EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT
of the work meeting on the drafting of the bills aimed at the completion of Action Plan for Visa Liberalization by the European Union for Ukraine
October 16, 2015, 12:45, Kiev, 5 Gryshevskoho St., meeting hall
A. A. Kozhemyakin (the Head of the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on legislative support of law enforcement, a parliamentary faction of political party “All-Ukrainian Union “Fatherland”)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues! I have listened to the Deputy Justice Minister’s address very carefully. I would like to say that I am optimistic with regard to the future of the Ukrainian people and Ukraine as a whole, however I am pessimistic about Ukraine’s prospects of obtaining visa-free regime soon. Let me explain you why. Well, first of all, because, unfortunately, we have seen the documents, back then, in 2014, the parliament adopted a lot of them both for the International Monetary Fund and for the visa-free regime. And they told us that we had completed the Action Plan and then – goodbye. As 2015 arrived, we have received more of those bills. And now they, judging from your correspondence with Yatseniuk – the Prime Minister of Ukraine, I can see that they keep adding up, adding up, adding up. The buzz word in these bills is corruption because today everyone understands that it’s cool – to fight corruption, except they don’t understand what it means exactly. It’s like air, that’s how it’s defined today, because a lot of people keep talking the talk instead of walking the walk.
That is why I would like to underscore the following, which both the members of our committee and I personally dislike, because for us, 2540, 2541a and 2542 are crucial key bills that will have to be reviewed and prepared for the second reading. So, I would like to tell you, Volodymyr Borysovych, that 16 Members of Parliament out of 20 members of the committee of all factions, and varied ones – “Petro Poroshenko’ Block”, and “People’s Front”, and “Fatherland”, and “Self Reliance”, – none of them voted in favour of these bills at the first reading.
And that’s a warning sign. Why? I believe that 2540a is the bill, which is currently in such a state that even if we begin elaborating upon it very thoroughly, I find it very difficult to perceive it as a law in general. Because, you know, changing Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there are lawyers sitting here, as well as the representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, and the Head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and they will say that if there is such a notion as “reasonable grounds”, then “reasonable grounds” could, considering how, say (quote), uncorrupt (unquote) our law enforcement agencies are today and especially the investigators, namely the investigators of the Investigation Department of the Attorney General’s Office, which unfortunately still hasn’t been transformed into the State Bureau of Investigation, this could lead to, let me put it gently, the violation of human rights. Why? Because it is proposed to confiscate everything there is, everything they could lay eyes on and everything that could be possibly connected to any crime. It’s wrong. That’s the first thing.
Second of all. I believe that based on the provisions of the bill #2541a, the power to use special confiscation as a provision of criminal law for any possible crime makes no sense at all. That’s why, if we are talking about corruption or other crimes connected to corruption, I believe that it’s right, we have to be more active and back our Anti-Corruption Agency in any way we can, but first we need to define the range of corruption offenses. Unfortunately, the special confiscation is applicable to anything today.
Once again, when the international specialists, professionals have come to us recently, that’s what I’m saying in reply to the Deputy Minister, but unfortunately she is not listening to me.
…So, the experts came to us a couple of days ago, from Great Britain, from Germany, from the European Union, and they say that they need to speak with us on the subject of 2541, 2540 and 2542a. No problem, we will talk to them. We are telling them about these bills. “Do you have bills like these in your country? – No. And what about these ones? – Well, sort of, in Great Britain, for example, but not quite. – Well then. But we were told that you had written these laws and drafted them”. And they answer: “No”. “Fine, do you know the gist of these laws? – No. – Then why exactly are we meeting you? – Well, we need to reach a conceptual agreement with you and listen to your vision”. Well, we told them about our vision. I have the documentation, the transcript of this conversation. If you want, you can read it. That’s third of all.
Fourth of all, concerning the bill #2542a. Yes, we did back it in the committee. More than that, we would be willing to review it before the second reading and make amendments, but once again, dear colleagues, the lawyers will confirm my words. Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been changed five times since its adoption. Basically, we keep overturning it. Well, certainly, new subdivisions, law enforcement agencies keep emerging, we keep adding to it or removing from it. But, regretfully, this bill is dramatically different from the one that the European Union is expecting from us right now, that we need to fulfil this obligation, which we undertook back in 1995 when signing that agreement with the European Union – it’s the bill on the establishment of the State Bureau of Investigation, which was clearly defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the Constitution of Ukraine.
