Speeches

Thank you very much to your colleague for your speech, I only have one question. How do you interpret the various speeches of politicians who are related to the opposition and the protest movement during Vidovdan, some of whom are notorious promoters of Serbian or Greater Serbian ideology, and do you think such a thing is acceptable? In other words, can an opposition in which nationalist Greater Serbian forces are clearly an important part really take Serbia to Europe? Thank you very much.

Honourable President, Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest evil of our time. From North Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent to Europe, Christians, Jews and other faiths are victims of this totalitarian criminal ideology. An example of this is Israel, a state that has been fighting for survival since its founding in 1948. Let's not have illusions. Had Hamas won this war, the Israeli state would have disappeared and its people would have been wiped out. What is happening in Gaza is the sole fault of Hamas, and until it is removed, there can be no peace. The Islamist ideology represented by Hamas is genocidal and poses a risk to Europe as well. To me, gentlemen on the left, it is not normal that for Christmas long pipes must be guarded by churches in Germany or that holiday fairs must be protected by concrete blocks. Don't have illusions. If those with whom you demonstrate against Israel came to power in Europe, you progressives would be their first targets. That is why we must clearly identify ourselves against Islamism and save Europe until it is too late.

You speak about genocide all the time – you and the other colleagues from the left. My question is: are you aware of a statement signed by almost 500 legal and history scholars which, with various strong arguments, says that there is no genocide in Gaza? So, are you also aware of that, or do you just plan to not hear this because it doesn't suit your narrative?

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues, the medical countermeasures strategy and the European stockpile strategy are essential to ensure that the European Union is fully prepared for future crises. These strategies mirror the idea of solidarity, one of the fundamental European values which, unfortunately, was seriously compromised at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, we witnessed the introduction of export restrictions between Member States, even for critical medical devices. We can no longer allow such situations. Building and maintaining strategic stocks of medical countermeasures, including medical devices, medicines, protective and crisis management equipment, is becoming a matter of survival in increasingly volatile geopolitical circumstances. But we have to do more. That is why I advocate the creation of a European coordination mechanism for critical medicines and medicines of common interest. As the European Parliament's rapporteur for the new Critical Medicines Act, I am working on this. There is currently no single European system providing information on the state of stocks of medicinal products in the Member States or in pharmaceutical companies where, under national law, they are required to maintain such stocks. In practice, this means that if one Member State is experiencing a shortage of a critical medicine, we do not have the possibility to quickly check if there is a surplus of that medicine elsewhere in the Union, so that we can act accordingly and deliver the medicine where needed. We have to change that. It is therefore time to establish a unified European stockpile monitoring and management platform, but also to prevent unnecessary accumulation of medicines in large Member States, while smaller countries suffer from shortages. Colleagues, the strategies and the Critical Medicines Act published today are a concrete step towards strengthening solidarity in the European Union, and we must preserve it because without solidarity there is no true European Union, and I certainly welcome the adoption of these strategies. What we lack a bit of concrete financing provisions, of course, but I hope that this part will be complemented, also in the context of the adoption of the new Multiannual Financial Framework, and I believe that with the amendments we are planning on the Critical Medicines Act, we will create one single system that will allow all Europeans to feel safe in the event of crises.

