Speeches

Mr President, an accident that could not have happened happened. A freighter has lost, near the coast of the Iberian Peninsula, more than a thousand bags with small plastics, known as pellets, that are giving to the coast, especially in northern Spain, in Galicia, since the beginning of this year. This was an accident that neither the Portuguese Government, nor the Regional Government of Galicia, nor the Spanish national could have avoided. But what defines us all, but particularly those who take political and decision-making positions, is how we respond to adversity. The Portuguese Government, in a rare capacity of efficiency, promptly informed the Spanish Government. The socialist government, Pedro Sánchez's PSOE, decided to joke about the situation and ignored the warning. It cannot be, therefore, with less than genuine surprise that we see the hypocrisy of the PSOE, trying to whitewash its responsibility. It is, in a cluttered, incompetent, clumsy way, trying to hold the Regional Government of Galicia accountable, after having disregarded and even ignored the problem, when the Regional Government shows itself to be the only one truly concerned with minimizing this environmental issue. Intervention at sea is up to the national government, not the regional government, as they want to put it. Sánchez and his government must – if they have any political dignity – apologize, apologise to everyone, but especially to Galicians, for the incapacity and, worse, for the environmental damage that their political paralysis is causing. Moreover, it is curious that when we ask for a debate on the rule of law in Spain, we are accused of this being a national debate, and here we are debating a regional issue – very well for the left!

Mr President, decent wages, less taxes and quality jobs – this is what we want for Europe and what we want for each of our countries. A social market economy requires economic growth based on innovation and knowledge, better working conditions and poverty reduction. For this, education is essential. In the age of artificial intelligence and digitalisation, we cannot overlook the most important trends in science and technology. Europe cannot make mistakes like the ones we have seen in Portugal. Recently, the PISA 2022 report shows a worrying decline in students’ skills, especially in mathematics and reading. The socialist government fails especially the students in need and has compromised their performance and their future. We need a new paradigm in education for the future, for social mobility and for quality employment. There's a lot to do. In Portugal, the change is coming soon.

Mr President, Spain is not silent and neither are we. This Parliament cannot be the refuge of those who evade justice. And it cannot be the stage for those who want the disintegration of Spain and the destruction of the Constitution. This is a European debate. The Sánchez agreement violates the Constitution, but it also violates European treaties and values. It is against the rule of law because it amnesties those who have been convicted by the courts, by votes. It is against the separation of powers because it wants politicians to control judges by votes. It is against equality because it asks all Spaniards to pay the debt of some in exchange for votes. To the millions who fill the streets in Spain, and don't shut up, I want to say: Europe will not be silent.

Madam President, we all know what companies need, because the diagnosis has already been made. We have too much legislation, too much taxation and red tape, and too little simplification, too little competitiveness and too little funding. What we have left in words has been lacking in concrete actions to support small and medium-sized enterprises, the 24 million engines of our economy. We need to drastically reduce the endless list of laws that increase the obligations of SMEs from year to year. We need to simplify the relationship between businesses and the state and, above all, remove the obstacles they face in accessing finance. In Portugal, taxes need to be lowered now. We need structural reforms in health, education, housing, and it is unacceptable to have maximum taxes and bureaucracy and minimum public services. It is only with economic growth that we have better wages and it is also with less bureaucracy that we get the country to grow. This is no longer the time for discussions, this is the time for decisions, and have the courage to make them.

Mr President, I would like to thank all the political groups and all the assistance provided by the advisors and the assistants of the teams for this very good result on such an important file. In light of that, I would like to ask the referral back to the committee for interinstitutional negotiations according to Rule 59(4).

