Speeches

Mr President, luckily we are so restricted in our time that we have to bring less pages, Madam Commissioner. Four months ago, our inquiry committee came to an end, after a year of intensive negotiations. And we said already back then, this might be the end of the PEGA Committee. It is not the end of our work because we need results. The Commission must urgently propose measures to regulate the use of spyware, and Member States must investigate and resolve all cases of alleged abuse of spyware and prove that their spyware framework is in line with rule of law standards. This is what should happen, but it is not. We have not yet received an official response from the Commission, and Member States are not exactly active either. In the meantime, the situation has further developed. A Russian Kremlin-critical journalist has been targeted with spyware while residing in the EU. There have been reports of European-origin spyware being sold to countries like Vietnam and being used to target EU officials, including President Metsola. Spyware developers like Intellexa and Cytrox have been blacklisted by the US. The Spanish magisterial inquiry was closed due to lack of cooperation by the Israeli authorities, and the Polish Senate concluded its investigation on the use of Pegasus in Poland. And we count on the new government in Poland to follow up on the recommendations and on all cases of spyware abuse. But the clock is ticking, because I would not be surprised if Minister Ziobro’s shredder is already working overtime at the moment. So a lot of developments in recent months. The only thing that does not seem to be developing any further is the interest of the European Commission. After two years of scandals and abuses, the Commission still seems to be quite satisfied with the way things are organised, and still seems to believe that victims should put their faith in the very authorities that perpetrated the crimes in the first place. After two years and after all our investigations, now the Commission is, and I am quoting, I think, ‘exploring the possibility of a non-legislative initiative’. I mean, that is simply not enough, Madam Commissioner. And if the Commission is not willing to step up its game, and I say this in the friendliest way possible, we will have to find ways to force you to do so.

Mr President, Commissioner, I wasn’t going to ask this originally, but given the sense that you raise this point yourself now with the Return Directive, I share your need for having a Return Directive, an upgraded Return Directive. But how do you feel about the direction that this Return Directive is heading in in the Parliament? Do you see a need for a Return Directive if there is actually nothing in there of the original proposal by the European Commission, if the mandatory forced return of people with security background is actually deleted, if the possibility for detention is diminished, if the possibility for determining risk of absconding is less flexible than it should be? How do you feel about a Return Directive that goes into that direction? Secondly, my original question: crime is cross-border. Crime is by definition cross-border and it needs a European answer. We see that the police is doing great work and the possibilities are there to cooperate. What we also see is that local authorities – and you mentioned local communities – are trying to play their part, but are hampered in their cross-border cooperation because of the lack of a legal base. Do you agree that we should help local authorities’ cross-border cooperation and can you do anything from your side to facilitate that?

Mr President, dear colleagues, in 2016 the Juncker Commission presented its proposals for a better EU asylum and migration policy, learning the lessons of the 2015 refugee crisis. Ever since that moment, we have been waiting – waiting for the day that Member States would finally find an agreement so we can do what our voters expect from us: managing migration in a better way. We request at this debate this morning to put the pressure on. The Member States’ ambassadors meeting this morning have to urgently find an agreement on the last remaining part of the pact, the crisis regulation. They must deliver today, because only then will we have a window of opportunity to really make an impact, and even that window will not be open forever. We cannot afford to lose any more time. We have to conclude this now, whatever it takes, because we need this pact. We need it to rebuild trust among our Member States, to move from ad-hoc individual responses to an EU-wide permanent solution based on solidarity. And we need it because fair sharing of responsibility will only happen when we have our European house in order. We need to strengthen our external borders, fight people smugglers and the instrumentalisation of migration and we need more effective returns. We need this this pact mostly also to regain the trust of our citizens and to show them that we are capable of managing migration in a responsible way by finding solutions in the centre, instead of leaving the narrative to the open-border shouters on the extreme left or the zero-migration shouters on the extreme right. I would like to thank Vice-President Schinas for his relentless efforts in trying to break the deadlock and find a reasonable landing zone for almost all Member States. His pact will prove to be a historic breakthrough in one of the most sensitive policy areas in the EU. But we first need to make it happen, and the EPP is committed to constructively playing its role and getting this done. You can count on us.

