Speeches

Mrs Ana Miguel Pedro, you spoke about the various contexts in which situations of child abuse occur. The first question I wanted to ask you has to do precisely with that. Does it not seem to you that this requires much more than criminal measures to increase penalties? Does this not seem to you to require preventive measures to ensure the proper and safe functioning of institutions and spaces where children are socialised, be they nurseries, schools, sports or cultural associations? Does it not think that, even in criminal matters, greater effectiveness should be ensured in combating child abuse, for example by combating the dissemination of images of child sexual abuse content, rather than focusing the whole response on increasing penalties?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, housing is a priority in responding to people's problems and the European Union needs to take the necessary measures so that there are solutions at national level to increase the public supply of housing, protect tenants, combat property speculation, ensure that the necessary investment is mobilised so that homes that are vacant – State-owned real estate – can be allocated to the objective of housing, which is so much needed by the peoples of the European Union area. In Portugal, these needs are also felt in an absolutely urgent and immediate way. However, what we see on the part of the European Union are options in the opposite direction, which, moreover, encourage states and governments to make exactly the opposite choices. The proposed 2026 budget of the European Union does not take the priority of housing, but allows for the diversion of budgetary resources towards militarism and war. The mid-term review of cohesion policies did not prioritise housing, but allowed the use of cohesion funds for the purpose of militarism and war. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Portuguese Government now wants to spend in 2025 three times the military spending, three times the funds that were initially foreseen for housing in the RRP. Those are the wrong options...

Mr President, Commissioner Fitto, the day we debate this report on the importance of cohesion policy for rural areas is precisely the day when the Committee on Budgets has just voted on amendments to the regulations for the European cohesion policy funds, namely the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, which now have militarism as their specific objectives. Military mobility in the Union has become one of the objectives for the use of cohesion funds. And we ask: How can military mobility contribute to the development of rural areas? Militarism does not serve cohesion policy, nor does it serve rural areas and their specific needs, nor does it serve sectoral policy objectives that run counter to this discussion we are having here today. When the European Union finances the development of the Trans-European Transport Network, as it is currently doing in Portugal, on the Sines-Caia link, but disregards the need for investment in the use of the rail link for the populations of those regions, it is not contributing to cohesion or to the development of rural areas. These are sectoral policy objectives that need to be considered as well.

Madam President, Mr Rodrigues, the honourable Member has referred to several important aspects of this report, but I would like to ask him about other aspects that go in the negative direction. Firstly, I would like to ask you how the development of rural areas is supported by placing this focus on militarism – which also appears in this report with the reference to the importance of military mobility; take a good look at: military mobility as a relevant aspect from the point of view of cohesion and addressing the needs of rural areas! On the other hand, I would also like to know how all these objectives are combined with sectoral policies in transport and energy, which then go in exactly the opposite direction, as is the case, for example, with the trans-European transport networks, which completely disregard the mobility of people in rural areas. How can all this be reconciled, honourable Member?

Madam President, Commissioner Kos, the war has been raging in Ukraine for more than 11 years. Reality shows that dialogue is urgent; a dialogue for a political solution to the conflict, a dialogue addressing the problems of collective security and disarmament in Europe, a dialogue aimed at compliance with the principles of the UN Charter and the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference. The resumption of dialogue between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul is an important step. It should contribute to advancing a negotiating process that addresses the causes of the conflict and paves the way for a just and lasting peace in Europe. The United States, NATO and the European Union must put an end to the manoeuvres aimed at prolonging the war and obstructing a political solution to the conflict. We must stop insisting on confrontation and the mobilisation of billions for armaments and war – resources that are lacking and are being taken away from cohesion, wages, health, education, housing, finally, the response to people's problems. We must stop this road to the precipice and place peace as the true future of humanity.

Mr Blaha, I have listened carefully to your speech and I would like to ask you a question. After all the speeches we have heard throughout this debate have expressed concern about the loss of human lives, about the destruction of Ukraine, the question I want to ask you is simple: do you really think that the European Union and its institutions are committed to a solution of collective peace and security, not only in Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe? Do you think that when the institutions of the European Union point out the path of militarism, the arms race, the strengthening of confrontational measures, that is indeed the path of peace? Or, on the contrary, is the European Union encouraging war to continue indefinitely?

