What Lara spoke about.

Madam President, thank you to the Commission and to the ECA for being here. I’ve got one minute and a half; there’s too much to talk about, but we do absolutely need to talk about Parliament’s own voluntary pension scheme. Closed now, but financed from allowances that were meant for office supplies and reportedly investing in the arms, tobacco, mining and fossil fuel industries. ‘What’s not to like?’, you could say. Why do we need to talk about that right now? Well, because it’s situation is dramatic financially. We’re talking about a EUR 310 million gap. So, for the translators, yes, I said 310 million. And because the leadership of this Parliament is set to take a decision on the scheme’s future soon, the Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee has repeatedly called on Parliament's bureau to find a feasible, legal and fair solution to the problem that we have here. Now, the study on this that I commissioned concluded that while Parliament can’t completely get rid of the fund from one day to the next, what it can do is take steps that prioritise taxpayers over scheme members. And that’s what the Bureau needs to do now: stand up to the scheme members, some of them extremely active and vocal behind the scenes. Some of them, ironically, called Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen. Now, at the end of the day, we’re talking here about a supplementary extra pension scheme for all of its beneficiaries. Let’s be honest, it’s 2023, and most people in Europe don’t even dare to dream of a steady income when they retire, let alone at the levels that this fund currently guarantees.

Mr President, today’s context is frustrating, embarrassing even. But I’m glad that we’re finally working on a number of reforms to do with transparency and accountability in this House. Self-regulation on ethics in the Parliament has failed, and it’s time for tighter controls on lobbyists, stricter rules against influence of dubious regimes and more financial transparency. All of this is long overdue and I hope we can move on all of this quickly. But without the enforcement of new rules we will be back at square one. And so I find it very difficult to take our colleagues from the EPP and ECR seriously when they say we need to draw lessons from Qatar- or Moroccogate. Why? Because the very solution to our problem of self-policing and enforcement is being obstructed under the guise of the freedom of mandate and the rule of law. And under that guise, they voted against proposals on this independent ethics body. To be clear, that’s a body that would enforce ethical rules, ensure more consistency between the European institutions, investigate things like side jobs and side incomes, check conflicts of interests, including of Commissioners, verify financial declarations, and be able to act against revolving doors. Apart from a handful of courageous members in the EPP, the EPP said no to those kinds of powers. And that’s a problem. And it's a problem, too, because of the promises of our President of the European Commission, who proposed that there would be an ethics body. And we’re still waiting on that proposals four years into the mandate. And that’s important because problems go beyond the European Parliament. We all know former Commissioner Neelie Kroes actively lobbied for Uber despite a cooling—off period that prohibited that. Former Commissioner Oettinger has 14, was it 15, side jobs as a lobbyist in a clear example of revolving doors. And the Council continues to allow sponsorships by companies of their presidencies despite running the risk of conflicts of interest. What’s at stake here is trust in democracy and in institutions, in public institutions. We have to make sure that political processes are not captured by private interests. I really hope we can expect the Commission proposal soon now, because the time for action is now.

Madam President, Qatar and Morocco’s bribery have tarnished the reputation of the European Parliament. Our credibility on matters of transparency, integrity and independence is being questioned, and rightly so. But this very dark thundercloud has one silver lining, and that is that this is the time for making real strides towards an open and trust-worthy European Parliament. We need to put our money where our mouth is, fewer grey zones, more checks and balances. Concretely, I’m talking about more checks on those representing third countries such as Qatar and Morocco. But this is broader. We need stricter rules on side jobs and side incomes of Members of the European Parliament. We need more accountability on the general expenditure allowance. And fourthly, Commissioner, it’s high time for the Commission’s proposal on an independent ethics body that makes sure that these rules are enforced. Let today’s scandal be a final call for introspection, and let’s use this time not only for lists and for promises, but now for new rules that concretely bring true transparency and accountability.

Mr President, I wanted to talk about corporate responsibility in response to the unscrupulous statements of the Boskalis CEO. Peter Berdowski argues that responsible business conduct will cost Dutch companies the head. That irresponsible entrepreneurship costs employees and nature, he says nothing about that and that bothers me. The argument that the Netherlands is leading the way as a pastor and that our companies will be saddled with an uneven playing field is a dredging argument. Because France and Germany already preceded the Netherlands with legislation to make corporate responsibility mandatory by law. And Luxembourg, Ireland, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Italy: Steps are also being taken in all these countries. That is why I have been advocating for years for a European law on corporate responsibility that will apply to 27 European countries and to companies from outside Europe who want to do business here. That train has left long and wide and before the end of the year that law is a fact. Mr. Berdowski is in a rearguard fight. It would adorn Boskalis if it took a constructive stand in this discussion and became the international company of which the Netherlands can be proud.

