Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 25 million blood transfusions, 35,000 stem cell transplants and one million cycles of assisted reproduction are carried out each year in the European Union. These figures show how essential this regulation on which we are about to pronounce ourselves is. Ensuring the quality and safety of donations of substances of human origin is essential for the survival and recovery of many patients across the European Union. This regulation responds to real public health issues by guaranteeing the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation and non-marketing of the human body, the safety of donors and recipients, the strengthening of national collection systems to reduce the risks of shortages that affect many patients. I would like to thank my shadow rapporteur colleagues for their work and this collective work. I would like to thank my fellow Members for all their support and of course I would like to thank my staff and assistants for what is a further and essential step in building a health Europe.

Mr President, this directive is a real step forward in protecting women who are victims of genital mutilation, forced marriage or cyberbullying; but this is a missed act for rape victims. What are you going to do with these millions of women? Leave them on the side of the road? The agreement provides for a review in five years to possibly introduce rape. Doesn’t that make you uncomfortable? 100 000 women are victims of rape every year in the European Union; Ten women every hour in France are victims of rape or attempted rape. It was Emmanuel Macron who first opposed including rape, the most serious form of violence, in this text, first with a fallacious legal argument, then by challenging a simple definition: A sexual act without consent is rape. However, on 8 March, fortunately by chance, Mr Macron was faced with the following: there is no longer any problem with the concept of consent. Well, Mr Macron, I take you at your word. Yes, rape is a European affair, because we live in an area of free movement. Yes, what is considered rape in Belgium or Spain must also be considered rape in France or Poland with harmonised sanctions, to better protect victims, regardless of the country they are in, and to fight impunity for perpetrators, regardless of the state in which they occur. That is why I, Mrs Aubry, on the right, have tabled this amendment, which will make it possible to reintroduce rape into this text. Let us not betray the struggle of so many women and, at this moment, I am thinking of Simone Veil, the first President of this Parliament. Do you think for a second that his hand would have shaken? I'll say it again: This amendment is not intended to call into question the entire trilogue agreement. At most, it will delay its adoption by a few months – only a few months, but years if we vote on this text without including rape.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the right to safe and legal abortion is a necessity and a matter of public health. As we build a Europe of health here in this Parliament, this Parliament of which Simone Veil was President, as we legislate for equal access to care for all European citizens, a woman dies every nine minutes from an illegal abortion. However, we must have a discourse of truth and stop deceiving citizens. Emmanuel Macron promises to enshrine the right to abortion in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and wishes to position himself as the great defender of women’s rights in Europe. The inclusion of the right to abortion in the Charter is certainly a good intention, to which I fully subscribe, but what Emmanuel Macron does not say is that it is, today, technically impossible. Impossible, because it is not a European competence. Since the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a treaty, it cannot be amended without the unanimity of the governments of the Member States. And, contrary to what you are led to believe, in order to enshrine the right to abortion in the Charter, it is not enough to simply vote by majority in the European Parliament, all the governments of the 27 Member States must agree by unanimity. In other words, the refusal of a single State makes it impossible to include it in the Charter. As is well known, many States are still holding back on this issue. I am thinking of Malta, Poland, Hungary. Mr Macron, the European election campaign must not turn our Parliament into a theatre for a comedy about Europe. Let us not lie to citizens about what can really be done at European level. Let's be honest. The European Union’s action has its limits, those imposed by the Treaties. Let's be frank. If Emmanuel Macron had really wanted to defend women’s rights, he would not have vetoed the inclusion of rape in the first-ever European law to combat violence against women. And, in this regard, his latest statements are improbable and irresponsible. And then let's be transparent. The right to abortion? Yes, yes. But what happens when, on our own territory, in France, support structures and doctors are lacking, when women cannot have access to care, to the necessary care services? Is this not Mr Macron’s urgency and priority? We need to stop diversion. A few weeks before the European elections, women deserve much better than that.

