What Juan Fernando spoke about.

Both of them – Hungary and Poland – are Member States of the European Union. They are bound exactly by the same rules and by the same law as the rest of us and the rest of the Member States of the European Union. This European Parliament represents 10 million Hungarian citizens in their European citizenship. This European Parliament represents 40 million Polish citizens in their Polish citizenship. So it is our wish that the Polish Government not only says that it is willing to comply, that it has the intention to comply, that maybe it would consider to comply. We want both Hungary and Poland to comply. And as long as they don’t comply, we have a case here. That is why we put in place Article 2. That is why we put in place the procedure of Article 7. That is why we are expecting finally Poland to abide by the rulings of European Court of Justice and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Insofar as it is not the case, and particularly it does not comply with this very Chamber being dismantled, we have a case. That is the principle. So we only hope that Poland and Hungary will finally make it and understand that they are bound by the same rules and by the same law as the rest of the Member States and by the rest of us.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, when the Commission announces that it will authorise the disbursement of no less than EUR 24 billion in subsidies, in addition to EUR 11.5 billion in loans to Poland, it is contradicting the resolutions of this Parliament, but also its own statements in this rostrum before the European Parliament. The recovery fund is a sign of solidarity across the European Union with its Member States, including Poland. Is it too much to ask that, in return, the Member States – including Poland – comply with European law? I remind you of your statements in this rostrum. Three conditions must be met to disburse the recovery fund. Dismantling the disciplinary chamber, reviewing the disciplinary procedures and reinstating the judges that were suspended or suspended by the disciplinary chamber. None of these requirements have already been met. Not so far. So, as long as these requirements are not met, as long as the dismantling of the Disciplinary Chamber is not fulfilled and is not only called otherwise, it is imperative that we stick to the question of principles. And this Parliament, of course, respects Poland's effort in the face of the crisis unleashed by Putin's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. But at the same time we say that this does not justify looking the other way at the blatant failure to comply with the rules of the rule of law and judicial independence and to comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, all blatantly ignored by the Polish Government. Or have we seen in some other Member State of the European Union that the government has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to say that the primacy of European Union law is incompatible with its Constitution and go to its Constitutional Court and say it without further ado, exactly because that is what the government asks of it? Therefore, as long as the requirements are not met, President von der Leyen, this Parliament abides by its resolutions. (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention under the "blue card" procedure)

Madam President, when President von der Leyen announced in her investiture her ambitious green agenda and her intention to place the European Union in the global lead in the fight against global warming, no one said it would be easy. But a clear majority in this European Parliament supports that unavoidable objective, an indisputable one. In addition, we call for a just transition to a carbon-free economy, fair to vulnerable sectors and fair to island and remote territories, such as the ORs, which have a specific legal basis for a singular treatment that allows them a reasonable time to assimilate the target, so that it is not unaffordable. That is why I would like to thank those who are going to vote on the amendments on the ORs in the Emissions Trading Directive in this Strasbourg plenary session, because I am convinced that this will give them the time frame modulated and adjusted to their needs to incorporate renewable energy and meet the objective of a sustainable, green, blue, circular and innovative economy.

Madam President, the European Union is not just a contiguous territory from the Atlantic to its border with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine or Turkey. They are also islands in which millions of Europeans live who need this European pact of islands proposed by the rapporteur Omarjee, which addresses the State aid provided for in Article 107, the regional policy of 174 and the problems of adaptation to the green transition that islands require as a fragmented territory, where there is unemployment, where there is a need to support the primary, fisheries and agricultural sector, and where there is a need to diversify the economy with a unique effort in terms of connectivity that corrects the problems caused by double and triple insularity. Therefore, yes to the European pact of the islands. Therefore, yes to the specialization of regional policy and yes to the specialization of State aid, which shows that the European Union is also portrayed in its cohesion policy and regional integration in the islands, not only in the adjoining territory.