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for his words on this report and I would like, first of all, to thank the entire negotiating team, the political groups, and in particular the assistants and the , who were instrumental in the outcome of this process. And the message I would also like to convey or leave is that we have been able to start from quite divergent political situations and reach a consensus or a compromise solution. And since this house is the house of compromise, I believe we are on the right track. But it also seems important to me that we do not deviate from the primary objective, which is to pass this legislation. And although there are some requests that, for political reasons, cannot be met completely, I believe this is a first step and this is the first legislation in the world for the certification of carbon credits, which I believe will give a dynamism and also give integrity to the carbon credit market. It ended with the following, and this was one of our concerns: I think it is a very relevant dossier for agriculture and for other dimensions of the economic sectors, but in particular for these, and I wanted to tell you that what has always guided our participation and commitment in this process with regard to agriculture in particular was something that I heard relatively recently: one day we may need a psychologist, a policeman, a nurse, but we need a farmer three times a day, and so I believe that, with this basic idea, that is how we were able to negotiate and not forget the importance of this dossier. And so I think it was important that we maintain this political cohesion for the adoption of this report.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this initiative that we are discussing today represents a crucial step in our ongoing fight against climate change. The need for a Union Certification Framework on Carbon Removals aligns with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and our commitment to achieve collective climate neutrality by 2050. Moreover, with the speed at which we are reducing emissions, without a significant contribution from carbon removal, neither Europe will achieve climate neutrality by 2050, nor will the planet be able to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The International Panel on Climate Change made it clear: drastic and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are indispensable. However, to effectively limit global warming to 1.5 or two degrees, a significant increase in carbon removal activities is needed and this is particularly true for sectors such as agriculture, aviation, shipping and industrial processes, where the European Union needs to achieve significant levels of carbon removal. And this is how we sought to provide credibility, predictability, trust and effective market conditions for both carbon sequestration techniques in agricultural and forestry practice, as well as the development and implementation of innovative methods such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage or direct carbon capture from the air and corresponding storage. These methods need to grow exponentially. The path to climate neutrality is not a one-size-fits-all solution, be it reduction or a specific removal technology. Rather, we need a portfolio of solutions that work at the same time and contribute to that goal. The proposed Regulation aims to develop a voluntary Union certification framework for carbon removals, encouraging the uptake of high-quality carbon removal activities while respecting biodiversity and zero pollution objectives. This framework will not only support the development of carbon removal activities in the Union but will also ensure that they result in a net carbon removal benefit by avoiding the greenwashing. It is designed to incentivise carbon removal activities that generate co-benefits for biodiversity, thereby promoting the nature restoration objectives set out in Union legislation. To support operators willing to scale up carbon removals in a sustainable manner, the framework will consider the various types of carbon removal activity and their specificities and related environmental impacts, but the stability and permanence of carbon storage is paramount. Also for this reason, the validity of certified carbon removals will depend on the expected duration of storage and the associated risks of reversal. Finally, sustainability is at the heart of the framework. Carbon removal activities should be neutral or generate co-benefits for sustainability objectives, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems, the sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, the transition to a circular economy and pollution prevention and control. In conclusion, the proposed Union Certification Framework for Carbon Removals is a vision for a more sustainable future, balancing the urgent need to increase carbon removal with the need to maintain environmental integrity and promote sustainability. This initiative reinforces the European Union's leadership in climate action and our unwavering commitment to a healthier and more resilient planet for future generations.

Madam President, the number of deaths due to climate change or serious damage to property and nature increases every year. There is no planet B, but we still don't do enough for the planet we have. Europe leads, but it cannot do on its own what is needed to save the planet. We must demand more from other economies, such as India, China or the United States, without historical relativism or concessions. We have fluctuated between floods and periods of drought, storms and heat waves. We have successively beaten the record for the warmest year on record, and greenhouse gas emissions have already raised global temperature by more or less a degree. The Arctic, a key indicator of our climate, may no longer have ice in the summers by the end of the 2030s. The consequences are devastating: our health or the safety of our goods, but also the realities that we have assumed here in Europe, such as food in supermarkets or the availability of continuous drinking water across Europe. The European Union's commitment to climate is undeniable, but other countries and geographies need to do their part. India is now the most populous country in the world and must therefore accelerate the pace of its transition. And for that we need international commitments. But we also need conditions for the development and implementation of renewable energy, the overall target of which must be set in Dubai, but also clean technologies that are emerging in Europe and which we have a duty to support. Or to substantially improve the public transport network that will allow us to have less polluting alternatives. The fight against climate change goes through here, not through the destruction of works of art or media figures without any consequence. What is asked is very clear: that we continue to lead in the ambition and implementation of a new, more sustainable, healthier economic model, while requiring other countries to step up.

