What Regina spoke about.

Madam President, Commissioner, it's hard to believe that I and others are still standing here arguing for basic protections for victims of crime across Europe in 2026, and the last EU Victims Law was written in 2012. Since then, crime has gone digital, abuse has gone cross-borders, and parts of the online world have become a breeding ground for harassment, exploitation and intimidation, particularly targeting women and young people. And unfortunately, Europe hasn't kept up. So right now, victims still face different levels of protection depending on which country they are in, while criminals are exploiting our borders and victims shouldn't suffer because of this. So the crime does not stop with the borders. So therefore the victims rights shouldn't stop there either. And let's be honest, for many victims, the trauma does not end when or where the crime happens, because for too many, and particularly of our women, they are forced to face and fight through our national systems because of delays and needless bureaucracy. And all they want to do is either just be heard or protected. In Ireland, we saw the devastating consequences of online abuse through the tragic death of Nicole 'Coco' Fox, which then led to Coco's Law. For years we have been pushing for these protections to be recognised across Europe. And I really hope that the report that we are voting on here this week is a first step to that realisation of a European Coco's Law, because victims do not need us to continue talking, they do not need more delays. They need Europe to act and finally deliver on the protections that match the reality of the world that we live in today, unfortunately.

Mr President, Commissioner, across the European Union, we rightly take pride in being one of the most prosperous, educated and socially developed regions in the world. And yet, every single day, millions of our children are waking up in homes that are struggling to afford food, heating, school supplies or even a secure home, a roof over their head. That should be a shame on every single one of us. Child poverty is not inevitable, and it's not a mystery that needs to be solved, because we absolutely know what works: early childhood education, affordable childcare, hot school meals, decent housing, strong family support, access to healthcare, and supporting parents in secure employment. The real question is whether we have the political courage, backed by the financial commitment, to consistently act at the scale required. No child chooses the circumstances that they're born into, and in the Union built on opportunity, fairness and solidarity, it is simply unacceptable that a child's future can still be determined by the area, their parents' income, or the Member State that they happen to be born in. We must also recognise that poverty in childhood doesn't end in childhood. It follows people throughout their whole lives, affecting education, health, employment opportunities and social mobility. If we are really serious about Europe's competitiveness and our long-term prosperity, then investing in our children is not charity. It's common sense. That's why initiatives like the European Child Guarantee and the anti-poverty strategy are so important. They are practical and constructive. But EUR 20 billion is what we need as a bare minimum. Europe can afford to end child poverty. The failure is choosing not to.

Madam President, Commissioner, the 28th regime might sound like the name of a horror movie, but I think it's one of the most important things the Commission has done in an awfully long time. We say the single market is one of Europe's biggest success stories, but for so many of our smaller businesses, it is something that still seems hypothetical, something they hear about but actually never get to experience. And I think we all know, and we have heard this morning, what the challenges are: bureaucracy, costs and plenty of red tape. And so our job is to clear the barriers and make that single market a reality for as many small businesses as we can. That is why the idea of a framework, of a truly European company, an EU Inc., is so really important. The ambition is welcome: 48 hours to establish an EU company, with a maximum cost of only EUR 100 and no minimum share capital requirements. Crucially, company information will only need to be submitted once, that's really, really important. We have seen previous efforts have failed because we didn't grasp what businesses really, really needed, which was just simplicity and flexibility. And now we must make sure that as we legislate, we do not lose the ambition that we have seen in the last number of months. So I say to the sceptics: helping our small businesses is really good for employees. It's good for communities, it's good for living standards, and I think it's really, really important that it's good for opportunities for our young people and we need to acknowledge that. To oppose that is the very essence of standing up against these opportunities, so I am really asking you to get on board. The 28th regime will only succeed if it brings together the best in class, to make Europe as a whole a great place to establish a business.

Madam President, I want to speak directly to anybody who has ever been abused or attacked online – and unfortunately, there's far too many – but I want you to know that we see you, but we also clearly see the need to protect you. When I was a kid, when you got home, at least the bullying stopped. Now it follows you into your home, into your bedroom, into your pocket, into your thoughts. There's literally no escape from it. And the truth is – and some of the people in this House don't want to admit it – we all should want to see what's illegal offline illegal online. Full stop. Ireland did not wait. After the tragic death of Coco Fox and the relentless courage of her mother, Jackie, who you all met last month, we acted and we brought in Coco's Law. We made it a crime to abuse, harass or exploit somebody online. And now there are real, tangible consequences. So you have to ask the Commission, why is Europe still dragging its feet? Because right now our laws are not keeping up. Platforms cannot keep profiting from abuse while pretending they're powerless to stop it. And we in Ireland have proven that this can be done. So the question now is what is Europe waiting for?

