Speeches

Mr President, the report that the European Parliament is voting on today on housing issues is a real disappointment for those who had some hope that some prospect of a solution to housing problems could emerge from this. This report, making the diagnosis of the problem, insists on exactly the same policies that created the problem. A problem is identified with the functioning of the market which removes from the destination of housing houses that are diverted for tourism purposes, for the purpose of short-term accommodation. ‑se points out the problem at the origin of the market, but ‑se insists that it is the market that must provide the solution and ‑se refuses any type of public and state intervention to address these problems. We tabled 14 amendments proposing: boosting investment in public housing; expanding the public housing stock to ensure capacity for access to affordable housing; measures to combat speculation and protect tenants' rights; guarantees of measures enabling all households to have access to affordable housing. All these proposals have unfortunately been rejected and the solutions remain to be approved.

Madam President, Commissioner Kubilius, militarisation and the policy of confrontation and war are the greatest threats the European Union poses to the future of the peoples. And the reports we are discussing here today represent a faster and more intense ride on this precipice path towards confrontation and war, completely disregarding the consequences they have for the peoples. We are talking about the European defence market to refer to the million-dollar arms production business, to which we now want to give new facilities and benefits, in addition to giving them hundreds of billions of euros more from the European Union budget. Hundreds of billions of euros are missing in housing, investment in public services, support for productive sectors, responding to people's needs. There is talk of common military capabilities to ensure that the European powers remain in the economic and military command of the European Union. We speak ‑se of Ukraine to refer the client of all this business of death and destruction.

Mr President, Commissioner Serafin, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by welcoming Mr Ušakovs, the rapporteur for these guidelines for the European Union's budget for 2027, for the effort he has made to focus more on social and cohesion issues, at least at the level of the budgetary structure. That good will on the part of the rapporteur is to be welcomed. For our part, we have put forward proposals for the European Union's budget to respond to the needs that are being felt in people's lives, in the European Social Fund, in cohesion, in housing, in the fight against poverty. We rejected the money for militarization. We want the principle of economic, social and territorial cohesion to be a horizontal principle of the budget and for the impact of actions, measures and policies on cohesion to always be assessed. We regret that this is not the direction in which these budgetary guidelines are heading and that, in the end, the guidelines do not allow us to stop having a budget tied to the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework that is in force and its political priorities, particularly in disregarding the economic and social needs of the peoples and the option that it continues to make for the militarisation of the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner Séjourné, the proposals we are discussing today for the deepening of the Single Market are designed to encourage the accumulation of profits by multinationals and to ensure that the weakest and weakest economies of the European Union are controlled by the strongest economies. These measures are designed to benefit multinationals and to the detriment of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. They promote the financialization of economies and not the support of productive activities. They undermine workers' rights and use ‑nos as a bargaining chip for EU-wide profit accumulation. The 28.º legal regime, which is a offshore The federal system for multinationals is one example of this. But we also find this example in the measures that are foreseen regarding deregulation and the elimination of criteria and measures of a prudential nature, foreseen during the financial crisis to preserve the interests of consumers and depositors, and particularly in the financial sector, and that today are aimed at being eliminated to favor...

Mrs Isilda Gomes, you have done an exact part of the diagnosis of the housing problem here, all over the European Union, including Portugal. And my question to you is whether the approach that emerges from this report is indeed the right one. Because the housing issue in this report is seen more as an economic issue, with concerns about the construction sector and financial investment, and not as the social problem that housing is. And, in particular, the crucial role that must be played by increasing the supply of public housing, not only social housing for those in poverty or social exclusion, but also social housing for other groups: people who have jobs, families who have organized life, but who lack housing.

Mr President, Commissioner McGrath, in a situation of insolvency the priority must be to maintain productive activity, to preserve jobs and workers' rights. To frame insolvency issues, as a matter of priority, in the deepening of capital markets seems to us to be wrong, especially when we envisage mechanisms such as the acquisition of insolvent companies that can generate accounting operations to reduce operational results, reduce contribution obligations, in particular taxes. We agree, of course, with measures that seek to preserve the interests of creditors, particularly in relation to property acts that are detrimental to their rights. However, this lacks specific consideration measures – particularly the situation of transnational corporations – specific consideration measures for the protection of workers’ rights, in particular in relation to the priority of their claims, in particular vis-à-vis banks or other economic groups. This lacks measures to protect national interests in the insolvency of multinational companies, in particular in relation to the payment of taxes and social security contributions. It seems to us that the balance is clearly negative in this amendment tabled here.

