Speeches

Dear Chair, Honourable Commissioner, Colleagues and Colleagues, the Critical Medicines Act makes it clear that the health of European citizens must not be harmed by naive faith in the good will of foreign powers. This law strengthens the production of medicines in Europe, introduces strategic projects and joint procurement that puts security of supply ahead of the exclusive logic of the lowest price. This protects patients and strengthens the health systems of all Member States, regardless of their size or bargaining power. It is particularly important that we introduce a clear obligation that those who use European money to build production capacities must primarily supply medicines to European patients. Solidarity must not remain a mere principle, and therefore we establish mechanisms for coordination and, where necessary, mandatory dispatch of medicines to countries suffering from shortages. In particular, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation, open dialogue and willingness to compromise, as well as all the staff who contributed to this report through their professional and selfless work. Voting on the report tomorrow, we make the political decision that Europe will no longer yield to blackmail and depend on the arbitrariness of foreign powers, but actively strengthen its own industry and health system for the benefit of our patients. Therefore, for the end, I ask you, both sides, do not allow that due to unconnected issues and ideological conflicts, which have nothing to do with the topic, we endanger the adoption of this extremely important law.

Dear Chairman, Honourable Commissioner, Vice-President, colleague and colleague, the current international order is dead. We have entered a time when the stronger wins and only the naked force is seen. If Europe does not become independent in key strategic areas, such as food, medicine and weapons production and energy, it will turn into a failed and marginal part of the world. Trump's policy best illustrates what I'm talking about. While he redefines prices blockbuster drugs in America, making agreements with Big Pharma About tens of billions of dollars of investments in the US, Europe is as late as ever. We are increasingly dependent on the import of generic drugs from India and China, and Trump is threatening to make us dependent on the import of expensive innovative drugs from America. It is high time that we take something seriously and the Critical Medicines Act is therefore of enormous importance. This law strengthens the European pharmaceutical industry as a strategic industry. Our goal is to strengthen the production of medicines on European soil through clearly defined strategic projects that will have the regulatory, administrative and financial support of the European Union. These projects should stimulate the opening, expansion and modernisation of production facilities, stimulate research and development and provide stable and predictable conditions for investment. This is exactly what we propose in this report, both to build infrastructure for the production of critical medicines and to build production capacity for medicines of common interest, such as those for rare diseases. It is high time for Europe to once again become a desirable destination for the production of medicines. Joint procurement of critical medicines and medicines of common interest is an essential part of the report. It creates a strong tool to prevent and address shortages, but also strengthens the negotiating position of small Member States, giving patients timely access to medicines, regardless of the country in which they live in the European Union. In doing so, we clearly stipulated in the report that the price should no longer be the only condition for the award of the contract. Security of supply, resilience of supply chains and manufacturing of medicines in the European Union must become clear and mandatory criteria for the award of joint procurement contracts. This is why companies producing more than half of medicines – active ingredients in Europe – will be given priority when purchasing them within the EU, creating a strong incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to invest in manufacturing in Europe instead of in the US or China. Furthermore, if we build and strengthen production capacities with European money, then it must become a clear obligation for medicine manufacturers towards European citizens. That is why the report makes it clear that users of European funds must primarily supply medicines to the European Union. Colleagues, medicine shortages are today one of the biggest challenges for European health systems. The problem is further deepened by uncoordinated stockpiling in individual Member States’ warehouses. At the same time, we do not have accurate data on how many medicines are currently missing in the European Union. We do not know how real stocks of azithromycin or other critical medicines are, so the establishment of a European storage coordination mechanism is necessary. I am particularly proud that the report establishes a mechanism of mandatory redistribution of medicines to countries experiencing shortages, as a last resort, so that solidarity between Member States is real and operational in the event of a crisis. As we are in the process of agreeing a new Multiannual Financial Framework, I want to seize the opportunity and strongly advocate for sufficient health funding and a separate health budget line. That's why the report creates a safety fund for critical medicines. Colleagues, in this dramatic moment of fundamental changes in international relations, the European Union must strengthen its own production, but also build strategic partnerships with reliable international partners. Strategic autonomy does not mean isolation, but smart cooperation. Therefore, the Critical Medicines Act is not just a technical regulation. It is a political decision for Europe to take responsibility for its own resilience, the strengthening of its industry and the health of its citizens. This law sends a clear message to patients that their safety and availability of medicines are at the heart of European policy.

