Speeches

Madam President, in the end, I did not support the final form of the proposal, because, on the one hand, of course, the values of the environment, the values of human rights in the third world, are key and important values. But I am convinced that the path chosen in the approved material is not the right path and that it will eventually lead to what the authors did not intend. This is to the detriment of European companies and to the fact that in a global context it will strengthen companies that are not from Europe and that may not comply with such rules and restrictions. Unfortunately, I am afraid that good intentions here are the way to hell and that as a result, the competitiveness of European companies will be reduced and, on the contrary, it will help Chinese competitors.

Madam President, allow me to speak with the opinion of our faction. This issue is extremely important, it concerns the majority of Europeans. It's a shame the debate is going on this late in the evening. Inflation affects all member states of the European Union, whether they are in the euro area or not. It is a problem for the whole of Europe, and it must be said that there is no uniform recipe, and even experts, economists, are debating how to fight inflation. And I think that even the fact that inflation has been going on for a number of months is proof that if there was one effective recipe, then it could be implemented. But it is not possible, and in doing so I am also responding to what the representative of the country holding the presidency said, to do nothing. We need to look for balanced measures and try to bring inflation down because, on the one hand, I understand the subject that we criticise the fact that if the European Central Bank raises the interest rate, it has an impact on the mortgage market, it has an impact on borrowers. On the other hand, if we do nothing, the small savers, the ones we are talking about today, are losing their savings. They are losing the money they have saved, which is being destroyed by inflation. This means that we are looking for some, already mentioned, balanced solution. And if the European Central Bank decides to raise interest rates, then it is a kind of common measure, which many central banks reach for if they fight high inflation in the long run, which then often has a structural character and is difficult to reverse. It must be said that the bank is to be independent. We here in Parliament can debate inflation. We can, of course, express our views, but we should respect the decision of the European Central Bank. Deliberately separating a price bank from the political scene is somehow a matter of the rule of law and the perception of independent fiscal policy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me speak on this point on behalf of our faction. It is certainly important to also discuss, within the framework of environmental policy, where there is a risk of significant pollution, even if it is not a Member State of the European Union. And from this point of view, we welcome the fact that we are debating here today about renewing or permitting new opportunities to extract oil in Alaska, and that we are debating what environmental impacts this permit may have not only in the United States of America, but also in the global world, because it is not just a problem of one country, but it is a problem that simply carries global risks. And from this point of view, I think it is good for the European Union institutions to monitor further developments around the expansion of oil production in Alaska, to communicate with our partners in the United States of America, with the Biden government, and with, say, local authorities, who will then be partners in the extraction itself. I personally think that it is necessary to appeal to our American partners that really, if there has been a legal permit and all the regulations that the United States of America has in this area have been approved, the environment should be taken into account and the extraction itself should be as small as possible. However, it must be remembered that the problem is not easy. From the way I have studied the situation, it follows that even the indigenous people themselves are divided in this matter. There is no consensus among them on whether or not to allow mining. One group perceives that permitting mining will bring new money for Alaska, jobs, higher welfare, the other just perceives the risks to the environment. So it is good that we are discussing this here today, and we should often raise this issue in our talks with representatives of the US administration.