Mr President, a year ago, in this very Chamber, on the same international day to combat violence against women, every hope was possible. We were at work to propose the first ever European law to combat violence against women and domestic violence. Today, with seven women still dying every day from the blows of their spouses, where are we now? Striking negotiations are under way between the Parliament and the representatives of the Member States meeting in the Council. Where Parliament has been ambitious, Member States are blocking or even backing down. France is one of them. On rape, of which 100 000 women are victims each year in the European Union, the definition proposed by the European Parliament and the Commission is clear: Sexual intercourse without consent is rape. Member States have not even tried to propose an alternative definition, they have simply removed the violation of the text, neither common definition, nor common sanction, nor common protection. Another example: on forced marriages, Parliament called for it to also be punished throughout the European Union. Again, Member States do not want to penalise them. On shelters to house women victims of violence, Parliament wanted to increase their number by introducing a quota of accommodation per number of inhabitants. With this proposal, the number of places in France would increase by almost 70%. One more step forward, but the Council does not want it. On the means put in place to protect victims, Parliament proposed technological tools such as electronic bracelets, ‘serious danger’ phones, to be used by Member States to monitor perpetrators and ensure that they no longer approach their victims. A proposal of common sense, however, the Council does not want it. Finally, on sexual harassment at work, Parliament called for such behaviour, which still affects too many women, to be criminalised. A key measure, here too, the Council does not wish to include it in the text. The Directive on combating violence against women cannot be a declaration of intent. It must put in place concrete measures to protect women victims. We cannot continue to debate every year here in this Chamber on the occasion of the International Day if we do not act. Enough words, it's time to take action. So it is said that Europe is not moving forward. It is not Europe, it is not Parliament, it is the Heads of State and Government meeting in Council who block and refuse to move forward for lack of political will. And no, we will not accept a law at a discount.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your confidence. I therefore request that the file be referred back to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, in accordance with Rule 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, in order to allow interinstitutional negotiations to begin.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 25 million blood transfusions, 35 000 stem cell transplants and 1 million cycles of medically assisted reproduction are carried out each year in the European Union. These figures show how important this regulation on which we are about to pronounce ourselves is. SoHO donations are essential for the survival and recovery of many patients in the European Union, as well as for the birth of many European citizens, with real public health challenges: better protect donors and recipients across Europe, better harmonise our national systems, and build European autonomy. I sincerely thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs for their work on this report which, I believe, makes it possible to answer all these questions by recalling the fundamental principle of voluntary and unpaid donation, and the non-marketisation of the human body.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, few countries allow surrogacy in Europe, and those that allow it are very strict about it. In any event, the decision to prohibit or authorise surrogacy is a national competence, which is a matter of national sovereignty, and in no way a European competence. On the other hand, the European Union must intervene when surrogacy becomes an instrument of exploitation of women. Can it be accepted that a woman sells her body in an attempt to put an end to her precariousness? Can it be accepted that a woman is exploited for money, sometimes by criminal networks, so that her body is reduced to a mere reproductive instrument? No, no. While this institution fights against both trafficking in human beings and violence against women, it is our duty to ensure that these abuses are tackled. Colleagues, bargaining over a woman’s body is incompatible with respect for the dignity of a woman’s body. Renting a woman’s uterus for nine months is ethically inconceivable. Women should not become mere reproductive capacity, whose babies would become products to buy or sell. Women must be free to dispose of their bodies. It is true that surrogacy may raise legal questions at European level, in particular where, after the birth of a child, the question of his or her parentage arises. Only the best interests of the child should prevail. The European Union must remain true to its values, fighting against all forms of exploitation of human beings, without encroaching on the competences of the Member States.

