy is simply a bit too high. Have you ever seen the border fences in Spain? Have you ever seen the plans that the Finnish Government is doing to build a border wall? It is socialist governments rightfully using fences to manage migration. And yet, here you stand arguing that Europe should never help any other Member State to do the same. As always with the socialists it’s ‘do as I say, not do as I do’. So yes, we would like to have a debate on the Council conclusions under the words that the Council itself chose with the support of socialist prime ministers. And this is follow-up on the European Council conclusions: mobilising EU funds, reinforcing border protection capabilities.

Mr President, 70% of Europeans are concerned about migration, and rightly so: 330 000 people illegally crossed our borders last year. This is the highest number since 2016 and we are sleepwalking into a new crisis – literally, because our Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, admitted last week that he dozed off on migration. It’s unacceptable. Colleague Azmani, on behalf of the Liberals, referred to Cinderella, while the Dutch Prime Minister really was more like Sleeping Beauty. European citizens deserve leaders that are awake and that take their concerns seriously. And the upcoming summit is the opportunity to actually show this, to show the commitment, the commitment we need for real solutions. And we do not have the luxury to dismiss practical solutions just like that. And that is my question also to the European Commission. President von der Leyen today here underlined the importance to strengthen our external borders and she mentioned the Turkish-Bulgarian border as a priority, but when Bulgaria then asks the European Union for help to protect that border, to have permanent infrastructure on that border, they hear from Commissioner Johansson that they cannot expect a single euro cent from the European budget. Is that solidarity? Is that the European response that the Commission is talking about? I think the Bulgarians and all European citizens deserve an answer to that question.

Madam President, you already introduced our request quite well, I would say. We have this very important debate this afternoon. Ideally, we would like to wind it up with a resolution this week, so we can also very clearly express our expectations to the European leaders about what we expect them [inaudible]. I am given to understand that this is not possible in a short Brussels plenary session. So then we would like to request a resolution to wind up the debate in the next plenary session in Strasbourg, so we can assess what the European leaders have done in this summit and to also give our opinion on that. This is a crucial European Council meeting. 70 % of Europeans are concerned about migration, and I think they would very much like to know where this House stands.

Mr President, should humanitarian assistance be criminalised? That’s the question of this debate. No, of course, not. There are many people around the world making sacrifices in order to help people in need, and their work should be applauded. So no, we should not criminalise humanitarian assistance. But should we criminalise crimes? Yes we should. And it really is as simple as that. When crimes are committed, they should be investigated, they should be prosecuted, and they should be brought before an impartial judge, regardless of who has committed them. In the eyes of the law, everyone is equal. Nobody, not me, not NGOs, not humanitarian workers should receive preferential treatment. Yet that is what some colleagues sometimes here seem to argue, that somehow some people should be above the law, and that when suspicions of criminal activities arise, they should be ignored or covered up for specific groups of people. I don’t think that’s fair. Let me remind you, we are in the midst of a corruption scandal. It centres around an NGO. Should we not prosecute this NGO because we would be at risk of criminalising humanitarian work? Should the people working at this NGO not be investigated because we would be risking criminalising humanitarian workers? No, I should hope not. Crimes are crimes regardless of the perpetrator, and in a rule of law, they need to be proven in a court of law with independent judicial institutions to ensure due process. In Greece, people arrested under the Syriza government have been acquitted of their charges last week even. Is it a crime to save lives? No, of course not. Saving lives is a legal duty, but first and foremost a moral obligation. And every death at sea is an unspeakable tragedy. So, saving lives, of course, is not a crime, but forging license plates or documents is. Unauthorised entry into military zones is. Cooperating directly with smuggling gangs that have turned human vulnerability into a multibillion—dollar business model is a crime. And so is illegally intercepting communications from authorities or Frontex. And when such crimes are committed, Member States have every right to investigate and prosecute them with full respect of the right to a free trial within a reasonable time. And we should support them in doing so.

