Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I am amazed that Mr Bystron has not presented his very personal programme for combating poverty here. Unfortunately, this is not accessible to everyone, namely: Cleaning women at the expense of taxpayers, bribes from Moscow and cross-border employment of AfD family members with other AfD deputies – the AfD has developed its own personal poverty reduction programme. However, this does not apply to all citizens, but only to the ladies and gentlemen who accuse others of corruption, who accuse the other nepotism, who stand here and say that Europe and Germany have failed. The opposite is the case! On the very specific political agenda, I would also like to say: In the end, I can only underline what Mrs Kemp has just said here twice and three times. It is not a question of replacing national policies here from Brussels, from Strasbourg, but of complementing them. We need the resources that we have so far made available in different places – this is now also about bringing them together better. We have a lot of programs, but we also need to look at how we can increase effectiveness even further in the end. Indeed – Martine, you said it: Poverty has many faces. Above all, poverty now also has many reasons and many drivers. One is certainly the crazy development in many real estate markets; Many families, hard-working families are now being crushed by these developments. Energy poverty is also a huge issue. But from my point of view, it's not just a question of moving funds from A to B, but above all we have to get involved in the question: economic growth, on the one hand, but on the other hand, how do we ensure better integration into labour markets? Because it is best, and this must be our goal – we do not want to feed people first and foremost, but we want to organise participation, and this must also be our common European claim.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen! I remember well when Jean-Claude Juncker set the topic of the European Pillar of Social Rights. He has been ridiculed by many in the end, it is indeed a hodgepodge of nice declarations of intent, but basically nothing that helps in the concrete policy making. And a few years later we have to say: Those who mocked Jean-Claude at the time have been taught better. The European Pillar of Social Rights has truly become an essential element of policy-making, and we can be proud of that. But now it is about not stopping and celebrating successes of the past, but also developing this pillar further. And there are three things that are very important to me. Firstly: the financial resources. You mentioned it, Roxana, we are in the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework. For me, it is completely clear: We must ensure the financial resources, but above all with the full participation of Parliament. We must not allow us to issue blank cheques to the Commission, where the money is then moved from left to right as needed. The second is for me: Measurability – crucial. Yesterday we had a discussion internally about the question: What's next with the Child Guarantee? Everyone wants us to be in the field Child Guarantee Do more. But as of today, not even anyone can say how much money we have spent so far on what. And when we talk about political governance, it has to be measurable in the end – we have to get better. And the third point for me is law enforcement. That's why the question for me is, among other things, what's next with a new ELA mandate? This is one of the most important questions for me this year. Because one thing is to create rules here where we say that this is effective for the fight against exploitation and for fair competition. But on the other hand: If these rules are not effectively controlled, not effectively enforced, we only have paper tigers in many places. And that is why the issue of ELA mandate is very central to me when we talk about the future of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

Madam President, Commissioner! Dear colleagues! First of all, dear Jana Toom, thank you very much for your report and all the work you have invested. And I share the concerns you outlined here. I want to say this very clearly, because what we are experiencing at the moment – I do not like the word transformation so much – could not really be more formidable. We have the geopolitical pressure from outside: Trump on the one hand, the Chinese on the other. In addition: We have the pressure to transform. More commitment to climate protection means that we need to transform entire industries. In addition, there is everything that comes with the digitalization push. This means: Three huge factors that cause upheavals in our economy, in our industries, as they have basically never happened before. That is why, in my view, it is important that we have the debates we have here on how to strengthen our competitiveness, that we have them. But we must not only have this debate, we must also deal directly with the question: What does this mean for the affected workers and their families? We see the great uncertainties, not only in my home country, in Germany, across Europe. This is one of the main drivers why the populists from the left and right have so much influx. Because people are afraid of the future, because people are worried. What's next? Will I still have a job in the next few years? Not for every question raised in this context is the European Union the body that can give the answer. Much must also be done by the Member States themselves. But I think we can make a contribution, especially with regard to further training and all the necessary qualifications that need to be tackled. The Commission itself has just said that a number of things have already been set in motion: Union of Skills, Quality roadmap etc. Now it's about how we can tie these things together. And I think that what Jana presented here with her report is definitely an important building block for this.