Category: Energy

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA METSOLA
President

  President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on 13 March 2025.

(The sitting opened at 17:02)

  President. – The minutes and the texts adopted of the sitting of 13 March 2025 are available.

Are there any comments? I see that is not the case. Therefore, the minutes are approved.

  President. – Following the election of Maximilian Krah to the German Parliament, Parliament takes note of the vacancy of his seat from 25 March 2025, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

  President. – Pursuant to Rules 10 and 183 and after taking into account the observations of the Member concerned, I have decided to impose a penalty on Grzegorz Braun. During Parliament’s solemn session of 29 January 2025, on the occasion of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Mr Braun interrupted the minute of silence in memory of the victims of the Holocaust and disrupted the ceremony with his improper behaviour, which inflicted severe damage on the dignity and reputation of Parliament. I have also taken account of the recurrent nature of Mr Braun’s disrespect of the standards of conduct.

This penalty consists of the forfeiture of his entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 30 days, as well as a temporary suspension from participation in all the activities of Parliament for a period of 30 days on which Parliament meets in plenary, starting from 10 March 2025, without prejudice to his right to vote in plenary, and subject to strict compliance with the Members’ standards of conduct.

In addition, the penalty consists of Mr Braun’s suspension from participation in the next Parliament solemn session dedicated to the International Holocaust Remembrance Day scheduled in January 2026.

The Member concerned has been notified of these decisions and has not lodged an internal appeal with the Bureau pursuant to Rule 184. The penalty is therefore final.

A raíz de las conclusiones del Comité Consultivo sobre la Conducta de los Diputados y habida cuenta de las observaciones del diputado, he decidido imponer una sanción a Alvise Pérez, de acuerdo con el artículo 183 del Reglamento interno, por haber infringido las obligaciones de transparencia previstas en el artículo 4 del Código de Conducta. La sanción consiste en la pérdida del derecho a las dietas para gastos de estancia durante un período de dos días.

Mi decisión ha sido notificada al diputado, que no ha interpuesto un recurso interno contra la decisión ante la Mesa de conformidad con el artículo 184 del Reglamento interno. Por tanto, la sanción es definitiva.

  President. – The PfE and ESN groups have notified me of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations.

These decisions will be set out in the minutes of today’s sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement.

  President. – The LIBE, AGRI and TRAN Committees have decided to enter into interinstitutional negotiations, pursuant to Rule 72(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

The reports, which constitute the mandates for the negotiations, are available on the plenary webpage and their titles will be published in the minutes of the sitting.

Pursuant to Rule 72(2), Members or political groups reaching at least the medium threshold may request in writing by tomorrow, Tuesday 1 April, at midnight that the decisions be put to the vote.

If no request for a vote in Parliament is made within the deadline, the committees may start the negotiations.

  President. – I would like to announce that, pursuant to Rule 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I have declared admissible a proposal for a Union act on amending Directive (EU) 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union and introducing a mechanism of directly linking the cost of ETS allowances for companies to investments in clean technologies.

This proposal is referred to the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, as committee responsible, and to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, for opinion.

  President. – I would like to inform you that, since the adjournment of Parliament’s session on 13 March, I have signed, together with the President of the Council, one act adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Rule 81 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

The title of the act will be published in the minutes of this sitting.

⁂

I would also like to inform the House that I have received two requests for points of order.

I start by giving the floor to Villy Søvndal.

  Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente,

Mon rappel au règlement s’appuie sur l’article 40 et le respect des articles 2 et 6 du traité UE.

Cette semaine, Viktor Orbán a prévu d’accueillir Benyamin Netanyahou sur le sol européen. Je rappelle que M. Netanyahou fait l’objet d’une enquête et qu’il est visé par un mandat d’arrêt de la Cour pénale internationale – la CPI – pour crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité. La Hongrie, en tant qu’État partie au Statut de Rome et membre de son Assemblée, ne peut que coopérer avec la CPI. Ne pas le faire, c’est piétiner délibérément nos engagements internationaux.

Je vous demande solennellement, Madame la Présidente, de rappeler à M. Orbán ses obligations: respecter le droit international et l’état de droit, et ne pas trahir les valeurs fondamentales de l’Union. Je vous demande également de rappeler à la présidente de la Commission son devoir d’activer le statut de blocage pour s’opposer à l’extraterritorialité des sanctions de M. Trump. La CPI est notre cour. La protéger, c’est défendre notre souveraineté.

  President. – We now come to the order of business. The final draft agenda, as adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 26 March pursuant to Rule 163 has been distributed.

With the agreement of the political groups, I wish to put to the House the following proposals for changes to the final draft agenda.

First of all, today’s sitting, Monday, is extended to 23:00.

For Wednesday, the debate on the ‘European oceans pact’ is moved to the second point in the afternoon after the topical debate.

A Commission statement on the ‘Threat to freedom of expression in Algeria: the five-year prison sentence of French writer Boualem Sansal’, with one round of political group speakers, is added as the seventh point in the afternoon, before the debates under Rule 150. As a consequence, the sitting is extended to 23:00.

If there are no objections to this, then the changes are approved and we will move to changes requested by political groups.

First of all, for tomorrow – Tuesday. The Greens Group has requested that a Commission statement on the ‘Recent judgement by a French court on large-scale misuse of EU funds by former MEPs’ be added as the fourth point in the afternoon. As a consequence, the sitting would be extended to 23:00.

I give the floor first to Daniel Freund to move the request on behalf of the Greens Group.

  Tomas Tobé, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, as was mentioned, this court ruling came today, only a couple of hours ago. The EPP Group, we are clear in our commitments to the rule of law and democracy, and we fully support the work of our European courts.

Let me also point out that this week, here in Strasbourg, we will have a debate on transparency and anti-corruption policies in the European Union. But I do not think that this Parliament should make a habit of adding additional debates on specific court judgments, especially not on the same day that they have been made. I think this has been our position in the past. It will be our position also for the future. Therefore, we are against the Greens’ proposal.

  President. – First I will ask Mr Freund, do you agree with the alternative proposal from the PfE Group? I see the answer is no.

So I will first put the request of the Greens Group to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the request)

Mr Garraud, do you want to keep your proposal?

I will now read the PfE Group’s proposal, which is: ‘Attacks on democracy and the will of the people in Europe’. I now put the request that I have just read out to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the request)

The agenda remains unchanged.

For Wednesday, The Left Group has requested that a Commission statement on the ‘EU’s response and preparedness for Trump’s tariffs on the European automotive industry’ be added in the afternoon after the debate on recent legislative changes in Hungary.

I give the floor to Martin Schirdewan to move the request on behalf of The Left Group.

  Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Sie haben ja alle mitgekriegt, dass Donald Trump in der letzten Woche angekündigt hat, dass ab dem 2. April, also ab diesem Mittwoch, auf europäische Automobilexporte in die Vereinigten Staaten 25 % Strafzölle fällig werden. Diese Zölle treten also diesen Mittwoch in Kraft.

Nach der Ansicht meiner Fraktion ist es deshalb dringend notwendig, dass sich dieses Haus mit dieser Situation – mit dem durch Trump eskalierten Handelskrieg –, mit der Situation der europäischen Automobilindustrie und vor allem auch der Situation der Beschäftigten in der Automobilindustrie befasst.

Wir beantragen deshalb eine Änderung der Tagesordnung und schlagen vor, am Mittwochnachmittag eine Debatte hinzuzufügen, Herr Kollege; die nennt sich „Commission Statement on the EU’s response and preparedness for Trump’s tariffs on the European automotive industry“. So kann dann auch die Position der Abgeordneten dieses Hauses von der Kommission dabei berücksichtigt werden, wenn sie ihre Antwort hoffentlich klar und deutlich formuliert. Vielen Dank für die Unterstützung!

  Jörgen Warborn (PPE). – Madam President, we, the EPP, will vote against this proposal from the Left. And the reason is that it is not only about the tariffs on cars at the moment. As you are aware, on Wednesday, Trump will announce even further tariffs on other products. And the Commission is, of course, expected to present its countermeasures in mid-April.

The most important aspect for us now is to respond to this trade conflict with President Trump in a unified way. However, we are still not in a position that we have clarity, and therefore we think we should have a broader debate on this topic for the May plenary, and that would give us time to analyse the situation fully, not least on the tariffs introduced this week, but also on the EU responses.

That is why we would like to vote no for this proposal from the Left.

(The sitting was briefly suspended)

IN THE CHAIR: NICOLAE ŞTEFĂNUȚĂ
Vice-President

(The sitting resumed at 17:20)

  Andrzej Halicki, rapporteur. – Mr President, dear Mr Commissioner, it is nice to see two Polish names at the top of this very important debate.

As rapporteur on guidelines for the 2026 budget, I would like to start this procedure. This is the very initial step. The first meeting of the trilogue is planned on 8 April and then in the beginning of June, we can see the draft budget presented by the Commission, but first we have to adopt the text which was prepared for you.

Dear colleagues, after negotiations – and I would like to emphasise tough negotiations –between our political groups, I consider that we achieved a good and balanced text that respects the values and ideas of all political groups.

I consider that we managed to find a sustainable compromise text to underline our priorities such as defence, security, energy, competitiveness, agriculture, resilience, economy, effective response to crisis, health, enhancing democracy and also building a stronger Union in a changing world.

During the vote on Wednesday, we should endorse those guidelines and deliver a strong Parliament position. Those guidelines are also about our credibility as an institution. Let’s show to the Commission and to the Council that the European Parliament is a serious player, ready to defend the citizens’ priorities, to give them response to their expectations. Let’s prove that we are able to overcome our political differences, that we are united in our diversity for the common good.

As the last comment from my side before the vote, I would like to recall you that we are gathered in this House to defend the common good of all Europeans. We need to keep in mind that the adoption of guidelines is a very important step in the budgetary procedure and we should not let single issues and special interests hijack the whole process.

Please allow me to thank shadow rapporteurs of other political groups for their collaboration during the negotiations. It was very important that it was really team work and we had a good will to achieve this balanced text in the end. I would like to also thank all the Committee on Budgets’ staff, and also our assistants from all the groups, because this work was really brilliant.

Thank you very much, waiting for the voting on Wednesday, I hope we will not do the mistakes like the last years.

  Piotr Serafin, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, let me first thank Mr Halicki – your rapporteur – and the Budget Committee for the draft guidelines for the 2026 budget.

In the current geopolitical context, a strong EU budget is a vital tool for the EU in view of the security and stability threats. As at the time when we face rising global tensions, the still ongoing Russian war of aggression in Ukraine and continuous security threats, Europe must find resources to defend itself, support our partners and invest in its own competitiveness.

A strong EU budget contributes to respond to these challenges, but it has its constraints. It is no secret that the limited resources in the final years of the MFF pose an additional challenge and put some restrictions on the level of our ambitions. We are all aware that the room for manoeuvre to respond to unforeseen events is still very limited, despite the revision of the MFF, which took place last year.

When it comes to the incoming negotiations on the 2026 budget, let me recall commitments on the application of the EURI cascade mechanism. It was agreed that the 50 % benchmark of financing the additional needs for the EURI line under step two should be targeted annually. We all know it’s going to be a challenge in these negotiations, and in this respect, the Commission will keep the Parliament updated throughout the budgetary procedure on the forecast of the additional needs for the EURI line with information on the NGEU borrowing costs, the expected RRF disbursements, as well as on available decommitments. The final needs for the 2026 budget will be known at the time of the presentation of the amending letter in early October 2025.

Now turning to the next steps, the first trilogue, as was said by Mr Halicki, will take place on 8 April. We will discuss your guidelines as well as those of the Council and agree on the calendar for the 2026 budgetary procedure. The Commission aims to adopt its statement of estimates in early June.

Honourable Members, I look forward to an open and constructive dialogue with you throughout the negotiations, and I’m fully committed to good cooperation and open exchanges, and I will work with both arms of the budgetary authority on this basis, in order to facilitate a timely agreement on the next year’s budget.

  Michael Gahler, rapporteur for the opinion of the AFET Committee. – Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, when it is for the Foreign Affairs Committee, of course, as the lead committee on external issues, when it is about war and peace in Europe, and it’s about defending our European way of life, this has to be reflected in the budget of the European Union as well.

And we address, of course, the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine. We address the situation in the Middle East. And as the Commissioner rightly said, we already reformed the Multiannual Financial Framework, we are grateful for that, for the EUR 50 billion Ukraine facility primarily last year – well, we ought to reform it already now and not wait till we are in the next financial framework.

But, the measure is taken by the Commission, when it comes to ReArm Europe, and you are aware of the position of the Parliament, that we are not happy about the legal base that has been chosen, because that excludes us, and insofar, we support the need to address the challenges that are on the agenda, but the legal base is not to our advantage.

  Niclas Herbst, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des CONT-Ausschusses. – Herr Präsident! Ein herzliches Dankeschön auch an den Berichterstatter für die harte Arbeit: Das ist nicht einfach, die verschiedenen Punkte unter einen Hut zu bekommen. Ich glaube, das ist gut gelungen, und wir müssen jetzt auch einig nach vorne schauen. Ich möchte mich auch dafür bedanken, dass viele der Punkte aus der Haushaltskontrolle und auch aus unserer Prüfung in den Bericht Eingang gefunden haben. Das ist sehr, sehr wichtig, auch für die Zukunft.

Ich weiß natürlich, dass es auch einzelne Punkte gibt, die uns unterscheiden und die wir auch ansprechen müssen, die auch im Parlament geklärt werden müssen. Sei es bei der Frage: Wie gehen wir in Zukunft mit UNRWA um? Sei es bei der Frage: Wie stehen wir zu Mercosur? Sei es bei der Frage: Wollen wir bestimmte Beispiele zur Aufstachelung von Hass in palästinensischen Schulbüchern noch dulden, oder gehen wir dagegen auch finanziell vor? Das sind Dinge, die müssen hier im Parlament geklärt werden.

Aber im Vordergrund sollte auch stehen – und deshalb hoffe ich, dass es wenig key votes gibt und wenig rote Linien –, dass wir gemeinsam sehen, was wir hier mit dem Haushalt erreichen müssen. Ich glaube, dass auch die Kontrollrechte des Parlamentes in Gefahr sind und dass wir hier immer gut gefahren sind, wenn wir auch Einigkeit gezeigt haben. Da wünsche ich mir auch für die Zukunft weniger key votes, mehr Einigkeit: Das ist jetzt nötiger denn je.

  Antonio Decaro, relatore per parere della commissione ENVI. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, userò questo minuto per parlarvi del programma LIFE, tra i più longevi e di successo dell’Unione europea.

Sebbene rappresenti soltanto lo 0,3 % del bilancio dell’Unione europea, i risultati prodotti attraverso ogni singolo progetto sono importantissimi. La commissione ENVI, che rappresento, nel suo parere ha ampiamente valorizzato gli effetti positivi del programma.

Solo nel mio paese, l’Italia, sono stati finanziati 1 077 progetti e investiti 2 145 milioni di euro; sono state avviate collaborazioni con start up innovative, imprese, università, centri di ricerca, agricoltori, autorità nazionali e locali. Sono proprio i comuni i maggiori beneficiari dei fondi di questa misura, perché è lì, nei comuni, che si cambia la vita dei cittadini.

Rivolgo quindi un appello a chi forse non ha mai letto i numeri del programma LIFE e a chi vorrebbe definanziarlo. Ogni progetto del programma LIFE è un investimento doppio: ci permette di investire sulle tecnologie verdi oggi, e sulla qualità della vita del pianeta di domani.

  Borja Giménez Larraz, ponente de opinión de la Comisión TRAN. – Señor presidente, hablaré en nombre del señor Falcă, ponente de la opinión de la Comisión de Transportes y Turismo.

Para 2026, necesitamos un presupuesto de la Unión Europea más fuerte para el transporte. Debemos aumentar significativamente el presupuesto del Mecanismo «Conectar Europa» para financiar proyectos de infraestructura clave, en particular el transporte transfronterizo.

Es esencial invertir en trenes de alta velocidad, trenes nocturnos y corredores de mercancías. La ampliación de la capacidad ferroviaria desplazará más mercancías de las carreteras, reduciendo las emisiones y la congestión. La digitalización del transporte, las soluciones inteligentes y la simplificación de las normativas facilitarán los viajes transfronterizos y mejorarán el acceso a la financiación de la Unión Europea.

Dado el contexto geopolítico actual, es urgente restablecer la financiación de la movilidad militar. Debemos modernizar las conexiones de transporte entre la Unión Europea, Moldavia y Ucrania, especialmente las redes ferroviarias.

Por último, el turismo necesita modernización y apoyo, lo que incluye la reducción de las cargas administrativas para las pymes y la innovación digital para impulsar las economías locales.

  Gabriella Gerzsenyi, a(z) REGI bizottság véleményének előadója. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Örömteli, hogy a költségvetés egyik pilléreként szerepel a jelentésben a kohéziós politika. Fontos, hogy a kohéziós politikára szánt összeg ne csökkenjen, és hogy a kohéziós politika hosszú távú célkitűzéseit se veszítsük szem elől. Fontos, hogy a “senkit ne hagyjunk hátra” alapelvet érvényesíthessük maradéktalanul.

Az is örömteli, hogy a jelentésben szerepel a magyaroknak különösen fontos közvetlen EU-s források említése. Ezt külön köszönjük! Sajnos ma Magyarországra nem jut el az EU-s források jelentős része. A kormány különösen az ellenzéki vezetésű településeket bünteti, ezáltal magyar emberek százezreit fosztja meg minőségi szolgáltatástól, egészségügytől, színvonalas oktatástól.

A Tisza párt mindent megtesz azért, hogy a kohéziós forrásokat hazahozza és egy élhető Magyarországot teremtsen 2026-tól.

  Camilla Laureti, relatrice per parere della commissione AGRI. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per milioni di agricoltori in tutta Europa, per promuovere sistemi sostenibili e per fornire cibo equo e di qualità a tutti, le politiche agricole di sviluppo rurale hanno un ruolo centrale.

Le sfide e le crisi che sta attraversando questo settore non ammettono una riduzione della dotazione finanziaria della PAC. Anzi, c’è bisogno di più fondi, almeno di adeguarli all’inflazione, che negli ultimi anni ha fatto perdere miliardi di euro.

Dobbiamo fare di più e fare meglio per il contesto internazionale, che ci impone di potenziare le politiche di promozione per i prodotti europei; per i cambiamenti climatici e la siccità, che richiedono misure di mitigazione e contrasto e strumenti di gestione della crisi; per lo spopolamento delle aree rurali e la chiusura delle aziende agricole, che esigono nuove misure per il rinnovo generazionale e per la creazione di posti di lavoro di qualità e dignitosi.

L’elenco sarebbe ancora lungo. Parliamo della cura, la cura delle nostre terre, del pianeta, la cura delle persone. Non possiamo permetterci né rallentamenti, né passi indietro.

  Hélder Sousa Silva, relator do parecer da Comissão CULT. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros colegas, as linhas orientadoras para o orçamento de 2026 refletem uma visão clara para o futuro da União Europeia. A inclusão da cultura e da educação nas diretrizes é um passo crucial, reafirmando o seu papel essencial na construção de uma Europa mais forte, mais conectada, mais conhecedora e mais preparada para os desafios globais que se avizinham.

A proteção e o reforço de programas como Erasmus+, Europa Criativa e o Corpo Europeu de Solidariedade são passos fundamentais para promover a inclusão, a formação de competências e o fortalecimento da nossa identidade comum. Estes programas desempenham um papel crucial não só no desenvolvimento dos nossos jovens, mas também em toda a sociedade.

É, por isso, vital garantir que o orçamento de 2026 assegure os recursos necessários para que possamos enfrentar os desafios futuros com confiança, com força, mas, acima de tudo, com união.

  Karlo Ressler, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner Serafin, dear colleagues, the annual budget for the next year is one of the final budgets in the multiannual financial framework.

With limited fiscal space, it is necessary, therefore, to set clear priorities. Among them, in the face of the deep growing geopolitical threats, must be the need to strengthen European defence and security policies, stronger investments in strategic capacities and Europe’s ability to respond to crises.

In addition, it is crucial to ensure continued support for an effective migration policy and the protection of our external borders. At the same time, we need to invest in productivity and competitiveness so that Europe remains a global leader, but also a safe and prosperous home for its citizens.

In this context, but also in the context of the negotiations on the MFF, the adoption of the guidelines carries significant political weight. In recent years, unfortunately, the Parliament did not always adopt its own guidelines. We all have, therefore, the responsibility not to allow such a signal of weakness to be repeated.

I welcome the proposal on the budgetary guidelines by Andrzej Halicki, our rapporteur, and I really welcome this responsible approach and hope that we will continue like this also with the vote this week.

  Jean-Marc Germain, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, dans un monde au bord de l’effondrement, où l’impérialisme surgit, où nos alliés s’éloignent de nous, où les inégalités se creusent, où la guerre est à notre porte, l’Europe s’érige en dernier vaisseau, qui trace son sillage d’humanisme, de paix et de prospérité. L’Europe doit continuer de montrer le cap, et pour cela elle a besoin de notre volonté commune. Mais elle a aussi besoin d’un budget.

Ce budget doit être au service de nos concitoyens. Il doit permettre, Monsieur le Commissaire, plus d’investissements pour répondre à l’urgence sécuritaire, à l’urgence climatique et à l’urgence sociale. Il doit refuser les coupes dans les politiques sociales et environnementales destinées à payer les intérêts de la dette engendrée par la COVID-19 et à financer les efforts de défense. Nous devrons trouver les ressources pour faire et l’un et l’autre. C’est le message clé de ce texte, que nous allons voter mercredi, et je veux en féliciter le rapporteur, M. Halicki, et les rapporteurs fictifs – M. Ušakovs, pour ce qui nous concerne.

Aujourd’hui, le compromis trouvé entre les quatre groupes de la coordination pro-européenne est menacé par l’introduction de débats qui n’ont rien à voir avec le budget – sur l’immigration, sur le financement de l’aide à Gaza. Les mêmes causes produisant les mêmes effets, ce budget est en danger – je vous le dis, il va droit dans le mur.

Chers collègues du PPE, vous vous apprêtez à voter des amendements qui sont inacceptables pour notre groupe. Rien ne serait pire que de voir le Parlement ne pas se montrer capable, en ces temps troublés, de définir ses orientations budgétaires. Nous nous sommes battus ensemble pour arriver à un compromis. Ce compromis est bon, il n’est pas trop tard. Hissons-nous à la hauteur de nos responsabilités historiques! Donnons un cap budgétaire à l’Europe!

  Julien Sanchez, au nom du groupe PfE. – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais d’abord présenter mes condoléances à la France. Oui, après la Roumanie, l’état de droit est mort en France aujourd’hui, après qu’un juge a décidé de rendre inéligible, à la suite d’une cabale socialiste fomentée ici, la cheffe de l’opposition, créditée hier encore de 37 % des voix au premier tour de la présidentielle. Tout démocrate ne peut qu’être choqué de voir que l’inéligibilité de la seule candidate d’opposition crédible déclarée…

(Le Président interrompt l’orateur)

… les Français sont choqués et adhèrent nombreux à notre parti depuis cette décision. Nos idées montent, et vous ne pourrez rien y changer.

Revenons à ce Parlement. Nous y sommes la première délégation, tous pays confondus. J’ai quelques secondes pour vous parler des orientations pour le budget 2026. Force de proposition, le groupe des Patriotes pour l’Europe a fait un grand nombre d’amendements sur ce sujet, qui seront mis aux voix cette semaine.

Ce qu’il faut retenir de votre orientation, c’est l’aveuglement idéologique sectaire. Seule l’urgence climatique vous intéresse. Rien sur l’économie, la sécurité ou la crise migratoire. Alors que les flux irréguliers explosent, les frontières restent des passoires, mais vos orientations s’enferment dans le confort des instruments existants, dont l’inefficacité est pourtant notoire. Vous voulez aussi élargir encore l’Union européenne à des pays qui ne seront pas contributeurs nets. Vous voulez enfin créer de nouvelles ressources propres – impôts ou taxes.

Nous nous opposerons à toutes ces folies.

  Ruggero Razza, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, desidero anche io iniziare l’intervento riconoscendo al relatore al collega Halicki lo sforzo fatto per cercare di ricomprendere, in queste linee guida sul bilancio 2026, alcuni degli elementi essenziali più importanti che provenivano dalle proposte di tutti i gruppi politici, anche del nostro.

Ovviamente questo è un dibattito che interviene in un momento particolare, mentre è incerto il quadro della crescita economica per tutti e 27 i paesi dell’Unione europea, legato anche a questioni di natura geopolitica che incombono in questi mesi, e così sarà anche nei mesi a venire.

Non meraviglia quindi l’attenzione verso il tema della sicurezza e della difesa, che è considerato, anche in questa relazione al bilancio 2026, uno dei punti straordinariamente più importanti.

Così come condividiamo molto il lavoro sul tema della ricerca e dello sviluppo, sulla necessità di dotarsi di una sovranità nella produzione dell’energia, nella gestione dell’approvvigionamento del farmaco, nell’attenzione verso le piccole e medie imprese, anche nella forma del partenariato tra pubblico e privato; nel ribadire l’impegno per la politica agricola comune. Sono tutte questioni che certamente trovano spazio, così come il grande tema della lotta all’immigrazione.