The new consumer agenda for 2030 must be a strong response to the challenges that European consumers face on a daily basis. During my work in the European Parliament, I have taken part in a number of initiatives that have a clear direct objective of strengthening consumer protection in the European market. The common charger, new rules on honey labelling, stricter rules on consumer credit and the right to repair are just some of the initiatives we have worked on that bring better protection to citizens. While European consumers already enjoy one of the highest levels of protection in the world today, we cannot stop there. Our ambitions must remain great. I believe that there is significant scope for the consumer agenda to be more ambitious by 2030, especially when it comes to unfair commercial practices by large international companies. In a time of generated inflation, which directly reduces the purchasing power of citizens, we are witnessing increasing abuses of market power. Of particular concern is the practice of selling the same products in different Member States at substantially different prices. In some cases, including Croatia, prices are two to three times higher than in neighbouring Member States, in particular for food products. Such behaviour must be put to an end. That is why I call on the European Commission to address this issue clearly and decisively as part of the consumer agenda and to revise the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive as soon as possible. There must be no first- and second-class consumers in Europe.

Dear Chair, when this report calls on the Commission to ensure universal access to gender-responsive healthcare, this opens the door to the possibility of enabling children to change their gender. When the report asks the Commission to apply sanctions against countries where there is limited access to abortion, it advocates abolishing the right to conscientious objection of doctors and other medical staff as a basic right that is protected by many Member States’ legal systems. When the report calls for the non-existent right to abortion to be included in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, it directly calls for a violation of European law. Colleagues, the issue of termination of pregnancy is not a competence of the European Union. This is the exclusive competence of the Member States, which decide on this matter themselves in accordance with their constitutions, traditions and values. The European Union does not have the power to impose views on states on abortion, nor should it do so. That is why I invite you to vote against this ideologically extreme report and show that life, not the culture of death, is being promoted in the European Parliament.

Dear Chairman, health is a sector of strategic importance for the European Union, as also stated in the Draghi report. Quality health systems mean a productive population and lead to GDP growth, and the pharmaceutical industry is the most important export segment of the European economy. A few years ago, the European Health Union was proclaimed with great publicity and then it seemed that health would indeed become one of the top priorities of the European institutions. Unfortunately, we see that this is not the case, and the best indicator is the proposal for a new seven-year budget. There is no longer a specific EU4Health programme and health is mixed with other priorities, so we do not know how much money will really be allocated to it and everything is left to the discretion of the Commission, which is unacceptable. Europe needs strong and ambitious, secured funding for health and biotechnology, including strategic projects provided for in the Critical Medicines Act. Lessons learned from the poor experience of reducing health spending during the MFF review, this time we have to act differently. Investing in health care is not a cost. It is an investment in our resilience, in our economy and in the very future of Europe.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, breast cancer remains the most common form of cancer among women in Europe. Regular screening and early diagnosis can reduce mortality by up to 30%, for which Croatia is a positive example. However, too many patients still do not have access to quality screening programmes. This is why prevention and early detection must remain the cornerstone of our public health action. The EU has adopted an ambitious Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan. Clear funding, investment in health systems and above all equal access to healthcare in all Member States are essential for its further implementation. In some EU countries, 46-48 new oncology medicines are available to patients within a year, and in some Eastern European countries only three new medicines are available. This is unacceptable and that is why it is important that we finally solve this problem by reforming the pharmaceutical legislation. I am pleased to start working on a report on the implementation of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan in the Public Health Committee. This is an opportunity to strengthen the monitoring of its application, to identify shortcomings, but also to demand ambitious and protected health funding in the next Multiannual Financial Framework. We must also follow the good example of the Consumer Credit Directive, which, for the first time at European level, codified the right to be forgotten for cancer survivors, which we now need to incorporate into other regulations. No one should be discriminated against simply because they have or have had cancer. Europe must show not only that it has a plan, but also the means, determination and ambition to implement it. Investing in prevention and screening today means saving lives tomorrow.