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear Roxana, dear colleagues! In my view, the instruments necessary in the fight against poverty are as diverse as poverty itself is diverse. I could argue about it for hours: When do you become poor? Are you really poor only when you are one of those people that we in Brussels, right on our doorstep, in front of the European Parliament, almost stumble upon or step over when we go to work? The homeless who have to camp directly in front of the European Parliament? Or are you already poor, if you are one of the 5.3 million people – these figures have now been published this week – who no longer have enough money in a country like Germany to heat their homes properly – many of whom, even though they work, work hard every week? Does poverty start there? Therefore: It's diverse. And there is still a lot going on between these two poles. Therefore, it is also necessary to provide a variety of answers. I also believe that the European Union cannot combat every form of this diversity of poverty. We are also not responsible for everything. But I think it is important that where we have the opportunity, we make our contributions to it. That is why I very much welcome the Commission's new strategy in the fight against poverty. That is why I have always supported projects such as the EU Child Guarantee with my heart. But it is important to me that we not only put money in the shop window, but that is why monitoring these processes is so important. We need to make sure that the money really gets where it's needed. One final comment, because much of what we are doing in the fight against poverty is very closely and directly linked to the ESF+. This question, Roxana, you know that – the new multiannual financial framework – is also a key issue for us in the EPP in particular. We need to make sure that the ESF+, as well as agricultural policy and other policy areas, is not turned into a shifting yard for other projects in this legislative period with the next MFF, but if we want to have a clear focus, then this must also be reflected in the architecture of the multiannual financial framework.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The resolution we are voting on tomorrow may not be overstated in its importance, but we should not underestimate that importance either. Because it was important to me, also as spokesperson for the EPP Group in the Social Committee, that our delegation, which flies to Qatar and takes part in the Summit for Social Development Don't go there empty-handed. And our message as Europeans should not be that we show the others how great this is, and they should imitate it all. But I think there are points that we have achieved in recent years – especially with regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights and the concrete implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights – that we can be really proud of. Points where we say: We have set standards without reducing our competitiveness. We have made the lives of many people in Europe better through our legislation. And there are points in the declaration tomorrow, we have split votes because the opinions in this Parliament are diverging. But that does not change the fact that the common ground we have found in this declaration remains a strong one – a strong one with which we can see ourselves in Qatar and, above all, where we can and must confidently enter into discussions with the rest of the world outside the European Union. Because from time to time, with all the problems we have here, you have to keep one thing in mind: Most people outside the European Union would dream of having our standards, which we have achieved together here – with hard work, with tough political struggles – if they had those standards. And that is why I look forward to the debate tonight and also to the joint statement tomorrow. And with that, we are well equipped to fly to Qatar together, with our committee chairman at the helm. I'm looking forward to it.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Thank you very much for the partly emotional and definitely very interesting debate. Because it was particularly interesting for me, because I have heard things and arguments in some places in this debate that are so wrong that not even the opposite of it is right. So if it is claimed here that, so to speak, functioning participation in Member States would be damaged, then I ask myself the question: How is that supposed to work? Because the existing co-determination, whether it works well or badly, is not even touched here. Because here we are not talking about national co-determination, but about European co-determination. And when it is explained, the Member States should take care of it – so who should legislate for European Works Councils, if not the European Union? What are these arguments? That's where the wire really flies out of my hat when I hear something like that. And of course, that's why I said this again with the assumption of costs: After all, in many Member States – Angelika, also in Austria as well as in Germany – it is finally standardised by the law of judges and by written law that the costs are borne. But in some Member States this issue remains unresolved. That is why it is an important contribution to this. The crown of the whole thing, I must say, goes today once again to the patriots, to the colleague Bartůšek, who tells here about the great concern of small and medium-sized enterprises. Which small and medium-sized company has a European Works Council? Does Mrs Bartůšek actually know the thresholds necessary to have a European Works Council? But there you see what you get when you give your voice to this guy. They have never done well in their history with the unions, with the workers, but historically it has always been the first thing they have fought alongside the free press. Therefore: We are not creating new bureaucracy tomorrow – I have not heard a new example where we are creating additional bureaucracy – but we are creating more legal clarity and more legal certainty for the benefit of businesses, for the sake of co-determination! And that's why I'm asking for your approval tomorrow.