What Mairead spoke about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Mr President, dear colleagues, the debate now has underlined the crucial role of cohesion policy, both to address today’s priorities and tomorrow’s challenges. While it is for the next Commission to propose a new legislative framework, reflections must start in good time – and they already have. This is vital because we see already certain trends emerging and impacting on Europe’s regions: issues around skills, demographic change, climate change, the green and digital transitions, a changing geopolitical context. All of these trends are already impacting at the regional level and must be addressed to ensure sustained convergence. Because every region is different and has a different development profile, the approach must be tailored. Balanced development means a continued focus on less-developed regions, while not ignoring emerging challenges in other regions, especially those at risk of development traps and brain drain, or those undergoing industrial transition. So this requires a cohesion policy that retains the key principles that have worked in the past, especially partnership and multi-level governance, and strong support for administrative capacity-building as a necessary condition for effective cohesion programming results, while developing and deepening in the following areas: performance-based mechanisms; reforms overcoming obstacles to growth specific to each region; better coordination with other policies; further simplification and the flexibility to react to unforeseen crisis and developing needs while maintaining a stable framework. A question was raised earlier by a colleague who said ‘who decides, the regions or Brussels?’ This isn’t an either or. I mean, the regions know their problems and Brussels can help with the solutions – and I’m sure my colleague, Commissioner Ferreira, would endorse that. So I want to close by saying that European cohesion policy has already proved its worth for long-term convergence to short-term crisis. We have been successful in bringing Europeans together. Now, as we move forward, let’s remember this goal: whatever we face in the coming years, no European should be left behind and no place should feel forgotten. For this, we need a strong cohesion policy with a solid budget. Thank you for your support.

– Mr President, colleagues, dear Secretary of State Michel, you have certainly been working overtime today, taking so many debates. Thank you for your contribution to this and other debates this afternoon. The 9th Cohesion Report, published earlier this month, really does paint a very positive and rich picture of economic, social and territorial cohesion across the European Union. There is remarkable convergence over recent years. The countries that joined the EU in 2004 – as we celebrated earlier today – have seen their GDP per head increase from 52% of the EU average to nearly 80% as of last year. This is, in large part, thanks to EU cohesion policy. Evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme shows that, by 2022, the policy had supported 4.4 million businesses, created 370 000 new jobs, protected 17 million people from floods and improved health services for 63 million people. The benefits extend beyond direct investments. Enrico Letta’s new report, ‘Much more than a market’, shows how cohesion policy has always been a key success factor for the single market. For every EUR 1 invested in cohesion policy, EU GDP increases by nearly EUR 3 in the long term. Cohesion policy is one of the key pillars of the European project, accompanying each step of the integration process – from the creation of the single market to successive enlargements, supporting the achievement of the European Union’s priorities. Market forces alone cannot ensure that the benefits from these key integration steps are evenly spread across Europe, and that’s why cohesion policy is vital – so that every Member State and region can contribute, benefit and reach its full potential. Cohesion policy also acted as a key stabiliser in recent crises. After the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy rebounded much more quickly than in the financial crisis thanks to the European response, where cohesion was a core part. Cohesion helped in welcoming refugees fleeing Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and in protecting the most vulnerable from subsequent energy price hikes. These and many other benefits are known to Parliament, and were well reflected in your opinions and reports during this legislative term. They are also reflected in discussions over the past year on the future of cohesion policy. But, of course, in the 9th Cohesion Report and stakeholder discussions, there are also revelations around new challenges that the future policy will need to address. First, convergence at national level is not always reflected at regional level. Urban centres thrive while other regions decline. Rural, mountainous, island and sparsely populated regions face particular challenges, and some regions have fallen into development traps. Regions facing persistent stagnation struggle to get back on a growth path, risking the creation of a geography of political discontent. Second, Europe is facing particular social and demographic challenges. Regions where opportunities are scarce experience brain drain, which exacerbates long-term trends, like an ageing population and challenges in providing public services. And third are the impacts of climate. Some regions are particularly exposed – not just those at risk from fires, floods and droughts, but also those most dependent on carbon-intensive activities. It is essential that cohesion policy evolves to face these challenges and other challenges that may emerge, including in the context of future enlargement. The debate on the future of cohesion policy has started – with Parliament, with Member States, with regions and local stakeholders, with citizens. Together, we should build on the success of Europe’s convergence story and learn lessons from our collective experience to continue modernising and strengthening cohesion policy. So I look forward to your insights during tonight’s debate.

