Debate contributions by Mairead McGUINNESS

Madam President, thank you. I loved being in that chair and I love this Parliament and the fun and debates and the rows we've had, and I've been here 20 years, so I have some memory of that. I just need to clarify something to my colleague at the very back of the Chamber. In Ireland we have a phrase, 'the poor relation'. I am McGuinness, not Guinness, so I qualify as the poor relation, but a happy one, that said. Look, it's been a really frank debate and I'm glad that I'm here for it. I think everybody in this House really is passionate about solutions. You've all agreed on the problem and I think that's important. The word used was we agree on the diagnosis. We're losing influence. We're losing opportunities. We're losing companies. We're failing workers. We're were failing SMEs. It doesn't have to be that way. And if I could say, MEP Boeselager, you very clearly said – and I think it's a word we need to repeat –national egos are an issue. I mean, we had a bit of an exchange at the start of this debate, my Maltese colleague and I, I said, 'I'm Irish', but our nationality should not blind us to the reality that if we have fragmented capital markets, if we have national boundaries, we have less. I really hope that you who are passionate about this topic can persuade the leaders of Member States, their finance ministers, that achieving a savings and investment union or capital markets union and banking union is about added value. I have said to the finance ministers on many occasions, please don't look at this as you're winning and I'm losing. This is not what it's about. I would hope that our citizens and businesses would push us all a little bit harder because they are losing out as citizens. Their money is not earning what it should be. They're not investing for their future, for their pensions. The SME sector, large companies, they're not getting the capital they need in Europe and, therefore, Europe is losing out. But on a day when the incoming Commission has been voted through, I salute you who put this debate on the agenda. I think it has to be constantly addressed and you have rather got to put pressure on the Member States to look at the big picture here and really, I said at the beginning, think and talk about the single market, not about cross‑border, because cross‑border is a killer. My last word is again one of thanks and appreciation. Somebody asked me, what am I most proud of? And because I come from Ireland and a large family, we don't do pride because it comes before a fall. But I am proud that I survived and that I made good friends and we got some good work done. Thank you all for that and I wish you well for the future.

Madam President, it's nice to see a little bit of celebration in the Chamber before I speak, so let's just give them a moment – well done! I'm afraid I'm not going to match the passion of the last debate. Commissioner Dalli may say 'we're all Mediterranean' and they may be Mediterranean, but the Irish are quite passionate, I can say! I suppose there's an air maybe, among the outgoing Commissioners – and I don't know whether it's freedom, relief or just joy – that we're happy to be in the Chamber this evening. I know it's for my last debate, on this really important topic which matters to everybody, citizens, small businesses and large companies. It fits very well – this debate – with the morning's activities in Parliament and the voting in of the new Commission, so very timely, and I compliment colleagues who tabled this topic. It's at the very heart of strengthening the European Union's competitiveness. Our start-ups and scale-ups in many sectors, from deep tech, clean tech or biotech, they're key drivers of innovation and growth and job creation in the European Union. And we know that these companies crucially need capital, including private capital, often originating beyond their home country, to allow them grow and expand. So this issue of financing is core to securing a more competitive European Union. I can say that together we have already set the groundwork in place on creating better financing opportunities for businesses of all sizes, from SMEs to large companies, and I know that many who are taking part in this debate support the SME sector and focus on it. The incoming Commission, as we know, will deepen work in this area, and that was outlined by President von der Leyen in what will be a major collective effort to strengthen the EU's resilience and competitiveness in the years ahead. The truth is that our companies face real difficulties in accessing the financing they need for growth. We face a significant funding gap for our innovative companies, particularly late-stage scale-ups, and as a result, EU scale-ups often seek capital and, in particular, equity capital from other countries, and are more likely to relocate. We all know companies in our own Member States that have taken the decision to leave the European Union and seek listings overseas. Now, this represents a missed opportunity for growth, for innovation and employment in the European Union, and it is an unwelcome trend, representing also a loss of EU competitiveness. Now, we have made progress to improve the situation for smaller companies and their investors. We have made it easier for these companies to access EU stock markets through simplified listing rules under the EU Listing Act. We have streamlined the rules for long-term investments into alternative assets, including innovative companies and projects with the reform of our rules on European long-term investment funds. We are making information on listed companies and SMEs more easily available to investors through the European Single Access Point, and we continue to mobilise private capital through the InvestEU Programme. Boosting the EU's venture and other risk capital is one of the main objectives of the Savings and Investment Union, announced by President von der Leyen in her political guidelines, building on the progress made on Capital Markets Union in my time