Luke Ming FLANAGAN

Policy topics Luke Ming FLANAGAN is active on

What Luke Ming FLANAGAN has said (80)

• 2026-07-15 “(10:35:18 - 10:38:55): Thank you, Farshiroth, Arish Warchin. My focus today is on the challenges faced by small scale fisheries in the European Union, including the challenge of generation renewal, which you talk about. We're never going to overcome the obstacle unless our young people have certainty that they can access the resource. As you're no doubt aware, a key finding of the recent evaluation of the CFP is that small scale fishers in the EU face persistent challenges in accessing fishing opportunities. Ireland is a very good example of this where access to fishing opportunities still depends in many cases on being able to show a track record of catching certain species. This is an impossible condition to fulfill for a new entrant, and it favors large boats, not the smaller boats under 12 meters that make up 76% of the EU fleet and almost 88% of the Irish fleet. The lack of fair and equitable allocation of fishing opportunities to small scale fishing is another reason impeding generation renewal in the EU. Article 17 of the CFP gives national authorities the power to change this, but it's not been properly implemented. This is another key finding of the CFP evaluation, and I'll quote it. The main challenge is not the CFP rules themselves, but inconsistent implementation and enforcement across EU member states. It really worries me that the new financial architecture proposed by the commission merges MFAP are our oh, sorry. Okay. It really worries me that the new financial architecture proposed by the commission merges MFAP, our standalone fisheries funding program into the national, regional, and partnership fund and give member states a lot more discretion. This opens the door for national governments to sideline small scale fisheries even more. It might sound impossible given what they're going through already. Europe's small scale fish producer organizations already struggled to access funding under MFAV, which is at the discretion of national tarries to administer. Once again, Ireland provides, sadly, an excellent example. Our 2 small scale producer organizations fought hard to gain recognition in 2021 and 2023, and they still cannot access funding to operationalize their production and marketing plans. As part of your independent chairing of council meetings during the Irish presidency, will you commit to prior prioritizing the challenges I have outlined above to facilitate access to fishing opportunities and generation renewal within the EU small scale fishing industry, which is the lifeblood of so many EU coastal and island communities. And I also have to ask you, and this is very worrying, what kind of message do you think it sends out to the Ireland's fishing industry when it has been recently reported that you and not minister Dooley or dedicated minister for fisheries and the marine will be leading negotiations on fisheries matters in the agriculture meeting during the Irish presidency. I have met minister Dooley. He has shown a really good knowledge of this subject, and it's a pity that he can't be here. And I also have to say Thank you. To the members who turn up. We have no member of the Irish government who was an MEP here today. And I think it'll tell you how seriously they take fishing. I think it's a bloody disgrace. Not 1 MEP in my mind here. Mister Flanagan, please let's even live beside the scene. Unbelievable.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• 2026-07-14 “(17:29:09 - 17:33:02): It's like being back at the comm committee almost. Anyway, welcome. Thank you for, the work that, the rapporteurs have done. At the end of this process for me, I would say we would have done it well if we can guarantee accountability and transparency for beneficiaries and if we can legitimately say who is responsible for agri policy. Because I've said it before, and I'm gonna keep saying it, when there are issues with this policy in the future, the people have to know who to go to to ask who was responsible for it and who can improve it if it needs to be improved. And, I think it says a lot about the disagreement with what the commissioner proposed when I'm actually going to steal your great slogan, Bert, and tell you what I would love to see happen here, own policy, own plan, own budget. I think it's actually a great slogan. But as 1 of the Green members said, I don't think we're gonna quite get that. And failing that, and we put in amendments, along these lines, that there is more visibility of the cap and that it has its own heading. There is more and a a specifically says what it's about, not the vague term that's there now at the moment. And also, the visibility for fisheries, and that's really, really important because they don't have a voice here at all directly. I'm on the PESH committee. There's a lot of frustration about it, and we need accountability for fishers as well at the end of this process. And, like, I hear we need all to go in with 1 united voice to take on the commission and take on the council, but I'd have to say, I wouldn't like to be the commission coming in defending what they're after proposing to us. Because to me, if, let's say, if the commission were running a household, what they would propose on the same logic would be that we would have dinner, we would have lunch, and we would have breakfast all put in the 1 bowl and mixed up together because it'd be simpler. It would actually be simpler. I'm a parent. It wouldn't be very nice for my children. It wouldn't work out very well. And, we call it simplification, but it might be simple. Alright? But it wouldn't work out very well in the long run. So, of course, we've got to have a united position, but I I'm absolutely dying to hear how the commission are going to come in and defend what they propose because I don't know who asked for that. There is 1 particular big issue and when it comes to access to funds for less developed regions and for regions like I come from where you have NUTS 3 and NUTS 2 together, where you have some of the richest regions from a GDP point of view in the whole of the European Union, and you have some of the poorest areas. And the way it is currently structured, people in those areas would have no access to over €200,000,000,000 in funds, areas that need them the most, areas like Gawai City and areas like Inishon, where I come from. That can't be the case. They need access to those funds. We're also looking for the recognition of public goods, and the mention of public goods in it because it is important and particularly to farmers, it is something that they will be able to make a living out of in the future if they're properly remunerated for. But to me, I hear an awful lot of agreement. I hear from MEP Maestra. I hear from many different people that from an agri perspective, we need to have control over that area, and we need the policy done as best as possible. Thank you. Thank”
  Agricultural funding · Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• 2026-07-14 “Who do you define as most in need at an Irish level and at a European level? It suggests, from what you've done previously, that it's those that already have plenty. We have seen a reduction in real terms in cap budget by 64% since 1999. So now we need to spend that money better than ever. If there isn't going to be any more money when it comes to administrative burdens. And I've often heard Europe being blamed for this. Well, if you talk to the European Commission and when it comes to pillar two payments and the ECR scheme, they tell us we have the most complicated environmental scheme in the whole of Europe. So when it comes to simplification, if you're not willing to do it at home and believe me, I think things some things need to be complicated because some things are complex. But is it not the case that when it comes to complication and not simplification, that it is in fact Ireland that is causing this problem? Some MEPs on this committee like to blame Europe, but I think if you're going to solve a problem, you need to know where the problem lies and it lies at home.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-07-14 “(15:27:43 - 15:29:57): Thank you very much, for your, presentation. Very interesting and very positive. And I've heard a lot of people come in here and very professionally given, so well done. You're doing a good job. And I just further to what, Barry Andrews had said, it it is. I was reading about that myself about the World Bank and moving away from funding, issues in connection with climate change, which will you're at the the forefront. I come from a country like Ireland where we won't have a problem with climate change, but, you have, you're facing massive, massive problems. So never more has funding been needed, and it it it's it's, let's just let's just I don't believe in a god, but let's pray these few years that the American presidency passed quick. But I'm I'm just from an EU policy point of view, and we're working on the new common agricultural policy. And while the common agricultural policy is massively important for areas like mine and everyone in the European Union, is, the impacts of it don't stay within the European Union. And we hear mixed stories about the impacts of, cheap imports into Africa of powdered milk, particularly countries like Senegal, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Cameroon, and how locals just can't compete with this product which has, vegetable oil mixed with it and basically puts the locals out of business. And some people agree with that sort of stuff, at the idea that, well, anywhere Europe can make a book, all the better. And now we're going further down the road in Europe of, well, be competitive. That's the number 1 thing. And never mind about any nuance in any other area. So I'm just wondering, do do do you have anything to say about that, about there are positives to the common agricultural policy, and it's good for Europe in many ways. But are you worried about that impact that it might have in Africa and in areas that, you've seen and explored? Anyway, thank you very much.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• 2026-07-14 “Thank you very much. There was a time when you commit to this committee, and everyone would tell you that Mercosur would be a disaster, and most people folded, and now we're going to have to deal with it. But I never actually thought I'd see the day that once Mercosur would go through, what are people coming in here arguing that now that it's here, we've got to try and compete with them when it comes to price. I never thought I'd come in here, and I'd hear representatives argue that the people that I represent should get less money for their product. I never thought I'd come in here and hear people argue, whether they know they're arguing this or not, that the people of the West of Ireland should have to survive on the same wages as people in Brazil. People in Brazil shouldn't have to survive on that as well. But I do not want to compete on the basis of a race to the bottom. I want Europe to compete on the basis that we have the best quality product. I want us to compete on it on the basis that we have the most sustainable product in the long run, because if we try and compete on anything else, we're going to lose. It's like putting a sumo wrestler into a ballet show or a ballet dancer into a sumo wrestling thing. You wouldn't criticise them. You just say, maybe I put you in the wrong place. Maybe I competed in the wrong field. But that's what you're asking us to do. Some people in here, what's really important is mirror clauses. What's important is quality, and what's important is that my children don't have to eat rubbish because you want us to do it cheaply. You can feed your children rubbish if you wish.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• 2026-07-14 “Um, thank you chair, and for watching to this committee during the process of putting together the Cap regulation, the last time around, we moved to a European level from a minimum of 60% convergence, internal convergence to 85%. And it was at the discretion of national governments, whether they went above and beyond that. And I always remember during the last negotiations, the Irish government asked for as much flexibility as possible. It turns out it's a good job they didn't get that much flexibility because Ireland never went above the 85% convergence level stayed at the minimum. We have only increased at 5% per year from 60%, meaning the money flowing to the smaller farmers is doing it at the slowest rate possible. Why did we not go at a faster rate, and why haven't we gone to 100% convergence and the complementary redistribution income mechanism, the Chris mechanism. We could at a minimum do 10%, which meant that small scale farmers would end up getting more money. We only did the minimum we could have went further. Why didn't we go further? But what it does do is it gives us an insight into where you will go in the future when deciding the current cap. In particular to those that are most in need, those on marginal lands, those on designated lands.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-07-13 “(16:07:07 - 16:09:42): Thank you very much. When it comes to agreements like this and you listen to the European Commission talk about strategic autonomy, at times, to me, that doesn't really add up. And we are told time and time again with each agreement that it's only so many thousand tons. But as previous speakers have said, what is the cumulative effect when you add the whole thing together? And we're told on Mercosur, it's only it's only going to be a small amount of beef. We're not told that it's only going to be the best cuts. We're not given like for like figures with what's going to be imported and what Europe already produces. And in the dairy industry and the price of milk, if it was a case that a small increase in production wasn't going to lead to a massive reduction in price, which it did in the dairy industry, well, if we see 25,000 tons extra tons of lamb coming into the European Union, that is 5% of what we produce. Who's to say what impact that will have on prices? Has there been a study done? And from the point of view of challenges that hill farmers in the West of Ireland would face from the point of view of access to land, the number of time the amount of the amount of lambing seasons that there are and how cheaply they can produce it and the different quality standards, how will that be differentiated to the customer at the end of the day? And we were told in the past that we should get rid of our good profitable sugar industry. Ireland didn't benefit, and to me, it's a good case study in the effects of globalization. You can still buy Irish sugar in the shops in Ireland even though it's not produced in Ireland. It says Irish sugar on the bag. So my worry is that in the long term, how will we be able to compete with these systems? Like, are they like for like? And I hear about I get this idea if you're trading with someone, you're not going to be fighting with them. But I just heard the commission both state that Australia aren't very happy about what was done. Okay. That might be good negotiating, but how does that fit with remaining friends with someone if you feel like you didn't say screw, but you might as well. Wouldn't be the best way to make friends in my life if I was to screw my neighbors and go, I got a good deal. You.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2026-07-13 “(17:02:17 - 17:04:48): Thank you very much. I'd like to think that everyone who comes in here and everyone who's elected to this place has the interest of farmers at heart. But with the greatest respect to the speaker from the fertilizer industry, and it is your job. Your job is what is best for you, not for farmers. What's the best way for you to make profits, etcetera? So I think that should be if you'd shout that out loud because the more money you make, the more successful you are. That doesn't necessarily mean farmers are going to do well out of it. And it'd be good to get an answer on windfall profits. And, do you think this money should actually given that you're supposedly so concerned about farmers, shouldn't this money be going back to farmers? And I hear this cost of decarbonization, and it sounds massive, and I'm sure it will be massive. But have any got any figures on the cost of not going down the road of decarbonization? Because we're actually there in the place we are now because we have made ourselves dependent on let's call a spade a spade here. We have made ourselves dependent on feeding our children on lunatics. Basically, we're dependent on people like Donald Trump. We're dependent on a war in The Middle East, not occurring. Like, it's like hoping it won't rain in Ireland, that there won't be war the way there the way things are. So from the point of view of decarbonization, what is the cost, the long term cost of not actually doing that? And in relation to one particular graph that you put up about how far we could go with organic fertilizers, I'm just wondering, is there a breakdown on a country by country basis on that? Let's say, for example, Ireland, the amount of, we produce a phenomenal amount of animal manure, a country that has the level of beef production and dairy production like Ireland. What sort of a level of autonomy could we get to, with fertilizer production? But to me, yes, it would be expensive and massively expensive to decarbonize. But let's get real here. We need to look at the cost of not decarbonizing, and we know the cost of that will all end up dead.”
