Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, my group has always had the position that the principle of better regulation should not prevent Member States from maintaining or taking more ambitious measures, and adopting higher social, environmental and consumer protection standards in cases where only minimum standards are set out in Union law. Now it seems that the Commission’s intervention in the transposition of directives at national level risks becoming undue interference in the freedom of Member States to go beyond established minimum standards. What is needed now is more transparency and communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, as deciding whether additional elements ultimately constrain Member States to lower standards and, ultimately, shuts down all efforts to impose at national level higher safeguards for tax transparency of companies. This is very important because this Directive is a first step forward in Europe. For the first time, we will have an idea of how much multinationals earn and pay in taxes in the countries where they operate, and we will know if they are using tax-shifting practices. I would be happy if the Commissioner could also clarify a little bit the role of the OECD, because we know that the OECD has put pressure on Australia, on legislation that they wanted to put in place, by putting restrictions on the transposition of that law.

Mr President, there’s a grey area in our institutions which doesn’t get much attention, and that is the systematic refusal on access to administrative documents. And I’m talking about our own institution, the European Parliament. I believe that far too often the administration refuses access to documents using the grounds on protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, or protection of the decision-making process. I think it is impossible for the citizens to accept that from time again, the institution uses these arguments and says that if the documents would be released, then confidentiality would not be respected. I believe this goes very much against our trend on more accountability and transparency. And I very much request that when the taskforce is now looking into the internal rules of the European Parliament – or rather the lack of them – one thing that would be revised are the rules governing public access to EP documents, the Bureau decision on 28 November 2001, Article 15(2).

The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on India and the situation in Manipur (2023/2781(RSP))*. ____________ * See Minutes

The next item is the debate on the five motions for resolutions on the deprivation of political rights in Venezuela (2023/2780(RSP))*. __________ * See Minutes

Colleague, excuse me, but that’s enough now. This was a blue card from Mr Glucksmann to colleague Rougé, and for the time being we will not continue this exchange. It can be dealt with afterwards. We will continue with the debate.

Colleague, excuse me but I think you have made a very unreasonable claim about the chairman of the committee for the report that we are dealing with, so I would like to give him the possibility to intervene, and then this exchange is finished.

Madam President, colleagues, I want to thank the two rapporteurs for creating a very good platform to continue and deepen the debates that we have had since Qatargate came to our awareness. I believe that with this broader mandate that the committee got, we have been able to make important proposals both on domestic and foreign influence. What I would like to emphasise is that an elected Member is responsible to the people who voted for him or her. And there is a difference. An interest representative, a lobbyist, is responsible to the organisation who pays for him or her. There is a fundamental difference. That is why we need a clear rule that Members should not be allowed to have a side job whose purpose is to influence the EU policy and decision-making. This could be added to the very good report tomorrow through an amendment. Also, I agree very much with the S&D Group that we need to broaden and lengthen the period of transitional allowance up to 24 months in case the Member gets transitional allowance. It is also very important that we take into account the precarious situation of NGOs while we call for transparency and accountability of all stakeholders, because we know that those who work under the authoritarian regimes are in danger if there will be excessive demands on transparency. Indeed, we can do more, and this report is an important step towards making the European Parliament safer and stronger against interference, both foreign and domestic.

The next item is the brief presentation of the report by Kira Marie Peter-Hansen: Banking Union – annual report 2022 [2022/2061(INI)] (A9-0177/2023). I give the floor to the rapporteur for four minutes.

The next item is the brief presentation of the Pisapia report: Implementation of passerelle clauses in the EU Treaties [2022/2142(INI)] (A9-0208/2023). I give the floor to the rapporteur for four minutes.

The next item is the Commission statement on protecting workers from extreme heat and other extreme weather events caused by the climate crisis (2023/2788(RSP)). Members are informed that there is only one round of interventions by the political groups and therefore no catch-the-eye will be given and no blue card questions will be accepted.

The next item is the report by João Pimenta Lopes, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the area covered by the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) (COM(2022)0563 - C9-0370/2022 - 2022/0348(COD)) (A9-0192/2023).

The next item is the report by Niels Fuglsang, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on lessons learned from the Pandora Papers and other revelations (2022/2080(INI)) (A9-0095/2023).

The next item is the report by Achille Variat, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020 (COM(2020)0798 - C9-0400/2020 - 2020/0353(COD)) (A9-0031/2022).

Mr President, last week, President Zelenskyy convened a remote meeting with some 50 global environmental leaders and personalities in the aftermath of the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam. He asked all of us present to alert opinions internationally towards this horrific crime, which is a war crime. The actions of the Russian aggressor may very well fall under the crime of ecocide. And, colleagues, you know that this House has called for ecocide to be enshrined in EU law, paving the way for better recognition and condemnation of ecocide under international law. And this is absolutely necessary. So we must do all we can to ensure accountability for this horrific crime and other destruction of the environment caused by the aggression.

Dear President, Commissioner, colleagues, since the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights over ten years ago, many businesses have worked hard to ensure that their activities are not linked to human rights violations or environmental destruction. European consumers and investors expect nothing less. Nevertheless, too many companies still act as free riders and gain unfair competitive advantage from irresponsible business activity. The agreement that has now been reached in the Legal Affairs Committee offers to level the playing field. It is a balanced compromise, well aligned with widely—accepted international standards. A key feature is access to justice. Without access to justice, the directive would end up as a paper tiger. Victims of human rights abuses linked to corporate activities must have the right to seek justice and to hold companies accountable for dodging their obligations. Now, the world is keenly watching what we decide here tomorrow. Yet another ‘Brussels moment’ could be at hand. As one of the world’s largest markets, the EU can be a force for good in clearly defining the responsibilities of companies to respect human rights and protect the environment. It should be noted that many developing countries producing goods destined for the EU market will need support in adapting to this legislation. Luckily, the EU has several avenues available, ranging from development cooperation to partnerships and integrating responsible business conduct into different instruments and dialogues. This legislation is not about soothing the conscience of European consumers. It is about promoting the core values of our union and responding effectively to global environmental and human rights challenges. We must now seize this opportunity to leverage the power of business to strengthen respect for human rights and to fight environmental destruction throughout the world.