Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has made it a priority in this Parliament today to make life easier for small and medium-sized enterprises. The creation of a special envoy is an important political signal, but we need to go further. Three key ideas: pay the hours, finance the companies, simplify the activity. We need to tackle arrears. Limiting delays to 30 days is an important step, but national governments must lead by example. In Portugal, for example, we have reached 721 days, I repeat, 721 days for payments. No company survives on two years of debt. Strengthening the financial capacity of companies, facilitating investment with lighter, faster and smarter legislation is also vital. Finally, the fight against red tape, the 25 % reduction in obligations must only be the first step. 24 million SMEs are 99% of our business fabric, so it is common to speak of small and medium-sized enterprises as engines of the economy. This is no longer the time to turn on the microphones, it is the time to turn on the engines of our economy.

Mr President, the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion is a priority, at least in speeches. The problem is that, all too often, these words do not translate into concrete actions. And today we are here precisely because the Council insists on not deciding on the Unshell Directive. The same is to say that national governments are not interested in regulating the misuse of shell companies for large companies to evade their tax duties. The Commission is not oblivious to the criticism. The tax avalanche burdens citizens and businesses with increasing bureaucracy and costs. In the meantime, the announced initiative to simplify tax obligations and defend taxpayers' rights is in the drawer. At least in the case of Unshell, we had a proposal. This Parliament set an example and approved its position with an overwhelming majority, but that was six months ago. The question must therefore be asked: Is the Council going to decide anything or not? Of the two: either it decides to reject the proposal and that has political significance, or it decides, once and for all, to approve a position that we can discuss here. What we cannot accept is this authentic veto in the drawer. The times we live in demand courage and consistency between what is said and what is done, and it is time for national governments to start setting an example, or rather following an example.

Mr President, at a good time this Parliament is speaking to people, people who, all over Europe, suffer difficulties with the provision of their credits or with the increase in the cost of living and with tax burdens that strangle their financial freedom. Over the years, it has always been the middle class and, by the way, small and medium-sized enterprises that have paid for the crises. The irresponsibility of some governments with budget management or the lack of responses to rising prices have always penalized the middle class more. They are always paying more taxes, seeing their real salary drop or seeing European funds squandered on works that tell them nothing or take advantage of them. The middle class by consumption, SMEs by investment are the engines of our economy. Therefore, they expect and deserve answers from the Union, but also and above all from their national governments, governments that, instead of looking to the next generation, look to the next election, which therefore create clientelisms and dependencies, distributing the money to their preferred electorates. I am Portuguese and therefore I know very well what I am talking about. We need fairer and more competitive tax systems that deliver income for savings and investment. We need faster and less bureaucratic public administrations to reduce context costs and a lighter, more certain and predictable legislative framework for those who want to create their own opportunities. Today, we're talking to people. Let us therefore be consistent. Let's make decisions for people.

Madam President, this debate is the perfect picture of the socialists' objective alliance with the far left. What we already know well in Portugal and Spain has come to Parliament: an alliance that is more electoral than anything else, but that has a clear ideological affinity when we talk about taxes. Inflation remains high and households face difficulties in paying their credits. We are not creating jobs as we expected, nor is the economy growing as we expected. Wages remain low and productivity is incomparable between the Iberian economies and other latitudes. And what is the answer that the left proposes? More taxes. They say they want to tax the rich. What, after all, is a rich man? Prejudice against companies and the middle class leads to these exaggerations, exaggerations that harm, at the end of the day, all taxpayers. What we really need is a tax relief that frees up resources for families and businesses, that helps more young people to be able to emancipate themselves, families to pay their credits and companies to invest and create jobs. This agenda against those who earn more than the minimum, against those who risk, against those who save and invest will be rejected here, will be defeated in Spain this month and will be defeated in Portugal, sooner or later.

Thank you very much, Honourable Member, for the question and I will return the same question. I wonder whether you have also read the law and understand that this law is a regulation, that it has numbers and that it has objectives that are the same for all Member States. And so the ecological conditions of Portugal are not the same as the ecological conditions of an Eastern or Nordic country, or France or Germany. So what is happening with regard to the question you are asking me is precisely the ecological conditionality that exists in Portugal. To this end, I invited him to do the following: If you are so sure of what you are saying, go talk to the people in Pedrógão Grande and go talk to the farmers outside this Parliament.

