Rudi KENNES

Policy topics Rudi KENNES is active on

What Rudi KENNES has said (36)

• 2024-10-24 “E-002243/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission wants to ensure that the EU remains a global leader in the automotive industry, preserving jobs and manufacturing capacity in Europe. The Commission will develop an industrial action plan for the automotive industry, covering the entire value chain, from securing critical supply chains to ensuring affordability, from infrastructure for refuelling and recharging, to fully exploiting automation and data, while supporting the industry on its path towards decarbonisation. Public support has been substantial in creating a nascent battery industry in Europe. In particular, the Commission approved two Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEIs) for batteries 1 , providing EUR 6 billion in funding; EUR 180 million have been allocated to the battery sector through the Innovation Fund 2 , with an additional EUR 3 billion announced for the next three years; and the co-programmed battery European partnership under Horizon Europe 3 , Batt4EU 4 , is investing up to EUR 925 million in battery research and innovation activities. The Commission remains committed to continuing this support to further strengthen the sector and ensure its future ability to compete with global players. Regarding autonomous vehicles, the EU industry is at a good stage of technology development and the EU established a regulatory framework for the sale of autonomous vehicles 5 , but such vehicles cannot easily access roads across Europe. The Commission will continue to support funding for research and development, update the EU regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles and support Member States towards the update of their national road transport frameworks, to ensure the legality of automated driving and the possibility to deploy them at scale. 1 IPCEI on Batteries and IPCEI European Battery Innovation (EuBatIn): https://www.ipcei-batteries.eu/ 2 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-funding-climate-action/innovation-fund_en 3 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021R0695 4 https://bepassociation.eu/ 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/1426/oj”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “(10:42:02 – 10:45:08): When it comes to this new proposal, we are dealing with a change of things that should have been changed before. But, I think you're going for protectionism rather than ambition commission to deal with the environmental crisis. This string this strict, criteria is supposed to stick to these these criteria, but we're not actually the the worst emitters worldwide. So we're not, looking at the consequences of what these measures we're bringing in. And therefore, I think it's key that all countries around the world to deal with, emissions. And we have to look at the different capacities and levels of of decarbonization in other other countries and have that reflected in these proposals. I think that approach would help to guarantee that this would lead to worldwide emissions reduction, and and that would allow us to, close a circle. So getting rid of 27, article 27, that would, provide exemption for some, for some products. I think this would undermine trust in the whole proposal. When it comes to decarbonization fund, well, it's great now that we are looking at, how shortsighted we've been, you know, looking at steel and automotive sectors. Well, there's far too many, state subsidies used there. But when it comes to the dividends, they are handed out to, private entities outside the e. And who loses? Workers. Arcel Mittal, for example. So you have to make sure that the funding is linked to production and make sure the dividend dividends come back, to where they've been, sent. And all of this has to be coupled with transition plans that, are developed with the trade unions. You can't treat all companies the same. You have to allow companies to invest and to change the ways of production. We have to, look at the smaller companies that haven't been able to take advantage of this funding. And for those that did invest early in transition, they can't be treated in the same way as those that left it, postpone things to to later. You need to make sure that the subsidies are handed out to these sorts of investments. And my last 2 points, this is, to deal with difficulties in the European industry. We're not supporting upcoming industries, to deal with environmental change. We need to contribute to, environmental funding and make sure that, we, that everybody can profit similarly. Thank you.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, every time China imposes a kind of trade restrictions, the EU responds to escalate as we are not doing exactly the same thing. Doesn't China have the right to protect its interests in the same way that we protect ours? And why is our protectionism justified? But theirs is called aggressive. We should have invested more strategically, build stronger supply chains, developed a proper industrial strategy. But we didn't. We relocated, closed and sold out factories, and we fired millions of workers. What did we expect? Simply China simply did what we should have done invest in our economy, in our infrastructure, and above all, in our people. The question should not be, how do we fight China? But how do we rebuild our industry and our economy? The other question is how do we engage with other competitive economies? And the correct answer should be instead of organizing trade wars, we have to build a fair trading system based on multilateralism, dialogue, and cooperation. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “(11:33:57 – 11:35:13): Commissioner, madam von der Leyen says that, our businesses need predictability. Now that sounds obvious. But you know what we really need in European business? We need workers. We have millions of workers who need access to training. We have businesses who need to provide this training. They have received millions of euros as part of the green transition, but nothing has been done for the workers. The businesses are aligning their pockets. Wages are low, and there's almost no social protection. There are a few rules, which are designed to make life easier for workers. There are a few of them, but these rules are just fading away. So rather than sort supporting businesses that respect the rules, we are compensating those, businesses who do not protect their workers, who do not support social protection. We're saying we're doing this on behalf of increasing European competition, but what we need to do is create good working conditions, good wages. This is how we should be able to promote Europe going forward. That is not what we're doing, however. Therefore, we should, oppose this current, trend, and I would support anything that will allow us to do so.”
