Speeches

Madam President, I am listening, so here we are listening to the various things that are being said here, but I think the most important thing is to rebuild trust in both the institutions and the EU, not by other bodies, but by thoroughly investigating what has happened and that the individuals who are responsible will see justice. This also means in Pfizergate and in the text messages of the President of the European Commission. We don't need any more organs. We need what works, and we need to treat it all as individual failures. I do not want us, as a European institution, to say that this is all wrong now, and that is why we need to dig through everything, because it is indeed an individual failure. And we are neither prosecutors, nor judges, nor executioners, to talk about what is going to happen, and let us leave it all to the authorities to investigate. Let us not chase witches, let us follow the rules, let us not slander each other, but let us do our job and control the European Commission in particular. I think that it is not the new European ethics bodies that should be in this House, but we should, for example, monitor more closely what is happening in the European Commission, which people are responsible for what they are responsible for, and also, above all, how NGOs operate in the European Union, which receive money from European sources and are unwilling to report on their activities. This is where we should start, not just green NGOs, but such Transparency International, for example.

Mr President, colleagues, affordable energy is a right, not a privilege for people, and we should strive to make energy prices generally available to citizens, not only to businesses, but also to citizens. Several colleagues have spoken here about how we can compare prices in the United States and the European Union, how many times higher are prices in the European Union compared to the United States, which reduces our competitiveness and increases the price of our products. This is one of the things we should look at more. I also think that cutting off cheap resources and fossil fuels is the wrong step that the European Union is taking, and we should rethink it. I also think that when we talk about heating and heating, banning fossil fuel boilers was a bad solution. And if we just electrify everything, we don't have enough electricity right now and we have to build more grids. And I appreciate that the Commission also wants to do so. I would also like to say, Commissioner Jørgensen, that I very much appreciate your contribution to the debate that the Slovak Republic has with Ukraine, where we are trying to restore the transit of gas through Ukrainian territory for the Slovak Republic, so that we have better energy security both for the Slovaks and for the whole of Eastern and Central Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am very interested in how the European Commission will deal with the extension of the agreement with Ukraine to import Ukrainian products into our territory, because we know that we in Eastern Europe have had a big problem with this, and the time is coming and it is very quiet. So I would be very happy if you could possibly answer. Both Slovak farmers and farmers in the European Union deserve, of course, respect and reverence. And we saw that we had a lot of protests here, and a lot of those demands were, of course, very relevant. In agriculture, we should try to cut red tape, cut controls for farmers, and I am glad that, thanks to their pressure, we have succeeded in part, for the smaller ones in recent times. We can talk about food. I've noticed that in your show you're also dealing with food. It is the second largest sector in the European economy and I think that we should also focus on how to protect food producers who produce a very large number of very important and healthy food in the European Union, but also in relation to exports to countries such as the United States, where we are currently also threatened with some duties or taxes on such imports. Of course, diversification of agriculture is also important in the context of climate change, and we should also support it, but above all preserve the money in agriculture for the next period.

Madam President, colleagues, today the European Union is faced with the fundamental question of whether we will continue unrealistic green experiments or finally start listening to industry, trade unions and citizens. In Slovakia, we want a sensible, not ideological, transformation of the automotive industry. I welcome that there is at least some common sense and the Commission has put forward an option for carmakers to meet CO standards2 in three years' time and will not start collecting fines today, as originally proposed, because it would be truly liquidating. We know that the term of banning incinerators until 2035 is meaningless and harmful. We need to rethink the whole decision and, at the same time, give room for the development of synthetic fuels, hybrids and hydrogen, not just electric vehicles, which are extremely expensive. European carmakers do not need bureaucratic restrictions. They need fair conditions. If the European Union cannot protect its own production, only foreign cars will be sold in a few years, our factories will close their doors and we will lose millions of jobs. At the same time, electric cars need fewer workers to produce. If we want to support the transition, we need to give clear funding for retraining and not just talk about social responsibility.

