Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner! It is good that we are talking about the issue today, and I would like to point out, with all modesty, that it is an initiative of the Committee on Petitions. In the discussion with the petitioners in the Committee on Petitions, we were able to focus on three main problems: The first is still the case – there is a lack of mutual recognition. The second is working conditions; That's what we're talking about today. And the third is closely linked to working conditions; The third problem is the new social conditions. So, teachers are no longer alone in imparting knowledge: All the conflicts of society are reflected in the class, as in the burning glass. Therefore, my request to the Commission: Organize the discussion! Don't argue about responsibilities! Organise and moderate this dialogue, because we need it in the European Union. Education is the future, and the European Union also needs the future.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President. The problem is: When the Commission says that we want to support farmers, our farmers now see it more as a threat than as a solution. And, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, this gives you great political responsibility for structured dialogue. I just have to say: It has to get better this time. And that is why we need confidence-building measures. I would have two ideas: the first: Suspension of the set-aside obligation for the duration of the Ukraine war in the Basic Law. Or more simply put: away with set-aside. And secondly: a purchase programme for Ukrainian grain by the European Commission in order to export this grain to North Africa. So what we need is a structured dialogue – open, honest and solution-oriented.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, What can we say in summary? I would say, the ombudswoman and the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, that we have become accustomed to each other. I'd rather say we need each other. Yes, we also have respect for each other. Maybe we even like each other a little. I would like to thank the PETI Secretariat once again. I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs. And I am sure that tomorrow we will be able to adopt the report on the ombudswoman in 2022 with a large majority in Parliament. This is also a sign of respect for your work. Thanks again to everyone.

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies I congratulate the Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, on her work and constructive efforts to improve the quality of European administration and access, as well as the quality of her services to citizens, and I also thank her for her good cooperation with the Committee on Petitions. The European Ombudsman helps citizens, businesses and organisations experiencing difficulties with the EU administration by addressing their complaints and by actively investigating wider systematic problems within the institutions and bodies of the European Union. In 2022, 16 569 citizens turned to the Ombudsman’s Office for help, demonstrating the importance of this institution in itself. Of the 2 238 complaints handled by the Ombudsman in 2022, 755 fell within the Ombudsman’s remit, while the others did not concern her remit. Here is my first conclusion: This shows that the ombudswoman’s areas of competence need to be promoted even further, so that citizens know what problems they can address to the Ombudsman. In 2022, 348 investigations took place, of which 344 were based on complaints and four on their own initiative. In addition, the Ombudsman closed 330 inquiries. Here is my second conclusion: For my group, it is very important that the Ombudsman's right to take initiative on his own initiative is used, but not abused. And I have to say that our Ombudsman has used this tool appropriately. Most of the investigations concerned the Commission. The five main concerns, concluded in 2022, were transparency, accountability, access to information and documents, service culture and respect for fundamental rights. In addition to the core work on complaints, the Ombudsman also carried out extensive inquiries and initiatives on systematic problems with the Union institutions. For example, it was about the revolving door effect, handling text messages, conflicts of interest and meetings with lobbyists. Third conclusion from me: That is why we still need a debate. What is meant by documents? Are there only official documents? How do you deal with confidential information or does it not exist? Fourth conclusion: At least since 2022, everyone in the Commission has become aware that text messages are also documents. And I think the Commission will take this into account, at least in future work. And fifthly: To be honest, as a member of the Committee on Petitions, I sometimes take a somewhat envious look at the length of time complaints are lodged with our ombudswoman – as a rule, she closes complaints in three months. The Committee on Petitions needs a little longer. Maybe we can exchange ideas a little better. In summary, I would like to state: The Ombudsman plays a crucial role in ensuring that decision-making and administrative processes at EU level are transparent and objective. Nevertheless, it must also be said that the right to transparency also has its limitations, namely if this would stand in the way of the decision-making process of the EU institutions. I look forward to the debate and discussions today.