as Commissioner, working with this Parliament and the Council. The entire financing chain must be strengthened from early-stage companies to more mature ones, which necessitates a solid venture capital ecosystem and well-functioning and integrated capital markets. The Commission's services are identifying the main challenges for venture capital financing, and the most frequently cited challenge is attracting capital from institutional investors. European institutional investors, insurers or pension funds do not invest in growth capital as much as their counterparts in the US, and there are several reasons for this, including a lack of well-capitalised pension funds or sovereign wealth funds in the European Union. There is also risk aversion, or a lack of familiarity with this more heterogeneous asset class, and certain requirements at national level. This could be partly addressed by mobilising private capital with the support of public programmes. The InvestEU Programme as well as initiatives like the European Tech Champions Initiative are important steps in this direction, but we need to do more to attract private sector investments to key EU policy areas. The second challenge is insufficient scale of EU venture and growth capital funds. There are very few growth capital funds in the EU able to finance large financing operations, let me just be very clear. This again reinforces the dependence on non-EU capital for scale-ups, where around half of financing for large deals comes from outside the European Union. This was highlighted in the Commission communication on the EU Biotech Initiative. In line with the communication, we have just launched a study to explore the barriers to consolidation and scaling up investment funds, including venture capital and private equity funds, and this work will support the incoming college in formulating further policy directions. Last but not least, this form of financing is hindered by the fragmentation of rules across the European Union from the perspective of companies and investors. Our investors face different national legal systems in some areas of corporate law, including different incorporation requirements for companies as well as securities law and taxation, and this lack of harmonisation results in significant additional costs and legal uncertainty. This really deters EU investors from engaging in what I prefer to say are 'investments in the single market' – but we often say 'cross-border'. And that's one problem: the mindset is still 'cross-border', in a single market. This is not how it should be, so I would appeal in this coming and fresh and new Parliament to drop the words 'cross-border'. We need to talk 'single market', because these obstacles are also deterring foreign investors from investing in the European Union. Now, a word about foreign investors. We have to ensure that the European Union becomes a more attractive investment destination, and that is both for EU and foreign investors. And we have to do that while safeguarding our economic security. There is an external dimension to our investment policy. Europe is and will remain open to foreign direct investment, and it is interesting that despite a global decline in FDI inflows, the EU-27 experienced an increase in net FDI inflows last year. Attracting and promoting foreign direct investments is vital for the Union's economic development. Now, at the same time, this openness of the EU to foreign direct investments is not unconditional. The European Economic Security Strategy emphasises the need to balance economic openness with the protection of our economic security and open strategic autonomy, given the growing geopolitical risks. This includes taking a more assertive stance on security and public order risks arising from foreign direct investments that may negatively affect Europe. The FDI Screening Regulation provides a framework for the EU and the Member States to assess and, if necessary, address and mitigate these risks, and the Commission's legislative proposal, which will amend the FDI Screening Regulation, will strengthen that. I now look forward to hearing your contributions.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I very much appreciate this debate. I hear your message loud and clear, and I just want to repeat some lines which are really important. First of all, we all agree that Russia's behaviour must be opposed by all available means. I want to point again to the reality that our sanctions against Russia already limit transactions. Many transactions are already impossible to carry out or are highly circumscribed because of our sanctions regime. On the point of listing Russia as a high-risk third country, this can be done but, again, I want to stress it can be done only on the basis of robust evidence and a strong legal case. As I said, we are carrying out an assessment and while I cannot prejudge the outcome of that assessment, I do want to assure you in the House that it will be very thorough and legally sound. So again, I want to thank you for your very clear message and say just a few words, if I may, on a personal basis. it's been over 20 years since I first stood in the European Parliament as a Member of this House, so I have huge respect for colleagues who contribute to debates. Thank you for your kind words this evening, and indeed for your courtesy to me as a Former Member and when I was a Member. I want to say to you, dear colleague Andriukaitis , who was in the Commission, maybe I inherited some of your energy because you showed that. But I think in this House we all try and work together. Our circumstances now are extremely difficult but at least the message here is clear. I hope you've heard that, as an outgoing Commissioner, we do and are already making progress on an assessment. It will be for the incoming Commission to take up your work. But they will get the message because I will contribute and update them as to the mood in this House around this very important topic. So again, from my side, a sincere thank you to all of you.