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Today's debate, and above all tomorrow's vote on the amendment of the European Works Councils Directive, marks the end of a debate that has been going on for 16 years since we last amended the European Works Councils Directive. And the debate in recent years has been primarily about not saying we need to completely rethink this directive, but this debate has always had a focus on saying: Co-determination at European level works in many places, but there are simply weak points. That is why I am really proud that it was this Parliament in the last legislature that initiated this process of amendment, in which we drafted an own-initiative report calling on the Commission to initiate regulation. And we have also made concrete proposals. We have made concrete proposals – not on all points, but on the points where we have identified weaknesses. That is why I am proud to say that this trilogue result, which we will vote on tomorrow, I will say: 26 Member States have agreed, Lithuania has abstained, this is the starting point on the Council side – that this outcome, which we will vote on in the final vote tomorrow, really makes a substantial contribution in the places where we have identified weaknesses in recent years. We are providing more legal clarity – not only on the employee side, but also on the employer side – on the issue of transnationality, on the issue of confidentiality of information. These were the major weaknesses in the past, as there was always a dispute between the two sides. And we have now provided more clarity. We are simply clarifying things that are self-evident in many Member States, but are still not regulated in some, such as the question of the assumption of costs. And when in the last few days, controlled by certain associations, I hear again and again the concerns that are now being brought into play! It is said: Yes, national works councils are being taken away, so to speak, and shifted to the European level – that is nonsense. When it comes to transnational measures, the European Works Council has always been the first to be informed in the 2009 Directive. It also does not create new bureaucracy, but more legal clarity and more legal certainty is a contribution to making it work better. This is not about more bureaucracy. And, of course, some also use the debate as a brake on co-determination in general. And especially in my home country Germany, politically and scientifically, people have now really dealt intensively with this question. Germany as the mother country of the social market economy, as the mother country of co-determination in Europe, clearly comes to the conclusion – moreover, cross-party, these two commissions, which have examined this, cross-party: Companies that have co-determination work better. Co-determination is not a disadvantage, but a location advantage. With this amendment, we are therefore helping to strengthen co-determination in Europe as a whole and thus making Europe a more attractive location again. Because the truth is: The challenges we face, the disruptive developments we are witnessing in many sectors of the economy, we do not get to grips with that by trying, so to speak, to play both sides against each other, but in the end it only works with a reasonable, strong social partnership. And this amendment makes a significant contribution to this. That is why I would like to conclude by thanking everyone, all the shadow rapporteurs, but also the staff at Group level, but also the secretariat, and also the Commission, for the constructive cooperation on this report over the last two and a half or three years. I think it's a milestone. That's why I'm asking for your approval tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The automotive industry in Europe is experiencing huge disruptions and is really at a crossroads, where we, as political leaders, are also responsible for deciding which way this key industry should go in Europe. It is becoming more and more apparent – and that is why we as the CDU/CSU group have also voted unanimously against it – that the dogmatic Combustion Engine 2035 was a big mistake. I am not at all interested in having a fundamental discussion here over and over again: What is the better drive now? Where will markets develop? How will consumers decide? Rather, we have to make a very sober statement – and, moreover, as the EPP, we organised an exchange with the works councils of the German automotive industry at the International Motor Show in Munich – the message is clear: The future will most likely be fully electric. This is what the industry is looking for. But by now, everyone has simply understood that the bridge is far too short by 2035. We must now extend this bridge open to technology in the interests of industry, in the fight for jobs, in the fight for future viability. At the same time, we must also focus our efforts in the ramp-up of e-mobility on the expansion of charging infrastructure, on affordability - Keyword Social leasing – all the proposals that are on the table, we must now move forward together. But on this ideological out of 2035, there must now be shaken, the bridge must be extended, and then it can become something with the future viability of the German and European automotive industry.

Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen! This Chemicals package It is now a good opportunity for the Commission, but also for us as a whole, not only to praise and praise the chemical industry with words, but also to support it with concrete political action – because there is a hell of a lot at stake. And that's why I urge you to: Away from these commonplaces and from these rushes. Yes, we know that energy costs have to go down, even outside the chemical industry. I expect clear commitments with a view to future REACH regulation and also with regard to the question: How do we continue at PFAS? And it is not a question of protecting the environment and people or the other, as it is presented here in some places, but of bringing both together. And the situation of the chemical industry is more than critical when you look at what is happening at Dow Chemicals in East Germany. We are talking about interconnectedness here. It's not just about individual jobs and a bit of added value, but it's about when the wrong one in the chain falls over, that then everyone else falls behind like the dominoes. This is the situation in which the chemical industry is currently located in Europe, especially in Germany – one of the most important chemical sites in the world. Therefore, please get out of this mode of general description, now clear commitments to PFAS. Because without the chemical industry, it must also be clear, central areas will not be able to be maintained, whether with regard to pharmaceuticals, with regard to the energy transition and with regard to other important sectors. Last observation – and this is also important because the rights of trade unions have been discussed here: Where are top wages earned in Europe, even by people without an academic degree? This is especially the case in the chemical industry. That's why you act, we'll keep pushing you.

Madam President, Mr Executive Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! The Steel and Metals Action Plan It's late. I hope he's not too late. We as the EPP have been fighting for this for more than a year and a half now, because the European and German steel industries are of course under enormous pressure due to overcapacity and extremely high energy costs. We cannot speak in our Sunday speeches about resilience, about independence from autocratic systems, and on the other hand, more or less idly watch as we maneuver ourselves into a situation that eventually Chinese people decide on the question: Can the energy transition and retrofitting actually still take place in Europe – and if so, at what price? That's why it was overdue for us to do this now. Steel and Metals Action Plan The Commission is on the table. But even more importantly: not only have the plan on the table now, but also implement what has been written down there. We need an effective use of trade defence instruments, not only with regard to Trump, but also with regard to China in particular. That is why it is so important not only to postpone CBAM, but also to use the two years of postponement to correct the design errors that are obvious at CBAM. Otherwise, we will only shoot ourselves in the foot with this instrument. Access to affordable energy is essential. That is why, of course, the Member States are also called upon to do so, but the Commission must now also make its contribution. We also need modern state aid legislation. This state aid law is a child of the 20th century to prevent protectionism within the EU. Today, however, we are at a point where competition takes place primarily between us and other parts of the world. That is why we need state aid law, which also provides an answer. We need the development of lead markets for green steel. All this has to be tackled now, because green steel must also be competitive in the end. There must also be markets for it. Therefore, you now have the plan, please implement it. As a Parliament, we will continue to be uncomfortable. We want resilience – and we want to preserve well-paid and co-determined jobs in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Thank you very much for the debate, and tomorrow we will also vote on a report by Mrs Ceulemans on this subject. I think it is really important to deal with this issue, because the upheavals we are witnessing right now, across Europe, in the economy, in industry, are really huge. And you know, this bracelet was made for me by my 7-year-old daughter because she said it was important for her to give me this so that dad would always think of her. Of course, this girl does not know that even without this bracelet, the dad always thinks of her. But I also want to say here that, as a politician, I often deal with the question of what kind of world my daughter is actually growing into – not only with regard to the geopolitical upheavals that we are currently experiencing, but also with regard to the disruptions in the world of work, a world of work where one currently feels that our social model, our idea of a social market economy, is just as much under the wheel as the dignity of the individual in the workplace. And also on the question: What else is good work? It is not only about getting people into employment, but we also have a political claim to get people into good work, into work covered by collective agreements, into co-determined work - all this is currently under scrutiny. And that is why, I believe, it is also important that we in the European Union use the means we have to strengthen our ideas about the social model and the social market economy. Therefore, thank you for the debate and thank you for your report tomorrow, dear Estelle!