Mr President, just shortly, as I had the honour to state yesterday, the LIBE Committee supports both the substance and the urgent procedure as to this amending regulation of Eurojust. So the LIBE coordinators have mandated me to present shortly the LIBE position as follows: First, we have to stick to the minimum amendments possible to improve the draft proposal. Second, we have included the considerations that were delivered by the European Data Protection Supervisor’s opinion. We have been in informal talks both with the Council and the Commission. So we have learned that just yesterday Coreper agreed to the position that was handed by the LIBE Committee, which means that if we vote positively on this amending regulation of Eurojust, that will be the first reading – end of it, because the Council has agreed to this position. That will be the final track to make it enter into force. It will be an answer, a swift answer of our determination both to help Ukraine and fight against the impunity of all war crimes.

Madam President, while we are debating in this plenary session of the European Parliament, the Conference of the Outermost Regions is taking place in Martinique; outermost regions that are the only ones mentioned by name in European law, in the Treaty of Lisbon, exactly to protect their uniqueness: six French regions, including Martinique, two Portuguese and one Spanish, Canary Islands. And they are discussing the European Union's strategy for the outermost regions presented by Commissioner for Cohesion and Reforms Elisa Ferreira. And it's okay, we have to celebrate. But his defense will not be complete until special treatment is affirmed in two European laws that are being debated by this House. The first is the imposition of a minimum rate on the profits of large multinationals. Because this Parliament is being consulted, but it will be up to the national governments, during the final debate on the directive, to determine the specialities of the tax systems of some of these outermost regions. The second is the temporary modality of adaptation to the decarbonization of the economy so that it does not impose unaffordable conditions on regions that depend entirely on their air connectivity and maritime supply.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, from overcoming with the decisive impetus of this European Parliament that embryonic phase of commitment to the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union to turning this already regular, regular debate on the Commission's annual rule of law report into an institution of this European Parliament, we have effectively covered the ground. And the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs welcomes this new report from the Commission and appreciates it, pointing out, of course, that the widening of the spectrum of concerns it addresses is still pending so that it not only talks about the functioning of judicial systems – which of course – the fight against corruption or information pluralism, but also includes any form of abuse of power, including non-discrimination in access to a fair trial or including prison conditions: are additional elements. But above all it underlines the importance of the Commission, in its annual report. First, distinguish between what are serious and systemic violations of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights – so that we make the difference with respect to those countries that are subject to the Article 7 procedure and, indeed, also under the focus of rule of law conditionality – and those that raise specific or specific problems, but which in no case entail a systemic violation, nor a clear risk of violation of the fundamental principles of the rule of law. And secondly, it also allows us to address the shortfall in concrete proposals for improvement so that the report includes country-specific recommendations in each country chapter pointing out to those countries that have specific problems in complying with the principles enshrined in Article 2 which is the way forward for the improvement of their institutions, the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights.

Mr President, at this stage, I’m humbly and kindly asking you to endorse this proposal for amending the Eurojust Regulation. You know what it’s like: after the war launched by Putin’s Russia against Ukraine, the urgent need came to light to amend the Eurojust Regulation precisely to ensure its capacity to prevent impunity of the atrocities perpetrated in this war against Ukraine by Russian troops. The purpose of this amended regulation is precisely to set up an automated management data system and a storage facility with the aim of helping Eurojust to preserve and share evidence which is relevant precisely to prevent impunity of those crimes perpetrated in the war against Ukraine. That is the only purpose of these amending regulations: precisely to help Eurojust to better cooperate with Member States, third states, and most importantly, with the International Criminal Court and its prosecutor, which opened an investigation on the matter, to help the joint investigation teams, which are already underway, and to make sure that, as swiftly as possible, Eurojust has the capacity to assist and support Member States in their investigations and eventually prosecutions of all those to be held accountable for those war crimes, namely: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Those are the crimes which are contemplated in this amended regulation. And the idea is, by the urgent procedure, you know hwat it’s like, in one first reading, we will have the vote tomorrow, that will be the end of our position insofar as the Council agrees to the position that has been endorsed by the LIBE Committee, which we will be voting on tomorrow. That means that if Coreper, i.e. the Council, agrees to the European Parliament position, that will be the end of the procedure, that will be the entry into force of this amended regulation. That is the idea. So, I kindly request you to endorse this urgent procedure so that we show once again that, when it’s needed, we may achieve concrete results in fighting against impunity of war crimes.