Mr President, in order to combat drug shortages, our continent must first and foremost become attractive again with an ambitious, incentivising and competitive industrial policy vis-à-vis China and the United States. Influenza, bronchiolite, Covid-19: As soon as an outbreak emerges, many patients face shortages of medicines. This is not a new phenomenon; In Europe, drug shortages have increased 20-fold in 20 years. The causes are multiple: increased demand and price suppression, lack of diversification of supply sources and massive relocations of production of active substances, as 80-85% of active ingredients used to produce medicines in Europe are imported from China and India and 45% of medicines marketed in Europe are produced outside the European Union. Today, we are very dependent on countries that can decide to limit their exports, whether to favour their populations – this is the case in China today with paracetamol – or in the event of geopolitical conflicts. This is untenable. In my report on medicine shortages adopted in this Chamber in September 2020, a very large majority of recommendations were made: relocation of the entire manufacturing chain of the medicinal product, from the active substance to packaging and distribution, with fiscal and financial incentives and by allowing State aid to incentivise manufacturers to produce in Europe, creation of a European reserve of essential medicines, European monitoring of stocks both at the level of manufacturers and of each Member State and, for medicines that are no longer profitable, the creation of European non-profit pharmaceutical establishments able to produce these often old medicines, but which remain essential for public health. So yes, since 2020, the European Union has strengthened its legislative arsenal to better respond to the emergency of health crises. It is now time to give priority to the Made in Europe to regain health sovereignty.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, in Europe, seven women die every day from their partners or ex-partners. It is a real scourge. To eradicate it, we need to build on the Spanish model of combating violence against women. The future European directive we are working on must focus exclusively on the protection of women and child victims. Let's not scatter. Let's avoid ideological positions and work together on four essential axes: prevention, with large-scale awareness-raising campaigns, especially for the youngest; support, with the creation throughout Europe of a single call number and one-stop-shops for comprehensive victim care with trained staff, police officers and specialised magistrates; the protection of women and child victims, with the rapid issuance of protection orders, ‘serious danger’ telephones and anti-reconciliation bracelets across Europe; Finally, harmonised sanctions. What is considered rape or forced marriage in one Member State must also be considered rape or forced marriage in the neighbouring State and punished on a common basis. Let's mobilize, because there's an emergency.

Madam President, Commissioner, your proposal for a directive to combat violence against women and domestic violence is a step in the right direction. As rapporteur for my group, the EPP, in the Committee on Civil Liberties, I believe that it is urgent to draw strong inspiration from the Spanish model in order to combat this scourge effectively. Let us not wait until we ratify the Istanbul Convention to fight this violence now. Blows do not wait and violence spreads throughout our society. Dozens of women and girls are victims of rape, torture or genital mutilation every day. Every day on European soil, seven women die under the blows of their spouses. Too many women unconsciously accept domestic violence, be it psychological, verbal, physical, leading to the death of the victim. All these women must be protected. It is up to us to prevent such violence and provide concrete responses to the victims. Let’s develop the European Domestic Violence 112, a number available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so that any woman in distress can obtain a solution, regardless of her place of residence, age and origin. Let us encourage the Member States to help these women, in particular financially, so that they can leave the marital home. It is much easier to issue orders, ‘serious danger’ telephones, protection orders and electronic bracelets. Let us create a real European network of information points on violence, but also a network of information exchange and coordination to provide individualised support to each victim. Let us build a clear and precise framework at European level with, in each Member State, each region, each community, one-stop-shops to guide, advise and protect victims. Magistrates, police, social services, elected officials and communities, we must all be trained to be actors in this fight against violence.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we know, the pandemic has had very significant economic and social repercussions, but it has also deprived some citizens of their fundamental rights. I am thinking in particular of women and children, for whom access to certain medical, educational or judicial services has been much more difficult than usual, if not impossible. Successive lockdowns have increased violence, including domestic violence, against women: forced to cohabit with their perpetrators, many women victims have not been able to access effective reporting mechanisms, nor have they been given adequate protection and support. With regard to children, UNICEF is also sounding the alarm: the prolonged closures of many schools, cultural spaces, extracurricular activities and sports activities will have a lasting impact on their development. We are already seeing this with an increase in cases of early school leaving or twice as many cases of depression among young people. In this regard, I welcome the initiative announced this morning by Ursula von der Leyen on mental health, it is a priority. Much more time than usual spent on the internet during this period has also led to an increase in cases of online violence. In Europe, online child sexual abuse increased by 50% during the pandemic. Then, a few months ago, the Commission presented two texts aimed at combating these despicable acts. One on women victims of violence and the other on child sexual abuse. Parliament will work on these pieces of legislation with three strands: the prevention component, the protection component and the law enforcement component. We will have to be particularly firm vis-à-vis the perpetrators of these acts and the response, criminal in particular, must live up to the expectations of the victims. Regardless of crisis or non-crisis situations, our fundamental rights, the right to be protected from violence, abuse and all forms of abuse must be defended in the strongest possible terms and meet the expectations of people, especially the most vulnerable.