What Petri spoke about.

First of all, I have to remind the honourable Members that when we had a socialist Prime Minister, our instruction to the EPP was not to make this a discussion about domestic politics. Min fråga till er ärade Europaparlamentariker Fritzon är, varför gjorde ni exakt tvärtom här i dag?

I’ll answer the question with pleasure. I surely don’t think that this is a leftist plot – and I have a very good argument to answer you about the Polish situation, because in my previous life I worked with a lot of Polish friends. I was in Warsaw, I knew the TVP, Telewizja Polska back then, and it was a free media. But over the last few years something awful happened in Poland and these people were not free to exercise their mandate of journalism anymore. This is the unfortunate situation. I think that our Polish friends can give you the arguments easily on what has actually happened in Poland.

Mr President, let’s start with a fact: European Union decision-making is paralysed. The Council should face that fact and start doing something about it. Article 7.2 was not put in the Treaty for nothing. it is there for a reason. So please roll up your sleeves and start the work to save this European Union. Another fact: the Commission would have had time to make the decision on those EUR 10.2 billion after the last notification letter from Hungary on 12 December, but the Commission rushed to the decision in 22 hours simply to make it before the European Council meeting. And we still don’t have really a very good idea on the basis of that decision, but we will find out. We will roll up our sleeves, we will do the digging once again, and we are ready to use the legal means that we have. So this is unfortunately where we are on this continent, in this European Union. From the citizens point of view, it sure doesn’t look good. The vast majority of people simply cannot understand why one Member State is let to keep 26 others hostage. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Mr President, this is a deliberate and deliberate Russian operation, and there is nothing new about it. Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland, Finland was prepared for this for a long time and was able to accept the situation. Russia is trying to destabilise Finland, and it is doing so at the longest border of the European Union. That is why it is a matter for the European Union as a whole. This evening's debate, too, sends an important signal that the Union is working together and united to respond to Russia's actions. But what should we do with people who do not meet the criteria for international protection, but who cannot be returned to their place of origin? We need to find a solution to this issue within the Union, working together and soon. Because the longer this issue remains open, the longer Russia will be able to exploit the unclear situation to its advantage and an individual Member State, such as Finland now, will have to remain really strong.

Madam President, honourable Commissioners, dear colleagues, I’m not that sick and tired of having this discussion, as Sophia in ‘t Veld is, simply because, unfortunately, it is our job. It is our role to make sure that the laws are abided by and the rule of law is being respected. It’s also our role to make sure that the Commission does what it’s supposed to do. I have to say that I have to give it to the Commission, after media report, after media report, we are still here, luckily, discussing this. But I also want to underline that shortcomings obviously still persist in various areas of judicial independence in Hungary. They do have concrete consequences in Hungary, for example, for foreign businesses operating in that Member State. The message from this House must be very clear and united. As Parliament, we must continue to recommend that the funding for Hungary remains frozen, not because of the sake of freezing them, but until every single aspect of the super milestones on judicial independence is met. So, it’s extremely important that the Commission assesses the real situation on the ground in Hungary diligently. This is in the interest of European taxpayers. It’s in the interest of the rule of law in general. Like said many times before, the strong rule of law culture is key for democracies, and it’s central in the fight against corruption, safeguarding academic and media freedom, and promoting human rights. This is why we expect the Commission to assess the situation on the ground in Hungary very, very carefully. We have to come back here and do it as many times as it takes.