Mr President, good evening colleagues. This is an important debate. We are looking and debating about the possibility of listing Russia as a high‑risk third country for money laundering and terrorist financing. Weakening Russia's ability to pursue its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine is an absolute priority for the European Union. I think you are all very well aware of our sanctions policy and the 14 sanctions packages that we have already adopted. These measures aim to weaken Russia's ability to pursue its illegal invasion of aggression and war in Ukraine. As I said, it is a really important priority for us and continues to be. Just to make the point that the whole idea of sanctions is to make life very difficult for Russia, but our sanctions are distinct from today's discussion. The topic for tonight's debate is whether we should consider Russia as a high‑risk third country for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing, and include them in our EU AML list. Our current Anti-Money Laundering Directive regulates this matter and we have been looking into it. We need a strong legal case based on robust evidence. When assessing a country's regulatory framework, from an AML perspective, what we want to know is, does this country have an effective system to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism? Does it contain weak points? Are these weak points material enough to pose a threat to the EU single market? If they are, then a listing provides for the application of enhanced customer due diligence measures. Our EU list provides protective measures for the single market and so mitigates the risks associated with dirty money. We strive to ensure that the EU list of high‑risk third countries matches the list established by the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, the global watchdog in this area. Coordinated action at the global level provides for greater effectiveness and the Commission dedicates significant resources to technical work with the FATF on this coordination. We do not expect that the FATF will reach a consensus on listing Russia in the near future. The Financial Action Task Force takes decisions by consensus. As you know, Members, the membership of FATF includes many BRICS countries. We have been considering an autonomous listing, as is our prerogative under EU law. I should also stress that in Russia's case, many transactions are already impossible to carry out or are highly circumscribed because of our sanctions. Current rules only allow us to consider money laundering and terrorist financing risks. They do not give us the competence to consider risks of financing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is a very relevant issue in the case of Russia, not least given its exchanges with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The new anti-money laundering regulation, which will apply from 2027, will allow us to look into proliferation risks. So for now, our assessment focuses exclusively on money laundering and terrorist financing. I cannot prejudge the outcome of our assessment, but I can assure you that it will be very thorough and legally sound. If we decide that there is a sound technical case for listing, we will clearly involve the Parliament and the Council as we currently do when we update our AML list of high‑risk third countries. In April, I would recall that Parliament objected to a delegated regulation updating the EU AML list. We have listened to Parliament's concerns and worked with the relevant jurisdictions, including also on sanction circumvention. We will be adopting a new list, updating us with recent listings and de‑listings by FATF. These listings and de‑listings are the result of exhaustive technical work on the ground with the close involvement of the Commission services. Some countries waiting to be de‑listed, like Barbados, Uganda and Jamaica, have made considerable efforts to fight money laundering and are facing significant economic consequences because they remain on our list. We have made considerable efforts, together with Parliament and Council, to improve our AML rules and establish a new authority. The EU list is part of those efforts. I would add that not having an updated list reduces our international credibility, and I now look forward to all your contributions in this debate.

Mr President, honourable Members, the fight against hate and anti-Semitism is a shared priority, critical for protecting and promoting our common values and our identity as EU citizens. Jewish life is an inextricable part of Europe's identity – it is part of Europe's DNA – and I really want to stress that the Commission is determined to put an end to anti-Semitism and allow Jewish life to thrive on our continent, and I would ask that we continue our efforts and work together towards this goal.