  Use of fertilisers
• 2026-07-13 “(18:08:46 - 18:11:23): Mike, thank you, very much. The we have known for a long time now, anyone who wants to know or anyone who follows the science, that we will have to move to a different system where we don't depend on fossil fuels. And while I'll say it again, mister Trump is a lunatic, sometimes lunatics wake you up to the reality of what's coming because this is what it will look like in the future. We won't need a lunatic like Donald Trump to cut off her oil supply. We will run out of it. So we've known this for a long time, and we should have planned for it. When I got elected as a county councilor 24 years ago, within 6 months of getting elected, I made my way to Camp Hill community, a a place down in Kilkenny on the Tipperary border to have a look at an anaerobic digestion facility. I have to say I was excited leaving it. I was excited about the fact that instead of having what would have been up until then considered a waste material potentially causing problems, it got turned into a digestate, which was taken away again by the farmers who could use it as fertilizer, and the community there could use the energy. Well, whatever they could use, they had to burn the rest off into the atmosphere because they weren't allowed to sell it anywhere else. And over the years, I've watched this situation and I've hoped, particularly in Ireland as the previous speaker has said, we produce a lot of shit in Ireland and we could make good use of it. So the question of is why don't we? I hear the president of the Irish Farmers Association talk about feeding the world and that is an honorable objective. But as someone who comes from a country that suffered from starvation while food was exported in the 18 forties and fifties, I think we should learn from that. And I'd like Ireland to be able to feed itself 1st. We can't produce enough enough of about 80% of the different types of food we eat. And if we had a crisis in the morning, we're not going to be able to live on milk crumb and on meat. We will need other things. So we need instead of ignoring what's coming down the line like we did for the net last 30, we need to plan. We need to look at planting legumes, and we need to look at making use of the resources that we have. Because the reality is when Trump goes away, eventually, so will the oil, and we need another plan anyway. And to me, I think instead of talking about feeding the world before you can feed yourself, I'd say.”
  Use of fertilisers
• 2026-07-09 “I was glad to see that the evaluation clearly recognizes that healthy ecosystems are a prerequisite for sustainable and profitable fisheries. And in the committee last month, you said that improving daily life for small scale fishers is a priority for the commission. However, the findings of the evaluation are stark. It finds that the CFP is not effectively supporting small scale coastal fishers. The value of their catches is declining. There is no generational renewal, and it is, which is key to face the persistent challenges regarding access to fishing communities. And when I asked you last month if the Ocean Act would allocate preferential access to small scale, low impact fisheries within the 12 mile nautical mile zone, the reply was that it is up to member states to designate areas at sea, which of course you are correct on. But no matter how much support for small scale fishers is expressed in policies and legislation, and it really is. You'd be really positive if you read it and you thought it was going to happen. The reality is that the power to improve daily life for small scale Fisher largely lies with member states, and we don't see that happening. We need to be talking about access to quota, access to funding. And this should be a debate at home in Ireland, because all we hear at home in Ireland when it comes to the fisheries debate is Ireland got a bad deal when it came to getting quota? Yeah, I agree we should have more quota, but that doesn't seem to be changing. And to me it's just a populist debate that goes on and on. We need to discuss why the quota we have more of it doesn't go to small scale fishers. Thank you for your work, Commissioner.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-07-09 “Hi, Cynthia. I have a very important question of. Fishers in Ireland are small scale fishers. There is nothing stopping the Irish state from giving small scale, low impact fishers access to more quota. Nothing stopping us. There is nothing stopping the Irish state from providing for to. There is nothing stopping the Irish state from providing small scale fisheries in Ireland with funding. Front loaded. But it is not happening and you can actually do it. So the question is why don't you do that? Because they can't get this funding for their marketing plans. 87% of the fishers and they have less than 10% of the quota.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• 2026-07-07 “(11:41:29 - 11:43:25): To the European Parliament, I got elected as a skeptic. I got elected because I was told by the Irish government continuously when they weren't happy with the EU enforcing rules that they were made to do it. I have discovered otherwise. And since I've got elected here, I have to say I believe the common agricultural policy is the most important policy of the European Union. In my county alone, a county of 80,000 people, €1,000,000,000 in cap payments has come to Roscommon since I was elected in 2014. Over the same period, in the future, if we stick with current budgetary proposals on the MFF, we would see a reduction in payments of €200,000,000 just to Ruscommon excluding inflation. All the more reason then that we get this right when deciding who gets this money. In the commission proposal, the text refers to those most in need. To me, the most in need are those that farm marginal lands on small holdings and those on designated lands. We also need to respect those pluriate to farmers who, while not making a full time living out of farming, are nonetheless contributing in a significant way to food sovereignty and the provision of public goods, the latter which has never been properly remunerated for. The proposals on fisheries are even worse from 6,000,000,000 to 2,000,000,000. As with agri funding, this means it has now been never more important that small scale fish low impact fishers are given this money. The money must be provided in a way that fishers can actually access it access it. As things stand, that is not the case. Finally, in relation to defective concrete, when are you going to get your act together? Infringement proceedings remain open. They do so in spite of the fact that thousands of people's lives have been blighted by crumbling houses. The danger of this issue repeating itself remains very real. The European Parliament has backed this.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-07-06 “(21:32:44 - 21:34:15): The the new buzz phrase around here at the moment is being competitive, and, it seems to be a very 1 dimensional type of competitiveness. And I said this at the last AgriMeet, and I'd say it again. It's a type of competitiveness we're chasing that we're not going to win in the end anyways. Because for me, European food and selling it anywhere outside Europe is based on its quality. And quality requires a lot of work, and it actually requires a lot of funding. And I think someone made a great point earlier. Rather than the complaining that the process is too slow, fund it properly. Because if you don't fund it properly, well, it's fairly obvious what you're doing here. You're not prepared to fund it, and you're trying to justify it as some sort of new nimble system. But at the end of the day, it will affect our competitiveness when it comes to quality. People will choose what they buy on the shelves, they look at our regulatory model, and they'll say, do you know what? What's the point in buying it anymore? Because as some of people have already said here today, they're complaining after we voted for Mercosur, well, now we voted for it, well, we better be able to do the same thing. Well, where is our competitive advantage there? Previously, speaker talked about the precautionary principle and how health is more important than anything else. Well, you know what? If people had listened to the experts on asbestos, my father wouldn't be dead now, and he wouldn't have died in agony.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• 2026-07-06 “(21:55:50 - 21:56:08): L this. It's fairly obvious. You are a bad chair. We turned up here today in good faith. You criticized people for clapping that you didn't agree with. You are meant to be independent. I've met more independent chairs at a parish council in a small village in Ireland than I've met with you. You're pathetic.”
  Activities of EU Ombudsman
• 2026-07-06 “(21:55:03 - 21:55:18): Apologize. What you said is untrue. I've held here. I left my family behind to come and represent my country, and you are telling a lie saying people have left. Can you withdraw it? Because otherwise, you are not fit to be chair.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• 2026-06-29 “(17:40:46 - 17:42:37): Thank you very much. We do need to find solutions, to the whole fertilizer issue. But I suppose before we go and find solutions, can we learn from the past? And what we need to learn from the past is don't go around praising people like Donald Trump. Don't excuse their behavior. Punish them by not doing business with them, and let them know that they've actually caused this problem and, maybe remind the American public that the way they vote doesn't just affect them. It affects us all, every last 1 of us, because we wouldn't have this immediate crisis if it wasn't for Donald Trump trying to cover up for the fact that he's done some horrific things in his life and trying to get the news cycle to talk about anything but his perversions. So I have a question for the commission in relation to what you're planning on doing. If members take money from the e f EAFRD fund to create a new fund, what programs in the 2nd pillar will lose out? And I'm asking that question because we seem to be constantly coming up with stuff which basically takes money out of my left pocket, puts it into my right pocket, and then I'm told, check your right pocket. You have something in it. And I meant to get excited that I have something new when in fact all that's happened is someone has robbed me. So I'm just wondering if you take this money, what of the which these programs will be cut? And these programs are for farmers who would use less fertilizer than anyone else, the farmers who are struggling the most on the most challenging land to farm on. What programs are you gonna cut? And what programs will member states cut? Because this money is gonna come from somewhere.”