Madam President, last week we had the Spanish Minister of Justice in the LIBE Committee to discuss the rule of law in Spain. It was very interesting. She said many fascinating things about vaccination strategies, about green hydrogen energy, about organ transplants. She didn’t say much about justice, which you could think is strange for a Minister of Justice. But looking back, it actually makes sense because there is not much about justice and the rule of law that a Minister can proudly share in Spain, and the interests of this Spanish Government are certainly not with justice, the separation of powers or checks and balances. When they do not like the composition of the Council of the Judiciary, they just adopt a law to prevent it from functioning. When they need to appoint an independent attorney—general, they just pick a loyal party colleague – the former Minister of Justice. When they need judges in the constitutional court, they pick another lawyer and former Minister of Justice and a director—general. No wonder the Minister of Justice last week shockingly called the Constitutional Court a political body! When they adopt new legislation against and ignoring all those advisory reports and the consequences are that sentences are reduced and sexual offenders and rapists are released early, what do they do? They blame the judges for misinterpreting the law. When they find parliamentary democracy too difficult, they just rule by decree. This is truly bizarre, because two and a half years ago Iratxe Garcia stood here and she blamed Viktor Orbán for ruling by decree. She said it was like trying to rule like a proper dictator. I agreed with her then and I still agree with her today, but where is the criticism of Prime Minister Sanchez then? He who is breaking the ‘ruling by decree’ records at home? Truly, he is the ‘king of decrees’. Is that democracy, dear colleagues of the S&D, or is that trying to rule like a dictator? You cannot have it both ways. Packing courts and independent bodies with your political friends, politicising the judiciary, ruling by decree, blaming judges for your own mess. This is page—by—page out of the populist and autocrat playbook. It is beneath Spain, it is beneath Europe, and it needs to stop!

Madam President, Tineke Strik mentioned Greece and Italy, we all seen the court cases in Greece. The accused have been acquitted. The courts have been closed. So, if the Greens want to compliment Greece on the independence of the judiciary there, they can do so in a press release, but not through a debate. We could even do a press release together if you would like. But the EPP is always ready to debate migration, because there are plenty of reasons to do so: 330 000 illegal border crossings in 2022, more than 136% increase in the Western Balkans, with over 100 000 asylum applications per month, the highest numbers since 2016. We should debate these alarming numbers, but that is, unfortunately, not the focus of this debate. And we cannot ever only debate NGOs, humanitarian aspects and search and rescues and ignore all the rest. So, this Parliament wants a holistic approach to migration. Let us also debate holistically. The search and rescue contact group will be reconvened this month. Next month we will have the special EU summit on migration. So instead of this rushed debate this week, let us have a deeper, a wider and more comprehensive debate next month in our plenary on migration.

Mr President, independent and free media are crucial pillars of a functioning democracy. Journalists are watchdogs of our rule of law. We have to cherish and protect them. However, in practice – including in Europe – journalists are finding it increasingly difficult. I see it in my own country. Journalists are threatened, intimidated, cars are pushed off the road, incendiary bombs are thrown through the mailbox and we even see reporters having to cover their logo for fear of violence. There are journalists in Europe who have had to pay for their work with their lives: Daphne Caruana Galizia, Ján Kuciak, Peter R. de Vries. Let us remember these names and keep their legacy alive. Because the threat is a multi-headed monster that doesn't just consist of criminals. Increasingly, it is politicians who portray the media as the great enemy. Right-wing populists and Trumpwannabes across Europe have turned it into a sport to turn their backers against journalists, with all the risks that this entails. In addition, we see in Europe that governments use invasive espionage software such as Pegasus to eavesdrop on journalists, while we should be grateful, because without good investigative journalism, we would still be completely in the dark in that area too. The many victims we spoke to each had deeply impressive stories about the devastating effect that such invasive privacy violations have on the exercise of their profession. That is why it is good that we are working together here to improve the protection of journalists. We welcome the proposals on the Media Act and the Anti-SLAPP Directive, and we need to make them much stronger where possible. If we want to protect our rule of law and our democracy, it starts with protecting our journalists.

