Speeches

Mr Vice-President Šefčovič, Spanish Presidency, on the issues to be dealt with by the next Council, I focus on the opportunity to close the commitment with this European Parliament to approve in this mandate the Pact on Migration towards the five regulations. But you, Vice-President Šefčovič, have alluded to three outstanding issues that are not in the five regulations. The first is to combat illicit trafficking networks. The second is to incentivise and enhance the returns decreed by the Member States. And the third, legal pathways —open legal and safe pathways. What happens is that you have mentioned them consecutively, when in reality the relationship is causal in reverse order. Only by opening legal and safe channels will it be possible to dismantle the business model of the mafias that traffic in people and, in addition, to get third States, of origin and transit, to accept returns, which currently does not happen. And I tell you, moreover, that I have heard nonsense about the failure of immigration policy in the European Union. What fails is non-policy and it is high time we closed the engagement with the European Parliament.

Mr President Angel, Commissioner Dalli, Spanish Presidency, you yourselves have described the issue. Since Putin’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine, 11 million displaced people have fled the conflict and entered EU territory. 90% of these people are highly vulnerable women and children. They are protected by the Temporary Protection Directive, which means free movement, choice of residence and access to public services guaranteeing fundamental rights. This European Parliament adopted a strong resolution in May 2022 stating that among those fundamental rights are sexual and reproductive health rights, including obstetrics – the termination of the unwanted pregnancy of Ukrainian women in any territory of the EU. It happens that 60% of these women are in Poland, Hungary or Slovakia. Not by chance – they are countries bordering the conflict zone, but they do not guarantee that obstetrics and termination of pregnancy and, in particular, not even the necessary care in pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum when the pregnancy is finally consummated. This Parliament is therefore doing the right thing by drawing the attention of European public opinion and the citizens it represents by saying that it is necessary to guarantee the rights of women in vulnerable situations in any corner of the European Union with equality. And, of course, it is also necessary to guarantee sexual and reproductive health rights.

Mr President Angel, Vice-President Jourová, Spanish Presidency, for more than a year, this European Parliament set up a committee of inquiry of which I had the honour of being a member, and we worked very hard to account for the reported abuses of an intrusive espionage technology, in principle incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. We drew conclusions and the Commission is taking a long time to fulfil our mandate. The first conclusion was, of course, an unmitigated condemnation of any abuse of that spying technique aimed at intimidating, blackmailing or silencing not journalists and press freedom, but legal professionals or political opponents, something indiscriminately incompatible, therefore, with European law. But, in addition, we demand that the use, sale or acquisition of these espionage programs be regulated, and that the necessary judicial authorization be regulated by the European Union with data protection, confidentiality of personal communications and also special protection for those people who enjoy immunity or professional secrecy because they are journalists. In addition, we want there to be a national security clause established by European law and for there to also be an independent reference laboratory of the European Union to account for when a personal communications device has been intrusively intervened by these espionage programs available to many Member States of the European Union.

Mr President, Vice-President Schinas, we were very pleased to hear you begin your speech by highlighting the value of Schengen, equivalent to free movement, which was for a long time the distinctive domain of the Member States of the Union. But it ceased to be so when we set up what is now the most precious asset of the European experience: freedom of movement, a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter. And now we are connecting nothing less than the Schengen acquis, which integrates 500 million people who move freely in an area without internal borders, with a competence that was also for a long time distinctive of the Member States and that ceased to be so when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: the competence on visas; that is to say, the authorisation to enter that area of free movement. It turns out that, just as we have put into force since the European Parliament a Schengen Borders Code and a Schengen Governance Code, updating it recently, there is also a European Visa Code - for which I was indeed rapporteur - with an annex that identifies those third states that are exempt from the visa requirement on reciprocity conditions so that their citizens can enter the European Union in the same way that ours move freely around the world. We are now giving European visa policy and legislation a decisive tool because we are simplifying, modernising, unifying and harmonising the conditions for issuing visas. And, at the same time, we are reducing the levels of fraud possible because we are digitising them, because we are putting in place an advanced digital tool, the database of which will be managed by the specialised European agency, the Tallinn-based eu-LISA. It is therefore a major – even a giant – step in this European harmonisation of visa policy, so that we can share up-to-date and digitised biometric identification of all persons entering through the Union’s borders, in order to reduce levels of fraud and increase levels of legal certainty. We have not done the full work because we wanted to take the opportunity to finally mandate Member States to incorporate the humanitarian visa that reduces irregular immigration. legal and safe pathways, including humanitarian visa. We have lost the opportunity because the Council prevents it, but we will not give up on our efforts because it also has to do, indeed, with the change of sight that is required by the whole European Union towards regular migration. Persons wishing to enter the European Union for legitimate work purposes should also be able to enjoy free movement.