  Use of fertilisers
• 2026-06-29 “(15:26:12 - 15:28:29): chairman. I'd like to begin with something positive, the deletion for assistance for farmers who have retired. That would have been a major error. So I'd like to thank the reporters for what's been done there, and that that's no longer going to be part of this. I mean, we can't set older farmers against young farmers. Elder older farmers who still want to reach retirement age, but who want to still work for whatever reason. I mean, we can't force them out. That's not going to help the transition. It's just going to reduce the number of farmers we have, and so we can't have that. So it's good that that's gone. We had amendments that we were going to table along those lines, but they're no longer necessary. Now the retention of capping is something that we're not so keen on. We've heard that 99% from our green colleague, as in farmers, that won't be affected, 94% from another colleague, 96% from the commission. But if we look at Saxony, 20% of holdings would be affected by capping and digression. 80% of surface area, 80% of employees in Saxony work on these farms. So that would have a massive effect in Saxony. That would mean that workers would have to leave holdings in Saxony because they could no longer be paid. So that's that's a fact. I mean, that's something we have to think about. And we want farms in rural areas so that they can ensure food security and also so they can provide jobs. So that's important. And then also, we've got a very ambitious timetable at the moment, especially introduced on the 01/01/2028. I mean, that's extremely ambitious. How are we going to deal with that? What happens if Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union? Then what happens? Do we have to spread more money or the the the money across more farms? So that's another issue we're worried about. So a lot of issues. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-29 “(15:26:12 - 15:28:29): chairman. I'd like to begin with something positive, the deletion for assistance for farmers who have retired. That would have been a major error. So I'd like to thank the reporters for what's been done there, and that that's no longer going to be part of this. I mean, we can't set older farmers against young farmers. Elder older farmers who still want to reach retirement age, but who want to still work for whatever reason. I mean, we can't force them out. That's not going to help the transition. It's just going to reduce the number of farmers we have, and so we can't have that. So it's good that that's gone. We had amendments that we were going to table along those lines, but they're no longer necessary. Now the retention of capping is something that we're not so keen on. We've heard that 99% from our green colleague, as in farmers, that won't be affected, 94% from another colleague, 96% from the commission. But if we look at Saxony, 20% of holdings would be affected by capping and digression. 80% of surface area, 80% of employees in Saxony work on these farms. So that would have a massive effect in Saxony. That would mean that workers would have to leave holdings in Saxony because they could no longer be paid. So that's that's a fact. I mean, that's something we have to think about. And we want farms in rural areas so that they can ensure food security and also so they can provide jobs. So that's important. And then also, we've got a very ambitious timetable at the moment, especially introduced on the 01/01/2028. I mean, that's extremely ambitious. How are we going to deal with that? What happens if Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union? Then what happens? Do we have to spread more money or the the the money across more farms? So that's another issue we're worried about. So a lot of issues. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-29 “(15:23:38 - 15:26:02): Thank you very much. And I'd like to echo the past speaker, there. If we're to have a serious discussion about this, it would take more than 2 minutes each. But, anyway, I have 15 seconds less now. On digressivity, like I hear I hear people say, you know, about how certain farmers will be affected. There'll be more farmers affected positively with digressivity. And we heard the commission here at the last day, 94% won't be affected. In relation to Chris, I'm absolutely delighted that you put it back in. I think, it worked very well the last time. I'm delighted to see you brought it up from 10% to 15 because as I have seen in my member state anyways, that the minimum is always the maximum. And not only is it the maximum, in the case of Ireland, they arrived at 10%, the exact minimum because as it turns out, that was the best number to land on, not because it was the minimum and they weren't willing to do anymore. So I would like that whole idea of 15%. I prefer a a specification maybe on the number of hectares because that can be abused too. And, they can put it up so high that, well, everyone gets something, so there's absolutely no point in it. What I would like to see is, and it will be in my amendments, is that part time farmers and plurary active farmers need to be treated as important as those who are full time because that is the reality with a lot of holdings. People will not be able to make a full time living out of it, but that isn't a negative thing. In this world, people do numerous jobs. People work as professors, also work as advisers to me. Doesn't mean they're bad advisers or bad professors. It just means they've got real life experience. So for me, it's important that they are treated equally and not put down as some sort of because they're not a derogation. They are essential. 1 thing also in the initial proposal, which I would like to see change, and I find it a bit bizarre, and that is there is a shawl on payments for ANCs but may for Natura areas. Naturas are a legal requirement on farmers whereas ANCs are obligatory. Why don't we have shal if we're take to take it seriously? So I have about 1000 other things to say, but my time is up.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-25 “We could have done an awful lot more with this cap. So what I would ask is. And a particular question to Miss Ostergaard, when you talk about complications of the current cap and how it needed to change what could have been done at national level to make that better for farmers. I'll give you an example. In Ireland, people complain about the environmental schemes. They are designed at national level and in Ireland we have. And according to the commission, one of the most complicated schemes. But we chose that. So the question I'd have asked Miss Ostergaard is what could have been done at national level to make it simpler. And finally, in relation to competitiveness, I hate to hear farmers and farmers have been getting more competitive all my life. And the more competitive they get, the less money they end up with, because the more competitive you get, you don't get the margin. So what type of competitiveness are we on about? Are we on about competitiveness on price? But if we get competitiveness on price, Where do we go with our competitiveness and sustainability? Taste, animal welfare and our overall standards something we can win on. We can't win on price. So when you talk about competitiveness, what exactly do you mean and what are farmers going to get out of it? Because I haven't seen them get anything out of it yet. Just the supermarkets and just billionaires. Not my neighbors, that's for sure.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-06-25 “So there is a net loss. There definitely is a net loss. So we've got to find money where we couldn't find money before. And one of those options are degressive and capping. The commission made an interesting point in relation to the percentage of farmers that will be affected. I'm wondering, is there a figure? I'm trying to calculate it for Ireland at the moment. Is there a figure there available for how much money will be available to redistribute? If we went purely exactly for what the Commission are talking about and aggressivity and capping, allowing also for the fact that individual Member States will count labor units. Others won't. Ones that did it the previous time. Is there a figure available there on that? And also in relation to less developed regions, I understand it would be unfair. Let's say, if a country like Ireland could put more money to Co-fund. But I come from an area that isn't classified as a less developed region. It's actually classified as the most developed region. But farmers in our region do not have access to all this money that's in our region. And as a result of being classified as a well-developed region, we don't get access. Sorry, I'll finish on this to the 218 billion. How do we solve that problem? Because while my region is rich, the people and the farmers in the region aren't. So how do we fill that gap?”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much. I'd also like to welcome members of the Irish Nature and Hill Farmers Association here today, and your also deserve a clap and I don't really have any questions for the last speakers other than to say that pretty much confirmed what we already knew. And it confirms to me that simplification isn't that simple to do. The last cap, the headline title for it was everyone seems to Forget was simplification. That's what we were sold the last one on. So simplification obviously isn't that simple after all. And the only simplification we are seeing is for maybe for the commission. It's not so simple for national authorities. And um, we basically we don't have enough money. And I have to say, you know, up until now, I was hearing, well, you know, it isn't only two, nine, 5 billion. And Barry, you suggested extra that can be put in and that would be good. Um, but there was always this suggestion. Well, you can get more money from other funds. And what worries me about what the commission said earlier was it was said, well, you know, farmers will also benefit from roads and benefit from different things that are happening in the region. We already benefited from that. Where I come from, when we had a bigger cap budget, we already benefited from European Social Fund. We benefited from cohesion funds, farmers benefited from that, but they didn't have money taken off them. So we could then say they benefited from it.”
  Agriculture (green) · Agricultural funding
• 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much for your contribution to this important discussion. Um, in a nutshell, what we're discussing here is, um, how and why Cap is now gone after over 60 years. And we're talking about how it will work in a structure that will work in a synergistic way, where all the funds of the European Union will be better spent. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I cannot think of a better way to spend European Union funds in my area than to give it to small scale farmers. And I'm not a farmer. I'll never be a farmer. My father wasn't a farmer, but like everyone in my area, my father benefited massively. I've said it before, I'll say it again, but we would have had to leave and move back to England if it wasn't for the Common Agricultural Policy. So if you want to achieve synergies, we had already achieved them. You could argue, and I would argue, that the money could have been better distributed, but we were going in that direction and people go and look for stuff and they make demands, and sometimes they get what they're looking for and they end up kind of sorry. And there were protests, and there was right to have protests against what was happening in the cap. But to me, the current cap structure could have been adopted if national governments wish to do so, to be more environmentally friendly, if that's what governments wanted to do. But governments did the minimum, it could have been better for redistribution, but governments, in our case in Ireland went for the minimum.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-17 “We already have an abundance of legislation. We keep having reports, hearings, and debates. Yet still in the Eurobarometer published this week, adolescents and parents agree that the action that would help most to improve adolescent mental health well-being online is better implementation and enforcement of existing rules and regulations. But as a parent, I'd have to say the best protection for children is for as long as possible, and as long as possible, I mean it, to keep them offline. And I say that as a parent of a 23, a 21 year old, and now an 11 year old. The 11 year old is now getting the benefits of my experience. And the best thing is to have them running, jumping, skipping, painting, sewing, cycling, skating, swimming, knitting, baking, digging, planting, growing, kicking a ball, hitting a snooker ball, throwing a stick, playing with the cat, playing with the dog, and being outside as often as possible. But, unfortunately, that isn't possible if we're all working 60 hours a week. Thank you very much, colleagues.”
  EU policy on mental health
• 2026-03-25 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 10.6.2026 Written question Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides [1] imposes Member States to carry out controls to ensure that food placed on the market is compliant with the legal limits. The European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA) collects the information from national and EU-coordinated control programmes and publishes the EU report on pesticide residues in food [2] . In 2024, 86 449 samples were analysed. 96% contained no residues or residues below or equal to the MRLs. Non-compliant samples (1.8%) triggered sanctions or enforcement actions. Out of 38 169 samples analysed for the presence of imazalil, including fruits with their peel [3] , only 35 contained residues above the MRL. This confirms that the food available to EU consumers is safe. The MRLs for imazalil were”
  Maximum residue levels · Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
• 2026-02-17 “E-000668/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The year 2025 was marked by historically high raw milk prices which, together with increased output, resulted in the highest value of milk production ever recorded. This occurred against a backdrop of declining feed costs leading to the highest gross margin indexes on record. From August onwards, milk deliveries expanded rapidly in several major producing Member States. In parallel, prices for dairy commodities - which had remained at historically high levels during the first half of 2025 - started a downward correction from September 2025 onwards. This decline in commodity prices was transmitted to raw milk prices with a certain time lag and at a smaller magnitude. Domestic and global demand for dairy products has remained robust. The most recent data from dairy commodity markets point towards a stabilisation and gradual improvement in market prices. Against this backdrop, at present the Commission is not considering the introduction of a voluntary milk production reduction scheme. There are no specific indicators to trigger the introduction of exceptional market measures. The Commission acts on the basis of its ongoing monitoring of market developments, including milk and dairy prices, production trends, and trade flows. It also takes into account the views of experts, Member States, and stakeholders in the relevant fora.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2025-07-17 “E-002978/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The informal carers’ toolkit will take the form of an online training course on self-care and care competences for informal caregivers of older people with care needs. The toolkit is being developed by the World Health Organization in close collaboration with Eurocarers – which acts as a voice for informal carers bringing together relevant organisations, universities and research institutes 1 - with financial support from the Commission. It will be released in autumn of 2025 with the aim to contribute to the implementation of the European Care Strategy 2 , and to support the implementation of the Council Recommendation on access to high-quality long-term care 3 . The course will build on numerous resources for informal carers, identified through a mapping of national training materials, a review of the specialised literature, and consultations with academic experts, to understand what information can be useful for all informal carers. The Commission is currently working on a series of initiatives which will have an impact on carers. These include the Quality Jobs Roadmap, the new Action Plan to implement the European Pillar of Social Rights, the Gender Equality Strategy and the Anti-Poverty Strategy. Other recently delivered initiatives, such as the Union of Skills 4 are also relevant in this context. The Commission also aims to create a more coherent framework for addressing longterm care workforce challenges, including facilitating the recognition of skills and qualifications, supporting skilling and career progression and improving working conditions. This set of initiatives will contribute to improving access to affordable high-quality long-term care, including the support for, recognition and protection of informal carers. 1 https://eurocarers.org/. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5169. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2022_476_R_0001. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/union-skills_en.”