Madam President, there is no ideal agreement. The deal is a compromise and the art of the possible, and I think that's how you talk about farmers. I don't know where you were when we talked about Slovak and Eastern European farmers and the flooding of products from Ukraine of agricultural origin. But I think that in this case we should be pragmatic. We will help farmers by reducing burdens and pointless bureaucracy, encouraging the consumption of domestic products and food, increasing salaries, maintaining jobs. Preserving jobs is precisely the promotion of industry and competitiveness offered by Mercosur. And I see it as an opportunity for the European economy, because we are export oriented. The opportunity to open up other markets and, just as Commissioner Šefčovič said, reducing the burden in terms of duties and taxes or tariffs on our cars, for example, which are very important for Slovakia, is certainly an opportunity and, I think, a positive aspect of Mercosur. It has been negotiated for more than 20 years. There has been a lot of talk about it, they have tried to be really pragmatic and to see what an opportunity there is in all that we can achieve with this agreement. I would also like to draw attention to what the Commissioner said: we are talking here about some food quality and that we do not want to import and we want our phytosanitary standards. The Commission has made it clear to us that our phytosanitary standards will be respected and that this is part of this agreement. So let us not lie here to our constituents and to the citizens of the European Union.

First of all, I want to appreciate the civilisation of this debate, and I would like to say that death in the workplace of any person, or in the performance of his work or because of his work, is, of course, a great disaster. But when it comes to murder, it's even sadder. However, I would also like to stop dancing on the graves of these two people and using them for political discussion. And if we return, of course, to some normal debate. Today we are also talking about civil liberties or media freedom, the rule of law and the protection of journalists, but all journalists within the European Union. I am very sorry for dozens of people who, for example, died in various conflicts, as well as those who died in the wars in Israel and Gaza and in countless other conflicts around the world. I believe that in the EU, and also at large, we have sufficient media freedom and sufficient freedom for journalists to work. But we must realize that with freedom comes responsibility, and responsibility is also about how journalists pass on some facts. Unfortunately, some debate in Slovakia resulted in this, so completely hateful, which was also created thanks to the media, that, for example, an assassination of the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic was committed. This is also the responsibility of journalists to be aware of what they are supposed to report. And that, in fact, pluralism, to which the Commissioner also referred, is also a very important part of the job, so that we respect other opinions and respect each other as politicians and journalists.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, colleagues, this, in turn, is such a meaningless debate that has something in its title that is not even true. And interestingly, we're talking about something here, pretending it exists, and there's no facts. Some two media houses or some two media outlets are saying something here, and there's no investigation, there's nothing on the table, and we're pretending here in the European Parliament that this is true? Colleagues, let's be careful what we say. If that were true, what does it say about our own security as a European Union, about the security of our own systems? If such a thing were really possible. We are accusing the Member State here. I would like to say, then, Mr Wawrykiewicz, the colleague who opened this debate. Orbán, as prime minister of a member state of the European Union, is an enemy of the Western world and the European Union. That's like something I don't know if any of us can afford to do that at all, and let's realize what we're talking about here. There are no facts, no evidence. What would Orban do if he was really spying on the people you're talking about, what would he know, right? OLAF's reports and all that information are completely public and they're all published, so I don't know what anyone would get out of this. So we're not investigators, we're not representatives of the secret services, and talking about such things as facts here is absolutely wrong, and I think it's completely nonsense, and we're wasting our time here in this House.

Mr President, agriculture and agricultural work are certainly difficult and unpredictable. We have weather influences, we have animals, we have natural disasters. We can have bad seeds or diseases of animals or crops, and this certainly affects the work of the farmer and his result. It's hard physical work, and with all this comes, of course, various challenges. Also on the mental health of farmers, who are constantly worried about whether they will be able to maintain their business or their farm in some way and whether they will be able to continue to work with their family. What can we do to change the situation? I know that for the Commissioner this is also a personal matter and a personal desire for us to change the situation. Additional certainty and financial support for farmers in the east of the European Union. This is certainly the case, for example, by making up for direct payments to eastern European farmers. At last, after 20 years of being in the European Union. It is also certainly financial support that will be sufficient and timely. Innovative technologies that we will use in agriculture need to be supported. When we import products from other countries, and I do not only mean Mercosur, but I also mean countries like Ukraine, we have to think about how these products can affect the situation, for example, people in the east of the European Union, such as Slovakia, Poland and other countries that have had a problem precisely because of the import of these cheap products. Thus, international treaties and their convention are also very important when we want to address these investments for farmers and we want to reduce their controls and we want to reduce the bureaucracy for farmers, so that they do not have a burden, even if they have to constantly prove, report and hand over papers, because this is an additional psychological burden for them.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, the previous Slovak government, which was right-wing, advised people in raising the price of energy to cook with a lid, to ventilate only for a while at home, and to bake so as to bake several things at once. These were the actions of the right-wing governments. What I think we should do about rising energy prices in the European Union is certainly to give people fair wages and a fair income. There is certainly also a need for better social support for vulnerable groups, the fight against poverty, which will be conditional on fair taxation, and the promotion of nuclear energy, because that is really the clean energy that we can produce enough to provide people with enough energy at a good price. I am fascinated by the fact that in Belgium, for example, where most of us live in some way, apartments are still rented with simple glass, through which it blows, and it is a place where there is a lot of rain, where a lot of wind blows and everyone knows that so much energy escapes. That we use, for example, still accumulation stoves in Belgium, which we know are absolutely energy-inconvenient. So it is necessary to start in the heart of the European Union, and also in Belgium, using really good technologies. I am sorry, Mrs Simson, that you were one of the Commissioners, or the Commissioner who presented us here, how great it is to ban fossil fuel boilers in the European Union, which will cause additional financial costs for people and a further increase in the price of energy for our citizens. So let's get back together and really think about how to save energy so that those prices don't keep rising.