Madam President, if you will allow me, this is just a call for the Members to endorse the mandate of the LIBE Committee to engage into negotiations – the so-called interinstitutional negotiations – as it is an extension of the timeframe of the first version of the EU Digital COVID Certificate. It makes sense insofar as the pandemic is not over – the worst is over, but the pandemic is not over yet – so a time limited extension is reasonable, and that is the mandate of negotiation of the LIBE Committee.

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, very well, Robert Biedroń, Chair of the Committee on Women's Rights, for bringing to this European Parliament an urgent question on a drama that has to be high on our agenda: the impact of the war in Ukraine on women, who make up the vast majority of people who have fled the war zone. They are the most vulnerable victims of the sexual violence brutalized by Russian troops and, of course, of the sexual exploitation to which they are exposed in the illicit trafficking networks that have been activated at the border. That is why the European Parliament also welcomes the sensitivity with which the Commission, first of all, has coordinated the safe transport of people fleeing the war zone: The vast majority of women, girls and boys. Secondly, it has ensured the sexual and reproductive health rights, medical care and abortion rights of women who have been raped by Russian troops. Third, it has strengthened the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, Eurojust, to cooperate with the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office of the International Criminal Court, so that no war crime – particularly those perpetrated against women – can go unpunished: gathering evidence, investigating and prosecuting until the last crime of sexual violence.

Mr President, Commissioner, if you are still wondering about the relevance of this Parliament discussing instability and insecurity in the Sahel and West Africa, it will be enough to listen to the key arguments on this point of our agenda. Because motivation is inescapable: Africa is experiencing a population explosion unprecedented in human history. It has doubled its population in the last fifty years and will double it again in the next thirty. And, particularly in the Sahel and West Africa, the violence, the food crisis and the death toll caused in their fight against jihadism by the criminal mercenaries of the Wagner group sponsored by Putin result in a constant flow of human beings fleeing and, in their desperation, abandoning themselves to illicit trafficking, leading to outermost regions such as the Canary Islands, that is, the European Union. It is imperative that the European Union understands that this is the scale of response and that only the European Union can respond with maritime rescue, with solidarity, with shared responsibility. If we have done it in Ukraine, with the intelligence of solidarity, it is essential that Europe does it also in the Sahel and in West Africa.

Mr President, Commissioner, this important debate coincides with the start of the work of the Pegasus Committee of Inquiry, a highly sophisticated telephone spy technology that threatens the European idea of democracy, its values and its rights. Unlike any precedent with which we can compare it, Pegasus is characterized, not only by its opacity, difficult to trace, but also by its intrusiveness and its harmfulness in relation to fundamental rights that we consider very precious; due to its viral expansion (it has multiplied very quickly and has high contagion power); and for being prohibitively expensive (a cost, therefore, that is not available to anyone, and is to be contrasted if it is only accessible by the States). What is certain is that until now, with all the incidents and controversies and controversies exposed to bitter debates in the political landscapes of the Member States, clear indicators have emerged that at least 20 States have had this technology, including some Member States that have recognized it (Hungary and Poland, again). So what the Committee of Inquiry has to do is a lot to know, a lot of territory to explore, a lot of work ahead. This is what can be expected from the year of the Committee of Inquiry activated in the European Parliament, to which I have the honour to belong. What I do know from experience, because I chaired the Committee of Inquiry that investigated the surveillance programme of the National Security Agency, is that the objective has to be European legislation that strengthens the fundamental rights of Europeans, supported by the testimonies and documents that emerge from the work of the committee, that strengthens the rights regarding confidentiality of communications, privacy and secrecy of communications, with a guarantee of reservation of judicial authorization. It cannot be excluded from our work that we must conclude with the incompatibility of Pegasus with the European standard for the protection of fundamental rights, which is the highest in the world. We are proud of this, precisely because of the invasive and potentially uncontrollable nature of its threat to the fundamental rights set out in Article 8 of the European Charter. But cybersecurity and counter-espionage measures essential to making this strategic autonomy of the European Union's foreign, security and defence policy credible will undoubtedly also have to be strengthened. I conclude: the spyware Pegasus does emerge as an incentive to the European legislative process, but only to the extent that it addresses a threat of hitherto unknown entity against European citizenship and its fundamental rights. Not taking it seriously enough would be tantamount, by omission or collusion, to taking the risks for which, according to the diagnosis of Levitsky and Ziblatt, democracies end up dying.

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, you have heard it clearly, the European Parliament is well aware that in the pandemic years there has been an exponential increase in cybercrime – such as phishing or online sexual abuse – which requires a reinforcement of Europol’s mandate to handle big data, but to do so consistently in the face of globalisation and the technological revolution and with the European standard for the protection of fundamental rights, which is the highest in the world. That is why you have listened with insistence to the message that it is essential to safeguard, in this reinforcement of Europol's mandate to cooperate with third States, with private actors, in the management of big data and in its capacity to fight serious transnational crime, the European standard for the protection of fundamental rights. I believe that this is the message that emerges clearly from this debate and that is why it is important for the regulation to provide for the incorporation of the fundamental rights officer, which is what we have demanded in the renewal of each agency that is accountable to the European Parliament and, in particular, the Committee on Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs.

Mr President, Vice-President Schinas, the dizzying event of Putin's war against Ukraine has come to change everything, from the local to the global. We read a lot these days and we hear a lot about the conduct of the war on the military plane, therefore, on the war plane, but there are other Putin wars where a battle is fought in which Russia is a superpower as in the nuclear, mainly in disinformation and manipulation. Because Putin autocratically controls the public and private media, without counterweights and, of course, gives the battle of the story, as we saw in the commission we launched on the manipulation and interference of Russia in the democratic and electoral processes in the European Union, which yielded some conclusive lessons: the need to legislate at European level, the need to protect European citizens from fake news and to the deep fakes, including transparency in algorithms, effective and dissuasive sanctions, but above all sufficient investment in cybersecurity to protect European values and security from attacks on its critical infrastructure and democratic processes.

Madam President, after a year and a half of work, the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence concludes with this document that the European Parliament is examining today and that impacts all the matters and legal bases on which the European Parliament legislates content related to industry, energy, trade and, of course, employment. This document must also respect the European standard for the protection of fundamental rights, which proves to be the highest in the world, set out not only in the Data Protection Regulation, but also in the Directive on crime investigation agencies, criminal law enforcement agencies and criminal law enforcement agencies. law enforcement. That standard has to be very present in the legislation, which must place the European Union at the head of the reference in regulations on artificial intelligence. When we talk about predictive policing We need to know what impacts the presumption of innocence. When we talk about biometric recognition we have to know that it impacts on the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. And when we talk about potentially as abrasive content about fundamental rights as that which has to do with the handling of personal data, the European data protection standard has to be respected. Therefore, that is the commitment: placing the European Union at the head of artificial intelligence legislation, but in no way giving in to the siren songs that claim that this would be in contradiction with the maintenance of the European standard for the protection of personal data and respect for fundamental rights. Therefore, congratulations, yes, to the rapporteurs. But above all, it warns against European legislation on artificial intelligence so that it maintains respect for the fundamental rights protected by the Charter.

Madam President, I really appreciate the opportunity, once again, to be able to pay tribute, in a debate on the marginalised situation of the Roma community in the European Union, to those who time and again bring to the European Union's awareness the unacceptable discrimination they suffer, at all levels, in Member States of the European Union. I remember recently attending the screening of a documentary by the former chair of a committee of this European Parliament, Nicholsonová, on the completely unacceptable situation of the Roma community in the Czech Republic. And in particular, I would like to pay tribute to the representatives of the Roma community who have had a seat in this European Parliament: from Juan de Dios Ramírez Heredia to, in this legislature, Lívia Járóka or Romeo Franz, who raise awareness of the importance of overcoming this discrimination by fulfilling point by point the European strategy against discrimination against the Roma community in the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner Dalli, international humanitarian law is an integral part of the sources of European law (Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union). That is why we must know that the guiding principle of the right to asylum is that of non-rejection, let alone violent or forcible rejection, of people who, fleeing despair or conflict zones, try to knock on the door of the European Union. And that is why it is not only sad, but scandalous and unacceptable, that we continue to discuss the veracity of allegations of pushbacks violent border rejections, often in violation of the human rights of people in dire straits, particularly those on the high seas left to fend for themselves; allegations that need to be thoroughly investigated by the Commission. This is why this European Parliament has strengthened the fundamental rights mandate of the agencies involved: Frontex and the European Union Agency for Asylum. In addition, it should be added that the work will not be complete until at once we ensure legal and safe pathways –legal pathways—, including humanitarian visas, to all those trying to reach the European Union by fleeing conflict zones or in desperate situations, whose dignity is no less than that of the four million Ukrainian women and children we welcome.

Thank you for your question, Your Honor. It is the Commission that has the institutional responsibility to be guardian of the Treaties and to monitor compliance with European law. But the Court of Justice is the ultimate guarantor of compliance with European law and its judgments are binding. This European Parliament has therefore taken note of the fact that the Polish Government is asking the Constitutional Court to declare that the primacy of European law no longer binds Poland and that the judgments of the Court of Justice are therefore no longer binding in Poland. Do you think it's serious enough? We do. But it is the Commission that has taken the decision to activate the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation in the case of Hungary, because Hungary's continuum in non-compliance with the Commission's requests and in the management of European funds leads to that conclusion, in the expectation of what Poland's response will be.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President Jourová, the European idea of democracy has never been reduced to simply governing with a majority. No electoral victory, therefore, exempts from complying with European law. That is the rule of membership of the European Union. And that rule of belonging is very demanding, and that is exactly why we find here again that we have a debate on Poland and Hungary and Article 7. It must be recalled time and again that the European idea of democracy requires respect for minorities, respect for the procedures laid down by law and all guarantees of compliance with the rules of law, including, of course, compliance with the judgments of the Court of Justice, compliance with them. And that is why this European Parliament launched Article 7 in the cases of Hungary and Poland, and the infringement procedures that have led to millionaire fines that are added every day and, also, to the adoption of the Regulation on the conditionality of the rule of law, which links access to European funds to compliance with European law and compliance with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union. And that is why no one is happy that we are having this debate again. No one is happy that President von der Leyen has finally taken the step of announcing that she will activate the Conditionality Regulation in the case of Hungary, in anticipation of compliance with the rulings of the Court of Justice by Poland. Because we have to say clearly that, if there is no compliance with European law and if that compliance does not bind the 27 Member States equally for the benefit of the European citizenship of the 27 Member States, including the 40 million Poles and the 10 million Hungarians, the European Union would simply cease to exist. (The speaker agreed to answer a question under the "blue card" procedure).

Madam President, Vice-President Jourová, the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in All Democratic Processes in the European Union, in particular Disinformation, of which I have had the honour of being a member, draws some unappealable conclusions. One of them is the need to strengthen cybersecurity and the fact-checking against manipulation. But another, no less important, is that there is no racist and xenophobic party in Europe that has not sought Putin's support and funding, as well as secessionist, separatist and segregating movements and formations, insofar as Putin knows that everything that threatens the unity of democratically constituted states threatens the entire European Union. Now, that brutal aggression by Putin against Ukraine and its people has come to change so many things. One of them, without a doubt, is that it has reinforced the unity of the European Union in its commitment to respond, but another is that it is also forcing all these formations to position themselves before the dilemma of opting for their alignment with fascism or with the extreme right, with radical ideology, or, on the contrary, for their subjection to the values and binding law of the European Union.

Madam President, yes, this European Parliament has said forcefully and clearly that Putin's brutal war against Ukraine and its people is illegal and that the European Union must do everything in its power to stop it and as soon as possible, and has also said that war crimes, of which we have unappealable testimonies, cannot go unpunished. But neither one thing nor another, neither war nor war crimes, can take off our radar other very flagrant and very painful human rights violations that were the subject of debate in this European Parliament not long ago and which, however, have now gone into the background until they become practically invisible: the subjugation of Afghan women to the tyranny of the Taliban, who returned to power on 15 August. The European Union welcomed the humanitarian corridor that ensured the safety of women and aid workers – with EU missions and their embassies and their values – who risked their lives because of the Taliban’s return to power. And now we know that the Taliban have completely excluded women from the education system, that from the age of twelve they are completely excluded from opportunities, that, of course, they are already out of university, with the only horizon of their labor and sexual subjection to an oppressive, regressive, intolerant, medieval society, and the question we ask the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, is what can the European Union do to change that road map, so that all the development cooperation and humanitarian aid that the European Union has squandered for so long in Afghanistan, which can still be capitalized on in favor of the fundamental rights of women brutally violated in Afghanistan, can have a horizon of hope?

