 Okay, good afternoon everyone, it's a great pleasure to welcome everybody to this webinar, the title of which is the EU's economic recovery and resilience role of the European Parliament. So the event has been co-hosted or co-organized by the IEA and by the European Parliament liaison office here in Ireland. I should say I'll embarrass on the director of the Economic and Social Research Institute here in Dublin and it's a great honour for me to chair the event and I'd just like to thank the organisers for inviting me to chair the event today. So in a moment I'll introduce the panel but just for now I just want to give a small bit of background on what it is we're going to be talking about today and what it is we're going to try and achieve. So I think probably everybody on the call is familiar with the European Union financial patterns, if I can put it like that. And of course if you go back to 2020, the European Union's involved in the discussions around the multi-annual financial framework. So that's the financial framework governing the seven-year period. And of course when those discussions were happening everybody was consumed by the Covid crisis and the fear about what Covid was doing to the economies both in the short term and the long term. So it was a very strong recognition certainly at the national government level that there needed to be significant economic actions to counteract what Covid was doing. But there was also a sense that maybe there needed to be action at the level. So coming out of those discussions we saw then what was called the next generation EU. That was another part of the overall funding mechanism. And then under that again was the recovery and resilience facility, which is a fund equal to about 670 billion euro. A significant amount of money that was to be devoted from the European Centre with a view to assisting with recovery. And that's really what we're going to be talking about today. I was just looking back on this, I was kind of aware of it at the time but became more interested in the last few days when I knew I was going to be chairing the event today. There's not really interesting features around the recovery and resilience facility. Or again, what more bodies back to next generation EU. And the first issue which was quite controversial is the idea that there was a common death dimension to this. This is the European Union borrowing funds quite controversial, quite new and quite different, not something everybody was comfortable with. But it's an interesting feature and it's something we might touch on today. The other interesting component of this fund was the focus on green and digital issues in particular, probably what you'd expect. But nevertheless, sort of a very proactive statement from the European Union that there should be a focus on green and digital issues. And then the third element which interestingly particular was the notion of parliamentary scrutiny. And this is one of the things we will definitely be talking about today. The European Parliament is quite a role, it seems to me, in sort of oversight of how the monies are being spent and how countries are doing relative plans that they have set out. I say it was particularly interesting to me. I did sit on the fiscal council in the Republic of Ireland and I'm now on the fiscal council in Northern Ireland. That sort of role of Parliament in overseeing public expenditures. I don't have a clear sense of how active the European Parliament has been in this area previously. So these arrangements here I'd be really interested to learn from our panellists to whether or not this is something that is new and it's different than if it's going to be developed. So lots to discuss. I'm delighted to say we've got a wonderful set of panellists. Now, unfortunately, I'm just checking my WhatsApp here. One of our panellists may have been delayed, but hopefully he'll be joining us anyway before too long. But let's talk about the folks we do have with us. So firstly, it's a pleasure to introduce Kieran Koch and Kieran's an MEP for Dublin, represented the Green Party, who was first elected to 2019. He's been working on industry, research and energy, also in Canadian transport and tourism. And he's also a member of the delegations for relations with the United States and Albania. And I think well known to an Irish audience of previous year, City Councilor, TD, Fridun Leary, and a Minister of State for Horticulture, Sustainable Travel, Planning and Heritage. It's also a great pleasure to welcome Francis Fitzgerald, also an MEP of course. Also, I think first elected to the European Parliament in 2019 for the Gale. And he's currently a Vice President at the European People's Party Group. And I think congratulations by the people of Francis who were recently re-elected to that post. So Francis currently serves on the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, the Women's Rights and Equality Committee and the Development Committee. And of course, back in Ireland, she is the former TD and Senator, served as a thornisher for a period of time. She's also Minister for Business, Enterprise, Innovation, Minister for Justice and Quality and was Minister for Children and Youth Affairs as well. So has Dragos hasn't actually joined us yet. So I might hold off on his introduction when he actually arrives. But for now, we'll actually one more housekeeping issue or two more before I hand over to Kieran. The first is people should submit questions to the Q&A function. So if you have a question for the panelists please just put it in the Q&A function, include your name and your affiliation and we'll try to get as many questions as possible. And then the other thing is, if you want to become active on Twitter in the discussion, please feel free to do so. But it would be great if you could add at IIEA or at PEP in Ireland. That's a moving part of it in Ireland, at PEP in Ireland. And then we might be able to circulate any tweets a little bit further. So with that, I'm going to hand over to, ah, Dragos, you've joined us. I can just say that's great. That makes life a meter that we have all our panelists at the one time. I was just giving you a little bit of background, Dragos, and I was introducing our panelists. So I'm just going to do that now before we get into the discussion. So Dragos Pizzlaru, an MEP from Romania, and again, first elected to the Parliament in 2019. So I guess we're talking to three freshmen parliamentarians, I think. So with his party, I'm just going to use the initials USO plus as part of the liberal, a centrist liberal renew Europe. So he is a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Subcommittee on Tax Matters and Delegation for Relations with Japan. And he was the parliamentary rapporteur for the COVID-19 pandemic recovery front. And hence he has particular insights on the topic that we're going to be discussing today. So great that you're here. Dragos, we look forward to hearing it in a couple of minutes. So what we are going to do is we're going to take each of the presentations in order. But as I look at my screen, has Kiran talked out? Okay, well, look, Francis, it's just as well, you're such a professional that at a second note, as I know you can get in here. So I think I will kick off in a couple of