Speeches

Mr President, 70% of Europeans are concerned about migration, and rightly so: 330 000 people illegally crossed our borders last year. This is the highest number since 2016 and we are sleepwalking into a new crisis – literally, because our Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, admitted last week that he dozed off on migration. It’s unacceptable. Colleague Azmani, on behalf of the Liberals, referred to Cinderella, while the Dutch Prime Minister really was more like Sleeping Beauty. European citizens deserve leaders that are awake and that take their concerns seriously. And the upcoming summit is the opportunity to actually show this, to show the commitment, the commitment we need for real solutions. And we do not have the luxury to dismiss practical solutions just like that. And that is my question also to the European Commission. President von der Leyen today here underlined the importance to strengthen our external borders and she mentioned the Turkish-Bulgarian border as a priority, but when Bulgaria then asks the European Union for help to protect that border, to have permanent infrastructure on that border, they hear from Commissioner Johansson that they cannot expect a single euro cent from the European budget. Is that solidarity? Is that the European response that the Commission is talking about? I think the Bulgarians and all European citizens deserve an answer to that question.

Madam President, you already introduced our request quite well, I would say. We have this very important debate this afternoon. Ideally, we would like to wind it up with a resolution this week, so we can also very clearly express our expectations to the European leaders about what we expect them [inaudible]. I am given to understand that this is not possible in a short Brussels plenary session. So then we would like to request a resolution to wind up the debate in the next plenary session in Strasbourg, so we can assess what the European leaders have done in this summit and to also give our opinion on that. This is a crucial European Council meeting. 70 % of Europeans are concerned about migration, and I think they would very much like to know where this House stands.

Mr President, should humanitarian assistance be criminalised? That’s the question of this debate. No, of course, not. There are many people around the world making sacrifices in order to help people in need, and their work should be applauded. So no, we should not criminalise humanitarian assistance. But should we criminalise crimes? Yes we should. And it really is as simple as that. When crimes are committed, they should be investigated, they should be prosecuted, and they should be brought before an impartial judge, regardless of who has committed them. In the eyes of the law, everyone is equal. Nobody, not me, not NGOs, not humanitarian workers should receive preferential treatment. Yet that is what some colleagues sometimes here seem to argue, that somehow some people should be above the law, and that when suspicions of criminal activities arise, they should be ignored or covered up for specific groups of people. I don’t think that’s fair. Let me remind you, we are in the midst of a corruption scandal. It centres around an NGO. Should we not prosecute this NGO because we would be at risk of criminalising humanitarian work? Should the people working at this NGO not be investigated because we would be risking criminalising humanitarian workers? No, I should hope not. Crimes are crimes regardless of the perpetrator, and in a rule of law, they need to be proven in a court of law with independent judicial institutions to ensure due process. In Greece, people arrested under the Syriza government have been acquitted of their charges last week even. Is it a crime to save lives? No, of course not. Saving lives is a legal duty, but first and foremost a moral obligation. And every death at sea is an unspeakable tragedy. So, saving lives, of course, is not a crime, but forging license plates or documents is. Unauthorised entry into military zones is. Cooperating directly with smuggling gangs that have turned human vulnerability into a multibillion—dollar business model is a crime. And so is illegally intercepting communications from authorities or Frontex. And when such crimes are committed, Member States have every right to investigate and prosecute them with full respect of the right to a free trial within a reasonable time. And we should support them in doing so.

Madam President, last week we had the Spanish Minister of Justice in the LIBE Committee to discuss the rule of law in Spain. It was very interesting. She said many fascinating things about vaccination strategies, about green hydrogen energy, about organ transplants. She didn’t say much about justice, which you could think is strange for a Minister of Justice. But looking back, it actually makes sense because there is not much about justice and the rule of law that a Minister can proudly share in Spain, and the interests of this Spanish Government are certainly not with justice, the separation of powers or checks and balances. When they do not like the composition of the Council of the Judiciary, they just adopt a law to prevent it from functioning. When they need to appoint an independent attorney—general, they just pick a loyal party colleague – the former Minister of Justice. When they need judges in the constitutional court, they pick another lawyer and former Minister of Justice and a director—general. No wonder the Minister of Justice last week shockingly called the Constitutional Court a political body! When they adopt new legislation against and ignoring all those advisory reports and the consequences are that sentences are reduced and sexual offenders and rapists are released early, what do they do? They blame the judges for misinterpreting the law. When they find parliamentary democracy too difficult, they just rule by decree. This is truly bizarre, because two and a half years ago Iratxe Garcia stood here and she blamed Viktor Orbán for ruling by decree. She said it was like trying to rule like a proper dictator. I agreed with her then and I still agree with her today, but where is the criticism of Prime Minister Sanchez then? He who is breaking the ‘ruling by decree’ records at home? Truly, he is the ‘king of decrees’. Is that democracy, dear colleagues of the S&D, or is that trying to rule like a dictator? You cannot have it both ways. Packing courts and independent bodies with your political friends, politicising the judiciary, ruling by decree, blaming judges for your own mess. This is page—by—page out of the populist and autocrat playbook. It is beneath Spain, it is beneath Europe, and it needs to stop!

