What Jana spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are talking about an important societal issue today: serious cases of abuse by certain companies that have found ways to use the current system to gain an advantage, and very often, to escape total responsibility. All at the price of workers caught in the system. We saw it in the meat-packing industry in Germany a few years ago, before the government decided to take action. We see it more and more in the logistics sector, where the business model brought over by Amazon is fuelling a race to the bottom. And we see it in the construction sector, where fraudulent companies find their way into the chain. This leads to workers being forced to work in unsafe conditions and to be left out in the cold without the pay they are entitled to get. I agree 100 % with those that say that we need to enforce better the laws we already have. That is part of the solution, but I cannot see the way to solve all these issues without also stepping in with stricter limits in certain high‑risk sectors. And I absolutely cannot agree with those who are quoting Letta report trying to undermine this particular paper, because, you know, guys, we are speaking about the Letta report like this is a kind of buffet where we can pick the dishes we like and ignore the others. Protection of workers rights is a big part of European competitiveness. And if we lose that, we will lose the game.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, of course I was prepared. You know how it goes – you have 60 seconds and you write it and you measure it. It's exactly 60 seconds. But after listening to this debate, I don't want to read it out. I'm extremely worried, really. A majority of the Members in this House at the moment, in this room, are on the same page. But this is not the first time we're on the same page. I was elected in 2014, and if anybody had told me back then that we would come up with the first ever anti-poverty strategy, I would probably have jumped with joy. I'm not jumping now. Because, in between, we came up with the first-ever European Pillar of Social Rights – not implemented. First-ever Minimum Wage Directive – not implemented. First-ever Child Guarantee – lacking money. We are making big promises and we are not delivering, and we don't have many attempts left, because the people of Europe are tired of that. So this time we really have to deliver, otherwise it will be a win for the far right, and this will be a great mistake.

Thank you, Commissioner, for your support. It's a pity you cannot vote tomorrow. 'We must show solidarity with the most affected regions in Europe, such as coal mining regions and others, to make sure the Green Deal gets everyone's full support and has a chance to become a reality.' These are not my words. I am quoting the political communication of the European Commission. These are the words of Frans Timmermans, former Executive Vice-President, said like six or seven years ago. And what do we see now? On the same web page, a few lines below, there is a link to the Just Transition Platform. But guess where it leads? Page not found. Just like the Just Transition Fund is not found in the new proposed MFF. So are we really done with the just transition? I come from Estonia. We do not have coal, but we do have oil shale, which has to be massively cut down as part of the transition. On the ground, this means not only abnormally high prices for energy, but also a rapid depopulation of the region. Over the past year alone, in 2025, Ida-Viru county, an oil shale region, lost almost 2 % of its population. Ask these people whether they consider the transition to be just? Ask them whether we achieved our goals and got everyone's support for the Green Deal, as promised by the Commission? The answer is obvious. We did not manage to deliver on our promises, but every time we fail to do that, we cut off a part of the European project. Colleagues, it's really high time to admit our mistakes and correct them.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, our Union is facing an incredible amount of challenges at this moment: economic, energy-related, climate-related, geopolitical. It all can feel overwhelming and it is easy to lose focus. Even for us representatives elected by Europeans to spend all of our time understanding and tackling these challenges, it can be all too easy to lose focus and put all of our attention on a few key issues, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the bigger picture because all these challenges are interconnected. We can see that since the beginning of this mandate, the wind is not blowing into the sails of social policies. This is a grave mistake. We hear so many voices asking for simplification or deregulation at all costs. But for who will this economy deliver if not for workers and our fellow Europeans? What is the point of cutting down all of our laws if it comes at the price of our prosperity? This sounds to me less like a well-thought-out political strategy, and more like taking on the fringe ideas we see on the other side of the Atlantic. I am particularly disappointed to see that even the colleagues from EPP seem to be enchanted by these radical ideas. While many of them joined us in supporting the call for the just transition directive just three months ago, I am hearing that the simplification obsession is turning the whole group against this call for legislation that has to deliver for some of our most vulnerable regions. That is the problem in this House. We have a tendency to set a big political ambition and work very hard to put it into place, and then we just move on to the next political ambition. But we need to follow our ambition in real life and to make sure that we're actually achieving what we set out to do. This is exactly what we did with just transition, where we promised that we will leave no one behind. Looking at the situation in past years, we have simply not done enough, yet we are already moving to other political priorities. This is unsustainable because every time we set a high political ambition which we do not deliver, we are undermining our own credibility, and, which