The Honourable Chair, the report on Bosnia and Herzegovina criticises the increasingly assertive separatist ideas, as well as the concept of the ‘Serbian world’, which is contrary to any form of European integration and which, unfortunately, has become a reality on the ground. However, a huge problem is Bosniak Unitarism, which today represents the greatest threat to the existence of BiH as a state of three equal peoples. The story of the civil state is just a mask for the hegemony of the most numerous people and is reflected in the further disabling of the Croatian people from electing their legitimate representative in the presidency of the state. Therefore, it is important that the report explicitly confirms the principle of constituency of the people, which is a fundamental prerequisite for long-term stability and functionality of BiH. In addition, it should be noted that the rise of antisemitism is of particular concern, especially in Bosniak majority communities, which has also led to the cancellation of the conference of European rabbis in Sarajevo. The radicalization of a part of Bosniaks is a growing problem that we must not ignore. In this context, I would like to make it clear that Croats today are the only constituent people in BiH who sincerely, without a fig in their pocket, look towards the West and the European Union. That is why we must finally give him full equality.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleague and colleague, the report by colleague De Mea makes it clear that 4.6 billion packages worth under €150 arrived in the EU in 2024, almost twice as much as in 2023, and consumers lost €19.3 billion buying unsafe products. The burden of unfair competition mostly affects our small and medium-sized enterprises, which comply with the rules and are a key wheel in our economy. That is why I welcome the key actions of the report: the abolition of the €150 threshold, the establishment of a customs data hub and the ‘deemed importer’ rule, which finally makes online platforms responsible for the goods they sell to European citizens. This restores the level playing field and preserves state budget revenues. We need a digital product passport to allow customs and inspectors to stop goods still at the border. The principle of proportionality must be the guiding principle so that bureaucracy does not punish exactly those we want to protect, which we have seen many times so far, unfortunately, in practice. The introduction of a single fee of €2 per package to finance joint control must be borne by global platforms, not the final customer, and serve to protect our small and medium-sized enterprises, which today pay up to 40% higher compliance costs than unfair foreign competition, for example from China. Finally, implementation is the key. We support surveillance measures, invest in manpower and technology in national customs, while preserving the primacy of Member States over border control. Colleagues, the single market must not become a wild west of e-commerce. We free our small businesses from unfair competition and allow consumers to click with confidence. Security is not a luxury, but the foundation of trust in the Europe we serve.

In 2023, the European Commission presented a new plan for pollinators with the key objective of reversing the alarming decline of wild insect pollinators in Europe. This measure is not only ecological, it is deeply strategic. Without pollinators, there is neither food safety nor a healthy environment. I support this initiative and stress the importance of protecting natural habitats and fostering biodiversity. However, the new pollinator plan must go hand in hand with a strategy for European beekeepers who fight unfair competition on a daily basis, importers of adulterated and low-quality honey from third countries, and this data is devastating. According to research, almost every second jar of honey on the European market contains counterfeit honey. Our beekeepers who produce quality natural honey cannot compete with dumping prices, undefined standards and false declarations. That is why, in the last mandate, by amending the Honey Directive, we have succeeded in prohibiting misleading labelling of honey blends and introducing an obligation to indicate the exact percentage and country of origin of each component of the honey blend. This is a major step for transparency and consumer protection, but also for the survival of our beekeepers. But we can't stop at that. We need to use trade and customs mechanisms, step up border controls, introduce stricter import controls and ask for beekeepers' interests to be included in trade agreements with third countries. Also, the new pollinator plan will not be effective without fighting the use of harmful pesticides and new genetic techniques that must not be allowed to undermine food safety and consumer health. This is why it is essential to encourage local food production and natural farming. In this regard, it is already necessary to analyse the effects of the Farm to Fork Strategy, for which I was EPP rapporteur in the IMCO Committee, and propose to complement it in the light of the challenges faced by beekeepers. Colleagues and colleagues, we protect bees, but also the interests of our beekeepers.

Under the changed geopolitical circumstances, the enlargement of the European Union has once again become topical. However, it should be made clear that the enlargement process should be viewed on a country-by-country basis and based solely on the candidate country’s ability to adopt European standards. Unfortunately, we do not see progress on this issue, but, unfortunately, we mostly see backsliding. Serbia remains the absolute largest destabilizing factor in Southeast Europe. The hegemonic policy led by Belgrade threatens the independence and sovereignty of the surrounding states and it is clear that this Serbia has no place in the European Union. Furthermore, Bosnia and Herzegovina was crucified between Bosniak Unitarism and Serbian Separatism. In this country, Croats are the only people who truly, without a fig in their pocket, look towards the European Union and the West. Montenegro and Albania, on the other hand, are the furthest off on the European path, but Montenegro is still better prepared to conclude the negotiations, although there is still a lot of work ahead of it. However, what is important to say is that the enlargement of the European Union has absolutely nothing to do with the abolition of unanimity in decision-making. The claim that enlargement is impossible without the revocation of the right of veto is simply incorrect. In 2004, when the right of veto was much more widespread, there was the largest enlargement of the European Union in history. The abolition of veto rights and the introduction of overvoting would negate the fundamental dimensions of national sovereignty, increase divisions in the European Union and threaten its very survival. Ultimately, if someone thinks that by expanding we are introducing a Trojan horse into the Union, then such an extension probably doesn't even need to happen. Europe must remain a community of free sovereign peoples, not a community where the big ones decide instead of the small ones.