Madam President, Ombudsman, colleagues, I want to take a moment like my other Irish colleague to recognise the outstanding work of fellow Irishwoman Emily O'Reilly as the former European Ombudsman. Under her leadership, the Office has strengthened transparency, accountability and public trust right across the EU institutions. One area where her work has been particularly forward-looking is in the governance of artificial intelligence. She championed transparency around AI tools that are used in decision-making, ensuring that these powerful systems are applied responsibly and that us citizens understand how they affect the administrative process and decisions. Emily showed that innovation and accountability are not in conflict and that we can embrace new technologies whilst holding institutions to the highest standards of openness and fairness. Her work, I think, is a reminder that leadership, integrity and vision are always essential for Europe's future. Ireland is particularly proud of her example in showing the world that a commitment to ethics and accountability can guide us safely in the digital age, and I would like to wish the incoming Ombudswoman every success in your term.

Madam President, colleagues, we know that Europe doesn't lack savers. What we lack is a system capable of putting those savings to work. European households have almost EUR 10 trillion worth of savings in low-yield bank accounts, often earning very little money and getting steadily eroded by inflation. Meanwhile, many of our most innovative companies still struggle to access the capital that they need to grow and to scale in Europe, and too often these companies end up looking to the United States or indeed the United Kingdom for funding. And that really should be a wake up call for all of us. If we are serious about delivering the savings and investments union, well then I believe the Irish Presidency can play a practical and constructive role. Firstly, Ireland is home to one of Europe's largest international financial services ecosystems. We have strong funds and asset management sectors. Ireland already channelled investments from around the world into European markets. So we can build on this expertise to deepen capital markets and make cross-border investment simpler. Secondly, we need stronger pathways from savings to productive investment. Europe should do far more to channel household savings and pension funds into financing our start-ups and scale-ups, ensuring that our own savings are supporting European innovation infrastructure and our green and digital transitions. But we need to do more at a local level, at a national level. Irish people want to invest and grow their savings, yet our system is too often so difficult that they'd rather keep it in the savings account. Irish people are trying to invest in ETFs, yet the deemed disposal rule acts as a stealth tax and discourages long-term investment. That rule needs to go and it needs to go now. The reality is simple Europe: already has the capital it needs to grow our businesses. What we now need is the political will to make that a reality.

Mr President, colleagues, I think it's very clear that artificial intelligence is now being used to generate sexual abuse material, and not just as a mother or a woman, I am absolutely horrified. We've all the warning signs. The reports of the recent Grok AI scandal showed that the system can be manipulated to generate explicit imagery, and I think this is really deeply disturbing, and I welcome the Commission's fast moves to examine this matter. But this debate is not only about artificial intelligence; it is about something that is much wider and deeply troubling in our reality: the continued spread of sexual abuse images and videos online. Every year, millions of these images are reported worldwide, and the numbers, unfortunately, are continuing to rise. The uncomfortable truth about Europe is that it is one of the largest hosts of this kind of material in the world, and it's something that we absolutely, urgently must change. Artificial intelligence is a really powerful tool, and we know it's going to bring enormous benefits to all and every part of our lives, but like any powerful technology, it can and is being abused. When it's misused to exploit children, we have to respond decisively. For any parent, it's really concerning because we expect our children to be as safe online as they are in the real world. So I think we need to send our clear messages to those people who believe the technology gives them a way to commit these crimes: you cannot hide behind algorithms, you cannot hide behind technology and you will not hide in Europe. Protecting our children online is non-negotiable, but we must find a way that respects privacy and the fundamental rights of all of our citizen – because in Europe, technology can never be a shield for those who abused children, and those who try must face the full rigours of our laws.