Madam President, What still bothers me is the ductus of the law, that is, the basic philosophy of the law. The farmer is denied the ability to use plant protection products responsibly, professionally and in an environmentally friendly manner. And I say: What's that supposed to be? To the left side of the house: Farmers are not our enemies. They ensure our food is healthy and environmentally friendly. The fundamental question for me is: Do we want to force it or make it possible? I want to make it possible, you want to force, and I think that's the wrong way.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! As an active member of the Committee on Petitions, I am of course happy about any European citizens' initiative that is successful. And at least 1.5 million signatures – this is where the citizens’ initiative really deserves to be taken seriously. It has been mentioned: A public hearing was held on 12 October, also together with the Committee on Petitions, the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, which also showed how broad the issue is. Therefore, please make sure that my contribution today is also colored by personal opinions. I think the relationship with animals – animal welfare – is generally a debate on social values. And I can agree with the thesis or statement that killing animals for fur production alone is to be rejected. But before we gossip, we always have to say: From a distance there is harmony, then when you go into the details, it becomes difficult. A good example – somewhat remote – is cattle production. So no one would have the idea not to use the leather in the beef, because of course you also need the rest of the bark for human nutrition and other things. It is much more difficult with furs. In the debate, we will also have to focus on this or make statements about what would then be a different use of the animal. Human nutrition, animal feed, biogas? I don't know. Nevertheless, I recommend that we orientate ourselves in the further political discussion on this thesis: The killing of animals for the sole production of fur must be rejected. In this sense, I look forward to the further political discussion in our House and am really convinced that we are guaranteed to talk about the issue again, and I look forward to it.

Madam President, I mean, not an ideological decision, but profoundly technical decisions are necessary, and the question of whether glyphosate is harmful to health or not is a technical question. We all wanted to do better and not make ideological decisions during technical discussions. That's why we set up specialist agencies, and we interviewed two specialist agencies, and they said: There is no fundamental health damage. Therefore, three requests: Firstly: We should follow the recommendation of our specialist agencies and extend the use of glyphosate. Secondly: We should talk a lot more about the question of proper use. Thirdly: Please find in the European Union a regulation that is halfway fit, reasonable and harmonized in all Member States.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen! Coronavirus crisis – food security has never been at risk. Ukraine war – food security has never been jeopardised. With a little humor you could say: This has been achieved by our farmers despite the political interventions from Brussels. I think our main problem is that farmers no longer understand our policy. The other day, a farmer asked me: Do you still want us? And I have to say, it was sitting. Therefore, my demands: Firstly: Let's talk to the farmers! Secondly: Take advantage of the innovative power of farmers! Thirdly: Let's start a red tape campaign! Let the new reform come into force and take effect! And most importantly: No new laws and regulations. We have one New Green DealThat's right, but what we need is a farmers’ deal. And that is why, dear Commission: Farmers are not the problem, they are our solution.

Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič, ladies and gentlemen! Any EU citizen residing in the UK has the right to petition the European Parliament under Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. UK citizens residing in the European Union also retain the right to petition Parliament. Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has received 262 petitions related to Brexit and 25 related to alleged breaches of the Withdrawal Agreement. What problems have been revealed here? On the one hand, the requirements of EU Settlement Schemes; This means that EU citizens have to submit a second application to the system in order to obtain the permanent right of residence in the UK is problematic and puts citizens at greater risk if they cannot exercise their right of residence within the legal deadlines. The UK has withdrawn from the Erasmus+ programme and decided not to participate as a third partner country in the new Erasmus+ 2021-2027 programme, which would be at the expense of research, studies, training and exchanges for young people. It would be a good thing for the UK to be allowed to participate in EU programmes for the benefit of young people in the UK and the EU in exchange for the necessary financial commitments. So there is still a lot to do! Let's tackle it, let's be optimistic and solve the problems in the interest of the people.