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that the fight against climate change will require the end of fossil fuels, an unattainable goal without nuclear power. Look at the situation as it is. By 2050, in France alone, electricity demand is expected to increase by 35% with the development of electric vehicles or a clean hydrogen sector. At the same time, the geopolitical situation forces us to make the energy autonomy of our continent a top priority. Finally, as we debate, the means of producing renewable energy are intermittent and cannot meet a sudden increase in demand. Faced with this reality, the experts of the IPCC and the European Commission are formal: The green transition will not happen without complementing renewables with nuclear power. So tomorrow, when you vote, you will have the choice between supporting nuclear and renewable energy to save the climate, building European energy autonomy and ending fossil fuels, or burying nuclear power, assuming our dependence on coal and extinguishing any hope of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Madam President, Commissioner, statistics show this: wage inequality in the EU averages 13%, and poverty affects women more than men. It has even increased in recent years. While violence against women, including domestic violence, exists in all settings, women with limited resources and who are economically dependent on their spouses find it even more difficult to cope; If they leave their homes with little or no resources, how can they find shelter or food? Fear of poverty and social exclusion should not – no longer – be an obstacle. To help these women victims of violence, we need to use the upcoming EU legislation to create a network of one-stop-shops for assistance. There are, in fact, large disparities between Member States as regards the services provided to victims. However, we must provide these women victims with comprehensive care, from shelter to economic, judicial, social and medical support. We also need to create a new crime and a common framework to make gender-based violence a new area of crime.

Madam President, Commissioner, a week ago, the US Supreme Court put an end to the almost 50-year-old case-law that enshrined the right to abortion of American women. This judgment does not automatically make abortion illegal: it allows states to consider it as such, and as you pointed out, 14 states have already penalised abortion or are in the process of doing so. This is obviously a serious regression for women’s rights, and it is not just about the US. We know this: on our own European continent, women's rights are also under threat. If abortion falls within the competence of each Member State, the European Parliament may decide. It must even do so when it becomes a public health issue. Worldwide, a woman dies every nine minutes from an illegal abortion. As we build a Europe of health here, in this Parliament of which Simone Veil was President, and as we legislate to allow all European citizens equal access to care, can we continue to accept that women are thus putting their lives at risk? We know this: Limiting access to abortion does not reduce the number of abortions. We must therefore remain extremely vigilant to ensure that public health prevails over all other considerations.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, Minister, Simone Veil, first woman President of the European Parliament, said: ‘Contraception has enshrined women’s freedom and control over their bodies.’ That was 43 years ago. As we know, access to contraception is essential. And yet, it is still too uneven in Europe, sometimes, by the way, simply because of a lack of information. But it is also the absence or low reimbursement of what constitutes medical care that must alert us. The European Union must ensure that restrictions on contraception do not increase in Europe. Poland was, for example, in 2020 the only European country to have increased restrictions on contraception in the last four years. Inequalities also exist in access to emergency contraception, which is unfortunately considered an abortion in some Member States. The pandemic has also made things worse. Some Member States considered contraception not to be an essential service, while others suspended abortion-related services, further complicating access to abortion. As with contraception, we need to have a clear position on the right to abortion. As we know, some Member States have still not legalised abortion and others have significantly restricted it. This is obviously a sensitive issue as it falls within the competence of each Member State. But the European Parliament can take a decision. It must even decide when there is a public health issue: A woman in the world dies every nine minutes from an illegal abortion. We cannot accept that women European citizens put their health or lives at risk. If we want to build this Europe of health to which we aspire, we must of course address these issues.