What Mairead spoke about.

– Mr President, honourable Members, for more than 40 years, the European Union has sought to improve the welfare of animals through legislation and other action. One example is the ban on unenriched cages. It has improved the conditions for 360 million laying hens in the European Union. Similarly, we improved the conditions for animal transport and how animals are handled in slaughterhouses. However, there is still work to be done. Science has shown us that we can do more, and societal demands for better animal welfare rules have also grown. So, we cannot and we will not rest on our laurels. Later this year, the Commission will propose an ambitious, balanced package of legislative proposals. The goal will be to better align our legislation with current scientific knowledge and citizens’ expectations. To give you one example, in line with the reply to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’, the Commission intends to propose the phasing out of cages used to keep certain farmed animals. The Commission’s aim is to propose ambitious legislation broader in scope and easier to implement and enforce. At the same time, the legislation will have to take a long-term view. It will have to be balanced and to take into account social and economic realities, as well as food security. The Commission is committed to delivering legislation that represents a major step forward for animals and for society as a whole. But society keeps evolving, and we must keep pace. In other words, we already need to think ahead and better protect even more animal species. With that in mind, a plan for further opinions on animal welfare from the European Food Safety Authority is in place. It covers, for instance, the welfare of turkeys, beef cattle and farmed fish. The objective is to make the future framework flexible enough that it can easily adapt to new scientific evidence and introduce more specific rules for additional species through tertiary legislation. In addition, EU animal welfare legislation needs to evolve to better reflect the ethical dimension and growing demands from our citizens. As citizens’ concerns extend to the welfare of animals beyond EU borders, the Commission is assessing the possibility of proposing import requirements. Lastly, the package will be innovative. Subject to the outcome of the impact assessment, the Commission intends to propose an EU framework for animal welfare labelling to empower consumers to make animal welfare-friendly choices and to allow for a better return on investment for producers that invest in animal welfare. Honourable Members, animal welfare is a cornerstone of sustainable and resilient food production. It also helps tackle antimicrobial resistance, the silent pandemic that poses a threat to public health worldwide. So, the high ambitions now for animal welfare in the EU must remain high in the years to come. The European Union has a proud tradition of defending animal welfare and playing a key role in setting global standards. I think we should make sure that we keep this tradition alive well into the future.

– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate. I just want to reiterate that the Commission has followed the work of the PEGA Committee with great attention. It has taken the matter very seriously and has always acted in sincere cooperation vis-à-vis the Parliament. There are, nonetheless, limits to the competence of the Commission that must be acknowledged, just as I, as a former Member of this House, acknowledge the strength of the contributions in this debate.

– Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to answer the questions raised by the PEGA Committee and indeed by Mr Lenaers on the Commission’s current and future actions in response to the alleged lack of sincere and loyal cooperation with the Inquiry Committee by Council and Member States. The Commission has already made clear that it condemns any illegal interference in personal communications. We expect that national competent authorities and courts make full use of their powers to thoroughly investigate the allegations regarding any unlawful surveillance activities and restore citizens’ trust. The Commission also made very clear in the 2022 rule of law report that although Member States are competent to guarantee their national security, they must apply relevant EU law, including the case law of the European Court of Justice, when doing so. The rule of law requires that the response to surveillance software by Member States or the recourse, rather, to surveillance software by Member State security services is subject to sufficient control and that it fully respects EU law, including fundamental rights such as the protection of personal data, the safety of journalists and freedom of expression. The use of surveillance means in criminal investigations also has to respect procedural rights, including the rights of defendants. Robust institutional checks and balances are therefore needed to guarantee the functioning cooperation and mutual control of state organs so that power is exercised by one state authority under the scrutiny of others. It is for Member States alone to define their national security interests and to adopt appropriate measures to ensure their internal and external security. Nevertheless, this does not mean that they can merely refer to national security to exclude the application of EU law. The Court of Justice makes clear that Member States must be able to demonstrate that national security would be compromised in the case at issue. The Commission has taken action within the framework of its competence, including by enquiring about data protection implications in all the Member States and by making concrete proposals on the protection of journalists from spyware in the Media Freedom Act. However, the Commission has no competence to assess individual cases and whether specific wiretapping activities are carried out for national security purposes and has no investigatory powers in this area. Along this line, the Commission has followed with great attention the activities of the PEGA Committee of Inquiry since its establishment. It has been and continues to stand ready to assist in its work. This is a matter to which the Commission attaches the utmost importance and it looks forward to the conclusions of the work of the PEGA Committee. Furthermore, the Commission has answered several questionnaires addressed by the PEGA Committee regarding the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware, as well as a number of parliamentary questions. Members of the College have also made themselves available upon request. They have also taken part in some plenary debates devoted to the use of spyware, including in various Member States. The Commission therefore has always fully cooperated with the PEGA Committee and will continue to do so insofar as the PEGA Committee investigates alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Union law by the Commission. Concerning the responses given by the Council and Member States to the request from the PEGA Committee. Whilst the Commission is aware of the concerns flagged in the draft PEGA report, the content of these responses has not been shared with the Commission, nor is the Commission aware of contacts or exchanges that could have taken place subsequently with the Council or Member States outside of the formal PEGA sessions. Therefore, the Commission cannot express a position on the more general questions relating to the exercise of the Parliament’s right of inquiry under Article 226 and Decision 85/167 of the European Parliament, the Council and Commission of 6 March 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry, or any application of the fulfilment of the duty of sincere and loyal cooperation by the Council and the Member States.

– Mr President, thank you, colleagues, for this discussion. Whatever side of the House you come from, it’s very clear that we face an enormous problem, and we do need to act and act with some urgency. I will remind you, as I said earlier, that the Commission will continue to actively participate in the preparations for the upcoming summit for a new global financing pact. We have to engage all relevant actors through this summit and other relevant forums. This is the only way to find solutions to meet, as I said, the scale of this challenge, we will also continue to engage with the private sector and multilateral development banks to mobilise funds for climate- and nature-positive investments and to ensure that their vision, mission, operating model and financing are fit for purpose. The next important milestone will be the World Bank and IMF Spring meetings in April, and we believe this is very timely. It represents a major opportunity for the international community to fast-forward concrete solutions and find the resources we desperately need to keep the 1.5 Celsius goal of the Paris Agreement alive and to increase climate resilience in the most vulnerable countries. It is important that we speak with a coherent European voice across all tracks: development, finance and climate.