Mr President, let me also comment on the proposed resolution. I would like to thank my colleagues for the text presented and I would also like to support this proposal, which clearly expresses support for opposition leader Viktar Babaryk, who, unfortunately, as has already been said here, is wrongfully imprisoned, tortured in prison and at the moment his state of health has deteriorated significantly. We say it repeatedly here. Putin's closest ally Lukashenko, a criminal regime that is clearly collaborating with the warmonger Putin, is assisting in the attack on Ukraine. And I think it is appropriate for us to adopt this resolution and to look further at how to tighten sanctions against the Lukashenka regime. Obviously, the difference between Putin's regime and Lukashenko's is very small, it stems from the same ideology, the two leaders have the same speeches and behave similarly. So I am in favour of tightening up sanctions and I support the motion for a resolution.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me also comment on the Sharif Aminu case and also express solidarity here with this young artist who has been sentenced to death under the blasphemy law. A law that, by its principle, denies a fundamental human right, and that is the right to freedom of expression. We must clearly reject this, make it clear that it is not possible for anyone anywhere in the countries that are partners of the European Union to be convicted of expressing an opinion in any way. A law that denies this is inhumane and contrary to the principles of human rights. Nigeria denies its international obligations. In addition, it should be noted that all procedural rules have been breached in the case, there has been no appeal, and the accused and convicted person have not been allowed to cooperate with their lawyers. This is essentially a judicial murder. It's something that Nigeria can't just go through, and we have to protest against it unequivocally.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to join my previous speakers and also support a resolution in which we unequivocally reject a law passed by Parliament in Uganda that criminalises homosexuality in a completely insane way. This is not normal criminalization. This is the law that proposes death sentences and draconian prison sentences for such behaviour, which is natural to humanity and man. I do not think that it is possible to remain only with the condemnation of this law and to continue to state that relations with Uganda are in order and that Uganda fulfils its international obligations. If Uganda finally adopts this law and is effective, it needs to have an impact on the relationship between the civilised world – the European Union – and Uganda. This needs to affect economic relations with Uganda. We need to make it clear that we will not let the cynical approach of the president of the country go unnoticed and we are ready to respond to it. It should be remembered that similar bills were discussed by other African countries, but fortunately they were not adopted in the end. Uganda is a country where an absolute majority of lawmakers are willing to pass a law that says certain forms of homosexuality should be followed by the death penalty. We must clearly condemn this, and if such a law is adopted, it must have an impact on relations between the European Union and Uganda.

Mr President, I have listened attentively to the whole debate and let me also make a few comments on the European Union's strategy to improve global health security. I very much welcome this strategy. It is very good that, following the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are trying to prepare a global strategy to prepare for possible future pandemics as a preventive measure. It is not possible to solve health problems only in the territory of the nation-states, nor only in the territory of the European Union. I am very happy that we are taking on global responsibility for the third world here as well. But it should be mentioned that the proposals included in the strategy are sometimes too general, but most importantly, their implementation will cost a huge amount of money. On the one hand, as I welcome the whole strategy, I have to say that I have not learned much about the financing of the different parts of the strategy. Rather, they are general theories about co-financing individual measures, about private sector involvement, and so on. That is, I would be very happy to bring the strategy to life, but I must point out that the financial resources for specific measures are lacking here and this may, in my opinion, be a problem. I also want to underline what some of my colleagues have said. Let us also look at health systems within the European Union and the differences between health systems in the Member States. Here too, we can play a role in improving access to healthcare for Europeans.

Madam President, let me also comment on the subject. I have listened very carefully to the whole debate and I am very pleased that most of us have unequivocally supported the Commissioners' efforts to prepare this package of legislation that will strengthen the cyber resilience and cybersecurity of the countries of the European Union. We all see cyber-threats as one of the key dangers in the early 21st century. It is not possible for individual states to fight this danger on their own. Only together within the European Union can we achieve effective instruments. And the proposal that is being debated here today is, in my view, a positive message that we are able to move forward together. There are a number of positive things that have been discussed in this debate. It is not only about legislation as such, but I very much like the part of the proposal that concerns the Academy. An academy that will educate experts who will be able to respond in case of cyberattacks. These are all very important things. To have good legislation, to communicate and cooperate at Member State level and, above all, to have experts who will be able to respond to such an attack. It is, in my opinion, necessary, and I hope that we will be able to discuss and complete the legislation further, and that the common course of action will be how we manage cyberattacks.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me also comment on this extremely important piece of legislation that regulates what I consider to be the crown of European law, and that is the right of consumers. I would like to thank and highlight the role of the precious friend and rapporteur, Mrs Dita Charanzová, without whose help we would not be discussing such a great success here today – the new regulation of consumer law. There have been a number of important changes and positive shifts compared to the current legislation in force, the alignment of the online space, the offline space, but for ordinary citizens there are a number of new institutes that people will appreciate in practice. And, among other things, we can show how important the European Union is in protecting their consumer law. I very much welcome, for example, the establishment of clear liability rules for products from third countries. In today's global world, citizens increasingly buy products from China, from other countries, but often have a problem with what to do if the product is not of good quality. The fact that there will now be a person who will be responsible for a low-quality product from a third country is, in my opinion, a hugely important thing for a normal European. Protecting vulnerable consumers, children, is also something that I consider very important. And then, overall, new legislation that prevents a product that is withdrawn from the market from re-entering the market. These are just some specific things that will make people's lives easier, which is why I welcome the legislation.

