Plenary session
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
PLENARY European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Roberta Metsola
If no request for a vote in parliament is made within the deadline, the committees may start negotiations. The Envy Committee has transmitted a corrigendum to a text adopted by the Parliament pursuant to rule 2514. This corrigendum will be deemed approved unless, no later than 24 hours after its announcement, objections are raised. A request is made by a political group or members reaching at least a low threshold so that it is put to the vote. The corrigendum is available on the plenary webpage.
Its title will be published in the minutes of the meeting. I would like to inform you that, together with the President of the Council, I shall, on Wednesday, sign five acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Rule 81. The titles of the act are the following and will be published. Measuring systems for electrical vehicle supply equipment, unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, European Union designs, codification, implementing the bilateral safeguard clauses of the EU-Mercosur partnership agreement and the EU-Mercosur interim trade agreement, and setting of a Union intermediate climate target for 2040. We now come to the order of business.
The final draft agenda is adopted by the Conference of Presidents on March 4, pursuant to Rule 163, and has been distributed. I would like to inform you that I have received 2 requests for urgent procedure from the EPP group and the NV Committee pursuant to rule 170, paragraph 6, on the following proposal. Calculation of emission credits for heavy-duty vehicles for the reporting periods of the years 2025 to 2029. The vote on this request will be taken tomorrow. If adopted, the vote will be held on Thursday, and we will now move to changes requested by political groups.
The PFE Group has requested council and commission statements on President Zelensky's unacceptable threats against Hungary's sovereignty and its prime minister. Potential implications on Ukraine's demand for accession to the EU should be added after the Commission's statement on the energy package. So, I'll give the floor first to Mr. Harald Vilymski to move the request on behalf of the PFE Group.
You, sir.
For president.
Harald Vilimsky
And gentlemen, four days ago, Volodymyr Zelenskyy threatened Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in an absolutely unbelievable manner: a threat of violence against the head of state of the European Union. Literally, he said, "Otherwise, we will give the address of this person to our armed forces." Otherwise, let them call him and speak to him in their own language. Well, what does that mean? The armed forces of Ukraine are going to get the address of Viktor Orban to threaten him with weapons in some manner or another.
I mean, this parliament is very Zelensky-friendly. I mean, please, let's have a debate. Let's protect a head of state of the European Union. Let's protect Viktor Orbán. And let's show that we stand up for the rule of law and against violence.
Speaker 2
I give the floor to Miss Soisson to speak against. Miss Loiseau will speak against it. Madam.
Nathalie Loiseau
Madam President, colleagues, it's Viktor Orban who is refusing and blocking €90,000,000,000 for Ukraine. It's Vladimir Zelenskyy who should be criticized. It's Viktor Orban who is mobilizing his troops against a supposed Ukrainian attack, and it's Vladimir Zelensky who apparently deserves to be criticized for this. It's Auburn who has taken seven Ukrainians from a Ukrainian bank hostage, and yet was supposed to criticize Zelensky. Zelensky has been leading a country that has faced Russian aggression for 4 years.
This is all very clear. Victory Victor Orban is losing his nerves because he's going to lose an election, and this is scandalous.
Roberta Metsola
So now I put the request to a vote by roll call. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is rejected. So, the agenda remains unchanged. The agenda is therefore adopted, and the order of business is established.
Now I will go through a significant number of requests for points of order. A bit less than usual, but let's see. I give the floor to Mr. Alexander Jungbluth. Please quote the rule over which you are presiding.
Alexander Jungbluth
Madam President, Article 22: exercises of the President's security. A few weeks ago, I went into the security risk posed to the left. Now we have an event of the link of a left party. How many attacks by MEPs will have to happen before something is done? And then, with Mister Umaji, we have a representative of the LFI.
Now, does this mean that information is being transmitted to the left, and Mr. Omaji needs to resign?
Christophe Clergeau
Thank you very much. My request is about Article 39 concerning NGOs with regard to health. Members have sent a letter to protest against the end of subsidies for health NGOs without any consultation with the council. This is a cross-party, strong political signal, and we think that the parliament should be active in reestablishing these subsidies in 2027. These are organizations representing orphan diseases.
They play a key role in our beating cancer plan and our anti-cardiovascular disease plan. We need strong, independent NGOs, and the role of this parliament, the temple of democracies, is to defend these NGOs.
Fabio De Masi
Madam President, I'm referring to rule 167 of the rules of order, and I would like to address the situation in Iran, where we see an unprovoked and illegal war that has nothing to do with the liberation of the Iranian people. We have witnessed acid rain over Tehran. We've witnessed the destruction of the water supplies. It's a grave breach of international order, and we've witnessed the killing of innocent young girls. It has nothing to do with the liberation of the people of Iran.
And we've witnessed the most cowardly and spineless assembly of leaders here in Europe, where, with the sole exception of Pedro Sanchez, nobody had the cojones to stand up to the governments of the US and Israel. And I'm urging this parliament: if we don't want to destroy the international order, by the way, Mr. Putin will have greatly noted what is happening here in this house. If we don't address this situation, we will lose all international credibility, and I'm therefore urging you to have a special session.
Thank you very much.
João Oliveira
Thank you, President. Article 163 of the rules. Workers' rights should have a central role in the discussions and debates here. In a number of countries in the European Union, workers' rights are under attack with labor packages that weaken labor laws to make it easier to fire people, increase precarity, attack paternity and maternity rights, and increase working hours as well. To make it easier to fire people and lower wages, Portugal is one of the countries where this offensive is underway, and a response has already come from Portuguese workers to reject this. However, it's not the only country under threat.
That is why we suggest a debate. Attacks on labor rights in the EU and the need to strengthen workers' rights and improve their living conditions as factors of economic and social development. And we hope that at the next session, it will be possible to hold this debate.
According to Article 118 on the suspension of the application of an international agreement, this is the Commission and its president, Vontelayan. I recall that it is important to respect the treaties in Europe. How can it be tolerated that the commission is going to apply an agreement before it has been ratified by the parliament? Madame Vondelion shows disdain for this Parliament and the people it represents. She's going to implement Mercosur, which will kill our agriculture.
A number of demonstrations have shaken Europe, and France in particular, and yet you respond with a show of force and violate our treaties. You've been to the Court of Justice, but Madam von der Leyen, you can't do any more. Without waiting for the ratification by the parliament or the judgment from the court. She wants to implement Mercosur. So please, be aware, because this is antidemocratic and should lead to sanctions from the people and the law.
João Oliveira
This one is urgent. Dear colleagues, I have a proposal pursuant to rule 164 of the rules of procedure. In a world where international law and order are being increasingly dismantled by Trump, Putin, Orban, and are now being rejected even by Fonda Line and Mertz, peace is at stake. The future of Europe, too. This is why Pedro Sanchez standing up to Trump in support of international law and against the war is crucial.
Know more than ever. Nobody wants this war, dear colleagues, where Europe will pay the highest price. This is why, on behalf of the S and D group, I want to propose amending the title of the second item of the Wednesday morning joint debate on the Middle East by adding the following words at the end of the title. I quote: "The support of Pedro Sanchez and Spain in his call for peace and against economic threats of the USA." End of quote. And also request.
Thank you.
Speaker 12
S and D group request this to be taken by roll call vote. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much, Madam President, for giving me the opportunity to respond to this idea from Mr. Jungblut. Again, we have to deal with the denunciations and lies coming from the far right. And this very unobjective attack on the Vice President of the House, Mr. Omergy, is something that I would reject decisively. My group rejects all forms of violence, no matter who carries them out. As you said at the beginning, Madam President, violence is no means for democratic conflicts to be conducted, but it corresponds better to the playbook of the far right.
They create the fire, and then call the fire brigade. Antifascism and democracy belong together. And, logically, every Democrat is an anti-fascist. You cannot stand that. That's why you're trying to attack democracy.
The next house that you set fire to, well, that's going to be the European Parliament, so I call upon all democratic colleagues to try and resist this offensive.
Roberta Metsola
That concludes our points of order. So, we go directly to the first item of this week's agenda, which is the report by Mr. Sven Simon on the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission.
Speaker 43
Good evening. The next item on the agenda is the report by Mr. Simon: framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission. I will first give the floor to the rapporteur. Mr. Simon, please. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Madam President, colleagues, today we are discussing the revision of the framework agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission. The history of parliaments in Europe teaches us an important lesson. Parliamentary rights rarely appear all at once. They develop step by step. They grow through practice, through agreements, and sometimes also through debate and disagreement.
Speaker 21
The revised framework agreement continues this evolution. First, it strengthens Parliament's indirect right of initiative under Article 225 of the Treaty. One thing is very important, colleagues. This applies when parliament calls for existing legislation, but it also applies when parliament calls for existing legislation to be amended or repealed, new legislation, and legislation to be amended or repealed. In practice, this creates what I call a negative right of initiative, allowing parliament to request corrections where legislation no longer works as intended.
And this point is important beyond the purely institutional dimension, since a democratic union must not only be capable of adopting new legislation, but it must also remain capable of reviewing, adjusting, and, when necessary, repealing existing rules when they no longer function. When legislation creates disproportionate obstacles, for example, for necessary infrastructure or economic development, it can hinder progress. What we all know in our constituencies, for example, is that the flora, fauna, and habitat are some of those examples. The union must have the political ability to reassess such rules, amend them, or, when necessary, revise them fundamentally. Democratic legitimacy requires the capacity to correct the course.
Speaker 22
At present, however, the union still displays, in my opinion, structural asymmetry. It is comparatively effective at producing new legislation, but far less capable of revisiting and rolling back existing rules. Yet one of the central promises of democracy is this: that elections must be able to produce visible political change, and I think here we can improve. Second, we have clarified for the first time the use of Article 122 of the Treaty, which was designed as an emergency provision. When this article is used, the commission will now provide an immediate justification and an assessment of the legal act concerned.
Speaker 19
Third, the agreement reinforces Parliament's oversight role by ensuring that commissioners can be requested to appear in plenary debates and committee meetings. Democratic accountability requires dialogue, and dialogue requires presence. That is, by the way, also true for members of parliament in the hemicycle here, and that also needs to be improved. Some in the council have expressed concerns that this agreement might go beyond the treaties. Let me say this clearly: it does not.
The agreement fully respects the treaty and the institutional balance of the Union. What it does is something that has always been part of Europe's constitutional development. It ensures that the democratic voice of Parliament is heard. In that sense, this agreement is not a break with our constitutional order. It is part of its natural evolution.
Let me conclude with a few words of thanks. I'd like to thank my co-negotiator Bernd Lange from S&D and Commissioner Zevtowicz for the constructive spirit of these negotiations, as well as the teams on both sides, Parliament and Commission, led by Goyom McLaughlin and Enrico Forte, whose expertise made this outcome possible. Sofia, I'd like to thank you for the tough negotiations as well. Colleagues, the development of parliamentary democracy is rarely dramatic. More often, it advances through careful steps that strengthen democratic institutions over time.
Speaker 45
Thank you very much, Mr. Simon. I will now give the floor to Commissioner Sefkovich. Please, you have the floor.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much, Madam President, honorable members. I'm very happy to be here today to discuss with you the revised framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission. This agreement has come after much cooperative effort, and I want to thank, first, my counterparts on the parliament side, Mr. Sven Simon and Mr. Ben Lange, for their hard work and constructive approach to the negotiation. Likewise, I want to thank the teams in both Parliament and the Commission for their dedication, invaluable contributions, sometimes indeed tough negotiations, but I would underline their truly hard work. Revising the framework agreement is a critical achievement which will only strengthen the cooperation between our institutions.
As President von der Leyen said in her State of the Union speech last year, it will be an enabler for us to work on real reforms that are needed. On a personal note, this feels like coming full circle for me. I was the responsible commissioner when the original agreement was signed back in 2010, and I have enjoyed a close and fruitful relationship with his house in the intervening years. But there was a clear need to revise the agreement in order to help strengthen our joint political responsibility, improve our dialogue, the flow of information, and ensure greater transparency so that we can better deliver on what European citizens rightly expect of us. You will recall that the revision of the framework agreement was a commitment for this commission, as laid out in the 2024 political guidelines.
And there was a clear mandate for the negotiations in the form of nine political principles agreed upon between President Metsola and President von der Leyen in October 2024. These principles established the scope for the revision and included areas where both the Parliament and Commission saw room for improvement. Our two overriding priorities were, first, to ensure that the revised agreement remained fully in line with the treaties, and second, that it respected the inter-institutional balance and competencies of each institution, including the Council. As I see it, both of these priorities have been successfully achieved. I would like to highlight some of the more important aspects of the revised agreement from the Commission's perspective.
First, concerning article 122, we have committed to providing comprehensive justification and information on the exceptional cases where the proposals by the commission use this legal base. In such cases, we will fully justify the use of this article after the adoption of such a commission proposal. Second, regarding article 225, in her political guidelines of both 2019 and 2024, President von der Leyen committed to always follow up with legislation in full respect of proportionality, subsidiarity, and better regulation principles. As a reminder, during the last mandate, we followed up on 24 of the 25 such resolutions from the parliament, with the odd one out ultimately not requiring a response. So, we have further solidified clear follow-up to articles two to five resolutions by codifying the existing practical arrangements.
And we have also agreed on joint upstream work while Parliament is preparing such a resolution, as well as Parliament accompanying its resolution with the report considering why the proposed act is necessary and also taking into account the expected burden and financial implications. Third, on international agreements, the commission will further enhance the flow of information to Parliament on ongoing negotiations, as well as on the provisional application of agreements and non-binding agreements. This will help improve your understanding of our work in progress. At the same time, we have ensured that the revised text would not negatively affect the prerogatives of the Council as laid down in the treaties, something of which we have kept them fully informed. And fourth, pertaining to Parliament's rules of procedure, we appreciate your commitment to consider the Commission's opinion and engage with us in a meaningful manner on any amendments that will impact inter-institutional relations.
This reflects the strength of the strengthened commitment to improving the presence of commissioners in parliamentary proceedings at both plenary and committee levels. Likewise, an equally important parliament has committed to regularly assessing how to continue improving the presence of its members during plenary debates, as was highlighted, and I thank Mr. Simon for that. Energetic debate and discussions are cornerstones of our democracy, and I hope that these efforts will bring about the necessary improvements. Honorable members, the signing of the revised framework agreement will mark an important milestone for the European Parliament, the European Commission, and our joint work. Once in place, we should work to ensure its smooth implementation, including regular monitoring, so we can fully enjoy its benefits.
Speaker 43
Before then, of course, I look forward to this evening's debate. Thank you very much.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Commissioner Sevkovich. I will now give the floor to EPP, Mr. Demille.
Speaker 30
Thank you, President, Commissioner. The revision of the framework agreement on relations between the Parliament and the Commission is trying to strengthen democracy in the EU. The idea is that in the council, we have some member states that are questioning the parity between the institutions. But now, more than ever, we have to remember that Parliament is the only EU institution that is directly voted on by citizens. We listen to people, businesses, and local authorities, and we're in constant contact with our countries.
Speaker 25
As a colegislator, we have to be able to exercise our role with the same level of involvement and information. We welcome the provision strengthening the role of the agreement, and the right of the Parliament's own initiative is also being strengthened. If we want to really strengthen the role of the parliament, we need to start thinking seriously about legislative initiatives. Because if we directly represent citizens, we need to be able to define the European political agenda. Let's not boil it down to rivalries between institutions.
We have to meet the demands and expectations of citizens and businesses so that we do not appear distant and remote. And this is why this agreement deserves our support. Thank you.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Thank you, Madam President, Commissioner Zefkovic.
Marco framework agreement: The framework.
Agreement is binding law for institutions. So we have to recognize the negotiators, Mr. Seaman, and those responsible from the commission. The value of the Parliament is that it's the only directly elected body, and it's the only one that's legitimized by a supranational vote, the only one in the world. And so, the parliament's value lies here. We need to ensure transparency and that the commission explains when Article 122 will apply.
Parliament is seen as co-legislator with the Council and has a political responsibility. Parliament has to have scrutiny over the Commission and its members, particularly in the Strasbourg plenary. Article 125 says that the commission has to bring a legislative initiative to the parliament, and the parliament has the right of inquiry. We have to ensure that this is achieved under this legislature.
Thank you.
João Oliveira
Thank you, Madam President. Well, here on the cover of improving the political responsibility of the Commission, they are actually trying to revise the framework agreement and rework the relationship between the institutions. Well, on paper, this all sounds virtuous. More dialogue, more information, and more transparency for the parliament. But look at the reality.
This text is not just a technical text. It's a political attempt to modify the institutional balance of the EU. And once again, this goes against the treaties. The parliament plans to intervene more and more over the heads of national governments. It wants to intervene on certain legal bases of the commission and initiate its own procedures.
This changes the balance to the detriment of the council, and the council is not wrong to issue a negative statement. These give the Parliament prerogatives that do not appear in the founding treaties of the EU. Legitimacy cannot be decreed by an administrative agreement between two institutions. Rather, it's based on the treaties and the sovereign states that ratified them. The European Parliament already has a key role in scrutinizing the action of the Commission.
This scrutiny has to be real scrutiny, and the commission should submit to it. This is not some kind of technocratic construction. It's by referring to the people that we can have a genuine democracy as part of a Europe of cooperation, and it's not by reinforcing the prerogatives of a very dirigiste structure that the functioning of our democracy will be improved. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Dear colleagues, I'm very happy indeed that the European Parliament wants the European Commission to be transparent. Transparency. This is the keyword. The Parliament should insist that the Commission makes available the internal documents created in the Commission and not always published in time for the negotiations. The best example is the agreement, which was hidden and not available during the negotiations either to the MEPs or to public opinion.
Speaker 35
The second issue is about our written questions, written queries to the commission. The law is not being respected. The answers come late and do not provide any substance. So, there is a lot of jargon and many words without meaning in those answers, which are basically devoid of any substance. My plea is for the commission to be open and transparent.
Speaker 32
The commission should talk openly about all the challenges we need to face. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Madam President. One of the main bases of democracy is the executive's accountability to the parliament, and that is the case here. We have to represent the voice of European citizens and make sure that the Commission hears them. That's the heart of democracy, and the heart of democracy in the EU. And that's where this new framework agreement will allow us to have more democracy and more trust from citizens, and it reaffirms a simple principle.
The commission needs to render accounts to us, and the parliament needs to be treated properly on an equal footing with the council. Same information, same treatment, at the parliamentary committees, in the plenary, and elsewhere.
Even.
Speaker 34
In sensitive agreements, such as international agreements like Mercosur, for instance. Exchanges between commissioners and plenaries, such as at question time, have to be real and followed by parties. We have to have a strong, dynamic, regular political dialogue. Thank you.
Reinier Van Lanschot
Now, ask Mister Landscott to come and take the floor.
Colleagues, the European Council has threatened to take the Commission to court because of this agreement before we even voted on it. That's perhaps the only time I've seen the council act this fast. Are we in Iran? That can wait until Monday. Are Europeans getting a stronger voice in Brussels?
Quick. Bring out the lawyers. This agreement gives a little more power to the European Parliament and, therefore, more power to you, the people of Europe. And some countries in the council don't want that because they hold on to their power and their outdated nationalism of the previous century. But the council is not working well.
It's like a merry-go-round. It's loud, flashy, sometimes fun to watch, but it never really gets anywhere. It's democratic. Yes. A meeting of national leaders.
But in the end, your voice is diluted, twisted, and ultimately at the mercy of the veto from every wannabe dictator or stubborn nationalist. So, instead, who should have more power in your European politics? You, the people of Europe. Your vote is a vote directly for this parliament, and you deserve a parliament that is the most important democratic body of the EU—one that can propose new laws, vote a real European government in and out of office, and summon any politician to an inquiry. That is a democratic United States of Europe, a Europe of this century, and I want you, the European people, to be in charge of it.
Thank you.
Christine Anderson
Thank you. This agreement is supposed to give Parliament better tools to scrutinize the Commission, and this is exactly what should happen in a democracy. But apparently, the commission does not want to be scrutinized. How else would you explain that answers to written questions are regularly given well beyond the deadline and are always vague, while carefully avoiding the actual point? And the same applies to the press.