– Mr President, as Shakespeare said, brevity is the soul of wit. Two comments I have to make in conclusion. The Commission is ready to engage in trilateral discussions to allow us to clarify all remaining points of concern before giving consent to any proposal. And secondly, let us resume this important work under the next Parliament with a solutions-orientated approach. Agreement is possible. Your right of inquiry is important and let us work to achieve success in that matter.

– Mr President, colleagues, time is of the essence, so I will be quick. I am here on behalf of EVP Šefčovič, but I want to state on his behalf and, indeed, on behalf of the Commission, that we recognise absolutely the importance of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. I can speak of my own experience as an MEP, just how important that right of inquiry is. I chaired a committee of inquiry in 2006, on the collapse of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, and our work identified issues around weak financial regulation on which there was follow-up action. But it is also worth noting that this right of inquiry must be exercised by Parliament within the limits of the powers in the Treaties, and in line with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out there. In 2012, the Parliament adopted its proposal to revise the 1995 Decision that now governs the exercise of Parliament’s right of inquiry. Since then, regrettably, there has been little progress. The Commission has never objected to engaging in any interinstitutional dialogue. In fact, it is quite the opposite. As stated on several occasions during structured dialogues with AFCO and in previous debate on this topic in June 2021, the Commission has always been open to constructive trilateral discussions to address any remaining issues before giving its consent according to Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Just to recall, this is a special legislative procedure. While it is for Parliament to make the proposal, the procedure requires the consent of both Council and Commission. So therefore, in the spirit of sincere cooperation, any Parliament position or proposal, including non-papers, should be transmitted to both Commission and Council. The Commission takes note of the updated non-paper received from Parliament, which aims to take, and I quote, ‘a considerable step towards the Council’s position, after which no further substantial concessions from the Parliament’s side could be possible’. The Commission acknowledges some progress in this updated non-paper; of note, deleting the provision allowing Parliament, in effect, to impose sanctions in the case of a failure to fully cooperate with a committee of inquiry. But there are still outstanding issues which should be further discussed in interinstitutional negotiations. These include the conduct of investigations, hearings of members of EU institutions, hearings of EU officials and other staff, hearings of other individuals, and requests for documents. In addition, the Commission regrets that Parliament recently decided unilaterally to introduce some amendments to its Rules of Procedure that relate to Parliament’s inquiry powers. Amendments like this risk interfering, or even being incompatible, with the procedure established by the Treaties on adopting detailed provisions on exercising the right of inquiry. As I explained, these provisions should be determined by the Parliament in a regulation after obtaining the consent of the Council and the Commission. In any event, I do want to assure you that the Commission will cooperate, and continue to do so, with Parliament’s committees of inquiry, in full compliance with the Treaties and the 1995 Decision on Parliament’s right of inquiry.

– Mr President, I’m conscious of the time constraints, so just to appreciate the debate that we’ve had. From our side in the Commission, the next step is to make sure we have effective implementation of what we’ve agreed, particularly in setting up the new Anti-Money Laundering Authority. It needs to be adequately staffed and established so that it can do its work. I’m glad I was quoted by my colleague to my left, who’s on his left, in relation to cash, and can I just dismiss this idea that is being put out in this Chamber by a very few, that we are doing anything to restrict the right of access to cash? If anything, the European Commission is insisting on the right of citizens to use cash. But, of course, I think all citizens want to make sure that the cash we used is not dirty money, and we have strong support for that in this House. So I will just finish by saying it was a real privilege to work on this package. It was enormously difficult to get it to where it is today, and we will have to see the fruits of it, and I hope the next Parliament continues to monitor all aspects of our anti-money laundering. And to the question raised by Seán Kelly – the truth is in this area, Seán, we will never finish our work because the criminals, the elites, those with deep pockets, will find ways of trying to evade our laws – and it is up to you and this Commission and the Council to keep ahead of them.