– Mr. President, colleagues, the Bridgetown Initiative is an international initiative on ways to scale up finance, to fund the changes needed, tackling climate change and help communities and vulnerable countries to do that. As we all know, we faced globally many short- and long—term crises over the past few years, and those crises have shown that we need more and better finance that is more readily available to help the most vulnerable countries address global challenges like climate change or pandemics. Both low- and some middle—income countries are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Climate—related shocks have the potential to be highly destabilising and the action needed to address them can be overwhelming to the affected countries and communities. So we do need to think about what people are most in need of support, not just which countries. However, rebalanced funding should not come at the expense of low—income countries. We need to maintain the resources allocated to the poorest countries and to fragile or conflict—affected regions. Recent reports highlight the gaps in financing for the green transition and for responding to the needs of countries most vulnerable to climate change. This initiative proposes ways to address these gaps in a substantive and operational way. Many of its proposals are being discussed in the preparatory working groups for the Summit for a New Global Financial Pact organised by President Macron and Prime Minister Mottley. This will take place in June. The European Commission is actively engaged in these working groups. The European Union and its Member States are the largest providers of climate finance in the world. But we all know that public finance will never be enough to respond to the scale of the climate and environmental challenge, either in Europe or indeed globally. All actors need to be on board. This includes the private sector and multilateral development banks. The Bridgetown proposals are particularly relevant for multilateral development banks and the reform process they have recently launched, including the World Bank Evolution Roadmap. The evolution of multilateral development banks will be the focus of many discussions in the coming months in international forums. That includes the World Bank and the IMF spring meetings in April, then their annual meetings in October. The Global Financial Pact summit in June, organised by President Macron and Prime Minister Mottley, is expected to generate additional momentum for the reform process. This was discussed last week by EU Ministers for Development and a process has started to identify a common European position. Colleagues, I now look forward to your views.

– Mr President, thank you, colleagues, for what was a really interesting debate and a very timely one. I think the number of speakers in this debate shows how there is really a huge interest in it, and rightly so. It’s about bees, farmers, but it’s about food. I think also – and you acknowledged this – the citizens’ initiative is a really powerful tool to get people involved in EU policymaking. If you look at this citizens’ initiative, it is very much in sync with the Commission’s ongoing efforts to address the decline of biodiversity and accelerate the transition towards more sustainable agriculture and for us as policymakers, that support of our citizens is key. I think it also confirms that we are on the right track with the strategies we adopted under the European Green Deal and with the two proposals on nature restoration and the sustainable use of plant protection products. But I recognise there is a lot of debate still to be had on those proposals. We will now, with this citizens’ initiative, enter the final stage. The Commission will have its formal response, draw its conclusions and announce any action it may intend to take as a follow—up. And that will be done by way of reply by 7 April. I want to also share with you two other proposals we’re examining under successful initiatives from citizens. One is ‘Stop Finning – Stop the Trade’ and the second one, ‘Save Cruelty-Free Cosmetics’, and there will be one more to follow. I think citizens of Europe are engaging more in our policymaking – that’s growing stronger and it’s welcome. But I do hope that it’s reflected in higher turnouts at the next elections for the European Parliament. I think our debate and the European citizens’ initiative shows that we take very seriously the concerns expressed by citizens, and we do need the trust of citizens in our ongoing work. If I may, without diverting too much, I was very happy, Madame Melchior, that you mentioned gardeners and gardening and that bees are also in urban areas and that perhaps we are all tidying up nature too much. And maybe we should just let it be.

– Madam President. Good morning, colleagues, like the farmers of Europe, we’re up early and having this really important debate. For obvious reasons, I’m very happy to be taking this very important debate. This European Citizens’ Initiative is talking about saving bees and farmers. We’ve heard very strong contributions from the Environment Committee, the Agriculture Committee and the Petitions Committee. So I want to congratulate the members of those relevant committees for a very successful public hearing in January on this topic, because it allowed the organisers to present their initiative and for Members to express their views. I think today’s plenary debate is also about exchanging views on this topic. It also shows that the European Citizens Initiative can be very much agenda setting and it allows citizens to shape the public debate on critical issues for the European Union. Our citizens are increasingly concerned about the use of pesticides and the build—up of pesticide residue in the environment. Society as a whole, including farmers, wants to see less pesticide use and lower risks. We also saw this in the calls from the Conference on the Future of Europe and indeed other European Citizens’ Initiatives. We anticipate that the recently updated EU rules for approving micro-organisms for use in plant protection will facilitate more access to biological alternatives to chemical pesticides. We also need to acknowledge that farmers need workable alternatives to allow them to continue to supply consumers with food. In addition, the revision of the EU Pollinators Initiative adopted in January and the upcoming revision of the bee guidance document for pesticide risk assessment will boost protection for bees and wild pollinators. Recent analysis carried out by the JRC shows that biodiversity loss is a major threat to EU food security. It already affects our agriculture sector with potentially irreversible impacts in Europe and globally. We have lost so much nature already that just protecting what we have is no longer an option. We really have to step up efforts not only to preserve, but also to restore nature and to reverse biodiversity loss. This will help to improve essential ecosystem services like pollination and pest control. Honourable Members, you will decide on two Commission proposals on the regulation on nature restoration and the regulation on the sustainable use of plant protection products. I would ask you to keep this Citizens’ Initiative in mind in your decisions. European citizens expect an ambitious outcome and substantial progress in the transition towards sustainability. This initiative also raises key questions as to how farmers can play a central role in the transition towards more environmentally sustainable agriculture. And it calls for an increase in agroecological and organic practices. The new common agricultural policy entered into force in January this year. It has significantly higher environmental ambition compared with the past. It provides a combination of obligations for farmers to be able to benefit from CAP support, and it supports more demanding practices, allowing reduced pesticides, the development of organic farming, the creation of new landscape features and other environmentally friendly agricultural practices. The new regulations, if ambitious, and the new CAP, if implemented correctly, will help the EU respect the commitments made at the Convention on Biological Diversity COP 15 under the new Global Biodiversity Framework. We need to solve the energy crisis in this decade with efforts by everyone for nature and pollinators, for farmers and for all Europeans. Our farmers are custodians of the land and they are central to this effort. Their futures depend on it, and we should listen to their concerns. The debate today will feed into our ongoing reflection. We will present our general conclusions, including the action we intend to take in our communication planned for early April. I look forward now to an exchange of views.

– Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you for the debate. The Commission’s internal procedures aim to ensure that the Commission and its staff cannot be unduly influenced by a third party. I agree with you that we need to operate under the highest ethical standards. Whenever the assessment of these rules by individual staff members puts these standards into question, the Commission’s competent services check whether the rules have, in fact, been respected. The changes that we put in place with immediate effect on 7 March that I’ve addressed in my opening remarks, I hope address the concerns that have been raised in this House. They aim to show that the Commission is ready to lead by example, and I very much thank you for this debate. Many of you have addressed the issue of trust, and trust matters in all of our institutions, and that’s why the Commission has responded very strongly with what I have outlined in my opening remarks. A question was raised with me by Mr Simon. I don’t have an answer for you. I will only give answers when I have the information, and I think we will get back to you directly on the question you raised. Again, thank you, colleagues, for this important debate.