Madam President, Tineke Strik mentioned Greece and Italy, we all seen the court cases in Greece. The accused have been acquitted. The courts have been closed. So, if the Greens want to compliment Greece on the independence of the judiciary there, they can do so in a press release, but not through a debate. We could even do a press release together if you would like. But the EPP is always ready to debate migration, because there are plenty of reasons to do so: 330 000 illegal border crossings in 2022, more than 136% increase in the Western Balkans, with over 100 000 asylum applications per month, the highest numbers since 2016. We should debate these alarming numbers, but that is, unfortunately, not the focus of this debate. And we cannot ever only debate NGOs, humanitarian aspects and search and rescues and ignore all the rest. So, this Parliament wants a holistic approach to migration. Let us also debate holistically. The search and rescue contact group will be reconvened this month. Next month we will have the special EU summit on migration. So instead of this rushed debate this week, let us have a deeper, a wider and more comprehensive debate next month in our plenary on migration.

Mr President, independent and free media are crucial pillars of a functioning democracy. Journalists are watchdogs of our rule of law. We have to cherish and protect them. However, in practice – including in Europe – journalists are finding it increasingly difficult. I see it in my own country. Journalists are threatened, intimidated, cars are pushed off the road, incendiary bombs are thrown through the mailbox and we even see reporters having to cover their logo for fear of violence. There are journalists in Europe who have had to pay for their work with their lives: Daphne Caruana Galizia, Ján Kuciak, Peter R. de Vries. Let us remember these names and keep their legacy alive. Because the threat is a multi-headed monster that doesn't just consist of criminals. Increasingly, it is politicians who portray the media as the great enemy. Right-wing populists and Trumpwannabes across Europe have turned it into a sport to turn their backers against journalists, with all the risks that this entails. In addition, we see in Europe that governments use invasive espionage software such as Pegasus to eavesdrop on journalists, while we should be grateful, because without good investigative journalism, we would still be completely in the dark in that area too. The many victims we spoke to each had deeply impressive stories about the devastating effect that such invasive privacy violations have on the exercise of their profession. That is why it is good that we are working together here to improve the protection of journalists. We welcome the proposals on the Media Act and the Anti-SLAPP Directive, and we need to make them much stronger where possible. If we want to protect our rule of law and our democracy, it starts with protecting our journalists.

Mr President, dear colleagues, it’s really hard to express how sad and angry I am here today because the greed of some individuals in this House has cast a dark shadow over all of us. I have to fully agree with the Commissioners: shame on them. The news over the past days looked like a bad Netflix film. Bags of cash raided offices and searched houses. But it’s not the film. It’s the ugly truth of high-level corruption at the heart of the European democracy. Of course, investigations are ongoing and we need to wait for all the facts but already I want to thank the Belgian authorities, and I would also like to thank our President, Roberta Metsola, for her leadership on this issue and echo her words. There will be no impunity, none. Those responsible must be brought to justice. And we fully support the internal investigation that the president announced. We must do better; increased transparency and accountability of all activities related to third countries, whether through NGOs or other actors, and strengthened defensive tools and anti-corruption measures to combat foreign interference in our work. All these steps are necessary to start regaining the trust of our citizens. Because make no mistakes, the action of those who would rather take home bags of cash than bags of work undermine the credibility of all of us. And it is up to us together to repair the damage. We can already see the Orbáns of this world gloating about these developments, apparently under the impression that corruption elsewhere makes corruption at home less disgusting. Nonsense. And let me emphasise one crucial difference: in stark contrast to the impunity in Orbán’s Hungary, in a rule of law, corrupt individuals are arrested, prosecuted, and stripped of their responsibilities. And we say very clearly here today, no tolerance for corruption, no tolerance for impunity.

