Debate contributions by Lena DÜPONT

Madam President, dear Mr Niinistö, disruption of critical services of supply chains, by pandemic, by sabotage, by hybrid threats, cyberattacks or natural disasters. The reasons to be prepared are multifaceted, and I specifically thank Mr Niinistö for the timely report, his reflection and his ideas. I said it before and I will say it as often as it is needed: the security landscape in Europe has worsened and we need to step up preparedness. So the report focuses, rightly so, on the whole of government, the whole of society, all hazards approach. And I would even add we need a whole of European Union approach and all European approach. So because defence and civil defence are just two sides of one medal: what does it mean? In the short term, we need to come to a common risk perception and understanding. We need to bridge the geographical differences between natural disasters and manmade crisis, enhancing the coordination between the Member States and the EU, between EU and NATO, between the civilian side and the military side, between society and politics. We need to further develop stockpiling alongside the risk perception, and we need to bring together people, material and structures of crisis response. We can build up upon the experience we are already having, and we need to be ready to exercise, exercise, exercise. We need to prepare our citizens via communication, via education, by raising awareness, because, in the mid-term, we need to eliminate bureaucratic and administrative hurdles, we need to prepare the institutions to be capable of delivering, especially in times of crisis, we need to enhance the information exchange wherever necessary and possible, we need to develop emergency protocols. We need to step up and modernise the equipment and the materials for those who will bear a huge responsibility in times of crisis, because in the end, in the long term, it's imperative that we come to a better prepared European Union, that we preserve European solidarity and that we stand strong with those with a comprehensive approach to military and civilian sides. Most importantly, we need to be thankful and supportive for those who really bear a huge responsibility when crisis arrives: to the defenders, the first responders, the rescuers, policemen, firemen and the volunteers, we owe it to them.

Mr President, Commissioner! For three years, Ukrainians have been fighting for their lives, their country, their sovereignty. Thanks to their struggle, Russia has not yet made progress with its goals and is responding with increasingly violent attacks on civilian facilities. Because they are not making progress, they are also resorting to hybrid attacks in the EU – hybrid attacks against all those who support Ukraine, against all those who represent liberal values, against all those who want to take the democratic European path, inside and outside the EU, with allies of other regimes who share their rejection of freedom and democracy. How does that manifest itself? In GPS jamming, which endangers civilian air traffic, overnight shifted border buoys, just to test the reactions, doppelganger campaigns as part of the information war; we see this so cynical and sophisticated instrumentalisation of migration, the use of organised crime structures either as proxies or for services; we see attacks on logistics service providers, railway infrastructure, drinking water supply, cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, businesses and administration; We see disinformation campaigns targeting the heart of our society: cohesion and democratic processes. All this goes almost textbook along the criteria of disinformation, deception, disruption, destabilization and destruction. So let's face it, folks: We are already in the middle of it, we are also under attack. We need to stand up and defend ourselves. How? By finally consistently supporting Ukraine; By consistently following our words in action; by enabling our security authorities at national and European level to ensure security legally and with sufficient resources; by protecting our infrastructure; by streamlining, developing and better integrating civil-military cooperation; by supporting, protecting and equipping all those responsible for disaster, civil and civil protection; by protecting ourselves as a society, as individuals and increasing our resilience. Because in the end it says: Better safe than sorry.

If you had been part of the negotiating team of the pact, you would have well known that we found a solution for the question of relocation, for the question of solidarity and for the question of solidarity that Member States need to contribute, which is the answer to your question.

Madam President, colleagues, let us, for a second, remind ourselves what the starting point last term was. Member States were not able to finalise the previous pact. The House had been kept in numerous discussions about the pact and was also not able to conclude. It took us long negotiations for a complex package and finally last year we arrived with a solution. Is it a silver bullet? How can it be? It was always clear that it's a baseline system for the inner dimension of the European Union. We always made clear that we cannot leave it there, that we need to improve and that we need to step up. And thanks to the EPP, the external dimension was already part of that. Therefore, and we heard the numbers, only 20 % of those who have no right to stay in the European Union are actually returned, which means we need to step up returns by various means. We need effective and meaningful third country cooperation with a European approach. We need to use the full leverage of the Visa Code, which has been at the hands of the Member States for quite some time, we need to fight trafficking and smuggling networks by all means, and we need to allow to take Frontex to take a greater role in assisting Member States in returns and in third country cooperation. And of course, we need to address instrumentalisation as a hybrid threat because it's highly sophisticated, highly cynical, but also highly beneficial for the organisers – well, it's nothing else than state-sponsored criminal networks here. The EPP will always be the constructive force, and we will always be the ones who drive the asylum and migration policy forward.

Madam President, Fake news, populism and disinformation are key challenges for democratic societies. This is not only true for the EU, but it must be clear to us that the conflict between autocracies and democracies is taking place here. Current disinformation campaigns aim at central European democratic values, productive debates, democratic exchanges, acceptance of compromises, trust in the state and journalism should and will be undermined. Therefore, they aim at the social cohesion that is so desperately needed right now. The mechanisms are always the same: a friend-enemy-dualism, a top-against-bottom, a we-against-them, a perpetrator-victim reversal, an impermissible shortening – thematically: Whatever floats the boat. The aim of the actors is not ‘believe me’, but the aim of the actors is ‘faith no one’. This goes deep into the foundation of trust, the putty, the social cohesion of these democracies, this European Union. Are we at the mercy of that? God doesn't know. Media diversity, free journalism – a strong fourth force is an essential pillar of free and democratic societies. Journalists, like everyone else in this society, have an enormous responsibility for our democracy. Let us protect them, let us strengthen them where necessary. At the same time, however, we must also be clear: We also have a responsibility. As a society, we practice resilience to disinformation, to populism. Not all criticism is disinformation, not all exaggeration is populism. After all, democracies can only be as good as those who stand up for them.

