Speeches

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.

Madam Vice-President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! If you look at the European Parliament's toolbox, how we can deal with the European Commission in this way and get things rolling, the oral question is certainly not the big hammer, but perhaps more of a small nail or a tearing purpose. But anyone who has ever set himself up for such a tearing purpose knows that it can also have its effect. And that is why I think it is right that today, on this important question of public procurement, we are putting these tearing purposes here on the chair of the Commissioner. Not because I think he deserves it personally, but because I think it is a failure for the European Commission not to tackle public procurement in this legislature for two reasons: One is, of course, the social aspect, no doubt about it. We have decided to advance the European minimum wage here. And, of course, the question of linkage, collective bargaining and public procurement is an essential element in ensuring more collective bargaining. We are talking about public money. And, of course, it is justified to say – especially in a social market economy: We want to give public money primarily to those who also follow the rules of the social market economy. But the second point why I consider it a major failure is the issue of sustainability. I come from a steel location in the Ruhr area, and we often have the discussion: Why do we have Chinese steel in German motorway bridges and no steel from Duisburg? And the answer is quite simple: Because sustainability issues do not play a role there today. And I think that an institution like the European Commission, which has hung the Green Deal so high, must also ensure that it plays a role in public procurement in the future.

Madam Vice-President, Commissioner, dear Agnes, dear colleagues! With this opinion, we as the European Parliament are expressing our expectations towards the European Commission with regard to the new ELA mandate. And it must be said - as the Commissioner has also pointed out - that the launch of ELA was a good one, despite all the birth difficulties that a new authority always entails. But now it's about giving the tiger teeth as well. And I think the example of the truck drivers in Gräfenhausen who went on strike twice last year makes it clear why this is more than overdue. Because the question of unpaid wages and also the question of how we deal with employees from third countries must be included in ELA's portfolio. Gräfenhausen has shown this more than clearly. And in my view, the new mandate is about two things that are very important: On the one hand, of course, we as the European Union play an active role in protecting workers from exploitation and strengthening their backs when it comes to enforcing their rights. That's the one. But the other is – and this is almost as important: When we speak of the single market as the heart of the European Union, we must also ensure that the rules that apply to the single market are respected. This is because we can put legislation in place without end, such as the Mobility Package, to stick to the example. But if enforcement does not take place, if – as in the case of Gräfenhausen – authorities shift responsibility to each other and the ELA does not even have a right to take initiative, then this shows the problems. We have addressed them in our report, in our opinion, in the hope that the Commission will also take up the ball.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! For us as the EPP Group, it is clear: We need to prove that "wages and growth up" and "emissions and environmental impact down" go together. Otherwise, no one will follow us internationally in our ambitious goals. And for me it is also clear: We will only achieve environmental protection and climate protection with industry as a partner and not with industry as an adversary. I mean, after four years of social-democratic industrial policy here in this House, nothing surprises you anymore. But it is astonishing when, three weeks ago, the SPD chairman in Germany declared that the SPD stood without ifs and buts as an industrial location in Germany. I told him plainly: It would be great if you would not only say it, but if your comrades in parliaments would also take it into account in their decisions. The SPD, the Social Democracy in this House, does not stand for the preservation of high-quality industrial jobs, but is at the forefront of the counter-movement! This is the sad reality. This was announced here and today. The EPP stands for a different course: Industry as a partner for climate protection and environmental protection. And that's what tomorrow is all about. And that's what I'm promoting.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Actually, it is sad that for some it is necessary that we need international days for this, this and that to sharpen the senses for what is happening right in front of our eyes. If we take the example of homelessness, we do not really need an International Day for Combating Poverty, but homelessness, we almost stumble upon it when we leave the European Parliament in Brussels because the homeless people around Parliament are living their barren lives. If we want to see children in poverty, children who do not have access to clean drinking water, good education and reasonable food, we do not need to go to South American slums or to Africa, then a visit to a Roma community in Romania, Bulgaria or Slovakia is enough. All of this is happening on our doorstep. That is why it is good and right that the European