The tragedy in Novi Sad was not an isolated incident, but a reminder of the moral and political crisis in which Serbia finds itself today, which shows us that it does not belong in the European Union as it is today. Vučić is an autocrat and the main implementer of Greater Serbian ideology together with the Serbian Orthodox Church. If it wants to be credible, the Serbian opposition must clearly distance itself from such a policy. The experience of recent protests, unfortunately, shows that the spirit of Greater Serbia's ideology is still felt in the ranks of those who call themselves change. As long as this is the case, any serious transformation of this country will remain only an empty phrase. Today, Belgrade is, unfortunately, the main source of instability in the region. This is best seen in Montenegro, where patterns are visible in Serbia, such as bringing in satirists who are critical of part of the government. The long-term survival of a sovereign Montenegro is at stake, and this is something that is extremely dangerous for the whole of Southeast Europe. Ladies and gentlemen, until Serbia passes the deep catharsis and renounces the destructive Greater Serbia policy of joining the European Union, it is not considered.

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues, health, biotechnology are key sectors for the European Union. It's not my invention, it's clearly stated in the Draghi report. It is the EU's most competitive, powerful export industry based on advanced technology without which we simply cannot. That is why it is no coincidence that Trump has placed the spotlight on it, and after a unilateral agreement to impose 15% tariffs, he is putting enormous pressure on the relocation of this strategic industry to the United States. What are we doing? The Critical Medicines Act is a step forward, but it is not enough. We need an urgent biotechnology law that will create the conditions for the development of the biotech industry in Europe and make us independent from China, India and the US. Unfortunately, the biotechnology law has been moved to the second half of 2026 by when all major biotech companies will sign agreements on hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in the US. We will see the consequences of this in ten years when we will become completely dependent on the import of drugs from the outside. That is why I ask you that the biotechnology industry and health care on the priority list start to occupy the place at the top that belongs to them. On the other hand, we deal with topics that we do not need to deal with. Thus, the LGBTIQ strategy states on page 15 that the European Commission will support gender recognition based on self-determination without age limits. Does this mean that children will be able to choose their gender on their own without the involvement of their parents? It's absolutely unthinkable to me and I want to believe that I've misunderstood something. That's why I'm asking President von der Leyen for an explanation.

Dear Chairman, enlargement has not been a priority for the European Union for years. Because of this attitude, we allowed foreign powers to increase their influence in the area of Southeast Europe, primarily thanks to the bilingual, destabilizing policy of Vučić's Serbia. The war in Ukraine has made enlargement essential again and that is why we are now discussing it here. In any case, each country must be judged individually and on merit. There is no entry into the European Union through order. As far as the Union itself is concerned, any withdrawal of the Member States’ right of veto in decision-making in the enlargement process is absolutely out of the question. The admission of new members is a strategic issue on which there must be consensus and it is inconceivable that it is decided by a majority vote. Since unanimity will certainly be required at the end of the process, the violent opening and closing of negotiating chapters by outvoting against the will of individual Member States makes no sense. Small countries like Croatia will not be allowed to be forced into the EU because of someone's higher geopolitical interests, countries like Serbia that do not meet the minimum requirements to be part of the European family.

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues. The World Mental Health Day that we celebrate tomorrow is an opportunity to speak out about this plague of the modern age and remove the stigma that still accompanies the conversation on the subject. Statistics clearly show the extent of the problem. It is estimated that almost one in six EU citizens, many of whom are young people, have mental health problems. This information is a call to action. This is why it is time for the EU to finally present a comprehensive plan for brain health. Such a plan must have concrete objectives, a clearly defined timeframe for achieving them, but most importantly, guaranteed funding. Investments in research and development are needed to better understand the causes of mental illness and find new therapies. In addition, systematic social support for patients and accessible medical care are important. And it is particularly important to adopt the necessary regulation to prevent the unintended consequences of young people's exposure to digital content, and especially those who abuse it to cause mental health problems for young people. Behind the statistics are real people and their daily struggles. That's why I want to highlight mothers in particular today. More than 67% of them in the EU say they feel mentally overwhelmed, and half say they are struggling with anxiety, depression or burnout. If we ignore their needs, we fail to take care of the pillar of our families and society. Colleagues, it is time to make mental health a European priority, to stop being a taboo topic and to anchor mental health care in the foundations of our policy, and it is particularly important to adopt the necessary regulation on digital content to protect young people from all those problems and risks that exist online.

