Barry COWEN

Policy topics Barry COWEN is active on

What Barry COWEN has said (50)

• 2026-07-14 “(11:34:27 - 11:35:53): Thanks a lot. So, Barry, you you it was a little bit late, but you have a short question. Apologies. Yeah. Yeah. That agriculture committee meeting. Briefly, to raise the case and the difficulties, particularly we have in Ireland as a result of these new arrangements and quota systems, whereby the The E UK access to the EU has been increased, but it's across 26 or or or so different steel products. And, you know, any 1 may already have exceeded its quota. And I'm particularly, disappointed to learn that Northern Ireland is being treated as, non EU in this instance. And that's not the thrust of the, agreements we've reached with The UK. It's not the thrust of the agreement we've reached in relation to, Northern Ireland's specific place as 1 that can benefit from, membership of the EU and also The UK. And it's something that needs to be resolved because it's critical now in our country and is you know, the cost of alternative mills in Europe is 50% above even paying the increased tariff associated with UK steel. But the main point I want to make is the provisions contained in the in the declaration agreements with The UK and the significant role that Northern Ireland has has to be respected.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• 2026-07-14 “Um, initially. The role Mark Nicola Europa, um, the role will be one of achieving compromise. I know, and some more interesting political point scoring may lament the fact that Ireland must be and is committed to being an honest broker during the negotiations to come. Frankly, I'm not sure what to see as the alternative. A dishonest broker certainly wouldn't benefit Europe or Ireland either. My primary goal is to renew Europe's cap. Negotiators and MEP focused on protecting the cap and funding for farmers is bridging the proposed 20% cap budget itself. I've put forward proposals on how this how we might meet that shortfall in relation to the 45 billion mid-term reserve funds secured through Mercosur and the 48 billion earmarked for rural development. How does the presidency see discussions evolving in relation to those issues? Secondly, in relation to the modernisation that we've seen over the last number of years in farming throughout Europe, the next phase of progress must come through technology and innovation, and we hear talk about competitiveness and innovation funds potentially supporting the future of agriculture. So I want to ask you directly, is the presidency making the case that agriculture should be a central beneficiary of those funds, particularly member states who may not view agriculture as part of Europe Europe's competitive agenda and where funding is secured. How do we ensure that it reaches the sectors where it's needed most? Thank you chair.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-07-08 “Thank you, members. A competitive and sustainable bioeconomy is a strategic necessity. Our recent experience to the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz makes that all the more clear. The EU's vision for the bioeconomy is that by 2040, bio based construction products like biochemicals, textiles, fertilizers, plastics, and so forth will all be widely deployed across our union. And there are to be these are to be fossil free alternatives that create stable new income streams for citizens. Looking specifically at the potential of fertilizers, we see that the bio based fertilizers can cut our dependence on imports, lower our carbon footprint, and turn agricultural residues and organic waste into real economic value. And that's why when the commission evaluates the fertilizing products regulation, it must ask whether it is delivering market access for bio based fertilizers appropriately. If not, we need to see action now. We need to see these products fast track to the market. It's a rare case where everyone can win and we can and have to, at this stage, because of what I've mentioned earlier, grab that opportunity with both hands at this stage. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• 2026-06-25 “Yes. Thanks, chair. Um, this discussion, this panel is talking about the The implications of the new funding, architecture and governance framework for farmers, national authorities, and it asks that we ask them to expand on opportunities and constraints with the 20% reduction in funding. There are no new opportunities. There are merely constraints. You can't ask farmers or the sector to do more for less, with less. So our objective, the parliament's objective, the council's objective, the government's within the council's objective must be to seek to immediately close that budgetary gap. I have said previously, I'll say it again, that can be done. So by virtue of the mid-term injection being frontloaded, that's £45 billion and asking for the 48 billion Rural Development Fund to be brought back into the cap. But to be brought back in under the old metrics, traditional as they are, rather than the new cohesive ones, which would be detrimental to the workings of the likes of leader and other rural development companies as they presently are. Set up so that that just has to be done. And maybe then we can look at this architecture. Maybe then we can look at the proposals. Because if I talk about and people are talking about commonality here, that we have to have commonality, and maybe we've maxed out on commonality three, 3.5% on generation renewal. We're talking about moving that up to six. The commissioner talks about a report from this committee talks about ten. Norbert Lins talks about eight. We settle between 6 and 8. If the environmental envelope is fixed at 35% as it is presently. But then you're into a commonality across the cap of 43%. Um, you know, no two countries are the same.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-06-25 “We saw that by virtue of the proposals in the last cap, and that brought it home to me. Uh, so maybe there is merit in in in national plans, but only if, you know, they recognize the place that agriculture has in that respective member state in relation to, you know, its percentage in employment may be well down as it is across the Union, and its percentage in relation to GDP may be well down, but making a huge contribution in relation to exports, as we do in our country, or 90% of what we produce is exported, is done to the highest quality and standard, and is returning profit by virtue of the new trade opportunities we have, both within and outside the agreement. Assuming, of course, that health and safety and food security is paramount in relation to all such deals. But it is a key driver of rural areas, of rural development, of rural population, and it needs to be productive. Input costs, of course, have been hammered in recent times because of the geopolitical realities. So yes, we can compete with the competitive fund in relation to energy and fuel costs, but a nation must be in a position to co-finance to the tune of going beyond the initial constraints associated with the environmental envelope in order to ensure the newer generations follow innovation, follow technology, follow new practices and opportunities exist for smaller, less productive, less arable holdings as well. In order to maintain population in those areas and allow people to have supplementary income that's meaningful and generates more than merely mental health capacity, but makes it a viable contribution to a family's cost of living.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• 2026-06-25 “Thank you, chair, and thanks to our panelists for their contributions this morning to budgetary reality. For those that I represent, doesn't look good. Um, our current budget 11.8 billion, which is now proposed to be reduced by 28.2. We can look at the flexible amount from the mid term review that can be front loaded into the Cap budget, but it means very little to our farmers that money is allocated on the NRP as per the proposed changes, as opposed to the traditional metrics by which cap is distributed presently. Then when we look at distributing the reduced budget, we're tasked with either offering less to farmers by way of direct payments or reduce the amount of money we spend on agri environment schemes in Ireland. If we retain the average €183 payment per hectare and account for a ring fenced budget for young farmers, which is absolutely crucial, we are left with very little for anything else. So countries that are facing a massive shortfall will need to look to increase their co-financing rates far beyond what they are currently co-financing. So my question to Mr. Vernet and also to the if the Commission could come in at the. On this at the end, is there anything stopping member States from aggressively financing agri environment schemes with their national Exchequer to make up the shortfall in the budget? We, for example, in Ireland co-financed to the tune of 57% presently, and if it were such that we could do so to 100% or beyond, maybe we'd be in a position to honour the commitment that we have made and that we are making as a whole, in relation to rewarding those who go beyond the existing conditionality in relation to following new innovation technologies, and also looking at smaller holdings where they can make a contribution by way of carbon and nature, by way of diversity, by way of nature restoration. And if that's the only mechanism that may be available because of the budgetary constraints, is that something we could pursue?”