Madam President, Madam O'Reilly, Vice-President Šefčovič. I have written down four comments. Firstly: The ombudswoman is not a member of the European Commission, nor is the ombudswoman a member of the European Parliament. Nor is she a member of the Council. The ombudswoman is there for the citizens. And honestly, Mrs. O'Reilly, you have done your multifaceted work well. If I weren't a German, I'd even say you did your job very well. I am pleased that the role of the ombudswoman in Europe is increasingly being played by our citizens. It can also be seen from the fact that in 2021 more than 20 000 citizens turned to the Ombudsman’s services for help. 338 investigations were opened, of which 332 were complaint-based and six on their own initiative. This leads me to my second remark: I think our ombudswoman has appropriately used the delicate political instrument of investigations on her own initiative. Our compliment for that too. And thirdly, the awkward issue of transparency. I am pleased that we have found a wording in the report that does justice to the problem. It's always the fight every year. I say it quite frankly: In my view – and perhaps also with regard to the German language – there is usually no need for a descriptive word to define the word transparency, because transparency is simply transparent. Nothing more is possible in and of itself. But we have found a way to formulate this properly, and I am pleased that we have also been able to adopt the report – this is my fourth observation – in broad consensus among the political groups. I am always of the opinion that the Ombudsman's report should not be used as a political reference point. battlefield make. And I would also like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Pelletier, who also managed to get us to come to an agreement and to agree with a large majority tomorrow. My wish would be that next time we could reach this agreement with a joint committee vote in the European Parliament. shadow meeting still fix. That would have been the whipped cream on the ice cream cup. But we still have reserves for the next time, and I thank you once again for the work of our ombudswoman.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to express my thanks to my colleague Loránt Vincze for his good work and for his report. It has managed, through good compromises, to produce an objective report that has not been unnecessarily politicised and sufficiently reflects the work of the Committee in 2021. You cannot be closer to the citizen than the Committee on Petitions in the European decision-making process. The Petitition Committee held 12 committee meetings in 2021, during which 159 petitions were discussed with 113 petitioners. This is unlikely to be the case in any other national committee on petitions, and it is really a special feature: It is a lived democracy. What conclusions do I draw from the report, or what can be made even better? A relatively high proportion of petitions received, 26.5%, were declared inadmissible. This means that extensive communication work is still needed to explain to citizens what the European Committee on Petitions is responsible for. Secondly: I very much regret that the Commission still often fails to fully inform the Committee on Petitions about legislative and non-legislative measures taken following petitions received. Thirdly: Our petitioners often turn to the Committee on Petitions when it comes to urgent issues. For me personally, the processing of petitions still takes too long, and we must also reduce the backlog of existing petitions, because this weakens trust in the EU institutions. Fourthly: I find it a pity that the work of the Petitions Network, which means the cooperation of the Committee on Petitions with the specialised committees, has recently fallen a bit asleep. We could have another Wake up call make. And finally, of course, I wish all of us a blessed Christmas and a healthy new year 2023.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dear Commission! Consider this resolution as a call for help to you: Finally do something! The settlement of the wolf is a success story. We have stable, growing wolf populations, which means that protection status can be reduced; The stock can be regulated. Develop Europe-wide guidelines! Define wolf-free zones! Help our farmers, help our cultural landscape, help our rural areas! Dear Commission, finally do something and don't break the Wolf success story!

Madam President, Commissioner! You can't praise much in a minute. There are four critical comments. The first one: We heard it from Mr Dorfmann: a loss of 44 billion, our agricultural disasters of 450 million. We won't be able to clarify everything. The second: I would ask you to think again – it has been said on several occasions: It would be important to temporarily suspend the punitive tax on imports or the anti-dumping duties as a signal to our European farmers. Third comment: Promote circular agriculture, organic fertilisers, take a bolder approach instead. I want some footnotes in the original text or vice versa. I ask you to assert in the Commission that we need circular agriculture, and that includes the proper use of organic fertilisers. My last request – Keyword harmonisation: They presented a set of measures. I am afraid that different Member States will apply this in extremely different ways and that this will lead to distortions of competition. We have to be a little careful. It is not that things arrive very differently at farmers in the Member States, and then the criticism comes back accordingly.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! As rapporteur for the opinion on agriculture, I must say: REPowerEU – a good idea. And even if agriculture does not participate or, rather, does not have to participate, it remains a good idea. Perhaps the three aspects, three arguments why the Committee on Agriculture decided not to make funds available for REPowerEU: First, the budget: 20 billion in total. The agricultural sector would have been involved here in the area of uncertainty. But the second, more important, point is the promotion philosophy: Support in rural areas, which of course means bottom-up principle. The local people should decide what the money will be used for. It is for farmers and for small business, It is meant for people. And thirdly, the main argument: Everything described in REPowerEU – use of renewable energy, use for rural areas – is already possible in the foreground of rural areas, but for people, for small business. And that's why we wish REPowerEU all the best. Rural areas, with their support programmes, and I would also ask the Commissioner to be careful: The appetite of the Member States is very high to use agriculture as a financial quarry. I can't do that!