Mr President, we have been warning for months that we are sleepwalking towards a new migration crisis. Almost 300 000 people have already crossed our external borders illegally this year. This is the highest number since 2016, the crisis year. But the worst thing is that our European asylum policy is still in 2016, despite all the good proposals from the European Commission. But it still doesn't work. That is why these numbers must be a wake-up call, especially for the migration ministers who meet on Friday for crisis deliberation. Only by effectively tackling irregular migration will we maintain space and support to accommodate genuine refugees. This is a European issue, because migration has long since ceased to be a national issue. It's tough geopolitics. In Ukraine, driving refugee flows to Europe is part of Putin's strategy. Migrants are also being actively pushed across the border from Belarus and Turkey. If we do not want to be a toy of authoritarian rulers, we must be able to decide for ourselves who gets access to our territory. Then we in Europe must be serious about protecting our external borders, including financing physical infrastructure at those borders. Then we really need to equip Frontex to do its job, finally put Eurodac in order and finally finalise the European Pact on Migration, including screening at the external borders. Unambiguous and effective European asylum policy is needed, because it cannot be the case that in a country such as the Netherlands the acceptance rate of asylum applications is inexplicably much higher than in other countries. Grip on migration requires decisiveness and it is high time to finally show it.

Madam President, I never quite understand the position of our Hungarian Fidesz colleagues, because for years they have been telling us that there is nothing wrong in Hungary on the rule of law, on democracy, on anti—corruption, that all is good and that everybody who criticises it is part of an ideological jihad against Hungary, etc. and we are all part of the extreme left here. Now there is EUR 7.5 billion at stake, and all of a sudden there are so many things wrong in Hungary that they felt the need to do 17 very urgent reforms, and we are expected now to believe that these reforms will actually make a difference in practice. The Hungarian Government so far has never shown any willingness to make meaningful reforms. But we are expected to believe now that a quick push of some legislation is making a lasting difference on the ground. This for us, as the EPP, is the key bottom line: only significant, tangible and lasting reform can enable the release of EU taxpayers’ money. Nothing less will do. But this is not only about the Hungarian Government and its reforms, it’s about Europe. It’s about the kind of European Union we want to be, and there is a clear choice. We can be a European Union of shared fundamental values like democracy and the rule of law, a Union that is willing to fight for those values, also when it’s difficult, or particularly when it’s difficult. Or the other choice, we can be a Union that falls at the first bit of pressure and bows to blackmail. These are our options, and only one of them will have a viable future for the European Union. So, Commissioner, please take that into consideration when you assess these Hungarian reforms. This is about the future of our Union, so please act wisely.

Madam President, let me first thank President Murphy for the presentation today, but mainly for the work that the Court of Auditors does in general. It’s crucial work, also in the context of our work here in this House on the discharge procedures. Now, on the annual report, I want to make three brief points. Firstly, it is concerning that the Court reports an error rate of 3% for expenditure, which is well above the 2% materiality threshold, particularly because this error rate has been increasing for the last couple of years, leading to an adverse opinion again. It is also significantly higher than the Commission’s own calculated risk at payment, which now even falls below the range of error calculated by the Court. Secondly, and this is connected to this, we should really work towards solving the confusion with different error frameworks used by both institutions. We need to know beyond reasonable doubt what the error rate is, and there needs to be an agreement on that figure. The same also goes for the assessments of the levels of risk of expenditure. Uniform methods for sampling risk assessment and corrections of error and recovery would be very helpful for us to do our work. Thirdly, the type of errors identified over time remain relatively similar: ineligible costs of beneficiaries, lack of supporting documents, infringement of rules and breach of public procurement rules. Simplification of these rules would really help here to make sure money gets to the beneficiaries without mistakes. We need to work on that without delay. Public support for EU expenditures relies on our joint ability to spend European taxpayers’ money in accordance with rules and regulations. This report once again underlines that we still have some work to do.

