Speeches

Mr President, yesterday in this Chamber, we listened to the heartbreaking testimony of a mother, Jackie, whose daughter Coco fell victim to online bullying. Heartbreaking testimony, indeed, but also challenging to us as legislators. What are we going to do about it? What do we intend to do about it? Because right now there are thousands of children going through the same torture that Coco suffered. Children in isolation, in distress, in fear, who are being harassed, extorted, humiliated, bullied and abused. Children whose images as victims are being disseminated online. This is happening now, in homes that are no longer the safe environment we think they are, when sexual predators, bullies or even criminal organisations break into them through digital doors. Child sexual abuse online, radicalisation of minors online, recruitment by organised crime online. Europol reports show that terrorist actors, organised crime groups and online communities involved in child exploitation increasingly operate in the same digital spaces. As a result, minors can be targeted simultaneously for grooming, manipulation, criminal purposes, and radicalisation. So the situation of children in the digital space, in terms of risks and threats, is deteriorating seriously. And we need a whole‑of‑society approach with the strong commitment and involvement of government, industry and platforms, law enforcement, civil society and legislators. This is a simple principle that we have to translate into truly enforceable legislation: what is legal offline should be illegal online. Unfortunately, the gap is here and the gap is widening. The whole thing starts with prevention. I find it really extraordinary, to say the least, that, while we discuss about child protection online, there is no effective procedure of age verification in place yet. Yes, prevention requires detection of illegal content, content removal according to the law, early warnings. It is feasible. It is legally possible within a sound and proportionate legal architecture with a strong set of safeguards, targeted actions, clear limits and accountable technologies. We should uphold the fundamental rights of children, their dignity, their moral integrity, their right to be protected, the right to be assisted and supported. Protection of children is not an option. It is a primary obligation, and we as legislators have the opportunity and the duty to deliver. The legislation that is under negotiation now and the new proposals that we expect to be put forward by the Commission should make a real difference as a comprehensive approach to child protection, both online and offline, as a truly European framework of integral protection, in which national responsibilities are effectively articulated and reinforced with the stronger cooperation mechanisms at European level. So let me state in the strongest possible way that protecting children is not chat control. I find it absolutely regrettable and seriously misleading to speak about measures to protect children in such a dismissive and untrue way. But there may be some who advocate for a digital space with no rules, no limits and no responsibility, where hate speech spreads freely, where racism and threats go unchecked, all in the name of freedom. Certainly, that is not my option and not that of the EPP. Children deserve protection, the protection that law can and should provide. They do not deserve to turn our commitment into a political battlefield in confrontation driven by ideological prejudice or partisan political interests. Let us move beyond slogans and fear. Let us work together and deliver on our responsibility, compelled by the suffering of victims and survivors, and driven by our duty as legislators.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, in 2023 there were 400 000 irregular entries into the European Union. In 2025, 178 000. These developments show that, when the institutions of the European Union align themselves on the same objectives, we achieve results. We have seen it with the Pact on Migration and Asylum, we see it with the visa suspension mechanism or with Frontex agreements. Well, we know, however, that only one in five return orders is actually executed. And we are talking about return orders, not arbitrary expulsions; decisions taken after a legal procedure determining who can and cannot be legally on the territory of the Union. We know what are the false recipes of demagogic populisms and their dangerous lies, and we also know the positions of an irresponsible left, with the appearance of moral superiority, but without any commitment to the effective fulfillment of the law. Well, when we are discussing the Returns Regulation we have to make an appeal to responsibility, because without credible and enforceable returns there is no trust in the system, and without trust there can be no sustainable immigration and asylum policy. Let us abandon, therefore, those misguided narratives that continue to block progress with the idea that migration management and the protection of fundamental rights are separate or even conflicting areas. Not in Europe.