C’è solo un dubbio, Commissario: che 200 miliardi di euro siano pochi per fare tutto questo. Anche su questo bisognerà riflettere.

  Stine Bosse, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the world around us is changing rapidly. As we, the Members of this Parliament, work towards the next EU budget, we must make tough political decisions already today and act with responsibility.

Our clean industrial deal must succeed. This means massive investments in grids, in electrification and hydrogen. Public health is an investment, not a cost. It is the foundation of our security. And in the words of our Commissioner, what we can do better and cheaper together, we must.

Finally, Europe must rearm. We have no time to lose. We will need cool heads and warm hearts. Let us show that the majority of this Parliament is united. This week, as we vote on the guidelines, let’s build the foundation of a strong political agreement. We will need it in the years to come.

  Rasmus Andresen, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Für uns Grüne ist die Stärkung unserer Demokratie und der demokratischen Zivilgesellschaft eines der Schwerpunktthemen für den Haushalt 2026. Deshalb beobachten wir mit Sorge, wie inzwischen die Legitimität der demokratischen Zivilgesellschaft von weiten Teilen – nicht nur hier im Haus, sondern auch global – angegriffen wird.

Wir sehen, dass Donald Trump gegen Unternehmen und Universitäten vorgeht, die andere Werte vertreten, als er das tut. Wir sehen, dass Viktor Orbán unabhängigen Journalisten und Menschenrechtsorganisationen vorwirft, vom Ausland gekauft zu sein. Aber wir erleben auch, dass konservative Parteien wie z. B. die CDU/CSU-Fraktion im Deutschen Bundestag mit einem Fragenkatalog das demokratische Engagement von Zivilgesellschaft untergraben will.

Wenig überraschend trifft es bei diesen Fragen immer Organisationen, die eine andere Meinung haben als diejenigen, die sie angreifen. Und genau dasselbe, nämlich unliebsame Organisationen mundtot zu machen, das erleben wir jetzt auch durch Angriffe der CDU/CSU auf das LIFE-Programm und auf Umweltschutzorganisationen hier im Haus.

Lassen Sie es mich ganz klar sagen: Steuergeld muss natürlich rechtmäßig ausgegeben werden. Aber wir haben das Vertrauen in den Rechnungshof oder aber auch in die EU-Kommission, die mehrfach deutlich gemacht hat, dass die Vorwürfe aus Reihen der CDU/CSU gegenüber diesen NGOs unhaltbar sind.

Wir wünschen uns hier breite Mehrheiten für den Haushalt, und wir stehen auch dazu. Aber dann muss man auch sich gemeinsam mit den anderen demokratischen Fraktionen hier im Haus bei solchen Themen verhalten und darf sich nicht von den Rechtsextremen treiben lassen.

  João Oliveira, em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, um orçamento é sempre um teste que permite separar as intenções políticas reais das proclamações políticas vazias de conteúdo. A discussão das orientações para o orçamento da União Europeia para 2026 é um desses testes.

As alterações que apresentámos dão uma resposta clara: é possível termos um orçamento que dê centralidade às soluções para os problemas dos povos. Por isso, apresentámos propostas que dão resposta ao aumento do custo de vida e apoiam a convergência no progresso económico e social. Propostas que promovem o pleno aproveitamento das capacidades produtivas de cada país, o investimento nos setores produtivos e a criação de emprego com direitos. Propostas que preveem o financiamento adequado ao combate à pobreza, nomeadamente à pobreza infantil, ao investimento público, ao reforço da capacidade de resposta dos serviços públicos, designadamente na saúde, na educação e na segurança social, ao acesso a uma habitação digna e a preços acessíveis para todos. Propostas para a defesa da paz, do respeito pela Carta das Nações Unidas e dos princípios do Direito Internacional e do reforço da ajuda pública ao desenvolvimento de outros países e povos.

As propostas que apresentámos são essenciais para reverter orientações que vão num sentido errado, no sentido do militarismo e da corrida aos armamentos, no sentido do favorecimento das grandes empresas e das multinacionais – sob o pretexto da competitividade –, no sentido do desprezo pelos problemas que atingem os povos, as suas condições de vida e o seu futuro.

O desafio que deixamos a este Parlamento é o de que se utilize o orçamento da União Europeia para aquilo em que ele pode ser útil aos povos e ao seu futuro e não para os prejudicar.

  Alexander Jungbluth, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident! Der Haushaltsplan sieht sich anscheinend als Heilsbringer, doch in Wahrheit versteckt sich hinter den bunten Parolen Chaos und Versagen. Die EU hat sich auf einen falschen Weg begeben, auf dem man die Augen vor den wahren Problemen verschließt. So bezieht man sich in den Leitlinien ausführlich auf den Angriffskrieg Russlands gegen die EU, man spricht von einer vermeintlichen Verteidigungsfähigkeit, Klimawandel, Biodiversität. Das ist alles Ihr Programm, aber es sind nicht die Hauptprobleme unserer Bürger.

Eine von der EU verursachte Energie- und Wirtschaftskrise, unkontrollierte Zuwanderung und der Verlust der Meinungsfreiheit – das ist das, was die EU-Bürger beschäftigt.

Und lassen Sie mich eine Sache noch zur EVP sagen. Was mich gerade doch zum Schmunzeln gebracht hat, war Herr Simon von der CDU. Herr Simon hat doch gerade tatsächlich gesagt, mit Schulden könne man keine Probleme lösen, man solle doch auf Haushaltsdisziplin achten. Jene CDU, die im dreistelligen Milliardenbereich jetzt Schulden in Deutschland machen will, in einem Maß, wie es sich die Sozialisten niemals getraut haben, die erzählen uns hier jetzt etwas von Haushaltsdisziplin, davon, dass man Schulden doch zurückzahlen müsse. Das ist an Lächerlichkeit kaum zu überbieten. Sie haben alle Werte verloren. Die CDU ist im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes wertlos.

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Mr Jungbluth, our duty here in the European Parliament is to protect the citizens of Europe. And I am afraid that your speech here does not provide any additional protection, any additional certainty and any additional security to the people of Europe. This is the difference between pro-Europeans and between sceptics, extremists and anti-Europeans.

We want to we want to solve problems here. We want to strengthen Europe. You want to weaken Europe and to just want to create problems.

What is our approach for next year? Under the leadership of Andrzej Halicki, the European Parliament’s rapporteur for the budget 2026, we are putting forward clear priorities for the budget of the European Union for next year. Security, strategic autonomy, food security and economic resilience should be our priorities. We want to make our economy stronger, more competitive, more resilient so that we can together invest more in the security of our citizens, in defending our countries, in protecting our external borders, in overcoming the multiple risks that we are facing.

Autocrats around the world are cooperating more and more. Russia is not the only country that is trying to weaken our cyber security. That is challenging the security at our external borders. And we need to provide a clear answer.

And what Andrzej Halicki is putting forward is an approach based on the priorities of all pro-European groups. We believe this has to be supported, and we believe that particularly in the area of security, defence, protecting the citizens, we will have to do more, faster and for a longer period of time. We are starting with the budget of 2026, and we believe that these will be our priorities for the foreseeable future.

Congratulations to the rapporteur.

  Sandra Gómez López (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la guerra ha vuelto a nuestras fronteras. Rusia no solo ataca a Ucrania, ataca la idea que representa Europa: democracia, libertad y derechos. Por eso el futuro de Europa también se juega en otros países. Rusia busca desestabilizar a nuestros vecinos orientales y del sur. Y no solo lo hace con tanques, lo hace con desinformación, con chantaje energético y con financiación de actores antidemocráticos.

Al mismo tiempo, los Estados Unidos dudan y en esa duda Europa tiene que decidir: o asume su papel en el mundo o lo perderá. No podemos depender de terceros para defender nuestros valores ni nuestra seguridad. Pero eso no solo se hace invirtiendo más en defensa, se hace también invirtiendo más en cooperación y en políticas de vecindad. Y por eso necesitamos en este presupuesto más recursos para todo ello. Porque apostar por nuestra vecindad no solo es un gesto de caridad, es un acto en defensa propia.

Proteger nuestros países vecinos es proteger Europa. Y apostar por ello no es un gasto, es una inversión en paz, en estabilidad y en democracia.

  Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Chcę powiedzieć bardzo wyraźnie, że ta propozycja jest lepsza, którą przygotował pan poseł Halicki niż w poprzednich latach. My patrzymy na realność gospodarki europejskiej i widać tutaj poważną zmianę, z czego się cieszymy. Cieszymy się, że nasze poprawki ECR zostały uwzględnione, bo zawsze mówimy tutaj, ktokolwiek reprezentuje ECR, że trzeba wspierać wspólną politykę rolną, dopłaty bezpośrednie, młodych rolników, bo to jest nasza przyszłość. Są uwzględnione średnie i małe przedsiębiorstwa, to także nasza ważna pozycja. Popieramy fundusz Erasmus+ dlatego, że młodzi ludzie powinni mieć możliwość kształcenia się. No i oczywiście też popieramy wszystko, co się dzieje w obszarze transportu i energii, ten aspekt jest po prostu tu uwzględniony.

Także popieramy infrastrukturalne rozwiązania. W tym wypadku przypomnę, że trzeci raz zgłaszamy teraz poprawkę dotyczącą płotów, fences, kiedyś to było fences, teraz są bariery na granicy, ale jest to uwzględnione, trzeba to powiedzieć, te fizyczne zapory na granicy są uwzględnione, wobec tego, to też nas cieszy, bo Europa musi być przede wszystkim bezpieczna, więc także tę sytuację widzimy.

Na pewno zauważenie kwestii mieszkaniowych, trudności związanych z mieszkalnictwem i odzwierciedlenie tego w budżecie też jest istotne. No i oczywiście, chociaż nie popieramy, nie popieramy wspólnej armii europejskiej, to wiadomo, to jednak te wszystkie działania, które są zawarte w tym dokumencie, naszym zdaniem zasługują na poparcie i ja tak zagłosuję. Więc myślę, że po prostu wszystkie te zapisy, także związane z mechanizmem obronnym, z tym, co się wiąże z ochroną ludności, bo mamy też katastrofy w Unii Europejskiej, jest odzwierciedlone w budżecie, więc to zasługuje na naszą uwagę i poparcie.

  Lucia Yar (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, just last night, I returned from Kyiv, where I witnessed first-hand the looming threat that Russia poses to all of Europe. And believe me, we cannot afford to ignore the growing risks of further aggression further.

It is crucial that we make security a top priority in our 2026 budget guidelines and negotiate it resolutely with Member States. I want to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for placing defence at the forefront of next year’s budget, because the war on our doorstep is real. And the only way to safeguard Europe’s future is through collective defence and unwavering support for Ukraine.

Strengthening our military capabilities, investing in defence technologies and showing solidarity with Ukraine are all essential. Their fight is our fight. And by securing Ukraine, we protect the entire European Union. Now, more than ever, we must ensure our resources are focused on defending peace and strengthening Europe.

  Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, los presupuestos son la plasmación concreta y precisa de las prioridades políticas, de las respuestas a los retos y de las soluciones a los problemas. Los presupuestos son imprescindibles para el adecuado funcionamiento de las instituciones. Sin ellos, la acción política se limita a las promesas vacías, a la falsa retórica y a los artificios contables. Sin presupuestos, ni hay prioridades ni hay política.

Si queremos en Europa apostar por la competitividad, la defensa, la seguridad, la cohesión, la PAC, la investigación o el Erasmus+, necesitamos un presupuesto. Por ello, quiero poner en valor el procedimiento presupuestario que tenemos en la Unión Europea y el trabajo de su ponente, el señor Halicki.

Lamentablemente, no podemos decir lo mismo en España, en mi país, donde el Gobierno se niega a cumplir el mandato constitucional de presentar los presupuestos por segundo año consecutivo. Es una anomalía democrática absolutamente inconcebible en un Estado de la Unión Europea y quiero denunciarla públicamente aquí.

  Giuseppe Lupo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il futuro dell’Europa dipende dalla sua capacità di investire e di rilanciare la competitività in modo strategico e inclusivo.

Per il 2026 sarà fondamentale avere un bilancio forte e concentrare i fondi europee su aree chiave che possano garantire un vero cambiamento.

In primo luogo, i giovani: investire in istruzione e formazione, in particolare per l’occupazione giovanile e delle donne, è essenziale per lo sviluppo delle aree svantaggiate dell’Unione europea, come la Sicilia e la Sardegna.

È necessario rafforzare gli investimenti per la salute e la ricerca, per gli aiuti umanitari tagliati dall’amministrazione Trump, per aiutare le popolazioni colpite da guerre, carestie e calamità naturali – come recentemente, purtroppo, in Birmania.

Vogliamo un’Europa che investe sul futuro, che investe sui giovani; un’Europa che sia più equa, coesa e prospera.

  Tobiasz Bocheński (ECR). – Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Przez świat przetacza się wiatr zmian i zagrożeń. U progu Unii Europejskiej toczy się wojna. Wszyscy jesteśmy świadkami rewolucji technologicznej, która dzieje się na naszych oczach. Raport Draghiego pokazał, że gospodarka Unii Europejskiej wymaga gruntownych zmian, a te zmiany muszą rozpocząć się od odbiurokratyzowania i deregulacji, która powinna się odbyć. I niewątpliwie widzimy interesującą i ciekawą dyskusję wokół tych kwestii w Unii Europejskiej. Wytyczne dla budżetu 2026 i to, co przedstawił sprawozdawca, zasługuje na naszą uwagę, ponieważ pokazuje zmiany, ale jednocześnie ma też wiele wad, o których warto powiedzieć.

Nie ma radykalnego odejścia od głupiej polityki Zielonego Ładu, który niszczy naszą gospodarkę i sprawia, że nie będziemy konkurencyjni wobec Unii, wobec Stanów Zjednoczonych i Chin. To wymaga głębszego przemyślenia i głębszych korekt niż te, które są zaproponowane i zmierzają wszak w lepszym kierunku niż w latach poprzednich.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Uzgadniamy priorytety Parlamentu na rok 2026. Pozycja Parlamentu, czyli siła negocjacyjna, powinna być solidnie wsparta przez głosowanie większościowe w środę. To jest ważne, dlatego że Parlament ma realny wpływ na budżety roczne w ramach codecision, a szczególnie teraz mamy ogromne problemy, żeby w ciasnych ramach wieloletnich ram finansowych 2021–2027 znaleźć solidną odpowiedź finansową na nowe wyzwania, nowe zagrożenia.

Dlatego uciekamy się do rozwiązań pozabudżetowych, takich jak NewGenerationEU czy nowa inicjatywa SAFE z gwarancją budżetową, ale opartych na artykule 122, który praktycznie eliminuje Parlament. Dlatego tak ważne jest, aby ta karta przetargowa Parlamentu obroniła się w głosowaniu w środę. To będzie nasz egzamin ze sztuki zawierania kompromisów na tym forum. Idąc poza budżety roczne, jesteśmy coraz bardziej ciekawi, co nam komisarz Serafin wyszykuje w budżetach po roku 2027.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señor presidente, cuando hablamos de los próximos presupuestos, como canario, no puedo dejar de llamar la atención sobre la importancia del POSEI y la necesidad de adaptarlo a la situación actual. Por eso hay que celebrar que se haya incluido nuestra enmienda en el informe sobre las orientaciones generales para la preparación del presupuesto 2026. La ficha financiera del POSEI lleva trece años sin actualizarse y es el momento de que la modifiquemos para reflejar el aumento de costes derivado de la inflación y el aumento de los precios de la energía, y así asegurarnos de que la agricultura en Canarias siga gozando del necesario apoyo de la Unión.

Pero más importante aún, y mirando más allá de 2026, las negociaciones para el próximo marco financiero plurianual comenzarán pronto y debemos garantizar que todos los agricultores de la Unión reciben apoyo económico, especialmente los de las regiones ultraperiféricas. El Parlamento está haciendo su parte; incluso la Comisión Europea ha reconocido que estas regiones requieren de un compromiso firme por parte de la Unión. Ahora les toca a España y al resto de Estados miembros asegurarse de que este compromiso no es en vano.

Desde el Partido Popular Europeo vamos a seguir luchando para mejorar el apoyo financiero al sector agrícola canario, ahora y más allá de 2027, reafirmando nuestro compromiso con el sector agrario, con el POSEI y con su…

(el presidente retira la palabra al orador)

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stabilirea direcțiilor prioritare pentru bugetul pe 2026 este extrem de importantă. De ce? Nu putem să avem bani în perioada următoare mai mulți, dacă nu îi investim acolo unde poate să ne aducă bani mai mulți, și anume în cercetare, în inovare, în IMM-uri, pentru a putea să dezvoltăm locuri de muncă bine plătite.

Nu putem să avem economie competitivă dacă nu avem oameni bine pregătiți profesional – iată de ce trebuie să avem buget pentru educație –, dacă nu avem oameni sănătoși – iată de ce trebuie să avem bani pentru sănătate – și dacă nu avem oameni bine plătiți. Deci, domnule comisar, spuneați că trebuie să găsim resurse suplimentare. De unde le găsim? Eu cred că le găsim dacă investim bine, dacă investim în coeziune, dacă investim în toate zonele geografice, să nu mai avem zone rămase în urmă. Și da, dacă avem o economie performantă. Dar mai este o problemă, dacă știm să ne apărăm piața internă, pentru că în prezent avem concurență neloială și distrugem locuri de muncă. Prioritățile pentru 2026 ale bugetului sunt extrem de importante și depinde de noi să le facem bine.

  Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Mr President, the European Union is facing many challenges, both from outside and within our borders.

If we want to provide a safe and competitive Europe for the next generation, we must change our priorities.

Our economic competitors are celebrating massive investments into new technologies, while overregulation and high costs keep European companies in a chokehold.

The numbers don’t lie. Our economic growth has fallen behind. A lot must change.

It is time to reconsider ideological green goals, and instead shift our full focus towards creating a mighty Europe that allows our businesses to thrive instead of transferring factories to China.

We have to take these steps if we want to ensure our resilience in times of a crisis.

And all of my colleagues: look around, the crisis is already here.

Let’s act accordingly.

  Marc Botenga (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, je vais aborder un élément qui n’a pas été abordé et qui a fait la Une des différents journaux: c’est le fait que, comme chaque année, il y a une augmentation de salaire pour les commissaires européens, et notamment pour la présidente de la Commission européenne, Mme von der Leyen. Je me rappelle que, quand j’ai débarqué ici il y a quelques années, elle était à environ 30 000 euros par mois. Quand je racontais cela aux gens, ils me disaient: «Non?! C’est pas possible?!» Aujourd’hui, apparemment, elle va dépasser les 34 000 euros par mois.

Cela fait très longtemps que nous, députés du groupe The Left, demandons une réduction de moitié des salaires des commissaires européens, afin qu’ils se rendent un peu compte des priorités des gens. Parce qu’évidemment, cela a une incidence sur les choix budgétaires que nous faisons. Il est facile, après, de dire, quand on gagne autant, que l’on va prendre de l’argent du Fonds de cohésion, destiné aux citoyens européens, pour le donner à l’industrie militaire.

Ma question, aujourd’hui, c’est: «Y a-t-il un plafond?» Nous en sommes à 34 000 euros par mois pour la présidente de la Commission européenne. Y a-t-il vraiment un plafond? Je pense, chers collègues, que ce plafond, nous devons l’imposer, pour avoir une Europe qui serve les intérêts des gens et non de quelques riches seulement.

  Nina Carberry (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, firstly, congratulations to the rapporteur Mr Halicki on a well‑crafted, forward‑looking report.

The 2026 budget will be a vital tool to strengthen Europe’s agriculture, fisheries, research and education sectors. But it must also rise to the challenge of new and fast‑evolving priorities. To boost its competitiveness, Europe must innovate more and faster. That means greater financial backing for SMEs, simplifying their reporting obligations and lowering barriers to the single market, our greatest asset. I also welcome the clear focus on fighting disinformation, promoting gender equality and investing in healthcare and humanitarian aid. Let’s make sure the 2026 budget delivers for all Europeans.

  Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, we urgently need new guidance in this budget on EU funding for UNRWA, the unique agency for Palestine, which now operates in Gaza without effective international oversight since Israel has cut off contact to UNRWA on the basis of a Parliament’s decision end of January.

Mr Germain, Madam Gómez López, there is a serious risk that EU-funded humanitarian aid is being diverted to Hamas, an EU-listed terror organisation that has executed the attacks on 7 October, that controls the territory, that has deeply infiltrated local institutions and the education system, and that bluntly denies Israel’s right to exist.

There is evidence that humanitarian aid intended for the civilian population in Gaza is diverted. Former hostages testified that Hamas captors consumed UNRWA-branded food while they starved. UNRWA facilities have been linked to Hamas tunnels used for hiding escape routes and torture.

Most importantly, UNRWA has failed to reform. The Colonna report of 2024 clearly states that UNRWA educational materials still include hateful and anti-Semitic content, strongly disregarding the opinion of…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Lukas Sieper (NI). – Mr President, dear people of Europe, in a time of war, inflation and political fragmentation, this Parliament is doing something remarkable. We are looking beyond the crisis.

The 2026 guidelines invest in security and competitiveness, in climate protection, yes, and they also invest in Europe’s soul, because hidden between figures and margins lies a historic promise. The vision of a truly united Europe with funding for enlargement, for neighbourhood stability, for institutional readiness. We are saying to the people of the Balkans, you belong!

(The speaker spoke in a non-EU language)

Because we are not whole until our flag shines over Pristina, over Sarajevo and over Tirana. And that’s why, even in dark times, we keep building the light. That’s what this budget says. That’s what Europe stands for.

  Γεώργιος Αυτιάς (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, κύριε Serafin, ως Έλληνας ευρωβουλευτής αισθάνομαι ιδιαίτερη χαρά γιατί —εκτός του ότι είστε φίλος της Ελλάδας— συμπεριλάβατε την εισήγηση του κυρίου Halicki και του κυρίου Mureșan —εξαίρετων συναδέλφων— στο να θωρακιστούν τα σύνορα της Ευρώπης. Και γνωρίζετε πολύ καλά ότι και τα ελληνικά σύνορα είναι ευρωπαϊκά, και ότι έζησε η Ευρώπη εκείνη τη δύσκολη νύχτα στον φράχτη του Αιγαίου απίστευτες καταστάσεις. Με απόλυτη σαφήνεια, ο κύριος Halicki, ο κύριος Mureșan και ο κύριος Ressler έδωσαν μεγάλη μάχη για τις φυσικές καταστροφές, ώστε γρήγορα να έρχονται οι αποζημιώσεις. Kαι το τρίτο και καλύτερο: μέτρα για τις κοινωνίες. Να στηρίξουμε τις κοινωνίες που μας έφεραν εδώ με μέτρα για τη στέγαση, για μισθούς, για συντάξεις, για πρόνοια, όπως ακριβώς είπαν. Και να ξέρετε κάτι: οι λαοί μας δεν θα ξεχάσουν ποτέ αυτήν την προσφορά.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Piotr Serafin, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I believe that this debate confirms that the guidelines prepared by the rapporteur are a balanced document which can count on a broad support in this House, which is, to be frank, also a good news from the perspective of the Commission, because, as it has been stated by a few of the speakers, at the current moment, full of uncertainties and chaos, the European Union and also the European Parliament should contribute to the stability and predictability.

The successful adoption of the guidelines and later on of the annual budget could be an important factor, passing the message also to the Europeans that we provide the stability and predictability in those difficult times.

What I will take also from this debate is that indeed there is a need to look for the balance. Defence and security are going to play an important role in the years to come, but we should not forget – and that is what the guidelines also remember – that we are not going to have defence and security without a strong and competitive economy.

And what is also reflected in those guidelines is that we need not only defence and security, not only competitiveness, but we cannot forget also about the cohesion of the Union and about the need to provide food security. And these are the elements that we should keep in mind, and we will keep it in mind. And I can assure you, on behalf of the Commission, that we will play our role in ensuring the successful negotiations of the budget for 2026.

  Andrzej Halicki, rapporteur. – Mr President, colleagues, thank you very much. All colleagues really engaged in the process.

I would like to emphasise that, first of all, to have the strong position of the Parliament, we have to have the text. And of course, I’m also listening to your remarks. All the opinions are very important. I would like to protect this balanced text because this is the effect of the teamwork based on – I can say generally – five political groups together. So, it is good to have the majority on Wednesday.

And, of course, we still have 93 amendments. So, from different point of views, we can improve the text. But in this moment, I would like to ask you, and also say very openly, even one better amendment adopted from one side can spoil the whole process we achieved during the negotiations. And we have to be very careful because we are living in very tough times.

And the question concerning security: yes, of course this is the priority number one. But to achieve the result, we have to have our common strong position. And without these guidelines, our position will be weaker. So having in mind that the negotiations are just starting, I would like to ask you for responsibility and understanding.

Thank you very much once again for the teamwork and the tough work which was done, also with your assistance together during last months. Thank you and see you on Wednesday.

  President. – Thank you very much, Andrzej. We keep our fingers crossed for your report.

The debate is closed.

  Maria Luís Albuquerque, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for the opportunity to join you today to outline the main elements of the savings and investments union. The EU has major investment needs, and the world around us is changing dramatically. Furthermore, our economy is underperforming, so we cannot afford to maintain this status quo.