Mr President Karas, Commissioner Reynders, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I hope that in the face of other common challenges such as migration and asylum, the European Union will be as united as it has been in the face of Putin's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. This Parliament has adopted all the packages of measures that have been happening over time: humanitarian measures, with the Temporary Protection Directive; economic, with the restriction of gas, coal and oil imports; and diplomats, excluding the Council of Europe and even the G-8. But, after eleven packages of measures and a timed war that lasts more than two years, now it remains to focus on ensuring the correct implementation to avoid, in the first place, that Russia can bypass the globalized economy and avoid the impact of sanctions, and that we do not end up buying Russian gas through India or exporting cars to Russia through Kazakhstan. And there are also two pending decisions to be made. The first is to ensure that the confiscation of Russian goods and assets serves the financing of the reconstruction of Ukraine; and, secondly, to implement remedial measures for those economic sectors most affected by the maintenance of sanctions, such as the port or the carrier.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, Mr representative of the Spanish Presidency of the Council, yesterday we celebrated with excitement the 10th anniversary of a tragic shipwreck in Lampedusa and, since then, there have been many tragedies and, on every occasion, we have heard the desperate cry of 'where is Europe?' in some corner of the European Union's external borders. Well, Europe is represented here and this European Parliament represents it and has done its job. In recent years, we have continuously called for a European rescue and rescue framework and have done our work to adopt our negotiating mandate with the five regulations that make up the Pact on Migration and Asylum, seeking a finally acceptable balance between responsibility – which we want to be shared – and solidarity – which we want to be binding and effective – after rescue and rescue operations to prevent tragedies, in fulfilment of the Lisbon Treaty mandate. This Parliament has agreed with itself, overcoming its differences. It is high time for the Council to agree with itself, overcoming its differences. We already know that this issue is divisive, but it is high time for the Council to think of more than national interests in contradiction and think of Europe, Europeans, solidarity between Member States and solidarity with migrants. Mr representative of the Spanish Presidency of the Council, to end this mandate without results in this Pact on Migration and Asylum would be not only a discouraging message, but a devastating one, because it would mean acknowledging that Europe is incapable of fulfilling not its promise, but its obligations in terms of law, its own primary law and its legislated law. This Parliament is therefore prepared to work night and day to seek agreement with the Council. There's not a minute to waste.