Madam President, so colleagues, after ten years of obstruction, that’s a wrap! It has taken three Commissioners, five Parliament rapporteurs and 21 Council Presidencies to get this done. And we persisted in spite of all the obstruction. Since the adoption of our Parliament position back in 2013, I have lost count of how many resolutions were adopted on this very topic and how many times this European Parliament called to Member States to come back to the negotiating table. We faced every kind of obstacle from Member States, from those who oppose legislating on gender equality out of principle, to those who believe that they’ve done enough already or that time would simply fix things. Companies in Member States must now get to balanced boardrooms, and if they fail we will be able to hold them to their commitments. I am very proud of what we have in front of us today, and I want to very warmly thank my colleague Evelyn Regner. I want to thank Commissioner Dalli present here today. Commissioner Viviane Reding, who worked on this previously, Ursula von der Leyen, who personally committed herself to this fight, and all those others who contributed to our success today.

Yes, my question was very similar. I don’t understand at all what I just heard. I think you spoke about education. I think you spoke about how we need better schooling. And the facts – we laid them on the table for you earlier. We have 60% of female graduates in our European universities. And then at the end of the day, we have 8% of female CEOs. That shows very clearly that something is going terribly wrong along the way. So I don’t understand at all what you were saying about how we need better education or better schooling, because the schooling is absolutely not the problem. The schooling is a big success story. It’s what happens afterwards that’s a problem and that’s what we are trying to fix today. So please, can you clarify, because that was very, very confusing?

You just said: We try to control the world here with laws and regulations, and you were embarrassed about that. You also said: We are trying to make the ideal world here. I am indeed trying and you mentioned two of my projects and sustainability legislation. My question to you is: Why did you become a Member of Parliament? If that's not to create that ideal world, then why is it?

Mr President, colleagues, around 60% of graduates from our universities in Europe are women. And yet, out of every 100 CEOs of listed companies in Europe, only eight are women. In my own country, the Netherlands, often upheld as a progressive bastion, there are more CEOs called Peter than there are women CEOs. And the reason for their underrepresentation in the boardroom is not a lack of merit or talent; it’s structural problems that disadvantage women in their careers, particularly when they want to take on leadership roles. Spoiler alert: the law we have before us today won’t solve all of that. For that, we need quality and affordable childcare. We need better paternity leave. We need part-time work to become accepted for men. And let us not forget that most women work not at the top, but in jobs that are hugely undervalued and underpaid. But what we are doing today will be a step in the right direction. The law we are signing tomorrow aims at getting at least 40% of board positions of listed companies filled by women through better recruitment procedures with clearer criteria, more transparency and broader candidate pools. Member States have until 2026 to achieve gender-balanced boards with measures put in place to make sure that they do. And I think we all stand to win. Companies stand to benefit from looking more like the consumers they serve. It’s unsurprising that research has shown that companies with more diverse teams are more creative, more innovative and have better problem-solving abilities. Diverse leadership, in turn, can lead to more productivity and more successful business operations. And yet, at the moment, only 3 in 10 board members in large EU corporations are women. Zooming in on Hungary, Estonia and Cyprus, that is 1 in 10. Those boardrooms are not a good reflection of society, especially when we think of the fact that these companies are heavy hitters that take decisions that can impact all of us. As you may know, a lot of my work in this House is about how we make sure that companies don’t think only about their bottom line, but also about their place in society. In 2022, we expect more from companies, and that goes from gender equality to respect for human rights, climate change and the environment. That’s why I sincerely believe that we all stand to benefit from this: employees, consumers, citizens and, yes, companies themselves. If a Member State recently introduced legislation, they still have to meet the targets we’re talking about today. Otherwise, they are subject to this law. And that means that either way, all 27 Member States will see more women in their boardrooms in the near future. That’s a big deal for Europe, and certainly for the 18 countries in our EU without effective legislation. Now, of course there are those who will say quotas won’t work and that this will lead to appointments based on gender rather than merit. I think it’s about time that we left that argument where it belongs – in the previous century. We’ve tried asking nicely. We’ve tried waiting for the old boys’ networks to die out and to no avail. Quotas are a blunt instrument, yes. But where there’s a lack of will, you need a law. This law is a significant achievement and, frankly, a victory for all of those who have campaigned for it since 2012. And to them, I wish to pay tribute. Most of all, though, I think today is a victory for girls, who, as we very well know, cannot be who they cannot see.