Mr President, I believe that animal welfare in Europe is not good. That's reality. We can talk about standards, but the reality is that many animals in Europe suffer on farms, and we should push through at least two of the basic things that have been discussed here. Prohibition of cage breeding. It's something that's been mentioned that would help a lot. Restrictions on the transport of live animals. We are constantly debating this topic here. I myself have witnessed a nine-year debate on restricting animal transport, and we are still unable to agree that the deadline should be four hours. That's a big problem. And if we push through at least these two steps, we will make a huge shift for animal rights. I also support the establishment of a Commissioner who will have this agenda. Commissioner, we have now established a councillor in Prague, in the Czech Republic, where I am a municipal politician, who is in charge of animal rights and animal welfare in Prague. So let us do this for the whole of the European Union, so that one person is in charge of this topic.

Mr President, I am very pleased to be able to comment on this point as well. I listened very carefully to the statements made by the Chair of the Committee of Inquiry and the other members, and I am shocked. Indeed, I consider it very serious that there is an ongoing investigation into such a serious matter as the misuse of Pegasus and similar software, and more or less the Member States and the Commission do not cooperate sufficiently. After all, the misuse of such spyware directly threatens a fundamental European value, and that is the rule of law. It directly threatens fundamental human rights, and we should do everything we can, Member States, Parliament and the Commission, to investigate this and prevent this from happening in the future, so that there are clear legal institutional guarantees for the citizens of the European Union that this will not happen, that it will not be possible to lawfully abuse Pegasus software and similar systems. Therefore, I ask the Commissioner not to let this issue go, not just to end with this emotional debate in plenary, but to really all of us, when Parliament is investigating violations of the fundamental values of the European Union, to cooperate and try to find a solution. If we close our eyes to this, the rule of law will be degraded and one of the fundamental values of European integration will be jeopardised.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to join my previous speakers in unequivocally condemning the heinous crimes that are being committed against children, against women, in Iran. Whether the regime commits them directly or simply tolerates them, it is the culprit of what is happening in Iran. The atmosphere of fear, hatred, attacks against women, attacks against all opponents of the regime is what causes thousands of young women and children to be attacked and harmed in this way. We must condemn this clearly. I have spoken here many times, criticizing the Iranian regime even during the last term, when some were optimistic that it was possible to reach an agreement with the Iranian regime. Unfortunately, it turns out that this is not possible, and that is why I join, even though I have said so in the past, the voices of all those who say that sanctions against the regime need to be tightened and that an international investigation into these crimes is required.

Mr President, I also want to comment on this subject. I personally welcome the consideration that there will finally be a concrete proposal on what such an independent ethical body of the European Union should look like. Because the debate we're having here is important, but it's very general. And especially with these organs, what we say in the Czech Republic is that the devil is buried in detail. Mrs. Jourová understands what that means. That is, it will be important what this particular proposal will look like. This means how such an authority would function, what powers it would have and what options it would have in setting but also enforcing ethical rules. I therefore welcome the idea, but on the other hand I warn against the creation of a new body that will be paid for with European taxpayers' money and that will be de facto toothless and will not work. So I hope that's true of what was said. And for that, I thank Mrs Jourová very much that we will soon be discussing a concrete proposal to find a solution that will be effective and that will really contribute to reducing the risk of grey lobbying of former officials and politicians of the European Union, but also of current ones. On the other hand, we will find a solution which respects the autonomy of the European institutions and which does not replace the role of law enforcement authorities, where appropriate, because cases such as QatargateIn short, and rightly so, the police, the public prosecutor's office are to investigate and the guilt is to be decided by the court. Here we can identify bodies that, in order to prevent such possible unlawful conduct, will reduce the risk that it will reach the stage of the case that we are dealing with and debating here. So I very much welcome the idea, but it is really necessary to see how such a body will actually work, and I look forward to such a debate.

Mr President, let me also make a few remarks on this extremely important subject. I consider the Global Gateway project to be extremely important, not only because we are implementing it or because we want to implement our international solidarity with poorer countries, but above all because of its geopolitical importance. If the European Union wants to be a global player in the future, it needs such projects. In short, this is a reality and we are in clear competition with, for example, China, which has been investing very recklessly in different regions of the world for many years – more than a decade – thus reinforcing its geopolitical importance. We must be a clearly strong global player in this, offering smart investments in different parts of the world. We need to know where we invest, why we invest. As has also been said, our investments should not lead to the partner being dependent on us. They are not meant to strengthen influence and economic dependence, but to build partnerships. That's the difference between us and authoritarian regimes like China. And this is also the difference in our program and programs, which are implemented, for example, by China. But we have to add. It must be said, colleagues, that after a year, the project is not developing very much, and so far, for example, we are a bit of a joke to Chinese competitors. I therefore ask the Commission to do its utmost to ensure that these projects are actually launched. To offer uncomplicated, administratively unburdened projects and to be able to really invest the EUR 300 billion quickly and efficiently. Even so, we must admit, even if the amount seems extraordinarily large, that it is not so great in terms of global world problems. Experts have calculated that €150 billion per year would be needed for Africa alone. Let's continue, please, this is extremely important.