Mr President, representative of the Spanish Presidency of the Council, not far from where we are talking is the seat of the Council of Europe, whose most important product is the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights, also based in Strasbourg. The enormous prestige enjoyed for a time by the Council of Europe was to promote the rule of law, human rights and peace on the European continent. Everything was twisted when Ukraine, Georgia... and Russia entered simultaneously, which fought a war against Georgia first, and then against Ukraine, until it was expelled last year. And now we see that intermittent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, both also members of the Council of Europe. The European Union has not only the challenge of making full use of humanitarian aid for people fleeing oppression in one of the enclaves at stake, Nagorno-Karabakh, but also the challenge of restoring security in Europe through diplomacy so that Europe is not only a continent free of the death penalty, but also a guarantor of peace.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, Schengen is the most precious asset, surely the best achievement of the European experience and the fundamental right that Europeans enjoy the most. Therefore, based on mutual trust, any violation of the rules of that area without internal borders – which needs governance – must be taken very seriously by the Commission, which is the guardian of the Treaties and European law. And we are talking about nothing less than a large-scale corrupt sale of visas to enter the Schengen area. Therefore, the Commission has every duty to go absolutely to the heart of this investigation, whatever the country concerned and whatever the number of visas - and it is alarming what some media outlets are publishing! - that have been exposed to this corrupt scheme. We are not just talking about the fundamental right to free movement and access to a Europe without borders and the proper governance of Schengen in accordance with mutual trust; We are talking about the fight against corruption. And if this European Parliament has put the accent on asking the Commission to eliminate citizenship and residence programmes for investors, how is it not going to ask the Commission to take seriously this corrupt scheme of selling visas for access to the Schengen area, something absolutely unacceptable and incompatible with the fundamental right to free movement, and to demand all responsibilities in this regard?

Madam President, without free access to information and information pluralism, there is no democracy worthy of the name. It has been known since the constitutional debate in the United States 250 years ago, and it is known by the European Union because of the binding nature of this freedom of information and this freedom of the press for which, at last, this European Parliament is making a legislative commitment. Transparency, independence of public media, protection and shielding of journalists from truculent litigation to intimidate or gag them, let alone spy on or prosecute them. This is a step in the right direction of history and a step in the right direction of full compliance with the binding mandate of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It must therefore be said that now is the time for freedom of information and pluralism of information to also be part of the framework of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights that the Commission regularly reports to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs so that all Member States know that this Parliament is absolutely serious.

Mr President, Commissioner Ferreira, citizenship and democracy. We heard about it in a debate with President von der Leyen, unfortunately undermined by interventions in Spanish that, despising the European agenda, only had as an obsession to denigrate the Government of Spain and the Spanish Presidency. But the truth is that none of the major objectives of democratic deepening, including the recognition of even linguistic diversity, will be practicable if we do not clear up the difficulties of the method of decision-making and the unanimity rule, with the consequent reform of the Treaties. And of course it is the case of the enlargement to a European Union of up to thirty-three members of which President von der Leyen also spoke. But we also heard him say that the New Pact on Migration and Asylum is a combination of sovereignty, solidarity and security. The truth is that sovereignty and security are the aspirations and demands of the Member States, while solidarity and cohesion – not only between Member States, but also solidarity with the citizens of third countries trying to reach the European Union from despair – are the real challenge and that is the outstanding account not only of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, but of the democratic deepening in the European Union.

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, I am speaking in this debate on a European initiative to regulate prostitution, which is being promoted by our colleague, Mrs Noichl, to support it. Because it connects with a reality that describes a landscape of exploitation of women in a phenomenon of transnational dimension and connected with cross-border criminal networks. Therefore, it does deserve criminal treatment that is also connected with the Anti-Trafficking Directive, in which I have the honour of being the rapporteur of the Socialist Group. The initiative aims at three objectives: prevention, exit programmes, but also, very importantly, demand reduction by sending a message to the Member States to criminalise the use of prostitution and, therefore, to criminalise the purchase of sex which is taught about the body, freedom, equality and dignity of women. And it must also be done because this criminalization is the only way to dismantle the business model of networks that traffic in people, illicit trafficking and the exploitation of women. And it is an objective not only perfectly consistent with those supported by the Socialist Party in Spain and its Government, but also within the reach of the living generation of European citizens.

Mr President Angel, Commissioner Hahn, challenges as enormous as the pandemic and Russia's illegal war against Ukraine have accelerated the European Union's proclaimed will to achieve its strategic autonomy as soon as possible. And here we have it. A recently unthinkable initiative, a European law to secure the supply of critical raw materials, which aims to reduce our dependence on a small number of countries, including China, from which 90% of imports come. But an essential chapter of this European law is precisely the one that commits funding and investments in the research of the supply of fundamental materials in the European Union. I have learned that there are ongoing research projects in the Member States, including a pioneering project by two Canarian universities that has found two rare earth deposits and critical raw materials in Fuerteventura. Projects as innovative as this deserve the full support of the European Union. Be it in this unsuspected corner, Fuerteventura, as in any corner of the European Union, we must do everything possible to ensure the safe and sustainable supply of critical raw materials.

