Speeches

Mr President, thank you to the rapporteur for his report on the implementation of the agreement between the European Union and Canada. CETA is a free trade agreement that has given rise to a lot of controversy, we can say it in this way, so it must draw our particular attention to what elements, five years later, in the context of provisional implementation, could still be problematic and explain that some Member States have not ratified the text five years later. If nothing has changed, five years later, if new guarantees are not provided, what would allow these Member States to change their position? I think it is difficult for us to adopt a report that does not call for a revision of this treaty in terms of sustainability in order to bring it into line on the European side with the reform of the sustainable development chapters, which we adopted under this mandate, and on the investment part as well. And the paradox is that Canada itself is prepared, without all the Member States of the European Union having ratified it, to review the part of the sustainable development chapters and I call on our institution, and on the European Commission, to move in this direction in order to effectively allow, if necessary, the Member States to join the coalition of States that have ratified it, but as it stands, we cannot adopt this report.

Mr President, 100 days of war, death and desolation in Gaza. 100 days that Israeli hostages are being held away from their loved ones. 100 days and more than 23,000 Palestinians, including 10,000 children, killed by Israeli forces. 100 days and more than 100 UN workers and 80 journalists dead. An unprecedented humanitarian crisis according to the largest international NGOs, the imminence of a great risk of genocide according to the United Nations. All this must stop. Faced with this massacre, the silence of Europe for 100 days is making noise. History looks at us and we do not live up to it, while the European Union and the entire international community have obligations under international law. The European Union must demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, respect for international humanitarian law, an end to arbitrary detentions, the release of Israeli hostages and the adoption of sanctions against those responsible for war crimes, a ban on imports of settlement products and the suspension of the Association Agreement with Israel. The European Union must once again become an actor of lasting peace in the region.

Madam President, Prime Minister, Europe has to choose. To the return of austerity that has pushed our fellow citizens into precariousness and into the arms of reactionary ideologies, let us oppose solidarity and investment in transitional jobs, in public services and in conditions of a dignified life. At the regulatory pause in environmental and climate legislation, which some want, including you, Prime Minister, to propose an energy transition that creates jobs for a healthy environment, insulation and renewable energy for cheaper energy bills, biodiversity, local agriculture without GMOs. To retreat into oneself, to the temptation of identity, to the return of Nazi salutes to the streets of Europe, to a fortress Europe that deals with dictatorships, let us oppose living together, the rule of law, solidarity and humanity. Mr de Croo, on the eve of the European elections, the Belgian presidency will have to give the breath and the prospects that the European Union fundamentally needs. To achieve its climate and biodiversity objectives through a new Green and Social Pact, to make social Europe a reality that protects and invests in its citizens, for a democratic Europe where fundamental rights prevail, we must prove to European citizens that Europe is their home, that they can count on it and, above all, that they have a say in future European policies.

Mr President, the investigation carried out by OLAF and the pressure from the European Parliament against it led to the resignation of Frontex Director Fabrice Leggeri. A good part of this Chamber probably thought that the agency would be reborn under new auspices, that it would leave behind the dysfunctions of the past and thus make it possible to justify the continuous evolution of its budget of more than EUR 900 million over ten years. What a challenge! The Agency is once again engaging in abject practices. By communicating the GPS coordinates of boats seeking to reach Europe to a Libyan militia, she delivered innocent people to a criminal group that finances itself through migrant smuggling and tortures them. Remind me how much the European Union spends on its anti-trafficking plans, of which it has made one of its priorities? Is cooperation with traffickers a concept shared by both Frontex and the European Commission? Frontex has implemented almost all the recommendations, but apparently not that of respect for fundamental rights. And will you, ladies and gentlemen, in this Parliament, all of you assume your responsibilities by demanding the implementation of the recommendations of the Frontex resolution as a sine qua non condition for granting budgetary discharge? It is time to be consistent, otherwise scandals will continue to recur, and the rule of law will continue to deteriorate.