Madam President, Madam High Representative, I am among those who feel no regret that an autocrat has been removed from power in Venezuela, a corrupt autocrat at the head of a repressive regime that has led to the exile of one in five Venezuelans and has led the country to unprecedented misery. But I am also among those who feel a serious concern about the possibility that the interests enunciated by President Trump and the survival interests of the Chavista regime can be aligned at the expense of the advance towards democracy that the vast majority of Venezuelans want. And, yes, we can talk about the vast majority of Venezuelans, because they expressed themselves in July 2024 in a presidential election that Nicolás Maduro simply stole. Therefore, if Maduro is not the legitimate president of Venezuela – and he is not – Mrs Rodríguez cannot be either. The legitimate representation of Venezuelans corresponds to Edmundo González and María Corina Machado and only from respect for that will can the political transition be articulated that returns the destiny of the country to Venezuelans, its protagonists.

Madam President, the challenge, I think, is clear: we must prevent that AI becomes a child sexual abuse machine. In 2025, the international Internet Watch Foundation identified 3 440 AI videos of child sexual abuse, compared to only 13 in 2024. So in terms of policy, we need urgent action on the exploding spread of CSAM online, and that is why we are negotiating with the Council the CSAM regulation. But let's be clear, there shouldn't be double-talk on that. So our concerns must be matched by a meaningful and effective regulation. We also need strong enforcement of existing safety rules, including the DSA, to make sure that companies embed safety-by-design tools from the very beginning. And yes, we need to ensure also that the recast CSA Directive criminalises the use or possession of CSA image generators or material produced using such models and we must consider seriously an independent testing of AI systems to ensure they cannot generate CSAM. Non-consensual sexualised content, whether real or AI generated, is exploitation and an act of violence that has to be confronted and fought.

Madam President, Commissioner, with this report we take an important and meaningful step for the future of disability rights in Europe, and I would like to commend the work of our rapporteur, Rosa Estaràs, along with the political groups. Over the past years, the EU strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities has made considerable progress, showing what is possible when we strongly uphold a shared commitment. The truth is clear that, despite these achievements, too many people with disabilities still face fragmented support, barriers for free movement and unequal access to opportunities. Their fundamental rights – our shared European values – are not fully guaranteed. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs takes note that it is necessary to continue efforts in order to address the remaining gaps relating to the free movement of persons with disabilities, and the mutual recognition of disability rights across the EU. We join the call on the Commission to present, without delay, an updated and ambitious study for the rights of persons with disabilities 2025-2030, ensuring that no one in Europe is left behind.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is indeed valuable to hold debates and organise numerous events in this Parliament on the protection of minors online. These discussions help raise awareness. But awareness is not enough. Children cannot be protected by speeches alone. And that is why, from the committee responsible for the online protection of minors, data protection, law enforcement and judicial cooperation – the LIBE Committee – I would like to deliver a clear call to action. A call to all actors, to all stakeholders. The situation of children in the online environment is seriously deteriorating on all counts, not only considering exposure to pornography, addictions, betting, self-harm, recruitment by organised crime. Well, we must work together with a strong sense of responsibility and determination and make the most of our respective positions and roles in the legislative process. Every minute we lose without producing effective legislation, every excuse we hear for not taking action, means more children harmed, more lives shattered, more lives ruined.

Madam President, Commissioner, we must welcome the adoption of this report. It represents both a commitment to our shared security and recognition of the work that Europol and national law enforcement authorities perform. So I think the work of our rapporteur Jeroen Lenaers and the shadow rapporteurs deserves to be commended. Migrant smuggling, human trafficking –⁠ these have become highly profitable activities for organised crime. In this case, I would say that the victims are particularly vulnerable. Most of them, women and children, are exposed to all sorts of abuse. Lack of national jurisdiction or the ineffective enforcement of it makes impunity the rule. The fight against this despicable criminal business is not only about safeguarding our borders, but also about preventing and fighting massive violations of human rights. So we must ensure that our response remains as agile, innovative and resilient as the threats we face. This is a remarkable step forward, and we need to put in place more effective cooperation through data exchange, better and broader data processing, and the strengthening of operational arrangements. The business model of traffickers has to be disrupted to its roots. A clear message has to be sent –⁠ on the one hand to the criminals, as we step up our fight and our capabilities and, on the other hand, a message to reassure our citizens, a message of social responsibility, clear priorities, closer cooperation and more effective protection of our territory, which must be denied as a workplace for human traffickers.