Mr President, the Russian invasion of Ukraine had, of course, a huge and a direct impact on migratory migration flows to the EU. More than 11 million Ukrainians crossed the border of the European Union. A significant number have returned, indeed, but over 4 million of them have registered for temporary protection in the EU. And the EU delivered on this TPD. And we can be proud about how millions of refugees received a warm welcome all over Europe, particularly in countries bordering Ukraine – Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova. It has been really impressive to see all the efforts by citizens and communities to take care of vulnerable people. But the migration challenge is not restricted to migration flows directly from Ukraine. In the first nine months of this year, more than 228 000 migrants irregularly crossed the external borders of the EU, the highest number since 2016. For three consecutive months, there were more than 70 000 asylum applications per month in the EU. Again, the last time this happened was in 2016 – crisis time. On the Western Balkan routes, we see an increase of almost 200% compared to last year, mainly due also to the scandalous visa policy of Serbia, which I hope the Commission will address without delay. We are sleepwalking towards another migration crisis and we already see Member States reaching the limits of reception capacity. So we need to act. We can point fingers to Member States and agencies as much as we want, but we need to do our job as a parliament by making real progress on the pact on migration to make sure it is adopted as soon as possible. We cannot allow any further delays. Let’s get to work.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, the timing of this debate was a bit spontaneous – I will try to make it work. But first of all, thanks a lot to OLAF for the very thorough work they have done in preparing this report. I think it goes without saying that the behaviour of the three persons concerned, as it is described in the OLAF report, is very concerning, and that they have seriously hurt the image of the agency. We need Frontex as an agency beyond any doubt because of its crucial role in the management of our external borders. I also believe that this report and the resignation of the Executive Director is in a way a very good moment for a fresh start, because the report also shows that the agency is full of brave men and women with integrity that dare to speak out with OLAF and help OLAF reach its conclusions. We need to build on all those men and women that are currently still active at Frontex. We had a very interesting meeting with the authors of the report in the joint CONT and LIBE meeting. They indicated that they did not investigate any allegations of pushbacks or fundamental rights violation and that it goes without saying any such allegations need to be investigated wherever and whenever they appear, but they were not part of the scope of this investigation. One of the other things that I read in the report, if you read between the lines, is that Frontex really also needs guidance from the European Commission about the difficult legal framework in which maritime surveillance takes place, about the difficult position that Frontex is in, about their role in working with, but also for, Member States. We need the new Executive Director to really make a change. We need more guidance from the Commission and we need to work with the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group in this House to help that. One last thing that I want to say as well – and this is to echo what the Commissioner said – we need to address the despicable behaviour of the Turkish authorities with the strongest and most convinced way, because the recent scandals again show in what kind of geopolitical circumstances the Greek authorities, but also Frontex, need to operate and it is hardly achievable.

Mr President, five years ago, Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated. The ultimate punishment for exposing the corruption at the highest level of the Maltese Government: a government that carries responsibility for her murder by creating a favourable climate for anyone who wanted to eliminate her. Whoever planned and carried out the assassination did so in the knowledge they would be protected. And they still feel protected today. Impunity is still the norm in Malta. The government has no real desire to find out who ordered and paid for the assassination. Too afraid of inconvenient truths. Just like nothing is done to address the corruption, fraud and criminality that Daphne exposed in the first place. It’s very concerning. Yes, indeed, this is not about party politics, but listening to this debate and looking at the speakers list, I have to wonder. The S&D has five speaking slots in this debate. Four of them are filled by Maltese MEPs. That’s the whole Maltese delegation. Is there really nobody else apart from Thijs Reuten, who did so very eloquently, who is concerned about this, who is committed to this? Is there nobody else who wants to join his call for justice for the family of Daphne? The rule of law cannot be a partisan issue. We need to show up together. We need to work together and we need to fight together.

Madam President, the EU has long been toothless in the fight to protect the rule of law in certain Member States. National leaders refuse to hold each other to account. And the other Article 7 procedures initiated by the Commission and Parliament failed to deliver real results. So last year, January was truly a historic moment. Finally some teeth; finally an instrument that makes an impact, both because the language of money apparently is the only language truly understood in Warsaw and Budapest, but also because the European Council can no longer hide behind one or two Member States. So we welcome these proposed measures as a real step in the right direction, even though we would have expected even stricter demands. We have known Mr Orbán for a long time now, and his past performance does nothing to reassure us about the future. There is a real risk of Hungary ticking the boxes as a paper reality only without really addressing the deficiencies. And this is why we insist on robust verification and monitoring. Only significant, tangible and lasting progress in rebuilding democratic and anti-corruption safeguards should enable the release of EU taxpayers’ money. Declarations, working groups, frameworks: they all sound nice, but they are not sufficient and risk being empty shelves. The Council cannot afford to buy another peacock dance of Mr Orbán. So two concrete questions to Commissioner Hahn. First, why are the agricultural funds not part of this ongoing process? And secondly, how does the Commission intend to proceed in the case of other countries, in particular Poland?