Mr President! Perhaps a hint to the left side of the house: Those who do not master this today do not have to worry about the future. Or, as the state puts it: Of course we need both. Prices of inorganic nitrogen in themselves depend directly on the price of gas, and in my home region the gas prices were so high that the Piesteritz fertiliser plant stopped production, not because there was no gas, not because something did not work, but simply because the fertilisers would have become so expensive that no farmer would have bought them. Therefore, two requests or demands to the Commission: Firstly, of course, the solution would be to support the plants in the price of gas, i.e. to support the price of gas, because then the fertiliser would be bearable again in the price. Secondly, as has already been mentioned on several occasions, I would ask you to suspend the so-called anti-dumping duties because the price level that now exists no longer has any steering effect. This would also be an important market signal.

Madam President, Putin can use grain as a weapon, for example wheat: Ukraine 18 million tons annually, Russia 35 million tons annually. That is, Putin can influence 28% of world trade. He can change strategy daily, he can disrupt commodity futures exchanges, he can produce hunger in North Africa, he can organize a new flow of refugees to Europe. That is why it is right that we create a solidarity corridor that also works. But we also need another appetite suppressant for Putin. This means: The European Union must produce more wheat and export it to North Africa. Abandoning a 4% set-aside of arable land alone could produce an additional 10 million tonnes of wheat in the European Union. Therefore, my request to the Commission: If we make Putin's weapon ineffective, if we produce more grain in the European Union, we suspend the decommissioning obligation for arable land for 2023!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, My group and I personally congratulate the Ombudsman on her work and thank her for the good cooperation with the Committee on Petitions. The balance sheet can be seen. In 2020, the European Ombudsman handled 2 200 complaints and opened 370 inquiries. She initiated five investigations on her own initiative. From this point of view, the Ombudswoman’s 2020 activity report should not be a problem – agreement is certain. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I say again, unfortunately. Because our rapporteur, Mrs Eleonora Evi, could not resist the temptation to enrich the report with things that simply do not belong in it. De facto, the tasks of various European institutions are concentrated on the ombudswoman: European Prosecutor, OLAF corruption authority, Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, the European Court of Auditors, and finally the Committee on Petitions. And the responsibilities of these institutions were almost merged into a large package and attributed to the ombudswoman. This means that we would give the ombudswoman a wealth of power, a claim for sole representation that she cannot wish for herself. Democracy does not live by concentration of power, but by balance of power. Mrs Evi, the article would say: It also partly ignores the issue. And I very much regret that we have not managed to hold a political shadow rapporteurs' meeting. But there is still hope. My group has tabled amendments that turn these shortcomings of this report from head to toe, that we can agree with the report and - I say it again explicitly - that we can also appreciate the work of the ombudswoman. It deserves this recognition in this House across political groups.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. My first thank you goes to my colleague Gheorghe Falcă. He managed to produce a report with a large cross-group majority. This is good and important because, firstly, it is our own work that we represent here and, secondly, we are the only committee in the European Parliament where the agenda is made and determined by the people. Petitions that are submitted determine our own agenda. Getting closer to people simply doesn't work. And it is also a great responsibility. We should and must live up to this responsibility. And so it is good that we do not have the annual report for a political Battlefield We were able to adopt this report by a super-large majority here in the Committee on Petitions. Now the second story – perhaps typical German thinking. What can we do better in the future? We should talk about that too. The first is: We should also respond more quickly in the interest of the petitioners. I was very encouraged by the Commissioner's statement. That's where we're going. That's what we're recording. And in the proper ping-pong game, we come to the conclusion that the petitioners also quickly get a proper answer. Second point: The problem is the responsibilities. I think honestly deciding on responsibilities or non-responsibilities is sometimes better than having a petition wait on hold. It is simply not fair to discuss matters with the petitioners where we have no competence at all and where they cannot ultimately be helped. Thirdly: In the case of mixed responsibilities, it will of course be difficult. But there, too, one should have the courage to say: Well, we'll figure out where we're in charge, and where we're not in charge, so we'll have to wait a bit longer. And fourthly, many petitions for us are technically shaped. We should reactivate our network, what we did. Finally, thank you to the Members and the Secretariat of the Committee on Petitions. And last but not least, I wish you all a merry and blessed Christmas 2021.