Mr President, the best interests of the child enshrines the right of every child to have a family, and there are 2 million children in Europe, 2 million children, for whom this right will become truly effective if the regulation on the mutual recognition of parenthood is adopted. Two million children will finally be able to move and settle freely within the European Union with their LGBTQIA+ families. That counts for those 2 million children and their families. It matters to us because, in 2023, in Europe, the rights of these children are being violated by conservatives, by the far right, which is attacking the rights of LGBTQIA+ families, in Italy and elsewhere. In 2023, the EU must protect the rights of all children and families. If you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in all countries. It is now up to our governments, who will have the final decision in their hands, to make this right statement by the President of the European Commission a reality: A child is a child, a family is a family, and all have rights, for which our governments must be the guarantors.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today I appeal to our hearts. The European Union bears historic responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Today it bears a historic responsibility to speak with one voice and achieve an immediate ceasefire, to end the unprecedented massacre of civilians, innocent children, journalists and humanitarian workers, to secure the release of the hostages, all hostages, and to seek a political solution to the conflict. A two-state solution, with the aim of restoring lasting peace, in line – too! – international law. The European Union must also be coherent. It must freeze and confiscate the assets of Hamas terrorists, as France has done. It must also adopt sanctions against violent Israeli settlers, ban trade with settlements and punish leaders guilty of war crimes. The European Union must be on the right side of history and also make sure that it is on the side of solutions. Solutions for peace, for security, for stability, to protect our children from war there, to protect our children from hatred and anti-Semitism here.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the clock is ticking for European democracy, which was built on the ashes of the Second World War and – let us not forget – against the far right, which wants to bring us back to the darkest hours of our history. From now on, it is also against foreign interference that we must fight. In this sense, the first package of measures for the defence of democracy is obviously welcome, but it is a first step. Let me share my astonishment at not seeing one of the recommendations of the Spyware Inquiry Committee in this package of defence of democracy packages. Surveillance by means of spyware is contrary to freedom of expression, it is contrary to freedom of the press. Journalists were monitored, political opponents, civil society, MPs, elected representatives of this assembly and members of the European Commission as well. If this continues to be tolerated, I fear that we will miss a famous turning point in the preservation of our democracies.

Mr President, Commissioner, five months ago, after hundreds of hours of work, the PEGA Committee of Inquiry handed over its recommendations to the European Commission and the Member States. And, always quick to act in the area of internal security, the Commission, according to this Parliament in any case, perhaps not in its view, has the power to act when freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, the exercise of civil and political rights, when European security is threatened by European governments and by third countries spying on us. And it is not only this Parliament that you are being asked to answer, it is the thousands of victims of illegal espionage: journalists and their sources at risk because instead of being protected by you, they are spied on, victims of fundamental rights violations because our states export malware to authoritarian regimes. Since the end of our committee of inquiry, other journalists in exile, other MEPs, other officials of the European Commission, other diplomats have been spied on. And still no reaction. On the contrary, the European Union continues to unpack the red carpet to third countries that are suspected of being behind these attacks. So I have questions: Why doesn't the fact that Vietnam can spy on us cause a stir? Why has France, through Nexa, been able to export with impunity to one of the most libertarian countries in the world, when this type of software risks being used against political opponents? Why are investigations not opened into espionage attempts, into our colleague Karleskind, into our President Metsola, into members of the European Commission? Ladies and gentlemen, I think we are entitled to ask ourselves whether the European Commission is deliberately playing with the security of Europeans, who are also entitled to ask why our recommendations are not being followed.

Mr President, safe for Russian oligarchs, opaque financial centre for circumvention of EU sanctions and anti-money laundering rules, golden visa system. No, this is not the scenario of the latest Netflix series, it is what ‘Cyprus Confidential’ reveals about Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union. As Russia launched its war against Ukraine, Cypriot financial facilitators rushed to help Russian oligarchs and Putin’s allies protect their assets and avoid Western sanctions in place since 2014. Allowing criminals to slip through the cracks of EU restrictive measures against Russia is not only a violation of EU law and a circumvention of sanctions, but also a form of complicity with Putin’s Russia. If Cyprus’s bad reputation is over, known for its overly lax legislation that allows for a thriving financial sector industry and above all financial secrecy, its complacency turns into complicity. It also serves as a transmission belt for dirty money and Russian fortunes to the West, while the watchword is to block Putin, so it is also up to the Council to legislate, to react. When sanctions, which are our only non-military weapon against Putin, are thus circumvented, and when European citizenship is subject to financial transactions and benefits war criminals, the threat to European security is real. The Cypriot action, but also the Commission’s complacency in the face of our Assembly’s repeated demands to legislate on golden visas, and to ensure that European law is respected, is unforgivable in the face of a long-standing and still unresolved situation despite the war at the EU’s borders.