– Madam President, honourable Members, the members of the Commission and its staff are expected to adhere to the highest standards of professional ethics and integrity, and they are expected to comply with their obligations set out in the code of conduct and the staff regulations respectively. These high standards apply both to missions and to any gifts or hospitality offered. The Commission has an effective internal control system for ethics management. This was recognised by the Court of Auditors in its 2019 report and by the European Ombudsman in the 2021 report on the subject of outside activities. Staff have to declare any actual or potential conflict of interest. Each declaration is assessed thoroughly by the line manager and, where necessary, based on the guidance by the Commission’s central ethics service. Strict mitigating measures may be imposed. For example, the person concerned may be relieved of their duty to take a decision on a specific matter. Furthermore, above a certain threshold, authorisation is needed in order to accept gifts or hospitality. Mission costs are almost always covered entirely by the EU budget. In only 1.6% of all missions from 2019 to 2022 were there contributions by outside organisers. Acceptance of such contributions is mainly for diplomatic or courtesy purposes. When staff are requested to carry out a mission, any planned contribution by the organisers has to be declared. Any actual or potential conflict of interest has to be assessed by the staff member concerned, as well as by their hierarchy, in full transparency, through a dedicated IT tool under the four eyes principle. If any conflict is detected, the mission is fully covered by the Commission budget. Directors-general are heads of service and responsible for their service budget. They are authorising officers delegated to do so by the College and they sign off on their own missions. In case of any potential conflict of interest, they are expected to seek the opinion of the political level or the Commission’s central ethics service. All members of the Commission and staff are well informed of their ethics obligations through numerous and regular trainings, from their entry into service until retirement, throughout their entire career. Last year, almost 9 000 staff participated in ethics training. In addition, Commissioners, members of their cabinet and directors-general can only meet interested representatives who are registered in the transparency register, and they must publish information on all such meetings. This applies to meetings with lobbyists in line with the interinstitutional rules on the transparency register. It does not apply to meetings with representatives of public authorities or the Commission’s contractual partners. Questions have been raised about missions to Qatar by the Commission’s Director-General in charge of transport, mainly during the Commission’s previous mandate. The Commission has, in full transparency, disclosed all information related to travel with Qatar. The purpose of these missions was to take forward the mobility and transport aspects of EU-Qatar and Gulf Cooperation Council relations, following up on the visit by former Commissioner Bulc to the Gulf region. The Director-General in charge of transport, as head of service and responsible for the mission budget of his service, signed off on his missions and he declared that there was no conflict of interest as regards certain mission costs being covered by third parties. This was based on his own assessment of the situation. The competent Commission services are currently looking at this and all other related elements in order to establish the facts. We note that there were also missions by the Director-General for transport to Qatar that were paid entirely by the EU budget. Looking at the broader picture, since last year, the Commission has been revisiting its guide on missions. The main reason for this is to implement the Commission’s ambitious greening targets and to take account of the increased use of online meetings during the pandemic. We are also using this opportunity to streamline our authorisation procedures for missions and to tackle the issue of perception for contributions made by third parties. We decided on 7 March, with immediate effect, that we will apply the following. Directors-general will need to seek formal approval of the head of cabinet of their Commissioner for all missions with a third-party contribution. Now, the only contributions that could be accepted for any mission by a staff member would be from Member States, EEA or EFTA countries, international organisations like the UN or international forums like the G7 or G20, and universities. We are confident that this approach will rule out even the slightest perception of conflicts of interest and that it will uphold the highest ethical standards the Commission operates under in the interests of European citizens. The Commission will cooperate fully and transparently with the European Ombudsman on her strategic initiative on missions of senior staff members with a third-party contribution. And we look forward to continuing the dialogue with the European Parliament. I look forward to the debate.

– Mr President, good evening, colleagues. Really to just thank the Chamber for putting this debate on your agenda, and I speak obviously on behalf of Commissioner Johansson. I think, as we close this debate, we know that this discussion is far from over. People get into small boats and embark on dangerous journeys because there are no legal ways for them to get to Europe. Many of you have expressed the need for safe legal pathways, and that is something that we support. Let’s look at the realities of the European Union today. We reckon that in the healthcare area, 2 million professionals are needed. We also know that by 2030 there will be 7 million vacancies in long—term care alone. MEP Daly mentioned that these people are assets. They’re human beings with the capacity to contribute and those who get into boats do it, putting their lives at risk because they want something better. I also recall that this is what we call the European Year of Skills, and to tell this House that we are making progress on talent partnerships with key partner countries. We’re starting with Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and we’re looking at Nigeria in the near future. Our Member States are fully involved and this is really essential for success. Our first round table took place with Bangladesh on 1 March, with strong interest from Italy and Germany to foster labour mobility, which should include skills development and skills certification. Today a round table meeting is taking place with Pakistan. Just last week, the first global jobs fair for refugee talent was organised in Amman. This work can provide safe avenues and lead to jobs and opportunities. For example, over 100 refugees have been interviewed by potential employers. This is the future. It is in stark contrast to the terrible tragedies at sea. People smugglers – and we have to call them out – people smugglers are to blame for these tragedies. They exploit people’s dreams. They turn them into nightmares. These people end up in shipwrecks on the high seas or in airtight vans on the highways. We think about the 18 people found dead in a lorry in Bulgaria, the people drowned near Calabria, left to die, abandoned by smugglers who save their own skins. Colleagues, these tragedies should galvanise us, should forge our determination, steel our resolve to fight the smugglers relentlessly by air, by sea and by land. We have to fight these smugglers as Team Europe and with our partners to do what we can to prevent people from getting into the smugglers’ boats, to prevent irregular departures, to work better together to save lives. Next Monday, Commissioner Johansson will meet with African Union Commissioner Samate, High Commissioner for Refugees Grandi, and Director General of the IOM António Vitorino. This is done in our trilogue task force on Libya, and the idea behind this is to prepare our high—level dialogue with Libyan authorities. We have three key objectives: protecting the most vulnerable people in detention centres, including women and children; fighting smuggling and protecting victims; stepping up on returns, evacuations through the Emergency Transit Mechanism, resettlement and reintegration of migrants. I welcome the interventions today that called for swift progress and adoption of the Pact on Migration and Asylum. I agree it is high time to do that and I am encouraged by the good progress made by this House and by the Council. I very much welcome the mandates you will agree on next week. We have a roadmap and we are on the right track. We now need to stay on track. There is a new mood in the Council, a strong will to move forward. So the momentum is there. The time is right for an agreement on this pact. And together, I think we should remember that the objectives are to save lives. The figure was mentioned – I think MEP Wallace mentioned a figure of several thousand human beings whose lives have been lost at sea and perhaps many more thousands that have not been counted. I think we can address that collectively: Parliament, Council and Commission.

– Madam President, I think we should reflect on the fact that we are very privileged in this House, that we can have different views and nobody stops us having those opinions. That is not the case elsewhere and indeed in Russia. So to close this debate, I have listened very carefully to all of the comments, including those who ask questions about the alternatives. We all want peace. I think there is nobody who does not want peace in this room. But, of course, we are concerned about helping Ukraine in what is an illegal invasion of their sovereign territory. Just to repeat the point that I made in my opening remarks: we fully support the three—track proposals presented to Member States and we would hope for the support of this House in that regard.

