What Lídia spoke about.

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.

Madam President, controlling inflation is an economic emergency and a social emergency. 8.5% is a high figure, but 14% in food is worrying and rising interest rates on housing loans only add to the concern. The poorest are the hardest hit by inflation and the response from some governments is slow. Let's move on to the sixth consecutive rise in the European Central Bank's interest rates. It is the decision that is within the reach of the governors and I ask: What about national governments? In Portugal, which has inflation below the European average, the purchasing power of the Portuguese is today at 2018 levels. Without a good implementation of European funds, without active employment policies and without an investment and export strategy, we will not control inflation. And worse, we are not going to take the new direction that our economies need.

Mr President, we have come to the end of this debate with a clear conclusion, an interesting lead and a strange feeling. We draw the clear conclusion that, despite the differences between political families, there is a shared understanding. And on this matter, I would like to respond to Mr Gusmao, in his attempt to put the fight against evasion always on the side of the fight of the left. For know that our work resulted from compromise and therefore the right is not on the side of evasion, the right is on the side of the fight against tax evasion and avoidance, once again. And so I don't think this is a serious debate. Especially after everything we have heard from colleagues, where we have all tried to row in the same direction. And that's what we got. Tax policy is a competence of the Member States and this Parliament is signalling that, where it can help, it is prepared to do so. That is why I want to strengthen the compromise that has been achieved between all the political groups. We also found an interesting clue. In a parliament with limited powers in tax matters, we have worked on concrete solutions for the future of taxes and we have always worked in a spirit of compromise that shows that we can go beyond our differences to decide. Once again, the Left Group supports this compromise. Finally, we get the strange feeling about the commitment of national governments to this effort. I understand that there are governments that want to keep everything the same, but there are only two possible ways to ensure that our budgets have sufficient resources. Either we burden citizens even more with taxes, stifling them with tax burdens that hijack their income, or we free up resources, focusing our efforts on fighting evasion and fraud, and reducing taxes for families. For my part, the choice is clear: I prefer the path of demanding and defending tax justice, which is why our work on this directive is so important. We will see what national governments will do now. We will be here to greet them or to criticize them. In any case, to call them to account.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, the resulting but already behind-the-scenes inflationary crisis and the uncertainty in the international community and in the markets are anticipating a difficult time for everyone. Time that we see every day. Tax policy is a competence of States, which can and should be better used in times of crisis. Taxes are key to promoting jobs, growth and competitiveness. They are a direct and effective way of reducing the burden on households and businesses, while safeguarding the ability of states to put budgets at the service of people. Unfortunately, there are Member States, such as my own, Portugal, which insist on excessive tax burdens on taxpayers. We need concrete responses to the rising cost of living. And the first one should be a tax cut. Shifting the responsibilities of governments to taxpayers is socially unfair and economically wrong. The directive we are discussing today on the misuse of shell companies for tax purposes is very important to ensure that tax competition in Europe is fair, fair and transparent. Further: This is a concrete step towards eradicating tax schemes that may seem legal but are immoral. Rather, they are strategies of some multinationals to evade the taxes they owe in the countries where they make their profits. The European Union will be the first area to legislate on the misuse of letterbox companies. This is why the requirement of proportionality and intelligence in regulation is even greater. If, on the one hand, we cannot be complacent with abuses, on the other hand, we cannot create too many barriers to setting up companies or increase the bureaucracy to which many businesses are subjected. The European Parliament's position is clear on the priorities. We now need to be accompanied by national governments in this endeavour. I summarize our proposals in three words: balance, transparency and demand. First, there is a balance in the definition of the undertakings which are covered by the additional information obligations imposed by that directive. If, on the one hand, we increase the universe of companies potentially covered, on the other hand, we clarify that the requirements defined by law must be cumulative and we maintain an important set of exceptions for sectors already sufficiently regulated. Second, transparency in what we ask of companies. While it is true that we have increased the level of information that should be shared, it is equally true that we place a burden on the tax authorities. We set concrete deadlines for responses and the possibility of carrying out joint audits. Third, requirement in the consequences that we determine for the consideration of a company as facade. We have focused that consequence not on the issue of a tax residence certificate, but on going further. We differentiate the situation of non-declaration from the situation of fraud, and we make clearer the values of the penalty. Our work is done. National governments are now being asked to take a decision. The fight against tax fraud and tax evasion has never been more necessary and demanded by citizens, who want more tax justice and greater transparency. Times like the ones we live in enhance this debate. Let us do so in commitment to the solutions we stand for, but let us have the courage to decide.

