What Ibán spoke about.

Mr President, indeed, there are no first- and second-party spies, what is on the table are very serious accusations that affect fundamental rights, which affect the very health of the rule of law throughout Europe. That is why we need explanations and we need evidence – very transparent explanations and conclusive evidence – of who has actually been spied on, how they have been spied on, when they have been spied on and who is behind that spying. We also need explanations from governments, we need explanations from the company itself, because we are taking for granted what the company says as a revealed truth, that they are only sold to states. Well, we have to figure that out, too. And what is very important is that we do not anticipate conclusions. This debate, in this sense, is certainly out of time. We have set up a special commission to find out the truth. This commission will have twelve months to do so. What I believe is that we do not have to give in to the temptation to capitalise on issues affecting the backbone of democracy in Europe for our local affairs. So, ladies and gentlemen, I think we have to be patient, do our job and take advantage of that special commission we have to be able to find out the truth.

Mr President, we are debating a report which is indeed key, which concludes a work of 18 months, and which is also a very remarkable exercise in dialogue in the European Parliament. I would particularly like to thank the coordinators of this Special Committee, including the President and the Bureau, for the work they have done, in particular the many debates and conferences and a total of 14 public hearings and eight seminars. A joint work, in short, of the whole European Parliament, ranging from transport to agriculture, health and the fight against cancer, the economy, competitiveness, finance, the Green Deal and the Data Strategy. And we have also talked about the impact on democracy, disinformation, the risks of fundamental rights, discrimination, including gender equality, and the role that women must also play in the development of European artificial intelligence. There are two aspects that should be highlighted: firstly, that this has been a fully democratic debate. Various views have been advocated with the participation of stakeholders from industry, civil society, academia and also users, as well as national parliaments. Secondly, there has been a necessary balance to favour innovation and limit risks in artificial intelligence. From the Socialists and Democrats Group I would also like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for the task of articulating the report, which is a very balanced report, with more than a thousand amendments, many of them, incidentally, from the Socialists and Democrats Group, which responds perfectly to the task entrusted to us. It indicates a majority position of the European Parliament on all aspects relating to the development and dissemination of artificial intelligence in Europe. It also highlights very specific aspects, with examples, in each case, of the potential benefits or risks that the use of artificial intelligence can present. To give some examples, in health, highlights the benefits in the treatment of diseases and new drugs; in the Green Deal, stresses the need to create artificial intelligence to be sustainable and support the environmental transition; in foreign and security policy, makes a geostrategic analysis; in competitiveness, we highlight the need to improve our research and the support of small and medium-sized enterprises; on the labour market, we call for a specific legislative initiative that can regulate use at work and that respects the rights of workers and ends workplace surveillance; also in school, promoting digital illustration. Finally, I believe that this is a report that will be particularly useful for work in the future and I would like to thank all those who have participated in it.

Mr. President, throughout history we have built civilization by thinking that we had to abandon, in some way, the most animal impulses, the herd impulses, to build common spaces in which we lived and lived in freedom, regardless of the origin of each one, the way they feel. And, in that sense, all our constitutional texts in the European Union and also the laws that develop them enshrine that principle, that principle of non-discrimination, that principle of freedom. But practice tells us that, on many occasions, there are setbacks. There are some discourses and some practices, even within the European Union itself, that can lead to setbacks, and therefore we are talking about a problem that is rooted in the same human race and that, of course, is still present and structural in our societies. And in that sense, the temptation, moreover, to build purely ethnic societies has written the worst pages in the history of Europe. In that regard, I believe that this report is timely. I would like to congratulate Mrs Yenbou on a great report, and also on her negotiating power. The contributions made by my group, the Group of Socialists and Democrats, are fourfold. As regards ensuring access to culture, ensuring that there is also no discrimination in education; There are many ways to discriminate in education and generate ghettos and generate pockets. As for prosecuting hate speech and disinformation that occur every day through a medium as powerful as the social networks of the Internet, use the same tools to be able to combat them. And, of course, use a scenario as vigorous as the world of sport, and also that of spectacle, and, on a more community scale, to be able to transfer, transmit all those values of anti-racism. In that sense, what we want to ensure is that the European Union's motto, 'United in diversity', is transformed, not only into words, but also into deeds.

