Speeches

– Mr President, colleagues, thank you all for your very strong contributions to this debate. There is concern, well expressed in this House, about the state of the EU solar industry, as you say in the title, ‘in light of unfair competition’. I did say in the opening remarks that we do have instruments to tackle unfair trade practices – so, just to put that again clearly to you – whenever this is, of course, in the European Union’s overall interest. Just to say that the EU has a plan to nurture net-zero manufacturing technologies that will limit our overdependence on imports, and create jobs and growth in Europe. Building on the existing practice of some EU Member States, the NZIA will result in the more regular use of resilience and sustainability criteria in EU auctions and procurement. This objective, transparent and competitive tenders, will help in addressing EU dependencies. The EU and its Member States will continue to monitor the situation and work closely with EU industry to deploy every effort at technical and political level to make the solar strategy a success, despite the complexity of the current market situation. We will, of course, keep the European Parliament closely involved along the way, and we count on your support.

– Madam President, colleagues, I want to thank the Parliament for the opportunity to take the floor on this very crucial issue, the situation of the EU solar industry. I do want to start with some good news: the EU installed 56 GW of solar photovoltaic (PV) last year, according to industry data. This is a record and is twice as much as just two years earlier. Solar energy is one of the key pillars of the energy transition; it is the fastest growing source of electricity, responsible for 8 % of the electricity generated last year in the European Union. Solar installations are an equally important contributor to our energy autonomy: the installations of the last two years allow us to save 15 billion cubic metres of Russian gas imports, and these are impressive figures. Yet, in order to reach our ambitious 2030 target for renewables, we still need to see further acceleration in both solar and wind deployment. In six years, by 2030, we expect the solar panels deployment to increase by 20 %. Two thirds of these solar installations last year were on our rooftops. Citizens and companies have taken advantage of this cheap source of energy to weather the high energy prices of the past two years. This boom is also a source of economic growth and job creation: in 2022, the sector was responsible for 650 000 jobs, and this number is increasing rapidly towards 1 million. Eight out of ten jobs in this sector are related to solar panel deployment, one out of ten to solar panel manufacturing. The EU needs to have access to affordable solar panels to fuel the green transition and unlock the economic opportunities, and the green transition is also an economic opportunity for the EU. This rapid deployment builds on the solar energy strategy adopted in May 2022 as part of the REPower EU package. The strategy included a set of actions to promote solar energy, including the development of the solar manufacturing industry. The supply of the EU market is highly dependent on imports, as more than 97 % of the solar panels deployed in Europe are imported, mainly from China. However, if we take a closer look at the solar supply chain, the EU has some strong assets on which it could develop this ecosystem. The EU has one of the strongest, or rather is one of the strongest producers of polysilicon worldwide, but also has globally competitive manufacturers of inverters and trackers. With the exception of the period of COVID-related related supply chain turbulence, the increasingly rapid deployment of solar energy across the EU has been driven over the years by the decreasing costs and prices. Colleagues, since 2023, a global oversupply and a surge of imports in the EU has put under strong pressure the solar supply chains. Solar panel prices have plummeted by over 40 %. These falling prices are an opportunity for citizens and solar panel installers as it supports internal demand, and it is clearly a challenge to EU solar panel producers. Our European solar panel manufacturers have their modules in stock suffering from losses and are forced to scale back or freeze production lines. As spelled out by the International Energy Agency in its outlook, the uncertainties on the evolution of prices are high: on the one hand, global solar panel deployment is expected to further accelerate. On the other hand, the deployment of massive expansion of production is also in the making, mainly in China, and this situation might remain. The EU is therefore actively working on a vast set of instruments to support the solar industry. In order to support the acceleration of the green transition, the EU adopted the Green Deal industrial plan: it creates a supportive environment to scale up the EU’s net-zero industry, including solar. As part of this plan, the Commission presented a proposal for a net-zero industry act, which is at the final stretches of the negotiations between Parliament and the Council. We hope that both institutions will find an ambitious agreement on this important piece of legislation in the trilogue tomorrow. The net-zero industry act (NZIA) includes several measures relevant for the solar panel sector. In particular, it aims at the leveraging of public demand through renewable energy auctions and public procurement, using resilience and sustainability criteria to favour the diversification of the sourcing of net-zero technologies. The NZIA package will include guidelines and recommendations to help EU Member States to make full use of the flexibilities under the existing legislative framework, which already allows the inclusion of non-price criteria in competitive auctions and procurements. Some EU Member States are already using these flexibilities. By applying more systemically objective, transparent and non-discriminatory non-price criteria, the resilience and sustainability contributions of the different offers will be better taken into consideration by EU Member States, and that will contribute to diversifying their source of supply. Additionally, to organise and support the EU solar industry in scaling up, the Commission also launched the European Solar PV Industry Alliance, which set itself the target of 30 GW of production capacity along the value chain by 2025. This is a pipeline of projects waiting for a financing decision. The European Investment Bank has recently adopted a financial package to boost the production capacity of high-performance bifacial PV modules, and this is to be done by one of the EU key manufacturers in Italy. Europe’s biggest solar factory, 3SUN, secured EUR 560 million’s worth of financing from the EIB and a pool of Italian banks led by UniCredit and backed by the Italian export credit agency. On the financing side, the current state aid framework – the temporary crisis and transition framework – allows Member States to provide support to new investments in clean tech industries, including solar panels. EU Member States can use this flexibility. In less than a year, since March 2023, the Commission has approved 9 schemes with a budget of over EUR 12 billion for strategic equipment necessary for the net-zero transition, including solar panels. Furthermore, several aid measures for solar panel manufacturers have been approved under the regional aid guidelines. Member States have until the end of 2025 to approve their plans and, as I said, several of them have already done so. As regards EU funds, the Innovation Fund has so far granted support to new investment in solar manufacturing projects to the tune of EUR 400 million over two years. The ongoing call for proposals has a strong focus on manufacturing. The objective of the new Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform is precisely to support sectors like solar panel manufacturing. In addition, we need to ensure that solar panels installed in the EU are produced in a sustainable manner. This is why the Commission is working on developing eco-design and energy labelling requirements. Other horizontal legislation might also be relevant for this sector, such as the regulation to ban products made using forced labour. The EU is also working with reliable third countries on reinforcing our supply chains. We share a common interest in de-risking our joint over-dependency by promoting the diversification of our sourcing. For instance, the EU is cooperating actively with the US and India in order to boost the development of the PV sector. Finally, when justified, the EU also has instruments to tackle unfair trade practices such as dumping of injurious subsidisation – when that is in the overall Union interest, we can take that action. Given that we currently rely to a very important degree on imports to reach EU solar deployment targets, any potential measure needs to be weighed against the objectives we have set ourselves when it comes to the energy transition. Thank you colleagues for your attention and I look forward to the debate.

– Madam President, thank you very much, colleagues, for all of the contributions. And I think we now need to move to the next stage, which is implementation of the regulation. What I want to see are that these new rules are implemented not just quickly, but smoothly. The payment sector is fully aware of what needs to be done and it has already started doing it. The deadlines are short but without deadlines there could be even further delays on instant payments, and this would deny consumers and businesses the chance of reaping the benefits of these instant payments. The payment sector can count on the support of the Commission, and we will make clarifications if questions arise during implementation. The work of supporting instant payments does not stop with this regulation. This is at EU level but there is also the wider international picture to consider, especially the G20’s ambition around instant payments internationally. And we are committed as a Commission to that international work on instant payments. And just as I finish, the honourable Member Mr Wallace will be glad to know that we do have on your desk at the moment a proposal referring to access and acceptability of cash. I certainly wasn’t the one who invented the phrase ‘cash is king’, but I’ve used it frequently because consumers want choice. They want the choice between digital and cash. And I hope that this House will pass the rules we have put in place to make sure that Member States abide by those requirements.

– Madam President, colleagues, I was almost was going to say ‘let me second the speech of the rapporteur’ and maybe start with a big thank you to Michiel Hoogeveen, because you worked tirelessly and effectively with the shadows to get this piece of legislation done in a very timely manner. The matter of instant payments should not be new, but it is not the norm and won’t be unless this legislation is in place. Instant payments are a very practical issue for all of us, businesses and citizens. The idea is very simple, allowing all of us to send and receive money in less than 10 seconds. Instant payments have a really powerful impact: consumers can easily avoid penalties for late payments and manage their household budgets more effectively. Businesses get better cash flow, which is really important for SMEs. Retailers get more options around payments, allowing them to offer better services to their customers, including instant refunds. NGOs and charities can receive contributions more quickly, especially when funds are urgently needed in times of crisis. In the public sector, too, there’s advantages in terms of cash flow and collecting fiscal revenues. Now we are not trailblazing in this area: this regulation will allow the EU to catch up with international markets like Brazil, India, Australia and the UK, where instant payments are growing fast. The technology to provide for instant payments is well established and, frankly, uptake has been too low in the EU. But your work in this chamber, and the colleagues who specifically worked on the file: your work will make a difference, it will change matters for the better. And I repeat the fact that you worked very effectively and in a timely way, and we would say that this is rare indeed on files in the European system. As Gaeilge, that’s in Irish, we would say ‘an rud is annamh is iontach’ – ‘what’s seldom is wonderful’. The outcome of the negotiations struck a very good balance: Parliament helped make sure that the regulation is ambitious, and your work has also been welcomed by both payment service users and providers. You led important changes, allowing payment institutions and electronic money institutions to become eligible to participate in designated payment systems, improving consumer protection against fraud with your changes to the payment verification service, where providers will have to enable users to check whether the name and the IBAN match. This service will now be made available not just for instant payments, but for all non-instant payments, and this verification service will be provided to all users free of charge. I really do look forward to the vote on Wednesday. Colleagues, there are some files which test all our patience and reserves, but happily this is not one of them.