The Commission President asked journalists to submit their questions in advance. If the questions must be pre-approved, what exactly is the point of a press conference? Access to documents is also frequently delayed for months or even years. The ombudsman called it maladministration, and we saw the peak of obstruction in the so-called Pfizer gate case. The commission simply refused to produce text messages concerning a multibillion-euro contract, and even the General Court of the European Union has annulled the European Commission's decision to refuse access to text messages, ruling that doing so violated EU law and breached the principle of good administration.
In a democracy, no executive body should have free rein like this. Executive power must be scrutinized so that it can be held accountable. But since the Commission's president, Ursula von der Leyen, does not seem to be interested in any of that, I must conclude she aspires to rule like King Louis XIV. And to Ms. von der Leyen directly,
And.
Christine Anderson
Also, Miss Vonderlein, let me remind you that the European peoples have gotten rid of absolute kings and rulers a long time ago, and they've done so more than once. And trust me, we will do it again. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Thank you. I now call to the floor Mr. Mandel. You have one minute and a half, please.
Lukas Mandl
Thank you very much, President, Vice President, colleagues. We have inherited from generations before us a Europe with separation of powers, a Europe with the very first parliament in Europe's history for Europe in its entirety. A parliament was established in 1979, the same year as the Iranian regime, and I trust now more than ever that the European Parliament will last longer than this Iranian regime. I want to, in particular, thank our colleague Sven Simon for undertaking the endeavor of negotiating this agreement because it is of utmost importance that we achieve results with the separation of powers, with a strong parliament, which is the only directly elected body in this European Union, the citizens' chamber. And I think it's not by chance that Vice President Shevzovic is with us today because he's not only the longest-serving member of the coalition, he's also, and I know that from my personal experience, a good example of how the Commission can engage with the parliamentarians when it comes to the very interests of the Europeans, but this must be structurally enshrined.
The people want more leadership and a more visionary approach. And this very body, the directly elected chamber, the European Parliament, is the body providing more leadership and a more visionary approach. And these days, we have seen a more visionary approach by our commission's president when it comes to the statements on the evolving situation in Iran. This is why, on the inside, for more freedom, and on the outside, for more strength of Europe, the Parliament must have a stronger say, and the agreement is a good path towards that.
Speaker 43
Mister Mendel, thank you very much. You have a blue card. Mister Mendel. Mister Mendel, I'm very sorry to interrupt you. You have a blue card from Mr. Van Lanskot.
Reinier Van Lanschot
Thank you. Hi, Mr. Mandel. Thank you for your intervention and for explaining that you envision a strong role for Parliament. This framework agreement contains some good elements that you also pointed out, but they are quite small, still baby steps. If you look further ahead into the future and have a bolder vision with larger steps that you could decide on, what would that look like?
Lukas Mandl
Of course, we need a new EU treaty. In one and a half minutes of speaking time I had before, I was not even able to mention the third institution, the council. And I think it's up to the member states and the Council, to the governments of the member states, to take the courage to start the negotiation process on the treaties. This was always the way Europe was reformed. The European Union has developed.
We have the longest period of time in Europe's history without treaty reform. We have the longest period of time without an accession. We even have a country dropping out of the European Union during that period of time. So, there are many good reasons to really work on further reforms, but we will now exercise how a reform approach can work with this very agreement.
Reinier Van Lanschot
Thanks. I couldn't agree more. We need treaty reform. But then, if we reform the treaties, what should the new treaty look like?
If you want, you can respond.
Lukas Mandl
Thank you very much. I appreciate that we are already exercising the parliamentary debate as it is meant for parliament. So, thanks for this. Additional question. Well, among many things that should be looked at, I always put it in the framework of more strength to the outside and more freedom to the inside. This is what the future structures of the European Union should provide.
I think the number of issues where the unanimity principle would apply must be much smaller. This number must decrease in order to make the European Union ready to react and act more strongly both externally and internally. And the very last point: there are already rumors and discussions, even open discussions, about the core Europe or something like that. I think this is a fallback position that must be discussed, but it would be better if the European Union were reformed and enlarged in its entirety.
Speaker 70
And a half minute. Take your time. Colleagues, with every day that goes by, European citizens are being forced to a crossroads where they must choose between a more federalized, centralized, and extremely integrated European corporation or a European corporation that goes back to its roots with respect for member states and their cultural and social identity, one that's based on the strict implementation of the principle of subsidiarity. Citizens at this crossroads are now increasingly choosing the second model. They're moving away from the federalized model because they think it is not going to work properly.
We also rally behind the protest from the council to keep a democracy with member states against this revision that we're now seeing. We saw the reports from Brezhovbrock and the Hofstadt report. They want to see the council go up in smoke and reduce it, perhaps just to an advisory body from the European Parliament. And this would raise the commission to a veritable government of the United States of Europe. This is not the path that we should or want to choose.
Speaker 43
The center of democracy has to stay with the member states and should not be shifted towards the European Commission's bubble.
Adrian-George Axinia
Thank you. I
I support the changes that this report proposes, but I think they are insufficient. We are talking about a fake reform, in fact. These are just formal proposals that avoid some of the fundamental problems that have led to the autocratic attitude of Ursula von der Leyen, self-proclaimed Empress of Europe. Of course, the Parliament should have a real right of legislative initiative. The commission should be dismissed with a simple majority vote of the members of parliament, not with two-thirds of the vote.
We should have real inquiry commissions also when we need to inquire about relevant topics such as the acquisitions of COVID vaccines. There should also be parliamentary control for the big expenditure programs, such as the weapons program. Dear colleagues, this is a process of falsifying democracy. Some of the actions of the current President of the European Commission are dictatorial. Recently, she announced the provisional application, with full effect of the Mercosur agreement, before the Court of Justice will have its say and against the opposition of member states.
In order to add insult to injury, the commission's communication also contained irony towards the European Parliament as a form of impotence.
Thank you.
You have 1 minute.
Speaker 53
Thank you very much, Madam President. When you look at the relationship between the European Parliament and the Commission, you have to look at the numbers: 720 members in the European Parliament. The commission has 13,000 staff. So that tells you the relationship in terms of power, the balance of power between the two. So, first of all, we need full transparency.
Speaker 54
You cannot have a commission president who doesn't publish her SMSs with Pfizer. Secondly, we need a genuine right of initiative, as members need to be able to present draft legislation, then vote on it, and the commission should then follow up on this proposed legislation. Then, as a regional politician, I can tell you that we need subsidiarity when the Commission passes legislation; the member states and the Commission need to give the regional authorities the resources they need to follow up.
You have one minute, please.
Sven Simon
Colleagues, if...
We're going to be honest, this reform is just a sideshow, really. The commission has been doing what it wants for years, and we're supposed to give it this democratic sign-off. But here, look at the behavior in Parliament. The commission and representatives have five minutes. They often go 5 minutes beyond that.
That's more than 10 elected representatives who represent millions of voters. Ursula von der Leyen. No. She sends her representatives here. That doesn't happen anywhere else in the world.
Now, we do not have the right of initiative. We can't bring about our own legislation, and the commission negotiates important agreements secretly, so we can criticize it. But we are told not to do this by media such as The Source Circus, and we need a real reform that truly changes this, not just a fake reform.
You.
Sven Simon
Said that you don't have the right to table anything. Well, yes, you do. Every time we were in Strasbourg, you could ask what kind of concrete EU law you don't like, but you don't do this. So you say to your voters back home that you're going to work on their behalf, but you are not doing that. You can table such a matter here.
And then the commission can look at whether a law should be repealed or not. But I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I hope, like you know, that we don't have the right of initiative. We can ask the commission to deal with something, but we are the parliament. We represent the citizens, not the Commission.
That needs to change. That's what I meant in my comments. Thank you, Madam President, for allowing us to have this debate. Yes. That's an opinion.
Everybody from left to right has said that they are in favor of the right of initiative in the last legislature. 25 times we use this right to table matters, and the commission did come 25 times. However, we have a factual right of initiative, but it's the opposite in the German parliament. They do have that right of initiative, but don't use it in reality. Here, we don't have a right of initiative, but actually, we do manage to do something, and you can do it yourself.
So, why not do it? Well, perhaps it's due to your political leanings that you're viewing what the commission is doing as a success. I don't think it's a success that COVID-19 vaccines were bought from Pfizer here secretly, and the parliament was not informed about the matter. I know that the discussions in the German parliament are different, and there's much more democracy and much more transparency in the German parliament. We can't say the same thing here.
You're right on one point. Many colleagues criticize this as well, saying that you want the same thing as me: that urgently, we need to have a right of initiative for legislation. Thank you.
Virginie Joron
Madam Joran. Thank you.
You, Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues. Why do we have this text on the relationships between the Parliament and the Commission? Because for seven years now, Ursula von der Leyen and her administration have been trampling over the habits, the procedures, and the European treaties. For example, signing Mercosur, ignoring farmers and the opposition from a number of parliaments, and signing trade agreements with the United States that will commit to our businesses in our states. She's interfering in Romania and Poland in elections, and tomorrow in France.
And yet the treaties don't allow any extension of competence of the commission for vaccine contracts, for soldiers, for intelligence services, for surveillance services, or elections. Another example: on February 26, the commission set up its Center for Democratic Resilience without the parliament. So, Brussels is moving towards totalitarian democracy. It's a totalitarian cartel that hides vaccines and SMS, that hides contracts, that hides fraud and Qatar, and just wants to commit us to war and debt. Madam Jerome, you have a blue card from Mr. Ranshka.
You have to decide, Madam Jerome.
Speaker 65
Thank you. I will speak in Polish. I have a short idea.
I have a short question. Well, France is a very important player in the European Union. It's a big, important country from many perspectives. And today, we are talking, for example, about changing European treaties. Even if it indeed happened, what would be the opinion of the patriots towards the idea of creating a European army?
What would you say?
Virginie Joron
Well, I missed the beginning, but I understood the end. But I seem to have understood what would happen if we wanted to have a European army. The Patriots have stated their position on this several times. As you know, the Patriots defend the sovereignty of each member state, and we will stick to that line. I think that the best way for defense is based on a national level.
For logistical reasons, European support might be necessary, and we would support technologies that support logistics in Europe. But a European army as such, with the idea of having European soldiers and European defense, would not be something that the Patriots or other political groups would support, I think.
Dear,
Enikő Győri
Colleagues, the Middle East and Central Asia are in flames. The war in Ukraine has been going on for more than 4 years, and the competitiveness of the EU is in ruins. And what are you doing? Political groups that call themselves pro-European? You are busy with how to gain even more power, of course, at the expense of member states.
You are chasing federalist pipe dreams. You are joining forces with the Commission against the Council instead of focusing on the real problems. But I understand your game. You are now presenting the bill to Mrs. Funder Lyon because, in exchange for her reelection, she promised to give you even more power regardless of what the founding treaties say. The commission has made numerous concessions, and the balance is clearly in favor of the EP.
But you are upsetting the institutional balance and, as a result, destroying the union as a legal community. Instead of all this, you could focus on issues that really matter to the citizens. Why don't you encourage the commission to work for peace in Ukraine or to speed up support for competitiveness? You are not pro-European. You are the enemies of Europe and its citizens.
Speaker 43
Thank you very much, Mrs. Gouri. You have a blue card from Missus Roth Nevaldova. Yep. I understand that you wish to take it.
Go ahead. Are you working?
Speaker 92
Thank you, Miss Diary, for accepting my question. I think that what Mr. Seaman and Colley are trying to do is very important for the European Parliament because we need to better understand our competencies in relation to the European Commission. The European Commission should respect the European Parliament much more. But I also understand what you are saying because some colleagues have been talking about taking away competencies from the member states, especially the right to veto. So, what do you think?
Enikő Győri
Do you think we need a new big treaty in the EU, with new competencies? What should it look like? Thank you.
Thank you very much for the question. I think that when we speak about reforms of treaties, the mainstream political groups that call themselves pro-European are always for more centralization. But I think if we come to a reform of the treaties, this is absolutely not the direction that we should go towards. We should keep the balance between institutions because, ladies and gentlemen, the founding fathers did not want to forget about the member states when they were thinking about institutions. When you go against unanimity, you go against what the founding fathers wanted.
Speaker 63
They wanted member states to cooperate instead of having issues forced onto them.
Speaker 64
I'll go to catch the eye procedure. Thank you very much. And first, I will call Missus Grapini. 542.
Maria Grapini
President, colleagues, the amending of the agreement between the Parliament and the European Commission is a necessity. The question is: have we done enough with this report? I would like to thank the authors of this report. Of course, we could have done more. Of course, I agree with what previous speakers said: the European Parliament and the Council should be equals because both presidents of states and MEPs are directly elected by the citizens.
And the European Commission should be like a government that does its job, but not the way they are doing now; we should have the right of scrutiny. We should have the right of inquiry. We should have our questions answered. The provisions of the treaty must be respected. I'm talking especially about the emergency and urgency procedures.
So again, it's a good thing that we have this agreement. But from my point of view, I think it is incomplete. We should not stop here because you see what happens. We have a lot of legislative initiatives that have been blocked by the council. I don't have the time to list them here, but we need to do something because time is running against us and against the citizens.
Thank you.
Speaker 68
Distinguished President, this room is completely paralyzed. It's paralyzed when it's both down in front of the commission and Queen Ursula. You're not bothered by making deals worth tens of billions of euros for vaccines via SMS, and then concealing what you've done. You're not bothered by the commission implementing the agriculture-threatening Mercosur agreement against the explicit will of this parliament. You're not bothered by the continuous misuse of funds that the European Court of Auditors has repeatedly criticized.
Speaker 71
You're not interested in a fair distribution of power between the EU institutions because, in your passion for federalism and green leftism, you have come here in practice only to rubber-stamp the Commission's detrimental policy. You're so afraid of the support for the nationalist parties that you are ready to accept the role of Ursula's rubber stamp. What a pity for Europe.
Speaker 67
Thank you. I will now give the floor to Mrs. Zakaria. 8 4 7. You have 1 minute.
Thank you.
Maria Zacharia
You, dear sir, dear commissioner, dear colleagues. Let's be honest. The main problem of the EU is not the lack of dialogue between the institutions, but the lack of real democratic balance. The commission, which is not elected by the citizens, is the one that has the right to enact legislation. So they direct where the EU Commission is heading.
At the same time, we have the right-wing governments in the council, and they only see a raison d'état and an economic logic. So, the only ones that are directly elected are the MAPs, and we are not the ones who have the right of legislative initiative. This is not by accident because a more powerful parliament would mean democratic scrutiny, and they do not want that. So, if we want an EU in the service of the citizens and not the powers that be, then we need to support the role of the European Parliament. That means that the treaty has to be changed.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much, Madam President. I would also like to thank the honorable members for this debate, and I would like to express my gratitude again for the very cooperative and collegial cooperation with Rapporteur Mr. Simon, as well as with Chairman Lange and the teams. I think that we've been working very hard to make sure that the upgraded framework agreement will fit the demands of the 21st century and also all the expectations ahead of us when we start this negotiation. Therefore, I believe that you will approve this agreement in your upcoming vote. I'm basing my hope also on a strong majority in the Committee for Constitutional Affairs because I believe that the expertise of this committee has clearly proven that we have been acting very responsibly.
We've always stayed within the treaties, and we've always fully respected the inter-institutional balance. And I think this was very important for both teams which have been negotiating this agreement. What I believe is very important right now is, I would say, to avoid rehearsing all the stories of the past which we have heard so often, but let's focus on the future. Let's focus on how to grasp these new opportunities that the new framework agreement is offering us. Let's concentrate on how we can smoothly implement it so the debates here, and of course in the committees, are livelier and lead to substantial proposals based on democratic values and principles.
And I would appreciate the acknowledgement of Mr. Simon on the fact that we had a 100% track record when it comes to your initial reports. 100% track record. We always followed the legislative proposals when you decided to present two to five reports. So once again, I would like to use this opportunity to call upon all of us—commission, commissioners, European Parliament, and members of the European Parliament—to use all the possibilities which this house of democracy, the debates, and our cooperation present for us, so we can present to our European citizens a brighter future. So I'm sure that with all these changes and goodwill on both sides, we'll make sure that our exchanges are more lively.
Speaker 72
They will be more interesting, more attractive for our citizens, and they will also be relevant for our common European future. Thank you very much, Madam President.
Speaker 73
Thank you, Commissioner Sevkovich. Now, give the floor to Simon to report.
Yeah. Thank you.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much once again, Commissioner. Now, this debate really brought out something very interesting. From the far right through to the AFD from Germany, every single speaker was in favor of the European Parliament having an initiative right. That's something worth fighting for, and I should be surprised by it. Now, those who suggested there were treaty infringements didn't actually manage to mention what they consisted of.
On the question of the commission responding to questions too late or failing to respond during question sessions in the plenary? Well, we have to take ourselves a bit more seriously. When we have a commissioner present with us in a question and answer session and the room is empty, the Parliament simply cannot be taken seriously. We're working on that, and I've been fighting for it for a long time. As for the right of inquiry, I think we can make rapid progress.
And the quality of debates in the European Parliament, I think it's been pretty good today, but that's not the standard here because the house is all too often empty. I know from my own group, we need lively group debates. That's really important. And that also depends a lot, of course, on the topics we put on the agenda. As for the votes of confidence for the commission, I think there were two basic construction failures in the Lisbon Treaty.
First of all, this suggests that the commission is a kind of electable and disposable government. And I think the way that was put was a failing in the Elizabethan treaty. And I think that the destructive confidence votes that we have at the moment should be replaced by a more constructive vote of confidence. Now, it is the right of the Commission and the Council to initiate legislation. So that's entirely in line with what's in the treaties.
So, this agreement will only be as good as what we make of it as parliamentarians. Let's now work together to use the rights that we have. And I would like to thank you, Madam President, for having allowed so many blue card questions.
Speaker 43
Thank you. The debate is closed, and the vote will be held on Wednesday. The next item on the agenda is the report by Mr. Warborn. European Union Regulatory Fitness, Subsidiarity, and Proportionality report on better lawmaking covering 2023 and 2024. We are going to start with the rapporteur, Mr. Warborn.
Please, you have the floor.
Speaker 76
Since I'm intending to speak in Swedish.
Madam Commissioner, this report is about regulatory fitness, but it's actually about competitiveness, really. Competitiveness depends on how we create well-paid jobs in Europe, how we get the tax revenue so that we can have a long-term budget. How can we create tax resources for our member states? It's on the basis of the money available that we are able to set our priorities, whether we want more defense, more education, more infrastructure, reduce taxes, or whatever it is that we want to do as part of our political priorities. Competitiveness, unfortunately, has been falling behind in Europe in recent years.
Speaker 78
I think that's a shame. But at the same time, I'm very happy that the commission has created an agenda based on competitiveness. And there are lots of things we have to do, but one thing is absolutely necessary: simplification of rules. When I talk to business people, they say rules hold us back from employing more people—two more people, 10 more people, or more. The good news is that since 2022, we've reduced the principle of one in, one out.
Speaker 86
And I'd like to thank the commission for doing that. One in, one out doesn't mean that you calculate the costs of what regulation costs for companies, but the idea is that it should be one euro in and €1 out. So it means that there is a break in the increase of costs, though Brussels is helping us with that. That's one problem we have solved.
Speaker 76
That is part of what the EPP is asking for. But now we're asking for one in, two out. So, for every increase of €1, there should be a reduction of €2 for companies. So, that's what we're asking for. So it's not a majority saying we're by one in, one out.
It's a majority saying we want to go a bit further. So we're voting for one in, two out. And this house is trying to build a majority behind that principle. It's a good thing, and I hope that the commission takes it on board in its upcoming work. But then there's also something new in this report, and that is that we feel companies, or how should I put it?
The commission should look at the possibility of companies getting money reimbursed for their reporting requirements. And they come; they have a lot of reports to produce. I think it would be a good thing if the companies received some reimbursement for their costs. Now, I don't know if it's going to be an authority, a member state, or the Commission that's doing it. But I think that if the information is valuable to the commission, the commission should be able to pay for it.
