What Nicolás spoke about.

Mr President, in Europe we have opted for cooperation and universal access to medicines. We know what our model is and we have made it efficient. What we cannot tolerate is decisions being made today about our own health in the White House. It is true: Trump's tariffs on our medicines also affect Americans, but we must defend our model, and health can never be a currency of geopolitical change. We need to defend our health systems from these external attacks with a better European industrial model of collaboration. I think the law on essential medicines is going in the right direction, but let's not forget: we have to implement, we have to ensure that we have a production industry, and this is also done with budgets. And a warning: Medicines are European security policies. When defense spending is disproportionately increased, where it is first cut is in health, in health. We mustn't allow it. We must ensure, Commissioner, that medicines are taken into account as a security policy.

Mr President, it does not seem easy to organise maritime space, but the directive promised to balance interests and ensure fair management of Europe's seas and oceans. But more than a decade later, Commissioner, that promise has not been fulfilled and the directive favoured those who already had a voice at the expense of fishermen and coastal communities. Small-scale fishing has decreased, regional disparities have worsened and this is unacceptable. Europe is not responding to the needs of fishermen, and the recent evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy is very clear. Faced with this, the Commission proposes the largest cut in funding in the history of fisheries. It is unacceptable, and I think you have one last chance, Commissioner: promote an ocean law that corrects imbalances by giving seafarers the crucial role, and tackle a targeted reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to ensure the future of the sector by ensuring decarbonisation.

Madam President, Commissioner, the COP16 agreement on the Cali Fund was presented as a historic breakthrough and it is: This is an important step towards strengthening the principle of fair benefit-sharing and ensuring that those who benefit from the use of biodiversity also contribute to its protection. But today we must ask ourselves a simple question. Is it working? The answer for now is uncomfortable. The Fund exists on paper, but remains without significant funding. The large companies that should contribute are in a waiting position and the system remains essentially voluntary. This is not a technical problem, it is a political problem. If the Cali Fund fails to mobilize real resources in the coming months, we will aggravate the trust gap between the North and the Global South, because for many countries this is not just biodiversity, it is above all economic justice. Nor can we ignore another key issue: we are building a comprehensive benefit-sharing system based on data – genetic information – but without a clear framework on traceability, control and accountability. In other words, without clear rules. What many call "digital biopiracy" will continue to exist. And what does it consist of? Well, whoever uses and takes advantage of the genetic information that comes from biodiversity, does not pay for that use. That is why, ahead of COP17, the debate should not only be about how much money we mobilize, but about how we ensure that the system is credible, fair and effective. And here, the European Union has a special responsibility. It is not enough to support the mechanism, something that my colleague César Luena clearly defends, we must lead from here, from Europe, its implementation by encouraging the participation of the private sector and, if necessary, open the debate on instruments stronger than mere voluntarism. Let's remember one essential thing: the richness of biodiversity protects us. In the field of planetary health, maintaining a rich biodiversity also prevents human diseases from occurring. That is, from that biodiversity, from that genetic richness, we not only obtain benefits when we dedicate ourselves to researching new pharmaceutical solutions or in other fields, but also does a health prevention exercise; It is the best nature-based solution we can have to fight, for example, against climate change or emerging diseases. I therefore believe that we must take this matter very seriously and I would like to ask the Commission how it intends to ensure, by COP17, sufficient, predictable and sustainable funding for the Cali Fund. The Commission must respond to biodiversity, because it also seems that the LIFE fund is to be charged. And what role do you expect from the private sector? And if in Armenia, where it is celebrated, it contemplates going beyond the purely voluntary nature, in case no significant contributions are mobilized.

Mr. President, this is a fossil fuel crisis caused by Trump and Netanyahu. And I wonder: Why is the EPP repeatedly denying that this is a fossil fuel crisis, that we have to abandon them? Why is he avoiding talking about Trump and Netanyahu, if Chancellor Merz himself has said that the United States is being humiliated by Iran for having no plans for this war? Why does the EPP not call things by name in this House? Why are they avoiding talking about the realities of the conflict? A fossil fuel crisis caused by Trump and Netanyahu, which is affecting us Europeans and Europeans.

Mr President, Europe faces colossal challenges and what is the Commission's priority? Facing the challenges of our time on a scary budget? Undermining the European social model through deep cuts to cohesion, fisheries or the environment? No, that's not Europe's way. When our world burns because of dictators, autocrats or aspirants, Europe's response cannot be that of a surrender embodied in a budget designed for a world that no longer exists. Faced with the Commission's proposal, we need strengthened cohesion, a boost to food sovereignty that includes fisheries – not totally cutting their budgets! – the biggest social fund in history – yes, we need it! – and progress in a green transition – or has the importance of the European Green Deal not already been clear at the moment? – without forgetting LIFE, which is a flag of Europe, and, of course, the promotion of presence in the world. And that must be the answer of this Parliament, that is the answer of my S&D group: moving forward for more Europe, not less Europe.