Madam President, the housing situation is a real calamity. In Portugal, children live with their parents until the age of 40, elderly people sleep on the street, families are not able to pay the rents or benefits of their homes. In Portugal, a public school teacher named Rui Garcia is sleeping in a van because he can't afford a room. This is the result of the failure of the policies of the Socialist Party, after eight years and many millions of euros, to solve the problem. It is the face of the failure of the More Housing legislative package, which does not solve and has only served to make the problem worse and worse. Abandon this childish attempt to pass the blame on to Europe. It is the Portuguese Government that is filling its pockets at the expense of the suffering of the Portuguese when a family pays a house or with 28% tax on rents paid. It is eight years of socialist governance in which house prices have doubled and wages have stagnated. Meanwhile, young people are still homeless and the government is spending the RRP's millions on current spending. A government that still has nothing to do with university residences, nothing to do with the public buildings and land it has promised to make available for housing. And so it is all the more unusual to see socialist deputies in this attitude of unaccountability. Ladies and gentlemen, take up your failure, amend your hand and apologise to the Portuguese.

Mr President, today's debate is important, but only if we look at the figures, because otherwise it is opportunistic if we look at who proposed the debate. Today we are beginning to see inflation fall, albeit timidly, but we are still far from the target. We are still above 4% and if we look at food we more than double that figure. In the long run, they are unsustainable numbers and, in the immediate future, they are unacceptable situations. Portugal, for example, saw the price of agricultural products rise by 22% in the second half of the year alone. Last week, the price of a kilo of orange doubled. I repeat: in a week, twice the price. Raising interest rates is the Central Bank's response, but after ten consecutive hikes and record highs, it's time to stop. The average monthly instalment of housing loans in Portugal is currently 111 euros more expensive than a year ago. Interest rates are a remedy that is resulting in the initial dose; We can't and shouldn't risk one. overdose This can be economically unwise and socially problematic. But we have to be clear. The topic of this debate hides an agenda from the left. A left that does not want to discuss the problem, which is inflation, but prefers to attack part of the solution. For what purpose? Hide the inability of national governments, such as the Portuguese. Otherwise, let's go to facts: the historical surplus of tax revenue driven by inflation did not lead to a tax cut. Why? House prices are falling in Europe, rising in Portugal, driven by the tax burden. Why? Many emergencies of Portuguese hospitals continue to close, doctors leaving the private sector without any serious commitment from the minister of the portfolio and former member of this house. Why? These are the questions that the opportunism of the left wants to hide with these debates, but these are the questions that our responsibility brings to mind.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has made it a priority in this Parliament today to make life easier for small and medium-sized enterprises. The creation of a special envoy is an important political signal, but we need to go further. Three key ideas: pay the hours, finance the companies, simplify the activity. We need to tackle arrears. Limiting delays to 30 days is an important step, but national governments must lead by example. In Portugal, for example, we have reached 721 days, I repeat, 721 days for payments. No company survives on two years of debt. Strengthening the financial capacity of companies, facilitating investment with lighter, faster and smarter legislation is also vital. Finally, the fight against red tape, the 25 % reduction in obligations must only be the first step. 24 million SMEs are 99% of our business fabric, so it is common to speak of small and medium-sized enterprises as engines of the economy. This is no longer the time to turn on the microphones, it is the time to turn on the engines of our economy.

Mr President, the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion is a priority, at least in speeches. The problem is that, all too often, these words do not translate into concrete actions. And today we are here precisely because the Council insists on not deciding on the Unshell Directive. The same is to say that national governments are not interested in regulating the misuse of shell companies for large companies to evade their tax duties. The Commission is not oblivious to the criticism. The tax avalanche burdens citizens and businesses with increasing bureaucracy and costs. In the meantime, the announced initiative to simplify tax obligations and defend taxpayers' rights is in the drawer. At least in the case of Unshell, we had a proposal. This Parliament set an example and approved its position with an overwhelming majority, but that was six months ago. The question must therefore be asked: Is the Council going to decide anything or not? Of the two: either it decides to reject the proposal and that has political significance, or it decides, once and for all, to approve a position that we can discuss here. What we cannot accept is this authentic veto in the drawer. The times we live in demand courage and consistency between what is said and what is done, and it is time for national governments to start setting an example, or rather following an example.