  Support for families · EU policy on aging workforce and pensions
• 2025-04-01 “E-001332/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU reiterates its strong opposition to Israel's settlement policy and actions taken in this context, including demolitions, forced displacement and settler violence. Widespread demolitions of Palestinian homes and structures by the Israeli authorities, coupled with a rapid expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank through the advancement of a record number of housing units during 2025, are seriously undermining the viability of the two-state solution. The EU is gravely concerned that the occupation of the Palestinian territory that began in 1967 continues to this day, underlining in particular that the International Court of Justice has found that the continued presence of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful. The EU strongly condemns the demolitions of structures funded by the EU or its Member States and expects that Israel makes good the damage in accordance with international law 1 . The EU is concerned about the escalating violence in the West Bank, with the ongoing Israeli military operation against armed militants leading to the destruction of large parts of refugee camps and the evacuation of some 40 000 Palestinians from their homes. The EU recalls the utmost importance of ensuring the protection of all civilians in military operations. The EU is committed to a just, comprehensive and lasting political resolution of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict based on the two-state solution, with the State of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous, sovereign, and viable State of Palestine  , living side by side in peace and security and mutual recognition, and with Jerusalem serving as the future capital of both states. The EU is engaging with both sides to achieve this goal. 1 The EU’s position for the 13th EU-Israel Association Council https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6511-2025-INIT/en/pdf.  This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the Member States on this issue.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-03-05 “E-000942/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission Informal carers, mainly women, face significant challenges due to the disproportionate burden of unpaid care responsibilities, lack of formal care services and insufficient recognition for their crucial roles. This can have negative impact on their well-being and work-life balance, and lead to career breaks, part-time work, or early exit from the labour market, which impacts lifetime earnings and future economic security. The European Care Strategy 1 and the Council Recommendation 2 on access to high-quality long-term care provide a framework for reforms and investments to improve care services, address workforce challenges, and support informal carers. Implementation actions at EU and national levels, include numerous reforms targeting informal carers and a toolkit for supporting informal carers. Building on these, the Commission will work on creating a more coherent framework for addressing long-term care workforce challenges, including facilitating the recognition of skills and qualifications, supporting skills development and career progression, and improving working conditions. The planned policy initiatives, including Quality Jobs Roadmap, Pillar Action Plan and the Anti-Poverty Strategy, as well as the recently delivered ones, such as Union of Skills 3 , will contribute to this objective and strengthen long-term care systems. In 2027, the Commission will prepare a report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5169 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2022_476_R_0001 3 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/union-skills_en”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion · Support for families · EU policy on aging workforce and pensions
• “Yeah. Um, thanks very much. Um, I think actually to take up points, a point that the last speaker was talking about and it's to, you know, the idea that, uh, we do no harm, but to the question that has to be asked is when we're looking at performance and what we take into account and value for money, because it is really, really important that taxpayers get value for money. And it's actually people like me who probably question whether it's good value for money. And I say people like me in that. People who've never lived on a farm live in a town with culturally, even though I come from a very small town, culturally, we'd see ourselves as townies. But, uh, will, you know, we're looking at the performance of how we're spending our money. Will it take into account the massive benefits that my family have got from cap, even though we have never. My family aren't farmers. The benefit that my father got from the money, from putting in fish cupboards, doors and windows for farmers, the benefit that the local hairdressers got from that money being spent there, the local supermarket and the local mechanic where all of this money ended up. And you know, that has to be taken into account.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “(11:27:06 – 11:28:47): It makes a lot of sense for the EU to promote its food. And in promoting it, obviously, we should be telling the world about its qualities, telling the world about our extensive circular farmers, telling the world about the farming systems that we have that are, well, better than other areas, and that makes sense. But to me, at the same time, we're also saying to justify a Mercosur deal to people like myself who say, sorry. We will not be bringing in product that will be the same standard. I am told, no. Don't worry. We have set up systems to guarantee that it will be just as good. So on one hand, we are told the EU is gonna go out and promote our unique beef products. But in the other hand, we're told, well, don't worry about what's coming in from Mercosur because it's the exact same. Now how can both of them be true? Who are we lying to? Is are our food systems better, which I believe they are? And if they are, why are we lowering our standards? And the question has to be asked, who has anyone ever met anyone on the streets in their town who told you they don't want to eat local products. They want to eat beef from Mercosur. I've never ever met them. And the only thing that's been done to make us feel alright about it is to say, for sure it's all the same. If it's all the same, how the hell can we promote EU products as better? Someone's lying here, and I know who it is.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “At the safeguard clause, to me, is nothing more than political perfume. For a skunk of an agreement. You can spray the perfume around all you want, but the skunk will still smell and I'll still notice it. And many of us have noticed it. I mean, the idea that you can have a threshold of an import of import surge of 10% and say that some sort of safeguard, what's to stop the it going to 9% every year, just below 10% every year. And then gradually the market is taken away from the suckler farmers in the west of Ireland and the farmers in Europe. What's to stop them doing it that way? There are many weaknesses. It's got a high legal threshold, requires proof of serious injury and demanding standard with no binding quantitative figures triggers. It's got unclear. Final criteria. Thresholds are indicative. Only final decisions rely on broad qualitative judgments, and it's full of political risks. The examination procedure allows member states to block or delay measures. It's of it's reactive in its nature. The safeguard guard is curative, not preventative. It addresses harm only after it occurs and does not fix structural issues like unequal production standards or environmental costs. It is my opinion, and it's also the opinion of legal experts, that the safeguard clause for agriculture in the EU marks our agreement is legally cumbersome, temporary and politically constrained, and it makes it an unreliable tool to protect farmers for potential import shocks.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “The aim is to bring the text closer to the requirements of article 29.4 of the Bbnj agreement, to better reflect the conditions for exceptions that applies when environmental impact assessment has already been conducted for a planned activity, in accordance with the requirements of other institutional frameworks and bodies such as Rfmos and regional sea conventions. The rapporteur finally proposes to introduce an article 17, a missing word from article 1902 of the Bbnj Agreement on collaboration with stakeholders and in article 18, some provisions of article 27 of the Bbnj agreement that are missing, and an amendment to clarify cases where, in addition to Member States, the Commission represents the EU in some ifbs such as Rfmos or regional sea conventions. The transposition timetable set by the Committee on the environment is very ambitious. The aim of the Danish Presidency is to conclude the negotiations before the entry into force of the Bbnj agreement, to ensure that the EU complies with international law. This means tight deadlines for the patient opinion. For this reason, the rapporteur hopes that the discussion will be swift and constructive and is looking forward to working with shadow rapporteurs. So thank you very much. And it seems now I've fallen into the trap of becoming a Captain acronym in here as well. But I hope you could follow that.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “We had greenwashing in the last cap. And when you look at ANC payments, ANC payments were put down as environmental payments. They weren't environmental payments, they were payments to help people on land where there were constraints. And if we want to guarantee money for agriculture, we've got to remember that there are audiences outside this committee who will look at us and say, well, look, you're trying to con us into saying something is what it isn't, and ultimately we will lose more support and we will lose more money, which we have continuously done over every, every five year cycle or every seven year cycle. So we need to be honest. But to me, I think a lot of this is driven by the fact that there's very, very little money available. And if there's very little money available, the commission's attitude is, well, we mightn't be honest about how much money is available, but what we want to ask anyone to do, Anthon, because we can't. Because we're not putting any money in people's pockets. So I support what you're doing in a sense, Maria. But I think ultimately the problem here is we've no money to pay people to do all this stuff. That's where the ultimate problem is what we do. We're spending it on guns instead.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Commissioner, we meet again. This time I'm agreeing with you. Everyone should get fair remuneration for their work. It's fundamental. It's a human right. And as things stand, many, many farmers do not get fair remuneration. This proposed improve CMO regulation goes some way to improving the lot of farmers. It attempts to enhance the existing provision on contracts, written contracts. There should not be that amazing. Some people seem to think that's amazing. Two to reinforce the bargaining powers of producer organisations, three to simplify their recognition and many other areas. Unfortunately, though, we have MEPs who claim to represent farmers that want to water all of this down. We have amendments that allow member States to do nothing, and it is my experience in Ireland that if we may do something, we will never, ever do it. It will be the case here if they're allowed to make that choice. We also see amendments which would see exemptions given to Member states for the milk sector. And I quote, at the request of an organisation deemed largely representative that is wide open to abuse. For example, in Ireland, the IFA potentially could get such a power, an organisation that has worked against this improved regulation. So I'll finish by saying none of those amendments should be passed. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Celine Eimert, on this. I have to say, I was skeptical about her at the beginning, but I have to say, I really admire her determination on this. And most of all, I admire her calling out copa-cogeca long overdue.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. Another interesting presentation. I have a question for Raj. Expel the blue economy section of the report makes a similar point in relation to small scale operators needing more direct support than from McFarlane and Graham. Mcfadden pointed out that the details of such direct support is outside the scope of this report. So do you have any suggestions on how to explore other avenues for such direct support? And just one point here as well, from the point of view of trying to get people interested in fishing and getting people behind fishers, and as someone who is not a fisher and I'm trying to understand this area, I have to say, what is the obsession with acronyms? Now, maybe you're all used to them, but it's like. It's like a it's God, it's, uh, it's the word I was going to use. But. Does someone get off on this?”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “You accuse people on the left of telling lies about this agreement. It's a it's one hell of a claim to make. What lies are you referring to? Is it a lie to say that as a result of this agreement, 9% of all high value beef cuts been sold in the EU will come from Mercosur. Is that a lie? Is it a lie to say that we don't have €1 billion compensation to pay farmers? Is it a lie to say it isn't a win win when suckler farmers in Europe are definitely going to lose? And if dairy farmers are going to win in Europe in, in in Mercosur, they're obviously going to lose. Where is the lies. Can you point them out? Because we're having a debate here. I'd like to know what you're talking about.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Yeah. Um, only, only just the first thing I want to say is, uh, well done to MEP Sternberg on her draft report. Um, and, uh, I couldn't disagree with the word of it. Um, I suppose the only sad thing is that, uh, we're still at the stage where you'd even have to fight for anything. This should. This should already have happened. You know, they should never be a case that women should have access to less funding from Cap. It should never have been the case that women have less access to finance from banks or from anyone else. And, um, when governments make policy, they should always take women into account, not just take them into account. It should be at their the foremost of their minds. And the mention of healthcare to me is really, really important, particularly in rural areas where in the country that I come from, the policy has been to drive all healthcare into very urban centres, leaving people with two hours, 2.5 hours to travel if they basically if they're having a baby and if they want any sort of healthcare at all. And it just makes it difficult for them to live in the countryside.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “When the farmers protested on Plaza looks, I don't think their goal was what the first line of this report slide says, which was for the first time since 62. The cap will not have a dedicated fund. There are two minutes to talk. I should have minute's silence. Be appropriate after that. Because let's be honest, this is a disaster. We no longer have a dedicated cap fund. How the hell did we let this happen? The farmers certainly were not protesting so we could end up with no cap fund. I think everyone can agree with that. And if everyone can agree with that, then why the hell is this happening? Because we seem to be in a situation here where we used to have a say and now we're told. Well, everyone here disagrees with it, but still it seems to be going ahead. And I don't think it says a lot for how this whole democratic institution works. Another thing that we were told it was going to achieve, and we've been told this before, was simplification and Phil Hogan, who has now been touted for a new job that will make him an even bigger millionaire. And he was the one who came up with that. And where is the simplification now? We're talking about doing it again. Like, surely if you're going to do something, surely you should deal with the amnesia of not remembering that you were going to do it before.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thanks very much for your presentation. It's very, very interesting. I have a simple enough question for you, and given your expertise and your your knowledge on this area, there's a lot of talk about it at the moment, for obvious reasons. The proposed Mercosur deal, some people call it the Mercosur deal. We haven't voted on it yet, so there is no deal. But I'm just curious what you think of it, what you're hearing in the media about it, because we're on about sustainable livestock production and we're basically at the moment talking about bringing in a model on top of our model, which is anything but sustainable from a health point of view, from a climate point of view, from so many different points of view. But and the reason I'm asking your opinion is because every time a politicians open their opens their mouth and this they're told, well, you would say that. I'm just curious what you think as scientists, because I'm just baffled. I've never, ever met anyone that tells me they want to eat Brazilian beef before Irish beef. But apparently the world is going to end unless it ends up on our plates. I'd love to know your opinion.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “In order to properly debate the impact of this proposed agreement. Proposed agreement. The title does not say proposed. We haven't agreed to it yet. The proposed agreement on beef farmers in the EU. We need to compare like with like. In other words, you cannot compare carcass weight to processed premium beef weight. But that's what your spin doctors are doing. The reality is that this deal will guarantee that at least 9% of high value goods sold in the EU will come from Mercosur. 209,000 tonnes in a market of 2.3 million. I hear people talk of opportunities. If you're a suckler farmer in the west of Ireland on a 30 hectare farm, where is the opportunities? If it's a win win, as you say, why then the need for a compensation package? And if there is money and 1 billion for a compensation package, how come there is no money to increase the farmers money that they get from Cap from what it was in 1991. Farmers in Ireland are facing a 60% cut in cap payments since that year. Yet you're talking about a 1 billion compensation package for something that's a win win deal. There is no win win, no win win in science. You cannot destroy or create energy. It is rubbish.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “And what makes life simple for people the most is certainty. And knowing what you have to do every day. And what we're doing now is the opposite of providing certainty. And the irony about the current cap that we're working under is that it is, as a previous speaker has said, it is the cap which was called the simplification cap. Phil Hogan came in here and told us how simple it was going to be, and yet it isn't simple. There's probably a reason behind it because it isn't actually that simple to do what we're trying to do. But what makes it even less simple? And what would make my job less simple because it's complicated is if you paid me a pittance. Because that would mean, for a start, my mental health wouldn't be up to dealing with the administrative burden because I know it wouldn't feed my family at the end of the day. And to me, simplification is not about farmers. It's about the European Union giving up on funding farming properly because you know damn well you're not going to get any money off the governments. And what you're offering the farmers instead is simplification. Treating farmers like simpletons, like people that can't understand complicated things when in fact they can. And if we put the funding behind it, then that would make it happen. And you look at the details of some of this simplification here, and you look at what happens in member states, and it makes me worried about the reduction of a review because the review is actually to protect farmers.”
