Speeches

Mr President, the report calls on the EU to implement policies that guarantee the right to food security and sovereignty in developing countries. This, as you know, is an objective of the Sustainable Development Goals, which are, let’s face it, tragically far from being achieved. In fact, the situation has worsened due to the ongoing war and its consequences on the food supply chain. It has also been worsened by financial speculation on food prices. This report, I am pleased to see, calls on the Commission to adopt measures to end financial speculation on food and agricultural commodities. According to the 2022 Global Report on Food Crises, nearly 193 million people experienced crisis—level or worse food security in 2021, an increase of 40 million on 2020. The negative food security outlook is projected to continue or worsen this year, and the global food systems impact of the crisis in Ukraine will only contribute to further decline. This report, if passed, needs to be acted upon. Our words here today won’t provide a single extra calorie for people in developing countries. What will do it, though, is if we act on our words. We need action, and we need it now.

Madam President, I very much welcome this draft report on the future of EU—Africa trade relations. The relationships of the past, unfortunately, have been based on brutality and exploitation, and we need to do so, so much better. And I want to say to Helmut for a draft report that I think is excellent. I am pleased to see so much of the AGRI opinion included. The report comes at a crucial time with the war in Ukraine. Agri—food exports to Africa are valued at EUR 17.6 billion, and imports from Africa are valued at EUR 16.5 billion. That was in 2020. The report supports trade based on agricultural products which show respect for biodiversity, and fighting against overexploitation. It also promotes resilient and sustainable agriculture, recognises the strategic importance of African rangelands and also their massive importance to carbon sequestration. It also looks for a reduction in pesticides and very importantly highlights the inconsistencies of exporting products banned in the EU. This must stop. It also supports stronger policy coherence at EU level in agri—food trade. All of these words are very good, but we’ve actually got to do it: we can’t just be talking about it. This is important. We’ve got to put words into action.

Madam President, one of the biggest causes of scepticism within the European Union is the fear among the European Union’s citizens that our money isn’t being spent well, or their money isn’t being spent well – the money that they work really hard to get in the first place and pay tax on it. It comes out here and we spend it and various agencies spend it. So, what I would say is, overall I would be positive on the whole thing. I congratulate all the agencies and joint agencies that will be granted discharge and well done on your cooperation. In particular the Committee of the Regions – I’ll vote in favour of discharge because the Robert McCoy case has finally and fairly been settled. In relation to the European Court of Auditors. I think overall it’s a fine organisation. I got elected to the European Parliament as a sceptic. My scepticism has been somewhat tempered and that scepticism was tempered because of my dealings with the European Court of Auditors. I found them to be exceptionally honest, good to work with, and they are the speedometer on our car and tell us whether we’re going too fast and if we’re wasting money or not. So the recent revelations, or allegations, about the European Court of Auditors have saddened me, and I understand we have to be very careful in criticising it because it adds to Euroscepticism. But at the same time, we’ve got to ask the hard questions and I don’t think we should shoot the messenger here because we are asking important questions, because we want to add to the credibility of the European Court of Auditors and to make sure it isn’t damaged. But I will be voting to postpone the discharge. Finally, on the European Council, what the hell are ye at? I’ll say it again, scepticism is a danger to the European Union. If you don’t engage, you give petrol to throw on the flames of scepticism. Cop on! Because you are destroying the very project you claim you want to protect!

Madam President, it’s hard to wonder is there anyone listening at this time of night? Hopefully there is. Oligarchs aren’t something that many people said an awful lot about up until the last while but now all the cool kids in class hate them, despise them and they want to do something about them. Well, here’s your chance. Try and do something about them. Take them on. This report, it’s not perfect but it says a lot of good things, as would an awful lot of reports in Parliament; they say an awful lot of good things but they never happen. And they probably never happen because usually the people who put these words down in the first place don’t really want it to happen. They just want to make it seem like it’s going to happen. The report includes a strong focus on transparency. It considers, worryingly, the increase in oligarch structures within the Union which are actively using EU funds. It says all the right things and while it’s good, and essentially we’ve got to chase after oligarchs that misuse EU funds, we’ve also got a problem with people who legally use EU funds in the most dodgy way possible, but the law allows them to. So maybe we just need to tackle them as well. I’ll be voting for the report. I won’t be holding my breath whether you’ll do anything about them.