– Madam President, thank you, Minister, Jessika, thank you, Colleagues, I take this debate on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Breton and HR/VP Borrell. And as we know, over the last year the entire European Union has mobilised all its tools in support of Ukraine, including considerable military support. A conservative estimate puts EU Member States’ collective effort and support at EUR 12 billion. However, the Ukrainian Minister of Defence has informed us that they have an urgent need to ensure the stable supply of 155 mm artillery ammunition. This urgent need calls for coordinated European response and that is what the Commission, together with the High Representative and the European Defence Agency, have recently proposed an ambitious, pragmatic and rapid response around three intrinsically linked areas: immediately transfer ammunition from existing stockpiles; structure demand by placing massive orders with European industry, covering both the needs of Ukraine and those of Member States; increase European production capacity massively and rapidly, which is a prerequisite for these orders to be met. To provide Ukraine with the right support at speed we need to act in parallel on these three axes. Without an increase in industrial production, we will not create confidence for Member States to transfer more ammunition from their stocks. We want them to know that those stocks will be replenished fast in the face of a threat that is likely to last. The Defence Joint Procurement Task Force has established a fairly precise industrial mapping of ammunition production capacities, particularly for artillery shells. We identified 15 producers in the 11 Member States. We also know that the current EU production capacity is larger than in many of our non-EU partners. However, almost all of this production is already contracted. The good news is that the potential of EU industry to produce 155 mm ammunition remains significant, and we need to unlock this potential. Signing large contracts consolidated at European level will send the appropriate signal to industry to take action, but this is not a guarantee of delivery on time. Our industrial objectives are clear: reduce production time and increase production volumes and, above all, secure the earliest possible availability of the required volumes. In order to do this, we need to support an increase in capacity and address bottlenecks, especially in the value chain. We need to monitor industrial ramp-up efforts and ensure contracting of industrial production conditions. The Commission is ready to mobilise its regulatory clout and the available resources as appropriate to support the defence industry to ramp up. We are working on all options, including mobilising the EU budget if needed. More specifically, we recently put on the table the European Defence Industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act. This short-term instrument with EUR 500 million could be used to accelerate industrial production of the required ammunition. The support of Parliament to reach swift agreement will be essential. If necessary, we are also ready to mobilise other resources. At the same time, we need to be able to mobilise private finance, including from the EIB and banks. To that end, Member State support will be essential. Finally, we know what industry is doing today. Now we need to know what they will do tomorrow and what they could do tomorrow. In that light, Commissioner Breton has started to visit each of the 15 companies identified by the task force to discuss with them directly and understand their constraints and to see how to help them increase their production capacity. Thank you. I look forward to the debate.

– Madam President, this has been a really important debate, so thank you all very much for the contributions that you’ve made. And to say very clearly that we all know there is no room for complacency and that we do need to look and to learn lessons. But, to repeat a core point that I make frequently, the visitors in this Chamber today, they know that we are responsible for financial stability. That’s in the core of my mandate, and I take that very, very seriously, as colleagues in this House do. So it’s very important that we do watch and see what happened in the US. We will continue to monitor very closely all of the events. Also, I thank you for your support on the crisis management and deposit insurance proposal, which will come very soon. We will have an ambitious proposal and I would really urge for your support for our ambitions in this area. This is the year in which we mark 30 years of the single market, and I’m sad to say that we have not a single market in capital. We have not completed banking union. We have not completed capital markets union. We either look at that as a problem or an opportunity. And I see it as a real opportunity. To the point about the tech sector in Europe needing finance, this is a really important issue and if we complete our capital markets union, we will provide that finance in Europe to allow start—ups to grow up. And I think the points were very, very well made. So we remain ambitious for the financial sector. We remain very conscious and cautious about the new environment that we are living in, and we will reflect very closely on what has happened in the US, mindful that we are negotiating the banking package. I have to say, in the first trialogue, under the stewardship of the Chair of the CONT Committee, Ms Tinagli, the atmosphere was very good for a positive outcome and I hope that that will continue, and we as a Commission will support you in that. And the points made about being faithful to Basel implementation, I would absolutely support all of those. We have time in this mandate to develop the single market for capital. We will not complete it in this mandate, but I think we should collectively want to make huge progress. And I urge and thank you in advance for your support for that objective.

– Madam President, thank you for the opportunity of this debate, which is very timely. We are monitoring the situation in the US carefully. The direct impact on the European Union seems to be limited, but we should reflect on whether there are lessons to be learned for the European Union’s banking sector. Let me start first by giving a brief overview of recent events. Over the last few days, we saw three US banks fail. They are Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and Silvergate Bank. US authorities took swift and decisive action based on their extensive resolution experience. There was strong cooperation between the different authorities involved: the resolution authority, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the supervisor, the Federal Reserve; and the US Treasury, providing a backstop. The failures of these banks show shortcomings in the management of their balance sheets. This became apparent when the downturn in crypto and the tech sector led startups to withdraw their deposits. In particular, it seems that the biggest of the three banks, Silicon Valley, received a large inflow of corporate deposits during and after COVID. They invested a significant part of these deposits in long-term fixed-rate assets. But they were then faced with an outflow of deposits so had to sell these long-term assets at a significant loss as interest rates had risen. This loss in turn triggered more outflows of deposits. The bank was unable to raise capital on the market and the US resolution authorities had to step in. Let me turn now to the impact on the European Union. Silicon Valley Bank has a very limited presence in the European Union and we’re in touch with the relevant supervisory authorities. So the direct impact of these bank failures on the EU seems to be limited. Silicon Valley Bank’s German branch had lending, where BaFin has already issued a moratorium, but no deposits. In Denmark and Sweden, Silicon Valley Bank was present with representative offices but had no operating branch gathering deposits. Of course, we are monitoring developments with EU supervisors, and that includes the reaction on the markets, which was initially negative on the EU banking sector but has since calmed down. It is the role of competent authorities, under the coordination of the EBA if necessary, to form a view of the possible exposure of businesses and particularly the technology sector. The situation around Silicon Valley Bank is still unfolding and there are many particularities about it. There are no immediate parallels with EU banks. But, more broadly, this situation shows how the economic and financial situation is changing globally and in Europe. The shift in interest rates has created a new environment. The EU financial system and banks in particular are adjusting under close supervision. We have to stay alert to this new environment. Higher inflation and rising interest rates present different challenges to financial stability than ‘low-for-long’ interest rates. The problem of unrealised losses on the bond portfolio of Silicon Valley Bank is an illustration of that. However, the possible difficulties this environment may create for banks’ balance sheets are not new. So, we can say that the EU banking sector is in overall good shape. It has built up its resilience in recent years and it is supervised closely by national and European authorities. But I think at this very early stage we can start to look at some of the lessons that these failures in the US have for the European Union. These US banks were not subject to strict regulatory requirements for liquidity because the United States does not apply Basel to mid-sized and smaller banks, while here in the European Union we do apply the Basel prudential standards to all banks. Had this been the case in the US and the Basel requirements on liquidity applied, it is likely these US banks would have had a stronger liquidity position. The net stable funding ratio in particular makes it much harder for banks to finance long-dated illiquid assets with a volatile deposit base prone to fast withdrawals. I repeat that here in the European Union, the Basel prudential standards are applied to all banks. This introduces an important layer of caution into the prudential regulation and supervision of the EU banking sector, and that includes liquidity risks, interest rate risk and the need to cover unrealised losses on bond portfolios with capital. Supervisors have paid particular attention to interest rate risk in recent years. EU supervisory authorities are closely monitoring recent changes in interest rate risk and liquidity conditions, including possible contagion risks at the level of banks and the system level. Finally, prudential and accounting rules require EU banks to cover, with capital, unrealised losses on their bond portfolios in a timely manner. A second question is to understand under what conditions Silicon Valley Bank expanded abroad. The bank was subject to lighter rules in the United States. Basel standards should apply on internationally active banks. This shows how important our discussions are in the banking package trilogues, in particular for rules relating to third country branches. These cases we’re discussing today also illustrate the importance of a strong and operational crisis management framework that includes the appropriate tools for dealing with all banks in trouble. Like any bank failures, these cases are distinct, but we can see the importance of a robust crisis management and deposit insurance framework. Such a framework allows the failure of banks to be handled in an orderly and timely manner, regardless of their size or business model. One interesting aspect is that the case of Silicon Valley Bank concerns a US mid-sized bank, which by EU standards would in fact be considered a big bank. The US authorities decided to extend their guarantee to uninsured deposits to avoid repercussions on financial stability and the regional economy. They acted to prevent additional volatility in light of the simultaneous failures of smaller banks. All of this confirms that we need an effective crisis management toolbox for the banking sector to protect depositor confidence, financial stability and taxpayers. So, I want to close by reiterating the following. We are watching events in the United States where authorities did take swift and resolute action. The direct impact on the European Union seems limited, and we are in touch with the relevant supervisory authorities. We are also considering what these failures can teach us in terms of prudential regulation, supervision and bank crisis management and deposit insurance. So, I look forward to today’s debate and I thank the Parliament for their flexibility in facilitating a very timely debate on a really important topic.