minutes. Okay, that's no problem. I'll do my best. Thanks very much, Alan. And also to the organizers, IEA and EPLO. It's very nice to be asked to speak about the economic recovery and resilience packed from the point of view of the parliament. And I'm glad to have that opportunity because the parliament has been very involved. And as you say, this is something that you remarked yourself Alan, this is something that's relatively, you know, innovative really in terms of the kind of balances around this fund and how it's being monitored as we go on. So I think it's a very good time to take stock. It's still an early enough days in relation to the implementation, of course, but it's a good opportunity to take stock of what we agreed on next generation EU and the recovery and resilience facility. And I think it's very good to talk about it, something we should be very proud of. I mean, in the sense of the EU's reaction to crisis, I mean over the, the decades the EU has shown that it can respond to crisis and of course from a vaccine point of view last year was a slow start. But, you know, in the end a very effective way of getting vaccine to people, but also in terms of the recovery and resilience facility, because 2020 will be remembered as a devastating year. There's no doubt about that. But I think the EU's economic response, and in particular the recovery and resilience facility is a symbol of what the EU can do when urgent measures are needed. And I think it's, you know, it's important for us to say that we all remember the historic marathon EU summit in July last year. When I think EU leaders did show with a lot of negotiating and challenges true collective responsibility in the end to agree on the broad outline of the RF and the next generation EU and we've come a long way since then. I think it's also worth from as a politician remarking on the dynamic at the time in relation to Germany having the presidency, Merkel wanting, you know, this to go through. And of course then the president of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen, you know, working closely with Merkel and, and obviously with all the member states. I would say that the European Parliament has played a key role in further improving the RF, particularly by driving forward the six pillars, which are F should be based around and you've mentioned some of the Malin green digital, the economic cohesion and competitiveness social and territorial cohesion health economic social and institutional resilience and policies for the next generation. The Parliament also insisted on the key targets of 37% spending on climate and 20% spending on digital, really looking ahead, these are the issues that all our economies across Europe have to cope with into the next generation. And these were heavily discussed in committees in my own econ committee but in the Parliament through a lot of the resolutions on covert that took place in the Parliament. I'm sure that the investments were to be spent correctly on the sectors that really matter as we recover from covert 19 and crucially Parliament ensured that there would be adequate scrutiny and transparency of spending, vital aspects to the RF that may not make the headlines but are really important. And of course, that's an ongoing question how good is the scrutiny, how good is the transparency, and how is that actually happening. Not to at this point and as I say in some ways it's early enough and I've no doubt lessons will be learned from the first sort of number of presentations from various member states. It's one of the largest EU funding programs. So we really have to use it to repair the devastation. So you need proper parliamentary scrutiny as well. It is about looking to the future it's about wanting to build back better. And based on the key pillars I've outlined already. Now I will mention another aspect that we in the Parliament spoke about quite a lot and I had a particular interest in myself and a lot of my own amendments covered it. The gender dimension of the covert crisis because it has had a differential impact and it's terribly important when we come to spend the money that we're aware of the differential impact in terms of the care economy, in terms of women's jobs and employment. Of course the gender pay gap, and the pension gap both of which existed before covert and may well have been made somewhat worse by it. So member states now have to take this opportunity to enshrine gender equality targets in their national recovery plans. So I mean that's terribly important and it means you look at this from an economic point of view the care infrastructure, digital literacy. And of course the other areas sustainable finance for SMEs and so on investing in our cities. So, I think there's quite a job for our member states to do to make sure and for Ireland that we are meeting the criteria that should be laid down that the money is not being spent on anything else and I think there'll be very, you know serious scrutiny about that so it's all about building back better to the green digital and more inclusive economy. And that's a social imperative as well as an economic one. It's not for ordinary budgetary expenditures. Ireland is going to get 1 billion we probably don't need to go I think the audience here will be very clear about the kind of money that's been given 1 billion in grants under the RF for the period 20 to 21 to 22 and a further set of grants in 2023. And it's not a huge chunk but I think it's a very important point to be made here that with this investment across Europe. It's not just about what Ireland gets. It's about what all of the member states are getting because the more the European economy can be helped to recover the more that's going to help Ireland, because we're such an open economy. The economy is invested in other countries and their economies improve as well. Clearly that helps us enormously. You might take a look at the numbers and see for example that Italy is getting 68 billion Ireland's getting 1 billion Germany's getting 41 billion very clear set of criteria and how it was allocated but it was it's a reflection on how well Ireland whilst doing in terms of the of the economy and again the only country with growth last year. So, let me just say then that the basic point really from an Irish point of view is to ensure the policies will encourage employment and economic growth and reduce inequality, promote sustainability, inclusivity and good living standards. That's what we have to do. So, going back to parliamentary scrutiny, which is the team, just a few points before I finish the RF sets out a new paradigm for parliamentary scrutiny. The Parliament has insisted on being involved at all stages of the process. And that's still the case as I've said for the implementation of the facility. Notably, the Parliament can launch recovery and resilience dialogues with the Commission. We've had three so far, and in theory Parliament must receive information concerning member states recovery and resilience plans from the commission. So, I think that we as parliamentarians would like that communication to be even better from the Commission than it is at present. But again, I would say it's a work in progress, because it's still in in early days. But I think if we want to have the trust of European citizens, and that we want to ensure there's confidence in how this money is spent. We need clear transparency and parliamentary scrutiny and I think there's a real opportunity here for us to show this as politicians in a very open way within the structures in the Parliament. I'm going to finish by saying something about the rule of law and the RF. There is an increasing debate in the European Parliament in relation to the rule of law. And I think the Commission in Poland and Hungary's recovery and resilience plans have still not been approved by the Commission. And I think the Commission is taking a stand here in relation to, you know, legally binding milestones when it comes to the disbursement of the funds. The fundamental values that we have in the EU and making sure that all member states are obliged to implement all EU rules and to respect basic values and fundamental rights. And when member states go against this like independence of the judiciary or free media, the EU is increasingly taking a stand and using a conditionality around finance. And again, that is something I think everybody will be watching over the next couple of months to see how that works out, because you have the recent ruling by the Polish judiciary, for example, which says that the Polish Constitution trumps EU law that's a worrying issue. And we saw that enormous march in Poland just recently. So again, huge money, it's going to Poland. And, you know, you use the conditionality how that's going to be used how it's going to be, how it's going to be dealt with, you know, Poland is getting 21 billion, for example, I think that is something to watch very carefully. So look, there's some, you know, initial thoughts on parliamentary scrutiny and how it has gone. But I think that I conclude by saying that, you know, in a sense, the plan has a small direct impact from a macroeconomic point of view in Ireland, but I'd go back to making the point that when you look at it across Europe, then it would certainly help Ireland's economic growth as well, despite the one billion compared to what many other countries are getting. Great. Thanks so much, Trent. Actually, that was fascinating. And you touched on a whole range of issues, like, perhaps, like, well, I wasn't sure if they would, but great that you put some of the legal issues on the agenda. So, Dragos, I'm guessing you're an old pro like Francis is and can step into the breach because unfortunately, Kieran is having trouble with his iPad, or so I'm being told. So while he's rebooting his iPad, would it be okay if you gave your five or 10 minute contribution at this point? And once again, it's a pleasure to welcome you to the event. Thank you. Thank you so much, Alan. It's indeed, it's a great privilege for me to be there invited by the Institute of International European Affairs. I used to be in a previous level researcher in social science and as an economist by background, I was actually looking at the Institute for a lot of the policy papers and other good things that you've been doing in the past so congratulations for that and many thanks for the invitation. I'm actually very glad that Iblo Ireland supported you in this endeavor. And it's reminding me one year ago when I was actually using the power of the Iblo's offices from 13 member states in my call to consult citizens in order to shape the most historical instrument that the EU has ever created, the recovery and resilience facility. So let me, you know, just use a little bit of, you know, my own perspective as a co-reporter to explain to you a little bit more the insights that Francis has already been highlighting. So how did it all start back in May last year, the Commission announced the recovery plan, the next generation EU, and with the big news that 90% of the next gen EU funds would be dedicated to finance the recovery resilience facility. This enormous instrument dedicated to reforms and investments. And when we read it in the European Parliament as a team of free co-reporters from each of the political groups or EPP, SND and Renew that I'm representing, we were almost, you know, clearly actually on the same page. So, first of all, the RF was missing a structure, the discussion that has been, you know, developed in the council with the white smoke at the end agreed on the 672.5 billion euros. But basically, the concern that we had at the beginning was related to the fact that this may be interpreted as an ATM as a cash machine. And the member state discretion and the questions about the EU value added behind. The second thing was the RF was missing democratic legitimacy and accountability, the role of citizens representative was nowhere. In terms of, you know, you had emergency breaks for the governments, but there was nothing about, you know, the role of the European Parliament, the National Parliaments, the civil society organizations, the NGOs, the local authorities, I mean, nothing about that. And, you know, the last point that was actually quite striking was that in a thing which was called the next generation EU, I was actually doing a control F, you know, trying to find the word children, children, child or youth or young. And there was nothing. So you can actually check that historically going to go back and, and that was actually quite striking because I mean, it was a little bit of irony that the youth of today would actually pay the bill in the future, but there was nothing no reference towards, you know, the youth, although the name was next generation you. So what happened was that in August when when already you know some people. I mean, there were quite quite a few people in holidays at that time and, you know, end of August and September, I had a consultation process with 13 member states, truly blows and really communication department of the director of the of the parliament. And we were able thus to consult with youth organizations with the government officials with, you know, social partners with academia academia so, and that's how basically the whole thing about having a balanced approach came came to reality. And that's how I came up with the structure of six pillars. And then, basically, we, we, we had the member states that the need for the member states to address all of them. We had the specific clear dedicated children and youth. And we put forward the idea that members needs to explain in the plan, how they consult the citizens and their representatives. And then of course, we, we've been discussing how to increase the role of the parliament with setting up the group, the working group to analyze the plans and monitoring implementation with the exchange of views with, you know, two delegated acts that were not so easy to approve. We've been talking about social expenditure and the scoreboard that will actually monitor the implementation. And last but not least, there's a, there's a hidden thing and not so many people realize that we actually introduced and that was one of my ideas there as a conclusion. And we introduced a review after two years. So basically, there is, there is a way to amend plans after two years, which is very important because right now. I mean, you know that the approval of the recovery resilience plans was a process that was, you know, quite fast, quite fast-paced, everyone was in a hurry. But in two years' time, we from the parliament side, we can actually look at the implementation stage and say, okay, I mean, this is disappointing, this is going, not in the right direction. And then of course the commission would actually be in a situation to discuss with the member states, even the revision of the plans if the case. So that's actually quite interesting and it was also part of the negotiation. So I mean, just to add from my perspective as a co-reporter on the RF, when I look back of what we've accomplished in one year, I feel quite proud honestly. This is not about, you know, self-sufficiency or whatever, but it's, I'm actually proud not of myself, but of how the parliament stood up to its ambition. How we had a very, very strong position, if you refer to the vote, for instance, that we had an econ budge, we had a very, very large majority, completely not customary for, you know, these kind of important files. And that's how we got this, with this strong position and with four groups united, we got into the trilogues and we obtained what we obtained in the regulation. And I'm really also very proud that the member states managed to draft their plans accordingly, you know, according to the 11 criteria is taking into account all the things that were required from them, transparency, consultations and so on. I know that the process was not ideal and we could have done more, but it was indeed a time pressure. And again, I'm actually proud as well because we wanted to show that a new EU economic governance model is possible. One that is better when it involves more European Parliament and indeed we have been giving an example of solidarity in which, you know, the European Parliament as a direct representative of the citizens played a major role. And right now I am a member of the working group that is responsible with the implementation of the RF right now we have the two delegated acts that have been drafted by the commission. And we have, you know, quite quite a number of the of the plans that have been already approved. And we are right now, you know, kicking in with that the pre financing has actually arrived in many of the member states. And again, I'm looking as well at the Irish plan, and with the one billion reforms for an investments in there. And I'm really, really glad about the green light that has been provided in mid July so everything is set for implementation and I'm looking forward to hearing your first impressions on the Irish plan and on the entire framework. That's from my side of course I have a lot of other stories about the negotiation with the German presidency and within the parliament, but that that will probably be the next occasion when when I might actually visit physically doubling and I can actually tell you all these stories so thank you again for the opportunity and then and again I'm really glad that I could be a part of this wonderful webinar thank you. Thanks so much for that tryouts again very interesting points we might tease some of those additional stories out of you during the question and answer session, as we'll see how we get on. So, Karen, it looks like your internet is stable. We've been with us for a while after a note so listen fingers crossed. You'll say with us now and then we look forward to your application. Thank you. Thank you very much, and the irony is not lost on me as we discuss screen and digital transitions to have a technology fail me at the at the beginning of the webinar. Let's talk a little bit about the bigger picture for me as a as a first term member of the European Parliament it has been immersion by fire really because the pandemic kicked in not long after six months of being in the parliament and we had a fantastic dawn I think of this mandate of this session with the announcement of a European Union Green Deal. I think there was a lot of enthusiasm from certainly the green group and from others within the parliament that we would take this language that has been floating around for almost a decade and translate it into actual policy instruments that would deliver. We had discussions that we had over the multi annual financial framework that would dictate the, the spending of the EU over a seven year period, we're certainly strongly aligned with this European Green Deal. And then of course the pandemic struck and in many respects we went into hibernation and certainly distant distant working for a long period of time, and yet within all of that, the work continued on plotting away out of the deep recession that the European Union and indeed globally had had had hit. And I think the recovery and resilience facility is a very tangible expression of the ability of 27 member states to work together in the midst of a crisis and plot away out the other side. From an Irish perspective, we don't perhaps hear as much about the recovery and resilience facility as we would in other European Union countries but as Dragos and Francis have alluded to as a share of our national finances. It is a lot smaller here in Ireland than it is in other member states. So the 989 million in grants is really very small in comparison to the amount of spending we've had to deal with the COVID pandemic in terms of supports and other other finances that Ireland has to deal with. Nonetheless, it is interesting to observe the degree of strengthening of green commitments that we've seen in the recovery and resilience facility. When Ursula van de Leyen launched Ireland's recovery plan in Grange Gorman and a couple of months ago, she paid testimony to the strong green thrust of the, how the recovery funding would be spent in Ireland, and a lot of that money will go into the renovation wave into upgrading our building stock, which is a very tangible expression or manifestation of the just transition of bringing people's energy bills down, also lowering their greenhouse gas emissions and in doing so, reaching out and giving a very progressive message that the green emergence from the pandemic is not just for the elites, it's for all, and I think that was a very positive message. As I look across the European Union now and as we look at the fit for 55 package, which will inform a lot of how we spend the recovery and resilience money. I can see, you know, quite a challenge playing out of those who come from a political family that are strongly supportive of the importance of climate action, and perhaps members of other groups who are not quite as keen on ensuring that we embed climate action at the heart of the recovery. Fundamentally, the question is whether we come out of the COVID pandemic differently from how we went into it, and I think that question in many member states is still an open ended one, and the debate about rule of law about democracy in Poland and in other member states that we're seeing at the moment. There's a huge argument in play about the role of Brussels about the direction that Brussels would like to go in and how member states will subscribe to that are not as as time goes by. I think as well. There is the challenge of operating by consensus across all digital families are across all political families and I think particularly as we look at, you know, a green transition. There are some who are much keener on this than others, and certainly I see an element of greenwash at play in terms of those who espouse doing things differently, but throwing in huge funding for liquid natural gas for a fossil fuel that will simply not deliver the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that we need in the timeframe that we are hoping for. I mean, in a nutshell, we hope to wean ourselves off greenhouse gas emissions over the next 30 years. And if we're to do that, we have to start now, and we have to be very ambitious in every action that we take. And certainly from the committees that I sit on the transport committee, and the energy committee, the itry committee that deals with research telecoms and energy. I'm seeing a robust debate about the extent to which we embrace the green transition. And I think any, any kind of obfuscating or watering down of the package will seriously compromise our ability to live up to what science demands, and the kind of discussions that I have with, and with dragosis colleagues and with Francis as colleagues are very often about a real watering of the radical transition that is needed, if we are to align the European recovery in line with what science demands on climate action. So there is a real challenge there and I don't want to, I don't want to kind of gloss over that, or say that we are all singing from the same him sheet. And even if we are all committed to this green transition, we have a huge amount of challenges both in Ireland, and in other member states to deliver what we wish to achieve. And the kind of rouse that we have in the Irish context and the kind of overruns, well the rouse about let's say, putting a metro into Dublin, or the cost overruns we've seen with the National Children's Hospital would make one worry as to whether we can embrace the massive challenge to turn the super tanker around towards a low carbon decarbonized path. So there is huge challenges ahead. There's huge challenges in the choices that we make on the energy that we use, the kind of permitting and regulation procedures that we have. And I think there is a role for the European Union to simplify the processes and the hooks that we go through in order to deliver this green transition. I leave it at that for the moment, and I look forward to the discussion with the rest of the panel and the audience. Thanks so much, Karen. And just if we could get you to clarify, I mean, what were you as much saying in your remarks there that in spite of the green dimension to the resilience recovery fund that you think it still lacks a little bit ambition, and that you sort of feel that maybe political grouping and France's political grouping are not as ambitious as your political grouping would say, am I correct in picking you up? Oh, absolutely. And I mean, don't ask me but ask civil society organizations who are tracking this. And look, this is this is at the heart of the challenge that we have that science is demanding that we make deep and rapid cuts in our greenhouse gas emissions, which means a huge move towards renewable energy towards energy and the courage towards electrification towards grid reinforcement. And I don't see the same level of ambition from the other political families. Maybe this is just because I'm looking at it through the lens of the Transport Committee and the Energy Committee, which can be quite perhaps reluctant and quite conservative in outlook. But I think there is a real uphill struggle to move Central Europe away from coal and rather than kind of jumping from coal onto gas to move beyond that again on to renewables and to speed up their roll out at a very rapid pace. So I do find within many member states a reluctance to embrace the deep changes that are required and that is reflected through the political groupings that are that are in the parliament from those member states. Okay, thanks for that. I'm going to put a question to you Francis then from from the audience and in the context of answering the question if you want to address some of the comments here and that work that the questions from Jerry Gibbons from the Council or the Conference of Trade Unions and it's about stakeholder engagement. So let me just read the question if I might, and then I'll let you take a run. And by the way, Dragos I have a question here for you to which I get you to answer and you can address some appearance points in that. So from Jerry Gibbons. So what is the panelist assessment of stakeholder consultations that took place before Ireland's NRRQ was finalized? He said the Commission's July implementing decision for Ireland's plan states that and it seems to be a quote here it's crucial to involve all local authorities and stakeholders concerned, including social partners throughout the implementation of the investments and reforms included in the plan. Is this a day factor of criticism of the non involvement of civil society to date? So Jerry seems to be suggesting here that there wasn't as much stakeholder consultation in developing Ireland's resilience and recovery plan. So Francis, can I put that one to you for reaction? And if you want to pick up on some appearance points for you to do so. You know, stakeholder engagement on a plan like this. I mean, I don't think we're coming from a particularly developed engagement with stakeholders so let me put it like that. And I think that my own sense of it looking on looking from Brussels, if you like, was that there could have been greater stakeholder involvement. And I think the mechanisms to do that probably could have been more robust. I think there were, and the maybe people who've joining us today who could say more about this. You know, there was, I think there was certainly social partnership engagement, no question of that. But in terms of reaching out to the broader community, I mean, there were a lot of submissions made and other points were made. But I think, you know, that could be ongoing as well and could be developed more, because if you want to do the kind of things that we said should be done from a European Parliament point of view. This is ongoing. This is ongoing spending. We just signed the, you know, the, the, the final the financing agreement only gets signed, you know, shortly. That's not done yet. So again, it's quite early. So I mean, I think that, you know, for example, myself I've run various, you know, conferences and engagements with NGOs here on different aspects of the plan. For example, care, and, you know, made sure that that got included. But again, you've got to monitor how the spending is going to go and the whole question on equality, you know, how is it actually going to reach out to women and men that needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis and I think there's huge scope for ongoing stakeholder engagement on the points that a Karen is making I mean he would say that wouldn't he I mean, look at I mean I totally recognize Karen's commitment and the green commitment. But I think it's widely shared, but there are real concerns so for example myself and a number of parliamentarians and done work on a just transition. I mean this is a huge concern whether it's in the midlands and Ireland or in Eastern Europe. I mean you do have to look at the just transition funding, and that has to reach out to those communities. And you also have to have a just transition for citizens for families for business for industry. I think those are the kind of issues that my party have been looking at particularly and saying, you know, what is the actual, what's the implementation, we know the goals but what does the implementation look like, what is the pace of it. And how do we manage that. I mean you take a very practical issue right now you look at the potential for fuel poverty. I mean we were discussing that in the parliament this week. I mean fuel poverty right across Europe and the cost of gas. I mean there's an immediate sort of challenge for for our for our families for our citizens for our businesses to be able to cope with this so you know, and if you look at the taxonomy. I mean, we have set up the criteria by which, you know we will put sustainable finance and finance will be given to various projects. But again, you know, you have to to monitor how that is going to see how it's being effective. And I think it's not so much resistance, everyone knows we have to do it, but it's the practical implications and making sure that we're, you know, sustaining and helping people along the way, as we make the transition we have to make. We have to make our choices I mean Karen is right about this we see the choices in Ireland that have been got a lot of discussion recently, and it's an enormous. It's an enormous transition for people in all our daily lives and we've going to, you know government has to help people to make that. So I think it's a little early to, you know to claim that there's resistance coming from other political parties I think it's around the implementation and how it's going to be handled and the supports that will be needed at that point. I think some member states are certainly very, you know some member states are very ambivalent about the green deal, no question of that, and find it very hard to convince their populations and their members of parliament and we see that in the parliament. Yes, Francis, drag is going to come to you and feel free to respond again to again the green issues, because there's a good lively discussion clearly happening here. Feel free to address this issue of stakeholder engagement because you mentioned as in your opening remarks. In addition, can I put another question to you as a fellow economist, I'm kind of happy to drop this one on you, and you'll see when I read it out. So this is from Darrell all or who's one of the IEA economics researchers. And the question is, are the panel concerned about rising rising levels of inflation in the euro area. Okay, and just to develop the theme then, how should the disbursement of funds from next generation you be managed so that they do not contribute to any overheating of the European economy. So this is a very strong issue in Ireland that with the sort of stronger than expected recovery from the COVID crisis. We've now moved on to the sort of fears of overheating to our own investment strategy. So it would be interesting to hear then is, you know, what's the view with your key level of the possibilities from substantial government investment. So there's about three things floating around there. So feel free to tackle any or any role. Yeah, so let me start first with the question and then I will comment the other two. We need the risk of overheating. Now, we can see it from a monetary perspective, or we can see it from, you know, the, from an industrial investment perspective, that the reality is that I mean that the good news is that the money will just be, you know, poured into, you know, consumption and into basically expenditure that will be recurrent and that's one of the rules in the regulation that says that this money is not going to be used for a current expenditure or substituting expenditure from the government side. So it's from from the design of it, it's, it's meant to go into investments that are forward looking. It's not about the entire purpose for the recovery was not to go back where we were before the pandemic was to more or less, you know, change the paradigm meaning how we see our society, our economy, how we, we are actually managing our resources and with what type of technology. And that's about the dual transformation, you know, the, the green and the digital transformation. So we, if we are actually putting the money into developing or strengthening, you know, value chains into more or less having an approach that would upgrade our economy and our society then then there's certainly not the danger of overheating as it would have been by just using the money and pouring it in, you know, spreading it and spring into the economy. Now in terms of the, the actual rules of disbursement. We have the refinancing that is 13% and indeed this this this is the case for all the member states, and then you have these milestones and targets that will actually trigger twice a year. The disbursements from from the European Commission. I mean that the good part is that we're not going to have, you know, twice a year shocks in the markets because you know the member state is supposed to be spending and investing and doing the right things all throughout the period so it's will be on aggregate view. Now another important thing would be related to the fact that a component that is vital and it's actually critical for any type of disbursements with that should be the and many of the reforms that we are talking about are related to things that member states have actually missed, or not necessarily fulfilled from the country specific recommendations of the past. And here we are talking about a lot of things that are, you know, more or less related to the sustainability of public finance to, you know, supporting the SMEs and the semi sector do, you know, related to cohesion, and how, you know, the pension reform is seeing, you know, how the demographic challenges are actually going to be perceived. And here, again, with all these kinds of reforms. I mean, the perspective of getting the economy overheating it's actually a lower because we are talking about structural reforms and not just, you know, trying to push for things as they are right now. So these are this is this is part of my answer towards the question related to to the monetary is equilibrium that that may be caused by the RF. Of course, there will be an inflation pressure just to clarify from a purely economic perspective there will be an inflation pressure. But if you put that money into things that will have a return on society and then again we have a very tense period until 2026. Then I think that this can actually be managed in a sustainable way. Now related to, you know, very brief comments related to what was discussed on on stakeholder consultation. I do believe that the Commission is trying right now to compensate. You know, in terms of the length and the scope of the consultation that were taking place before. I mean before the approval of the plans. We were actually asking in from the parliament position to have as an evaluation criteria, the degree and the length of consultations and then the member states the Council refused that saying that we don't have time enough because speed is of the essence and now the Commission, more or less, has, you know, needed actually basically just to check if there is a chapter in the plan related consultations in for some member states that was we consulted people full stop. And that's it. And for us from some other member states there was a lengthy, you know, description of, you know, all the stakeholders that have been consulted and so on so it's, it's right normal right now for the Commission to go back and say, Okay, but for the monitoring we have some sort of consultation body or arrangements where to understand that we are not going to have to be in a station which this this money is going to be used. And then later on people will feel completely, you know, this is aligned with the purpose and what and how the money has been actually spent. So I would say that it's, it's, I'm encouraging that and I think it's a it's a good thing from the Commission to ask you to do this kind of consultation at least in the morning. Last but not least, on the ambition, I mean, obviously, Karen has actually started here. A political debate. I mean, certainly, I mean as renew with Pascal confirm the President of the MV committee we cannot be accused of not actually being ambitious. That's, that's for sure. So I would say that from time to time renew is even more ambitious than the greens on on issues related to, you know, fast forward towards, you know, the green transformation. But indeed, I think that what Francis mentioned the the social implications on one hand, and I will add also the fact that the energy mix is actually a problematic thing as well in terms of transition I mean we are witnessing right now, with the price increase and then we had the meeting today in the palm in the ITRA committee with Cadre Simpson, we are witnessing right now response of the markets towards you know what we are doing and and and again technology is there but but it's not delivering all the answers already in terms of, you know, how to make full use of renewables by by by, you know, having the technologies that will be able to store the storage and so on and so forth. So, I would say that ambition I think that we all have ambition in the European pilot list the groups that are here for sure. But but it's also you need to have the what what it takes to implement it so it's like about practicality as well so I might be dreaming about things but you are going to accomplish the things that are feasible to be done and then the thing that instead of you know seeing the differences among us we should actually work together as we've done very very well with the RF with the feet for 55 to make it happen. And so I'm suggesting a more constructive approach here, uniting us rather than to see the differences which I feel that maybe actually you know forced a little bit from time to time so that would be my political answer. If you may. Thank you. Alan just a very, very quick point, Christine Lagarde was in our econ committee recently. And she said that it was of course the high energy prices that are currently driving inflation the temporary that changes and the difficulties in global supply, which she said she expected them to dissipate next year. And that remains to be seen where our energy price is going to go, because if you exclude energy prices from the calculation inflation is at 1.1 1.7, which is still below the ECB's target of 2%. So I think it does need very careful watching, but maybe not panicking, you know, just yet. And I thought her comments were quite interesting on it. No, without it, they're interesting, but I guess the history of inflation, which has been written in a number of occasions, the fear is always that once it's about people's expectations of inflation, rather than the actuality. And I guess if this lasts for long enough and inflation expectations build up, then you hit a point that gets troubling. We've only a few minutes left and I thought this was going to be a somewhat technical discussion about the role of the European Parliament, but it seems politics is, is breaking out. And I'm going to put a blunt question to you, Francis, if I may, from Dara Moriarty of the IEA, and when you were mentioning issues around the rule of law and Poland and the dispersal of funds. Dara, in a question, has kind of put the blunt issue about the European people's parties reaction, basically, to Orban in particular, and how they found the Orban situation. So do you want to take a moment or two just sort of to comment? I mean, there's an implied sort of criticism that maybe your political group wasn't as strong. Probably what he's referring to is the pace of dealing with the Orban situation. And my own view is that it could have been quicker. We did the right thing in the end. And I think, you know, when you look at it from the point of view of a party and the engagement of a country, you know, and the Hungarian Party involved in the EPP. And, you know, and the very big decision it was to take to exclude, but, you know, it was absolutely clear, you know, that it should be done and it was done eventually. I think the pace could have been, could have been quicker. But across the parliament now the question is, you know, are we prepared, you know, to take money from countries that break the rule of law. You know, how important are the fundamental values going to be? Are they more important than the numbers in particular parties? Well, you know, it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out. And, you know, obviously after Brexit, the sensitivities about other countries leaving, I don't think that's actually on the cards at the moment at all, even in Poland. My colleagues from Poland would say that to me that there's, you know, we saw that the tens of thousands of people marching in Poland on Sunday. But, you know, this, you know, the vulnerability if you like after Brexit, I think is another kind of, is something that impacts on decision making as well. But I think there's a good debate emerging on it. And I, you know, I think we're seeing the conditionality and, you know, I'm not quite sure how it's going to be applied in the months ahead, but it's definitely going to be more and more of an issue in the course end to state. And with the composition of this parliament, more likely to happen, I think. Okay, thank you for that. And another question here, Kiran, and it's for you. The questioner is, is wondering, there's a reference to the imminent arrival of the Greens into government to Germany. And then the question is, what impact that might have on the sort of dynamics or priorities or whatever around green issues at the European level. Can you give a reflection on that? There's always a very interesting dynamic both within council and within the parliament. Even though, in theory, all 27, 27 member states are equal around the table, unless you get to qualified majority voting, in reality, the larger member states do call the shots, although many would deny that. If there was a green presence in the German government, it would impact. And not just on the green transition, but I think it would also impact on foreign policy, because the Greens have been very strong on calling out Putin and Russia on the issue of democracy and rule of law there. And so while I don't think it would necessarily impact on, let's say, granting permission for Nord Stream 2 for this big gas pipeline, which comes from Russia to Germany, I think it would have an impact on foreign policy and I think that could be quite interesting to watch. I mean, an observation I would make, and going back to the last issue of Poland and the issue of Fidesz and Hungary is that the European Union cannot stand still. An issue that maybe didn't make the headlines in Ireland is that the West, there are many states in the Western Balkans who wish to be part of the European Union project. They're clamoring at the door. And I think we shouldn't be overly distracted by the issues that we might have with the Czech Republic or Poland or Hungary. We should also be moving the accession states further forward in their bid to get in the door into Europe. We were just over 50 years ago, and it would be, I think a huge failing if we were to say that the entry door was firmly closed at this stage. And I would hope that the presence of the Greens in Germany would perhaps allow that debate to move forward as well. But my hope, if the Greens do end up in a traffic light coalition in Germany, is that we will see a more rapid green transition, which I think would focus on social justice, rather than simply using market based instruments to deliver the changes that are needed. I might put a final question to you, and Francis and Kieran can pick up on that if they want, but it's back actually to the heart of our discussions around the ORF and issues then around European Parliament, but here's my question. If I think back when I started working in Ireland as an economist, this goes back to the 1990s, and there was a huge amount of European Union expenditure in Ireland, there was a huge amount of oversight by the European Commission, we did sort of ex-anti evaluations, midterm evaluations, Now this was all very good, and I think it really sort of crystallized our thinking around how best to use funds. But I suppose I'm wondering, when I heard things about like the European Parliament getting involved in scrutiny, what would be the value added relative to what the Commission does? And is there another potential conflict going to emerge here? And could you be in a situation, for example, that the Parliament would be recommending significant changes or the withholding of funds because the scrutiny wasn't yielding what was considered desirable? So it's a big question with sort of a minute left, but maybe you could even give us a sense of how you feel about that one. Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question. I've been studying conditionalities in the post-Bretton Woods context and also from the EU perspective, so I understand what you're saying. But I mean, let me give you a concrete example, the rule of law, we've been discussing about it a little bit earlier. I mean the question is, without the Parliament pressure, would the Commission have actually stopped the plans for Hungary and Poland? I mean, this is a very clear example and I see the Syrian actually nodding as well. I mean, we actually were reflecting an important thing that was passed to us by the citizens and then we acted together. I mean, and that's an important thing. The Commission, there are instances and I'm not, I don't want to generalize, but there are instances where they work or they smoothen up things with the Member States and with the Council generally speaking. I mean, this is something that is well known. There is some sort of a legacy or path dependence towards it and the role of the Parliament is exactly the role in the treaties. It's actually to come up with a perspective that would actually be able to allow for the Union not to be an intergovernmental business. I mean, that's our role. It's about reflecting different components and segments of the society through different parties and in the political groups so that we're having that dynamics that would be able to challenge the Commission, if the Commission will just do deals with the Member States, everything would be just, you know, a thing that would actually be a close end thing where the Commission and the Council are going to be very, you know, married happily ever after. I mean, that's exactly what we don't want to do and that's exactly why the Parliament has been created for reducing the democratic deficit. So this is, I'm actually reversing the things around, showing that, you know, without the Parliament, this would have been just an amount of money spread among Member States and with just, you know, digital, green and resilience, whoever understood whatever about that word. And then the Parliament came and say, okay, guys, I mean, stop, we need to have a clarity of how the money is going to be spent. So the other is exactly the example of how the Parliament is actually contributing so that this will not be just, you know, a game in between Member States. I mean, I think that this is making the point actually exactly in the reverse direction and I've seen Francis wanted to actually add something. Really, I follow that, you know, Alan, I was interested in your observation, but I think in any healthy system of accountability, you need a strong degree of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight and it almost goes without saying and it has completely enriched as opposed to the Commission doing it on its own. And there may be conflict, you could be right, but I think that will lead to a healthier outcome. And of course, we have to be elected. So, you know, we're bringing a mandate from the citizens. And we're putting that directly then into the discussions. And, you know, it's about don't talk to me about your values, you know, as Joe Biden says, you know, show me where you spend the money. And we're really looking at where the money is being spent, you know, show me where you spend the money and I'll tell you what your values are and I think that's the kind of question and debate we've brought into the discussion in the Parliament. I think on that issue of spending money, I think it was very heartening yesterday to see a green bond being issued to the Commission at a negative interest rate, a very significant amount of funding so the markets are certainly voting for the green transition and while I may have been somewhat negative in my concerns about the pace of change, people often say to me, Well, if you'd been here five years ago, what we see happening today is happening at light speed. So I do want to end on that positive note. Okay, well that sounds like a great place to end. I mean, just I think I started off with the earlier remarks I was making the sort of my interest in this notion of parliamentary scrutiny comes back from sort of observing the Irish situation for so long, and that's part of discussions from a membership council and others about getting a greater sort of sense of parliamentary scrutiny within Ireland, what we were doing. So it is interesting to hear the parallels. And anyway, as three fantastic parliamentary you've given a very strong defence of why the parliament needs to be involved. Yeah, it's been a really interesting and enjoyable session and I'm just it's important to bring it to a close but Francis Stragas and Kieran Sir, thanks to you all. Thanks to the organizers IAA and the European Parliament Office in Ireland. Again, it's been a pleasure for me to do this, do the chairing and just wish everybody now a good afternoon.