– Madam President, thank you, colleagues, for your contribution to this debate. The Commission is committed to upholding fundamental values in the area of detention and a high level of procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings in the European Union. At the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council at the end of January, the Commission reminded Member States to take the necessary steps at national level to align their practices with the December 2022 Commission Recommendation on detention. Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of their follow-up to this Recommendation within 18 months of its adoption. Based on this information, the Commission will assess the measures taken by Member States and submit a report at the end of 2024.

– Madam President, honourable Members, I want to thank the House for putting on the agenda of this plenary the situation of prisoners in Hungarian jails, including the case of Ilaria Salis. As you know, detention issues are mainly a competence and responsibility of the Member States, but the Charter of Fundamental Rights does require that, within the scope of EU law, detention conditions do not violate fundamental rights. In addition, all EU Member States have committed to respect standards on this matter from the Council of Europe, such as the 2006 European Prison Rules, at EU level in December 2022. The Commission adopted a Recommendation on the procedural rights of suspects and accused persons subject to pre-trial detention and on material detention conditions. While the minimum standards laid down in the recommendation are not legally binding on Member States, they serve as a reference point to improve the situation in prisons within the EU. The issue of detention is one of the priorities of the Belgian Presidency of the Council. The topic of small—scale detention was discussed at the informal Justice Council on 26 January. I would like to draw your attention to EU legislation which is relevant here. The Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 2009 on the European supervision order allows suspected persons to be supervised in their home country while awaiting trial in another Member State. It has been transposed by Hungary and Italy. The Framework Decision aims to prevent inequalities between residents and non-residents in the trial state. This is because non-residents are remanded in custody more often than residents in similar circumstances. The Commission is aware that bilateral contacts have taken place between Italy and Hungary. They have discussed the possibility of alternatives to detention in the case of Ms Salis, including the possibility of house arrest, while she awaits trial. This situation would be in line with the Council conclusions on alternative measures to detention, adopted during the Finnish Presidency in 2019. These conclusions point out that non-custodial sanctions and measures should be considered where they are appropriate to the circumstances of a case. I would like to underline that the Commission is available to help find a viable solution within the EU framework. The Commission attaches great importance to the respect for procedural rights for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. The EU has adopted six procedural rights directives to establish EU—wide minimum standards for a high level of fair trial rights. These rights include the right to interpretation and translation, the right to information and access to the materials of the case and, in particular, all materials essential to effectively challenge the lawfulness of an arrest or detention. They also include the presumption of innocence, from which derives the prohibition on presenting suspects and accused persons as being guilty in court or in public through the use of measures of physical restraint. The Commission’s priority is to make sure that all these rights are correctly and effectively implemented in practice by the Member States. Where necessary, the Commission will not hesitate to launch infringement proceedings if there are violations of EU law. More generally, the Commission will continue to monitor the efficiency, quality and independence of the national justice systems of Member States through its annual Rule of Law Reports and the EU Justice Scoreboard.

– Mr President, thank you, colleagues, for all of these really important contributions. The first thing I would say is that this is not a theoretical debate. This is about the real world of channelling money, investments to the green transition. I am pleased that there is a big interest in this topic. Most people see the value of the work we have done together. Some would have liked more, some would have liked none. So I think we are in a very good place. I would also remind ourselves when we are having a nice debate that we have done an awful lot together – this Parliament, the Council and the Commission – in the area of sustainable finance initiatives and we should value what we have done. For me, the real moment of success is that we make sure all of these fit together and work well together. And I think we have work to do in that area. So it’s really important that we keep discussing sustainable finance and how EU initiatives can best contribute. I want to address some of the issues raised in the debate. So, firstly, raised by some colleagues in relation to the funding of nuclear projects, we have had our discussion on this. Nuclear is included in the Taxonomy Complementary Delegated Act so these nuclear projects can be funded using the green bond standard. But it is very, very important to stress that this will be clearly indicated in disclosure documents. So, should people want to invest in nuclear, it will be clear, and should investors not want to, that is also very clear. It goes to the point of the rapporteur, who’s behind me now. I thought you’d left the Chamber, but never. You always stay for all debates, Mr Tang. But just to say: your word on transparency is absolutely key. Another point raised – I think the Member has left the Chamber, but there is a colleague who has remained – in the area of the taxonomy. The taxonomy does not cover, yet, all activities. This is absolutely true. But I think you have heard me say on many occasions that the taxonomy is a work in progress. It will be expanded to include many more activities. I know colleagues mentioned agriculture, forestry, fishery. I know that these are topics we will have to deal with in the future. In relation to a comment made by the Member to my left around polluting companies continuing to pollute. No, no, no. The idea of us having standards and using this label is that not only will we have more sustainable economic activities, but those that are not sustainable today can use this if they have literally clear transition plans, and this shows their intent towards sustainability. And remember things are audited now and will be in the future. On the question of speculation and markets raised by another colleague and about socially damaging: our work on sustainable finance is just beginning. Because in a very short period of months, we will have companies being judged not just on return on investment and profit. Profit is important, but we will equally be judging companies on their addressing sustainability issues. So investors can see very clearly those companies that are working towards this green and more digital future than we have today. That is a remarkable development and I hope we understand fully that we are all part of something that is unique that Europe is leading on. And we can – and I’m sure Paul Tang will encourage me – do much, much more. So, our green bond standard is not here to replace existing standards. Indeed, it’s our intention that this standard will compete with those that are already in the marketplace and win over issuers and investors. Again, my sincere thanks to this House for putting the European green bond standard into the very best starting position and also for your continued commitment to this agenda, which is key in terms of achieving the green and digital transition. And, as Paul will rightly have the last word, our rapporteur, can I just say thank you for your opening remarks focusing on trust, transparency and –what was the third one? – transition. How could I forget? Thank you for reminding me. It’s always good to have somebody behind you.

– Madam President, well done to our rapporteur, Paul Tang. Before I begin my speech, Paul is tenacious and able and absolutely committed to the sustainability agenda and I salute that. I was also a tough MEP, so it’s important to have you and thank you for all of the efforts you make and the push you give. Dear colleagues, to those who’ve been involved in this file, a huge thank you to you as a team of negotiators. You have done good work. I think we’re all in a good mood here because we have reason to celebrate. You know, Paul, I very much liked your speech of transparency, trust and transition. They’re three important Ts. And for me, we are now taking a very big step to making the European green bond standard a reality. We talked about it for a long time. It is now becoming a reality. We’re also a step closer to companies issuing their own European green bonds, to companies meeting our ambitious criteria in the standard to raise money for the green transition. And we are a step closer to a complete EU sustainable finance framework. I do say, and I hope you will agree, that the final text strikes the right balance between ambition and pragmatism. Thanks to this balance, we have a real chance to make this standard the gold standard for green bonds. Our European green bond standard is based on the EU taxonomy and the detailed criteria it sets out for sustainable activities so both issuers and investors can be assured of the credentials of any bonds issued using the standard. And there are high levels of transparency. The standard will help issuers raise capital for green investments. It will make it easier for investors to pick sustainable investment opportunities. Crucially, it will fight and help us to continue fighting greenwashing. External reviewers of the European green bond standard will be subject to European supervision, and this is a first for green bonds. ESMA will be in charge of supervising reviewers that want to offer their services to the issuers of European green bonds. This will help ensure these reviewers have the right procedures and structures in place and it will give them the credibility they need to build up their businesses. Something that’s really positive is the attention paid to making sure that this is a process accessible also to smaller reviewers. I think this is one crucial part of our work because a vibrant market needs issuers and reviewers that are both big and small to be able to participate. We hope the European green bond standard will spur issuers to be ambitious when seeking funding for green projects. Now, all that said, we still have work to do. The European green bond standard is voluntary. That means it will have to prove itself in a crowded marketplace. Issuers and investors alike need to see it as an attractive option. The Commission and ESMA have to put in place technical measures to make sure that the standard functions effectively in practice. The Commission will also prepare user-friendly disclosure templates. These templates can be used by all issuers of green bonds, whether they use the European green bond standard or not, as well as sustainability linked bonds. They will help connect issuers of green bonds, making at least some use of the EU taxonomy, with investors who want clear and standardised access to information about those green bonds. The Commission will also keep supporting the Parliament and the Council to reach agreement on the Listing Act. The Commission confirms its intention to treat any potential mandates to develop standardised annexes for the disclosure of environmental, social and governance-related information in the EU prospectus with swiftness, taking into account the experience with the voluntary guidelines prepared for green bonds in the European Green Bond Regulation. This statement in relation to ESG has been transmitted to Parliament. Finally, I really want to give you my thanks again. You know that we have reached this milestone together. Next, we want this European green bond standard to be widely used, because that will be a measure of success. I know that I can count on you for your support to encourage market players to make this happen, and I look forward to our debate.