Mr President, in this European Parliament, in all languages, there are protests against this agreement with Tunisia, which is inconsistent with European legislation and with the strategy we have given ourselves - a pact on migration and asylum that is consistent with our values, the only opportunity for it to be effective. 700 million for an authoritarian involution in Tunisia that tries to alleviate the migratory flow that Italy is suffering. What are we going to say in the face of the migratory flow that the Canary Islands are suffering at the moment as a result of the instability in Senegal, following the attempted self-reelection of President Macky Sall? The Canary Islands are currently suffering from the onslaught of no less than 2 000 people almost every weekend – in a context of irregular migration – who, once again, are fleeing despair. How coherent is all this with the commitment we have made that all elements of the equation - including the external dimension, but also, of course, binding solidarity in the redistribution of those arriving from unstable, insecure or absolutely unlivable countries - will finally have a response at European level? How long are we going to continue to patch up what a European policy that deserves that name requires?

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, in 2009 the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 40 and 41 of which enshrine state-of-the-art fundamental rights: the right to transparency, access to documents and good governance. There is a whole history of resolutions by this European Parliament ordering that the directive currently in force - which is no less than 2001, the 1049/2001 - be finally updated, which is manifestly obsolete. There is case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: the De Capitani 1 and De Capitani 2 judgments guarantee the right of access even to the information handled in the trilogues, at the final stage of the legislative procedure between the European Parliament and the Council. And the Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, always points out that there is an inconceivable, intolerable delay in access to documents, even by citizens who request it. Therefore, it is not only about platforms and portals, nor only about using the available technological tools. The aim is to ensure that European legislation is updated – as proposed in our colleague Evin Incir’s report – to ensure that the right to information, access to documents and transparency are effectively realised as an essential component of democracy. And I add more. This Parliament has taken great care to combat disinformation, poisoning, fake news and hoaxes. It is an essential component to combat disinformation that citizens have the right to access the right information in the way the European institutions operate, which even affects the apex of the European institutions and the European Commission, as has been recalled here. There is a political issue concerning the communications of the President of the Commission with large pharmaceutical companies. This Parliament has a right to know. It is a question of democracy, Madam Vice-President.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Johansson, in 2019 I had the honour of being rapporteur for a resolution of this European Parliament calling for a European rescue and rescue framework. Four years later, thousands of people died – people killed in shipwrecks and tragedies – not only on the Mediterranean route, but also on the Atlantic route, via the Canary Islands to the European Union. A European rescue and rescue framework would give coastguards and Member States that European network with a reinforced Frontex mandate to coordinate rescue operations at sea, and not only those, but also safe-port landings and humanitarian assistance, identification and international protection once ashore. This is the added value of the European rescue and rescue framework: legal and safe routes, safe disembarkation, non-criminalisation of non-governmental organisations and a solidarity network on which they can rest, so that neither coast guards nor Member States are left to their own devices, which is the lament that has become a repetitive psalmody four years after the first time this European Parliament debated rescue and rescue at European level.

Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič, from the Council conclusions I shall focus on the point where you say you regret the succession of deaths, tragedies and shipwrecks in the Mediterranean. He wants to seek a European solution that tackles its root causes – irregular migration – and notes that Hungary and Poland invoke consensus, a euphemism with which they intend to demand unanimity that allows them to continue blocking any European solution in this regard. For there is a European solution, and this Parliament demands it in a monographic debate: a European rescue and rescue mechanism to coordinate the now fragmented and insufficient efforts of the coast guards of the Member States and to create a solidarity network that requires assistance not only to these coast guards, but to the whole of the European Union in the humanitarian situations that arise in the identification and assistance of irregular migrants and, of course, in the protection that asylum seekers deserve. This, and no other, is the effective European response that addresses the root causes of irregular immigration, as well as the opening of legal and safe pathways.