– Madam President, colleagues, this has been a very grounded debate and also a very sobering one. I think that’s no harm because I think we have to get to grips with what faces us, and it is not an easy task because access to strategic, critical raw materials is not guaranteed unless we take action. But I’m going to sober you all up a little bit more, because the truth is that Europe is not the only continent looking for access to these critical raw materials. There is a race for access and therefore we have to act fast and effectively. If I give you some examples, the demand for lithium is expected to rise 18 times by 2030. Demand for rare earths alone will increase fivefold by 2030. Demand for graphite is expected to increase 14 times by 2030. So I really appreciated in this debate a broad approach to what lies ahead. Yes, of course, Global Gateway is really important to build and develop partnerships to diversify our supplies. Mining in Europe is also an issue we have to talk about, and of course, it has to be done in the correct way. I do want to thank the Swedish Presidency for inviting the Commission to Kiruna. The fact that I slept in an ice house is just another story, but it kept me awake. The third point is circularity and recycling is key. I remember when I was in this House, some of the more important debates happened with a few of us in the Chamber. In my view, this is the most critical debate for our future, and we need to make it mainstream. I think all of you who have contributed to this debate with many different views are… It’s been really important to get the message out that we have a challenge ahead. We have to move away from harmful fossil fuels, so we will need access to strategic, critical raw materials. That will not happen by accident. We have to work hard, and I expect and I hope that this Parliament will work with us and the Council to achieve our objectives.

– Madam President, colleagues, this is a debate about one of the most important and structural challenges that our industry faces. Investing in refining, processing and recycling of raw materials here in Europe, as well as working with our trade partners to build resilient supply chains, is one of the essential elements of what President von der Leyen addressed as the greatest industrial transformation of our times. Critical raw materials are of paramount importance for the deployment of the technologies that enable the green and digital transitions and strengthen our resilience. But it is true to say that the EU remains heavily dependent on concentrated supply sources from a few third countries. China provides over 90% of the EU’s magnesium supply and 98% of rare earth supply. Turkey provides 98% of borate and South Africa 71% of platinum group metals. We need, therefore, to combine an increase of domestic production where we can, including through recycling, with the diversification of sources of supply through reinforced international engagement, in full respect of highest environmental, social and governance standards. To meet these challenges, we’re preparing a European Critical Raw Materials Act, which will rest on four pillars. First, the act intends to define the critical raw materials that can be considered as particularly strategic to rally a collective effort and give a much-needed signal to private investors on priority needs. Second, the act intends to strengthen the EU’s critical raw materials value chain, from mining to refining to processing, recycling and ensuring, as asked by this Chamber, the high social and environmental standards. To this end, we intend to support the emergence of strategic projects which would contribute to increasing the EU’s capacity and would in turn benefit from more transparent approval procedures, streamline permitting, and better access to investment opportunities. We want to promote such strategic projects here in Europe, but also in third countries to reinforce partnerships and collaborations. Third, we intend to promote circularity in the critical raw material value chain, including by removing critical raw materials from extractive waste. This is really important for permanent magnets. And fourth, it’s essential to set up a governance system that facilitates collaboration among raw materials agencies and increase risk preparedness. Such an ambitious plan requires ambitious resources. We need a massive, unprecedented investment push. Besides the support of strategic projects, we’re working closely with the business sector through the European Raw Materials Alliance to help project promoters get access to private finance. And we are advancing on State aid rules to help to accelerate the green and digital transitions, in particular when it comes to the temporary crisis and transition framework while maintaining a level playing field. But the European Union cannot extract, process, recycle and refine all of the critical raw materials it needs. Today and for the foreseeable future, we will continue to rely on imports, but we need to diversify our supply sources. We need to enhance our partnerships with third countries to secure and boost trade flows, using the EU’s vast framework of trade and investment agreements and extending our bilateral strategic partnerships, focusing on raw material value chains. In doing so, we need to help third countries to move up and develop local value chains in a sustainable way so as to ensure that partnerships become win-win and help to strengthen economic and political bonds. These challenges being global, we need a global response. As announced by President von der Leyen, the EU will establish a critical raw materials club to work together with like-minded raw materials consumers and resource-rich countries, using the Global Gateway framework to its full effect. The EU needs to continue developing more strategic partnerships with reliable partners to diversify our supply sources, but also to consider how to make more sustainable and resilient our relationships with all our major trading partners in this sector. And, to this end, the act will be accompanied by a communication further detailing the EU integrated approach to ensure a secure and sustainable sourcing of critical raw materials with a specific focus on the external dimension. On sustainability in particular, we need to ensure that the sourcing and investment in critical raw materials promote labour rights and environmental protection. Honourable Members, when we talk about the green and digital transition, about technological sovereignty, we first need to talk about the supply of critical raw materials – its security, affordability and sustainability. And that’s why I believe that the upcoming package is of huge importance to the European Union. I very much look forward to this debate and indeed there has been a link between all of the debates that I have participated in this evening, so it shows that things are circular and in the issue of critical raw materials, we are at a critical juncture.