At the same time, the EU has enormous potential and the means to secure its economic future. If we fail to act, if we do not respond urgently and collectively to the threats and changes around us, we risk letting our citizens down and losing our place as a leading global voice.

I have seen unprecedented political attention on SIU and this is welcomed. We need to keep the momentum going. My vision for a successful SIU is one where: households have more opportunities to build wealth and save for the big events in life; there is a faster growing economy with more and better jobs; and there are enough funds flowing for our companies, especially those which are critical for our strategic priorities.

To ensure we succeed, we must act swiftly and decisively. We must see real change in the overall single market, but also in individual Member State markets. And most importantly, we must put our citizens first. By prioritising household wealth creation, we can bring new opportunities and spark a wave of economic growth across Europe.

We cannot do this alone: EU institutions, Member States, the private sector and civil society need to work together. It’s a shared responsibility. The SIU is an enabler to finance our common priorities as outlined in the Competitiveness Compass and will mainstream simplification, burden reduction and digitalisation.

The communication the Commission adopted on 19 March sets the SIU over four strands. First, citizens and savings. Currently, our citizens hold too much of their savings in deposits. These are liquid and safe and help finance the European economy through banks, but they also yield limited returns. Citizens could get higher returns by investing in capital markets. However, those who invest often find it easier to do it in foreign markets. This means that our businesses have fewer European financing options. Our savers lack EU investment opportunities, and our businesses struggle to access the capital they need.

We must fix this mismatch. We will take action to make investing in the EU easier and more beneficial for those who want to invest and choose to do it. The savings and investments account will help in that regard.

We will also work in the area of supplementary pensions, examining the Directive on institutions for occupational retirement pensions, the Regulation on the pan-European personal pension product. Furthermore, we will work on pension dashboards and pension tracking based on best practices. We will further issue recommendations on auto‑enrolment.

Second, investment and financing. More diversified sources of finance, including cross-border help to companies of all types and sizes to grow and create jobs. We will therefore take measures to stimulate equity investments by institutional investors. We will also explore ways to leverage on publicly financed projects by the EIB Group or promotional banks, to attract private money into strategic projects. Moreover, we will revise the legislation on European venture capital funds and we will review the EU rules on securitisation. Differences in national taxation procedures can create administrative burden and barriers, so this is also something that we will address.

On integration in scale, too often European firms cannot profit from the scale and synergies of the single market because it remains fragmented. This is a huge competitive disadvantage for the EU. We will therefore present proposals to remove barriers to cross-border operations of market infrastructures, asset management and distribution of funds. This will enable market participants to grow efficiently across the EU and to lower costs of financial services for businesses and citizens.

Fourth, efficient supervision in the single market. We also need strong supervision. All market participants must be treated the same way, no matter where they are located in the EU. We need the European supervisory authorities to reinforce supervisory convergence and to identify and dismantle divergent national practices. We will present proposals to achieve a more unified supervision, including by transferring certain supervisory tasks to EU supervisors.

And finally, on banking. Europe’s capital and banking markets are deeply connected, and the savings and investments union recognises just that, but linking the two closely, capital and banking markets. However, Europe’s banking sector also remains deeply fragmented. We need large and diversified banks at the single market scale, not just at national scale. I intend to encourage banks to make better use of the single market and call on all stakeholders to support the completion of the banking union. I am now looking forward to this debate.

  Markus Ferber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Europa steht vor großen Herausforderungen. Hohe Investitionen müssen in Verteidigung, in Digitalisierung, für den Klimaschutz getätigt werden. Gleichzeitig haben wir geopolitische Spannungen, die auf unsere Wirtschaft drücken, und die öffentlichen Kassen sind weitgehend leer. Deswegen wird die Aktivierung von privatem Kapital immer wichtiger, und ich glaube, das ist der richtige Zeitpunkt, dieses Thema zu adressieren.

Wir brauchen eine tiefere Integration der europäischen Kapitalmärkte. Wenn wir eine leistungsfähige europäische Wirtschaft wollen, dann brauchen wir auch leistungsfähige europäische Kapitalmärkte. Es darf nicht sein, dass europäische Unternehmen für Aktiengänge lieber nach New York gehen. Es kann nicht sein, dass europäische Unternehmen, wenn sie Geld auf dem Kapitalmarkt aufnehmen, lieber nach London gehen, und dass für europäische Sparer die attraktivsten Angebote auch auf der anderen Seite des Atlantiks liegen. Eine wirkliche Spar‑ und Investitionsunion zu schaffen, ist nicht nur dafür entscheidend, unseren Wohlstand zu sichern, es ist auch eine geostrategische Frage.

Die Notwendigkeit für eine tiefere Integration der europäischen Kapitalmärkte sollte deswegen eigentlich jedem klar sein; trotzdem treten wir seit zehn Jahren auf der Stelle. Die Probleme sind hinlänglich bekannt: Steuersysteme harmonisieren, beim Insolvenzrecht vorankommen, besser abgestimmte europäische Finanzaufsicht, um nur ein paar wenige Stichworte zu benennen.

Wir haben kein Erkenntnisdefizit, wir haben ein Handlungsdefizit, und es sind die, die nicht da sind – die Mitgliedstaaten –, die bisher alles ausgebremst haben: Jede Initiative wurde von den Mitgliedstaaten blockiert. Es ist traurig zu sehen, dass auch heute niemand von den Mitgliedstaaten hier im Plenum des Europäischen Parlaments ist.

Die Kommission hat einen richtigen Impuls gegeben. Wir sind bereit, das zu unterstützen – ich hoffe, der Rat auch.

  Aurore Lalucq, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, notre épargne finance aujourd’hui les États-Unis. Trois cents milliards d’euros par an: telle est notre participation au financement de l’économie d’un gouvernement qui n’est malheureusement plus notre allié, qui cherche à étouffer notre agriculture, notre viticulture ou encore notre industrie à travers des droits de douane aussi arbitraires qu’injustes.

Combien de temps allons-nous encore être assez bêtes pour financer l’économie du gouvernement Trump? Rapatrier notre épargne est évidemment un enjeu économique – vous l’avez parfaitement dit, Madame la Commissaire – car elle pourrait nous aider à investir dans l’industrie, le réarmement ou la transition écologique, à un moment où l’Europe vit au-dessous de ses moyens.

C’est aujourd’hui, surtout, un enjeu politique. Aussi soutenons-nous pleinement le projet de la Commission européenne, avec peut-être quelques nuances – pour ma part, j’estime que la question de la titrisation est hors-sujet. Nous pouvons peut-être aller plus loin en demandant aux gestionnaires d’actifs d’investir un minimum dans l’Union européenne.

Je partage la conclusion de M. Ferber: il est temps que les États membres arrêtent de bloquer ce projet, et leur absence aujourd’hui est assez significative.

  Enikő Győri, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Brüsszel hibás gazdaságpolitikájának kiigazításához az első lépés a versenyképesség javítása. Ehhez pedig beruházásra van szükség, de nem hitelből. Patriótaként nem fogjuk hagyni, hogy adósságba rángassák a jövő nemzedékeit.

A tőkepiac mélyítése és a magántőke mozgósítása jó irány. Az állampolgárok és a vállalkozások számára is könnyen hozzáférhetővé kell tenni a tőkepiacot ‑ ahogy az a budapesti nyilatkozatban is szerepel.

De néhány megjegyzés: az első, hogy Európa kockázatvállalási kedve sosem lesz akkora, mint Amerikáé. Teljes kulturális váltást szorgalmazni illúzió, ehelyett üzletbarát környezetet kell kialakítani itt, ami itt tartja és mozgósítja a megtakarításokat. Kevesebb és észszerűbb szabály: ez a kulcs. A második, hogy a közös tőkepiac minden tagállam számára fontos, hogy azonos lehetőségeket biztosítson. A harmadik: a megtakarítások és a beruházások összekapcsolását a piacra kell bízni, politika és ideológia nélkül.

A Bizottság ne akarjon diktálni, építsen a tagállami jó gyakorlatokra és véleményekre. Ne központosítson, hanem szinergiára törekedjen. Tartsa tiszteletben a tagállami hatásköröket, különösen felügyeleti és adózási kérdésekben. Mi, patrióták továbbra is a piac igényein alapuló, igazságos üzleti környezetért fogunk küzdeni.

  Giovanni Crosetto, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, le ragioni che ci spingono ad accelerare sull’Unione del risparmio e degli investimenti le conosciamo: abbiamo una propensione al risparmio nell’eurozona più che doppia rispetto a quella degli Stati Uniti.

Di questo risparmio soltanto il 30 % viene investito, mentre il 70 % rimane sui conti correnti, anche per via del nostro sistema bancocentrico, che vede i finanziamenti arrivare per il 70 % dalle banche e solo per il 30 % dai mercati.

Dovremmo però, Commissaria, iniziare a parlare di alcune soluzioni, come ad esempio la modifica del trattamento prudenziale degli investimenti bancari nell’equity delle banche, o come la modifica dei requisiti di capitale che ostacola tutto il mondo e il settore delle cartolarizzazioni.

Oppure, anche, come la modifica delle aspettative della vigilanza che, se non verranno allineate con il nuovo pacchetto omnibus, non consentiranno al settore finanziario di valutare le esposizioni delle imprese ai rischi del cambiamento climatico; o, infine, come la modifica – o sarebbe meglio dire eliminazione – di feeder.

Lei, Commissaria, sa che domani inizia un trilogo importante perché, così come è scritto, consentirebbe ai paesi terzi di accedere ai nostri dati finanziari, senza tra l’altro la reciprocità, compromettendo fortemente la nostra competitività.

Se vogliamo ottenere la competitività e completare l’Unione del risparmio e degli investimenti, noi dovremmo cercare di ridurre, se non eliminare, tutte quelle regolamentazioni che sono eccessive, se non dannose.

  Damian Boeselager, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for the presentation of the report. I have to say, these are not normal times. In normal times, maybe it would have been fine to propose a patchwork of ideas on how we can become a bit more unified in our financial markets.

But we have seen a situation where European competitiveness is at risk with the tariffs that come from the US. We have also seen a situation where still the S&P 500 has seen a 5 % decline year to date since January, and indices like the DAX are actually improving by around 15 %.

So, we have a huge potential now to really build European competitiveness. But for that, we cannot just do a little patchwork of ideas, but we have to do an actual Union. We have to do something that is worth being called a Union.

For that we need two things: we need national leaders to change how they decide about European fiscal and financial rules – and this is something that also ECB President Lagarde has asked for this morning, we need to wake up, we need fundamental change – and we need more investment in our innovation capacity. And here in this proposal I do see too little of that.

  Gaetano Pedulla’, a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, l’Unione dei risparmi e degli investimenti, al di là del titolo del progetto, pure condivisibile, nasconde un pericolo fortissimo per i cittadini europei.

Per aumentare l’equity necessario agli investimenti industriali, compresi quelli più incerti, start-up e piccole imprese, si semplifica la possibilità di impiegare le grandi masse monetarie collocate dai risparmiatori nei depositi bancari, spostando così il rischio di tali investimenti dal sistema finanziario al mercato del risparmio.

Un mercato che vale 10 trilioni di euro, frutto del lavoro e dei sacrifici dei cittadini: soldi che la Commissione dovrebbe considerare sacri.

Nei giorni scorsi ci siamo confrontati in commissione ECON con la Presidente Lagarde, che ha assicurato un elevato sistema di controllo da parte della Banca centrale europea, ma, nell’attuale contesto geopolitico ed economico, è inaccettabile più che mai scaricare nuovi rischi sui risparmiatori. A maggior ragione se gli obiettivi di questa iniziativa puntano ad aumentare la competitività del sistema europeo, usando più tra tutte la leva del riarmo e dell’industria militare.

In questo modo la vostra Commissione avrà ingannato due volte i risparmiatori: la prima, mettendo a maggior rischio i loro investimenti; la seconda, amplificando a loro insaputa il finanziamento di una pericolosa economia di guerra.

E per la mia parte politica, il Movimento 5 Stelle, è inammissibile che persino le nuove norme per i risparmiatori rischino di finanziare la guerra.

  Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, se estima que, en la Unión Europea, el 70 % de los ahorros están en las cuentas bancarias y, en los Estados Unidos, al revés, el 70 % de los ahorros están invertidos en los mercados de capitales. Además, lo estamos oyendo aquí: los emprendedores europeos no encuentran la financiación para poner en marcha sus proyectos o para hacerlos crecer. Y un número muy importante se va fuera de la Unión Europea, en gran parte a los Estados Unidos.

Tenemos un Consejo que no nos permite avanzar, un Consejo que es incapaz de dar una solución a este problema. Tenemos una Comisión que ofrece una propuesta —que ha detallado muy bien la comisaria— de una hoja de ruta sobre cómo de verdad conseguir que en la Unión Europea se quiten las barreras y se consiga tanto atraer inversión como que la inversión fluya entre los Estados miembros. Pero no hay voluntad política por parte del Consejo. Y hay que denunciarlo.

Fui la ponente del informe sobre la unión de los mercados de capitales hace cuatro años y, en mi intervención cuando votamos ese informe, alcé mi voz en nombre de este Parlamento pidiendo que hubiera ambición política por parte también de la Comisión, pero principalmente del Consejo, para avanzar.

La situación cuatro años después no ha cambiado por parte del Consejo y es lamentable que no estén aquí hoy, como ha dicho mi compañero Marcus Ferber. Y es lamentable escuchar ahora que proponen que haya dos velocidades para conseguir estos objetivos. No podemos perder el tiempo y necesitamos reaccionar ya.

  Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Mr President, the lack of a real internal market for financial services equals a tariff of more than 100 %, as calculated by the IMF. This is a tariff we Europeans put on ourselves. It makes the EU citizens remain champions in sticking to savings with low returns.

To turn this around, we need three main changes: firstly, CMU, SIU, the name does not matter. What matters are real structural changes. We cannot stick to the status quo out of fear for change. Structural deficiencies in the system need to be addressed properly and not paid off by promising tax incentives.

Secondly, to increase trust in the system, let’s stop producing underperforming products, let’s stop selling promo talks for advice, and let’s stop charging unsustainable inducements.

Finally, more trust is needed and there is also room for risk‑taking for consumers if there is transparency and financial literacy.

Only if we make these changes, the SIU can become a success and turn the EU savers into EU investors.

  Ľudovít Ódor (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, the diagnosis is clear. Europe has a lot of savings on the one hand, and the desperate need for investments on the other. And there is no functional bridge between the two sides. Deep and liquid capital markets, more risk‑taking and equity investments are absolutely necessary to harness the full potential of an economy with 450 million people.

Attempts to create a capital market union have yet failed. What will be different with the new acronym SIU? Two things come to my mind.

The first one is the perspective. Capital market union is a very technical term with no appeal to citizens, businesses or entrepreneurs. Savings and investments are more understandable, but focus on citizens’ financial wealth and financing Europe’s global competitiveness is an even better alternative.

Second, urgency. In times of gloomy global outlooks, trade wars and protectionism, Europe needs to mobilise all its internal sources of growth. In my view, compared to the current plan, we should be even more ambitious and we should work all together.

  Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτή η Ένωση στοχεύει στην αρπαγή αποταμιεύσεων του λαού, συνταξιοδοτικών ταμείων, για το φαραωνικό σχέδιο των οκτακοσίων και πλέον δισεκατομμυρίων της πολεμικής οικονομίας και τη στήριξη της ανταγωνιστικότητας ευρωενωσιακών ομίλων απέναντι στην Κίνα και στη Ρωσία, αλλά και στις ΗΠΑ.

Η ιστορία επαναλαμβάνεται. Ο ιδρώτας και οι κόποι των εργαζομένων γίνονται προσάναμμα για να τραβήξουν κεφάλαια που δεν ενεργοποιήθηκαν στην πράσινη και την ψηφιακή μετάβαση, και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση επιδιώκει να αξιοποιηθούν μπροστά στη διαφαινόμενη καπιταλιστική κρίση, κλιμακώνοντας την πολεμική προετοιμασία. Οι λαοί έχουν σκληρή πείρα από τα ευρωενωσιακά μέτρα που σήμερα παίρνουν τη μορφή «περισσότερα όπλα, χαμηλότεροι μισθοί, χαμηλότερες συντάξεις», όπως υπογράμμισε ο επικεφαλής του ΝΑΤΟ.

Οι εργαζόμενοι έχουν χρέος να δυναμώσουν την πάλη τους ενάντια στα σχέδια που ενισχύουν τους λίγους και τα μεγάλα συμφέροντα, εκτοξεύουν την εκμετάλλευση και τσαλαπατούν το εισόδημα και τα κοινωνικά δικαιώματά τους. Να αγωνιστούν με γνώμονα τις δικές τους σύγχρονες ανάγκες, κόντρα στην πολεμοκάπηλη και επικίνδυνη στρατηγική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, των μονοπωλίων και των αστικών κυβερνήσεων.

  Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, começava esta intervenção apenas lamentando a falta de comparência do Conselho, aqui nesta Câmara, para debater um assunto tão importante como a União de Mercados de Capitais, a União da Poupança e dos Investimentos. Tenho a certeza de que, se fosse um debate sobre defesa, teríamos aqui a representação necessária e este é também um dos temas que será central, um pilar essencial no investimento que devemos fazer em defesa.

Mas a proposta que hoje discutimos é mesmo a União da Poupança e dos Investimentos, é bem-vinda e responde a um cenário que não podemos ignorar.

As poupanças dos europeus fogem da Europa para outros países no mundo.

As nossas empresas – sobretudo as startups – têm de procurar financiamento fora de portas para conseguirem crescer.

E a fuga de capitais é acompanhada, muitas vezes, pela fuga de cérebros.

E, portanto, é prioritário travar esta fuga e atrair mais investimento, com mais inovação e mais oportunidades.

E como é que fazemos isso?

Primeiro: terminar o processo de integração bancária, assegurando mais proteção para os consumidores.

Segundo: harmonizar regras para criar um verdadeiro mercado europeu de capitais, um mercado onde seja fácil a qualquer pessoa aforrar ou investir, com supervisão europeia transparente e eficaz, com menos burocracia e menos dificuldades no acesso ao capital.

E terceiro: com uma aposta decisiva na literacia financeira. As pessoas, os europeus, para utilizarem o mercado de capitais têm de o compreender. Para que cada um acredite e confie nesse mercado, apenas com mais preparação e com mais informação teremos mais capital disponível para investir nas empresas europeias e mais dinheiro no bolso das famílias.

E para terminar, Senhora Comissária, apoiamos a União da Poupança e dos Investimentos e estamos preparados para trabalhar e torná-la uma realidade.

(A oradora aceita responder a uma pergunta «cartão azul»)

  João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Deputada Lídia Pereira, os planos da Comissão nesta matéria são planos perigosos e a Senhora Deputada, de resto, não fez referência a um dos aspetos mais perigosos destes planos e é precisamente sobre isso que lhe quero fazer várias perguntas, que têm que ver com a mobilização de recursos para financiar a economia a partir dos sistemas públicos de Segurança Social, favorecendo o negócio dos sistemas privados de pensões à custa dos sistemas públicos de Segurança Social, não apenas com a utilização dessas verbas, mas, naturalmente, com a criação de um campo de negócio nessa área.

E a pergunta que lhe faço é esta, Senhora Deputada: considerando os escândalos das falências de fundos de pensões privados pelo mundo inteiro e dos prejuízos para os trabalhadores, a Senhora Deputada acha mesmo que este é um caminho seguro para garantir os direitos dos trabalhadores?

  Lídia Pereira (PPE), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado, agradeço-lhe a pergunta e digo-lhe que aquilo que acho verdadeiramente perigoso é que, daqui por umas décadas, o modelo social europeu esteja em causa e que não seja possível pagar as pensões a pessoas da minha geração, da nossa geração.

E, para isso, esta União da Poupança e dos Investimentos é tão necessária.

Temos de encontrar formas alternativas de financiamento dos sistemas de Segurança Social e, para garantirmos a sustentabilidade dos sistemas de Segurança Social, este tema, este debate é central para garantirmos que as novas gerações têm um futuro na sua reforma.

  Angéline Furet (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, l’union de l’épargne et des investissements, sous des airs technocratiques de bon sens économique, cache en réalité un projet de dépossession de notre souveraineté financière, de notre modèle social et de la maîtrise de notre épargne.

Ce projet, porté par Bruxelles, impose des transferts massifs de compétence en matière de fiscalité, de régulation et même de financement des secteurs stratégiques. Le plan d’épargne retraite paneuropéen, par exemple, menace frontalement notre assurance-vie et notre PER, piliers de l’épargne populaire française. Pendant que l’on promet aux PME un accès facilité au capital, ce sont surtout les investisseurs étrangers qui, demain, dicteront leurs conditions, au détriment de notre tissu productif local. Quant à nos territoires ruraux, ils risquent une fois de plus d’être laissés pour compte.

Le Rassemblement national dit non à cette Europe technocratique et oui à une Europe des nations libres, maîtresses de leur destin financier. Nous exigeons un référendum sur toute avancée concernant ce projet.

  Gilles Boyer (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, les rapports dont nous disposons – ceux de MM. Draghi, Letta et Noyer – proposent tous des mesures concrètes pour bâtir une véritable union de l’épargne et des investissements, une véritable union des marchés de capitaux, pour financer nos transitions écologique et numérique ainsi que notre défense européenne, mais aussi pour renforcer notre autonomie stratégique.

Pourtant, dès qu’il s’agit de finaliser l’union bancaire ou de renforcer la supervision européenne, les résistances nationales refont surface et ralentissent les avancées. Nous sommes donc nombreux à attendre des propositions fortes de la part de la Commission concernant l’union de l’épargne et des investissements, à commencer par la révision des règles de titrisation, en vue de créer un levier de financement supplémentaire au service de nos priorités politiques. Ces propositions fortes, Madame la Commissaire, nous serons ici nombreux à les accompagner.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Ralf Seekatz (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Wenn 70 % der Ersparnisse auf Sparkonten liegen, haben wir sehr viel ungenutztes Potenzial, das unseren Bürgern und unserer Wirtschaft zugutekommen könnte. Private Spareinlagen sollten in innovative europäische Unternehmen fließen, vor allen Dingen auch in die KMU, in die kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen, die das Rückgrat unserer Wirtschaft sind. Ein besserer Verbriefungsmarkt oder ein europäisches Sparprodukt könnten zur Vertiefung der Kapitalmärkte beitragen.

Daher brauchen wir auch die Kleinanlegerstrategie. Nur wenn Anleger auch Vertrauen in die Kapitalmärkte haben, können wir das dringend notwendige Kapital für unseren erheblichen Investitionsbedarf auch erschließen. Es ist nicht gut, dass die Kommission überlegt, die Kleinanlegerstrategie zurückzuziehen, obwohl wir auf einem guten Weg sind.

Die SIU ist ein wichtiger Schritt. Wir brauchen mehr Anreize, und wir brauchen einen Plan, wenn wir international weiter wettbewerbsfähig sein wollen.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, stimați colegi, n-am reușit să facem piața de capital și rebotezăm acum. Ați venit cu o nouă denumire, foarte prost explicată. Știți, doamnă comisară, și ați auzit și aici, în țara mea, oamenii deja se tem, vor să-și ia banii din bancă, pentru că ei au înțeles că da, Comisia Europeană le ia banii pentru investiții, banii privați.

Doamnă comisară, în primul rând trebuie să clădiți încredere. Un cetățean, un întreprinzător – și vin din lumea lor, de acolo, din lumea afacerilor – investește dacă are încredere. Trebuie să clădim această încredere, să facem investiții în Uniunea Europeană, să nu scoatem banii să-i ducem în alte state, să nu plece cetățeni bine instruiți în altă parte.

Așadar, acest proiect nu poate să fie clădit decât dacă comunicați bine, explicați bine proiectul și atât cetățeanul, cât și întreprinzătorii vor veni cu banii privați în proiecte strategice. Altfel, va fi din nou un eșec și nu realizăm ceea ce ne dorim de fapt: să avem o politică comună în piața de capital, să putem să avem legi comune pentru tot ce se întâmplă în domeniul fiscal, să avem o impozitare comparabilă în statele membre, pentru că avem o piață internă, dar totul pleacă de la încredere, doamna comisară. S-a comunicat extrem de prost acest proiect. Toată lumea se teme și nu știe cum să-și protejeze acum banii privați, fie ei la cetățean sau la întreprinzători.

IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE
Vice-President

  João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária Maria Luís Albuquerque, a concentração bancária em megabancos não serve os interesses dos depositantes, tal como a privatização ou a destruição da Segurança Social pública não serve os interesses dos trabalhadores.

A Segurança Social pública é uma garantia para os trabalhadores quanto à sua proteção social, incluindo quanto às suas pensões atuais e futuras. É preciso defendê-la, reforçá-la, incluindo financeiramente.

Favorecer o negócio dos fundos privados de pensões, fragilizando a Segurança Social pública, deixa os trabalhadores e os pensionistas desprotegidos. Permitir que o dinheiro da Segurança Social possa ser lançado na roleta da especulação dos fundos de pensões é o mesmo que destapar um ralo por onde se vai escoar o dinheiro das futuras pensões.

Veja-se o que tem acontecido em sucessivas falências de fundos privados de pensões por todo o mundo.

O futuro constrói-se com o reforço da Segurança Social pública e não com a sua destruição ou privatização.

  Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Polska prezydencja promuje bezpieczeństwo, również bezpieczeństwo w wymiarze inwestowania. Unia, którą Pani Komisarz zaprezentowała, te rozwiązania, te priorytety przede wszystkim dają bezpieczeństwo inwestowania, inwestowania z oszczędności, często z oszczędności, które pochodzą z dorobku i pracy całego życia.

Stąd też tak bardzo ważny jest również nadzór nad rynkiem kapitałowym. Umożliwi on również mniejsze ryzyko, ale z drugiej strony pozwoli na inwestowanie środków w najbardziej potrzebne sektory. I takim sektorem, który ja dostrzegam, są innowacje, ale również bardzo ważnym sektorem, na który zwraca uwagę polska prezydencja – są kwestie obronne. To są również potencjalnie duże wpływy dla funduszy emerytalnych. One się również przełożą na wyższe emerytury dla Europejczyków.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Maria Luís Albuquerque, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members. I will try for this closing to touch on the topics that you have raised.

First, I’d like to say that I felt there is significant support for the savings and investments union, and I would like to again explain that the SIU is not a rebranding of the CMU. We are talking of a broader project. The savings and investments union has the citizens at its core. We are trying to help our citizens make the best of our savings.

At the same time, we are working to get the necessary investment into our economy because if our companies get the funding they need to grow and be more competitive, then they will create better jobs and they will have better pay, which will again benefit the citizens.

By leaving most of their savings in bank accounts, inflation will eat up the value, so those hard earned savings will, when they need the money, actually buy much less than they do today. This is something that we should not lead our citizens to do. We do want them to have higher returns.

It’s true that it is about trust in the markets and we do know that there were unfortunately too many events where people did lose money in the markets. But that is why we have a reinforced supervision and that is why we will also continue to work on that to guarantee the quality and the delivery of our supervision. For that, as was also mentioned here, financial literacy is key. For that I would appeal to the Members of this House to support us in that effort.

It is not helpful to say that capital markets are gambling. It is not helpful to say that we are taking money out of people’s accounts. It is not helpful to say that we are robbing people because none of that is true and that is not helping people to make the best decisions for themselves, which is the goal of this project.

We are talking about using capital markets to direct savings into investments. Investments are necessary in our economy, in the priorities, but it will be people’s decisions. The Commission will not force private money into anything in particular. We will try to take the barriers out of the market to foster investment and people will put their money where the business case is. We are not going to tell people where to put their money and obviously the Commission does not intend – would never – take the money out of people’s accounts against their will. We will give them better opportunities, that’s the intention.

When it comes to pensions and the pension system, we know the demographic trend in Europe is very negative and that is why we worry about pension systems. That is why we worry that public pensions alone may not be able to guarantee our pensions going forward. I’m not talking about me, I’m close enough to the retirement age. I’m talking about the younger generations that actually need us to take the right decisions, to make sure that they will have pensions.

And we also need, obviously, to have innovation, to allow innovation to come into our market, to allow existing incumbent entities to be more open to competition, to be more open to innovation, so that better services at better costs can be provided. When we worry about our strategic autonomy, about the fact that our savings are going abroad, we need to guarantee here in Europe the same things that attract our money elsewhere. We need a big capital market with scale, with liquidity, with efficiency. We need to address the issues that have been so detrimental for investing in Europe.

This is what the savings and investments union is about. It’s a strategic enabler to be deployed across the economy. It’s to the benefit of all and it does have the citizens at its core. That is our main concern: for us to have efficient capital markets that can give people the best possible yield and return for their savings.

But we also obviously need to get the support of everyone. As I said in my introductory remarks, this is a shared responsibility. It is up to the Commission to put the proposals on the table; it is up to the Parliament, you represent the people, to be there to discuss with us and to support this project; and it’s obviously also up to the Council to support this project and to understand that we are facing different times.

We are no longer competing against each other, we are competing against external jurisdictions. It’s only by staying together and sticking together that we actually have a chance to succeed and to give our citizens what they really deserve, because we should never forget – and maybe we don’t say it enough – that it is all about our citizens. That’s why you are here, that’s why the Commission is what it is: to deliver the best future for our citizens.

  President. – The debate is closed.

  President. – I have an announcement. The non-attached Members have notified the President of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations.

These decisions will be set out in the minutes of today’s sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement.

  Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, my aim is to deliver a cultural compass for Europe in 2025, a meaningful and new strategy that we’ll shape together. A bold and ambitious political initiative, empowering culture and creativity, enabling healthy democracies and open societies, strengthening Europe’s security, Europe’s preparedness and our democratic values. And unlocking the potential of the EU’s cultural and creative sectors to adapt, to innovate and to drive Europe’s competitiveness and societal resilience.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a global cultural powerhouse, a global actor promoting worldwide the role of culture and mutual understanding. Culture shapes how people perceive the world. It is Europe’s beating heart, our lifeblood, bridging divides and uniting us, reinforcing our democratic principles, and empowering our regions and our communities.

But the cultural and creative industries also employ 8.7 million people in the European Union. That is almost as many as there are people employed by the agricultural sector, from music to performing arts, books to publishing museums, theatres and libraries, architecture and design, among others. These represent more than 2 million cultural enterprises in Europe, and they generate annually around EUR 200 billion in value added to our business economy.

Then there are our initiatives, like the European Capitals of Culture. They need no introduction or no explanation on their value added or their contributions to our societies and our economies. Their positive effects speak for themselves. But beyond all these numbers, culture is also indispensable to our well-being and our quality of life. With a strong positive impact on our health. It is an integral part of our European way of life.

However, honourable Members, we live in a time of profound transformations. This is a pivotal moment for our European Union and especially for our democracies. Artistic and cultural freedoms are increasingly under attack. Geopolitical tensions and conflicts continue to grow. Disinformation and foreign interference threaten to pull us apart. Economic and geographic inequalities need our urgent attention, and Europe’s competitive edge has continued to slip. This calls for fresh innovation to boost inclusive growth, but also to secure our sustainable prosperity, to create wealth, to create employment and further prosperity. And to step up our efforts to address global and societal challenges like climate change.

In all this, the cultural sector has a strong role to play in these societal transformations. A pivotal role to play. But for that to happen, the right conditions need to be in place.

First, artistic freedom remains the essential precondition for the creation and enjoyment of our culture. Fundamental principles and core values, such as the freedom of artistic expression and creation, will guide the cultural compass.

Second, there can be no art or culture without people. This is a strategic investment in our democracy and in our values culture must pay the rent. Improving living and working conditions for professionals working in the arts and cultural and creative sectors is an investment in people, ensuring they can make a good livelihood and safeguarding the future of culture itself.

Third, arts and culture are also important players and strongly impacted by other major, overarching societal transformations like the global race for technology and artificial intelligence. This comes with both opportunities and disruptions. We must follow these developments closely to ensure that our cultural and creative sectors are empowered, especially by securing fair remuneration and safeguarding of their rights.

This context calls for joining forces to shape a holistic strategic response together to harness the power of the arts, culture and cultural heritage, to foster innovation, to foster economic prosperity, to foster social cohesion and to foster regional development. What we need is a paradigm shift, one that places culture at the centre of EU policymaking across different sectors and industries, from competitiveness to defence, security and resilience, from regional and health policy to the rule of law.

In this respect, ladies and gentlemen, two weeks ago I launched a consultation process on the cultural compass. Together the views and experiences of Europe’s artists, cultural workers and creatives. I was pleased to see the engagement of the European Parliament and the Polish Presidency of the Council. And I was truly encouraged to see the sector’s strong support outlining our shared objectives for this initiative. The message was clear we need a European culture compass, starting with a structured and strategic dialogue with the culture sector and complemented by a strong Creative Europe programme to implement it.

Soon I will also launch a call for evidence to further gather the views of our cultural and creative sectors of Member States and of citizens. The latter, which are the consumers of our culture, are also quite important to me. But I also firmly believe that we must join forces. We must join forces to send a strong message. We must join forces to illustrate why the European Union and its Member States should support, invest and spend more on culture. This is why I stand before you today, providing direction, coherence and a new level of ambition, providing direction.

To achieve this, I intend to put forward a joint declaration bringing together the three main institutions under one strong political commitment, a commitment endorsing our principles, a commitment reinforcing the central position that culture holds for our societies and our people. Where the Commission, the European Parliament and the Member States are equal partners in shaping our vision for the future.

This collaborative approach is my political vision and my promise to you today, because a strategy’s true worth lies not only in the vision and the goal it sets, but in the momentum that we built together. For this to materialise, the full and assertive co-ownership of all EU institutions is essential. This is no small task, but it is possible. If we work together we can make it possible. I count on your full support and I look forward to your contributions here today.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Prace nad Europejskim Kompasem Kultury trwają. Mówił o tym pan komisarz. Oczekiwania na nowe narzędzia, ramy strategiczne są ulokowane nie tylko w środowiskach artystycznych, i to chciałem podkreślić. Trzeba pamiętać, że sektor kultury w Europie to około 8 mln zatrudnionych i 200 mld EUR przychodów. Jest szansa, że opracowanie powstanie do końca bieżącego roku, jak powiedział o tym przed chwilą pan komisarz. By jednak mieć satysfakcję, a zwłaszcza wysoką efektywność wykorzystania potencjału przemysłów kreatywnych, muszą być spełnione dodatkowe warunki.

Po pierwsze, potrzebne jest wzmocnienie finansowe, zwłaszcza takich programów jak Erasmus+ czy Kreatywna Europa. Mamy tych programów, instrumentów około 20, ale wymieniłem szczególnie te dwa, bo one mają szczególne znaczenie. Po drugie, wsparcie programów edukacyjnych, kształcenia samych artystów, ale także dalsze wysiłki związane z likwidacją rozmaitych barier w dostępie do kultury. Po trzecie, dostrzeżenie zagrożeń, szans i właściwe odniesienie się do nowych projektów z wykorzystaniem sztucznej inteligencji. Właściwe wdrażanie stosownego aktu wymaga precyzji, dobrego tempa i adekwatności. I na koniec, dostrzeżenie apeli samych środowisk artystycznych, ich krytycznych uwag odnoszących się do praw autorskich i chronienia autentycznej ich twórczości.

Musimy zwrócić uwagę na potrzeby wsparcia dla ludzi świata kultury, jeśli chodzi o ich mobilność i tworzenie nowoczesnych warsztatów pracy. Nie zapomnijmy także o samej promocji. Mamy tu w Europie tak wiele tak cennych obiektów, utworów, rozmaitych dzieł, by z nich skorzystać i ekonomicznie, i na prestiżu.

  Hannes Heide, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Die Europäische Union ist existenziell gefährdet. Der Angriff auf unsere Demokratie und europäischen Werte erfolgt von innen und außen. Gerade deshalb ist es notwendig, Kultur zu stärken und unsere Gesellschaft vor illiberalen, autoritären Tendenzen zu schützen.

Der Kultur- und Kreativsektor trägt 5,5 Prozent zur Gesamtwirtschaftsleistung der Europäischen Union bei und beschäftigt über 7,5 Millionen Menschen. Creative Europe ist allerdings das einzige direkte Kulturförderprogramm der Europäischen Union. Der Kultur- und Kreativbereich ist im Vergleich zu anderen Sektoren unterfinanziert. Der neue mehrjährige Finanzrahmen muss sicherstellen, dass Creative Europe ein starkes, eigenständiges Programm bleibt und das Budget deutlich aufgestockt wird.

Der Kulturkompass ist jedenfalls ein optimales Instrument, die drängenden Herausforderungen wie faire Arbeitsbedingungen für Kulturschaffende, die Potentiale des Kultur- und Kreativsektors zu nützen oder den Einsatz von Künstlicher Intelligenz ambitioniert und erfolgversprechend anzugehen. Nirgendwo sonst ist der sozio-ökonomische Effekt so groß wie bei der Förderung im Kulturbereich. Wenn wir den Kultur- und Kreativsektor voranbringen, dann bringen wir die Europäische Union insgesamt vorwärts.

  Ивайло Вълчев, от името на групата ECR. – Г-жо Председател, новата стратегия “Културен компас” наистина е шанс за един силен, свързан и иновативен културен сектор в Европейския съюз. Но за да бъде успешна тази стратегия, трябва да поставим правилните принципи.

Трябват ни реалистични, работещи програми и стимули, лишени от всякаква идеология, които да насърчават творците и да привличат инвестиции. Държавите членки трябва да бъдат активно ангажирани, но да помним, че културата е национална ценност и не може, и не бива да се диктува от Брюксел. Никаква намеса, само подкрепа и обмен на добри практики.

Да помним също, че технологиите и изкуственият интелект могат да подобрят ефективността, но творчеството винаги ще принадлежи на хората. Нека да създаваме условия за растеж, за международни връзки, за културно разнообразие, но без да жертваме свободата на изразяване. Нека да градим, без да налагаме.

  Laurence Farreng, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, promouvoir notre culture, c’est aussi nous défendre et nous imposer. Notre boussole culturelle, c’est notre boussole de souveraineté. Alors que les attaques contre notre modèle européen se multiplient, ne cédons pas aux menaces américaines. Abandonner notre régulation du numérique et ne pas défendre bec et ongles la reconnaissance du droit d’auteur face à l’intelligence artificielle seraient des fautes historiques, le coup de grâce pour le secteur culturel et, au-delà, pour notre civilisation. Alors soyons intransigeants!

Par ailleurs, Monsieur le Commissaire – je connais votre engagement –, donnons une vision! Les consultations, c’est bien, mais donnons une vision! En promouvant le multilinguisme pour la circulation des œuvres, en donnant un statut protecteur aux artistes, en renforçant les coproductions dans tous les arts – de l’audiovisuel au théâtre –, en donnant la main aux villes et aux collectivités locales pour créer ensemble et au plus près des citoyens, et pour valoriser leur patrimoine local et leur culture locale. Il n’y aura pas d’Europe demain sans culture européenne.

  Nela Riehl, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear Glenn, I thank you for your statement and your great commitment to making this a very co-creative process. I really appreciate that, and I believe we are on the right track, but let’s not underestimate the challenge we face here. There is a hybrid war knocking at our doors. Storytelling, clicks on social media and censorship are weaponised against civilians.

To withstand this, we need vibrant civil societies. We need feelings of belonging together and courage to speak back. This is what culture is actually for.

We need a European agenda for culture to protect our pluralistic democracies and societies. The culture sector needs security when it comes to plannability, freedom of expression, access and representation.

Let’s commit to improving the condition for cultural workers. We now have the opportunity to set very clear guidelines.

First, we need to guarantee artistic freedom. The European Media Freedom Act has been a great success in preserving journalists’ independence, and now we need the same level of legislation to protect freedom of expression for artists and creators.

Second, we need solid and sustainable funding for the cultural sector. As we are now discussing the next MFF, let’s secure at least 2 % of the overall budget for culture. This is a matter of preparedness, of resilience and of defence.

Lastly, we need a European strategy on cultural relations and to understand Europe as a global cultural actor, not with a paternalistic worldview, but as a key to foreign policy based on mutual respect. Let’s make this happen.

  Νίκος Παππάς, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, ο πολιτισμός δεν αποτελεί απλά πυξίδα για την Ευρώπη. Είναι η ψυχή της. Μας ενώνει, μας διδάσκει και μας βοηθάει να ονειρευτούμε και να χτίσουμε ένα καλύτερο μέλλον. Δυστυχώς όμως, στις μέρες μας, οι αξίες που εκπροσωπεί, όπως η ελευθερία, η ποικιλομορφία, η διαφορετικότητα και ο διάλογος απειλούνται. Ακραίες φωνές επιδιώκουν να διχάσουν αντί να ενώσουν.

Για παράδειγμα, στη χώρα μου, βουλευτής του Κοινοβουλίου βανδάλισε έργα και εικόνες μέσα στην Εθνική Πινακοθήκη. Άλλοι ακραίοι προπηλακίζουν και απειλούν ηθοποιούς στις παραστάσεις τους, στα θέατρα.

Η ελευθερία της έκφρασης όμως δεν είναι διαπραγματεύσιμη. Είναι το θεμέλιο της δημοκρατίας και της καλλιτεχνικής δημιουργίας. Οφείλουμε λοιπόν να προστατεύσουμε τους καλλιτέχνες, τους επαγγελματίες στον χώρο του πολιτισμού και τους θεσμούς από τη λογοκρισία, την πολιτική πίεση και την επαγγελματική επισφάλεια.

Ο πολιτισμός δεν είναι πολυτέλεια. Είναι ανάγκη για τη δημοκρατική ανθεκτικότητα. Είναι δικαίωμα για όλους. Καθώς διαμορφώνουμε, λοιπόν, την πολιτισμική πυξίδα της Ευρώπης, ας μην προσεγγίσουμε τον πολιτισμό μόνο ως εργαλείο για την ανταγωνιστικότητα. Ας διασφαλίσουμε, πρώτα από όλα, ότι θα υπερασπίζεται την ελευθερία και τη δημιουργικότητα ως κοινή μας κληρονομιά.

  Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros colegas, com esta bússola cultural da Comissão Europeia, penso que a Europa esteja finalmente a perceber que a cultura não é um luxo só acessível a algumas elites, mas sim um verdadeiro motor de competitividade. O setor cultural e criativo representa 4,2 % do PIB da União Europeia e emprega 3,7 % de mão de obra.

Mas o seu impacto vai muito além dos números. A cultura é um pilar da nossa coesão e da nossa segurança. Numa altura em que a desinformação é uma ameaça crescente à estabilidade das nossas democracias, a cultura oferece uma defesa essencial, formando um público crítico e capaz de distinguir entre factos e manipulação.

Contudo, não podemos esquecer o contexto geopolítico em que nos inserimos. Em tempos turbulentos, a cultura também é um instrumento de política externa. Ao projetar os nossos valores no mundo, fortalecemos a nossa posição enquanto europeus.

E se queremos uma União Europeia mais competitiva, mais coesa e mais segura, precisamos de uma verdadeira estratégia cultural que não fique apenas no papel e que vai desde a Europa Criativa até ao Erasmus+, sem que ninguém fique para trás. Temos de nivelar por cima no setor cultural europeu e a bússola cultural é isso mesmo.

Sem cultura, não há verdadeiramente União Europeia.

  Sabrina Repp (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Kultur lebt nicht nur in den Metropolen, sondern in den Regionen, in kleinen Orten, in engagierten Initiativen. Genau dort fehlen aber häufig Räume, Mittel und Sichtbarkeit. Darum ist die Initiative des Kulturkompasses umso wichtiger. Kultur ist dabei mehr als Kunst und Unterhaltung: Sie ist ein Bindeglied; sie schafft Begegnung, Verständnis und Gemeinschaft. Sie ist ein Raum, in dem Unterschiede keine Trennung bedeuten, sondern uns bereichern.

In einer Zeit, in der Polarisierung und Ausgrenzung zunehmen, ist es umso wichtiger, diesen verbindenden Charakter der Kultur zu stärken. Sie gibt uns die Chance, Brücken zu bauen – zwischen Generationen, zwischen Ländern, zwischen Lebensrealitäten.

Dabei muss Kultur für alle zugänglich und erreichbar sein. Deshalb brauchen wir zielgerichtete Förderung für strukturschwache Regionen, vereinfachten Zugang zu Fördermitteln und vor allem echte Beteiligung vor Ort. Nur so wird Kulturpolitik mehr als ein Kompass. Sie wird eine gemeinsame Bewegung, die Europa spürbar macht – nah, bunt und lebendig.

  Nikos Papandreou (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, thank you very much for bringing us into this discussion at an early stage so we can form the cultural compass together. In the last term, there was something called the Commissioner for European Way of Life. And when I first heard that, I actually smiled. But now I think it’s more important than ever.

And the European way of life includes… and I have to mention a few people, like Almodóvar, who makes us happy and sad, Pina Bausch from Solingen, who is a mortal, but when I saw her in Epidaurus in Greece, she looked like a goddess, and also Marina Abramović, Serbian. Perhaps they’ll be part of the EU soon, too. So this is what I think of when I think of culture, and now that we’re being attacked from within and from without, it’s even more important. So I support your effort very much. And, you know, our group here S&D is on your side.

  Giusi Princi (PPE). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, parlando di cultura il pensiero mi porta inevitabilmente alla mia Calabria, terra dal potenziale straordinario, perché, se la ricchezza della Magna Grecia che la caratterizza incontrasse le tecnologie digitali, potrebbero davvero nascere delle opportunità dirompenti.

È questa l’alchimia che vogliamo: trasformare le eredità culturali e storiche dei territori in occasioni concrete di sviluppo.

È la cultura che ci definisce come europei, perché ogni euro investito in cultura ne genera 2,7 di valore aggiunto nei territori.

Ma senza investimenti strategici questo potenziale resterà inespresso. La bussola della cultura deve allora tradursi in azioni concrete: fondi per l’imprenditoria culturale, incentivi fiscali, formazione innovativa.

La scelta è ora! La posta in gioco è il futuro delle nostre regioni, della nostra economia, delle nuove generazioni, della nostra stessa idea di Europa.

  Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus (S&D). – Panie Komisarzu! Bardzo doceniam fakt, że rozpoczynamy pracę nad tą strategią. Ona jest kluczowa i ważna, ponieważ żyjemy w kluczowych i wyjątkowych czasach. Tak jak Pan Komisarz przed chwilą powiedział, sektor kultury w czasach, które teraz mamy, potrzebuje naprawdę bardzo dużych wyzwań i mam nadzieję, że będzie w związku z tym bardzo ambitna legislacja, która pomoże w swobodzie wyrazu artystycznego, w inwestycjach w ludzi. Polska prezydencja ma to na swoich sztandarach. Mam nadzieję, że to się uda.

Sztuczna inteligencja, której się bardzo obawiamy, a która nie może zaszkodzić artystom i musi chronić ich prawa autorskie. Dziękuję, że o tym dyskutujemy. Dziękuję, że o tym rozmawiamy, i powinniśmy jako Europejki i Europejczycy być dumni z tego, czym jest Europa, jakie ma dziedzictwo, jaką ma kulturę. Mam nadzieję, że nam się to uda, ale oczekuję ambitnych planów i ambitnych ustaw w tej kwestii.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, Europa es un continente de cultura, especialmente de patrimonio cultural, una auténtica seña de identidad. Los países de la Unión son los que acogen el mayor número de sitios reconocidos por la Unesco como Patrimonio Mundial. Espero que la brújula cultural, señor comisario, dedique un lugar importante a la preservación del patrimonio cultural europeo, que debe ser una prioridad de todas las administraciones concernidas, incluida la europea.

En cuanto a la financiación europea para la preservación de este patrimonio, creo que, frente a la fragmentación de esta financiación hoy, sería útil que estudiáramos la conveniencia de crear un fondo específico europeo que contribuya a la protección de nuestro patrimonio cultural.

Y quiero subrayar también la necesidad de que la Unión incremente su cooperación con las llamadas rutas culturales europeas, un programa del Consejo de Europa muy exitoso desde 1987, cuando los Caminos de Santiago se declararon primera ruta cultural europea. Desde entonces y hasta hoy, son ya cuarenta y siete los itinerarios culturales reconocidos. Estos itinerarios contribuyen a la preservación del patrimonio y son testimonio de una comunidad cultural de base, que está en el fundamento del proceso de integración.

  Ľubica Karvašová (Renew). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, kultúra tvorí podstatnú časť európskej ekonomiky. Deväť miliónov pracovných miest, dvesto miliárd eur obratu. Preto podporujem váš zámer a vítam túto debatu. Pri vládach so sklonmi oslabovať demokraciu ale kultúra trpí ako prvá. Zažíva snahy o vládnutie a to zhoršuje nielen jej kvalitu, ale aj celú našu konkurencieschopnosť.

No čo s tým? Ako ste povedali, chrániť slobodu tvorby, podporovať medzinárodnú spoluprácu umelcov tak, ako po tom volá aj celoeurópska iniciatíva Resistance Now: Free Culture. Žiaľ, na Slovensku – no nielen – je realita taká, že dnes vidíme politické zásahy. Vidíme útoky na umelcov, vidíme finančné škrty či dosadzovanie nekompetentných manažérov do národných ikon, kultúrnych inštitúcií, divadiel a galérií a takisto aj v kultúre v regiónoch. Preto potrebujeme tri veci, pán komisár.

Prvá: presadzovať väčšiu ochranu slobody tvorby po vzore európskeho zákona o slobode médií. Po druhé, silný program pre mobilitu umelcov typu Erasmus, a posledná – podporu regiónov a kultúry v regiónoch.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Thank you, dear colleagues, for your constructive engagement in today’s discussion, which is very valuable in our work to design this bold and ambitious initiative.

Our aim is to ensure that the Union continues to be a global cultural powerhouse, a global leader in the cultural sector, because we are united in our view – also in the discussions that we have had today – that culture has an undeniable power to build bridges.

So now it’s the time to be more vocal. It’s time to be more assertive and to reaffirm our shared values – what we stand for as the European Union. You have all been clear on this. We need to be coherent. We need to be ambitious. And we need to guide our actions in the cultural field, which are right now dispersed over a number of instruments.

What we need is to find ways to enable the cultural sector to reach its full potential, to shore up our competitiveness and our societal resilience, to safeguard our democracy and our values. This is what will unite us in these incredibly and increasingly challenging times. Times where what we cherish the most – our values – seem to be called into question every day.