Mr President, honourable President of the European Court of Auditors, Commissioner, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank President Murphy for presenting the results on behalf of the European Court of Auditors. As we know, each year the auditors examine the EU revenue and expenditure to see whether the annual accounts are reliable, and whether income and expenditure transactions comply with the applicable rules. This is extremely important work and, I dare to say, it’s actually increasingly important work, with the ever-increasing amount of money that we have in the pipeline. Now, I have been a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control for over 11 years and I have to say that, this time around, the annual report from the ECA is more alarming than ever before. The results are not flattering. The 1.2 percentage point increase in the overall level of error, yes, and what I’m particularly concerned about is the cohesion 6.4%. And then there is the RRF. The list of deficiencies is quite long: 15 out of the 281 milestones and targets were affected by regularity issues. And it goes on and on and on. But I think what is actually the most worrying thing, for me at least, is that the Court of Auditors is not even able to present an error rate for the RRF – for many reasons, actually, but the numbers are simply not comparable. And the system and control are not designed in a way that allows the ECA to draw up an error rate. So this is something that I really want to see progress in the coming years. And I strongly encourage the ECA to be even more determined in your work, if possible, because it’s our money and we really have the right to know that it’s being used to comply with rules and regulations, and as effectively as possible.

Mr President, honourable Commissioner, dear colleagues, almost 600 days ago, Russia launched a brutal and murderous attack against the sovereign state of Ukraine. Since the very first day of this cold-hearted attack, the European Union has stood by the side of Ukraine, providing EUR 30 billion from the EU budget in support so far. The Ukraine Facility will continue this support. It will ensure continuity and predictability of the support for the next three years. EUR 50 billion is a reasonable start for rebuilding Ukraine, but we all know that we will need more in the future. The economic costs of the Russian attack are already now around EUR 270 billion, and the process of rebuilding Ukraine has been estimated to cost around EUR 384 billion. In addition, the psychological toll on the Ukrainian people will be immeasurable. It is of high importance that the facility paves the way for Ukraine to become a member of the European Union. Endorsing the rule of law, as well as other fundamental European values, will create a steady foundation for a stronger Ukraine. It will finally allow for Ukraine’s complete separation from the Russian influence. When implementing the Ukraine Facility, the European Union and Ukraine must ensure that the funds end up with correct beneficiaries. There must be zero tolerance for misuse of EU funds. This is of high importance in order to maintain the legitimacy of the Ukraine support in the eyes of EU citizens. But, as long as this principle is respected, Ukraine can rest assured that the European Union stands by its side as long as it takes.

Mr President, President Hoyer, dear colleagues, first, just a few words about the EIB’s financial operations and performance. At the end of last year, arguably the world’s largest public bank, the total EIB group balance sheet stood at EUR 547.3 billion. The bank borrows money on capital markets and lends it on favourable terms to projects that support EU objectives. And here, of course, it has to be stressed that supporting EU objectives must always be, and I’m sure will be, key priority of the European Investment Bank. Financing was distributed across the main priorities as follows: 17.93 billion for innovation, digital and human capital, almost 21 billion for sustainable energy and natural resources, and almost 17.5 billion for sustainable cities and regions. When talking about important actors in the European context, I cannot emphasise too much the importance of small enterprises. SMEs in the Union account for 99 % of all businesses and more than half of Europe’s GDP. And here, the EIB provided financing amounting to a total of 16.35 billion. Not to forget Ukraine and its huge financing needs in the future. So, dear colleagues, the EIB plays an extremely important role already and has the potential to be even more important to the Union in the future. Although the funds do not come from the common budget, they must nevertheless be monitored with particular attention. Keeping the aforementioned numbers in mind, the EIB needs to continue diligent reporting on the state of play and status of the previous recommendations issued by Parliament in its annual resolutions. Here, the Budgetary Control Committee, in good cooperation with the European Investment Bank, plays an important role, I think.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, restoration is one of the worst-prepared proposals and initiatives the Commission has come up with. Insufficient impact assessments. The cost-benefit calculations are based on ambiguous conclusions. The form of the Regulation deprives Member States of flexibility. You can't pull the same sock on every foot without tearing it. Too detailed regulation in too many areas. The criteria for the deterioration of the state of nature are vague. The reference year is set at an arbitrary time from the point of view of the Member States. The cost of restoration measures is highest for those who have the most nature left. For all this reason, we now have to say 'Stop' to this proposal and put it back on the table. We do want to restore nature, but first of all we want a regulatory balance.