Mr President, free travel within the Schengen area is one of the most important freedoms that European citizens enjoy. It’s a right and a privilege. It is not a product for sale to the highest bidder. And it’s the Member States’ responsibility to enforce our common rules and protect the integrity of the Schengen area so that our borders are secure and free movement is guaranteed. It is indeed crystal clear that the Polish Government has spectacularly failed to fulfil this responsibility. Illegally issuing Schengen visas and allowing persons into the EU that would not be eligible for visas in normal circumstances has put serious pressure on the reputation and the security of the European Union. It’s hypocrisy at its finest – publicly constantly criticising the EU for being too weak on illegal migration, but simultaneously, through the backdoor, allowing so many people to come to Europe while filling your own pockets. How can we credibly intensify the fight against people smugglers when the Polish government turns out to be the biggest smuggler of them all? It is a scandal. The whole EU suffers because people, including from countries with high terrorist threat levels, obtained visas in exchange for bribes, bypassing necessary security checks. The Polish Government has put the safety of all Europeans at risk. As a result, people crossing the Polish-German border may now be subject to border checks because the Polish Government has jeopardised the functioning of the Schengen zone at the expense of its own citizens. We must indeed get to the bottom of this. We expect the Polish Government to thoroughly and urgently investigate this scandal and share the results in full before the European Union. We call on the Commission to effectively scrutinise all actions of the Polish Government in this regard because, colleagues, this latest scandal is not a standalone issue. It is symptomatic of a wider dismantling of rule of law in Poland, where the system of checks and balances has been replaced by arbitrary rule of government loyalists with nothing but contempt for Polish and EU law and, clearly, the security of the Schengen zone and our common borders.

Mr President, dear colleagues, it is September, and already the number of arrivals to Europe through the Central Mediterranean route is at the same level as the whole of the last year. Arrivals to Italy have more than doubled and we have repeatedly warned here in this House about sleepwalking into a new migration crisis. And we have highlighted the need for action – action within the European Union, where more progress on the pact is needed, but also action on the external dimension. We need to cooperate much more intensively with countries of origin and transit of migrants to avoid the loss of life in the Mediterranean, to break down the business model of smugglers, to ensure humane reception conditions and to prevent illegal migration so that we can focus our help on those who really need it the most. Now, the memorandum of understanding with Tunisia is a very important step. Tens of thousands of migrants, often not in need of international protection, use Tunisia as a point of departure for Europe – many tragically not surviving the journey. It is a common challenge for the EU and Tunisia and it is crucial that we strengthen our cooperation. And of course, we all know the situation in Tunisia is challenging and that is why it is important that this memorandum of understanding is not only about migration, it is a comprehensive package and the start of a strategic partnership. Now, with regard to the migration aspects, we welcome the holistic and common approach to migration that is based on the respect of human rights and it is important that we can recognise and scrutinise that commitment in the implementation of the agreement. But up until now, and we are two months after the signing ceremony, we do not see much implementation. Arrivals continue to increase, and on the ground in Tunisia, we see little development. I know this partnership is important in the long term, but it also needs to yield short-term results. The sense of urgency with which this partnership was agreed was an important signal that Europe takes the migration crisis seriously. We now need to see that same sense of urgency in its implementation.

Mr President, as Chair of the Committee, I’m standing here with mixed feelings today. On the one hand, I’m proud of the work that we have done: all these meetings, all these missions, speaking to over 200 interlocutors. It really has been a thorough investigation. I also congratulate the rapporteur and all the shadows on the excellent result. On the other hand, the findings of our committee, the facts that we’ve uncovered, paint a very troubling picture about the abuse of spyware in our European Union. And this spyware is a very invasive, very problematic piece of technology that can be a powerful tool to fight criminals, to fight terrorists. But if it’s used in the wrong way by governments with different intentions, it is a huge risk for rule of law and democracy, both at the national and the European level. And this is why we need to address this and regulate this urgently. And some of the recommendations in the report I would like to highlight. First, spyware should always be subject to an effective judicial authorisation and independent supervision. Instead of banning spyware, we should really make sure that Member States adhere to certain requirements in using it, like investigating and resolving all cases where alleged abuse of spyware is relevant; prove that the spyware framework, the regulatory framework, is in line with the standards of the Venice Commission and the case law of the European Court of Justice; cooperate with Europol during these investigations and repeal all export licences that breached the dual-use regulation. In addition, when invoking national security grounds, as you also mentioned, Commissioner, there must be a justification. Member States should demonstrate compliance with EU law, including the principles of proportionality, necessity, legality and legitimacy. Now, Commissioner, dear empty chair of the Council, I am convinced that we have done our job and we look to you now to take this further and we will be closely watching you while you do so. One last point, President, if you allow me a personal note. I was informed that last weekend I featured prominently on Polish state television, and it is even insinuated that I had direct links with Putin. Now, this is outrageous. And it shows two things: the Polish Government will stop at nothing to divert attention from its attempt to abolish rule of law in Poland, and it means that our work has effect, our measures that we propose are so scary for the Polish Government that they resort to these kind of poisonous tactics. So let us make sure this only emboldens us to keep our work of scrutiny even stronger in the future.

