Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Coming back to the other COM, which is COM (2025) 123. This is the redirection of cohesion funding. Apologies to the representatives of the Department. I am conscious that our guests from the Commission are time-bound and that is why I am focusing my questions on them but their moment will come. This one is quite striking because redirecting what had been social cohesion funding towards a rapid increase in Ireland's proliferation seems to be in direct opposition to the stated objectives of this fund.

We may recall the European Coal and Steel Community's very founding statement spoke about co-operation in the areas of coal and steel, when coal was less problematic at that point, being a way of redirecting our common investment away from ammunition and military expenditure. Literally, the explicit intent was the specific idea that we find ways to redirect funds from military expenditure to end investment in the manufacture of arms, of which our own people are ultimately the greatest victims. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about EU budget being taken effectively for underwriting, and budget money moving away from social cohesion, which is something Ireland has particularly benefitted from in the context of peace.

An example of an early impact of this is that one policy - the European Social Fund Plus - has already been left out of the MFF for 2027 to 2032 against the explicit wishes of and mandate from the European Parliament, which passed a resolution stating that the European Parliament insists the EFS+ must continue to be the key and primary instrument for supporting member states, regions, local communities and people in the strengthening of the social dimension of the union and in pursuing socioeconomic development that leaves no one behind. That is an incredible message from the European Parliament about something it believes is extremely important and that was previously covered by social cohesion but which is now proposed to be dropped, even as social cohesion funding gets redirected into arms manufacture.

Has there been a full cost-benefit analysis of the arms expenditure that is taking place and the costs of peace projects? Sometimes social cohesion is taken for granted. We look to countries like the United States with massive armies but that has not protected them against measures that have destabilised them and have led to a lack of social cohesion. We hear, in many cases, lots of discussion about hybrid attacks and the attacks on democracy and the promotion of division. These are other areas. I know they might not be Mr. Knauer's speciality areas but I refer to that kind of work of building peace on a continent which has a centuries-long history of internal fighting as well as external colonialism and violence in the wider world. There is that miracle of peace where we have all of these countries with this complicated history of violence working together. Social cohesion is the kind of thing that makes it happen and not in an abstract way. We have seen it in Ireland. Has there been a risk analysis of the diminishment of social cohesion funding and the potential implications in terms of peace and security of the lowering of social cohesion funding? Has there been an analysis of the potential danger that causes?

My second point is linked. Under the climate piece, there is the just transition fund. This is another fund which is proposed to be redirected. It supports Europe's transition to a diverse carbon-neutral economy. It is meant to help Europe become greener, lower carbon and climate resilient. Now we see that can also be redirected to military conflict.

In the opening statement from the Commission, there was talk of the present threat and future generations. Has there been a proper assessment of the implications of redirecting funding from climate action and just transition? Is climate not recognised as an equal threat, and potentially an immediate threat, to European security, as well as one of the great drivers, potentially, of conflict worldwide? Some 30 million people are displaced due to climate-related disasters. By 2050, they estimate about 1.2 billion will be displaced because where they live will become unlivable. These are huge impacts. Where does that feature? Has there been a risk analysis? It is not about making the case for arms production; it is about how it balances against other risks. I am saying this in a very significant way.

I have an additional question for Ms Dinkova. She mentioned the Stability and Growth Pact. It is interesting that there was an exit clause from the pact in relation to arms expenditure but there does not seem to have been the same decision about expenditure on the climate emergency.

Will the witnesses answer the last set of questions on social cohesion and climate? We will suspend shortly. I am happy for whoever wishes to answer those questions to do so but it was Ms Dinkova who mentioned the Stability and Growth Pact.