Mr Agius Saliba, thank you very much for your question, because you give me the opportunity to state the following. First, I am very pleased with all the progress that is being made in strengthening judicial independence. I would still like to point out the many advances that are pending. Moreover, I believe that respect for judicial independence is incompatible with the attacks that judges are suffering in Malta for investigating these corruption cases.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, today we not only remember the murder of Daphne Caruana. We also recall that the rule of law is the backbone of the European Union and we must therefore insist that the rule of law is a duty and a responsibility of the Union. If we lift the veil of the Commission's always-measured language in its rule of law report, we see that very little progress has been made. Ladies and gentlemen, eight years have passed - eight years! - and, after eight years, the instigator and mastermind of the crime is at large, and senior officials who have hindered the investigation have not been prosecuted. Eight years after the thirty-two recommendations of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption, only four have been adopted. Eight years later – eight years later! – the Commission tells us that there has been no progress in the protection of journalists or in media freedom. Eight years - eight years later! - after the murder, when the judges act, they are accused of political terrorism. And eight years later, people linked to the Prime Minister's Office have destroyed the floral offering in memory of Daphne Caruana. Eight years. We can talk, therefore, about what has been done, but let us talk about what has not been done in these eight years, because that will be our commitment and the best tribute to the memory of Daphne Caruana.

Mr President, Commissioner, this is a debate, that of the central role of the police in the Union's internal security strategy, which has taken a long time to take place and that is why we have to draw conclusions. Too often we get the impression that, in defining security strategies, we simply take the police for granted, we take for granted their professional commitment, which exists. That is why we must begin by honoring a political and moral imperative, and that is to protect those who protect us. Without police, without security forces, without law enforcement agencies, there is no rule of law and no exercise of freedoms. The police in the service of democracy is the rule of law. And the truth is that there have never been so many physical, verbal and digital attacks against public safety professionals. Therefore, if we want an effective security strategy, we must strengthen the primary instrument of that strategy, which is the security forces. In this sense, the police should be considered a risky profession, and we are committed to it. We need to ensure the overall improvement of working conditions and comprehensive support services – including psychological support – for law enforcement personnel; we need to make progress in harmonising the criminal treatment of security forces and their professionals at European level; There is an urgent need to substantially improve the provision of human, material and technological resources in order to close the scandalous gap between the capacity of the police and the advantage of criminal organisations.

Madam President, Commissioner, Iran is in serious breach of basic obligations with regard to its nuclear programme. But this is hardly news. The introduction of sanctions is therefore both welcome and long overdue. The sanctions should be meaningful, fully enforced and closely monitored. But let's not forget that this is not the issue. The real issue is the Iranian regime, which is a challenge that requires an entirely new approach of our policy towards Teheran. With the Iranian regime in place, there will be no peace in the region. The Ayatollahs took good care to destroy the Abraham Accords through their proxies: Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah. And now, as the new opportunity for peace emerges in the region, Tehran will do whatever they can to disrupt the peace process. With the Iranian regime in place Russia will continue to have a useful ally in its aggression against Ukraine. With the Iranian regime in place, brutal repression with no legal or moral limits will continue to fall on anyone who dares to challenge the tyranny. Over 1000 people executed in the first nine months of 2025. So at this point, let me ask, why do Iranian ambassadors live so comfortably in European capitals? And why is the listing of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation still not included in the sanctions adopted, despite the consistent and strong request from this Parliament? Dear colleagues, many Iranians inside and outside Iran risked their lives. They deserve to be supported, to be protected and to share their commitment for a free and democratic Iran.

Madam President, Commissioner, the rule of law is not an internal matter. In the European Union, the rule of law can and must be the subject of common concern and corrective action. That is why, in affirming the legitimacy of Parliament's action, I would like to start by condemning the harassment suffered by our colleague Tomáš Zdechovský during his mission in Bratislava as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Protecting the integrity of the rule of law is not an interference, it is an obligation. And the Treaties enable and oblige us to do so. Parliament is doing its duty. Madam President, we are talking about the delegitimisation of judges, attacks on journalists and the media, pressure on civil society organisations. We are talking about the dismantling of units specialized in the fight against corruption. We are talking about legislative reforms to favor political and personal associates, especially in the field of corruption. We are talking about the systematic use of urgent parliamentary procedures, without the participation of the sectors and subjects concerned. Yeah, maybe some of this all sounds familiar. No, we are talking, in this case, about Slovakia, but we do not believe that these are the only challenges and that this catalogue of threats is restricted to a single country. That is why we have to expand our radar and raise our demands so that other violations, other threats and other risks do not escape the democratic imperatives that compel us all.