Mr President, last Sunday, over half a million people took to the streets in Warsaw in the biggest political gathering since communism. They were waving Polish and European flags because they passionately love Poland. They are committed to its European future. And they look at the European Union for help, for help to stop the current ruling party completely destroying what’s left of democracy and rule of law in Poland and jeopardising Poland’s place in the European Union along the way, because that is what is happening here. We see a regime in Poland that is so afraid of the opposition, so afraid of elections, so afraid of checks and balances that they need to resort to more and more extreme measures in an attempt to cling on to power at all costs. These are classic autocratic tactics. We have seen and discussed many of those here in the past. But the latest and most extreme example is the so-called Lex Tusk, clearly designed to remove the opposition from the playing field altogether. It’s the culmination of eight years of authoritarian system developed in Poland for those eight years, and it may officially be called a committee on Russian influence, but it should be called a committee on Russian inspiration. Because trying to remove, trying to make your political opponents disappear, that is exactly what Putin does in Russia. And if we want to prevent European Navalnys in the future, we need to act now. And I thank the Commission, Commissioner Reynders, for acting swiftly and determinedly, because we must stand shoulder to shoulder with those in Poland that are fighting for democracy and rule of law, often at great personal expense. And we fully support the infringement procedure that the Commission initiated. And we welcome the sense of urgency with which you have done so, because we cannot overstate the urgency of this issue. Whatever smokescreen is being put up in Warsaw, the law is signed and enforced. And if we don’t act strong enough, if we don’t act quick enough, the damage will be done and it will be too late for repairs. We must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening, and we call on the Commission, therefore, to also strongly consider to take interim measures in parallel to the infringement procedures because there is simply no time to lose.

Mr President, this AI act we’re discussing today is a very important piece of legislation, and I really thank the rapporteurs and all the shadows, everybody who worked on this, for their diligent work, because we need a European approach and we need a human-centred approach. And I don’t think anybody also today in the debate, nobody has denied the benefits and the potential of artificial intelligence to make our societies more prosperous and our economies more efficient. And in order to reach that potential, we need to make sure that AI is safe, reliable and trustworthy. It needs to be developed and used in an ethically and morally correct way, and the fundamental rights of our citizens must be protected. But we should not only discuss how to protect our citizens from AI, we also need to make sure we can use AI to protect our citizens. When a child goes missing, every second counts. Seventy-six per cent of abducted children that tragically do not survive the abduction die within the first three hours of their disappearance. Every second counts. And we need to make use of all the instruments at our disposal to prevent such tragedies from happening. I think that we need a very realistic approach to this. I think the Commission proposal was very balanced on having targeted exceptions to a ban on this kind of technology. And this is also reflected in our amendment that we have tabled as the EPP to allow the use of technology in very targeted situations to find missing children, to prevent terrorist attacks and to fight heavy criminals. And I really count on the support of all the colleagues for such a balanced and targeted proposal.

Madam President, I think indeed it is more important to have this debate than to have the exact wording of a certain group in the title. So we have looked at a possible compromise and we have come up with ‘Council and Commission statements, preparation of the European Council meeting of 29 and 30 June 2023, in particular in the light of recent steps towards concluding the migration pact’, and I believe there should be a majority supporting this debate.

Madam President, on Monday the President of Poland signed a law creating a commission to investigate Russian interference in Polish politics. At least that’s what he would like us to believe, but the real objective is clear for us all to see, and this is to intimidate political rivals and to interfere in the upcoming elections. This is not a surprise. The ruling party in Poland has consistently undermined the rule of law and democracy in its efforts to cling on to power. It is always tilting the playing field in its own favour. But this is no longer about tilting the playing field. This is about removing the opposition from the playing field altogether. These are classic autocratic tactics. If you are afraid of elections, if you’re afraid of opposition, if you’re afraid of checks and balances that define any normal democracy, this is what you do. It’s a disgrace for Poland. It’s a disgrace for the EU, and this House must urgently address it here. This is why the EPP, S&D, Renew and Green Groups have requested adding the debate for which you read the title to the agenda today as a matter of urgency.