is even worse, the credibility of the European Union. That is why we need a binding framework with a mix of measures aimed at turning into reality our promise for socially just transition for the regions, sectors and workers that are being affected, and that will be affected, in the world moving away from fossil fuels. We need to make sure that companies, together with employees, prepare for the changes ahead. We need to ensure that workers are ready for the jobs of tomorrow, for the right to training so that national authorities, companies and trade unions can organise a training system that can prepare workers to take on jobs in the clean and digital economy. And most importantly, we need to ensure that sufficient jobs are being created, because all the training in the world will not help if there isn't a business out there looking to hire. For this, we need countries to lay out national just transition plans and to focus on business support programmes aimed at revitalising local economies and affected regions. So colleagues, tomorrow we face a choice between making sure that we can still ask for reasonable legislation to serve the people affected by the changing economy, or putting our head in the sand for the pursuit of a radical idea of simplification, which in this particular case will serve nobody. I believe that Europeans count on our support.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I do not know, for some reason, the far right in this House are constantly crying, probably shouting. You probably think that if you shout, it makes you right. This is not the case. 17 years have passed since the Commission first proposed this directive. Next year, in July, it will reach the majority voting age. And yet, some countries do not take this process seriously enough to look past their differences and find a common solution. These days we are hearing outside voices questioning the European Union, questioning our resolve. In these trying times, we need to take a look at ourselves and consider what we are working for and what we stand for. Freedom, equality and respect for the rights of minorities sit at the very core of the European project. A piece of legislation that combats discrimination in all corners of the EU is not a nice activity we can do if we are in the mood for it. It is an absolute necessity to deliver on our most fundamental shared values. We expect national governments to get this message and have serious discussions with a view to finally adopt the directive, and we expect the Commission and will support the Commission to help the discussions and, if necessary, look at the ways to bring qualified majority for adoption.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, what stands out to me after almost one year in the Housing Committee is that no two housing situations I heard were the same. There are some common partners, of course, but it is clear that many of these issues come from national and regional challenges. So, while I normally take the floor in this Chamber to criticise the Commission for not being ambitious enough, this time I have to support the Commission for taking a more careful and realistic approach. Colleagues, let's not kid ourselves: the Union does not have the power to fix many of the housing crisis crises in Member States, with one regulation and promising anyone anything more than we can deliver will only undermine our credibility. Yes, we need bold and urgent action to make housing more affordable, and we will definitely play our part, but the real drivers of the change are our countries and regions. So let's make sure that we offer all the tools and measures we can, so that national and regional authorities can work to fix their local issues.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the work of the Committee of Petitions is unfortunately often underestimated, which I consider a big mistake, because we are the first – if not the only – direct channel for Europeans to address their concerns and seek solutions. This report very well reflects these expectations, as well as our ability to meet them. This ability, to be honest, is pretty limited. While citizens are very well aware of their rights, they are not so well aware, for instance, of Article 51 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which clearly states that the charter is obligatory to follow only if Member States implement European law, which leaves a huge gap between the rights and values we promote and the real life of our citizens, which in turn leads to disappointment and Euroscepticism. There are two ways: we leave this as it is and wait for the next crisis to force us to open the Treaties and remove these and other obstacles, or we find courage to put political pressure on our governments and not only promote, but truly defend the rights of Europeans are entitled to exercise – at least on paper.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the way forward to making life affordable, protecting jobs and wages, and ensuring a healthy work environment is by increasing collective bargaining, trade union coverage and strengthening dialogue with social partners, which can be achieved only by the Minimum Wage Directive. This is why I'm waiting anxiously to hear the ruling of the Court about the challenge to this Directive, but we have to be ready for this decision, whichever way it goes. If the Directive falls, we want to be ready as soon as possible with another legislative proposal to achieve the same objectives. If the Directive stands, we want the Commission to immediately kick into high gear and follow up with Member States on their obligations to promote collective bargaining if their national rates are low. There is so much work that needs to be done by most Member States, including the Member States I know best. I'm appalled to see that my government is doing way less than the bare minimum wage, but just enough to make it look like they're trying. We have to point out to all governments that are not living up to the Directive, and we need the Commission to be extremely strict about implementation. Only this way can we hope to talk one day about Social Europe.

