Debate contributions by Irene TINAGLI

Madam President, sorry for my low voice but this doesn't take away my enthusiasm for what's been done today. Housing affordability has become one of the most urgent challenges facing Europe today. For millions of citizens, access to affordable housing is no longer a marginal issue because it directly affects their lives, the opportunities they can access, and also their trust in our ability to deliver solutions. That's why today it is so important – and I'm really happy to see that, finally, housing is at the core of the Commission's work, as we've been asking for many, many years. So the plan presented today actually really goes in the right direction, but not just for construction. It's a very complex, comprehensive plan because it goes to the root of the problem, which is a complex one. So it includes support for public investment – of course, also support for private investments to crowd them in towards a social good – a reform of the services of general interest framework to allow for better and more state aid, a strong focus on sustainability, a legislative response on short‑term rentals and, for the first time, a serious approach to address speculation. That's what we need – a response to really provide solutions for our citizens.

Madam President, Executive Vice‑President and colleagues, I think that this debate showed us how important, how essential InvestEU is, and above all, how important it is for Europe to equip itself with a real investment strategy. The interventions highlighted very clearly the importance of investing in sustainable infrastructure, research, innovation, digitalisation, SMEs, social investments and skills. These are not just priorities mentioned in passing. These are precisely the four windows that are in InvestEU. So, this confirms that there is a strong and shared understanding across the institutions about the role that these instruments must play in Europe's long‑term development. I would like to underline one element that is often mentioned too little: additionality. InvestEU exists to make possible what the market alone cannot deliver to crowd in private investments, to reduce risk and to support projects that would not materialise without a European guarantee. This is the foundational feature of the programme and it must remain at the core of its identity. This, colleagues, is the legacy that we are leaving for the next multiannual financial framework; a legacy that calls for continuity, but also ambition, acting across all the four windows, recognising their different nature and purpose, and ensuring that each of them is matched with the right financial architecture and the right mix of instruments. The next MFF must not only preserve InvestEU, it must place investment policy at the heart of Europe's economic strategy. Only in this way can we ensure that Europe remains competitive, resilient and socially cohesive in the decades ahead.

Mr President, Executive‑Vice President, dear colleagues, today, Europe faces a decisive challenge. We need to boost productivity, to support innovation, to complete the twin green and digital transition, and at the same time, ensure greater social cohesion. All of this requires a clear strategy to invest more and to invest better because without investment there is no growth, no competitiveness, and no economic or social security. Over the past years, InvestEU has been one of the pillars of Europe's investment capacity. The results speak for themselves: EUR 15.8 billion allocated to digitalisation, EUR 95.6 billion to support the industrial transition towards climate neutrality and technological leadership, and over 32 gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity installed. On the social front, the programme has contributed to the construction or renovation of 8 500 units of affordable social housing – one of the most urgent needs in our cities today. More broadly, it has supported the wider economic fabric with nearly 60 000 microfinance beneficiaries and over 53 000 SMEs – interventions that were essential for development, for employment, and for accompanying the transformations of the European productive system. Finally, on the strategic front, the programme has mobilised EUR 11.5 billion in critical sectors, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, space and defence. This is why it was essential to strengthen InvestEU through this latest revision. I can say with pride that after the trilogues, the outcome is very positive for the Parliament, which strongly sought to consolidate the programme's budgetary dimension. We successfully achieved a 20 % increase in the budget compared to the initial proposal, ensuring continuity over the next two years before the new Union programmes come into force. We also preserved the right balance between resources allocated to investment and those dedicated to the advisory hub. My co‑rapporteur Salla already mentioned that, but this is really a crucial point. I want to to explain it because many actors, associations, local authorities, social enterprises and innovative SMEs often face complex procedures, and without adequate technical support, they would be excluded from the programme. So, this is an important thing that we did in this revision. Colleagues, what we have done with InvestEU is not merely to defend a programme. It is to reaffirm a deliberate economic policy choice. Europe can no longer rely solely on market forces or fragmented national budgets to secure its competitiveness, energy transition, innovation or social security. European investments are among the most effective instruments to tackle the structural causes of our delays: stagnating productivity, lack of scale in strategic sectors, slow adoption of new technologies, territorial and social divides that hold us back. Investing today means enabling Europe to regain productive capacity, achieving technological leadership and providing citizens with fair opportunities. This is the deeper purpose of InvestEU; to build European growth that is sustainable, inclusive and globally competitive. So, I really want to thank my co‑rapporteur and the negotiating team for this achievement.