Mr President, this debate is very interesting and I have two lessons to learn from it. The Uber case: the first is what has often been mentioned here, the rules of lobbying in the European institutions and in Europe in general. We have rules here, but this example clearly shows that they do not work completely and that the principle of transparency, which must be associated with lobbying, is not always fulfilled. It is therefore a question of how much to regulate lobbying in such a way as to prevent the lobbyist from essentially forming the opinion of the legislator or replacing the opinion of the legislator with the opinion of the lobbyist. Na druhou stranu říkám, že lobbing jako takový, pokud je transparentní, regulován, přináší-li informace z nějakého prostředí pro poslance, který se na základě i těchto informacích rozhoduje svobodně, to je důležité říci, tak podle mého názoru zcela zakázán být nemá. It is the way in which the legislator, who is to have his own moral integrity, obtains information for his decision. Let's talk about how to regulate. On the other hand, this has already been said by one of my colleagues, it would be wrong if we poured a child out of the tub next to the water, and if we drove lobbying as such into the grey zone and completely eliminated it. Regulation is necessary, but it cannot be a total ban, in my opinion. It also needs to be finalised, and this example shows that there is clear regulation on platforms, and specifically on Uber. A lot of things have happened here. Questions have been asked about ‘employees’ or drivers working for Uber. I am in favour of some sort of legal protection. But what I see as important is that these platforms undermine equality in the business environment. I see in my city, Prague, how Uber disrupts the taxi environment. A taxi driver as a sole trader has to meet certain conditions, while Uber does not have to meet those conditions. And this is also important: the equality of the business environment, which platforms must not undermine.

Mr President, this has been a very interesting debate. I listened to her carefully. There have often been alternating views as to whether extremist acts associated with right-wing extremism should be debated. I believe that this debate clearly shows, among other things, the need to discuss this. This does not change the fact that in addition to right-wing extremism and its illegal manifestations, we also have strong left-wing extremism. Unfortunately, both extreme political currents are growing stronger, stronger across Europe, and democracies must respond to them and be able to deal with them. This is an absolutely unequivocal thing, and we must realize that what reinforces the extreme political currents are not just modern technologies, social networks, as stated here, but some countries that provide them with refuge. Russia, which is an aggressor against Ukraine, is also today an ‘island of security’ for extreme political forces. It gives both right-wing extremists – especially right-wing extremists – and left-wing extremists a foothold, enabling them to carry out attacks in Europe. I ask that this be understood and not underestimated. I would like to draw attention, for example, to the Russian imperial movement, which has a strong background in Russia and is also carrying out attacks on the territory of the states of the European Union. I believe that we need to do everything together in the fight against extremism, especially thanks to the work of our secret services, which work together. In this, I see the main possibility of weakening extremism.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as a Czech MEP, I do not want to deal with the national situation in Spain. But the debate isn't about that. This is not about the political situation in Spain, but about the fact that one of the key values of the European Union – the rule of law – is under threat in one of the Member States. This debate is therefore entirely legitimate, it belongs to the European Parliament and we, as MEPs, whether we are citizens of any of the Member States, are obliged to debate whether or not the rule of law in Spain is at risk. As a professional person – I am a lawyer, I was a Minister of Justice and I am an academic – dealing with the independence of the judiciary, I must say that I am very concerned about what is happening with the Supreme Council of the Judiciary in Spain: that it is blocked, that it is not working, that the current government is trying to increase political influence on Spanish justice. We have to deal with this here, just as we have discussed and dealt with it in the case of Poland and Hungary. The password must be ‘fall to whom fall’. It is not possible for a country to be excluded from our debate simply because its government presents itself as pro-European. If we accept this, then in the future our protection of the rule of law would be greatly abused, relativised and our protection of the rule of law would be taken as a form of pressure by Brussels against uncomfortable governments in the Member States of the European Union. Commissioner, please do not underestimate the situation in Spain. Start a dialogue with the Spanish Government, start a dialogue on how to remedy the situation of the blocked Supreme Council of the Judiciary, how to address the unprecedented decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court, which itself has pointed out that this problem is very serious, and let us do everything possible to ensure that Spain remains a rule of law.