– Mr President, thank you, I think today really marks a very significant moment for the European Union’s ongoing fight against money laundering and terrorism financing. And yet, I look to the galleries and I’m glad to see there are citizens listening to this debate, because this matters to you, your family and your society. And I hope you’ve listened to the colleagues who have already contributed, because this has been an enormous effort, because we were all focused on doing the right thing and doing it in a timely way. I want to thank the co-legislators and I want to list you in the order in which you have spoken: Luděk Niedermayer, Paul Tang, Eero Heinäluoma, Damien Carême, Eva Poptcheva and Emil Radev, the final speaker. I hold you all in equal esteem for the fact that you worked so well together and that we’ve arrived at this moment. I also thank the negotiating teams in ECON and LIBE, the chairs of ECON, Irene Tinagli, and of LIBE, Juan Ferdnando López Aguilar, and of course the presidencies: the Czech, the Swedish, the Spanish and finally the Belgian Presidency that got this over the line with you. When we started this effort, we knew it was not going to be easy, but there was an absolute imperative to improve significantly on the current situation. The scale of these reforms is unprecedented and the changes – the very necessary changes – we proposed are an ambitious departure from the status quo. I’ve said that we did our work in a timely and effective manner, and this was a priority for Parliament, Council and the Commission. So we did our work. So thank you for making sure we close this mandate with a reform that is truly transformative of Europe’s regulatory and interinstitutional setup, where we tackle money laundering and terrorism financing, because dirty money finances terrible crimes. And they’ve been listed already by colleagues: drug trafficking, human trafficking, prostitution, terrorism. And I want to now briefly note how broad the scope is of this package. So from cash to crypto, from real estate to luxury goods and football clubs, we are targeting all areas where there is a real risk of illegal activity. The private sector will benefit from common EU rules, including on the sharing of information. National authorities will be able to cooperate with each other and to investigate suspicious activities and we have a new anti-money laundering authority with very broad powers, specifically to guarantee consistent application of the rules across the single market, to support early detection of suspicious cases and report to law enforcement to supervise the highest risk entities directly. And the reform benefits other areas of policy. Most obviously, it benefits our work together on sanctions. There are new provisions on implementing sanctions, on mitigating the risks of sanctions evasion and on strengthening cooperation between AML and sanctions authorities. So I think, overall, this demonstrates the EU delivering to our financial system, our economy and the security of our citizens. So once again, my deepest gratitude for this work and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

– You heard it first in the European Parliament ! . Thank you all for your contributions. This is a really serious debate and all of you who have contributed are very serious players in this Parliament, and your work reflects that. But, of course, the next step is to implement and certainly, from our point of view in the Commission, we are already working with the European Banking Authority on the many technical standards and measures required to see effective implementation. To the reference from my former colleague, Markus Ferber – just to recall that the Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the final Basel III standards in other major jurisdictions, and in the area of market risk, the Commission is empowered to address level playing field issues by adopting delegated acts, if needed. On the overall framework, our long transitional arrangements and phasing provisions give us time to adapt to international developments. Beyond the current uncertainty on the international front, we are confident that the final elements of Basel III will be implemented globally. Just to note that the Basel Committee celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, and it does continue to be instrumental for international cooperation on bank supervision and regulation – and it is in the interest of banks themselves that consistent rules are applied globally. It is in the European interest to finalise implementation of these international standards. Yes, it will require a lot of effort from banks, their supervisors and all related stakeholders. But one thing is very clear: Basel will be implemented. My thanks again to this House and in particular to Rapporteur Jonás Fernández and the shadow rapporteurs. Together we are providing regulatory stability to our banking system, ensuring its resilience and its continued ability to serve citizens and businesses. Looking ahead to the next mandate, I note and welcome that this House has just adopted its position on the review of the crisis management and deposit insurance framework. The CMDI reform will further preserve financial stability and protect taxpayers and depositors. It also takes due account of the specificities in the national banking sectors while maintaining a level playing field. I’m confident that an agreement on this reform early in the next mandate will open the way to completing the banking union, including a European deposit insurance scheme. After almost 10 years of stalemate on this topic, we are happy to see that the European Parliament is ready to move forward, while the Commission reserves its position at this stage. Ambitious reforms on banking union, as well as on capital markets union, will bolster the EU’s financial stability and competitiveness. I would issue a warning here that the status quo will not deliver for the Europe of the future. We need funding to invest in the green and digital transition, and, therefore, we need work on capital markets union and banking union. To quote the long-serving (25 years) First Vice-President of the European Parliament, Othmar Karas, ‘let us not play national interests against Europe. Let us be more decisive, more ambitious.’ I just recall that we had marked 30 years of the single market last year, and yet we have failed to deliver a single market for capital, which means that we have an opportunity – and let’s grasp that opportunity. I hope that voters ask questions about this. It is not a remote topic. It is about their very lives and livelihoods, and they should know what’s happening or, indeed, what’s not happening. So I thank you for this debate. I think we have done good work together, but, of course, we will have to implement. I can guarantee from the Commission’s perspective that we will implement faithfully and effectively.