Mr President, dear colleagues, this is a very important debate today, and I’m not asking you to listen to me, but indeed to Jackie Fox, who is with us today and for which we are very grateful that you’re here and for everything you have done. Jackie Fox, the mother of Nicole ‘Coco’ Fox, who was the victim of relentless bullying – both off and online. She was bullied up to a point where she saw no way out anymore, ultimately resulting in her taking her own life. And there are simply no words to describe this tragedy. But Coco’s story is unfortunately not an isolated case. All over Europe, children are victims of cyberbullying, often with terrible consequences. In Europe, every month, one out of ten children becomes a victim of online bullying. And the terrible thing is, in many Member States, cyberbullying is not even a crime. Imagine how Jackie felt when the police informed her that there was nothing they could do against the bullies responsible for her daughter’s suicide. I cannot imagine it, and I can only hope I will never have to experience it. It only further increases my admiration for your strength, your bravery and your determination, dear Jackie, that you have turned this tragedy into a mission – a mission to make sure that children in Ireland are protected against bullying in a way that Coco was tragically not. And Coco’s law is now in force in Ireland, which makes cyber bullying a crime. But the mission is not over yet. We need to take Coco’s law to the European level, and I can only express my hope, regardless of our political differences, that we can come together in this Parliament and make sure that all children in Europe are effectively protected against such despicable behaviour. Let’s do it together and let’s do it in honour of Coco and all other victims.

Madam President, before I start my intervention, can I just express my surprise a little bit? Because this morning we had a debate on agriculture and the Commission was represented by the financial services Commissioner. Now we have a debate on migration and the agricultural Commissioner is here. And I really don’t see the logic in sending Commissioners to debates on topics that they have no relevance to, and I would really hope that you could also express our discontent about that to the European Commission as a whole. Now I’ll start my intervention. You can start the clock again, if you don’t mind. We recently had several debates here in this House about migration, and rightfully so, because we see irregular arrivals to Europe at crisis levels and further increasing as we speak, and we see more and more Member States reaching the limits of what can be reasonably expected from them in terms of reception, capacity and procedures. And these debates have also clearly shown that there is no silver bullet when it comes to tackling this challenge. As much as some of the colleagues here would like to believe it is, we will not be able to address the migration challenge only with dumbed-down Twitter-proof slogans. We cannot just switch migration off and we can also not fully shift the responsibility off to other countries. We need a European and a holistic approach. We must, yes indeed, better protect our borders. We must fight human smugglers. We must prevent dangerous departures. And we need to ensure effective returns. And we need much more intensive cooperation with third countries to do that along the migratory routes. And I acknowledge and I am glad that the Council also sees this – that action is necessary to ensure effective partnerships on all these priorities, using all EU instruments at our disposal is necessary. We need renewed focus on the external dimension of our migration policy. But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore the internal aspects. We need a true European migration and asylum policy that is fit for purpose and answer the needs of our times. The Pact on Migration contains all these ingredients, and Mr Garraud, I would really advise you to read it, because everything you said about the pact has been nonsense so far. This House has adopted its position. I would really invite the Council to do the same. I appreciate the work of the Swedish Presidency to get these negotiations going, to get an agreement, and to get this back from ideas to reality.

Madam President, thank you to all the colleagues for a very long but very interesting debate. Listening to everybody, I can only draw one conclusion really, and that is that we all share a very shared commitment: a commitment to the EU budget, to making sure that the European budget is spent in an appropriate way and making sure that we have the best added value with European funding. I think also the discharge of the Commission that we will vote on tomorrow needs to be read in that light. There are many suggestions, many recommendations; it is our job to scrutinise what the Commission is doing in order to make sure that we end up in that shared commitment to protect the European budget. And I welcome Commissioner Hahn’s commitment to also, as he expressed today, everything the Commission is doing to bring down the error rate, to simplify rules in order to avoid risks. We, as a European Parliament, will continue to support you in that procedure and to make sure that we can make improvements together. When it comes to the future, there is one thing that I would like to highlight as well, and I would mention the recast of the financial regulation and the negotiating position adopted in this House. And I hope and I count on the Council to also negotiate with us in a constructive spirit to better protect the EU budget, particularly through increased transparency. It really needs to happen now. Now the discharge will be voted tomorrow and then it will be concluded. But the process of scrutiny, of course, continues also far beyond that. And I would like to thank once again also President Murphy and everybody at the European Court of Auditors for their very important role and the support to our work here in the European Parliament. It has been much appreciated. I would just like to echo the words that, President Murphy, you concluded your last intervention with, and that is that it is all about improving accountability, transparency and financial management – this is the commitment of everybody I have heard speaking here today and let’s put that into practice also for the upcoming years.