Madam President, the European Union is not a self-service where you take what you like and put on the plate what you don't like. The European Union is an institutional space that has rules and the most important rule of all is that this space is constituted by democracies, by full democracies, and a full democracy does not attack the separation of powers, does not break the rule of law. A full democracy does not attack political adversaries and establishes inequitable conditions to compete in an electoral campaign. A full democracy does not attack freedoms and, above all, does not attack the rights of minorities. We are talking, in this case, about two countries that have been repeatedly going to the bottom and that have passed and crossed the red line that separates autocracies from democracies. And this can't go on like this. We will not allow it, not within the European Union. Commissioner, you have had the mechanism for action for a long time. The conditionality mechanism. They have been waiting for the decision of the Court of Justice. Today they already have it, today they no longer have an excuse to continue waiting, to continue buying time, behind guidelines that have long been carried out and that simply have to be executed. You are now in the moment when you have to exercise your responsibilities. And I say that because it's not that we're attacking one government or another, or we're attacking one country or another. Quite the opposite. We are defending the rights of the citizens of Poland and Hungary who have the right to live in a democracy, in a full democracy. And they have a right because they are European citizens. And we Europeans have the right to live in democracies. So act now and don't let time go by anymore.

Mr President, one in five Europeans collaborates with a non-governmental organisation, with a civil society organisation, about 2% of the budget of the European institutions is managed through such partnerships that help on issues such as humanitarian aid, such as international cooperation, such as youth, such as education, such as culture and even environmental protection. This is what we are talking about and what we are talking about is finally creating a statute that will give them security; to enable them to work without hindrance, without problems; have mutual recognition and can be recognised by all Member States. So outside of any kind of conspiracy theory or delirium that we can hear from time to time, what we are doing is giving something basic to people who project the best of ourselves, the best of the European Union and who represent, also, the best of what the European Union intends to defend and that I think, in addition, we defend with some success in an increasingly complicated world. Finally, Mr Schinas, Commissioner, do not seek excuses and live up to the standards of civil society in Europe.

Madam President, most countries in the world do not live in democracy. These are regimes that oppress their citizens in a greater or lesser way, which, of course, restrict public freedoms and fundamental human rights. If we had here the same level of debate that we have with some countries, such as Cuba or Venezuela, we would most likely not have dates on the calendar to be able to have them, to be able to have those resolutions. Then there is, of course, a political issue that transcends the very defense of human rights and that explains why today we have this debate here again and that has to do, indeed, with the political agenda of some groups and also with the national agenda in some of the countries that are most directly affected by this issue. That means just that. And also, of course, it means that every time we debate here we must reiterate that Cuba is a dictatorial regime that needs to move towards democracy, that human rights must be respected. And, of course, if we talk about human rights, we must also talk about the lifting of the blockade, which has produced nothing but a political blockade. Let's bet on dialogue. And some, who constantly bring some reflections here, who reflect on whether this is the best way to overcome these sixty years of dictatorship.

Madam President, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you very much, Commissioner, for your words. It is true that this support seems massive and it is. I would just like to clarify a few points. First of all, I don't think this is a small step. I think it's a colossal step. I think it's a unique, pioneering step in the world. And I hope that, from this step that we are taking, others will also come to take the same step, because that will mean that we are also building not only a better Europe, but a better world. And for those who are concerned about whether the base is fiscal, then no, it is a base that is based on transparency and will serve, yes, so that citizens can make their accounts, they can know how much money these multinationals are effectively earning in the European Union, how many jobs they are generating, how many are, indeed, the benefits they have and not only in the main company, but also in the branches. And from there make your accounts and you can also ask for decisions from your own governments and decisions from your own deputies. And maybe, if necessary, change the Treaties; and maybe, if necessary, make the Treaties also the tax base and we can act collectively. This is what we are approving today, because you cannot sustain a society in which large multinationals that are earning tons, giants, huge amounts of money, are taxing some of them less than 2% - which is what is happening in real life. Let's put first order in our house: Of course, it would be better to have an agreement that involves an analysis, an overall review. But let's put order first in our house: in the European Union. And I'm done. For the one who said that the European Union was not a state: No, it's not, unfortunately it's not, but it will be, it will be. And it will also be a federal, social and legal state.