Mr. Picula, it is often said that a new enlargement is impossible without institutional reforms which, among other things, would mean abolishing the right of unanimity in the Council, i.e. abolishing the right of veto for small member states. You have spoken about this topic many times, but we know that there are different views on this issue alone. For example, the President of the Republic of Croatia Zoran Milanović said that those who are in favour of the abolition of the right of veto are doing high treason or something in that sense. Can you tell me here, are you in favour of abolishing veto rights for small Member States, something that goes against their national interests, or are you in favour of small countries succeeding in protecting their rights still in the European Union? Thank you very much.

Dear President, Commissioners, colleagues, there is no competitiveness of European industry and European independence as we pay the price of energy several times more expensive than the US and China, and the supply is increasingly unstable. An indispensable part of the problem is the electricity grid in a situation where more and more renewables need to be connected to the system and more than 40% of distribution networks are over 40 years old. As far as I can see from the media, the official explanation for the power outage on the Iberian Peninsula is that unnamed classical power plants for some unknown reason did not want to switch on and stabilize the system. As much as the story of their sabotage seems inconclusive, a few conclusions can be drawn. First, relying exclusively on the wind and the sun leads to the destabilization of the grid and an energy mix is needed to prevent such situations. This energy mix must include hydropower, nuclear power and hydrogen, rather than some of these sources being decommissioned for purely ideological reasons, as is the case in Spain. Second, major investments are needed in transmission and distribution networks in the EU, close to €600 billion by 2030, integrating different parts of Europe and diversifying supply routes. This ensures reliable supply, competitive energy prices and, crucially, strategic independence from external actors.

Dear Chairman, Commissioners, colleagues of all candidate countries, Montenegro has made the most progress on its European path, but still, there are many obstacles and problems. It is extremely important that the report recognises the negative consequences that a possible extension of the way of acquiring dual citizenship can have on the existence of the Montenegrin people and statehood. I have repeatedly warned about this through amendments that I am glad to see included in the report itself. In the context of Montenegro's European path, I especially emphasize the importance of good neighbourly relations as a basis for stability in the area of Southeast Europe. That is why I welcome the report's emphasis on the importance of prosecuting war crimes, finding missing persons and ensuring fair compensation to victims of war crimes. Compensation to the victims of the Homeland War is a particularly important fundamental issue of civilization and I believe that we will soon witness its resolution. Ultimately, the condemnation of the interference of the Serbian Orthodox Church in internal processes in Montenegro confirms that the European Parliament does not close its eyes to the Greater Serbian politics coming from Belgrade, whose representatives are part of the ruling coalition and which is precisely the main problem and obstacle currently on Montenegro's European path. All in all, Montenegro still has a lot of work to do and I hope that it will find strength and clearly define itself as a part of the West, as an independent and sovereign state and become the next member of the EU.

Mr Waitz, as the head of the delegation of the European Parliament in Montenegro, you are very aware of the situation of the political landscape in this country. So my question is, what do you think about the malignant foreign influence of pro-Serbian and pro-Russian political forces, which are part of the ruling coalition? And what is your opinion about the political role of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which has directly influenced recent local elections in Montenegro? And do you think that you should do something about it? And do you think that these issues that I mentioned represent an obstacle in the European path of Montenegro?