I find myself very much reassured by your support, by your comments and by your engagement on this initiative, as well as by your willingness to contribute to this compass that will try to make the cultural and creative sectors more resilient and more competitive.

This is a promising sign, signalling our intent to step up our action together to put culture, to put our shared values at the heart of our work, as well as our identities as Europeans.

I look forward to working with you to make this vision a reality, and I thank you for your commitment to take our work together forward.

  President. – The debate is closed.

  Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, thank you for the opportunity to address the situation of our academics and researchers in the United States.

At the European Commission, we have been closely following recent developments across the Atlantic. As you are aware, the new administration has drastically cut federal research spending. Heavy staff and budget cuts have been announced for major federal science agencies. Overheads on federal grants could be dropped from 60 % to 15 %. We note with concern that some of these measures are targeting specific universities and scientific fields. These include climate science, vaccine research, as well as studies focused on women and minorities.

Meanwhile, across US states, over 150 bills were proposed to limit what universities can teach. Twenty-one have already become laws. At the same time, let me stress that this trend is not limited to the United States. Academic freedom is under pressure globally, as scientists worldwide are increasingly instrumentalised.

As the birthplace of enlightenment and the scientific revolution, Europe has a historical responsibility to defend academic freedom. While we are not immune to challenges, we remain a global leader in academic freedom. In 2020, we reaffirmed our commitment to freedom of scientific research with the Bonn Declaration. This commitment runs through our policies from Horizon Europe to our Pact for Research and Innovation.

At the same time, we cannot afford complacency. This global landscape is an opportunity to show the world that Europe will remain a safe space for science and research. Without freedom, knowledge cannot truly grow. The increasing number of countries associated to Horizon Europe also fosters our global engagement for academic freedom.

Let me be clear: I believe that Europe can and should be the best place to do science and research in the world – a place that attracts and retains researchers, both international and European, in particular those who are in search of a safe and supportive research environment. To ensure that Europe can be that place, we must enhance our ‘pull factor’. We must offer the best opportunities for scientists and researchers.

The European Commission is proposing concrete steps in this direction. First, by building on our strengths. To ensure that science remains free from interference across the Union, we will enshrine freedom of scientific research into EU law. This is in line with Parliament’s resolution on January 2024. We also improve the attractiveness and the access to our cutting-edge research infrastructure, notably in the upcoming strategy on research and technology infrastructures that we are preparing.

Second, we must make research careers attractive. Poor working conditions for researchers drives brain drain. This is why, under our Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions, this year we are launching a new Choose Europe pilot. It will provide higher allowances and longer recruitment periods for top PhD researchers who choose Europe to pursue their career.

In parallel, we will increase the support we provide to European Research Council grantees who relocate to Europe. This is already a possibility today, as grantees moving to Europe can benefit from an additional EUR 1 million top-up. We will increase this to EUR 2 million already this year. We are also examining further measures for 26-27, with a new report on this in due course.

Third, we must make our frameworks simpler and more cohesive. The future European research area act will coordinate research strategies, because 27 excellent but fragmented research strategies do not make a good European one. I have recently received a letter signed by 13 Member States asking to coordinate the measures that are being taken at national and European level, which shows how necessary this coordination effort is.

We further enhance cooperation of our universities in the European university alliances. Pooling resources is key to achieve the necessary scale for top research and education. Also, a new visa strategy will be developed later this year. It will examine how the current rules are fit for purpose to attract top researchers, together with students and skilled workers from beyond our borders.

Honourable Members, to conclude, let me highlight the importance of close cooperation with this House and with all Member States to making this vision a reality. I also want to stress the role that our regions, our cities, our universities and research organisations have to play. Their work is what makes Europe not only a global scientific powerhouse, but also a model for a certain European way of life that the whole world admires.

Together we can keep Europe at the forefront: a home for our two million researchers, one quarter of the world’s total, and a competitive, safe destination for global talent.

  Wouter Beke, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, “alles dat werkelijk groots en inspirerend is, is gecreëerd door individuen die in alle vrijheid kunnen werken,” aldus Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein, en met hem vele anderen, onder wie de denkers van de Frankfurter Schule en Hannah Arendt, ontvluchtten in de jaren dertig het nazisme en fascisme in nazi-Duitsland en trokken naar de Verenigde Staten om daar in alle vrijheid en ruimte hun academische ideeën te kunnen ontwikkelen.

Vandaag de dag zien we het omgekeerde: de regering-Trump hakt fors in op de financiering van onderzoek. Zij perkt bovendien de academische vrijheid in en verzwakt het maatschappelijk debat. Als gevolg hiervan gaan steeds meer Amerikaanse onderzoekers op zoek naar nieuwe toevluchtsoorden.

Dit biedt voor de Europese Unie een unieke kans om zich te profileren als vrijhaven voor internationaal talent en de innovatiekloof te dichten. Om de achterstand op dit gebied te overbruggen, moeten we de basis van innovatie versterken met de wetgevingshandeling inzake de Europese onderzoeksruimte, die voorziet in betere toegang tot onderzoeksinfrastructuur en een strategie voor het wegnemen van belemmeringen voor start-ups en scale-ups. Door de onderzoeksmiddelen te verdubbelen en de Clean Industrial Deal aan te nemen, kunnen we ambitieuze wetenschappers aantrekken om hier de technologieën van de toekomst te komen ontwikkelen.

De huidige bezuinigingen en het klimaat van onverdraagzaamheid in de Verenigde Staten bieden voor Europa een gouden kans. Laten we investeren in onderzoek, onderwijs en aantrekkelijke loopbanen, zodat de Europese Unie opnieuw een baken wordt voor de wetenschappers van morgen.

Laten we de Einsteins terughalen naar Europa!

  Marcos Ros Sempere, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, los enemigos de la libertad siempre atacan primero a la investigación y a la educación. Siempre atacan primero a los que quieren encender las luces del progreso en nuestra sociedad. Nos quieren mantener en la oscuridad del oscurantismo. Esto es lo que ocurre en los Estados Unidos con los recortes masivos en investigación y en enseñanza.

Y, en esta situación, la Unión Europea tiene que ser el faro del conocimiento, el faro que marque el camino en defensa de la libertad académica, en defensa de un pilar fundamental de la democracia. Debemos reforzar nuestras universidades. Debemos facilitar la acogida de investigadores afectados. Debemos consolidarnos como tierra de pensamiento libre. Más asociaciones internacionales, más financiación, más atracción de talento extranjero. Unas alianzas de universidades europeas fuertes que sean ejemplo.

Debemos mostrar a los investigadores afectados en los Estados Unidos que aquí la libertad es un pilar inquebrantable, un faro contra el oscurantismo.

  Malika Sorel, au nom du groupe PfE. – Chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, les attaques de l’administration américaine contre la science et la liberté académique ont conduit à des licenciements massifs de chercheurs, et le climat pousse les autres à s’autocensurer.

Les répercussions sont internationales. Des projets de recherche collaborative sont concernés. Comme l’exprime très bien Luc Ferry, ancien ministre français de l’éducation et de la recherche, la science est intrinsèquement démocratique, et c’est pourquoi nous devons nous inquiéter.

Nous assistons à deux attaques symétriques: d’un côté, le wokisme et le politiquement correct, qui ont sévi durant des décennies, y compris dans nos pays, et de l’autre un mouvement de réaction qui entend couper les vivres à des organismes de recherche sous prétexte qu’ils ont pu pactiser avec le wokisme.

Que faire? Il nous faut repenser au rapport de Mario Draghi sur la compétitivité. Chers collègues, nous devons absolument tirer profit de cette fenêtre d’opportunité, d’autant plus que nous observons que des flux financiers se détournent des États-Unis au profit de l’Union européenne. Accueillons les chercheurs américains aptes à favoriser l’innovation et à booster notre croissance, et mettons sur pied des programmes de retour pour nos propres talents.

  Fernand Kartheiser, au nom du groupe ECR. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, ceux qui reprochent au président Trump de vouloir restreindre la liberté académique peuvent aussi verser dans l’exagération. Si la liberté de critiquer la politique israélienne doit être préservée, la lutte contre l’antisémitisme et la violence sur les campus universitaires est justifiée.

De même, il faut rétablir la qualité de l’enseignement et de la recherche en écartant des pseudo-sciences, comme par exemple la théorie du genre. En promouvant la méritocratie, on rétablit la justice et l’équité. Les Américains ne favorisent plus certaines personnes en raison de leurs caractéristiques physiques.

Au lieu de critiquer cette approche, nous devrions l’adopter. Faisons de nos universités et de nos instituts de recherche des hauts lieux de l’excellence intellectuelle et de la liberté académique, tout comme le font actuellement les États-Unis.

Malheureusement, la réalité est autre. Les universités européennes perdent en attractivité. Certains de nos États membres sont très mal classés dans l’indice de liberté académique. Les pressions exercées sur des professeurs ou des chercheurs sont de plus en plus fréquentes. Des conférences, par exemple sur le sexe biologique en sciences naturelles, ont dû être annulées. Souvent, ces pressions sur les chercheurs sont exercées par les universités elles-mêmes, ce qui est totalement inacceptable.

Compte tenu de ces évolutions, l’écart entre les États-Unis et l’Europe risque de se creuser. Des deux côtés de l’Atlantique, tout doit être fait pour soutenir et défendre tant la liberté d’expression que la liberté académique.

  Laurence Farreng, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, «la liberté, c’est la liberté de dire que deux et deux font quatre. Lorsque cela est accordé, le reste suit». Cette citation de Georges Orwell a une résonance particulière, aujourd’hui, dans l’Amérique de Donald Trump. La recherche de la vérité, la science se fondant sur des faits: tout cela est balayé sur l’autel de l’idéologie trumpiste.

Depuis deux mois, pour les universités américaines, ce ne sont que fonds gelés, licenciements, intimidations. Et les trumpistes vont plus loin dans la dystopie. Pollution, femme, victime, handicap, racisme, égalité, changement climatique, santé mentale: voici quelques mots parmi la centaine à avoir été censurés par l’administration Trump. Autant de mots que les scientifiques ne peuvent plus utiliser dans leurs projets de recherche. Les États-Unis, jusqu’alors eldorado des chercheurs du monde entier, sont devenus un repoussoir.

L’Union européenne a bien sûr une place à prendre dans cette reconfiguration. Elle doit devenir un phare pour la liberté académique, un nouveau pôle d’attraction des scientifiques internationaux. Cela doit se traduire par un plan ambitieux et par des investissements de long terme pour nos universités.

  Alexandra Geese, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, the English newspaper The Guardian put it in a nutshell: when the physicists need burner phones, that’s when you know that America has changed. And they do need burner phones; a French scientist was recently prevented from entering the United States because US Border Patrol agents read his phone and found a personal opinion about Trump’s science politics.

The National Science Foundation is scouring thousands of research projects for dozens of newly prohibited words, and notified scientists to halt work that doesn’t adhere to Trump’s censorship. One word on that list is ‘women’. The US prohibits public research about women. Let this sink in.

‘Free speech is in retreat,’ said Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich. Yes, it is – but not in Europe, in the US. But for Europe, this is a very special moment and also a special chance, because when Europe wasn’t free, the US boosted their research, offering sanctuary to European scientists. And now it’s our turn. Let us massively step up our programmes to welcome all scholars and scientists who want to research here. Let us turn Europe into the global sanctuary of academic freedom.

  Mario Furore, a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la libertà accademica è sotto attacco, non solo in regimi autoritari, ma anche in paesi che si definiscono democratici.

Pensate che negli Stati Uniti i recenti ordini esecutivi della nuova amministrazione Trump hanno congelato miliardi di dollari per la ricerca e censurato ambiti del sapere, quali il cambiamento climatico e le questioni di genere, e tutto questo perché siamo ostaggio di un’ideologia.

E oggi qui denunciamo un fatto gravissimo: un ricercatore francese, in viaggio per una conferenza in Texas, è stato bloccato ed espulso dagli USA dopo che, al controllo doganale, sono stati letti i suoi messaggi critici verso Trump. Un atto di repressione politica mascherato da sicurezza nazionale.

L’Academic Freedom Index mostra un declino inquietante e l’Italia, purtroppo, non è immune, perché assistiamo a ingerenze politiche e precarietà strutturale che minano l’autonomia dei nostri atenei.

Chiediamo all’UE di non restare in silenzio e di impegnarsi più a fondo per la libertà accademica.

  Adrián Vázquez Lázara (PPE). – Señora presidenta, según el ranking de Shanghái sobre calidad universitaria, tan solo una de las treinta mejores universidades del mundo se encuentra en la Unión Europea. Por el contrario, diecinueve de esos treinta principales centros de enseñanza e investigación, es decir, un 63 %, están en los Estados Unidos.

La carrera por la competitividad y la innovación es una carrera de fondo. Muchas de las empresas tecnológicas que hoy dominan el mercado fueron en su día proyectos surgidos en entornos universitarios. Europa no puede quedarse atrás: debe apostar con firmeza, primero, por retener el talento —algo que no hemos hecho muy bien en los últimos años, porque muchísimos europeos están en universidades y empresas estadounidenses— y, segundo, por atraer el talento a nuestros centros académicos. Una universidad europea que aspira a competir en la esfera internacional es el mejor reflejo de una Unión Europea comprometida con su futuro.

Ahora creo que es el momento para lograrlo. El Departamento de Educación estadounidense ha reducido su plantilla en aproximadamente un 50 % en tan solo dos meses de la Administración Trump. A esta decisión, Europa puede ofrecer libertad académica, puede ofrecer un estilo de vida atractivo para cualquier investigador y debería ofrecer mucha más financiación.

Estamos en una posición privilegiada para liderar la investigación en la próxima década, y muchos de los académicos que buscan salir de los Estados Unidos son europeos que buscan hoy más que nunca volver. Por eso, señora comisaria, yo la invito a hacerse una ronda por las universidades estadounidenses y que les convenza y traiga el mayor número de europeos de vuelta a su casa.

  Nicola Zingaretti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, benissimo lottare come europei, finalmente, per la libertà della scienza, che è vulnerabile ovunque e in qualsiasi momento.

Donald Trump ha effettuato gravi tagli nel campo dell’educazione, ha licenziato metà dei funzionari del dipartimento e ha ridotto i finanziamenti alle università; noi sappiamo che gli Stati Uniti sono stati un pilastro della ricerca mondiale, che ha garantito progresso per tutto e per tutti.

Per questo l’attacco di Trump ci riguarda: è un attacco all’educazione, alla ricerca e anche un attacco alla libertà intellettuale. È un rischio per il progresso del mondo.

L’Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti rappresentano quasi il 50 % dei fondi globali per la ricerca e l’innovazione e ora noi europei abbiamo una responsabilità fondamentale: dobbiamo agire subito, per supportare le nostre università nel creare un boom di attrattività.

Accendiamo dunque la forza dell’Europa per attrarre i giovani, gli scienziati, i ricercatori, i docenti e per difendere il nostro futuro insieme.

  Christophe Grudler (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, avec M. Trump, les chercheurs américains vivent un véritable cauchemar: budgets coupés, bourses supprimées, licenciements abusifs… Beaucoup envisagent de quitter leur pays. Ces attaques ne sont pas seulement financières, elles sont idéologiques. C’est une censure de la recherche sur le climat, sur la santé, sur les technologies de pointe, sacrifiée sur l’autel du populisme.

Nous revoilà à l’époque de Galilée, où la science doit plier face au dogme d’un seul homme. L’Europe doit recueillir ces talents et devenir le bastion mondial de l’excellence scientifique et de la liberté académique. Offrons à ces chercheurs un avenir avec des financements et des perspectives. Les 22 millions d’euros annoncés pour le projet pilote sont une bonne chose, mais cela ne suffira pas. Il faut aller plus loin et chercher d’autres financements, publics comme privés.

Dear American researchers, European research needs you now.

  Anna Strolenberg (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, a society that silences academics is a society in decline. A society that censors research on climate change and gender is a society in decline. Academic freedom is not a privilege; it’s a condition to do your job.

So, to all European leaders, to the European Commission, I have a message. We can feel sorry for all those academics in the US, or we can provide them with something better: a place where research is valued, a place where academic freedom is protected.

Attracting this talent is in our own interest. If not, we will become a society – a continent – of the past. We will become the backseat drivers. So we need this talent.

Today I read Europe needs to revive its hunger to attract talent, and this is true. We have to revive our hunger to become the frontrunners in research and innovation. So let’s triple our research budgets, let’s create easy visas for those researchers, and let’s take away hurdles for start-ups. Let’s make Europe the home for academic freedom where all talent counts.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Stany Zjednoczone, ze Statuą Wolności, w obszarze nauki mogą stać się zaprzeczeniem własnych kluczowych idei. Ingerencje najpierw słowne, potem finansowe, a w finale regulacje dotyczące ograniczeń w badaniach nie płyną dziś z Kremla, lecz z Białego Domu. Amerykańskie uczelnie zaczynają być pouczane, ograniczane w tematach prac, a Departament Edukacji podpisem prezydenta został zniesiony. Wobec ponad 40 uczelni, w tym takich jak Yale, prowadzone są postępowania – uwaga – o naruszenie praw obywatelskich.

Są dwa szczególnie wrażliwe obszary, swoiste barometry wolności. To świat kultury i świat nauki. Nie chcę dokonywać dalszych ocen polityki kluczowego przecież państwa na świecie. Dziś raczej chcę pozytywnie się odnieść do pierwszych propozycji naszych europejskich uczelni. Zapraszamy na Stary Kontynent i badaczy, i naukowców, i studentów. Zagwarantujemy im wolność akademicką, warunki do poszukiwania najlepszych rozwiązań, zarówno by dbać o postęp w medycynie, jak i by monitorować zmiany klimatyczne.

  Lina Gálvez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la libertad académica lleva años disminuyendo de la mano de las propuestas antiliberales y también de la mercantilización del conocimiento.

Pero ahora, además, con la llegada de la Administración Trump, la censura, la narrativa anticientífica y la cancelación de la financiación de muchos proyectos de investigación y programas académicos han puesto a la comunidad científica de los Estados Unidos en un contexto de falta de libertad, sobre todo en áreas de conocimiento como el medio ambiente o los estudios de género, que están siendo desmanteladas.

En este contexto, la fuente de competitividad de los Estados Unidos, que siempre ha sido su capacidad de atracción de talento, puede desaparecer.

Así que Europa debe activar y dotar el programa propuesto por Manuel Heitor, conocido como «Choose Europe», para recuperar y atraer el talento mediante una mejor financiación, facilitando visados y fortaleciendo las colaboraciones internacionales.

Pero no solo: la defensa de la democracia, la igualdad y los Estados del bienestar pueden y deben ser el plus que aporte a Europa a nuestra apuesta para atraer los mejores talentos como fuente de competitividad y riqueza en el más amplio sentido del término.

  Dan Barna (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, două personaje din istoria umanității au destine ce sunt astăzi foarte actuale. Giordano Bruno, ars pe rug pentru crima de a spune că Universul este infinit, și Galileo Galilei, scăpat de rug, dar închis pe viață pentru crima de a afirma că Pământul se învârte în jurul Soarelui. 400 de ani mai târziu, astăzi, în Statele Unite, universități sunt amenințate că pierd finanțarea, programe de cercetare sunt întrerupte pentru că nu convin unei dogme, oameni de știință ajung să se teamă de poliția gândurilor sau a cuvintelor.

Europa este acum singurul și cel mai puternic garant al libertății, atâta timp cât administrația actuală a SUA tocmai experimentează aplicația „Inchiziția ideologică 2.0”. Ceea ce părea de neimaginat acum câteva luni este o realitate pe care o trăim. Europa a devenit refugiu al libertății academice. Există deja inițiative de azil științific în Franța, Belgia sau Olanda și trebuie salutate, dar nu este de ajuns. Comisia Europeană trebuie să prezinte și să implementeze de urgență un program de atragere a oamenilor de știință din Statele Unite. Spiritele libere trebuie să aibă un cămin.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, during the latest years we have witnessed a huge threat to academic freedom. When woke, DEI and critical race theory flooded the great intellectual institutions of the West, this body was silent as a crypt.

Here are a few examples.

Mandatory critical-race-theory training that sought to indoctrinate students into rejecting their unconscious thoughts and behaviours towards minority groups – where was the outrage?

A bloated DEI bureaucracy demanding teachers to sign diversity statements in prestigious American universities like Harvard and MIT – where was the outrage?

A study on the ineffectiveness of puberty blockers going unpublished because of politics – where was the outrage?

Actually, you wanted this to continue, and now you are outraged when a lot of people are saying to all this, ‘No, thank you.’

  Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, καταγγέλλουμε τις διώξεις, τις ποινές, τις απειλές σε ακαδημαϊκούς, ερευνητές και φοιτητές στις ΗΠΑ αλλά και στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, επειδή εκφράζουν αταλάντευτα την αλληλεγγύη τους στον αγωνιζόμενο παλαιστινιακό λαό, και καταδικάζουν τη γενοκτονία του κράτους του Ισραήλ με τη στήριξη των ΗΠΑ, της ΕΕ και του ΝΑΤΟ. Η προσπάθεια τρομοκράτησης της καταστολής απέτυχε γιατί οι λαοί βρίσκονται στη σωστή πλευρά της ιστορίας, στηρίζουν τον αγώνα των Παλαιστινίων για να τερματιστεί η ισραηλινή κατοχή, για ελεύθερη ανεξάρτητη πατρίδα, για την επιστροφή όλων των προσφύγων στις εστίες τους και την απελευθέρωση όλων των κρατουμένων.

Σήμερα είναι ανάγκη να κλιμακωθεί ο αγώνας των σπουδαστών, των πανεπιστημιακών, καθηγητών και ερευνητών ενάντια στα προγράμματα του ΝΑΤΟ, στις έρευνες διπλής χρήσης, ενάντια στη συνεργασία με τις ισραηλινές και άλλες βιομηχανίες του πολέμου, ενάντια στη χρηματοδότησή τους από προγράμματα όπως το Horizon Europe ή το σύμφωνο έρευνας και καινοτομίας. Να αντισταθούμε στη μετατροπή των πανεπιστημίων σε εξάρτημα της πολεμικής οικονομίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, της όξυνσης, κλιμάκωσης και επέκτασης της ιμπεριαλιστικής πολεμικής εμπλοκής στην Ουκρανία, τη Μέση Ανατολή και τον Ινδοειρηνικό.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much again for this debate and thanks for sharing your insights. I took careful note of them, and I am pleased that your interventions in general highlight broad political support for research and science.

Supporting our researchers and scientists, whether in Europe or abroad, is something that cuts across national and party lines, and we should support these initiatives as policymakers.

In the coming months, we will implement the measures that I presented to you at the beginning of this debate, and we will also explore additional ideas, also benefiting from this debate today.

What is really important is that we will continue to defend academic freedom and independence of European universities and academia, because when we defend academic freedom, we invest in the future. Without independent research, we risk losing the trust in science, which is really very dangerous.

Our approach must be pragmatic and in line with our interests, but we will also continue to be partners, to focus on partnership, not in unfair competition. We will continue cooperating openly with our partners, including with the United States, building bridges through science, even when politics sees wars.

Honourable Members, in times of uncertainty, researchers at home and abroad are looking at Europe – not only for stability, but for leadership based on our European values. To them today I want to say: Europe sees you. Europe is ready to support you. Europe is your home.

  President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner. The debate is closed.

  Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, democracy is a fundamental value of European Union, together with respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights. The functioning of the Union is founded on representative democracy which supports decision‑making and which is close and accountable to the citizens. Representative democracy is grounded in free and fair elections, trusted democratic institutions and an open and plural democratic process.

Democratic pluralism requires that the democratic process be open, contestable and acceptable to all citizens equally. Decision‑making, which is reasoned, transparent and accountable, and for citizens to have access to reliable information from a plurality of sources, including as provided on the basis of journalistic and scientific standards.

The Commission supports democratic pluralism in the EU. The Commission is therefore stepping up its engagement in favour of democracy, notably with the preparation of the European Democracy Shield, a key initiative announced in the political guidelines for this mandate. The Democracy Shield will provide a strategic framework to safeguard and strengthen democracy in the EU, aiming to reinforce public trust in democracy and democratic institutions. It will be underpinned by several concrete initiatives.

The Shield will cover several areas, namely: first, foreign interference, information manipulation and disinformation; second, the fairness and integrity of elections and the strengthening of democratic frameworks; third, societal resilience and preparedness; and, last, citizens’ participation and engagement.

Citizens’ trust in national and European democratic institutions is linked to overall trust in democracy. Democratic resilience at national and at European level are mutually reinforcing. European democracy must be more participative and more vibrant. The role of free, independent and pluralistic media in this context cannot be restated enough.

While preparing the Democracy Shield, the Commission will follow a ‘whole of society’ approach. We will consult broadly with stakeholders. The public consultation has been launched today for a duration of eight weeks. We will step up our work on defending all parts of our democracy. We will protect our free media and civil society. The rule of law and the fight against corruption will remain at the heart of our work. We will continue to make best use of all our tools, including enforcement.

Integrity and transparency are key. As the Commission President explained in her political guidance, there is an urgent need to impose transparency on foreign funding of our public life as common law. Parliament is currently considering a proposal from the Commission on interest representation, on which rapid progress should be made in order to further enlarge our EU toolbox with common EU proportionate standards.