Madam President, colleagues, I'm speaking today on behalf of my voters. Last Wednesday, the Estonian Parliament amended the Constitution and cancelled the rights of third-country citizens and stateless people to vote in local elections. This threat existed for 30 years. The blow was aimed mostly at citizens of Russia and Belarus with a permanent residence permit, using the war of Russia against Ukraine as a pretext. The population of Estonia is 1.3 million; the Members of Parliament decided that 140 000 people are a 'fifth column', without charge or trial, collectively. The punishment: no democratic representation at all. These people are not new migrants. They are Estonians in all but their passports. Most of them took Russian passports to legalise themselves after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The barriers of obtaining Estonian citizenship were and remain too high. These people are law-abiding taxpayers that have lived in Estonia for decades or since birth. It is their homeland. Teachers, doctors, engineers, old folks – even the security police doesn't see them as a security risk. It is a purely political decision in order to change the results of the local elections that will be held in autumn. Given the fragile security situation in Europe, such a step is stupid but also dangerous.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, there is no doubt that economic difficulties will affect many companies across the EU during these very turbulent times, and the structuring of other types of changes will be necessary so that companies can return to a more profitable situation. However, these changes will be difficult and they will hurt many workers. So it is extremely timely to talk about the need to protect jobs and workers' rights. What I am concerned about is the growing trend in some Member States about thinking of jobs as numbers on a table, or about workers as some faceless individuals that will go on with their lives unaffected by any jobs cuts. We have to stop this nonsense trend and remember that behind every job, there is a worker that relies on their job to provide for their family, or a worker that worked hard to get where they are. Let us not forget that many people take pride in their work and feel a sense of purpose for doing that job. We need to be bold in protecting our workers that are stuck in the crossfire. First of all, by focusing on real – not fake – social dialogue, so that workers are involved in all plans for change, and also by having a framework that ensures new jobs will be created, so that workers will have concrete, decent alternatives available.

Madam President, colleagues, the Treaty on European Union starts with the objective of creating an ever closer union, and continues in Article 2 with the shared values that this Union shall be based on, including freedom, equality, and respect for the rights of minorities. Many of the citizens that voted for their countries to enter the Union after the 1990s did so with the hope that their countries and societies will converge to these European values. What we are seeing in the Commission work programme is that the anti-discrimination directive – and many other measures for which we did not reach an agreement in five years – gets withdrawn. This means that the Council gets handed the perfect weapon: if they ever think that we're asking for too much in the Parliament or in the Commission, they just need to drag their feet for long enough and then make the problem disappear. In the meantime, the message we are sending to Europeans is clear: these values you hoped for will remain unreachable. It is unacceptable that we allow a couple of holdout countries to prevent the adoption of European rules that deal with values central to the European project. We need to be looking immediately at another proposal for horizontal rules to combat discrimination.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, as Vice Chair of the Delegation of to Central Asia, I would like to emphasise that the European Union considers the Kyrgyz Republic a partner, and we are committed to strengthening bilateral relations. That is why they have been part of the EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences for several years, and that is why the EU signed an enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement earlier this year. This political dialogue and deepening cooperation is based on shared values and commitment to the principles and norms of international law. As part of this dialogue, we have to mention cases that catch our attention and raise concerns and questions. In the case of Temirlan Sultanbekov, we have questions about the judicial due process in connection with gathering evidence and about the disqualification of a number of candidates so close to local elections. We also have questions about the due process of several other activists and journalists who are facing court cases or have been sentenced. Ensuring respect for fundamental rights, including the full access to political rights, stands at the core of the European Union and its engagement with the world. And we will continue to emphasise it in our dialogue with the Kyrgyz Republic.