Madam President, the meeting of 23 October was the first time that the issue of housing was brought into the European Council, and I really want to thank President Costa for having brought this issue at the core of the debate. It's essential that heads of state and government recognise the house emergency that is spreading across Europe, and for sure the conclusions are a first step. But let's be honest: this is far too little compared to the scale and the depth of the crisis that millions of European citizens are facing. It's obvious that not all the governments are ready to tackle this challenge at the scale that is needed, and to acknowledge the constructive role that the European Union can and should play in addressing it. So I do hope that the European Commission will keep its ambition high in the plan that is going to be revealed in December – the plan on affordable housing – and I hope that the Commission will also help us in pushing the Council, together with President Costa, and all the governments that are still reluctant to do more for their citizens, also in terms of budget for the next MFF. The well-being of citizens should be at the centre of our common action, beyond any ideological stance. So, please join us in this battle for the European citizens.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President Fitto, ladies and gentlemen, I speak Italian, so we understand each other immediately. The theme of housing is now a huge theme and cohesion funds are often the few resources and tools that local administrators have on the territories, in the regions, in the cities, to give some relief and answers to citizens, and therefore they are very important. However, as one would say, the word is not enough, it is not enough to put the funds on paper: we need to understand how they are spent, with what strategies, with what timing, with what conditionality. I'll give you just two or three examples. First: we were very pleased with the mid-term review of the funds, doubling from EUR 7 billion to EUR 15 billion on thehousing, But many mayors and administrators tell us that it was late, that there are no conditions, that many had already been spent. I don't know if you have any data on this, but just to say that the ability to have long scheduling times for this type of investment is crucial. Second: cross-compliance. Be sure that these resources really go to projects that have a relevant social impact, because that's where we need them: social distress. Third: With regard to the new proposal for cohesion policies, the concern is the centralisation of decisions at national level. We cannot take away room for manoeuvre where it is most needed at local and territorial level. So please, let's act, because we have millions of citizens and administrators who need our support.

Mr President, the European Semester coordinates economic and social policies across the Union, ensuring alignment from fiscal discipline to social policies. But this is not an abstract exercise. It has to be adapted and aligned with emerging priorities. So let's not forget two priorities that we have today that entail the security and safety of our citizens. The first type of security, of course, is what we are all discussing in these days. We are expanding fiscal flexibility to allow for more investment in security, but let's not forget there is one unresolved issue, which is the lack of a structured coordination mechanism for defence financing. Without this, Member States risk acting independently, leading to fragmentation and inefficiency. The other priority we shouldn't forget when we talk about safety is the safety that the European citizens need and feel in their daily lives. This entails housing, having a safe roof over their head. We agreed on this priority at the beginning of this mandate. Let's not forget about it and include it in our semester report and in our fiscal and social policies.

It's very simple: I don't have a lack of knowledge of what people go through, but maybe you have a lack of knowledge of how the Union functions and what competences the Union has and the powers and the resources. If we don't give the Union – our Union – the powers, the resources, the budget to support investments, our citizens will continue to suffer from lack of competitiveness. Single Member States alone will not be able. That's the reason why we are struggling.

Mr President, now, there are two issues that concern me in the debate on competitiveness. The first one is nostalgia, this idea that back then everything was working, while at the same time the entire world goes forward accelerating. The US, China, they are investing for the future and we are here thinking maybe how great we were and how we can protect our past. The second issue is the belief that this challenge is feasible at zero cost. Just with some simplification, we can regain competitiveness. I've heard a lot of colleagues – this is just an illusion. So, yes, simplification is important – I'm for it – but it will not be enough, come on. Let's look at what is making great the great competitiveness of our competitors. Three things: a large market for goods and services, common rules that govern the functioning of this market, and third, billions and billions of both public and private investments to sustain this competitiveness. Now, on these three things, we are stuck. We have been stuck for decades. We are prisoners of our own ideologies, nationalism, things like that, that we've also heard today in this Chamber. So now I think it's about time to move forward, and just talking about simplification is a way to avoid talking about the real issues and the real solutions and the real problems of the Union. And it is also a way to show the lack of ambition of this Commission and of the Union. So, dear Commissioner, the challenges in front of us are really enormous, and we do expect much more from the Commission.

Madam President, dear colleagues, let's face it, while we've been pretty good in overcoming the pandemic and the energy crisis, we are not as successful in relaunching our economy in the context of the great transitions that we are facing. This is linked in part, of course, to persistent geopolitical uncertainty, but also to our own policies. Extraordinary measures such as the NextGenerationEU, SURE, the ECB's pandemic-purchase programme that have helped us out of the crisis have ended or are about to end. Monetary policy has been restrictive since 2022, and only recently there has been a timid change of direction. New fiscal rules are in place, and judging by the multi-annual plans presented by the Member States, the euro area's aggregate fiscal stance risks being restrictive for years to come. So a common initiative is urgently needed to relaunch the competitiveness of our economy and to steer it towards sustainable growth. I hope that the new Commission will rise to these challenges, also ensuring adequate public funding to tackle these challenges. Without such efforts, the Union as a whole will struggle to adapt to these transformations and the price will be paid by our citizens.

Mr President, I'm glad that at last housing has been recognised as a European issue. We have millions of European citizens that can no longer afford a house, or they have to spend more than half of their income to pay rent or a mortgage. Beware; it does not simply affect, as in the past, lowest income households, but is increasingly affecting the middle class. And this has heavy social consequences, such as increasing risk of poverty, but also economic consequences. In certain areas, firms can no longer attract or retain workers simply because the salary they can offer can barely cover for rent. So this is really a problem we need to address. And it is crucial that the EU starts playing a role in supporting affordable housing and public investments, as many colleagues have mentioned. But beware; there are many other aspects to be addressed. For example, why does the official measure of the inflation rate, which serves as the basis to negotiate wages, exclude the owner-occupying housing costs, for example? Also, think about our banking and financial regulation. Is it adequate to address and prevent speculative bubbles in the housing market? There are many things. A lot of work that has to be done to fully understand and address the causes of the problem and try to find some European solution, keeping one principle in mind: housing is not just a market like any other, but is a primary need.