Union has set itself committed goals in reducing poverty. The Commissioner has just remarked on the figures: At least 15 million people should be brought out of poverty or at risk of poverty. These targets are very ambitious, because, of course, the inflation crisis, the pressure and the development of the general cost of living increase the risk of poverty once again. But it is important that we have set ourselves these goals. I think that in all the debates on subsidiarity and on who is responsible for what: Of course, the European Union is not primarily responsible for these issues in many places. But we are the engine of development, and we must also ensure and drive the Member States to ensure that the goals we have set ourselves together, which all Heads of State and Government have committed themselves to in the European Union, are also implemented piece by piece.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to congratulate and thank Mrs Spyraki for her outstanding work. Especially with this technical dossier, tying the different ends together to get a realistic draft is a difficult task. I believe that EPP Amendments 101, 102, 103 offer an opportunity to make the good compromises achieved even better. It is also important to me to point out again that the question of font size and also the question of the implementation deadlines for companies - this will be an issue again tomorrow, hopefully also in the trilogue negotiations. All in all, we must not forget one thing: Chemistry must be safe. That's why we have the strictest chemicals legislation in the world. That's why our chemicals law is the gold standard internationally. But we must also ensure, especially in the current situation, in the current crisis, that it remains affordable for the chemical industry in the end. I have a life before politics. I worked in the chemical trade union in Germany, and that's why I know from my own experience: Chemistry stands for high wages, for high collective bargaining, for co-determined jobs, for highly innovative jobs. And I also expect the European Commission - Commissioner Schinas has pointed out: Chemical strategy - that we also do everything we can to ensure that this industry, as an important backbone for economic growth in Europe, continues to have a home and a good future.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I think the debate could hardly take place at a better time. However, I would like to add at this point: In any case, the debate would have deserved much more attention. Because when we talk about the men and women who are fighting fires and floods in the front row, both during the devastating fires we saw this summer and during the equally devastating floods, when we talk about them and their working conditions, it is actually sad that we have more listeners in the visitors’ stands than here in the Chamber. But despite all this, for us as the EPP Group: We have been putting our finger on the wound for a long time and we will not stop calling on both the Commission and the Member States to invest in the fire brigades, because the importance of the task carried out there by men and women is unfortunately in many places disproportionate to the equipment and the working conditions under which and with which this work must be carried out. And something urgently needs to happen here. When we look at health and safety: Occupational health and safety is organised in such a way that, for a group of workers or the mass of workers, it is basically oriented towards burdens that occur on average, i.e. substances to which one is exposed on average for a certain period of time. However, it works quite differently for firefighters because they are exposed to much higher concentrations for shorter periods of time. Dragoş pointed out: The risk of cancer is 300% higher than that of other workers. As a policy, we must give an answer to this and adapt occupational safety and health. And one final remark: The special feature, the separation between professional fire brigade and volunteer fire brigade: There is an urgent need for the Commission to finally ensure legal certainty in the Working Time Directive so as not to jeopardise the structure of voluntary fire brigades.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I can really say at this point that I am very pleased with the result that has been presented here by the shadow rapporteurs. Let me remind you at this point: When we talked about how we want to continue with the Youth Guarantee, I have always pointed out that for me it is much more important than the debate on how much money we want to put further into the EU Youth Guarantee, that we have a debate on the quality of traineeships, because it makes little sense to redirect billions of euros into areas where, in the end, not even the lowest quality standards of traineeships are met. And we have this discussion now. We continue a second part, which we started with in the Minimum Wage Directive, namely on the question: How should traineeships be remunerated fairly and appropriately? It is also clear to me that there must be differences: A one-week school internship is different from a three-month, five-month, seven-month internship, but what's available here provides the right framework for that. Congratulations on that. I ask for your consent.