There is also work to do closer to home, to live up our values and to ensure that citizens see us upholding the laws we make. As part of the Commission’s commitment to transparency, Commissioners, their cabinet members and all Commission staff holding management functions publish information and minutes on meetings held with interest representatives. Meetings related to law or policy formulation or implementation in the EU can only take place if the interest representatives are registered in the EU Transparency Register.

On corruption: corruption is a threat to the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. It is a hidden crime with no obvious single victim. Its harm is felt in the erosion of the integrity of our institutions, and its cost is borne collectively by taxpayers. Europeans consider corruption to be unacceptable. It is not acceptable to give money, give a gift, do a favour to get something from the public administration. Corruption undermines trust in the administration, alienating citizens from democracy, reducing compliance with law and obstructing the state from providing help when help is needed. And it’s expensive.

Every year, corruption is estimated to cost the EU up to 6 % of its GDP. This is why it is so important that we step up our efforts to tackle it. In 2023, the Commission proposed to update the EU anti-corruption rules. The directive is now being negotiated. The Commission welcomes the Parliament’s ambition and values the positive progress made by the co‑legislators in the latest trilogue. It calls on the co‑legislators to agree on an ambitious outcome.

I can assure you that this Commission is very committed to ensure democratic pluralism and strengthen integrity, transparency and anti-corruption policies in the EU. I remain fully available to hear your views as we work together to achieve this common goal. Thank you very much for your attention.

  Loránt Vincze, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Parliament is under attack. We face external enemies who would like to see a weakened parliament. But there are also internal interests that oppose a strong, influential and increasingly relevant parliament.

The EPP Group fully supports the ongoing judicial investigations and upholds the presumption of innocence for all individuals involved. The reputation of Parliament and several of its Members was tarnished three years ago. Yet there are still no indictments against any Members.

Now, again, colleagues who signed a letter requesting 5G services in rural areas saw their names published in the press, even though they have not yet been questioned by the authorities. The headlines against them amount to public executions. This is unacceptable. We must defend the free mandate of the Members.

The Belgian authorities must conduct their own investigation properly, without leaking partial information to the press or making ambiguous statements. The judicial saga surrounding Qatargate and the handling of the current investigation into Members by the Belgian authorities raised a number of questions. Therefore, the EPP Group calls for a hearing in the LIBE Committee, with the participation of the relevant Belgian authorities.

Some colleagues will use this momentum as an argument to push for the implementation of the ethics body agreement. Colleagues, an outsourced ethics body cannot prevent wrongdoing or corruption, but it would compromise the independence of our Parliament. We must get it right. Parliament must withdraw from the ethics body and establish a firm, clear, robust and efficient internal mechanism to strengthen its integrity.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, esta legislatura del Parlamento Europeo arranca como todas, obligada a aprender de sus experiencias, y particularmente de las malas. Lo hace con un compromiso de reforzar su integridad, su transparencia y su rendición de cuentas. ¿Por qué? Porque en la legislatura pasada tuvimos una mala experiencia con el llamado «Qatargate», que obligó a este Parlamento Europeo a tomar muy en serio la obligación de reforzar sus estándares de dación de cuentas y de transparencia.

Exactamente por eso, negociamos y acordamos con el resto de las instituciones europeas, de acuerdo con la base jurídica que presta el artículo 295 del Tratado de Funcionamiento y el artículo 13 del Tratado de la Unión Europea, un acuerdo interinstitucional. Por tanto, ya está en plazo de cumplir el mandato adquirido por este Parlamento Europeo de reformar su Reglamento interno para poner de una vez en marcha un órgano ético que incorpore representantes de las instituciones, pero también cinco expertos independientes. Ellos ayudarán a compartir buenas prácticas y a elevar ese estándar de dación de cuentas del Parlamento Europeo.

Esto se suma a la Directiva sobre la lucha contra la corrupción, que ya está en avanzada negociación con el Consejo, y a la Comisión Especial sobre el Escudo Europeo de la Democracia, que lanza un mensaje a los ciudadanos. No podemos perder la oportunidad de decir que tenemos que reformar el Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo, sin arrastrar los pies, para poner definitivamente en pie el órgano ético. Cuanto antes mejor.

  Fabrice Leggeri, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, la démocratie, c’est le droit des peuples à choisir librement leurs dirigeants. Mais, en France, ce droit vient d’être bafoué. Marine Le Pen, cheffe de l’opposition et favorite de l’élection présidentielle, a été condamnée à l’inéligibilité avec exécution immédiate. Alors qu’il n’y a dans cette affaire ni corruption ni enrichissement personnel, le tribunal a pris une décision politique qui prive les Français de leur choix.

L’état de droit suppose un droit au recours. Ici, la peine s’applique immédiatement, avant même tout jugement définitif. C’est une dérive sans précédent. L’Union européenne, toujours prompte à donner des leçons de démocratie, restera-t-elle silencieuse face à cette instrumentalisation de la justice? Nous ne laisserons pas la démocratie être confisquée.

  Mariusz Kamiński, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Opinia publiczna po raz kolejny zbulwersowana jest informacjami dotyczącymi afer korupcyjnych związanych z instytucjami unijnymi. Tym razem mamy do czynienia z nielegalnym lobbingiem na rzecz chińskiej firmy Huawei. Tak jak w przypadku wcześniejszych afer zamiast rzetelnej informacji, propozycji konkretnych rozwiązań na przyszłość mamy ogólnikową debatę o niczym. Establishment europejski nauczył się działać w cieniu, poza realnym nadzorem obywateli, w atmosferze bezkarności. Niedawno dowiedzieliśmy się od szefowej Prokuratury Europejskiej, że raport Olaf dotyczący udziału w aferze katarskiej wysokiego urzędnika Komisji Europejskiej był przed nią ukrywany. Urzędnik ten, mimo dostępnych dowodów, nadal pracuje w instytucjach unijnych. Komisja Europejska dalej milczy na temat zarzutu prania brudnych pieniędzy przez komisarza Reyndersa, do czego miało dochodzić podczas sprawowania przez niego funkcji.

Trwające prace nad tzw. dyrektywą antykorupcyjną nie rozwiążą problemu korupcji w instytucjach unijnych, ponieważ dyrektywa adresowana jest do państw członkowskich. Można jednak za pomocą prostych rozwiązań zwiększyć przejrzystość działań Komisji Europejskiej. Wprowadźmy jawne, szczegółowe, składane pod rygorem odpowiedzialności karnej oświadczenia majątkowe dla komisarzy i dla wysokich rangą urzędników unijnych. Niech pokażą obywatelom, jakie mają majątki i jakie są źródła jego pochodzenia. Dość korupcji w Brukseli. Czas działać.

  Sandro Gozi, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, respectons l’accord conclu sur l’organe chargé des questions d’éthique. Pacta sunt servanda. Je m’adresse au groupe PPE, au groupe ECR et au groupe des Patriotes pour l’Europe: il est temps de mettre fin à vos manœuvres d’obstruction. Avançons enfin sur la transparence et sur le rôle du Parlement dans l’organe chargé des questions d’éthique!

Cet organe n’impose aucune limite excessive à notre liberté de mandat en tant que représentants élus. Toutes les décisions prises concernant l’établissement des normes communes le seront par consensus. Rien ne nous sera imposé sans notre consentement. Notre responsabilité est claire: renforcer la transparence pour restaurer la confiance. Les soupçons de corruption qui pèsent sur notre Parlement doivent être traités avec rigueur.

Par ailleurs, je suis d’accord avec le représentant du PPE lorsqu’il affirme qu’il y a un point essentiel à ne jamais oublier, c’est que nous ne sommes ni des procureurs ni des juges, pas plus que ne l’est la presse. Ne mélangeons donc pas tout. Les enquêtes judiciaires suivent leur cours. Dans une démocratie, l’état de droit commence par la présomption d’innocence. Mes chers collègues, on ne protège pas la présomption d’innocence en s’opposant à plus de transparence.

Tenir parole aujourd’hui sur l’organe interinstitutionnel chargé des questions d’éthique, c’est nous renforcer demain. C’est renforcer notre intégrité et notre crédibilité, mais aussi nous donner les moyens de défendre la dignité de chaque membre de cette institution.

  Daniel Freund, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wieder wurden Türen versiegelt, wieder wurden Büros durchsucht, und wieder besteht der Verdacht, dass Europaabgeordnete sich haben schmieren lassen. Luxusreisen hier, Fußballtickets dort und dafür dann Gefälligkeiten für Huawei. Man hat ein gewisses Déjà Vu – wir haben das alles bei Kartar-Gate schon mal sehr ähnlich gesehen, und dabei wollten wir doch genau das verhindern. Wir wollten, dass die Regeln zur Korruptionsbekämpfung, zur Lobbykontrolle in diesem Haus endlich durchgesetzt werden. Denn genau deswegen passieren diese Korruptionsskandale ja: weil immer noch zu viele glauben, dass sie am Ende damit durchkommen und selbst wenn man geschnappt wird, es keine Strafen gibt.

Ein unabhängiges Gremium, das Ethikgremium, war die zentrale Antwort dieses Hauses auf Katar-Gate. Um genau diese Probleme zu beheben, die Selbstkontrolle im Parlament ein Stück weit zu öffnen, die offensichtlich nicht funktioniert, haben wir dieses Gremium geschaffen. Vor über zehn Monaten schon ist die Einigung mit acht EU‑Institutionen ratifiziert worden, und passiert ist seitdem nichts.

Wenn man jetzt mal guckt: Warum passiert nichts? Dann liegt das eben an der EVP, besonders an CDU/CSU. Ihr Vizepräsident beruft das erste Treffen nicht ein, zusammen mit den Rechtsaußenparteien haben Sie im Haushaltsausschuss dafür gestimmt, dass das Parlament seine Rechnungen einfach nicht mehr bezahlt, was das Ethikgremium angeht. Was ist denn das für ein Verständnis vom Rechtsstaat? Einfach die Rechnungen nicht zu bezahlen – das ist unfassbar!

Also wenn Sie das Ethikgremium nicht wollen, wenn Sie die Regeln nicht wollen, dann sagen Sie das offen. Treten Sie da aus, aber blockieren Sie nicht einfach alles, was irgendwie mit Transparenz und Integrität zu tun hat.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Chers collègues, entre les élus corrompus qui s’en mettent plein les poches en acceptant les cadeaux des lobbyistes et ceux qui détournent de l’argent public, comme Marine Le Pen, franchement, il y a de quoi dégoûter les gens de la politique.

Ceux qui prônaient «Tête haute, mains propres!» ont aujourd’hui la tête baissée et les mains sales. Ceux qui demandaient l’impunité zéro pour les délinquants se retrouvent pris à leur propre jeu et la main dans le sac. Ceux qui étaient les premiers à voler au secours de Viktor Orban en appellent soudainement à l’état de droit. J’avoue qu’il est assez savoureux d’entendre l’extrême droite parler d’état de droit. Vous demanderez certainement encore à votre copain Elon Musk de voler à votre secours?

Mais en réalité, le problème est encore plus large. En France, dans mon pays, 26 ministres sont impliqués dans des affaires depuis 2017, et au Parlement européen les scandales se succèdent les uns après les autres, sans que cela suscite la moindre émotion.

Deux ans après les valises de billets du Qatar, place maintenant aux cadeaux luxueux et aux virements bancaires de la multinationale Huawei, que vous n’osez même pas citer dans le titre de ce débat. C’est le retour des perquisitions, des bureaux scellés et des enquêtes révélant des pratiques mafieuses. Ce n’est pas une série Netflix, c’est juste l’état de notre démocratie.

Et que s’est-il passé entre ces deux affaires? Rien. Tout juste quelques mesurettes. Circulez, il n’y a rien à voir. Tout le monde ici se tient par la barbichette pour se protéger et, surtout, ne rien changer.

Mais vous pourrez compter sur mon groupe et moi pour continuer à dénoncer ces magouilles et tout changer, de la cave au grenier. Il est temps de faire le ménage et d’enfin faire primer l’éthique sur le fric.

  Marcin Sypniewski, w imieniu grupy ESN. – Patrzę na wasze działania i temat debaty i czuję się, jakby już był „Prima Aprilis”. Pluralizm, transparentność i walka z korupcją to ważne i potrzebne idee. Szkoda tylko, że Komisja Europejska i Parlament Europejski postępują dokładnie odwrotnie. Mówicie o pluralizmie i o demokracji, a kibicujecie usuwaniu z wyborów liderów sondaży, nie dopuszczacie prawicowych grup do prowadzenia komisji czy obrad parlamentu. Nawet podczas węgierskiej prezydencji posuwaliście się nawet do drobnych złośliwości jak dzieci w przedszkolu, nie szanując i nie zachowując neutralności.

Mówicie o transparentności, ale obywatele nie mają żadnego wpływu na działania Unii Europejskiej tak naprawdę. A przewodnicząca Komisji Europejskiej toczy boje o ukrycie smsów, w których negocjowała z Pfizerem umowę na szczepionki. Mówicie o walce z korupcją, podczas gdy znowu pod waszym nosem wybucha kolejna afera korupcyjna. To wszystko skutek nadmiaru władzy urzędników. Przecież ludzie, którzy do tego doprowadzili, nagle się z tego nie wycofają. Prawdziwa zmiana, prawdziwa transparentność będzie wtedy, jak odbierzemy władzę urzędnikom i oddamy ją obywatelom. Niech żyje wolność!

  Javier Zarzalejos (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, el Parlamento Europeo es una institución muy importante pero no es una isla. Hablamos de los problemas que afectan a la transparencia en el Parlamento Europeo pero no podemos olvidarnos del contexto, y ese contexto hoy exige que la Unión Europea sea cada vez más visible y tenga una intervención creciente en las políticas contra la corrupción.

En primer lugar, porque hay demasiados Gobiernos que en la Unión Europea están luchando para zafarse de controles democráticos, demasiados Gobiernos que proponen leyes ad hoc para interferir en los procesos judiciales que afectan a corruptos, demasiados Gobiernos que hacen un uso partidista de la fiscalía.

En segundo lugar, porque Europol nos está advirtiendo día tras día, informe tras informe, de un riesgo creciente de infiltración de la delincuencia organizada en la economía real. Y eso tiene una traducción, que es la corrupción: corrupción de los servidores públicos, corrupción de nuestras empresas, corrupción de los legisladores.

Y, en tercer lugar, porque con estas premisas se está intentando generar una cultura de impunidad y, por eso, nosotros, desde el Grupo del Partido Popular Europeo, y representando además también a una voz muy mayoritaria del Parlamento, nos hemos opuesto a los indultos, a las amnistías a los corruptos, a reformas legislativas que suprimen o aligeran la penalización de los delitos de corrupción.

Ese tiene que ser un compromiso —insisto— creciente y visible de la Unión Europea.

  Chloé Ridel (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, on pensait avoir retenu les leçons du «Qatargate», mais non: c’est le retour des scellés au Parlement européen. L’enquête autour de l’affaire Huawei révèle que des députés auraient accepté entre 1 500 et 15 000 euros pour signer un courrier favorable à Huawei, qui qualifiait la régulation européenne de la 5G de racisme technologique contre la Chine. Côté Huawei, on assume. D’ailleurs, on paye même pour des amendements, disent-ils.

Je n’ai pas de mots assez forts pour exprimer mon dégoût face à la corruption et à la cupidité de certains députés de cet hémicycle. Ils entachent l’image de notre institution et sapent encore un peu plus la confiance que les gens accordent à leurs représentants politiques.

Dans cette affaire, la corruption arrive par un ancien assistant parlementaire parti travailler chez Huawei. Pourrait-on savoir en toute transparence combien d’anciens collaborateurs, députés, commissaires sont partis travailler chez Huawei? Ensuite, nous voulons que le nouvel organe de l’UE chargé des questions d’éthique, qui semble tant déranger la droite et l’extrême droite de cet hémicycle, soit enfin créé. Enfin, il faut donner les moyens aux règles que nous nous fixons d’être appliquées. Il faut donc renforcer la justice et le Parquet européen en étendant enfin son domaine de compétence aux affaires de corruption.

(L’oratrice accepte une question carton bleu)

  João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Deputada Ridel, cada vez que há um problema de corrupção, há uma tentação de pôr todo o Parlamento e todos os deputados sob suspeita. De resto, uma situação que é aproveitada pela extrema-direita para fazer o seu circo.

E a pergunta que lhe quero fazer é esta: a senhora deputada não considera que, perante qualquer circunstância de suspeita de corrupção, quem deve estar no banco dos réus é o poder económico, são as multinacionais e quem serve essas multinacionais a partir do poder político? Em vez de se lançar lama e suspeição sobre toda a gente, não devíamos concentrarmo-nos naqueles que são verdadeiramente os promotores e os beneficiários da corrupção, que são os grandes interesses económicos?

  Chloé Ridel (S&D), réponse carton bleu. – Je ne suis pas totalement en désaccord avec vous, mais la corruption a toujours besoin d’au moins deux personnes, d’au moins deux parties pour advenir – ici les multinationales d’un côté, vous avez raison, et les représentants politiques de l’autre.

Il faut donc que nous soyons irréprochables et capables de résister au lobbying des multinationales – qu’il s’agirait d’encadrer davantage, d’ailleurs –, et même au-delà, puisque cette affaire nous montre que, derrière la multinationale Huawei, il y a l’État chinois. Il faut donc que nos règles de transparence prennent aussi en compte le pouvoir d’influençage des États étrangers.

Je maintiens par ailleurs mon propos, et je le redis: toute affaire de corruption, même si elle ne concerne que quelques élus de cet hémicycle, entache l’image de l’ensemble de notre institution.

  Csaba Dömötör (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Rendben, akkor beszéljünk az átláthatóságról! A Bizottság eurómilliókkal finanszíroz olyan civilnek mondott szervezeteket, amelyek valójában politikai tevékenységet végeznek.

De ha valaki egy átfogó adatbázist szeretne ezekről, akkor hiába keresné. Mindezek miatt adatigényléssel fordultunk a Bizottsághoz. Egy egyszerű listát kértünk: mely NGO-kat finanszíroznak, milyen célból és mekkora összeggel?

Megérkeztek a válaszok. A bizottság nem hajlandó kiadni ezeket a listákat. Azzal érvelnek, hogy túl tág a kért adatok köre, azzal hogy minden fenn van a neten – ami nem igaz egyébként –, és nem konkrét szerződéseket kértünk, hanem információt, ami egy abszurd érvelés.

A szerződések száma úgy tudjuk, hogy meghaladja a tízezret. Talán nem mindenki tudja, de pár EP képviselő itt ebben a házban, a Költségvetési ellenőrző bizottságban megkapta a listákat, de azt mondták nekik, hogy ezeket nem hozhatják nyilvánosságra. Miért? Mit titkolnak?

A Patrióta frakció ezt nem hagyja annyiban, ha kell, perre is visszük ezt az egészet. Addig is annyit mondunk: ha akarnak valamit tenni a politikai korrupció ellen, akkor kezdjék odahaza, hozzák nyilvánosságra a támogatott szervezetek listáját.

(A felszólaló hajlandó válaszolni egy kékkártyás kérdésre)

  Csaba Dömötör (PfE), kékkártyás válasz. – A magyar miniszterelnök minden bizonnyal arra utalt, hogy politikai okokból egyre több esélyes jelölt indulását próbálják meg ellehetetleníteni. És nem csak Franciaország az egyetlen ilyen ország. A példákat hosszasan tudnánk sorolni.

Nos, ami a magyarországi helyzetet illeti. Az a helyzet, hogy Magyarországon intenzív viták vannak azzal kapcsolatban, hogy a magyar állam kikkel köt szerződést, kiket támogat. Ennek az az oka, hogy Magyarországon az ilyen szerződések nyilvánosak, a minisztériumok az ilyen szerződéseket rendszeresen közzéteszik.

Ezzel szemben az Európai Bizottság azt a listát sem teszi közzé, hogy kiket támogat és mekkora összeggel, és amikor arról van szó, hogy vitázni kellene Reynders biztos korrupciós botrányáról, akkor azt nem engedik napirendre.

  Stefano Cavedagna (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ero indeciso se intervenire al dibattito di quest’oggi, perché mi sembra largamente una farsa per quello che sta accadendo.

Si parlerebbe di pluralismo democratico e di politiche anticorruzione in Europa. Eppure, qualche settimana fa, sono state annullate le elezioni in Romania: un candidato è stato escluso dalla corsa, quando era peraltro primo tra tutti i sondaggi. Vi sembra per voi questo pluralismo democratico?

Il commissario Breton, qualche settimana fa, è entrato nelle elezioni tedesche dicendo che, se fosse stato eletto un partito che a lui non piace, probabilmente avrebbe chiesto di annullare queste elezioni. È per voi questa una scelta di pluralismo democratico?

In Francia, Marine Le Pen oggi viene dichiarata ineleggibile per cinque anni senza avere un grado definitivo di giudizio, quindi neanche la sua possibilità di fare appello o ricorso alla sentenza che è arrivata, eppure già la sentenza politica è definitiva. È per voi questa una scelta di pluralismo democratico?

E allora no, parliamo di corruzione! La corruzione, purtroppo, è troppo spesso all’interno di questi palazzi; lo abbiamo visto col caso del Qatargate – a dire il vero per colpa, largamente, di deputati che fanno parte dell’area di sinistra. Soldi per dire che le donne sono rispettate in Qatar.

Noi lavoriamo per un’Europa diversa, dove non ci sia corruzione, ci sia libertà e non si abbia paura di quello che scaturisce dalle elezioni democratiche.

  Nikola Minchev (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, pluralism is the lifeblood of a real democracy. Without pluralism, there is no democracy. But in order to preserve it and strengthen it, we need to emphasise the importance of media freedom and media pluralism. They are essential to our democracies. They are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. They are key to holding power to account and to helping citizens make informed decisions.

On the anti-corruption agenda, regrettably, we have seen in EU Member States how brokers of influence in the judiciary, brokers of employment in the judiciary, brokers of justice pull the strings in the shadows of a nominally functioning judiciary. This is intolerable. We should be very clear: impaired independence equals no independence; selective justice equals no justice.

A key issue remains the lack of consistent results in cases of corruption at the highest levels of power. However, the EPPO is now investigating a potential such case in Bulgaria, and I urge both this House and the Commission to closely monitor this case.

  Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the European Parliament: for over 12 years, Marine Le Pen and 24 others systematically stole more than EUR 4 million from the EU. They used it to grow their far-right party in France. Today they faced justice.

It’s a great day. Not because a far-right politician can no longer run for the French presidency, but because an independent judge was able to rise above all the political considerations to make sure no one is above the law. In today’s world, where more and more wannabe dictators attack judges, it shows that the separation of power still stands strong, and that in Europe the law applies to everyone equally.

But every time there is a scandal – a Qatar-, Huawei- or Le Pen-gate – our Parliament becomes more famous for its weakest links, and I’m sick of it. So to my colleagues on the right who block new transparency rules, I say: Do not stop these rules. Stop corruption instead!

  Konstantinos Arvanitis (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, καταρχήν σήμερα ακούσαμε εδώ ότι αμφισβητείται και η γαλλική δικαιοσύνη. Στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο τελικά ποτέ δεν πλήττεις. Και στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, μόλις έφυγε η σκόνη από το Qatargate· και θυμίζω για κάποιους που το έχουν ξεχάσει ότι ήταν εμπλεκόμενες χώρες, υπάλληλοι, ευρωβουλευτές, καθώς και η Αντιπρόεδρος. Ήρθε δυναμικά το σκάνδαλο της κινεζικής τηλεφωνίας, και πριν καλά καλά αρχίσουμε να συζητάμε, μας ήρθε και ένα νέο κακό: η απόφαση του γαλλικού δικαστηρίου για την κυρία Λεπέν, την οποία προσπαθούν κάποιοι να δικαιολογήσουν.

Σαν πολλές δεν είναι αυτές οι συμπτώσεις ή τα ατυχή γεγονότα για το σύστημα; Ποιες είναι αυτές οι δυνάμεις, οι οποίες στην αρχική ανάγνωση συμφωνούν στην ανάγκη ουσιαστικών μέτρων θωράκισης, αλλά στην πορεία ξεχνούν; Σας θυμίζω ότι στο προηγούμενο σκάνδαλο Qatargate η Αριστερά είχε κάνει συγκεκριμένες και ρεαλιστικές προτάσεις. Σας καλώ να ξαναδιαβάσετε παραδειγματικά τον κώδικα. Είχαμε ζητήσει να απαγορεύεται στους πρώην ευρωβουλευτές αμέσως μετά τη θητεία τους να εργάζονται σε σχετικά λόμπι. Ούτε αυτό έγινε. Και δεν το λες και επανάσταση! Εμείς θεωρούμε λοιπόν ότι το σύστημα είναι σάπιο, υπάρχει δυσοσμία και πρέπει να αλλάξει. Ας ανοίξετε τουλάχιστον κάποιο παράθυρο, έτσι για τα προσχήματα.