Mr President, we are all concerned about high energy prices. I see two certainties: the first is that an illegal war, which some here support, is affecting our economies; the second is, how curious, that it is the same people who support the war who create the problem and push to continue consuming expensive, volatile and harmful fossils. Let's show the whole of Europe who populists really support. Not Europe. They are not European patriots; nor are they patriots of their countries. To be patriotic in Europe, in Spain or in any Member State today is to support renewables and reject wars. Being a European patriot means supporting the European Green Deal, including the ETS. There's a certain sense of déjà vu with what happened in Ukraine a few years ago. But, believe me, some countries are better prepared: they have taken advantage to invest in renewables. Today they have more affordable prices and less volatility in their markets, in the electricity market. Mine, for example, is one of them. And I think that's what we need to do: persevere in European solutions, in clean technologies. The sun or wind is more predictable than how Trump rises every morning.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe must wake up. Trump knocks on our door to tell us that the blame for the exorbitant prices of medicines in the United States lies with the Europeans and that we must pay for it. And that's not true. The reality is different. The countries of the European Union have a social, functional State that negotiates the prices of medicines effectively in favor of the health of citizens. That's the difference between Europe and the United States. Trump can put tariffs on the whole world, he can despise vaccination in the United States and measles spreading, he can recommend raw milk against infections, but he can't impose his prices here, because where Europe starts, Trump ends. We European politicians must be aware that it is up to us to defend our citizens and we cannot allow ourselves to be forced to pay more for medicines to please the one who was our American partner. Europe will gain more by being assertive in defending its interests and its citizens than by lowering its head. And that is what we demand from the European Commission: to live up to the situation.

Mr President, competitiveness goes hand in hand with decarbonisation, that is clear. That is why we need sustainable aviation fuels, which also offer an industrial opportunity for Europe. If we don't support those who invest, others will occupy that space. Two more notes. First, it seems that now in third countries are miraculously fried tons and tons of chips but - oh, oh, miracle! - without potatoes. As a result, a steady flow of oil used to produce sustainable aviation fuels is now entering the EU. It's a fraud. And it is these frauds that undermine the green transition and the credibility of the European Green Deal. We have to stop them. Sustainable matter must be prioritised. And explain to me, from the Commission: how, having supply problems of synthetic fuels for sectors such as aviation or maritime transport (for which they should be prioritised because they do not have alternatives for decarbonisation), do they intend to allocate them to road transport, where electrification is already mature? Let's prioritize where we need them.

Madam President, breast cancer is not pink. It's a brown for women who suffer from it. When we did the report of the Special Committee on Beating Cancer, we saw that there were inequalities in screening. across Europe. And we set ourselves a goal: reach 90% early detection of breast cancer. Because it saves lives, it increases survival four times in an early diagnosis. And that is what has been stolen from all the Andalusian women who have been deprived of knowing the results. They condemn them to more aggressive treatments, reduce their chances of survival and, in addition, they are publicly humiliated by telling them that they are anxious. I believe that we must act clearly against negligence. And this is a clear example. Not only for how the Junta de Andalucía has acted, but also how it has acted subsequently, since it says that the data from the histories have disappeared, which is practically criminal. But it goes beyond the damage done. Any failure in a screening, any failure in an early detection system, is a problem for all early detection systems, because it decreases confidence in our health systems. We therefore call for strong action now.

Between an early diagnosis and a late diagnosis, they mediate four times less chance of survival. What opinion do you deserve, as a woman and as a political representative, that women who have been screened should not be notified? and to be told not to be warned because of anxiety? What is the opinion of this political leader?

Mr President, our engagement with Ukraine was lame and now it is no longer. We welcome this comprehensive agreement to end the import of Russian gas. And the commitment will be even greater if we get not a single euro of the European economy to flow into Putin's hands for the purchase of fossil fuels. That must be an even greater commitment. In Galician we have the word xeito, which is to act with pragmatism and common sense. And I ask too xeito in this performance. To really bet on electrification, on energy efficiency and on Europe's renewable potential. The best fossil gas molecule for Europe is the one that is not consumed; neither Russian nor from anywhere else. Therefore, we must also commit to something else: in making this permanent. Let no one be tempted to connect to Russian gas again. Europe will not be competitive as long as we are junkies of Russian gas or any other gas. And finally, let me say one thing. Russian gas, no. Russian oil, either. But uranium, by when?