That’s why this bill #2542: I don’t know who wrote it, I don’t know who drafted it, because nobody consulted with us, nobody spoke with us, once again, like this, the Cabinet throws it at us, here you go, deal with this. And then they are baffled why Kozhemyakin stands where he stands. Well, because this is wrong and un-state-building-like.
So, as it stands today, the 2542a is completely incompatible with the jurisdiction of the State Bureau of Investigation. And I believe that the adoption of this bill is possible only following the adoption of the bill on the State Bureau of Investigation. Thank you for your attention.
I.V. Popov (the Deputy Head of the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on preventing and combatting corruption, a parliamentary faction of Oleg Lyashko’s Radical Party)
Dear colleagues, I believe that we have a total consensus as to the need to work in the direction of visa liberalization. However, it is already obvious that we do not have a consensus as to the specific provisions of the bills that were partially adopted at the first reading.
This is precisely why I suggest we based our discussions on the original documents. For instance, while I was getting ready for this meeting, I read the Action Plan itself, which had been signed by Ukraine. And possibly it would be reasonable to distribute the original documents, all protocols, which are the basic signed documents, so that we could understand which amendments are advisable to propose and which are not. I believe that during the work at our committees we should also have at our disposal, all of us, not just the Head of the Committee, – each member should have the basic signed documents. Because it’s all fine and dandy that, when the discussion was at its most heated, we were convinced finally that the 25 percent commission rate for the Asset Recovery Office is not one of the requirements of the European Union and we don’t really have to adopt it. But the point is that the mentions of the Asset Recovery Office are nowhere to be found in the Action Plan.
The same applies to the special confiscation. Which means that, unfortunately, guided by good intentions of completing the Action Plan, sometimes we receive the bills that do not entirely correspond to this purpose. And now, at our committees we are going to ponder properly on the parliamentary amendments so that we could reach the consensus between the political will and the political interests of each faction, each MP and Ukraine’s obligations that need to be complied with, so that we could think over every decision, and both when proposing the amendments and when reviewing them, I reiterate, we have to pay attention to the original documents signed by Ukraine as they are in a free access in the Ukrainian language.
S. V. Vlasenko (the Head of the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on state-building, regional policy and local government, a parliamentary faction of political party “All-Ukrainian Union “Fatherland”)
Thank you, Volodymyr Borysovych.
I have but one simple question. You have gathered here the heads of the committees, the leaders, the deputy leaders of the factions. But where are the people who make so much noise about being so interested in the visa-free regime? I mean: where are our ministers? Where are they? Show me at least one. Show me a minister here.
…. I am not even inquiring about the Minister of Foreign Affairs specifically. What I’m asking is: where is one of them at least? Show him to me. Show me at least one minister. Show me at least one minister sitting here. There are none. Well, there is the sole head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau who hasn’t even started his work. Well, he is going to start his work and stop coming here as well. This is why that’s the first question. And this is the root of all.
I absolutely agree with my colleague Ms Gerashchenko that it is unacceptable to throw the bills into the Parliament and expect it to just pass them at a moment’s notice. But this stems from the fact that nobody in the Cabinet has any kind of respect for the Parliament. They have the nerve to send the department directors over here. This is the meeting chaired by the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, with the envoy of the European Union in attendance as well – and they send the deputy ministers, with no actual ministers in sight. This isn’t normal, this is a contempt of Ukrainian Parliament. And it is just as much of a contempt as the unprofessional addresses of these very deputy ministers from the Verkhovna Rada’s tribune.
Mr. Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, I will not be speaking of every bill. But the bill #1541a on special confiscation… Excuse me, 2541a, yes. As it turns out, we intend to not only hold people accountable for the crimes, we will also hold them accountable for socially dangerous acts that show signs of crime. This is like the first year of law school. I feel like this was drafted by the people who have not begun their first year of law school yet. And I think that the Ministry of Justice should dismiss those new faces already, the new faces that all worked at the same law firm before, the very same one. And they should propose these bills openly, without hiding behind the backs of imaginary european experts that no one has ever seen or heard.
