What Jonás spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is certainly a pity that Commissioner Vestager has not been able to be with us in this debate, although I am obviously very grateful for her presence, because I wanted - and I think all of us here should - to thank her and the Commission as a whole for the work and effort of these years, and especially in this case that has allowed us to put a point and apart in this type of agreement that some States make with multinationals. We have worked hard in this last legislature to harmonize the tax of large companies, we have had to implement in Europe the OECD agreement to have a minimum rate and we should move quickly also in that pillar 1. I believe that judgments like this, which force a large multinational that has been evading or using tax avoidance strategies to tax the profits of the whole of Europe in Ireland, is, in my opinion, a point and apart. That is 13 billion that we have recovered for the citizens, for the European workers. And this is the way forward for the future Commission.

Madam President, we are undoubtedly debating this report at an important moment in which we must decide on the future lines, the lines of work, of this mandate that is beginning. And I would like to highlight two important issues in the report. Firstly, it is important to recognise the problems we continue to have in mind in order to consolidate the single market: We still don't have a capital market, we still don't have a full banking union. The report talks about the need to boost the energy union to also help reduce electricity prices or the union of telecommunications markets in the industrial sector. There is an industrial policy agenda linked to this single market and there is also a strong need for public investment capacity at European level. The pandemic crisis we managed to overcome quickly, much faster than previous crises, thanks to Next Generation EU. The Union needs a permanent instrument of public investment to help us revitalise the competitiveness of the European Union and ensure a future for our continent.

Mr President, first of all, I am grateful for this discussion in which we discussed the Basel III Agreement, but we also discussed the evolution of the banking union. I have finished my first speech by saying that we can be reasonably satisfied as a Parliament with the work done in this legislature. But we certainly cannot be complacent, because the challenges are still facing us and because the banking union is still not complete. With regard to the implementation of the Basel Agreement – and following the Commissioner’s explanations – it is true that what lies ahead is an important effort. There is a lot of level II regulation that we need to develop, and I would like to refer to the obvious need to implement these rules in time on 1 January next year as they are approved in this Regulation and in this Directive. When we talk about competitiveness and use competitiveness to demand in some cases fewer regulations, we are invoking an objective in a wrong way, because if we are really convinced that with this regulation we improve the safety of banks, we are really raising the competitiveness of the European banking sector and of the real economy as a whole, because there is nothing worse for competitiveness than banking crises such as those we have suffered in the years of the financial crises. Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Basel Agreement in time regardless of what other jurisdictions do, because that increases the competitiveness of the European economy. Allow me to dismiss this mandate by thanking in particular the shadow rapporteurs who have accompanied me in this negotiation: Othmar Karas, Gilles Boyer, Johan, Ville. Together we created a good negotiating environment with the Commission. I thank the Commissioner for her work and, of course, I am very happy to participate in this discussion at this part-session. I want to dismiss in some way also our dear Vice President Pedro Silva. Thank you very much for everything, Pedro. Well nothing, thank you very much and to continue with the debates.