Mr President, I wanted to use this minute to appeal to the Commission not to abandon the issue of animal welfare even in these difficult times. I understand that we are now dealing with other problems, energy prices, the war in Ukraine, but we should continue to address this issue. And I am saying this here because I was very dissatisfied with the Commission's response to my question as to whether the European Union should do more to address the issue of the treatment of livestock in slaughterhouses. And I referred to a new regulation in Spain, where the monitoring of slaughterhouses will, in my opinion, lead to animals being better treated and to the elimination of excesses that are hidden from both the state supervision and the professional and lay public. So I beg you, despite the fact that the answer, which I disagree with and which was very alibistic and evasive, and in principle I did not understand whether or not the Commission wanted to develop this topic further and debate it, not to underestimate this topic.

Madam President, the debate on the promotion of Ukrainian culture is extremely important. At the outset, I want to say that the basic thesis applies: in order to stop the destruction of Ukrainian culture, it is necessary to expel the Russians from Ukraine as soon as possible. This requires our European economic and military assistance. Thus, the general thesis is: If we want to do something for Ukrainian culture, we must continue to support Ukraine militarily and economically. And when we talk about concrete support for culture, I see two main themes: promotion of a lively culture, the Commissioner mentioned here the programmes that are here. In my opinion, even more money could be provided, in the order of millions of euros – amounts that are probably not sufficient. But probably not only in Poland, as my colleague said, but also in the Czech Republic, there are a number of artists, students of art schools, who have found temporary asylum in Prague, for example, and here they can continue to practice their art and can study. For a living culture, we will do the most to support Ukrainian artists. But what I think is even more important is how, after the war – which I hope will end as soon as possible and be victorious for democracy and freedom, that is to say, Ukraine will win – how can we contribute to restoring the destroyed cultural heritage? It is very important for the preservation and strengthening of the identity of the Ukrainian people. And we're going to have to play a key role here. Have a kind of Marshall Plan for the restoration of Ukrainian culture, Ukrainian monuments, Ukrainian museums and galleries. We will have to invest here, because what connects us, Ukraine and Europe, is precisely the common cultural heritage. And I hope that when the war is over, we will be very active in this matter and contribute to the restoration of some completely destroyed monuments and the repair of the damaged ones.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me also make a few remarks on the subject, which we are discussing repeatedly here in plenary, and that is the issue of the state of human rights and the rule of law, that is, European values, in Hungary. The debate here is really repetitive. I remember speaking to a debate on the law in Hungary on sex education in schools, which suppresses the right to enlighten sexual minorities. And the question is whether we are going to degrade the problem a little bit with this constantly repeated debate. We should be more responsive and perhaps less debatable about this. And I would therefore like the debate at Council level to progress, so that the Member States also say whether, in their view, Hungary is infringing Article 7(1) and whether, therefore, this is a problem that should ultimately lead, for example, to a restriction of voting rights. Otherwise, we will be constantly debating here, and the value of that debate will be degraded. Like some colleagues, I believe that the rule of law and human rights are being violated in Hungary. I was referring to the law on education in schools. I think that non-profit organisations are clearly describing here that this is an infringement of LGBT rights, and therefore the European Union should act on this, in short, decide on it. Either end the negotiations and say that there is no violation of the rule of law and human rights, or, on the contrary, choose a sanction. In my opinion, permanent debates do not lead to anything.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think this debate is unequivocal. We are all in favour of a legislative proposal being tabled as soon as possible. We are a community of values and the protection of human rights is one of the key topics for us to live together in Europe. The question is therefore whether the proposal should be submitted as soon as possible. It is truly shameful that for more than a decade there has been a debate about the proposal being tabled and approved. And, of course, it is important to talk about the specific form of the proposal. It is necessary to adopt a proposal that is effective, that cannot be circumvented, because it is self-evident that such a business, forced labour, generates huge profits, and that those who use this business will not like our ban. Therefore, it is important to know the specific form of the legislation, so that it is not possible to circumvent it. Secondly, to have legislation that does not administratively bully decent entrepreneurs. So today is a clear signal from the European Parliament – we want to ban this. And I ask the Commissioner and the European Commission to hold a debate as soon as possible during the autumn on what this particular piece of legislation should look like. This has been said here – 25 million people work in forced labour. Their human rights are so grossly violated. I consider the case of China and the Uighurs in particular to be the most deterrent, because it is not only a question of the economy, but also of the political liquidation of this minority, this nation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I welcome the proposal in principle. There are clear economic reasons to attract young skilled and talented people to Europe. I am merely warning against this proposal being abused in practice, so as not to obscure possible economic migration, which most of us consider to be illegal migration. This means that it will be important to implement and what kind of people actually come here and whether they really will not burden the budgets of the Member States of the European Union, but on the contrary, they will be beneficial, as we are talking about here. It is also necessary to implement these agreements in such a way that in the countries from which these people will leave, it is not perceived that there is a brain drain and that this is not beneficial for those countries in the long term. No country can be satisfied with the long-term departure of its intelligence and elite. But let me also mention, as a Member of the European Parliament for the Czech Republic, that the Commission should pay more attention to helping the countries of Central Europe, which, in my opinion, today are very successfully facing problems with migrants from Ukraine. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Baltic States: they are facing these problems very intensively and the solutions they are implementing are, in my opinion, very good. Among other things, it turns out that the influx of people, especially from Eastern Europe, from war-affected Ukraine, but also from Belarus and other countries, is beneficial for Europe and has long-term benefits. They are people who are culturally close to us, and we should also attract talent from this area to Europe.