By the way, I actually took the time to (I agree with my colleagues, including Igor Popov who says that we should be familiar with the sources) read the original. I read the Directive #214/42 of the European Union from April 3, 2014, that touches upon the matter of confiscation and freezing of assets. So, this and the bills that we have here – these documents are from opposite realms, basically, completely different realms. These documents do not speak the same language, these documents do not even correlate with one another. These documents are from different realms. If they show me a European expert that would dare to sign his name under these bills, I will suggest he lived under these laws for a while in Ukrainian reality. I give him five minutes tops. Without the immunity of our citizen, two minutes are more likely. And since this concerns not only the corrupt, as we are told here, but all citizens of Ukraine, at least the bill that I am referring here, then it means that we actually have reached a consensus here – here’s where I disagree with my colleague Mr. Popov – these bills are unacceptable in their current state. Unacceptable.
That is why we probably ought to end the meeting in this circle because it is pointless. We are all in agreement here. All our committees are ready for practical work so that we could timely adopt the laws that would reflect the european values and be enough for Ukraine to complete all technical tasks on visa liberalization. We are all in agreement here. But we need the representatives of the Cabinet to come to the committee meetings and clarify that all MPs should propose amendments. I have proposed my amendments to these laws. But for now this remains nothing but an exchange of views, it’s, you know, emotions and nothing more, because there is no practical solution to this. This is a conversation between us, about us and our issues, which we are already well aware of. Meanwhile the Cabinet keeps talking in proclamations: vote, otherwise the visa-free regime is done for.
I will say this to the honourable Deputy Ministers, since the Ministers themselves are absent, I will say what I’ve said twice already during my addresses at the Verkhovna Rada: the only people responsible for undermining the visa-free regime are those who keep pushing the asinine laws into the Verkhovna Rada, not those who are disinclined to vote in favour of the asinine laws. That is all.
O. I. Syroid (the Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, idependent)
Dear Mr. Chairman, dear Mr. Ambassador, dear colleagues! I shall probably also speak in unison with most colleagues’ opinion that yes, surely, the Ukrainians are finally ready for the visa-free regime. That is why I believe that everyone understands that the Ukrainians’ integrity while enjoying the privilege of travelling across the European Union – it is apparent now.
But, unfortunately, it seems that those governmental bills that we see today prove the fact that not everyone in the Government is ready. I have some very practical remarks and observation, though they’ve already been voiced mostly. Firstly, it’s naturally with regard to the special confiscation. Well, let’s be honest: the special confiscation as it is today will not be used for the purpose that is declared. And the people who are the farthest away from the original purpose of this bill will suffer the most from it. I think that we will witness a massive number of cases being filed at the European Court on Human Rights based on the violation of Protocol 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by violating the right to private property. That is obvious.
Secondly: I want to touch upon the bill that concerns the National Agency of Ukraine for Investigation, Detection and Management of Assets Derived from Corruption and Other Crimes. The functions, meaning the powers and functions that are proposed to be given to the Agency today, could be the source of corruption in and of themselves. These are incompatible powers and functions. The same body cannot exercise the function of executing policy, of shaping policy and or overseeing policy, they are of the same nature. The second function is the law enforcement one, it is the investigation and imposition of penalties one, this is an entirely different function. And the third one is the function of practical managing of the assets. We are creating a business that will have the authority of law enforcement and the function of self-regulating. I cannot even begin to imagine who will be able to defeat corruption that is going to fester in this monstrosity. That is why it is impossible to adopt the bill in its current state.
And I also absolutely second the opinion of the Head of the Committee on the European Integration on the matter that we should finally be able to provide an actual function of analysis of the bills in the Parliament with regard to their conformity with Europe’s directives. And we do not just delegate this function to the committee, but we simply do not make any decisions in the Parliament without knowing the committee’s position on such bills. It is the most important because, sure, we could prepare an analysis, but will we be able to wait and listen to the results of the analysis? That’s what I’m most sceptical of.
I wholeheartedly support my colleague Sergiy Vlasenko on the fact that the ministers are the members of parliament’s partners in this dialogue. And if there is no dialogue between the ministers and the MPs, then unfortunately we will keep being stuck in the confrontational and declarative mode for a very long time yet. Thank you.