IN THE CHAIR: SOPHIE WILMÈS
Vice-President

  Mary Khan (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Stellen Sie sich vor, Viktor Orbán würde mit einem abgewählten Parlament die Verfassung ändern. Stellen Sie sich vor, er würde eine halbe Stunde nach der Wahl sämtliche Wahlversprechen brechen, die er eine Stunde zuvor noch gegeben hat. Und stellen Sie sich vor, Viktor Orbán würde seinen Mitbürgern das Wahlrecht entziehen, wenn sie sich regierungskritisch äußern – was wäre hier los in diesem Haus! Ein Aufschrei, Revolution, Tränen auf allen Bänken, Sanktionen wären längst beschlossen, denn die Demokratie sei in Gefahr.

Genau das passiert gerade in Deutschland. Ein abgewähltes Parlament verändert das Grundgesetz, verschuldet Generationen und hebelt demokratische Prinzipien aus, und hier im Haus – Schweigen. Weil es Ihrer Agenda dient, weil es nicht die falschen Parteien trifft, sondern genau die Stimmen, die Sie mundtot machen wollen. Wieder einmal zeigt sich: Die EU liebt die Demokratie und ihre Bürger nur, wenn sie links und bunt sind.

  Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, tak počúvam, tak tu počúvame rôzne veci, ktoré sa tu rozprávajú, ale ja si myslím, že čo je najdôležitejšie je nastaviť znova dôveru v inštitúcie aj EÚ, nie ďalšími orgánmi, ale tým, že budeme dôkladne vyšetrovať to, čo sa stalo, a že jednotlivci, ktorí sú zodpovední, sa dočkajú spravodlivosti. A to znamená aj pri Pfizergate a pri smskách pani predsedníčky Európskej komisie.

Nepotrebujeme ďalšie orgány. Potrebujeme, aby fungovalo to, čo funguje, a musíme to všetko brať ako individuálne zlyhania. Ja nechcem, aby sme my ako európska inštitúcia hovorili, že teraz to je všetko zlé, a preto potrebujeme všetko prekopávať, lebo naozaj je to individuálne zlyhanie. A takisto nie sme my ani prokurátori, ani sudcovia, ani kati, aby sme hovorili, čo sa má stať, a nechajme to všetko na vyšetrenie zodpovedných orgánov. Nenaháňajme bosorky, dodržujme pravidlá, neosočujme sa navzájom, ale robme si svoju prácu a kontrolujme hlavne Európsku komisiu.

Myslím si, že nie nové európske orgány pre etiku by mali byť v tomto Parlamente, ale mali by sme napríklad dôslednejšie sledovať to, čo sa deje v Európskej komisii, ktorí ľudia sú za čo zodpovední a takisto hlavne ako fungujú mimovládky v Európskej únii, ktoré získavajú peniaze z európskych zdrojov a nie sú ochotné informovať o svojej činnosti. To je to, kde by sme mali začať, nielen zelené mimovládky, ale napríklad aj taká Transparency International.

  Romana Tomc (PPE). – Gospa predsednica! Spoštovana gospa komisarka. Ko govorimo o demokraciji, integriteti in preglednosti in o boju proti korupciji, ne morem mimo slovenskega primera.

Dragi kolegi! Slovenski parlament ne deluje po načelu demokracije, ampak izrablja svojo premoč za utišanje opozicije. Predsednica izreka opomine. Koalicija enostavno odvzame besedo opozicijskim poslancem. Veliko pove tudi dejstvo, da je velika večina …

(Predsedujoča je prekinila govornico in pojasnila, da ni na voljo tolmačenja v angleščino.)

Ko govorimo o demokraciji, integriteti, preglednosti in boju proti korupciji v Evropski uniji, ne moremo mimo slovenskega primera.

Dragi kolegi! Slovenski parlament ne deluje po načelu demokracije, ampak izrablja svojo premoč za utišanje opozicije. Predsednica izreka opomine. Koalicija enostavno odvzame besedo opozicijskim poslancem, kadar jim kaj ni všeč, kar govorijo. Veliko pove tudi dejstvo, da je velika večina sej parlamenta sklicanih izredno, zakoni pa se sprejemajo po hitrem postopku.

Imamo odlično zakonodajo s pomočjo… zakonodajo s področja korupcije, vendar korupcija še vseeno cveti, je prisotna v velikem obsegu. To zaznava tudi OECD. Seveda z vladnimi politiki in predsednikom vlade na čelu.

Sprašujem se, seveda, kolegi, kdaj bo Evropska komisija, kdaj bodo naše institucije delovale z istimi merili za vse države.

  Nikola Bartůšek (PfE). – Paní předsedající, dámy a pánové, Pfizergate, korupční skandál Huawei, tajné smlouvy o rozdělení peněz pro média, podplácení neziskových organizací – to jsou konkrétní korupční skandály, které otřásly tímto Parlamentem i Evropskou komisí. Jak můžeme brát prohlášení o potřebě větší integrity, transparentnosti a boji proti korupci vážně? Demokratický pluralismus, který dnes vyzýváme, ve skutečnosti v této instituci neexistuje. Byl nahrazen ideologickým diktátem a vymezováním se proti těm, kteří si dovolí mít vlastní názor. Tváříte se, že hájíte demokracii a přitom umlčujete miliony voličů jen proto, že nezapadají do jediné povolené šablony. A když už se mluví o transparentnosti: Kde jsou smlouvy s Pfizerem a SMS, které rozhodly o zakázce za miliardy? Proč bylo několik týdnů před volbami rozděleno přes 100 milionů eur médiím? Evropští občané si zaslouží znát pravdu. Chtějí, aby Evropská unie byla prostor spravedlnosti, ne pokrytectví. Pokud to s bojem proti korupci a demokracií myslíte opravdu vážně, začněte prosím u sebe a přestaňte vylučovat ty, kteří chtějí Evropu bezpečnější, suverénnější a skutečně demokratickou.

  Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisar, am reținut două idei importante din discursul dumneavoastră și anume că democrația reprezentativă este bazată numai pe alegeri libere și că cetățenii trebuie să se informeze – chiar e dreptul lor – dintr-o pluralitate de surse. Și dacă v-aș spune că exact în România, țara de unde vin eu, aceste două principii fundamentale nu sunt respectate nicidecum!?

Pentru că, așa cum probabil știți, România este țara care a realizat ceva spectaculos: în 1989, a reușit să-și achite toate datoriile. Astăzi, după 35 de ani – și ea era o dictatură – de democrație avem 210 miliarde datorii. Cum s-a ajuns la această situație? Din cauza politicienilor corupți, mincinoși și care, desigur, nu au respectat nimic, nici măcar democrația.

Deci ce democrație era aceasta? Nu era o democrație, era o dictatură cu mănuși. Era o dictatură care, atunci când a văzut că pierde alegerile, a anulat alegerile, a interzis candidații, și-a dat mănușile jos, a făcut praf Constituția și a luat poporul la pumni, în sensul că a trimis organele de coerciție dimineața să aresteze oameni și să îi percheziționeze, pentru că au avut tupeul să-și aleagă pe cineva care chiar câștigase alegerile.

  Sven Simon (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, the European Union was founded on the rule of law, which means there are clear rules on how to deal with crimes. The following order needs to be applied: suspicion, investigation, Indictment and then, if necessary, conviction.

We often follow the process in the reversed order. But the fight for the rule of law can only be successfully waged if it is carried out using constitutional means. This includes the presumption of innocence, the separation of powers, and the immunity of Members of Parliament, which should be lifted in a legally sound procedure if there is cause to do so.

Where the rule of law is applied, it is also clear which institutions prosecute crimes: the police, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and, at the European level, OLAF and EPPO. Parliament must cooperate with these authorities and, if necessary, initiate its own investigations. However, this must also be done with within the framework of legal procedures.

In another case, the European Court of Justice has just confirmed that we have some catching up to do in our own House when it comes to legal procedures. Today, we discuss allegations again, although I would like to know what actually happened to the allegations of the past – Kaili, Krah, von der Leyen. Always the same pattern: accusation, arrest and then what is the outcome of this allegation?

By the way, the current case, like all the others, has nothing to do with morals or ethics. The accusation here is a criminal offence. And, as I said, we have OLAF, EPPO and the national authorities to investigate. They should now do their work and while they do, we should do our best to avoid giving the impression that the European Union is a corrupt institution. It is not.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Simon, Sie haben jetzt gerade viel vom Rechtsstaat gesprochen. Gehört zum Rechtsstaat aber nicht auch, dass man sich an eine Vereinbarung zwischen acht EU‑Institutionen, die geschlossen und ratifiziert ist, hält? Gehört zum Rechtsstaat nicht auch, dass man eine Rechnung, die aus dieser Abmachung resultiert, dann auch bezahlt? Ist denn dann im Rechtsstaat nicht der Weg, dass man, wenn man eine Vereinbarung nicht mag, einen Antrag stellt, dieses Abkommen zu verlassen, anstatt auf merkwürdigste Weise sich einfach nicht an geltendes Recht zu halten?

  Thierry Mariani (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, la veille du 1er avril la Commission a décidé d’organiser un débat sur le pluralisme démocratique. Franchement, vous avez le goût de l’humour et du calendrier: commencez d’abord par réagir au scandale de la condamnation de Marine Le Pen.

Je m’étonne que la Commission, toujours prompte à dénoncer les abus du monde, soit aussi silencieuse quand le marteau de l’injustice frappe, sur notre continent, pour empêcher la démocratie de s’exprimer. En France aujourd’hui comme hier en Roumanie ou aux États-Unis, la justice est devenue l’outil favori d’une oligarchie qui agit contre les peuples. En France, elle vient de bâillonner la voix de 11 millions de Français, alors que tous les sondages sérieux placent Marine Le Pen largement en tête de la prochaine élection présidentielle. Il s’agit d’un assassinat politique pur et simple, d’une grave entrave à la vie démocratique, et dont le retentissement européen est certain.

Nous voyons d’ailleurs que Bruxelles pose un regard malicieux sur toutes ces condamnations puisqu’elles sont ses assurances-vie. Arrêtez d’applaudir les censeurs du peuple et occupez-vous des vrais tricheurs, ceux de votre majorité, ceux du «Qatargate». Vous parlez de pluralisme démocratique? Moi, je vois un totalitarisme qui avance.

  András László (PfE). – Azért nem kicsit ironikus, amikor a brüsszeli elit a demokrácia, az átláthatóság és a korrupció miatt aggódik. Vegyük őket sorra! Demokrácia: már a sokadik népszerű jobboldali politikust próbálják jogi úton ellehetetleníteni, most éppen Marine Le Pent. Miért? Mert patrióta, mert ellene megy a globalista elitnek, és azért, mert ő a legesélyesebb elnökjelölt. Átláthatóság: az Európai Bizottság még mindig nem hozta nyilvánosságra sem a vakcinaszerződést, sem az azt előkészítő sms-eit Ursula von der Leyennek. Korrupció: Amerikában a legnagyobb korrupciós rendszert leplezik éppen le, ami a USAID köré épült fel.

Viszont az ál-NGO-k és a balliberális média finanszírozásában az EU is nyakig benne van. A baloldal pedig hisztérikusan reagál, ha a magukat civilnek hazudó szervezetek finanszírozását valaki számon kéri. A néppárti, szocialista vagy épp liberális képviselők és európai biztosok korrupciós ügyeiből pedig már annyi van, hogy felsorolni sincs idő.

Változás kell Brüsszelben! A korrupt, globalista elitet a patrióták fogják lecserélni.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, a raiz da corrupção está na natureza da política que é feita e nos interesses que serve.

Uma política que esteja ao serviço dos trabalhadores e dos povos não dá espaço à corrupção. Pelo contrário, é a política que serve os interesses económicos e as multinacionais que é a raiz da corrupção, da promiscuidade, do tráfico de influências, das ligações entre o poder político e o poder económico que minam os fundamentos da democracia e a credibilidade das suas instituições.

A resposta a dar à corrupção não pode ser o lançamento da suspeita generalizada, como se todos os eleitos e responsáveis políticos tivessem as mesmas opções e comportamentos. Esse é um discurso errado, que é o discurso que serve à extrema-direita. Não, os políticos não são todos iguais. Há uns que se colocam ao serviço do poder económico e das multinacionais, incluindo a extrema-direita.

Por muito que tentem disfarçar, a extrema-direita é a tropa de choque do poder político corrupto ao serviço dos grupos económicos e das multinacionais. E vamos continuar a denunciá-los e a dar-lhes combate.

A resposta a dar à corrupção tem de ser essa: a da denúncia do combate a quem desvirtua o voto do povo para se pôr ao serviço do poder económico.

  Fidias Panayiotou (NI). – Madam President, hello friends, I’m quite proud to say that the European Parliament is very transparent. And you can all, all the people, the European citizens and everyone in the world, they can go in the website and they can find our salaries, they can find how much budget we are allowed to use, how much money we can spend, and this is very good. It builds trust and it’s transparent. And it also builds expectations for the citizens.

But I’m unhappy because the European Commission doesn’t have the same procedure. When you go to the Commissioners, you cannot see the salaries of the staff, how much budget they have and all this stuff. So this is not as transparent the European Commission. So I encourage the European Commission to be like the European Parliament, a lot more transparent, because this will build a lot of trust. I love you all.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner. The debate is closed.

  Dimitris Tsiodras, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, the ‘one substance, one assessment’ approach, comprising three legislative reports, is not just a technical reform; it is a fundamental shift in how we assess chemical safety.

This approach ensures faster and more effective protection for our citizens and the environment, while supporting industry innovation and competitiveness. It constitutes a significant step towards a stronger, more transparent and more efficient chemicals policy in the EU.

These three pieces of legislation will ensure that the relevant regulatory actions will be faster, simpler and more transparent. They will increase the predictability to stakeholders while safeguarding the protection of intellectual property rights. At the same time, they will ensure that citizens and the environment are better protected from hazardous chemicals.

We have worked hard to strike the right balance, simplifying procedures, reducing administrative burdens and streamlining assessments while maintaining scientific rigour. This common data platform will serve as a one-stop shop for chemical data from various sources, enhancing transparency and accessibility as well as reducing duplication. We have ensured that the platform streamlines independent scientific work and academic research while centralising hazard information.

Additionally, we promote the reuse of existing data to reduce costs, minimise administrative burdens and limit reliance on animal testing. At the same time, we must guarantee the protection of intellectual property rights and commercially sensitive data. Aiming for maximum transparency, we must also adhere to the principle of ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, ensuring that companies can continue investing in research and innovation without the risk of unfair competition. The regulatory framework must not impose unnecessary burden on businesses, particularly SMEs, nor expose proprietary data in ways that could undermine European industry.

Let me be clear, the common data platform is a major step forward in assessing chemical safety and reinforcing consumer protection. It will centralise scientific information, benefiting both public health and industry.

We also support the harmonisation of chemical assessments across different agencies. This package strengthens cooperation, increases efficiency, enhances predictability and eliminates costly duplications, benefiting both EU citizens and businesses.

Of course, challenges remain. And that is why we continue to refine the text in the context of the very collaboration with the political groups, the European Commission and the Council.

Dear colleagues, by adopting these measures, we will strengthen protection for citizens and the environment while maintaining Europe’s leadership in innovation and sustainability. I am confident that, with our collective commitment, we can achieve this ambitious, necessary goal. I strongly urge you to vote in favour of this report so that we can deliver a stronger, smarter and more sustainable EU chemicals policy.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Christophe Clergeau (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, je crois qu’avec ce rapport – et je remercie M. Tsiodras pour le très bon travail qui a été fait collectivement – nous avons fait deux pas importants: l’un qui nous permettra de disposer d’une base de données complète pour procéder à l’évaluation des risques chimiques, et l’autre vers une ouverture de cette base de données à des données provenant non seulement des industriels, mais aussi des autorités nationales, du monde de la recherche et de la société civile. Ce sera très important tant pour l’évaluation des risques que pour la protection de la santé.

Mais ce ne sont que deux premiers pas. Il nous reste beaucoup d’autres choses à faire. Une des priorités absolues, Madame la Commissaire, doit être de renforcer les moyens de l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques, non seulement au moyen de financements privés, mais aussi avec le budget propre de la Commission européenne, de sorte que l’Agence puisse faire son travail dans les meilleures conditions.

D’autres étapes seront nécessaires à ce que nous puissions disposer de données encore plus complètes et à ce que nous puissions enfin croiser les données sur les produits chimiques et celles sur la santé humaine. Ainsi pourrons-nous comprendre l’explosion des maladies chroniques que nous observons actuellement et mieux protéger la santé des Européens.

  Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, I stand here as a voice for citizens like those in Finland, who value their country’s independence.

These proposals – centralising chemical data collection, reassigning tasks to the EU level, and thus empowering the European Chemicals Agency over local actors – strip away control from Member States.

Member States, with their unique industries and features, deserve to make their own decisions – not to follow a one-size-fits-all EU uniform that fits no one properly.

We have seen enough to say that EU centralisation often ignores local needs, adds bureaucracy and takes power away from where it should be: close to the people.

I urge you to protect national sovereignty and reject those measures that undermine Member States’ rights to govern themselves.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Jessika Roswall, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for inviting me to give this short presentation on the one substance, one assessment package. And while we have, Madam President, three presentations on the agenda this evening, I will cover all my main points in this initial statement.

This is clearly a package that contributes to our simplification agenda. The three legislative proposals on the package consolidate scientific and technical work on chemicals in the EU agencies. They also improve cooperation and ensure that agencies can use all data available to them in the safety assessment of chemicals. This package is part of the one Substance, one assessment. It will improve the efficiency and the coherence of safety assessments of chemicals in the benefit of all. Our objective is to simplify procedures and ensure predictability for authorities and stakeholders. Most importantly, we want to protect citizens and the environment from hazardous chemicals.

I welcome Parliament’s strong interest in this legislative package, and thank you, honourable Member Tsiodras, for the important work and constructive discussions on this report. Many of the proposed amendments bring clarification, which we welcome. We are also happy to see that you addressed the comments made by the European Data Protection Supervisor to better safeguard the protection of personal data. At the same time, we believe there are some points that require further discussion.

On the regulation establishing a common data platform on chemicals, your amendments propose a substantial broadening of the scope. You also suggest implementing the system within eight years, compared to the ten years initially proposed by the Commission. While we appreciate the ambition and acknowledge the importance of the proposed amendments, we would like to highlight that an expansion of the scope would have notable implications on the capacity and resources of the European Chemicals Agency. At the same time, they have a lot of tasks already. That was also a question from Mr Clergeau, regarding the capacities of the ECHA Committee, and that will be addressed in a special proposal for the basic regulation, which is under preparation as we speak.

Concerning the directive amendment, the Restricting of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, we take note of your proposal to adopt a delegate act on exemptions within six months of receiving the European Chemical Agency’s opinion. In the light of the number of exemptions typically typically processed and procedural requirements for adopting delegated acts, we note that six month deadline will be difficult to accommodate in practice, so we should avoid putting such short deadlines.

The proposal to review the list of restricted substances at least every 36 months would also be difficult to align with in current practice, as each review currently requires close to that timeline to complete.

Dear President, honourable Members, the Commission stands ready to support co-legislators to reach an agreement on this package. The changes proposed by the Council are largely in line with the Parliament’s amendments. I’m therefore hopeful that a political agreement can be reached within a swift manner.

I would like to renew my commitment as to act as an honest broker and help to reach the necessary compromises.

  President. – Thank you. The debate is closed. The vote will be held tomorrow.

  Δημήτρης Τσιόδρας, εισηγητής. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αύριο ψηφίζουμε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, μια κρίσιμη οδηγία που θα ενισχύσει σημαντικά τον ρόλο του Ευρωπαϊκού Οργανισμού Χημικών Προϊόντων (ECHA) στη διασφάλιση της ασφαλούς διαχείρισης των χημικών ουσιών στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Ο επαναπροσδιορισμός των επιστημονικών και τεχνικών αρμοδιοτήτων αποτελεί ένα βήμα προς μεγαλύτερη αποδοτικότητα, διαφάνεια και επιστημονική εγκυρότητα στις αξιολογήσεις και τη διαχείριση των χημικών ουσιών, ώστε να ανταποκρίνεται στη φιλοδοξία μας για μια ασφαλέστερη και πιο ανταγωνιστική Ευρώπη.

Πιστεύω ότι συμμερίζεστε την άποψή μου ότι ο ECHA χρειάζεται έναν βασικό κανονισμό λειτουργίας, ώστε να διασφαλιστεί η καταλληλότητα και η ικανότητά του να υλοποιήσει τους στόχους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την ασφαλή διαχείριση των χημικών ουσιών, τη δημόσια υγεία και περιβαλλοντική προστασία, υποστηρίζοντας παράλληλα την ανταγωνιστικότητα της βιομηχανίας. Ένα σαφές νομικό πλαίσιο θα επιτρέψει στον Οργανισμό να ενσωματώσει ομαλά και αποτελεσματικά τις νέες και διευρυμένες αρμοδιότητες του.

Ωστόσο, πρέπει να αναγνωρίσουμε τον σημαντικό αντίκτυπο που θα έχει αυτή η μεταρρύθμιση στη λειτουργία του ECHA. Θα απαιτηθεί αναδιάρθρωση των αρμοδιοτήτων του, ώστε να μπορεί να διαχειριστεί τον αυξημένο φόρτο εργασίας, χωρίς να τίθεται σε κίνδυνο η ποιότητα, η ακρίβεια και η έγκαιρη ολοκλήρωση των αξιολογήσεων των επιστημονικών επιτροπών που εποπτεύει.

Η επιτυχία αυτής της πρωτοβουλίας εξαρτάται από προσεκτικό σχεδιασμό και επαρκείς πόρους. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, στην πρόταση συμβιβασμού που συμφωνήσαμε, επεκτείνουμε τη μεταβατική περίοδο προσαρμογής στους 18 μήνες αντί των 12 μηνών που προέβλεπε αρχικά η πρόταση της Επιτροπής. Αυτή η προσαρμογή είναι ιδιαίτερα σημαντική, καθώς δεν υπάρχουν ακόμη διαθέσιμοι χρηματοδοτικοί και ανθρώπινοι πόροι για τις πρόσθετες αρμοδιότητες του ECHA, μέχρι την έγκριση και έναρξη ισχύος του νομικού κειμένου. Μια μεγαλύτερη μεταβατική περίοδος θα επιτρέψει στον Οργανισμό να προσαρμοστεί σταδιακά, να αποφύγει αναταράξεις και να διατηρήσει υψηλής ποιότητας αξιολογήσεις.

Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή πρέπει να παρακολουθεί τακτικά τον φόρτο εργασίας και τους πόρους του ECHA. Δεδομένων των πρόσθετων αρμοδιοτήτων που του ανατίθενται μέσω αυτής της πρότασης, είναι απαραίτητο η Επιτροπή να αξιολογεί τις ανάγκες του Οργανισμού και, όπου απαιτείται, να προτείνει νομοθετικά μέτρα για την προσαρμογή των πόρων του και τη βελτίωση της διακυβέρνησης των επιστημονικών του επιτροπών, διασφαλίζοντας την αποτελεσματική λειτουργία του.

Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, αυτή η πρόταση, ύστερα από πολύ εντατική διαβούλευση, έχει αποσπάσει ευρεία υποστήριξη από τις πολιτικές ομάδες, αντιπροσωπεύει μια καλά ισορροπημένη και βιώσιμη λύση για το μέλλον, και παρέχει ένα σαφές πλαίσιο για τον διευρυμένο ρόλο του ECHA στο ρυθμιστικό πλαίσιο των χημικών ουσιών στην ΕΕ. Με τη βελτίωση της διαδικασίας λήψης αποφάσεων, την ενίσχυση του ρυθμιστικού πλαισίου και την εφαρμογή επαρκών μεταβατικών μέτρων, διασφαλίζουμε τη δημόσια υγεία, προστατεύουμε τους πολίτες και το περιβάλλον, και ταυτόχρονα στηρίζουμε την ανταγωνιστικότητα της ευρωπαϊκής βιομηχανίας. Σας καλώ, λοιπόν, να υποστηρίξετε αυτή την πρόταση ως μέρος του πακέτου «one substance, one assessment».

Catch-the-eye procedure

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner. The debate is closed. The vote will be held tomorrow.

  Δημήτρης Τσιόδρας, εισηγητής. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, με το τρίτο νομοθετικό κείμενο του πακέτου «one substance, one assessment» κάνουμε ένα ουσιαστικό συμπληρωματικό ρυθμιστικό βήμα προς τη βελτίωση της ασφάλειας των χημικών ουσιών, την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και την ενίσχυση της ανταγωνιστικότητας της ευρωπαϊκής βιομηχανίας. Αυτή η πρόταση αποτελεί ορόσημο για τη διασφάλιση εναρμονισμένων και επιστημονικά τεκμηριωμένων αξιολογήσεων, καθώς και της αποτελεσματικής συνεργασίας μεταξύ των ευρωπαϊκών οργανισμών που ασχολούνται με τα χημικά.

Ένα από τα βασικά σημεία αυτού του κανονισμού είναι η εναρμόνιση στη διαχείριση και αξιολόγηση των χημικών ουσιών μεταξύ των διαφορετικών ευρωπαϊκών οργανισμών. Με την απλοποίηση των διαδικασιών και την εξάλειψη περιττών επικαλύψεων, μπορούμε να αυξήσουμε την αποδοτικότητα, να ενισχύσουμε την προβλεψιμότητα και να μειώσουμε το διοικητικό βάρος. Αυτό δεν θα ωφελήσει μόνο τους πολίτες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, διασφαλίζοντας υψηλότερα πρότυπα ασφάλειας, αλλά θα βοηθήσει και τις επιχειρήσεις, παρέχοντας μεγαλύτερη σαφήνεια και σταθερότητα στις διοικητικές διαδικασίες.