Mr President, Commissioner, I was going to say Council, but there is no one there anymore; They're gone, sadly. And I think they've done well to leave, or that they've left has an explanation. And the explanation is that this Parliament has managed in recent weeks to finish the mandate by approving important legislative dossiers linked to the progress of the banking union and agreements in which the Council has been unable to weave pacts between themselves to this day. Last week, we voted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - thank you very much, Vice-President Karas - on the proposal to have European deposit insurance. And this morning, the plenary approved its negotiating position to review all bank crisis management. Both legislative reports are key and we have no Council position yet. And it seems that the Council does not want to listen to us. Anyway, they're bad. In any case, today we have also discussed the implementation of the review of the prudential framework for banks. We already have an agreement here with the Council and the Commission. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and our technical teams, who have accompanied the negotiation for - we could say - long years. I believe that, from Parliament's point of view, we can be reasonably satisfied with both our initial position and the final agreement with the Council. This Parliament wanted to implement the views of the Basel Committee as closely as possible to its recommendations. We believed and believe that some banks that use internal models to calibrate their capital requirements needed better instruments to improve their solvency. We have reached that agreement to set a minimum capital requirement for those banks that use internal models. In addition, we have accompanied it with transitional measures to allow the European economy to move closer to the much-needed regulatory and prudential standards. I also wanted to highlight that we have moved even faster than the Basel Committee recommended in the area of internalizing climate risks. We used to discuss the effects of climate change, and I think it's fair to recognize that we need to take more steps to look at how those climate risks can impact bank balance sheets. We have done something in this proposal and we will have to do more in the future. We have also introduced in European legislation a prudential treatment for exposures to crypto-assets in the case of bank balance sheets. We have also made progress in improving the governance of banks, the selection processes, the appointment of board members, the key positions of banks... And, as I say, I believe that we can conclude a great agreement that will accompany a vote this afternoon, where I believe that this broad majority will be reflected in this House. I am happy and satisfied with this progress in improving the solvency of banks in Europe and in the banking union. We would have liked to go a little further in this area to facilitate the location of liquidity and capital in the banking union as a whole, but we will do so in the next legislature. Of course, as I say, it is a timely and necessary debate, because this morning's vote to review the banking crisis management framework and last week's on European deposit insurance allow this Parliament to run for the next European elections with all - I repeat, all - duties fulfilled.

Mr President, Commission, it is a pleasure to conclude this mandate with this vote and this debate because in this legislature we have experienced – as both Commissioners recalled – difficult times: the pandemic or the start of Putin's war in Ukraine. Both challenges required flexibility from a fiscal point of view and that we take time to allow a response that would sustain activity in these difficult times. But it's also true that we can't go on without rules sine die; We need to have rules that guide fiscal policies. I welcome, first of all, the broad consensus to reject the previous rules that forced austericide after the financial crisis of just over a decade ago, and that the consensus to reject those rules would lead to a new agreement towards a smooth debt reduction according to the situation of each state. I am confident that this will be the case and that this Parliament will closely monitor the implementation of these rules in the next parliamentary term.

Mr President, Commissioners, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, we are debating this Semester report at a key moment in this mandate because it coincides with the discussions on the review of the economic governance of the Union, and I wanted to congratulate, first of all, the rapporteur, René Repasi, on the work he has done to achieve these commitments. We have certainly solved some problems and we have before us a process of balanced and moderate fiscal consolidation. But there are substantive problems that, as the report rightly says, are yet to be resolved. And the investment effort that the European Union has to make is extraordinary. The green transition, the digital transition or social efforts need a European Pillar that can help co-finance these efforts and guarantee us a Union with growth, prosperity, but also equality and social balance. And for that, the review of NextGenerationEU or the maintenance of the unemployment insurance that Nicolas Schmit led in this mandate are essential.

Mr President, Commissioner, President Calviño, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on the recent election to lead the Union's main financial and growth-promoting institution. And excuse also some veleities of national politics that end up reaching too many places, where they should not. I have little to add to the summary of the priorities for this new stage of the EIB. I believe that in the report that we adopted in the European Parliament there is a clear identification of the need to make progress in that support against climate change and the digital transition, and I very much liked the reference - also important for this House - to the cooperation that the Bank has to do, including in financing social housing or social activities that also help improve cohesion. But really, the big challenge, regardless of the different priorities, is investment in the European Union. We have just concluded a tax rules agreement - a good agreement - but Europe needs more funding and also needs it at EU level and the European Investment Bank is called to be a key player in that transition.

Mr President, Commissioner, this is an important debate at a necessary moment. A debate to approve, to discuss the multiannual financial framework, the Union budget, but also a debate to reflect on the need to promote a European industrial policy. The STEP Platform is a first step. The European Parliament has certainly made tremendous efforts. We have negotiated loyally with the Council, even though the Council - let us be clear - has been blatantly swift in its negotiations with the European Parliament. These days we knew the opinion of Mario Draghi working on that report on the competitiveness of the European Union, demanding more funding. Understanding that even if we have reached an agreement on the tax rules governing the budgets of the Member States we need much more private, but also public funding. Much more funding to address the green transition, the digital transition, societal challenges, challenges also in the field of defence, and I think we should be clear in this debate between us. Even with all our efforts, we still do not have the necessary funding to respond to these challenges at European level. The STEP Platform has been a good proposal. The European Parliament has negotiated, as I say, with loyalty, even though the Council's agreement dramatically reduced the already small contribution proposed by the Commission and substantially increased by the European Parliament. It is a first step, there is a European framework to define strategic projects, but with the fiscal rules that we have agreed and having, by the way, funding available from Next Generation EU that has not yet been requested by the States, we should reflect on how to answer that question that Mario Draghi was asking us these days: how to improve the budget allocation of the European Union?

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I wanted to start my brief speech by congratulating Parliament's rapporteur, Isabel Benjumea, on her great work and, of course, the shadow rapporteurs who have collaborated, such as Paul Tang on behalf of the S&D Group, because it is an important project - as has been said - to advance this capital markets union. Yesterday we talked about the Immediate Payments Regulation, a very simple regulation to explain to all citizens, because who has not made a bank transfer? Explaining the directives we are reviewing today is somewhat more complicated. But I would simply like to inform European citizens that with this revision of two directives we intend to improve the management of savings throughout Europe, consolidate European savings so that they can be allocated to the real economy, to facilitate non-bank financing as well - as has been said - and of course improve control, information to small investors, to retail investors, who need supervision and control to know how to operate in the markets. We therefore welcome this progress, already in the final part of the legislature. And let us hope that the Capital Markets Union will advance even further in the next legislature.

Madam President, Commissioner, on too many occasions, those of us who work in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, mainly on matters relating to financial regulation, discuss, approve, negotiate regulations, directives, and, on many occasions, it is difficult to translate into common language what we do. It is difficult to speak of the solvency of the entities, of capital requirements: These are concepts, perhaps, too far removed from the day-to-day life of Europeans. But today we are here to welcome the adoption of a new regulation to whose content we are linked on a daily basis. Who hasn't made a bank transfer? Who has not tried to make an instant payment through their checking account and has seen that their bank wanted to set a commission? Well, with this agreement of the Council and Parliament, we are establishing a new regulation of these instant payments to make life much easier for citizens, to advance in the capital markets union and in the banking union itself and, as I say, to make life easier for all Europeans. So congratulations to everyone. A pleasure.

Madam President, Commissioner, we started this plenary session just a few hours ago, paying tribute to Jacques Delors and among his assets, he is promoting the single market in the European Union. Simply by respecting its legacy, we have to recognise that there are still specific markets in the Union that are still not sufficiently consolidated: One of them is the capital market. I would like to congratulate Danuta Hübner on his work, which has led us today to adopt two regulations to boost this capital markets union, both from a retail point of view - so that savers have more and better information and, in addition, some activities are prohibited, which generated costs and hardly contributed any value - and a legislative proposal that addresses how we should improve this capital market from a wholesale perspective. But, while concluding these agreements, we have to acknowledge the work that still lies ahead of us. The next legislature has to be a key legislature for the Capital Markets Union, because we need much more funding to sustain the green transition, the digital transition and to continue to make efforts to improve this Union, which reminded us today of Jacques Delors.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there have undoubtedly been great debates, great steps have been taken and efforts have been made over the years, and I would particularly like to thank Commissioner Schmit for his work in developing a very active social agenda from the Commission, aimed essentially at answering the question that brings us here today: how to improve access to housing for young people? How to improve access to work, its capacity, in short, to develop an autonomous life? And, as I said, the proposal for platform workers, the proposal for minimum wages, the proposal also to control holiday housing, which this Commission has put in place, have been welcome and very necessary. But it's not enough. When we talk about housing policy, I think we need to be aware of the many local realities behind housing. Many times in large cities we have problems of inflation in rental prices, but in rural areas we have the problem of the absolute absence of housing: young people in rural areas who cannot emancipate themselves because there is no housing available in the markets. And, therefore, designing comprehensive policies for the Union as a whole is difficult because there are local realities that, in one way or another, determine the problems or solutions to solve them. In any case, I would like to point out that the European Investment Bank could do more. The European Investment Bank could, as part of that climate bank campaign, help finance sustainable and green housing for young people.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have been talking for many years, perhaps too many, about the need to boost European industrial policy. The concept of open strategic autonomy is a necessary idea, a timely agenda, for the present of the Union, but it needs financial resources. And it needs financial resources because, without clear budgetary support from the Community institutions, we somehow leave that responsibility solely to the Member States. And if we reduce the regulation of state aid along the way – certainly in order to advance this industrial policy – we are seriously jeopardising the cohesion and integrity of the single market. We have to say that the Commission's proposal, which is a response to a request from this Parliament to set up a sovereign fund called STEP, is a small, very small one. step in the right direction because there are hardly any new resources. Parliament has reached a great deal of agreement - and I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs - to increase the budgetary capacity, the search for funding in the margins of the budget, from the EUR 10 billion proposed by the Commission to EUR 13 billion. It's a good advance, but it's certainly not enough. In the debate we had two weeks ago in this House, I asked you, Commissioner, whether you would consider making use of the EUR 93 billion in appropriations not requested by the Member States under the recovery and resilience plan, whether you would make any proposals to be able to make use of that funding. He said it wasn't legal, it wasn't possible. Well, this Parliament today is debating and tomorrow will approve a new mechanism to be able to make use of those 93 billion by fulfilling all the requirements of the Council Regulation that put in place Next Generation EU and that only needs the political will on the part of the Council so as not to waste those resources that we so badly need at European level. That is why I would like to invite the Commission to read this Parliament's proposal carefully and join us in convincing the Council's hesitant - and there certainly are - to finish financing the industrial effort in the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, without a doubt, the digitalisation of the economy is requiring us to update all laws, regulations, regulations and directives, in order to try to maintain the same principles and objectives, but through different instruments, inasmuch as that digital world needs, as I said, regulation equivalent to the rest of the economy. On this occasion we welcome – and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the entire negotiating team on this – the updating of the necessary regulation to control this range of financial services at a distance, in which, in some cases, if there is no very clear control, there may be problems of diminishing consumer rights. I would like to highlight the work of the S&D Group to ensure physical presence, human contact, in these types of contracts.

Madam President, Commissioner, I must certainly start this debate by thanking and congratulating the work of Mr Tang, rapporteur for the report on the proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, over the last few months. An essential work, together with the rest of the shadow speakers, to put in place, also in this case, the first global regulation that will help to drive savings and investment towards green assets. This regulatory innovation in Europe, which joins many others in the framework of the green transition, clarifies, provides transparency and will make it easier for responsible investors to distribute their resources, which will also contribute to the transition itself. I would also like to recall that this agreement is a starting point. We cannot think that everything is done; there are some elements in this agreement with the Council that need to be reviewed in the future. We need to clarify a little more the quality of the underlying assets of these loans, these green bonds. So the work continues, and I congratulate Mr. Tang.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Council representative, if we look at the situation of access to housing across Europe, perhaps we could agree that there are two major problems. The first is undoubtedly high prices – linked in some areas to shortages, mainly in rural areas – and the second is the challenge of improving the construction of our homes to avoid climate change and advance the European Green Deal. For this, we have put in place the Social Climate Fund and have also allocated additional funding to Next Generation EU. Undoubtedly, an important step, but not enough. However, to help contain prices, to improve the supply of housing, we are still a long way from the road we must travel. Undoubtedly, decent housing is Europe. Europe must be synonymous with decent housing.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, this is certainly a necessary debate these days and I would like to thank the Left Group for proposing this discussion in this week's plenary sessions after the last interest rate hike by the European Central Bank. I will barely put forward two ideas to fuel this discussion. On the same day as the Governing Council of the ECB met, its new inflation forecasts were published, which put that figure for 2024 at 3.2% on average for the year. This means that, during the second part of next year, inflation will be around 2.5% according to the Central Bank's own forecasts and will decline further in 2025 to 2.1%. In this regard, I wonder what is the need to accelerate the convergence of inflation towards 2%, taking into account that the revision of the mandate interprets its objective in the medium term and taking into account the risk of a certain recession that we have in the euro area, and of recession in some very important economies in that area. There is always a compromise between growth and inflation and I think that, when forecasts suggest that in twelve or fifteen months inflation will only be very slightly above 2%, the risks to economic activity are more important than bringing that 2% one month up or one month down. In any case, this debate also leads us to another discussion that we are having these weeks, which is none other than the review of the economic governance of the Union. Because at the moment only monetary policy is able to help manage cycles. We still do not internalise the need for a consolidated fiscal position in the euro area, and this is very important because, with a European fiscal pillar, we could manage cycles substantially better and avoid scenarios such as the one we are suffering with these interest rate levels. We have to have that debate.

Madam President, representatives of the Commission and the Council, in this interesting and lengthy debate I believe that Parliament's position has become clear. And I join the words of my colleague Eider Gardiazábal on the need to respond from this budget to the challenges and challenges, not of the future but of the immediate present. And speaking of the immediate present, I would like to put a direct question to the Commission. There are €90 billion available under the Recovery and Resilience Facility that Member States have not requested, and we have until the end of the year to use them. We have a lot of work to do and €90 billion that may be lost. I would like to ask the Commission whether it is thinking of proposing something to the Council and to this Parliament in order to be able to make use, as I say, of those EUR 90 billion that will be lost at the end of the year if we do not do something together.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the truth is that this has been a legislature in which there has been remarkable progress in tax matters, both at European and international level. And it could be said that they are forcibly hanging and increasing public debt, which we were forced to carry out to cover the risks of the COVID crisis and, later, in the war, have somehow put on the table the debate about the need to raise more and better. In any case, we have made good progress in corporate taxation, but it is true that, in taxation of large assets,family office», phantom societies, such as those we are debating today, we have only just begun the journey. And he said we can see the glass half empty or half full. There has been significant progress, as I said, but we cannot take any further delays in the Council in adopting a directive in which the arguments of administrative obstacles cannot be the element blocking a quick decision.

Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to extend a special greeting to the Spanish Presidency, welcoming its representative. It is a pleasure to have this July plenary session with the Spanish Presidency, which will accompany us until the end of the course. And it is certainly a pleasure because the Secretary of State has pointed out well the efforts and successes that the European Union has had in recent years: the fight, first, against the pandemic, the response to the effects of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, with Community policies that have helped, and much, the Member States, but also directly to the citizens, the middle classes and the working classes to face uncertain and difficult moments with greater success than in past crises. In any case, at this time, when it seems that the scenario is not or should not be as negative as that of the fears we suffered in 2020, 2021 and 2022, it is true that there is uncertainty about the withdrawal of many measures to support the popular classes and the very revision of the fiscal rules or the need to really relaunch the European Pillar of Social Rights. The European Parliament is committed to this and I dare say that it offers itself to the Presidency to achieve these objectives in the coming months.

Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to devote these first seconds of my speech to thanking President Hoyer for his twelve years of service to the European Union, in which the European Investment Bank has undoubtedly taken an institutional leap of presence and cooperation with this Parliament that I would like to thank. It is true, as you said, that we have not always taken the same view – and I remember the discussions around the implementation of InvestEU, among other issues – but I did not want to stop thanking you for your work, even though this consumes almost all of my speech. In any case, thinking about the future, the European Investment Bank has taken a big leap, becoming the great climate bank of the European Union, also pushed by this Parliament. And, without a doubt, the Bank must also be able to make an additional leap in cooperation to solve some problems that we have on the design of State aid and the cohesion of the single market by contributing, and much more, to the creation of a sovereign instrument that helps us to face the great challenges of the digital transition, of the green transition, from European sovereignty and with a contribution from the European Investment Bank that states alone cannot make, and with a special contribution also to the just transition mechanism for some regions such as my own, such as Asturias, which needs the support of the EIB.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, first of all, allow me to thank the rapporteur for this report, my colleague René Repasi, who has managed to produce a necessary, timely report which, in some way, also reflects the institutional inconsistencies of our regulatory framework, which requires a reflection on the review of competition policies. In recent years, we have had, first, the shock stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and, subsequently, Putin’s war in Ukraine. Both events have reminded us of the need to strengthen the Union's strategic autonomy. But the European Union barely has the budget of the states to be able to support our industry and be able to guarantee that strategic autonomy. And while the Commission has tried to bring some order to state aid, there is certainly very little margin between supporting our economy and ensuring the soundness of our single market. And we are always playing between the extent to which we can open our hand to state aid – because the needs are obvious – and the extent to which that flexibility erodes or can erode the single market. I said at the beginning that we have an institutional problem, because we will certainly only solve these inconsistencies with a European Union budget and with European programmes that help to respond, while also protecting the single market.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, some of the problems of the current tax rules have already been reviewed in these minutes of debate, and I believe that there is a certain consensus in recognizing that, in the face of these problems, we need new rules, although, certainly, the debate on the new rules is pending for the coming months. However, there is a problem with the current rules which the Commission's proposal does not resolve and which I think must be mentioned at the seat of the European Parliament, at the seat of European sovereignty, and that is that the current and possibly future rules are intended to be applied in each of the States without a reflection on the joint effect of fiscal policy - as I say - on the whole economy of the European Union and fundamentally on the euro area. We have a monetary policy and in the euro area we have 19 different fiscal policies. And these national fiscal policies will remain different with future rules. And we need to internalise the effect of all national policies and ensure that the euro area has a consolidated fiscal policy in line with the cycle.

Mr President, Commissioner, welcome back. We discussed before about the challenges, the opportunities, the uncertainties of the world around digital assets. And undoubtedly, in my opinion, the greatest uncertainty of this change, of this innovation in financial assets, is the potential loss of monetary sovereignty that could occur in the face of a growing disintermediation of publicly issued currencies by central banks. Given the difficulties in managing cycles under these conditions – indeed, we can remember what happened in the Western world in the 19th century, at the end of the 18th century, when there were no public currencies, when there was no monopoly on the issuance of currency, this must be borne in mind – we have to think – and in my opinion this is the answer to the question asked by my colleague Markus Ferber previously – that the reason for having a digital euro is to guarantee monetary sovereignty in a structural way. Now, this great goal has to be achieved by starting with small steps. And the Commission and the European Central Bank are probably thinking of a rather unambitious proposal that, in some way, may not be distinguishable from other payment systems. And at this point the uncertainties of some colleagues arise: Why do we want a payment system that has little difference with those already offered by the private sector? The answer, in my opinion, is to have the framework, the structure to guarantee our monetary sovereignty in the medium term, because certainly the future is inscrutable.

Madam President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that the crypto environment and technological advances in this area make it possible to open up new avenues of innovation and also open spaces for financial democratisation. However, crypto-assets also generate very important challenges: supervisory challenges, regulatory challenges, challenges in controlling the financing of terrorism and other illegal activities and, undoubtedly, challenges also for monetary sovereignty itself, for which we will discuss the proposal for the digital euro later. We welcome this new regulatory framework, the MICA, which will allow some of these assets to be channelled. But it is also important to recognize that there are some holes, some spaces, in that regulatory framework that should invite us to a second MICA, we could say, in the coming times. In any case, and as this Parliament's rapporteur on the package to improve the prudential treatment and security of our banking sector, I would like from here to invite the Council of the European Union, and especially its Swedish Presidency, to open up discussions in the framework of the trilogues on this Parliament's proposal to introduce the prudential treatment of the assets of these crypto-assets in banking regulation. I believe that we have a good opportunity to make further progress on this regulatory path, to which the Commission also invites us, and to ensure an environment of greater stability that allows, on the other hand, to take advantage of the innovative advantages of this type of asset.