Speaker 78
The idea is that the commission should be there for companies and citizens, rather than the idea that citizens and companies are there for the commission's benefit. Finally, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs who have worked on this report with me. I'd like to thank everyone on our team who has worked together on this file. We've got a good report, which I think we can build a good majority behind, and I think it's a good step towards more simplification, more competitiveness, and better-paid jobs in Europe. You.
Speaker 79
Now, we give the floor to Commissioner Saharieva. Commissioner, you have the floor.
Speaker 80
Madam President, honorable members, thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss this important report with you today. I would like to thank Mr. Warmborn, the reporter, as well as the jury committee for the high quality of the report. We'll start with the question on national parliaments. The commission believes in strong cooperation with national parliaments, who are important allies to deliver on citizens' expectations and constructively shape the union's future. We attach great value, in particular, to achieving the engagement of national parliaments in the control of subsidiarity and their suggestions regarding the Commission's initiatives.
The hundreds of such opinions that the commission receives each year show that national parliaments also see this as an important channel to make their voices heard at the European level. The commission fully shares the view that the strict application of the subsidiarity principle in EU legislation is essential to focus the work of the EU on where it offers the most added value. This is a shared responsibility of all EU institutions and all involved actors. For its part, the Commission is strongly committed to subsidiarity under its Better Regulation agenda. We have also improved how we provide information relevant to national parliament subsidiarity checks and have made their opinions and our replies more accessible.
I am pleased that this report acknowledges this. And we see potential for further improvement, such as more active exchanges on the commission work program or more participation at an early stage, for example, during public consultations or inputs via own-initiative opinions. Honorable members, the commission also welcomes the report because it shows that better regulation is a shared agenda between the EU institutions. I would like to emphasize that the report looks at the recent past, but policies are changing faster these days. In spite of the increasing speed of the political cycle, our better regulation principle has not changed.
Not changed. The commission remains committed to proposing legislation based on the best available evidence, respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, applying the evaluate first principle, seeking to achieve policy objectives at minimum costs, and conducting a new stakeholder consultation to inform our policies. We are currently working on a communication that will further strengthen our approach and resolve. At the same time, this commission has placed a particular focus on simplification and reduction of burdens as a means to deliver better policy outcomes and improve the EU's competitiveness and the well-being of our citizens. Every commissioner has been tasked with actively looking for simplification opportunities in their areas of responsibility.
They have been tasked to do this in close consultation with the co-legislators and in full transparency. On that basis, for instance, every commissioner prepared an annual report for discussion with the co-legislators, and this case was complemented by an overview report for the whole commission. So far, we have proposed 10 omnibus packages, which, together with other simplification proposals, can save €15,000,000,000 in recurrent administrative costs for businesses and public administrations when adopted by co-legislators. We will continue to pursue an ambitious simplification agenda this year, as outlined in our work program. I'll stop here and look forward to the debate.
Thank you.
Speaker 81
Thank you, Commissioner. I now call Mr. Vavrikevich, speaking for the EPP.
Speaker 84
Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, the European Union has taken an important step by establishing significant financial support for defense through the SAFE program, Security Action for Europe. These resources are essential to reinforce our defense capabilities and strengthen Europe's security. However, funding alone is not enough. To ensure these resources genuinely enhance our security, we must guarantee that defense industries across the member states can operate within a regulatory environment that allows them to fully, efficiently, and rapidly use the support. This means removing unnecessary barriers, simplifying procedures, and enabling faster investment and production in the defense sector.
Speaker 88
We must also ensure that the regulatory framework supports the development of a stronger and more integrated European defense ecosystem capable of responding to hybrid threats, strengthening critical infrastructure protection, and improving military readiness. This must remain at the core of our efforts to build a regulatory environment that supports both Europe's economic strength and its security. Thank you, Rapporteur, for your work.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 83
Now ask Madam Walters to take the floor for one minute. Thank you, President.
Voting in favor of this report. I may not agree with every paragraph, but that is the nature of democratic compromise. In particular, I welcome the acknowledgement that better regulation doesn't mean no regulation, which was not a given, but that legislating smarter, better, and simpler is a good thing. But there is an elephant in the room. This report covers 2024, and since then, cheered on by the EPP, the Commission has thrown better regulation out of the window.
The result has been maladministration, in the words of the European Ombudsman: abuse of urgency powers to skip consultations and assessments. And what did we see instead? Well, in Omnibus One, there was highly inappropriate lobbying from the American fossil fuel industry and an end result so extreme that it needed the far right for support. I don't want any more PR spiel from the European Commission. I hear you talk about transparency and consultation, but there was none.
Speaker 85
The commission's failures led to this, and I would like to see acknowledgment of that, with the commission placing consultation and evidence back at the heart of its work. Thank you.
Thank you, Monsieur Roger.
Speaker 87
Thank you very much. Mister Roger is next for the Patriots. One minute and 30 seconds. Thank you very much, Madam President, dear colleagues. Strengthening community law is extremely important for all of our countries, but particularly for the outermost regions in general and for France in particular.
Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana, Réunion, Saint Martin—all of these are facing structural, permanent issues, as Article 349 of the treaty states. Their distance, their insularity, their dependence on imports, and a climate that is very different from Continental Europe. European legislation needs to be simple, and it needs to fit the needs of states and citizens. We need to look at these outermost regions and fully use any adaptation measures set out in the treaty. A rule that is made for the European continent cannot always be applied in the same way, bearing in mind the tropical climate of the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, or the South American continent.
Speaker 89
So the next reform of European rules on these outer main regions that we have looked at, that we will be looking at in the Patriots, needs to help banana farmers, cane sugar plantations in Martinique, in Guadeloupe, all of the farmers that provide sustenance for around 50% of their island. Thank you.
Ladies.
Speaker 113
And gentlemen, once again, we meet here to talk about deregulation, or should I say regulation, because what we are doing right now resembles more the latter. Yes, of course, according to the treaties, you should agree on laws when it is necessary, and only when this is necessary. This is a fabulous idea. However, it is difficult for me to recognize that the ban on combustion engines or some other regulations in this vein are truly necessary. They are not necessary, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the opposite. This is a joke, and the whole idea of better lawmaking is just something that looks good on paper because the EU just drags its feet. It wants to just wait and see, or maybe deregulate in some other ways. But, unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, if we continue like this, there will be nothing left to regulate.
Dainius Žalimas
Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, this report on better lawmaking is, at its core, about ensuring good law. Law that is clear, law that is predictable, and law that can be implemented. This means that good law does not end with adoption. It must also be properly implemented across the Union. And where questions arise in its interpretation, national courts must remain fully free to refer both questions to the Court of Justice.
In practice, however, the implementation of EU law across member states remains uneven. This undermines trust in the European Union. Member States must, therefore, avoid late, incomplete, and inaccurate EU law transposition. At the same time, sincere cooperation must remain our guiding principle. Better lawmaking also means respecting the institutional balance.
If a commission intends to withdraw legislative proposals, it must properly justify such decisions and consult the co-legislators. Let us ensure that good law works in practice. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. Thank you.
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
Thank you very much to the rapporteur and to everyone for all the work on lawmaking. It's important that it is effective. We need to think about the rules that are chosen and the rules that are implemented. It's not just about bureaucracy and burden. It's about standards and norms that citizens can trust.
It upholds health standards, for example. And I think if this is eroded, we do not have the same safeguards as standards. So, I think we need to look at this first omnibus package. It went too fast. There wasn't proper consideration of this, and there has been criticism of the commission.
Speaker 43
I think we need to rethink this. If lawmaking is done too quickly, it becomes problematic. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
You. This report, I'd say, really makes us realize it doesn't matter how many laws we make, but how we enforce these laws. The quality of EU law is decisive for the credibility of our decisions and the trust that citizens put in us. Very often, Europe is seen as having just too much bureaucracy and too much complication. We need to change this perception of things.
The EU must have an instrument that can provide common solutions, support competition, and help develop our industries and our world. Now, we need to have legislative rules that are better and should only really act when they can create added value, working in parallel and in tandem with national laws and national powers. So that there is not too much red tape for the companies and citizens. Antonio Tajani, our foreign minister, said that for the EPP, for every new law that comes in, two should be abrogated, should be removed. That's the only way to make things efficient.
We also improve the quality of our impact studies so that we can particularly focus on SMEs and help them because they are the heart of our industry, but they are the ones that suffer the most. They have too many burdens. So, better lawmaking is not just a question of ethics. It's a question of trust because when rules can be understood, Europe is seen as what it should be: a solution and a big opportunity for our citizens and our companies. Thank you.
Speaker 97
Thank you very much, Commissioner, colleagues. Once again, I would like to express my greetings to the students who are here. First of all, we're listening to something about how to conduct better and how to put together better legislation. With looking at the various norms and the various systems that are in place, what we see is a kind of bureaucratic inferno, which creates major issues for our enterprises. It's not a technical issue.
It's how democracy functions in the Union. It's a planning from above and having some sort of top-down system in place, of course, is not what we're calling for in no situation or condition whatsoever. That would be a socialist system. What we want is the will of the people and the will of those working at all levels to be able to function effectively. We need parliamentary control.
Speaker 98
We need a system of regulation. We need a system in place, however, that serves citizens and small micro enterprises, as well as SMEs. Now, the time has come to work effectively in order to serve enterprises in the European Union. Thank you very much.
Speaker 100
Mister Keller, you have one minute, please.
Since June 2024, this parliament has spent a lot of time unwinding everything we did in the 2019-2024 parliament, previously supported and adopted, and much of that was at the request of the commission. Of course, some will say that this unwinding or U-turning is in response to emerging new issues and threats, and that is correct in certain circumstances. However, in many cases, it's because due diligence in terms of the impact of new EU legislation on overall EU economies and broader society was not carried out properly. Take, for example, the nature restoration law. Yes.
An impact assessment was carried out on how the legislation would impact biodiversity and climate objectives. However, no detailed impact assessment was carried out in terms of the law's impact on land usage, farming, housing development, and energy infrastructure. That's why I really welcome the own initiative report and compliment the author for high-quality legislative drafting, proposals, robust economic assessments, and systemic ex post evaluation. Citizens expect legislators to get things right the first time around and not to waste time cleaning up badly drafted legislation and poorly justified laws without proper impact assessments.
Speaker 103
Thank you very much, Madam President. Having better and more effective lawmaking, that is good for European companies. It is good for the green transition. However, when we see that the Swedish Moderate,
Juergen Warborn,
Speaker 103
Has taken quite a few trips to the USA, talking with the Heritage Foundation, for example. That was a part of Project 2025, and also meetings with the fossil industry. Donald Trump himself has talked about EU climate legislation being problematic for companies, and he wants to see it gone. And so, we see that conservative powers in the European Parliament are trying to achieve that as well. Our representative work here is to represent European citizens, not American oil companies. If the EU is backing away from climate, we have a chance to be real leaders in this area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 76
Thank you very much. Now, your speech was based on what you have seen from investigations by a lobbying organization. Now, I wouldn't really have expected much more from the Green Party in Sweden. It is clear that the Green Party knows how to help small companies, for example. We're trying to help them with better lawmaking.
Speaker 102
Thank you, Mr. Vorbon, for that question. We had several rounds of discussion with companies in Sweden, who said, actually, they had quite a hard time getting access to you to talk to you as the reporter about this report. So, we talk to SMEs from across Europe. We take a more long-term perspective, so companies have predictability and can plan. That helps to secure investment, and I think a lot of Swedes and Europeans would agree with us.
Thank you.
Speaker 43
Thank you. Mister Warborn, you want to, yeah. So, if you want to answer, you can, of course. Yeah. You are very pleased to stay and answer if you want.
Speaker 104
Just a second. Missus Levin, if you want, you can do whatever you want. But if you want to stay and maybe have the opportunity to answer again, you better stay.
Isabella Leuven,
Speaker 78
Now Isabella Leuven chooses the facts that suit her. I certainly met companies. You can see that from my transparency list. Quite a number of companies I met with, human rights organizations, and all sorts. I want to know if the Green Party is for or against growth.
Thank you.
Speaker 102
You, reporter Warbaugh. Yes. We want sustainable growth. We, I think, want to see that in a different way: a fossil-free Sweden, the global compact. There are broad platforms here.
What we need are very clear climate targets, but backsliding in the way that we are now, which you stand for, is not good for growth and competitiveness in Europe. Thank you.
Speaker 109
Unbelievable. Unbelievable that member states in the European Union, well, with the people, references are made to dictators and also the idea of armies being sent to Hungary. These European MEPs have been discussing this thing month after month. We've been talking month after month about different countries. We have been criticizing the countries.
Speaker 108
But when it comes to supporting Hungary, no. Nothing is done at all. Whereas we were ready to undermine regimes all over the world, at the same time, we were not ready to support our own regime, our own governments. So, indeed, what we want is to protect those that are vulnerable and protect the idiosyncrasies of our continent that are under threat right now.
Speaker 105
Catch the eye procedure, and first, I will give the floor to Mr. Lopez Aguilar, 316.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Commissioner, this debate on better lawmaking, subsidiarity, and proportionality subsidies shows the importance of really bringing out European added value, reducing administrative burdens, improving the quality of legislation, and simplifying the role of SMEs in actually meeting the rules and laws. You've got this, omnibus AI. You have been pushing through this report, but what I draw from this is that better legislation cannot be done at the cost of social standards, environmental standards, or indeed at the cost of your own intentions. You know, fighting against these tech giants, that's what's important. They are digging in their heels.
They don't want to respect any of our rules. So, this is a very timely debate. But the conclusions that emerge from your written resolution are absolutely essential to this. Thank you.
Two 10.
Speaker 68
I think it is laughable when we see this first paragraph about subsidiarity, which states that the EU only adopts legislation when it is necessary and proportional. But you are envisaging a very different EU. There are inept political decisions being made that are creating problems in your member states, and then you claim that only the EU can resolve these problems. In the Netherlands, for example, you took in hundreds of thousands of migrants. And when the housing crisis hit, you decided to pass on a housing policy to the EU to try and solve this problem that you created yourselves, an artificial problem.
Spain, you closed your nuclear power stations. And after the first major power cut, you turned to Brussels. This is not how the EU should act.
Speaker 80
Thank you. Thank you, President, dear members of the Parliament. Once again, really, to express our gratitude to the rapporteur for the excellent report. After this debate, it is confirmed that we want better legislation for our citizens. We want legislation that regulates and actually responds to their needs, keeping all the standards, but providing them when they need them.
So I'm very grateful once again for this debate. And, you know, I already mentioned in my introduction that the commission is constantly striving to improve ourselves, and we are working on upcoming communication. Due this spring, we will further this communication, reinforce our approach, and make it smarter, hopefully. Once again, thank you.
Speaker 76
Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to all colleagues who participated in this debate. Let me do a few reactions on what I heard. First of all, the omnibuses were up from the commission, which mentioned that 10 omnibuses have been presented so far, reducing the cost for European businesses by 15,000,000,000 once they are decided and implemented. And I think that is a very good step. But I also like to say that the goal for the commission is 37,500,000,000.
Speaker 86
So the commission really has to keep up the pace in order for us to achieve this goal, and that's why the principle of one in, two out is so important. The Parliament has voted for it and has a majority for it. The omnibus one, for which I also happen to be a rapporteur, was up in the debate, and I'm really proud of the fact that this is the single report in European history that cuts the most reporting costs for businesses. I say that. The report in European history that cut costs most for European businesses when it comes to reporting is very good. So thank you for the commission, for the proposal, and for all the colleagues who worked on this and voted for it.
It's a good step in the right direction. Then, to respond to Kira Peter Hansen, Salvatore de Meo, and Keller, who all, in different ways, mentioned impact assessment. Kira, maybe not. I don't think you mentioned the word, but still, that lawmaking sometimes goes too quickly. I think it is important that we see our position and our role in the parliament as well. When it has to do with competitiveness, we have to make sure that there is a complete impact assessment that is agreed upon by the regulatory scrutiny board.
And I think that we, in the parliament, should also use our power to do a ramp impact assessment when it comes to competitiveness. Not least the SME checks, and that takes me to my final comment. Mantiovanni mentioned SMEs. And yes, that is true because SMEs are hit the hardest by the regulatory burden. And that's why, if we cut the cost for businesses, it will be best for small and medium-sized enterprises, as they are the backbone of our economy.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 43
Thank you, Mr. Warmborn. The debate is closed, and the vote will be held tomorrow. The next item on the agenda is the questions to the Council and the Commission regarding the upcoming European Research Area Act. I will first give the floor to the author, Miss Lacos. Please come forward.
Speaker 117
Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, twenty-five years ago, Europe launched an ambitious idea: the European Research Area, a common space where researchers, knowledge, technology, and innovation could circulate freely across borders. Now, take a moment and imagine a tree. Its trunk is research: strong and visible, feeding the crown where leaves grow and fruits appear—innovation. But beneath the surface lies something that we rarely think about: the roots. Hidden underground, they anchor the tree, nourish it, and allow it to grow and flourish.
Speaker 122
Those invisible roots are in the European research area. They quietly sustain the entire ecosystem, ensuring that research can thrive and that innovation can bear fruit. Over the years, the European research area has evolved, but despite the progress, Europe's research and innovation landscape remains fragmented. Our researchers face administrative and structural barriers when moving between countries. Investments remain uneven, and we are far from the 3% GDP target.
Speaker 114
And too often, knowledge and innovation do not circulate across Europe as freely as they should. This is why today's debate on the ERA and the motion for resolution on the ERA Act is so important. Once and for all, we have an opportunity to address long-standing challenges in Europe's research ecosystem, from fragmented frameworks and uneven R&D investment to barriers for research careers and mobility. And we must do it right this time. As detailed in our resolution, it is imperative that the upcoming ERA Act focuses on three fundamental aspects.
Speaker 116
First and foremost, we must put people at its very heart. Europe is home to more than 2,000,000 researchers, around a quarter of the world's scientific talent. Yet, this talent is too often constrained by fragmentation and uneven framework conditions. We must end this precarity and persistent fragmentation. We need to support mobility and brain circulation between countries and sectors, and we have to make the entire Europe an attractive destination for the best talents around the world.
Speaker 115
Secondly, we need to build the era on strong European values. Researchers must be free to explore ideas, challenge them, and pursue knowledge independently. Protecting academic freedom, research integrity, and openness in collaboration is essential not only for our democracies but also for our global positioning and competitiveness. Last but not least, we need clearer and simpler framework conditions for research and innovation across Europe. At the same time, we should respect the diversity of national research systems and competencies of member states.
Europe has extraordinary talent, but talent needs the right environment to flourish. The European Research Area provides a unique opportunity to build a truly integrated European innovation ecosystem. It benefits the European Union as a whole, but it is particularly important for Central and Eastern European member states. It offers a pathway to unlock the potential of less research-intensive countries where outstanding talent and innovative ideas remain too often underutilized. We are at a decisive moment, and we need to make the ERA happen.
After more than 20 years, we have the opportunity to move from aspiration to real implementation of the era, and this house has a responsibility to support that ambition. We should encourage the Commission to come forward with an ambitious yet realistic ERA Act, one that strengthens framework conditions, empowers researchers, helps to overcome fragmentation in Europe's research landscape, and reinforces it on the global stage. We should also encourage all member states to engage constructively and to take this opportunity seriously. The European Research Area is our common European project, our joint interest and aspiration, and a benefit for all. The moment is now, and we simply cannot miss it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Minister Rona has the floor now.
Speaker 119
President, honorable members, commissioner, thank you for this question regarding the upcoming European Research Area Act, a central pillar of EU research and innovation policy. The aim is clear: to create a single market for research, innovation, and technology where researchers, knowledge, and technology circulate freely in our Union. This is intrinsically linked to the union's strategic autonomy. The council has, on several occasions, recognized the challenges and expressed its determination and commitment to act towards the development of the European Research Area. Over the past 5 years, the council has approved conclusions on research careers and infrastructures, and on the role and impact of research and innovation in the Union.