Madam President, yesterday we had news that, for the first time, mosquitoes were detected in Iceland - a few places on earth that were free. That is, the effects of climate change will mean more diseases, greater health risks. We have more storms, more floods. That is, climate change accelerates. And, in the face of this acceleration, what we cannot do from Europe is to step on the brakes. That is why I say to you, Commissioner: In the face of Trump's commitment to dynamite multilateralism, the European Union, especially this House, must be at the forefront of international cooperation. We cannot reach COP30 in Bethlehem half empty-handed, because the alternative to European leadership, the vacuum we leave behind, will be filled by others. And believe me, we have technological solutions to fight climate change, to reduce emissions, to reach 90% reduction by 2040. There are. And, in addition, Europe's competitiveness passes through them. Economy and emission reductions are not at odds.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, imagine a family of three children, in a small apartment, in a city where summer lasts eight weeks longer, as in southern Europe, and go out into the streets and find the squares, which were previously wooded, completely cut down. These are the denialist and retardist policies being carried out by the right, also in southern Europe. Ladies and gentlemen, protecting people's health is an obligation and, therefore, fighting climate change today means not only reducing emissions, but adapting to protect ourselves: adapt our cities, our way of working and our homes, also those of families with few resources. It is a need for social justice; Climate action is social justice and not carrying it out is irresponsibility and an attack on the less affluent classes. It is therefore prevention in health, because climate change – repeated here – costs lives and, to a greater extent, those of the most vulnerable and least resourced. Adapting to climate change is an obligation, because it costs us lives. Denialism costs lives; Climate adaptation saves them. That's our choice.

Mr President, I have seen Galicia burn again and the competent autonomous government has failed miserably. A failure without palliatives that continues today with the concealment of burned areas such as Pena Trevinca. On 13 August they said that there were plenty of resources and on 14 August they asked for assistance from the army, which was already there, and all the planes in Europe. To the popular I say that their mimicry with the extreme right does not contribute to solving that problem. Rejecting climate change pacts contributes to the fires. Not hiring firefighters in dignified conditions or hiring them in August contributes to the fires. When European laws are breached and the Natura 2000 Network is not managed, as happens in Galicia, it contributes to fires. When you propose to reduce the CAP budget, you damage the countryside, promote depopulation and contribute to fires. And when they try to deceive citizens, saying that they have only burned rocks and weeds, forgetting people, as President Rueda has done, they generate outrage and damage democracy.

Mr President, Commissioner, I think we are heading in the right direction. We have learned from the pandemic and I believe that these strategies are part of those lessons learned. A safe and prepared Europe is a Europe capable of reacting to threats. I have worked more than fifteen years of my life in health emergency. I know that the next crisis is not always the same as the previous one, but I know that you have to be prepared for it. An important part of the preparation is to have the material, to have the capabilities. I therefore welcome this idea. But let's not get confused: We need to prepare ourselves better, but, above all, prepare those who are going to have to face the threat, who are the professionals. They must be provided with the necessary tools and science and knowledge must also be defended; and know that many of the risks, for example, in the future, will be climate risks. Security must also address these risks. Security money must also be devoted to these tasks. Let me say one thing: The best emergency kit is trust in public services, it is trust in the information that science gives us. And this is just the opposite of what the right and the ultra-right claim. Let's keep that in mind and defend this...

Mr President, can anyone imagine a prosperous Europe at the end of the century without the development of clean technologies? It won't be possible. This is no longer the century of fossils, it is the century of clean ones and – specifically within clean ones – of green technologies, of renewable technologies. A Europe will be prosperous if it invests in these green technologies, if it develops them, if it turns over its financing capacity. We believe that there the Clean Industry Pact should mobilise a specific action plan for green tech. Europe, at the same time, must ensure that the benefits of the transition reach everyone, because the renewables and green technologies we develop will be the most economically efficient, but also green. I have seen here many proponents of nuclear technologies. I'm going to give you some advice: that they go to the Atlantic trench 700 kilometers from my region, in Galicia, where 4 000 drums of radioactive waste are being seen these days, a nuclear time bomb that will be there for hundreds of years. Therefore, let us be careful with what we stand for.

You said it yourself, Mrs Borras: It wasn't renewables. In Spain there are days with more penetration of renewable energy and solar energy, and you know it well, what happens is that I cannot agree in all your assessments because I do not come here to defend a fossil economy, as your party does. Therefore, I defend that the opportunities of my country are in indigenous sources of energy. Patriotism is also trusting our resources, not the resources of others, like Putin's or Trump's, who are your advocates. I don't follow that path, let me.

(start of out-of-microphone intervention) ... I believe that economic criteria are important when it comes to making networks more efficient. Decisions must therefore also be made on the basis of these economic results, but certainly by improving networks, expanding interconnections, your country, Portugal, and mine – which rely on renewable energy sources – will have more opportunities, they will have more industry. Therefore, more renewables and more networks are the future of the Iberian Peninsula.