Madam President, I always believe in ladies first, so I gave Monika the opportunity to speak before me. Now, thank you very much, and I think, really, this discharge procedure is one of the most important procedures we do in the House because in order to maintain citizens trust in the work we do, we need to make sure that the budget is spent correctly. This House has a great responsibility to scrutinise that spending. I would really like to thank the co-rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs, the Secretariat and all colleagues who took part in this work; we had an excellent cooperation. I would also like to express my gratitude to the work of the European Court of Auditors, which is an indispensable partner in the work that we do. This discharge focuses on the year 2021, and we have observed a concerning increase in the error rate for expenditure, which now stands at 3 %, as reported by the Court of Auditors. This is well above the acceptable limit of 2 %. In fact, for the majority of reimbursement-based expenditures, the error rate reaches an alarming 4.7 % and we must take immediate action to prevent this rate from growing even further in the upcoming years. And we are urging the Commission to launch additional initiatives to address this. The different methodologies used by the Commission and the Court of Auditors when calculating the risk at payment or the error rate also complicates the comparability, it makes it difficult to compare the two numbers. This further adds confusion because the Commission, whenever the Court of Auditors presents an error rate which is positive, we use this in our communications, we accept it, whenever there is an error rate presented which is unfavourable to the Commission, the methodology is disputed. This is an approach which is not fair and we should also change that in order to make it all a bit more logical. Even more alarming in that sense is the lack of responsibility and the failure to fully recognise shortcomings in the methodology with regards to climate spending. The Court calculated that spending on climate action has been overstated by EUR 72 billion for the 2014–2020 period, and the Commission refuses to fully acknowledge it – Commissioner Timmermans came to a CONT meeting and concluded by saying that we should agree to disagree on this. Sorry, but no, we cannot agree to disagree on overstating EUR 72 billion of climate spending. We need to accept the conclusions of the Court on this and work to address this issue. Another concern that we are addressing involves the slow absorption of funds and the rate of commitment to implementation, which could lead to increased risk towards the end of the budgetary period and to resolve these issues, we need to continue to bolster the administrative capacity of the Member States and the European Commission. Now, we have in this discharge, really emphasised the significance of the Union budget’s performance, which includes utilising appropriate indicators, simplifying rules and procedures and implementing better-targeted controls. Transparency is a key element of a resolution and we emphasise the importance of transparent operations across the board, including for NGO and intermediaries in terms of their funding and ownership. And we also request that the Commission establish an effective mechanism to ensure that NGO activities align with EU values. We have also underscored the importance of incorporating new technologies like EDES and Arachne and developing a unified information and monitoring system provided by the Commission to allow for the electronic recording and storage of data of Union funding recipients, including their beneficial ownerships, in order to help us prevent any misuse of the budget. We also recognise the benefits and lessons learned through the use of new technologies, such as satellite controls and agricultural spending, for instance. We are convinced that these advancements will play a crucial role in better safeguarding our budget. Now, to wrap up on a very serious note, we remain deeply concerned – and this is also reflected in the resolution – about the rule of law situation in several Member States, which not only undermines democracy but also results in substantial risks for the Union budget. We expect all Member States to adhere to democracy and the rule of law in order to receive European funds. And we particularly highlight the concerning situation in Hungary, where corruption and an opaque public procurement system must be addressed through reforms within the context of the conditionality mechanism. I am grateful for the level of unity we achieved during our work in the committee, and I look forward to listening to all the contributions of our colleagues.

