Speeches

The next item is the joint debate on: - on the recommendation for second reading by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the Visa Information System (VIS): processing of visa applications (05950/1/2021 – C9-0198/2021 – 2018/0152A(COD)) (A9-0207/2021) (rapporteur: Paulo Rangel) and - on the recommendation for second reading by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the Visa Information System (VIS): Conditions for accessing other EU information systems for VIS purposes (05951/1/2021 – C9-0199/2021 – 2018/0152B(COD)) (A9-0208/2021) (rapporteur: Paulo Rangel.

The next item is the report by Tanja Fajon, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area (2019/2196(INI)) (A9-0183/2021).

The joint debate is closed. As regards the second reading of the Tanja Fajon recommendation on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, no proposal has been tabled to reject the Council's position and no amendments have been tabled pursuant to Rules 67 and 68 of the Rules of Procedure. The Council's position is therefore deemed to have been adopted and therefore the proposed act has also been adopted. on the recommendation for second reading by Tanja Fajon on the Integrated Border Management Fund: the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy 2021-2027 will be voted tomorrow, Wednesday 7 July 2021. Written statements (Rule 171)

The next item is the joint debate on: - on the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 2021-2071 (06486/2/2021 – C9‐0225/2021 – 2018/0248(COD)) (A9-0224/2021) (rapporteur: Tanja Fajon) and - on the recommendation for second reading by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the Integrated Border Management Fund: Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy 2021-2027 (06487/2/2021 – C9-0226/2021 – 2018/0249(COD)) (A9-0220/2021) (rapporteur: Tanja Fajon).

The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the 70th anniversary of the Geneva Agreement (2021/2779(RSP)). I would like to inform you that there is one round of contributions from the political groups in this debate.

Madam President, on EU banks and borders, we need to put an end to kleptocrats and their accomplices which assist them in the stealing of public money and looting assets. The EU needs to be able to target enablers of corruption, whether they are individuals or entities outside its borders through sanctions. While corruption and human rights may be linked, expanding the scope of the existing human rights sanctions regime is not the solution, in my view, for practical and tactical reasons. Thus, I strongly prefer a stand-alone anti-corruption mechanism, as has been done in the UK, and I would encourage you to look into this model. Tackling agents of corruption requires distinct tools and involves specific structures. It will also have to send a strong signal on our determination to combat corruption. Lastly, we cannot use the US model. We have strict legal safeguards in the listing process and can only use open sources, unlike the US.

Madam President, for too long, this Parliament has endured unauthorised election observations and dubious friendship groups. Staff members with ties to foreign authorities pose a serious risk of an internal security breach. Accreditation of foreign delegations and their lobbyists to the European Parliament requires more transparency. It’s necessary to take action. Recently, Parliament’s Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group (DEG) set sanctions on several MEPs who have observed elections on their own, but giving the impression that they were sent by Parliament. Recently, I wrote a letter, together with Raphaël Glucksmann, Chair of the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, including Disinformation (INGE Committee) to the President. We asked for tougher action. We want to have a dedicated advisory group that would contribute to a more effective response overall. The only way to stem foreign interference is to increase transparency and combine that with effective sanctions.