– Madam President, thank you, colleagues, it’s true to say that there were many speakers in this debate, so the issue is of concern to both sides of this debate. I very much welcome not just the personal stories of where farmers have been very badly impacted by attacks on their livestock by wolves, but also those who are concerned about changes that might occur. I don’t have experience of wolf attacks in the Member State I know best, but I do know and have seen what dogs can do when they attack sheep. Not only do they kill them, but they traumatise. So we must at this point extend sympathy and empathy to those farmers who are impacted. Indeed, as some colleagues raise the issue of bear attacks and fatalities equally, we have to here in this House express our sympathy to those who are so impacted. I want to refer to this morning’s speech by President Ursula von der Leyen when she spoke about farmers and rightly recognised the important role of our farming community. She called for more dialogue and less polarisation, she said, ‘I am and remain convinced that agriculture and protection of the natural world can go hand in hand.’ I think with that in our minds, I will again repeat the work we are doing in the Commission on this topic. We have listened to the concerns. We are collecting the information and we will decide on a proposal to modify, if that is appropriate, the protection status of the wolf in the European Union and whether to update the legal framework to introduce, where necessary, additional flexibility in light of the information that we will gather. So we are being proactive on this. We will respect the many different views in this House, and I hope that we can come to a conclusion which will satisfy all, because restoring nature is important, but also the concerns of farmers need to be taken into account. I think the work we are doing, with the support of Parliament, will help bring some closure, if you like, to this important debate. On the issue of coexistence, as many of you have spoken about, I think that is the desirable place that we need to be. I would also say that Member States do have instruments that they can use at the moment to take action where there are serious problems. So I think working together we can find the solution. I know there are some visitors in the gallery and they have been listening to horrible bedtime stories of the wicked wolves and poor grandmothers, and whatever. I suppose all of us know that in our childhood about the wolf. But we know the wolf also has a place in nature, and that needs to be respected as well. I will say that the Commission intend to work rapidly on this and, by the end of the year, come forward with a response to the information that we receive. Lastly, we often hear about Europe needing to be closer to people. I hope that this debate reflects how close we are, because many of the people – the farmers – we’re talking about live in very remote regions. And I think it is really important that they know that we are debating issues of concern to them while also recognising that in other parts of Europe there are huge concerns about restoring nature. So let us go back to what the President spoke about: more dialogue, less polarisation.

– Mr President, good afternoon, colleagues, thank you, Herbert, for setting out the debate today. We are talking about the situation of wolves and other large carnivores in the European Union. And I do recall the resolution of this House of 24 November last year on the protection of livestock farming and large carnivores in Europe. The Commission submitted detailed replies on 7 March and we are making good progress on all of the elements set out in that reply. The wolf, the bear and the lynx are large carnivores that are native species here in Europe. They are part of Europe’s biodiversity and natural heritage, and we are all committed to their protection and conservation through European and international law. They play an important role, helping to keep ecosystems balanced and healthy. In practice, they help to regulate the density and distribution of overabundant wild species like wild boar or deer. Wolves remove the most vulnerable wild animals, which are very often diseased. And this in turn helps reduce the incidence of diseases that are transmitted to livestock. But of course, this is only one part of the story. It is clear that the return of wolves to regions of the EU where they have long been absent and the growth of wolf populations in new areas is a delicate topic. It is increasingly leading to conflicts with local communities and farmers. And this is especially the case where measures to prevent attacks on livestock are not widely implemented. We fully understand the reality of attacks on livestock and we acknowledge the problem for the farmers concerned. So I want to stress that the Commission takes the problem of wolves preying on livestock very seriously. Mitigating the impact of wolf attacks on livestock is a priority, and indeed, it has been a priority for a long time – at the very start of the Habitats Directive and the LIFE programme. This goal has become even more prominent in recent years. More and more Member States are using the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to support action and investment to prevent damage to livestock. For the period up to 2027, 15 Member States have included measures in their CAP strategic plans, providing concrete solutions for farmers and local communities, and many authorities provide full compensation to farmers whenever wolves or other large carnivores cause damage. But I do acknowledge that for farmers, when this happens, it is a traumatic event. To support national and regional authorities, in October 2021, the Commission published new guidance with practical tips on how to reconcile protecting wildlife with human activities. This also clarified the scope and conditions for derogations to manage the wolf and other species. Now, in parallel, we have had to make sure we base our policies on the most accurate and up-to-date information. So in March this year, the Commission committed to carrying out an in-depth analysis on wolves in the EU, taking into account all available scientific and technical data. And this analysis is now underway. It started in April in cooperation with Member States and stakeholder representatives in the relevant expert group. Last week we launched a new phase in our work. We broadened our data collection exercise in order to obtain a complete picture. We are inviting local communities, scientists and all interested parties to submit up-to-date data on wolf populations and their impacts by 22 September. And based on the analysis of all the collected data, the Commission will draw conclusions on the situation of the wolf in the EU. We will then decide on a proposal to modify, if appropriate, the protection status of the wolf within the EU and whether to update the legal framework to introduce, where necessary, additional flexibility in the light of the information we gather. So thank you for this debate and I look forward to your contributions.

– Mr President, I think this was a really important debate because this is your work and we need to make sure, as a Commission, that we implement fully and effectively, as I emphasised in my opening remarks. And I want to re-emphasise that that is our job, our duty, and we do it sincerely and – we hope – effectively. We are working hard to promote effective transposition that maintains the level playing field and avoids the risk of regulatory arbitrage. But I would stress again, colleagues: those who want Member States to have more ambition, they remain free, of course, to go beyond this Directive. I also would take note of the remark that was made by a colleague who said undue interference on Member States. And perhaps from my experience of being a parliamentarian and now a Commissioner, I would say that Member States don’t welcome undue interference, but they do welcome guidelines and clarity, and it is our job as a Commission to do that when it is required. I think in this particular case, when we talk about the implications of gold-plating in the information note we sent to Member States, it is important we do that where it applies to third-country multinationals who are operating in the European Union through branches and subsidiaries, because they can be located in several Member States. Patchy implementation of the country-by-country reporting due to gold-plating could lead to an unlevel playing field and potentially to forum shopping by third country multinationals. As a briefing requested by the JURI Committee of the European Parliament in 2018 rightly indicated, gold-plating of EU measures may significantly hinder the implementation of EU law, and national parliaments should strive to avoid this practice. Again, as the guardians of the Treaty, the Commission should recall the risks associated with the practice, and indeed that’s what we have done in the information note. One of the colleagues mentioned that 17 Member States have not yet transposed; 10 have. We will do our duty to make sure that the 17 get more active on this important piece of legislation, and implement fully and effectively. I want to go through some of the questions and reply to them, if I may. First of all, I thank my former colleague, Markus Ferber, for his appreciation of my work. As he said himself, he doesn’t often praise me so it’s welcome. However, I also respect the work of our rapporteur, Ms Regner. And I would say, with all due respect, about the word ‘appears’ to limit transparency. I voted for this as a Member of this Parliament. I would not stand over anything that gives the appearance or, indeed, the possibility of limiting transparency. You and I both know that this is important for public trust and for the European Union to lead in this regard. I also would say that, again, I think the comment was made that we would lower the ambition of some Member States. We cannot and would not insist on lowering the ambition of Member States. They are free to go further. We just point out the level playing field implications. And again, if the word used is it ‘seems’ that this is undue interference, this is indeed not the case. We would have had discussions with Member States and stakeholders about implementation. We were answering questions that they had raised with us. Ms Aubry, thank you for your intervention. I absolutely agree with you that we need to shine a light on this, and your work in this Parliament – and mine when I was here – did just that around transparency. I would thank you for the new letter of yesterday, which I have read and, indeed, will be replying to. But you asked me a very important question and I need to answer this, because we know we have worked together over time. You asked me, ‘who are you working for?’ In this House, as an elected member of this House, I worked for the people that I represented in my Member State. My role now as a Commissioner is to make sure that we as a Commission do our duty: guardians of the Treaty, respect the work of the co-legislators, make proposals and then, when they’re amended, see that they are fully implemented. I have no other authority or individual to report to, and I absolutely – because of my work here in this Parliament, and I hope that the public gallery will appreciate this – those in this House who work very hard on legislation are committed to the public good, as I am. So I hope that gives you some comfort in relation to your particular questions. So, to finalise my comments, I think this is very useful. I think the Commission should be kept on our toes, and I appreciate and fully respect your role in that regard. But I hope that today’s comments by me and my further replies to your letter will convince you – if that is still necessary – that we are fully focused on effective implementation of this transparency Directive on tax. I was going to say timely but, as you know, 17 Member States have not yet done the work. We will now focus on them and make sure that they do. We will also be checking that the transposition work of the 10 Member States who have complied is effective. So thank you for this opportunity. And if I don’t get the chance again, could I wish you all a relaxing summer break. I think we all need it.