A.L. Derkach (the Member of the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on budget, a Deputy Leader of Parliamentary Group “Will of the People”)
Dear colleagues, the parliamentary group “Will of the People” did not vote in favour of the aforementioned bills. I am grateful to our colleagues – Kozhemyakin, Vlasenko and Syroid, who have laid down the corruption risks that these bills pose in a polite form. Well, we do not believe that the work in this direction should be a priority of the Verkhovna Rada within the next few months for one simple reason: today the main task, which has arisen during this challenging time, is to provide the people with a means to survive.
At the budget committee meeting, we have reviewed the situation with respect to the educational and healthcare subvention. It has not yet been fully received in any region, for instance, in the Sumy Region – up to 160 million hryvna still need to be allocated by the Government. We do not see any suggestions from the Government in this regard. And we believe that hearing Yaresko on the matters pertinent to the educational and healthcare subvention is equally as important for the visa-free regime as are those documents that the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs keeps telling us about.
The second question, which is once again a declarative one, is the question posed by Yulia Vladimirovna as to the change of the gas tariffs.
The third question is the question connected to the manipulations in the healthcare system. Vladimir Borisovich, yesterday I returned from the district. I haven’t seen anything like this in all my 17 years of serving as a member of parliament, when people come to me and they don’t even ask me questions on the money for chemotherapy. They are asking one simple question: “Please, help us, we have people dying from III-IV stage cancer, and for the first time in Ukrainian history we do not have sleeping pills and drugs”. And you keep manipulating a ministry issue, whether to put to vote Kvitashvili’s statement or not. Next time I will just write down the phone numbers and give them to my voters. These are also the questions of visa-free regime.
Andrey Anatolyevich, you have a comprehensive basic education, you have read Fromm’s “Run from Freedom”, you know very well that the worst kind of dictatorship is the one that comes from the place of liberal values. And because every idea is absurd, eventually it leads to concentration camp.
So basically, the establishment of additional cooperatives, law enforcement cooperatives in the form of agencies that will handle confiscations, the creation of massive corruption risks in the matter of property confiscation, corruption activities and others… I understand, Yulia Vladimirovna, that your faction has personally endured the weight of the word ‘others’, has it not? Two years of incarceration. I see that the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs is smiling. You should visit the Kachanovskaya prison, see the words ‘others’ in the court’s judgements for yourself. Even imprisoning 20 guilty ones does not justify the imprisonment of a single innocent citizen.
We are not going to vote in favour of these bills.
We would like to point out that if the Verkhovna Rada wants to address something so badly, you have put forward the Labor Code wherein the ban on discrimination on a gender basis is provided (absolutely, any kind of discrimination is unacceptable). Please, put forward a bill on amendments to the Lustration Act that has already affected thousands of people. Let me reiterate: thousands of people were unconstitutionally harmed by this Act and lost their jobs as a result of it. This is also the matter of the European Union. And I would like to address Mr. Tombinsky. You know very well that this is the matter of discrimination as well, this is extra-judicial discrimination, this is political discrimination.
And I believe that today the question has finally arisen on the need to put forward a bill on the establishment of the investigative commission on political persecution in Ukraine and on extra-judicial discrimination, and it should include the question of the Radical Party, the questions concerning “Svoboda”, questions concerning lustration and the actions of the Parliament on lustration of the Ministry of Justice, which operates under some completely incomprehensible guidelines, as it is unlawful, and the question of powers of attorney that keep being handed to this department on representing the interests in all courts both in Ukraine and abroad. These are the questions we are ready to discuss. Therefore, until these bills are compatible with our priorities, we will not be working on them. And the bills that are meant to assist today with the questions of visa-free regime: we will not be voting in favour of those. Thank you.
Ian Tombinsky (the Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this meeting , for the opportunity to be here today and hear your thoughts. First of all, I would like to apologize for running late. We were invited by the Cabinet of Ministers to participate in the meeting on the matter of the EBRD loan for the Government of Ukraine on reforming “Naftogas” and the purchase of gas, and we have only just finished the meeting.