Madam President, Commissioner, for more than 30 years we have congratulated ourselves on the single market. We think it's the jewel on the crown of Europe. But we have to be honest, it's absolutely nowhere close to being truly single. We have 27 different energy markets, 27 digital rulebooks, 27 capital markets. In too many cases, we have 27 bureaucracies protecting national comfort zones. That is not a single market. It's a complete patchwork. And while we are dithering, the world is moving on. The United States can scale innovation across one market of 330 million customers. China can mobilise and capitalise industry at continental scales. And in Europe, we make our entrepreneurs fill out 27 sets of forms. If we're really serious about competitiveness, then the job is far from done. A real single market means completing the capital markets union. It means a genuine energy union so that power can freely be shared. It means a digital single market, where a start-up in Dublin can really sell to the 450 million customers that we have in Europe with ease. The uncomfortable truth is our fragmentation is mostly self-inflicted, so the next steps of European integration will not be written in our Treaties. It will be written in market integration, not 27 markets politely cooperating with each other, but one market, one ambition, one Europe.

I think there are many crises that have been caused by actions of the Member States. But what we've been trying to do, Michael, as you well know, for the last 12 months, is to address the issues that are causing delays and interrupting the building supply that come from here. We're not trying to interfere with Member States and the decisions that they make, but we're trying to recognise that some of the barriers that are causing longer delays and less financing actually come from regulations – an abundance of regulations – from the European Union, and restrictive lending rules that apply both to the European Investment Bank, but also our central bank rules.

Thank you for the question. I'm not really sure I agree with the sentiment that you've outlined. What I have seen for the last 14 months is collective parties trying to work together in order to solve a problem for all of the people in all of our Member States. It isn't about political ideology; it's about recognising that our young people can't afford to have a home, which they should absolutely be able to do. I think what I've seen is all of us try to work collectively together to provide solutions to that crisis.

Madam President, Commissioner, today we have an opportunity to change the direction of the lives of a generation of young people. In my own home town, Dublin, and in cities right across Ireland, young people who are working hard and are doing absolutely everything right cannot find a home that they can afford to buy. Many are still living with their mammies long beyond the age that they should have expected, which is delaying milestones that my generation and previous generations would have taken for granted: moving out, settling down, planning a future, having a family. Ireland is not unique. Right across Europe we see the same pressures: rising construction costs, financing and lending gaps, and a planning environment that has become so convoluted, slower, complex and more difficult to navigate. I think the outcome is clear: we are not building houses fast enough. I think that's why the work of this Parliament's Special Committee on the Housing Crisis has been so important over the last year. We have worked collectively and together to examine the causes and the shortages of houses right across the Union, and look for practical ways to actually help Member States increase supply. Today's report hopefully sends a clear message that housing is, should be, and needs to remain, firmly on the European agenda. We all know that Europe can tell people how to build houses. Policy will always remain a national competence, but we can absolutely help remove the barriers that come from here, that limit investment and that slow down construction. In Ireland, judicially reviewing developments, and blocking and delaying thousands of houses from being built has actually become nearly like a blood sport. That's why this report calls for a housing simplification package – to cut unnecessary bureaucracy and shorten permitting procedures that really are delaying. We also need the investment from the European bank and EU financial instruments, particularly for smaller developers to support public and private partnerships. Today, we need to go from reporting the crisis to actually fixing it.

Madam President, child poverty isn't inevitable; it's the result of our choices, but we can choose differently. Right across the EU, more than one in four children are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. And this is not just happening in struggling economies; it's happening in some of the most wealthy, successful societies in the world. Countries with strong growth, thriving businesses and solid public finances still have far too many children starting life with a disadvantage. The reality is that a country's rising balance sheet doesn't automatically mean that a child gets a warm home, a decent meal, and the support that they need in school. In fact, several of our high‑income Member States' child poverty rates are higher than the EU average, especially for single parents and children with disabilities. And when that happens, colleagues, we're not just failing those children, but we're actually failing and limiting our own future potential. Because, if I'm to be blunt, today's children are tomorrow's workforce. They are our future entrepreneurs, our skilled workers, our carers, our innovators and our taxpayers. If we allow talent to be shaped by disadvantage instead of opportunity, we are going to pay the price much later in higher public spending, lost productivity and the loss of social cohesion. The European Child Guarantee is not charity – it's common sense. It's about making sure that children have access to the basics of food, housing, healthcare, education, child care – stuff most of us and our families in this House take for granted. If we're serious about long-term growth, we need to make sure that looking after and investing in children isn't optional. It's an absolute must.