Speaker 120
It has also approved council recommendations aimed at better valorizing research results, attracting and retaining research talent, and strengthening research security. In 2025, the council took a particularly relevant initiative for the future of ERA. It adopted the recommendation on the European Research Area policy agenda for 2025-2027. In this recommendation, the council stresses that while significant progress has been made, more needs to be done to further develop a fully functioning European Research Area. One, where member states can coordinate their research and innovation policies, and where researchers and innovators can move freely.
Speaker 119
The new policy agenda is key to implementing the European Research Area priorities as set out in the Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe. It underpins the joint efforts of the European Commission, the member states, and, where appropriate, associate countries and stakeholders to better coordinate research and innovation policies at all levels. And it contributes to working on the concept of a fifth freedom: the single market for research and innovation. Greater EU-wide coordination through the European Research Area can help to stimulate investments and reforms, contribute to closing the innovation divide with the EU's global competitors and within the Union, as well as play an essential role in fostering sustainable competitiveness. The Council recommendation on the European Research Area policy agenda is designed to help reinforce the national research and innovation systems.
Speaker 120
It sets out 11 long-term structural European Research Area policies and 8 concrete European Research Area actions. Amongst them, let me highlight in particular the commitments to strengthen research infrastructures, to promote gender equality and inclusiveness, to make research careers more attractive, and last but not least, to support the mobility of researchers across the EU, including via the initiative Choose Europe. President, honorable members, commissioner, we are all convinced that more effort is needed on investments to reach the 3% GDP research and development investment target. The European Research Area should be beneficial for all European citizens and for all actors in the European research, higher education, and innovation ecosystem. Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker 118
Thank you very much. Now, Missus Zahrehbah has the floor for the commission.
Madam.
Speaker 80
President, dear Deputy Minister, honorable members, dear Esther, thank you for your question on the European Research Area and the opportunity to present the direction of our work. Over the past 26 years, we have built a solid foundation for the European Research Area. The values and principles of the era have been laid out in the part of RNI. We have enhanced working conditions through the Council recommendation on research careers, as well as through the new Charter for Researchers; improved equality between men and women thanks to gender equality plans; and strengthened cooperation among the member states and stakeholders through the ERA Forum. Today, Europe, with 5% of the global population, is home to a quarter of global researchers.
This talent is our strongest asset, making us more independent, competitive, and secure. Yet every time I meet our talented scientists, the same concerns emerge. Young postdoctoral researchers who spend too much time worrying about pensions, short-term contracts, and varying social security regimes. Research teams are required to submit the same documents to multiple authorities with different timelines and formats. Brilliant women researchers remain underrepresented in the highest academic positions.
Researchers and institutions are increasingly worried about the global state of the freedom of scientific research. These are precisely the issues you raise in your questions, and those reflected in the 735 contributions received in our call for evidence. The European Research Area Act is our answer to these challenges. We want to turn the free movement of ideas, knowledge, and talent into reality. Voluntary cooperation has delivered some progress, as you said too.
But let's be frank. The history of our single market shows that coordination alone will not tackle fragmentation. We need an ambitious legislative initiative to establish a real fifth freedom. This requires action in three connected areas, covering the questions you raise. First, a stronger and more coherent framework that enables member states to establish common priorities is needed.
Mario Draghi explained it very clearly in his report. In Europe, we have a small federal budget for research, Horizon Europe, and 27 separate, fragmented national budgets. We need to strengthen the alignment between EU and national instruments, create critical mass joint forces, and avoid useless duplications. Second, we are placing people and values at the heart of the act. You ask how we intend to improve research careers.
A career in science must not come at the expense of stability, financial security, or well-being. We are exploring options to make working conditions more predictable and secure across the union. Over 1,000 universities have already endorsed the European Charter for Researchers. Hundreds received our HR Excellence Award. But here too, we need to take a further step.
We need the gold standard for research careers. For this, we are considering the feasibility of a voluntary European model research contract, a common reference that institutions could freely choose to offer for a more predictable and attractive career, allowing our researchers to make the most out of mobility within Europe. We are exploring measures for the mutual acceptance of doctoral degrees and to facilitate the establishment of joint doctoral programs. We also want to make the most of existing instruments like Receivia, a pension scheme especially adapted for mobile researchers. And to attract the best global minds, we envisage easing access routes for talent in line with the Choose Europe initiative and our new business strategy.
Beyond the material conditions of research, the act will also promote the values that underpin it. Attacks on science are attacks on democracy itself. Neither science nor democracy can thrive when power decides what is true. This is why we will enshrine scientific freedom into European law with clear and enforceable safeguards applying everywhere in our Union. This is a crucial aspect for both the Parliament and the Commission.
But I want to be clear. I don't see the need for an independent instrument. Scientific freedom is a foundational enabling condition for our European Research Area, not a standalone policy. Its integration within the act will ensure legal quality and coherence of interpretation. The act will also promote gender equality, strengthening the reach and ambition of measures such as our gender equality plans.
Third, our research area must secure the right resources to turn excellence into impact. This starts with reaching our 3% research intensity target, from public to private. This depends, first and foremost, on national efforts, of course, yet only 6 member states have reached this level. We want to help our member states meet this commitment made over 24 years ago. With the act, we will seek to strengthen the research and innovation dimension of our economic coordination, possibly within the European semester.
We want to ensure national ownership, be mindful of institutional competencies, and consider the different starting points of each member state. But to deliver impact, funding alone is not enough. We also need better knowledge circulation and valorization. Too many frontier breakthroughs are hidden behind paywalls. Today, only a third of patents registered by universities are commercially exploited.
Everyone with a great idea must be able to access and build upon research results funded by taxpayers' money. For this reason, we are looking into making publicly funded research open access by default. Honorable members, thank you very much for your interest in this key legislative file. I look forward to your cooperation and hearing your remarks. Thank you.
Speaker 123
Thank you very much. From the EPP, Mrs. Winsig.
President, Commissioner, and Minister. And now, yesterday was a very important day for women researchers. Indeed, I wanted to pay homage to those particular women and mention the fact that yesterday was an important day for them. Now, I think it's important not only to have scientific excellence, but also how that excellence is going to be further distributed. And that is the core of the European Research Act: to turn Europe into a place of knowledge, talent, and science where they can circulate.
We have excellent research. And when we have experience exchanged, when we have that knowledge shared, we can work more effectively. We have a fragmented national system right now, which is in place, and it is not helpful to everyone. We need to work together conservatively so that we have joint research programs and all can benefit. We need a better framework for researchers, both men and women, and we need to be able to work effectively together once again on innovation.
During the last legislature, we discussed the competitiveness of our undertakings. But unfortunately, all of that was neglected. Excellence in research and science: let's not forget that this is the basis for excellence in competitiveness as well. So, once again, we have to work together in that direction. Thank you.
Speaker 125
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Missus Lakos, Commissioner, Minister. I will speak about academic freedom in Sweden. We.
See that the right to freedom of expression is under threat. We see in Hungary, a whole university was forced to close down due to political influence. We see interference in vaccines in the US. In China, students are monitored and surveilled. So, we have seen those in power try to influence universities, take control, and influence research.
It is to push their political agenda. Now, when politicians shrink our ability to have freedom of thought and to work in this way, it is a systematic interference in our democracy. And so, our freedom of thought and expression is one of the most important things we have. There should be freedom to research and to think critically. Students should be able to ask questions, and that freedom has to be found all across Europe.
And if our research and scientists are concentrated in just a few member states, we see brain drain from certain regions, and perhaps new techniques aren't developing as quickly as they could. Perhaps talent is missed just because of where you live or the parents you have. A strong Europe needs universities and researchers across the whole EU. We need to really protect that knowledge. That is really a cornerstone of our democracy, and we have to protect it.
We have dictators who are pushing their own truths for their own ends, for economic interests. So, we need to protect that now and in the future. Thank you.
President.
Speaker 132
President of the commission. If we want to strengthen the European Research Area, research must be open, free, and not affected by ideology. Well, as the rapporteur, I tried to simplify things: rules, procedures, bureaucracy, of course, as you said, and to develop an ecosystem that's favorable to the entire space sector in this case. And research is vital. We have universities.
We have public centers. We have government centers, intergovernmental organizations, and all of these areas and groups are supporting research to bring out new goods, new services, and better management. Data is a very sensitive issue, so we need to have the right funding. But private investment is very important there, and we have to have a clear and open regulatory framework for it. I think that we must overcome this distinction between civilian and military research.
Speaker 127
As you said before, these two things need to dovetail when we talk about research. This has to be open space. There is agriculture. Agriculture, national and European data security, commercial, and defense areas are all very important. And we need to have a political, but also an ethical, focus.
Speaker 128
There are certain sectors that are just being focused on, but we must be more open. Otherwise, we'll lose out. So, less control. And, as you said before, we need to attract the best minds, and that is what Europe particularly needs. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 126
Thank you very much for your news, Miss Stokes. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Commissioner, Minister. Imagine an AI factory in the middle of old Vienna for new ideas and new solutions. And a factory opened in 2025, and that's thanks to the EU. Half of the costs came from the European Union, and the other half came from the Austrian government. In July 2025, the project began.
Speaker 130
And still today, the legal framework regarding where the money was going to come from and how, in Austria, is still being discussed. So the infrastructure and the necessary legislative funding issue continue to be issues. So what we see is that there is a lot of insecurity in these joint funding projects. If the time has come, we should try to find solutions that we can focus on tomorrow and not get stuck in some sort of quagmire of the system that exists today. We want security, and we want to strengthen excellence in research, not to overcome bureaucracy.
We ought not to waste our time there. Thank you.
Speaker 129
Thank you. That ends the list of group speakers. Now, Jean Kelly. Jean Kelly is next.
Seán Kelly
Good morning, Lutron. Europe is home to some of the finest universities, laboratories, and research centers in the world. Our scientists lead breakthroughs in medicine, clean technologies, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing. These institutions are one of Europe's greatest competitive advantages. For this reason, we must do what we can to ensure that this sector continues to thrive.
That means ensuring the removal of barriers and borders and providing the funds our researchers need. The ERA must deliver a truly single market for research, innovation, and technology. We need to see our deeds, knowledge, and talent move as freely as goods and capital do in our single market. We need to invest in nurturing talent and strengthen mobility for researchers across the Union, particularly in critical fields such as digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and clean tech. It also means reversing the brain drain.
We need to make the European Union the most attractive place in the world to conduct research. For countries like Ireland, this is particularly important. Over the past quarter-century, Ireland has built a globally respected researcher base supported by strong collaboration between academia, enterprise, and government. But in the fast-moving global economy, Europe will be left behind if we remain fragmented. A strong research area ensures that smaller innovation-driven economies can connect their excellence to the scale of the European Union.
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Christophe Clergeau
I'm very happy that we are finally having a debate on this. You know, we've got people financing research, including cities and regions as well as the EU. The 3% of GDP for research reaffirms our objective. But how come we put all these constraints on public debt, but not on support for research? I would like some kind of binding commitment so that we can really see proper mobilization of funds, rather than just looking at financing defense, which, of course, is important.
I would also like it made clear that we're helping out the role of local bodies, local cities, councils, and regions because Horizon Europe, you know, the equivalent support from the regions is almost as big as the entirety of Horizon Europe. So it's very important that we have this European research area that really has room for all these great minds.
Speaker 136
And, gentlemen, I want to say it openly. We go back to this artificial division: excellence, scientific excellence, or making better chances for other countries, as if one excluded the other. This is.
Speaker 136
True. And everyone knows, everyone to whom science and innovation are close, be it at the university or at the research facility, you may have great ideas, but the infrastructure is poor or grants never get there. It's not their failure. It's the failure of our imperfect system. This is also emphasized by Draghi's report on European competitiveness.
It says that research and innovation should be treated as a real common market, just like the internal market. In this context, the European Research Area should become a real tool of cooperation in Europe. We should limit fragmentation. We should increase mobility for scientists and better use the research potential of the entire EU. Iraq is an opportunity to change it, not by lowering standards, but by freeing the potential which is already there, but somehow blocked now.
Better mobility for scientists, less red tape, more real cooperation, cross-border cooperation, and a stronger European Research Area is a project for the entire Europe. Science works better if it has a wider group of talents to choose from and fewer barriers, because only then will Europe work as one, and only then can it really compete. Thank you.
Speaker 140
Thank you, President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. The Future Era Act is a chance to strengthen the foundations of the EU's competitiveness. The EU has great scientists, but still too often, it loses in the global race for breakthrough technologies. That's why we need a smart legal framework, which will allow the institutions, the researchers, and the enterprises to cooperate faster and better. We also have to counter the growing concentration of research and innovation in the biggest centers.
We have to include smaller centers and SMEs in the European innovation ecosystems. This requires the simplification of rules for smaller entities. What is of key importance is to strengthen the potential of member states that have a weaker research structure, so investment in laboratories, networks, and corporations. These are necessary to support less obvious innovative projects. And here, also, a greater synergy is important for many countries.
Speaker 141
This combination of research funding is the best for achieving the best results. Without the synergies, it will be difficult to benefit from the financing. We need innovation that is created throughout the whole area of Europe. This is the only way to build competitiveness that is strong and sustainable. Thank you.
Speaker 138
Have the catch-the-eye procedure. Now there are four speakers, and we start with Mr. Kelleher, and then Mr. Oliver will be afterwards.
Speaker 100
President, just to say at the outset, I really welcome this debate. I think it's very timely that we actually accept that Europe has an awful lot of work to do in making ourselves competitive in the whole area of innovation and research. Dragi was quite clear in outlining in his report what we had to do because if we didn't, we were going to fall further behind. So, I do welcome the European Research Area. 3% of GDP is an ambitious target.
And clearly, with the diversion of funds in recent times for security and defense, we still have to be ambitious in trying to insist on that target being met in the short and medium term. With regard to academia, working with industry and government to ensure that you have creative, innovative, cutting-edge research, and then the spin-off of that into the commercial world is something that we are not as good at as other countries. And if you look at what has happened in recent years, the large companies that have grown rapidly have all been founded in the United States or in Asia. And we do have an awful lot of work to do to make sure that not only do we have the academic research, but that we can innovate and spin that out into the commercial world. I welcome this very much and hope that it is followed through with the underpinning proposals.
João Oliveira
Thank you very much, Commissioner. Scientific and technological progress cannot be separated from competitive objectives and just be about making profits for big companies. It needs to be considered as an instrument to respond to economic and social needs and to resolve the problems that face everyday people in this fundamental area for the progress and development of our common countries, and to fight against national and regional asymmetries throughout the EU. Because, of course, in countries, not everybody starts off at the same level of development in terms of science and technology. And that's why we need to have a central role of states in creating conditions for development and progress, both scientifically and technologically, and social appropriation, collective appropriation of the results of such research.
That's why we need to have better-trained researchers and more money available for scientific development, because these are fundamental so that research and development are not just about making weapons and war.
Mister.
Speaker 143
Dear people of Europe, Commissioner, the author mentioned that research and education can become a unique selling point of Europe, and she's right. Throughout history, there have been many centers of knowledge and education. Alexandria, Baghdad, Oxford, Paris. Why not Europe again? Imagine a continent where a student in Lagos dreams of studying in Krakow, where a researcher in Mumbai dreams of studying and researching in Lisbon over Boston, where Europe doesn't just compete, but defines what excellence means.
Speaker 144
This will only happen if we include those who love Europe the most in our legislation: young students and young researchers. Commissioner, the ERA Act must make Europe the place where young minds dream about. Because when we do that, not if, when we do that, we don't just win this future; we become the future the world wants to be part of. Thank you very much.
Speaker 145
Mister Zarell is here now. The EU is hemorrhaging its talent. So, what can we do to bring back our researchers who have gone off to enrich labs in the US? What can we do to stop this loss of young people who are leaving? I don't think we take this strategic subject seriously enough.
It's very important for our strategic autonomy. I think it's important to look at the incoherences that we have. We take talent from the macro countries, from the Southern Hemisphere, and many of them then stay in Europe, which has a negative effect on these regions and means that poor people end up migrating and coming to the EU. That's something that, rightly, we're trying to stop. It doesn't make a lot of sense, colleagues. So, I would ask everyone to act with more coherence in our policies.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker 80
Honorable members, thank you so much for this really good debate. And I will say just a couple of sentences because I think I spoke a lot about our plans, and I will really rely on our joint work in the future as we approach our proposal. And I really want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of our researchers and scientists, those who choose Europe every day in their work. And while the research is unpredictable, the results are unpredictable, it can only thrive if our researchers have freedom, predictability, safety, and security in their work. And this, we plan to be the air act.
And, of course, I agree with all of you who mentioned that we need to tackle the question of fragmentation. And, actually, even the previous debates were part of this: how we tackle the fragmentation, of course, realizing the national competencies in academic autonomy, and so on. But if we want to, almost always when you start our speeches by saying that with 5% of the world population, we host one fourth of the researchers. We really have to tackle the question of fragmentation and find a way to provide this framework of stability, predictability, and freedom for our researchers. Thank you so much for this debate.
Thank you.
Speaker 147
Thank you very much. And now we come back to the council, to Madam Rauuna. Thank you.
Speaker 119
Honorable members, Commissioner, thank you for this important debate. Let me reiterate that the Council is determined to continue its efforts to develop the European Research Area to achieve the single market for research, innovation, and technology across our Union. Our common objective is to strengthen Europe's global scientific and technological leadership, including through the proposal for a European Research Area Act, which we anticipate later this year. Once the proposal is out, the council will take it forward, cooperating closely with the Parliament and the Commission for a Union which is a space where our researchers and innovators can thrive. Thank you.
Speaker 150
Thank you. There will be a resolution that will be tabled, and the vote will take place tomorrow on this. We now come to the Joveva and Nikhil report: gender pay and pension gap in the European Union, the state of play, challenges, and the way forward, and developing guidelines for the better evaluation and fair remuneration of work in female-dominated sectors. Our rapporteur will speak to us first, Madam Joveva. You have the floor.
Speaker 149
Good evening, commission colleagues. Flowers, chocolates, and nice gestures. All this was for yesterday's International Women's Day. And what is the reality of these women? Not only yesterday, but the day before and today, the reality is a 12% gender pay gap, a 25% pension gap, and 28% of women have part-time jobs mainly because they have to take care of other people.
Speaker 148
If you think this is a coincidence, it is not. From the very beginning of European integration, we have had the principle of equal pay for equal work. This is part of the treaties. But after 70 years, this gender inequality is still present in all sectors of our work and life. And this inequality is everywhere.
It's systemic. It's part of the system. We see it in pay gaps that have no connection with how demanding the work is. We see that women still have worse-paid jobs that are undervalued and underestimated. We also see that women are the ones who have part-time jobs or other specific types of jobs because they are also carers.
They care for other people. So this is why we need much more public investment in care facilities and infrastructure. Especially, we have to make sure that we have cost-effective care for children. This will enable women to take part in jobs at work, and this is how they can make progress in their careers. And this is how we can, again, accelerate women's entry into jobs, and how women can have better possibilities to be CEOs and hold leading positions. Also, another problem for women is that unpaid work mainly affects them.
They have to take care of the children and other family members. This is eight weeks of unpaid work per year, and this is also undervalued and underestimated. And colleagues, we have to be very honest. If this were work for men, it would be financially rewarded. I think we all agree on this.
So this is why we have to make sure that this part of women's lives is also taken into account, with the pension gaps. We have to address the unequal discrimination, and Patriot's Parents Direct is very important. We need a European agreement on care, and I like that the Commission also took this into account in their strategy for gender equality. But we also have to have the political will to implement all this. And I would like to thank my fellow co-rapporteur.
Thank you. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, all the other assistants, and everybody else for all the work so far. And, also, I would like to be clear. International Women's Day is very important. Nice words, chocolates, and flowers.
It's all great. But what women actually need is not only symbols. We need equality in practice. By supporting this report, I'm sure that we can be one step closer to actual equality in practice. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 136
Thanks, ladies and gentlemen. Over 100 years ago, the women who lived in Petersburg went to the streets with simple slogans: bread, peace, and let the war be over. They fought for their dignity, justice, and the right to live normally. 100 years have passed. And these slogans are still familiar to us. Although we live in the twenty-first century, a number of women's problems are still unresolved.