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, dear Roxana, dear colleagues! Many thanks to the European Commission for this initiative. And there are not a few who say: Yes, Union of SkillsWhat's that supposed to be? This is somehow all so inconcrete, this is once again such a typical cloud-shifting of the Commission. That's how you can get there, of course. Or it can be said that it is a good start – and that start is absolutely necessary. I just want to say from my point of view why it is so absolutely necessary. We had a chancellor in Germany, Angela Merkel, who once pointed this out with regard to the situation in Germany and said: That which we are more expensive than others, we must also be better, and then it will continue to work. And this sentence applies not only to Germany, but, if you look at global competition, to the entire European Union, because we will never be able to compete on wage costs with the Chinese, with Oman, with Singapore – we cannot. No matter how different the wage level in the EU is, we will never be able to compete at this level. In the end, we will only be competitive if we are better at what we are more expensive. In the end, that's what it's all about, too. Union of Skills: On the one hand, to look at how we can, so to speak, better qualify those who are already here – whether they have immigrated at some point, whether they were born here in the European Union – especially those who formally have a low level of education. How can we, together with the social partners, ensure that older workers also benefit from qualifications and training? I think that's very central. And the second point is: You have the subject talent pool addressed. I also think this is important because everyone is clear: We will not be able to meet the demand for skilled workers that we have on our own, from our own reserves, and that is why we need projects such as talent pool, in order to bring people from all over the world here who go into these gaps. Therefore: As a Parliament, we will continue to support this initiative in a positive way, and the Commission is on the right track.

Mr President! Madam Executive Vice-President! Dear colleagues! Many thanks to you, dear Roxana, and to the Commission for this initiative. I think the subject Skills was already prominently placed at the European Commission in the last period. But now it is important that we also take the next step in this legislature. Especially with regard to education, I think we have to come back to a different image and a different self-confidence. I myself have completed vocational training. I am not an academic; I learned to be an industrial clerk. Does this make me a worse MP now that I don't have an academic degree? We have now arrived in some places simply and poignantly in a world where one is only regarded as an academic as a full-fledged person or worker. Therefore, it is high time that we come back to a different assessment. As you rightly said: We need professionals who are proficient in artificial intelligence, who can program, who do everything possible. But we also need people who are able to cover a roof or repair a toilet with their hands. Because if we have only artificial intelligence experts in the near future, they will not cover our roofs or repair our toilets. That is why it is also important that we take this to the next level on the issue of recognition of qualifications and portability. That's what I'm saying as a German representative. We have dual vocational training in Germany and also in Austria. 90 million people know this. But eight billion people in the world have never heard of it. That's why we really need to make sure: How can we achieve greater comparability in vocational training, common standards and, above all, a point that is also important to me, how can we formalise in any way those who have no formal qualifications and are now somewhere in the labour market? In a country like Germany, for example, you need a certificate for everything, otherwise you can't do anything. In Germany, you're not even dead without someone certifying it to you. That, I think, is a path. How can we take this to the next level, especially for people with formally low education? This must also be on the agenda.

