Speeches

The next item on the agenda is Question Time (VP/HR) under Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure. I welcome Mr Borrell to this Question Time. The theme of this Question Time is: Impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine on third countries in relation to the ‘Black Sea Grain Initiative’ agreement. Question time is scheduled for 60 minutes. We're a little late now. The speaking time is usually one minute for the question and two minutes for the answer, 30 seconds for a supplementary question and two minutes for the answer. I would point out that a possible supplementary question is admissible only if it is closely related to the main question and does not contain a new question. If you would like to ask a question, I would ask you to register your request now by using the function of your voting device for spontaneous interventions after inserting your voting card. During Question Time, interventions will be made from your seat and I ask all speakers to respect the speaking time allocated to them. Members may need a few moments to register their request to ask a question via their voting device. I therefore ask you again to submit your request now, and we begin with the first question. So that we can get around with the planned 12 questions, I reserve the right to announce that additional questions are no longer allowed.

The S&A/D Group has forwarded to the President a decision on the modification of appointments in a delegation. This decision will be recorded in the minutes of today's meeting and will enter into force on the day of this announcement. (The meeting adjourned at 16.35)

I have two communications first. Regarding the ECON Committee’s recommendations for decisions not to object to two delegated acts announced at the opening of yesterday’s meeting, on the one hand, the Greens/EFA Group and the Left Group objected to the recommendation as regards the clearing threshold value for positions in OTC commodity derivative contracts and other OTC derivative contracts and, on the other hand, the Left Group objected to the recommendation on temporary emergency measures regarding collateral requirements. In accordance with Rule 111(6) of the Rules of Procedure, these recommendations will therefore be included in the votes on Thursday.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the report by Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Siegfried Mureşan and Dragoş Pîslaru, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on REPowerEU chapters in the recovery and resilience plans (COM(2022)0231 – C9-0183/2022 – 2022/0164(COD)) (A9-0260/2022).

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the Commission statement on the EU response to the increasing repression of protests in Iran (2022/2936(RSP)). I would like to draw Members' attention to the fact that this debate provides for a round of speakers from the political groups and that, therefore, there are no spontaneous interventions and blue cards are not accepted.

The minutes of this meeting will be submitted to Parliament for approval at the beginning of the next meeting. If there are no objections, I will forward the resolutions adopted at today's sitting to the persons and bodies referred to in those resolutions.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on EU support to the Ukrainian research community by Cristian-Silviu Buşoi, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (O-000044/2022 – B9-0029/2022) (2022/2691(RSP)).

The minutes of this meeting will be submitted to Parliament for approval at the beginning of the next meeting. If there are no objections, I will forward the resolutions adopted at today's sitting to the persons and bodies referred to in those resolutions.

This closes this item on the agenda. Ladies and gentlemen, I very much regret that we have now reached the end of our meeting possibilities and that the explanations of vote are now suffering as a result. I like the explanations of vote very much, so please also contact your group presidents. On the one hand, the Conference of Presidents ultimately makes the agenda. Secondly, I allow myself the personal remark that the explanations of vote are actually there to say why, contrary to public promises, one has now voted a little differently than one might expect. Today everyone was in favour, except for Mrs Daly, who actually said, in accordance with the meaning of the explanations of vote, why she is actually in favour of the whole thing, but still abstained. This is the real meaning of the explanations of vote and not substitute speaking time, which may not have been obtained during the debate on the actual history. I would therefore now ask my colleagues who are no longer able to speak on the motions for resolutions on Russia’s escalation of its war of aggression against Ukraine, on the outcome of the Commission’s review of the 15-point action plan on trade and sustainable development and on ‘New impetus for a strengthened maritime policy and biodiversity conservation’, to understand and to point out that there is an opportunity to make these votes in writing.