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I wanted to reiterate my congratulations to our fellow rapporteur and wish him a good recovery. Today, in Europe, no less than 50 national agencies assess the added value of a new medicine that is placed on the market. This fragmented approach has a negative impact on research and development, speed of approval processes and equal access to care for Europeans. The regulation we will adopt this week is a first step towards harmonising these evaluation systems. So, of course, we would have liked to have gone further, the initial objective being to have only one European evaluation. While Member States wanted to keep their national agencies, this regulation will eventually make innovative medicines accessible across Europe, at the same time and for all citizens. For example, it will be useful for the two and a half million Europeans who are affected by cancer every year. These patients sometimes do not have access to new treatments that are available in the neighbouring Member State, but unavailable or not authorised in their own. It will also be the case for the 7 to 8 million French people who suffer from severe migraines and who see certain new-generation drugs authorized and reimbursed in Germany or Italy, but not in France. Thanks to the European Parliament, cancer patients are the first technologies that will be able to benefit from this regulation. Then there will be orphan medicines and all treatments by 2030. Enabling access to medical innovation across Europe is a priority and is part of a much broader challenge of equal access to care for all Europeans. During the health crisis, pooled purchases of vaccines responded to this challenge and reminded all of us of its importance. Equal access to care for all Europeans means being able to get treatment anywhere in Europe, knowing where it is available and how to get it, being able to get treatment anywhere in Europe by qualified professionals. This is the aim of this Regulation and it is because it meets the most basic needs of patients that it is a major step forward for Health Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, in the European Union we still have a lot of progress to make on gender equality, of course. But it is not with guides wishing to replace "Ladies and Gentlemen" with "Dear Colleagues", nor with caricatural statements, nor with the pronoun "ielle" that we will achieve this gender equality. On the other hand, we can act on different points. First, as regards career guidance for young women. There are still too many clichés. Why do only 17% of women undertake studies in the IT sector? Why so few women in the construction sector? In France, only 4.5% of painters and 0.31% of plumbers are women. Mentalities need to change. In sectors that are sorely understaffed, the European Social Fund or Erasmus+ can help direct more women to these so-called male and recruiting occupations. We can also act to better support women in their professional careers. Many are outraged by the low percentage of women in decision-making positions or by the large number of women working part-time. One of the main causes, as we know, is the difficult reconciliation of work and family life. And in this regard, the lack of childcare facilities for young children is a real problem. How many women have had to put their careers on hold for lack of childcare solutions for their children? The European Union, through its public policies, must continue to support the development of early childhood facilities. Finally, the European Union can also act for equal pay, so that equal skills and responsibilities equal pay is achieved. I therefore welcome the directive on which Parliament is currently working so that the Member States can impose deterrent fines on any employer who pays women less for the same work. So yes, here in Parliament, we can make progress on the condition that we propose concrete, achievable measures that are far removed from all ideological positions.

Mr President, Commissioner, the fight against violence against women is a subject that concerns us all, on which we must act and on which we cannot fail. Europe has a role to play. Today, of course, Member States can legislate, but it is at their discretion. So, yes, Europe has a duty to act. Act by ratifying the Istanbul Convention, the first binding international instrument to combat violence against women and children. And Europe needs to put pressure on the six countries that have not yet ratified it, as this is not acceptable. Europe must also act by legislating. The European Commission has announced that it will present a text next December to create a common and binding basis for all Member States to combat this violence. So I am waiting for this new legislation to incorporate three strands: a prevention component, to better train European citizens on gender equality from an early age; a protection component, to better welcome, listen to and protect women victims of violence; and a prosecution component, to define a common framework at European level and make gender-based violence a new area of crime. There is an urgent need to train all professionals dealing with cases of violence against women. There is an urgent need to create a European toll-free number, open 24 hours a day and available in all Member States and in all languages. There is an urgent need to create a European network of secure one-stop-shops for assistance to women victims of violence and an urgent need to increase the budget for Daphne, the EU programme that funds projects to prevent and combat violence and protect victims.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is the world’s largest exporter of vaccines. 425 million doses have been given to the poorest countries, more than 1 billion doses have been exported by the European Union to more than 150 countries worldwide. Actors of European industrial excellence have enabled the production of COVID vaccines in Europe at incredible speed. So yes, let's be proud of this scientific and industrial feat. Let us be proud to be the global leader in solidarity with low- and middle-income countries, and proud to make a real contribution to the fight against this pandemic, which has no borders. Of course, we still need to step up our efforts to help the poorest countries to vaccinate their populations, which is obvious and necessary. Some believe that the lifting of patents would be the solution to allow the world to have access to vaccines. It is not and will never be the only measure that will vaccinate the whole world. Why? Because the countries that could benefit from this patent waiver are not able to immediately produce vaccines. It takes almost two years to build a factory and set up a production line; there is a need for a skilled workforce while ensuring a very high level of security. The lifting of patents is also a false good idea. Why? Because companies would move elsewhere, European research capacities would be weakened and yet third countries would not produce more vaccines. So yes, we must act. We must act to get out of this pandemic as quickly as possible. And the way to achieve this goal is in one word: solidarity; solidarity in logistics, solidarity in training, solidarity in research and information sharing.