And this is why it is so important that today we talk not about gestures, but about facts and concrete actions. What do the figures say? In 2023, the pay gap in the EU was 12%. Women still earn less than men for work of the same value. 28% of women work only part-time.
Among men, it's just 7.7%. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not a choice. It's a consequence of lack of access to care for children or other family members. Women work 54 to 67 days per year for free. And if we add work at home, care for the close ones, cooking, and organizing family life, it's over 8 additional weeks of work.
The consequences can be seen in pensions. The pension gap between men and women is 25.4% in Europe. Less stable work, breaks in a career, lower wages—all that translates into lower pensions and a greater risk of poverty at pension age, and the consequences can be seen too well. These are not abstract statistics, ladies and gentlemen. Behind every single figure, you have real women, workers, mothers, leaders, and their time, effort, and work have real economic value, but the system does not recognize it.
Now, what do we propose? In a report I had the pleasure to co-develop, we suggest two directions of action. First of all, available care without schools, kindergartens, or infant schools. There is no discussion about equality. Women, secondly, women in future professions, new technology, and science.
This is where the European economy of tomorrow will be created. Women must be there. If we want a strong, innovative Europe, we must not waste the potential of half of our society. And finally, women need equality, justice, and the right to live on their own terms without barriers, stereotypes, or glass ceilings. Europe could be a real support for women, not by means of declarations, but through concrete decisions and policies.
And this report is evidence that it is possible. We sent a clear signal that women's rights are not an addition to politics. This is the foundation of a just and modern Europe. Thank you.
Speaker 153
Very much. Now, from the commission. Commissioner McGrath, you have the floor.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, Chair, and good evening, honorable members. Can I start by just expressing appreciation to the two rapporteurs, MEP Joveva and Nikkell, and indeed to all of the members of the FEM and the Employment Committees for their work on this important own-initiative report? I would like to thank you for your engagement and support in the advancement of women's rights. You have played and continue to play a pivotal role in promoting gender equality. Even though the principle of equal pay, as colleagues have already said, has been enshrined in our treaty for almost 70 years, it has not worked effectively in practice.
But thanks to your dedication, we achieved groundbreaking progress for women's rights and gender equality in the EU during the last mandate. You secured the adoption of the pay transparency directive, the gender balance on company boards directive, and the first-ever directive on combating violence against women, to name just a few examples. During the last commission's mandate, we reduced the gender pay gap by the equivalent of 5 days, but we must do more. We will work relentlessly to ensure that it shrinks further. However, women's gross hourly earnings remain, on average, 12% below those of men.
Furthermore, even if the gender pay gap reduces, women's average pension gap in the EU currently remains at 25%. And if we continue at the pace to date, full gender equality will only be achieved in 50 years' time. That is acceptable to nobody. This needs to change, and I'm pleased to see that you agree with that in your own initiative report. As highlighted in principles two and fifteen of the European Pillar of Social Rights, women and men have equal treatment and opportunities in the labor market and in acquiring pension rights.
The new gender equality strategy adopted last week sets the way forward to address these crucial issues. The strategy highlights that competitiveness and gender equality actually go hand in hand. It underscores that closing the gender gaps, be it the gender pay, employment, or investment gap, will actually help to strengthen the competitiveness of the European economy. In that regard, the strategy emphasizes the necessity to implement the Pay Transparency Directive, the Work-Life Balance Directive, and the Directive on Gender Balance on Boards. The implementation of these crucial directives, opening a new era of fairness, will be closely monitored by the commission, and I'm pleased to see that your own initiative report fully supports this approach.
To support the implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive, the Commission, in collaboration with the European Institute for Gender Equality, has developed a toolkit to compare jobs of equal value. On March 26, this new online toolkit on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems will be published to help compare jobs of equal value. In addition to the four implementation workshops already held with member states on the directive, we will hold another workshop specifically for social partners in April. To address the gender pension gap, the commission will support member states to exchange their good practices in lowering the gender pension gap and explore ways to address its drivers. The commission will also suggest tailor-made solutions for member states by putting forward recommendations on the gender pay and pension gap under the European Semester.
And there are other areas where more effort is needed. 42% of young women in the EU have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. We will, therefore, consider further measures to tackle sexual harassment in the workplace and other workplace challenges. To continue shielding our democracy, we need to make sure that women politicians can engage in democratic debates safely, both offline and online. In addition, security cannot be achieved when violence against women is still plaguing women across Europe every day, and we know that the numbers speak for themselves.
One in three women in the EU has experienced gender-based violence, and 18 women are killed every week just because they are women. We therefore need to step up and sustain efforts in the coming years. The commission counts on this house to support us in this endeavor. So thank you for this own initiative report. I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of the honorable members now, and to responding in the closing part of the debate later on.
Thank you all.
Speaker 156
Thank you very much, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen, the gender pay gap is still a fact in many European countries, too many. Sometimes it is not 12%. Sometimes, it is even 30%. And, at the same time, we have to be honest.
The situation in Europe is not always the same. In Poland, for example, we are closer to 12%. So, that means that proper policy on the labor market leads to good results. However, the problem still persists. Career breaks, especially due to maternity leave and care for children, are still the culprit.
It means that the pension outcomes are worse, and the possibility of earning money in general is more limited. This is not just here and now. This is about the future. Our demography is at stake. If this is the landscape, so to speak, women will keep thinking, "Well, it's not a good moment to have children."
I still need to earn more money. So the decision will be postponed further into the future. Then, we also have to talk about how household responsibilities are shared, the fact that we do not have enough childcare facilities, crash kindergartens, and support for parents who have kids suffering from disabilities. If there is no help for them, the mothers have to stay at home and care for their disabled children full time. So, yes, lack of this unfairness is not a privilege.
This is the reality we should face.
Speaker 158
Thank you very much, Madam President, Commissioner. In order for women to be truly free, they need to be financially free and independent. But this gender pay gap and the resulting gender pension gap mean that this is not the case. So, we don't need any congratulations or well wishes on March 8. What we need are binding measures to be pushed through, and the pay transparency directive is extremely important.
Speaker 159
Some people say that this is bureaucracy, that it leads to discontent in companies because it means that women finally know they are being paid less for the same work. But that's exactly the reason why we need these figures. It is not fair. There are structural inequalities behind this: gender and quality. The women, who do so many of these jobs in care and education, are still doing a lot of the unpaid care work as well.
Speaker 158
And also, the fact that there are so many more women in part-time work, 28%. We have 17% of women of pension age who are at risk of poverty, and this is a societal problem. So, we need clear steps. We need better structures in place, better division of care, better pay, and the implementation of pay transparency legislation. Thank you.
Speaker 160
Call for the patriots of free Europe. President, ladies and gentlemen, nobody disputes that everybody has to be paid the same for the same job. That's what's just. But Brussels uses this as a pretext to enter into remits that pertain to the member states' salaries and also creates an inconvenient bureaucratic burden for undertakings. So it's a paradox that right now, of course, we're speaking about simplification here in this house, but at the same time, we're requesting this transparency directive, which doesn't include any simplification like the omnibus does.
Speaker 161
So, what's to be done? We are against this legislation because the difference in remuneration between sectors is natural, and there's no reason why it should indicate or mean some sort of discrimination. Women play a fundamental role in education, health, and care. These are essential for our societies, of course. But we can't build or impose regulations that would undermine the particular systems in place in each member state.
Speaker 160
Equality isn't created in this particular fashion, and displaying women as victims of discrimination is not a way to create balance either. So, women have a project in life, and that is maternity care as well. It ought not to be penalized, and it ought not to penalize them or condemn them to have careers that aren't the same as men's either. So, I think indeed the opportunities for employment have to exist for all, including women. Now, for the ECR, our next speaker is Madam Donatard.
Speaker 132
Thank you very much, President. Well, indeed, there's still a lot to do to close this gap for women doing the same job as men and getting the same treatment. There are so many women who are earning 25% less than men, which means that their pension is only half that of their colleagues. Now, this is a complex matter: trying to bring about a work-life balance and get the family looked after, looking after not only their children but also their older parents. And this means that they have to do part-time work to be able to fit it all in.
And to sustain and support the role of women. The Maloney government has brought in new obligations under the directive of September. And there are certain checks and balances that need to be respected. We need to make sure that we have social and wage parity, but there's a cultural issue here. What we're talking about here is support to women, as mothers, to families.
They provide life. When we talk about social housing, we ought to think about it. I'm part of the house committee, and homeless people and immigrants are being looked after. But what about working women and low-income mothers? No one is really thinking about them.
You know. From the Renew Group, Madam Al Sahlani.
Speaker 164
Yesterday, we celebrated the progress on women's rights, but today, we have to confront the backlash. Because across Europe, an anti-gender movement is growing, spreading conspiracy theories about feminism and attacking women's rights. And yes, we see it here in the chamber because the patterns of the vote are always the same. You say you want to protect women, but when we vote, you always vote against protection from violence. You say you want to defend women's dignity, but when we vote, you attack reproductive rights.
And tomorrow, when we vote on closing the gender pay gap, many of you will once again vote against it. So, let us be very honest about what this is. Women are paid less, receive smaller pensions, and carry the unpaid care work that keeps our societies running. And yet, some of you still weaponize women's suffering to serve a racist and misogynistic agenda, turning our bodies into your ideological battlefields in your cultural wars. Europe's women are not your propaganda.
Speaker 163
Our bodies are not your battlefield, and our rights are not negotiable.
Thank you.
Speaker 166
Do you want to be a mother and still earn good money? I hope you're good at TikTok. Because right now, it's only momfluencers who are the women that get rich after being a mom, just for being a mom. If you're a mother today, your income will decline by 8% compared to a woman who does not have children. This is what we call the motherhood penalty.
Speaker 165
But for the dads in the room, don't worry. You'll most likely get your nice 5% daddy bonus. You would think that European countries are taking steps to deal with this. Wrong. The Dutch government, my government, plans to reduce leave benefits for parents with middle and higher incomes.
Speaker 174
This will lead to more men avoiding taking parental leave. It will have negative effects on the division of care work at home and, as a result, expand the gender pay gap. I am proud that we here have worked, and I have worked, on this report to close your gender pay gap, but it is no use advancing in Europe only to retreat in individual countries. Colleagues, tomorrow is our vote, and we can do better.
Speaker 168
In Finland, we have a slightly different situation, but still no pay equality. We have to take tangible actions here. There is no act for equality. It wouldn't have come if women hadn't organized themselves, kept their opposition, and fought back. This inequality is also about the labor market.
We see the underrepresentation of men in low-paid sectors. So, this directive is something that is extremely important in terms of equality. But this pay gap tells us that we are still living in the same world where we do not receive the same salary for the same job. And that is the problem, because this directive on salary transparency is supposed to help with that. I am disappointed that the Finnish government, following lobbying from the corporate world, has modified the definitions and weakened this directive and its application on salary transparency.
Speaker 170
The Finnish government is making it clear that they think it's more important to stay in the good graces of the CEOs rather than having these rules in place. Unfortunately, the case of Finland shows once again why we are here at the EU level: to work and to ask for measures to improve gender equality.
Colleague, the next speaker.
Today.
Speaker 179
It is another ideological battle. So now we're talking about the gender pay gap. A parliament that decides that trans women are women, and we're talking about 110,000,000,000 going to the LGBTIQ+ agenda. They don't even dare to define what a woman really is. And now, they want to talk about the inequalities faced by women.
If you really want to deal with the gender pay gap, what it really is, is a mother pay gap. According to the EVO Institute, mothers around 30 years old are earning 70 to 80% less than fathers. So our Bundeser region has looked at that. Now the issue is that women have gaps in their CVs due to pregnancy and raising their children. They often want to look after their children, so they work part-time or they don't work at all.
But they are working for the future and for their families, but this is not paid work. And so, we get this mother pay gap and, as a consequence, the mother pension gap. It's not something that non-biological women or trans women are affected by, but mothers are. So why don't we take this money that was going to be spent on the trans agenda and use it for mothers, so mothers aren't paying the price for this failed EU agenda? We need to deal with the mother pay gap and the mother pension gap, and honor those who are securing our futures: our mothers.
Thank you.
From colleagues.
Yeah. From a colleague, a point of...
Speaker 172
Thank you very much. I simply wanted to remind Madam Bosdorf that, according to Article 10.4 of the rules, hate speech is something that is unacceptable, and that was what was expressed in her words about trans individuals. Thank you. We will include that in the minutes. And, well, that's it from the groups.
Speaker 171
And now I will be quite tough with the time, and our next speaker is colleague Esterhaus Veragut.
Thank you very much, Chair and dear Commissioner. Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental principle of the EU. The wage transparency directive should be coming out on July 26. It makes it very clear that discrimination cannot exist, and that's why I would like everyone to respond to this as quickly as possible. Now they lay down the law on pensions, and the report shows that there is still a big pension gap.
It's not just negative for women, but for all of society as a whole. This happens because many women are in low-value and low-paid jobs, and they need a lot more income to pay into their pensions. Now you have to understand that the work they do is good for society, and it's hard to reconcile these different tasks. In Spain, we have had problems with this. That meant that many women were not able to take maternity leave.
They're facing physical and mental difficulties, and they're not really putting taking care of people front and center of the whole debate. And if that is not done, then the wage gap will continue to widen. We have to recognize the value of sectors traditionally dominated by women, caregiving as a vital pillar of society, and put caregiving as a right, really placing work-life balance at the center of this whole thing because we're talking about the future of Europe. Thank you.
30 seconds, please.
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
Thank you very much, and thank you also for your speech. I fully agree with you, and I would like to ask you because now we see that Business Europe, but also some members of the conservative groups, are pushing for a delay in the implementation of pay transparency. And as a vice chair of FAM, as a feminist, and as an important voice in the EPP, I would like to ask you if you can guarantee that you will stand for this directive and its timely implementation. Thank you.
Speaker 171
Well, not only will I defend it, but I was really happy to push this forward with Francis Fitzgerald, who was a coordinator of FM in the last period, and Uguchinska. So please don't be in any doubt that the women from the EPP are the drivers of this, not just people being pulled along by the train. We're driving it.
Mrs. Neuchel is next.
Speaker 176
Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, why equal pay for equal work? Why is it so important? Of course, it's very important for the economy, but it is most of all important for women. For women, it's important to be at the same level as men overall, and it's totally perverse otherwise. And it's awful when we see that in Europe, there are so many different families where the man works and the woman as well, but she makes less.
Speaker 177
And at the same time, she's taking care of the children, and the children see that their mother is earning less than the father. And, of course, this is unacceptable. This means that we also have domestic violence, sexual violence, bodily violence, and sexual harassment. It's this economic violence on top of that, when in a family people are reduced, and when there's no equality or balance, or a woman can't really free herself from some sort of situation of bondage because she doesn't make enough money. So this is what's taking place, and this has to do with what you're making.
Speaker 176
And it's so sad that so many women can't live alone. It's our promise to all that we are here to provide for women so they can be independent and live on their own. And for that reason, okay, the economic side is very important, but the social aspect is much more important. Body, sex, all of these issues have been taken, twisted, and used to reduce women altogether. This is unacceptable.
Speaker 143
Do you accept a card from Mister Zipper? Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this blue card. I simply wanted to say that I am ashamed by the role that many men play here. So, describing the family situation, but also trad wives, thinking about this, contemplating this: that women are being told by other women that they ought not to work, that they ought to remain at home, have children, and bring up children.
Speaker 176
And I simply wanted to really direct or redirect your speech and your address to those particular women who are victimized. My message to these women is that they ought to imagine a tomorrow when they want to get up and say to their husband, "I don't want you anymore," or when the man turns to them and says, "I don't want you anymore." I want a slim, young, blonde wife. So all men have to be on the side of women. It's an issue of partnership and friendship.
Speaker 216
My partner has to be at the same level as I am. If there is no balance or equality in a partnership, there is no partnership.
Speaker 178
Yesterday was International Women's Day, and I hoped that with this initiative, for once, the good intentions of the parliament would lead to something balanced. But, unfortunately, we find the same mistakes as usual. This issue of gender is everywhere in the policies and financing of the EU: quotas rather than merit, extra administrative burden. The family dimension is there only to criticize the division of informal work and calls for the intervention of the commission in our pension systems. This is the text of a centralized EU.
Speaker 183
It compromises the principle of subsidiarity, our competitiveness, and our economic freedom. It is clear that for equal work, there should be equal pay, but unfortunately, there is intersectionality in this text that tears down our family cohesion, which is the fabric of our society, rather than getting policies to favor the situation for women, such as more childcare. It's just more constraints, more burdens, more ideology, and everything apart from good sense. Thank you.
Blue card.
Speaker 182
Commissioner, well, of course, more needs to be done to change these statistics. They make your blood boil. It's frustrating. The pension gap has long been very different between men and women, but for different reasons, because women have family responsibilities. And what we say should be done is not to penalize motherhood, not to penalize women's choices.
Speaker 180
No company must do more so that they can really reconcile these different facets of their lives: more childcare, better opportunities, and better access for women to additional health care. But we need to be in a cultural situation in which men understand that they have to share the burden. And the European Pact on Family and Fair Demography is something we need to support, that's more coherent and more consistent, so that it can really make sure that we continue to sustain our society in demographic terms, because there is a split right now, and that split is caused particularly by our demographic problems here. We need to address those.
Speaker 100
Deputies Joveva and Nikhael, for their own initiative, report. And just to say that year after year, we stand on this poor podium and deplore the gender pay gap. And while it is narrowing, the progress is far too slow. The World Economic Forum has estimated that it could take over a century to close the global health gender gap. One of the most worrying factors for me is that the pay gap is evident at the very beginning of a woman's career.
A recent study in Ireland has shown that a 25-year-old man earns on average €50 more per week than his female counterpart. I think these figures show that the differences cannot be explained away by differences in experience or the impacts of career breaks. They show that the inequalities are ingrained in the system and must be rooted out. These inequalities have compounded over the decades. In 2025, the average pay rise for men in Ireland was 6.5% compared to 5.4% for women. Continuously repeated over a career of several decades, this eventually amounts to an even greater pension gap of 25% in the EU and a huge 31% in Ireland.
It's very sad, finally, though, that we still have a situation where we are inciting this parliament to consistently negotiate women's rights and beg the right to be more understanding of the need to ensure that we have equality. I want to say to the center in this house that we have an obligation to ensure that we do not play with equality from over there, and we stand firm on the issue of equality from the center out rather than from the right over there. Thank you.
Speaker 181
That was the time bonus for the first male colleague at the Rostrom. Next,
Thank you.
Gordan Bosanac
You. Colleagues, when we mention Croatia, people think of our blue sea and beautiful beaches. Maybe you've been lucky enough to try the cheese from Pag or Malvasia wine from Istria, but few of you know what Kulin is. Few of you probably know that Croatia has some of the poorest pensioners in the EU. They can only dream of the delicacies that I mentioned.
Some €500 of pension that they receive per month barely covers their basic costs, and women are especially at risk. We call upon the commission to fight for equal pensions and equal pay for women. And please, let's not talk about the fact that we don't have competence in pensions. We have to find it.
Thank you.
Catarina Martins
Thank you very much indeed. Look at these numbers. 40.1% of men have higher education in the Portuguese job market. Women have 12% less in some countries, but it's an 18% gap in some countries, with 54 to 56 days a year not actually getting paid anything. And that means they're going to have much lower pensions.
Women are working three months more, or would need to work three months more every year, just to earn the same as men, and they have to juggle that with all their housework. So, they're not increasing the pension. They are increasingly tired. Now we hear the old machist macho policies coming through, voices saying, "Oh, well, women should stay at home." Go back home.
Go back behind the door. I got 2 responses to that. So, this idealized view of happy women bringing up all their kids at home is a lie. Women have to be involved in everything, whether they are recognized or paid or not. Is that what you want?
You want people out of the public space. You want people out of the working area. You want them out of the decision-making area. These are all just macho policies. No.
We're not going to take a step back from what we've achieved. We want.