Mr President, Commissioner, once again this European Parliament insists, with a choral polyphony, that Romania and Bulgaria finally join Schengen and fully enjoy that fundamental right so precious to European citizenship, which is free movement on an equal basis with all others. They have fulfilled all the criteria, they have done their homework, their task to enjoy Schengen, and they still do not enjoy it despite the fact that this European Parliament has supported that just claim for a long time. But one of them is this debate that we had in this House twenty-four hours ago: the need to go beyond the unanimity rule and replace it with a qualified majority. Because – let everyone know – if Romania and Bulgaria are not yet in Schengen, it is because there are two Member States out of 27 that are still opposed, and only one of them is opposed to one of the two countries. It is therefore inconceivable that, because two of the 27 states still oppose each other, Romania and Bulgaria will have that account pending with the full enjoyment of their European citizenship which is Schengen.

Madam President, Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Commissioner Reynders, for the fourth time in the European Parliament we are discussing the Rule of Law Report, which seeks to put a European framework in place for the weaknesses shown by the activation of Article 7, for serious risk of breach of the rule of law, against Hungary and against Poland. Precisely it is a permanent, periodic, annual and objective framework in its parameters that already gives clear lessons. The first is the need to distinguish situations of systemic risk against the common values of the Treaty on European Union from those that may present problems that merit comment, but do not represent a systemic threat. As the report is accompanied by 27 reviews of the rule of law in the Member States – in each and every one of them – I cannot help but refer to a reference to Spain, which I have just heard from my colleague the People's Party spokesman, Mr Rangel. Spain has made progress in terms of efficiency and quality of justice, which the report acknowledges, in terms of transparency and registration of interests, and also in terms of the right to defence. Spain has no problem of pluralism in the media that depend on the Spanish public radio and television system. It does have a problem with the Council of the Judiciary, which is the governing body of the Judiciary. And you know what the problem is? The problem is that the Constitution mandates that it be renewed in its entirety every five years. The last time it was renewed was in 2013 with an absolute majority and Government of the Popular Party. Expired in 2018. We are in 2023; It's been five years. Therefore, the General Council of the Judiciary has expired for no less than five years, to the serious detriment of the prestige of Justice, of the Administration of Justice, of the filling of vacancies in the judicial system, of the right to justice, of access to justice, of the effective judicial protection of 47 million Spaniards. And there is a single official, who is the only political actor, who in the Cortes Generales refuses to be part of the three fifths necessary to renew the General Council of the Judiciary at once. The message is therefore very clear: first, it must be renewed in accordance with the rules in force; That is what Commissioner Reynders' report says. Secondly, there is a need to discuss and reform the system for electing members of the Council, the 12 court-appointed members and the 12 jurists of recognised competence. First, to renew in accordance with the rules in force and then, where appropriate, to debate and reform. But first renew. That is the obligation, according to the rules and according to the lessons of Commissioner Reynders' Rule of Law report.

Madam President, Commissioner Schmit, it has not only been the Conference on the Future of Europe, when citizens have been heard, but also this European Parliament has rebelled, time and again, against the unanimity that results in blocking not only crucial decisions, but also European legislation, as is the painful case of the anti-discrimination directive, the so-called horizontal directive against all forms of discrimination. That is why this report, which proposes, at last, to use the passerelle clause, which at least makes it possible to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting and, consequently, to the ordinary legislative procedure, makes perfect sense. The first step is the multiannual financial framework. The second step: the common foreign security and defence policy, which cannot be blocked by the unanimity rule. Then, the fundamental own resources so that the European Union can honour the ambitions it proclaims and, finally, the anti-discrimination legislation and, of course, the legislation that affects democracy and the quality of democracy in the European Union, including the electoral system, which will be debated in this same plenary session of the European Parliament. It makes perfect sense: passerelle clause to avoid unanimity.