Mr President, dear Commissioners, , colleagues. It is important to note that the primary purpose of the conditionality regulation and this resolution is not to bully any Member State. The existing conditionality regulation serves actually as the best preventive measure in place. Two weeks ago, the Budgetary Control Committee of this House conducted a fact—finding mission in Hungary. The message of this crucial mission was clear: EU funds must be distributed to Hungarian citizens and the economy in a fair and unbiased manner and in accordance with the protection of the Union budget. During this mission, our delegation uncovered various shortcomings, including issues with public procurement concerns regarding the effectiveness of the State Audit Office, discriminatory measures against certain businesses, etc. For example, sudden changes – as the Commissioner mentioned –to laws and to the budgetary process are clear evidence of still breaching the rule of law, especially when it comes to legal certainty in Hungary. So, dear Members, in these unprecedented times, it is imperative that the Council is led by a country capable of strong collaboration among Member States in decision making, particularly on critical matters such as sanctions against Russia or support for Ukraine. We will therefore keep a close eye on how the rule of law situation on the ground in Hungary develops in the coming months and going into next year.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, Members, the most important thing I think has already been said about the importance of the Commission and RRF discharge, so I will concentrate on the agencies. I am really hopeful that in the future we can further enhance the effectiveness of the discharge and make it an even more binding tool. This applies, of course, for all discharges. Ultimately, it always concerns the safeguarding of taxpayers’ money. Regarding the discharge of EU agencies in 2021, the agencies have paid close attention to proper financial management, staff policies, prevention of conflicts of interest and improvement of transparency. The year 2021 was not an easy one for EU agencies due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It forced them to learn and adapt to a changed world. However, they did succeed well, which in my opinion demonstrates good resilience, which is truly needed in today’s world. But in the future, we should continue to benefit from good practices such as investments made to facilitate digital work. As we have learned, new working methods can also bring savings to the EU budget and to the agencies. And in this regard, it is also crucial to continually improve the monitoring of agencies’ own efficiency with key performance indicators, the so-called KPIs, that are playing a very important role.

Mr President, it is great that the Commission has taken swift action on the sufficiency of ammunition in European production. At the same time, however, the question arises as to why the Commission is pushing for a new ban on lead gunshot, which would have an impact on both the number of ammunition and the training of reservists? The Commission received the final opinion of ECHA and its committees at the end of February on this ban, and now is the moment when the Commission is preparing a possible new restriction, so now is the right time to raise this issue. You have to be able to say out loud that the ban on lead gunshot threatens shooting ranges and reservists' activities. The sufficiency of ammunition is of course vital in a war, but equally important, if not more importantly, is the ability to shoot, and this is perhaps what the Commission is now putting at risk. After all, the decision is in your hands, in the hands of the REACH Committee and in the hands of the Member States. I certainly support the Commission's proposal to increase the production of ammunition, but I appeal: not scrapping European reservists with a new restriction.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this regulation on deforestation is indeed an ambitious regulation with respectable objectives. Since my speaking time is very short, I will focus here on just one point, and I do not have very good things to say about that – unfortunately. A Member State – its ministry – in the European Union last week has issued an official call to farmers to put all building investments on hold, to halt the construction of new buildings for the time being because Article 9 is so vaguely written that it is not currently known in that Member State whether any farms will be allowed to be built from today or, in fact, whether any new shed, any new building, should have been built in more than two years. This is a totally intolerable situation for farmers who need clear knowledge and understanding of what is expected of them, so I really hope and expect, Commissioner Kyriakides, that this matter will be clarified by the Commission as soon as possible so that we can have clarity. This also applies to other Member States, not just Finland, which I mentioned.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I think it goes without saying that zero tolerance for political corruption, of course, needs to be our main goal. This is even more pronounced at a time when citizens’ trust in the EU institutions is perhaps shaken a bit by previous corruption scandals that have been revealed. Under no circumstances should a situation arise in which our officials are exposed to a possibility of corruption. But having said that, it also has to be stated very clearly that we don’t have this kind of case with Commission at hand at the moment. This just has to be remembered. On the other hand, Commission, I think, should by example, have funds to cover the travel expenses of its officials. So then we would not be in this situation to discuss this here if this was more clearly ruled. And so, all in all, I think that we in this Parliament really want to send a very clear message to the Commission and a call for the Commission to check their rules and procedures carefully.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the report that we have at hand here is really a very important one. It’s a yearly exercise, of course, but guides our work in our fight against fraud and corruption as well, to some extent. It’s a huge task because as we know, the Member States manage more than 85% of EU expenditure and collect the EU’s traditional own resources. Therefore, it’s worth mentioning a couple of things. First of all, the number of cases of fraud and irregularities remained stable in 2021, compared to 2020. However, the total sum involving fraud increased to EUR 3.24 billion. This was mostly because there was a limited number of very large cases in some Member States. Then, of course, it’s good to bear in mind that the scrutiny over spending under the NextGenerationEU recovery package and RRF started at the same time, and that the regulation was adopted in February 2021. Therefore, this Parliament, and especially the Budgetary Control Committee, should also have a very strong role in the RRF’s governance, including through regular structured dialogues where the Commission is invited to discuss the implementation of the RRF, with the Commission being required to take into account the views arising therefrom. So, in conclusion, I would say that it is exactly the detailed nature of this report, the protection of the European Union’s financial interests and combating fraud, that makes it such a valuable asset. I highly welcome the work of everyone involved in this report.