Mr President! Commissioner! Dear colleagues! Somehow a bit bizarre. I am glad that we are discussing this topic again today. But when you think back to the COVID-19 pandemic, we discussed the topic of healthcare, the health sector and the developments, the needs up and down. Because suddenly everyone was directly affected and everyone was afraid. Will I get care if I get infected with the virus? Will I get the support I need? Now the virus is gone, and what has remained of the COVID-19 pandemic is basically a debate. What do we have to deal with politically? What was wrongly decided? Were the interventions too extensive, yes or no? But in the end, no one discusses the fundamental problems that have remained in our healthcare system, namely that we have an acute shortage of skilled workers. If you think about it, by 2030 we in the European Union will have a shortage of 4 million health workers. And this in a society that is getting older and where the need for medical support is also growing. We have to bring that together somehow. I think it is right that the European Union now also wants to make a contribution to addressing this problem at several levels. Care strategy, for example, is a topic that we started with in the last period. Of course we have to talk about it. Can we reach common standards so that access to the healthcare labour market is also easier for those coming from outside? Because without people from other countries, we will not be able to cover the gaps – the need for skilled workers – in healthcare. That is why it is absolutely necessary that we hold these debates. But also – you mentioned collective bargaining – working conditions in the health sector. It's not just about pay, it's also about shift work. How can I keep older people in the work process? At 60, I may not be able to lift a patient out of bed, but I can do other things. And I am very grateful for talking, discussing and even arguing about these things here, if necessary.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Dubravka, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank the European Commission very much for the initiative, and I am sure that one or the other speaker will take the floor here and say: “What are you dealing with again? That is indeed all the competence of the Member States." But I think – as the Commissioner rightly pointed out – that despite all the competence, which of course lies with the Member States, there are horizontal challenges. And above all, we must not forget: Especially with regard to rural regions, we have phenomena that take place in Germany in the same way as they take place in Romania or Bulgaria. And the fact that we are confronted, so to speak, with the depopulation of entire parts of the country in the Member States is also a question that the European Union must deal with. How can we simply combine local, regional and national efforts at this point? Interestingly enough, in recent months, in all company visits, where the current difficulties – economically difficult situation, high energy costs – are of course at stake, the issue of skills shortages and labour shortages has nevertheless been an issue on almost every company visit, where the owners, the managers, have repeatedly told me: “For all problems – we need people”. And especially with regard to the next five to ten years: If we look at the age pyramid in our workforce, where should we get the people? Bring us people! This is always a topic that comes up. And that is why I am also very grateful to the Commissioner for having spoken about it again in this context: How can we also organise legal migration into our labour markets? A very central point for me. In many places in the heated debate, flight, migration, EU internal migration – everything – is now being thrown together, but we will only tackle these problems if we have the power to differentiate and there are also legal ways to address these problems clearly.

Mr Vice-President. Commissioner! Dear colleagues! I think today's debate is actually coming at exactly the right time, because with a view to transposing the European Minimum Wage Directive into national law, the clock in the Member States has now expired. And we see that the vast majority of Member States have not yet delivered. So the task for the new Commission and above all for you, dear Roxana, is quite clear. Namely: We need to put pressure now – firstly, that the Minimum Wage Directive is transposed into national law in all Member States; and secondly, we must ensure that what we as Parliament have fought very hard for in the last period is a clear, binding target of 80% tariff binding in each Member State of the European Union, with a clear legal consequence. If this does not happen, namely the legal consequence, an action plan must be submitted to the European Commission, which will then also be implemented. Because I am and remain firmly convinced that the question ‘What is a fair wage, what is a fair wage?”, which is not primarily answered by minimum wages – no matter how they are designed and constructed – but the question of what is a fair and what is a fair wage is ultimately answered in collective agreements. And that's why our position has always been clear: We want to significantly increase collective bargaining. With regard to the right to strike: Of course, within the scope of our competences – we have had certain limits to position ourselves also on the right to strike. But I still find it extremely difficult, even unbearable, that we still have Member States where the right to strike is not regulated by law. It is also possible – as a Parliament, we also have to fulfil our role and call on the Member States to fill the gaps we have there. For me, the right to strike is fundamental when we talk about the future of collective agreements and collective bargaining.