Mr President, at a good time this Parliament is speaking to people, people who, all over Europe, suffer difficulties with the provision of their credits or with the increase in the cost of living and with tax burdens that strangle their financial freedom. Over the years, it has always been the middle class and, by the way, small and medium-sized enterprises that have paid for the crises. The irresponsibility of some governments with budget management or the lack of responses to rising prices have always penalized the middle class more. They are always paying more taxes, seeing their real salary drop or seeing European funds squandered on works that tell them nothing or take advantage of them. The middle class by consumption, SMEs by investment are the engines of our economy. Therefore, they expect and deserve answers from the Union, but also and above all from their national governments, governments that, instead of looking to the next generation, look to the next election, which therefore create clientelisms and dependencies, distributing the money to their preferred electorates. I am Portuguese and therefore I know very well what I am talking about. We need fairer and more competitive tax systems that deliver income for savings and investment. We need faster and less bureaucratic public administrations to reduce context costs and a lighter, more certain and predictable legislative framework for those who want to create their own opportunities. Today, we're talking to people. Let us therefore be consistent. Let's make decisions for people.

Madam President, this debate is the perfect picture of the socialists' objective alliance with the far left. What we already know well in Portugal and Spain has come to Parliament: an alliance that is more electoral than anything else, but that has a clear ideological affinity when we talk about taxes. Inflation remains high and households face difficulties in paying their credits. We are not creating jobs as we expected, nor is the economy growing as we expected. Wages remain low and productivity is incomparable between the Iberian economies and other latitudes. And what is the answer that the left proposes? More taxes. They say they want to tax the rich. What, after all, is a rich man? Prejudice against companies and the middle class leads to these exaggerations, exaggerations that harm, at the end of the day, all taxpayers. What we really need is a tax relief that frees up resources for families and businesses, that helps more young people to be able to emancipate themselves, families to pay their credits and companies to invest and create jobs. This agenda against those who earn more than the minimum, against those who risk, against those who save and invest will be rejected here, will be defeated in Spain this month and will be defeated in Portugal, sooner or later.

Thank you very much, Honourable Member, for the question and I will return the same question. I wonder whether you have also read the law and understand that this law is a regulation, that it has numbers and that it has objectives that are the same for all Member States. And so the ecological conditions of Portugal are not the same as the ecological conditions of an Eastern or Nordic country, or France or Germany. So what is happening with regard to the question you are asking me is precisely the ecological conditionality that exists in Portugal. To this end, I invited him to do the following: If you are so sure of what you are saying, go talk to the people in Pedrógão Grande and go talk to the farmers outside this Parliament.

Madam President, the proposal for the Nature Restoration Law has been rejected in this Parliament by the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Fisheries. These three committees were clear in saying that this is a bad proposal by socialist Commissioner Timmermans. And if it can even be a well-intentioned bill, the truth is that it is an insufficient and even incompetent proposal to protect the environment, biodiversity and food security itself in Europe. On the part of the EPP, our answer is clear. We want to protect the planet and that is what we have done by voting in favour of dozens of proposals that have passed through this Parliament, in particular the European Climate Law. But this is a proposal that contributes to worsening the very serious fires that ravage countries like Portugal and that, in recent years, have caused hundreds of victims. Is this what the Commission wants? It is a proposal that increases imports from countries without the same environmental safeguards and contributes to increased food insecurity. For our part, we want a proposal for the restoration of Nature that is in fact so, but does not count on us to make a figure of present body. (The speaker agreed to answer a question under the blue card procedure)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is drought and it will get worse. Because we always have water available at our taps, we don't have the majority of the population worried. And by not having the majority of the population concerned, the governments and the Commission are also unconcerned. And if they have little concern, they have even less action. After all, for example, in Portugal, 30% of the water abstracted goes into the soil without being used, because the supply networks are obsolete. But no one seems really worried about it. A luxury that no country should give itself, much less at a time of severe and extreme drought, as happens in many areas of countries. Last year was extremely difficult, with a situation of extreme drought and I ask: What was done? What have we changed? What have we learned? We need to reduce water losses in public supply networks, strengthen reservoir storage capacity and public water reserves, enhance rainwater use, increase irrigation efficiency, raise awareness of water savings, among many other things. Unfortunately, many governments, like António Costa's, only care about two things: Today's headline and tomorrow's newspaper headline. We need more and we need much better.