–Madam President, honourable Vice—President, Commissioner, over the past few years we have faced several crises to which we have had to react quickly with various financial instruments. This has indeed been necessary, but I would also like to use this opportunity to remind about the importance of economic balance in the long run. The Member States of the Union have significantly increased their borrowing, and the EU’s attitude towards debt has also been very compassionate, I would say. In the meanwhile it seems we have forgotten to have a serious debate about economic discipline and its significance. As Commission President Ms von der Leyen has also said in this Chamber, stability and growth can only go hand in hand. This basic principle must also be borne in mind when the Commission carries out a mid-term review of the MFF. And not to forget that we must stop expanding the so—called ‘budgetary galaxy’ which has, among other things, limited the possibilities for the Parliament to monitor the use of EU funds.

Madam President, honourable Commissioner, dear colleagues, almost four and a half years ago, we began the work here in Parliament on the Commission proposal on the Conditionality Regulation. And now – I mean, really, this time – we can talk about historical days and weeks because now we are finally here. The timeline set by the regulation is running to its end and, as the Commissioner just explained, we are waiting for the final assessment from the Commission – as far as the chosen criteria that, by the way, was mainly and also only about corruption, about public procurement, about conflict of interest – as to whether those criteria have now been met by Hungary, whether the 17 remedial measures have been implemented by the deadline of 19 November. But the unified message from this Parliament to the Commission is actually the following. The real question, regardless of the exact text on the 17 measures, that everybody is waiting to get an answer to is: has Hungary done enough so that there is no risk anymore or risk of affecting or seriously affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget? This is the real question. This is the assessment that everyone is now waiting for from the Commission. This is because the conditionality mechanism is now at stake. This is a test of this mechanism. And, Honourable Vice—President, this is not against the Hungarian people. This is to defend basic values of the European Union. So, this is what we are doing here.

So the oral amendment reads as follows: ‘Deplores the unbearable modus operandi by the Turkish authorities in supporting human trafficking and non-cooperation with the Greek authorities; strongly condemns the inhuman and cruel operations, which often lead to life-threatening situations and severe injuries of refugees; highlights in this regard the impactful work of the Agency and its personnel, which operates under challenging and sometimes perilous conditions to fulfil its mandate and ensure the functioning of the Union’s external borders together with the Member States’.