Mr President, thank you Commissioner, there is probably a number of people in this room – and definitely lots watching – that were bullied when they were children, singled out for being different. But at least when you got home it was safe. Today there is no safe switch; you can't turn it off. Technology is supposed to open doors, not trap our children in a 24-hour cycle of abuse. But cyberbullying isn't inevitable, it is happening because we are allowing it on our watch. Today, Commissioner, the EU has launched its action plan against cyberbullying. Whilst that is really to be welcomed, action is the key word – this can't just be about another set of guidelines, more speeches, more headlines in the newspaper, and then we move on to the next thing but nothing changes. It should absolutely mean something really, really simple – that the ten-year old child that's listening today feels safe when they get home to their house. It should mean clear rules, real enforcement, rapid takedowns and some real penalties – something that we're really not seeing. But we also need to give parents and our teachers the real tools to act early and to treat online abuse as seriously as we do if it happened in the classroom or the playground. It is time for us, as a society, to rebuild safe spaces for our children to take back their childhood from our tech giants, to give them back their freedom and just a chance for them to be kids and to play and to be with each other. Because if we do not act now – and act in a really serious way – we are telling young people that being abused is the price of being online, and that is a price no child should ever have to pay.

Madam President, Commissioner, for too long, Europe has treated our digital comms as a tech matter; in truth, it's a political issue. We only ever notice our mobile phone network, our internet, when it falls. But our economies, public services and democracies rely on it every single day. Europe cannot be a global leader when every Member State plays by different rules, when investment is too slow or when we're reliant on networks that we don't control. Ireland has learned that the hard way. Communities were left behind, not because they lacked ambition, but because the infrastructure wasn't there. And the National Broadband Plan was a political choice by my party, Fine Gael, to invest, include and build resilience. Now Europe faces the same choice. We cannot compete when we move country by country, while others act together and invest at scale. This makes us weaker. And this is a security issue – whoever controls the digital networks controls influence. So Europe must not allow China or any other authoritarian state to gain access or leverage over our networks, our economy or our democracy, because our democracy actually depends upon it. Europe must take control, invest for the long term and put European security first. We have the plan, now we have to deliver.

Madam President, Commissioner Jørgensen, housing is now the single biggest cost-of-living pressure facing people across Europe. In Dublin, rents are at a record high. Young people can't afford to move out of their homes. Students are struggling to find digs. Even our nurses, teachers and Gardai can't live in the areas that they're serving. Whilst I recognise that housing has never been a European competence, a European crisis requires a European response. That is why the affordable housing plan that you've launched today is really important and really matters. Firstly, it focuses on supply. Europe needs more homes faster and that means cutting red tape, speeding up planning and supporting modern construction methods so that we can deliver homes at scale without sacrificing quality. The housing simplification package is enormously welcome. But, Commissioner, I really hope that we find the resources to deliver this as soon as possible instead of waiting until 2027. Our young people can't wait. It should also consider the impact of some environmental regulations. During a crisis, we need to take drastic measures, and I think the time has long passed for rebalancing the need between housing and critical infrastructure over environmental impacts of their construction. Secondly, this plan unlocks investment – real investment for Member States like Ireland that now can afford the delivery of housing supply for low and middle-income households. Thirdly, it tackles short-term rentals in a housing stress area. In parts of Dublin, there are more Airbnbs – empty houses – than there are people who are looking for houses. It's not sustainable. Fourthly, prioritising young people and students – more students need housing, innovative living models and support to reduce deposits. I just want to say, as Vice-Chair of the committee for the last year, you really have listened to us and really, really responded today. And I really look forward to supporting you in all of your endeavours. (The speaker declined to take a blue-card question)

Mr President, the aviation sector is an absolutely vital part of our European economy. It provides countless jobs and huge investment. It is also a vital lifeline for peripheral parts of the European Union, like my own country, Ireland. In 2019, air transport supported approximately 14 million jobs and EUR 851 billion to GDP in Europe. But decarbonisation remains a really important challenge and one that is vital not just for society but for our planet. The future development and success of this industry is strongly linked to the supply of sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF. However, the industry for SAF in the EU is currently extremely limited, with much more significant production taking place outside of Europe, in the US and China, due to their additional supports. We have set targets under ReFuelEU, but the rest of the world is moving much faster than we are. Singapore, for example, will require SAF use in every single departing flight from 2026. The US has already extended their SAF tax credit. Our challenge is supply. Our current rates of SAF production are much lower than the demand that even currently exists, so we need to invest to scale up. The EU has ambitious targets in terms of supply and demand for SAF in the aviation sector, but EU Member States need to do more to incentivise the production of SAF. Because if we don't get this right, Europe is going to be left scratching its head again, wondering why we're left out of such a vital sector where we really should have a strong presence. Let's make sure that doesn't happen.