  Funding for vocational training
• “Thank you very much. Well, every year a women work two months longer than men. And despite they are earning 26% less, 16% less. And the directive came into force. But things have not changed. We still have negative consequences for women, for girls. We absolutely need to help people in real terms. We're not saying that we don't want to help families, but there are many families that don't know that, uh, uh, many policies don't seem to understand that a lot of women give up their careers so they can look after children and old people. And it has taken a toll on their physical and mental health and can leave them in poverty because the policies are only made custom made or tailor made for companies. But it's all very well helping women and supporting women on the 8th of March, but they need to be held to the rest of the years and also send out all of my best wishes to all the women around the world in these areas of conflict.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “(16:47:36 – 16:50:12): Thank you. AI is already restructuring trade. Our goods are produced, our services cross borders and how make profit from data. The rules we make now will determine if AI promotes shared prosperity or increases dependency and equality. The report rightly says that Europe's AU future should be based on transparency accountability and governance that respects rights but its trade vision goes in the opposite direction. It treats the WTO as a place to make new digital trade rules even though the WTO process has been shaped by big tech firms and risk constrained taxation competition policy industrial policy and democratic AI governments especially for the global south. The report also promotes data flows with trust of course we need trust but in trade agreements data flows often means free flows rules that help big tech extract data from weaker economies making it more difficult for these countries to promote accountability and the public interest. This clashes with the vision of AI that based on public control rights and democratic oversight and there is a big contradiction today's digital trade agreements increasingly prevent governments from being able to access source code or algorithms. This means that the EU trade rules are already undermining this transparency and accountability that this report claims to promote. We propose a different path put public control of data and digital infrastructure at the center treat key infrastructures as public utilities build data commons with democratic governments and defend every country's rights to choose its own data and industrial strategies. Cooperation with the global south must be driven by demand and respect of sovereignty without forcing our partners to liberalize their markets. AI and trade can serve people but only if we reject a big tech constitution for the digital economy and still build rules that prioritize accountability public value and shared development. Thank you.”
  International data transfers
• “Yes. Thank you chair. I want to ask the speakers about the concept of the open strategic autonomy and some of the contradictions that might be in there. Firstly, the EU has long been a champion of free trade, free markets and very limited state intervention. In this way thought this law and free trade agreements, the EU has reduced the policy space and open to governments to protect their industries, exercise long term planning, or use targeted public procurement. Should strategic economy autonomy. Sorry not be about reclaiming this policy space. Should public ownership or of key sectors, cooperative production and stronger economic planning not be crucial elements to strategic economy? Secondly, in many sectors like rare earth materials processing, pharmaceuticals and battery production, a handful of companies have enormous influence of supply chains, prices, production decisions, and technology. These companies often receive already large amounts of public money while keeping control over patents, production sites and strategic assets. So my question is why is the concentration of market powers not treated as a strategic risk and to to Mr. Tier? Till finally, like you said, China dominates certain key sectors. So what does it mean for the EU China relationship? Should we continue to to retaliate or even escalate or seek closer cooperation? Because now it gives the impression that the EU only likes free trade when they're winning. Thank you.”
  Battery supply chain: EU gigafactory sovereignty vs. reliance on Asian suppliers
• “You already mentioned European taxpayers money to outsource violence to other countries. When this money could be spent for meaningful support for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers here in the EU. And the third question. The final question is in your answers to the question, to the external border management and human rights violations. You mentioned that the executive director of Frontex has the power to suspend any Frontex activity based on serious or persistent violations. While this option is made available to the executive director, I wonder why Frontex has not yet seized and rethought its entire operation mode in 2020. For at least 2300 migrants have died in Mediterranean Sea. Frontex officers not only refuse to cooperate with rescue missions, but they actively perform pushbacks. 120,457 pushbacks were recorded in 24. Migrants have been beaten, humiliated, robbed and abandoned in the sea. Could you please explain, then, why this statistic does not constitute a serious and persistent human rights violation problem in the eyes of the executive director? And why do you continue funding Frontex in the light of the executive directors in action? Thank you.”