Madam President, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted unanimously by the 197 States on 20 November 1989. She asserts that not to wage war or suffer it is a right of every child. Let us therefore put an end to the ongoing massacres in Gaza through an immediate ceasefire. The right to live in dignity, the right to healthy food and the right to housing are rights for every child. With five million children at risk of poverty in Europe, it is time to act, including through the guarantee – but it must become effective in every state. The right to participation is a right. It is also high time to make COP28 the first COP that brings young people to the negotiating table. Going to school is a right. The European Commission must make effective the commitment to zero tolerance for child labour. This is a commitment made in 2019, there is still far too much to do. The right to the family is a right of every child that is today violated by the Meloni government. It is high time to uphold the rights of all families, including LGBT families. The CRC is a universal convention for the international community, for the European Union to enforce it.

Madam President, 80% of the Sustainable Development Goals – access to electricity, food, school, poverty reduction – will not be achieved by 2030. World leaders meeting at the UN in September recognised that crises have swept away progress since 2015 and, worse, that inequalities are widening, due to a lack of international solidarity. In the aftermath of the International Day for the Refusal of Misery, a single watchword: accelerate efforts. And at the end of Fair Trade Week, when 80% of our trade flows are obstacles to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, there is only one lesson to be learned: aligning all our policies with the SDGs – not just development cooperation, but all our policies. Our Parliament has called for an audit of trade policy. Hence my question: What is the status of the European Commission in this audit? Because, contrary to the Treaties and the initial commitments of the von der Leyen Commission, the SDGs do not seem to be the compass of all EU policies, and this is a serious mistake, in a global context of insecurity, conflict, forced migration linked to poverty and the consequences of climate change, where the fate of the European Union is closely linked to that of the rest of the world.

Mr President, Commissioner, you tell us, Ms Jourová, that the European Commission’s replies to the recommendations of our Pegasus Committee of Inquiry are ready to be sent and that you are exploring the possibility of a non-legislative initiative. It sounds a bit like a joke. In the face of the latest revelations, when we adopted our legislative recommendations more than six months ago, the Commission and the Council are not moving. What is this time? A French surveillance company that violated the dual-use law by selling spyware with impunity to authoritarian states, which were clearly going to use it against human rights activists and the political opposition. Vietnam is one of them. This practice comes back to us today as a boomerang, with a flagrant offence of foreign interference by Vietnam in European affairs. The President of this Assembly has been spied on, and our institutions remain silent! A firm response must be given to the third States that are spying on us. Vietnam has broken the confidence pact that has bound us since 2020. Finally, let’s stop being naive! Suspend the agreement while an investigation is conducted and shed light on the situation. Vietnam needs to demonstrate transparency and good cooperation. In addition, we have a brand new anti-coercion instrument, which was created to respond to this type of situation. I would also like to hear from the Commission on this.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, the causes and consequences of organised crime linked to drug trafficking in Europe are manifold and - as you said, Mr Schinás - they must find systemic answers. Some of them have already been mentioned in the Q&A session, but in addition to the necessary repressive approach against criminals, there is also an urgent need for economic, social and cultural measures, as well as policies aimed at young people to prevent the development of criminal activities, particularly in underprivileged neighbourhoods and in already underprivileged populations. Organised crime can no longer be a profitable route for underprivileged children. On the other hand, people in neighbourhoods affected by settlements and widespread violence must also be able to benefit from our support. Let's use the profits of these crimes - which are confiscated - for prevention and support to affected communities. And so what are these prevention measures that you bring and that are put in place? What accompanying measures are planned for affected communities, but also for young people, who are forced to collaborate in organised crime? Finally, what about Europol’s willingness to put an end to this end-to-end encryption, as part of its tasks in the fight against organised crime? Is widespread surveillance really the solution? Are privacy and the confidentiality of exchanges not prerequisites in a State governed by the rule of law?

Monsieur le Président, des sanctions sont efficaces lorsqu’elles sont mises en œuvre. They are then an essential part of the non-military, European response to Russian aggression. But after eleven packages of sanctions supposedly weakening Putin’s Russia, sanctions are circumvented through trade schemes or through third states, with the shameful involvement of European states. Through third states, Europeans continue to export goods and materials directly contributing to the war to Russia. The Directive on the criminalisation of the circumvention of sanctions in Europe, currently being negotiated with the Council, must therefore become a tool that makes these sanctions operational and prevents future violations. It is therefore a question of putting an end to sanctions violations by unscrupulous war profiteers, and not of criminalising individuals and organisations that protect civilian populations and strengthen civil societies in countries in conflict. Humanitarian actors must therefore be exempted, and respect for fundamental rights must also be guaranteed.

Madam President, in 2021, the new business strategy was marked by open strategic autonomy. Two years later, after the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the EU is now obsessed with any promise to secure the supply of essential raw materials and also seeks to multiply and accelerate free trade agreements whose social, economic, local and climate effects are unfortunately no longer to be demonstrated. The pandemic had made us realise how key issues such as relocation, food and strategic autonomy, independence from global supply chains were. What is our strategic autonomy vis-à-vis our American ally when it comes to concluding an agreement that would allow our car companies to benefit from the tax exemptions on electric vehicles or an agreement on steel and aluminium? Other countries now understand that they have a real card to play against Europe, which does not have cobalt, lithium or gas in its soils. And I think that Azerbaijan’s attack on Nagorno-Karabakh is really no stranger to this issue. Vietnam makes fun of the democratic clause in our free trade agreement, while September was particularly disastrous in terms of human rights violations. Is it its role in the semiconductor value chain that gives it impunity that dishonours us? We cannot accept anything in exchange for new free trade agreements. This is also true with the Mercosur countries. On the other hand, we can consider new forms of partnership, as it seems clear that they cannot accede to our sustainability demands, while we cannot accede to their demands to finalise the agreement, such as accepting compensatory measures in the event that the European Union adopts new legislation that would harm their economic interests. This would be totally contrary to the principle of strategic autonomy and would amount to putting legislation such as that on animal welfare in the fridge and jeopardising our regulation on forced labour that exists in Latin America. Beyond the consequences of the agreement for the European agricultural sector and the good health of the Amazon and the indigenous populations, granting Mercosur's request for compensation amounts to giving them a right of veto over our own legislative initiatives. We have a clear roadmap, the TSD, the Gender Action Plan III. We have sustainable development goals. That's where we're headed. This is also where we are heading in terms of trade policy.

Madam President, perhaps one of the ways to convince the Council, which honours us with its absence today, when this is the message that Parliament and the European Commission send to our governments to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty, is to tell them that the cost of climate inaction will be five times higher than the cost of action today. It will cost us even more if we stick to this treaty that allows energy investors to demand millions from those same governments and if they make decisions that run counter to their interests by taking energy transition measures. For example, several multinationals have already extorted more than €50 billion from countries that have signed the ECT. So much money that is taken away from the public community, so much money that should be used for the necessary energy transition and to reduce citizens' energy bills. Achieving our climate goals requires putting an end to investments in fossil fuels and their protection. The Council must therefore follow the call of Parliament and the European Commission to leave the Treaty, but also to neutralise its effects at European level. And the European Union must also show its leadership in the run-up to COP28, its leadership in the phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels, but also by ordering the rest of the world to enter into a treaty on the non-proliferation of fossil fuels.

Mr President, ten years ago, 368 people lost their lives in the Lampedusa tragedy. And ten years later, 28,000 people, men, women and children, died without the European authorities standing up indignantly to prevent these tragedies. Ten years of politics that have made the bed of hatred and anti-migrant rhetoric leading to this fortress Europe that feeds smugglers and generates dramas. Disagreements over the Pact include mandatory solidarity between Member States. We know, however, that this is one of the essential criteria for putting an end to the multiple crises at our borders and reception within our Member States. The pact seals off border detention practices in our states, even those of children. It is not based on the necessary human, solidarity-based, legal policy, on what migrants can bring to our continent and what we can bring to theirs, but on pushbacks, criminalisation, partnerships with authoritarian regimes. This marks the failure of our civilisation to respond with solidarity and humanism to the needs and realities of our brothers, sisters and children, as we did for our Ukrainian brothers and sisters.