Madam President, Commissioner, people rightly expect high standards in politics, but the revelations about immoral or seemingly corrupt practices really do enrage people, and they damage the trust that we have in politics. And if people have no longer got trust in politics, well then democracy in itself is going to be undermined. We know that in the past there have been particular challenges when it comes to lobbying from countries outside of the EU, and so for that reason we need really clear rules, transparent supervisors, reduced bureaucracy and proper implementation. We also have to uphold people's fundamental rights, because it is important to recognise that representations can be legitimate, and third‑country groups, including civil society, have a right to express their positions. So we need to make sure that the EU remains open for engagement to dialogue, to hearing the voices of our neighbours, while rightly clamping down on abuses and illegal practices. Many Member States already have their own rules, and it is right that they can build a minimum standard, but we set the standard at an EU level. On a particular personal note, one place where I really feel that we must ensure that the voices of civil society continue to be heard is Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is unfortunately part of a third country, dragged out of the EU against a majority opinion. People in Northern Ireland, however, continue to have a birthright to EU citizenship should they want it, so Northern Ireland remains part of the Customs Union. But while Northern Ireland no longer sends representatives to this House or to our other institutions, we should ensure that the voice of Northern Ireland's civic society organisations continues to be heard.

Madam President, as a parent, you can be sure that the recent data showing that more and more young people are turning to chatbots for friendship really stops me in my tracks. AI chatbots are perfectly mimicking the predatory behaviour of human groomers with absolutely devastating outcomes. Like most parents, my head tells me that I know about all of the opportunities that the internet gives, but my heart tells me it can be a real source of danger and harm for our children. Quite frankly, I think parents have had enough. I am really tired of hearing stories about children exposed to things that no child should ever see. I genuinely dread to think how easy it can be for an innocent child to come across adult content, extreme violence, or targeted manipulative content. I am tired of childhoods being ruined, of young people's mental health being damaged and criminals getting away unpunished. I am tired of parents feeling like we are left to fight this battle all on our own. With this report, we are setting clear expectations and it is time for the Commission, Member States and platforms to enforce them. This is Europe saying: no more. If a company put children's lives at risk in the real world, we would shut them down. Online platforms should face exactly the same responsibility and exactly the same consequences. We have had enough of weak enforcement, weak rules and far too little responsibility. Whether it is under 16s on social media without proper parental control, addictive design keeping children hooked for hours, or AI bots preying on our children's fears and insecurities, we need real age checks, real safeguards and real consequences. We absolutely must ensure that we are giving parents and children the resources and the information that they require to tackle this issue effectively.

Mr President, I want to welcome the presentation of the European Court of Auditors 2024 Annual Report and thank Tony, my fellow Irishman and his colleagues, for the work. The overall error rate in EU spending has fallen from 5.6 % to 3.2 %, and that genuinely is progress. But it is still materially above the threshold of 2 %, meaning there is a lot of work to do. But when it comes to the RRF, I believe the Court of Auditors should be playing a much stronger role. The RRF is a real symbol of solidarity, but the court has identified gaps in transparency, cost verification and control consistency right across our Member States and this makes it difficult to show value for money and increases the risk of duplication with other EU funds. So, for credibility of EU spending, I am looking for the Commissioner and the Commission to develop a harmonised framework for reporting and verifying the actual costs of RRF-funded measures, to establish a central EU registry, to track projects right across the EU institutions and prevent duplication of funding, to strengthen the ex-post audit and clawback mechanisms to ensure proper use of funds, and finally to publish a clear, accessible data-linking funding to tangible results that citizens can understand and trust.