Speaker 92
Thank you. One would expect to have particular expectations. Sometimes, women are pointed out as being kind of hysterical and paranoid, but the greatest freedom for women comes from European legislation. Every constitution mentions equal pay for equal work, and this is something that one must simply respect. Women are extremely important in innovation, and we have to take them as wonderful examples in how things are done in the realm of innovation, sports, and other fields as well.
Little is said about that. And the European Parliament ought to make sure that equal job, equal pay prescriptions in national constitutions are respected, and also look very closely at those particular fields or jobs where there is no proper remuneration. Make sure that this is stigmatized as such. Thank you very much.
Missus Vexler, next.
President.
Speaker 190
To the commissioner, dear colleagues, we just had International Women's Day, and I think it teaches us that women's independence is still very much tied up with economic independence as well. We had Better Benz, who is an important part of our history and showed us that when women have opportunities, they take them. They can create innovation. So, I think it's important we close that gap between men and women. We have around a 6% gap in Germany.
Speaker 189
I think any kind of pay discrimination is absolutely unacceptable, but it is part of, as explained by structural regional reasons, the different types of careers and career breaks, and that is not fully tackled by the pay transparency directive. We have, under the guise of more democracy, simply more bureaucracy, and we're not tackling the structural causes here. We need to give a proper answer here. We need to take out the bureaucracy from that pay transparency directive. We need more women in innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship.
Speaker 150
That's how we achieve equality, not just through filling out forms. Thank you.
Blue cards.
Speaker 186
You have two blue cards from colleague Demerdale. 300. Thank you very much, colleague, for accepting the question. Have I understood you correctly? You say that pay transparency wouldn't change the structural inequalities, but I'm not sure what you want to do concretely to do this.
So you say you're in favor, but it seems you're just representing the employer lobbyists and Business Europe.
Yeah. Peter.
Speaker 188
Thank you for your question, Mrs. Demiher. I have very clearly said what I would do to tackle structural inequalities. I would fight for more childcare places and more entrepreneurship among women. When it comes to this pay transparency directive, transparency does help to create transparency. But what doesn't help is more bureaucracy.
And if you look at that directive carefully, we're talking about companies with 100 employees. It could be quite small bakeries, for example, that simply can't deal with this type of bureaucracy. It's an annual report cycle, and it will really create a lot of bureaucracy. Second question for Missus.
Thank you.
Speaker 143
Thank you very much, colleague, for accepting the blue card. I also wanted to ask you what you were concretely going to do. So, I will ask you a different question. Do you think it's positive for women's equality to argue about this among different political parties? Thank you.
Speaker 190
Well, we will probably have to have a cap. There are not going to be unlimited blue cards for each member, but we'll have the answer first. I think this is not just on my behalf, but also for the EPP. We absolutely are in favor of gender equality and solving the gender pay gap, but not through extra bureaucracy.
Speaker 190
I think now we're back on the foot of a more civilized discussion. What would your perspective be on the EPP program to help achieve this target, and how does your program help achieve that target? The EPP is a party that is not just about European politics, but also about national politics. So, childcare, for example, and those structural problems are big issues in the member states. And so, we're looking at municipal local areas providing childcare and help for men and women.
Speaker 191
And the EPP is supporting pay transparency, but we need to be honest about where it's going to bring more bureaucracy rather than help for women. In. Goleman. Thanks. Mrs. Golemans.
Speaker 193
On March 8, women were humiliated once again in the street for calling for equal pay for equal work. It's been more than nearly 70 years since this was part of the Rome Treaty. But we are still far from being on an equal footing. The gap is 30% if you take into account part-time work, which is something that most women don't choose to do. And certain organizations like Business Europe find nothing better to do than to attack efforts to try and achieve this equality.
Speaker 194
Hello, Business Europe. We're trying to make this thing. We're not going to step back from this. So, we have managed to do away with a lot of wage inequality. It's down to 5% in Belgium, but we have to continue to try to silence these sexist voices.
Speaker 192
It's not just a question of justice. It's a matter of finally doing away with this unacceptable violence against women, and it's also about being more efficient and guaranteeing social cohesion across Europe. Thank you.
Today,
Speaker 196
We're talking about the difference in pay between men and women. What can I say? In Greece, we have an expression that says the following: Here, things are very serious, but we're dealing with trivialities. So, we're discussing ridiculous things about the extreme left.
Is it possible for this planet to take us seriously? No. They're laughing. They're laughing at us, and they're right to laugh. Because we all know that in the Western world, men and women have equal remuneration, unless men and women members of the European Parliament or assistants here are paid differently than the women here in the Parliament.
I don't know about that. I don't know if that is true. But it is LGBTI policies and ideology that seem to be coming to the surface here. I am equal to men. I'm not the same as men, but I am equal.
And particularly,
When?
Speaker 211
The Mediterranean is on fire, and we're dealing with ridiculous stupidity. I find this unacceptable. Thank you.
My colleague, Oliveira.
Just a moment.
João Oliveira
Thank you very much, Chairman. Madam, if I've understood you correctly, you said we're talking about trivial matters here. So, the question I would ask is this. Do you think then that a woman who is asking for a job is asked, "Are you planning to have kids?" And then she might not get the job.
Do you think that's trivial? If you have a man who gets €100 for every €100 he earns, she only gets €78. Do you think that's a trivial matter? If you think the discrimination against women with the same level of education and the same capacity for work, who are not getting the same amount of money, is trivial, do you? Then, if you think that that's trivial, that shows that you're trying to get this; it's just not working.
Speaker 196
All that you are saying about the far right is ridiculous. And as far as there is in your communist world, people have been taught, it appears, that things have to be imposed on women, but that's not the way it is. We will decide what we want, and we will ask for what we want. We are not imposed anything. But it appears you have understood nothing about what I have said.
Well, once again, we're going off on a total tangent here and really not going to go into the issues of communists and their ideology. When I say once again that the Middle East, the Mediterranean is on fire, that's not something that we're not discussing here. That's what we have to discuss. If you want to discuss women, first of all, you have to discuss those issues first. The world is on fire.
Adrian-George Axinia
Blue cards can only be taken if they are asked for during the speech. So, this is Mr. Axiina next.
I consider that the report we are talking about is a progressive approach. Yes. It's very important that we discuss the gender pay gap. Unfortunately, there are two fundamental issues here that are perhaps not properly brought to the fore. Cultural issues in the member states bring about false ideas.
There's a gender pay gap, which is not statistically covered very much in Romania, and it is huge. It's about 50% of women in the workforce. And then there's a big problem facing us, which is the fact that the demographics are against us, and migration is not going to fix that. We need to have a baby boom. That's not going to happen without the right rules.
We need quality services. We need care for children, tax breaks for families, and accessible, affordable housing. And this is something that I want to congratulate everyone on for International Women's Day.
Christine Singer
You. Next is Mrs. Singer. Commissioner colleagues, I think it is important that we raise awareness of this important issue: the gender pay gap. I think, as a woman and as a mother, this is something that is very important to me. It's not just figures when we talk about the gender pay gap.
It's the reality of life for many women, particularly women in rural areas. I see women who take on a lot of responsibilities: the farmer, the baker, the entrepreneur, the carer. And, of course, as well as their jobs, they help look after their families and their relatives, and this unpaid work is quite significant. We need to make this type of work more visible. We need to give it more economic visibility.
Speaker 90
I think what's most important in this report is respect for the work of women and their contribution to society. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mrs. Peter Hansen is next.
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
11%, that is the current gender pay gap in the EU. We all know this, but we also know something else. We know that transparency works because when pay becomes transparent, unequal pay becomes difficult to hide, and discrimination also becomes harder to do. And that is why I was so proud to be the rapporteur of the EU pay transparency directive and to see this house strengthen women's rights. With the new rules, the pay gap will become visible and actionable.
Workers will gain access to information on how their pay is structured, and companies will develop methodologies to assess work of equal value. Unfortunately, business organizations and some member states are trying to shy away from implementing the directive and upholding their obligations. Their obligation is to pay women fairly and to support a union of equality, as enshrined in the treaty since 1957. So, Commissioner, I appreciate your words, but I also call on you to hold the member states accountable for the implementation deadline coming up this June. Women have waited long enough.
Next is Rudy Kennes.
Rudi Kennes
Thank you very much. Well, every year, women work two months longer than men and, despite that, they are earning 16% to 26% less. And the directive came into force, but things have not changed. We still have negative consequences for women and girls. We absolutely need to help people in real terms.
We're not saying that we don't want to help families, but many families don't know that, or many policies don't seem to understand that a lot of women give up their careers so they can look after children and elderly people. It takes a toll on their physical and mental health and can leave them in poverty because the policies are only custom-made or tailor-made for companies. But it's all very well helping women and saluting women on March 8. But they need to be helped for the rest of the years, and I also send out all of my best wishes to all the women around the world in these areas of conflict.
Next is Mrs. Lukaczewska.
Speaker 205
What women have obtained during a number of years, we owe to the hard work and hard fight of other women. Women fight for their rights. They fight against hate, against violence, sexual violence, economic violence, against the pay gap, and the pension gap. Let's imagine men and women earn 12% more per hour, and the difference does not disappear with time. No.
Speaker 204
It is cumulated throughout the whole professional life, and then the pension pay gap is even greater. Women, after 65 years of age, have on average 25% less pension than men do. And it's not just a matter of payment of wages. It is a problem of general inequality in the market. Women more frequently work in areas and sectors where they are worst paid: education, care, and social services.
Also, we work more frequently part-time or stop our career for a while because of family duties. And these inequalities are even more visible in peripheral and rural areas, where women have limited access to public transportation, care services, or the labor market. This is why fighting the pay gap and pension gap requires a wider approach, because economic equality of women is not just a matter of social justice. It is a condition for the stability of our system and of our European economy. Thank you.
Speaker 207
And my colleague, Alexandra Moretti. March 8, Women's Day, but there is not much to celebrate. We don't need those messages of congratulations and those flowers. Women ought to be able to return home without fear. They ought to be respected at work, and they ought to be respected also in those jobs of care and domestic work.
Speaker 206
We ought to have some sort of system of parity. They ought not to be penalized at work because of low pay. They ought not to be victims of poverty or insecurity either. So, we need to guarantee women access to work without discrimination, but fair pay is the first form of freedom that ought to exist there. At the same time, half of the country finds itself in terrible jobs where they are not properly remunerated.
And now our parliament wants to offer a system of parity where there are equal rights for women in jobs and for a better life. And this is something that will facilitate everything and will help our economies grow at the same time. Our next speaker is.
Speaker 130
See that a high proportion of women are working part-time, not because they want to, but because they don't see any other opportunity due to childcare obligations. Really, it should be both parents sharing this, but often it falls on the shoulders of women. We should not accept that women are still so often financially dependent on men that they are at risk of poverty. We need more childcare, but what we need is for men to take up this responsibility. Only when men are expecting a child, when they are asked when they will be taking time off from work, does that become the norm.
When they take the kid to the doctor's appointment and stay home with them when they're sick. Only when we are there will we be on the way to a society where the gender pay gap exists only in history books. Thank you.
Speaker 209
Our next speaker is a colleague. Colleagues, friends, commissioner, we have an issue, unfortunately. There's a lack of will to implement the policies. We don't need transparency or regulation. Things are moving on their own.
It's already been 100s of years. Things have been going wonderfully with regard to salaries and the same burden within the domestic environment as well. So, we don't really have to do anything. If we want things to continue as such, we do not have to do anything. But now, once again, it is on the agenda because of the same problems over and over.
We women were left alone when it comes to, for example, care for children. When I have to remind my partner, yes, that he has a child too. And there has to be some sort of plan on how to do this thing together, taking care of the children, so that it's not only the role of women. And there are cases where you put together and write down a particular plan with your husband. We're very far from equality, very far from it indeed.
Speaker 208
So once again, we stand here simply to emphasize that particular fact. Our next speaker is our colleague, Ozlem de Miraille.
Thank you.
Speaker 186
Thank you very much, President. The gender pay gap is not just abstract numbers. We see it very tangibly in people's salaries and wonder if they can make ends meet at the end of the month. And it's particularly women-dominated professions, such as care or education. There's also the invisible work that's being paid very badly.
At the end of their jobs, at the end of their working day, women do a lot of the caring responsibilities. The work is not evenly divided. So that's why more women end up in part-time work, and that's where better infrastructure would help. But the conservatives, the German chancellor doesn't agree and is now talking about longer working hours and about lifestyle; workers have to tighten their belts while the super rich live their excessive lifestyles. What we need is an economic order where profit is not made off the backs of workers, but people can live in freedom. When women have that emancipation from capitalism, things will improve, and we need the commission to finally put in place the Pay Transparency Act.
Danuše Nerudová
Colleagues, a woman shouldn't earn less simply because she is a woman. In Europe today, women are 12% fewer than men. And when they retire, their pensions are 25% lower. This gap does not appear overnight. It builds over the lifetime.
Lower pay, career breaks, fewer opportunities. As an economist who worked on pension reform, I know one thing. Unfair pensions start with unfair pay. If we want equal pensions, we need equal careers. That means face transparency, better childcare, and real opportunities for women in high-value sectors.
Speaker 213
Because gender equality is not just a social policy. It's Europe's economic strength. Thank you.
Speaker 217
I remember very well one lesson when I was one of the negotiators for the S&D group on the patrons' fancy directive. When we talk about equality, everybody applauds. But when equality comes with a cost, suddenly too many become silent, and that is intolerable. And also to those who are calling to repeal or dilute this directive, we, Socialists and Democrats, recall that equal pay between women and men for equal work or work of equal value is one of the European Union's fundamental founding principles enshrined in our treaty since 1957. So, it's not about ideology. And we warned: don't mess with women's rights and don't mess with workers' rights.
And together with the trade unions, we will progress this; we will not let this directive be thrown away. Enough is enough. We will not tolerate backlash against equality. The facts are clear. Member states that...
Have.
Speaker 217
They implemented strong legislation after the commission's recommendation in 2012, and it brought results. Belgium and Luxembourg have an administrative burden. Come on. There is software. There is artificial intelligence that calculates this very easily.
It's more of an administrative burden to organize a board meeting than to deal with pay transparency. So, don't touch this directive. Don't weaken it; implement it and work together for fairer salaries in female-dominated sectors. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker 212
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is our colleague Devo. Thank you.
Speaker 215
Thank you very much. President, commissioner, reducing the gender pay gap between men and women is not just a social policy. It is also part of our competitiveness policy. Europe faces a shortage of talent and a drop in productivity, but women are underrepresented in strategic sectors such as science, technology, and engineering. It's hard to talk about European competitiveness when we're underutilizing half of our talent.
In order to encourage the participation of women in the labor market, we needed to ensure that women are paid the same as men: equal pay for equal work. We also need to have a better balance between work and life, better childcare, and a better division of tasks in the family. Investing in equality means investing in innovation and the future of Europe. Thank you very much.
Maxime, tell us what.
Speaker 218
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is our colleague Salis. You have the floor. Thank you. In Italy, despite increasingly higher levels of education than men, women continue to participate less in the labor market, earn less, and rarely hold management positions.
On the other hand, they do most of the domestic work, invisible pay, and it is often not recognized even by those who benefit from it. Men, on the other hand, are responsible for paid work. They have their autonomy, independence, and power. This is not the result of free choice. It is the result of an ancient, persistent system of power: patriarchy.
Women have fought and continue to fight to change this state of affairs, and change is advancing, but it still encounters male resistance. A recent example is the decision of Georgia Meloni's government to reject the introduction of equal leave, a shameful, embarrassing choice, a choice that speaks volumes about the right wing currently in power, radically hostile to women's emancipation and gender equality. It is true. It is not enough to have a woman at the head of the government to make policies in favor of men, especially if she behaves like any other man. Our next speaker is Nachimoto Cabral.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you very much indeed. In Europe, in the European Union, men work 175 days more than women in terms of what they are receiving, and women earn 5% less, which still has to do with education and many other factors. And this is even worse in peripheral areas. Less than 10% of CEOs are women in companies, and they have a lot of problems, of course, progressing. There's a glass ceiling in 2026.
This is just unacceptable. The 2026-2030 program, leading towards pay transparency, having better investment in family support will help her. And we can improve per capita GDP by 9.6% and increase productivity by 2030. This is what we need. Equal pay for equal work, a fairer and more competitive society, and indeed, happy Women's Day to all.
Yes, please.
João Oliveira
Thank you very much. Well, the question is, how are you managing to find a way to link what you're saying with the policies that you implement back home? You're talking about gender equality, particularly in work, when right now in Portugal, you're changing the labor laws. You're attacking women. You're transforming parental duties into strictly women's duties.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
And, you know, it's impossible to hear you say this when your policies at home are completely flying in the face of all that. Well, thank you very much for your question. What we're seeing in Portugal is an in-depth reform of the labor market. To be more competitive, we need different rules. We had an initial proposal from the government, which has been reformulated and is now much more socially oriented.
And here, we're calling on all the players, the trade unions, and the companies to guarantee a more agile, flexible, and competitive labor market. Thank you.
Next speaker is colleague Vysligay.
Speaker 222
In Croatia, in 2026, women earn on average 13% less than men. When it comes to pensions, the difference is more than 23%. For the same number of years they have worked, women receive less pay. This is not a new thing. This is something that can be solved.
This is a consequence of a system that encourages gender stereotypes and blocks women from progressing. Who is responsible? Institutions, but also employers. Because we all have a responsibility in fighting against gender discrimination and in improving equality, and not in protecting those who are privileged. The directive on the transparency of pay is a good thing, but we need to focus on its full implementation.
Speaker 243
Without adequate transposition of international legislation, we will not move ahead. We will not move forward in the labor market or achieve equality. Thank you.
Speaker 241
Thank you very much. Of.
Colleague of Eschligaille, you speak about our country, but it would be good to check your numbers again because you are not right. The average difference in pay in the EU is 11.1%. Do you know the difference in Croatia? You don't know because you are lying. In Croatia, the difference is 6.6%.
Speaker 247
In trying to portray Croatia in a very negative light, you mentioned incorrect numbers. And as regards the pensions, since the first mandate of the government, they have risen by 107%. 100, 7%. Yes. Colleague Glavak, you're not right.
Speaker 222
When it comes to the EU, on average, we are very close to the average pay gap in Croatia. You know very well what the situation is like in Croatia. As regards the purchasing power of our pensioners, the situation in Croatia is among the worst. It is a disgrace that you even talk about this in these terms. Thank you.
Speaker 224
Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. There's going to be a follow-up question. And according to the rules and procedure, I haven't seen you. So you couldn't get a follow-up question?
Speaker 227
I was five when the EU made rules about equal pay for equal work. But 50 years have passed, and I've grown up somewhat during this time. But women are still earning less than men. And we know the causes for this pay gap, but the argumentation has changed. Now we hear talk of a war in the Middle East and an unfair situation for women who have been working their whole lives for their families, and people want to roll back these rules.
This is a very important tool for equal pay. We've had 50 years to ensure equal pay, and it hasn't happened. This is an issue of equality, and we can't wait another 50 years. Dear colleagues, if we don't take up this tool, then I don't know what you want to do in order to improve the situation. Thank you.
Speaker 230
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if it goes at this particular speed, then it'll be 130, 140 years when we'll reach true parity. We have too little to have equality on paper. We are no longer patients. We don't want to wait for more generations so that our great-great-great-grandchildren will experience that equality and not experience this poverty. During the last period, a lot was done on this particular issue by the European Union.
Important pieces of legislation were introduced in order to function as catalysts to speed up the situation, transparency, and regulation. But also the issue of the platform working and providing some sort of transparency there as well, and demanding member states take effective measures. That's what has to take place right now so that more can be done internally within the various member states. And the commission must quickly implement whatever legislation is in place, and we must fight against any sort of backlash whatsoever. Thank you.
Idoia Mendia
We continue to have a serious problem in terms of the wage and pension gap. Women continue to be concentrated in the least valued and worst paid areas, and they are basically the people who are working part-time jobs. And the results are clear for all to see. Poverty has a woman's face, not just in working age but also in old age. Many women are getting paid old-age pensions.