Mr President, in the first months of this year, more than 30 000 migrants have arrived in Italy – it’s about four times the number compared to the same period last year. In the central Mediterranean route as a whole, there has been an increase in arrivals of over 300%. Now we, as the EPP, have been warning for a long time that we are sleepwalking into a new migration crisis and these numbers prove once again that our warnings were and are justified. The only difference is we are no longer sleepwalking into a crisis; we seem to have arrived in the middle of one, and it’s time to wake up. Declaring a state of emergency, like in Italy, is not only to speed up procedures and to take the immense pressure off the system. It is also a cry for help – a call for solidarity, for European solidarity, for a European challenge, and not the empty promise of solidarity that we have seen from Member States like France or Germany, but real, tangible help. In this context, I am happy that in this House, under the leadership of our rapporteur, Tomas Tobé, we have agreed on a position on the new regulation that will ensure fair responsibility-sharing. It is a crucial piece of the architecture under the new pact, and even though I am happy that some negotiations have started, it is absolutely crucial that we start negotiations on this crucial piece as soon as possible as well. But we also have to be realistic in our expectations. If arrivals continue to increase at the current rate, Member States will never be able to cope, regardless of European rules on solidarity and regardless of the successful adoption of the pact. If we want to be really able to manage migration, we will also need to bring the number of irregular arrivals down. The external dimension of our migration policy is key in that regard. Cooperation with countries of origin and transit, on border management, on returns and readmission and on the fight against criminal smuggling gangs must be urgently and significantly intensified. And especially Tunisia, which the Commissioner already mentioned, which now has taken over from Libya as the most frequently used point of departure to the EU, must be our first and foremost priority. And it’s good that this is on the radar of both the Council and the Commission, but I would really ask you to act on this and to act on this more strongly.

Madam President, I do apologise for taking so much of your time but in Malta, an author, Mr Mark Camilleri, published documents showing WhatsApp messages between an MP from the ruling governing party and Yorgen Fenech, who is the alleged mastermind behind the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Now these messages exposed abuse of power, bribery and trading and influence, and this information was known to the police for already three years, and nothing has happened. The only thing that has happened is that the author has been criminalised for publishing the documents, even forcing him to leave the country. It’s a disgrace, and it’s further proof of how the rule of law is being systematically undermined by this government in Malta. And, as such, it also warrants a debate with a resolution adopted in April.

Madam President, as we very much indicated, we believe this is a House to have European debates, but we have been inspired. So, if we are going to have a joint debate about rule of law with the Rule of Law report and rule of law in Greece, we believe there are some other issues that could be dealt with in this same debate. The first one is the rule of law in Spain, because the behaviour of this Spanish Government is moving further and further away from respect of the rule of law. When they don’t like the Council on the Judiciary, they simply adopt a law to prevent it from functioning. When they need an independent attorney general, they appoint their dear, loyal party colleague, the former Minister of Justice. When they don’t like democracy, when they find it too complicated, they rule by decree. Remember, the S&D stood here on other countries saying ruling by decree is ruling like a dictator. So either you are ruling like a dictator, or this is something we need to discuss in the European Parliament tomorrow. So our request is a debate on the rule of law in Spain, with a resolution to be adopted in April.