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I believe nowhere in our Union is the need for social dialogue more urgent, unfortunately, than in my home country, Estonia. Lowest collective bargaining coverage in the whole EU. Around 90 % of the workforce is not covered by collective bargaining and only 6 % are members of a union, so working people do not have their say as our economy is undergoing major changes. Here is an example: after 10 days of striking, our teachers managed to get EUR 17 increase in their monthly salary, which is a joke. The way forward is already written in European legislation, the Minimum Wage Directive, which requires strengthening of social partners and action plan to increase collective bargaining coverage. I see very few steps being made by Estonia despite being the worst performer. The government has only pointed to already existing legislation saying they have done enough already. What a joke again. So, those of you who are sceptical about this directive, collective bargaining and trade unions as such, look at us. Do not follow this example.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Ombudsman, Commissioner, of course, I do have my speaking points. I left them on the table because if you have 15 speakers, everything was already said, right? So I will take a liberty to speak from by heart. I believe, Emily – sorry for calling you that – you might feel a bit like in the funeral. Everybody is praising you here and for good reason. You did an outstanding job, and it was our privilege to work with you. So I believe that what we have to do, we have to draw our lessons, and there were a lot of lessons, which we can go ahead with after working with you regarding transparency and all these keywords we have already mentioned here, but the main challenge is to make the right choice tomorrow, because Emily O'Reilly is really leaving behind pretty big shoes to fill. And let's, colleagues, make our choice, let's be conscious and let's think about O'Reilly's legacy, and fingers crossed that the next Ombudsman will be up to this task.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the question around the gender pay gap is sometimes the same: how can we encourage women to take part in the labour market? All I hear is 'how much more juice can be squeezed out of these lemons?'. All across the EU, women shoulder the majority of unpaid work such as cleaning, cooking and caring. Women spend weekly on average 13 hours more than men in unpaid work, while spending less time in paid work. Annually, women work the equivalent of eight full-time weeks more, while earning less. The situation becomes even worse with an increasing ageing population. This is a societal problem reflected in outdated policies in many countries where there is no early childcare available because it is the norm that mothers stay at home. In many countries, there is limited elderly care and even a legal obligation for the family to take care of the elderly. It is women who pay the price. What we need is the Member States to invest in care and make it available so that women can have a break and finally work the same amount as their male counterparts and have the same amount of income.

Mr President, colleagues, I could not imagine, even in a nightmare, that some day I would talk in this House about problems with the rule of law in my home country, Estonia, but here I am. A few months before local elections, the ruling coalition will urgently change the constitution, taking away the right to vote in local elections from more than 70 000 permanent residents, under the pretext of ensuring security. We are talking about citizens of Russia and Belarus. These people are not newcomers. They have lived in the country for three decades. They pay taxes. Every third, according to a recent study, is ready to defend Estonia with weapons in hand. This is a lot because other 40% are old people. Moreover, according to the Estonian Internal Security Service, there is no reason to assert that these people pose any kind of threat. Thus, we are dealing with a purely political decision that has nothing to do with the stated arguments. The principle of rule of law excludes an urgent change of the laws on the eve of elections, especially under farfetched pretexts. So please take this intervention as an early warning. I will definitely bring it to the attention of the newly appointed Commission. Europe just cannot afford another violation of the rule of law, one of the cornerstones of European democracy.