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Today is an important and also a good day for European agricultural policy, especially for our farmers. Two and a half years of consulting, countless shadow meetings, voting rounds, some on the motorway in the car, sometimes I sweated, sometimes I froze – not only because of the content, but because of the climatic conditions. A trilogue would almost have failed – Covid-19. There would have been enough reasons not to deliver or not to deliver on time. But the good thing: We, the Commission, the Council and Parliament, have agreed; That means we can deliver. This is not just a political-intellectual dispute. Ultimately, it's about our farmers. It is about security of supply. Yes, it is also about 45 billion euros of funding per year for our European agriculture. And that's why it was important to deliver on time. And at the beginning, something comforting to my colleagues who are not entirely satisfied with the reform: Everyone knows who wrote or had to write a book. For some it is the diploma thesis, for some it was the doctoral thesis. At the end of the day, everyone feels like they could have done something better. Yes, that's true. I feel the same way. But we know what it's like. We also know the saying of the eternal doctoral students: Those who constantly think that they want to do something better never end there. And that's why it's important: We want to pass an agrarian reform, and we didn't want an agrarian debate for life. That's why it was important to find compromises. Our task was to put a coherent reform on the table on time. That's what we did. I also recommend that you simply give your consent. The reform is innovative. It is more environmentally friendly. It includes a redistributive component from large to small farmers. He sees the farmer as businessman. We have incorporated the social dimension and Member States have more room for manoeuvre. And I say again: The real innovation in this reform is the so-called delivery model. This means that Member States have to use indicators to calculate whether or how European agricultural policy is developing. This results in series of numbers and de facto statistical evidence. We have result, impact and impact indicators, including 33 result indicators that are sanctioned. This means that we do not need justification from the European Court of Auditors or self-appointed agricultural experts. We can prove the success or failure of European agricultural policy. And if you criticize this, you may be afraid that at some point you will have to say goodbye to your own prejudices. Perhaps there is something quite different from what he has claimed so far – at least we have the opportunity to prove it. And this is for me the biggest reform step since the MacSharry reform in 1992: We are switching to delivery model. We are moving, if you will, towards a proof-oriented agricultural policy. It is also more environmentally friendly: 25% of direct payments are used for environmental measures. That's unique, we've never had that before. Of course, it can be more, it can be more and more, but we should first deal with this 25%, combined of course with the degrees of freedom to the Member States. Member States will be given more degrees of freedom. One fits allWe said it didn't work. And the people who criticize it? They may be devoured by mistrust in the Member States. I don't have that. I think associated with the delivery model our Member States are in a position to implement things properly. What might be left, what still concerns me, where I myself am dissatisfied: De-bureaucratization. From my point of view: As is the case, compromises are negotiated in the final phase, solutions have to be found, but the de-bureaucratisation has remained underexposed. Here again I have hope for the Member States. I say to the Member States: You have to implement – one delivery model. You have to deliver. You develop the national strategic plans. You decide which measures apply to farmers. And it is not forbidden to do it in an easy way. And I would like the Member States to have a competition to reduce bureaucracy. Therefore, in summary: In the end, in the interest of European farmers, in the interest of security of supply, in the interest of the environment, please agree to the reform! That's good, that's innovative, and, as I said, we still have a lot to do. In the next reform, we will continue to develop this and make everything better. And once again, thank you for your cooperation with our colleagues, the staff. And as a final argument, because I see Christophe Hansen in front of me: We have never discussed agricultural reform so closely with the Environment Committee. This has never happened before, and it can also give courage for the future. The Agriculture Committee can also find compromises with the Environment Committee. Thank you again, and I ask for your support for the reform today.