  Agricultural funding
• “And likewise, when it comes to childcare and there's massive gaps there. And and all of those contribute to making it more difficult for women to get involved in farming. And as the father of three daughters, it was only when I had three daughters that I really worked out what sort of a privileged position that I'm in and how, you know, I was deluded to think that test. Somehow we've gone some ways towards equality, but we haven't gone even half close enough. And my father, who come from a different era, did. He did say one very positive thing about women. He said nothing against his father or the men in his area. But he said as far as he could remember, the men did a lot of talking about farming, but it was mostly women who did the work. It's time now that they actually got a proper hold of the reins and take control of the destiny, because do you know what? Looking at the state of the world, the more women get involved. Might get out of this hole we're in.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thanks very much for a very interesting and detailed presentation. I think it would be naive at this stage, though, to say that competitiveness has actually done anything for farmers in the last 40 years because they've never been more competitive and they're not making any money now. And the majority of them small scale farmers, are actually losing money if you if you take away their cap payments. So the idea that if we get even more competitive, it's going to work. Well, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence in it. Obviously, you can't go around wasting money. Competitiveness is important to a certain point of view, to a certain level, but they'll always be somewhat more competitive than you. They'll always be more competitive in Ukraine at producing grain, because they have a lot of advantages that we don't have. I think it's very important that you state that policy change is a problem and you need certainty for farmers, and that's definite, and we're certainly not providing that for farmers. And to call the latest simplification package anything other than more complication for farmers would be a lie. A strong budget I'd also agree with not at the current level. That isn't a strong budget. I think risk management with climate change is no longer a risk. A lot of these things, they are a certainty. For me, it would be better to put money into risk mitigation rather than throwing money away in the long run. In relation to an outcome based results process, initially, I don't think that's fair because a lot of these processes, you're actually part of an experiment. And we've seen it with the ACRs and the pillar two scheme in Ireland, where farmers are doing absolutely everything they're asked. And unfortunately, at the end of the process, the result isn't happening, even though they're doing everything and people need a bit of certainty on their income. So I think initially outcome would be wrong. I think following A to Z and then maybe after a certain number of years outcome, you shouldn't have to pay to be part of an experiment.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you very much. And the first thing I want to say is it's great to see you here so often, because that hasn't always been the case. And it's good to see you engage. And as with the last directive on Utps, I supported it not because it was perfect, because it was better than what we had, but an awful lot more could have been done. Likewise, in the case of what you're proposing here, the amendments to the CMO regulation, the idea of enhancing rules on contracts, mediation mechanisms, boost and producer organisations and allowing EU to financially support producer organisations. It's all it's excellent, it's an improvement and that's what we need. And I will Wee wee, as was said by one of the last speakers. It's how it's implemented, and in particular how we learn from other states like Spain, who have gone further than we have already. I'm just wondering what has been learned by that and in relation to the new regulation on Utps. I take it in good faith that you are working on improving the actual directive and not just doing this, and this is only one part of it, and that doing something about issues that happen, cross border is something that needs to be done.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much. And I think this is good news. We often get a lot of bad news around here, but this is an improvement. And I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs and everyone who was involved in this. I would like to have been a bit more involved, but unfortunately the review of the other unfair trading practices regulation in the CMO was also being negotiated at the same time. But I have to say, it turned out to be fairly non-contentious this file. So it's a question of where do you pick your fight? So in the other file there was a lot more to fight about. So on this I think we have got a good result. And it's good to know that you listened to us as a group. We demanded protection for suppliers outside of the European Union, and we've got that. One of the positive elements, elements of the agreement is establishing mechanisms for mutual assistance and coordination among national enforcement authorities. And a core element of the legislation is to put an end to the cross-border, unfair trading practices within their territory. Member states with more ambitious approaches in fighting, Utps can now apply new rules to investigate and stop unfair practices prohibited under national law. There are many, many positives to what's been agreed here. It's not going to solve all problems. I hope we get a strong agreement on the other UTP legislation and together we'll get something hopefully for farmers that all we get a fair wage for turning up for work and that's not too much to ask. Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Um, as all the other previous speakers have said, um, we don't have a lot of detail on this, and the clock is fast ticking. The commission knows this, and we just don't have the information that we need. And, uh, I'm in favor of solidarity. But at times, solidarity can pull you in one direction and pull you in the other direction. Showing solidarity to one person could mean hanging another person out to dry. So we've got to be careful on that, and you have to be particularly careful here in the commission or if you're in this job on absolutely massive money making decisions where you punch beat your chest and you say, I'm showing solidarity and it doesn't affect your pocket in any way. It's awfully easy to show solidarity there. So when we're showing solidarity and we should, because this country is under attack by brutal colonialism from Mr. Putin, we should show them solidarity. But we should also show solidarity to the small scale farmers, the small scale farming model, and look at what's coming down the line in the future. Because 300 hectares is a big farm in Ireland. You wouldn't see it on the map in Ukraine. And that's not to criticize them, but that has to be taken into account because otherwise you'll end up with no solidarity and everyone pulling against each other.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Thank you, Commissioner, for coming here today. I have five questions for you. How does the Commission justify its stated objective of strengthening food security, sovereignty and food security in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment? And on the other hand, a trade strategy that exposes European farmers to structurally unfair competition from third countries that do not respect equivalent environmental. And this one for you. Sanitary and social standards. It seems like a total contradiction. Also, what is the commission going to do to end the moral trade in pesticides that are banned in the EU because we know they are harmful to human health and the environment, but still manufactured in the EU and exported to third countries. You touched on that, but a more thorough answer will be needed. How does the commission assess the health risks linked to agricultural products from third countries, particularly regarding pesticide residues and other chemical substances in food. In a context where the acceleration of free trade agreements is increasing import volumes, and it's going to obviously put pressure on resources. Also, what effective controls are carried out to ensure compliance with maximum residue, limits on imported products? And what is the Commission's legal responsibility to ensure the protection of public health in this area. And there are many reputable studies carried out to demonstrate that pesticide residues of banned substances are being imported into EU foodstuffs. And you spoke about this, how do you concretely apply the precautionary principle to take into account the cumulative and long term effects of chemical residues to which European consumers are exposed, particularly in the context of growing and increasingly difficult to control volume of imported food products. And finally, how much money do you actually think would really need to do its job properly to be totally independent? Because, you know, we make choices on what we spend on budgets. And I think there would be support among the European citizens to spend money on an area that guaranteed they wouldn't end up dead because of what they're eating.”