Mr President, dear colleagues, it’s really hard to express how sad and angry I am here today because the greed of some individuals in this House has cast a dark shadow over all of us. I have to fully agree with the Commissioners: shame on them. The news over the past days looked like a bad Netflix film. Bags of cash raided offices and searched houses. But it’s not the film. It’s the ugly truth of high-level corruption at the heart of the European democracy. Of course, investigations are ongoing and we need to wait for all the facts but already I want to thank the Belgian authorities, and I would also like to thank our President, Roberta Metsola, for her leadership on this issue and echo her words. There will be no impunity, none. Those responsible must be brought to justice. And we fully support the internal investigation that the president announced. We must do better; increased transparency and accountability of all activities related to third countries, whether through NGOs or other actors, and strengthened defensive tools and anti-corruption measures to combat foreign interference in our work. All these steps are necessary to start regaining the trust of our citizens. Because make no mistakes, the action of those who would rather take home bags of cash than bags of work undermine the credibility of all of us. And it is up to us together to repair the damage. We can already see the Orbáns of this world gloating about these developments, apparently under the impression that corruption elsewhere makes corruption at home less disgusting. Nonsense. And let me emphasise one crucial difference: in stark contrast to the impunity in Orbán’s Hungary, in a rule of law, corrupt individuals are arrested, prosecuted, and stripped of their responsibilities. And we say very clearly here today, no tolerance for corruption, no tolerance for impunity.

Mr President, we have been warning for months that we are sleepwalking towards a new migration crisis. Almost 300 000 people have already crossed our external borders illegally this year. This is the highest number since 2016, the crisis year. But the worst thing is that our European asylum policy is still in 2016, despite all the good proposals from the European Commission. But it still doesn't work. That is why these numbers must be a wake-up call, especially for the migration ministers who meet on Friday for crisis deliberation. Only by effectively tackling irregular migration will we maintain space and support to accommodate genuine refugees. This is a European issue, because migration has long since ceased to be a national issue. It's tough geopolitics. In Ukraine, driving refugee flows to Europe is part of Putin's strategy. Migrants are also being actively pushed across the border from Belarus and Turkey. If we do not want to be a toy of authoritarian rulers, we must be able to decide for ourselves who gets access to our territory. Then we in Europe must be serious about protecting our external borders, including financing physical infrastructure at those borders. Then we really need to equip Frontex to do its job, finally put Eurodac in order and finally finalise the European Pact on Migration, including screening at the external borders. Unambiguous and effective European asylum policy is needed, because it cannot be the case that in a country such as the Netherlands the acceptance rate of asylum applications is inexplicably much higher than in other countries. Grip on migration requires decisiveness and it is high time to finally show it.

Madam President, I never quite understand the position of our Hungarian Fidesz colleagues, because for years they have been telling us that there is nothing wrong in Hungary on the rule of law, on democracy, on anti—corruption, that all is good and that everybody who criticises it is part of an ideological jihad against Hungary, etc. and we are all part of the extreme left here. Now there is EUR 7.5 billion at stake, and all of a sudden there are so many things wrong in Hungary that they felt the need to do 17 very urgent reforms, and we are expected now to believe that these reforms will actually make a difference in practice. The Hungarian Government so far has never shown any willingness to make meaningful reforms. But we are expected to believe now that a quick push of some legislation is making a lasting difference on the ground. This for us, as the EPP, is the key bottom line: only significant, tangible and lasting reform can enable the release of EU taxpayers’ money. Nothing less will do. But this is not only about the Hungarian Government and its reforms, it’s about Europe. It’s about the kind of European Union we want to be, and there is a clear choice. We can be a European Union of shared fundamental values like democracy and the rule of law, a Union that is willing to fight for those values, also when it’s difficult, or particularly when it’s difficult. Or the other choice, we can be a Union that falls at the first bit of pressure and bows to blackmail. These are our options, and only one of them will have a viable future for the European Union. So, Commissioner, please take that into consideration when you assess these Hungarian reforms. This is about the future of our Union, so please act wisely.