Madam President, we heard Mr Infantino say the other day, indeed, that he feels many things, including being disabled, gay, a woman and a migrant worker. What I felt mainly there, and I think many colleagues here with me, was embarrassment. Not only at his very ill-advised speech. Because no matter how much progress was made in Qatar – and progress was made – it’s not okay, and I’m going to state the obvious here, for people to die on building sites in their thousands, it’s not okay for people to be jailed for asking for their wages and it’s certainly not okay for the gay people that Mr Infantino says he feels for to have to live in fear that the death penalty will one day be enforced. Now, I don’t think we are teaching anyone any moral lessons by being clear about those things. And contrary to what Mr Infantino thinks, it’s not quite incredible that if as a country you invite the world in to promote yourself, that you also get scrutinised by the world. Now what we need for the future are serious, credible human rights commitments from host countries and FIFA, and a serious duty of care for companies, including compensation. We might have a side dish of progress here today, but the main course of this World Cup is human tragedy and embarrassment.

Madam President, I see that we have visitors here, and I think it’s Parliament’s sad honour to welcome you to this end of the year budget showdown. It’s brought to you against the backdrop of widespread reports that the Commission will soon be approving Hungary’s recovery plan. So, for our visitors, on the one hand, you’ve got the European Parliament, on the other you have Hungary. And, frustratingly for us, the outcome of whether Hungary is to receive billions in European funds will be determined by EU Member States and the European Commission and not by us. Which is why, once again, we urge them to take a long—term view here that is respectful of those Hungarians who are hoping for a return to democracy and respectful to the foundations of our Union. Now, the British have this great phrase and it’s ‘putting lipstick on a pig’ and, in this case, the pig is a captured, illiberal state that is deeply dependent on and intertwined with corruption and the lipstick is the proposed Hungarian Integrity Authority. Now, let us be clear that no hastily put together anti—corruption body can be effective without an independent judiciary, and especially not if credible civil society organisations are being sidelined. Being blackmailed into submission by Hungary would not be embarrassing only but it would be short—termist. And I urge the European Member States and the Commission to take this very seriously because whether or not we unlock billions in taxpayer money for Hungary, that’s not so much a test case for Hungary, that’s a test case for the European Union itself and how seriously we take the rule of law.

Madam President, this Parliament has an ambitious agenda for sustainability in the broadest sense of the word, from curbing emissions under the Green Deal to improving minimum wages, ensuring responsible investing or achieving gender equality on company boards. But those ambitions around sustainability, they cannot be achieved without companies playing their part. And for that, we need quality information and transparency, because if we ask companies to be greener, we need to be able to distinguish those that are truly green from those that are greenwashing. And if we ask investors to finance responsible companies rather than cowboy companies, then investors need a way of properly assessing and comparing what companies do. I am pleased that with our vote tomorrow on new and better reporting requirements, we can make a very practical and tangible contribution to sustainability. What we are doing here is urgent. It is timely, because our climate problem won’t wait, and I want to warmly thank Pascal Durand for the result we have been able to achieve under his energetic leadership.

Mr President, in the next three years, a large amount of money will be made available to the Member States through the European Recovery Fund. That is good, because in this way Europe can help, for example, to structurally address people's concerns about energy costs in the future. But for this it is necessary that the allocation and control of the recovery money is done carefully. Especially if – contrary to the wishes of the European Parliament – restoration funds were to be paid to those who violate the rule of law in Hungary and Poland. It is therefore important that the concerns of the European Court of Auditors about this audit are taken seriously. This means: clear criteria when releasing recovery funds, more transparency on who the final recipients of that money are and clear reporting on those recipients in an accessible European database. That kind of control over the use of European money is essential for everyone's trust in our European Union.

Mr President, I am concerned about the World Cup in Qatar. Then I'm not talking about whether or not we should boycott that World Cup. Then I am talking about how we can actually compensate the exploited migrant workers in Qatar. I get very angry when I hear people talking about that question, because at the moment I mainly see that everyone is pointing at each other. National federations point to FIFA, FIFA points to Qatar, and then Qatar says: ‘Oh, but so much has already improved!’, and ultimately nothing happens for the victims and their families. I feel that we are almost busier with the question of guilt at the moment than with the victims themselves. It is actually not that complicated, because European companies that have turned a blind eye in Qatar have to pull the wallet. What about European governments? They must put pressure on Qatar, including the Dutch government. They shouldn't do that from the skybox at a football game. European football federations, they have to put pressure on FIFA. And not so much. What about national unions? They should not contribute out of guilt, but out of respect for the victims themselves. I am very afraid that the caravan has passed by and that the people who literally built a party for us are still empty-handed!