Mr President, I would like to thank the Hungarian Presidency for having such a declaration on the sustainability of the European Union's competitiveness for the future. But it is very ambitious in my opinion, which is perhaps not bad, but this declaration gives a bit of an answer to how we will ensure that the European Union is still a global partner, a global player, that we are competitive, but at the same time that we keep our agriculture competitive and sustainable. And I agree with Mr Waitz that agriculture is only at point 12, and we know that farmers and farmers are often the ones who take away our new proposals, our changes and our fight against climate change and for a sustainable ecological environment in the European Union. We need to change that a little bit. I am glad that, even during the hearings with the Commissioners, it was said that we want less bureaucracy in the European Union. So it's time we did it. That we want less reporting so that our companies, our companies, but also our farmers, really do what they have to do. And I also agree with what my colleague, Mrs Vrecion, has said that we need more impact studies of the legislation that the European Union is preparing, so that we know what specific impacts this has on individual sectors and can prevent us from giving them more and more problems that they have to deal with. So that both our companies and our farmers can really do their jobs.

Madam President, unfortunately, when someone dies in the course of their work, it is, of course, very sad, and it is also sad in the case of journalists, but it is also sad in the case of humanitarian workers or, for example, journalists who cover war conflicts. However, I do not like the fact that we are once again linking such a situation to some kind of rule of law and we are criticising another Member State, in this case Malta, and we are not giving them peace for seven years and telling them that they are not good enough to change this because such an unhappiness has happened. I think we're dancing on the graves of these people who died like this. And these people - all of a sudden here we are talking about how we knew them, how wonderful they were, what life they had, and so on. It's very, very cynical because most of us haven't met these people like Daphne in my life. So please, let us not abuse the memory of such people who have died in this way to make political capital out of it. We're not investigators here, we're not prosecutors, and we're not judges in one person to make some judgments. I believe that Malta is the rule of law, that the Maltese authorities and institutions can solve such a problem and know what to do, and that they will investigate everything fairly so that the perpetrator of this is really punished, but let us not say that it is the fault of the government, that it is the fault of Maltese politicians and that it is the fault of Maltese leftists.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to ask the Commissioner to stop tapping the phone and listening to our debate, and perhaps to make some remarks. Thank you very much. We are talking here today about how to abolish bureaucracy, so maybe we could listen a little more. We have been talking about this for a very long time, I remember, we have been talking about Simplification, simplification of bureaucracy for at least 20 years in this European Union. Perhaps the debate that the Council is planning to make about finally simplifying public procurement in the European Union could be an interesting start. We could also, as Member States, address how much we really need audits and controls. Unfortunately, the Slovak Republic, for example, is a country that would need only 5% of the on-the-spot checks, but we are at 95% of the checks. So for us too, this is such a domestic task as to simplify such controls. Also, when we are talking about proposals for new legislation, I am very pleased that the Commission is finally going to do some impact study and check what types of legislation in the European Union we already have in these areas, and that, in fact, we will only be adopting legislation that should not interfere with any other competences. A very good example was, for example, the implementation unit in the Slovak Republic, which was unfortunately established only in Slovakia and Denmark. Despite the fact that the European Commission has talked about the fact that states should set up such implementing units and actually control how the legislation is implemented and how exactly bureaucracy interferes in the lives of ordinary people.