– Madam President, colleagues, this has been a really important debate. I think sometimes there is the impression that financial matters, fiscal policy and monetary policy belong to experts. But everything that we do in this area impacts people, and I think the President of the ECB has already reflected that. I mean, many of you have expressed concerns about citizens, particularly vulnerable citizens, and that’s why the Commission has said we need to target support to those most in need. Indeed, the same goes for business as well: those that are vulnerable need support. In relation to the comments around greening of the financial system, more investments in climate, there are many different views in this House – that’s the beauty of it. But the truth is that climate change will impact asset values and therefore we do need to integrate this huge issue into our financial system. Last point is in relation to the digital euro. I just want to inform the House here, as I have with the ECON colleagues previously, that the Commission is now preparing a regulation based on Article 133 TFEU to establish the digital euro and regulate its main aspects, but of course leaving most of the technical design choices to the ECB. Indeed the final decision will be taken by the ECB, and I think, President Lagarde, you were very clear that this is an investigation that’s been carried out. One of the things that we will deal with in the regulation is an accompanying proposal on legal tender status of euro cash. One of the things I’m concerned about is that there is already a feeling that a digital euro will remove access to cash, and this is not what we have envisaged. There are concerns around privacy. So this is really an issue which this Parliament will have to have a fundamental role in. I have to say that I had no questions addressed to me, which is a privilege and a joy, but I now yield the floor to the president of the ECB, who I think had a few questions.

– Madam President, as they say, ‘What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’. I have to say, it’s my unexpected pleasure to be taking part in this debate and to recognise Madam Presidents around me. This is an important debate because we do recognise the independence of the ECB, but there is also a democratic accountability piece, and I think you outlined that very well in your contribution. My thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Andreson, for your work and indeed your colleagues on the committee. And I think it’s also fair to say thank you to the chair of the ECON Committee, Irene Tinagli, who is a very good collaborator. My appreciation to all your colleagues. Croatia joining the euro, the 20th member. A huge achievement for Croatia, but a European milestone also. The Commission shares the report’s deep concerns about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its consequences. The energy crisis led to a slowdown of economic activity, but our economies are proving to be a little bit more resilient than we might have expected. This is also evidenced by the recent Commission forecasts. We, as a Commission, respect the ECB’s independence in the conduct of monetary policy. We fully acknowledge that the ECB has taken decisive actions to tame inflationary pressures and ensure that inflation expectations remain well anchored, and the ECB’s decision to bring inflation down to close to the target of 2%, avoiding a wage price spiral. The draft report touches on the coordination of monetary, fiscal and structural policies, which is a topical issue. As monetary policy tightens, ensuring a consistent policy mix remains critical. Expansive monetary and fiscal policies played a huge stabilisation role and reinforced each other during the economic downturn caused by the pandemic crisis. Now that our economies are being challenged by strong and persistent inflationary pressures, fiscal policy should avoid fuelling inflationary pressures. A further expansionary stance is not warranted. As the ongoing tightening of monetary policy reduces the available fiscal space, we should have a prudent fiscal policy. And, therefore, the euro area Member States should coordinate their fiscal policies to preserve debt sustainability and raise potential growth in a sustainable manner which would facilitate the task of monetary policy, bringing inflation back to 2%. The Commission has strongly advocated a better targeting of the fiscal measures to cushion the impact of high energy prices on vulnerable households and companies. As energy prices have declined substantially, this becomes more relevant. With the general escape clause being deactivated as of next year, it will be important to make swift progress with the discussions on the possible revision of the EU fiscal framework. A credible framework will contribute to safeguarding fiscal sustainability and promoting sustainable growth through investment and reforms. The Commission put forward orientations for a reform last year. We already had good discussions with the European Parliament and are also discussing this with Member States. On the basis of these discussions, the Commission will consider tabling legislative proposals. Your report stresses the importance of addressing climate change. We welcome the ECB’s efforts to incorporate climate change considerations in its monetary policy framework within its price stability mandate. This complements the actions taken by the Commission and Member States to address climate change and promote green investments, including, for instance, through the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The implementation of the RRF and REPowerEU is all the more important with the new green industrial plan. Policy objectives enshrined in the REPowerEU Regulation explicitly include aims that are directly relevant to the industrial transition to climate neutrality, including industrial decarbonisation; the development of renewable and fossil-free hydrogen; green skills; and the support to develop value chains and technologies linked to the green transition. I have to say, President Lagarde, I welcome very much your strong statement on Capital Markets Union. We cannot say it frequently enough. We had an excellent debate here yesterday evening on ELTIF reforms, and there is a shared desire to move this project forward. So, we really need to keep up the pressure and indeed also on banking union. I look forward to the debate.

– Madam President, colleagues, thank you for this debate. I really appreciate the sense of urgency in the House and the approach of Members from whatever side that we need a common pact on migration and asylum. Perhaps the last speaker in catch-the-eye stole a line of mine, but I do think we need to realise that we’re talking about human beings. They could be people like you and I, and I think that is important for us to say in this debate. But we are letting down human beings who need protection; people who come here and who should have their status recognised quickly. This is not happening and that has to be addressed. Human trafficking must be tackled. Reducing irregular arrivals and increasing returns where that is appropriate is also important. The European Council has agreed a two-track approach. So, the operational measures that I have mentioned, but more importantly the legislative action to underpin a European common approach to asylum and migration. This is the only sustainable solution, and I know there is a commitment to reach agreement by the end of this term, but I really would wish for speed in that work. We are ready to assist the co-legislators. We need to agree on a sustainable, efficient and humane common migration and asylum policy. Therefore, this debate, with the many different views, should focus all of our attention on doing what we can to reach agreement so that we once and for all have a common approach on European migration and asylum.

– Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the conclusions of last week’s European Council and the need to adopt the pact on migration and asylum before the end of the mandate, as agreed by co-legislators under the joint roadmap. At the last plenary, President von der Leyen presented the Commission’s view on the way forward. As the President proposed in her letter to EU leaders, the European Council clearly recognised migration as a European challenge that requires a European response, and this is the right and only approach. It was a European response that made it possible to defeat the hybrid attack by Belarus in 2021. A European response made it possible to welcome millions of Ukrainian refugees fleeing Putin’s bombs last year and indeed this into this year. Only a European response will allow us to manage migration properly, taking advantage of the potential of legal migration and reducing irregular migration in a humane and effective manner. The lesson learned is clear: we need to act together. As proposed by the Commission, EU leaders agreed that the EU needs to act on two tracks: legislative and operational. Only a comprehensive renewal of our legal framework can offer a strong and sustainable foundation for EU action. The new pact on migration and asylum will make sure different work streams mutually reinforce each other, with a clear framework and rules on solidarity and responsibility. Alongside the pact, the Commission has also made other proposals: to step up the EU’s capacity to strengthen our external borders; to ensure that internal border checks become measures of very last resort, through a modernised Schengen Borders Code. The Council is ready to start negotiations. It is essential that this House adopts its position also with some urgency. The pact remains a number one priority for us in the Commission and, indeed, I think that is shared by the Council and this House: we are all fully committed. To finalise the negotiations before the end of this mandate, I think is a priority and we are talking about February 2024. I would add that the Commission stands ready to support all your efforts, and we count on you, as well as the Swedish and Spanish Presidency, to meet the challenge. In parallel to the negotiations on the pact, we need to address the challenges that we are confronted with today. We have the power to act and we have put on the table important operational measures. We now need to implement them. The European Council last week had an open and frank discussion on the challenges and the measures to be prioritised in the short term. We all agree that external borders must be managed better. External borders are not just national, but they are European borders. We must strengthen them and prevent irregular migration. We are ready to increase the presence of Frontex, for example, in the Western Balkans, through agreements with our partners. We are going to develop pilot schemes showcasing good practices on border procedures, acting as a precursor to the new pact. The objective is to support Member States in taking quick decisions so that persons who are in need of protection get their status recognised quickly, while returning those not in need of protection. The Commission will provide operational, technical and financial support. We will discuss with interested Member States and expect to start one or more pilots in the first half of this year. We must focus on further enhancing the functioning of our external borders by fully implementing the advanced external border management that we have all already agreed on. In particular, when it comes to the IT architecture on the European external borders, we need to choose our priorities in terms of funding. Member States are best positioned to define how they protect their borders, but they must abide by the EU law and respect fundamental rights. We also need to do better on returns and have a common European approach for faster and dignified returns. The European Council calls on Member States to apply the mutual recognition of returns decisions. A return decision taken by one Member State must be valid in all Member States. As of next month, the Schengen Information System enters into operation and it will be a key tool for this purpose. We welcome that leaders support the need for making full use of the safe country concept, aiming in the future at common European lists. Secondary movements are a legitimate concern in some Member States. We must address this issue and reduce the incentives for such movement. We will work with Member States to ensure that they fully implement the Dublin roadmap and at the same time better implement the voluntary solidarity mechanism while waiting for a permanent mechanism through the pact. Finally, we will not manage migration properly without increased partnership with the countries of origin and transit. We need a win—win cooperation on migration that covers all aspects of our relationship, cooperation to fight smuggling, enhancing returns and readmission of irregular migrants, but also working together on ambitious legal pathways to set up talent partnerships, boosting international mobility and the development of skills in a mutually beneficial way. In the central Mediterranean, we are ready to strengthen border management and search and rescue capacities in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, working in close cooperation with the UNHCR and the IOM. For such a multidimensional phenomenon, we need a whole of government approach and a single voice to speak for the EU. The Commission will continue to support putting these operational key actions into practice and to support the co-legislators’ work on the swift negotiations on the pact. I now look forward to your interventions.

– Madam President, I’ve listened very carefully to this debate and will, of course, report to my colleague Commissioner Reynders, but I want to underline that the Commission will continue our dialogue and our focus on the rule of law situation in different Member States and also to say that we remain at your disposal in that regard, whether it’s in plenary, in committee or in any other format. When it comes to the situation in Greece, the Commission appreciates the willingness of the Greek authorities to have a dialogue on the reforms to be carried out. However, I would like to stress the importance of completing all necessary reforms in terms of judicial independence and efficiency, the fight against corruption, freedom of the media, and checks and balances, and to implement them in practice. We will continue to monitor the rule of law situation in all Member States, including Greece, in the context of the preparation of the rule of law report for this year.

– Mr President, Minister Roswall, colleagues, I represent Commissioner Reynders here in this debate and he expresses his regret that he could not, unfortunately, join us. I want to say at the very outset that the Commission is monitoring developments concerning the rule of law in Greece in the context of its annual Rule of Law Report, as it does for all Member States. We adopted the third edition of this report in July last. It included – for the first time – country-specific recommendations to all the Member States. And let me outline the recommendations made to Greece, as well as other relevant developments concerning this Member State. First, as regards the justice system, a recommendation to Greece in the 2022 Rule of Law Report concerns the need for involvement of the judiciary in the appointment of the President and Vice-President of the Council of State, the Supreme Court and the Court of Auditors, taking into account European standards on judicial appointments. This issue has been raised already in the first and second Rule of Law Reports, as well as by GRECO. The report also notes that Greece has adopted a number of measures aiming to improve the efficiency and the quality of the Greek justice system, while several challenges still remain to be addressed – notably as regards the efficiency of justice. While we have seen improvements in the digitalisation of administrative justice, shortcomings still exist as regards the digitalisation of civil justice. The ongoing revision of the judicial map is a positive development, bearing in mind that judges who would be transferred in the course of the reform should benefit from procedural safeguards according to European standards. Regarding the anti-corruption framework, the Rule of Law Report reflects that, while the number of asset declarations being filed has increased and all are verified for their completeness, their accuracy is only verified in a limited percentage. In this context, the Commission has recommended to Greece to ensure the effective and systematic verification of the accuracy of asset disclosures filed by all types of public officials. Moreover, in 2021, a limited number of prosecutions related to corruption were taken forward, although progress on final decisions remains to be established. And this is why the Commission has also recommended to increase efforts to establish a robust track record of prosecutions and final judgments in corruption cases. Let me move now to media freedom and media pluralism. The Rule of Law Report also addressed the situation of journalists in Greece, which has raised significant concerns due to the fact that several journalists have faced threats and physical attacks while their professional environment has further deteriorated. The Commission issued a specific recommendation to Greece on this issue, aiming at establishing legislative and other safeguards to improve the physical safety and working environment of journalists, taking into account European standards on the protection of journalists, including the Commission’s Recommendation on the safety of journalists, adopted in 2021. The report also noted that the Greek Government has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals, which contains a common framework of cooperation among the different ministries, including the preparation of proposals for legislative and non-legislative initiatives to ensure the protection of journalists. The Commission’s proposal for a European media act, adopted in September last year, contains a number of provisions aimed at enhancing media freedom and protecting journalists, including articles dedicated to surveillance and the use of spyware by public authorities. As regards other institutional issues – the last pillar of the Rule of Law Report – the Commission would like to underline that registration requirements for civil society organisations should be proportionate, whatever the field in which they act, in view of maintaining an open framework for them to operate as outlined and, indeed, underlined in one of our recommendations in the report. Such legislation continues to raise concerns as regards its impact on the ability of NGOs to operate in Greece and to receive financial support. As regards the law-making procedures, whilst underlining that work on improving the quality of the legislation process continues, challenges remain, such as a short time frame for public consultation. Let me move now to the issue of wiretapping and spyware. Let me reiterate that the Commission strongly condemns any illegal access to interpersonal communications, either by traditional means or wiretapping or spyware. The EU has a strong legal framework for data protection and privacy, which must be respected. The Commission notes that the Greek Government recently passed a law regarding the rules on wiretapping for purposes of national security and the fight against crime and the use of spyware. As regards the purchase and use of spyware by public authorities, a decree –not yet adopted – has to specify all applicable conditions. The issue of spyware in Greece was addressed in the Rule of Law Report. We note that in the last months there were further reports of surveillance, including politicians, journalists and officials of the armed forces. We also understand that various investigations are ongoing. The Commission expects that supervisory authorities and the courts will make full use of all their powers to thoroughly examine any such allegations and to restore citizens’ trust. The individuals concerned must be able to exercise their rights to data protection and privacy, and their right to an effective judicial remedy, which presupposes their right to be informed about having been subject to surveillance or wiretapping. This right to be informed can be subject to delays and restrictions provided for by national law, if necessary to avoid jeopardising criminal and national security investigations. The Commission received information from the Greek authorities on these recent developments and will keep on following the situation closely.