Mr President, Commissioner, consumers today are shopping with their feet. They have high standards and they're asking the market to meet them. They're looking to make more informed decisions on product standards, supply chains and production processes, and this report is about helping producers to respond. This is about making Europe's product framework fit for the clean and digital future. But to succeed, we must create a system that drives innovation and competitiveness, not one that slows it down. Consumers deserve products they can trust, products that are safe, sustainable and transparent. The Digital Product Passport can help achieve that by improving traceability and accountability, but it has to work for businesses too – especially for small and medium enterprises that literally form the backbone of our economy in Europe. That is why we should work towards interoperable data standards. Compliance must be clear, affordable and practical. Europe's single market is one of our biggest strengths; we cannot afford to burden it with complexity or inconsistent enforcement, and that means keeping conformity checks proportionate and holding non-EU traders to exactly the same rules as everyone else. By striking the right balance, this framework can make Europe a global leader whilst protecting competitiveness and encouraging innovation.

Mr President, Commissioner, when it comes to tech innovation, Europe is playing catch up; I don't think that's a secret. We need regulatory reform and I'm really glad that the Commission is recognising this. We need to simplify our rules and lighten the burden on innovators. We need to adopt a real risk-based, proportionate approach, not more ex-ante regulation. And we need to put competitiveness at the heart of our thinking. We need to give people confidence that their data is secure. But there is absolutely no point in having rules if we do not enforce them properly – that is why the Commission needs to send a strong message when it comes to our enforcement powers. Pressure from the other side of the Atlantic not to enforce rules is not acceptable. Threats to EU officials who are only doing their job is not acceptable. Enforcement should not be a pawn in a global geopolitical chess game because in Europe we have the rule of law – it has to mean something. If there are concerns about enforcement powers, then they can be dealt with as part of the legal process. We have regulators, independent courts and a democratically elected backstop if needed. That is how the rules should work in democracy. But we should not forget that ultimately the DMA was voted democratically in this House by the representatives of our people, as well as by the Member States and the Council – it is the law of the land. We make a mockery of that law if we do not enforce it properly. This should be a point of principle. Europe will never be taken seriously, or indeed we will not take ourselves seriously, if laws are enforced based on the whims of and pressures of global actors, rather than the democratic rule of principles that we hold dear in this House.

Mr President, colleagues, these reports take us a real step towards a more joined up, science-based system for managing chemicals in Europe. A common data platform and stronger cooperation between our agencies can make regulation more efficient, more transparent and, ultimately, more effective. By establishing consistent assessment methods with a single shared data platform, I think we can make sure that important data is accessible, comparable and contributes to building an even safer and more efficient industry for Europe. That is what smart regulation, driven by the goals of competitiveness and simplification is all about. But as we build this new framework, we have to continue to keep competitiveness front and centre of everything we do. Europe's strength depends on industries that can innovate and invest with confidence. In an era of global uncertainty, we must show that Europe is open for business – it is a place where innovation happens. In Ireland, our pharmaceutical and chemical sectors show what can be achieved with good regulation that supports rather than stifles enterprise. And I think this goal must be a system that helps businesses to innovate, not one that buries them in complexity. If we get that balance right, we can protect health and the environment, reduce duplication and keep the EU, especially our pharma-producing states, at the forefront of the world's leading technologies.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Michalis on the great work that he's done. This is a really, really good report. But, Commissioner, you know that we have EUR 10 trillion worth of savings sitting across the European Union in bank accounts instead of being used for investment. If we used that money productively, we know it could support jobs. It could support infrastructure and businesses. Our policies – this Commission's policy priorities – would give people who are not earning any money by having it in their bank accounts an opportunity to earn better nest eggs for themselves and their future. I'm talking about the EU savings and investments union. I want to particularly welcome the Commission's proposal for the new tax favourable savings and investments accounts. But if we are going to get serious, we need to make sure that every single Member State works towards simpler tax rules and to supporting our savers to become investors. Tax rules should encourage people to make their money work for them, and not punish people for doing so. In Ireland, we have long punished our investors by having very, very high exit tax on ETFs and an absolutely nonsensical 'deemed disposal' rule. Yesterday's national budget in Ireland went a small way towards fixing that problem, but we have a long way to go. We need to remove the 'deemed disposal' unit once and for all – right now.

Madam President, Commissioner, Europeans just want to know the things that are illegal offline are illegal online. I think it's just as simple as that. The idea of threats from other parts of the world against EU officials for simply doing their job, as we saw this summer, is absolutely outrageous. I think we need to be serious; if Europe wants to be taken seriously, we need more than just rules. We need to be competitive and we need to build a dynamic pro-investment environment where home-grown EU tech can thrive. Over 100 different pieces of EU legislation have been proposed in the last few years and there's still more to come. I honestly think this is madness. We need to reduce the regulatory burdens on European countries. We need to reduce the regulatory divergence. And I want to see the 'digital omnibus' bill do exactly that. Furthermore, Europe will not develop a digital sovereign future if we cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. We need to protect our supply chains, promote digital solutions, and simply give companies the space and the freedom that they need and the support that they need to innovate. The talent and the potential is here in Europe. We need to be brave enough to let it grow and thrive.

Mr President, thank you Commissioner for joining us here this evening. I think we can all recall the scene from Scotland during the summer, where President von der Leyen painfully shook the hand of President Trump on a deal that only makes things harder and trade harder between the EU and the US. And I think it's in that context that we are discussing the principles that should govern global digitalised economy, particularly the taxation of digital services, this evening. Taxation is all about fairness, dynamism, efficiency. It's how we raise the revenue to fund goods and services. It's about investing in the future, creating opportunities for growth and for security. Taxation should support competitiveness, investment and job creation. And if it does not do this, then it's not serving the common good. When it comes to the taxation of large digital platforms, as with all elements of tax policy, it's all about making sure that neither goal is undermined. And that's why we seek to discuss this matter today. When capital is mobile and crosses international borders, how do we uphold the common good and also promote opportunity and investment? I think it's clear that global challenges like these require global solutions. And that's why it's right and proper that Europe has been such a leader in the negotiations of the OECD Pillar Two agreement. The agreement is a compromise that meets the realities of a digitalised economy. First, it sets out a minimum level of taxation on large companies, second, it introduces new rules for taxing the profits of large companies where they don't have that physical presence. Our commitment to multilateralism is unwavering. At a time when international institutions are being undermined as never before, it is right that the EU continues to strongly support the OECD process, but clearly we can't make any progress if everybody is not at the table. Regions of the world that act on their own or depart from global standards create fragmentation and perverse incentives. However, the return of Donald Trump as US President saw an executive order to withdraw his country from the agreement. That agreement was the result of so many years of hard work, so it's vital, I think, that that work and this agreement be protected by us as an absolute priority. We have seen the change of approach and temperament from the US President, and it sees the agreement as an attack on American businesses, and he is loudly promising retaliatory actions. However, that's not a reason for us to give up on the agreement. Walking away would not help to resolve them, indeed, it probably would exacerbate the problem. So we ask, where to now for the OECD negotiations, particularly in respect of Pillar One? How can the EU show leadership to keep this agreement on the table? We've seen proposals from the G7 for US-specific exemptions and allowances and they do require careful scrutiny, and I know the Members of this House will do so. But in the midst of this geopolitical discussion, we've also asked the Commission's views of calls to take unilateral action. I know that the question of new own resources is a separate matter, but it does remain part of the discussion. Does the Commission foresee unilateral action as a serious probability, and what would the threshold of this be? Multinational investment is an important part of the European economy. It provides jobs, opportunities, vital government revenues across the EU, both directly and indirectly. And millions of our citizens rely on this investment to earn their livelihoods. That's why departing from multilateral processes presents huge risks and will not yield the benefits that some people say it will. It's not about threats of retaliation, it's about showing that Europe is the place to do business and not creating imbalances that will drive our investment away. Is the Commission still committed to international engagement? Does it still recognise the economic hurdles that would exist if we departed from that engagement? I think we are living currently in a period of huge economic uncertainty. There is regular turmoil on international markets and jobs announcements are being reassessed. So when it comes to tax policies, Europe does face big challenges. And while tax is rightly a Member State competence, the growth of divergent sectoral taxes creates internal trade barriers and undermines our EU economy. So instead of calling for new taxes, we should be looking at ways to better calibrate the ones that we already have – and we have plenty – so that they do not create additional burdens or barriers for investment. Finally, Commissioner, specifically in relation to the digital services tax, I think it's crucial that we take an evidence-based approach. If the Commission is looking at this option, will it commit to a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to reduce unforeseen consequences? Everyday, people, as normal, are using digital tools and services. The digital economy is at the heart of every single one of our lives, and there is almost no way that a tax does not ultimately impact consumers in some way. It's extremely unlikely that any DST would similarly be passed on in higher charges of subscriptions to the people that were served. It's commonly said that there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes. And I think when it comes to the latter, we need to be responsible, forward-thinking and results orientated.