Speeches

The debate is closed. The session was interrupted for a few minutes. It will resume at 4 p.m. with the announcement of the results of today's second voting session. (The meeting adjourned at 15.48)

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the Commission statement on congestion at international ports and increased transport costs to the detriment of the EU (2021/2980(RSP)). I would like to draw Members' attention to the fact that all debates at this part-session do not involve spontaneous interventions and do not accept blue cards. In addition, as in previous meetings, connections from Parliament’s liaison offices in the Member States are foreseen. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that speeches in the hall are still held at the central lectern. I would therefore ask you to keep an eye on the list of speakers and go to the lectern when your speech is due.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Dalli! I rarely comment on agenda items. But since this point of the agenda concerns parliamentarianism, I would like to say, first of all: I would like to disagree with the honourable Member a little. So: In this Parliament, more questions are asked than in almost any other Parliament. That's right, you're right. But you have stated, in the German translation at least, – and the language is already a bit treacherous – that the most important questions of MEPs are answered. Every question put by the honourable Member is important, as long as it is not clearly abusive, which is certainly the case. If you say that there are mechanisms and that the time limit we have is a target determination: Much is different for us than it is for governments. You pointed out that the Commission is a collegial body. But then we expect, firstly, that these mechanisms are well oiled and well thought out. And secondly, if there is still a problem after that, then I could well imagine the Commission saying: Let us write an improved and more respectful approach, as the honourable Member has meant, into an interinstitutional agreement. If it then works well and substantial answers come, then, with a justified assessment of all circumstances, one certainly also agrees with eight weeks, if then exactly what is agreed is complied with. I would very much like to see the Commission make further efforts to achieve further improvements. I think I am speaking on behalf of the whole House. The debate is closed.

The next item on the agenda is the debate on the major question for written answer by Christine Anderson and Markus Buchheit, on behalf of the ID Group, to the Commission on the assessment of the quality of the Commission's replies to questions for written answer by the Commission itself (G-001002/2020). I would like to draw Members' attention to the fact that all debates at this part-session do not involve spontaneous interventions and do not accept blue cards. In addition, as in previous meetings, it is possible to connect Parliament’s liaison offices in the Member States. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that speeches in the hall are still held at the central lectern. I would therefore ask you to keep an eye on the list of speakers and go to the lectern when your speech is due.

I would first like to say at the beginning of the agenda that yesterday, even while I was in session yesterday morning, we had a small technical problem with the connection of the external offices. We then decided that we preferred other colleagues. This back and forth also brings about changes in the list of speakers. The associated speaking times were then not transmitted, and this has led to inconvenience for some colleagues. I would ask for your indulgence, in particular Mrs Bentele, who, as usual, had prepared herself for her speaking time. I interrupted her very unexpectedly in her speaking time and thus got her out of concept. For this, I ask all those involved for indulgence. We continue to work on improving our operations, especially when there are technical problems that are always possible.

I do not know if everything has been translated into all languages, but I do know that the use of force and faecal expressions usually does not significantly improve the content of a speech.

Colleague Tertsch, this is not Speakers’ Corner. You had an earlier slot to speak, you were on the screens, and it is my normal practice not to take people who were not in place when it was their turn, so I do make an exception, but first Ms Bentele.

The next item on the agenda is the Council and Commission statements on the outcome of COP26 in Glasgow (2021/2975(RSP)). I would like to draw Members' attention to the fact that all debates at this part-session do not involve spontaneous interventions and do not accept blue cards. In addition, as in previous meetings, connections from Parliament’s liaison offices in the Member States are foreseen. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that speeches in the hall are still held at the central lectern. I would therefore ask you to keep an eye on the list of speakers and go to the lectern when your speech is due. The debate started on behalf of the Council of Minsters for Foreign Affairs, Mr Logar.