Madam President, short-sightedness put us in this position and it certainly won’t get us out of it. The sustainable path was always to produce our food with inputs that are also produced within EU boundaries we control and regulate. We haven’t done that. We became massively dependent on imports of basic inputs such as feed, fertiliser and energy – dependent in many cases on despots. You knew this and you let it happen. Now that this supposedly bullet—proof system has collapsed, the very people who created a model dependent on imported inputs are now telling us that the solution to our current crisis is to exhibit even more short-sightedness. You are now saying that we must destroy ecological focus areas in order to feed the world. I can’t go along with such a lie. 62% of the grain in the EU is fed to animals, only 23% to humans. So growing more grain is not about feeding the world. It’s about feeding an intensive meat industry system that isn’t fit for purpose. Instead, here today, we should be supporting sustainable livestock production, such as extensively reared suckler beef. We’re not though. Why? Because even at a time of war, you’re being led by the nose, by industry. Disgrace!

Madam President, just reading the text on this, and it says every day the EU’s food supply chain provides 450 million people in the EU with high quality food. But as with everything, the devil is in the detail. In Europe, we import more calories than we export to the world. And still we claim we are feeding the world. This policy leaves us unnecessarily exposed at times of crisis and bobbing around in an ocean of uncertainty when it comes to input prices. Ireland, which also claims to be feeding the world, can’t even feed itself. We import our main food stuffs: carrots, potatoes, wheat, sugar – I could go on. The value of Ireland’s food energy net importing calories has at times exceeded the equivalent of the calorie intake of two and a half million people. We can’t even feed the type of livestock that we produce, so we import proteins. There’s talk, and that’s all it is, that we should produce our proteins in Europe. Only last week I noticed another tillage farm in Ireland converting to dairy, a dairy farm that will require imported protein. What could go wrong? We’ve also created a system whereby those that produce the food get nothing whereas those companies that process it and sell it take all the profit. Even at that, their greed isn’t satiated. Even then, they move these companies to places like Luxembourg in order to avoid paying tax. The money never gets back to the community it was created in and as a result we have a broken system. Thanks for nothing Glanbia! The system is broken. Not for the rich though, and that’s why it will never be bloody well fixed.

Madam President, sadly, whether you’re in the Commission or whether you’re a Member of this Parliament or if you’re a Member of the Council, we’ve let everyone down, sadly. We have let people down because we could have done so, so much better. Will I vote against this common agricultural policy (CAP)? No, I won’t, because I think I'd be letting people down again if I did that, because reverting to the status quo would be even worse, an awful lot worse, and I’ll explain why from the perspective of the people that I represent. When it comes to agricultural activity, if we scrap this CAP, we scrap the mention of public goods. It will be gone. What we are voting for today is agricultural activity shall be determined in such a way that it allows to contribute to the provision of private and public goods. This is a new addition. It means we can farm for biodiversity, for carbon sequestration. Scrapping the CAP brings us back to the rotten status quo. In Article 4(2b), for the first time, we get paludiculture mentioned. Every road out of my town is either a wetland or a bogland. If we are to preserve these areas, we’ve got to do it with people. The way to do that, for me, and the way to continue food production is to develop paludiculture systems. We can now do that. When it comes to agricultural area, scrapping the CAP will mean scrapping the mention of agroforestry. Agroforestry, which leads to better water attenuation, fixing of nitrogen, shelter for animals and fuel. If I vote against this, I get rid of the mention of agroforestry. Very importantly, and this comes down to money, on convergence if I vote against this, I vote against a move to what will be the equivalent of 90+% convergence. I will vote against raising the incomes of farmers on the average acreage from EUR 5 000 to 8 000. How could I vote against that? And finally, if I vote against it, I vote against redistribution. I vote against EUR 120 million being redistributed. I don't like it. It's far from perfect, but the alternative is worse.

Madam President, we’ve got to look at what the EU’s contribution to global food systems will be in the future and what’s planned if we’re to be serious about this. Mercosur: I’m hearing about Mercosur for a couple of years now – quite a few years. No one seems to agree with it in the Agriculture Committee, but it still seems to drive on. Importing beef when we already produce enough beef here in Europe. At the same time, through schemes like BEAM (Beef Exceptional Aid Measure), the Commission incentivises local producers to reduce. Here in Europe, we incentivise the more sustainable producers to reduce to allow the intensive to drive on. Mercosur puts sustainable food systems second when countries like Germany and France and others want to sell more cars. One of the biggest causes of hunger is war. Many EU countries sell weapons around the world, which lead to famine. Why do we accept this? If the EU wants to contribute to sustainable food systems, then it needs to start by getting its own house in order, put an end to Mercosur, put an end to profiteering from the production of weapons, which lead to chaos and famine. If not, then we won’t come close to achieving the goals by 2030.