  Pesticides & trade
• “Yeah. Apologies. Arash can't be here. When the European Court of Auditors say something that we agree with in this committee, we carry them on a chair into the room and we say, thank God you exist. Aren't you wonderful. And when they agreed with this on the proposal for the Common Agricultural Policy and the NRP or the Nppf. We were delighted with them. Well, their opinion on this tracking mechanism is that, well, in a nutshell, it's a total and utter joke. They noted that when, alongside sectoral funding programmes, it doesn't provide a clear, direct link between funding and actual results. When it comes to traceability and accountability and cut to the chase, they said it was a joke. They said when it came to data reliability, likewise, it was a bit of a joke. So obviously we've got to improve it. Unless of course, this time the European Court of Auditors aren't right all of a sudden because we just don't disagree with them anymore. And to me, the European Court of Auditors always come in here and they tell us the truth. They tell us they're like the speedometer. They tell us how fast we're going. We might not like it, but that is the truth. So a lot of what a MEP is proposing makes a lot of sense. And to me, we had a lot.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “(10:25:52 – 10:26:43): Yeah. Unfortunately, Arash can't be here. He's doing his bit for generation renewal. He's looking after his newborn baby, so he wants me to speak on his behalf if that's okay. This initiative on generation renewal is vital for the future of our agricultural model and our food sovereignty. European agriculture is facing a major demographic and attractiveness crisis. The average age of farmers is now 57. And over the past 13 years, the number of farms run by people 35 has fallen by nearly 50%. At the same time, the barriers to setting up farming continue to mount. In this context context, the direction of the future cap 2028 to 2034 is crucial. A reduction in the agricultural budget along with the weakening of startup aid and”
  Agricultural funding
• “Yeah, I'm standing in for a rash. He's our shadow rapporteur on this. European organic farmers are already under economic pressure, rising costs, market volatility and declining purchasing power. This proposal then should reinforce and not weaken their position. The proposal extends the recognition of equivalent third countries. However, equivalence does not mean identical standards, and as other speakers have said, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the limits of equivalence regarding the use of organic references and the EU logo. We must avoid a situation where EU producers compete with imports produced under less stringent or different control systems. Consumer confidence in the EU organic logo is one of our strongest assets. If labeling rules for imported products are adapted, they must be fully transparent and easily understandable. Also, in relation to fair competition, European farmers comply with strict production, animal welfare and control requirements. It is unacceptable to ask more of EU producers while allowing imports under lighter verification systems. Fair competition requires robust pre-entry controls, not just administrative simplification and at the end of the day, the public want good food and if it isn't good food, you're not going to placate them by saying, well, it was produced in a simple way. Don't mind if you're sick. However, simplification must not translate into weaker safeguards. We will therefore advocate for stronger control mechanisms for imported organic products, enhanced traceability requirements, clear differentiation in labelling where appropriate, and regular monitoring and review of third country equivalents. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “I heard the, uh, the person who came in for the EAS yesterday saying that they had a problem with aggressive payments. To me, digressive payments are a good idea and okay, it will affect some people on payments and people will get less. But the people who are getting more have always have, will always have had to do with less. So it's just evening it up and if there was more money in the pot, people losing money wouldn't be a problem. You mentioned the fact that coupling, uh, would lead to an uneven playing field. I actually think it possibly could. But what other tools could be used to support this vulnerable sector that will be better than a couple payments. And also on the issue of who is in the greatest need. I mean, this is how long is a piece of string on steroids here? Who is in the greatest need? Who will decide that to me? Who is in the greatest need are small scale farmers who put a lot of money back into the local economy. Provide an awful lot of services that are required. To me, those are the ones who are in the greatest need, who is in the greatest need? How do we decide that? That's the question, really, I have.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “(09:52:40 – 09:55:56): Thank you very much and very interesting information that you're you're bringing to us, and I think it's really important. And I'm representing the left, but I I I I suppose I I also primarily try and represent my country, Ireland, and we are looking for solutions to a massive housing crisis. We have 17 and a half thousand people, who are living in emergency accommodation. 5,600 of those are children whose lives are completely and utterly on hold. And, I raised 3 children myself, and I tell you, it's hard enough, with plenty of money and a good house. But I don't know what it's like if you're moving from 1 form of emergency accommodation to another. And your ideas about existing buildings makes total sense because we have a massive amount of them empty in Ireland. And I would say in fairness to our government, they have, actually put in place schemes, maybe a little complicated at times, but they are moving well in that area of modular homes, recycling materials, all excellent. But while I am horrified at the housing crisis, I am also very worried about what deregulation might mean, and I want to see houses built and built well as quickly as possible. But my worry is that when our biggest boom in housing came in Ireland was during 2000 to 2008, when we had massive deregulation, you could say, there you go. Deregulation is great. But with that deregulation and in the meantime, a lack of market surveillance, massive lack of market surveillance, we now have a big problem and there are infringement proceedings against Ireland in relation to deleterious materials, concrete materials in people's houses. And what I want to know is, is there not do you not think there is a danger? And while we need I'll say it again. We need to build houses. Is there not a danger that with deregulation, while you might build them today, they may fall down not tomorrow, but 10 or 15 years time because we are facing 20,000 houses in a small country, like, with 5 and a half million people living in the southern part of the island. And we're looking at 20,000 houses. We're looking at billions in costs. We're looking at people and I have to say it, the reality is people suicidal. Some people dead because they can't deal with distress on this, and their house is falling down around their ears. This is what they're building their houses with and it's crumbling. So I'll say it again. I want the houses built, but I'd like to see them built well. So and this is a question to the commission as well. With due, with, deregulation and with simplification, what are we going to do to make sure that that doesn't lead to the current situation that we have in Ireland? Because that's where we are at the moment. And I want to thank the European Commission for continuing to have an infringement proceedings against Ireland. Mightn't be popular, but I tell you it's the right thing to do.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you very much. Thanks, Commissioner. Good to talk to you again. I actually think that the current structure of cap could actually be quite good. And I think many of the people who complain about it have never read it and are just being populist. If they did actually read it and look at it, they could see that if it was applied correctly, it could actually be very good. Inspire voted for it in the first place. When it comes to fairness, the current cap structure allows for more fairness. We have a minimum convergence rate or a maximum convergence rate of 85%. Ireland never went any further than that. What I would suggest next time around is to put it at 100% when it comes to smaller farms. In the current cap structure, we have Chris. A minimum of 10% it has to go to smaller farms. Very few countries went higher than the 10% I would suggest in the new cap that we actually put it higher than that. And countries and regions that have gone as high as 22% have actually seen good results when it comes to the environment eco schemes. The minimum you can do is 25%. Countries can go further if they wish. And I have seen countries with the Green Party in coalition that have not gone further. They should have and they could have. But ultimately this is about funding. We are at only 40% of the funding that we were at in 1991, in Ireland. We need to increase that. You talk about strategic strategic autonomy. European countries are talking about spending 5% of GDP on weapons. We are not even willing to spend 0.5% of GDP on our food. We need to spend it on food before we spend it on weapons. That's our.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Like that would kind of be important. And when it comes to accountability and it comes to how this money is spent, I mean, the European Court of Auditors couldn't be any more damning. And while everyone on this committee is very supportive of giving money to agriculture, the whole Parliament isn't. And one of the things that the Parliament puts a dependence on is that there's accountability. And if there's no accountability, it makes an argument to take even more money away from agriculture. And finally, in relation to the structure. We're now talking about potentially bringing a whole load of articles back into the Agriculture Committee to decide on, because they were taken out of it. Can the Commission please explain to us what the logic was of taking away deciding types of intervention, specific requirements for Cap intervention, intervention, crisis payments for farmers crops, specific payments for cotton? I could go on. Was there a logic in taking it out of our competence and putting it into the competence of other people? What was the logic? Because I can presume there must have been some logic. It doesn't sound very logical. We're paying each be logical. Can you explain what the logic was? Because for me, I just cannot understand it.”
  Agricultural funding
• “And I don't think people are on wages like we're on. Should be asking any other question, because we know we do this job for a variety of reasons. But this money wouldn't be here if you weren't paid what you're paid. So we should majorly take that into account. And I would hope, and there is good work being done, and not to be too despondent on it when it comes to getting a fair price, whether that be with what MEP Bonacini is working on on UTP or whether it's, uh, the very good job, I have to say that Selena is doing and defending the Parliament position when it comes to the CMO file and UTP. So there is hope there. But finally, we not only need to get a good price for our product, for these, for these farmers, we also need money for nature restoration, nature protection. And that means more money from Cap, because there needs to be public money into this, because it's not like any other business. There are more things that people have to deal with in this business than being a hairdresser, etc. and that means we need extra finance on top of what you get at the market gate. So for me, all those things are important, but I welcome there's a strategy at least.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “(15:09:45 – 15:12:13): Thanks very much for, what is a very helpful study. It informs us, how to put together better policy. I don't know. Do you have the phrase around here of no 1 shouted stop? And, often, politicians are criticized for not shouting stop. I'm hearing everyone shout stop at the moment, but I'm not seeing it stopping. So, hopefully hopefully, we will see some improvements after we work on it. So, your study concludes that there's no provision for funding for data collection and control. So what would your suggestion be to tackle this? That and I'm I'm not clear. Are you calling for the reintroducing of a ring fenced budget as was the case with MFAP? And, from the point of view of being confident of getting extra resources on top of the 2,000,000,000, I'm also a member of AGRI, and I've been I I was told by the commission, don't worry. You'll be able to fight for other resources. But the reality is if everyone fights for more resources, then someone is going to lose out. And you'd have to ask, all I know is for my country, politicians ain't quite so interested in fisheries. That's why you never see money from Ireland here. You'll see plenty of them at the agri committee. And the worry with, fishers in Ireland is that the results of this level of political interest in agri over fisheries will mean that there's only gonna be 1 loser here. And by the way, I think there needs to be more money for all. At a time when we're talking about strategic autonomy, I think surely food in our bellies is the most strategic autonomous thing that you can do. And, the reality is that, if we if we don't think like that, we're gonna be in trouble. I'd also like to ask, what are your recommendations for conservation and restoration of marine resources? How can we make sure that this is a key objective as it was with, MFAP? And it I'd be interested to hear what the commission have to say and to reply in reply to your study and from other questions that were asked because, there's a lot of questions being to be answered just from the presentation alone. Thanks very much. Thank you. Mister Drese? Thank you, chair. I will speak German. So”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “Thank you very much. In order to get out of a place where you don't want to be, you've got to work out how you've got there in the first place. And there's one word will explain exactly why we are here today. And that is Trump, Donald Trump. If Donald Trump wasn't trying to cover up for the fact that he is a paedophile, we wouldn't be dealing with this, because this man will do absolutely anything to take attention away from the sort of monster that he is. And unfortunately, we are now paying the price. So the number one thing we could do here today is to appeal to American politicians to impeach, impeach, impeach. He is the person who has brought us here immediately. What can we do? Because this problem needs to be dealt with immediately. We need to look at rules around minimum VAT rates on fuels. We also need to look at, as a previous speaker mentioned, the nitrates directive. If there is an issue with spreading spreading natural fertilizer, which we're going to potentially have to depend upon, we need to do something about that. We also need to look more long term.”