On the decisions taken by several committees to open interinstitutional negotiations under Rule 71(1) of the Rules of Procedure, announced at the opening of the meeting on Monday 22 November 2021: I have received a request for a vote under Rule 71(2) from the EPP Group and other Members reaching at least the medium threshold on the EMPL Committee decision to open negotiations on the proposal for a Directive on adequate minimum wages in the European Union. The vote will take place tomorrow in the first voting session from 9.30 a.m. to 10.45 a.m. As regards the other decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations, I have not received any requests for a vote in Parliament from Members or one or more political groups reaching at least the medium threshold. The Committee may therefore start negotiations on the basis of this report. ***** Before we come to the debates and ahead of today's voting session, which will open at 12.30 p.m., I would like to give the floor to Mr Pierre Larrouturou, who has requested to speak on his reports on draft amending budgets No 5/2021 and No 6/2021. I give the floor to Mr Larrouturou for four minutes.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We have actually experienced a very astonishing debate: Assent in principle, but one key issue – which Mr Goerens has just addressed – has been alluded to by all the speakers in the debate, namely abuses, g, which is only possible through the current secondment-based financing of political parties. And it is quite astonishing that Mr Lacapelle, who then left the Chamber and does not listen to what is being debated here – that he has mentioned a Member who upholds the importance of democracy, but that it is precisely the Member who, if we were to draw up a ranking of whom Parliament has had to demand the most money back for abuse, then this Member whom he has mentioned, this former Member, would be at the top. And that's why I'm promoting a vote-based approach in the future. This is the only major dissent we have. It may not be possible in this paper. However, I would also like to announce for my group that the counter-trade, that we are giving the parties more leash, the counter-trade, that we have less control over the silent-based approach, that we are reducing our own resources from 10 to 5 percent – that this is already a package for us and that I cannot yet guarantee in any relevant legislation that the EPP Group will also take part in the other part of the consideration if one part of the consideration is omitted.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Goerens, ladies and gentlemen! I must return my thanks to Mr Goerens, and with this intervention I do not want to give the impression in any way that we have a great deal of dissent. I think we pulled on the same string, also at the same end and in the same direction. But I don't want to hide the fact that I would have liked to go a little further, and I want to try to explain that. I do not want to focus on the 98% of the report, where we agreed not only between the rapporteurs but also across most parties. I want to deal with what is perhaps still controversial now and what will subsequently be decided in dispute. On the one hand, there is the question of the logo, and on the other hand, there is the question of transnational lists, both important issues. But we believe that this does not belong in the financing debate, but in the electoral law debate. And I believe that the house in general always tends to leave the scent marks everywhere, even where they may not belong. Secondly: We want to strengthen the formation of political party families in Europe – as an important part of visibility, as an important part of a European public and thus also as an important part of what we have to succeed – that citizens also see an election campaign taking place and there are differences between the parties – and we want to put less fetters on the parties. I would, however, like to have something more, that we take action against abuses that we have had in the existing legislation, and that we also open up more opportunities for parties that are newly founded, or that we also help the parties that have votes, perhaps even considerable numbers of votes, but no mandates. We have abuses. We have seen in the past that MEPs have joined forces on a mandate-based basis, founded parties and acted according to the motto ‘Get ready and run!’. And then, when Parliament said ‘We want money back’, there was no one left to hold accountable. I believe the right approach is to rely on votes and that the votes earned in party families are also the yardstick for support. And when a party changes, a party family, then the votes go along with it. But we should no longer do this on a mandate-based basis, because there is too much room for abuse. I also believe that we should honor those who come to a European party family in the European elections. And if you think in a country where you have six or seven MPs, you need over 10% of the vote to get a mandate at all. I believe that we should also honour the voices from those countries which have not led to a mandate, and the closed jobWe are often accused of not supporting them. Unfortunately, the groups, which are otherwise full-bodied against the closed job Going to the field, not agreeing here. And I hope that this debate will also explain why this opening of the supposed closed job, which is otherwise always complained about, why one should apply the in this point of departure legislation, which should then of course apply for 2024, why one does not support them.

The next meeting will take place tomorrow, Thursday 11 November 2021, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The agenda has been published and is available on the European Parliament's website.

The next item on the agenda is the brief presentation of the report by Marion Walsmann, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on an intellectual property action plan to boost the EU’s recovery and resilience (2021/2007(INI)) (A9-0284/2021). I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you can use your voting device to request spontaneous interventions and blue cards after you have inserted your voting card into the device. You should always bring your voting card. Instructions are available in the Chamber. If you would like to register for a spontaneous intervention, you can do so now without waiting for the end of the debate. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that speeches in the hall are still held at the central lectern. This does not apply to spontaneous interventions, blue cards and interventions on the Rules of Procedure. I would therefore ask you to keep an eye on the list of speakers and go to the lectern when your speech is due.

The minutes of the meetings from 18 to 21 October will be submitted to Parliament for approval at the beginning of the next meeting. If there are no objections, I will forward the resolutions adopted at these meetings to the persons and bodies referred to in these resolutions.

Thank you very much, Commissioner McGuinness. I believe that both Mr Wallace and you have just given a fine example of the fact that, despite all the controversy about a single market for philanthropy, philanthropy is not always about money, but rather your thanks to the people you have treated, but also Mrs McGuinness's thanks are a very good example of where philanthropy actually starts, and we certainly want more of it. The debate is closed. The session is interrupted. It will resume at 4.30 p.m. with the announcement of the results of today's second voting session. (The meeting adjourned at 15.47)

We will continue with the debates. The next item on the agenda is the Commission statement on the proposal to create a "internal market for philanthropy" (2021/2937(RSP)).