In addition to food and medicine production, the digital market and digital sovereignty are of strategic importance for the European Union. Digital technologies shape our economy, security and democracy and it is therefore essential that we set the rules ourselves that will protect our citizens and businesses in the common European market. With the Digital Markets Act, we have achieved an important step in achieving European sovereignty. It does not discriminate against anyone, but allows for free competition, gives consumers more choice and better quality of services, while preventing only a handful of tech giants from dominating the market and dictating the terms and conditions of business to others. In this way, we are strengthening European companies, as they must be the bearers of our digital future and key players in achieving European technological sovereignty. The European Union has the right to regulate its digital market on its own, without pressure or blackmail from anyone, even if they come from the US. This right must not be subject to negotiation or pressure from outside, as the free market for digital services is a cornerstone of European sovereignty and independence.

Last week we witnessed a brutal terrorist attack on Jews in Manchester. An event that is not an isolated incident, but part of the systemic rise of antisemitism in Europe. This wave of hatred and violence is closely linked to radical Islamist groups that, with the support of left-wing extremists, march in the hearts of our cities and spread their poisonous ideas. Islamist genocidal ideology is as anti-Christian as anti-Jewish and undermines the very foundations of Europe. The release of this evil through mass uncontrolled immigration threatens the safety of our women and children and threatens the very survival of Western civilization. Radical leftists who advocate and support extremist groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are co-responsible for what is happening on the streets of European cities today. The European Union must stand firm in the fight against Islamism. Criminals and terrorists should be imprisoned and illegal migrants deported. Muslim fundamentalists and their ideology have no place in normally regulated states. They only know force, so it's time to apply it in the right way.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues. The Single Market is one of the greatest successes of the European Union and a cornerstone of European competitiveness, but still its full potential has not been fully exploited. In particular, I would like to highlight the need to further strengthen the services market, which remains the least developed. As the European Parliament’s rapporteur on services in the single market, I have raised this issue several times. However, unfair trading practices are an equally serious issue that we are increasingly witnessing. The same products in the same retail chains can be sold up to three times more expensive in individual Member States than in neighbouring ones, without any justified reasons. Unfortunately, we also see such practices in stores in Croatia. It is clear that this is a gross distortion of competition through price fixing by large multinational companies. Such practices are unacceptable and must be severely sanctioned. Only by acting decisively can we restore consumer confidence and ensure a fair and transparent market. In this context, I welcome the new Single Market Strategy presented by the European Commission in May, which clearly identifies ten key obstacles to its development. Colleagues, only a strong and fair single market can ensure long-term growth, greater resilience and true prosperity for all European citizens.

Dear Chairman, esteemed colleagues, our children are immersed in a hypersexualized world where sex sells everything, from TV series to car tires. Constantly exposed to such content, people cease to respect and appreciate the integrity and dignity of another person, which makes it difficult for them to have intimate contact and establish quality long-term relationships. Some in such twisted values want to educate future generations as well. It goes so far that sex, often explicit descriptions of inappropriate age, is pushed into school reading and other teaching content. Children's health education is intended to be reduced to sexual education tailored to the criteria of progressive ideology. Children's well-being should not be an ideological battlefield, nor should children be experimental rabbits for woke the agenda, It's getting more and more into schools. Ta agenda uses legal loopholes, bypasses institutions, parental will and constitutional rights. Everyone who participates in this and thus endangers children, even in my homeland Croatia, including the City of Zagreb, should be very openly opposed.

Following Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, we rightly expect a strategy on cardiovascular diseases to be put in place. But we can't stop there. For too long, health has been on the margins of European policy. This has changed in the last few years and now is the time to keep it as a strategic priority, especially when it comes to rare diseases and brain health. Precisely brain health is becoming one of the key issues of our time. In this context, we must specifically address Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. As early as 2025, there will be 9.1 million people living with dementia in the European Union, rising to 14.3 million by 2050. According to the World Health Organization, dementia is the third leading cause of death in Europe and the seventh in the world. The cost to our society is already at a staggering €390 billion per year, and this cost is growing day by day. However, dementia is not just a health or economic problem. It's a deep human question. It affects not only patients, but also their families who struggle with the emotional, social and financial consequences of the disease on a daily basis. Too often they are left to themselves, faced with stigma and inadequate support systems. This is why we need a comprehensive European response. We need a European strategy on Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia with concrete goals, timelines and funding. This strategy must include better prevention, timely and accessible diagnostics, investment in research and development of new therapies, and systematic support to families and carers. Europe must not allow further marginalisation of dementia, as it is a particular progressive neurodegenerative condition that requires a specific and decisive response. The European Union must take political leadership and increase investment in dementia research to a level comparable to cancer and other diseases. Our mission is to make Europe a leader in the fight against Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. We owe it to our patients and their families.

Thank you very much, dear colleague, for speaking out about the necessity and the magnitude of this problem and necessity to act. My question is, since this clearly shows that we need investments into public health, into public health infrastructure, into our public health systems, do you think that the EU should have again – like it was in the previous seven-year budget – a separate health fund, a separate earmarked health programme, unlike what is proposed now in the latest proposal by the Commission?

Dear Chairman, Commissioner, colleagues, extreme heat is no longer an exception. Over the past two decades, heat-related mortality has risen by 30%. In 2022 and 2023 alone, more than 100,000 deaths were recorded in Europe. Heat-related emergency receptions increased by more than 25% and refrigeration systems in hospitals under heat pressure experienced technical failures. Psychiatric and geriatric patients are particularly affected by medications that reduce the body's ability to regulate temperature. At the same time, diseases associated with rising temperatures are spreading. Between 2022 and 2024, the number of cases of dengue fever, once a rare disease in the EU, rose by 368 percent. Health care systems are overwhelmed, but even more unprepared for such problems. They are an immediate threat to the health of citizens. It's not a warning for the future, it's a problem today. In addition to hospitals, the homes themselves are already becoming a health risk. Up to 20% of the EU population is exposed to overheating in their own apartments due to poor insulation of energy-inefficient buildings. As EPP Coordinator in the Public Health Committee, I call on the Commission to develop European guidelines for the resilience of health systems to extreme heat. This includes investments in infrastructure, protocols for vulnerable groups, early warning mechanisms and better cross-border coordination. However, I would like to point out another thing, which is that this situation shows how important investment in public health is. Investing in public health is not just an investment in the pharmaceutical industry, competitiveness, etc. Unfortunately, we see from the State of the European Union speech and the new proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework that, unfortunately, health is no longer a priority and this is absolutely unacceptable. That is why I call on the Commission to change its policy. We need a dedicated European fund for public health, as we had in the previous mandate, and this is the only way to protect the health of our citizens.

Dear Chairman, this so-called agreement is generally one-sided, unbalanced and makes European industry less competitive than the US. There are positive elements such as the generic waiver, but these are unfortunately exceptions. The European Union is a market with more than 450 million consumers. We have a surplus with the U.S. in trade in goods and a deficit in trade in services, which means we have strong tools to respond to any blackmail from Washington. Unfortunately, we did not make any of this, but gave in to get security guarantees that are highly questionable reliability. Worst of all, we haven't even gotten certainty, since Americans are already exerting pressure to get privileged status for their own big tech The company, which, unfortunately, was to be expected. The introduction of tariffs by the US is a defeat, but the EU has the strength and ability to develop new partnerships, whether with Japan, Australia, Canada or Latin American countries. Diversifying trade relations is key to mitigating negative impacts and protecting our interests. The future of the European Union's trade relations lies in a combination of trade measures based on reciprocity, diversification of partnerships and strengthening of European industry. Only in this way will we ensure a strong Europe and prosperity for European citizens.

Dear Chairman, Serbia under the rule of Vucic is an autocratic state. It is a regime that has taken over the media, suppressed freedom of expression and turned the public sphere into an instrument of its own propaganda. The European policy of complicity with Belgrade proved to be a complete failure. Serbia has been leading the policy of sitting on two chairs for years. He declaratively strives for EU membership, while maintaining special relations with Russia and carrying out the hegemonic project of the ‘Serbian World’. Serbia's problems, however, are deeper than Vucic's. The Serbian Orthodox Church and a large part of the intellectual elite are the main creators of the Greater Serbian ideology. This is best seen in Montenegro, which is trying to destroy the Montenegrin identity and again reduce this country to Belgrade's pendant. If the opposition in Serbia really wants European support, it must clearly and unequivocally distance itself from such a policy. The Vidovdan protest showed that the Greater Serbian idea is very much present in the ranks of the opposition, and this is what Europe cannot accept. Serbia has no place in the European Union. Until Belgrade finally renounces the Greater Serbian policy towards its neighbours, the EU's door to Serbia must remain closed.