Mr President, honourable Members, it will soon be one year since the deadliest attack committed against Jews since the Shoah. And this attack and the war that has ensued in Gaza has ignited anti-Semitism at a level not witnessed since the foundation of the European Union. Hatred in any form is fundamentally against our values, so we have to mobilise all efforts to combat this scourge, for our Jewish communities, for our Muslim communities, and for anyone or any group facing discrimination and violence. In these difficult times, the Commission stands by the Jewish communities. Our thoughts are with the hostages from the 7 October attack and, of course, our thoughts are with their families. We need the release of the hostages, and we need an immediate and enduring ceasefire. As President von der Leyen said before this House in July, and I quote, 'the bloodshed in Gaza must stop. Too many children, women and civilians have lost their lives as a result of Israel's response to Hamas' brutal terror. The people of Gaza cannot bear anymore. Humanity cannot bear it.' Anti-Semitism, as well as other forms of hate speech and hate crime, have increased exponentially across our continent, particularly since last October. The third Fundamental Rights Agency survey on anti-Semitic experiences of Jewish people, released just two months ago, showed that 96% of Jews in Europe encounter anti-Semitism, either online or offline. We all have a direct interest in engaging to combat this trend. Anti-Semitism wounds its victims and our Jewish communities, but it also threatens the cohesion of our society, fostering polarisation and radicalisation and silencing entire sections of the population, putting our democracies at risk. This is why fighting anti-Semitism – and all forms of hatred – are EU priorities and why we are active on a number of fronts. After 7 October, the Commission and the High Representative adopted a series of strong policy actions as part of the joint communication 'No place for hate', and bolstered the implementation of its EU anti-Semitism strategy. Our revised code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online will soon be adopted in the framework of the Digital Services Act. It will reinforce signatories' commitments to take swift action against hate speech, including anti-Semitism, online. In addition, entities with expertise in flagging anti-Semitic and other hateful content online can now benefit from the DSA's trusted flagger mechanism. This will engage platforms in additional commitments to reduce hate and anti-Semitism online. Europol has successfully taken concerted action, in a referral action day, with 18 countries and major online service providers, to identify and remove anti-Semitic content online. The EU anti-Semitism strategy has led to national strategies in 21 Member States, and we expect all countries to adopt their own strategies. Nineteen Member States have already appointed national envoys or coordinators. These Member States also use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, which covers Israel-related anti-Semitism, the most common form of anti-Semitism encountered by Jews. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and an important building block of our democracy. But this freedom is not absolute, and hate speech is not free speech. So we continue to enforce actions based on the framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law to ensure a resolute response to racist and xenophobic hate speech and hate crime. Following the 7 October attack, we allocated additional resources to support the security of Jewish communities and institutions. The Commission made available EUR 5 million to specifically fund projects aimed at protecting Jewish places of worship, schools and community gatherings. We also joined forces with international partners and in July signed global guidelines on countering anti-Semitism, along with 41 countries and special envoys. These are examples of concrete action taken to fight anti-Semitism and ensure peaceful coexistence in Europe and beyond. It is intolerable that in today's Europe, Jews are hiding again. We want Jewish life to thrive, not to hide. Finally, in April and May this year, the Commission organised a European citizens' panel on tackling hatred in society. Citizens from across the European Union came together to discuss how to respond to hate and polarisation, including anti-Semitism. They came up with 21 recommendations. The President's political guidelines commit to following up on these recommendations.