Madam President, let me also support the draft resolution prepared by our colleagues. I think we cannot remain inactive as the situation in Cambodia worsens and worsens. Opposition has always been suppressed there, unfortunately that is the reality. It is a country where the current ruler has ruled for more than 37 years, but in recent months the situation has taken on an even more vigorous form, and opposition leaders have been condemned in fabricated trials. Cambodia is a beautiful country, it is a country that wants to cooperate with Europe. He has ties not only to the European Union, but also to my country, as the King of Cambodia studied in what was then Czechoslovakia. And I am very sorry that, unfortunately, the situation is getting so complicated, but we cannot close our eyes to it and it is important that this resolution, but above all the Commission's behaviour towards this country, takes a turn, that if the situation does not improve, it will have repercussions on relations between us.

Mr President, let me also support the motion for a resolution that my colleagues have prepared. It is precisely a subject that falls within this category of current protection of human rights, and I also want to support Mr Osman Kavala, who has been the victim of Turkish justice in a fabricated trial. And it is good that we will adopt a resolution condemning this. But this particular case should also have political consequences. This case should affect our negotiations with Turkey. The Commission should take this case into account when negotiating with Turkey, reducing the support we are providing to Turkey. Erdogan's regime is getting into a bigger and bigger crisis, a bigger and bigger isolation. Erdogan is about to get an election, and he's already battling his potential competitors and opponents in this way. And we should respond to that, and I underline the words that have been spoken here by my colleagues – Turkey is moving away from the principles of the rule of law and thus away from the European Union.

Mr President, it can be seen how the national debate is taking place here, how representatives of either governments or the opposition in the countries affected by this problem are speaking here. I will, if you will allow me, keep my gaze on a general level. In short, we are debating Pegasus technology, which can be used to spy on political competitors, journalists and, in principle, all citizens. And this is a subject that should be of particular interest to us, because we citizens, and especially the representatives of the citizens of the European Union, should protect the rights of EU citizens. And I personally consider the right to privacy as a citizen, a lawyer, a teacher as one of the most important rights. And if we accept at all – and I am saying this in general terms – that one of the countries of the European Union, or one of the governments of the countries of the European Union, will break this sacred right to privacy and will use modern technology to do so, this is a huge problem. And I am very much asking the Commission, the committee responsible, to investigate the situation, to give us clear conclusions to the Members, so that we can have a serious debate on how to tighten up legislation on the use of modern technologies that undermine the right to privacy. In my opinion, it is not the right solution to ban these technologies. We are fighting terrorism, we are fighting the challenges of the 21st century, and these technologies can contribute to combating terrorism and serious international organised crime. On the other hand, it is quite obvious, and these examples show that the debate on how to tighten up the EU legal framework, how to better sanction such abuses, is simply appropriate and is our topic. We are defenders of the rule of law, which is a value of the European Union.