Madam President, we are not against a debate about the rights of children in rainbow families, because these are important topics to discuss, but we cannot pretend that they are restricted to only one particular Member State. Pretending that they are restricted to only one particular Member State – even though it might be politically convenient for some people here – doesn’t do anything to support rainbow families across the EU. We have to decide what kind of parliament we want to be. Are we a European, credible parliament where we discuss common European challenges? Or are we nothing but a theatre where national opposition parties can attack national governments because they are too weak to make an impact at home? Let’s leave national politics to national parliaments. I listened very carefully some time ago when Stéphane Séjourné said in Strasbourg, ‘We will systematically vote against any change of the agenda that targets national issues’. And I also heard Iratxe García Pérez say we need to respect the European debates in the European Parliament. Let us show today that those principles are there not only when they suit us. So we propose the following debate title: ‘The rights of children in rainbow families’.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, it’s an honour and mostly a pleasure to chair the Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware, set up a year ago with the important task to investigate one of the biggest threats to free democracies all over the world: the abuse of highly invasive spyware like Pegasus by governments, including in the European Union. From the first moments, we knew it would not be an easy task. It is a relatively new phenomenon. It operates in an extremely complicated international ecosystem and it has a highly technical and constantly evolving nature. But luckily, from day one, we could count on great support in conducting our investigation through information exchanges, during and outside our hearings, with a variety of stakeholders – from technical experts to the research community, from industry to journalists and civil society. We engaged with more than 180 interlocutors over the course of the last 12 months. I am frustrated, however, about the reason why I am standing here today representing the PEGA committee here in Strasbourg. Because, ever since the establishment of our committee, there have been two key stakeholders that have not fulfilled the duty of sincere and loyal cooperation, or that have refused to take decisive action in the face of a serious threat: the Member States and the Commission. As part of our fact-finding mission, the PEGA committee sent a questionnaire to the Member States on 14 July 2022, eight months ago. It contained questions about the use of spyware, the legislation governing such use and the establishment of ex-ante authorisation and ex-post supervision. A similar questionnaire was also sent to the Commission. A simple set of questions. We are not asking to divulge State secrets or for full openness on matters of national security. Simple, straightforward, factual questions that any government should be able to answer without any problem. On 12 October, we received a joint answer by the Czech presidency, which did not contain any of the information requested, but contained an assurance that the Member States would fulfil their obligations of sincere and loyal cooperation. So far, we have received answers from only 10 Member States’ governments out of 27. Thanks to parliamentary bodies, we have some more information about other Member States, but from Member States like the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy or Malta, we have no information, no response whatsoever and it is absolutely unacceptable. Hundreds of millions of Europeans that we represent as a European Parliament deserve answers to our questions, and answers are very difficult to give if governments who purchase and use this software refuse to answer even the most basic of those questions. It goes further than not just answering questions. In Hungary and Poland, governments were so afraid of checks and balances, so afraid of democratic dialogue and scrutiny that they flat out refused to meet with us. Also this is a scandal. But I also believe the European Commission should have a close look in the mirror. I know, Madam Commissioner, that you are not the responsible Commissioner here, but as a representative of the Commission, I do have to express my great disappointment and my frustration. From the very start of the Pegasus scandal, the European Commission has failed to take this threat seriously, has failed to fulfil its duties as guardian of the Treaty. The first response was ‘We will not investigate. We will not investigate because this is really something for the national authorities. The Commission cannot touch national security issues and people should instead seek justice at their respective national courts’. So the Commission, the same Commission that is taking the Polish Government to the European Court of Justice for depriving individuals of the full guarantees of effective judicial protection and for turning the highest court into a political body, that same Commission tells Polish victims of Pegasus to turn to the same judicial system to get justice. It does not make sense. This is not simply about national security. It is a rule of law issue, and the Commission should act because the Treaty is very clear: ‘Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.’ Now this Parliament is carrying out its tasks, but without any assistance from the Member States or the Commission. The principle is unfulfilled. What we see in practice is not sincere and it is not even cooperation. Therefore, the Parliament, which considers the duty of sincere and loyal cooperation to be unfulfilled, asks the following questions: What action has the Commission taken or will it take in response to this breach of the duty of sincere and loyal cooperation by the Member States? Has it initiated procedures to address this violation? If not, when will it do so? Can it explain what steps it has taken to fulfil its own duty of sincere and loyal cooperation with the PEGA committee?

Madam President, organised crime is a major threat to the internal security of the European Union and to the safety of our citizens, and it requires a common European response. More than 70% of criminal networks are active in more than three European countries and they are becoming increasingly more violent. According to Europol, organised crime within the EU has never posed such a major threat to citizens and our societies as it does today. We need to disrupt the business models of criminal networks and ensure that crime never pays: follow the money in order to freeze and confiscate assets and target criminal leadership. For the EPP, the security of European citizens and the fight against organised crime is an absolute priority. Europe needs to show that we can deliver in real terms, and this is why last year we proposed 50 concrete measures to tackle crime and we will continue to put this high on Europe’s agenda. And we are happy to find in the Swedish Presidency a like—minded and a constructive partner in our mission to keep Europe safe. And we look forward to cooperate on our shared priorities: strengthening the role of agencies like Europol and Eurojust; better coordination of criminal investigations and prosecutions; implementation of the interoperability framework; further improving existing crucial legislation like the Prüm Framework; advanced passenger information; making e—evidence work in practice. We have to make use of all available instruments in order to fight crime, and we cannot expect law enforcement authorities to do this alone. Local authorities, tax authorities, labour inspectorates, can all play a major role in addressing certain challenges, but they face huge obstacles in cross—border cooperation. We have worked very hard to remove those cross—border obstacles for police and judicial cooperation. We need to do the same for the administrative approach to organised crime by denying criminals the use of the legal administrative infrastructure. More intense monitoring, better screening and proper cross—border exchange of administrative information to complement police cooperation and strengthen the law enforcement system should also be a European priority. Borders often still create obstacles for authorities, while criminals use them to their advantage. This needs to end right now.