Mr President, dear colleagues, making mistakes is bad, being right is good. But today, in this room, I am very sorry that we were right. It would be better if we were wrong. It would be better if Parliament, demanding the criminalisation of rape, the consent-based definition of rape, was wrong. It would be better if all these stupid arguments of the blocking majority of the Council that our women are already protected turned out to be true. But today's protests in France, the Gisèle Pelicot case, speak louder than any words, and this time we are obliged to hear them. We like to argue that Europe has to set an example on this and that. But how, for God's sake, can we set an example for someone else in the world if we are not able to even adopt legislation to protect our own citizens in our own territory? It is shameful that national selfishness, arguments about EU interference in the legal system of Member States and other nonsense have taken us so far. The women of Europe pay a really high price for this irresponsible rhetoric. This is our duty and the duty of the new Commission and the Council to finally make Europe a safe home for every woman and girl.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, the European Semester is an important exercise. I welcome wholeheartedly the Commission's proposal to adjust the employment guidelines, and include the importance of social progress and the need to combat social exclusion and discrimination. However, guidelines and recommendations, as good as they are, are not legally binding, and Member States have an ever dropping implementation rate when it comes to country-specific recommendations, only amounting to about 30 %. While there is an increased rate of social recommendations, the implementation is even lower. Where the Commission has recommended social reforms, particularly those concerning poverty reduction, minimum income or labour market integration in previous years, it is clear that they have not been followed. That is therefore why the European Parliament also took the opportunity to stress the need for legislation, as the rapporteur already said. There is a need for legislative initiatives on telework and the right to disconnect, prevention of work-related deaths, psychological risks, the framework directive on minimum income, setting standards on adequate safety nets and an increase of the child guarantee. And I very much hope that the next new Commission will deliver. And as I have 10 seconds, I have to say that it was quite shameful to listen that you managed to link this topic with migration.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, security and defence are the keywords for this political term. But we tend to forget about growing social division, in-work poverty or marginalisation and social exclusion, not least the security risks and possible military action. I have to say, in the long term, maybe even bigger, because it can lead to unpredictable political turbulence, which will endanger the Union we are committed to defend. That is why we express our full support for the G20 presidency's proposal to introduce a tax on the wealthiest individuals as a means to address poverty and reduce inequality. The G20 report highlights that trillions of dollars are held offshore escaping taxation. These funds, if properly taxed, could be directed towards essential investments in education, healthcare and services to lift people out of poverty. While proper taxation of larger sums is important, it is part of a broader approach, which includes windfall taxation on excessive profits, such as those recommended by the Commission in 2022. And we must also advocate for a progressive income tax system across all Member States, ensuring that contributions are proportionate to one's ability to pay. The EU, as outlined in the Treaties, has a responsibility to promote social justice. Let's do it.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to the situation concerning the Estonian congregation of the Russian Orthodox Church. This is the largest religious congregation in Estonia, comprising more than 100 000 believers. We all know that the Head of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate supported Russia’s war against Ukraine and called it the ‘Holy War’, which is absolutely disgusting and condemnable. And this is exactly what the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate did: it officially condemned this idea of holy war. But unfortunately, this is not enough for the Estonian authorities. They continue to insist that the words of the Moscow Patriarchate cast a shadow of terrorism on the Estonian Orthodox believers, and seem to want to legally dissolve the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The EU is based on the principle of protection of freedom of religion and belief, and we should not interfere in religious and ecumenical matters. I hope that it will not eventually be done in Estonia, and that is the reason I do bring this extremely sensitive issue to your attention. This is kind of an early warning, and I want to hope an unnecessary one, but we’ll see tomorrow.

Madam President, in January, when we were already heavily negotiating on the directive, an article was published in the local Brussels newspaper. It was the story of Ernestine, an undocumented migrant who left her home country to flee from domestic violence. Ernestine was offered a place to stay in exchange for childcare without any proper pay. In fact, her so-called employer started demanding that Ernestine contribute to bills and rent. When she reached out to help, she was recruited to work at a vegetable shop for EUR 2 per hour. Her employer would demand rent money from her because he let her sleep in the corner of the shop, that way he kept her indebted. This is not far away from home, this is in Brussels. Ernestine and many vulnerable persons are being recruited in order to be exploited and tricked into cheap labour. The update of this directive takes more measures to protect victims by introducing early detection and specialised assistance. It also provides for more opportunities to persecute perpetrators by introducing measures for legal persons, aggravating circumstances and punishment for those who knowingly use services from trafficked persons. Trafficking is not only the crime, it is a blatant violation of human rights.