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to take part in the agreement between a number of colleagues here to finally get the issue of parental leave for MEPs rolling here. I myself am the father of two children, and like everyone else who became a father here during the parliamentary elections, I have not had the opportunity to take parental leave. In order to be able to attend the birth of my children, I had to blurt out my duties as a Member of Parliament here, because of course it was also just important to me to be present at the birth of my children. And the COVID time, I think, has shown us what is possible through the online tool. And I think it is high time that we talk about how we can now use the opportunities we have successfully tried out in the COVID pandemic in such a way that parenting and being a Member of Parliament is not a contradiction, but that men and women here in Parliament also have the chance to fulfil their responsibilities as parents over parental leave.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I can only agree with Dragoș Pîslaru: It is a pity that a debate that is so important for the question ‘How is social Europe moving forward?’ is taking place at such a marginal time. But the most important thing for me is that this debate takes place. The Commissioner has just pointed out that: We, as a Parliament, are really doing everything we can to relaunch social dialogue at European level, because the decision, as we have done with the question of Right to disconnect By the way, she was on the table here. And I know that there have been quite a few, including the social partners, who have said that the best thing would be for the Commission and Parliament themselves to do something about it. But I was always one of those people who said: Especially with such a question, those who are closer to what is happening in the companies must bring the solution. And that's why I'm still convinced that was right. And now both social partners see it that way, but we must continue this process. That is why I want to say quite frankly and honestly that I am annoyed by some of the things that have now ended up in the resolution. We bring debates on telework, for example, with our directive on the European minimum wage – these are active contributions to strengthening social partnership, this is what we need. And that we are now having a discussion in the debate about the ratio of board salaries to employee salaries: Folks, this has nothing to do with social partnership. Let's fight for more collective bargaining, for more social partnership, for people to have decent pay. Then the boards should earn what they want, these are side-war scenes. Let's continue to focus on what's important in the future.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In my view, the Social Forum in Porto is an important location on the way to a more social Europe. I very much hope that we will be able to consolidate this institution of a social forum so that we also ensure that the issue of social Europe remains at the top of the agenda of the top political decision-makers in the European Union. But let's not fool ourselves. It is sometimes felt that this path towards a more social Europe is getting longer and longer as we walk. We've had the pandemic, we've had war, we've had inflation, we've had the energy crisis, and that's especially true for those who have already been hit hard in our society, but now those in the middle of our society are also affected by all of this. The crisis has arrived in the middle, and it is therefore right that we should make clear reference to it in our resolution which we shall adopt tomorrow. It is also right that we call for a fully integrated strategy to combat poverty, one that also understands poverty in its multidimensionality. I do not mean this as an objective of launching as many new directives as possible; That alone doesn't do it. But I am concerned that we finally come to holistic approaches to poverty reduction, dear friends. Much has already been achieved in this period for social Europe – whether minimum wage, child guarantee, regulation of platform work, where we have come very, very far, but there is still a lot to do, and I look forward to fighting together with you for the common good cause.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I remember very well the heated debates, the heated debates we had here when it came to the introduction of the mobility package. We must not forget: This package even failed in the first vote in this plenary. There was no majority for that. It was really a fight on the edge of a knife that we led. Why did we run it? Why was I a passionate supporter of this mobility package at the time? Because I have always believed that this ruinous downward price competition, which is held solely on the backs of the drivers, must be stopped. I am still firmly convinced that what we have launched here is also the right way to do so. The unbearable pictures, which we now see from Gräfenhausen, make one thing quite clear: We no longer have a regulatory deficit at European level, but we obviously have a enforcement deficit. I also expect the EU Commission to enter into dialogue with the German Federal Government and, at this point, to ask the question clearly: Where are the German authorities when we have such cases as here in Gräfenhausen? This is legally very complex. We are probably talking here not only about employees from third countries, but probably even partly about bogus self-employed people from third countries. It is legally highly complex, but the complexity must not be an excuse for the fact that German authorities simply look away at these places. For me, it's about two things now. One is the level: How can we help the brave men in Gräfenhausen now? Nicolas Schmit pointed this out. It is great what solidarity there is, what the colleagues of Fair mobility Let's do what churches do, let's do what the people do. That's great. Now we have to look: What is needed to further support these brave men and help them assert their interests? I think that's elementary. You also have to ask the question: How can this Polish entrepreneur be in possession of an EU Community licence, although it is quite obvious that he does not meet the personal requirements at all, since personal integrity and apparently suitability are not given? The second is – we also need to talk about it: How can we tighten controls in the future? How can we reshape the Ehler mandate in the future so that what I say is, in many places, just the tip of the iceberg, really belongs once and for all to the past?