Speeches

Ms President, starting with, first of all, congratulating the new Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho, I wish her every success in her term of office. Its commitment to a focused administration that gives more transparency and accountability to European citizens is vital. Europeans expect from us, from the European institutions, more ethics, more transparency and better administration. Our political group has contributed constructively to the drafting of this strong and balanced report, centred on accountability, transparency, citizens' rights. The report addresses key issues, including access to documentation, transparency in administration, conflicts of interest, revolving doors and competition challenges in EPSO. It also stresses the importance of respecting the rights of persons with disabilities. However, for us it is unacceptable that the People's Party has supported once again far-right amendments that undermine the vital role of NGOs. In today's vote we will try to fix these far right and far right narratives. And if it doesn't, we have no other choice than to vote against this report because of the behaviour of the Popular who are playing a political game with support for far-right amendments. The work of the European Ombudsman should never be used as a political ball.

Madam President, for our voters, their holiday is the highlight of the year, something they have to save money for, something that is planned well in advance, something to look forward to. But things can go wrong and the holiday can be spoilt by a natural disaster, a pandemic that leads to travel restrictions, an armed conflict – something which is also unfolding right now in the Middle East, which disrupts our travel industry. And then there is the off‑chance that your travel organiser goes bankrupt after you made your own payment, or worse, while you are still on holiday and still need to come back home. This is no fiction, but unfortunately something that happened to thousands of European travellers affected by the Thomas Cook bankruptcy. After the COVID‑19 pandemic, we know that a medical emergency could once again resurface in the future and obviously face us again with similar problems that we faced in the travel industry. In this world of uncertainty we have one travel product that offers the best consumer protection, and that is EU law. The Package Travel Directive aims to ensure that you can book your package holiday with peace of mind, and that is also why we are here in this Parliament. We have adopted a number of resolutions that called on the Commission to draw lessons from the past crisis. Now that we are at the end of this legislative procedure, it is a good moment, first of all, to thank the European Commission for its very ambitious proposal that helped me as a rapporteur. Not everything made it to the final text, like the proposed limit on prepayments. Even though this proposal made sense from a consumer‑protection perspective, there was no majority in this House. Because of the economic importance of the tourism sector and because we want to keep this product attractive for businesses to offer, we must balance out different legitimate interests which enhance the rights of consumers, and I believe that we succeeded in this effort. To name some things on which we will be voting tomorrow, first of all we will clarify which packages are covered by the directive, and we grant protection to travellers who purchase from separate traders through linked online booking processes. We will improve information to travellers, because the new rules clarify the information that you must receive before, during and after the trip. We introduce a mandatory complaint mechanism which is harmonising the deadlines. Each organiser must set up a complaint‑handling mechanism, confirm the receipt of the complaint within seven days and give a reasoned opinion within 60 days. There are new rules for vouchers as a response to organisers' practices to offer more protection to travellers when choosing and using vouchers. Vouchers should and will remain voluntary for travellers. The vouchers should be valid for a maximum period of 12 months, and travellers must be refunded in full or partially for unused vouchers. Voucher‑holders must be free to spend the vouchers on any travel service offered by the organisers, and vouchers will be covered also by insolvency guarantees. In the case of a trader's insolvency, travellers should be refunded within six months, but shorter deadlines may be established by Member States. If unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances arise at the travel destination or departure point of a trip of affected journeys, there will be the right to cancel the trip without any penalties, with a full refund. As rapporteur I fought for strong consumer rights in the revision of the Package Travel Directive, and with the help of my colleagues, the shadows and different political groups, whom I would like to thank for their cooperation, we achieved a lot. Fast and automatic cash refunds remain the rule – not vouchers. Future crises may not shift financial risks onto families, which we ensure through robust insolvency protection and better EU coordination. I look forward to the debate and hope that tomorrow I can count on your support.

Mrs President! The European single market - is the world's second largest market: Four hundred and fifty million consumers depend on our decisions. Four hundred and fifty million consumers who are today waiting for the European Commission to take action as soon as possible to also see that the pressures that our consumers are falling on their own, due to the geopolitical crises we are facing due to the war in the Middle East, make sure that we address them as far as possible. After eleven days, where gas prices have risen by more than thirty percent, where energy prices have exploded, we are still today without a solution for our consumers. Therefore, it is important to ensure that this solution is implemented as soon as possible. As regards the freedom to provide services on a European basis: after twenty years, there are still sixty percent of the barriers to the services market that remain there; something that our consumers are paying about fifteen percent more in their prices, so it is impossible. It is more important and crucial than ever to increase our resilience by being more competitive, by making sure that such strategic sectors strengthen them in order to ensure that we always protect European consumers.

Ms President, in Europe we can never accept that our children are raised in poverty. Financial stress within the family, food missing in children's school bags. How can you expect these children to reach their educational potential? And this is not fair, and this is something we can prevent with a financially backed European Child Guarantee. If the Commission needs inspiration, you can visit Malta. While our economic growth as a country was strong, we thought of those who were most squeezed by burdens. We aim for an inclusive growth model that works for all. Because of our social policy in the last decade we have managed to reduce poverty very drastically. As far as, contrary to trends in other Member States, Malta's level of deprivation of poverty is concerned, it is at the lowest level ever recorded in our country's history. And this did not come by chance or miracle, but came from the political choices made by the Maltese Government. We have raised from one point three million social expenditures for three million this year, and all this investment is helping to live in a fair society, a healthier society. And what we also need at European level: Investing in people, investing in our children to overcome poverty once and for all.

Ms President, see, having a balance, ultimately, on regulation, not putting unnecessary burdens on our businesses, is something we are totally not opposed to. However, when I see this side of the room attacking, today, so ferociously the Green Deal when yesterday we were talking to the European Commission, as we did, in order to help in the aftermath of the climate crisis that led to devastation in five Member States in recent weeks, there shows the hypocrisy of the Right, and shows how much it is necessary to ultimately continue investing in a more sustainable environment for us, our children and our countries.

Ms President, we can never be competitive if we do not incentivise our workers on the best conditions, with the best rights. We can never be competitive if we do not produce the best quality products for our consumers, European consumers. And this is not a question of ideology, as we have heard in various interventions today, but it is one of common sense. The American economic model is not, not true, more competitive than the European one except for the raw material extraction sector and the digital services sector, where, yes, we need more resilience and less dependence on other continents. We can never replicate or try to copy the Chinese economic model to the European market. This is totally contrary to our fundamental rights and values. We can never replicate Milei's policy of simplification, deregulation, in Argentina. Simplification for which Argentine consumers, pensioners and workers are paying the lowest price. We need strong investment in our economy as, ultimately, it was proposed by Draghi and Letta, an investment that, to date, rather than in our economy, has been more concentrated in arms and armaments that are definitely not making us more competitive.

Mr President – Paul, a 15-year-old. Last year, his parents found him dead in his bedroom. Dead after months of bullying. As his friends were making fun of his looks and bullying him non-stop on different online platforms. There is nothing worse for a parent than seeing your child suffering, nothing worse than losing a child because of bullying, which, in today's world, has shifted online. Too many kids cannot withstand this abuse. Too many families have lost their child to cyberbullying – because this is affecting one in every six children in Europe. It could be my daughter at some point and it worries me, it is my worst nightmare. We cannot stand by and let young people get hurt. We need to act – we need to change the online world that they grow up in. I am grateful to our Commissioner for Youth, Glenn Micallef, that made this fight against cyberbullying his priority. Not by reinventing the wheel, but by building on and reinforcing the Digital Services Act, a key achievement of our socialist group. We need big tech companies to take responsibility for what happens online on their platforms. The helpless feeling of parents that cannot do anything to take down bullying online cannot continue without an end. It is good that the Commission will put forward guidelines for the protection of minors under the DSA: the role of trusted flaggers, but also to block and take down videos from platforms immediately before irreparable damage is done. Mind you, this will require forceful enforcement of the rules, and we need enough funding for the trusted flaggers to do their work. Teachers need to work on prevention of cyberbullying because the perpetrators are also just kids that do not realise the harm that they are causing. At some time we also need to empower victims. The Commission is doing this with a European app to report and support, which can directly help children and also parents in distress. I am hopeful that we can make a positive change as lawmakers and reverse this trend. Together, we should aim to eradicate cyberbullying in Europe.

Mrs President, one of the sectors that we have the most consumers talking to us about because of problems they are facing, always remains that telecommunications sector. And so, in every reform we move forward, we must ensure that the most important element that always protects our consumers, which is that of competition, remains at the centre of our work. And so, it is important that no new regulation that we push forward, no new reforms that we move forward, do not reduce this type of competition, and on the contrary, lead to a situation where we have big regulators working in a more stagnant European market. When we talk about different companies in Malta, we all have three telecommunication companies, three telecommunication companies working in the smallest Member State. There are still many and many problems when it comes to protecting consumer rights. And so we should always keep in mind that the more companies that compete small, medium-sized, larger, the more a market that works for people, for our consumers.

Mr President, I remain amazed that the far-right and political groups on this side of the room consistently continue to defend their idol - their idol that is Trump - in the face of all these attacks on European integrity. Nowadays not only attacks on European legislation, but a direct attack, directly, on one of our Member States and its territorial integrity. I think that if you really want to continue to be called, at least, Patriots, European Patriots, the first thing to do is to be firm against those who attack European interests. Something that you are clearly not doing.

Mr President, the best weapon we can use against bullies, like Trump, is to be consistent. First of all consistent with our principles and values, consistent with the way we ultimately lead diplomacy and act in the face of threats. And so, I think the message that as a European Union has led us forward, when, following threats from the U.S. government, directly from President Trump, against theacquis European digital; and there the steps we have taken even through the revision of theacquis digital via the digital omnibus, has shown that we have a certain fear of this kind of threats. And so it is important to be consistent: Consistent by enforcing our legislation; consistent in our diplomatic policy; consistent by dealing with fundamental crises around us, such as the crisis in Gaza, such as the genocide in Gaza; in the same way as we deal with a number of other crises around us: the war of aggression in Ukraine and other geopolitical issues. Thus, the European Union can continue to act as a global leader working for peace and stability around us.

Ms President, can we continue to function when the internet continues to be demolished by a cyberattack? Today digital infrastructure has become as essential for our citizens as other utilities: utilities such as electricity supply and water supply. More and more now that our physical infrastructure has also become dependent on the internet to function normally, to enable hospitals to deliver care, to allow airports and airlines to transport our passengers. We need to be protected from cyberattacks. Unfortunately, this is a real threat in an unstable world. I am pleased to see the European Commission addressing this threat with the revision of the Cyber Security Act. We want to broaden certification beyond ICT, and look at all elements that may be affected in our digitalised society. ENISA, the European Union Agency for Cyber Security, should play a central role in putting forward a European Union-wide action plan. We need to speed up the process of setting common standards on all relevant sectors. Hybrid threats will not wait until we have everything in order, and our citizens and businesses expect the European Union to help them to always be protected.

Ms President, the photos of our children are no longer safe on the internet. Imagine your son's pictures, imagine your daughter's pictures being used to create child abuse material? This is a sad thought but it is a reality that many and many parents are facing across the European Union. Women, who are already facing a toxic environment on an online basis, are seeing their photos being used maliciously to generate pornographic material. Let's be clear, this is not allowed under European Union law, and Elon Musk can no longer act with impunity. It is time for strong enforcement of the Digital Services Act, AI, GDPR, so that they can keep up with the intentions of these oligarchs. We took note that the European Commission extended the investigations on X and ordered the maintenance of the internal documentation on Grokk. But it's good to ask: how much remains for this investigation to lead to concrete results? This is not something we can wait for, postpone, in order to ultimately take action. But all this also reminds us of the importance of safeguarding strong legislation that we already have, and not going on the path of deregulation that undermines the protection we already offer to our children, our women, our citizens. And so we should be very attentive to the actions we take when it comes to simplifying European legislation.

Mr President, nowadays, most of us get our news from social media – in Malta, around 80 % do so. And while healthy democracies rely on quality journalism for objective information, this is not how our platforms are working. Big tech made a business out of polarisation. Their algorithms give preference to interaction. – it's what keeps attention and sells more advertisement for them. We know this, and the Digital Services Act was made to tackle it. It is high time to enforce our rules and stop the toxic recommender systems that are making us addicted and pushing extreme content onto our citizens' timelines. Things have got worse with Elon Musk running X as a passion project, openly railing against the EU and supporting extreme right parties in election campaigns. This is no longer a neutral space for public debate. X has become a propaganda machine aimed at undermining our European community. A EUR 120 million fine is a start, but not enough to make Musk respect our digital acquis. Bolder action is needed to force him to comply. Other platforms are not much better: on Facebook and Instagram there are signs of shadow banning. If a news outlet or a politician publishes on the genocide in Gaza, their content is demoted and their reach diminished. Is it how things should work in a democracy that a company like Meta, a billionaire like Zuckerberg, decides what Europeans hear, what Europeans see online? Yesterday it was Gaza. This week it was the LGBTI pages that were removed. And tomorrow, what and who will be the next target of the algorithmic ban? At the same time, bot networks of fake profiles are given free space to influence our public debate, even in election periods. And while the problem grows, Meta's new policy since the start of the Trump administration is to drastically reduce content moderation, allowing more bad stuff on their platforms while undermining our democracies in the process. When do we stop? The limit of what we can take has long been reached, and we expect the Commission to act as soon as possible.

Madam President, Executive Vice‑President, our democracy thrives by transparency. We need to shed light on all the special interests and also lobbies that try to influence our policy, and this goes beyond third country interests: it is as much about corporate lobbies and all legitimate civil society organisations that provide us with useful advice. Our voters want to know who tries to influence us. Transparency builds trust that we can act on our conviction. We are here to serve the European people and no specific interest of anybody. This is why we, as S&D, proposed turning this directive into a General Transparency Act. But our amendments, unfortunately, did not get the support of right‑wing groups. Instead, we are left with a very targeted proposal that will deal with the internal market for third‑country interest representation, and this is good, because we need to open our eyes to the fact that there are campaigns by foreign powers to influence Europeans and Member States in their favour. At the same time, we need to make sure we prevent a chilling effect on civil society, about which several UN special rapporteurs have warned us. That is why only services which are economic in nature are and should be in the scope of this directive. It is in line with the legal basis ⁠– that of the functioning of the internal market. There is no carve-out for NGOs, and they will be covered only insofar as they deliver commercial services, But all non‑profit activities executed and based on charity grants and subsidies will not be covered. On top of this, we have clear additional safeguards for activities in the interest of the common good. The supervisor who will enforce this directive will be totally independent and will limit the sanctions only to administrative fines, excluding potentially criminal sanctions. The text is one that my group can support. It has the right balance between the transparency needed on foreign influence in our democracy, and the need to protect and support civil society that is doing democratic and legitimate work on policy from stigma or even prosecution.

Mr President, the proposal for a digital omnibus comes at a very difficult time – I would even say at the worst time possible. The US Commission are already having a difficult task to enforce our digital rules with the headwinds coming from the US. Investigations on platforms are ongoing and need to be concluded to ensure that they respect our acquis. In this context, you are opening a discussion on the rules that are the very bedrock of our regulatory model, how we deal with the very personal data of our citizens. It comes to no surprise to read the news today from the US Secretary of Commerce, Lutnick, that he is saying that he is negotiating with EU Commissioner Virkkunen on a rollback in digital protection in exchange for lower steel tariffs. We cannot barter away our value-based approach to the online world. We have been very clear about that. This Parliament has voted and decided on our sovereign rules, and we cannot give the impression that we are willing to trade our citizens' protection for the interests of US big tech companies. Simplification can be good when it comes to streamlining different data laws, but here we are not speaking of simplification, here we are speaking of deregulation that is going against what we have worked for. Your proposal reduces the scope of personal data and thereby reduces the level of protection of the GDPR. Do we really want to allow processing of sensitive, personal data for the development of AI systems based on legitimate interest? Do we want to give an exception to the processing of biometric data, where it is necessary to confirm the identity of a person? I am extremely worried that these changes can lead to massification of data tracking and lower protection for Europeans. We as Europeans have been global leaders in setting the rules and standing up against all the powerful hyperscalers and their owners. Do you want to squander this reputation? How can we water down the AI Act that we have voted only a couple of years ago? We should be confident about our approach and believe that we can support an EU tech ecosystem based on privacy, competition and European values. Today it seems that we are questioning ourselves. We need to show strength instead of weakness. We need to be resolute and make tech companies accountable.

Ms President, the online world today is not a safe place for our children primarily because of the model with which platforms work that are leading to excessive times our children are spending on their smartphones, on their tablets. And in some cases, algorithms are pushing even totally flawed content, which promotes self-harm on minors, with devastating effects on them. Cyberbullying is on the rise and may also include a false image of our children, fake profiles, who have had a number of cases across Europe that have led to suicides. And what about the greatest risk, that is that of online grooming and sexual abuse of our children. As a parent, this is a concern that keeps me awake at night. And I am not alone in being so concerned. All our citizens know that something is intrinsically wrong, and big technology platforms know about it. We heard from whistleblowers who worked with them. But they don't care to act. We are making huge profits from our children, and this is not a mistake, this is not an accident. It is a fundamental part of how social media works: Keep your eyes on the screen. This is the key to the success of every platform. And if they don't act, we need to act. This report is therefore important. The Commission must deliver on its promise to address this issue, this crisis as a matter of urgency. Where is the group of experts supposed to present solutions by the end of this year? Every day we are losing, it has a negative price on the development of the growing generation. The Parliament is taking a position today. We want a minimum age for young people to access social media. We need an age check, and not by pressing "yes" or "no" children who have an age exceeding the minimum age. We must address the additive design of these platforms. We need the digital justice act with real solutions that put the limits of harmful practices for platforms. A healthy online environment is not only good for children, but for each and every one of us.

Madam President, President of the Commission, a roof over your head is the basis for any decent life, and a basic right that should be enjoyed by each and every citizen. But how can you find a place to call home when housing prices spike and rents explode? This is not an issue of one European Member State. The housing crisis has become a cross-cutting European problem: from Italy to Ireland, from the Netherlands to the Czech Republic, more and more citizens cannot afford housing. This is hitting very specific segments within our society, specifically our young people, single parents, but also our elderly. There is poverty, and homelessness is on the rise. It is time for the EU to act on this obligation, which is also found in the Charter: to recognise and respect that Europeans who lack resources need housing assistance, because those for whom the market has failed to deliver are looking up to us to find a concrete solution. So let me welcome the fact that the Council agrees with my political group. The Commission needs to swiftly present an ambitious and comprehensive plan for affordable housing. We have made this one of our priorities with the introduction of a Commissioner responsible for housing, and we have full confidence in Dan Jørgensen that he will deliver. But while we focus on our citizens' worries about finding a house, we cannot forget about those in Gaza, whose houses no longer exist because they have been deliberately destroyed. The agreed ceasefire is giving them a sliver of hope, but despite the outcome of the summit for peace, the killing has not stopped completely and there remains an urgent need for humanitarian support. Seeing the complete destruction of very basic infrastructure in Gaza, the EU should do everything to make lasting peace possible and, at the same time, make sure that those responsible for potential war crimes are brought to justice as soon as possible. This is what I expect from Europe as the defenders of the rule of law. Let me end on a positive note for the cost of living for Europeans. We support the call by the Council to build a true European energy union for clean and cheap energy. In the long term, the cost of living for all EU citizens will benefit from a stable supply of affordable, reliable and green energy – especially if we improve the internal market for this energy. We need to turn the green transition into something positive for the wallets of our voters to get them to buy into it.

Mr President, Europe should not compete at deregulation. Europe should not compete for the lowest price. We compete on quality. We should compete on fairness. Our rules make a fair internal market. When I look at your work plan, I am hopeful that we can make progress – meaningful legislation that makes a difference in the lives of our citizens. The quality jobs act should ensure that workers are protected against the strains that digitalisation is putting on them. We have to regulate the use of algorithmic management that monitors our workers, and we should introduce the right to disconnect. Limits and safeguards are needed to protect the mental health of workers, on and off duty. The announced digital fairness act can fill the gaps of digital consumer protection. Online addiction to social media is a real hazard to our young people – and to all of us, frankly. Platforms are designed to be addictive – this is their business model. If there is one legislator that can put an end to addictive design, it is the European Union. My expectations are high, but you can count on our support, where necessary with amendments on these acts, to make a better difference in the lives of our citizens.

Mr President, I would like to ask a question to the Chairman of the LIBE Committee. In your speech, you said that judicial processes are still ongoing. Only one trial remains in this case of the persons who are accused of involvement in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, and there is an ongoing trial, which the Government has nothing to do with. What are you proposing? I.e. do you propose, as Chair of the LIBE Committee, that the Maltese Government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice speak directly to the courts so that the trial, the trial, is conducted quickly, immediately and the rights that the accused, in this case, is taking forward, rights deriving from the Maltese law and constitution are violated?

Mr President, I would like to start by quoting part of the Maltese Chief Justice's speech which he gave two weeks ago. He said, "I would like to thank the Minister of Justice who has always heard my suggestions on behalf of the Maltese judiciary. Suggestions to strengthen our courts. There has always been mutual respect between us, respect based on our respective constitutional roles." The words of the Maltese Chief Justice. And so I ask. Why is this attack on our country? They told us, in the title of this debate, that we have a delay in bringing justice. Delays in bringing justice when we have five accused in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia who all passed trial, with the last trial ending a few weeks ago? Only one final trial is pending in the hands of our courts. And I ask. What is the European Parliament proposing? The Prime Minister, Robert Abela, goes to our courts and tells them to speed up the trial? You would be the first to point your fingers to us and tell us that you are interfering in the work of our courts. He told us that the rule of law went back, in this debate. Going back, the rule of law, when we passed through the Maltese Parliament a law, an average of a month's law, in order to strengthen our recommendations? Has it returned, the rule of law, when we have the greatest number of judges in our country's history, and we have given them more tools to work better? Did you return, the rule of law, when we removed powers from the hands of politicians in order to appoint the judiciary, and handed them over to an independent commission? Going back, the rule of law, when did we create the state attorney? Do you know who violates the rule of law? The Nationalist Party, part of the EPP Group, that they, having resisted for years to have a party financing law, have been violating this law for five years by not publishing their audited finances. According to Maltese law, the EPP party here is not even a recognised party in our country. So I appeal to the EPP that, before pointing their fingers to others, they see that they clean their home a bit.

Ms President, Commissioner, the recent ceasefire agreement should not only be empty words, but it must be an end to the brutal occupation and implementation of the two-state solution. The European Union is not just a humanitarian agency. The European Union must play a much more important role in ultimately ensuring that no other colonial protectorate is put in place, but we guarantee that Palestine has the power to govern itself. Any future arrangement must see and place the Palestinian Authority at the centre of Gaza's governance. The so-called Trump Agreement must also be framed in the vision of both states and implemented in line with the rulings of the international court of justice. Let us see that Europe again becomes a bastion for justice, peace and protection of life rights and to achieve this, we must see that today more Member States recognise the Palestinian State. Only then will we have a two-state solution that can live side by side, in peace and harmony.