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, a year ago, the now politicised Polish Constitutional Court, which is now at the centre of the debate, considered abortion contrary to the Polish Constitution in the event of a serious and irreversible malformation of the fetus or an incurable or life-threatening disease. This amounts to making 98% of abortions in Poland illegal. If the right to abortion is a sensitive issue and falls within the competence of each Member State, the European Parliament can decide. It must even decide when it becomes a major public health issue. Worldwide, a woman dies every nine minutes from an illegal abortion. Poland already had until 2020 one of the most restrictive laws in Europe on voluntary termination of pregnancy and had more than 100,000 clandestine abortions per year. Poland is also one of the European countries with the most difficult access to contraception, behind Belarus, Ukraine and Turkey. As we build a Europe of health here, in this Parliament of which Simone Veil, so committed to health issues, was the President, and as we legislate to allow all European citizens equal access to care, can we continue to accept that women, European citizens, are thus putting their lives at risk? As we know, limiting access to abortion does not reduce the number of abortions. According to the WHO, in countries where abortion is completely prohibited or allowed only to preserve a woman’s life or health, only one in four abortions is safe. Conversely, when abortion is legal for broader reasons, nine out of ten abortions are performed in safe conditions. The question, Commissioner, that arises today is what the Polish government is doing to women who are thus putting their own lives at risk. What are we doing? What is done to mothers who carry their child for nine months knowing full well that it will not survive? Unfortunately, Poland is not the only country to have restricted its access rights to abortion, but we must remain extremely vigilant to ensure that public health prevails over all considerations.

Madam President, Commissioner, representative of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, on 16 September we read the European Commission's copy of the new European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA). The value of such a structure should have been twofold. On the one hand, as stated by President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, it should have been a question of setting up a research and development agency, as exists in the United States, with genuine public-private cooperation. On the other hand, it was a new opportunity to affirm the creation of a true Europe of health, i.e. to confer a real competence for health cooperation and coordination on the European Union. Unfortunately, in both cases, the target is not met. What is the point of announcing that we are modelled on the United States, if the budget allocated is ultimately twice as small and if it is merely an internal service of the Commission? What is the point of building a Health Union if Parliament, the only institution elected by direct universal suffrage, is confined to a mere observer role? Commissioner, I hear your budgetary and operational justifications. However, they do not convince me. As regards the foreclosure of the European Parliament, I have heard no justification. However, I would like to point out here that it is thanks to the European Parliament that the Health Europe budget is three times higher than the budget initially proposed by the Member States. So yes, Parliament must be fully involved, we must continue to work together to build an effective, democratic and transparent health Europe for our citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this year marks the tenth anniversary of the Istanbul Convention. This text is fundamental as it is the first binding international instrument to combat violence against women and children. However, 2021 is a sad anniversary for the Istanbul Convention: six Member States have still not ratified it, one Member State wishes to leave it and one candidate country, Turkey, has withdrawn from it, even though it was the first signatory. How can these States move away from a text that specifies, for example, that psychological violence, harassment, physical and sexual violence, forced marriage or female genital mutilation must be punished? While the European Union committed itself to ratifying the Istanbul Convention in 2017, this is still not the case. Is this always a priority for your Commission? The European Union must send a strong signal to the millions of women victims of violence. The blows do not wait: In France alone, 88 women have died since the beginning of the year. The last one was killed in front of her four children on September 29. Accession to the Istanbul Convention is a first step that must be followed by concrete responses and actions. I will therefore pay particular attention to the European legislation that will be proposed by the end of the year to combat violence against women. I also hope that the Union will draw up a special plan to prevent femicide, aimed at detecting situations at risk, and at accompanying and protecting victims. Domestic violence is a drama that is not limited to the couple. They also have a major impact on children and the best interests of the child must always prevail, particularly with regard to custody and access. It must be given our full attention, with special and appropriate protection, as is rightly stated in this report.