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The European steel industry is in a historic crisis, and what we don't need in this situation are philosophically dreamy speeches about how great the future could be with green steel. We all want a future with green steel, but at the moment we are primarily called upon to ensure that our steel industry in Europe does not collapse on the way to green steel. That is why we must now take very specific measures. We need without further delay a European steel summit, a steel action plan that brings together companies, associations, trade unions and works councils and makes concrete agreements. There are so many issues that need to be addressed: from trade defence instruments via CBAM, on minimum import prices, on a new State aid law. There is a lot to do, and it is necessary, because otherwise in a few years the Chinese will have pushed us to the wall and decide: Can we still retrofit in Europe and can we still make an energy transition in Europe, and if so, at any price? Resilience of autocrats, we need to do something about it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I am really proud that we, as the European Parliament, can say: We are the drivers when it comes to mental health. When I think of the last legislative term alone – a wonderful colleague from my group, Maria Walsh, who is at the forefront of the movement and constantly ensures that this topic is not only important on an International Mental Health Day, but that it is also played on the other 364 days. We can be proud of that. But I also say quite clearly: This commitment will also be necessary in the course of the legislature – that we stay on the ball and that we also come to concrete results. The question of the intensification of work, which is increasing more and more and has a direct impact on mental health, makes it clear to us once again that in this legislative period we are dealing with the topic of right to disconnect We have to do something as legislators – since it has unfortunately not been possible for the social partners to agree on a solution here. I think this is urgently needed. The reasons for impairments in mental health are, of course, different and varied. Much has been said here: Consequences of the corona pandemic, social crisis. This issue is multifaceted, and that is why it is so important that, in the new legislature, we remain the driving force behind the work of the Commission and remain inconvenient and tireless.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I remember very well how we discussed the ban on combustion engines here in Strasbourg. There sat where Valdis Dombrovskis now sits, Frans Timmermans, who was responsible for this policy. And when I mentioned two things in my speech, namely on the one hand the question of the affordability of mobility and how much social explosives there is in this question and on the other hand the employment policy consequences of such a ban on combustion engines, there was the reaction of Frans Timmermans that he crossed his arms and just laughed out loud. I told him at the time: With this attitude, in the end you will only put the tiger in the tank of populists and extremists. This is the reality we see today. All that I have warned about is manifesting right in front of our eyes. That is why it is now important that we understand: The window of opportunity we still have is closing. We must now approach the revision of the fleet limits with great courage. But I'm advocating not just discussing black or white again, but making it clear: We have to get away from this consideration of what comes out of the tailpipe at the back. We need to get all the CO.2‐Check the balance sheet of the vehicle. If we want to develop leading markets for green steel, then the view only on the exhaust does not get us any further, but then we have to look at the whole vehicle. But we have to be clear about that now. And how clear the government in the car country Germany is, we have seen today: the FDP in one direction, the Greens in the other. This government doesn't know what it wants. This makes it all the more important that we realize where we want to go.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I could use my speaking time to express my astonishment that trying to make a thin declaration even thinner was not enough to get BusinessEurope and the Swedes on board with this declaration. But I can also save myself this and say instead: La Hulpe is just another small milestone on the road to a more social Europe. We have to keep in mind: What have we achieved together in this legislature, beyond summit meetings? We have launched a European minimum wage with 80% collective bargaining, not as a friendly recommendation for action, but as a legally binding target. I was in Romania recently, talking to trade union representatives there who told me: Dennis, this legislation is a real game changer for our work here, for fair wage-setting in Romania. And it can also become a game changer in many places in the European Union. By November, it is time to transpose this into national law. Today we took the last hurdle for platform regulation. Who would have thought the beginning of the legislature possible? We have taken a huge step forward in terms of pay transparency. We have taken a huge step forward on the issue of European Works Councils, on the issue of democracy in the workplace. These are all great successes! There is still a lot to do in the next period. We are negotiating a new ELA mandate. We need to talk about how we can finally make SE co-determination teslafest. We will be able to talk about public procurement in the next legislature. How can we use this tool to strengthen collective bargaining, improve working conditions? Because one thing is also clear: We must lead the struggle for a social Europe from the centre, from the political centre. If we want to prevent the rat-catchers, the extremists, the fascists from rising further, we have to name it concretely from the middle. I would also like to take this opportunity once again to thank my coordinators, colleagues and also Nicolas Schmit and especially Agnes Jongerius. The successes we have achieved have only been possible because there is great trust beyond political families, from dividing lines between political families, because there is a great common understanding. I would like to thank you sincerely and wish you all the best, Agnes, even if this is your last plenary session today. All the best. Election campaign back and forth: The truth must be told in this house. All the best.