They cannot live off it. We need to close the gap for the present and for the future, but at the same time, we need to protect older women today, elderly women. Intergenerational fairness is something that must be based on young people and future generations, but people tend to forget about the elderly, particularly elderly women. Don't they have the right to proper services? Don't they have the right to a dignified life, a dignified pension?
Speaker 229
I call on the Commission not to forget the elderly. They need a strategy that truly responds to their problems. Thank you.
Speaker 236
Dear colleagues, the gender pay gap is costing us well; it's a double cost for women: first through less pay and then through less pension. And we see the effect on unemployment as well. If we look at jobs, cuts where women are particularly affected and their pensions are affected, I think this is important to raise the situation in Finland on International Women's Day. Why is gender pay gap legislation on the list of things to be cut? Women are still earning 16% less than men.
Even though they're doing the same work, the Finnish government is working against its own women and female entrepreneurs. It is making the situation worse, and women are paying the price for this.
Speaker 231
And now, we come to catch the eye. Okay. I just got an updated list, and let's start with Madam Clavac.
Speaker 241
Dear colleagues, women read reports, they follow statistical data, and in many countries, they are more educated than men. They make up half of the world's population. That is true. There is no quality in pay, and it is true that we speak of that every year around International Women's Day. But it's also true that we have to work on women's financial independence because this is the prerequisite for gaining a respectful position in society and in the family. And this also reflects our demographic values.
Of course, inequality does not end when leaving the labor market; it also follows women in their old age. And we need to address the causes and provide solutions. Of course, there is also the issue of women's unpaid labor and the glass ceiling. But we cannot measure all this in averages; we need to look at whether women have the same financial security and if they have dignified pensions. Thank you.
The next speaker is.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
You said an end to discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity is set out in the Charter of European Fundamental Rights. Wage discrimination is already established. It already exists. It was in the Rome Treaty. And yet, 70 years later, we still see this wage gap as a huge challenge for the EU.
It doesn't just have an effect on care; the fact that duties aren't properly shared between men and women and there isn't equal parental leave also matters. It's also because of gross wage differences in all areas: health care, social services, and educational services. Women are doubly discriminated against. So, with this challenge, what do we need? Rigorous implementation of legislation and active policies to ensure equal pay and equal access, and Spain is an example here.
Thank you.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Mister Chairman, Commissioner, I wouldn't want to repeat what has been said regarding women's discrimination and women's salaries. However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the commission possesses a great deal of leverage. It is in a position to apply pressure to countries so that they implement their obligations in the area of the social pillar. Their economic programs should state clearly how soon and how quickly they will try to reduce this pay gap, because it is shameful to be talking about poverty among women and among single mothers. This is a moral problem in this day and time.
Speaker 234
We need to make sure that we strengthen our leverage and control via the program. Thank you.
Speaker 68
Distinguished.
President, once again, I hear a call for the EU to intervene in differences between the genders in working life. Now, have you lost your minds? If applicants for a certain sector are 90% men and 10% women, or vice versa, what happens if we forcefully try to achieve an equal balance? The selection will then no longer be based on competence. If, for example, in emergency services or places filled according to gender quotas, the selection criteria must be lowered.
Citizens don't ask about the gender of a police officer or a rescue worker in critical situations. The only thing that matters is if they can handle their duty. Sometimes the cries for equal pay to athletes sound loud. Go and buy season tickets for the women's league with your own money. When the stadiums fill up, the salaries will increase.
Speaker 234
Do you know what equality is? It is selecting the best person for the job irrespective of gender. Thank you.
João Oliveira
Thank you very much, President, Commissioner McGrath. Inequality between men and women is one of the most evident demonstrations that inequality is the basic factor of the system we live under. We've got persistent pay gaps. They've got more precarious work, lower salaries, and pay and pensions. But the problem is that there are no solutions within the neoliberal system because it increases the gap.
What we need are alternative policies that reduce inequalities. We need more fair policies for the redistribution of wealth that reduce the pay gap between men and women. We need general policies to give value to labor and to workers, to guarantee more equality in working conditions as well as in pay. We also need better public services, which should be universal and of high quality. They are much more effective in reducing inequality between women and men.
Speaker 234
I think reinforcing these policies is the biggest contribution we could make in helping women in the fight for equality.
Speaker 238
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Mr. Nikolaos Alavanos.
This report does not look at combating the gender pay gap or part-time employment, but it has to do with increasing the profitability of enterprises through intensifying the exploitation of workers. So, we want equal rights for men and women, but in a downward direction. They also want to further European policies that are now involving themselves in the new war in Iran. They keep participating in employers' crimes, such as in the factory of Yolanda, where five women lost their lives. We need new measures to protect working women and to guarantee their rights against a capitalist system that breeds further inequalities.
Thank you.
Maria Zacharia
Today, we are gathered here, the Thumb Committee and the Ample Committee. And the microphone is off.
No. It's okay.
Maria Zacharia
Again. Okay. So.
We are here today to talk about a very important issue. And I need to protest, dear sir, because a few moments ago, we had Miss Latino Polo here saying that what we're talking about is totally trivial compared to the war. I asked for a blue card because I wanted to ask her how many years she has worked in the real world outside of the European Parliament. Because the reality in Greece is that women are paid on average 13% less than men. But, of course, she doesn't care about that.
So that means that, for every €100 a man is paid, a woman is paid €86 to €87, whereas in certain fields, that gap rises to 25%. And then, of course, we see that mirrored in pensions as well. So, we need collective bargaining and agreements, equal pay for equal work, and equal pay for women. And.
Please, Michael.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, Chair. And can I thank all of the members for their contributions this evening? I think it has been an excellent debate. And, again, I want to thank the representatives from the two committees and all of the members who contributed to the work on the own-initiative report. I think it would be too simplistic to frame this as an economic issue, and many of the contributions went far beyond the economic reach of this issue. At a time when we are trying to make the European Union economy more competitive, it would be very tempting to exclusively frame this in that context because the numbers are big when you look at them.
Improving gender equality could increase EU GDP per capita by up to 10% by 2050, and this would mean €3.15 trillion in additional GDP. But, of course, to frame it in that way, despite the size of the numbers, actually understates the significance of the issue because it is much broader and much deeper than that. It is about the quality of life for women. It is about opportunity. It is about equality, and it is, as many colleagues have said, about economic freedom or economic independence, and it is fundamentally about respect.
But even if the EU is a good place for women overall, the road to complete gender equality is still long, and that really shouldn't be the case seventy years on from the treaty provision. We cannot backtrack on what we have achieved, and we must do more. Having this in mind, I thank you for your endorsement of the principles of the Roadmap for Women's Rights last year. Your support for gender equality is indispensable. When we are united, we are stronger to make our union fairer and more equal.
And we count on your cooperation to turn the road map's principles and goals into action with the new gender equality strategy that was launched just last week as our main instrument. And I know that we can count on the continued support of the honorable members to tackle the gender pay gap and advance the other actions that we set out in the strategy. Ensuring quality employment for women and men, to strengthen the EU's labor supply, will be vital. In the same way, it is to ensure equal pay and safety in public and private life for women too. Your commitment to gender equality is invaluable in the development of EU policies and actions. You have rightly highlighted the role of the Commission in this regard, and I want to assure you that we will fully discharge our responsibilities in that regard.
And I want to assure you of my commitment to work with Commissioner Lebib, of course, and in support of her leadership and the leadership of President von der Leyen on this issue, because taking a step back is simply not an option. We have to work together to address and ultimately eliminate the gender pay gap and the pensions gap. Thank you very much.
Speaker 149
And now the next speaker is, operator, Miss Yoveva.
Today's debate is very illustrative of reality today. On the one hand, some of us realize that this gender inequality in pay as well as in pensions has to be eradicated without any excuse. Otherwise, we will not improve the position of women in our society. On the other hand, we have those who still claim that this inequality is a consequence of the individual choices of women. Sometimes it feels like some would rather have us only give birth, take care of our families and our society, and quietly accept lower wages.
Speaker 148
I have one piece of news for you. Women aren't a statistic, and we're not only here to give birth and then have to listen to why it's completely normal to earn less. We represent 50% of our societies, the good 50%. And, of course, you can interpret this as you want, literally or figuratively. We're innovators, teachers, researchers, presidents, pilots, doctors, soldiers, policewomen, as well as salespersons, administrators, and politicians.
Why wouldn't we accept a higher salary? And why would we adopt a pay gap? If some of our mothers or grandmothers heard these arguments, they would ask themselves whether they were hearing everything correctly. My grandmother was a cleaning lady, but I would like to say something that honors her memory. The generations of women before weren't taking care of our societies just to listen to these arguments today that inequality is only a consequence of their choices.
Dear colleagues, I am also a mother today, and I hope that my daughter won't have to listen to these sorts of arguments in the future, that she will be able to live in a society where equal work is equally paid without these relative arguments. Equality is not something trivial. It's not ideology, and it's not an administrative burden. Equality is the foundation of a fair society. Thank you.
Speaker 136
Thank you. And the next speaker is reporter Miss Nikhil.
Dear colleagues, I would like to thank you very much for your contributions. I'm very happy about this debate and our differences. Those are key elements of democracy. But let us also remember that this lack of equality has many reasons, and the rights which we have now are something that previous generations had to fight for in order to be able to study, to go to school, to vote, and to participate in public life. This is not something to be taken for granted.
It was a long, thorny path. The responsibility is on us. Those rights are not obvious. They are not automatically here to stay. We need to preserve them.
Speaker 234
We need to strengthen them. We owe it to the women living today, to our ancestors, and to the next generations.
Thank you.
Speaker 234
You. Now the debate is finished, and the voting will take place on Wednesday. The next point on the agenda is a short presentation of the following report, harmonizing certain aspects of insolvency law. And I would like to ask the rapporteur to take the floor for 4 minutes.
Speaker 248
President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, achieving a stronger and more competitive internal market here in Europe is much more than a political ambition. It has a strategic necessity for the European Union. Differences in member states' insolvency rules constitute a barrier to cross-border investment. This is why the directive to harmonize certain aspects of insolvency law forms a key part of our efforts toward building a better-integrated capital markets union. What happens if businesses encounter difficulties?
Speaker 249
This is a reasonable question that anyone who decides to invest in another member state must consider. Investors seek certainty and predictability when rules diverge too widely or are too complex to ensure adequate protection. This is no longer business. We are talking about leaving things to fortune. By harmonizing key elements of insolvency proceedings, we're creating a more predictable and reliable environment for increased cross-border investment and greater trust in Europe's economy.
Speaker 248
This directive makes procedures more effective, faster, and more transparent. I want to highlight three key points: more effective recovery of assets from the insolvency estate, procedures that are more effective and faster, and fair distribution of the recovered value between creditors. One of the key elements of the new rules is that there will be a minimum set of harmonized conditions for exercising the so-called avoidance actions. This will allow us to counter abuse and ensure better protection of creditors' interests. Another important step forward involves improvements in the traceability of assets.
We will facilitate the identification and recovery of assets by ensuring better access to national registries and databases for insolvency practitioners, including in cross-border cases. The introduction of the so-called prepack procedures is also a particularly important tool. Such procedures allow a quick sale of businesses as a going concern in the early stages of the proceedings. This preserves the economic value of businesses. It saves jobs, and it prevents us from sacrificing viable businesses.
To many member states, this is a new tool that can bring real economic benefits. We shouldn't lose sight of the social dimension either. The directive includes measures to better protect workers. That is because economic efficiency and social responsibility must go hand-in-hand. We have kept unchanged the provisions that allow companies to be just discharged of their debt if they do not have the money to initiate insolvency proceedings.
There is an option to use emergency measures in crisis situations, such as during the COVID pandemic. I really hope that we will not need to use these measures. At the end of the day, our objective is to have not just faster but fairer proceedings, ones that protect creditors, give entrepreneurs a second chance, and take into account employees' interests. Let us also consider the directive in a broader political context. The European Union is currently discussing the setting up of the so-called twenty-eighth regime.
This is a common European framework for companies meant to run in parallel with national systems and facilitate cross-border transactions. To be successful, this regime needs to build on more harmonized and predictable rules in areas such as insolvency. Allow me to conclude by expressing my sincere gratitude to the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission, and the Danish Presidency. It was thanks to our efforts that we restarted work on this tough directive. In the past term, it spent literally 2 years collecting dust, but we have now completed work on the file successfully.
Colleagues, harmonizing key aspects of insolvency law constitutes an important step towards further economic integration in the European Union and towards a more sustainable, more competitive European economy. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 224
Thank you very much. And this is only a short presentation. We move straight to the KHDI before giving the floor to the commission. So, let me start with Mr. Lopez Aguilara.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Nothing threatens the EU as much as the contradictions between the objectives and the results. For a long time, the EU has promised a single market without any obstacles. But now, the non-tariff barriers are imposing many difficulties on fair competition and economic growth. And this instrument harmonizing insolvency proceedings for companies that have gone bankrupt and for recovery really is a second opportunity. It's crucial to promote growth through fair competition and to reduce these huge numbers of tariff barriers, which are seen as barriers to growth, credibility, and legitimacy of the EU and what it promises and actually delivers.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 68
You, President. This whole thing sounds like a parody now. Today, this institution that is right for bankruptcy itself was leveled by the bankruptcy laws of the United States. No one in their right mind can understand this frenzy. The commission wants to level and harmonize this.
But who would listen to a small country in the midst of all this frenzy? The World Bank has stated that we in Finland have one of the most efficient bankruptcy or insolvency systems in the world. Dear Finns, does the situation sound like the EU should now step into Finnish affairs? At least, not to me. I don't agree.
I do not want to welcome the regulations of this institution that are right for bankruptcy or how our bankruptcy laws, which are already set up to work, should be changed. I welcome the fact that the national parliaments in the member states will start to adjust their own legislation to a better standard. That's good, but I've seen enough of Brussels setups to know how dangerous it is and to see how dangerous this will be.
João Oliveira
President Sirk Misario McGrath.
Thank you, President, Commissioner McGrath. Our priority has to be keeping economic activity going, preserving workplaces, and preserving the rights of workers. Making insolvency law the priority for creating a single capital market seems to be the wrong focus. I think that there's a real danger here that these could be creative accounting efforts that reduce liability for taxes and social security contributions. Of course, we have to defend the interests of creditors, particularly when their rights are being harmed by abusive actions. But we also have to look at the situations of multinational companies.
We need to look at how we can protect workers' rights and the priority of their credit claims compared to the claims of banks and other economic operators. We particularly need to pay attention to transnational companies and how they work in terms of tax credits and social security debt.
Speaker 252
Thank you very much. And now I'd like to move forward to commission my grad for the commission, please.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, President, honorable members, dear rapporteur, Mr. Radev. Thank you for presenting the outcome of the inter-institutional provisional agreement on this file. As you've just outlined, the insolvency harmonization directive represents an important step towards achieving a genuine savings and investment union. The directive is an important initiative to remove obstacles to competitiveness and growth, in line with the priorities of the Commission. Diverging insolvency laws across member states have long been identified as a major barrier to cross-border investment and to companies accessing finance on the most favorable terms.
With this new EU legal framework, national insolvency laws in the EU will become more aligned and more efficient. The directive introduces several innovative tools, including so-called prepack proceedings. These make it possible to organize the sale of a business on a going-concern basis in the context of liquidation proceedings. Selling a business as a going concern generates higher returns for creditors compared to selling the assets on a piecemeal basis. It also contributes to preserving employment and economic activity by allowing viable businesses to continue operating.
The directive will also facilitate the search for and tracing of assets in insolvency proceedings. Insolvency practitioners will benefit from broader access to asset-related registers, including interconnected registers and registers located within member states. I'm also pleased that, thanks to support from the European Parliament, the compromise addresses specific real-life problems faced by micro-enterprises. In particular, it ensures effective debt discharge for entrepreneurs, even in cases where insolvency proceedings cannot be opened against the microenterprise debtor. Equally important is the compromise that member states may adopt or maintain in their national laws simplified insolvency regimes for micro-enterprises.
More broadly, the directive will ensure that key elements of national insolvency laws are better aligned, benefiting both debtors and creditors. For example, the rules on transaction avoidance will be based on common principles, applying the same avoidance grounds and suspect periods, and will have the same legal effects throughout the entire EU. The directive also establishes a general obligation for company directors to request the opening of insolvency proceedings when the company becomes insolvent. At the same time, the interests of creditors, including employees, will be better protected in insolvency proceedings through the strengthened role of creditors' committees. I wish to thank the European Parliament and, in particular, Rapporteur Emile Radev and the shadow rapporteurs for achieving such a positive outcome.
Your flexibility and constructive cooperation have been essential in allowing this agreement to be reached. With this directive, I am confident that we are taking an important step towards our economies becoming more competitive, more resilient, and better integrated through greater convergence of national insolvency frameworks. At this final step of the legislative process, once the text of the political agreement is formally endorsed, we should recognize the significance of this achievement. It has been a long process, spanning about 3 years. The adoption of this law comes timely to put in place an important element of the Savings and Investment Union and to enhance the competitiveness of the European economy.
Once the directive is published, member states will have 2 years and 9 months to transpose it into national law. For its part, the Commission will provide member states with all the help and support necessary to ensure the timely and effective implementation of this directive. So once again, thank you for all of your work, and thank you for this debate this evening.
Speaker 234
Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The debate is concluded, and voting will take place tomorrow. The last point on the agenda is one-minute speeches according to rule 179.
Speeches from your chair, and also, you should stick to the topic that you indicated in your application. And as the first one, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Buddha.
Daniel Buda
Chair, thank you, dear colleagues. The conflict in the Middle East comes at a very difficult time for agriculture. Rising prices for energy affect the production of fertilizers directly, and more expensive fertilizers lead to higher costs for farmers and, inevitably, to lower agricultural production. And it doesn't stop here. Rising prices for diesel mean higher costs for each hectare, from plowing to sowing to harvesting.
We are in spring sowing now, and farmers need to start working the field. If access to fuels becomes difficult or too expensive, risks for agriculture, production, and food security will become a painful reality for all of us. In this context, I would like to request the European Commission to closely monitor the evolution of markets and fuel stocks so that the activity of farmers, who are already under great pressure, is not further affected. The commission has to be ready to intervene, including through compensation mechanisms, in order to guarantee that farmers can continue their activity because they are the ones fighting the fight for food security in Europe. Thank you.
Speaker 260
Thank you, Chair. Every day in Europe, thousands of young people try their first cigarettes or vape. The tobacco and nicotine industry knows exactly what it is doing. Bright colors, sweet flavors, and targeted marketing are designed to hook a new generation before they fully understand the consequences. The young are not choosing addiction, but addiction is choosing them.
Speaker 259
This is why we need stronger restrictions on marketing aimed at youth, better education in schools, and decisive action on flavors and products that clearly target minors. It is time to put an end to the tobacco industry's games and to stand up for the health of the next generation. Thank you.
Speaker 257
The Union's inaction and its compliance with the Kigali regime are having dramatic consequences on the Congolese population. We've heard about massacres, rapes, pillaging, and commodities, including in a vote in February 2025. This vote asked for significant sanctions against Rwanda and Kagame. Obviously, Brussels hasn't done anything and has been going along with this criminal regime for years. The commission elected and applauded Kagame's election, with a Soviet-style result of over 90%, and signed an agreement on critical raw materials, which is still in force, having been signed in 2024.
Why does the European Union not take measures similar to other countries against its generals? Is Kakame completely untouchable? When will he be sanctioned, together with his family? Are we not going to see a Rwanda Gate one day here in the parliament?
Speaker 268
Dear colleagues, the communist regime created a lot of saints, he used to say, a Romanian priest who was himself imprisoned during the communist regime. And he was speaking about the 2,000,000 Romanians who were persecuted during the totalitarian communist regime in Romania. People who were arrested, tortured, humiliated, or simply murdered in prisons or forced labor camps. March 9 is the day of anti-communist political prisoners in my country, Romania, people who were thrown into prison by the communist regime. We commemorate today the memory of the intellectual students, peasants, and priests who went through the hell of the communist gulag.