Mr President, these days we are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Slovak National Uprising, which broke out on 29 August 1944, and the 80th anniversary of the Carpathian-Dukla operation, which was the largest mountain battle of World War II and the largest battle in Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, today we left one of the last living partisans in Slovakia, Mr. Karol Kuna, who was 96 years old, and we have fewer and fewer memorials of the Slovak National Uprising. I would like to quote Mr Kunu, who said: If it weren't for the many who broke the bonds of enslavement, we wouldn't be living in a free country today. Slovak partisans fought for the values of resistance against fascism, such as freedom, justice and equality, and only thanks to them was Czechoslovakia and the Slovak Republic finally a free country that stood on the side of the winners. Today I would like to pay tribute to these people who have fallen for our freedom. In the Slovak National Uprising, about ten thousand people fell, who were not only soldiers, not only partisans, but also civilians who helped these people survive in the mountains. About 150,000 people were killed in the Dukla operation. Either they lost their lives, their health, or they were captured. Honour their memory.

Madam President, I understand that this is a discussion about the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency, despite the fact that many of the speakers are speaking about their feelings and about the different facts, so they should be taken away the floor. But my question for Mr Körner is: can you explain to me, please, how is it connected the national discussion or national decisions of Hungarian Prime Minister or the Hungarian Government with the Presidency of the European Union? Because I didn't understand very much from your presentation. How is this correlated or connected? You didn't very much speak about the Presidency priorities, which I would like to hear, finally, somebody in this room to speak about. Because this is just the hearing of Mr Prime Minister of Hungary and not the Presidency discussion which should be here.

Madam President, this summit, and indeed today's debate, is also about some global agreement, that we are building peace, human rights and sustainable development. And I believe that the United Nations has an irreplaceable role as a global mediator and also in creating a real space for discussing the future of the whole world, because all countries are represented there. I consider the end of wars and the promotion of peace to be one of the most important agreements, which actually came into being during this summit, that we all want to continue to work together on this. Maybe I'd like to go back to that development. We, as the European Union, are now presenting such modern colonialism that, while we say that we want the whole world to get better, we are fighting for people all over the world. On the other hand, we do not mind exploiting the countries of Africa and other regions for the sake of mineral resources and raw materials, and we pretend that it is all right, and we export to them our waste, which we produce here. I think we should change that. And I would like to commend the agreement in the field of digital cooperation, in the field of digital technologies, where we can really help education in third world countries.

Mr President, people buy a car because they need it, not because they have nothing to do with money. When I buy a car, the most important information about the car is the price. So affordability of cars for any type of car is the most important thing that people look at. When we talk about the current crisis in the automotive industry, we caused it ourselves. This Parliament, too, with its decisions and, above all, with the fact that we have put so much pressure on the Green Deal and on such nonsensical aspects and nonsensical regulations that we have not thought through properly. I hope that the new Commission will also talk about the impact and impact studies on such different proposals that it is going to put forward, how different our decisions can affect different sectors of industry and how they actually have an impact on individual people. The automotive industry is in crisis because we have decided, we have decided, that we will use only electric cars. We definitely need to reverse this. We need to look, as the European Parliament and the European Union, at what we are capable of doing. I liked the ideas that colleagues also mentioned that let's support different types of fuels and let's support different forms of hybrid cars, for example. But let's not just talk about electric cars, because there's really a big problem with that.

Madam President, first of all I would like to say that I am very sorry for all the victims who died on 7 October last year. And I want to express my solidarity with their families and, of course, with the families of the people who, unfortunately, are still being held hostage. Of course, no form of terrorism must be accepted or excused, and we must all say that this is wrong. And we, as the international community, must fight terrorism together. However, a terrorist attack does not give Israel the right to attack the population living in Gaza. I am very sorry for the 40,000 victims of these people who died in Gaza. They were women, they were children, they were young people, they were elderly people. And, you know, we talk a lot about Israel, about the Jews, and about various things that concern this region. And we say sometimes, I feel like second-class people who live in Gaza today. I personally visited the refugee camps that are in Lebanon a few years ago. And you know, to see generations of people growing up in a refugee camp from those previous conflicts: What will we grow out of these people? It will not be people who will see peace, who will want to cooperate. We must do more than the international community to resolve this conflict, to win two states on this territory. Above all, we need to stop the humanitarian crisis that is there at the moment. And I am very supportive of Mr Borrell. As the European Union, we must do everything to get help to those people who need it most, and Israel must make this possible.