Madam President, let me first thank President Murphy for the presentation today, but mainly for the work that the Court of Auditors does in general. It’s crucial work, also in the context of our work here in this House on the discharge procedures. Now, on the annual report, I want to make three brief points. Firstly, it is concerning that the Court reports an error rate of 3% for expenditure, which is well above the 2% materiality threshold, particularly because this error rate has been increasing for the last couple of years, leading to an adverse opinion again. It is also significantly higher than the Commission’s own calculated risk at payment, which now even falls below the range of error calculated by the Court. Secondly, and this is connected to this, we should really work towards solving the confusion with different error frameworks used by both institutions. We need to know beyond reasonable doubt what the error rate is, and there needs to be an agreement on that figure. The same also goes for the assessments of the levels of risk of expenditure. Uniform methods for sampling risk assessment and corrections of error and recovery would be very helpful for us to do our work. Thirdly, the type of errors identified over time remain relatively similar: ineligible costs of beneficiaries, lack of supporting documents, infringement of rules and breach of public procurement rules. Simplification of these rules would really help here to make sure money gets to the beneficiaries without mistakes. We need to work on that without delay. Public support for EU expenditures relies on our joint ability to spend European taxpayers’ money in accordance with rules and regulations. This report once again underlines that we still have some work to do.

Mr President, the Russian invasion of Ukraine had, of course, a huge and a direct impact on migratory migration flows to the EU. More than 11 million Ukrainians crossed the border of the European Union. A significant number have returned, indeed, but over 4 million of them have registered for temporary protection in the EU. And the EU delivered on this TPD. And we can be proud about how millions of refugees received a warm welcome all over Europe, particularly in countries bordering Ukraine – Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova. It has been really impressive to see all the efforts by citizens and communities to take care of vulnerable people. But the migration challenge is not restricted to migration flows directly from Ukraine. In the first nine months of this year, more than 228 000 migrants irregularly crossed the external borders of the EU, the highest number since 2016. For three consecutive months, there were more than 70 000 asylum applications per month in the EU. Again, the last time this happened was in 2016 – crisis time. On the Western Balkan routes, we see an increase of almost 200% compared to last year, mainly due also to the scandalous visa policy of Serbia, which I hope the Commission will address without delay. We are sleepwalking towards another migration crisis and we already see Member States reaching the limits of reception capacity. So we need to act. We can point fingers to Member States and agencies as much as we want, but we need to do our job as a parliament by making real progress on the pact on migration to make sure it is adopted as soon as possible. We cannot allow any further delays. Let’s get to work.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, the timing of this debate was a bit spontaneous – I will try to make it work. But first of all, thanks a lot to OLAF for the very thorough work they have done in preparing this report. I think it goes without saying that the behaviour of the three persons concerned, as it is described in the OLAF report, is very concerning, and that they have seriously hurt the image of the agency. We need Frontex as an agency beyond any doubt because of its crucial role in the management of our external borders. I also believe that this report and the resignation of the Executive Director is in a way a very good moment for a fresh start, because the report also shows that the agency is full of brave men and women with integrity that dare to speak out with OLAF and help OLAF reach its conclusions. We need to build on all those men and women that are currently still active at Frontex. We had a very interesting meeting with the authors of the report in the joint CONT and LIBE meeting. They indicated that they did not investigate any allegations of pushbacks or fundamental rights violation and that it goes without saying any such allegations need to be investigated wherever and whenever they appear, but they were not part of the scope of this investigation. One of the other things that I read in the report, if you read between the lines, is that Frontex really also needs guidance from the European Commission about the difficult legal framework in which maritime surveillance takes place, about the difficult position that Frontex is in, about their role in working with, but also for, Member States. We need the new Executive Director to really make a change. We need more guidance from the Commission and we need to work with the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group in this House to help that. One last thing that I want to say as well – and this is to echo what the Commissioner said – we need to address the despicable behaviour of the Turkish authorities with the strongest and most convinced way, because the recent scandals again show in what kind of geopolitical circumstances the Greek authorities, but also Frontex, need to operate and it is hardly achievable.