Across the European Union, around 84 million people are affected by mental health problems. Depression and anxiety are among the leading causes of incapacity for work today, and suicide, unfortunately, remains one of the main causes of death among young people. Almost half of workers report exposure to risk factors that negatively affect their mental health. Also, around 50% of European workers consider stress to be common in their workplaces, contributing to around half of all lost working days. That is why it is important that we continuously address mental health at work, as well as mental health in general. In this regard, I welcome the 2023 Commission Communication as a step in the right direction, but we need to go further. We need a comprehensive strategy with concrete objectives, actions, performance benchmarks and serious funding. We must guarantee workers the right to a mentally safe working environment, the right to return to work after mental illness and, in particular, the right to disconnect. In a world where more and more people work from home, the boundaries between work and private life are becoming increasingly blurred. The working day more and more often takes place outside of working hours through messages, e-mails and online meetings. Such practice has a direct negative impact on mental health, on family life and on long-term job satisfaction. This is why we need to clearly define and protect the right of workers to disconnect, not to respond to calls and messages outside working hours, without fear of consequences. This is not a luxury, but a fundamental right, the right to rest, the right to privacy, the right to mental recovery. Colleagues, caring for mental health is the key to a healthy and productive society and that is why we need to deal with it much more seriously than has been the case so far.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, research shows that the unrealised potential of the Single Market amounts to as much as €713 billion. In this regard, we need to pay particular attention to the development of the single market for services of a segment which accounts for more than 70% of European GDP and which still lags behind the goods market. I have made this clear as EPP rapporteur for the report on services. The strategy contains a number of measures to enable the freedom to provide services, which are a step in the right direction and I certainly support them. One of the big problems is unfair trading practices. The same products within the same retail chains are sold up to three times more expensive in some Member States than in neighbouring ones, without any justification of transport costs or other objective factors. One of the causes of the problem certainly lies in price-fixing, which constitutes the most serious infringement of competition. It has to be controlled and punished more thoroughly than it has been before. Also, it must be clearly established how much responsibility is on producers and how much is on retail chains, and prevent territorial supply constraints. I am glad that this strategy recognises the problem of territorial restrictions, but it should certainly take a closer look at the business practices of retail chains and determine their responsibility for enormous price differences. I particularly welcome the plan to reduce the administrative burden for entrepreneurs. After all the, sometimes insane, regulations that we passed in the previous mandate, especially related to reporting, we are now largely dismantling them and thus correcting the mistakes made. Better ever than never, because we are entering a time of brutal economic geopolitical competition in which it is economic strength and competitiveness, the foundation of which is the single market, that will determine the future of Europe.