Mr President, Commissioner Zaharieva, scientific and technological development is absolutely essential for the development of any country. And asymmetries and inequalities in development between the countries of the European Union are a serious problem that must be tackled – and it is therefore absolutely essential that the European Union’s choices in science and technology make a decisive contribution to blurring, to eliminating those differences and inequalities in development between each country. But the options that have been made are exactly the opposite. Not only in economic policies, which determine, for some countries, better conditions for scientific and technological development and the incorporation of science and technology in their productive activity, but also because, in access to funds, the conditions of access between countries are not equal, and the least developed countries have more difficulties in accessing European Union funds in order to be able to guarantee better conditions for scientific and technological development. The least developed countries also find it more difficult to invest with their own budgetary resources, because the limitations and constraints of the European Union weigh more heavily. These options need to be reversed to ensure that there is genuine cohesion within the European Union.

Mr Gonçalves, I would like to ask you two questions. First, how does Portugal get out of the situation of dependence of the strongest countries, of the great powers of the European Union, in access to funds for science? The European Union has just announced a set of measures with large associated funds. Portugal is always in a position of dependence, because to access these funds, our science and research units always need to find some kind of consortium with units from more important, stronger countries to be able to access the funds. The second question is this: how does the PS resolve the contradiction of its discourse and positioning by defending, on the one hand, investment in science and research, but, on the other hand, agreeing with all the budgetary constraints and constraints that the European Union imposes on us, in particular through the Stability Pact? We need to invest in science and technology, and that is not compatible with accepting the budgetary constraints that the European Union imposes on us.

Madam President, Mr Sousa Silva, you have made a very important speech, but you have forgotten the most important aspect of investing in science: investing in the social and professional development of scientists and researchers. And this is one of the main problems facing Portugal. The social and professional devaluation of its scientists and researchers is a brand that sinks our country, condemning our country to not have the conditions it needs to develop. The Foundation for Science and Technology has not yet ratified the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers and the European Charter for Researchers. Are you going to do it or not? What will be the solution of the honourable Member and his party to the revocation of the status of research fellow and the replacement of fellowships by a suitable framework from the labour and social point of view, for scientists and researchers, who must have adequate conditions from the point of view of their employment framework, instead of being precariously hired as fellows?

Mr President, valuing work and workers is a condition for social justice and also for national development. A country that does not value its workers, their wages, their careers and professions, their working conditions is a country plagued by social injustices and inequalities, and also a country with less conditions for development. A government that executes a policy of attacking labour and social rights is a government that directly harms workers, the people and the country to serve the interests of those who exploit work. We need to break that path. We need a policy of valuing workers, their working conditions and their qualifications as a factor in development and social justice. And even when the political power refuses this course, it is in the workers' struggle that we find the solution. The example given by Portuguese workers in the companies CP (Comboios de Portugal) or AUNDE (automotive sector) are clear examples of this path that can be taken, even when political power is on the side of those who exploit workers. The workers of AUNDE, who, without the company's response to their demands, went on strike and continue to fight for their rights, are an inspiration to all workers, not only Portuguese, but also European.

Mr President, Commissioner Mînzatu, low wages and socio-occupational devaluation, job insecurity and discontinuity in employment and work, shift work and deregulated working hours, discrimination and harassment in the workplace, violation of maternity and paternity rights: these are some of the underlying problems that are at the root of the mental health problems that affect workers. We often discuss the issue of mental health here, but solutions to effectively address the degradation of workers' mental health take time. In Portugal, it is estimated that 20% of workers are affected by psychological health problems. There is an urgent need to stop the attack on labour and social rights, which the European Union itself promotes. There is an urgent need for a policy of valuing work and workers, raising their living and working conditions. There is an urgent need to invest in the means to prevent, diagnose and treat mental illness and to combat stigma. There is an urgent need to strengthen the National Health Service in order to ensure regular coverage of mental health, eliminating the shortages of occupational health and occupational medicine. These are the solutions that this debate demands.

Mr Tânger Corrêa, 53 000 dead – 15 000 of whom are children – 119 000 injured, 430 humanitarian workers killed – 305 of them from the United Nations –, more than 1 400 health professionals and 213 journalists killed. At the moment, there are 14 000 babies at risk of starvation, two million people without food, without water, without medicines because of the blockade of humanitarian aid imposed by Israel, and are you here to repeat Netanyahu's arguments and defend Israel's crimes? The honourable Member and the Chega party are not only closing their eyes, they are being complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people committed by Israel, and that is the responsibility they will have to assume.

Mr President, the policy that the peoples need is a policy of boosting the internal market that increases purchasing power by increasing wages and pensions; to gear the economy towards job creation and meeting social needs rather than the profits of economic groups; to stimulate productive development and the incorporation of science and technology into production; and to take on the objective of eliminating asymmetries and inequalities between the levels of development of the different States. The European Union's single market is the opposite of all this. Its extension to the capital market and the technological areas of telecommunications and data spaces will serve the interests of economic groups and speculators, but not those of the peoples. This deepening of the single market is designed for the profits of large companies and multinationals and designed so that the major powers continue to take care of the weakest and most fragile economies. It insists on a policy of destroying public services, liberalising and privatising strategic sectors, particularly in the area of capital markets and, in particular, with regard to public social security systems. That is why it does not serve the interests of the people.