Mr President, dear colleagues, six months ago Bulgarian opposition leader and former Prime Minister Boyko Borisov was arrested, house searched and detained for 24 hours – an opposition leader arrested upon the explicit request of the ruling Prime Minister, Mr Petkov, without the involvement of a single judge or prosecutor or any kind of due process. It’s a scandal. And it’s a scandal that it is now confirmed by the court in Sofia, which has ruled that the arrest of the former prime minister was factually unfounded, incompatible with the purpose of the law, and it did not meet the standards of lawfulness. In short, it was illegal. The independent judiciary in Bulgaria has done its work where the government failed spectacularly to uphold the rule of law and democracy. But it’s not only the Bulgarian Government that has failed. Where were the self-proclaimed rule of law defendants in this House in the past six months? Socialists, Liberals, Greens, the Left – nothing but silence. Which, let's be honest, is not exactly your default setting. Is this your idea of the rule of law – that only the people you politically sympathise with are worthy of its protection? The hypocrisy is truly staggering. Where was the Commission? Commissioner Reynders, Commissioner Jourová were always so outspoken on the rule of law, you have been hiding behind national competences and ongoing investigations in Bulgaria. And I’ve listened very carefully to your words, and I can’t help but wondering whether you’re sure you’re at the right debate. I mean, look at the title: illegal detention of the opposition leader in Bulgaria. And in the whole speech, you fail to even mention those words. (Applause) Thank you for proving the point about never being silent, Ms Daly. The investigations you were hiding behind are concluded, and the result is crystal clear. The house search and the detention were illegal. And are you serious telling us here today that the Commission does not care about the illegal detention of an opposition leader in Europe? You should be publicly condemning this and I’m asking you concretely to still do so when you come back to this platform.

Madam President, in June of this year, 70 000 people applied for asylum in the EU. It was the highest level recorded in a single month since 2016. Overall, asylum applications are up 68% compared to last year. Of course, we need to ensure that all migrants are treated humanely. This is what our European fundamental values are about. But at the same time, it is not hard to imagine that these numbers pose significant challenges to the capacity of the Member States in terms of reception facilities and procedures. And in the absence of a working European system, Member States will find it increasingly hard to predict, prepare for and manage migration flows. We need to get in control. If migration will forever remain something that simply happens to us, something that we have no influence whatsoever over, then we will see public support for our policies deteriorate even further. Because, yes, there is public support – I am convinced of that – in the whole of Europe, for welcoming and protecting people fleeing war and persecution. But that support is conditional on the expectation that we get our act together. We need a real European policy that allows us to defend our borders and our values at the same time – to screen the people that arrive and quickly distinguish between those in need of international protection and those who are not. Because two-thirds of asylum seekers are not in need of protection. Hundreds of thousands of people that have no right to stay in Europe but do so anyway; they need to be effectively returned so our resources can go to those in real need. We need to manage migration inside the EU on the basis of solidarity, like we agreed in the Treaties. And we need to cooperate much better with countries of origin and transit to tackle this common challenge and to fight harder against criminal gangs and human traffickers. The resilience of our asylum system depends on the successful adoption of an effective, predictable European system. The EPP welcomes the joint roadmap, which was already referred to as a significant step, and we call on everyone to help realise the progress we so urgently need. We are ready to do our part.

Mr President, it is not our first debate on spyware in Europe, and it probably will not be our last. We were absolutely right earlier this year to set up our committee of inquiry into this matter, because it goes without saying that illegal surveillance of members communications is unacceptable. As we have also said from the beginning, this is not about a particular Member State or a particular technology. It is about all Member States and all technologies. We have to investigate the full width and depth of the situation in Europe, and that’s what we are doing. So far, we have held 11 hearings, we heard from 43 persons from Commissioners to tech companies, from victims to academics, from cybersecurity experts to human rights defenders. We travelled to Israel, we will travel to Poland next week and we sent detailed questions to all Member States and it would be nice also if we can get an update – because I know these questions have been discussed in Council – on where we are with the answers to those questions. Parliament is doing its job, the PEGA Committee is doing its job and we should also let it do its job. As much as I understand the political appeal of debating specific cases in plenary, I really think the focus should be on our common work in the committee. We had an interesting hearing on Greece last Thursday with victims, journalists and representatives of the government. We will meet with even more people when we travel to Greece later this year and the Greek authorities have been cooperating with our committee, which is a whole lot more than can be said of many other Member States. We need to investigate before we draw conclusions and there is plenty of work still to do and we must continue our work in a thorough but also an objective manner.