– Mr President, thank you very much, and thank you for your words at the opening of this debate, because I worked with you on the Bureau and enjoyed very much our working relationship. So thank you for marking this occasion. I suppose it is the end for many and it is only the beginning for some. So it is good to be here. My colleague, Seán Kelly, used rather flowery language about kicking ass, but Cad é an Ghaeilge ar an bhfocal seo a Sheáin, an bhfuil a fhios agat, b’fhéidir? Táim ag caint as Gaeilge. Sorry, I’m speaking Irish.

– Mr President, colleagues, I just want to recall, before I go into my official remarks, that it is quite fitting that this debate is happening at the end of this mandate. It was a topic – Basel implementation – at my hearing in October 2020. So we’ve delivered, and we’ve delivered together – just to mark that. I certainly will not forget the challenge of delivering, but also the opportunity it provides. I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Fernandez, who has just resumed his seat, and the many colleagues in the Chamber who have contributed to getting this agreement in place. It is a significant milestone that we have political agreement on the banking package, and it is a huge achievement for the European Union. Just to recall that this allows for the implementation of the final elements of the Basel III reforms, completing the banking reforms which started after the 2018 global financial crisis. I think many of us – I hope all of us – remember the immense difficulties caused by that crisis. We should never forget the horrific implications for our countries, our society and our citizens. Some have never fully recovered. Our economies came close to collapse. A number of financial institutions failed or had to be bailed out by taxpayers. Many people lost their homes and their livelihoods. The Basel reforms are about fixing the problems in the banking system that contributed to that catastrophe. Now to the specifics of what we are discussing today. The main goal in finalising the implementation of Basel III is to restore confidence in risk-based capital requirements. In other words, our rules should make sure that banks hold capital in proportion to the risks of their activities. We stayed faithful to the Basel agreement, showing our commitment to international regulatory cooperation. We did use the flexibility within Basel to make some targeted adjustments to reflect the characteristics of the EU economy and banking sector. EU banks are especially important for lending to corporates and providing mortgages to homeowners, so there are transitional arrangements for activities like these. We’ve also avoided unnecessary burdens for small banks. The EU applies these rules to all of our 4 500 banks, and not just to the large and internationally active banks. We have ensured that there is no significant increase in overall capital requirements. So the result of our work is a balanced compromise, which keeps our banks resilient and competitive. This banking package will make our banks more resilient to future economic shocks and ensure banks can continue to fund the EU economy, including in times of crisis. So, again, my appreciation and thanks to Parliament for your very significant contribution to this ambitious outcome. Parliament’s negotiating team – in particular rapporteur Jonás Fernández and the shadow rapporteurs – deserve, and have, our appreciation. I do recall seeing Othmar Karas in the Chamber. Ah! ‘He’s behind you’, as they say at the pantomime. Just a word for Othmar, if I may – and I’m sure colleagues will not be upset if I mention Othmar, as a colleague, a friend, and a very significant parliamentarian, who has made a huge contribution to banking regulation over the last 25 years in this House. I think your work is hugely appreciated and, indeed, the way you go about your work is, I think, an example for new Members. We all together have done our work, and I think now is not the time to rest. We have to implement, and this is the next stage of that process. The Commission will also take the co-legislators’ mandate to review the single market for banking very seriously. So to that end, I want to make the following very clear statement. The Commission undertakes to carry out a fair and balanced assessment of the state of the single market for banking, taking into consideration, in particular, prudential requirements, including the level of application of the output floor, and the provisions on the waiver of capital and liquidity requirements. It will carry out this mandate based on inputs from the European Banking Authority, and from the European Central Bank and the Single Supervisory Mechanism, and will consult with interested parties to ensure that the various perspectives are appropriately considered. The Commission will, where appropriate, present a legislative proposal based on the report. So I think it is appropriate, as this Parliament concludes its five-year mandate, that we are debating financial regulation, because this is not a dry, disconnected debate about percentages and risk-based. This is core to the wellbeing of our society and our economy. And I will recall the votes on EDIS and CMDI. I’ll mention them further in my concluding remarks. You have done a lot of work in this mandate to move the process of banking union, and indeed, I hope, capital markets union a step forward. I look forward to hearing your views.