– Mr President, thank you and good luck in office, but you will need the hammer on some occasions. Look, this debate was interrupted to this morning and I think many of us were perhaps not in the chamber, but very important points were made by colleagues both before and after the debate. And while there was urgency around what we do to build our industrial capacity, I think there is also a danger that we ignore the strengths we have as a European Union, and we need to play to those strengths. The proposals from the Commission are fit for purpose and I think, as I've said, there are four pillars to this, including skills, including around regulation, which will help our sectors become more competitive. There were some comments made about a subsidies race. This is not how we see this. This is Europe being very future focused and perhaps less naive about how the world is today. And that is why there is an urgency to the work. To my good friend and colleague, Bas Eickhout, who suggested that the green finance agenda is lost somewhere, it's not. It's very much with me and we will continue to work on the green finance agenda and roll out the reporting that is required, notwithstanding the challenges this faces our companies with. So in other words, we're not doing a U-turn here. We are going forward with our long term strategy for a more sustainable European economy and society. However, we need every so often to take a step back and look at are there areas that need to be addressed. And this is exactly what we are doing with this plan, this Green Deal industrial plan. I very much valued the contributions. I opened my remarks by saying that this is a decisive decade. And the truth is, it's a very divisive decade. It is a time of huge uncertainty for everyone, including people in this House and the people you represent. And I think that despite the differences I've heard in the debate, we all want the same thing. We all want a strong, resilient Europe that is showing leadership not just in green finance, but in environmental issues generally. But we want to have a balanced economy. And that is why when we come to discuss the European Green Deal industrial plan, I think we will see that we have more in common than might divide us.

– Madam President, good morning colleagues and good morning Minister. I think we all know that this is a decisive decade, that by 2030 we plan to cut emissions by 55%, and that this work started three years ago with the European Green Deal. We set out a very detailed roadmap, Fit for 55, and we accelerated our work with Next Generation EU using EUR 800 billion—worth of investment to emerge from the pandemic with a stronger, more sustainable Europe. Russia’s war of aggression requires us to accelerate again this work, as Putin is weaponising his country’s energy exports in a failed attempt to weaken our resolve. But this is a difficult time for European citizens, for families and businesses. Europe is being tested by war, by geopolitical tensions, by trade rivalries and climate change. We need to show that we can step up to these challenges and we need to continue to show our resolve as we work towards 2030 and net zero by 2050. Half the emissions we need to cut by 2050 depend on technology not yet ready for market, or technology that does not yet exist. That is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity. The EU’s net—zero startups were worth over EUR 100 billion in 2021, twice as much as they were worth the year before, and that will keep growing: economic growth, competitiveness and innovation, on the one hand; sustainability on the other. These objectives are not in conflict. But we need the right environment in Europe to make sure these goals support and build on each other. On 1 February, the Commission presented a Green Deal industrial plan to make Europe the home of clean tech and innovation on the road to net zero. It is built on four pillars: the regulatory environment, financing, skills and trade. And I want to just briefly go through those four pillars. First, on the regulatory environment, this is about speed and access. We need to enable the clean—tech industry to scale up and to scale up fast. We know that companies complain that permitting is too slow and there are too many barriers to bringing innovations to market. So one of our main measures will be a new net zero industry act that will, for example, look at how to fast—track permitting for clean—tech production sites. Second, financing – money. We need to speed up investment in clean—tech production. We will adopt our state aid rules to speed up and simplify processes on a temporary basis for the decarbonisation of industries and for sectors we need to reach net zero. We will have easier calculations, simpler procedures and accelerated approvals. But we will also pay attention to the level playing field in the single market. Not all Member States have the same capacity to use state aid. As we mark 30 years of that single market, we should recognise the value of our state aid rules for all Member States, big and small. So our temporary rules will allow for time—limited, proportionate and targeted state aid where that’s necessary to roll out renewable energy, decarbonise industry and support investment in strategic sectors for net zero. Public funding is important, but it will not by itself be sufficient. The bulk of the money to fund green tax and clean tax will not come from the public purse, but from private investors. The US has the Inflation Reduction Act, but it also has thriving capital markets that secure the country’s competitiveness. Here in the European Union we need the same: we need the Capital Markets Union and we need to accelerate our work. And I want to thank colleagues in this House who are working hard on our proposals for CMU, because it is about allowing businesses to access more sources of funding as they start out. It’s about making sure that startups born in Europe can scale up in Europe. It’s about giving investors more opportunities to invest in different projects and companies, including green tech and clean tech. The third part of the Green Deal industrial plan is skills. We cannot do any of this work without the necessary people. We need people to drive the clean—tech revolution. We will need 800 000 skilled workers by 2025 in the battery industry; 1 million skilled workers by 2030 in the solar industry, twice as many as there are today. This is a chance to create well-paying, skilled jobs for the future. And this is the absolute priority in this European Year of Skills. Fourth, and finally, we are focusing on trade because we want to deliver net zero at the global level. We need strong and resilient supply chains to access raw materials, to open up markets for our products. We need an ambitious trade agenda, making the most of the deals that we have and closing deals that we are negotiating. So in closing, President, honourable Members, I know we face challenging times, but it is in times like this that the European Union does its best work. I look forward to your views on how we can turn this Green Deal industrial plant into a reality so that Europe reaches net zero by 2050 and leads the way as a net zero industrial powerhouse.

– Thank you again colleagues, President, I’ll be brief and I just want to pick up a comment of Mr Kovařík about financial literacy and say that this Parliament, I believe, has an important role to play here because we do need to talk about knowledge, about money, and to make sure that citizens have the skills to invest and are aware of what’s happening. My second observation — and Paul, thank you, as always, for being very straight and provocative — is that, in fact, we do need to invest in the transition. And I think there is an awareness today because of the horrors of what’s happening in Ukraine and the energy crisis, that we do have to actually invest faster into the green and digital way. But we will track these funds and we will see whether they achieve their objectives. For me, the big point is that we need to connect savers with investing. During COVID-19, we saw a lot of money on deposit, people not earning on it — we need that to channel it into the projects we’ve just discussed. And you know, long term, life is not long enough, so we all know that we need to see results on these projects for citizens, for those that are here and those that have yet to come. It also marks, in my view, a step forward, a big step forward, on the capital markets union (CMU). Bit by bit, with your cooperation here in Parliament and with the Council, we are making CMU happen and I really would like to thank you for that, but also to ask you to push us and to push as far as you can because we do not have a single market for capital and, you know, we’re marking 30 years of the single market, in one area we have not completed the circle. But I look forward to tomorrow’s vote. I think it will be strong because I think there was a great spirit of cooperation amongst you as negotiators. And again, I want to acknowledge and appreciate that. Have a nice evening.