Speaker 263
This is a day of recollection and recognition of those who paid the ultimate price for freedom and faith. And precisely today, the Orthodox priest Mircea Uzza from Bucharest, the son of a former political prisoner, was indicted. He was accused of promoting extremism. Paradox in Romania.
Is the next speaker?
Speaker 261
Thank you very much, President, colleagues. The terror regime of the Mullers has killed thousands of people, including many innocent victims. There are also innocent victims in the current war in the Middle East, but people in Europe are also going to be affected. Energy provision is a key issue. We've already experienced that through Putin's attack on Ukraine.
Now, we see all oil prices rising again, and a lot of people are going to be hit by the extreme price spikes. Now, the commission needs to get active, but we all realize how important it is to have alternative energy sources: wind, hydrogen, and solar. We need a proper energy union in Europe. Then, people will understand how important the EU is. President Macron said we have to engage in geopolitics.
Speaker 234
Well, as a united Europe, we can work to reopen the Strait of Hormuz so that we can get results for the people of Europe. Thank you.
Speaker 266
In the shadow of war, the danger for political prisoners does not disappear. It grows. Iran's prisons are full of protesters, from Nobel Peace Prize laureates to tens of thousands whose names you may never know. Bombs are falling, and they are locked in. Reports suggest chaos inside Devon Prison.
Speaker 264
Food is running out. Prisoners are being transferred to unknown locations. Families have no contact. Outside the prison gates, they wait desperately, hoping for the smallest piece of news, fearing the worst. Dear colleagues, we have seen this before.
Speaker 266
During the Iran-Iraq war, this same regime ordered the killing of thousands of political prisoners. In the face of such brutality, let us at least speak their names, tell their stories, and keep the world's attention on their fate, because the day will come when the world will need their persistence, their knowledge, and their courage to rebuild a free Iran.
Speaker 218
Thank you, President.
For over 60 years, Cuba has been under a United States embargo. This is a criminal embargo, which has imposed too much suffering on the population and has prevented the island from developing. Now we're seeing a new administration. On January 29, the Trump administration tried to strangle this country once and for all with an unprecedented energy blockade. And the consequences of this are very serious.
The humanitarian crisis gets worse every day: frequent blackouts, lack of essential goods, and hospitals don't have medicines. We're not talking about abstract geopolitical arguments here. We're talking about the real lives of 11,000,000 men, women, and children. This is a collective punishment inflicted on an entire people. This is an illegal practice according to international law, but we know that.
For Trump, international law is just waste paper, and he'll do everything he can to suffocate liberty and the rights of the Cuban people to self-determination. They're guilty of merely having lived in his backyard. And once again, Europe says nothing. This is a shameful, complicit, and cowardly silence. What more has to happen for you to understand that the United States represents a duty of nature to all of humanity, showing solidarity with the Cuban people?
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chair.
Speaker 267
Dear colleagues, gas prices have skyrocketed because of the war in the Middle East. But have people opened their eyes? Not really, because Poland and the rest of Europe are planning more and more gas-powered plants, as it is considered that renewables are unstable, but gas is not stable either. One conflict is enough for gas prices to skyrocket. How can we build our security and safety on such unstable materials?
Qatar is responsible for 20% of gas supplies. If almost everything is blocked, the prices skyrocket. We are very dependent on imports. This is not acceptable. The EU keeps saying that gas is a transitional fuel.
Speaker 271
It is, whereas under the ETS scheme, gas will be more and more expensive. We are building new plants, which will necessarily be scrapped in a few decades, just as coal power plants are being scrapped today. This is not a stable system.
Thank you.
Speaker 269
Thank you, Chair. The development and expansion of modern technologies is certainly good, and it simplifies our lives. This has always been true, and digitalization is no different. However, digitalization must not come at the expense of those citizens for whom online services are inaccessible. Unfortunately, we are witnessing very hasty digitalization where, in many cases, people can no longer handle matters with a bank, for example, without a mobile app.
Speaker 270
This parliament, for some reason, supports this aggressive form of digitalization, and citizens are therefore forced either to adapt and deal with everything digitally, or their life becomes very difficult. This is not a path forward, but a descent into the depths. I ask you to keep all citizens in mind, including the generation of our parents, and to work on the legislation. So, nothing against digitalization. But as a legislative body, we must ensure that everyone can still handle matters in person and that we have access to documents in physical form.
Thank you.
Speaker 289
Von Hayek, Nobel Prize winner, said that if the leftists didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all. Therefore, in the European institutions, we're all talking about the intolerance of violence, but Ilaria Salas was, of course, granted immunity even though she was accused of an attack with a hammer, and this could be understood as a green light for additional attacks. Antifa and other leftist extremists are conducting violence, and this could be, of course, the blood on the hands of those who have granted immunity. Some people are still advocating the actions by Pedro Sanchez when it comes to migrants, even though his colleague from Podemos stated that this is a great replacement. She said that this great replacement is something good.
This is the betrayal of one's own nation. We should put an end to this. So, the leftists, I guess, hate their own nation. The greatest form of racism is to hate one's own nation. That's why all right-wing parties must cooperate.
Long live Slovenia. God live Slovenia and Europe. Thank you.
Speaker 272
Today, in Cyprus, it was a historic day. Three leaders—Greece, Cyprus, and France—met to send a message via President Macron. Whoever attacks Cyprus attacks Europe. The most important thing is to build Euro-Mediterranean defense based on European defense against any offensive, of course, against Turkish expansionism that is still occupying territory in Cyprus. But even though many EU member states were very vocal in supporting us, there was a total absence of Ms. Funderlaian and Ms. Callas, and this is a true dishonor to European history. Would they rather collaborate with Erdogan, who now wore a suit, or al Jahlani?
Speaker 234
We have failed, but we want to continue on the path to the Europe that we deserve.
Gracias, presidente.
Speaker 160
Thank you very much, President. Ladies and gentlemen, the My Voice, My Choice initiative wanted to set up an EU fund to finance abortion, but that has not progressed as it is not an EU competence, fortunately. However, the Commission is opening the door to abortion being funded by the European Social Fund. This is really alarming. This fund is for creating jobs and for social affairs, not for funding abortion.
Speaker 161
This is a legal action by the commission in terms of social action. Instead of supporting women in difficulty, particularly during pregnancy, the opposite is true with these resources. Abortion is not a human right, and it's not an EU value either, nor a health service. No health service would say it.
Is. This.
Speaker 234
It is just to fund the abortion industry. We need to stick to the original values that were behind the founding of this union.
Thank you.
Speaker 275
Dear colleagues, I wonder where the European Commission was when, for years, Romanians were deprived of their rightful European funds. Isn't it the duty of the European Commission to ensure that the governments of the member states respect their commitments at this moment? We only have an 18% absorption rate for cohesion funds. As far as the Recovery and Resilience Fund is concerned, we can say that it was a missed opportunity for Romania. What did the European Commission do when the Romanian politician painted over the economic reality and made huge debts to the country? After all, the guardian of the budget is the European Commission.
We need a united Europe, advancing at the same speed everywhere, not leaving the East behind. And no, it is not the responsibility of honest people who want to live better in their own countries. So, again, I'm asking: what was the commission doing when all these things were happening? Thank you.
Speaker 274
Sorry, Michael. Somehow, the technician switched off your mic. Please press the button. Is it working now? Please, you can start again.
Michael McNamara
Okay. I see Commissioner McGrath here, and I wish to recall the debate which occurred in the Irish parliament, in which he and I were both members, around the cost of fuel in Ireland in 2022. I think there's going to be a very similar debate coming up very soon in the Irish parliament, as there will be in national parliaments and indeed this parliament, given the tragic, horrible, and illegal events unfolding in the Middle East. But I suppose what I wish to address is this tendency of national parliaments to blame the European Union and say, "Well, we can't lower fuel prices because they're set by the European Union." Yes.
They are to a certain extent, and I think the European Union will have to act at some point if what is now unfolding continues. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of taxes in many member states, including Ireland, are chosen and levied nationally by those parliaments by act of those parliaments. For example, the European Union sets a minimum excise duty of 42¢ per liter on leaded petrol, whereas in Ireland, the excise duty is far higher. It sets a requirement of 15% VAT, whereas in Ireland, it is much higher. There is leeway at the national level, and this must be taken.
Thank you.
Speaker 276
Dear Victor Orban, nothing lasts forever. Toxic.
The political environment in Hungary is increasingly toxic and demagogic. The imaginary enemy of Viktor Orbán is Ukraine, but the very real enemy of the people in Hungary is poverty. And the fact that they're being left behind, the highest cost of living, and corruption. All of these are enemies. So, in this context, you are attacking Europe as if it were the enemy and not part of the solution.
You find all sorts of fantasies to solve everyday issues for Hungarians. I would like to encourage all Hungarians in Transylvania to go to the polls and to register for voting because a responsible vote will lead to the European path of our countries. And this is a path that it has taken for centuries. Hungary has always been at the core of Europe, and that's where it should stay. It's where it belongs.
Mister.
Speaker 234
Orban, nothing lasts forever. We are together for Hungary. Go, Hungary!
Speaker 186
Thank you very much, President, colleagues. Well, once again, the US and Israel are attacking another country in breach of international law. Once again, the USA is stamping with army boots on the rule of law. We've all seen the pictures. We've seen Israel bombing energy infrastructure.
The Strait of Hormuz has been blocked. This will have consequences for people across the whole world. It will mean rising prices, but the air war is now attacking civil infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and pretty much everything. And Iran is fighting back. There is more and more armament.
There are attacks in Cyprus. There are warships from Europe being sent to the region. This could really become a terrible wildfire. This breach of international law has to end. This war has to be stopped.
Speaker 234
We cannot stand by as Israel continually attacks neighboring countries in the Middle East.
Thank you.
Speaker 302
In Ireland, fuel prices have passed €2 per liter. 500 liters of home heating oil now cost over €800. Across the Midlands and Northwest, families and businesses are feeling the pressure. The European Commission must take immediate action to protect consumers. Firstly, the commission must be ready to activate its crisis protocols.
This includes joint purchasing of gas to bring prices down. Secondly, we must act to separate the price of electricity from gas because when gas prices spike, electricity soon follows. Third, we must invest in homegrown electricity and cheaper energy across the EU. In Europe, we spend 40 million every hour importing energy. We need renewables to be scaled up.
Speaker 306
We need to realize the full potential of anaerobic digestion across all member states. Ireland has the highest potential per capita in Europe for biomethane development, and this should be encouraged to follow countries like Denmark, which can generate close to half of its gas demand from AD plants, insulating itself from shocks. We need big thinking. There is no other way. Thank you.
Speaker 283
Thank you very much. And now, our colleague Veslie Gay. You take the floor, please.
Speaker 222
Thank you very much. The European bee sector is facing huge challenges, and the sustainability of domestic production is in question. In 2024, we imported as many as 175 thousand tons of honey, making European bee producers dependent on cheap competition. In the country that I'm from, we have around 9,000 bee producers and more than 440,000 beehives, which speaks for itself about the importance and strength of the sector. The authenticity of imported bee honey is questionable.
Climate change is threatening the whole sector. And now we have the EU-Mercosur agreement, which opens up a quota of 450,000 tons without customs duties. That is something that is going to bring an end to our bee and honey producers. So, I'm warning you to protect us, our bee producers, honey producers, and the whole sector. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 294
Presidents, European citizens' security is nonnegotiable. Fighting terrorism requires determination, cooperation, and effective resources. But it's precisely because we value our security that we also need to defend the fundamental principles of our democracies. The new Protect EU project presented by the Commission raises serious concerns. It's expanding the concept of fighting terrorism to increasingly vague ideas, such as opinions and political beliefs.
One thing is fighting real terrorist networks, but another is creating mechanisms that might confuse legitimate disagreements or criticizing European institutions as radicalization. History teaches us that when politicians start spying on ideas, it's a dangerous precedent. If we start treating political beliefs as threats to security, we weaken the values we want to protect. In 1943, at a speech at Harvard, Churchill said the empires of the future will be empires of the mind. Protecting Europe does not mean having pleasing thoughts.
Thank you.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you, President. The commission has recently decided to make the European social funds available for reimbursing abortions. This is a fund that is supposed to be fighting poverty, and now it is being deployed to kill unborn children. This is upsetting, but also extremely questionable. The commission, after all, cannot on its own decide to increase the bounds of a fund.
The EU is furthermore not at all competent in these types of medical ethical questions. Therefore, President, I would request that the commission be called to order. If the commission does something that it doesn't have competency for, then we have to do something about it. Otherwise, the floodgates are open. Yes.
I understand that unplanned pregnancies put women in a very difficult situation. I know. But then we have to focus on providing genuine help instead of using funds in an inappropriate manner for things that they're not meant for. Thank you, President.
Thank you.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, our farmers, contractors, and road hauliers are facing a very serious cost and overheads crisis, which could have really serious implications. I warned here that the arrival of the CBAM tax at ports would lead to a steady increase in fertilizer costs in Europe, and it has. Some prices are now up to 17% higher since January. And, of course, this week's events in the Middle East have made it worse.
They've sent the price of all fuels skyrocketing. Norman Eager from the Farm and Forestry Contractors in Ireland told me today that their members' costs are going up every day. One Longford transport company owner rang me to say his bills had gone up by €3,000 in a week, 10%. Commissioner, we have to do something. We must act on this quickly.
We should look at suspending tariffs on fertilizer imports at this stage, and the Commission needs to release some of its EU strategic oil reserves in order to try to stabilize the situation. I also say the Irish government must suspend carbon taxes during this crisis to try to deal with it. Farmers are not alone either, Commissioner. Households and businesses are under enormous financial pressure. If oil prices continue to rise unchecked, we risk seeing further inflation and serious economic and social consequences.
Thank you.
Speaker 298
Commissioner.
While Israel and the United States are assassinating civilians, they claim to protect their rights in Europe. Rights are being attacked under the pretext of protecting Israel. In the United States, pro-Palestinian propaganda is forbidden. We see that with journalists such as Martin Adak. It's ridiculous.
Nazi defenders are now prosecuting those who are protesting about or are victims of the Holocaust. We see that anti-Semitism is being associated with the crimes of Israel. In France, you see, voices such as Rima Hassan, a member of this parliament, or Svan Dieri, a linguist, are being penalized. This commission is penalizing journalists such as Dorogu and making their lives impossible. Were they protecting Francesca Albenese or other people being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court?
Speaker 234
And so, what we're seeing from all of this is that the Europeans are becoming complicit in genocide. Thank you.
You. And now, colleague Lopez Aguilar.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
President, Commission. The recovery fund to get out of the COVID pandemic was one of the major successes of the last term of office, with loans and subsidies that were funded with common debt. However, with the implementation period finishing on 08/31/2026, many regions have problems using all of the funds they have, which means they will have to pay back a lot of money to the EU for funds that could be used for regional policy. So I think we should push back this deadline. The base of 349 could be used for outermost regions like the Canary Islands.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you.
You. And our colleague, Sanchez.
Julien Sanchez
Months ago, a trade union from the South of France came to Strasbourg to protest against the Bergsar agreement. He had a stroke in front of the parliament. He faced the financial threat and stress. He had blocked a motorway to raise awareness of the farmers' situation. Now, we're moving on to a provisional application of the Mercosur agreement without a vote.
Colleagues, we are working and struggling in every possible institution to try and prevent this, but there are not enough of us. Propose that all farmers show solidarity with David and explain to the public in video messages what their situation is. You are the ones who protect our food sovereignty, our landscapes, and who produce the food that we depend upon. Macron and Vondelion said Mercosur means unfair competition. Spare a thought for our farmers, who should not die in silence, and also support David.
Speaker 290
Thank you. And now I give the floor to colleague Verigou.
And therefore, there is no choice unless responsible others are eager to pay attention to this. Paradoxically, the very rights that are supposed to protect are often voiced by those to whom the rights were not applied, yet they are alive today. For natural population replacement, about 2.1 children per woman are needed. Currently, in Europe, the fertility rate is only about 1.3. We're literally facing potential extinction.
Yet, instead of addressing this existential challenge, the European Commission proposes policies that could accelerate it using EU funds. This is not just a policy failure. It is a moral issue. Public resources should be directed towards saving every possible child, supporting mothers and families facing critical pregnancies, and providing help where it is most needed. Invest in programs that give life a chance: comprehensive health care, financial and housing support, and access to education.
Speaker 312
Europe's future depends on our courage today to prioritize life and families. It is almost too late. Thank you.
Barry Cowen
Preparations accelerate for Ireland's presidency of the EU later this year. My message is clear. Our focus must remain firmly on the issues that truly matter to citizens, to businesses, and to the community.
You have to stand up.
When you?
Barry Cowen
No problem at all. If you give me the time, I'll stand up, of course. Ireland must use this opportunity to drive progress in the priorities that will shape Ireland's and Europe's future. For example, the likes of agriculture mean staying laser-focused on the next CAP, its budget, its architecture, and the long-term sustainability of farm incomes. In trade, it means advancing agreements more efficiently while ensuring that key industries are not exposed to unfair competition.
In energy, it means strengthening cooperation on a European super grid and unlocking the likes of Ireland's renewable energy potential, a potential I saw firsthand last week myself in Shannonbridge, County Offaly, with the launch of Ireland's first hybridized grid stabilization system. And we must use our presidency, of course, to seek to protect children online while strengthening Europe's security. We use our presidency to ensure that member states facing threats from Russia are fully respected and fully dealt with, while respecting, of course, Ireland's neutrality. If we remain focused and united, I have no doubt that Ireland's president can deliver real progress for our citizens and for Europe. Thank you.
Victor Negrescu
Thank you, Joe. Dear colleagues, the fate of the Romanian government is at stake during these days. Lack of European ambition, lack of capacity to understand its responsibility, and the negative attitude of the Prime Minister have led to this situation, which was perfectly avoidable. Romania does not need an austerity budget. It needs a European smart, budget-competitive orientation.
Speaker 297
This is the European way, but unfortunately, the current direction of the government goes against the European way. Romania can access more European resources than the people who wrote the budget had set out to. Although Romania could mobilize €30,000,000,000 from European money, the budget bill provides only one third of that. In a difficult European context, European funds are the simplest way to develop Romania. The pro-European coalition needs performance on European topics.
I say again, Romania needs an ambitious pro-European government that can use all the opportunities that the EU provides in order to rebuild Romanians' faith in democratic institutions. Thank you.
Thank you.
While.
Csaba Dömötör
The eyes of the world are fixed on Iran. The commission is implementing the Mercosur agreement behind the scenes in an utterly scandalous manner. A few weeks ago, the European Parliament voted to take the matter to court, so the majority does not want the agreement. Yet it is being implemented, and the Commission is opening up the EU markets to the giant Latin American economies without even a vote or a debate in the House. This week, there will be discussions about certain issues in Niger and events in Georgia, but there will be no discussion of the agreement that threatens the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of farmers. That is what grand coalition democracy looks like in practice.
If you add to this the fact that the Commission wants to reduce subsidies by 20%, then this is a deliberate attack on European agriculture. Next time when the farmers come here, demonstrating and protesting in front of the house, the members of the grand coalition should simply go out to them and say that we have given up on you. This is a great shame, and farmers will know who is responsible for it.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
And now, colleague Andrew Patrice, the floor is yours.
European Union's eastern border region countries bordering Russia and Belarus face persistent security threats, hybrid pressure, economic strain, and declining investments. At the same time, these regions are expected to strengthen their security, maintain social cohesion, and sustain economic development. These countries have already committed substantial national resources to reinforce external borders and strengthen their defense when necessary. These changes inevitably limit investment in long-term regional development and competitiveness. The commission can propose initiatives to help, but the scale of the challenge, especially today, is beyond what national budgets or current instruments can provide.
That is why the next MFF must provide increased and targeted EU-level support to ensure that strong eastern border regions continue to support a safe and resilient Europe. Thank you.
Speaker 234
Thank you very much. This was the last contribution to the one-minute speeches. We start tomorrow morning at 09:00, and the agenda will be published and is also available on the Internet. The minutes will be submitted to the parliament tomorrow afternoon. I close this. I adjourn the session, and I wish you a good night.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.