Madam President, the increase in the cost of living is an undeniable reality. The historical numbers of inflation are evident, but it is critical to look at the people these numbers represent. Households, especially younger ones, are facing rising food prices, significant instability in energy prices and a tremendous rise in housing loans. We know that, invariably, the poorest families are the most affected and solutions cannot be expected. Fighting inflation in Europe is a political priority, an economic urgency and a social emergency. Everyone has to do their part. In the European Union, the independent European Central Bank leads monetary policy and the Commission has a duty to ensure that its funds, the funds we approve here every year, reach people and that competition is free and fair within the internal market. Losing time on easy criticism of Europe is not serious. It is an expedient of its own for those who do not have solutions to present in their country. Unfortunately, this is what we see in some European capitals, particularly in my country, in Portugal. This fight is not made with more taxes on taxpayers, who already live strangled. It is done with the good use of European funds to generate jobs and investment, with responsible and ambitious national budgets and with more seriousness in the political discourse. The time we live in is not for justifications, it is for decisions.

Madam President, COPs succeed each other, but results tend to be scarce and time is running out. Here in Europe, we have been delivering results for several years now, bringing our homework to the successive COPs. While increasing our productivity and our GDP, we have been able to reduce emissions. Here, we invest in innovation, new technologies, renewables and demand more from our companies. We can do more, as in electricity interconnections and the Energy Union. But at COP27 we saw a lack of results on the most important issue - and the Vice-President of the portfolio has just mentioned it - namely the reduction of emissions. Colleagues, it is in this part that we must actually have results to prevent the floods, fires and storms that we have all experienced from worsening. We see, we hear beautiful speeches and motives from everywhere, but few compromises and very few results. What is the use of financing the poorest countries to combat the effects of climate change, if the countries that pollute the most continue to pollute and exacerbate this problem? In Europe, we have shown leadership in raising the 2030 targets, in reducing emissions. We are the main funder of the fight against climate change in developing countries, but we have not been able to have a mobilising agenda with the biggest polluters: China, the United States and India. Our climate diplomacy has not had the necessary results and this is an important reflection that we must do without delay with the Commission and the Council.

Madam President, unlike many, we believe that lucrative private investments are key to financing the climate transition we need and commit to. And to do so, we need capital markets and large and small investors to direct their resources towards sustainable investments and to promote economic growth that respects the planet. But for this to happen, investors need information about companies to be more transparent, allowing them to know the impact of the company's activity on the planet, but also the impacts of climate change on their results. Transparency and sustainability are the two key words. And this is a transformative vision in which large companies no longer only report on their financial results, but also report on their environmental, social and governance results. This legislative change represents a new paradigm in corporate accountability and, while it may not be sufficient in itself, enhanced sustainability reporting is an important incentive for more sustainable corporate decision-making and governance.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we know that the challenge of climate change is enormous and must be tackled. That is why this Parliament has been the most ambitious European institution in demanding the climate transition. Moreover, as we know, Europeans are today the ones who do the most in the fight against climate change. This is also why the actions of activists who do nothing but spoil works of art and heritage are nothing more than media shows that we must condemn and that have no practical consequence and no gain for the planet or for the environmental cause. It is not by spoiling the cultural heritage that we preserve the environmental heritage. We know our priorities for this COP27. The unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine makes the European energy transition an even greater urgency. Putin, in addition to the death and destruction he is spreading, is harming the European and global economy and being one of the main responsibles for the prolongation of the operation of coal-fired power plants and their consequences on the environment. But our autonomy can be guaranteed and energy prices can fall with investments in renewable energy. The REpowerEU plan further increases the EU’s climate ambition, in addition to the ongoing reductions stemming from the European Climate Law, and could go beyond the 55% reduction in projected emissions by 2030. So we ask the Council and the national governments what is missing, in addition to the political courage, to endorse Parliament's positions in this regard? Similarly, we ask the Commission what it intends to do to ensure that all parties meet the overall goal of the Paris Agreement? How do you plan to increase the role of private initiative in the transition and do you not consider that internally we have left behind support for adaptation and increasing the resilience of territories? Ladies and gentlemen, despite the conflict with Russia, a return to fossil fuels must be avoided at all costs. And European political leaders, who are blocking energy interconnections today, in particular with the Iberian Peninsula, must be denounced. We need solidarity and responsibility. And we have to say, there are European leaders who block energy interconnections with Portugal and Spain so that they can sell more expensive energy to the rest of Europe and thus block solutions that would help people have access to cheaper and more renewable energy. Emmanuel Macron and his government are today the face of European selfishness. We need to achieve the targets for public and private investments to stop and adapt to climate change, with consequences as severe as those we have seen across Europe. Poorer countries need to be supported in their clean energy transition and we need to rapidly and strategically increase investment in innovation and clean technologies. While in the EPP we want decarbonisation, the radical left wants deindustrialisation and the destruction of the economy. Cities, as territories where a large part of the population and greenhouse gas emissions are concentrated, have to assume a greater role in mitigating and adapting to climate change. In fact, not everything should remain in the hands of national governments, particularly when many of them do not demonstrate the capacity to do what has to be done, such as, for example, what happens to the Portuguese government, in the face of desertification affecting southern Europe or forest fires that decimate several lives every year. But let's go to this COP with our eyes set on what the world can do best. Egypt, being a country with a great past, can also be the country where one takes a giant step towards a better future. We have a duty and an obligation to leave a better world to new and future generations.