Mr President, the remembrance of the 80th anniversary of the day of the victory over Nazifascism must serve to recall the hard lessons learned by humanity from the tragedy of that war, so that the peoples can avoid its repetition. The legacy of Nazi-fascist barbarism is unprecedented destruction – genocide, concentration camps, tens of millions of deaths. With 20 million dead, it was the Soviet Union that endured the greatest sacrifice of the entire coalition of allied countries formed during the war. Democrats from various quarters built the resistance struggle. The prominent role assumed by the communists was decisive and, therefore, even today, the heirs of the Nazi-fascist forces and their accomplices distill anti-communist hatred. In the 80 years of the day of victory, it is essential to remember that the fight against Nazism and Fascism, against reactionary and obscurantist forces, is also a response to the problems of workers and peoples, with the improvement of their living conditions, the guarantee of social rights, respect for the right of States to their development, with the uncompromising defense of peace and cooperation. The trail of death and destruction of Nazi-fascist barbarism must be enough for us today to do everything we can to defend peace, collective security and the political resolution of conflicts. These are struggles that we share with previous generations and, like 80 years ago, the communists will continue to fight them.

Mr President, a lady interviewed in Portugal about rising prices told Portuguese television that the worst thing is that you run out of money to buy a book. This sentence reflects well the consequences of the increase in the cost of living. It's not just what you stop buying in basic necessities, it's the rest of people's lives that gets compromised. And, speaking of the increase in the cost of living and, in particular, the increase in food prices, it is absolutely essential that we have in this debate the two lines of solution and response to this problem: increasing wages and pensions, improving purchasing power, on the one hand; on the other hand, intervention and price control, so that speculation and the increase in profits of economic groups do not lead to worsening difficulties for those who live from their work, worsening difficulties in the living conditions of the people. It is the combination of these two elements, increasing purchasing power and controlling price caps, which can effectively address this problem of rising living costs, bearing in mind that part of the problems that remain unanswered is precisely that of supporting those who produce. Because, if today the prices of food increase for those who buy it, unfortunately they do not increase for producers, because the distribution chains crush the prices of production and there also needs to be a line of intervention.

Madam President, Mrs Miranda, you have indeed referred here to a circumstance which is contradictory, or apparently contradictory. Because, while it is true that distribution groups crush the prices they pay to producers, the truth is that they have not stopped increasing prices in the sale to the public, particularly in essential goods. And when we question this, what we are told from the European Union is that it is not possible to change prices, because that would call into question the rules of the functioning of the market, it would call into question the rules of competition. And the question I ask you is: What, after all, weighs more? Are the rules of the market and the rules of competition, and the accumulation of profits of the distribution group? Or is it the need for a policy that intervenes to bring down prices, particularly food prices?

Madam President, Commissioner Jørgensen, the problems that caused the blackout of 28 April may happen regardless of how the electricity sector is organised and operates, but their scale and consequences are the result of the policies of liberalisation and privatisation of the energy sector by national governments under the patronage of the European Union. These policies cut the electricity sector to slices, as the interest of the market business, removed coherence to the electricity system, left it more fragile and vulnerable, and its operation with less security. The electricity sector today operates on a profit-driven basis and puts in the background the conditions for universal access to electricity, concerns about security of energy supply and distribution. The problem is not getting electricity from renewable sources. The problem is the crushing of electricity production costs at the expense of the security of the electricity system, not to lower prices for consumers, but to increase the profits of economic groups in the sector. Liberal policies in the energy sector have left people in the dark. It is the recovery of public control of the energy sector and its companies that can bring us back to the light, with security, prices and conditions of service (...)

Madam President, Commissioner Ribera, there are two central ideas in this debate. The first central idea is that competition only serves the European Union when it suits economic groups and multinationals. When it serves to limit public investment, the operation of public enterprises or to impose their privatisation, the pretext of competition is useful. When competition rules limit the interests and profits of economic groups and multinationals, competition no longer serves. In fact, proof of this is the European Commission's guidelines, with its policy of concentration and mergers, under the pretext of the competition of the large European multinationals with the Americans and the Chinese. The second central idea of this debate is that the report we are discussing confirms the bankruptcy of competition policy, but it is above all people's lives that confirms this. When distribution groups collude to raise prices for essential goods while crushing the prices paid to producers, it is competition that is bankrupt. When communications companies raise prices and agree on the terms of contracts they impose on consumers, it is competition that goes bankrupt. When energy prices rise, because multinational companies in the sector abuse their market position, it is competition that fails. It is not through the farce of competition that the problems of the peoples are solved.

