Peter AGIUS

Policy topics Peter AGIUS is active on

What Peter AGIUS has said (23)

• 2026-03-25 “Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission 21.5.2026 Written question In the context of Pillar 3 of the EU Chips Act [1] , the Commission is monitoring the supply of memory chips, including prices and lead times, via regular expert reports. Early warning indicators may be used to flag shortages and price-shock risks to the Member States authorities represented in the European Semiconductor Board. Under Article 23 of the Chips Act, the activation of the ‘crisis stage’ is a prerogative of the Council. The Commission may, after consulting the European Semiconductor Board, propose to the Council the activation of a crisis. This would require evidence of serious disruptions of the supply chain affecting essential products used by critical sectors as defined in Annex IV, and evidence that the activation of the crisis stage would have a positive impact. At the moment this is not the case. The Commission has not specifically assessed whether long-term supply arrangements may have an influence on shortage of supply or pricing. The Commission welcomes proactive action from industry to manage risks of supply disruptions through commercial practices. Investment decisions under the Chips Act framework lie primarily with companies and Member States, and any public support must comply with EU competition and state aid rules. The Commission already supports, through open, competitive calls, research and innovation in embedded and specialty memories, which can serve important EU end-markets such as automotive, industrial and edge applications. The Commission recognises the strategic importance of strengthening EU capabilities in the memory ecosystem and is considering how to further reinforce this aspect in the context of the forthcoming revision of the Chips Act. [1] http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1781/oj.”
  EU industrial funding
• 2025-11-19 “E-004623/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission Achieving the EU’s 2050 net-zero climate target requires all economic sectors to contribute to decarbonisation. Emissions from municipal waste incineration (MWI) installations are currently mainly covered under the Effort Sharing Regulation 1 and subject to national emissions reduction targets and measures but have grown since 2005. Some waste incinerators are currently already covered under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), such as industrial waste incinerators, and municipal waste-to-energy installations in some Member States 2 . Under the 2023 revision of the EU ETS, all MWI installations above the 20 megawatts threshold are required to monitor and report emissions from 2024 onwards. As part of the upcoming review of the EU ETS Directive scheduled for July 2026, the Commission is required to assess the potential inclusion of MWI installations and the possibility of including other waste management processes, in particular landfills, which are responsible for the largest share of waste sector emissions 3 . The work on the impact assessment is currently ongoing. In the context of the stakeholder consultation 51% of respondents were in favour and 30% opposed the inclusion of MWI into the EU ETS 4 . The Commission is further assessing the impact of a potential extension of the EU ETS to waste management processes in terms of incentivising cost-effective emission reductions, ensuring a level playing field between sectors and Member States, and contributing to the circular economy, proper waste management and minimising landfilling. It is also assessing the scope, design elements and abatement options in case of an extension. The results of the impact assessment will feed into the legislative proposal for the EU ETS review. 1 Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013. 2 Denmark, Lithuania and Sweden have included municipal waste incineration (MWI) installations in their national implementation of the EU ETS, while Germany included waste incineration installations in its national emissions trading system. 3 Review clause in Article 30(7) of the EU ETS Directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02003L0087-20240301. 4 Details on the process and outcome of the open public consultation can be consulted on: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14549-EU-emissions-trading-systemfor-maritime-aviation-and-stationary-installations-and-market-stability-reserve-review/public-consultation_en.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2025-11-19 “E-004624/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission According to the Geo-blocking Regulation 1 , traders shall not apply different general conditions of access to goods or services, for reasons related to a customer’s nationality, place of residence or place of establishment. However, this does not introduce an obligation on traders to deliver across the EU in a uniform way, nor does it force them to deliver at the same delivery price in certain regions. Traders may charge higher delivery prices, depending on the area, based on objective criteria (i.e. shipping and handling), as outlined in the Regulation on cross-border parcel delivery services 2 . Tariffs of universal service providers must be cost-oriented 3 . The total price of goods or services and all additional freight, delivery or postal charges must be communicated in a clear and comprehensible manner to the consumer before conclusion of the contract, or before checkout, as required in the Consumer Rights Directive 4 and the Regulation on cross-border parcel delivery services. The Commission plans to propose in the second half of 2026 a reform of the EU postal regulatory framework that will focus on delivery as a service and will ensure that people and businesses can receive deliveries throughout the EU at affordable prices, while promoting fair competition on delivery markets and increasing consumer protection. 1 Regulation (EU) 2018/302, OJ L 60I, 2.3.2018, pp. 1–15. 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/644, OJ L 112, 2.5.2018, pp. 19–28. 3 Directive 97/67/EC (as amended by Directives 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC), OJ L. 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14-25. 4 Directive 2011/83/EU, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 74-78.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices
• 2025-11-19 “E-004625/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission recognises the potential of plant biotechnology and has proposed a specific regulatory framework 1 for plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) to enable the use of NGTs and to enhance agricultural innovation, while ensuring safety and reducing burdens 2 . Plants obtained with NGTs that could also occur naturally or by conventional breeding (‘category 1 NGT plants’) would undergo a verification procedure, based on clear criteria and conditions. Such plants would generally be treated like conventional plants and exempted from the requirements of the legislation for genetically modified organisms (GMO). For all other plants obtained by NGTs ('category 2 NGT plants'), the requirements of the current GMO legislation will apply with some adaptations. The European Parliament and the Council reached a provisional political agreement on the proposal on 3 December 2025 3 . 2. The Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan (CSP) for Malta 2023-2027 supports the transition towards a smart, sustainable, competitive, resilient and diversified agricultural sector, ensuring long-term food security. The CSP funds a wide range of interventions addressing the specific needs as identified by Malta. One of these interventions, covering the entire Maltese territory, provides a compensation payment to farmers to address the specific constraints they face in agricultural production. Through Horizon Europe the Commission also funds research and innovation in plant breeding and genetic resources 4 . Latest calls 5 include actions to support the development of new breeding tools, to enhance the competitiveness of the organic breeding sector and to improve sustainability and resilience of cropping systems. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52023PC0411. 2 https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/f1142e86-43df-4791-9df2563e696c59cf_en?filename=gmo_biotech_ngt_ia_report.pdf. 3 https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2023/0226(COD). 4 Under cluster 6 ‘Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment’. 5 Horizon Work Programme 2026-2027; https://research-andinnovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/44106caa-ed7a-42bf-ae57-aaab91778602_en.”