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! More Europe, more jobs. This is a headline that I find quite appealing. But frankly, I think it would be even more appealing if we were to orient the policy we are also making here in this House much, much more strongly towards this objective. Particularly with regard to industrial value creation, it is unfortunately necessary to note: We are falling back more and more. What we are currently experiencing in the USA is a vacuum cleaner for industrial investments: out of Europe, into the United States. This is not only about the 1 300 billion that Mr Biden has mobilised, but above all about the issue of permitting procedures and planning security. The European Commission itself has recognised in its industrial strategy that we need to get faster. But the problem is: In the concrete implementation, the European Commission is doing exactly the opposite. We have an industrial emissions directive on the table that will complicate and prolong planning procedures – with an environmental management system for each individual plant, with the prevention of further use of old plants. This will drive industry further out of Europe. What really bothers me is: We had the debate here four weeks ago on the ban on combustion engines, and that was where Mr Timmermans sat, and he only laughed when I talked about the well-paid jobs we are losing in the automotive and supply industries. He laughed at the question of affordability, of individual mobility. My point is: If we want to take this seriously, we must also take these points seriously in the debate and not laugh at such arguments. Otherwise, we will blame our European project on the populists from the far right and from the far left. No one can want that.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The latest figures from the last Eurobarometer show once again the drama and the need for this debate. 92% of Europeans are afraid of social decline. 42% say they currently have great difficulty paying their current bills at all, and 45% say they have experienced a significant loss of living standards in the inflation crisis so far. This is, so to speak, in addition to the situation we had before, which we also had before COVID, where we have already focused on the issue of poverty reduction here and said that the situation is dramatic, but the situation has basically become even more dramatic due to COVID and the inflation crisis, and I am seeking to continue to cover the issue holistically. I believe that we cannot make it so easy and say that if we make a directive, we have taken a successful step towards combating poverty. It is simply important to me that, overall, we continue on the path we have taken together with a large majority in this House. We have really delivered as the EU; We have launched the European minimum wage. We are now on the topic of platform regulation. What we have put on the track with regard to ESF+ can be seen. This is also an important aspect for the fight against poverty and for the organisation of participation. After all, this must also be our driving force. We don't want to feed people, we want to organize participation for people. That's why I don't make it so easy and say: Directive simply yes or no, then all problems are solved, but I continue to promote a holistic approach.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I am already a bit irritated when it is pathetically said that today is a day to celebrate. I am already asking myself whether the 3,800 people who will lose their jobs at Ford in Cologne today are also ready to celebrate in view of what we want to decide here today. This is only the beginning with regard to European industry, because we also have to see at the same time what is still in the pipeline on the issue of EURO 7. In my view, the course is being set in a completely wrong direction. And I find the debate and the decision sometimes even quite arrogant, because we heard here from the ranks of the Socialists earlier that those who are committed to the affordability of mobility, those who are concerned about the preservation of jobs and who want to take care of this issue, will be here. frosted As a neoliberal or as a fool. So if it is neoliberal and stupid to stand up for jobs and affordability of individuality, of individual transport, yes, then I am neoliberal and then I am also stupid. And it has also been shown here today in this debate, as in many other places, that the Social Democrats have become a total failure not only in this House, but also in many other places as lawyers, as representatives of the interests of industrial workers, as well as with regard to people with small and medium incomes. We are not the benchmark with our incomes in terms of mobility and affordability, ladies and gentlemen, and therefore the last exit today for the Social Democrats to show that they still begin to understand the reality of life of the people in Europe.

. – Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I am very grateful for the debate. Firstly, because I have received a lot of support for my work and for the report. But I am also very grateful for the criticism expressed here today, because it also gives me the opportunity to comment again on some things here, which I have heard over and over again for weeks. But the frequency in which the whole thing is repeated does not make the criticism more justifiable. I just want to start – even if she hasn't been around for a long time – with what Frau Bilde said. So here is a speech on gender quotas and mass migration, and on the agenda is the amendment of the Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council. I really wonder if Mrs Bilde has read a single page of this report. She acts here as a representative of French workers and hasn't even read a page of this report. It is not a question of weakening national law, French law, but of strengthening European law, of elevating European works councils to a different level. This is also what I say to Guido Reil, who himself was also a works council member: Which passage in German company constitution law is weakened by the fact that we are strengthening European law here? This passage should be clearly named! And then I would say, Mrs. de la Pisa Carrión, what you have put down here for a performance, that is inconceivable! So you say companies need oxygen? I have to be honest: When I hear your speech, I rather feel the need to open the window a long way, then I urgently need oxygen. Because you are talking about fighting ideologies that disregard the human spirit – but co-determination, democracy in the workplace, social partnership, that is not an ideology, it is something that ensures social peace in the workplace and in society. This is not an ideology! I think it's totally crazy. And then it is explained here that the legal costs must not be borne by the company. But the costs of works council work must of course be borne by the company, by whom else, dear colleagues? We are not talking about a neighborhood dispute, about a divorce of a marriage relationship, but we are talking about legal problems in a company! A works council is an organ of a company, so who should bear these costs if not the company? I really have to say: Some of the arguments listed here in the debate are adventurous. But I think we still have time until 2 February 2023 to put these things right. What I'm taking with me today is: There is broad support and one or the other critic, we still pick him up. And with others who perform here with the attitude of a 19th century Spanish land nobility, it may just be hopeless anyway.

. – Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In recent years, discussions on a possible amendment to the Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council and, more generally, on the work of European Works Councils have often focused on the question of: How do we get to more bodies, to more European works councils? I think this debate is wrong because it is narrow. Therefore, this report, which is now being presented here and which unfortunately will not be voted on until 2 February 2023, focuses on another aspect: The question of the quality of co-determination is at the centre, not the question of quantity. This report provides answers to the question: What needs to be done to take co-determination at European level to another level? What needs to be done to enable European works councils to compete with management decisions that are becoming more and more international, more and more European? In my understanding, this does not require revolutions, but we have to make some adjustments, make some changes, and then we can make sure of that. A key issue is certainly the issue of sanctions. I believe it is important that when we talk about the rights of European works councils, we also talk about the means and possibilities we give them to enforce their rights. My proposal is to be absolutely ridiculous on the issue of sanctions – which, as things stand today, are absolutely ridiculous, because we are talking here about listed multibillion-euro companies and not about SMEs – to base the fine framework on what we have already established here as a sanctions framework in the General Data Protection Regulation, because I cannot and do not want to understand why a breach of data protection should be punished more harshly in Europe than a breach of elementary participation rights of European works councils. My proposal is also to introduce an instrument that has become well-established in Germany, that when rights are violated, when management is unwilling to release certain information, we introduce an instrument of injunction. This has become very well established in Germany over the last 70 years. I also believe that there is a need for some clarification, especially on the question: What is Confidential Information? Here we have the opportunity to draw on the legal definition in Europe – which is, for example, a trade secret – to provide more clarity. We also need more clarity on the question: What is a transnational measure? An important point for me is also the question of access to justice. We cannot point the finger here at Poland and Hungary and always shout ‘rule of law, rule of law!’, but on the other hand we look the other way when Europe works councils have been looking for legal hearing and access to justice here for more than two years. This is unacceptable, and these are things, and my expectations are very clear: That has to change. My expectations of the European Commission are also very clear. We've done our homework here. We are presenting a report that really gives answers that open up the opportunity to take co-determination in the EU to a different level. I therefore ask the Commission to work with a proposal to that effect this year. But I do not want to close without thanking the shadow rapporteurs for their trusting work, and the great majority of us in committee certainly speaks in favour of the good climate we had in the negotiations.