Over the years, the European Union has shown that acting together can deliver great results for the health of our citizens. One of the most important examples is Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, which is the first comprehensive strategy against this evil disease, from prevention and research to treatment, to improving the quality of life of cancer survivors. The next step is the adoption of a European plan for cardiovascular diseases, which are the leading cause of mortality in Europe. It must have clearly defined objectives, concrete funding and a clear timeframe for implementation. Only in this way can we make real progress and reduce the burden of these diseases on our health systems, economy and family. In addition, we insist, as we have said many times in this speaker, on the adoption of a European plan for rare diseases because rare disease patients and their families have been on the margins of health policies for too long, often left to themselves, faced with a lack of diagnosis, therapy and systematic support. 95% of them still don't have a cure and it's time to change that. Finally, citizens rightly expect from us a concrete European plan for neurological diseases, which should certainly include mental illnesses that are growing dramatically, especially among young people. In order to achieve all this, health care must remain a priority within the next seven-year budget, because investing in it is not a cost, but one of the most cost-effective investments, as many studies show. We must not allow health care to drown in different budget programs because this would mean that we are going back to a time when it was a marginal topic in the EU institutions. Colleagues, health must remain a priority in EU action and I call for joint action by all political groups to make this happen.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, the Draghi report has clearly shown that the costs resulting from too many regulations, both European and national, remain very high for European companies. This regulatory burden and fragmentation puts a particular burden on SMEs, hampers innovation and weakens our global competitiveness. More than four years have passed since I, as EPP Group Rapporteur on Services in the Single Market, warned of obstacles to the free movement of services. Unfortunately, the services sector, which employs two thirds of the workforce and creates 9 out of 10 new jobs, remains the least developed part of the single market. This is unacceptable because we are missing out on opportunities for growth, jobs and global competitiveness. It is therefore high time to remove the remaining barriers and turn this huge economic potential into new jobs, more investment and economic growth for the Union. Without a true single market, we will not be able to compete with global competitors, and ensuring fair competition is particularly important. Maps of multinational companies that maintain high prices of food and other products are absolutely unacceptable. Also, the implementation of the Digital Markets Act, which will put an end to abuses by digital giants, must be a priority. In addition, in conditions of brutal global competition, prioritising European products and services is a perfectly legitimate option to protect our interests. Finally, we need to protect consumers from low-quality and often dangerous products bought online from third countries. Digital platforms must be held liable for damage caused to customers by such products. Only in this way will we make them seriously control what is sold through them and protect our consumers.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, high retail food prices have become one of the key issues for millions of consumers across the European Union. Inflation, although showing signs of slowing down in certain sectors, remains stubbornly high in the food area. Households across Europe are forced to make difficult decisions every day, choosing between quantity and quality, between healthy choices and what they can afford. The desire of large international companies to increase their profits at any cost creates additional pressure on prices and directly undermines citizens' trust in the European single market. According to Eurostat data, between 2015 and 2024, the prices of food and non-alcoholic beverages in the European Union increased by 42.8 percent. Basic foods, which form the basis of the consumer basket, are particularly affected. Another concern is that the same food products within the same retail chains have significantly different prices in different Member States. In some, it is sold up to three times more expensive than in neighbouring countries, without a clear justification in transport costs, taxes or other objective factors. This practice is unacceptable and reveals deep cracks in the functioning of the internal market. Moreover, there is an increasingly obvious pattern that indicates possible concerted action, i.e. a cartel of international companies, which instead of competing in the free market actually agree prices with each other. Such behaviour not only distorts competition, but directly harms consumers and undermines the fundamental principles on which the European single market is based. Ladies and gentlemen, we must not allow the creation of first- and second-order consumer goods. I therefore call on the European Commission to put this topic at the heart of the new consumer strategy and to start revising the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive as soon as possible. Colleagues and colleagues, we need to protect consumers from the arbitrariness of major international companies.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, the European Union has everything it takes to become a global leader in the technology race. We have knowledge, top researchers and universities and huge innovation potential. But to fully exploit this potential, we need to act decisively. Our competitiveness will not come from a low-cost workforce, but from innovation skills. As a first step, we need to identify strategic sectors where we can lead, such as biotechnology, and in particular the production of medicines. We do not have the capacity to invest in everything to make some interest groups happy, but we simply have to set priorities. Also, we must not forget that without Europe, there is no production of chips, a key component for the global digital economy. Just look at ASML, the world leader in chip making machines. It is a European success that shows that we are not so bad and that gives us strength in the global geopolitical competition, which needs to be harnessed. However, knowledge alone is not enough to succeed in innovation, it also requires strong protection. This is why it is important to guarantee intellectual property rights and the protection of trade secrets, which will make the European Union attractive for investment, development and research. Furthermore, in the global technological race, we need to work in particular on upscaling our startups and smaller companies, which are the basis of technological development. They need easier access to capital, for example through the release of pension funds and a combination of public and private investments, including the EU budget, and it is quite legitimate to give preference to European companies. In addition, cutting red tape, removing unnecessary regulation must be a priority. And in the end, we have to allow for a fair market match. The Digital Markets Act finally prevents the abuse of the dominant position of large companies in the digital market. It is extremely important that we apply it consistently, regardless of external pressures. Colleagues and colleagues, the new geopolitical realities represent an opportunity for Europe to truly become independent in economic and any other sense. Let's use it.