Mr President, Commissioner McGrath, inequalities between women and men are one of the most obvious demonstrations of the inequalities that characterise the economic system in which we live. This report highlights the significant inequalities that persist, the most precarious and discontinuous careers, lower wages and pensions. But the problem is not in the diagnosis, it is in the policies that cause the problems and the lack of solutions. Neoliberal policies exacerbate inequalities between women and men. We need alternative policies that eliminate these inequalities and not just manage them. We need fairer wealth distribution policies that close the gender pay gap. We need general policies for valuing work and workers that are even more robust in ensuring equality between women and men, in employment, wages and working conditions. We need general policies that strengthen public social security and invest in quality and universal public services that are even more effective in tackling inequalities and discrimination against women. The contribution we make to these policies will be the best contribution we can make to women's struggle for equality.

Mr Paulo Do Nascimento Cabral, the question I would like to ask you is: how do you reconcile the discourse on equality between women and men with the policy being pursued by the Portuguese Government that you support, particularly with the proposal for a labour package? How is it possible to talk about equality between women and men, particularly at work, if at the moment there is an amendment to the labour laws in Portugal that attacks the rights of paternity and motherhood, transforming parental responsibilities into a burden for women. Or, for example, when the Minister of Labour wants to cut the breastfeeding leave of children up to the age of two, justifying this with abuse. Such compatibility is not possible.

Madam President, Mrs Latinopoulou, if I have understood correctly, you believe that we are discussing trivial issues here today. And my question to you is whether you believe that a woman, when looking for a job, should be asked whether or not she intends to have children in order to know whether she has access to that job, whether it is a trivial matter for her. If the circumstance of there being a man earning 100€, and for every 100€ of salary he earns, a woman earns only 88€, if for herself this is a trivial matter. Discrimination against women with the same level of education, with the same ability to work, not only in terms of pay, but also in terms of their working conditions and the working hours to which they are subject, if the honourable Member takes the view that it is a trivial matter. Because if the honourable Member says that this is a trivial matter, it shows that, in fact, the far right has a conception of the social role of women that is not compatible with the development that humanity has today.

Madam President, Commissioner Zaharieva, scientific and technological progress cannot be shared in the logic of competitiveness policy according to the profit-accumulation objectives of large economic and financial groups. Scientific and technological progress must be seen as an instrument for responding to economic and social needs, for solving problems that affect the lives of peoples. It must be seen as an absolutely fundamental area for national progress and development and for combating the regional and national asymmetries that exist within the European Union. Because, of course, not all countries start from the same level of scientific and technological development. That is why we need a central role for States in creating the conditions for the development of scientific and technological progress and for social and collective ownership of its results. That is why we need policies for the professional and social enhancement of researchers and research staff dedicated to scientific activity, because these are absolutely fundamental conditions for science and technology to develop freely and not in accordance with objectives of militarism and war.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 163.º on the agenda. In this plenary session, workers' rights should play a central role in the debates we have here. In several countries of the European Union, workers' rights are under attack. with labour packages amending labour laws to facilitate dismissals; to increase precariousness; to tackle collective bargaining and maternity and paternity rights; to deregulate working hours and increase working hours; to make dismissals more precarious and, of course, to reduce wages and working conditions. Portugal is one of the countries where this offensive is underway and Portuguese workers have already given a firm response rejecting this path. But it's not the only country where this threat is on the table. That is why we proposed a debate with the title: "Attacks on labour rights within the European Union and the need to strengthen workers' rights and improve their living conditions as a factor in economic and social development". We hope that this debate will be possible in the next part-session.

Madam President, first of all, I want to say that we voted in favour of this motion of censure, because we believe that the European Commission deserves censure - and Mercosur is one of the reasons for that censure, because the European Commission disregards the national parliaments, refusing to listen to their opinion and refusing to take account of that opinion that must be given, and, moreover, harming farmers and national production. Secondly, we want to stress that we have been on the side of farmers and voted in favour of this motion of censure - because it is not because of the absence of the PCP vote that the European Commission is not sidelined and, in particular, that this contribution is not made so that the path towards Mercosur can be another one. But here too, thirdly - and that is what I wanted to make explicit - we want to emphasise the far-right parties that put forward this motion of censure. Because those who today in this European Parliament want to give an image that they are on the side of farmers are those who have betrayed farmers in the national governments they influence by approving the agreement with Mercosur from the governments, as happened with the flagrant case of the Italian Government. So, let there be no illusions, the far-right is not on the side of the farmers, it is just setting up a political staging to capture their support, despite betraying their interests at the level of national governments.