Mr President, historical levels of inflation go beyond figures or statistics. They show us the difficulties of families without money to meet their essential expenses. Rising food, energy or transport prices are throwing families into despair, families left with a large chunk of the month at the end of their salary. And the critical phase of winter is yet to come. But there are already many people without the money to heat their homes, even living in situations of real energy poverty. And that is why, more than regrets, we need concrete measures. Price caps or taxes on windfall profits must be concerted measures at European level and must be aimed at protecting households and businesses, ensuring people's well-being and keeping our economy functional. A final word to the national governments, in particular to the Portuguese: they cannot be limited to superficial measures and blame the international environment. Much more is required, political responsibility is required in managing this crisis.

Madam President, the different living things that inhabit the Earth are one of its greatest riches, and biodiversity is a fundamental good that it is up to us all to preserve. The question for governments and the Commission is whether we are doing everything necessary to safeguard the future of the planet and not only whether we can protect more species, but whether those that are already identified as at risk and in need of protection today are effectively protected. We cannot cope with the constant attack on the planet's biodiversity by those who claim to have endangered species as domestic animals just for fun. We must ask whether, in particular, animals and plants that are victims of trafficking or illegal trade are finding an appropriate response in the action of governments and in the control of their borders, and whether criminals are being adequately punished. All elements in the trafficking chain must be met with a firm and unrelenting response. More than changes to conventions, which are also necessary, we need to strengthen the capacity for oversight and the response of justice.

Madam President, the political debate is the field of divergence. But it is important to emphasise that, when we talk about new technologies and taxation, there is a broad consensus with clear statements as we can hear in the speeches throughout the debate. The first consensus is that taxation must be smart, innovation-friendly and forward-looking. The second consensus is that new forms of investment and savings are extraordinary opportunities for everyone, but should not be windows of opportunity for tax fraud and evasion. The third consensus is that our tax policies and tax authorities need to adapt quickly to the challenges of the digitalisation of the economy and the decentralisation of financial markets. Finally, there is the consensus that taxes are national, that European cooperation is essential and that an international agreement is essential. The times we live in, as I also had the opportunity to say earlier, are difficult and complex. We're all seeing our bills go up. Households see house payments rise from month to month, and businesses are naturally insecure about rising interest rates and disrupting supply chains. So this is the time to use fiscal policy to help families and businesses overcome the crisis we are already facing and to anticipate the challenges of a future in which new technologies will be a daily reality. We must therefore live up to our time, but above all to the future that we aspire to and that Europe must lead.