Madam President, just very, very briefly. It is not factual what you said. This has been discussed in a full committee, which is the Budgetary Control Committee. So it has not just been discussed in the Frontex working group.

Mr President, Commissioner, Council, this is going to look and sound pretty dramatic because I’m just about to lose my voice. The previous time I was here at a key point in this regulation, I had so terrible neck pain that I almost collapsed. Maybe this shows you how seriously I take, as the co—rapporteur, this historic occasion. It’s been a long time coming. The Commission’s work was, and is, not easy. We welcome the fact that we are now in the last stages of this particular journey with this regulation. Actually, this journey is completely defined by the regulation itself. A historic responsibility really now lies on the shoulders of the Commission and the Council. Now, I don’t think that anyone here would want to see any Member State’s budget being cut by the European Union. Personally, it wouldn’t give any satisfaction to me whatsoever. But we are dealing with the utmost important things that are actually the cornerstones of this Union. And the key here will be that the Commission and the Council just simply have to get it right. This doesn’t mean necessarily that they have to cut the budget, but they have to get it right. I am worried, I have to say, because I do not necessarily share sometimes her optimistic view that we can then correct this if we don’t succeed this time. I don’t think there is any going back. We have to get it right now. My question to you, Commissioner, is how on earth are you going to assess that the changes Hungary makes will be enough to reduce the risk to the EU budget before we actually see any implementation on the ground? So all eyes will be on our new Council and the Commission.

Madam President, honourable Member of the European Commission, dear Members, budgetary control is based, at least mostly, on two principles: on the one hand, ensuring that the EU budget is properly spent according to the rules and regulations and, on the other hand, protecting the Union’s financial interests and combating fraud. And at the end, of course, our most important task is to protect taxpayers’ money and be sure that we use our resources in an efficient way. So that’s why the PIF Report is so important. And it’s good to see that this year’s report is maybe a little bit more solid than they are on average. Two reasons, of course, as we all know: COVID-19, 2020, and then, after that, the decision to launch Next Generation EU and the RRF. So the opportunities for fraudsters grew, I would say almost exponentially. We don’t even know, but maybe the tip of the iceberg at the moment. So that’s why it is extremely important now not to lower our guard, but do exactly the opposite. And this is a message to the Commission that we really have to take good care of our resources, help our OLAF and EPPO in this very important task. And in the report, you find the main elements that the rapporteur is suggesting. So I will give my full support to this report.

Madam President, Poland has been at the forefront of the European Union in helping Ukraine from day one. It has led by example and shown great European solidarity. It has received millions of women and children fleeing the war and provided Ukraine with financial and material support. But, Madam President of the Commission, but. This is another ball game that we are talking about. The fundamental pillar of the European Union is the rule of law. We simply cannot compromise on that under any circumstances. And in the midst of crisis, its importance and protection are even more important, if possible. So in this respect, there is no alternative but to fully comply with the rulings of the European Court of Justice regarding the rule of law in Poland. They must be implemented, to the last point, before any money is finally released from the RRF. And that’s not even enough. What’s more, the Commission has to have solid evidence that the measures taken by Poland actually respect the rule of law, that they are permanent and that they are credible, and that they are full – full, full, full stop. So this is the only way to ensure that the Union stands by its principles and that the legitimacy of our actions remains in the eyes of Europeans. Because I have to be very frank here: last week was humiliating. One Member State, Hungary, held the whole Union hostage. And now, if the next thing that would happen would be another Member State holding the European Court of Justice rulings hostage. Europeans know what they are looking at. They understand this. We don’t have time to do this forever.