Mr President, Commissioner, since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, COVID-19 has killed more than 750 000 people in the European Union. In terms of health, this virus has created several successive waves of contamination, creating an unusual hospital tension. In economic terms, entire sectors have been completely shut down and in social terms, successive periods of confinement have created isolation and lasting psychological impacts, which are to be regretted. But in the past nine months, the vaccine has become the most effective shield to slow the spread of the virus. This vaccine is a brake on the epidemic and severe forms of COVID-19. It is a driver of optimism and an accelerator of economic recovery. In the face of the urgency of the pandemic, swift and strong action was needed. Consolidated vaccine orders were a major turning point for each Member State. They have avoided unbridled competition on prices, quantities and delivery dates between European countries, all in line with the highest safety standards in the world. The EU also exported more than 700 million doses to third countries. Today, the epidemic is decreasing. The number of vaccine doses injected in the European Union exceeds 550 million units and more than 70% of European citizens are vaccinated. This is a European success, despite a certain delay at the beginning of the crisis. But it is also a success thanks to the €2.7 billion in EU funds that helped finance part of the initial costs of developing these vaccines. This sum released by the European Union requires genuine transparency and we have been calling for it for several months. This concerns in particular the contracts concluded by the Commission with each of the pharmaceutical laboratories. And while we can understand the confidentiality of certain clauses, in particular technical clauses, the Commission must be fully transparent about what is the responsibility of the laboratories, the dates and volumes of doses delivered to each Member State and their price. It is also necessary to assess how the EU strategy on COVID-19 vaccines was built. The mistakes made, the obstacles encountered so that we can learn from our mistakes. Then we can learn lessons and better prepare for future crises.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, future pandemics will appear more often, spread faster, cause more damage to the global economy and kill more people than COVID-19, if nothing is done. These alarming words are those of scientific experts and are unambiguous. Europe needs to arm itself against the risk of new pandemics, and it does so: This week, and pending the strengthening of the powers of the European Medicines Agency, we will adopt Parliament’s positions on regulations to strengthen the role of the European Agency for Disease Prevention and Control and to amend EU legislation on cross-border threats to health. As an elected member of a border territory, I would particularly like to welcome certain measures: the necessary strengthening of cooperation and coordination between Member States, including data sharing and stockpiling of essential medicines, ensuring free movement of cross-border workers and essential goods in case internal border controls are reintroduced, prohibiting any Member State from restricting its exports of medicines and medical equipment without prior authorisation from the Commission. In the future, we will no longer see Member States banning exports of medicines and medical equipment, nor cross-border workers prevented from going to the workplace. These are real advances. I repeat, we can only be strong by strengthening cooperation and coordination between Member States. This is where the European Health Union takes on its full meaning and imposes itself every day as the indispensable stepping stone towards regaining health sovereignty.

Madam President, Commissioner Kyriakides, ladies and gentlemen, we are here. After the report on medicine shortages, after the implementation of the EU Health Programme, after the Commission's proposal for a pharmaceutical strategy, we vote to strengthen the powers of the European Medicines Agency. This is another step towards building an effective Europe of health, responding to the demands of healthcare professionals and the needs of patients. I am pleased to see the proposals included in my report on medicine shortages, such as enhanced cooperation and coordination between Member States, structured exchanges with all stakeholders (industry, healthcare professionals and patient associations), and a European database to prevent medicine shortages and supply chain or over-storage problems in some Member States. These are essential steps forward that we will defend in the negotiations that are opening up with the Member States and which must make it possible, in particular, to create and manage stocks of medicinal products and medical devices. After almost two years of an unprecedented health crisis and at a time when COVID-19 variants are causing us to fear a rebound from the pandemic, it is imperative that we stay the course. We need a more responsive system to better protect our citizens now and in the future, to be better prepared and to strengthen our health sovereignty so that safe, high-quality and effective medicines to respond to public health emergencies can be developed within the European Union.