Madam President, the proposal for the Nature Restoration Law has been rejected in this Parliament by the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Fisheries. These three committees were clear in saying that this is a bad proposal by socialist Commissioner Timmermans. And if it can even be a well-intentioned bill, the truth is that it is an insufficient and even incompetent proposal to protect the environment, biodiversity and food security itself in Europe. On the part of the EPP, our answer is clear. We want to protect the planet and that is what we have done by voting in favour of dozens of proposals that have passed through this Parliament, in particular the European Climate Law. But this is a proposal that contributes to worsening the very serious fires that ravage countries like Portugal and that, in recent years, have caused hundreds of victims. Is this what the Commission wants? It is a proposal that increases imports from countries without the same environmental safeguards and contributes to increased food insecurity. For our part, we want a proposal for the restoration of Nature that is in fact so, but does not count on us to make a figure of present body. (The speaker agreed to answer a question under the blue card procedure)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is drought and it will get worse. Because we always have water available at our taps, we don't have the majority of the population worried. And by not having the majority of the population concerned, the governments and the Commission are also unconcerned. And if they have little concern, they have even less action. After all, for example, in Portugal, 30% of the water abstracted goes into the soil without being used, because the supply networks are obsolete. But no one seems really worried about it. A luxury that no country should give itself, much less at a time of severe and extreme drought, as happens in many areas of countries. Last year was extremely difficult, with a situation of extreme drought and I ask: What was done? What have we changed? What have we learned? We need to reduce water losses in public supply networks, strengthen reservoir storage capacity and public water reserves, enhance rainwater use, increase irrigation efficiency, raise awareness of water savings, among many other things. Unfortunately, many governments, like António Costa's, only care about two things: Today's headline and tomorrow's newspaper headline. We need more and we need much better.

Madam President, the Pandora Papers revelations prove that the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion is failing. All the millions lost in these schemes are millions taken from national budgets, taken from health, education, justice or quality public services and create a clear fiscal injustice between those who benefit from these schemes and the taxpayers who comply. Taxpayers who are increasingly burdened with high taxes in many European countries, such as mine. This Parliament has done its part, discussed the revelations and is putting forward concrete proposals. So the question is, what is it that is failing? The European Commission fails when it is late in revising legislation such as the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive or when it falls short of proposals to modernise cooperation between national tax authorities. National governments are also failing. In the Council, they are unable to decide on the directive on letterbox companies and, in their countries, and this is particularly evident in Portugal, they feed bureaucratic monsters that stifle taxpayers and continue to leave open windows of opportunity for evasion. It is enough, therefore, to deplore these scandals between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is time for national capitals to come up with solutions that are long overdue.

Madam President, Europeans deserve transparency, clarity and truth in political discourse. The eurozone entered a technical recession in the last quarter, inflation remains unaffordable for household budgets and uncertainty still hangs, unfortunately, over the outcome of the war that claims lives on Europe's doorstep. This is the scenario that shows that promoting investment is no longer a priority for the Union, it is now an emergency. Only with an investment-friendly environment can we create jobs, raise wages and kick-start the economy. Making Europe a place to invest is an objective that will only be achieved with better regulation, simplification and coordination. And what does this mean? Avoiding excessive legislation, which imposes ever-increasing context costs on businesses, drastically reducing the red tape that stifles small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, and supporting the ecosystem of startups and to coordinate tax policy so that competition is fair, fair, transparent and competitive. Between wanting more investment and making it a reality, it's the distance to decisions, and it's time to make them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 95% of Portugal is sea and our history is deeply linked to it. The oceans and their biodiversity and resources are goods that must be preserved and protected. They are, moreover, a matter to which we owe more attention, not only here in Parliament, but in society as a whole. Its role in the balance of the planet is crucial, for example in the absorption of CO2. This is also why their management should be shared, recognising the roles of different organisations, and we should involve all stakeholders in the decision-making and management of oceans and marine resources. In addition, the involvement of the entire fishing community is essential for the conservation of resources and reasonable management of fishing quotas. Co-management is therefore a reality to which we must move, within a legal framework at European level, ensuring a more participatory, democratic and attentive management of such an important part of the planet.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I could easily be quiet and silent during the time of my speech, in line with what many people do on this subject. But no, I choose to speak because I would not forgive myself if I did not, and I do so – not just for myself, but for the next generations of Europeans and for the next generations of any other geography. And I speak because, despite what this House has done, many national governments have not lived up to it. They have not met the required targets. Many have been good at propaganda, with repeated advertisements and spending, but unable to keep up with the pace that this Parliament has set itself. The problem with propaganda is that it can fool some for a long time, or many for a while, but it does not withstand the passage of time. And fundamentally it does not solve the problems that need an urgent response. As stated in the report, every small increase in the temperature of the planet increases extreme phenomena such as severe droughts or fires. Therefore, this report and this call for attention from the scientific community are also an ear-pull to the inaction of many European governments, to whom we must demand less noise and much more action. Governments that often use RRP funds for climate action propaganda and are not even able to properly leverage and enforce these funds. And I will end by saying the following: Europe has lit the way, but unfortunately many governments prefer to stay in the dark.