– Mr Vice-President, colleagues, I would like to thank you as I think this debate has been really positive, and the fact that so many colleagues spoke in the debate speaks to the importance of food and agriculture for Europe. Now, in these tumultuous times, with our farmers taking to the streets, delivering on geographical indications may seem marginal. Yet geographical indications have long played and will continue to play a key role in maintaining farmers income. And I repeat that we are ready in the Commission to begin implementing the new rules over the next few weeks when Parliament votes tomorrow. I want to end by saying, dear Mr De Castro, dear Paolo, you rightly have the last word in this debate as rapporteur and, again, I thank you for your work on GIs. Your attention to farming and quality food is well known, including our work together over many years on the Agriculture Committee here in the European Parliament. So it’s nice to have a moment to acknowledge that.

– Mr President, good afternoon, colleagues, and can I just pay a tribute to Paolo De Castro – whose eye I cannot catch, but there you are – for his work on this file and indeed all of those who contributed to it. Given that we do have farmers’ protests across Europe, I think this is a very good news story and sends a very strong signal, because our system of geographical indications helps to promote and protect the unique qualities of the food and drink that our farmers produce here in the European Union, and those are qualities of authenticity, of taste, heritage and diversity. It’s also worth reflecting on why the Commission came forward with this proposal. We had three main goals in mind. Number one, to protect intellectual property rights in the European Union, so that our farmers and producers are fairly rewarded for their efforts. Number two, to increase the uptake of GIs across the EU – because there are large differences today between Member States and if we address this imbalance, we can help rural and regional economies across the EU. And third, we want to harmonise and simplify the legal framework, a process started by the CMO reform. So, at the end of October, we welcomed the political agreement on this new legislation. I believe the agreement reached is a balanced compromise which takes into account the sensitivities of all involved. The new legislation will create a simpler GI framework by introducing a single registration procedure for agricultural products, wines and spirit drinks. This will help to make the process more attractive for producers and more straightforward for administrations, both inside and outside the EU. Producer groups are empowered and we introduce the concept of recognised producer groups on a voluntary basis. I welcome these additions, which will help farmers to reinforce their position in the value chain and again, this is important, as we see our farmers raising concerns not just in Brussels but in all our Member States. Equally, we are giving producers stronger tools to defend their interests, with rules on the use of a GI as an ingredient in a processed product and by strengthening the protection of GIs in the online environment. This is very welcome. So I want to thank the Parliament for its support throughout the process. This work allowed us to find common ground and to meet the objectives we set. I look forward to your vote tomorrow and hope that you can endorse the final text, and that will allow us to put the law into practice in as little time as a month, and it will let our producers benefit from the new provisions as soon as possible. We will better protect the quality and diversity of our European agricultural sector for years to come because of your work.

– Mr President, colleagues, if I can just come back to the core of this debate, which is the report on the ECB, and I think it is positive that the views of the three institutions converge on most aspects of the ECON report. And also to remark that we are celebrating 25 years of the euro this year. We have 20 countries now using the euro. Bulgaria is likely to join and is making significant progress, and we hope it will soon meet all of the criteria to become the 21st member. Joining the euro area is good for the countries that join, for the euro area and for the EU as a whole, strengthening the global role and influence of the euro, and this is essential to maintain the EU’s competitiveness. Now, many people have said we need significant investment and I will just echo that call, and it will need primarily to come from the private sector. So in this context, advancing the capital markets union and completing the banking union are urgent priorities. A resilient banking sector can strengthen confidence in our single currency. By integrating EU capital markets, CMU can also facilitate the transmission of the ECB’s monetary policy. I think we all know in this House that capital markets union is a long-term project and we have done a lot in this mandate to advance CMU, but frankly, this is not enough to improve EU competitiveness and to meet these enormous investments around competitiveness improvements, the green and the digital transitions. We welcome that the Eurogroup is working on a statement on the future of the capital markets union. It is no secret that I share the impatience of some on the slow progress on CMU and I would urge all Member States to consider the high cost to our businesses, large and small, if we fail to further develop CMU. And if we fail, we will fail to provide the necessary investment to address competitiveness, sustainability and digitalisation, and these are challenges that our economy and society face today. So, I very much look forward to the final outcome of the work of the Eurogroup and I hope that political declarations on CMU are matched by political commitment of Member States and other stakeholders during negotiations on the relevant legislative proposals. It is not always thus. Finally, as we move towards a more digital economy, we want to keep access to the euro by means of a digital euro and, together with the ECB, this is about making the euro fit for the digital age. The digital euro project is under discussion following our proposal of last June and those discussions are, I believe, going well in the ECON Committee, and we are grateful for that progress. We are expecting similar progress on strengthening the legal tender status of cash and despite some comments to the contrary in this debate, let me stress that the European Commission defends citizens’ rights to access cash and to have acceptability of cash, while also working on a complement: the digital euro.