This program of visa-free regime was agreed upon by Ukraine and the European Union in 2010. We are fast approaching the end of 2015. All these provisions have been known for five years now. And the fact that there are so many different legal decisions and regulatory acts is also a result of everything that has not been done all these years. This is a political issue of Ukrainian politicians, Ukrainian Parliament, Ukrainian Government and all those involved in the process.
How can the Ukrainian people answer the question: what has been done and what has not – out of the things agreed upon by Ukraine and the European Union. We shall integrate all of this somehow, but before that we have to gauge which legal acts were adopted and how reflective they are of the aims to be accomplished, what purpose these actions and acts serve. I keep hearing different thoughts. We are interested in doing this properly, so that all these legal acts were drafted in accordance with appropriate procedures, so that there were no mistakes in the procedures.
Afterwards, I would gladly clarify what we could do to actualize the result of this process so that the committees that need to discuss this had time and means to express their opinions, and so that there were similar discussions with the representatives of civil society. Because today it is part and parcel of the regulatory process. It has to happen in conformity with the principles of transparency and inclusion of everyone related to the process.
We are currently at the point where once again we reached pre-established deadlines. There is a “wall” at the end of 2015, because these deadlines have already been voiced – that it has to be done before 2015 draws to an end, because the European Commission agreed to this Action Plan, and there will be a conclusion made by the European Commission at the end of November on the state of Ukraine’s completion of these obligations that it had undertaken on the matter of the visa-free regime with a subtext that went along the lines of December 2015 being the month when the ministers of the European Union could finally make a decision on the visa-free regime.
And here comes the question: what needs to be done to clear this path? Is it necessary or not? Is it needed or not? What needs to be done with this responsibility, and what could this lead to. If the conclusion of the European Commission is unfavourable, because the provision of the Action Plan have not been adhered to, then there is no recommendation to finally move on to the visa-free regime. There has to be an understanding of this.
I presume, all progressive Ukrainian need this. Yes, it is the responsibility of Ukrainian politicians. What can I say? We provide all kinds of expert assistance, we could provide every detail on how these questions or the like were handled in the countries of the European Union, what corresponds to the norms and what is laid down in the legal acts, in the directives of the European Union. And this is the responsibility of the Government of Ukraine, and of those who propose these documents, that they are done properly, so that there are no conversations afterwards on the possible unsustainability of these acts, which Mr. Sergiy Vlasenko has mentioned already, and Ms Oksana Syroid pointed out as well, with respect to the confiscations, so that this could be done within the framework of law.
But this is also necessary for Ukraine, that this system should be constructed in a manner that made the Ukrainian citizens feel secure and confident. This is the drafting of laws, the drafting of the Labor Code of Ukraine on the matter of anti-discrimination. These issues have been on the agenda for three years at the very least, I myself was speaking on this issue at the meeting at the Verkhovna Rada back in 2013, on these very issues. And it doesn’t mean that these decisions that Ukraine has to make are some sort of historical exceptions. It has all been laid down and it is all operating effectively in other countries’ systems. It is important to learn these laws, these lectures, these works already successfully elaborated by other countries, and based on this – to make a political decision. And it is the Government of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada that have this responsibility. Thank you very much.
V. B. Groysman (the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine)
…Well, basically, I believe we have exchanged thoughts in general and made our standing clear. Then, if I may, if there are no others willing to speak, I would like to summarize everything I’ve heard today.
First of all. I believe that it has been extremely important to meet here today, two weeks before we begin our work at the plenary session. I wish all the committees dutifully performed their functions. Sometimes, quite often actually as we all can observe, the members of the committees do not show up to the committees’ meetings at all, even though their purpose is to create quality legislation in our country. We can speak of many problems, but unless we deal with them systematically, they will never go away, in any field. And now we are reviewing the question of the visa-free regime as the one of utmost importance for the Ukrainian society, even though it does not cross out other issues that we are facing today. That is why I would like to support my colleagues’ standing on the complete conformity of the decisions made by the Ukrainian Parliament with the Action Plan on Visa-Free Regime. This is point number one. And the second one is the compliance of these laws with the European legislation.