– Mr President, a very good morning, colleagues and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the ongoing transposition of the Public Country-by-Country Reporting Directive by our Member States and the work of the Commission in this area. And maybe to recall that when I was a Member of this House, I voted in favour of this directive, and as Commissioner I oversaw the finalisation of negotiations. The Commission stands fully and firmly behind this directive. It is an important transparency measure that will enable everyone to see where big multinational corporations that are active in the European Union pay tax. So it’s important to make sure that it is implemented correctly. And this is the context for the Commission paper you have expressed concerns about. The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties. It is the Commission’s duty to ensure that EU law is correctly transposed in national law and correctly applied in practice. As part of this, the Commission works with Member States to help them implement directives correctly and on time. And this is in line with the text, of course, as agreed by the co-legislators. The Commission’s services follow the better regulation guidelines when helping Member States to transpose directives. These guidelines were developed in line with the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission on Better Law-Making. The Commission aims to prevent Member States from imposing unjustified obligations that go beyond the legislation or that could disrupt the level playing field. And this is what is known as ‘gold-plating’. The better regulation guidelines state that when transposing directives, Member States should refrain from unjustified gold-plating – in other words, adopting transposition measures that go beyond the requirements of the directive – and ensure a level playing field. Gold-plating has a negative impact on the single market. The level playing field is a fundamental principle of the single market. The level playing field helps make sure that all businesses in the single market compete on fair and open terms. And this is true for this directive, just as it is for any other directive. The Commission helps Member States to keep national transposition as close as possible to what the co-legislators agreed. Working in partnership with Member States on implementing EU law is one of the main features of the Commission’s enforcement policy, and this is to ensure that EU laws are applied correctly and on time. Technical work includes organising transposition, workshops and providing guidance documents. Most of the topics discussed during the pre-transposition phase are based on issues or questions raised by Member States, but also on the Commission services’ analysis. It is in this context that the Commission services drafted the information paper. This paper mainly addresses technical issues and was discussed with Member States during two workshops before being finalised. These meetings were held to help Member States to implement EU law correctly and consistently. The paper is addressed to Member States as it is Member States that are responsible for transposing directives into national measures. In particular, the paper draws Member States’ attention to difficulties that third-country multinational companies may experience when making their reports due to different national rules. These differences arise when European rules are transposed differently. The paper identified only a limited number of areas of concern, and there were three: the scope of application, the content of a company’s report and the audit requirement for subsidiaries. Gold-plating will make it harder for these companies to comply with different national rules, possibly to a point where legal certainty is at stake. These differences could also lead to regulatory arbitrage, where companies take advantage of differences in law to circumvent requirements, but is also bad for the single market. Indeed, you may ask why this paper now on this particular directive? This directive is one of the first of its kind and, as something new, it was to be expected that the Member States would ask the Commission for guidance. The directive, as the co-legislators agreed, strives to ensure that through their subsidiaries and branches in the EU, third-country multinational companies doing business in the EU provide the same information as EU-based multinational companies. These subsidiaries or branches may be located in several Member States. This feature is the main reason behind the information paper: should Member States adopt different rules? But I also want to emphasise that informing Member States of the drawbacks of gold-plating does not mean prohibiting anything. Ultimately, Member States can add reporting obligations as they see fit. The Commission’s decision to propose this legislation dates back to 2016. Colleagues, you know that the European Union is a front runner globally in tax transparency. I look forward to seeing the first reports published by multinational companies under this directive. We welcome public scrutiny on where companies earn their profits and where they pay their corresponding corporate tax. Transparency by tax payments to understand how large multinationals operate is vital for public trust and confidence in the fairness of our tax system. I look forward to hearing your concerns now and hope that I have clarified the Commission’s work in ensuring implementation in full and on time.

– Mr President, honourable Members, the European Union is extremely concerned about the Kyrgyz Republic’s recent decisions around freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the media. The new draft law on mass media, in addition to the previously adopted law on the protection against false, unreliable information, is worrying. We are closely following deliberations in the Kyrgyz Parliament. Since 2021, when the law on disinformation was introduced in Kyrgyzstan, the Ministry of Culture is legally entitled to shut down any media outlet it deems problematic. It allows the government to block certain types of information without a court order, solely on the basis of a complaint by either a private person or a legal entity. This is a blatant violation of the right to freedom of expression. We are also witnessing serious threats against human rights activists and journalists, for example, against Bolot Temirov, who was illegally expelled to Russia in May 2022. And we’re seriously concerned by the recent court decision to close as Azattyk Media, the local branch of Radio Free Europe. We are systematically raising our concerns about the freedom of press and media in Kyrgyzstan, as well as general concerns about the human rights situation with the Kyrgyz authorities at every level. During the annual EU-Kyrgyzstan Human Rights Dialogue in September 2022, we expressed strong concerns about the negative trend for fundamental human rights, notably the shrinking space for civil society and the increasing pressure on freedom of speech. We also raised a number of individual cases, including those of the journalists Bolot Temirov and Kamil Ruziev. We reiterated our concerns during the latest Cooperation Council with Kyrgyzstan on 15 November 2022 in Brussels. The signature and entry into force of the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the Kyrgyz Republic will strengthen our partnership, but also increase the EU’s leverage. As part of the agreement, both the EU and Kyrgyzstan commit to respecting democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the principles of the rule of law. The EU will continue to support human rights activists and civil society in Kyrgyzstan, as we do worldwide. This is a fundamental principle of the European Union. The EU frequently issued statements in support of activists who are under pressure by law enforcement, and it attends and monitors court cases where human rights activists are involved. In the last 20 years, we have provided more than EUR 30 million to projects related to rule of law and human rights. For example, with our ongoing Monitoring for Justice project, we are supporting the Kyrgyz state and civil society in putting in place monitoring mechanisms to improve scrutiny of human rights compliance, identifying protection gaps, and continue to effective enforcement. The EU delegation is currently also evaluating new proposals for additional EU-funded civil society initiatives. At the same time, the Kyrgyz Republic has committed to upholding universal human rights internationally. And as a current member of the UN Human Rights Council, it bears a special responsibility in this regard. Honourable Members, let me reassure you that the EU will continue monitoring developments in Kyrgyzstan closely, and we will continue calling on the authorities for accountability if they do not respect fundamental rights enshrined in the country’s constitution, its laws and the international conventions it has signed up to.

– Mr President, honourable Members, I really would like to reassure you that the European Union is following the situation in the state of Manipur closely. And we are very saddened, deeply saddened by the large number of deaths and of injured and displaced persons since violence erupted in Manipur at the beginning of May. The Indian authorities have taken a number of measures to address this very tense situation. A commission of inquiry has been set up to investigate incidents of violence. A peace committee has been established with broad participation to facilitate peace negotiations and dialogue between the conflicting groups. We hope that these measures will very soon bring results so that this wave of violence and the profound mistrust between the communities comes to an end. India is a strategic partner of the EU. Our relations are based on mutual respect, and the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms are at the core of our partnership. We discuss regularly with India the challenges and best approaches on human rights in both Europe and India. The annual EU—India human rights dialogue provides a good platform for frank and open discussion between us. The last meeting took place in July of last year and the next one should happen by the end of the year. The EU is ready to support our Indian friends, if requested, in their efforts towards rebuilding peace and trust between the different groups in Manipur.

– Madam President, good evening, honourable Members, the lengthy political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela continues as the 2024 presidential elections approach and political negotiations in Mexico between the Maduro government and the opposition remain stalled. Currently, the democratic opposition forces in Venezuela are preparing to hold primaries in October to elect a common candidate that can unite them in the next year’s elections. A recent decision by the office of the Comptroller General has banned the opposition leader from all elected office for a 15-year period. She joins other disqualified opposition figures, including Henrique Capriles and Freddy Superlano. This is a very worrying development. The High Representative reacted swiftly with a statement, expressing, and I quote, ‘deep concern with the decisions intended to prevent members of the opposition from exercising their core political rights [...] These decisions undermine democracy and the rule of law, and will only deepen the long-standing political and social crisis in Venezuela’. The European Union stands by the people of Venezuela and supports them in their search for a peaceful and democratic solution, starting with credible, transparent and inclusive presidential elections next year. The 23 recommendations of the EU Election Observation Mission aim to help Venezuelans improve the electoral process, including around political disqualifications by means of an administrative decision. The EU continues to call on the Venezuelan authorities to make full use of these recommendations and expresses its readiness to support their implementation. This is becoming urgent as the elections are just around the corner. The European Union will continue to closely follow the human rights situation in Venezuela, including the issue of political prisoners. The EU supports all international human rights mechanisms in place, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Caracas, the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission and the International Criminal Court. The European Union will continue to work with international and regional partners in support of Venezuelan-led negotiations, building on efforts to seek an end to the political, socioeconomic and humanitarian crisis. One clear example was the Bogotá Conference on Venezuela last April. Only a Venezuelan-led negotiated political solution will allow the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in Venezuela.