Madam President, first on the agencies and on Frontex. I would just like to bring this to a conclusion. What we do know is that there were several administrative mishandlings, and I am confident that we will sort things out with the new Frontex leadership, which now has to be installed as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Commission has to make sure that the interim leadership will be solid and capable of continuing the important work and of bringing the needed information to this discharge authority so that we are able to fulfil our duties. With the second draft report in the fall, we will be bringing this case to a close as far as Frontex is concerned. Now, the European Court of Auditors. I already said in my first speech today, but I will say it more clearly and in a simple way: the discharge procedure has to take place within the same rules and regulations that the European Court of Auditors has to follow. It cannot be an outlaw exercise. Whereas the Court has followed all rules and regulations, and it has been forthcoming to the Parliament in its requests for all necessary, but not just necessary information, because this is the key word. If the Court gives us the information that, according to the rules and regulations, they should give us, then – and as this has been the case – I wish the Members of this Parliament the wisdom to treat this extremely valuable body in the Union fairly and grant it discharge in the vote later today. Most importantly, as I said, if we take ourselves down into the gutter and we do it in the way that we go after personal trips, etc., then we are doing harm to ourselves as the European Parliament.

Madam Vice-President, I thought that I’m supposed to speak here about the agencies’ discharge, but as I can see, other colleagues are also talking about discharges that were not their responsibility. So I think I will devote the latter half of my speech also to something else than agencies. But nevertheless, the agencies play a very crucial role, of course, in the European Union and Europe. 2020 was very difficult for them due to COVID-19. However, the final budget and management results reflect very decent work by the agencies that showed great resilience and adaptability. Moreover, the pandemic illustrated once more that agencies really play a very important role, from monitoring infections across Member States, authorising vaccines and treatments, issuing guidances on adapting workplace and protecting workers, to issuing different recommendations and so on and so forth. From a budgetary control perspective, I am happy to say that we see the continuing positive trend of high implementation rates, prevention of conflict of interest, implementation of e-procurement, and improving transparency and internal control. This is horizontally, generally speaking. But a couple of words about one specific agency: Frontex, the Border and Coast Guard Agency, which of course plays a crucial role in protection of our external borders, and we still think it should be further strengthened, not weakened. And obviously the Agency’s mandate has grown rapidly in the last years, and it operates in challenging circumstances. But with greater role comes also greater need for effective management and bigger accountability. While saying that the agency still has our full support and the staff has our full support, it has to be said that during the last couple of years, the ambiguity and unclarity of how the management is done at Frontex has grown and grown, and as we know we had an OLAF investigation into Frontex. I have to point out at this moment that we do not have enough information to make a well—informed decision on granting discharge for Frontex, especially due to lack of official information. And this is exactly the OLAF investigation. And this, by the way, is very, very unfortunate that as discharge authority, we are put in an unbearable situation. We have to make a decision without really knowing exactly what’s going on. But then, on the other hand, we cannot grant discharge today. We have to postpone if we don’t know enough. And we know already that there are a lot of things that need to be looked at. But these are management, administrative issues. I have to underline that. And now, I think I don’t have two minutes anymore, but listen this last half a minute. I think it’s very, very sad and unfortunate that the discharge procedure for the European Court of Auditors was highly politicised this year. And I have to say that if we keep going like this, then we will harm exactly what we should be protecting, and that is the credibility of this whole process. And if we want to help the institutions and different bodies in the Union to do their job, this, like my dear colleague Mr Freund said, that the European Court of Auditors is the most important instrument in fighting populism. And I will finish by saying that if we want to help the European Court of Auditors in this job, then we should really refrain from being populist ourselves and put this in this light and in this perspective. I really needed to say this because it has been an historically politicised exercise, and that is not good for the discharge process.

Madam President, as the EPP Group spokesperson on budgetary control, and therefore the committee responsible for the discharge of agencies, I would like to underline that, first of all, partly on the same grounds that this was moved, namely that we simply have no way to discuss all of the investigation. There is no point in having this discussion. And, secondly, the discharge we are going to vote on Wednesday will be most probably and also my group will be for postponing the discharge as the clear majority of groups, including yours, will be asking for postponing. So, therefore, we want to have a thorough look at what happened and what did the OLAF report say actually, and then come back to this after the second discharge report so that we all have the possibility to have a meaningful discussion on this subject.