Madam President, the Pandora Papers revelations prove that the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion is failing. All the millions lost in these schemes are millions taken from national budgets, taken from health, education, justice or quality public services and create a clear fiscal injustice between those who benefit from these schemes and the taxpayers who comply. Taxpayers who are increasingly burdened with high taxes in many European countries, such as mine. This Parliament has done its part, discussed the revelations and is putting forward concrete proposals. So the question is, what is it that is failing? The European Commission fails when it is late in revising legislation such as the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive or when it falls short of proposals to modernise cooperation between national tax authorities. National governments are also failing. In the Council, they are unable to decide on the directive on letterbox companies and, in their countries, and this is particularly evident in Portugal, they feed bureaucratic monsters that stifle taxpayers and continue to leave open windows of opportunity for evasion. It is enough, therefore, to deplore these scandals between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is time for national capitals to come up with solutions that are long overdue.

Madam President, Europeans deserve transparency, clarity and truth in political discourse. The eurozone entered a technical recession in the last quarter, inflation remains unaffordable for household budgets and uncertainty still hangs, unfortunately, over the outcome of the war that claims lives on Europe's doorstep. This is the scenario that shows that promoting investment is no longer a priority for the Union, it is now an emergency. Only with an investment-friendly environment can we create jobs, raise wages and kick-start the economy. Making Europe a place to invest is an objective that will only be achieved with better regulation, simplification and coordination. And what does this mean? Avoiding excessive legislation, which imposes ever-increasing context costs on businesses, drastically reducing the red tape that stifles small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, and supporting the ecosystem of startups and to coordinate tax policy so that competition is fair, fair, transparent and competitive. Between wanting more investment and making it a reality, it's the distance to decisions, and it's time to make them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 95% of Portugal is sea and our history is deeply linked to it. The oceans and their biodiversity and resources are goods that must be preserved and protected. They are, moreover, a matter to which we owe more attention, not only here in Parliament, but in society as a whole. Its role in the balance of the planet is crucial, for example in the absorption of CO2. This is also why their management should be shared, recognising the roles of different organisations, and we should involve all stakeholders in the decision-making and management of oceans and marine resources. In addition, the involvement of the entire fishing community is essential for the conservation of resources and reasonable management of fishing quotas. Co-management is therefore a reality to which we must move, within a legal framework at European level, ensuring a more participatory, democratic and attentive management of such an important part of the planet.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I could easily be quiet and silent during the time of my speech, in line with what many people do on this subject. But no, I choose to speak because I would not forgive myself if I did not, and I do so – not just for myself, but for the next generations of Europeans and for the next generations of any other geography. And I speak because, despite what this House has done, many national governments have not lived up to it. They have not met the required targets. Many have been good at propaganda, with repeated advertisements and spending, but unable to keep up with the pace that this Parliament has set itself. The problem with propaganda is that it can fool some for a long time, or many for a while, but it does not withstand the passage of time. And fundamentally it does not solve the problems that need an urgent response. As stated in the report, every small increase in the temperature of the planet increases extreme phenomena such as severe droughts or fires. Therefore, this report and this call for attention from the scientific community are also an ear-pull to the inaction of many European governments, to whom we must demand less noise and much more action. Governments that often use RRP funds for climate action propaganda and are not even able to properly leverage and enforce these funds. And I will end by saying the following: Europe has lit the way, but unfortunately many governments prefer to stay in the dark.