Mr President, why have we been debating for two years the need to protect non-governmental organisations, journalists, press editors, human rights or environmental activists against manifestly unfounded or abusive processes? Because throughout Europe, freedom of expression and communication is receding. And this European Parliament, with the report by our colleague Tiemo Wölken, is doing the right thing by obliging the Member States to adopt legislation that would allow manifestly unfounded claims aimed at intimidating or suppressing freedom of expression and communication to be rejected immediately, by refusing to allow them to proceed, or quickly in a procedure, with all the guarantees. It's the right bet at the right time. And it is also essential that we avoid the search for forums of convenience (forum shopping), that is, when filing abusive or manifestly unfounded lawsuits, the most repressive jurisdiction is also chosen at the service of those illiberal governments that are regressing in freedom of expression.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, yet again it is my honour to submit on behalf of the Committee for Justice and Home Affairs this oral question to the Council and the Commission as to the extension of the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor regarding the criminal offence of the violation of EU restrictive measures. You know how it’s like: ever since Putin’s regime – Russian President Vladimir Putin – launched his war of aggression against neighbouring Ukraine, we from the European Parliament, the European Union, have done everything in our hands in order to show not only solidarity but also active support to Ukraine and Ukrainians. As to the military dimension, which is beyond our jurisdiction, there is little to say, but as to the humanitarian dimension, of course, we’ve supported all the way the final activation of Temporary Protection Directive, we’ve supported the solidarity effort, we’ve called for action, for the European Commission to coordinate that solidarity in order to prevent human trafficking on the borders of the neighbouring countries. We have supported, under the legal and criminal dimension of the conflict, every effort to put in place joint investigating teams to cooperate with the public prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Finally, we agreed to set in motion an urgent procedure as to a new piece of legislation initiated by yourself, Commissioner Reynders, to put in place the extension, within the ambit of Article 83 of the Treaty of Functioning of European Union, defining the so—called ‘EU crimes’, the crimes which are listed as relevant EU crimes, the violation of EU restrictive measures, that is to add that violation to the list of EU crimes. The first step allowed the Commission to draw on the directive’s proposal to harmonise across the European Union the definition – that is the purpose – and the common penalties, definition and penalties regarding this new EU crime. We are currently working on this proposal in the European Parliament, and we are going to adopt swiftly, that’s for sure, a mandate in order to allow as soon as possible that the prosecution and conviction of the violation of restrictive measures is finally set forth throughout the EU. Nevertheless, we are also aware that investigation and prosecution of such crimes will mostly remain the responsibility of Member States and their national laws. Very few violators of EU restrictive measures are actually held accountable. The reason is that many Member States do not show sufficient priority to list those crimes. That inconsistent enforcement of restrictive measures undermines its effectiveness. It is really regretful, actually, a shame that the European Public Prosecutor cannot prosecute such crimes so far. Indeed, they are related to the protection of financial interests of the EU. That is the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor. By now, under the so—called PIF, the Protection of Financial Interests of the European Union Directive, of which I was rapporteur and for which the European Public Prosecutor is competent, the European Public Prosecutor has already proven its efficacy in investigating and prosecuting crimes falling under its mandate. It’s there. It’s in action. It’s been there for almost two years now. This new so—called Union Agency for Law Enforcement. A great success! We are proud of its delivery. So it is time for the European Union to act in this regard. That is why this European Parliament is resolved to act, but the institutional set—up so far has limited that role of the European Public Prosecutor in this field of action. We therefore ask the Commission and the Council the following questions. First, do you agree that extending the competence of the European Public Prosecutor to include the crime of violation of Union restrictive measures would help ensure that crimes are investigated and prosecuted in a homogeneous and more efficient way across the European Union? Second, do the Council and the Commission support the initiative of several Member States, numbering nine by now, to this effect? Third, what actions will the Commission and the Council take to this end? I am looking forward to your responses and reactions – Council, the Swedish Presidency, the Commission and Commissioner Reynders.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, you are spending many hours in this plenary session of the European Parliament. More hours were spent by those of us who were members of the Commission of Inquiry into the Pandora Papers, which gave some concluding lessons, some of which I will stress. The first is the need for transparency and, therefore, to avoid conflicts of interest and that, under the heading of financial accounting companies, real pockets of capital evasion are hidden. The second is the need to put an end to predatory practices of competitive taxation between the Member States of the European Union, particularly in the area of wealth and corporate taxation. This also includes ending investor residency programmes and investor citizenship programmes, as we have so often called for in this European Parliament. And the third is the need to combat tax havens. The only way for the European Union to be relevant in this fight is for it to do so in a united, consistent, persistent way over time and in all the organizations of the governance of globalization, in order to put an end to that simply unacceptable practice that was so manifested during our investigation of the Pandora Papers.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, for a long year the Committee of Inquiry to examine the use of the Pegasus Surveillance Spy and Other Equivalent Programmes has worked hard and drawn conclusions. What is the meaning of the conclusions? That the Commission take the initiative and put European law into force so that some facts investigated cannot happen again. First, it is necessary to condemn any use of spyware to intimidate or blackmail the opposition, human rights activists, lawyers, judges, prosecutors and journalists and, of course, the free press. Secondly, we must prohibit the export of spyware to repressive regimes and call for a de facto moratorium on the export of such programs or the revocation of licenses while establishing some common standards that ensure, first of all, effective judicial recourse and judicial control of any use of spyware that violates fundamental rights for any cause other than the investigation of very serious crimes. Of course, a European standard of national security so that it cannot be invoked to suppress fundamental rights without the principles of necessity and proportionality set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for any intrusive measure regarding fundamental rights.