– Madam President, and good evening. This is a rather special debate. My thanks to the select few who have contributed two excellent contributions. It is about quality, not volume. Can I just say thank you to rapporteur Peter—Hansen in particular, for her comment about nature restoration and the banking debate. In fact, we need the Banking Union and Capital Markets Union in order to provide the investment needed for nature restoration and the climate challenge. So while there aren’t many here, I think it is important for us to state very clearly that the work you’ve done on this report, which is excellent, with the shadows, is very important – and not to the financial system alone; this is about the economy and society. We need to say that very loud and very clear indeed. What I’d love is during the European election campaigns of 2024, the people would ask us about the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union. I live in hope, and I think, Madam rapporteur your words should encourage people to do that. So you know the Commission’s position on the Banking Union, we know that we need to develop and strengthen and it is a work in progress. The good news on one part is that the Council and Parliament recently agreed to the final implementation of the Basel international banking standards in the EU. This is really welcome as it is a major contribution to the single rulebook. After 15 years we are turning the page on the post—financial crisis reforms and we can look to the future. But we still have this unfinished business with the Banking Union, and that’s why this debate is important. You rightly say, Madam Rapporteur, that we recently adopted the proposal for crisis management and deposit insurance (CMDI) back in April. It is an important reform and will help to address some of the challenges with how the rules are working in practice. It builds on the experience we gathered on the ground since 2014 and addresses many of the observations you make in your report. The review offered a good opportunity to look at what worked well and indeed what didn’t work so well. The goal of the reform is to ensure a more consistent approach to managing bank failures in the European Union, because we want to make sure that any bank can exit the market smoothly, regardless of its size or business model or location. This reform will strengthen financial stability, protect taxpayers and improve the confidence of depositors across the European Union. But most importantly, this reform is also intended to build new momentum, to relaunch discussions on completing the Banking Union. As you rightly point out in your report, the CMDI Review is not, and should not be, a substitute for completing the Banking Union. The big missing element remains a European deposit insurance scheme (EDIS). EU citizens should be able to open a bank account wherever they are in the EU with the same level of protection. If we want every euro deposited anywhere in the Banking Union to have the same value, then we need to give it the same level of protection through a common deposit insurance scheme. A common European safety net will deliver more resilience to the system more efficiently, and it will make national schemes less vulnerable to large, local or systemic shocks. This will pave the way for deeper market integration – and that’s critical for growth and resilience – as well as allowing the banking sector to better compete internationally. There are different design options for EDIS and we acknowledge them in our communication. Alongside the crisis management proposals, we must continue working to finalise a more resilient and integrated Banking Union. I am confident that the CMDI proposal will pave the path for EDIS and that it will help us make a fully—fledged Banking Union a reality. But I really cannot say this strongly enough: we need the Banking Union. It will help the EU banking sector not only to weather geopolitical and financial turmoil, but also to boost its profitability and competitiveness. Again, it will help finance the green and digital transitions. It will make sure that our safety nets are effective and that enough funding is available to handle failing banks across the Banking Union in times of crisis. Last but not least, it will benefit European citizens because depositor confidence is a public good and we are responsible for protecting it. So I encourage the European Parliament to remain ambitious on these files and I look forward to continuing to work with you on completing the Banking Union.

– Mr President, thank you, colleagues, for what has been a very rich and very important debate. In fact, 15 Members looked for catch-the-eye, and in my time that’s a record. So it shows the extent of interest and concern about farming, the Green Deal and food production. You will have watched me take copious notes because I was a journalist. In fact, I was one of those journalists who broadcast on the national broadcaster, RTÉ, showing farmers how to drain the land, rip out hedgerows, use lots of fertiliser to ramp up production, because that was public policy at that time, decades ago. Before I left journalism, we had turned the page and I was producing programmes showing farmers how to plant hedgerows, stop draining land and how to be more careful with inputs. So public policy changes all the time and we, as policymakers, need to explain better why these changes are necessary. If you look at CAP reform, today the new CAP will actually support natural habitats, because in the past there were no payments on these habitats and farmers naturally removed habitats in order to qualify for payments. We’ve changed that and rightly so – not before time. How farmers ‘feel’: I heard this word used and I think we cannot ignore feelings, because perception is reality for those who feel. The words ‘respect’, ‘dignity’, ‘value’ were used. I take those words to heart because I think we in the Commission fully respect the dignity and we value our farmers. But if there is a sense that that is not the case, I hope it’s heard loud and clear in this Chamber on behalf of the Commission. I do acknowledge the sense of frustration because – hands up – I live on a farm, with a farmer. And he doesn’t just tell me his own woes, but he talks to me about the neighbours. The farms where there is no one interested in taking over the farm in our parish, in our community. The young farmers who are doing their best to adapt to the new techniques and want support to do it. And maybe the older ones – perhaps like himself – who remember being told to do different things and are a little bit confused by what we’re asking them to do. So thank you to those who called for this debate. Maybe we needed it months ago – perhaps to clear the air. And the one thing I would ask us all to focus on today from this debate: be very focused on our shared objectives, because the vast majority of the speakers spoke about wanting a sustainable agriculture, a sustainable countryside, farmers that are free to farm and do it in a way that is close to the climate and the environmental objectives. If we keep the focus on where we want to go, let us together find a path. I said, and I repeat, the Commission is listening very carefully to all of the contributions and the concerns. On nature restoration, we have an impact assessment. The concerns about 10% of the area committed to nature restoration – it’s not an objective overnight, perhaps over time. But we are committed to accommodating those who have real concerns about it being implemented in a blanket way. Agriculture is complex because it’s about people, it’s about place, it’s about culture, it’s about society. I – for my sins – studied agricultural economics. And, I can tell you, that’s not simple either. But I learned two things there. One is that if you want to see change happen, you need to use the tools of sociology, of support, of encouragement. Not finger pointing – I agree so I’ll put my hands down. I won’t point any fingers because I want our farmers to be facilitated in the change we are asking them to make. And secondly, around farming, many spoke about disappearing farms and farmers. They don’t disappear; farmers make some choices. Many are forced to make choices to farm elsewhere. Some farm part time. I think there is a question as we evolve in developed societies, there are usually less and less farmers, and that is an issue for us about how we are going to be sustainable. So we need to think long and hard how we accommodate the choices young people make, if they earn better incomes elsewhere. It’s something that we can work on together. And finally, I just want to say that these notes that I have taken and highlighted will be brought back to my colleagues in the Commission because, frankly, our rural areas are so important to delivering the Green Deal that you have all signed up to. And I believe that if we listen carefully to each other and to farmers and rural communities, we can find a way forward that allows them to farm with dignity and allows them to feel they are respected fully. And frankly, we’ve become very comfortable, because when the CAP started out a journey, there was hunger, and farmers responded and they fed us, so we never had to worry. So now with that spirit, I hope this House will work with the Council and Commission to deliver a new Green Deal for farmers that they can take ownership of and be proud of.