I stand opposed to the possibility that the Ukrainian legislation aimed at achieving the visa-free regime could become the basis for persecution, or other misuse of authority, or festering corruption. That is why it is very important that we spent these two weeks working on this issue systematically. How so? There is a reason why all these bills have been divided on the basis of the committees working on them. It means that the seven committees have to professionally review these bills with the participation of the experts of the European Union provided for us, no problem here, as well as the representatives of other expert bodies. And jointly with the Cabinet of Ministers, we have to draft the laws compatible with the aforementioned criteria.
Today this is an internal issue. There is no more arguing whether the Ukrainian society supports it or not. This is an issue, which every political power, every Member of Parliament present at the Verkhovna Rada are personally responsible for. We have to shape these laws in such manner that they would correspond to two criteria: as I said, the Action Plan and the compatibility with the European legislation. Are we incapable of making them so? Are we not intelligent enough for this? Of course we are.
The fact that we have so much frustration today with the laws that are forwarded to the Verkhovna Rada by the Cabinet of Ministers because of their poor quality is also true, and we have to work on this thoroughly. But I call upon all of you to find both professional and political capability in order for us to elaborate upon and make this decision during our first week. Now it is up to the relevant committees. I should remind you that we approved of this decision and made it our basis. And we have to arrive at the second reading with minimum conflict. And I believe that the issue of compliance with the European legislation is the one we could all agree on.
Concerning the participation of the ministers, Pavlo Petrenko did come, so there are no grounds for claiming that he avoids meeting the MPs. At least, not that I’m aware. When there are questions, he comes and participates. But I raised this question and, you can see, that except for when the cabinet meeting is underway, no matter shall be considered by the Ukrainian Parliament in the absence of a Minister. Only a reasonable excuse is acceptable. For instance, Pavlo Klimkin is currently in New York, and naturally, Olena Zerkal has a high enough level of knowledge on the matter to be present and speaking. But it is still unacceptable to ignore the presentation of the bills at the committees. And from now on, we will keep score and we will not allow such ministers on the premises. We will make our own legislation, employing the right to legal initiative of every MP, and work it out at the committees. Otherwise, no one will understand these issues.
Concerning our decisions, dear colleagues, the people of Moldova can travel to the European Union on the visa-free basis now. These are our neighbours and they have just as many problems as we do. If they could, so can we. And we shouldn’t give anyone the reason to accuse the Verkhovna Rada of inefficiency.
I want to underscore once again that the question of quorum at the committees is a question of personal responsibility of the leaders of political parties and factions. They need to find ways to motivate people to attend these meetings and fulfil their duties. Let’s see, there should be 250, 270, 280 people in the hall, and a hundred of them just doesn’t show up. They assume that the position of MP is a privilege. I can make the statistics, we all can. I will forward a letter to each district, personally, and inform them of the work of every Member of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Concerning the expert evaluation of the compliance of our drafts with European legislation, on November 2 and 4 a new mission of the European Parliament will arrive headed by Mr. Pat Cox, and we have a topic for them now – the question of creating a means of monitoring the compliance of Ukrainian legislation with the European one. And we will create such means on our own, with what we have in our Parliament. We will be able to conduct monitoring, inform the MPs, including, possibly, the expansion of the powers of the Scientific Expert Office, the conclusions of which we’ve been neglecting recently. But what I asked of the committees, to review those two thousand laws, to establish priorities, it means one thing: so that we wouldn’t clatter the Scientific Expert Office with rubbish that will never be reviewed, for instance. Because our powers do not quite match the avalanche of bills that the Verkhovna Rada sometimes has to deal with.
Dear colleagues, I would like to call upon you to work systematically, once again. I am asking the Heads of the Committees: dear colleagues, if you don’t like 2541, 2541, 2542a, let’s transform them into the laws that would be passable, efficient in operation and useful for the completion of the Action Plan on Visa-Free Regime. I will take the original, as you said, and forward these materials to the Members of the Verkhovna Rada so that they could familiarize themselves with it. And if there are no amendments, then I believe within the committees we could draft these bills for the voting.
I kindly request you to inform me of the plan for the consideration and drafting of these questions for the first plenary week in November. I will be grateful and will once again emphasize that this is our personal shared political responsibility.
Thank you for your consideration and your work!