Madam President, Voltaire said that the optimal, the perfect, is the enemy of the good. Here we bring a very good agreement, but not optimal, not perfect; And we don't mean it either. It's hard to pretend a thing like that when you sit at a negotiating table. But we do bring something that significantly improves the situation we had previously. We have had five years of deadlock on the table since this Parliament first pushed for the negotiation of this public country-by-country report. Five years that have allowed us to go with a few milestones down the path from the Panama Papers to the Pandora Papers and each and every one of those situations have been just as infamous. I want to thank the people who have made it possible for us to move forward. First of all, of course, to the shadow rapporteurs, in an exercise of pragmatism, but also an enormous exercise of solidarity, regardless of issues such as political cost. And I would also like to thank, of course, the Portuguese presidency of the day. Without their competition it would have been impossible in practice not even to advance. This is an agreement that establishes situations and sets such positive conditions and that changes so much the things that, as I say, have been blocked for many years and that has caused even some of the member countries to still amamate with being able to take it to court. But we're not going to take a step back. It cannot be assumed that companies – and this is a 2015 estimate –, that multinational companies – the ones we referred to, which invoice more than EUR 750 million per year – evade between EUR 50 and 70 billion each year. This is an estimate of 2015 and I want, above all, to focus on that, which is an estimate. And it is an estimate because we do not have any method to know in a real way that type of information that is essential when proposing a fair fiscal policy and a sufficient fiscal policy. From now on, this will no longer be the case in all matters relating to the taxation of these large companies and their activity within the European Union, but also in this list of tax havens: in the blacklist and in the greylist – by the way, a list that may also be increased if necessary. We also have a clause that will allow us in four years to be able to renegotiate, re-implement, re-increase the scope of a standard that can be, as I say, perfect or more perfect, but that is already essentially good. I believe that with this agreement that we are reaching and that we will support, we are sincerely making history. And history in democracies is not done by conquering that hill or watering the countryside with blood, it is done with a vote in a democratic parliament - as we are going to do here - and with a publication in an official bulletin. That's the epic in democracy. That's the way we have to make history: building one more building, building one more plant in that building called civilization. So I ask for all the support for this text, I think a great job has been done and I want to thank again all the people who have made it possible.

Mr President, I would first of all like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which I think is absolutely balanced and which is in line with what this Parliament has already raised on some occasions. We must indeed find a balance between the risk to the protection of rights and, of course, the technological development that somehow facilitates the achievement of social objectives. But we are, of course, dealing with a matter that directly affects fundamental rights. Several of them are involved in the legal development of this technology, or in the legal field that orders this technology, and, at the same time, social peace is also at stake when we talk about issues that affect security and the established order itself and the rules by which we are governed. It is that, indeed, some of those realities that science fiction has anticipated in the past - some of them are already a reality today in terms of technological development - do not become a kind of dystopia in our times of those approaches to films such as Minority Report, where the police even anticipate the commission of the crime or the intention expressed because they are able to foresee through technologies such as these the possible commission of a crime; Or, without going any further, that one day we have those robot judges who in some way would also have delighted some French revolutionaries when they said that of "the mouth that says the law", seeking an alleged impartiality in the expression of the justice of the people. But, at the same time, we also need to avoid obstacles to the development of tools that can effectively make us achieve some of the goals that can make our societies better; certainly in the area of the administration of justice itself, but also as a support tool for our own security forces. We cannot ignore those possibilities that artificial intelligence gives and hinder its development. That is why I also want to support this report, which I think fits perfectly - and this is something that I would like to remind some of my colleagues - into the approach adopted by this Parliament itself almost a year ago - a subject on which I was also rapporteur - which spoke of ethics applied to artificial intelligence technologies and which I think went in the same direction, trying to avoid scenarios that are not desirable, but also trying at the same time not to hinder. Ladies and gentlemen, this report cannot fully open the barriers and let everyone go their own way and, at the same time, be as intrusive as other colleagues denounce. I think it is precisely a report that finds the middle ground, which raises very interesting questions.