– Mr President, good morning, colleagues, I do want to raise the podium before I start – so apologies. I want to look you in the eye. This is a really, really important debate and I think it’s why so many Members are here this morning. And I want to thank my friend and colleague in Parliament, Minister Roswall, for her very crisp and clear reference to agriculture and its key role around sustainability. The issue about the translation was important to resolve because I do not want anything lost in translation in this key debate. And perhaps there are issues around that very point. The first thing to say is: Wednesday morning, European Parliament, Strasbourg, discussing agriculture and food is really important. This is a key debate. It acknowledges that our farmers and our food producers are absolutely essential to deliver a resilient agriculture and food sector. And I think farmers are much more than just enablers of the green transition. Frankly, it will not happen without farmers. And I think I believe many of you in this Chamber share my gratitude to our farmers. I had a very healthy breakfast this morning, so I want to thank those who produced the breakfasts that we all enjoyed, and those who work the land and in the food industry. We enjoy in Europe a food system with strong levels of safety and supply. It delivers a wide choice for consumers across our Member States, and it gives expression to our different cultures and traditions. Farmers are in a very unique position. They manage natural resources on which their livelihoods depend and, in turn, we depend on farmers’ ability to manage land, biodiversity and water, to generate food, feed, fibre, fuels and other biomass in a sustainable way, maintaining the resources in a good condition so that they can continue to produce for future generations. So our farmers and our farm workers are not only producers and stewards of the natural environment; they are also one of the first sectors to feel the harsh impacts of the climate and biodiversity crisis. The challenge we face is how to address unsustainable aspects of our food systems and support farmers in the green transition – building resilience, ensuring lasting food security – and this is what the European Green Deal agenda is all about. I want to start by addressing the issue of food security. Climate change, biodiversity loss and resource scarcity are some of the biggest threats we face today and, indeed, in the coming decades. And this is a threat to our food security. A resilient agricultural sector reduces the impact of climate disasters like droughts, floods and heatwaves. The Russian invasion of Ukraine brought to the fore the strategic importance of a resilient agri-food system. We experienced disruptive effects on production costs, on the availability of fertilisers and, more broadly, serious harm to global food security. We have significant food price inflation and this, as we know, impacts food affordability, particularly for low-income households. Our EU production capacity also faced pressure due to the devastating impacts of droughts last summer, which was the driest in 500 years. And we are again witnessing major droughts already this year, leading to severe water stress in certain European regions. Despite these difficulties, farmers have delivered – showing remarkable resilience while maintaining a reliable supply of food. But I think it is clear that to ensure food security, we need a resilient agri-food system, which brings me to my second point: the need for a green transition. We live in uncertain and very volatile times, so moving towards a more sustainable food system has to continue to guide the EU’s political policy and legislative agenda, as enshrined in our Green Deal. Addressing sustainability challenges in our path to ensuring food security not just for tomorrow, but for the longer term. And I think we all know that time is of the essence. I want to acknowledge and I know and understand that there are concerns about some legislative proposals before you – and I am here to listen to those concerns. But I think there is broad agreement amongst all of us on the objectives of having a more sustainable agriculture and food sector. And farmers themselves want this, too. So we need to look at all the proposals and see how they work together, rather than considering them separately. We are keen to engage in detailed discussions with you to forge the best possible legislative measures to ensure the productivity of EU agriculture today and in the future. But let’s stand back a little and look at some of the facts. We face a climate crisis and emissions from agriculture which, despite their relative low level, need to start coming down. And we must act decisively to halt and reverse the decline of biodiversity. Managing soils, water and air quality is key. I think you all know that about 80% of crops depend on animal pollination, and the value that we put on this is EUR 5 billion to our agriculture output. We have a dramatic decline of pollinators in Europe and this is a major threat to food production. And indeed, when it comes to the natural enemies of crop pests, their estimated contribution to pest control – so nature’s contribution – at least 50% of pest control occurring in crop yields happens through nature. And if we look to our soils, over 60% of soil in Europe is degraded, and this directly impacts soil health and its capacity to produce food. These are all vital resources that underpin yields for farmers and nutritious and healthy products for consumers. Our farmers are at the front line to address many of these challenges because they know that healthy soils and water management are important to secure their livelihoods. Agriculture provides solutions to mitigate climate change and restore natural resources. Farming practices, crop rotation, integrated pest management and conservation, tillage, indeed, conservation agriculture: these all help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve soil health. So we must strive for agricultural systems that are regenerative and part of the circular economy. Improved nutrient management, managing farm by-products and recycling are key. Supported by the common agricultural policy, EU farmers are well placed to move to these sustainable systems. And indeed, if you look at the figures in the strategic plans, over 30% – or close to EUR 98 billion – of total public funding delivers on these objectives. These systems can deliver carbon storage and play a role as important carbon sinks, and this is crucial for creating a new source of potential income for our farmers through carbon farming. Our proposal for carbon removal certification will enable this. Farming and forestry are the only sectors that can provide new materials without depleting the earth. The European Parliament, in 2021, demonstrated strong support for the EU Biodiversity Strategy. You understand how urgent it is to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. And while I’m speaking of water, bear with me. (The speaker drank from a glass of water) I didn’t do that for effect – I was just thirsty. But it actually makes the point that I could actually reach for a glass of clean water. There are many, many people around the world who cannot, who don’t have a glass and certainly don’t have clean water. So I hope it made a point as well as satisfied my thirst. And in one sense I’ve said a lot of what needs to be done, and I think the time is right to do this now. President von der Leyen – in her State of the Union in 2020 – said that nature is our first ally to adapt to the consequences of climate change. Because we need well-functioning ecosystems – they are the very basis for sustainable growth, including for our agriculture and fisheries sector. The Nature Restoration Law is actually the bedrock of the international commitments in the Kunming-Montreal deal on biodiversity. And you know, EU and Member States were instrumental in achieving a high level of ambition and clear targets. If I turn to pesticides, we need to reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides because the science on this is putting us in this direction. Not acting fast enough now will have a long-term effect on our food security into the future. And indeed, as I said, up to half of our crops depend on pollinators and these are at risk. There are alternative alternatives to chemical pesticides – crop rotation, plant breeding, new breeding techniques and biological pest controls – and we need to integrate those into our farming systems. Without the actions set out in our proposal for nature restoration and the sustainable use of pesticides, farmers’ livelihoods and, indeed, food security will be put at risk. Again, this is what the science is telling us. These proposals are about ensuring that there is a future for our farms, our farmers and those who work in the food supply chain. Our proposals aim to help farmers, not harm them. The Commission recognised the exceptional circumstances affecting the food system since the start of the Russian war. We have increased concerns about global food security and we were reminded about the important role that Europe – the European Union – plays in global food security. In our staff working document, in January of this year, we looked at the main drivers affecting food security – both the supply and demand sides in the short and the long term. And really the conclusion was that we do need to act on these issues now. A consistent and comprehensive implementation of the European Green Deal – including the farm to fork and biodiversity strategies – will help the EU secure a sustainable, inclusive and resilient food system within a realistic time frame and with necessary support instruments. Going beyond regulatory and support measures, there are needs for changes in terms of consumption, reduction of food waste and increased innovation to provide all the tools needed to achieve our sustainability objectives, without jeopardising productivity during the transition. The assessment concluded that the key challenge for policymakers is to pave the way for a transition towards a more sustainable and resilient food system that meets and reconciles short and long-term needs at the same time. And we do need to make sure that our policies are well designed and balanced. The Commission is listening carefully to the concerns expressed by this House, by Member States, by stakeholders, including farmers. So as a consequence, for example, the Commission showed its openness to consider alternatives to a total ban on the use of pesticides in sensitive areas. These alternatives are intended to safeguard agricultural production, while still protecting health and the environment. The Council has requested additional input and evidence, and that will be delivered to the Council – and in parallel to the European Parliament – around our assessment of impacts. And while the focus in the headlines is on food security and environmental performance, it’s true that our farming sector is facing other challenges that we cannot ignore. The sector does not attract people, so there is not a rush of young men and women to become farmers. This House is really concerned about the lack of generational renewal in agriculture, and this is the third, and it’s a key, point. We have a very diversified agriculture across our Member States, but we see this common problem. The number of farmers is declining. Small farmers are opting out, renting land or, indeed, selling. Farmers are ageing – the average is 57. There is some light at the end of this tunnel: we are seeing more women go into farming. And one figure that struck me is the increase in the share of women female farm managers – to 31%, which is encouraging. But I do think we share this concern about generational renewal and our policies have to support – as Member States are doing – young farmers to get established. But encouraging young men and women to farm will not succeed if they cannot earn decent incomes for their efforts. We also need to make our rural areas more attractive and dynamic, and farmers are at the core of this. Indeed, I would say that perhaps COVID lockdowns have encouraged people to think about moving and living in rural areas, but they need connectivity, schools, access to health and, of course, mobility. This is the European Year of Skills. I think when it comes to skills around translating research and innovation to farm level, we have to assist our farmers in giving them the knowledge and allowing them to put it into practice. And this is a key part of the strategic plans. It is a unique opportunity because the research is there and it just needs to be, as I say, drilled into the soils of Europe by our farmers. Farmers have an appetite for knowledge and they will change if they are given the tools to do that. Just to say that Europe invests EUR 9 billion in research and innovation on food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture and environment. That is a significant amount of funding and we need to make it work at farm level. I have overstayed my welcome. I’ve spoken for over nine minutes and I thank my friend, the Minister, for sharing her time with me. But what I wanted to do was to give justice to this debate, and to deal with the concerns that I have heard and those who want change to happen, but want to help and support our farmers in that direction. So we need farmers – maybe we need to say that louder and clearer – not just to produce our food, but also to tackle those many challenges I have addressed and, indeed, that you will as well. It goes without saying that farmers are the enablers in this agenda on sustainability, but they can only play their part with the right incentives, the right support instruments, the right skills and the right innovation. It is our shared responsibility to give farmers clarity about what we are doing and why. And I look forward now to all of your contributions.

– Madam President, this has been a really lively and very useful and important discussion. Now, whether you’re for or against, sceptical or an enthusiast for a potential digital euro, it is a political project and this Parliament is having its say and that will continue as it should. Mr Ferber, I think, is not in the chamber, but he asked a very big question, which, as a former journalist, I used to ask all the time: why? And I would say to this because we already have a very digitalised financial system and we need to look ahead and make sure that the digital euro is fit for the future. But let me just try and imagine, had we never been discussing a digital euro right now. So if it was not on the agenda and no preparations were being done. In a few years’ time, I think this House would be asking: why not? Why did you not prepare for the possibility of a digital central bank currency in Europe? I also note the study prepared by Parliament for the ECON Committee, with a very catchy headline. It says ‘Digital euro: when in doubt, abstain, but be prepared’. And I think that’s exactly what we are doing today and what we’ve been doing with the ECB over the last number of months. And it is still a work in progress. But I want to talk about cash because in my view, citizens, young and old, appreciate cash and appreciate choice. They may use a wallet for digital payments, but they appreciate access to cash. And I think it’s important to outline what we are doing when it comes to protecting the right to have access to cash. Issues concerning the acceptance of cash and access to it have emerged right across a number of our Member States, and it can lead to issues for people, particularly vulnerable groups. So unless we safeguard the acceptance of and access to cash, the effectiveness of legal tender could be undermined. If the Commission decides to grant legal tender status to the digital euro and define its meaning, we believe that we need to do the same for cash. So in the second quarter, the Commission will also propose a regulation on the legal tender status of euro cash based. The legislative proposal will be based on the 2021 ECJ new ruling judgment, which defines three key principles of legal tender: mandatory acceptance at full face value and the power to discharge payment obligations. I think when it comes to the issue of privacy, this was raised rightly by members in the House here and it is a very important topic, because privacy is a fundamental right and it’s a highly valued issue for citizens. And this has been clearly substantiated by the ECB consultation and our targeted consultation. We are also mindful of providing a solid framework to efficiently and effectively fight against money laundering and terrorism financing. So the regulation will aim to ensure that these objectives can be reconciled. So, for example, we could have an offline use to do proximity payments, peer-to-peer payments, and this would be important for citizens and in particular for unbanked people, as referenced in the debate. These offline payments could offer higher privacy. On the issue which was raised and rightly by MEP Hübner on retail versus wholesale, the Commission is examining central bank digital currencies in the broad sense, so the current work is focusing on a retail digital euro, which is also in the regulatory competence of the Commission. That said, the wholesale use of a digital euro in security settlements can also be of interest. The question also about the role of the euro for the future, the international role of the euro, the open strategic autonomy. All of these topics raised today are hugely important. I repeat the point that the digital euro needs a strong democratic underpinning, and Parliament’s views and support are essential within and beyond the legislative process. The digital euro will ensure the continued availability of central bank money and payments, and this will protect the stability of our monetary and payment system and ensure our open strategic autonomy. The digital euro would be an additional pan-European choice available for payments, and we will aim to ensure competition with the private payment sector and to avoid the disintermediation of banks. Let me just say something very clear in case you’ve missed it. This is not a Big Brother project or indeed a Big Sister project. But why does Big Brother sound much more alarming than Big Sister? But I say that in all sincerity and with some humour. I respect those who have that view. But frankly, I would ask us to calm down a little. We should not address this issue to citizens in this chamber as any sense of a project of control. It’s a project of choice. It’s also recognising that the citizens in this chamber, many of them use cash and digital payments and will want to continue to do that. We do have a euro, which is a unique currency for the eurozone, and it’s very important that we do keep it fit for the future. I dare say I have not convinced those who see it as that awesome project of control, but I hope the vast majority of Members in this House will view this debate as the start of a very important conversation, which you will, I’m sure, engage with your constituencies and citizens, and that we will continue this debate until such time as the legislative process is before you.

– Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, I’m really happy that we’re having this conversation in the Chamber today because we’ve been having conversations in corridors and it’s important that this Chamber discusses what is a really important project. You’ve already heard that many governments and central banks around the world are looking into possible central bank digital currencies. And for the last two and a half years, we’ve examined whether a digital euro would be possible or desirable, and what the requirements would be. We’re doing that work hand in hand with the European Central Bank, discussing key aspects of a possible digital euro. And that’s why we very much welcome the political debate on the project. The single currency is a symbol of the European Union and of European unity. Bringing the euro into the digital age is a big European project and it is a very political project. And that means the digital euro needs to be supported by the European public and a strong democratic process. So the European Parliament has a vital role to play in this debate. And, of course, you will soon be asked to look at our legislative proposal. So just a few words on what a digital euro is, why we might need it and some details of the legislative proposal. So to the basic question: what is a digital euro? We all understand what physical cash is and how to use it. Central banks issue coins and banknotes and they play a key role in monetary systems. A coin or a banknote is a direct liability on a central bank. When we use private money, our confidence in it is based on the fact that you can convert it back to central bank money. A digital euro would be a complement to physical cash, which keeps its important role. Indeed, I mentioned that in the last debate. A digital euro would play a similar function to cash, providing us with access to central bank money in a digital world. The digital euro – like cash today – would be backed by a central bank, and that’s also the real contrast to existing private digital currencies like crypto-assets. A digital euro would be safe, secure and sound. So now to ‘why we would need a digital euro’. Let me talk about four main points here. The first one is that in a very rapidly digitalising economy, the share of payments in cash is declining, while digital payments are on the rise. This trend is likely to continue. So we want to make sure the euro is fit for the future and we want to keep our access to public money in a digital world. The second and related point: a digital euro could support financial inclusion. We know that people without bank accounts and other vulnerable groups rely heavily on cash for payments, and that means they face new risks as cash is used less. We would like a digital euro that can be used not only online but offline, too, for example in person-to-person payments or to pay in physical shops. We should also make a digital euro accessible to more vulnerable groups, including people who are not familiar with electronic devices or mobile apps. Third point: a digital euro is essential to support the EU’s open strategic autonomy. Private companies are developing stablecoins, crypto-assets whose value is pegged to another currency, usually not the euro. Central banks around the world are investigating, piloting and even issuing digital currencies. If we don’t provide our own solution, then we run the risk of private stablecoins or foreign central bank digital currencies filling the gap. And that could affect the role of the euro, both in the European retail payments market and in international trade. Fourth, and finally, a digital euro could foster innovation in payment systems and the economy at large. The payment systems we have at the moment are national or international. The digital euro could foster competition in the payment field, not crowding out existing means of payment. A digital euro should give citizens and businesses an additional payment option to use anywhere in the euro area, and they could always rely on it and know that their personal data is protected. A digital euro could support more innovation in payments, such as machine-to-machine payments that work without human interaction, like the automatic recharging of cars, logistics or deliveries. As I noted, a digital euro is not intended to replace cash, but rather to complement it. And it’s in this spirit that the Commission intends to adopt a legislative proposal on the legal tender of cash in parallel to the digital euro proposal. And this is about maintaining the role of cash as legal tender in our economy, making sure we keep sufficient access to cash and keeping cash as an accepted form of payment. Our upcoming regulation is intended to establish and regulate the essential aspects of the digital euro, and this is in full respect of the competence of the ECB, because ultimately the decision to issue a digital euro remains up to the ECB. I cannot pre-empt decisions to be taken by the College of Commissioners, but I want to speak about some key issues we believe the upcoming legislative proposal should address, and these include legal tender. The legal tender status of the digital euro would ensure consistency with cash and make digital central bank money widely accessible in the euro area. On privacy, there is a delicate balance to be struck between privacy and anti-money laundering requirements. On financial stability, the digital euro should be a means of payment, but should not become a large store of value. We want to avoid the disintermediation of banks and any risk to financial stability. On the area of distribution and compensation, the digital euro would be distributed by private payment service providers, and these entities should receive a fair compensation. On financial inclusion, we are considering a series of basic services for people to be provided free of charge or at a reasonable price. And finally, the use of the digital euro outside the euro area. I want to thank members of this House who will share their views on this digital euro project, because I think your insights are really important and helpful, informing our preparation of the legislative proposal. And we’re looking forward to continuing to work with you on this important initiative. The Eurogroup has also expressed strong support for the digital euro project and indeed our Minister has outlined the views of the Eurogroup. Our targeted consultation last summer fed into our work also and we’ve engaged with public and private stakeholders, consumer organisations, businesses and financial institutions. And, indeed, this project has evolved over time. We have raised many questions. We have had answers. But sometimes the answers indeed lead to further questions. And I think that’s how it should be, because this is a very new area that we move into. So in conclusion, I would just say that this digital euro can only be a success if it has strong democratic foundations. And that’s why this House plays a vital role in our debate and why I am delighted that we are having this exchange today.

– Mr President, thank you to the Members for all of your comments. I think we’ve covered the entire spectrum of views around this piece of legislation. In my view, it is extremely timely, and I repeat my thanks to all involved. In addition, we all know that crypto activity is not within a borders regime – it crosses borders, it’s international. While we have done our work, and I compliment you ahead of tomorrow’s vote, I think it’s really important that we work internationally as well. So we’re hoping that our international partners will also look at introducing legislation or regulation around this space. What we believe is that having a regulatory framework on crypto assets allows the industry to evolve in a more cohesive and safer environment. And I would hope that our work, our rules could become a model for other countries. We’re also closely following the work of the Financial Stability Board on crypto assets, so it’s not as if we have done our work and are ignoring what is happening and, indeed, what will continue to happen in the future. But I repeat the point that global convergence is absolutely key. Here in the European Union, our new rules will protect against risks to consumer protection, market integrity, money laundering and financial stability, and I think those are very important issues for citizens. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the first of these rules will come into application in July 2024. In the meantime, I strongly encourage our supervisors to watch these activities very carefully already now, even before the new rules apply formally. And I believe that that is happening and I would encourage it. But also to add – and I think some of you have alluded to this – that this area of crypto is evolving even as we speak. And therefore, we know that tomorrow’s vote is not the conclusion of our work on crypto. There are issues which we will probably need to look at, but it was a little bit too early to do it in this legislation. And here I mentioned decentralised finance, lending and borrowing of crypto assets and non-fungible tokens. It was considered to be premature to fully address these issues, considering their early development and novelty in these markets. So it’s not fully clear yet if we will need additional legislation, but the Commission is mandated to assess the feasibility and necessity of regulating those activities within 18 months after the entry into force of MiCA, and indeed, we’re starting to prepare that work now. In relation to whether our rules would have prevented some of the more recent events which have dramatically impacted citizens around the world, we believe that had FTX, for example, been captured under EU jurisdiction, many of its practices would not have been permissible under MiCA or indeed under applicable rules already, such as MiFID, for their derivatives business. And for example, service providers under MiCA must properly manage or disclose conflicts of interest. And there are strict rules on segregating clients’ assets. In addition, MiCA explicitly prevents the use of clients’ funds for the trading platform’s own account. And on the issue of environmental impacts, the co-legislators, in my view, agreed on a very balanced position to address this issue by robust disclosure requirements. So I think on these issues we are certainly very clear about the work we have done and, indeed, open to what might lie ahead. A comment was made about the EU criminalising crypto. Of course, that is not the case at all. Those who engage in criminal activity criminalise themselves. What we are putting in place is the regulations to ensure that we find out what is happening in this area and indeed avoid that it happens at all. On the latter questions of cash and freedom and those important points, I constantly say as commissioner responsible in this area that we absolutely defend the rights of citizens to have access to cash. But I dare say that issue will arise in the upcoming debate around the digital euro. But I really appreciate the opportunity to have had this debate with colleagues today. I thank you very much for your incredible work in this area and I look forward to seeing the result of tomorrow’s vote.