  EU-US relations
• “(16:23:57 – 16:25:24): Thanks, for your report. If as other pity, there aren't more up to date figures as other people have said. It's interesting to see that the report indicates that there has been strong support for data collection and control operations in initial operations under MFF. Yet we've just heard from the policy department that there will be no ring fence funding for such data collection and control under the new MFF. So how do you propose to ensure that member states allocate sufficient non ring fence funding to ensure such data collection and control operations are continued, which the policy department report estimated at 1,900,000,000? And also, according to NGO reports, only 20% of the funds in the EMFF supported small scale fisheries. And I I think you said they've done quite well. 70% of fishers getting 20%. I don't know. I don't see how that's doing well. That's doing not well, I would say. So do you know is if a similar figure applies for small scale fisheries support under MFAP? And if so, how can we improve this situation, ensure that small scale fisheries become a priority for member states? Because everyone in here seems to support small scale fishers. I go home. All the politicians more support small scale fishers. Doesn't seem to matter very much, though, that all of us support them, but they always end up getting the dirty end of the stick.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “And I'd just be worried that the performance, it will be just judged on what initially it did for farmers and did it help them. It actually helps far more than that and helps the whole of a whole of society. And actually, from a cultural point of view, in many areas of my country, the Irish language is supported, um, in a way, by the fact that this funding is coming in. So will that performance be taken into account? Because when it comes to performance in that area, I have to say its performance has been phenomenal. It has been essential, and it's why it's sad to see it being cut. It's sad to see the amount of money available being cut already. Performance is measured by the European Court of Auditors and we have special reports done. And there is often complaints in this committee. Well why are they measuring performance when it comes to the environment etc.. But I'm just wondering how does this a new look at it, how does that impact the work that they do? And um, look, I'll repeat what some of the others have said. Simplification has been promised before and we haven't had it. But we'll wait and see. We'll wait and see.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Unlike a lot of MEPs, as you can see, and unless you put funding into this area, it's not everything, but you're not going to get buy in because people won't be able to do it, because they won't be able to do exactly what's required to improve the situation. And an example would be, I'm looking like since the debate on the NRL, is there any more news in Ireland on where the funding is going to come from? And if you Google it and you look it up, it's the same story that was there originally. 3.15 billion. Climate and Nature Fund, which has been totally debunked as a lie. It's good money. All right. It will go towards infrastructure. But there's going to be nothing there really for individual projects, for farmers. So for me, how do we do this without funding? And I'll finish by saying then we get this shotgun to the head, basically with the cut in funding to agriculture. Down by 22%, down by 70% since 1991. We can't come in here and say farmers should do X, Y, and Z if we haven't done our ABCs on what it will cost and actually providing funding for it. Funnily enough, we have money for weapons, though I don't.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. I often hear people come in here and say, this is an important subject, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And for me, it's very, very important subject. I was diagnosed as autistic about 15 months ago. I have three autistic children, two of them with ADHD, and it's something obviously, inevitably, I've spent an awful lot of time thinking about. But when people say they care about people with disabilities, I believe them more if they turned up here. And if some people from the main groups took this more seriously, then I don't think we'd have to fight because the money would be here. I've also heard the use of and I think language is very, very important. I've also heard the use of the phrase extra responsibilities might require us needing extra funding. I do not like that language. I think we should look at extra opportunities out of making sure that everyone can participate in society. And while autistic people may have certain limitations in certain areas, they also have talents in other areas that are of a massive benefit. It's just a question of trying to facilitate people so they can actually give you all their skills, and you can actually use all their skills. And I want to say it's very refreshing to hear the speaker talk up there and show how clearly you understand the subject of autism. When you talk about late diagnosis and the impact that that has on people. And I think it's very, very important to talk about that. I think it's very, very important to talk about acceptance as well, because everyone seems to think, yeah, okay.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• “And we're slowly but surely heading there. And that simplification isn't going to deliver on a common cause, which is this, which is what we're meant to do. It's called the European Union for a reason, not to create a situation where we all run in different directions, and no one knows where the money is spent, and there's no credibility for how the money is spent. And for me, that's really, really worried, like to hear things like no provision for the collection of information, no impact indicators defined, and then this overstatement of what it's going to do for the environment. We had something similar with areas of natural constraint in the Cap regulation the last time, claiming more of it was for the environment than actually was, because it actually, strictly speaking, wasn't for the environment. But there's one thing for sure we won't solve our problems by lying to ourselves. We won't solve our problems by closing our eyes. And that's what, um. Well, look, you can say people are being political saying this. It's in black and white. It's there in what the European Court of Auditors have said. I hope we can improve it. That's our role.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Uh, thank you very much. And, uh, well done to, uh, Bert and the draft that you've done. Uh, in my experience with you, you always have a nose for, uh, spotting where potentially we're going to be short changed, whether that was yesterday at the committee on the MFF and them taking us down from 6 billion down to two, or whether it be the cap budget. Um, I'm glad to see that it's been noticed here that, um, as a percentage of overall horizon, funds were actually down quite a lot. And it should be, uh, what you call it. If it was at 18%, then we would end up getting about 12 billion more. So I think it's good to note that, um, I think it's worrying, uh, as it is in many areas where, um, creating symbiotic relationships and getting better value for money seems to be a roundabout way of hiding the fact that you're taking money away from agriculture. I think that would be a worry about the fact that it isn't actually stand alone in this agriculture, the word integration is used, but as long as it isn't used to actually hide money and I think we should obviously always innovate, we should always try and improve and always try and make things better and make ourselves more competitive. And so we can produce more. But we want to look at. The more we produce as farmers, the less price we seem to get, and the more production and the better that we seem to get at production. I don't see it coming back to the farmers, so I'd be more in a hurry to get a better price for a farmer than to make them more innovative, because making them more innovative hasn't made them richer. Not in my experience.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. As you've said, unfortunately, Emma cannot be here today. She sends her apologies and would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and members for their participation in the exchange. She'd also like to extend her thanks to the administrators of the committee for their work under tight deadlines, as well as the representatives of the European Commission for being here today to explain their work in more detail, the rapporteur would like to recall that the Treaty on Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction, is a landmark agreement for the protection of the high seas. The high seas are home to unique species of vulnerable ecosystems. They are also important areas for commercial activities such as fishing, shipping and other activities. High seas ecosystems are Unfortunately under significant pressure such as pollution, overfishing and the effects of climate change. The most recent and growing threat, both for marine ecosystems and fisheries activities in the high seas, is the potential development of deep sea mining activities. The Bbnj agreement is the result of decades of discussion and constitutes a huge achievement in the field of ocean diplomacy. It closes the longstanding governance gaps in conserving and managing marine life in the high seas. We now have an international legal instrument that covers all areas beyond national jurisdiction. The rapporteur therefore welcomes the EU's renewed commitment under the Ocean Pact to ensure its swift ratification, transposition and implementation.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much for your interest in presentations on what is a massively important topic and the idea that we somehow integrate all these funds so we can get a better win for rural areas. Sounds like a good idea, but to me. Cap was already integrated into rural areas. I've said it a million times and I keep saying it at this committee. I'm not a farmer. I've never lived on a farm, but my father would have had to emigrate. But for the Common Agricultural Policy Fund, because he would have got no money off farmers in the area to put in windows, doors, helped them to build sheds, etc.. So when we talk about integrating the cap, the cap in its current form and people like to criticize it, I'd like for some people to actually read something before they criticize. It was putting money into every sector in rural Ireland and rural areas already in Europe. To me, the big issue here is, and obviously this proposal from the Commission could be better. But ultimately, the big issue here is the amount of money that's available. And while pillar two to me would be important, we didn't have pillar two pillars for 40 years. We did have them for the last 20 years. It would to me be good if we'd retain it, but ultimately it's about the amount of money. And if we look at some of the areas in the new Cap proposals, I think there is potential for a fairer cap.”
  CAP delivery architecture: ring-fenced common fund vs integrated national plans
• “Maybe not the farmers that are popular with my government, but the farmers that are always trodden on. The farmers that always get walked on in the first iteration of the plan. And that's why it's important to retain a review for farmers. Gaec two is mentioned and for me, in spite of voted against nature restoration law, because I believe in a just transition, you should pay people to do work. And you mentioned the idea of it should be made simpler in Giac two. If you paid people there is no money, there should be money, but there is no money. And to make it worse. And remember, Commission and I backed you, and I've stood by you and many times. And I've come in here and defended you. But you're coming in here talking about simplification, and you've just signed off on a package from Ireland on Giac two that includes over 100,000 hectares of mineral soils using old maps that don't even work. And you come in here and you talk to us about simplification. Farmers aren't simple. They need certainty, they need funding, and they need money to do this stuff. That's the answer. Because if we don't do that, we'll be back again here in a few years time, continuing our rolling cap strategic plan. That isn't a plan at all. A plan doesn't change every bloody day.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Commissioner McGrath, welcome to our committee. Commissioner in Ursula von der Leyen's letter to you last year, she highlighted that and I quote, you should make full use of all instruments for implementation and enforcement, including infringement proceedings. Do you believe you have successfully met those expectations? You spoke here today about enforcement and about us being the world leaders. Last summer, I welcome the news that the commission had issued infringement proceedings against Ireland, specifically in relation to a breach of the Construction Products Regulation due to the lack of market surveillance. But we've heard nothing since. Constituency constituents regularly inquire about progress, expressing their hope that this situation cannot and will not be repeated. I think we talk a lot in this Parliament about these theoretical situations, but the consequences of this failure are not abstract legal points. They are the lived realities of thousands of people in Ireland whose homes have been severely damaged by defective construction products. These are individuals and families who invested their life savings in what should have been their sanctuary, only to find themselves living in structurally unsound and dangerous properties. They face immense financial burdens, emotional issues, and a profound sense of injustice. I know one constituent who is going to lose It was €150,000. Because of this, the Commission's letter of formal notice to Ireland last summer was a necessary recognition of this unacceptable situation. However, the lack of visible progress is disappointing. Where are the consequences for those who failed those homeowners whose lives have been upended by these failures? Where is the assurance that such negligence will never happen again? Do we know anything more from Ireland? Is there a timeline? We are apparently the guardians of consumer rights within the European Union. We cannot allow this situation to continue. I urge you, Commissioner, to give an update on the infringement proceedings as soon as you can to ensure that Ireland rectifies the market surveillance practices urgently, and to actively engage in finding solutions for the consumers who have already suffered irreparable harm. We need transparency on the measures being taken to support these victims and to hold those responsible accountable. Do you have anything to say?”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “A lot of them come in here to this committee, and they complained and they said, for example, in Ireland, oh, this is complicated and that is complicated. And then you go and meet the commission. You discover actually in Ireland, we gold plated it, we platinum plated it. We look for new metals that didn't even exist to plate the regulations, and then complained that Europe did it to us. And we have politicians in Ireland running off with that ball saying, oh, Europe made us do it. Well, they're not here today. They don't explain to people that actually it could have, under the current architecture, been done right. And they just look for change to get votes. They don't give a damn about the consequences. So as a result of it, here we are looking at how well the new delivery model is working. And at the same time, we're currently working on changing it again. For me, the best way to keep life simple is to keep it constant and not to just change. Just because someone shouts the loudest and you're afraid to explain to them that actually calm down. This could actually be all right if it's done this way, but you can't get votes that way. That's what it seems.