Mr. President, Mr. Commissioner. Rule of law in Spain: well, in September last year, the Prime Minister publicly stated that he was willing to govern without Parliament. Said and done: the Government has not submitted the draft Law on the General State Budget to Parliament for two years, despite the constitutional obligation to do so. He has broken all records in the production of decrees, with more than 150 since Mr. Sánchez is president. The decree law has become the ordinary source of legislative production. Pedro Sánchez is president under a political pact by which he granted amnesty to those convicted and accused of sedition and embezzlement, whose support he needed to govern. The General Council of the Judiciary has had to come out in defense of judges investigating cases of corruption in the face of slanderous attacks by the Government. And is that the brother of the president of the Government is being prosecuted for influence trafficking and prevarication and the wife of the president of the Government is being investigated for influence trafficking, corruption in business, misappropriation and professional intrusion. It is that the last two Secretaries of Organization of the Socialist Party, number two effective in the hierarchy, are being investigated before the Supreme Court for criminal organization and bribery. And is that the Attorney General of the State has been prosecuted by the Supreme Court for a crime of disclosure of secrets and remains in his post. Professional associations have already spoken out against the reforms that the Government wants to introduce. But do you know what your problem is, gentlemen of the Socialist Party and its partners? That more is coming. And you don't know exactly how much more is going to come out.

Madam President, Commissioner, Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union is very clear, it leaves no doubt as to the essential character of the rule of law as the cornerstone of the Union. Without the rule of law there is no European Union and this is neither an abstract nor an indefinite concept and, therefore, this Parliament has wanted to strengthen the instruments of control, monitoring and surveillance of the rule of law. The report clearly points out that these challenges persist: attacks on judicial independence and harassment of judges, concentration of power without effective counterweights, lack of effective protection of journalism, information pluralism, attacks on the integrity of democratic processes, setbacks in the fight against corruption. And yes, it is true that not all cases are the same, but neither should we look only at the usual suspects. States that have so far enjoyed sound institutional standards present very worrisome problems. And yes, I am referring to Spain, with an amnesty law whose constitutionality continues to be questioned and whose legitimacy is even more questioned, when one sees the purpose of forming a government majority through impunity, or the reform of the General Council of the Judiciary, which the Commission has urged and which has not yet occurred. Or this unusual situation in which the Attorney General of the State has been formally prosecuted by a judge of the Supreme Court and continues in his position. Or the government-orchestrated campaign to intimidate journalists and slander judges investigating corruption cases. What we demand of some of us must be demanded of all of us and, therefore, at the same time as we strengthen the annual report, we also want to demand that the Commission use this instrument...