Madam President, Mr Andrus, competition has served as a pretext to limit or even prevent public investment and the strengthening of state-owned enterprises. The Portuguese State had to face a thousand and one difficulties to recapitalize the public bank, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, and has suffered a thousand and one forms of pressure to sell the public airline, TAP. This means that competition serves as a pretext to prevent, limit and even degrade the provision of public services and the operation of undertakings. I ask you: How can competition serve the interests of the peoples if it limits and conditions the provision of public service, the real aim of which is to satisfy the needs of the peoples?

Madam President, it is absolutely essential that there be respect for the sovereign will of the Cuban people and that there be channels of relationship, cooperation and dialogue with Cuba so that, in relations based on these principles, solutions can be found to overcome the problems facing the Cuban people, particularly the truly criminal consequences of the blockade that the United States continues to impose on Cuba, which prevent the Cuban people from having access, under the same conditions as the peoples of the rest of the world, to medical care, dignity in their living conditions, which are denied by that blockade. And it is symptomatic that, in this European Parliament, those who today raise their voices against Cuba's Cooperation and Dialogue Agreement with the European Union are exactly those who continue to support the European Union's Association Agreement with Israel. Cuba sends doctors to solve the health problems of other peoples. The European Union – and those who advocate this association agreement with Israel here – continues to advocate sending arms so that the Palestinian people are subjected to the genocide that Israel is carrying on. Be embarrassed in your face when you defend these kinds of absolutely contradictory and double positions.

Mr President, the proposals we have put forward for this multiannual financial framework report state an alternative with clear priorities: prioritising economic, social and territorial cohesion and considering it as a cross-cutting principle of the multiannual budget of the European Union; prioritising objectives such as full employment, raising the living conditions of workers or eradicating poverty; prioritising addressing social issues, such as financing policies for access to housing, investing in public services, strengthening the child guarantee; priority should be given to supporting national policies for developing and exploiting productive resources and capacities, with a focus on the need for a policy of reindustrialisation and support for productive sectors, family farming, small-scale artisanal and coastal fishing. On the contrary, this report points to European funds, options which accentuate the subordination of the needs of the peoples, which do not guarantee the States conditions for the development and correction of the asymmetries of the least developed countries vis-à-vis the most developed countries, which drag the peoples to priorities contrary to their interests and rights, such as militarism and war, which deepen the mechanisms of imposition and political conditioning of the Member States by the European Union. The European Parliament's report calls for an increase in the European Union's budget, but the areas specifically called for are defence, security, border control and competitiveness. By prioritising this militaristic and security agenda and the interests of multinationals, everything else is left behind. This is not the path people need. These are not the options for a multiannual financial framework that serves the interests of the peoples.

Mr President, Commissioner Šefčovič, the response to Trump's tariff policy must be based on three essential elements. First, strengthening the internal market by increasing purchasing power, supporting policies to increase wages and pensions. By strengthening our internal market, we have an economy that is less dependent, less vulnerable, less exposed to the decisions that others make, especially when they are detrimental to us. Secondly, we need to develop our productive capacities, particularly with a policy of reindustrialisation and incorporating science and technology into the production of our businesses to ensure that we are also less vulnerable and less dependent on the economic and trade policy decisions that others make, particularly when they decide to raise tariffs not only on goods but also on raw materials. Thirdly, it is absolutely essential to have a diversified trade policy, with trade agreements which do not sacrifice the economies and interests of small countries to the interests of the great powers and which, above all, make it possible to find appropriate forms of economic development on the basis of cooperative international relations. This is the path that must be followed, not that of subservience to the United States and the Trump administration.

Mr President, Mrs Pereira, you spoke about the need for diversification of markets and a broader trade policy. Unfortunately, this is one of the competences that has been transferred to the European Union and in which the national states today have no possibility of developing their action – the case of Portugal is a blatant example of this. But the question I want to ask you has to do with another dimension: the Honourable Member does not think that the dynamisation of the internal market, increasing purchasing power, increasing wages and pensions, is even more important, so that, with the dynamisation of the internal market, we are less vulnerable and less exposed to the consequences of decisions such as those that Donald Trump has taken in the United States? Don't you think that should be the way to go, especially in Portugal, contrary to what the current PSD-CDS government has done?