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Brussels and Strasbourg are often synonymous with making complicated things even more complicated. The epicenter of global bureaucracy. And what are we doing here in the European Parliament on the issue of the Disability Card? We take this cliché and turn it into the opposite. Because with the Disability Card it will be easier for millions of people in Europe, even if clichés about Europe usually claim the opposite. I think what we're doing this week is a real milestone. The rapporteur pointed out that: People have waited 15 years for this. I can remember that in the 2014 European election campaign, a severely disabled person from my constituency said: When does something happen? In 2019, he asked the question: When is something going on? And in 2024, in the European election campaign, I can say: We finally delivered. The European Union is leading the way when it comes to making our habitat more inclusive, and the European Union is taking care of those who really need our support. I am proud of that, and I am very grateful to the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for that.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Actually, it is already tragic that we have this debate on the agenda today. That is why the whole debate is not suitable for political polemics or finger-pointing. I think the Commissioner is absolutely right, first of all we have to pay tribute to the tragedy and think of the relatives and wish those who have survived a speedy and good recovery. Nevertheless, we must also use this debate because, as the European Union, we have competences on the issue of health and safety at work. And we also have to ask ourselves why, above all, we Subcontracting I see these accidents at work again and again. This is not an Italian phenomenon, but it is a Europe-wide problem that we always have big problems where the sub- and above all sub-sub-contractors are active when it comes to compliance with occupational health and safety regulations and other things, including support, safety equipment, personal safety equipment, etc. That is why we should perhaps also use this tragic incident in Florence to address the question: To what extent is what we have also brought about so far by the 1989 directive, to what extent is this actually sufficient, to what extent is this a suitable answer to prevent such accidents in the future? In any case, it should be a reminder to us, also in other policy areas, the subject of subcontracting and Subcontracting Again, take a close look.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I rarely turn my heart into a murder pit, so I don't want to start today and say quite clearly that I find it shameful that this debate is necessary here today. It is necessary, not because we are preparing the final vote here, but because we are currently in danger of three years of hard political work being undone in the end. In his speech, the Commissioner pointed out how large the majority actually is – 23 Member States support this project. If you just see: Three years of hard work have led to compromises that we have agreed on twice in trilogue negotiations – twice we have reached a compromise. This was not easy for us as a parliament. When I see what the Belgian Presidency has done in recent weeks, what the Commissioner has done again in recent weeks to convince the Council in the end, I must say that the stubbornness of Mr Macron and Mr Scholz at this point simply leaves me speechless. When I see the French president: Instead of depriving Mrs. Le Pen of the breeding ground for her populist and dangerous policies, he once again makes himself the willing accomplice of Über. And the German Chancellor, who campaigned with ‘respect for you’ in the election campaign, we now know: to which this sentence expressly does not apply – can be guided by a 3-percent FDP on the nose ring through the manege. When I see what the FDP colleagues have just blown out of the German Bundestag in the last few days and weeks on the topic of platform economy: It is right to stop this because it would be a general attack on entrepreneurship. I can only say: Anyone who puts such theses into the room has either not read the directive or has not understood it. Unfortunately, with the FDP in this state, I think both are possible, ladies and gentlemen! So, Chancellor, you're finally taking it seriously! Respect for you – also for platform workers, also for five million bogus self-employed, also for taxi drivers. Finally clean up and make it clear who is a cook and who is a waiter in your coalition!

Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen. I think it's nice that we agreed with some colleagues here today to give a one-minute speech, even if the reason for this is a very sad one: the death of a Green colleague, who once again made it clear how complicated the situation can be for a member of staff here. It simply cannot be serious for us to put employees in a situation where, two days before the end of the month – for whatever reason, here by death, but from me also by voluntary resignation – a Member gives up his mandate and the employees are then unemployed after two days, no longer have access to the house, no longer have access to their e-mail account. That cannot and should not be the case, ladies and gentlemen. The administration has to make a different proposal, the Bureau has to make a different proposal. We need reasonable transitional periods, even staggered by years of service. In my opinion, three months must be the minimum. We cannot let people go into unemployment overnight. We need planning security for our employees. We should all work together for this.