Madam President, Commissioner, the directive on which we are debating here today is a great achievement that deserves our support and, of course, the recognition of the work done by the rapporteur, Mr Lenaers, as well as the shadow rapporteurs. We can never stress enough the extraordinary gravity of this problem. All indicators – the rapporteur has given us some of them – show that children in general are an increasingly vulnerable risk group. And we cannot forget that the treatment and protection we afford our children are indicators of the decency of our societies. If we take the 2011 Directive as a reference, we see that the response has been flawed, it has been uneven, it has been clearly insufficient, and therefore, for us to produce effective results in this new strategy, we need two things. On the one hand, decisive action by the Commission to ensure the timely and proper transposition of the provisions of the Directive into national law – this has not happened so far and I believe is a fundamental commitment that the Commission has to make. And secondly, to supplement this Directive, as stated in the explanatory memorandum, with a permanent framework – a Regulation – for the fight against and prevention of online child sexual abuse material. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, this directive and the proposal for a regulation, on which the Member States have not yet agreed a negotiating position, need each other and are therefore two crucial elements if our child protection strategy is to succeed.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Commissioner, first of all, I think it is fair to congratulate you on the presentation of this internal security strategy of the Union, which means the fulfilment of a commitment, and of a commitment in a timely manner, and which allows us to be able to define a strategy that has to be consistent and that has to be appropriate to the nature and gravity of the threats. A document that is not only an analysis, that is not only a roadmap, but it must be an operational commitment that allows us to measure the progress that is being made in this area through the initiatives promoted by the Commission. We are not threatened only as individuals, we are threatened as systems of coexistence. Our institutions and our own democratic systems are under threat. And, again, I find nothing when I say that the key that we have to face is our ability to fulfill, is the delivery. And at this point I think it is essential that we strengthen those executive instruments that will define the capacity to make good the commitments that are assumed in the strategy. I am referring to the European agencies Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, the European Union Agency for Asylum, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, eu-Lisa, CEPOL and, now, AMLA and the EPPO. We need to equip them - and in that sense the MFF is going to be final - and consider the necessary improvements in the regulation of their mandate. We have before us work that does not allow for easy solutions and in which the institutions, starting with Parliament, are sure that they will cooperate.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European Parliament is a very important institution but it is not an island. We talked about the problems affecting transparency in the European Parliament but we cannot forget the context, and that context today demands that the European Union be increasingly visible and have a growing intervention in anti-corruption policies. Firstly, because too many governments in the European Union are struggling to get rid of democratic controls, too many governments are proposing laws. ad hoc to interfere in judicial processes that affect corrupt, too many governments that make partisan use of the prosecution. Secondly, because Europol is warning us day after day, report after report, of an increasing risk of organised crime infiltrating the real economy. And that has a translation, which is corruption: corruption of public servants, corruption of our companies, corruption of legislators. Thirdly, because with these premises we are trying to generate a culture of impunity and, therefore, we, from the Group of the European People's Party, and also representing a very majority voice in Parliament, have opposed pardons, amnesties for the corrupt, legislative reforms that suppress or lighten the criminalization of corruption crimes. This must be a growing and visible commitment on the part of the European Union.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, no one can deny that in these hundred days what has appeared very clearly are the great challenges that the Commission has before it. Simplification will probably be the least if we compare it with immigration, with defence, with competitiveness. To this must be added the negotiation of a financial framework that will not be easy, which will require important decisions on the financing of the Union, and the concern we must maintain for the rule of law. To that, moreover, we must add that, if in recent years we have had to face the Trojan horse of the populist left by Putin, now we are also facing the Trojan horse of the populist and Trumpist extreme right in Europe. It is therefore not going to be easy, among other things, Madam Vice-President, because for too long too many States have been spending and legislating without restriction and want to continue to do so. We therefore need a strong Commission - not at the expense of Parliament, but with Parliament - to meet these great challenges before us.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is a good proposal and it is a good proposal to start with because it is a regulation, not a directive - and when we are trying to unify and harmonise immigration policies, in this case return policy, that is an essential instrument - and because we agree with the approach of this proposal: clearer obligations for subjects to be repatriated, facilitating and encouraging voluntary return, enhanced coordination... In short, it is a proposal that will make the mafia business much more difficult, among other consequences. But we have to keep the ambition and, of course, the mandatory return orders must be kept on the Commission's work horizon and in this Parliament's discussion. Parliament devoted particular attention to ensuring fundamental rights and safeguards in the negotiation of the asylum and immigration package. This proposal can be discussed, but it certainly cannot be disqualified on the basis that it does not respect these rights and those of unaccompanied minors. We care very much about the Commission's role in negotiating with third countries, which is going to be key to success, and about the Commission's own role in promoting and enabling the implementation of the Regulation. This isn't going to be a routine, this isn't business as usualThis is a challenge that affects all the institutions of the Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, Iran again. Death and oppression brought about by the Islamic theocracy. Hostage taking, among others, of European citizens, mass executions are the tools of repression used by a faltering regime. The Supreme Court, on the same day by the same judge, upheld the death sentence on Pakhshan Azizi, but also on Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani. In 2024, it's been said, over 1 000 executions; 12 prisoners were hanged in New Year's Day. So in the current reshaping of the strategic scenario in the Middle East, it is high time to define and implement a fresh approach to Iran. A new approach that must start by standing firmly behind the Iranian people, and the democratic and secular resistance of Iran.