Madam President, apologies if I jumped forward, but I was keen to respond to a comment about this report. I want to be very clear. This is not a report from the European Commission. This is a report produced by stakeholders who came together. It's a strategic dialogue, and I think we should remember also why it matters that we had this strategic dialogue because there was a problem: farmers were dealing with uncertainty, they felt undervalued and they needed a response. And I would credit the President, Madam von der Leyen, for her vision in putting a Chair in place, Professor Strohschneider, who had the ability to allow different voices hear each other and listen to each other with respect. So from this debate this evening, may I say a few things. First of all, thank you for having this debate early. It has not been easy. There are very different views in this Chamber, but I think you will face exactly what those who took part in the dialogue faced. You'll have to find solutions and compromise. I want to also say that change is happening. We have EIPs, these innovation partnerships, finding solutions to problems on the ground. Farmers are involved in this, but we need to make those projects more sustainable and support them. I live on a farm, for those of you who don't know me, and I studied agricultural economics. There are no easy solutions to the problems we face here. But I do believe that there is hope, firstly because change is happening. And secondly because I know that the farmers who I deal with, for them, weather and climate are the biggest issues. If they can't plant their crops or harvest, if they can't put livestock out on the land, they have challenges. The second thing they want are reasonable prices so that they have reasonable incomes, but they want certainty. And the difficulty is we live in a very uncertain world. It will be the challenge of the incoming Commission to set that vision in the first 100 days, and it will be your opportunity as Member of this Parliament to shape that policy for the future. When we talk about food security, I think it's important to recall that we are major exporters of food. The European Union exports food to the rest of the world. So while we import, we also export and that's an opportunity for our farmers. We have an agritrade surplus of EUR 70 billion, and that supports jobs and incomes in rural areas of Europe. On trade, I hear very well the comments around the mirror clauses. And I do think that we are working towards a situation of trying to encourage the uptake of our standards, but that is a discussion that will continue. I want to clarify an issue around what I feel is an unfair discussion of crops versus livestock, because many farmers do both. They produce livestock and they produce crops. And I want to be very clear that the Commission hasn't taken any measures or a position that would ask or require farmers to reduce their livestock herds. Nor was this the recommendation of the Strategic Dialogue. On welfare, indeed the incoming Commission will need to address this issue of reviewing welfare standards. But I would just observe, as many of you probably do, that, our supermarkets are driving welfare standards, sometimes ahead of the legislation. So let me finish by saying that there is a chapter where the Chair, Professor Strohschneider, sets out his perspectives, and it's worth rereading, if not once, but several times, because it captures the essence of the contradictions and the conflicts that arise when we talk about agriculture. My vision of a small farm. Does it reflect your vision of a small farm? How do we reward different size of farms if they have different levels of intensity? So in summary, nothing is straightforward and nothing is simple. But you have now a bedrock of this report produced by the stakeholders themselves, where despite the challenges, they found a way forward and they've made recommendations. And I will not be in the next Commission, but as somebody who has followed agriculture for a long, long time, I will certainly follow very closely the proposals to shape a European agriculture of the future that delivers a strong rural community that respects what our farmers do, and that gives young people an interest in farming. But none of you mentioned the truth about young people. Today's European young people have choices and options, and we need to ask why many of them are not choosing agriculture.

Mr President, it's a pleasure to be here, and I think it's significant that this opening debate is about agriculture, food and the environment. And I can do no better than link my opening remarks to the debate in the opening of the session, where many of you commented on natural disasters, the horrors that are happening in many Member States with floods, the loss of life, the devastation, the impacts on farmland and on farm families. I also want to acknowledge the horrors of fires raging in Member States. So this is a key debate, in my view, because it addresses the fundamental challenge of climate change. And I want to acknowledge, of course, that President von der Leyen has expressed solidarity with those Member States and their citizens who are suffering at this time. And I join in those remarks this evening. As I said, climate change is real, it is impacting, and therefore this debate on the future of EU agriculture is ever more important. The background is a range of stakeholders from farmers, agribusiness, environmental NGOs and consumer organisations all came together under the Strategic Dialogue to find common solutions to the challenges facing the farming and food sectors. Against the odds, perhaps, they were able to find and agree unanimously on recommendations, as I say, supported by all of the participants. And they came from very different positions. And yet they succeeded in reaching unanimous agreement on a shared vision for the future of food