Mr President, five years ago, Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated. The ultimate punishment for exposing the corruption at the highest level of the Maltese Government: a government that carries responsibility for her murder by creating a favourable climate for anyone who wanted to eliminate her. Whoever planned and carried out the assassination did so in the knowledge they would be protected. And they still feel protected today. Impunity is still the norm in Malta. The government has no real desire to find out who ordered and paid for the assassination. Too afraid of inconvenient truths. Just like nothing is done to address the corruption, fraud and criminality that Daphne exposed in the first place. It’s very concerning. Yes, indeed, this is not about party politics, but listening to this debate and looking at the speakers list, I have to wonder. The S&D has five speaking slots in this debate. Four of them are filled by Maltese MEPs. That’s the whole Maltese delegation. Is there really nobody else apart from Thijs Reuten, who did so very eloquently, who is concerned about this, who is committed to this? Is there nobody else who wants to join his call for justice for the family of Daphne? The rule of law cannot be a partisan issue. We need to show up together. We need to work together and we need to fight together.

Madam President, the EU has long been toothless in the fight to protect the rule of law in certain Member States. National leaders refuse to hold each other to account. And the other Article 7 procedures initiated by the Commission and Parliament failed to deliver real results. So last year, January was truly a historic moment. Finally some teeth; finally an instrument that makes an impact, both because the language of money apparently is the only language truly understood in Warsaw and Budapest, but also because the European Council can no longer hide behind one or two Member States. So we welcome these proposed measures as a real step in the right direction, even though we would have expected even stricter demands. We have known Mr Orbán for a long time now, and his past performance does nothing to reassure us about the future. There is a real risk of Hungary ticking the boxes as a paper reality only without really addressing the deficiencies. And this is why we insist on robust verification and monitoring. Only significant, tangible and lasting progress in rebuilding democratic and anti-corruption safeguards should enable the release of EU taxpayers’ money. Declarations, working groups, frameworks: they all sound nice, but they are not sufficient and risk being empty shelves. The Council cannot afford to buy another peacock dance of Mr Orbán. So two concrete questions to Commissioner Hahn. First, why are the agricultural funds not part of this ongoing process? And secondly, how does the Commission intend to proceed in the case of other countries, in particular Poland?

Mr President, dear colleagues, six months ago Bulgarian opposition leader and former Prime Minister Boyko Borisov was arrested, house searched and detained for 24 hours – an opposition leader arrested upon the explicit request of the ruling Prime Minister, Mr Petkov, without the involvement of a single judge or prosecutor or any kind of due process. It’s a scandal. And it’s a scandal that it is now confirmed by the court in Sofia, which has ruled that the arrest of the former prime minister was factually unfounded, incompatible with the purpose of the law, and it did not meet the standards of lawfulness. In short, it was illegal. The independent judiciary in Bulgaria has done its work where the government failed spectacularly to uphold the rule of law and democracy. But it’s not only the Bulgarian Government that has failed. Where were the self-proclaimed rule of law defendants in this House in the past six months? Socialists, Liberals, Greens, the Left – nothing but silence. Which, let's be honest, is not exactly your default setting. Is this your idea of the rule of law – that only the people you politically sympathise with are worthy of its protection? The hypocrisy is truly staggering. Where was the Commission? Commissioner Reynders, Commissioner Jourová were always so outspoken on the rule of law, you have been hiding behind national competences and ongoing investigations in Bulgaria. And I’ve listened very carefully to your words, and I can’t help but wondering whether you’re sure you’re at the right debate. I mean, look at the title: illegal detention of the opposition leader in Bulgaria. And in the whole speech, you fail to even mention those words. (Applause) Thank you for proving the point about never being silent, Ms Daly. The investigations you were hiding behind are concluded, and the result is crystal clear. The house search and the detention were illegal. And are you serious telling us here today that the Commission does not care about the illegal detention of an opposition leader in Europe? You should be publicly condemning this and I’m asking you concretely to still do so when you come back to this platform.