Mr President, Europe has more than one currency in the euro. It is a commitment by 20 of the 27 Member States to share an important part of their sovereignty – that of monetary policy. And because we are talking about sovereignty, it is important to be clear with the citizens we represent. It is true that the globalisation of economies, the digitalisation of payments or the decentralisation of financial services require a sound monetary policy response. The questions that need to be asked, however, are these: What problems do Europeans face that require a digital euro? What added value does a single digital currency have for the euro area? And what opportunities will European citizens and businesses have with this project? In other geographies, digital currencies are advancing and we cannot be left behind. By now, we should be discussing concrete proposals, precisely to identify the problems we are going to solve, to decide on the functionalities we want for the digital euro, and to create a space of opportunity for citizens to extend their financial freedom and for companies to be better able to invest and innovate. This is not the time to prolong debates about where we are. This is the time to decide where we want to go.

Madam President, the financial markets are changing and the laws must change with them. Digitalisation and decentralisation are inevitable trends. The emergence of crypto-assets brings risks that we must mitigate and opportunities that we must not waste. Europe lost the innovation convoy when the internet emerged and failed to lead the platform internet revolution. Now, it's not enough just to catch the train. We must be the locomotive of innovation and lead this new era of Web 3.0 financial technologies. More and more Europeans are using crypto-assets to invest, to buy goods and services, or even to support causes such as Ukraine’s fight for freedom and democracy. These assets must therefore be reliable and reliable for citizens and businesses. We must avoid the legal obstacles and red tape that drive investment away. We must have a competitive fiscal policy to attract the best brains and the best projects. We need to invest in digital infrastructure that facilitates the deployment of the best technological solutions on European soil. As with everything, there is no change without risk. The financial scandals we know of would not be prevented by this legislation, but they would be more difficult to achieve. With the Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets we give a clear signal: Europe wants to regulate smartly and forward-looking. And with the regulation on transfers of funds we signal that the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and the evasion of international sanctions does not have a window of opportunity here. Europe can be proud of the step we take today. This time, we're not going to see what's going on. This time, we'll tell you how it's going to go.

Mr President, job creation is a priority that must unite us all. Where we differ is perhaps in the strategy to achieve it. And we do not only differ between political parties, we also differ between Member States. Everyone says they want to create more jobs and decent work, but we still have economies in the European Union based on low wages and high taxes. I share the Commissioner's enthusiasm for wanting to work for a strong European economy, but this is not commensurate with situations such as Portugal – a fragile economy, stagnant in growth and hijacked by a gigantic public debt, which results in emigration and poverty. Youth unemployment in Portugal already affects one in five young people and we have to find solutions so that we do not mortgage our future. But there are national governments, such as the Portuguese government, that are more committed to passing the blame on to Europe than to doing what they should do – getting the country growing and contributing to a strong European economy. The Portuguese minimum wage is ridiculously low and the average wage is little different. Taxes are extraordinarily high and prevent any household savings or corporate investment. The public debt is unmanageable and we are already paying interest that is ultimately unsustainable. So the question is this: Who is responsible for the state to which this has come? Is it the European Union, which is still the main financier of public investment? Or is it the socialist government in Portugal, which cannot get the country to grow, despite having ruled 14 of the last 18 years? But the time for bad payer excuses is over. This is the time to ask governments to be competent. I would remind you that long-term competitiveness is the message of the Swedish Presidency. So this is an appeal that comes from Europe, but it is above all a demand of the Portuguese.

Madam President, the revision of the European Semester, the exercise of coordinating economic and social policies, is necessary and urgent. We are talking about European fiscal rules, deficit control, debt management and public investment capacity. After the pandemic, inflationary pressure and the real war effort in Europe, no one would want to go back to 2019, to the past. The key words of this reform must be three: flexibility, simplicity and responsibility. This economic and social coordination must be more flexible, setting more realistic deadlines and requiring more structural than temporary measures. Of course, this involves time, investment and approaches that respect the national reality of each Member State. The European Semester needs to be simpler so that citizens can better understand and assess the value of the measures and who they should hold accountable to. That is why the European Semester must promote more responsibility. The principle of intergenerational solidarity implies greater ambition in debt reduction and that this is not done at the expense of the destruction of public services, especially in health or education. The debate has taken place and decisions must now be taken. Parliament has been in agreement on this issue. Governments need to find the same consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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