Madam President, the European economy is changing. If it is true that difficulties are more present, it is no less true that opportunities are also emerging. Europeans, especially young people, are now looking for alternatives to saving and investing. With the emergence of new technologies, financial markets have also found new solutions, solutions that are increasingly decentralised, more accessible and more present in our lives. Policymakers are not only asked to respond to immediate crises. It is asked, more than ever, that, in the complex, volatile and accelerated framework in which we live, they legislate intelligently and that they find solutions with their eyes set on the future. We have a duty to make European law more innovation-friendly so that national law is also a dynamo of progress. This belief is particularly important when we talk about taxation. Taxes are key instruments for a policy to promote innovation, competitiveness and growth. Unfortunately, they are often an obstacle when one wants to fill the coffers of the state at the expense of the sacrifice of families and businesses. As a Portuguese I know this phenomenon well, that of the suffocating tax burden that stifles our financial freedom and kidnaps our future. A pro-innovation, competitive and forward-looking fiscal policy cannot ignore the emergence of new technologies such as blockchain or the multiplication of crypto-assets. To enhance Europe's opportunities in this area, we have put forward these proposals on the impact of new technologies on taxation. What are those proposals? Firstly, the clear statement that tax policy is the responsibility of the Member States and that we should not tax assets at any cost to fatten up national budgets. It is up to each of the 27 states to decide on the taxes they collect. But in an internal market with fair and healthy competition, there must be a minimum of cooperation. When deciding to tax an asset, the tax should be fair, clear, transparent, predictable and proportionate. Secondly, national tax authorities also need to adapt to the challenges of digitalisation. We want a clear reinforcement of human and material resources, a training programme for staff at European level and the creation of a platform for sharing best practices between countries. Thirdly, we call for consistency between European law and national law and, by the way, between national laws. Definitions of ‘crypto-asset’, for example, or ‘taxable event’ or ‘permanent establishment’, must be common, otherwise we will treat similar situations differently. Fourthly, we want technology to blockchain be used to the full extent of the opportunities it represents. The features of this technology allow us to fight tax fraud and evasion faster and more effectively and can also make procedures more efficient, reducing red tape for citizens and context costs for businesses. Finally, we want the Union to lead the dialogue towards an international instrument on the taxation of crypto-assets. It makes no sense to limit ourselves to legislating from country to country, a reality that knows no borders. If competition is healthy, it also has to be fair and fair. The change we are experiencing in the economy and in the financial markets cannot be stopped. We will face complex difficulties, but we will also know challenging opportunities. It is up to us to live up to the time when we are called to decide and we will do so with our eyes set on the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we talk about droughts and fires, we also talk about the increasing impact that climate change has on our lives and that is manifested in the increase in global temperature, in the heat waves that repeatedly ravage Europe, or even in storms and floods, so often out of season. But let us have no illusions. Climate change and its consequences are also largely responsible for rising European food prices. And, therefore, seeking solutions for agriculture that do not imply coordinated action with the fight against climate change and a more sustainable way of life will always be doomed to failure, failure which has also been the expression that applies to the action of many national governments, such as that of Portugal, governments that for many years had the conditions and the necessary money to develop better solutions to prevent, monitor and combat forest fires, but also water management and saving systems, and very little or nothing has been done. Simply drought and firefighting were not a priority for the various governments, specifically in Portugal, and this summer is once again the result of that. The government has been negligent, I would even say incompetent, in keeping the forest and the people safe. It remains for me to leave a word of thanks and gratitude to the firefighters, who often sacrifice their own lives to compensate for the inaction of the rulers.

Mr President, the minimum effective tax rate of 15% on the income of multinationals seems increasingly to be a European requirement. The second pillar of the OECD agreement is becoming less and less global. On the other side of the Atlantic, in the United States, we already realize that the implementation of the agreement is a mirage. On this side, progress and setbacks are evident and we still have a long way to go in first pillar legislation. We agreed to tax 15%, but we still don't know how we're going to do it. The Commission's proposal on the levy is balanced and responsible, and Parliament's view, which has since been adopted, is realistic and appropriate. There is, of course, no say in who decides, the Council. Of the eight states that opposed it, we now have four. At the time, only Poland was blocking and now we have the Hungarian veto. It seems to me that this directive is more a bargaining chip than a priority for the Member States. The Portuguese Minister of Finance is wrong. It is not essential to eliminate tax competition, it is necessary to ensure that such competition is fair, fair and transparent. Some are doing their part and we can only hope that Hungary will be responsible once and for all and that the Council will be firm once and for all. That's what we asked for. This is what the Europeans demand.