– Madam President, dear colleagues, I welcome this debate, and I think it’s really important that we’re having an exchange before we have the vote tomorrow, because as some of you have mentioned, we are ahead of many other jurisdictions in this area. But I want to start by thanking the rapporteurs and to acknowledge the very good cooperation, despite disagreements, to get these files over the line. Let me name Stefan Berger for MiCA, Ernest Urtasun and Assita Kanko for the Transfer of Funds Regulation and, of course, all of the shadow rapporteurs for both files. And I really do want to extend an appreciation for our ECON Chair, Irene Tinagli, who has facilitated this work and, of course, the French Presidency. We are putting in place comprehensive, tailored rules for crypto-assets in the European Union. No one, I think, in this House questions why these rules are absolutely vital for the financial system. And, as we’ve seen in recent months, stringent rules and supervision are very much needed because we’ve had the collapse of projects such as FTX, Terra Luna, Celsius and Voyager. We’ve seen many retail investors lured in by false promises or false hopes, losing huge amounts of money. And while the crypto market may be too small to trigger systemic risks, we do know that there are increasing links between crypto markets and traditional financial services. So now to a few elements of our new rules. Firstly, MiCA will bring crypto markets into the regulated space by addressing risks related to consumer protection, market integrity and financial stability. It will also provide legal certainty for market participants that will be able to continue to innovate in a safe environment. Secondly, it will introduce rules to prevent market abuse of crypto markets such as market manipulation. And we’re bringing crypto asset service providers into the scope of anti-money laundering rules. Third, under MiCA, crypto-asset service providers like wallet providers or exchangers that serve EU customers will have to be established in the EU and they will be authorised and supervised by national supervisory authorities. MiCA will allow EU-authorised crypto-asset service providers to passport their services throughout the European Union. In return, these operators will be subject to stringent prudential and conduct rules, in addition to rules against insider trading and market manipulation. Crypto-asset service providers will also have to disclose the environmental impact of crypto-assets they offer to customers. Fourth, the transfer of funds will require all crypto-asset service providers recognised under MiCA to include information about the sender and beneficiary with crypto-asset transfers. This is in full compliance with the Financial Action Task Force international standards on crypto-assets. Overall, we’re putting safeguards in place that would prevent companies active on the EU market from engaging in some of the practices that led certain crypto-asset operators to collapse in recent months. After your vote tomorrow, we hope final Council approval and the final signature by the co-legislators will soon follow and we hope for publication by the end of June and entry into force in July of 2023. The new rules will apply progressively. Yes, Markus, I looked for attention from my colleague and I got clarification, thank you. The MiCA provisions on stablecoins will start to apply in July of 2024. The provisions on issuers of other crypto-assets and crypto-asset service providers will start applying in January of 2025, together with the transfer of funds rules. We’re applying these new rules rather progressively, giving stakeholders time to adapt to them, and it gives us time to adopt the secondary legislation for the implementation of the rules. On a final note, and I think this is very clear to all of us, crypto markets are international and this means that robust rules in the EU are necessary, but other countries need to play their part as well. So I’m very supportive of international regulatory discussions in this area. Indeed, in the US, just last week, we did have useful conversations with our US counterparts about the regulation of crypto markets. So thank you for this debate and I look forward now to listening to all of the contributions.

– Madam President, colleagues, I do want to try and respond to some of your questions, and I will understand if I am not giving you the answers you need but I do think we need to be very clear. And I will convey the strength of this debate to my colleagues in the Commission, as I’m sure you will be aware. So on the timing of the revision of REACH, we know this revision is urgent and we’ve heard it from the Environment Committee and now today in this debate. As you know, when presenting the work programme of the Commission, Vice-President Šefčovič spoke of the possibility of an earlier date for the proposal, if we can do that. I mentioned already that we are working hard, with great urgency, to ensure the quality of the proposal. As you said in your intervention, Bas Eickhout, the impact assessment is complete and the services are addressing the comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. Drafting of the legislation is underway. It is programmed for Q4 but if the proposal is ready earlier, it remains a possibility. On the second point – questions on the state of play of the PFAS restriction – as you know, five countries have submitted the restriction dossier to the European Chemicals Agency in January of this year. This procedure requires two assessments by two specific committees. The aim of ECHA is to deliver the opinions to the Commission in the shortest possible time frame, while obviously ensuring proper scrutiny from the committees. And based on the restriction proposal and the opinions provided by these committees, the Commission makes the legislative proposal for the restriction under REACH. And I would also point out that this restriction procedure that the five Member States are undertaking is under the current legal framework of REACH. So timing is not affected by the new proposals for the targeted revision of the REACH provisions. You raise a very important point in this debate around enforcement of existing legislation, and this is one of the issues that we will deal with in the revision of REACH: improving enforcement by setting up an audit system, increased transparency and frequent checks. So I hope that addresses questions which were raised by colleagues. Briefly, in conclusion, we are already taking some steps. If I point out the contamination of soils and drinking water, we are working to protect health and the environment, including rules under the Industrial Emissions Directive, setting limit values through water and food legislation and restrictions under EU chemicals legislation. As I have said, we do need to update REACH to increase market incentives also for chemicals that are safe and sustainable by design, with benefits for health and the environment, for the economy and jobs. The assessment of the risks of these substances in soils must be improved and appropriate remedial action taken if required. The Commission will facilitate a dialogue and knowledge exchange on risk assessment of soil contaminants, and I think we all agree that we owe this to citizens and the environment. And, indeed, we owe this to industry, which needs – as you pointed out – long-term legal clarity and predictability when they make their investment choices.

– Madam President, dear Minister, honourable Members of Parliament, I think we can all agree that the Commission, Parliament and Council share the ambition to keep our water and soil clean and free from pollutants that harm human health and the environment. The Commission is committed to the Green Deal and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and to moving towards a toxic-free environment. These commitments must be in line with our individual and collective commitments towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including the one health approach and sustainable consumption and production. We cannot speak about forever pollutants without mentioning per- and polyfluorinated substances. These were familiar as PFAS. They are a major concern for human health and the environment. Ten years ago, we took action on one of these substances found in surface waters by including it under the Water Framework Directive. Now that we know other such substances are also harmful, the Commission has proposed adding 24 more of these chemicals to the list of priority substances under the directive. In January, five national authorities also initiated an EU restriction on PFAS as a group of substances under the REACH regulation. Given the complexity of the proposal, this will be a long process, but I believe we all share the same goal, to strike a balance between two legitimate public interests: the need to protect public health, the environment and vulnerable groups, and the need to secure European investments in certain technologies for decarbonisation. The public consultation by ECHA on the restrictions of these substances is open and it is key that all relevant stakeholders provide sound evidence. This is a highly complex case covering many different uses and stakeholders, and the complexity may impact the time it will take ECHA prepare their opinion. The Commission proposal will follow after we receive the ECHA opinion. And this brings me to the REACH revision and to your request to strengthen chemical legislation immediately. The REACH revision will be a targeted revision. We do not intend to rework this legislation or change its fundamental architecture. As it stands, we have knowledge gaps in REACH that must be addressed, notably on certain critical hazard classes. That includes information on substances that cause cancer or adversely affect the nervous system, the immune system or the hormone system. This is also a large group of chemicals, polymers, that are exempted from the REACH registration process. We are looking at a registration obligation for the estimated 40 000 polymers of particular and potential concern. Sixteen years of implementation of REACH has shown us it is world-leading legislation, but at the same time we can make this regulation stronger and more efficient while simplifying and streamlining processes. REACH is a science-based regulation with evidence at its core. In fact, its main founding principle was that ‘no data – no market’ principle. Substances should not be authorised for the market without data on their safety. Gathering knowledge upfront will enable us to take better and faster decisions. Simplifying how the authorisation process works is another key goal, to boost innovation and the production of safer and more sustainable chemicals. For our legal framework to become more effective in preventing harm to health and the environment, we are also looking at extending the generic approach to risk management. This means looking at groups of products and types of hazardous chemicals like endocrine disruptors. Priority will be given to uses where citizens and the environment are highly exposed. REACH is all about results and if we want results, we need effective enforcement. The revision also aims to improve enforcement by setting up an audit system, increased transparency and frequent checks. This would lead to better protection as well as a level playing field for EU industry. Now, on the timing of the proposal, I want to reassure you that we are working at full speed on the revision of the legal text and the impact assessment. We aim to present the proposal to the co-legislators as soon as it is ready, by the last quarter of this year at the latest. Now a few words on soil. The EU soil strategy aims to prevent contamination and to restore contaminated and degraded soils. In the context of the upcoming soil health law proposal, the Commission is considering provisions to identify, register and remediate contaminated sites. We intend to adopt the proposal in June. In addition, the EU Mission under Horizon Europe, called ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’, is tackling soil decontamination and soil restoration. This ambitious research and innovation programme includes the demonstration of solutions in living labs and soil monitoring. This is all about types of soil contamination in both urban and rural areas. Honourable Members, we need your support to achieve the ambitious objectives of the European Green Deal under this mandate. We look forward to working with you and I now look forward to hearing your views.

– Mr President, thank you, colleagues, for what has been a very lively debate, as I had anticipated. I think your commitment to animal welfare is well known in this House. In relation to who looks after animal welfare, I really want to assure Members that this issue of animal welfare is at the very heart of the work of my colleague Stella Kyriakides within this Commission. Because the issues before us on animal welfare are very varied. Colleagues alluded to a need for more enforcement of existing legislation, and indeed new legislation will also be required as the demands of society intensify. At the same time, as we move forward with new proposals, we know that upgrading EU animal welfare rules will require investment by farmers and others in the food supply chain. So, for that reason, we have to be balanced and have sufficient transition periods. We also need to provide assistance to farmers from existing EU financial instruments, and I want to assure the House that the Commission, across its different services, is working hard to make the upcoming legislative proposals as ambitious and realistic as possible. Because, as was mentioned, we do need holistic legislation implemented and supported by all stakeholders. As part of this, we are performing a thorough impact assessment of the policy options before any decision is made. Hopefully, this will also help the European Parliament and the Council reach a well-founded agreement. Once adopted, the new legislation will cement the European Union’s role as a world leader in animal welfare. When it is applied, the rules will improve the lives of billions of animals in the European Union and elsewhere. After that, it is up to us together to make sure that EU rules for animal welfare remain fit for the future. As I come from a farming background, I think it is also right that we acknowledge those farmers who do a really good job caring for their animals. Those farmers who would have been up during the night lambing and looking after calves. And I think this House acknowledges the role of those farmers who abide by and are committed to animal welfare. Mr President, if I am not breaking a rule, I join Seán Kelly in wishing all of you a happy Saint Patrick’s Day. I am wearing the green, as you can see. Very subtle. Please join in the Irish celebrations on what is always a most joyous day. And thank you for this excellent debate.