What Bogusław spoke about.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I am in favour of a zero-death policy on the road, let us be clear. I am also in favour of a uniform driving licence in the European Union. There is only the question of how to achieve it? Well, we have statistical evidence that drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 cause 3-4 times more accidents than drivers between the ages of 60 and over. They had previously obtained a driver's license. Question: how they were trained, undergoing research, what did it look like? Societies are ageing and this is the rule not only in Poland, but throughout the European Union. By directing millions of people to mandatory tests, are we sure that the health service will cope with this? I'm afraid not. The second area, which is particularly important, is large areas and millions of people excluded from communication. Let's go back to the offer of public transport for the elderly. I dare say that the idea that everyone must undergo research is simply not feasible.

Mr President, thank you very much. Unlike the speakers I just spoke to, I wanted to say: Commissioner, Rapporteur, Members, congratulations on this initiative! The directive simply hits the target. It's not true that you're missing a target. Secondly, it was alleged that this should have been done on the occasion of driving licences or possibly the prosecution of cross-border crossings in Mr Kosma Złotowski's report. We should have done it and we are doing it. And this is the basic advantage. What I would like to highlight in particular – what we should convey as a message – is about people. This is not an abstract conversation. This is a conversation about the safety of users of roads, streets, in cities, outside cities, which is what is particularly important for people, and by which they also assess their European Union. The key point I would like to highlight here in my speech is that the directive should bring awareness of the inevitable or low probability of avoiding penalties for road traffic offences committed abroad. And we know what serious traffic offences are. There is no need to work out a new definition here, as one of the previous speakers said. Therefore, what is particularly important is operational efficiency, coordination, harmonisation of procedures. And the essence of things is very important, that is, the length of the procedure, so that we know who is responsible for what and at what time. And the role of RESPER, the European Driving Rights Network – this is what we should use. Thank you for your attention. Well, congratulations.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, my warm greetings to Commissioner Vălean. It is a little bit of a pity that she’s not present. The Greening Transport Package is something that’s been quite expected, and we do not expect the big discovery of the wheel again, but we expect a kind of putting in order of what we have as crucial issues. And these items, they are correct. As Socialists and Democrats, we will accept it. For CO2 emissions, as my predecessor said, it is important to know the source, even for green or electric energy, and to unify the ways in which we calculate emissions. This is of course of crucial importance for vehicles, there is another aspect, but it is not only a matter of heavy vehicles of 44 tonnes: it would be a matter for all categories of vehicles in different applications. I welcome very much this increase of 4.25 tons for small vehicles. It is quite justified. It means less vehicles to serve, it means less traffic. What could be probably crucial is creating infrastructure to increase European railway capacity. This is indeed something that we are dealing with in very different ways and not exactly efficiently. We would very much welcome it if we could make better use of existing infrastructure, when we can bring railways back on the track of increasing market share and also to overcome the limitations of border—crossing facilities. What is important in this case is a kind of European approach, having in mind a European railway space. I am quite sure from what you stated, Madam Commissioner, that you realise that transport keeps Europe moving. Without transport in Europe we stop. Without transport, our social life will be very much deteriorated. We will support, we will do our best in the Socialist Group to process it during this term.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Let me begin by acknowledging both Jan Olbrycht and Margarida Marques for their work. This is a good and necessary job. The second remark. We are not talking here about a revision, change or revolution of the multiannual financial framework, because we are saying: improving the Multiannual Financial Framework, ready for new challenges, a resilient budget for the European Union. So we want to make better use of existing money and resources. Two points that are highlighted as particularly important. This is inflation and the decline in the real value of money and the second point: New developments, mainly the war in Ukraine. From this point of view, I believe that, especially in points 9, 10 and 14 of the report, we are simply meeting expectations. At the same time, I would like to express my deep conviction that, instead of saying a lot about the crisis that is engulfing us everywhere, we should rather mobilise ourselves to better manage the resources. Simply to make better use of already owned resources.

Madam President, Prime Minister, let me say that I am totally with you, and welcome back on the right track. You said we must be decisive: unity and more – I understood – power and European methodology, and I am totally with you. Renewable energy is own resources using waste, biomass, sun, wind, new jobs, cheaper energy and energy independence. Rule of law: I come from Poland. I am totally with you. The rule of law is not to be negotiated; it is to be enforced. And thank you for your words concerning Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine means we are preserving our freedom and peace. And at the end, I am keeping my fingers crossed for your game against Argentina tonight.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! We are discussing a country that is a candidate for the European Union. As Minister Bek was kind to say, we are debating a country that defends itself, that defends itself extraordinarily bravely – and this should be made very clear. We have three areas of financial assistance that we need to talk about. The first is the functioning of the state. After all, Ukraine must provide health care, must provide education, must ensure the functioning of the basic state apparatus, and must also ensure the efficiency of infrastructure in general use. The second area is the repair of war damage, especially critical infrastructure. And then we'll talk about a recovery plan. We have the following dilemma, in my opinion, namely the question: what can be done for 18 billion euros, we will do it and it is over, and we are not much more interested in or – if we want to win this war with Ukraine – this is the question: Or should these funds be cumulated, supported more intensively in order to end earlier? So we have a possible strategy: systematically distributing one and a half billion euros every month, or cumulating funds, helping Ukraine, ending this war more quickly. Let us remember that the main goal is to minimise damage, to liberate Ukraine, not to control every euro.

Just a question. Your previous speaker was kind enough to say that Poland has taken a step much more forward than Hungary. Do you confirm this type of opinion that Poland is, after all, more willing to cooperate and repair this justice system? Is your opinion correct, gentlemen?

Mr President, thank you very much. Tonight, hundreds of immigrants on the Polish section of the EU border saw snow and temperatures below freezing for the first time. Hence the urgent call for such important and urgent humanitarian aid. Hope for a solution came with the Community's involvement in solving this problem. Well, the ruler of Belarus and his principal take into account the strength, which is the European Union. Each of the governments is much weaker in this game than he thinks, and I think they are slowly understanding that. Despite the great contribution, generosity, sacrifice of soldiers, policemen at the border, the effects can only be seen if we use force, a diplomatic game will be played and there will be a real threat of sanctions. I appreciate and here I would like to thank President von der Leyen, President Michael, the High Representative, as well as Chancellor Merkel and President Macron for their involvement. The solution is: continue to block new arrivals, help migrants return to their countries of origin, take care of refugees, show them humanitarian aid and strengthen the unity of the European Union’s action. What is needed is a demonstration of the unity of the European Union. This game isn't over.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen was polite to quote several values: democracy, freedom, equality, human rights, rule of law, solidarity. These values are supported by Poles, hence almost 90 percent of Poles are supporters of staying in the European Union. Mrs Iratxe García Pérez, on the other hand, expressed a very cautionary formulation: By rejecting these principles of the European Union, we are heading towards the exit door. And let it sound like this: We're heading for the exit door. Poles are Europeans. Poland needs a strong European Union. We know that the EU needs Poland. And I would also like to quote President Manfred Weber: by weakening the European Union, we give pleasure to our enemies or enemies. We must not weaken the European Union. Poland will remain in the EU, it will remain in Europe. Society will remain in Poland. It doesn't go away. It is governments that are passing, but the following question arises: What are the consequences of these governments? And that's what we should all take care of.