Mr President, Europe is a rapidly aging continent: our working population is shrinking and will continue to shrink in the foreseeable future. And we already see today all over Europe that employers are faced with significant labour shortages. So it’s good that also at the European level, we look for innovative ways to increase the attractiveness of our Union to talent from third countries. And, yes, it could also help us creating effective partnerships with third countries on the external dimension of migration. And this is crucial, as we all know, in our wider efforts on the Pact of Migration. There are two principles that should be leading, in my opinion. First, that it is, and it should remain the sole competence of the individual Member State to decide on labour migration from third countries, taking into consideration the very specific circumstances of the different national labour markets. And at the European level we need to make sure that there are no loopholes to circumvent this principle. And I am particularly concerned about intra—EU posting of third country nationals in this regard. Second principle: focusing on attracting talents from third countries must never come at the expense of our efforts to activate our own citizens that are currently not in employment. Labour migration can be a part of the solution, but it can never be the only solution. Not when 14% of our European youth is still facing unemployment, not when people are over the age of 55 that want to work still have huge difficulties to find employment, not with the current labour shortages and not when we stumble at the moment, as in my country, from one scandal to the next, when it comes to housing or working conditions for labour migrants that are already in the EU. Yes, employers are in need of workers, and we need to help them. But they also need to make an effort themselves to go the extra mile to employ people that want to work but need a little bit of help. In a social market economy, we can’t only always focus on the quickest, the easiest or the cheapest solution; we need a long—term solution that puts human dignity in the centre.

Mr President, we cannot, and will not, allow our common values to be put at risk; the Commission will act. These were your words, Madam President, in this House in October last year during the debate on Poland. Those words were accompanied by clear demands, and you mentioned them today as well: the dismantling of the disciplinary chamber, ending the disciplinary regime for Polish judges and the reinstatement of dismissed judges. Now, more than six months have passed since our debate in October. Plenty of time for the Polish Government to show genuine commitment and implement the ECJ rulings; plenty of time to meet minimum standards as all Member States of the EU must. However, sadly, six months later, none of this has happened. Despite this, the Polish RRF plan has now officially been approved and this has simply been the wrong sequence. As much as there is something to say for jointly agreed milestones with strict deadlines, these conditions should have been fulfilled before the endorsement of the plan for Poland, which would have also given the Commission more time to evaluate the actual implementation of these commitments in practice. Fundamental values and the rule of law, much like ECJ rulings, cannot be the subject of negotiations. And we therefore expect a clear commitment today from the Commission that you will indeed act, that not a single euro will be transferred to the Polish Government until there is a genuine, complete and irreversible implementation of the milestones, execution of the ECJ rulings and full respect for the primacy of EU law. Nothing less will do.

Mr President, we have all witnessed the atrocities committed by the Russian armed forces against innocent Ukrainian men, women and children. These images speak for themselves, even when there are simply no words to describe the horror they depict. There can be no impunity for war crimes in Ukraine. The perpetrators must be held to account. For that we need evidence; evidence that is collected on the ground in Ukraine as we speak. And we need to make sure that this evidence is safely stored – something that is obviously not possible on the ground in Ukraine at the moment as the war is still ongoing. Therefore, we fully support the Commission’s proposal to give Europol, or Eurojust, a crucial role in the collection, preservation and the sharing of such evidence. We need this, and we need this fast. We cannot risk losing valuable evidence, and this is why our group will support the text as it stands now. We still believe it would be even better to also include the crime of aggression. But for now, speed is of the essence. So let’s get to work. Let’s make sure that those responsible are brought to justice.