Madam President, given that I only have one minute on the broad topic of fraud in the EU, I will move straight to the item highest on our agenda. That is, of course, the topic of access of Hungary and Poland to European funds. Let’s be clear, money, of course, is extremely important to authoritarian regimes because without it there is less to give away to friends, to supporters and to influence elections. When, in a country, institutions are no longer independent and basic rule of law principles are violated in broad daylight, what we can expect is that this will affect all EU—funded programmes in one way or another. That leads me to the following points. One: we must under no condition approve Hungary’s recovery plan. Two: the full power of the conditionality mechanism must be applied, meaning that, as per the report now on your desk, only a freeze of 100% of EU funding will sufficiently protect the EU’s financial interests. Third, on Poland: the Commission must honour the rule of law itself – i.e. the ruling of our Court of Justice on the immediate reinstatement of the suspended judges. Lastly, the approval of Poland’s recovery plan was a mistake. I urge you, Commissioner, to join the resistance within the Commission. At the next round, when Poland asks for the first tranche, say ‘no’!

Madam President, I wanted to thank Daniel Freund for his excellent work on the parliamentary discharge. But President, I hope that you will allow me to colour outside the lines a little bit because I’m not going to get another chance to say this today, and this is the European Parliament. Because I too, was furious last night because of the goings-on on abortion in the US and the leaked Supreme Court opinion. And waking up this morning and reading about Oklahoma surely didn’t make things any better. And so I wanted to use my one minute here to give a voice to all the European women and men who are as furious as me today and send a message of support to all those in the US who will be taking to the streets saying ‘no to going back in time’. And of course we are facing similar problems within the European Union because I suppose that ultra-conservative forces all over are hell-bent on putting women’s rights at the absolute bottom of the list. But I wanted to go on record here that Members of the European Parliament are furious too, and that they recognise that this is not only an American fight, but that this is a fight in a Europe that stands in solidarity with American women.

Mr President, it is a good, but also a bleak day for the rule of law in the European Union. Good, because the European Court has confirmed that countries that violate the principles of the rule of law can be cut back on European subsidies and that the legislation we have adopted in this area does not need to be deleted. Somber, because we could have intervened in different places in Europe for thirteen months now, but did not do so. Meanwhile, Viktor Orbán laughs in his face, because this lawsuit has delivered exactly what Hungary and Poland hoped: delay, delay and so on business as usual with regard to European subsidies. For 13 months, European money could flow undisturbed to Mr. Orbán's re-election campaign and the Polish government could continue its witch hunt for judges without financial consequences. Parliament has repeatedly made it clear that it expects action from the Commission in the very short term, and that it expects both the Commission and the Council to make compliance with our common rules and respect for our institutions a top priority. We owe this to our taxpayers and to all the disappointed Poles and Hungarians who have so far waited in vain for our support.

Mr President, I do not think it is an evil will that the European Parliament should not have a leave regime. I think it has simply not occurred to our European forefathers that a representative of the people might also be a young woman or young man who would like to be with a newborn child. I myself travelled to Strasbourg this time with my three-and-a-half-month-old son, and I did so because I think it is important that the people who voted for me should also be represented during this period. But all young parents, or all parents probably, will know that such a journey is a huge undertaking. That brings me to my point. It should be possible for a Member of the European Parliament to be replaced or to temporarily delegate his or her right to vote. I have made several proposals to amend the European electoral law and the procedural rules here, and every time I get broad support for that here in the European Parliament, and yet that leave regime does not yet exist. So here again my call in a simplified form: It is time for us to drag the European Parliament into the 21st century!

Mr President, Europe will soon be spending unprecedented amounts on its recovery from COVID. I am pleased that it will do that and that it will make a common historical effort to invest in things such as tackling the climate crisis and fighting social inequality. But as the only directly—elected European institution, it’s vital that Parliament can scrutinise recovery plans and, importantly, see to it that no money is disbursed to countries in which conflicts of interest are rife, human rights are undermined, NGOs are being threatened and the judiciary is being put on a leash. Respect for the rule of law is a precondition for the disbursement of any EU funds, and we need to make sure to firmly enshrine that. We expect a proposal from the European Commission that does justice to our shared European values, and that allows the European Parliament to play the oversight role that European citizens expect from it.