– Karas, President Lagarde, colleagues, I’m very happy that we are discussing this draft report on the work of the ECB in 2023, and I want to particularly thank the rapporteur, Johan Van Overtveldt and members of the ECON Committee for their insightful reflections. Parliament’s assessment is an important part of the democratic accountability of the ECB, as the President has just referred to, and the Commission shares the general sentiments of the ECON report, including the report’s concerns that high inflation is a threat to macroeconomic stability. Inflation has hit our households and our companies hard, bringing economic growth to a halt for a good part of last year, so the Commission welcomes the easing of inflationary pressures over the past months. We acknowledge the ECB’s strong commitment to ensuring price stability and its decisive action. The ECB raised its main policy rate from 0.5 % in July 2022 to 4 % in September 2023, which is the steepest rate increase in the history of economic and monetary union. This strong monetary policy tightening has worked its way through the economy and ensured that high inflation did not become entrenched in households’ and firms’ expectations. In addition, this tightening has been transmitted across the euro area without severe market tensions. Now looking ahead, both the Commission and the ECB expect inflation to come down towards 2 % by 2025 and as inflation comes down, the economic growth is forecast to gradually pick up over the course of this year. The ECON report points out that expansionary fiscal policies could counteract the ECB’s monetary policy tightening, and the Commission has repeatedly stressed the need for fiscal policy to be consistent with the efforts of monetary policy to fight inflation. The fiscal stance in the Euro area turned restrictive last year: in the 2024 European Semester autumn package, the Commission recommended a continuing restrictive policy fiscal stance for this year and next, and this is consistent with the need to reduce public debt and deficits, as well as ongoing monetary policy efforts to fight high inflation. At the same time, the Commission shares the ECON report’s conclusion that fiscal efforts should be combined with investments and reforms that support growth. Fiscal adjustment should not come at the expense of public investment. I would add that investment is expected to increase in most Member States, both nationally financed investments and the continued support from the Recovery and Resilience Facility and other EU funds. This is important as it will support sustainable growth. The need to maintain debt sustainability while promoting reforms and investments was the cornerstone of the economic governance reform proposed by the Commission. I welcomed the provisional political agreement reached between Parliament and Council on the new fiscal rules. The legislative package is likely to be adopted before this Parliament’s recess, and we are now preparing to implement the new framework. This will provide predictability and credibility to the Member States’ fiscal investment and reform strategies for the years ahead. I will reserve my comments on CMU for my concluding remarks, and I look forward to listening to your contributions.

– Mr President, can I just say I long for a day when this Chamber is full for debates like this. Because it should be. Because frankly, this matters to people, to businesses, small and large. But maybe I won’t live that long, but I had to put that on the record, because I want to thank those who are here for your contributions and for your work on this file. And as I said in my opening remarks, this agreement brings many advantages. And that said, our work to support the European investment fund industry and investor protection continues. Paul Tang, if I may call you by your first name, Member of Parliament, your comments are well noted in that regard, and there is always more work to be done. I would say that our retail investment strategy is still being discussed by the co-legislators, and I hope the ambition is maintained. From the Commission’s side, we will continue to closely monitor any developments around investment funds which may require our intervention. We also continue to engage with our international counterparts so that our respective rules and regulations evolve consistently. We will work closely with ESMA on implementation and closely monitor the transposition by Member States. So again, well done, colleagues who worked on this file. I know that others may not realise it, but this really matters because we need investment in our economy to make it more sustainable and to improve the lives of our citizens, and this is part of that.