Mrs Kempa, the effort being made by the countries of the first frontier – Poland, Hungary. Slovakia and Romania – is being recognised across the European Union, but that is not the final destination of displaced persons: They are arriving in Estonia, they are arriving in Austria, they are arriving in Czechia, which means, therefore, that we are facing a change of era that will require a solidarity effort with sufficient funding. You refer to a letter, which was not a personal initiative, but, in my capacity as Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, obeying the mandate of the Board of Spokespersons of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in which it is recalled that yes, the frontline border countries deserve all the help, but that does not exempt them from the mandatory compliance with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union that are pending, particularly in the case of Poland and Hungary.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, ever since the world - and the European Union, of course - on 24 February called for shock at the brutality of the aggression perpetrated by Putin and his regime against Ukraine and its people, we have witnessed a change of era, a Zeitenwende. Four million people displaced for the first time since the Second World War in European territory have entered the European Union, the vast majority, as we know, women and children in a state of extreme vulnerability. It is therefore imperative that this Parliament adopts this resolution, which it not only supports, but demands from the Commission and the French Presidency a coordinated response that, first of all, ensures the registration and identification of all people and establishes as an absolute priority the whereabouts of all those missing children expected in some corner of the European Union where they have not arrived. Secondly, it demands that it curb this state of overconfidence in non-governmental organizations and in the voluntary or spontaneous voluntarism of citizens and establish a coordinated plan for the safe transport of these people to the place where they can be welcomed in solidarity in all the Member States of the European Union. Also to ensure adequate funding with all the instruments at our disposal, not only the European Asylum and Migration Fund, but also the European Social Fund, REACT-EU, and all the instruments available to be able to financially support the Member States in this effort to receive and receive in dignity so many vulnerable women and children that it will not be dissolved overnight, but will last, because that is precisely the consequence of the Temporary Protection Directive. But it is absolutely essential, no doubt, to protect these women and children from the risk of human trafficking, trafficking and prostitution with adequate information. Because that is what the European Strategy on the Protection of the Rights of the Child, the European Strategy against Prostitution and the Commission's mandate against all forms of trafficking and exploitation of persons are all about. (The speaker agreed to answer a question under the "blue card" procedure)

Mr President, between the dates of 19 September and 15 December 2021, a volcano erupted on the Canary Island, Spanish, European, of La Palma, and produced a natural disaster that adds up to all those contemplated in the activation of the Solidarity Fund: fires, earthquakes, havoc, destruction of homes and agricultural production. And that is exactly why, on December 3, the Government of Spain requested the activation of the Solidarity Fund, because the threshold of damage caused in an outermost region far exceeds the minimum of 1% of its GDP. The estimated damage is EUR 800 million and the threshold has therefore been clearly exceeded. The Government of Spain and the Government of the Canary Islands have added, in their solidarity to repair the damage, more than 450 million euros to date. But it was high time that, thanks to the efforts of our Commissioner for Cohesion and Reforms, Elisa Ferreira, the European Union activated at once that advance of 5.4 million euros that will contribute to the repair of the damage of destroyed homes, which shows that the European Union is in solidarity, of course, with the people who need a response coming from outside the European Union, but also with the citizens of the European Union. And this Parliament must not stop until it increases the Solidarity Fund and ensures that it effectively reaches the repair of the island of La Palma.

Mr President, this scandal reveals what remains a fact. There is a Swiss banking sector that does not cooperate against money laundering and does not meet common reporting standards when it comes to high-risk clients. All this takes place in the context of the sanctions imposed by the European Union against Russian oligarchs and underlines the strategic and geopolitical vulnerability of any defect in the fight against money laundering. But this European Parliament is committed, as shown by the fact that we are currently legislating on nothing less than the new anti-money laundering package: five Regulations, one of which concerns a European central anti-money laundering authority. Any bank that fails to comply with the law, including Swiss banking, should be subject not only to due diligence, but also to sanctions to enforce stricter laws. And it must be ensured that the European Banking Authority exercises its supervisory role over financial intelligence units in relation to national anti-money laundering authorities. Only in this way will we be able to draw a lesson from every fact or scandal.