Madam President, Commissioner for Justice Reynders, in the exercise of your right, an ultra-conservative group of this European Parliament co-chaired by Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy, brings to this debate its proposal to criminalise surrogacy and the recognition of parenthood. We have heard the Commissioner for Justice say that the European Union has no competence in this regard, that it is the competence of the Member States. I come from a Member State that prohibits surrogacy. It is a solution that I defend because it reifies the body of the woman and, therefore, I consider null and void any contract that intends to commercialize that transaction, in addition to abusing and exploiting vulnerable people. It is usually an unbearable situation of economic inequality. But Giorgia Meloni's proposal in Italy is also accompanied by an indication of the families of people of the same sex, making it as if that were the only causal situation of surrogacy. Not only is this false, but it is also contrary to European law. It is true that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits marketing with body parts, in the same way as it prohibits cloning, but it also prohibits discrimination on any grounds of gender or sexual orientation, in addition to prohibiting, therefore, any discrimination against minors, whose best interests must prevail regardless of their origin. Because discrimination based on origin, even if the origin of parenthood is illegal, is also contrary to European law. Therefore, we have to say that it will not have the support of the majority of this European Parliament to take forward a proposal for which it has no competence and which is not explained by what it says, but rather by what it hides.

Mr President, Council, Commission, we are in 2023 and it will soon be 14 years since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, which ordered us to put in place not only a common migration and asylum policy, but common legislation. And this Parliament has worked very hard to deliver on that promise with five regulations binding on Member States on the basis, at last, of the principles of shared responsibility and binding solidarity. The last Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Luxembourg was a step in the right direction – a principle of binding solidarity – under the Swedish Presidency and under the leadership of Spain, which takes over the Presidency on 1 July. Despite the insidious, incessant, unjust and, of course, unpatriotic attacks of the Spanish People's Party, which misses neither an opportunity nor a turn to speak ill of its country, the Spanish Presidency can produce results. And not producing it in this legislature would be a great failure. But in order to be successful, the system needs to be European in its values, in its legislation and in the scale of its responses.