Mr President, when we had a similar debate here about two months ago, I predicted that we had not yet discovered the full depths of the Pegasus spyware scandal and I think the revelations of recent weeks have certainly proven the point. It has also proven that it was a very good decision of this Parliament to set up a committee of inquiry and get to the bottom of this, because that is exactly what we should do now: get to work and leave no stone unturned. I am happy to report that the committee started two weeks ago and that we will have a full and ambitious agenda for the next 11 and a half months, because we cannot over-emphasise the severity of the scandal when this kind of spyware is used against innocent citizens – whether they’re journalists, activists, lawyers, businessmen or politicians. And regardless of where in the European Union, or even beyond, this happens, it’s first and foremost, of course, a horrible experience for the victims themselves, but it’s also a wider threat to the overall rule of law and democracy in Europe. And this is why it’s so important that the Parliament takes this very seriously. It’s also why I’m disappointed in the approach of the European Commission – refusing to investigate Pegasus spyware abuse in the Member States, hiding behind national security arguments. Because this scandal is not about using Pegasus to prevent terrorism or serious crime, but about using it to spy on innocent citizens; and that is not national security, that is about the rule of law, and the European Commission has a responsibility and it must take it. I mean, it was even reported that Commissioner Reynders was the target of such spyware himself. So unless the Commission believes that Mr Reynders is a national security risk, I am sure that this is a common responsibility that we need to address together. In any case, this Parliament will take its responsibility for fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law in the European Union. We are at the very beginning of our work, so it’s too early to draw any concrete conclusions yet, but it’s certainly not the last you’ve heard of us.

Madam President, it’s fair to say that this year’s ECA discharge was quite eventful. At the end of this procedure, I would like to draw two main conclusions. First, that the Court has spent its budget in full compliance with the applicable rules, as was also confirmed by independent external auditors. Secondly, that some of these rules are in need of an update to improve the functioning of the Court and to avoid any potential issues in the future. The Court, to its credit, has shown great commitment in cooperating with Parliament on such recommendations and has already proactively implemented the bulk of them. However, these two objective conclusions are hardly reflected in the discharge resolution or the proposed decision to postpone. This is worrying because discharges should be about fact-based assessments and not about political considerations. We should lead by example and avoid suggestive statements that even contradict the opinions of our own Legal Service. So I count on your support, colleagues, for the factual corrections that I have tabled to the resolution and to support the granting of discharge to the European Court of Auditors.

Mr President, Europeans rightly expect a high level of security in the European Union, and this is why a strong Europol has always been and will always be a key priority for our group. And this is also why this new mandate is such a good thing, because the threats of today and tomorrow are not the same as those of yesterday, and so must be our response. Crime is becoming ever more digital, and we need to ensure that law enforcement can rely on the right tools to take on these criminals. The mandate that we are voting on tomorrow does exactly that. First, through direct cooperation with private parties, by being able to receive data from them directly, the agency can tap into an important source of relevant information, and it can make sure that that information gets to the right authority in the right Member State. Law enforcement in the EU as a whole will be better equipped to fight sexual abuse, terrorism and serious crime. Second, through its improved capacity to process large and complex data sets, Europol was already the expert in this field and will become even more so. And thirdly, through research and innovation, Europol is perfectly placed to monitor emerging technologies and to develop ways of using them to keep our citizens better protected. These very important steps amend the central role of Europol in the European security architecture, and it does so in a very European way by also matching it with increased safeguards. So the only thing I would like to add is to add my congratulations to rapporteur Zarzalejos for this excellent work.