Mr President, Europe has more than one currency in the euro. It is a commitment by 20 of the 27 Member States to share an important part of their sovereignty – that of monetary policy. And because we are talking about sovereignty, it is important to be clear with the citizens we represent. It is true that the globalisation of economies, the digitalisation of payments or the decentralisation of financial services require a sound monetary policy response. The questions that need to be asked, however, are these: What problems do Europeans face that require a digital euro? What added value does a single digital currency have for the euro area? And what opportunities will European citizens and businesses have with this project? In other geographies, digital currencies are advancing and we cannot be left behind. By now, we should be discussing concrete proposals, precisely to identify the problems we are going to solve, to decide on the functionalities we want for the digital euro, and to create a space of opportunity for citizens to extend their financial freedom and for companies to be better able to invest and innovate. This is not the time to prolong debates about where we are. This is the time to decide where we want to go.

Madam President, the financial markets are changing and the laws must change with them. Digitalisation and decentralisation are inevitable trends. The emergence of crypto-assets brings risks that we must mitigate and opportunities that we must not waste. Europe lost the innovation convoy when the internet emerged and failed to lead the platform internet revolution. Now, it's not enough just to catch the train. We must be the locomotive of innovation and lead this new era of Web 3.0 financial technologies. More and more Europeans are using crypto-assets to invest, to buy goods and services, or even to support causes such as Ukraine’s fight for freedom and democracy. These assets must therefore be reliable and reliable for citizens and businesses. We must avoid the legal obstacles and red tape that drive investment away. We must have a competitive fiscal policy to attract the best brains and the best projects. We need to invest in digital infrastructure that facilitates the deployment of the best technological solutions on European soil. As with everything, there is no change without risk. The financial scandals we know of would not be prevented by this legislation, but they would be more difficult to achieve. With the Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets we give a clear signal: Europe wants to regulate smartly and forward-looking. And with the regulation on transfers of funds we signal that the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and the evasion of international sanctions does not have a window of opportunity here. Europe can be proud of the step we take today. This time, we're not going to see what's going on. This time, we'll tell you how it's going to go.

Mr President, job creation is a priority that must unite us all. Where we differ is perhaps in the strategy to achieve it. And we do not only differ between political parties, we also differ between Member States. Everyone says they want to create more jobs and decent work, but we still have economies in the European Union based on low wages and high taxes. I share the Commissioner's enthusiasm for wanting to work for a strong European economy, but this is not commensurate with situations such as Portugal – a fragile economy, stagnant in growth and hijacked by a gigantic public debt, which results in emigration and poverty. Youth unemployment in Portugal already affects one in five young people and we have to find solutions so that we do not mortgage our future. But there are national governments, such as the Portuguese government, that are more committed to passing the blame on to Europe than to doing what they should do – getting the country growing and contributing to a strong European economy. The Portuguese minimum wage is ridiculously low and the average wage is little different. Taxes are extraordinarily high and prevent any household savings or corporate investment. The public debt is unmanageable and we are already paying interest that is ultimately unsustainable. So the question is this: Who is responsible for the state to which this has come? Is it the European Union, which is still the main financier of public investment? Or is it the socialist government in Portugal, which cannot get the country to grow, despite having ruled 14 of the last 18 years? But the time for bad payer excuses is over. This is the time to ask governments to be competent. I would remind you that long-term competitiveness is the message of the Swedish Presidency. So this is an appeal that comes from Europe, but it is above all a demand of the Portuguese.

Madam President, the revision of the European Semester, the exercise of coordinating economic and social policies, is necessary and urgent. We are talking about European fiscal rules, deficit control, debt management and public investment capacity. After the pandemic, inflationary pressure and the real war effort in Europe, no one would want to go back to 2019, to the past. The key words of this reform must be three: flexibility, simplicity and responsibility. This economic and social coordination must be more flexible, setting more realistic deadlines and requiring more structural than temporary measures. Of course, this involves time, investment and approaches that respect the national reality of each Member State. The European Semester needs to be simpler so that citizens can better understand and assess the value of the measures and who they should hold accountable to. That is why the European Semester must promote more responsibility. The principle of intergenerational solidarity implies greater ambition in debt reduction and that this is not done at the expense of the destruction of public services, especially in health or education. The debate has taken place and decisions must now be taken. Parliament has been in agreement on this issue. Governments need to find the same consensus.