Speeches

Madam President, The situation in Afghanistan is dramatic. We have given people hope for a democratic Afghanistan. And now many fear for their lives. And this gives rise to a special responsibility. However, only one ‘best of’ foreclosure policy comes from the Council: Preventing illegal migration, not creating incentives, deportation to transit countries. Nor does it help if, after all, it is recognised that the right to asylum is mandatory or that voluntary resettlement could be a measure. Member States must now take responsibility. And in addition to humanitarian aid in Afghanistan for evacuations and cooperation with neighbouring countries, they must also enable reception and integration in Europe, create safe routes, resettlement use. Our society is quite ready to welcome people seeking protection. There are concrete offers for this, and we should use them.

Mr President! Since last week, the digital COVID certificates have been in place to facilitate freedom of movement in the pandemic. This is a good sign at first. But despite certificates, despite new advice for more uniform travel rules, a new patchwork of restrictions is emerging in dealing with the virus variants. People from the same region have to be quarantined in Member State A and there are no restrictions in Member State B. This uncoordinated and non-transparent approach leads to uncertainty and anger among our citizens. It impairs the acceptance and ease of use of certificates, and it weakens trust in European decisions. Therefore, to the Council: What do you do specifically to ensure that more uniform rules apply everywhere? In addition to common mandatory criteria, free tests would also make it easier to start the certificates, especially for those who could not or did not want to be vaccinated yet. 100 million euros are available for rapid tests, the Commission had promised further funding. However, this is probably no longer part of Commissioner Reynders' plans, despite reports that poorer groups in particular have not yet been vaccinated very well. A question therefore also to the Commission: How do you want to ensure that the facilitation of freedom of movement does not become a mere question of money?

Madam President, Border-free travel in the Schengen area is one of our greatest achievements and yet highly endangered. I do not want to go into COVID and Schengen at this minute, because there are enough other problems, starting with years of illegal border controls, the lack of consistency on the part of the Commission, and the countless reports of serious human rights violations at our external borders. Yes, a border-free EU needs a functioning border management system. And that is precisely why a legal framework is needed that is binding on the Member States and does not allow for backdoors. The European Border and Coast Guard needs a management level that protects fundamental rights and human rights instead of: pushbacks Tolerate and silence. The Commission must now rectify the sometimes serious shortcomings and weaknesses as quickly as possible so that we can draw a more positive conclusion next year.

Madam President, 70 years of the Geneva Convention on Refugees – it is almost a lifesaver, an international agreement that protects millions of people and makes the right to asylum a fundamental right in our Union. The circumstances that led to this milestone in human rights were different than they are today. However, with over 82 million people currently displaced worldwide, the Convention has lost none of its significance. 70 years ago, many Europeans were on the run. Today we are able to take in refugees. That's a reason to be proud. Nevertheless, the principles of the Convention are increasingly being called into question. Let us remember the universal values, humanitarian principles and solidarity that underlie this Convention. 70 years of protection for refugees – let us now ensure that this convention remains the foundation, including for our asylum and migration policies!

Mr President! Sexual abuse is a terrible crime, a massive violation of our children's fundamental and human rights. This applies to the real world, but also when images of abuse are shared online again and again. And in both worlds, we need to be better at preventing, prosecuting perpetrators, but also helping survivors. Online measures are an addition, for example to covert investigations or the generally better equipping of law enforcement and counselling centres. But we also have to face the debate about how much surveillance online is compatible with our free democratic fundamental rights and where we run the risk of installing a comprehensive surveillance system that knows the most intimate details of the communication of all people, including our children, whom we want to protect in particular. Already today, various providers voluntarily scan private messages to detect child abuse. However, this threatened to become impossible due to a change in the electronic communication code. And so, in September last year, the Commission tabled the law on which we will vote tomorrow. An exception to the current ePrivacy-Rules that continue to allow scanning of private messages for child abuse even without consent. The law allows for different technologies. The so-called hashing has been used for many years. It makes it possible to identify abuse depictions by matching videos and images with a predefined set of digital fingerprints, the so-called hashes. And as rapporteur, I underlined early on that I do not want to stop this practice, but I have pushed for additional safeguards. Clearly more controversial was and is the use of artificial intelligence to read news for the detection of unknown material and possible cyber grooming. For a long time, the Commission had failed to address the impact of the already ongoing scanning on child abuse. It would have been a lot of time to find a good, sustainable solution to the legal challenges surrounding scanning private communications on the Internet. However, when the Commission finally recognised its failure, it did not even bother to present an impact assessment on the impact of fundamental rights, even though it would have been its duty. Instead, massive pressure was put on the negotiators to reach any agreement quickly. But as legislators, we always have the duty to examine all facts and act in accordance with fundamental rights and the rule of law. I have said this many times and I repeat it today. Of course, we can disagree on political decisions and particularly on such sensitive issues, but that never relieves us of the responsibility of a critical, comprehensive debate. The agreement reached between the Council and Parliament is a compromise between detecting child sexual abuse online and protecting the privacy of users. It may not be perfect, but it is a viable transitional solution for the next three years. The compromise allows for the temporary continuation of certain voluntary measures to detect sexual abuse, images and possible cyber-grooming. As Parliament, we have fought hard to improve the proposal and bring it into line with existing data protection standards. We have added safeguards, such as better informing users or introducing a 12-month data retention period. We want more direct information to European authorities and have achieved the need for service providers to work closely with national data protection authorities. These can prohibit technologies that are hostile to fundamental rights. Data protection and the protection of confidentiality are not the protection of perpetrators, but the basis of democracy. We must also protect the confidentiality of communications in the interests of our children. This applies all the more to sensitive communications, such as between victims of abuse and their doctors and lawyers. This law is a temporary solution for three years. The Commission had promised to propose a new, permanent framework for the detection of child abuse before the summer break. It will take until September or October. I expect a much better proposal for this. The long-term solution must at least be based on the data protection guarantees of the temporary solution. It must find solutions for more targeted scanning of private communications, otherwise it will have little effect before national and European courts. And yes, we expect a comprehensive impact assessment this time. And that is why you, dear Ylva Johansson, and also you, President of the Commission von der Leyen – because I know that you are interested in this law – are on the move again.