Madam President, Commissioner! At the beginning of the last legislative period, Schengen was already under enormous pressure. The impact of the pandemic, supply chain bottlenecks, but also since then: irregular migration at an unabated high level. This House has invested enormously, not only in the Asylum and Migration Pact, but also in the reform of the Schengen Borders Code, in numerous initiatives to strengthen the protection of the external borders, in the security of the European Union. With the Pact, however, it was always clear: The impact will be delayed, as Member States will have to implement it. The current crisis shows this more than clearly. We need a new push for Schengen, for security within the European Union. Now it is above all up to the Member States to deliver on the fast – and if necessary faster – legal implementation of the Pact, including, for example, the possibility to move forward with pilot projects on accommodation for the border procedure at the external border. Member States have these possibilities. You just have to use them. What we can do here, what we will do here, is that above all we will push for the implementation of the pact, that we will focus on strengthening Frontex. Thanks to the EPP, we also have a debate on this this week. We must repatriate and fight against smuggling and trafficking move forward urgently. We need a real external dimension of the Pact so that we can create a stronger, more secure European Union. And, ladies and gentlemen, the current crisis also clearly shows one thing: Communication, communication, communication among Member States! It cannot be that the neighbours of Germany learn from the press that the borders are temporarily closed.

Well, then, dear colleague, allow me to draft a question back. If it's only about five requests, then why is there a need for a special scheme card here. So all about security checks and making sure that we know who is at the front of the European Union. That's all about.

Thank you for not questioning me in this context. But I did point out that opportunities can be created, but then security clearance must be stepped up, as some other Member States of the European Union have also done; In this respect, this is not a contradiction.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, representatives of the Council, colleagues, I think it's reasonable to set the scene for today's debate. Russia launched a brutal war of aggression against a sovereign country, targeting civilians with bombs, attacking critical infrastructure on a day-to-day basis. Both inside and outside the European Union, we see hybrid warfare being displayed, aggressing our very own citizens and resilience. In the last month only, we witnessed numerous incidents of sabotage across Europe, followed the Russian shadow fleet on the way around critical maritime infrastructure, and detected highly sophisticated social media campaigns, fuelling populism and radicalisation. Why is it of importance for today's debate? Because the Hungarian Presidency itself and its programmes have to work on a secure Europe ready to defend itself, which somehow in declaration is a stark contrast to the latest initiative. Because the scheme in question was launched, coincidentally, shortly after the government paid a high-level visit to Russia. Because helping Russian and Belarusian citizens entering the European Union on the basis of a work visa is not exactly what I would understand as a common understanding of security – especially not if you somehow don't ask for enhanced security checks reflecting the geopolitical situation, but only for minimalistic checks upon arrival. Or if you argue that you all of a sudden need a large work force, a large number of workers with very specific qualifications, but don't justify a quota or set specific skill requirements to be fulfilled. So indeed, I would really like not only the Commission to further assess the security risks deriving from that scheme but would also ask the Council to further deploy possibilities to react.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! The Europol report on serious organised crime has already been mentioned. He alone lists 55 of the most dangerous criminal networks in the European Union. Structures between legal and illegal activities are disappearing and the willingness to use force has increased significantly. In addition, there are alarming links between organised crime structures and radicalised, sometimes even terrorist, forces. The report therefore makes it more than clear: We need to be better than criminal networks. We need a security union that deserves the name. What do we need for this? Above all, the tools and techniques. AI for law enforcement It must not be a unicorn, it must be a standard instrument. We need a legally secure way to access connection and traffic data. We need effective and dissuasive rules on confiscation and the reversal of the burden of proof. We need to strengthen practical police cross-border cooperation. We have such excellent examples as the Franco-German task force, the binome at many internal borders of the European Union, the Joint Investigation Teams. We have the increased involvement and we need the increased involvement of the customs authorities, because the success factor here is always the common language, common exercises, common action days and above all, a connectionable equipment. We need to strengthen our own agencies with staff, with finances, with technical and above all practical possibilities. We have to think from the outset. Going Local is an escape strategy for organised crime, i.e. the local level must also be able to cooperate; We need to support them in this. Last but not least: All this does not help if the judiciary cannot follow suit. This means that we also need more resources here in the capitals, but also at the European level with our agencies, such as Eurojust, EPPO – but also the question of how we actually get the money we need. JITs can continue to develop standing JITs for certain phenomena. As you can see, we have a lot to do. I believe that we owe it to our citizens that we are making good progress here in this legislature.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! We all have the pictures of the last few days in mind: the destructive flood, and at the same time the forest fires in Portugal. Therefore, first of all, of course, the thanks to all helpers and emergency services – they are doing superhuman things right now. We are on the side of those affected, we are even more on the side of those who have to mourn a loss. Today's debate has shown: We have a lot of instruments at our fingertips on the part of the European Union – that is all well and right – but I would like to emphasise once again an aspect that I believe we can further develop, and that is the civil protection mechanism, and that is rescEU. It is not only an expression of European solidarity, of standing together in the face of disasters and crises, but it is also a mechanism through which we have already gained a great deal of experience. In the case of forest fires, it has become almost normal for it to be activated; This can also be the case in the area of flood control. That is why I am advocating that we commit ourselves to an ambitious further development of this mechanism, that we advance the strategic reserve, that we strengthen material, personnel, joint exercises, because the effect is not only European solidarity, but also a strengthening and modernization of our civil defence forces.