Commissioner, when we are talking about the Energy Union, I wonder whether that Union is real cooperation and where the European Commission was when Hungary and Slovakia were blackmailed by Ukraine and threatened to stop Ukraine from importing critical raw materials through Ukrainian territory, for which we paid. This was also mentioned by a colleague from Hungary, so I would be very interested if you could answer me. When we talk about the Energy Union, it is very important to talk about the fact that we still have high energy prices in the European Union, which are felt by our own citizens. Our companies pay about three and a half times what companies in the United States pay for energy. So we really have to deal with how much that energy costs us. We support the production of hydrogen in the European Union, but we still do not know exactly what we will be using it specifically for. It might also be interesting to know what ideas we have and how we will use the hydrogen we plan to produce on a large scale. We need better infrastructure for electricity. If we want to use electricity more, whether we should focus more on Member States investing money also in ensuring that energy security is actually supported by good infrastructure. And also, when we talk about electric cars and the use of electricity, the safety of these vehicles is important, because we can see that today, even car manufacturing companies are going back to fossil fuels and standard engines, because they are much better.

Madam President, I think this report is a very good basis for further discussion, and it is a wish list that we could perhaps make a little use of, but look at how. The proposed amount of money that Mr Draghi proposes that we add to the European budget every year may not be the best idea, and the Member States will, of course, have to deal with it, but it must be taken as a good proposal. I think we shouldn't forget people. I also miss a little bit in this report such a social dimension and the promotion of employment, but the promotion of workers' social rights and what we have actually built in the European Union in this area. I am also pleased that he mentions support for cohesion and cohesion policy, which is indeed a very good EU policy for investment and balancing regional disparities. However, I am somewhat sorry that he is saying that some regions should be left out and that we should invest this money more in innovation. Supporting the start-ups of our own smart people is certainly a very important part of this report. But the most important question that arises is what we are sacrificing. Mr Draghi asks whether we are sacrificing the environment, the standard of living or our soul. I think we should sacrifice a little pride and say that some legislation is not good and we should correct it.

Madam President, the European Union is an institution designed to promote peace, not war. I will repeat this in this House all the time. We're confusing two things here. Some of you here say that you want peace, and then at the same time you say that peace means the defeat of Putin. Because these are two different things. When we talk about peace, peace means discussion, cooperation, or negotiations to bring a solution to the table. When we talk about war, we are talking about the dead. We're talking about guns, we're talking about guns. I think that the Union should talk about a peace policy, and that we should call more in this House, too, for some peace negotiations to be held and for us to support, no matter what peace plan, just so that this war ends and people do not die. You know, the Slovak Republic is inundated with people who have fled Ukraine. And I am very sorry that some Member States are releasing these people to go to war in which they do not want to fight. This is also a violation of human rights in my opinion, and we should also consider whether this is right. Ukraine is actually a country that will be devastated by war. You are all saying here that we will support Ukraine until the last minute, until the last euro. But how many? What does that mean? We have here the Draghi report, which speaks of support for the European Union's competitiveness. But at the same time, you're saying that you're going to give an infinite amount of money to get people killed there and keep fighting there. So we really need to recover so that we don't sell our souls to the devil just to take some kind of revenge that many of you here are longing for.

Madam President, we are talking about the future of agriculture. We saw farmers on the streets, and suddenly it was possible to change European legislation. So I'm glad that we really want to do something. On the other hand, we should perhaps stop importing cheap agricultural products from Ukraine and really make a real difference to European agriculture. Potrebujeme investície, potrebujeme diverzifikáciu, potrebujeme inovácie, technológie v poľnohospodárstve, ako ste povedali pani komisárka. Otherwise, I wonder why Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski, who is in charge of agriculture in such an important debate, is not here. You talked about these necessary things, but that's why we need more money for agriculture. And then the most important thing in all this is certainly that we maintain sufficient support for farmers in all regions of the European Union. Many colleagues have said that animal production needs to be reduced a bit. I think the opposite, because animal production also benefits us in that it also contains the products that we need in order to increase crop production. So I would certainly also talk about more support for animal production, because not all people in the European Union want to be vegan. Farmers must not suffer from the Green Deal, and we also do not need new regulations and for agriculture to absorb the problems we have. But the most important thing to do is to finally match the payments between eastern and western farmers so that we have real equality in agriculture in the European Union.