  Asylum & border control
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. And also from my side. Thank you, Mr. Verga, for the for the update. I have a question on on Myanmar. In in Myanmar, the situation of workers remain highly critical. Workers keep being deprived of basic rights and freedoms such as freedom of speech and association. And the military junta this year replaced the independent Trade Union confederation with a government controlled organization. This comes on top of the widespread forced labor in the textile industry, imprisonment of trade unionists and attacks on workers and civilians. I welcome the decision by the ILO to invoke article 33, and I want to reiterate here the demand of the Ituc for a real political, economic and diplomatic pressure on the junta, while at the same time I call for not closing our eyes to the labor violations happening every day, also here in Europe. I therefore want to ask you, Mr. Varga, what actions the European institutions should undertake, in your view, to defend the rights of working people in Myanmar. Thank you.”
  EU-Myanmar relations
• “Thank you. Chair. Mr. president, this report confirms that EU views investment screening is very narrowly. It is focused on industries such as defence, semiconductors, aerospace, AI and robotics. We protect the European defence industry, but we don't do screening that would actually benefit EU citizens. For example, we should use screening to protect sectors such as public transport, telecommunications, digital infrastructure, construction or healthcare. A foreign investment might perhaps not pose a security risk in military terms, but it can be disastrous in social terms. For example, Amazon should not be able to bring its union busting strategies to Europe and foreign companies should not handle our national digital infrastructure, for example. So my first question to you, Mr.. Is if you are aware of any member states that in their national screening policy, take into account social risks, and if so, what impact does this screening mechanism have? My second question during the current trilogue negotiations of the new FDI regulation, we regret to see that the Council is reducing the scope of the proposed regulation. Several groups would have wished that also the the aspect of economic security should have played a more prominent role. Does the fifth report on FDI screening show an appetite or necessity for member states to also screen investments on the ground of economic security, rather than on risk to security and public order. Finally, although we know that trade is a EU competence, there seems to be a tendency by the Commission to want to concentrate more of the decision processes into their own hands rather than in those of the member States. This is not so democratic. National governments and citizens must have a bigger say in trade policy, not less. So my last question is, are you aware of member States that include consultations with social partners and civil society organisations in their screening processes? Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure
• “You get a tariff and you get a tariff and you all get a tariff. This is Donald Trump's new favorite threat, at least when he's not threatening to buy or even invade your country. Of course, he just announced the tariff on aluminium and steel, which will have serious consequences for the European industrial sector and for industrial workers. What is the European response. We deeply regret like Trump will care. It's ridiculous. Trump tariffs will hit Europe's working class hard with higher prices and massive loss of jobs. But the EU does not care to protect its workers. No no no. They only care to please wealthy people like Trump, Musk and the other billionaires in the United States government. We cannot be weak against Trump attacks. Europe needs to be strong, and not by doing the same stupid things like Trump, but instead to work with other countries and partners around the globe to fight for the working class of Europe. We need a foreign policy other than just being the lapdog of the United States. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you president. On the right of this House, we are hearing that the ban on combustion engines ought to be withdrawn to. But to promote European industry, what we need are jobs. And what the right is saying is not true. What we need to do is provide more assistance to our automotive industry. As the industry was too late to invest in green production, well, it's been left behind. So they are focusing on heavy duty vehicles that generate a lot of pollution. And now we're seeing the production of electric vehicles in countries where there are low labor costs. If the industry is not ready for the future, while workers are going to pay the price for that, and that's just not right. We cannot give in to the lies of the right car industry. Workers are hanging on the edge. We need an industry that's future proof.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “The diplomatic commissioner of the EU's own diplomatic service, has said that the new Israeli measures in the West Bank clearly violate international law. A lot of experts have said that this is a de facto annexation of large parts of zone C. The opinion from the Court of Justice says that the Israeli occupation is illegal and affirms that third countries, including the EU, have a legal obligation not to have any economic or commercial ties that would allow Israel to maintain its illegal presence. Each time, the EU simply reacts with declarations and letters. That is not going to make Israel change direction just because of articles in the press. We have rules that unfortunately are not being properly applied. So I wanted to ask some questions. When will the Commission have specific measures and when will they act to stop these violations of international law? Will the Commission be proposing measures to stop trade with the illegal settlements? If that is not the case? On which basis? Can the Commission argue that its current policy is in conformity with international law, especially if we look at the International Court of Justice ruling from July 2024. Does the Commissioner not think this is a hypocritical system when it comes to only applying international law for certain countries? This is not weaken the credibility of the EU and the economic security agenda. We had Russia annexed Crimea in 2012. At that time, all trade with the occupied territory of Crimea was stopped. So we should also stop trade with the illegal settlements.