Madam President, before I go into the content of my contribution here today, I do have to say that I find it disappointing that we are having this debate today only with Commissioner Reynders. This is nothing personal against Commissioner Reynders obviously, but the fact that we’re talking about the ongoing Article 7 procedures and there is an empty chair on my left, even though we all know that the main challenge, when it comes to Article 7 procedures, lies with the Council – it is very disappointing that the Council is not present here today for this debate. In the plenary session in March or April, we already discussed the ongoing procedures for Hungary and Poland in detail and the lack of any progress when it comes to protection of the rule of law. So today it is also good to look at the procedural issues that we have in this European Union. For the EPP, the European Union is, first and foremost, a community of values. A shared commitment to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights is the glue that holds our Union together. We can make all the progress we want on the internal market, on trade policy, in any other policy field, whatever we want, but, without a joint commitment to our founding values, none of that progress will ever be sustainable for the future. Because how can we create a single area of freedom, justice and security if we cannot rely on the impartiality and independence of judges in all Member States? How can we expect to have a level playing field for our SMEs if we cannot rely on the fact that Member States will actually follow the rules that we have set together? And how can we count on the democratic legitimacy of the decision—making process when national elections are marred by the absence of a level playing field? When the rule of law is undermined in one Member State, it affects the whole of the European Union. This is precisely why we have always been very strict with countries that want to join the European Union. The rule of law and the Copenhagen criteria are the main focal points of the whole accession procedure and for good reasons. But, when we look back, it’s also fair to say that, as soon as an accession treaty is signed, that scrutiny seems to somehow disappear. This is a situation that we can no longer accept. The rule of law is so important and so crucial that it requires a constant and full commitment from all European institutions. It’s not that no progress has been made. The annual rule of law reporting that the Commissioner referred to is a very welcome and important step because it also shows that the rule of law and the debates we have here in this Parliament are not directed towards only one or two countries, but it’s something that all Member States need to work on. But, even more importantly, with the conditionality mechanism, we took the historic step of linking values to the European budget, making sure that European taxpayers’ money is not used to further undermine and weaken the rule of law and democracy, but instead to strengthen it. We welcome the Commission’s decision to send a formal notification to Hungary, and we look forward to seeing the concrete follow—up. We call on the Council, in that context, to show full political commitment to bringing this procedure to a successful conclusion without delay. As much as the annual rule of law report and the conditionality mechanisms are necessary and welcome supplements to the Article 7 procedure, just as with the Article 7 procedure, without real political commitment in the Council, added value will always remain limited. For a long time, it seemed that, in the Council, the rule of law was, like Voldemort in Harry Potter, something that should not be mentioned by name. Even though we now see Article 7 hearings resume in the Council – and we welcome this resumption under the French Presidency – actions speak much louder than words, and it’s actions that we need. We need concrete recommendations with strict deadlines. EU leaders cannot just talk about the rule of law every now and again and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done, tick off the box on the to-do list and continue work as usual. We need concrete recommendations. If nothing concrete comes out of these hearings, there is little point in having them at all. So concrete recommendations with strict deadlines and, if these deadlines are not met, we need to look at all the other possibilities that the Article 7 procedures offer us. We cannot allow our common values to be put at risk. This is also our main call to the Council in the resolution we will adopt this week: show genuine commitment in defending our founding values and make real and meaningful progress in the ongoing Article 7 procedures. I know there are people who argue that, with the terrible war in Ukraine ongoing, now is not the time to focus on rule of law issues at home, and that it would not be fair to bother Member States like Hungary and Poland with procedures or conditionality at a time when the Polish and Hungarian people are making such great efforts to welcome Ukrainian refugees. But let me be absolutely clear and repeat what I said last week. Yes, we need solidarity in the EU. We need to help the Member States most affected in hosting hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees. This is why we are together in one union. But let me also be clear: helping Member States deal with an unprecedented crisis should not come at the expense of being silent about rule of law issues at home. It would be cynical, while Ukrainians are fighting – are dying – for freedom, democracy and the rule of law, to turn a blind eye to the attack of those very same values at home. If anything, Putin’s Russia should be a stark warning to all of us about the dangers of a system where checks and balances, democracy and the rule of law have ceased to exist. It should embolden us to fight for those values even more passionately at home.

Madam President, now, Poland is not Hungary, and Hungary is not Poland, and both countries merit very much their own assessment and individual evaluation. On Hungary, we welcome the announcement yesterday that a notification has been sent under the Rule of Law Conditionality. It’s an important step, and it means the Commission is now convinced there is a clear case of rule of law violations that endanger the Union’s financial interest. We look forward to hearing more about the details. Rule of Law Conditionality is a crucial tool in our toolbox, and it should be used effectively. Also in Poland, patience is wearing thin. The Polish Government has had every opportunity to fulfil the requirements set out by President von der Leyen and Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) judgments – dismantling the disciplinary chamber, ending the disciplinary regime for Polish judges and reinstalling judges that have been unlawfully dismissed. We have seen little progress, despite Prime Minister Morawiecki’s promises from last autumn. In the absence of such progress, the European Commission must stand firm. I know there are people who argue that, with the terrible war ongoing in Ukraine, now is not the time to focus on rule of law issues, it would not be fair to bother Member States like Hungary and Poland with these issues, with procedures, with conditionality, at a time when the Polish and Hungarian people are making such great efforts to welcome Ukrainian refugees. Let me be absolutely clear: we need solidarity in the EU; we need to help the Member States most affected by this crisis, and we equally share the responsibility to take care of millions of Ukrainian refugees. This is why we are together in one Union. But let me be equally clear: helping Member States deal with an unprecedented crisis should never come at the cost of being silent about rule of law issues at home, simply because that would be cynical. At a moment when Ukrainians are fighting and dying for values like freedom, rule of law and democracy, it would be cynical to turn a blind eye to the attack on those very same values at home. If anything, Putin’s Russia should be a stark warning to all of us about the dangers of a system where checks and balances, democracy and rule of law have ceased to exist.