Mr President, dear colleagues, 10 days ago, in this very room, we adopted a resolution condemning the murder of Alexei Navalny, Russian citizen. Among other important things, this resolution says we should not mix up Putin’s regime and Russian people. But these were only words because in fact, we do not make the difference. There is a saying in Russian: fear has big eyes. And if one looks at a Russian passport with these big eyes, he would not be able to make the difference between Putin and a random Russian pensioner living in the EU. So right now, Latvia is preparing to deport almost 1 000 Russian citizens who used to be permanently residing in the country for three decades because they did not pass the language test, which was not the condition to get permission to live in this country back then. These Russian citizens are not living in ghetto. These are members of the families of Latvian citizens, mostly their grandfathers and grandmothers. I already brought this issue to the attention of the Commission, but it seems that the words ‘Russian’ and ‘rights’ cannot be put now into one sentence. Fear does have big eyes. What a wonderful gift to Russian propaganda.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, I am speaking here on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, but I’m also inspired by the teacher strike which ended in Estonia a few days ago. After several days of strike, our underpaid and overworked teachers got a salary increase of EUR 17 per month. And I am speaking about the country which, according to PISA tests, remains on top of EU ratings. There is a critical need in our societies for high-quality education to prepare pupils to lead successful, fulfilling lives and contribute meaningfully to their communities by providing them with relevant educational experiences, developing practical skills, acquisitions and problem-solving abilities, as well as by fostering critical thinking, creativity and adaptivity. The aim of the oral question we are discussing today is to address one of the challenges faced in attaining high-quality education. Namely, the situation of teachers and of the teaching profession in the European Union, as the teaching standards are closely linked to the resources made available to them, their training opportunities, as well as to the roles they are asked to fulfil. The reality we are confronted to nowadays is that the EU faces an ageing teaching population, the difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, severe teacher shortages especially in rural areas, inadequate salary levels, the lack of collective bargaining agreements, as well as accentuated psychological pressure related to increased levels of violence in schools, bigger classroom sizes coupled with often decreased quality of infrastructure and multiplied administrative tasks assigned to them. The Committee on Petitions has received several petitions highlighting these aspects in recent years, the most recent one having been discussed last autumn in the Committee. In light of these discussions, it is imperative that we address the following questions: what is the assessment of the current state of working conditions of teachers in the European Union, and the effects on the quality of education and the transmission of fundamental knowledge? Which are the instruments the Commission makes available to Member States to assist them to implement relevant improvements in school education systems, considering the evolving demands of the labour market and correlated education needs, and necessity of continuous professional development and upskilling, as well as the importance of infrastructure investments? Which are the strategies the Commission foresees for levelling up the prestige and attractiveness of the teaching profession, including in rural, outmost and depopulated areas, to fight against negative demographic trends? How is the Commission encouraging the development of clear career prospects and attractive pay for the teaching profession? How is the Commission monitoring the implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/1152 on transparent and predictable working conditions in relation to the teaching profession in the EU? Which further actions does it intend to take to guarantee the full compliance with its provisions, including as regards the right to collective agreements?

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, with the consent of Mr Aguilar, I will be very slow. First, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadows for the good cooperation on this report. Fundamental rights are the foundation of the EU. It is good that we do this exercise every year evaluating the situation on fundamental rights in Europe. I believe that this report paints a realistic picture, raising concerns on press freedom and media pluralism, rule of law and justice, hate speech and violence, including gender-based violence, but also the increase of poverty, inequalities and social exclusion in the EU. The report calls on the Commission to act and to intervene where fundamental rights are being breached. But it also calls on the Member States to be proactive. This means that national parliaments, national and local administrations and specifically law enforcement have a duty to promote and protect our fundamental rights. Without proper implementation, our yearly exercise will have no impact. Therefore, I call on this House to support this call and to put pressure on other governments.

Madam President, colleagues Commissioner, Ombudsman, as a member of PETI for the past almost ten years, I have followed closely the activities of the Ombudsman and I can say without a doubt that her commitment to transparency, accountability and the promotion of ethical standards within the EU institutions are truly commendable. So when Madame O’Reilly takes the rare step of asking the EP for formal support to get the European Commission to reduce systemic delays in dealing with requests for public access to documents, I believe we must give this support. I have personally made requests for access to documents in the past, and I understand how difficult it is to get a clear and complete answer. It is discouraging to see the results of the specific inquiry into the time taken by the Commission to reply to requests. When it comes to asking the Commission to review its initial decision, receiving an answer above the 30 day legal limit has become the norm, not the exception. This makes it clear that we are dealing with the systemic problem in how requests for access to documents are answered. As Parliament, we have to follow up on this issue and make sure that the Commission takes action without delay.