Mr President, every death at sea is an unspeakable tragedy. Men, women and children losing their lives in the Mediterranean is truly heartbreaking. And yes, we need, as this debate title suggests, a common EU response. And it starts by breaking the lucrative business model that smugglers have built at the expense of vulnerable people. We need to fight against these ruthless criminals who put hundreds of people on far too small, unseaworthy vessels in the most difficult of conditions at sea. Thank God, luckily, most people are saved like the 1300 people last weekend. But for some, like the more than 70 people that perished off the coast of Calabria, help tragically came too late. We need a fundamental change of policy. No matter how many search and rescue operations are deployed at sea, if hundreds of thousands of people continue to embark on this dangerous journey, help will never be able to reach all of them on time. Arrivals by sea in Italy have increased three times compared to last year. It means the risk of accidents has also tripled. So we need a common but also a holistic approach. No oversimplification of complex challenges by focusing on one solution only. Most asylum seekers arriving in Europe are not in need of international protection and they will most likely continue to risk their lives to come here irregularly, regardless of the legal pathways we put in place for those who need it. At least until we change the automatism that paying a smuggler equals entry to the territory of the European Union. Changing that needs to be the core of the policy Europe finally adopts because there is no silver bullet: fighting smugglers, creating pathways, code of conduct for search and rescue, strengthening external borders, discouraging illegal migration, improving cooperation with third countries, increasing returns – these are all intertwined. They’re all part of the same puzzle. And we need to complete this whole puzzle. We need to adopt the migration pact in full if we want to make debates like the one today a thing of the past.

Madam President, it was about time that the European Council put migration on its agenda. 70 % of Europeans are concerned about migration, and the EPP has been warning for months now that we are sleepwalking into a new crisis, with the numbers being the highest since 2016, so it’s good that everybody seems to have finally woken up. Let me welcome the unity that the European Council showed. Political leaders from our party, from the Liberals, from the Socialists, from the Conservatives all agreed that this is a European challenge that needs to be addressed at the European level, and that more efforts are needed to adopt the pact, to properly protect our external borders and to pay full attention to the external dimension of migration. All 27 leaders agreed on this, so I hope we can also mirror that same spirit here today. I want to make two concrete points. First, our external borders need to be strengthened. This was our main EP call for months, and we welcome the Council’s call on the Commission to immediately mobilise substantial EU funding to support Member States in reinforcing border protection capabilities and infrastructure. I also welcome the immediate follow—up on this call by the Commission, and I look forward to seeing the concrete results on the ground as soon as possible. We need to have control of our external borders, and since these are our common European borders, their protection must also be a common European effort. I am glad that all leaders, from north to south and from left to right, have put their support behind this. Secondly, the pact on migration needs to be adopted. Progress is being made, but both the Council and Parliament need to step it up a notch. In this House, we truly need to work in a spirit of compromise between all the constructive parties on all the files. I want to be very clear on this – we either have a real compromise on everything, including screening, for instance, or on nothing at all.

Madam President, this is not the first time we are having this debate and, to be quite frank, I was not convinced about its added value. Unfortunately, so far nothing I’ve seen has changed my mind. This Parliament has a dedicated committee with a specific assignment to look into the abuse of spyware in the whole of the European Union, because this is not an issue of one individual Member State, but it is a European issue, and the bigger committee is doing its job. We already spoke to almost 200 people, including a lot about Greece, and we should also let it get on with its job. And as much as I understand the political appeal of bringing specific countries to this podium, especially with elections approaching, I really think the focus should be on our common work in the committee. Now, we travelled to Greece and we had many fruitful exchanges with government representatives, journalists, civil societies. We received a lot of useful information. What we did not find was evidence of corruption or the kind of authoritarian practices we witnessed in Poland. But, of course, more can and should always be done to ensure transparency, and any allegations of abuse, of surveillance, have to be thoroughly investigated and necessary safeguards must be in place. I would like to point out, though, that unlike some other countries, the Greek Government actually makes an effort to actively cooperate with our committee. They received us. They share their proposals for reforms to improve transparency and judicial oversight. And I look forward to seeing the results of those reforms in practice. We need to investigate before we draw conclusions. There is plenty of work still to do, and we must continue that work in a thorough but also an objective manner.

Madam President, we are very happy to support a debate on last week’s Council conclusions. In fact, we’ve already wanted to propose this last week, but then the socialists were still against it. So better late than never, I guess. Happy to support the debate not under this title, because the level of hypocrisy is simply a bit too high. Have you ever seen the border fences in Spain? Have you ever seen the plans that the Finnish Government is doing to build a border wall? It is socialist governments rightfully using fences to manage migration. And yet, here you stand arguing that Europe should never help any other Member State to do the same. As always with the socialists it’s ‘do as I say, not do as I do’. So yes, we would like to have a debate on the Council conclusions under the words that the Council itself chose with the support of socialist prime ministers. And this is follow-up on the European Council conclusions: mobilising EU funds, reinforcing border protection capabilities.