Madam President, the recovery and resilience mechanism is one of the engines of the economic recovery we want for Europe. However, it is not the only one. The commitment of national governments to more and better public investment is also essential. I am therefore astonished to see so many reluctances on the part of some heads of government to revise the rules of economic governance. Maybe it's selfishness of some or opportunism of others. Maybe some people want to please the electorate. Perhaps others are more concerned about the presidency of the European Council. We can discuss the sufficiency and timelines of the mechanism, but we should not waste time, which could be invested in the implementation of national plans. Many of them are late. The whole debate has its time and we must therefore first explore all the opportunities of a mechanism that has not even been called upon to lend all the funds it has.

Madam President, sustainable development is not a soundbite or a fashion today, but a fundamental need to ensure the harmonious development of society and social cohesion between generations, geographies and communities. The European Union cannot only reaffirm a theoretical commitment to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, it must put them into practice and assess their performance. And it must evaluate its performance because the Sustainable Development Goals are not a political campaign or a media number, they are the visible face of an environmental, social and economic strategy that aims to raise the quality of life of all. The current situation in Europe is difficult. War, the food prices we already feel, and other extreme weather events require concrete action as a response. We therefore need more coordination and more responsiveness to problems, and that is also, with results, the best way to respond to the populism that continues to plague Europe.

Madam President, taxes are the most important source of public revenue and a manifestation of the sovereign power of states. It is taxes that finance our budgets and it is the tax burden that determines better or worse conditions for companies to create jobs, generate wealth and contribute to our economic growth. Fiscal competitiveness is therefore an indispensable dimension of any economic strategy. But that competitiveness must be fair, balanced and, of course, transparent. The international agreement for the taxation of multinationals, specifically this second pillar on the minimum effective rate, was an important step. The Union has led the negotiations and will lead the way in implementing the agreement. The time of discussion must become the time of action. The commitment of Member States is essential to ensure that this Directive is adopted, well transposed and implemented in a way that safeguards the competitiveness of our economies and our ability to attract investment. Unfortunately, the Union is not being accompanied, outside, by the commitment of other countries and, inside, we still have to decide on the First Pillar, the rules that guarantee it the taxation of the profits generated in our territory. So we have a lot of work ahead of us and we need more commitment. And this Parliament will not fail to demand this.

Mr President, competition policy is one of the pillars underpinning our internal market. Free, fair and fair competition is a necessary condition for the integrity of this market, but it is above all the precondition for an economy that grows, generates wealth and creates jobs. The last two years have been marked by a pandemic that has required significant flexibility in our competition policy. The recovery time advises a progressive and proportional return to normality. On the other hand, we cannot ignore what is happening in Europe, in the East, on the doorstep of our Union. Recovery time is therefore also the time of resilience, with ambition, rigour and flexibility. I want to highlight here the role of technological innovation. Digitalisation is an irreversible trend and the digital transition is an unquestionable priority. Competition within the Union must become Europe's competitiveness. Instead of regulating everything by the same criteria, we need a specific approach for digital companies, for start-ups technology and for small and medium-sized enterprises that are increasingly working online. Europe cannot risk losing the innovation train. It must be the Europe of the first chariot of the digital revolution that this generation of Europeans can and must lead.

Mr President, fellow Europeans, war is at our gates. Europeans are suffering, with fuel prices on the rise, with food prices, particularly bread and other essentials going through the roof. In fact, many Europeans are facing difficulties to which we cannot turn our faces in denial. But we need to face the social and economic consequences of this war, not only inside the EU but also in Ukraine. We must not just walk or talk the talk. We must do the walk, the walk. We must reinforce our capacity to walk the walk, not just for today, but also for tomorrow. We must not settle for a few good speeches and beautiful words and loads of indignity and social media. We must do what we can do as soon as we can to make sure that something like this does not happen again. We need a legal freeze-and-seize instrument. We need to make Russia pay for war reparations to Ukraine. And we need that money. We need to help creating an adequate recovery plan to rebuild Ukraine’s infrastructure and relaunch Ukraine’s economy. We can be divided into many things, and we frequently are. After all, debate and discussion are what a Parliament is about. But, dear friends, we cannot be divided about defending Europe from autocratic regimes. We shall not be divided about responding to other countries blackmailing us. And we will not be divided about putting European security, solidarity and friendship above anything else. Long live Europe and long live freedom.