Madam President, dear to our European values, freedom of the press is the cornerstone of our democracies. It must become a model to be able to defend the rights of journalists all over the world. For years, in this forum, we have been denouncing threats to press freedom across Europe. Given the murders and arrests of journalists, the control and concentration of the media, surveillance and intimidation, the violation of source secrecy and the lack of protection, the absence of the Council today is particularly disturbing. The Media Freedom Act lays down rules for press freedom, media pluralism and the protection of journalists in Europe. But now is also the time to make effective, ladies and gentlemen, one of the recommendations of our Pegasus Committee of Inquiry: a ban on spying on journalists. This is also a message, and above all a message to our governments. Freedom of the press is a prerequisite for the rule of law and European democracy. It is more necessary than ever in a time of massive disinformation. Let's protect her. Let's get her back.

Mr President, the top three concerns of Latin Americans are extreme poverty, climate change and human rights violations. Priorities that are at the heart of our sustainable development goals, our international goals, which should therefore also be ours, Europeans. The long-awaited EU-CELAC summit, after eight years without a major political meeting, was to be the occasion for a renewed partnership that we also called for. You have just talked about social justice, Mr Borrell, but these annoying issues have not been addressed. These issues, however, affect the fundamental role of our economic and trade relations, which do not benefit local populations, but benefit large export sectors and their shareholders, disregard respect for human rights and accelerate deforestation in a subcontinent that is already responsible for more than half of global deforestation. The EU, Latin America and the Caribbean must find ways to move forward together on these issues, also with civil society, in implementing our respective international commitments for the Sustainable Development Goals, but also for the Paris Climate Agreement and the Biodiversity Agreement. Appointments that do not honestly address these issues or an amended EU-Mercosur agreement on the margins will be missed.

Madam President, do you really think that brothers, sisters, parents and children are boarding a boat to cross the Mediterranean, thinking that everything will be fine? Do they not die of fear? That they do not know that the crossing is dangerous, but that they are guided by the immense hope of finding a better life here than the one they leave behind? Leaving people to die in the Mediterranean, but also in the English Channel, in the Atlantic, is a political choice. Building walls, not protecting, welcoming, integrating are political choices. And how many deaths, lives, broken families will we still have to count? How many press covers, but also hypocritical emotions, statements with no effect? Like any political choice, we can put an end to these deaths. Decide to approach migration positively and constructively, decide to establish legal and safe pathways. Clear and fair rules. Deciding that solidarity, welcome, humanity, dignity are our common values. Decide today to launch a European search and rescue mission at sea, and support NGOs rather than criminalise them. Our civilization will be judged by its actions.

In ten years, more than 570 legal proceedings by public or private entities have targeted whistleblowers, journalists, human rights defenders, environmental defenders and NGOs. Total Energies accuses Greenpeace of spreading false information. Socfin, a member of the Bolloré Group, attacks NGOs accusing him of greenwashing and land grabbing. 47 proceedings against the only journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia before her murder. The systematic aim: preventing the emergence of issues of public interest, ending investigations by journalists or silencing the political opposition. Effects: prison sentences, heavy financial penalties or self-censorship, dangerous for our democracies and the right to information of all citizens. The logic must be reversed. Multinationals and the powerful of this world, whose actions threaten the public interest, must be punished. Those who denounce their actions must be protected by both the European Union and our governments.

Madam President, in recent months, the European Union has adopted numerous sanctions regimes against individuals, but also against entities, particularly in the context of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Two dimensions are of concern to my group. First, the consequences of these sanctions for humanitarian actors and fundamental rights. These are priorities in our ongoing work on the Sanctions Directive. A second dimension concerns the effectiveness of these sanctions regimes. They have become a privileged tool of European foreign policy, but with their multiplication, the circumvention of these measures has also intensified, to the benefit of unscrupulous intermediaries, autocracy and financial criminals who are rampant without being held accountable for their actions. Why? Well, because our states do not give priority to this issue and do not put the necessary means in place to ensure the investigation and effective implementation of these sanctions. This lack of prioritisation is also reflected in the Council’s attitude. In view of these findings, we call for a European implementation mechanism. For us, this is the task of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, whose record in the fight against financial crimes is impressive, as you said, Commissioner. The EPPO not only has the required competences, but some of the relevant offences are already covered by the customs offences it deals with. We believe that the expertise of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) represents a great added value in this context, in order to mitigate these circumvention of sanctions. As you also said, ten Member States have already been in favour of extending the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and I welcome that. We are therefore really counting on the presidency of the Council to take the other 17 in their wake. I am also pleased to hear that the European Commission is ready to continue the work. Would you also be prepared to table a proposal on Parliament's table?