Ωστόσο, κατά τη διαδικασία επαναπροσδιορισμού των αρμοδιοτήτων, πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε ότι κανένας μεμονωμένος οργανισμός, όπως ο ECHA, δεν θα επιβαρυνθεί με πρόσθετες υπερβολικές ευθύνες. Η ανακατανομή των αρμοδιοτήτων μεταξύ των διαφόρων οργανισμών πρέπει να είναι ισορροπημένη, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη την εξειδίκευση και τα επιμέρους καθήκοντα που τους έχουν ανατεθεί. Αυτό θα διατηρήσει την επιστημονική αριστεία, ενώ παράλληλα θα αποτρέψει καθυστερήσεις στις αξιολογήσεις και τη λήψη αποφάσεων.

Στο πλαίσιο αυτής της πρότασης, συμφωνήσαμε ότι σε περίπτωση σημαντικών επιστημονικών αποκλίσεων σε γνωμοδοτήσεις, ειδικά όταν εμπλέκεται εθνική αρχή, πρέπει να υπάρχει δομημένος μηχανισμός συνεργασίας. Οι ευρωπαϊκοί οργανισμοί και οι εθνικές αρχές πρέπει να είναι υποχρεωμένοι να συνεργάζονται είτε επιλύοντας τις διαφορές τους είτε δημοσιεύοντας ένα κοινό έγγραφο που αποσαφηνίζει τις επιστημονικές αβεβαιότητες. Η διαφάνεια πρέπει να είναι στο επίκεντρο αυτής της διαδικασίας, διασφαλίζοντας ότι όλες οι σχετικές επιστημονικές συζητήσεις είναι δημόσιες και προσβάσιμες. Σε περιπτώσεις όπου εντοπίζονται αποκλίσεις και απαιτούνται επιπλέον πληροφορίες, είναι κρίσιμο να καθοριστεί μια σαφής διαδικασία και ρεαλιστικά χρονικά περιθώρια για την παροχή των απαραίτητων δεδομένων.

Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, αυτός ο κανονισμός αποτελεί ένα σημαντικό βήμα προς μια πιο συνεκτική, αποτελεσματική, προβλέψιμη και επιστημονικά τεκμηριωμένη πολιτική των χημικών ουσιών στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Ενισχύει τη συνεργασία μεταξύ των σχετικών οργανισμών, διασφαλίζει δίκαιη κατανομή των αρμοδιοτήτων τους, και προάγει τη διαφάνεια και την εμπιστοσύνη του κοινού στη διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων. Σας καλώ να στηρίξετε και αυτόν τον κανονισμό, ώστε να ενισχύσουμε περαιτέρω το ρυθμιστικό μας πλαίσιο για την ασφάλεια των χημικών ουσιών, να προστατεύσουμε τη δημόσια υγεία και το περιβάλλον, και να παρέχουμε στις επιχειρήσεις ένα σαφέστερο και πιο προβλέψιμο ρυθμιστικό περιβάλλον.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Christophe Clergeau (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, ce texte, qui vient s’ajouter aux deux précédents, est là aussi un premier pas. On voit bien que nous nous trouvons confrontés à un problème, plus large, de renforcement de la coopération entre les agences de sécurité sanitaire au niveau européen – et le cadre législatif qui était proposé ne permettait pas d’aller très loin dans ce domaine; on a fait le maximum. Il s’agit également de trouver la bonne adéquation entre les objectifs que l’Europe fixe à ces agences, les moyens dont elles disposent, la manière dont elles coopèrent avec les États membres et le degré de leur coopération.

Je suis persuadé qu’il nous faudra, dans les mois qui viennent, revenir sur ces sujets de manière beaucoup plus approfondie, en vue de refonder le système des agences européennes et de le projeter vers l’avenir, pour véritablement donner à ces agences les moyens de prendre à bras-le-corps les missions qui sont les leurs, si nous voulons réellement nous saisir des enjeux de santé des populations et de protection de l’environnement.

M. Url vient régulièrement expliquer à la commission de l’environnement que, à l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments, il n’a pas les moyens nécessaires pour se charger de la question des pesticides. On voit aujourd’hui les limites de l’ECHA face à la question des produits chimiques.

Il va falloir faire beaucoup plus que ce que ces trois textes ont proposé, même s’ils sont très positifs et que nous avons essayé de les améliorer.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Jessika Roswall, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, in addition to my previous remarks, the ECHA agency will be equipped with an operational budget, which can be used for exceptional assessment, which require external input.

In general, consulting external experts is not unusual for committees and can provide additional expertise from inside others of our sectors.

Madam President, honourable Members, all stakeholders will benefit from the ‘one substance, one assessment’ initiative. Citizens and the environment will benefit from better protection from hazardous chemicals as a result of a more efficient and effective assessment process.

Companies will benefit from more harmonised and transparent processes across legislation, from a reduced number of bodies involved in safety and risk assessment, as well as from a strengthened certainty regarding the validity of assessment.

Finally, national and EU authorities will benefit from improved efficiency of delivery of assessments and improved public trust and acceptance of regulatory decisions. That’s why I’m looking forward to working together with both the co-legislators on this.

  President. – Thank you very much. The debate is closed. The vote will be held tomorrow.

  Maria Walsh (PPE). – Madam President, as we sit here in Parliament tonight, thousands of workers in the pharmaceutical and medtech sectors, many in the west of Ireland, are sitting at home facing 48 hours of deep uncertainty.

Ireland is arguably the single most exposed EU Member State to a transatlantic trade war. In 2023 alone, we exported around 36 billion worth of pharmaceuticals and chemicals to the United States, while the jobs of 50 000 Irish workers are dependent on the sector.

However, it is for the sake of the European economy as a whole that our attention must be on reaching a negotiated agreement with the US. A trade war is not a fait accompli. The EU successfully avoided tariffs in 2018. We must do the same again this year.

To put in terms familiar to President Trump, for the next 48 hours, workers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic will be watching closely, focused on the real art of the deal. Ultimately, we must ensure that through strong actions and careful words, trade remains a bridge, not a battleground.

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, we are now starting discussions on the 2026 budget and upcoming new MFF, the budget of our Union. Unfortunately, the budget for the EU4Health programme, a key component of the European Health Union, was reduced by EUR 1 billion following the last MFF revision. This is completely unacceptable.

We are now facing a range of new challenges, including the urgent need to strengthen our security, defence and so on. For this, we need the strongest, most resilient, autonomous and biggest European Union budget based on consistent and stable own resources.

Health, security and the European Health Union are priorities that must be adequately funded to prevent premature deaths, create a strong and resilient workforce and society, and invest in human capital. Let us work together to ensure that we have the European Union own resources to achieve those goals.

  Anne-Sophie Frigout (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, dans quel pays une chaîne de télévision se fait-elle fermer parce qu’elle ne plaît pas à la bien-pensance? Dans quel pays la candidate en tête dans tous les sondages vient d’être rendue inéligible à l’élection présidentielle de 2027 à la suite d’un coup d’État juridique sans précédent. Ce pays, c’est la France, pays des Lumières, patrie des droits de l’homme.

Aujourd’hui, Marine Le Pen est empêchée de se présenter à la présidentielle de 2027. Une sentence des plus arbitraires, qui choque même nos opposants les plus farouches. Car, tenez-vous bien, les juges justifient cette exécution provisoire par l’existence «supposée» d’un risque de récidive, empêchant toute possibilité de faire appel avant l’élection. Ils tentent en réalité de museler ceux qui commettraient le crime de ne pas penser comme eux.

Comment l’Union européenne peut-elle prétendre donner des leçons de démocratie à la Hongrie ou à la Roumanie alors que, sous ses yeux, une décision sans précédent vient bouleverser le processus démocratique en France. Alors que l’état de droit n’a jamais été autant mentionné, la démocratie n’a jamais été autant bafouée. C’est une atteinte aux valeurs, celles que nous sommes censés défendre ici.

(La Présidente retire la parole à l’oratrice)

  Jana Toom (Renew). – Madam President, colleagues, I’m speaking today on behalf of my voters. Last Wednesday, the Estonian Parliament amended the Constitution and cancelled the rights of third-country citizens and stateless people to vote in local elections.

This threat existed for 30 years. The blow was aimed mostly at citizens of Russia and Belarus with a permanent residence permit, using the war of Russia against Ukraine as a pretext. The population of Estonia is 1.3 million; the Members of Parliament decided that 140 000 people are a ‘fifth column’, without charge or trial, collectively. The punishment: no democratic representation at all.

These people are not new migrants. They are Estonians in all but their passports. Most of them took Russian passports to legalise themselves after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The barriers of obtaining Estonian citizenship were and remain too high. These people are law-abiding taxpayers that have lived in Estonia for decades or since birth. It is their homeland. Teachers, doctors, engineers, old folks – even the security police doesn’t see them as a security risk.

It is a purely political decision in order to change the results of the local elections that will be held in autumn. Given the fragile security situation in Europe, such a step is stupid but also dangerous.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, febra aftoasă, în principal o boală a vacilor, apare după 35 de ani în Europa și face ravagii în sectorul zootehnic. Primul focar a fost identificat în Germania în urmă cu trei luni, iar recent cazuri similare au fost identificate în Slovacia și Ungaria, nu departe de granița cu România.

Fermierii au avut deja pierderi de sute de milioane de euro, fie urmare a mortalității, fie a pierderilor de venit. Previziunile sunt sumbre, deoarece boala se răspândește cu viteza luminii. Fermierii riscă să ajungă în imposibilitatea de a salva animalele, iar cei din sectorul vegetal, de a nu mai avea cum să își vândă producția. Comisia trebuie să găsească urgent mecanismele pentru despăgubirea fermierilor afectați.

În același timp, executivul european trebuie să vină cu o comunicare publică adecvată și eficientă cu privire la măsurile luate pentru prevenirea bolii, dar și identificarea unui vaccin eficient, concomitent cu elaborarea unui plan clar de acțiune stabilit cu statele membre. Atrag atenția că securitatea alimentară poate fi serios afectată de această boală, care se comportă ca o adevărată armă biologică.

  Marie Dauchy (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, aujourd’hui la justice est utilisée comme une arme politique. Le procès de Marine Le Pen, à deux ans de la présidentielle, n’a rien de neutre. Il ne vise pas la vérité, il ne vise pas la justice: il vise à faire taire la première opposante politique. Les réquisitions sont disproportionnées. Le calendrier parle de lui-même. Derrière tout cela, il y a la main de Bruxelles, toujours prête à s’attaquer à ceux qui défendent leur peuple.

Peut-on encore parler de démocratie quand on cherche à écarter une candidate par la voie des tribunaux plutôt que par la voix du peuple? Il ne s’agit pas que d’une femme, mais de 13 millions de Français.

Ce n’est pas une première: en Roumanie, à quelques semaines de l’élection présidentielle, les mêmes méthodes ont été utilisées pour disqualifier l’opposition nationale. Aujourd’hui, ce scénario se répète en France. Il s’agit d’une dérive grave, dangereuse, d’un pouvoir qui a peur de perdre et qui instrumentalise la justice pour se protéger.

Mais les Français ne sont pas dupes. Nous défendrons Marine Le Pen, nous défendrons la démocratie et nous rendrons la parole au peuple. Car, si l’Union européenne continue de piétiner les libertés fondamentales, alors oui, elle s’effondrera et elle l’aura bien cherché.

  Ciaran Mullooly (Renew). – Madam President, the Gaeltacht areas of Ireland are not only geographical regions, they are part of the island’s heritage. They’re the beating heart of the Irish language.

Mar a deir Breanndán Ó Beaglaoich: An teanga, sin í croí ár ndúchais.

Unfortunately, a mix of bad planning or no planning at all, combined with Airbnb-style corporate acquisitions, have seen an influx of non-Irish speakers coming in, causing a dramatic shift in the linguistic balance.

If planning continues to be granted without restrictions and there is no positive discrimination towards Irish speakers, there is a real risk now of losing the Irish language forever in locations like Galway, Kerry and Donegal.

Commissioner, our new European Parliament Special Committee on Housing must look at this. We need positive planning policies that favour the natives, and we must ensure young people with fluent Irish are not priced out of their communities. The Irish language has survived through war, famine and numerous ways of immigration. For it to finally die due to planning laws would be a tragedy.

  João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, trouxemos hoje a este Parlamento Europeu uma importante proposta para o prolongamento do prazo de implementação dos fundos do PRR, dos fundos do Plano de Resolução e Resiliência. E porquê? Porque estes fundos são fundos importantes ao dispor dos Estados-Membros, que devem ser plenamente aproveitados para que os Estados-Membros possam, a partir deles, projetar o desenvolvimento e a resposta que é necessário dar aos seus problemas nacionais.

E fizemos esta proposta, partindo da constatação que tem sido feita, nomeadamente pelo Tribunal de Contas Europeu, que estes fundos não estão a ser utilizados, que há uma boa parte de dificuldades que têm que ver com a própria regulamentação do Mecanismo de Recuperação e Resiliência e também com dificuldades nacionais. Mas que o problema do prazo, que acabará em agosto de 2026, é um dos estrangulamentos com que estamos confrontados.

O facto de o prazo dos fundos do Plano de Recuperação e Resiliência estar fixado para agosto de 2026 significa que muitos Estados não aproveitarão esses fundos ou utilizá-los-ão erradamente, como está neste momento apontado para Portugal, depois da segunda reprogramação que foi feita pelo Governo.

E, por isso, propomos a extensão do prazo para 2028, numa proposta que, estamos convictos, será aprovada por este Parlamento.

  Alexander Sell (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Schuldenbremse, Grenzschließung, Heizungsgesetz: Friedrich Merz hat im Wahlkampf nie gelogen, sondern immer die Wahrheit gesagt. Für diese Aussage könnte ich in Deutschland bestraft werden, denn, ich zitiere: „Die bewusste Verbreitung falscher Tatsachenbehauptungen ist durch die Meinungsfreiheit nicht gedeckt.“ Das ist kein schlechter Aprilscherz, sondern ein Satz aus den Sondierungspapieren von CDU und SPD. Als Bundeskanzler will Friedrich Merz sicherstellen, dass in Deutschland immer die Wahrheit gesagt wird – das heißt z. B., Schulden müssen Vermögen genannt werden. Wer das nicht tut, macht sich in Deutschland bald strafbar, weil Desinformation und Fake News unsere Demokratie gefährden – so sieht das die deutsche Bundesregierung.

Vor 400 Jahren hat Galileo Galilei behauptet, dass sich die Erde um die Sonne dreht. Für diese Verbreitung von Fake News wurde er zu Hausarrest verurteilt, weil der Papst der Meinung war, dass sich die Sonne eben um die Erde dreht. Heute wissen wir: Die Wahrheit lässt sich nicht aufhalten, auch wenn Friedrich Merz die Wahrheit Lüge nennt. Am Ende werden die Lügner immer überführt, denn Lügen haben kurze Beine.

  Thierry Mariani (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, c’est officiel: de Paris à Bucarest en passant par la Republika Srpska, l’Union européenne accompagne la mort démocratique de l’Europe. La condamnation, injuste et totalitaire, de Marine Le Pen fait tristement écho à celle de Milorad Dodik, président de la République serbe de Bosnie. À travers lui, la Republika Srpska est attaquée judiciairement et politiquement.

Milorad Dodik, qui a été élu démocratiquement, vient d’être condamné à un an de prison et à six ans d’inéligibilité dans un procès politique téléguidé depuis l’extérieur. À ce stade, la justice de Bosnie-Herzégovine n’est plus indépendante: elle est un instrument de répression entre les mains de Sarajevo, un instrument qui agit sous la pression de Christian Schmidt, haut représentant international, qui se conduit comme un gouverneur colonial en annulant des lois et en violant la volonté populaire exprimée dans les urnes.

Évidemment, Bruxelles laisse se dérouler cette farce autoritaire, orchestrée contre un président légitimement élu, prouvant par là même que son indignation est sélective et qu’elle piétine le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes – en particulier celui des Serbes.

La Republika Srpska et son peuple ne méritent ni l’ignorance ni l’humiliation, mais le respect.

  Michał Dworczyk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W ostatnich tygodniach Komisja Europejska zaprezentowała szereg inicjatyw w dziedzinie bezpieczeństwa i obronności: białą księgę, program ReArm Europe czy rozporządzenie Safe. Nie możemy też pomijać programu na rzecz europejskiego przemysłu obronnego EDIP. Po lekturze tych dokumentów ewidentne jest, że Komisja stawia w centrum swoich propozycji wspólne zamówienia i obowiązkowy komponent europejski. Obie te kwestie oczywiście są ważne w dłuższej perspektywie, jednak dzisiaj nie żyjemy w abstrakcyjnej przyszłości, tylko w realnym i niebezpiecznym tu i teraz. Dlatego priorytety wsparcia powinny być inne.

Po pierwsze – bezpośrednie zaangażowanie w ochronę wschodniej granicy NATO i Unii Europejskiej. Po drugie – poziom wydatków na obronność względem PKB. I po trzecie – realna pomoc udzielana walczącej Ukrainie, zarówno militarna, jak i logistyczna. Są to kryteria fundamentalne i oczywiste. Tymczasem priorytety wyznaczone przez Komisję, zamiast wzmacniać bezpieczeństwo Europy, praktycznie przekładają się na korzyści dla dużych koncernów zbrojeniowych i ich rekordowe wyniki są tego dowodem. Dlatego zachęcam zarówno Komisję, jak i posłów do tego, by w trakcie prac nad EDIPem i przyszłymi projektami dokonać koniecznej korekty priorytetów.

  Barry Cowen (Renew). – Madam President, in two days’ time, the Trump administration will impose tariffs that threaten the future of the European economy, not just for months, but possibly for years to come. Europe must respond firmly, but strategically. Our counter-tariffs, when they arrive in mid-April, must be measured and considered.

It’s inevitable during this consultation period that individual Member States, their governments and sector representatives will make the case for their right to be shielded from such tariffs. I personally, for example, have made representations to the Commission on behalf of several Irish industries. But when the time comes, it’s vital that we unite. In times of crisis, the strength of the EU has always been its unity.

We are all now well aware that the EU exports EUR 157 billion more in goods to the US, while the US has a EUR 109 billion surplus in services. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship, one that tariffs will only damage.

As such, if and when the time comes, we must engage with the Trump administration transactionally, exploring American LNG purchases, for example, and security commitments, as part of a solution to avoid all-out trade war.

All in all, let’s make sure the EU’s response is measured and politically precise. The goal must be to bring the US back to the table because, as we all know, a trade war serves neither them nor us.

  Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Um queijo. Um queijo protegido, único, tradicional, sustentável. Produz-se num território ameaçado por um projeto altamente contaminante, que o Governo galego quer fazer, da empresa portuguesa Altri, que mesmo Portugal rejeitou. Querem trocar vacas por eucaliptos, queijos por celulose, granjas por fumo.

Com o mais alto risco a nível europeu para uma iniciativa europeia num contexto verde, os fundos europeus não podem vir para este tipo de projetos que contaminam, que destroem as granjas, que destroem também esta produção protegida de queijos.

Um queijo é o símbolo de um país, do meu país: a Galiza.

  Rudi Kennes (The Left). – Madam President, last week, the workers of the catering services in Parliament protested because management outsourced their work to private companies, and the way these companies treat them is simply not worthy of an institution that always complains about labour rights violations, but only abroad.

Catering is currently outsourced to a British multinational. How do multinationals win these contracts? They place the lowest bid – which means low salaries and bad services. Today it is the catering, yesterday it was the creche, tomorrow the cleaning and also now the teachers.

They all described a shocking situation: precarious contracts, huge workloads, low pay, high turnover and no certainty. These people are desperate, tired and feel humiliated. The EU should give a good example and not give contracts to these kind of industry cowboys.

We want to see these services insourced, permanent good jobs, good pay and good working conditions. We will support these workers and their unions until they get what they deserve.

  Valérie Deloge (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, face aux défis économiques et géopolitiques qui menacent notre continent, la Commission européenne a trouvé une réponse déconcertante: un kit de survie pour tenir soixante-douze heures en cas de crise. Plutôt que de mettre fin au pacte vert, qui étrangle nos agriculteurs, Bruxelles préfère entretenir un climat de peur. Au lieu de renforcer notre économie et notre souveraineté, elle infantilise les citoyens avec des recommandations dignes d’un scénario hollywoodien.

La guerre n’est pas un jeu. Jordan Bardella l’a rappelé: nous voulons une Europe de la paix, de la sécurité et de la souveraineté. Pourtant Bruxelles s’acharne à affaiblir nos nations pour imposer son fédéralisme. Nos agriculteurs, étouffés par des normes économiques absurdes, et nos entreprises, soumises à la concurrence déloyale, sont aujourd’hui en mode survie. Un véritable kit de survie, c’est une économie forte, une industrie compétitive et des frontières protégées.

Je voulais aussi apporter tout mon soutien à Marine Le Pen, honteusement condamnée pour des raisons politiques. C’est un jour triste pour la démocratie, mais ce n’est qu’une question de temps avant que nous arrivions au pouvoir pour donner aux peuples européens la voix qu’ils méritent.

  Fernand Kartheiser (ECR). – Madam President, the statement concerns the review of the Digital Services Act. Article 91 of the DSA provides for a review of the Act by November 2025, regarding the designation of very large online platforms, their scope and the DSA’s compatibility with various legal instruments. The DSA has been heavily criticised not only by the current US administration, but also by European politicians and human rights defenders, who have alerted and documented the far‑reaching impact of the DSA on fundamental rights, in particular the right to free speech. In this context, a well‑rounded review process is strongly needed.

Can the Commission clarify the review process under Article 91 of the DSA and, in particular, the roles played by Parliament and the Council? Is the Commission envisioning amendments to the DSA and, if so, which ones?

  Nicolae Ştefănuță (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I have a message to every European: when they spit on our European values, we do not apologise for them, we do not explain ourselves for them – instead, we pick them up and put them in an even shinier place for everyone to see.

I’m so tired of us being always in a defensive mode, as if we apologise for something, as if we look for a world that isn’t there anymore.

For today’s world, Europe needs again the path of unity, of standing together, of strength. We need to be adults responsible for ourselves.

We don’t need to point to the outside. We need to look inside and really work hard. This continent will prevail because it is what humans have aspired to for so many centuries.

Do I need to remind the House that this continent only had peace when it was together? For the rest of its historic millennia, it only had war if it was not united.

It is time to make Europe believe in itself again. It is time to have a more united Europe again!

  Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Doamnă președintă, ceea ce s-a întâmplat astăzi în Franța, prin condamnarea lui Marine Le Pen și condamnarea acesteia de a nu mai putea candida ca președinte, este o urmare firească a interdicției mele din 5 octombrie 2024, făcută de Curtea Constituțională, numai că eu nu eram condamnată de nimeni și pentru nimic, ci doar pe articole din ziar.

Dacă atunci ați fi avut interesul să reacționați, acum nu mai eram în situația în care Europa a instaurat o dictatură și v-o spun ca avocat: nu există o astfel de posibilitate să o facă o Curte Constituțională. Ați călcat în picioare drepturile și libertățile fundamentale ale drepturilor omului, ați călcat în picioare principiul:

Liberté, fraternité, égalité, elles sont mortes!

Deci nu mai există nici libertate, nici egalitate, nici fraternitate. Ați distrus întreaga Europă și vă certați cu toată lumea, inclusiv cu Trump. Ori vă revizuiți atitudinea, ori va trebui să ne reluăm noi toate drepturile și libertățile fundamentale înapoi, indiferent cum vom putea.

  Ştefan Muşoiu (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, dragi colegi, asistăm în ultimii ani la un proces mult prea rapid de maturizare a propriilor noștri copii, cauzat de utilizarea rețelelor de socializare de la vârsta de 5 ani. Este alarmant. La fel de alarmant este și că aproape 50 % dintre copii petrec peste 6 ore pe zi online, conform unui studiu realizat recent.

Însă și mai îngrijorător este faptul că aceste deprinderi nocive, combinate cu conținuturi inadecvate, cu presiunea validării și cu temerile privind excluderea socială, le provoacă tot mai mari dificultăți emoționale copiilor. Expunerea timpurie și necontrolată la aceste platforme poate duce la fragilizarea emoțională, la izolare socială, la anxietate severă și inclusiv la tentative de suicid.

Așadar, este nevoie de o gestionare adecvată a timpului și a conținutului din online accesibil copiilor. Trebuie să prevaleze aceste obiective, iar modelul spaniol privind limitarea folosirii tabletelor și a altor dispozitive digitale la maxim 2 ore pe săptămână de către elevii din școala primară, devine crucial pentru viitorul copiilor.

  President. – That would be the last speaker for the one‑minute speeches for this plenary sitting.

Thank you, Commissioner Roswall, for having stayed until the end and taken the floor on each occasion you were given.

  President. – The agenda for the next sitting, which is tomorrow, Tuesday 1 April at 9.00, has been published and is available on the European Parliament website.

  President. – The minutes of this sitting will be submitted to Parliament for its approval tomorrow, at the beginning of the afternoon.

(The sitting closed at 22.29)