Madam President, the Sixth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows the world how the average temperature of the planet has already risen by 1.1° and is affecting natural and human systems in Europe. Since the last assessment, the impacts of climate change have increased, resulting in losses in agricultural production, infrastructure or water scarcity. But what it brings again does not calm down, but rather provokes anxiety and worry. Europe is and will continue to warm faster than the rest of the planet and southern Europe will be the worst hit. The Fit for 55 package must come to fruition and look at the issue of adaptation as central from now on. I cannot, however, address this House and not talk about the Russian invasion and barbarism in Ukraine, which has, in addition to all the human suffering, also caused additional problems of two different orders: food shortages and economic losses, directing resources to the military effort and blocking diplomatic advances. Dear Colleagues, this is not the time to look back before we leave behind doubts or indecisions. What I ask of you is that we do not stay in history for lack of courage.

Mr President, the tax scandals, of which the Pandora Papers are the most pressing and recent example, rightly lead our citizens to demand more from policy-makers. At international level, the agreement reached at OECD level to reform the international tax system is exemplary. In the Union we now have a responsibility to lead in its implementation. At European level, we are committed to making the new framework for corporate income taxation, BEFIT, a tool for fairness and tax transparency, but also for the competitiveness of our companies. National withholding tax systems thus emerge as one of the areas where we can and should go further, improving cooperation between the 27 and safeguarding the integrity of our internal market. On the one hand, withholding taxes ensure recurring revenues for national budgets, help combat profit shifting and help prevent tax evasion and avoidance. On the other hand, we face risks of double taxation, deterrence of cross-border investment and bureaucratic burden for taxpayers. It is to maximise the benefits of these systems and to mitigate their risks that we want a clearer European framework. This European framework involves unblocking long-standing European legislation such as the Interest and Royalties Directive, approximating reduction and exemption rules and improving information exchange systems. Fighting fraud and evasion and committing to fairer, transparent and competitive tax systems have several fronts. This is one of them. And here we are ready to take over.

Mr President, taxation is at the heart of the political debate. We have, on the one hand, the positive impulses of the agreement for the reform of the international tax system and the recent initiatives of the Commission and, on the other hand, we have the negative impulses of the tax scandals and the economic crisis that results from the pandemic. The response to this crisis cannot ignore the scale of taxes. In addition, we are beginning to feel the effects of the war that has broken out in Europe and we all feel in our pockets the dimension of energy taxation. Here, it is clear that taxes will play a key role in the recovery of the European economy and in the green and digital transition. This report therefore comes at a good time and I would like to congratulate Mr Niedermayer on his proposals to this Parliament. These proposals go in the right direction and I give only a few examples. Simplify tax processes for citizens and businesses with less red tape and context costs, reflect on the role of positive tax incentives and the balance with free competition in the internal market, focus on digitalisation with e-invoices, harmonised models and a one-stop-shop scheme, improve information exchange systems and leverage European platforms, and mitigate the debt bias. As I said, taxation is on the agenda and European taxpayers want more than declarations, they want concrete actions. Here we will be and here we are to demand them.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the moment we are going through only reinforces the importance of ensuring increasing energy autonomy. This autonomy involves a greater use of electricity with the corresponding progressive abandonment of fossil fuels, fossil energies. But to do so, we must not only be more self-sufficient in the production of electricity, but also in the development, promotion, production and recovery of batteries and their components. Since planet Earth has finite resources, we need to be able to use and reuse these components. This can only be done with a strong focus on the circular economy and also on batteries. Therefore, it is important to recall here the overall objective of achieving a significant level of recovery of materials from batteries, which is not being achieved. I would like to reiterate my agreement with the general objectives of the proposal: strengthening the functioning of the internal market, including for products, processes and waste, ensuring a fair market and level playing field with common rules and standards, promoting the circular economy of the various components and reducing the environmental and social impacts of all stages of the life cycle of batteries. However, with our vote, we can go even further by facilitating the process of removing and exchanging batteries in light vehicles and a transparent labelling policy for the consumer. The big changes are made with small steps and the big victories with small advances. If we want energy autonomy, decarbonisation and moving forward in electrification, leaving fossil fuels behind, then move forward in these matters. For those who want to learn, ignorance is merely a step. That we continue to learn and live sustainably within the limits of our planet.