– Mr President, thank you to the rapporteur Benjumea, the shadow rapporteurs and colleagues who are interested in this debate. If you look at the title with the acronyms, maybe it doesn’t show what’s so important. So, for the record, what I want to do is read out what these directives are, because they are two key laws that govern the EU investment sector. One is the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) and the second the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive (UCITSD). So both are highly important. The investment fund sector plays a pivotal role in the European economy, with total assets under management reaching nearly EUR 20 trillion, and there are more than 4800 asset management companies operating in Europe. The sector has continued to grow over the last few years, so it is a hugely significant sector in terms of the financing it can offer the European economy and, of course, its importance for the Capital Markets Union, but also in terms of what is always a core aim, maintaining financial stability. The agreement that you have reached makes really important progress on both of these points. It will improve access to additional sources of financing for EU companies. It will strengthen the protections for investors that choose to invest in these various types of investment funds, and it will also help us monitor and manage financial stability risks. So just to mention some of the specifics of the reform. Firstly, it introduces a harmonised list of liquidity management tools, and this will equip fund managers with a toolkit to better respond to liquidity stresses. And that will play an important role in improving the resilience of EU funds. Secondly, there are new rules on loan-originating funds. This is an important step towards establishing an alternative source of funding, particularly for our SMEs. And finally, thanks to Parliament, we are introducing additional safeguards for retail investors. We hope that this will increase retail investor participation in capital markets. In particular, we share the goal that costs should not be excessive or unduly charged to investors. ESMA’s report on undue costs will help assess the cost charged to investors, and it will set the tone for further work in this area. In addition, fund managers will be able to appoint an independent director in their management bodies and work will be done to ensure the names of investment funds are not misleading. These are all important steps towards building retail investors’ trust in capital markets. We can look forward to ESMA’s work to establish a uniform set of implementing rules. It has taken us a while, as you know, colleagues, to get here – almost two years of very intense discussion and for political trilogues – but the efforts of Parliament have made a huge contribution towards this ambitious outcome. And so I therefore look forward tomorrow to your vote. Before I finish, can I just particularly thank our rapporteur – I think we are eye-to-eye here, dear Isabel Benjumea – for both your support, your ambition and your tireless work in good cooperation on this file. Also the team around you, we wouldn’t have got to this place without that energy and commitment, so thank you for that.

– Mr President, thank you, colleagues, for this positive discussion on the Interoperable Europe Act, because this provides a practical blueprint for the future of Europe’s digital landscape. You are ensuring that our citizens and businesses will benefit from seamless and borderless digital public services. I want to thank you for your dedication and commitment, which I know will continue as we put this act into practice.

– Mr President, colleagues, the Interoperable Europe Act will make digital public services across the Union more efficient and more effective. Our goal is clear – the seamless interaction of digital public services across borders for citizens, businesses and public administrations. So the significance of this act cannot be understated. It lays the groundwork for a future where digital services are not hindered by geographic or bureaucratic boundaries, and this will make a real difference to European citizens. The Commission will make sure that this initiative is implemented cohesively across every level of government at the European, national, regional and local level. The agreement reached by the Parliament and Council respects a spirit of cooperation. Notably, there will be structured EU cooperation, with public administrations coming together in the framework of projects co-owned by Member States, regions and municipalities. There is a multi-level governance framework steered by the Interoperable Europe Board. Interoperability assessments will be mandatory to ensure better interconnection and synergies among public services. Interoperability solutions can be shared and reused, powered by a one-stop shop for solutions and community cooperation, the Interoperable Europe Portal, and supported by measures to promote innovation, improve skills and knowledge exchange. I would like to thank the rapporteur and his team for his efforts and constructive approach. You have shown your expertise and your commitment to finding pragmatic, common solutions, working in a very ambitious time frame. As we start to implement the act, I am sure we will keep the constructive dialogue going. The Commission will remain an active partner in this journey, ready to provide support and ensure that this act moves from paper into practice. We look forward to continuing our cooperation with the European Parliament on this file. We will provide annual reports to both Council and Parliament on the state of interoperability in the European Union. That means the Interoperable Europe Act will undoubtedly remain at the centre of our discussions. In summary, this act is a vital step towards a more integrated and innovative European digital landscape. It will help shape a responsive and forward—looking public sector. This is really important work, and I am sure that the constructive dialogue that has brought us to this stage will continue. I look forward to the rest of the debate.