and farming in Europe. Against a background of polarised views, division and protest, the participants in the dialogue showed that it is possible to find common ground, to overcome polarisation, to create trust and build bridges, and this in itself is a major achievement. It demonstrates the importance of the strategic-dialogue process and the commitment of the participants. And as we face into the challenges ahead, we should keep this spirit alive. We invite all stakeholders and EU institutions to continue working together. The Commission is now analysing the report's recommendations carefully, and those recommendations are backed by a broad consensus and therefore deserve to be given full and careful consideration. We will present our ideas on the way forward in our Vision for Agriculture and Food to be delivered in the first 100 days of the new mandate. So what I want to do tonight is to share some preliminary considerations of the report. Firstly, the dialogue is clear that farmers should have fair and sufficient incomes, and that we need a common agricultural policy that is targeted and fit for purpose. As President von der Leyen stated in her political guidelines, the Commission will continue to defend an EU income policy for Europe's farmers and will ensure that the EU budget funds a more targeted cap that finds the right balance between incentives, investments and regulation. The dialogue also emphasises the need to strengthen farmers' position in the food value chain, offering concrete ideas about how to achieve this. This resonates with the Commission's recommendations put forward in March, to improve farmers' negotiating power. We should continue to build an economically, environmentally and socially fairer system. In addition, the dialogue calls for smart and inclusive administrative solutions that limit unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Earlier this year, we put in place measures to reduce controls and penalties for farmers, and simplification and the reduction of red tape will be key priorities for the next Commission, especially for small and family farms. The dialogue clearly commits to the transition to more sustainable food systems. It makes concrete recommendations on how to boost sustainable farming and food systems. It includes pathways for reducing the sector's greenhouse gas emissions, promoting sustainable livestock farming, and encouraging affordable and accessible, healthy and sustainable diets. In particular, it emphasises the need to better incentivise and reward sustainable agricultural practices, both with public funding and private investments. This is in line with the Commission's commitment to the green transition. To thrive, the agrifood sector must be sustainable. So we must better reward farmers who work with and for nature, preserve our biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and help to decarbonise our economy on the way to net zero by 2050, while providing sustainable food. Farmers can only make the transition if they can make a living from their farms and their very future as farmers will depend on achieving our climate and environmental goals. One of the greatest risks to agriculture in Europe is the impact of the climate, biodiversity and pollution crisis. I've mentioned floods and droughts and fires. We have the risk of animal diseases and plant diseases in addition. It's therefore encouraging that the dialogue calls for more action to help farmers working hand in hand with nature. The report recommends the use of innovative plant breeding approaches and more effective tools for risk and crisis management. It also calls for the promotion of water-resilient agriculture, which resonates with our commitment to strengthen Europe's water security. We need to support farmers in becoming more skilled, resilient and prepared. Our European agriculture and food sector is very diverse and that is its strength. The dialogue emphasises the need to preserve this diversity and build a sector that protects and attracts workers, and invigorates rural communities. It also calls for more action to support young farmers and boost generational renewal. We welcome that the dialogue members explicitly support the Commission's long-term vision for rural areas, and we will continue working on its implementation. And it stresses the need to address gender inequalities and improve diversity in the sector, in line with our commitment on gender equality on which we will strengthen our work. The dialogue also clearly stresses the vital importance of knowledge, research, innovation and technologies, as well as the practical skills and capacities to turn them into practice. And the Commission shares this assessment. We must seize the opportunities offered by new knowledge and farming methods, as well as advanced technologies, to build a more competitive, resilient and sustainable agriculture and food systems. We will foster investment and innovation on farms and in co-operatives, agribusinesses and in SMEs in the sector. Lastly, the dialogue expresses a clear wish to continue the close cooperation that this process has generated, and we welcome the recommendation to set up a high level stakeholder platform for the food chain. Indeed, we are looking at how best to put this in place as soon as possible. And I would say that cooperation with this Parliament will continue to be critical. Professor Strohschneider met with the AGRI Committee in January, and I know he also had informal discussions with many of you, and we look forward to continuing in this spirit of close cooperation. When the dialogue started, there were some who said it would not achieve its objectives. And I'm glad to say that you were wrong, that the many who believed in the process, we've been proved right, and I really look forward to the contributions of this Parliament and to hear your views on the future of EU agriculture.