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Could you elaborate more on why the Parliament has not yet followed in the footsteps and hired the outsourced staff directly. Because we are always talking in this Parliament about direct and especially also quality jobs. The criteria should be simple. If it's a job that is permanent, then it should be a direct job. No. And then the second question to Mr. Mannelli in the European Parliament, we can see many IT devices produced by companies linked to the actual genocide in Gaza. For example, many of the parliament staff uses Cisco laptops. By the end of 2019, Cisco has built seven tech hubs on illegal settlements. Cisco owns. Policies involve payment Palestinians have of Israeli salaries and sponsoring racist organizations. There are also known for providing the Israeli military with high tech communication equipment and surveillance tools, facilitating the coordination of the ongoing genocide. Another complicit company whose IT equipment we regularly use in our offices is HP. Hp provides service to operate the databases of Israel's Population and Immigration Authority, which facilitates apartheid and racial segregation. Is the Director general for Information Technologies and Cybersecurity aware of these links? And are there any plans for introducing better procurement frameworks of IT equipment in the future? Thank you very much.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Thank you chair, and also thank you to the speakers for their presentations. I have a few questions. First, on on on batteries as the EU seeks new supply partners from the Global South without strong social and environmental safeguards, we risk replicating the problems from extremism. But with a green label, you seem to welcome national and EU support for battery manufacturing. Do you think this support should come with the binding conditionalities around labor rights and environmental protections, both outside the EU, in the supply chain as well as inside the EU in terms of increasing employment, promoting collective bargaining, bargaining and higher wages. And on the pharmaceutical industry, if a strategic economy leads to public investments in pharmaceutical production, don't you think that the result, the resulting medicines and health technologies that are developed with public funds should be widely available and affordable to all, rather than be passed on to private companies, which then make billions by turning patents into private intellectual property. And from your industrial perspective, what effect will the European strategy economy agenda have to access to medicine in the global South? And a final question, which is already partly answered, I think, by Mr. Gillard with the Critical Raw Materials Act aiming for recycling and processing. What concrete measures guarantee that recycling becomes actually the backbone of production, rather than new mining or refining projects? Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you, Madam President. Honourable members. Commissioner. Millions of jobs lost in the automotive sector in the last 20 years. Spain, Italy, France, Belgium and now also Germany. In the Commission's plan, one page about workers. They want to give them a little bit of unemployment benefits, then give them random jobs and waste their Skills like Audi Brussels, for example, highly qualified workers trained to produce electric cars now all fired instead of making electric cars. Now they want to build weapons and move the production to Mexico. Absurd. It is the same with all ultra modern bus company going bankrupt, because the Flemish government decides to buy buses outside of the EU, and the EU wakes up now. But this crisis started a long time ago, and they want again to give billions of your taxpayers money to the same companies who created this crisis. As a former car worker, I refuse to be silent while my colleagues are getting fired by the thousands. We can make electric cars here for a modern, clean mobility. We have the capacity. We have the skills. So let's do it.”
  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
• “Thank you. Chair. Yes. Dear Commissioner. Um, just first of all, a very short question. You said that the equipment used in the Libyan shooting incident was definitely not funded by the EU. So I was wondering what what makes you so sure that's first of all. And then in your answers to the questionnaire, you discuss U.S partnerships with non EU countries on migration. One of these countries is Libya, which received a €465 million throughout the last ten years to manage migration on our behalf under the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Also under the Neighbourhood Development and International Cooperation Instrument, between 21 and 24, we have paid Libya €217 million to organise humanitarian voluntary returns, among other things. Meanwhile, organizations such as the United Nations raise alarm to human rights violations and forced extraditions of migrants in Libya. We hear regularly in the news about shipwrecks near to the Libyan coast, resulting in refugees deaths. We are actually sponsoring arbitrary detentions, forced labor tortures, and you are not planning to stop this any time soon. That is why I would like to ask you, why are you spending.”