Dear Chairman, long ago the devil sat on your doorstep, the land of Serbia. We have long known that it is an authoritarian state with complete state control over all segments of society, and especially the media used by the government in any way it comes to mind. The latest attempt to justify the tragicomic failure to organize a meeting with President Trump is the latest culmination of shameless public manipulation, which has not been seen in Europe for a long time. And whether Vucic will be able to recover to the Moscow parade is still uncertain. But what we're talking about is very serious. The idea of the ‘Serbian world’ is at the core of the aggressive hegemonic policy that led, among other things, to the Homeland War in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s. Let's just take the example of Montenegro in which the Greater Serbian elements practically control power and are on their way to completely marginalizing the nominally strongest party of the Movement of Europe now. One of the key factors in this is the Serbian Orthodox Church, whose patriarch in Moscow has clearly shown that he sees a key ally in Russia, not in the West. Serbian hegemony is a much deeper problem than Vucic himself. And until Serbia passes the real catharsis and faces its own failures and illusions in Southeast Europe, unfortunately, there will be no peace. Serbia has no place in the European Union.

Mr Reuten, you are very active in the delegation of the European Parliament in Montenegro. So my question is: you know, that there are Vučić's proxies in the government and in the ruling coalition of Montenegro. So what do you think about this situation? Can Montenegro advance towards the European Union while you have people like Andrija Mandić and Milan Knežević in the ruling coalition?

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, cross-border healthcare allows patients within the EU to seek treatment in another Member State, but the rules governing it are still too complex and underused. There are two legal frameworks governing this possibility, as the Commissioner also said. Cross-border Healthcare Directive and Social Security Coordination Regulation. Although these rules are in place, many patients and healthcare professionals are unaware of the rights guaranteed by the EU. An even bigger problem is the lengthy and bureaucraticly complex process of exercising this right. In addition, according to the directive, patients have to bear the cost of treatment in advance and only then seek reimbursement in their own country, which is an insurmountable obstacle for many. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to simplify the rules. The first step should be to consolidate the rules on prior authorisation and reimbursement for medical treatment abroad, a regulation on the coordination of social security systems. This would make the reimbursement process more transparent and legally secure for patients. Also, it is necessary to ensure that the costs of treatment are generally financed in advance, in order to prevent the exclusion of underprivileged patients. Furthermore, patients should be given the right to a second expert opinion on which is the best medical procedure available throughout the European Union. Consideration should also be given to setting up a specific EU-wide unification fund to cover part of the costs of treatment abroad, ensuring that Member States that take on a greater burden of financing the treatment of their patients in other countries do not face a disproportionate financial burden. In addition, it is important to underline that the establishment of the European Health Data Space, which I have worked on as a rapporteur of the European Parliament, will significantly improve cross-border patient healthcare. Doctors will have access to the health data of patients across the EU in electronic format, enabling faster and more effective diagnostics and treatments. Colleagues, the time has come to reform the rules on cross-border healthcare. I expect that the European Commission will propose to amend them so that patients who are unable to receive adequate treatment in their country can more easily access healthcare abroad.

The Armenian people, one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, has been subjected to persecution, deportation and mass suffering. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children disappeared because they were Christians. Churches were burned down, holy places destroyed, among them the cathedral of the Holy Mother of God in Arabia, built in the 13th century as a symbol of the faith and spirituality of a people, was turned into ashes. It wasn't just an attack on one people. It was an attack on the Christian identity and fundamental values of our civilization. The historical facts of this crime, which claimed between 600,000 and 1.5 million lives, have been documented by numerous independent historians and witnesses of the time. It is clear that this was not an isolated incident, but an organized and systematic massacre by the Ottoman Empire. At the time of relativization of all values, it is important to clearly say: The defense of Christian communities is not a political attitude, but a moral duty. Our civilization owes its roots to these very Christian communities that have witnessed the faith for centuries despite the persecutions. We are therefore obliged to raise a voice for those whose lives and faith have simply been erased from history. Remembrance of the Armenian victims is not just a political gesture. It is an act of moral and spiritual responsibility. If the European Union wants to be credible in defending fundamental values, its policy must be consistent, whether someone likes it or not. Historical truth must not be the hostage of dailypolitical pragmatism.