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-03-18 “Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 13.5.2026 Written question In the case at hand, the initiation of the investigation that resulted in the increase of the applicable duties was announced on 19 December 2024 . T he Commission informed all interested parties on 26 November 2025 of the findings The regulation amending the duties was published on 6 February 2026 [1] and entered into force on the following day . This allowed for more than two months until the publication of the increased measures and more than 13 months after the initiation of the investigation. Moreover, since the initiation of the investigation, that is, for more than one year before the increase actually took effect, the interested parties, including importers, had been aware that the anti-dumping duties in question might change. The investigation was limited to the re-examination of dumping, as informed in the notice of initiation of the investigation published on 19 December 2024 [2] . The examination of EU interest is not covered as such. In all cases, a t initiation, the Commission contacts all known exporters, importers and representative associations, as well as representatives of the exporting country and the complainants and invites them to be registered in the investigation. Member States are also informed in advance of the initiation. As part of the procedure, during the investigations, the Commission informs all parties that come forward about the findings in advance of any decision and invites them to comment. Since recently, specifically to increase the outreach and contact the largest number of potential interested parties to the investigation, the Commission is requesting at initiation, to all the exporting producers in the country under investigation, the contact details of their customers in the EU. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202600274. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202407456.”
  EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports
• 2025-04-02 “E-001373/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission Under the current EU supervisory framework for the insurance sector 1 , national competent authorities hold primary responsibility for the supervision of insurance undertakings and intermediaries operating within their jurisdictions. This includes ensuring compliance with applicable rules, safeguarding consumer protection, and taking corrective measures when necessary. Within this framework, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) promotes supervisory convergence across Member States. EIOPA is accountable to the European Parliament and the Council and is subject to the transparency obligations laid down in the EIOPA Regulation 2 . The Commission is committed to strengthening the supervisory system at EU level, as set out in the Communication on the Savings and Investments Union 3 . 1 In particular, Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance, OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1–155, and Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution, OJ L 26, 2.2.2016, p. 19–59. 2 Namely Articles 3, 43a and 72 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC. 3 COM(2025) 124.”
  Financial regulation
• “Mr. chair, I speak on behalf of my colleague Jeremy Searle, who couldn't be here this morning. Just briefly, um, the CMO regulation is a key component, as you know, of the Common Agricultural Policy. It provides European farmers with the tools they need to create value and obtain fair prices for their products on the markets, and in particular by regrouping. It also provides tools to prevent and respond to sectoral crisis. The regulation has been continuously improved through reforms and largely thanks to the work of this Parliament. We would like to thank the Commission for its new proposals, and we look forward to working on this text with the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs. We will seek to ensure that all the tools work and meet the needs of producers, and are used more and better. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thanks, chair. In this mandate, because of geopolitical realities, the likes of the US looking inwards and China being more assertive, not to mention input cost pressures, has been alluded to rising as a result of war. We've been the EU has been striving to conclude trade deals in a more timely fashion. We've seen that with the UK, we've seen it with the US, with Mercosur. We might agree with it, but hard won concessions and safeguards nonetheless. And in India and Australia, to mention a few. And these trade deals are essential if our sector. For our sector to. In offering new and huge markets for our food and drink products. And I welcome the Commission's increase in funding in that regard from a low some years ago of 140 million to 205 million, a billion now in Ireland, we've seen a 5% increase in our exports year on year, 24% increase on our beef alone. So that proves the potential that it is there to take advantage of these new markets and are well resourced and well funded. Promotional policy can only enhance the producer's remit to ensure that their quality matches environmental ambition, but also matches consumer sentiment and wins support, wins favour and wins revenue for our respective member States and profits. Of course, for those that do so, they being the farmers who produce that food.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “And I've made an amendment to that effect, and I would hope and expect and ask that members support that amendment. I'd also like to see clarification that the price reference that will be used in all such instances will be one that is at current levels and reviewed regularly to ensure the case. Finally, I tabled an amendment to the text to ensure that the Commission provides monitoring reports on a three monthly basis, rather than a six monthly basis to ensure it updates. Updates us on how the likes of the EU Food Safety Monitoring Board, based in Grange in Ireland, is carrying out those checks on the ground and in the ports and ensuring what is their responsibility that no contaminated food arrives on the tables of EU citizens? So let's be ensured that we can be vitally get this right. Farmers fear for their livelihoods that can't be denied. I'm asking that colleagues here today, please don't overlook the concerns that exist and ask you to work with us to ensure that the protections are in place in the event, as I said of this, being passed by qualified majority vote, not with my vote or money from Ireland. I can assure you of that.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. It's undeniable that the recent developments in the US trade relations have fallen short of our aspirations. When the 90 day extension was agreed back in April, there was still hope that a balanced, mutually beneficial deal was on the horizon. However, President Trump's recent threats to impose 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium have further complicated the path towards a successful agreement. In moments like this, I believe a level headed approach is essential. The US, as has been said, still remains our largest export market, which is why our response must remain measured, politically sensitive and above all, strategic. I applaud the Commission for its ongoing efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties with the US partners. But now is the time, I think, to be even more ambitious and seek to finalise a deal for the sake of all our citizens. So I wish to ask of the Commission, has there been any re-evaluation of those countermeasures in light of the failure so far to reach a deal? Has the Commission considered adapting its strategy in response to President Trump's latest threats. And crucially, do we still believe a deal is possible before the deadline on July the 9th?”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you last year! This Parlament voters report on the future of agriculture, which is for a new and that the Europe needs strong property of food promotion policies for the right to the Commission decision to increase the work program to the year of the year, understand the only property resources proportional laws to the very best of their farmers, farmers and higher standards with their competitive edge an international stage last year. Irlanda food and drink export rose to total record of euro beef exports along with the future of the present and for the accident is to sustain promotional policy that the hard work of farmers along the Government and industry, farming representative bodies, and the agencies, such as the leadership of course, and is not demonizate that this is the promotional policy works and the need to see some of the home on. This is so successful and recent years of political game of the new politics of politics and longer short terms of power and other farmers bank account.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Thank you, chair, and thanks to my new colleague Michael for his draft report. There's no denying that water quality has been a huge issue for farmers across the EU, and it's something too important to ignore. It's equally important that this report acknowledges the significant progress that has been made in recent years. Farmers and member states have worked hard to improve water quality and their efforts deserve recognition. Take Ireland, for example, where the farming for Water Initiative, a European innovation partnership, is providing €50 million in funding to approximately 15,000 farmers until the end of 2027. That support is designed to help farmers implement targeted measures that go beyond existing regulatory requirements, directly contributing to better water quality. There's been widespread recognition that the nitrates derogation, which is currently due to expire at the start of 2026, is of vital importance to our farming sector. We understand the need for change and when given the right opportunities and time, they do deliver. The improvements in nitrate concentrations in our watercourses and independently verified recently are a clear testament to that. And that's why I look forward to our agri mission to Ireland in April. It will be a valuable opportunity for us to showcase these water quality improvements to other members of the committee.”
  Water pollution
• “Um, chair and members of pork producers already dealing with a difficult environment over the last number of years. Pig production is uniquely exposed, of course, due to tight margins and its dependence on global export markets. And these Chinese tariffs on pork. And with Spanish product blocked from third country markets being redirected into EU domestic markets. It means that prices decreasing and intensifying competition across the EU, so no member state is fully insulated from that pressure. And in Ireland, like many others, I'm sure we've seen volume fall in early 26 in our sector cannot absorb these shocks indefinitely. So I call on the Commission, like others, to firstly pursue direct dialogue with China on the suspension of these tariffs. Eight months on, the European pig sector remains collateral damage in a dispute that wasn't of its making in the long term. I you know, we must also strengthen our market access, and I'm conscious of existing and ongoing EU trade negotiations with the Philippines, for example, where there's a real opportunity. I would hope, that meaningful pigmeat market access is secured as part of those arrangements. And I'd ask my colleagues in international trade, together with myself, to ensure that every effort is made to realise that ambition, too.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Okay. Well, in the first instance, considering the, um, America looking inward, China being more assertive, it is imperative that the EU bloc finds alliances, allegiances and trade agreements with other blocs. Thankfully, in recent months you have seen a greater pace by the Commission in relation to its negotiations and delivery of such such options, which of course, um, offer great opportunities for the agriculture sector as it does many other sectors, whether it be the drinks industry, whether it be wines and spirits, whether it be Medicare, medtech, contract procurement, opportunities for services, and so forth. In the case of Mercosur, if you were to depend solely on the economics, it would be a no brainer. It would have been passed. But unfortunately, environmental environmental commitments have to stand for something. It is not always about the money, it is about level playing pitches and we do not have that there in relation to India. If I might just say briefly, there is an exclusion in relation to many agricultural products.Which over time. Do not have. I fear it might have been. Expressed. In relation to the Mercosur countries previously.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “I'm sure every farmer understands unfair trading practices. They know them as late payments, last minute order changes are being told to take a lower price or lose the buyer altogether. The EU's evaluation of the Unfair Trading Practices Directive confirms what farmers already know the rules exist, but the power imbalance has not gone away. Complaints are underreported because farmers fear retaliation, and enforcement depends too much on who shouts the loudest. In Ireland, the agri food regulators own survey highlighted that almost 30% of farmers experienced at least one unfair trading practice last year, with late payments for perishables being top of the list. At a time when fertiliser costs are eating into already tight margins, that cash flow pressure is brutal. Things have improved in recent years, there is no doubt about that. But as we review this directive further, we must push for stronger proactive enforcement because farmers should not have to choose between speaking up or staying in business.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. Chair. Like you said last July, the commission secured what was, particularly in comparison with other blocks, a good and balanced deal with the US. And I welcome your acknowledgment today that the US has reassured you. It stands by that agreement and your confirmation to, I would say, that the European Union will not seek to capitalise on the court's decision. It's important the latest US Supreme Court ruling is noteworthy, but we have to deal in realities and the reality is, whether we like it or not, this administration is clearly committed to tariffs and to continue to find ways to sustain that system. So what we need now is absolute clarity that a good deal reached in July remains a good deal here in February, both in substance and in spirit. So the message is clear on our side that we stand by our word, as the chair has said, and this good deal remains a good deal. And the carve outs remain, and the negotiations around steel and aluminium and spirits will continue. We expect you to do your duty in relation to those issues. Our exporters, particularly in the agri food and advanced manufacturing sectors, require predictability. They cannot invest or trade on the basis of rolling legal improvisation and a rules based EU. Us partnership must rest on clarity and mutual confidence. So, crucially, in light of your stated intention for the Parliament to vote on the deal next month, and I would agree and and propose that we do so, and I acknowledge what you have said in relation to the opportunities that exist for members of the Parliament. Further, representatives who can during trilogue may fulfil other thresholds of certainty that they require in order to proceed with the Turnberry agreement, which, as I said, is a deal that we can stand over and in comparison to other blocs throughout the world, notwithstanding the improved figures that you referred to in relation to our exports? Only signify that and we move ahead at pace. Therefore, as a result of say.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “If I can and thank the, uh, Presentations and they confirm what we all believed that, you know, if it was down to commercial reality and economics, this this deal is a no brainer. Um, but to the it's not always about the it's not always about the money. You know, and I see in my own country, for example, we do 1.8 billion trade with the Mercosur countries and 800 million surplus in our favour. And this this deal would help and assist different sectors, as you mentioned, including the dairy sector would improve jobs, support jobs, revenue and so forth. But you know, we can't compromise the production methods we espouse. From an agriculture perspective, we committed a third of our budget to ensuring that those standards are adhered to. And I do not believe that the commitments made in relation to Paris in relation to deforestation go far enough, or the timelines provided are enough for us to accept those standards. As I said, it's not about the money. This is about the principle. And the principle is we can't compromise our farmers and the production methods that they espouse to to align with environmental ambition and consumer sentiment, while at the same time compromising that commitment by virtue of importing goods which are not up to the same standards, irrespective of what explanations have been given. And the commitments, as I said, in relation to Paris and deforestation are not timely and in which we commit to.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Chair. Chair is interesting. Thanks to your speakers, too. It was interesting to read in the report on the dairy sector that although my own country of Ireland accounts for just 1% of EU population, it produces more than 6% of the milk. And when you look at the figures per head of population, we stand out as the largest milk producer relative. It's a reflection of the successful model we've built at home. So that being said, success is not a given, and recent declines in milk prices with inflation and massively elevated production costs have had a very negative impact on on farm revenues. So the key issue for farmers is input costs. And getting input costs down would be key going forward. So I was heartened to see last week, during the discussions around the Mercosur safeguard discussions with agriculture ministers, proposals from the Commission to lift most favoured nation tariffs and include the potential within cbam to exempt certain fertilisers. And that indeed is welcome, if not the decision itself. But so if we were to get serious about protecting livestock sectors, my message to the panel would be that we have to be serious about input costs and ensure that any measures going forward work for farmers in that regard. Okay.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. It's no secret that I, along with Ireland's farming community and indeed the Irish government, have serious reservations and genuine concerns around the Mercosur trade deal. And I'm not here today, Commissioner, to seek additional reasons to oppose the deal. Instead, I'm here to seek clarity on several issues that are key to Ireland to ensure an informed analysis. Can you point to an example of such safeguards around market distortion that you referred to being implemented in the cases of previous trade deals? You have guaranteed a 1 billion compensation fund or warranty, as you called it. Can you assure me that that is not coming from the Cap budget? Can you provide a sector breakdown for how individual countries such as Ireland and others will be impacted net impacted across the various sectors. How does the Commission plan to address the EU Court of Auditors concerns around the enforcement capabilities of the Commission, and how these shortcomings may impact the implementation of safeguards in the case of the deal. It is expected that this will this deal will increase EU exports by 25 billion. If it proceeds, which will amount to a significant windfall for certain sectors. Obviously at the expense of others, including farming. Does the Commission envisage ring fencing a portion of newly generated revenues to support a new environmental pillar, separate from existing Cap budget, for example, to ensure the economic sustainability and resilience of the sector? And finally, if I may please, it is is it the Commission's expectation that some member states currently holding out on supporting the deal at council level will will make certain demands of national interest over the coming months? For example, retention of nitrates, derogation and securing a separate funding pillar for in For enviro and eco schemes are key strategic priorities for the farming sector in Ireland, and others would have others.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you, chair, and thanks to our speakers and their different perspectives given in this panel and the previous one. It's a massively important, obviously, that we share practices and information with one another. And listening to the presentation from Patrick, it is clear we have a serious issue in the sector. The fact that 45% of farmers are over the age of 65, and that many have no identified successor in place to take over, is, of course, something for serious concern in our own country. As you will be aware, a report was recently commissioned by government on Generation Renewal. And it's a you know, there are many important steps for addressing as a result of that, a number of key recommendations based on the consultation with, thankfully, a broad group of stakeholders. Unsurprisingly adequate. Adequately. Funding young farmers in the Cap is one of the main recommendations, and we're glad to see that that is to be increased from our perspective, at least in relation to our contribution from 3% to 7% of Cap funding. But the report also makes clear that funding alone isn't enough, and access to land features as one of the biggest barriers to young farmers, and expanding long term leasing, as our speaker said, is essential. Improving land mobility. And just finally, to say, you know, there's a famous song at home made famous by big Tom told you're going out the same way you're going in. In relation to generational renewal, it's about giving young farmers a real way in and giving older farmers a secure way out.”
  Agricultural funding
• “I know I was late for the debate, but I've seen the report. I've listened to the commission's response. And I'm just conscious of this issue of cross contamination. And farmers across the EU want fewer rules, not more, and imposing additional obligations on conventional producers simply because a neighbouring farmer is convert to organic would be deeply unfair unless they're dedicated funds available to offset the real cost and administrative burden involved. So my message to the rapporteur and the shadow is not to punish farmers who have done nothing wrong, and we must avoid adding more red tape to already heavily regulated sector. That's all.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you very much. Yeah, sure. Look, as a member of the committee and I'm sure many others, we'll have amendments before it in the coming this week, and it would be a great help. And if the if the commission representatives here today could acknowledge or indicate or signal that the existing wording associated with the safeguards can and should and could or could be altered amendments. My own case, for example, reflect verbal commitments I received in DG agri about how the safeguards could be triggered in the event of price reductions of, say, five, six, seven, 8 or 9% year on year, which is below the hard and rigid threshold of 10%, as indicated in the legal instrument. Farmers need to know that injury to the sector can be identified very early on. We also need confirmation that when talking about price comparison, you're talking about existing present prices. Agreed safeguards should, for example, be committed to for the full duration of any trade deal rather than an expiry date as is indicated presently. And the Commission should provide in their six monthly reporting, a clear data on how they're monitoring specific products and enhancing border checks as they have committed to do since the deal was initially published.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Chair. There's been a lot of negativity around these proposals, much of it justified. And I want to make a point about some possibilities that may exist within the proposal. Notwithstanding, reduce ring fenced funds within the MFF owing to a lack of new funds from Member States, a lack of own resources in a multitude of competing policy priorities, we have seen an increased budget allocation for defence and security, but that must go on hand in hand with a pro-rata increase in food security. I would hope that would be addressed during the negotiations. As you have alluded to, within the Cap proposal, countries are free to add additional resources from Non-ring-fenced funds in the to the NRP fund, and that therefore does have an increased possibility to co-finance measures within under under this cap, rewarding those that wish to travel the path of innovation and success. So the possibility does exist for the Cap to be properly funded. If national governments are willing to front up and pay for it, and I think it's time member states acknowledge that reality. So today, if you like, I'm using the opportunity to call on the Minister for agriculture in my home country and indeed my government colleagues, to take a stance to commit to properly fund the sector in the next cap by availing of the matching funding options beyond the ring fence cap budget, which I expect will be addressed during the course of negotiations and said earlier.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. The economic ties between Europe and the US are amongst the strongest there is globally, with trade flows exceeding 1.5 trillion annually. The EU exports 156 billion more in goods to the US, while the US holds EUR 104 billion surplus in services. So it is a partnership of mutual benefit. One the tariffs would only damage Ireland's deep historic and economic ties to the US are well known. Equally known, however, is the fact that our success is also built on EU membership and the solidarity we received during key periods and challenges like Brexit and the Covid pandemic. As such, it is fair to say that the potential for tariffs to turn allies into adversaries leaves few with more to lose than Ireland. But as the geopolitical challenges emerge, we in Ireland and the delegation here from Ireland will continue to push the EU to strengthen its own competitiveness, tackle energy costs and address infrastructural deficits and secure our place in the global economy. At the same time, Ireland knows that the EU must stand united. Protectionism weakens all of us. The EU should engage early and defend open trade and ensure the cooperation, not division, shapes our future.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you, Commissioner colleagues. Tomorrow we are voting on two hugely important cap files. The first is the simplification package, which rightly addresses farmers concerns and moves us away from one size fits all conditionality policy and recognises that different countries and regions have different needs. I welcome this and I welcome the Commission's willingness to to build flexibility into the cap in this area also. But that same logic has not been applied in the second file we vote on, as alluded to by my colleague MEP Flanagan, the Common Market Organisation. Instead of maintaining the market orientated approach, the Commission has proposed rigid contractual measures that risk undermining what our successful cooperative models, especially and particularly those in my own country of Ireland. This, I believe, is a clear inconsistency and we must have flexibility in this regard. And it is because of that I will be proposing amendments Catering for member state opt outs, where majority farm organizations request them, and clear derogations for cooperatives so that systems that are already working well are allowed to keep succeeding. As I said, the EU should be about building on successful models, not necessarily undermining them. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “It contained recommendations around training for labour and speeding up construction, renovation at scale and specific schemes to target homelessness and vulnerable groups, etc. in short term rentals, as has been mentioned here again. But I've always said it's ultimately, you know, a national competence is housing, and we then have to be laser focused on what we can actually address. So beyond identifying gaps, what tangible progress can the Commission point to, or can they give us the timetable to respond to the public consultation that took place in relation to state aid rules that concluded, I think, on January the 14th? Because for for countries like Ireland, evidence is only useful when it leads to actions. And the ultimate test of our work must be whether it helps put homes on the ground, not just paper and shelves. And I think it's essential that we move quickly, at pace, in order to prove to those that give us the privilege of being here, that we will, we can and will and have a timescale in place to address the issue of state aid rules, which is hamstringing many countries like my own in their efforts to address the social housing funding deficiency that exists.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you, look like has been said. Much of the detail remains to be scrutinized for a far more fulsome response. But the headline issues are around budgeting and financing, and the MFF, as has been said, proposed an EU budget of €2 trillion, an increase of 800 billion, or 66%. Who would have thought you'd get such an increase and be allied to a decrease in relation to agriculture? So my question is, can you confirm that overall budget, the MFF is dependent on increased payments by member States and the raising of own resources by the EU? And that being the case, I would contend that such approval for such an extensive and expansive budget, I expect it should and has to be conditional on a pro-rata increase in relation to agriculture. And I think that's our message to our respective individual governments. That's our message to the wider European Parliament for us to win support along that basis that we have committed to defence and security, for example. But we cannot have that without food security, and the way in which we can guarantee that food security is by a pro-rata increase.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you chair. President, and thanks to the Court of Auditors for this report here today, I think I and amongst others have been critical enough already about the Commission's handling of the budget allocation and the new Cap proposals, and not to mention how they didn't even wait for Parliament to complete its own initiative report on the next cap before publishing its own proposals. And look, there's no doubt that there are elements of the new framework that obviously are very difficult to accept. But I also think we have the power to build on this proposal and correct some of those, some of the fundamental issues. And we can start, for example, by transferring the articles relevant to agriculture from the NRP into the Cap, so that issues, for example, such as the definition of eligible hectares or active farmers, are handled by those with the appropriate agricultural expertise rather than officials, maybe in finance ministries to deal with the report. One of its main criticisms is that increased flexibility in the next cap can create, or could create more divergence between member states in terms of how they fund farmers. But I would contend that the Cap has never been truly uniform. And flexibility, of course, allows us to adjust policies to national realities in member states. This is critically important, and we need to avoid what would otherwise be a one size fits all approach. But it cannot come at the expense of the common framework that keeps Europe's farmers competing on equal terms. That's why we need, you know, a well financed, ring fenced budget that the low commonality and not on the financial ability or political will or whim of governments to support farm families. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Mr. president, let me begin by commending the Commission for its work in reaching this new understanding with the UK. It's an agreement that's a step in the right direction, in rebuilding a relationship rooted in trust and cooperation and shared ownership, or shared shared interests. In particular, I welcome the progress made on energy cooperation to move towards an SPS agreement and the creation of a Youth Mobility Experience Scheme. There are encouraging developments which are sure to mutually benefit our economies. Upholding the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and the Windsor Framework. And of course, to a unique place of Northern Ireland. With that said, however, I believe greater scrutiny is still needed in the area of fisheries. And while the 12 year extension of the current arrangement offers greater stability to the sector, it also postpones a long overdue opportunity for Irish fishers to achieve a fairer outcome in fishing quotas, which we had expected to occur in the TCA review in 2026. As you are aware, Ireland holds 12% of EU waters but receives less than 6% of EU quotas. And it stems from an outdated Common Fisheries Policy quota model based on historical fishing patterns no longer reflecting today's reality. So in light of this 12 year extension with no review, as I said, there is now an urgent need to accelerate the ongoing review of the Common Fisheries Policy. Without reform, these flawed allocations risk being locked in for even another decade. So I must ask of the commissioner. Do you believe that this EU UK agreement now paves the way for an acceleration of that review to allow for and cater for a fair and transparent redistribution for member States like Ireland in relation to fish quotas.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, look, we all recognize the urgent pressures in housing markets across Europe and the issues before us that have been alluded to. Housing rights, tenant protections, evictions and homelessness are of utmost importance. There are also issues I and my party are tackling in government at home. But I would like to make the point that recognition alone is not enough. And as a European Parliament, alongside our willingness to diagnose the problems, and we need to focus on identifying solutions where we can truly make a difference. And while much of housing policy remains, and rightly so, a national responsibility, this Parliament does hold real power to shape the financial and regulatory framework within which member States operate. And for Ireland, for example, that means reforming EU state aid rules and the fiscal treatment of public housing providers. The approved housing bodies, for example, non-profit developers that are central to our housing policy under current EU fiscal rules, their borrowing counts against the state's balance sheet, and that limits their capacity to scale up delivery that, you know, taking them off the balance sheet will unlock thousands of homes. And it would be a practical and impactful step forward in tackling the crisis before us. So when discussions like this on tenants rights and planning and evictions are certainly valuable. Our focus at EU level must be on where we can make the greatest impact. So let's concentrate on the tools that we control. At state aid rules, fiscal rules, access to finance and use them wisely. Our work won't be judged on the number of meetings and hearings we held, but on the amount of homes delivered. And I want, as everybody else does, I'm sure, want to be able to say we didn't just talk about the European housing crisis. We actually helped to solve it.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thanks, chair. Can I begin by thanking Joe Healy for joining us today and for sharing his expert opinion with us? There's little in what he has said that I would take issue with. A budgetary cut of over 20% is simply not acceptable, and I think we can all agree on that. As is the case, the very minimum, we must retain the Cap budget that we currently have. That being said, we are in a new budgetary reality and we need to start looking ourselves at some suggestions in relation to solutions. The Commission has already alluded to certain concessions, flexible amounts within the RP to the tune of 45 billion and an additional 48 billion for the rural target. And that money, at the very minimum, must be ring fenced immediately within the Cap budget. And doing so would bring us back up to our current budget level. And in my view, it's the only feasible solution. Honestly, it is available to us. Of course, in an ideal world, we would see increased contributions to the overall EU budget, with member states stepping up and doing what is right, which the Irish government is committed to doing. But unfortunately, that same willingness is not shared across all Member States, with many committed to the purchase of tanks rather than tractors. And we have to respect and appreciate their fears for their security and the reasons behind those commitments. But we do need to recognise that agriculture is not a generic policy area and it shouldn't be treated as one. The rules and definitions and controls and powers that govern it belong in the cap regulation and not scattered across some broader framework that was never designed with farming in mind. Mr. Healy has made it clear in his opinion that the reallocation of Cap funding under the PNP undermines food security and weakens our single market, and we agree with that. The only solution is to return budgetary and regulatory autonomy to the cap. And as I said, we have possible solutions and recommendations that can realize that, and we would hope to work together in order to ensure that that is the case. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, chair. As I said yesterday, um, at this committee, as a first time member of the International Trade and Agri committees, one of my key priorities has been to contribute more to timely and efficient trade agreements. So it's welcome that after years of negotiation, we've concluded this trade deal with Australia. It's a strong agreement. It eliminates tariffs on the vast majority of goods and builds on existing EU agri food surplus of over EUR 2 billion, and is expected to increase all EU exports by 33% over the next decade. And crucially, it does so while protecting sensitive sectors through quotas and safeguards for Ireland, for example, and for Europe. Trade has always been transformative. Since we joined the European Economic Community in 73, our growth has been built on access to markets beyond our own, and today is a far more in a far more uncertain global environment. That logic is even stronger again. So we must continue to look outward beyond our own 450 million consumers to partners like Australia, India and Mexico, amongst others. And as someone who truly understands the value of trade, I don't believe in hedging our position on agreements like this. You cannot be an exporting nation like ours and Ireland and expect to oppose every trade deal where a deal is fair, where standards are aligned and where our key sectors are protected. Then we should say so and support it accordingly. This agreement meets that test. It's balanced, it's pragmatic, and it strengthens Europe's position in a changing global economy. Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “My reason for pushing for a housing commissioner and this report was always very simple. Two things needed to happen reform of state aid rules and a stronger lending role for the European Investment Bank. Both are clearly recognized in this report. And from my perspective, that means the core job here is done. At the same time, housing has become and remains a member state competence. Delivery happens at national, regional and local level. For Ireland, reform of state aid rules will broaden the criteria under which the state can invest in social and affordable housing, meaning more homes for families and young people. Meanwhile, the impact of expanded EIB financing is already visible, with our Land Development Agency seeking up to EUR 1 billion in funding, a step alone that could support the delivery of more than 2500 homes. Overall, this report makes our national goal of delivering 300,000 homes by 2030 more achievable than ever. So now it is for the Commission to implement these recommendations, as it has promised to do. And for Member States like my own in Ireland, to turn them then into delivery. Thank you.”
  EU housing policy
• “My reason for pushing for a housing commissioner and this report was always very simple. Two things needed to happen reform of state aid rules and a stronger lending role for the European Investment Bank. Both are clearly recognized in this report. And from my perspective, that means the core job here is done. At the same time, housing has become and remains a member state competence. Delivery happens at national, regional and local level. For Ireland, reform of state aid rules will broaden the criteria under which the state can invest in social and affordable housing, meaning more homes for families and young people. Meanwhile, the impact of expanded EIB financing is already visible, with our Land Development Agency seeking up to EUR 1 billion in funding, a step alone that could support the delivery of more than 2500 homes. Overall, this report makes our national goal of delivering 300,000 homes by 2030 more achievable than ever. So now it is for the Commission to implement these recommendations, as it has promised to do. And for Member States like my own in Ireland, to turn them then into delivery. Thank you.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “And on top of that, the reality of spillover effects where urban investment indirectly benefits rural areas, makes me question whether this approach will deliver anything meaningful in practice. So my question to the commission is how do you intend to ensure that the 10% rural target is real, whether it's measurable and effective? And would this require. What is required in relation to a tailor made methodology rather than a coding exercise. Finally, one of my core objectives for this cap is to secure credible funding streams for farmers and to ensure that sustainability is properly rewarded and not merely compensated, as was the case heretofore. If we expect farmers to deliver environmental outcomes, they must be paid accordingly. So in that context, I also see significant potential in alternative income streams, particularly for smaller and less intensive farmers who are the backbone of rural communities. Carbon and nature credits, for example, could play a meaningful role here if they are designed properly. So I would ask the commission for an update on the state of play in relation to carbon and nature credits, and how it envisages. These mechanisms can supplement farm incomes in a way that is practicable and credible.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Um, can I say I was very surprised to hear it as rapporteur MEP motto. Talk about, uh, you know, there was a risk in amending the safeguards here today. Let me say this clearly, there's never a risk in exercising our democratic right and responsibility, which is to challenge and interrogate commission proposals no matter what they are, in order to enhance and improve them where possible. And in this case, it's our duty, I see it, my perspective at least, to properly represent the genuine fears and concerns and worries of the agricultural sector and provide relevant protections to farmers in the event of their fears materializing in the event of qualified majority voting passing what is before us in the form of the trade deal? Can I say briefly, I was glad that the commission clarified last night at the Agriculture Committee meeting that the threshold of a 10% movement in price, as a trigger of an investigation or injury to the sector, is indicative and not rigid. An investigation can be triggered at five, six, 7 or 8, or 9%, and it can be instigated by a member state or a farm organisation. But that being said, verbal assurances are one thing. So I'd like to see greater clarification about around this point in the legal text.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Chair. Yesterday, as renew negotiator on this file, I set out my concerns about the proposed structure of the next financial framework and the scale of the cut to the Common Agricultural Policy budget. I think there was consensus amongst members here that a cap envelope of £294 billion cannot be the final figure and should act as a starting point, and most definitely not an end point. But when it comes to the future architecture of the cap, I honestly don't believe it said yesterday that farmers care whether support comes through pillar one or pillar two. What matters to them, of course, is what lands in their pockets at the end of the day and whether the system is predictable, whether it is fair and if it's workable. I do have concerns, however, on the workability of what has been proposed for the 10% rural target. I fear that rural development measures risk being quietly sidelined despite the commission's stated target. And unless the 10% target has credible enforcement and a proper monitoring mechanism in place, there is no guarantee that rural areas will ever see that funding. The commission has proposed to track this through expenditure coding by member states. However, experience tells us that this is far from robust, as Professor Alan Matthews of UCD recently pointed out during during the 2014 to 2020 period, member states were unable to categorise nearly half of the cohesion spending territorially.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(12:14:10 – 12:15:22): Thank you, chair. As renew Europe shadow aptar in the cap file, our immediate concern was that the proposed new structure by the commission would risk undermining a policy area that has been carefully built over the last 60 years and 1 that has served farmers well. To think that the commission and its draft proposals are seeking to relegate a policy with its own objectives, budget, and instruments to a mere chapter in the NRPP file was and is a mistake. Those of us representing our groups on the CAPP file immediately met and supported the then French government's proposal at council level to transfer agriculture related files or articles to the cap file. So it's refreshing since then to see many governments support that, and indeed these 3 committees do so here today as well. I'd further contend that the rural development fund should also be reverted back to the cap not only in addressing a a budget deficit, but it that it'd be based on traditional metrics, linked to the agricultural area of a member state rather than the cohesion metrics, thus building on and enhancing, successful rural development vehicles such as, for example, the likes of Leader in my own, home country of Ireland. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Colleagues, when I sought election to the European Parliament last year, it was to make a real practical difference for communities across Ireland through productive politics, not populist rhetoric or point scoring, and being appointed to the agri committee and as renew Europe's lead negotiator under Parliament's Cap report, has since provided me with a great opportunity to reflect the views and priorities of Irish farmers in shaping the next cap. It was not a task I took lightly. I do appreciate that you enter negotiations with one position and cannot expect to come out with the same one, but I am satisfied that large swathes of the vision that I outlined on behalf of the Irish farming community are now part of the final text of our report. We have secured clear demands and increased budget and retention of capped standalone structure, recognition that food security is a fundamental part of Europe's strategic security. Less red tape and better rewards for environmental work, and meaningful support for young farmers to promote generation renewal and much more. This week's overwhelming vote sends a strong message to you, Commissioner, and to the Commission ahead of the upcoming Multi Financial Framework Cap proposals. We will not stand for a reduced budget or dismantle Cap, and it would be wise for you to listen and treat our report as a serious thing.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Um. As a member of the Agriculture committee, I know how deeply this issue resonates with farmers. And in recent years, of course, they've been asked to do more and more, whether it's for climate action, animal welfare or biodiversity. Yet with ever shrinking financial support. So if, for example, you were to look at the Common Agricultural Policy, failure to adjust the budget for inflation alone in real terms could reduce its value by 54% by 2034. That's a staggering €250 billion shortfall. And this becomes even more difficult to accept when trade agreements allow products from others, from outside the EU to enter our market without meeting those same high standards. And naturally, of course, that breeds resentment. And on top of that, EU farmers are grappling with soaring input costs. My own country, for instance, we consistently face some of the highest fertiliser prices in Europe. So I think there needs to be recognition of this going forward when looking at future trade deals, and we simply cannot afford to move forward without the farming sector. They must be part of the solution and not the afterthought. And I heard somebody say that we cannot impose standards, EU standards across the world or outside our own jurisdiction, but we cannot impose on consumers a failure to recognise and failure to provide the necessary information as to the origin and of of of products that they are being, asking to make a choice on. Farmers simply want a level playing pitch, and I think that's not too much to ask. And we should do everything we can to ensure that that is the case.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you, Chair, and I welcome the contribution that's been made. And I just wanted to elaborate, if I could, if you'd indulge with me and maybe for the commission to respond as well. This data and the availability of such data is readily available. And while I welcome the analysis, as I said, and the mapping evidence and gaps, I want to speak about very practical Irish perspective here. You know, I don't get to spend as much time as I'd like at this committee. Um, the key files on other committees in agriculture and international trade. But in return, today, again, almost as usual, to consistent frustration of mine with the work of the committee. And too often we spend more time diagnosing the problem rather than fixing it. And Ireland, like many other member states, continues to be in the midst of a housing emergency. And we don't lack reports or studies or diagnosis. What we lack, from my perspective, are EU level frameworks that actively enable delivery. So two issues stand out. Eu state aid rules are overly restrictive when it comes to large scale public investment in housing and the absence of meaningful, low cost EU financing for social and affordable housing is a major constraint. So my question is then, is that the Parliament report was launched last October.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you. Chair. The role of women in rural areas is absolutely crucial. That being said, you have a farm in the agri food sector, tourism, social enterprise, you name it. So we need to continue to encourage women and support them in starting their own businesses, which will help create opportunities and increase their participation in the economy. There are some crucial programs in place that support women. I know in Ireland, for example, we have the acorns programme, which is an initiative set up for female entrepreneurship in rural areas and funded through our Rural Innovation and Development Fund. The leader programme, too, is also crucial as it channels funds to support rural economic development projects, which often focus on women. So these are programs that have been needed and are well received. But the contribution of women in the agri food sector, in Ireland and indeed across Europe, has not been given the recognition it richly Deserves. So national governments need to address this in their own policies, and we as a union, need to address it in the context of the next Common Agricultural Policy. So as I said many, many times before on this issue, in the lead up to the Cap budget negotiations, it will be crucial that Member States ensure that these programmes are properly co-funded in future cap if the likes of the plans are to proceed, and then ultimately, given the recognition that they deserve.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you, chair, and thank the commission for the update. You know, there's no denying that the immediate and severe impact of the updated tariffs proposed would have a huge impact on many sectors. Um, you know, whether it be agri food, aircraft leasing and so forth. Notwithstanding the higher tariffs of up to 200% threatened on pharmaceuticals and computer chips. But at the same time, we should remember that there's no guarantee that the administration will follow through on these threats. We've seen a deadline shift at once. We've seen many rates of tariffs floated from 20 to 50% and beyond. And one could understand and does understand the impulse of those calling for the EU to activate the 1 billion counter tariff package, which was developed in consultation with Member states and industry immediately. But the Americans administration have said they would simply escalate further in response. So that's why I believe and welcome the Commission's tactics. We must remain measured and strategic. Our goal must not be to tariff the US because, as we know, and we believe their population will also realize that trade wars benefit no one. Our best chance and choice for now is to stay united all member states. And I think that's the greatest surprise that has impacted on the US to our unification.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you chair. Thank you Minister. As renew Europe's negotiator on the Common Agricultural Policy, I look forward to working with you and your government in the coming months. I note your responses already on the new architecture associated with the cap. You believe and contend that the competing interests at national level for funding won't impact on the ability or stability or predictability and potential of national regional plans. And I welcome that and hopefully that will be the case. But I think there's one thing that farmers care more about than single funds or pillar systems or standalone policies, and that's how much money they end up with in their pocket. And when we get down to what's important, it's the fact that we have a smaller, guaranteed budget for farmers under this MFF than we had under the last. So, you know, and that doesn't allow defense and security to align with food security. And that has to be your raison d'etre in relation to your work over the coming months. So the existing budget, for example, for Cap is 386 billion. The proposed one is $296 billion. If it were to run with inflation since 2021, it would be 472 billion. Where do you hope? Where would you envisage would be a good landing place for your presence in relation to the MFF and its potential to meet the demands that we all aspire to achieve?”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you chair. Commissioner, you know as well as any of us the pressure farmers are presently under. Many of the measures mentioned in this strategy are necessary. They are timely and forward looking. I commend you for them. But there is, unfortunately a clear omission, and it goes to the heart of whether this strategy is serious about relieving the pressures farmers face today. The Strait of Hormuz has been closed for nearly 12 weeks with no sign of reopening. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization has repeatedly warned of the consequences for farmers, for food supply and for prices. We are staring down the barrel of a crisis. And yet this strategy says nothing about easing. See Bam on fertilisers, even at the 1% rate in comparison to ten, 20 and 30% for other sectors or products. It's not just a missed opportunity, Commissioner. It's one measure that would make the difference right now. And that is unfortunately absent. I would use this opportunity as well to call on my own government in Ireland to make use of the measures mentioned and available on the aid schemes under the temporary framework, and to mobilise Cap to get advance payments, moving to farmers who cannot, unfortunately wait as this crisis worsens. We need and we all need to act fast as possible.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you very much, chair, and thank you to thank Mr. Legrand for taking time to commit to us today and draw attention to an area that is far too often is overlooked. Disability is something that many farm families and households have to live with on a daily basis, and as a result, it's it's incumbent on us as policy makers to push here in Parliament and indeed in our home countries for policies that ensure that people with disabilities enjoy equality and full participation in society. In Ireland, for example, our own Department of Disability last year allocated 200,000 for Social Farming Ireland programme, which supports placements on social farms for people with disabilities. Under that programme, people could choose and can choose to participate in various activities, whether they be interested in animal care, gardening general farmyard maintenance or baking, and all examples of a hugely, hugely beneficial scheme that is co-funded. So it's why indeed, rural development schemes are so vital to sustaining rural life as we know it, and why we have to continue to fight for proper funding for rural communities in the face of unacceptable EU level budget cuts as proposed. So these programs keep rural life vibrant and inclusive, and they are under serious threat. And let that be a message that emanates from today's meeting, too. And we have a responsibility to stand up and fight for a fair budget and push our national governments, of course, to for much needed funding is their responsibility includes also. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “I would ask, please. You might furnish the report in writing to members, considering its significance and importance and relevance. Um, and, you know, I note some of what you've said in relation to the changes that are underway in these countries, and that would be fine if it were in isolation. But unfortunately, when you were on that mission, investigative journalists were on another mission, a mission which proved, unfortunately, the absolute misuse and disregard for and unregulated use of antibiotics, which was prevalent and obvious across the counter. Um, subsequently, you know, we've seen beef being taken off the shelves this week as a result of hormones being found in same. And many, of course, would argue that the only way to guarantee the safety of our citizens would be for absolute reciprocity and guidance and monitoring of certification being brought to a different level than it is presently. And it's in that background, if I might just ask, because I'm meeting with the EU Food Authority, based in Grange in Ireland later today myself for information from them about the process that they are involved in, when they seek to guarantee us and citizens that all food entering from outside the EU is safe to consume. Has this committee sought similar clarification of the audit procedure or the enhanced audit procedures that will ensue as a result of the issues that have arisen in recent weeks and months?”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Since the election of President Trump, I have constantly pointed out that the economic bond between Europe and the US is one of the strongest globally, and of great mutual benefit. A relationship to tariffs, of course, will only damage. That is why I have repeatedly called for a strategic, measured and politically precise response to President Trump. I am satisfied that the Commission has so far reflected this consulting member states when drafting its counter tariff list and rightly deferring action following the 90 day delay to give diplomacy a chance. But should this pause end without substantive US engagement, we must be ready to respond firmly, proportionately, and as one. At the same time, this uncertainty in EU and US trade has brought the urgent need to broaden our trade partnerships into sharper focus, but not at the expense of certain countries or sectors. For Ireland, where agriculture remains a vital pillar of our economy, that means ensuring the fair treatment of our farmers in any future agreement. Proposed deals, including that with the Mercosur bloc, must reflect EU values of fairness and reciprocity. As it stands, that deal unfortunately does not meet that standard. In the days and weeks ahead, I urge the Commission to remember that Europe's strength lies not in noise or brashness, but in unity, resolve, and staying power. We learned that through the Covid pandemic and through Brexit and the financial crash. And I have no doubt once again, we will stay the course.”
  EU-US trade relations