  EU development aid (migration conditionality)
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. The Commission's annual report presents a very positive picture. It talks about export growth, market access and fewer trade barriers. But it says almost nothing about how these policies affect workers, farmers, public services, the environment or communities in other countries. It only measures success by trade volumes, not by social justice, sustainability or inequality. My question is, will the Commission commit to include parameters that look not only at export growth, but also at the impact on society and the environment, both in the EU and in the partner countries? Secondly, the report says that trade and sustainable development chapters and human rights rules are working well, but independent assessments, including from our own research department, from the European Court of Auditors, civil society and trade union organisations, say that these rules rely almost fully on dialogue and engagement, with almost no real consequences when countries fail to implement ILO standards or protect human rights. Even in older trade deals like the one with South Korea, progress on core labour rights is slow or blocked despite years of engagement, and the EU refused to suspend trade agreements. Even when a partner is credibly accused of being engaged in genocidal policies, such as in the case of Israel, the world is watching us, not applying any of our own conditionalities while we. Write resolutions on human rights in the context of our plenary sessions. We are not only violating the foundational treaties of the EU, we have also lost any credibility we might have acquired on the international scene after centuries of colonisation. So I ask, how does the Commission plan to exert real pressure on partners if they know that the EU will not enforce its rules and does not suspend its trade benefits, even in a case of very serious and ongoing violations. In what cases will the commission actually use their leverage and suspend trade benefits? If not, when one of its major trade partners is credibly accused of genocide by a UN court? Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Yes. Thank you. Chairman. I will speak in Dutch. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, chair, and thank you for your presentation. You know, you talked about shortages and skills, but many of these shortages are in sectors with low wages and poor working conditions. Many of these shortages are in sectors like agriculture, catering, logistics, where you have a lot of exploitations. The exception is the rule with the exception. You're talking about exploitation of migrants, people in precarious or illegal situations. Mostly they need to do these jobs just to survive and have no other choice. There's a lot of hypocrisy about how we in the EU deal with immigration. On the on the one hand, we aren't Fortress Europe and want to close our borders and people are dying in the Mediterranean Sea. But as soon as there are shortages, we put them in these dangerous jobs and let them come to our dirty work. And they don't have any access to services. They have an uncertain legal status and then are just tossed out them when the work is done. So the question is, on the basis of your data, how to what extent of these shortages caused by poor working conditions and low wages, rather than a lack of skills? And secondly, do you see any indication that the Dependence on working migrants means that the. The. That's what's keeping these situations going and creating demand for new immigrants. And thirdly, does this lead to a downward spiral in the labor market? In your presentation, you clearly showed that on that. In some member states, there are shortages and other their surpluses. But nobody wants to work in a different country unless their situation there would be better.”
  EU regulation of cross-border and posted workers
• “This business friendly commission keeps on saying that if we abolish red tape, our economies will flourish and everything will be wonderful. But that is just not true. Rules are not an obstacle to success. On the contrary. This is not science fiction. 40 years ago we had social protection and good wages. We had a good standard of living and strong economies. Now we are ruled by pathetic people who would happily let a worker die just to save a few euros. Without regulations, companies would always go for the cheapest option. They would carry on burning fossil fuels. They would drop health and safety standards. They would force lorry drivers to drive in dangerous situations. And many companies just care about profit. So let's not fool ourselves. Efficiency, simplification and digitisation are all okay, but they are not deregulation. The Industrial Accelerator Act and the omnibus plans will make us unsafe, unhealthy and poorer. So we cannot allow businesses to wage war against workers and win in this way. We need to carry out a green transition and keep people safe. Smart. Well, let's leave regulation where it belongs. In the graves of Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “42:51 – 17:44:12): Thank you chair. From my own town Antwerp, material is being shipped to Israel. It's being used to commit genocide. According to this study, the EU has no legal basis to stop it. This legal loophole is a political choice because at the moment the EU couldn't give a damn about what we export to whom and whether and as long as our defense industry is making money from it and is happy and our so called geopolitical interests are being served. Year after year, dual use goods are being channeled to other countries to spy on and murder civilians. This study shows that there are loopholes in our legislation. They have to be closed immediately to make this sort of export impossible. Our dual standards have to stop. International humanitarian law has to be fully incorporated in our export regulations. The European Union needs to be a neutral player working towards peace in the world. Instead of that, we're pumping billions and billions into militarization and exporting material that's being used to commit war crimes elsewhere. Thank you.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “President. Commissioner. Madam von der Leyen says that our businesses need predictability. Now, that sounds obvious, but do you know what we really need in European business? We need workers. We have millions of workers who need access to training. We have businesses who need to provide this training they have Received a millions of euros as part of the green transition, but nothing has been done for the workers. The businesses are lining their pockets. Wages are low and there's almost no social protection. There are a few rules which are designed to make life easier for workers. There are a few of them, but these rules are just fading away. So rather than supporting the businesses that respect the rules, we are compensating those businesses who do not protect their workers, who do not support social protection. And we're saying we're doing this on behalf of increasing European competition. But what we need to do is create good working conditions, good wages. This is how we should be able to promote Europe going forward. That is not what we're doing. However. Therefore, we should oppose this current trend and I would support anything that would allow us to do so.”
  EU policy on social criteria in public funding
• “Thank you. President, these aren't good times for the rights of workers across the board. The commission has decided to open fire, but tomorrow will be voting on a revision of the European Works Council directive. This constitutes a huge chance to improve things from Brussels for workers across Europe, an improvement where we'll have been fighting for for 16 years. Is it going to be perfect this time around? Probably not. But it's absolutely a step in the right direction with this revision. The right to co-determination in a company will be strengthened. As of former vice director of negotiations in General Motors Europe, I know what it means to defend this sort of agreement for Co-determination, because co-determination for workers is good for industry. They know what goes on better than others and they know how to improve things. And research shows that companies that implicate their workers better in the decision taking work better. They they, uh, thrive more than those who don't. It's not just their hands that are useful in these sort of approaches. We need to finally give workers what they have a right to. So be interesting to see which parties will be trying to defend the rights of working people. And on the right of this Parliament, as ever, the workers are betrayed. And that's my supposition anyway. Thank you very much, Mr. President.”
  EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “Thank you very much. Well, every year a women work two months longer than men. And despite they are earning 26% less, 16% less. And the directive came into force. But things have not changed. We still have negative consequences for women, for girls. We absolutely need to help people in real terms. We're not saying that we don't want to help families, but there are many families that don't know that, uh, uh, many policies don't seem to understand that a lot of women give up their careers so they can look after children and old people. And it has taken a toll on their physical and mental health and can leave them in poverty because the policies are only made custom made or tailor made for companies. But it's all very well helping women and supporting women on the 8th of March, but they need to be held to the rest of the years and also send out all of my best wishes to all the women around the world in these areas of conflict.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “Yes, sir. Thank you. Chair. I have two questions. First of all, I also from my side. I want to thank both the director generals to attend this committee meeting. Even, like the chair says on a Thursday afternoon first to Mr. Winkler on on October the 21st, 2024 our group received a written response from Parliament's President, Roberta Metsola, regarding our call to improve the situation of catering workers in Parliament. Catering workers keep reporting that they are severely understaffed. Many of them have been accused, affected, I'm sorry, affected by cuts induced by the premature termination of the contract between Compass Belgique, Lux and the parliament. Workers have also raised complaints about unsafe working conditions and precarious working arrangements, mainly due to green and white wigs, as well as plenary sessions in Strasbourg during which they are de facto unemployed. In a letter, the president claimed that compass respect all labour law standards and that the Parliament has very little to say in company's policies. She also also cited budgetary constraints as the main reason against Internalising catering services, claiming that such arrangement would exceed the catering budget by around about €18 million. Considering that the Commission has internalized part of its catering, this argument seems no longer valid. Now, as a farmer, former worker and trade unionist. These people are very close to my heart and therefore.”
  EU policy on employment subcontracting
• “10:15 – 16:11:56): Yes, thank you chairman. I will speak in Dutch. Yeah chair. Less than a month ago, another mine collapsed in Congo. More than two hundred workers were killed, and we know that the minerals being extracted from these mines end up in European supply chains because we've struck such a fantastic deal with Rwanda. And what's the EU doing? It wants to strike even more of these sort of deals because suddenly we've got panic here in the West. The Western imperial dominance is no longer self-evident. Suddenly we can't do as we please anymore. So what's the response? Well, the so-called European standards and values are being cast overboard to secure access to these raw materials. Just in the good old days, three Western blocs amongst themselves are trying to divide up the raw materials of the global South, and at the same time, we're dismantling all the rules that protect people and nature. Due diligence destroyed, environmental protection, we're not doing that anymore, and all of this in the name of competitiveness and resilience. If this Commission is serious about a fair green transition, about human rights or the most basic workers' rights, then we need to do things very differently. We need to have binding due diligence, thorough impact assessments, consent from local communities, protection of workers' rights throughout the entire supply chain. Those are the guarantees we need, and as long as these are not included in this sort of deal, then if this is nothing more than colonial plunder for which the people in Congolese mines amongst others are paying a heavy price. Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Last year, ArcelorMittal made 1.2 billion in profit. In 2024, they had 850 million to make production costs lower. And then now they've said that they want to close and to move jobs outside of Europe. Flanders, um, have, uh, has given us a limit of 600,000. And now we see that jobs are at risk. These are jobs in Ghent and Charleroi. Are we going to give them even more money and let them do whatever they want? Commissioner, uh, and, um, are employees are have to make their choice. We're told that this is capitalism, but, um, we're seeing that, uh, we would keep 1 million jobs in Europe, but it hasn't worked. Um, we're seeing that, um, we have to that that employees are basically stuck in the middle when it comes to all of this. Uh, we are paying businesses, not people. Multinationals have to invest. That will represent a just transition. Thank you.”