In the European Union, rare diseases affect between 27 and 36 million people, many of whom are children. It is estimated that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 rare disease species, many of which are still unexplored. While this is the area where the European Union can do the most, we still do not have a comprehensive European plan for rare diseases. It's time to change that. Following the example of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, we also need a European Plan for Rare Diseases with clear objectives, defined timelines, benchmarks and financial resources. Since 2017, ERNs have transformed care and research for rare diseases. They are probably the most significant innovation in health and rare disease research in Europe, if not in the world, and now it is time to further strengthen them financially through significantly higher investment from the European budget. Data show that 86% of rare disease patients in the EU are willing to travel across borders to get better medical care, especially one they cannot get on their own territory. Therefore, the future European plan for rare diseases must coordinate and harmonise national strategies and facilitate cross-border healthcare, and it is particularly important to simplify the existing European rules governing the right to medical treatment abroad. As part of a broad health initiative, we need to simplify these rules on cross-border healthcare, but also make it easier to conduct clinical trials in the EU, of course without compromising patient safety, as we know that clinical trials are now concentrated in several of the largest Member States and it is very difficult for patients from smaller ones to access them. Investments in research, innovation and development are essential to understand rare diseases and ensure the availability of innovative treatments in the European Union. It is therefore essential to create an investment-friendly environment that encourages investment in an innovative industry on the territory of the European Union, so that we are less dependent on the import of innovative medicines from third countries. We must not allow there to be first- and second-order patients in the EU. All European citizens must have access to quality healthcare, no matter where they live in the European Union. Colleagues, it is time for the European Union to finally get a comprehensive plan for rare diseases. Only together can we ensure a better life for those who face the challenges of rare diseases on a daily basis.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, social policy is a primary competence of the Member States. The European Union can act to support, coordinate or supplement national policies. A similar situation exists in health, where the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and organisation, the delivery of health services and medical care, including the management of health services and the allocation of financial resources, must be respected. In the area of health, the EU should only address problems that cannot be solved by Member States acting alone. The biggest problem is the inequality of access to quality healthcare for EU citizens, with over 90% of new oncological medicines available in large Member States and below 10% in some smaller countries, and huge disparities also linked to the availability of rare disease treatments. The emigration of healthcare workers, in particular doctors and nurses, from less developed to more developed Member States is also a major problem. The European Union can help through finance and better regulation. The European health budget needs to be radically increased and allow for more investment in health infrastructure, equipment and better conditions for health workers and patients. The rules on cross-border treatment also need to be fully amended to make it faster and easier for patients to get healthcare abroad that they cannot get in their own country. Finally, we need to facilitate access to clinical trials also for citizens of smaller Member States for whom they are largely unavailable today. Colleagues, the EU can do much more to ensure equal healthcare for all EU citizens, which is why we need better regulation and a much larger budget than is currently the case.

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues, the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the serious weaknesses of the European Union in crisis preparedness. At the beginning of 2020, we witnessed chaotic developments, including the introduction of restrictions on the flow of critical medical supplies between Member States, which severely undermined the principle of solidarity that underpins the European project. Among other things, this experience has resulted in the need to adopt a comprehensive strategy for the Union’s preparedness. We are facing new geopolitical realities that further underline the importance of a coordinated response to crises. Energy security, supply chains for critical raw materials, medicines, but also responses to cross-border health problems. These are all key elements of a strategy that will ensure the resilience of the Union. It is particularly important that health is recognised as one of the priorities for action by the European Union. This is confirmed by the Critical Medicines Act, which sets the framework for a secure and stable supply, but also for strengthening European competitiveness in the field of critical medicines. The element which, however, has not been fully resolved by that law concerns the stockpiling of medicinal products and other medical supplies in the event of shortages. This is why I am very pleased that this document makes explicit reference to the adoption of a common European strategy for stockpiling key resources and medical countermeasures in particular. It is essential to build up common European stocks so that medicines and other medical supplies reach those who need them most in the event of a crisis, rather than rotting in warehouses. Colleagues, the preparedness strategy is not just another in a series of documents, it reflects the lessons learned and guarantees that we will approach future crises in an organised, solidarity-based and effective manner.