Madam President, the Sustainable Development Goals – the SDGs – are objectives that are widely shared, both by our Assembly, as we have just heard, and by the European Commission. Moreover, each Commissioner has, in his mission letter, their proper implementation. Yet, year after year, here, as the 2030 deadline approaches, the targets are moving away. The same is true: the lack of policy coherence – food, energy, but also trade. I have asked experts to objectify these inconsistencies and assess the contribution of our trade flows to achieving the SDGs. Be careful: 80% of trade flows are obstacles, I would say obstacles, to their realisation. Unfortunately, the European Commission, DG TRADE, prefers to turn away from these bitter findings and pursue the logic of free trade, growing trade flows and exploiting the resources of the countries of the South, in contrast to sustainability. The visit of the President of the European Commission to Latin America to praise the merits of a trade agreement between Europe and Mercosur, with clear social and environmental consequences, unfortunately confirms that trade policy is not ready to make a positive contribution to the SDGs. It is therefore high time to ensure policy coherence.

Mr President, almost two years ago, the revelations by Forbidden Stories, Amnesty International and Citizen Lab about the illegal use of Pegasus and other spyware triggered the work of our committee of inquiry. After hundreds of hours of expert and victim hearings, technical and political missions and negotiations, our Committee of Inquiry makes a strong set of recommendations to prevent such a scandal from happening again. Of course, our recommendations are not binding, and I deplore that. However, they are a continuation of what journalists have denounced and a key step in establishing accountability. We lay down strict conditions for the use of these intrusive surveillance technologies and a precise framework, respecting the principles of proportionality and necessity, safeguarding fundamental rights, effectively excluding certain uses, situations and functionalities, also protecting professions and providing rights for victims, as well as the creation of a European centre of technological expertise. This framework should lead to a de facto moratorium on the use of spyware in Europe. Let me reiterate the obvious: not everything is allowed for surveillance, even in the name of national security. We see the drifts in fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law that the use of spyware outside of any beacon has led to. Lives have been shattered. It is now up to the European Commission and the Member States to take up our recommendations. I also call on national parliaments to make these recommendations. This Parliament will not let you go. We are waiting for action, we are waiting for strong texts and we will be there to monitor their implementation. Before concluding our work and before tomorrow's plenary vote, I would like to pay tribute to the victims of Pegasus and equivalent software, whose lives are forever changed and who continue to be prosecuted and harassed for denouncing this espionage. The wrongs caused to them must be remedied. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of journalists and human rights defenders who have revealed these facts, who have enabled us to carry out these investigations, and who, as I speak to you, must always defend themselves, even in Europe. You are real watchdogs for the defence of human rights and we must continue this work with you.

Mr President, today we pay tribute to the 1,138 dead and thousands of victims of the collapse of Rana Plaza ten years ago. "Never again," the world chanted. An international agreement on health and safety at work was then signed by 200 major brands, ready to assume their responsibilities with suppliers. But some well-known ones have still not signed the agreement. Bangladesh has committed to reforming its labour code, but the situation of textile workers remains a serious concern. And "never again" unfortunately remains a slogan whose effects they do not see. The Bangladesh agreement has just been extended to Pakistan, but what about working conditions in Turkey, Morocco, Egypt and Vietnam, with which we have an agreement? And in China, where forced labour remains very important in cotton growing? What about India? Will we finally take the opportunity of the ongoing trade negotiations to include concrete provisions on the transition of the textile sector in the countries from which we import our clothes? The responsibility of large companies and European importers requires us to pass due diligence legislation tomorrow. We will not let some of the Liberals and Conservatives sit on the right compromise. Our clothes are not clean. They bear the mark of violations of workers' rights that have already waited too long. And the work must continue because our clothes are also toxic. Yes, a thousand chemicals are used in the textile manufacturing process, including phthalates, endocrine disruptors, potassium permanganate, cadmium and even insecticides. Substances that are handled by workers, by women, by children without protective equipment. Substances that are often banned in Europe because they are carcinogenic, but that are in permanent contact with our skin. There is therefore an urgent need to update the REACH regulation on chemicals and to adopt mirror clauses so that, when we protect the health of European consumers, we also protect the health of workers at the other end of the chain. Workers’ rights, our health, the environment cannot be put on hold.