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• “To be two people at once here. But I just want to comment on the rapporteurs work, and I want to say I fully agree with this. I think the rapporteur has proposed new recital, and amendment three is particularly important in relation to increasing coherence between Rfmos and the Bbnj network. The reason I want to highlight this amendment is because there was an interesting academic paper published over the summer on this agreement. It looked at how the agreement faces an ongoing challenge where commercially valuable marine resources, such as fisheries and marine resources are managed separately from broader marine biodiversity concerns in the high seas, and the tension partly arises from whether fish should be treated as part of marine biodiversity or as a resource already managed separately under existing regimes in practice. And the authors of the papers concluded that without a broad consensus among Rfmo members, adopting bbnj related conservation tools may be limited in practice, which obviously we don't want, resulting in only partial or symbolic implementation. And I think this conclusion highlights the relevance and the importance of the rapporteur's amendment and I, and which calls for a coordinated approach to ensure coherence with bodies such as the Rfmos. And just in relation to comments made by members on MEP for us report. Um, I will pass the questions and the comments on her and in particular, and many members have said it taking into account socio economic concerns, because to me it's a kind of a repeated thing we need to do this, but if you don't take into account socio economic concerns, no matter how concerned you are, if you don't have a cent in your pocket, you can't really act. So I would have to agree with people who said that and I definitely back that. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “The best way to protect our oceans is to support small scale fishers over super trawlers. And the best way to protect local fishing communities is to support small scale fishers over super trawlers. Is it happening? Not at the moment, no. In Ireland, 87.5% of all fishers operate out of boats of 12m or less, yet they have access to less than 1% of herring stocks and 4% of mackerel stocks. When these fishers try to organise into POS, they were delayed by a regime in Ireland that would prefer if they did not exist. Now they have been recognised as POS. It is made as difficult as possible for them to access funding. This needs to change. If we are serious about an ocean pact and protecting our oceans. Ireland does not need permission to do this. However, article 17 allows for it and encourages it. The MFF regulation does not preclude funding for POS, so people might be tempted to blame Europe for the problems of small scale fishers in Ireland. That's not the fact. The fact is, it's our own fault and that needs to change. Thank you very much.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you very much and thanks for your interest in presentation. And I think most of the other speakers have said it, 3% of young farmers are women, and that isn't because a very, very small fraction of women want to become young farmers versus the amount of young men who want to become farmers. It's because obviously it isn't a very attractive prospect for a variety of reasons. There are common reasons why it wouldn't be attractive to many young people, but there's obviously extra reasons why it wouldn't be attractive to women. And this is a tragedy from a variety of reasons, from an equality point of view, for someone who has three daughters and someone who's a white man, I realise since I've had three daughters, the ultimate crazy privileges that I have, and I look at the lack of equality that they have and it comes across in every aspect of society, but it's even worse in farming, and we've got to change that, and we've got to change it in a in a big way because we're losing out on massive talent, we're losing out on ideas, we're losing out on innovation, and we're losing out on making a better world as a result of it. And I suppose there are obvious things that make it more difficult in rural areas access to health services, abortion services are a lot more challenging and completely restricted in some areas. Access to childcare. It was mentioned there that women take over the farm, but they end up with all of the other previous jobs that they had beforehand.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Yeah. Um, we we want to make a political choice. We're either in favor of globalization or we're not. And we're in favor of globalization. Well, there's plenty of money, and then we're not in favor of globalization when it goes against us. And, uh, in an Irish context, like we're talking about a massive market here, we're talking about €100 million. Um, it's great money for our economy, but you'd have to look at the long term sustainability of depending on something like this, because we are just wide open to threats and we don't seem to be able to do anything about it. But I think we also need to look at what's seen as what's important by the people who run the European Union, which is more important, the German car industry or the Irish pork industry, which is more important? Um, um, basically helping the European or German car industry in Mercosur or is it suckler farmers in Roscommon, which is more important? And it seems that, uh, parts for machines ultimately win out here. And someone said to me there recently that I have to say, I think the new EU commissioner, as he was at the time for agriculture, has to be the best agriculture commissioner for the European car industry there ever has been, but not certainly not the best when it comes to agriculture.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. I think the setting up of the observatory was very, very important. The jury is out on how effective it's it's going to be. But for me, I think it's essential. And a previous speaker said that we don't really need an observatory to see what farmers are going through. I get that point. We know what farmers are going through. All you have to do is, for example, go to our ploughing championship in Ireland. And you can see that everyone involved in farming has money except for farmers, whether that's machinery producers, whether that's people selling feed everyone, bear the farmer. And we need to change a situation where you can have someone at the top of the food chain, people like Larry Goodman, flying around in a private jet, and the people who are doing the real work can't even barely afford to put diesel in their car. But for years, I would imagine you're the same we've had in my office. People come to me claiming that there's a cartel, for example, in the beef industry, and they bring us information. We go to the commission, it goes around in the circle because it's very, very hard to prove it. So hopefully this observatory will be something more concrete than people just coming to you individually and telling you that there's a problem. And it's all very well observing, as Martin Hausling said. But we also need Action. At the end of the day, I understand this is only up and running a short time, but we will need to see results out of it. We will need to see data shared and for me it's a bit like a speedometer on a car. It's all very well knowing what speed you're doing, but if someone is doing 100km above the speed limit, you need someone to come in and police it. And for me, ideally, this new, uh, move on legislation on unfair trading practices will use this data to create a situation where farmers will get a good place in the food chain and will get paid for what they do, like everyone else in this room does. Not too much to ask, I would say.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much. And a very important report. Well, for people who are new to participating in this committee and for the start of a new term, because it gives you a good overview of what's going on and what stuck out for me on the report. And I have a particular questions for Graham, is in relation to innovative funding mechanisms, and also this thing whereby small scale fishers are slow or reluctant to take up new technologies. So what I'd like to know is there. Are there any other examples of innovative funding mechanisms, in particular for small scale operators that want to engage with new technology but who are unable to access the funding under MFF due to the way it's administered by the relevant member state? And I'll give you an example where I am from in Ireland, I work with a small scale fishers who operate from small islands. They have had several technological avenues that they want to explore, but funding difficulties may mean they can't move forward. So I hear this thing about how they're reluctant to move with technology, but the people I'm dealing with directly would love to move forward with technology, but the funding isn't allowing for it. And I'll give you an example of a pilot funded by Rethink Ireland, included in Imrose Pyo production and marketing plan, but cannot access the funding. And one other example when it comes to automatic Identification system. Imrose submitted a proposal to the Irish Minister and Department in May 2023 for the supply of AIS equipment under MFF, and I am saying this in the context of small scale fishers not wanting to take up technological opportunities, but in this case, when they tried to do it, they didn't even get a reply from our government. So while I hear a lot of good things here, and I do hear a lot of good things, and when I hear the commission speak and it looks like a potentially a good future, but when you look at it at close level, at national level and you look for advances on funding, not so people can support themselves forever so they can lift them up and get them off the ground. It's not happening. So when it comes to innovative funding mechanisms, can you elaborate on that, please? Thank you.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “The first thing I'd like to take up is this anxiety that we proceed quickly. Look, we need to get this right. Um, we need to do a good job of it. And to do that, we need as much time as we need. And. Okay, uh, obviously, farmers need certainty, and they want the rules in place in time, but they want the rules put together correctly because we apparently we had to rush simplification. We had to rush the last cap. It all seems to be pushing us along. Well, that's not the way to do business. We need to get this right. And that's really, really important. Now, when I hear incentivize rather than punish, I think that's absolutely wonderful. But I don't know what incentivized you to come here today. I know you love the European Union and all, but I'd say the main thing was you got paid. And no matter how wonderful you think you are, that's the main reason you're here. And we're looking at a 30% cut to the budget in real terms by the time it starts. And that's a problem. And we talk about more income foregone and that requires money. Where does the money come from? If there's a cut. And I hear about this rural target, and I agree with MEP Cowan and other speakers that, you know, where's the guarantee that this money will come back to agriculture and what's the best way to do it? Well, the best way to do it is simple enough.”
  Agricultural funding
• “And so we now have two years of data and two years of experience. And the question is does this cap work? I find it interesting, if not so much strange, that some people in here are disappointed that something they negotiated, worked on, and agreed to might actually be better than they thought. Because I voted for it. I think it could have been applied better. Still, it still think it can be. But I'm just curious why MEPs in here voted for this if they have such a problem with it. And it's good having anecdotal evidence of how people are getting on it. But this is actually the first real study we've had as to how it's working. And before we even published this study, we're talking about changing it all again in the name of simplification, we're going to change all the rules again in order to make it simple. Well, I'd love someone to try and explain that logic to me because it is not logical. And the details of these strategic plans. And one of the positives, I think about national Cab strategic plans, and especially for people who whinge that Europe tells us what to do. You get to decide at home, within the rules that your MEPs agreed on what happens. So that to me is quite a good thing. And there were minimums that countries could do.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Yeah, I think maybe we should start calling it the UAP, the Uncommon Agricultural Policy, because it's not going to be too common after this. We're looking at a reduction in money while the EU budget has increased. But never mind the less money is going to be linked to inflation. And even if we stayed at the current amount in Ireland, you'd be getting 40% of what you're getting in 1991. It's it's astonishing really. And it's good to see the passion here on this, but I've seen passion here before and I saw it on Mercosur. There wasn't a person in here disagreed with it. And now apparently you're being awkward if you do disagree with it. So I hope you keep your passion on this. And I listened to Herbert Dorfman's speech. Herbert, you voted for this commission on it. And if you're not happy with them, put down a motion of censure to remove them, and I'll support you on the detail. One of the big things that we were meant to do was to help smaller family farms. You got rid of the one instrument that can actually achieve that, Chris. Now the question is, will the aggressive kitty be the equivalent of that? Will it be worth as much? Will it be worth €43 a hectare for the first 30 hectares as it is in Ireland? And if you're on 70,000 currently under your proposals, you lose 10,000. What happens to this 10,000. You were a bit vague as to what happens. You said farmers can be given back the money if member states want to give it to them. What exactly will happen with them? Because at the moment, my member state has no choice but to give €43 extra per hectare to small scale farmers. And the reason why I'm happy they have no choices, because they won't bloody well give it to them unless they have no choice. So how are you going to get money to small farms? And I'll say it again. If you're not happy with the commission, it's the democratic place here. I'll support getting rid of them. Either that or stop complaining about something you supported.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “P.s. Talk about the Markers agreement and MPS express concerning the agreement proposed Mercosur Agreement. Don't worry about quality because the quality will be just is good to about contaminant. Don't worry about harmony. Because. We are and that will be the difference and quality. That's what the European Union is not the same time. The European Union is in the theory of money. The world that is the true world food is better than. The same is. The marketer is that it is better than what the mercosur ones. When you can, how can you do you and there is the people that we don't give up with an expert People also massive the coming to up to experience. Wonderful food and now we are the situation. The Commission is to Brazilian beef and this tables, restaurants and the company to you can watch to the importance for the same of what is the main incentive to come here to experience a brilliant food center for people to be Europe, because well, actualei coaliții is good for Mercosur and so what the hell This is the end of all the money and promotion may be consistent. What about the quality of food and. Acțiunile noastre importante. This from Mercosur in the first place to the other country. This is the.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Um, thanks very much for a very interesting presentation. And I'll say it again. And it won't make me very popular around here, but, um, you don't get paid probably a fraction of what we do to turn up here. And yet again, I see only a handful of people here. So it's a pity more people weren't here to hear what you have to say, because it is massively important topic. Uh, I doubt there's an MEP when they talk about nature restoration. Don't say it's really, really important. It doesn't seem to be important enough to be here, though. And that saddens me to be quite honest, because it's really important work that's been done. Um, people, uh, farmers are basically being asked to do particular things that maybe they might find challenging. Maybe they might find questionable. And, um, they have uncertainty in their lives because I know from my country, we move from a situation where we were quite literally told we were stupid because we had too many hedgerows. We were shown pictures in geography class of fields in Denmark and told, look at these lovely fields. There's no hedges here, not like in Ireland where, um, we could get more land by chopping them down. So now we're asking them to do the complete opposite, which is a very important thing to do. So Public participation and asking people about this is important because this cycle comes and changes and comes and changes. And I have to say, I don't think there's been consultation with people over the last 50 years. You're told one, one generation, you're a fool for doing it, the next generation you're a fool for not doing it. And that's why for me, public participation is very, very important. And even more important would be MEP participation. But I can dream.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU