What Michael spoke about.

Madam President, to mark the fact that Ireland will commence the implementation of the migration pact this week, but by saying that considerable efforts will be required to meet the obligations contained therein. The migration pact requires the decisions made in respect of asylum applications to be made very quickly, with six months for the standard procedure, three months for accelerated and border procedures, and two months for applicants who have applied for protection elsewhere in the EU. The latest available figures for Ireland suggest that it takes 14 months to come up with a first instance decision and almost that again on appeal. While much is made of the fact that the EU imposes an obligation upon Ireland, like every other Member State, to accommodate asylum seekers while they are in the process, little is made of the huge discrepancy in spending between the two. In 2025, Ireland spent EUR 1.2 billion accommodating applicants for asylum, but only EUR 8.5 million on appeals, and similarly a fraction of the accommodation cost on processing applications. That simply does not make sense. It needs to be addressed.

Madam President, Commissioner and colleagues, we have heard a wide variety of views here tonight, which is perhaps unsurprising on AI – from those who believe there should be no regulation whatsoever to those who believe that the Trump administration is the cause of all of our problems, with regard to the huge gulf between where we stand in Europe and where the Americans stand with regard to the development of technology. I don't believe either to be the case. The reason why we are so far behind in Europe is being decades, I believe, in the making, from disastrous decision‑making of successive governments in many Member States around energy policy to the fact that if European companies want to attract investment from European pension funds, they have to go to the United States to attract that investment. We absolutely do need to address these issues, not just for AI, but for our whole industrial base in Europe, which is, I think, threatened by our failure to move, by our failure to develop a single market. Similarly, we have failed to develop a single market and coherent rules that apply across the bloc when it comes to the protection of data in Europe. Yes, the GDPR is a very good law, but no, it is not good that it is applied differently within some Member States and in almost every Member State. That needs to change. But we do need to regulate the issues and technology that pose a risk, and I believe AI does pose a risk. It offers huge benefits, but equally, it does pose a risk. And it would be remiss of me as a legislator and us as a Parliament, not to address those risks. And I believe we should do so through horizontal legislation. The idea that we should abandon horizontal legislation for sectoral legislation because it's moving too quickly is, in my view, wrong. If we can't address it through a single piece of horizontal legislation that how can we address something that is affecting every area of life through separate legislation for each of those sectors? I don't believe that is possible. I do believe that we have a duty to regulate this area, but we have a duty to enable technology to flourish in Europe. We have a duty to ensure that European monies can be invested in European companies in Europe, and we have a duty to provide for the energy needs of our future, whether that is in health, whether it is heavy industry, whether it is technology. We do have to move, but deregulation, colleagues, I do not believe is the answer. We can deregulate all we want – it won't create an AI sector in and of itself.

Madam President, colleagues, let me be direct – I have never been comfortable with the Omnibus approach. My strong preference, and I would argue the preference of many in this Parliament, is that when we need to amend the legislation, we need to do so properly with full parliamentary scrutiny, with a proper impact assessment, with full, considered committee hearings. In other words, to do the job correctly. And let us not forget that we are also opening and amending the AI Act before the ink was barely even dry and still not in force. But we have to be realistic about where we are and where we were when we commenced this process. The harmonised technical standards that industry and, in particular, start‑ups and SMEs need to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act were simply not going to be ready in time. Why they were not ready is another matter and another debate, and one, I think, that should be examined, but since they needed more time and Member States were not prepared, business could not reasonably be asked to comply with the framework, when the tools to demonstrate that compliance did not yet exist. This is not simplification for its own sake – it is basic legal certainty, and without it, the act itself risked being discredited before it could properly begin. So we entered trilogue and, as co‑rapporteur, my objective was clear: to preserve the architecture and ambition of the original AI Act as far as possible, to extend the timelines where we had to do so, and to use any remaining space, which was limited, to strengthen protections for the text was lacking. On the timelines: high‑risk AI systems under Annex III now apply from December 2027; Annex I systems from August 2028. It's clear, simple, people know where they stand, as they should do in an area ruled by the rule of law as the European Union is. We moved the clock, but we did not switch it off. These systems, these high‑risk annexes will come into effect when it is clear what companies are required to do. As a Parliament, we made two additions of our own. We had proposed a move of all sectoral legislation from Annex I (A) to Annex I (B), and after trilogues we agreed to a limited move of the machinery regulation effectively from the AI Act to sectoral legislation, but with very clear safeguards. And that is important, as we see more AI systems coming on stream, and the risk posed by those becomes more clear and more manifest. On prohibited practices: we secured an outright ban on AI nudification apps. That was a priority of mine when we commenced this process; it was a priority of the group that nominated me as rapporteur, and I am glad that we achieved that objective. We are talking about systems designed to strip clothes from photographs of real people – not synthetically created people, but real people, overwhelmingly women and children, it must be said – with the purpose of humiliating them, degrading them and objectifying them, and to do so at scale and to industrialise that for profit. These victims are not just public figures, although they are, of course, very much at the forefront of this; they are students, colleagues, ordinary people, targeted to degrade them for profit. When we examine the existing EU legal landscape, in my view, and in the view of many legal experts, there was nothing to stop these AI systems at source. That is the problem. It's the speed and the scale at which such images can be created. This ban now does that and it enters into force before the end of this year, as do the watermarking requirements, so that people can more clearly see when they're looking at AI content rather than real content. It protects the dignity of people. And I am genuinely proud that this Parliament fought for it. The Omnibus is not the process I would have chosen, but it is an outcome that I defend, and an outcome of which I am proud. Thank you colleagues for your support and I hope that you can support this agreed compromise between the Parliament and the Council tomorrow.

Mr President, Amnesty International recorded 2 707 executions in Iran in 2025, an increase of 78 % from the previous year, 2024. I join colleagues in unequivocally condemning the death penalty – it has no place in a civilised society, be it Iran, one of the oldest civilisations in the world, China or the United States. 47 of those executed last year were for politically motivated charges, according to Amnesty International. Since the US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February, the UN has verified the execution of at least 32 political prisoners, which, again, I have no problem in joining in criticising and condemning. However, it is the silence of this House regarding those illegal attacks on Iran that equally I have a problem with. It undermines our authority and undermines our credibility to criticise these gross violations of international law and human rights in Iran. There were 2 100 civilians killed by the illegal attacks, according to Time magazine, which is not a known propagandist...

Madam President, I very much welcome this debate. Ireland, part of which I represent in this House, already has a gambling tax – a 2 % levy on all bets laid in Ireland and a 2 % levy equally on online bets in Ireland. I have no problem with increasing that tax. Gambling is clearly a major issue, it's an issue that is destroying particularly young lives, as we see more and more young people becoming addicted to gambling, we know sports stars et cetera telling their stories. I think we should follow the policy of taxing things that are bad and seeking to reduce taxes on things that are good, so I have no problem with that whatsoever. My only question is: if this EU tax comes in, will that be as well as national taxes, or will it somehow be instead of national taxes, something I would have a problem with? So I would welcome clarification from the Commissioner on that but, in principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing the gambling industry and taxing them heavily for the damage that they are causing in society.

Madam President, I very much welcome this debate on the rights, supports and protection of victims of crime. And I want to focus on one group of victims of crime in particular, and that is victims of drug debt, intimidation and drug-debt enforcement. They are a group that are increasingly prevalent, unfortunately, in the constituency which I represent ‑ Ireland South ‑ and they are increasingly prevalent across all of Ireland, and I believe it cannot be a problem that is unique to Ireland. As drug use increases across Ireland and across the European Union so too does drug debt and so too does drug enforcement. These are often young men, but young people who are afraid to seek help, they are told, don't go to the Gardaí. Don't go to the police force. Don't go to police authorities and they don't, because they don't believe that they will receive protection. And I spoke to one former constituency colleague of mine who would have served in Dáil Éireann with both of us, Commissioner, and he said he has been to many funerals of young men who have taken their lives now because they see no alternative, they see no way out. Simply put, we do need to find a way to instil confidence in people that they will receive protection. We do need to address this at national level and at European level.

Mr President, colleagues, the Benifei report is very clear about what's at stake. The EU's strategic dependencies in semiconductors and cloud infrastructure and critical minerals are not just abstract risks; they hinder our ability to be relevant in the AI economy, and we need to address them, or fall behind. We need to be relevant in this age, as we have been in previous ages, but we also need to be relevant, I believe, in international governance of AI, and particularly the existential risk that it could pose. I wish to draw this House's attention to something that happened last week, and that was in a, maybe, overly heralded trip. One of the concrete results was that President Trump and President Xi have agreed to hold formal dialogues on AI safety, on guardrails for the most powerful AI systems, and very recently, we saw where these systems are heading with the Anthropic Mythos model, which exposed critical vulnerabilities in our cybersecurity infrastructure, or at least we believe it does. We haven't really seen very much of it this side of the Atlantic, and there are two big questions that need to be answered. The big question is, where is Europe and this governance conversation? Just as we can't allow ourselves to fall behind in terms of dependencies, we cannot also be irrelevant to the international discussion on this. We need to reach out to similarly minded allies like Canada, South Korea, Japan and the United Kingdom to work together to develop international standards, not just standards determined by two poles of a bipolar world, but rather that reflect European values and are relevant to the world in which we all live.

Madam President, colleagues, this resolution brings clarity and simplification to the law applicable to AI systems across Europe – for the benefit of all, but particularly our start-ups and mid-caps. One very simple clarification is that AIs that create non-consensual intimate imagery will be prohibited. This has been a priority not only for my colleagues in the review group, but across this House, from ECR to The Left there have been amendments to that effect, and I am glad that they are reflected in this resolution. Having one's image taken and sexualised will no longer be a price to be paid for a woman seeking elected office in Europe, or for a person merely because they are in public life in Europe, or for those merely because they are growing up in this digital era of such limitless possibilities but new risk. Like the AI Act passed only two years ago by this House, this law seeks to facilitate the possibilities of AI while mitigating its risks, and I commend it to the House.

(start of speech off mic) ... many of which were beyond the control of Member States and, indeed, perhaps even the European Union. But do you think that any of the causes of the housing crisis in Ireland lie with the government of which you were a minister, with collective cabinet responsibility? Not all, but any of them?

Mr President, I see Commissioner McGrath here and I wish to recall the debate which occurred in the Irish Parliament, in which he and I were both members, around the cost of fuel in Ireland in 2022. I think there's going to be a very similar debate coming up very soon in the Irish Parliament, as there will be in national parliaments and indeed this Parliament, given the tragic, horrible and illegal events unfolding in the Middle East. What I wish to address is this tendency of national parliaments to blame the European Union and say, 'Well, we can't lower fuel prices because they are set by the European Union.' Yes, they are to a certain extent, and I think the European Union will have to act at some point if what is now unfolding continues to occur. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of taxes in many Member States, including Ireland, are chosen and levied nationally by act of those parliaments. For example, European law sets a minimum excise duty of EUR 0.42 per litre of unleaded petrol, whereas in Ireland the excise duty is far higher. It sets a requirement of 15 % VAT, whereas in Ireland it is far higher. There is leeway at national level and this must be taken.

Mr President, Commissioner, of course we need to combat piracy in sports coverage. But equally I think we need to be cognisant of what's driving it and we need to be vigilant about the tendency to put all live sports behind a paywall and we need to be vigilant about unscrupulous operators. For example, Sky recently argued in an Irish court that they were under no obligation to tell their consumers when their contract was coming to an end and to tell them what new deals they could avail themselves of. Instead, they could roll over the contracts at existing prices without offering them new or lower prices. That, I believe, is unacceptable and the court found it was unacceptable – and it did so based on EU law, which is hugely important to those who ask what EU law ever does for us. With regard to sport, though, there is this tendency to put it all behind a paywall. I am old enough to remember Italia 90 and Euro 88, which gave Ireland huge confidence, brought people together and, in a way, perhaps contributed as much to the Irish economic resurgence as any economic measures did. But that was when groups of people were able to watch it. Now, increasingly, all sport is put behind a paywall. That is simply not fair, it's simply not good and it's particularly unfair in the context of sports which are receiving considerable exchequer funding for their activities.

Madam President, I say again, Commissioner, I welcome you and very much welcome your presentation of the European affordable housing plan and what it contains: a loosening of the rules around State aid to allow for more national funding and additional EU funding, as well as the discouragement of speculative investment. All of that is very welcome. Again, Commissioner, I welcome your balanced approach in saying that, yes, Airbnbs are a problem, but we're not going to ban them completely. I'm from a country which has effectively banned them completely, has no plan whatsoever on enforcing it, and I come from a county within that country that is very reliant on tourism, but doesn't have hotel beds for a variety of reasons that I don't intend to go into, so it is a matter of balance. We have failed, though, as an Irish Government, and we're not alone in that – it seems a pan-European problem to build houses. Instead we've built an edifice of state control, of agencies, of regulators, et cetera, who soak up political energy, soak up exchequer capital, but don't actually deliver housing for our people. That is a huge problem that needs to be tackled as well.

Mr President, Commissioner Jørgensen, I wish to commend you for the very balanced approach that you've taken to this. In your opening presentation, I heard you say two things that I would consider to be of considerable import. One is that we need to continue to protect our environment while we advance these grids, which are absolutely necessary. I think nobody doubts that. The second thing is that there has to be a share in the ownership for local communities. Neither approach, unfortunately, is being adopted in Ireland. There is environmental subterfuge going on, where these huge developers submit an environmental impact assessment report, which is often cut and pasted from another part of the country – very obviously cut and pasted, because it mentions places from another part of the country. And there is nobody in our planning system who can interrogate that report because we don't hire environmental scientists, we don't hire ecologists. So we take these huge corporations at their word. They say that they have taken the environment into account but, of course, they take profits into account fundamentally, because that's what they're set up to do. These companies are emanations of the State. It's the ESB and it's Coillte that are doing this. And of course, as regards local ownership, there simply is none. They sponsor some football jerseys or some other patronising claptrap for the communities, and that is the extent of the local buy-in. It is fostering huge resentment because they are facilitated in proceeding with huge developments in areas where members of the community can't do anything because of environmental designations.

Mr President, this afternoon, the Trade Commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, was quoted as saying that Europe would lose face if we do not continue with the Mercosur deal. Colleagues, I say Europe will lose faith if we do continue with the Mercosur deal. We will lose face with those who have believed for 40 years now, that it is possible to farm in a way that is compatible with the environment, we will lose face with those who for 40 years have reduced a dependency on antibiotics and believed that it is important that antibiotics be by prescription only. We will lose face with those who believe that we can farm in a manner which is compatible with animal welfare standards. And we have to ask ourselves fundamentally, are we willing to lose face with our own citizenry, with food production standards that have been set by the European Union? Are we willing to lose face only with trade commissioners who have been trying to negotiate this and impose this over the heads of sovereign states for decades now, and failing? Our own deputy Prime minister in Ireland, the Tánaiste, despite commitments made in the run-up to the election, was unable to say whether or not there was a blocking majority at this stage. It is quite clear that a blocking majority is now forming. It is time for our government to get off the fence. It is time for us to stand up for what we have espoused for 40 years now, and block this deal.

You well know that there isn't unanimity on how we deal with many issues in many groups, including the Renew Group, including your own. The one thing I suppose, that we have absolute unanimity on in your group is a complete failure to ever take power in any country and ever be responsible for the decisions required. But do I agree with some of the decisions that have been made in France, frankly? No I don't. Am I required to agree with them all? I am not. What I will say, though, is that the group that I am part of, and many groups here are willing to take difficult decisions. It is very easy – and I have seen it myself in the Irish Parliament – it is very easy to sit on the sidelines and constantly throw stones, and when the opportunities are offered to go into government and make difficult decisions to shirk those responsibilities.

Madam President, Commissioner, I have to say, I've listened with some scepticism to your plans to eradicate this disease. And that scepticism is informed by my experience of TB eradication in Ireland. TB eradication programs were underway in Ireland 20 years before Ireland joined the European Union. Compulsory for ten years before they did. And yes, TB is far from eradicated. The government spending of EUR 157 million on the eradication programme is welcome. It's a doubling of the budget from previous years, but I have to say I am still sceptical as to its success. None of that money will be spent on vaccination. The reason for that is that the European Union precludes vaccination as a method of combating this. We really have to look seriously to DIVA tests and the possibilities that offers because it is simply not working and farmers are losing. They are losing more and more money because of the artificial caps in Ireland and other countries, but they are also losing hope and losing patience with the system that is manifestly failing. It is succeeding in the same way that the war on drugs is succeeding, i.e. it is manifestly failing before our eyes.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I welcome your stated aim of this digital simplification omnibus. Who could argue against simplification? We all want to reduce the regulatory burden. We all want to reduce overlapping and duplicative reporting requirements. We all want to increase regulatory uncertainty. I particularly welcome your statement this evening that this was not about undermining our digital rulebook. However, the reported statements of your transatlantic interlocutor belie that to a great extent. We do really need to avoid a Groucho Marx approach to regulation: 'These are my principles. But if you do not like them, I have others. These are our laws. But if you don't like them, we have others.' In particular, the AI act: I was not here a lot, many in this House have a very paternalistic approach to it. I do not, I was not here when it was passed only a year and a half ago, I didn't vote for it. You were, you did, so I want very clear explanations as to why it needs to be amended so soon. On 'stop the clock', I would like to know if we are to stop the clock on particular provisions, how do we know we won't have to stop the clock again under pressure from big tech? So the onus is on you to explain why we need to introduce these and what market surveillance has been done to prove that or to show that.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, on Friday, it will be three years and eight months since Putin's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. It is an act that is to be entirely condemned without any reservation. But equally, it is now three years since I was told by an Irish Army officer in the Irish Parliament that the defeat of the conventional Russian forces was nigh. That hasn't happened. I wish it maybe did, but I have to live in the real world. It's not happening. Yet, we are told that, contrary to what some believe in the House, we are not seizing Russian assets. Instead, we are making a loan of EUR 140 billion of European taxpayers' money, to be securitised with that money, which will be confiscated when Russia loses. But they're not losing – there is the problem. So it's time for plan B, it is time for negotiation. I am glad, Commissioner, that you have said that you support President Trump's efforts because it is not at all clear that your colleagues in the Commission do.

Mr President, colleagues, the suspension of the ICC chief prosecutor's email as a result of US sanctions last May set alarm bells ringing around the globe – including, of course, in Brussels. Our vulnerability and reliance became immediately apparent: where our data is stored, by whom it is hosted and where that company is headquartered are suddenly key considerations. US cloud companies control 70 % of the European cloud market. Only 15 % of the European market is controlled by European service providers. If large proportions of our data – even, sometimes, sensitive data – are hosted outside of our jurisdictional reach, how sovereign are European states and how sovereign is the European Union? If the technology that we as Europeans rely on is not under European democratic oversight, and is at the mercy of foreign or commercial interests, how sovereign are we? Given the level of interdependence in the modern digital world, is it even possible to be fully sovereign? Can Member States or the EU ever exert full control over a technological domain? These are all difficult questions that governments and the Commission have been grappling with since May, and, Madam President, I look forward to your answers to those difficult questions in the upcoming act.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, at this time when instability and change are the only constants, I think it is vital that the European Union look across the world and try to reach out to countries with which it shares values and look to accentuate that which it shares, rather than accentuate differences. India has much in common with the European Union and its Member States. It cherishes democracy. It cherishes the rule of law – it has done since its foundation. It also builds its future on education, trying to move forward, trying to build technology in that regard. With regard to the rule of law it shares a common law legal system with at least one Member State, namely my own. But in looking to develop a future with India, it would be really foolhardy of us to lecture India on where it should position itself in the geopolitics of the world. India has always pursued a middle way. When there were revolutions and wars on its frontiers, it pursued a middle way. It will pursue its own course, whether we like it or not. The question is whether we can respect and value India as much as it deserves as a trading partner to be respected and valued. Not lecture and hector to it, but rather to respect it and try to move forward together and to accentuate that which we share, rather than our differences.

Mr President, Madam Kallas, every statement of the European Commission on Israel begins with its right to defend itself and the right of every state to defend itself. And of course, every state does have that right. But Israel is no longer involved in a defensive war against Hamas in Gaza; it is engaged in war crimes in Gaza. It is also seeking to emasculate the Palestinian people in the West Bank, while people's eyes are diverted to the horrors of what it is doing in Gaza. Israel's attack on Iran was not a defensive strike. It was an unlawful and unprovoked strike designed to subvert the negotiations that were taking place between Iran and the Trump Government. Madam Kallas, you rightly call for the respect of international law in Ukraine by Russia, but those calls are fatally undermined by your failure to do the same in Israel. The European Union must suspend its trade association agreement now. And Germany – which, because it fuelled a genocide against Jews, now feels obliged to fuel another one – must end its arms shipments to Israel.

Mr President, the aim of hate speech laws is, of course, to suppress division in society and to create social harmony. However, there is absolutely no evidence that they work. In fact, the effect of hate speech laws is exactly to the contrary: people resent the fact that they are threatened with prosecution for expressing their views. We now know that increasing proportions of populations across Europe are afraid to express their views, rightly or wrongly, but this does not affect how people think in any way, it just affects what they are afraid to say and what they resent. Nevertheless, it is proposed to initiate a prosecution against Ireland for failure to comply with European Union laws. I say that is fundamentally misguided, and the reason that Ireland perhaps is so reluctant to comply with those laws is because it looks across the channel and it sees elderly people being prosecuted, it sees police increasingly tied up with looking at social media postings on the internet, instead of making neighbourhoods and communities safer. It is simply not working, and I would urge the Commission to revisit the approach that they are taking to hate speech laws, and indeed to Ireland.

I'm just wondering: if one has been wilfully misrepresented, do you have a right of reply under standing orders? Because I did say freedom of religion was contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The previous speaker chose to misrepresent what I said, wilfully. I presume he's not a stupid person, so he wilfully chose to misrepresent what I said.

Madam President, as we stand here at this moment we're celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations with China. In that time much has been achieved by the European Union. There have been enormous developments. There have also been enormous developments in China, which must be commended. However, differences also remain, and while it would be wrong not to acknowledge the developments that have taken place in China – huge advances particularly in technology and in AI, equally it would be wrong not to acknowledge the differences. However, just because there are differences does not mean that we shouldn't engage in dialogue, that we shouldn't seek to persuade each other of each other's positions. Freedom of religion is a central tenet of Western belief, of Western civilisation. We believe that religious groups should be autonomous in how they organise themselves. That is not the experience of Buddhists in Tibet, nor is it the experience of Muslim groups in China, be it Uyghurs or Hui Muslims, or indeed of Roman Catholics, where two bishops have been appointed notwithstanding the fact that the Apostolic See is now vacant. However, it is more than a central tenet of Western belief: it's also a commitment that China entered into when it signed the ICCPR, and it's one that I think we can legitimately ask that they honour for the sake of adherence to various religions across China.

(start of speech off mic) ... I suppose the instability and unprecedented level of conflict in the world is such that when two of the world's greatest powers, two of the world's most populous nations, both nuclear armed, are squaring up and threatening each other, it barely receives a word here in the European Union, or indeed from this Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to the families of those slaughtered so savagely in Kashmir recently. But I think it is also important for this Parliament to call for restraint and dialogue. The speech of Pakistan's army chief, General Munir, to representatives of the diaspora a couple of days before the attack is viewed as inflammatory in India. However, there is no evidence of any link between Pakistan and the heinous attack and, in the absence of such evidence, any attack by India and Pakistan, which is itself a frequent victim of terrorist attacks, would be unjustified. However, one cannot help but reflect on the benefits of democratically elected leaders speaking on behalf of their country rather than military men. In that regard, one might recall that when the Great Leader Jinnah outlined his vision of Pakistan in 1947, he spoke of no distinction between one community and another.