Madam President, this first part-session is mainly about big symbols, and I am very sorry that the first debate in this new European Parliament is not about our citizens, it is not about our topics, it is not about social security, it is not about fighting poverty at all, but it is about a third country, Ukraine. But I understand that this is your decision. I am also very sorry that the debate on the debate on Gaza, on the situation taking place there, was not adopted. I do not know where this war is less important or where these people are less important than the people in Ukraine. I am also very sorry that we have not accepted the debate and discussion about the current political culture, not only in the European Union, but also in a world where political leaders or people who have a slightly different opinion than a majority or what is said in the standard media are being attacked, as happened to the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Robert Fico and, more recently, Donald Trump. So I am very sorry that this House has once again decided to talk only about Ukraine and still about Ukraine. Nevertheless, speaking of Ukraine, I think that what we should be saying first is certainly the EU's peace policy. The European Union was created as a project of peace, and that should be the first thing we should say. That we are to push for peace negotiations, we are to push for a solution to the situation and we are to push for the two sides to sit at the same negotiating table and for peace to finally come to Ukraine, and not just to deliver constant weapons and talk about how this war must end with Russia's defeat.

Mr President, it was the Nordic social model and Sweden, which brought the social pillar to Europe, that was our model, so that we do not forget the citizens of the European Union and people throughout their lives. And I am very pleased that, even today, we are standing here at the end of the mandate of this European Parliament and we are talking about the fact that social Europe, the Europe we want and, as social democrats, we very much support it. Throughout life, from birth, we should take care of our citizens and our people. This means that decent birth care, health care, good education, but above all social conditions, fair working conditions for people throughout their lives are a very important part of our policies and we must not give up on them. We must not resign in support of trade unionists, in support of bargaining, of collective bargaining. Even today, in the twenty-first century, this is not self-evident for some industries and for some companies, so this is also a thing that we must not forget for the next five years. A fair wage and a dignified life for everyone throughout life, including in old age. Fair pensions, from which people can really live with dignity, are also a very important part of our efforts. And I think that this commitment to the declaration that we are talking about today for the next five years, not only for the European Parliament, but for the European Union as a whole, is also a very positive signal for the citizens of our Union.

Madam President, war is certainly a violation of international law, but also what we are proposing here today and what we are talking about here is, in my opinion, a violation of international law. You yourself have said this, Mr Borrell, that there is some innovative idea that we need to innovate and invent a way to do it, because it is clear to us from the outset that this is not right, and I think that, although I am here in a kind of isolated voice that will say this, we must replace the emotions that touch us all with truly pragmatism and common sense. We cannot replace a violation of international law with a violation of international law. The European Union is not Robin Hood. We are an institution based on the rule of law, on the law and on clear rules and a functioning system. In particular, the certainty of law which the European Union stands for and which it is trying to present is at great risk in this case, and I do not think that, although we might all like to do so, this is the right way to use it. We cannot innovate in this way, Mr President and Vice-President of the European Commission, and I am also very pleased that, in this debate, you have finally acknowledged that the European Union does not have the competence to buy arms, and that is why you have devised a peace instrument so that you can use it, because that is also very important in this debate, we cannot bend the law as we like it at the moment.

Madam President, work must be voluntary, working conditions must be adequate and, of course, there must also be a well-deserved reward for these people. Forced labour has no place in the 21st century, and we can already see that even chronic violators of these rules are gradually approaching the rules of the International Labour Organization. If it is standard and prohibits such work. There is no reason why we, as the European Union, should tolerate or stop actually addressing this situation, and we should allow for the possibility that some people and some companies may actually still benefit from forced labour. There is no tolerance at all for companies to talk about not being able to check in their production chain whether there was any forced labour that might have happened during that production. In my view, it is also a very good solution that the European Commission investigates such breaches. If a company violates this possibility and will not be able to prove whether there was any forced labour, because, of course, there will always come first some kind of stimulus, which will certainly have some justification. I don't think that's going to be the way we're going to abuse these companies. Certainly, if we do not use such products, this is our concrete way of combating forced labour ourselves. And I think it is good that we ban it from importing into the European Union if something like this has been produced. We can't afford to buy cheap things because people were abused in making them. We are in the 21st century.