  State Aid
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioner. The Anti Discrimination Directive has been at a deadlock since 2008 for 17 years. In other words, a number of member states are blocking progress. And the commission earlier this year wanted to withdraw the proposal. And that is unacceptable. There are major gaps in the European anti-discrimination rules. Discrimination on the basis of religion, disability or sexual orientation is not being protected sufficiently, and that means that many people in education, on the housing market or on the employment market still are subjected to discrimination based on their religion, sexual orientation or disability. Research after research backs this up. And that's why we need this directive to close those gaps, because the same research points to the fact that discrimination is on the rise nowadays. And this is linked to the racism which the far right has normalised. We keep hearing stories of people who no longer feel at home in their own country, but that has nothing to do with migrants, LGBTQ plus or any other marginalized group. It has everything to do with the sense of alienation, the fear and the uncertainty that's being created by an economic model that reduces people to cost. Headings. Uh, you know, disposable, uh, employment. And to tackle this issue, we need to be more ambitious at all levels. We need to continue to fight for stronger rules and more protection. And that's why I would call on all member states to break the deadlock in council. Let's be clear fighting discrimination is a class struggle. If we are being divided, the rich will continue getting richer, and the system that divides us will continue to be in place.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “(11:31:41 – 11:33:16): new proposal has a few positive points, taking up gender mainstreaming and do no significant harm principle. We agree with all of that. Also, the principle of, the harmonized framework for reporting, we agree with all of that. But there are some comments I need to make. When it comes to military funding, that is, cannot be seriously accepting when we're looking at, the crisis we're going through in Europe. That must remain a national competence. And when it comes to climate, targets, the monies, allocated aren't enough. There need to be more guarantees when it comes to social and labor conditions. We need to be focusing on good jobs in the next MFF, and we need specific criteria for a just transition for workers. I think there is a lack of parliamentary control, mentioned here in the next MFF. And it gives, the commission the power to lay down priorities, and therefore, parliamentary monitoring needs to be, resumed. When it comes to mainstreaming of specific important questions, we need guarantees. We need specific budgets and targets. Thank you.”
  EU expenditure on social policy
• “Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner. The Parliament is going to be voting on a crucial report, a report which calls upon the Commission to put an end to all this subcontracting in so many sectors. This type of situation has become the rule that is to make work even less safe. But on the other side of this house, you want to remove as much as possible from this report. They don't want to have any agreements. They don't to, to, to reduce subcontracting to two levels. They don't want that either. They say, oh, we'll need to control the rules all the member states need to carry out controls, but member states are dismantling most of those rules. We want measures to prevent workers from being exploited in Spain, where we have legislation in Spain, the legislation protects workers. But apparently in this House you do not want to protect the workers. But we'll look at you. We'll see who stands on the side of the worker and who doesn't. Thank you.”
  EU policy on employment subcontracting
• “Mr. president Commissioner, the European Commission has put forward this competitiveness compass as a plan for growth. But in reality, it's an attack on social rights and the protections of workers. Wages are stagnating. Pensions are under pressure. The purchasing power is stagnating. Is this a time to get rid of rules and pump public money into an opposition to workers? They are refusing to break with a model that is giving free hand to business. It mentions climate, but only if companies can maximise their Profits. So there's a free hand for companies, but the pressure on workers. We don't need a race to the bottom. That's not what we need. We need social justice. We need to invest in care, in education and decent wages. That's what makes us what makes us stronger. Not giving away tax income, to have more sponsorship for huge multinationals and a Europe that is above profit. That's the future that we'll be fighting for. Thank you.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “You said the EU budget. Is. Nothing more than politics expressed in numbers. A reflection of choices and priorities. I agree. Over 130 billion for defense. Five times more, 18 billion for military mobility, ten times more border management tripled and 15 minutes 15 million extra for the wine sector. Your concerns are not those from the European people. You invent imaginary threats to divert attention from the real threats, not being able to pay your bills, healthcare and housing. Not one word on wages and pensions and nothing for the 1.3 million homeless people. You vilify and demonize migrants, but you know they are escaping our wars and climate disasters. They look after our elderly, they clean our hospitals. They cook in our canteens. Without them, our economies and societies would collapse. You say you want an independent Europe, but then you take your orders from NATO. We can make Europe a place where everybody is treated with respect, or we can let it be a fortress. You make your choices. We will continue to fight them. Thank you.”
  Defence spending · Size of EU budget · Asylum & border control
• “Thank you very much. Well, every year a women work two months longer than men. And despite they are earning 26% less, 16% less. And the directive came into force. But things have not changed. We still have negative consequences for women, for girls. We absolutely need to help people in real terms. We're not saying that we don't want to help families, but there are many families that don't know that, uh, uh, many policies don't seem to understand that a lot of women give up their careers so they can look after children and old people. And it has taken a toll on their physical and mental health and can leave them in poverty because the policies are only made custom made or tailor made for companies. But it's all very well helping women and supporting women on the 8th of March, but they need to be held to the rest of the years and also send out all of my best wishes to all the women around the world in these areas of conflict.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “Thank you. I will speak in Dutch. Yes, thank you very much. I was also on that particular mission, and I would like to thank everybody in particular, because the organization was perfect, and all I can do is praise those responsible for organizing the mission. Technically speaking, it was all very interesting. I was a little surprised. And here I'm thinking of Belgium or other countries as well. But I was quite surprised that when it comes to the investment that's been made into the area that we saw there, if you take a look at the public and the public sector in Sweden, they are also very present even when it comes to investment. And they had their fingers on the pulse. They were very much involved when it came to green technology, green steel space sector and extracting raw materials. So I feel the state does exercise a certain amount of control. And this is something I think that we should consider. We should bear this in mind. We should not make ourselves dependent on speculation and other things. I think we ought to see the public sector and the government. They should still continue to have some influence. And if a particular industry says, well, this is a business case, and then we have to be able to analyze this ourselves properly as well.”
  Ownership of strategic assets
• “(17:17:10 – 17:19:35): Thank you Chairman and also thanks to the rapporteur. Unfortunately, this draft report largely repeats the narrative that we have been hearing from the Commission and from the political majority in this Parliament. It talks about economic security in the language of competitiveness, deregulation, and trade openness. But who is this economic security for? For workers, security means stable jobs, fair wages, affordable energy, and strong public services. This report addresses none of the economic security concerns of everyday people. Moreover, many of the vulnerabilities the European Union now wants to secure were created by the very policies that this report continues to defend: deregulation of key sectors, weakening public investment, and delocalization of production. At the same time, this economic security agenda attempts to reduce dependencies by reinforcing unequal relationships and resource extremism in the Global South. Instead of repeating our mistakes from the past, we should take lessons from those countries who have surpassed us. Economic security must start at home: rebuilding industrial capacity, strengthening workers' rights, investing in public infrastructure, and ensuring democratic control over strategic sectors such as energy, pharmaceuticals, and key technologies. Our amendments will therefore go in a different direction. First, we will insist that workers' rights, social standards, environmental protections, and corporate accountability are central elements of economic security. Second, we will challenge the deregulation narrative. Resilience does not come from cutting the so-called red tape; it comes from regulation that protects workers, significant public investment, and democratic control of strategic sectors. Third, we will argue for a more democratic economic model including a stronger role for public ownership or public stakes in strategic industries. Europe does need economic security but that security must be built with the people's interest at its core. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you chairman. I was speaking Dutch. And the commissioner, in spite of the objectives you've announced, the clean industrial deal is clearly insufficient by way of an instrument and doesn't provide a solution for the climate crisis and won't bring any social welfare for the workers, and will only serve the interest of certain lobbies that the commission is working for. You know, I'm a former trade unionist and steelworker, and I too would like to tell you about ArcelorMittal and their activities in Belgium. Arcelormittal states that they are in favour of a sustainable decarbonized economy, but they haven't just announced that they won't invest in carbon neutral technologies, but they've also threatened to lay off scores of people in Ghent. They want to decamp activities to India because it's cheaper and they want to close down their factory. This, in spite of the fact that the company has received €280 million by way of state support from the Belgian government, which was agreed to by the commission. And a large part comes from the Flemish government. And that's part of a larger investment plan of 1 billion to make Ghent carbon free. Now €110 million from the EU also went to this. The company, however, continues blaming international competition for this. Import costs high energy costs, but they never blame their own greed in 2024. The company had a profit of $2.33 billion and paid out $1.8 billion in dividends. Now, how long are you going to accept that tax money is used to subsidize private companies who then don't invest, don't yield any benefits for Europe's citizens and only lay off workers? Now, in your answer, you mentioned the energy issues and the fact that energy prices were high. Well, when are you going to allow member states to be sovereign when it comes to energy production, to keep that production and invest in it so that we can finally bring those costs down? Thank you.”
  State Aid