  GMOs
• 2025-10-21 “E-004138/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission confirms that EU legislation, including Directive (EU) 2018/958 (the Proportionality Test Directive 1 ), does not prevent Member States from recognising or regulating emerging healthcare professions, such as genetic counselling. The Proportionality Test Directive does not prohibit the introduction of national regulatory frameworks for new professions; rather, its purpose is to ensure that any new or amended national rules regulating professions are non-discriminatory, justified by legitimate public interest objectives, such as the protection of public health and safety, and proportionate. The Directive also specifically refers to the objective of ensuring a high level of human health protection when regulating healthcare professions that have patient safety implications. Directive 2005/36/EC 2 supports mobility of professionals. Several healthcare professions are covered by the ‘automatic’ recognition system, based on minimum training requirements. The Commission monitors scientific and technical progress and changes in national legislations and uses its delegated powers to update the minimum training requirements, with the aim to support patient safety and to reflect current healthcare standards. It also explores the possibilities to extend the system of automatic recognition to other healthcare professions, through Common Training Frameworks. Given the share of competences and differences in health systems across the EU, the Commission does not intend to propose EU standards of care for genetic counselling. According to Article 168(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States are responsible for the organisation and delivery of their health services and medical care. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32018L0958. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02005L0036-20250710.”
  EU competences on health
• 2025-10-21 “P-004136/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission understands the socio-economic importance of the Lampuki fisheries in Malta and is determined to ensure a level-playing field in the region. The EU participation to the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean international joint inspection scheme (IJIS) is delivering important results in identifying and deterring potential infringements at sea. In 2025, three suspected infringements from Tunisian flagged fishing vessels were detected in the Fishing Aggregating Device (FAD) common dolphinfish fishery, including one case of a vessel catching fish attracted by a FAD set by another Contracting Party vessel. The Commission sent a letter to Tunisia to follow-up on these cases, their reply is under analysis. The IJIS allow for the collaboration of EU and non-EU inspectors. The Commission notes that the Maltese administration was formally invited to deploy their patrol means in 2026 in international waters to join the efforts alongside the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). This will allow for a more complete coverage, increasing the likelihood of stopping potential poachers on Maltese FADs. Moreover, the Pact for the Mediterranean 1 , adopted by the Commission on 16 October 2025, highlights the EU’s intention to work with non-EU countries to promote and implement international governance standards and develop a project to increase control and inspection capabilities of coastal States to fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. 1 The Pact for the Mediterranean One Sea, One Pact, One Future, Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, https://north-africa-middle-east-gulf.ec.europa.eu/joint-communication-pact-mediterranean_en.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-10-21 “E-004137/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The type-approval procedures for Euro 7 light-duty vehicles, in particular the Real-Driving Emissions (RDE) on-road test and the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP), were designed to cover a broad range of operating conditions likely to be encountered by vehicles across the EU. Regional adaptations would be contrary to the principles of internal market harmonisation underpinning the emission type-approval. The Euro 7 Regulation 1 does not prescribe how diesel particulate filter regenerations are managed. It is standard engineering practice to allow ‘passive’ regeneration when sufficient soot has accumulated and exhaust temperatures are high, such as during highway driving. Where this is not achieved, manufacturers use ‘active’ regeneration, heating the filter during sustained medium-load operation. If driving patterns never permit regeneration, manufacturers may trigger a warning via the on-board diagnostics system, prompting the driver to visit a workshop for a forced regeneration as part of maintenance. The Euro 7 Regulation ensures that all vehicle types placed on the EU market, regardless of fuel and powertrain, comply with the same environmental standards. It is up to consumers to choose the most appropriate vehicles according to their driving patterns and mobility needs, taking into account that diesel engines may not be the most suitable and economical option for predominantly short or low-speed urban use. Member States may also communicate and incentivise the purchase of vehicles that perform best in terms of environmental sustainability. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7), http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1257/oj.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2025-06-18 “E-002454/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission In accordance with Articles 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States are responsible for the content of teaching and the organisation of their education system. In accordance with Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States are responsible for defining their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. As a result, it is a Member State competence to decide whether and how to regulate professions in the beauty industry within the limits of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. In cases where Member States chose to regulate certain professions in the industry, Directive 2005/36/EC 1 lays down the rules for the recognition of qualifications obtained in other Member States. The directive also includes provisions for situations where there are significant differences in training between Member States, allowing for measures like adaptation periods to ensure public safety. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2005/36/oj/eng.”
  EU competences on health
• 2025-06-18 “E-002455/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission Quality assurance is the core of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) under the Bologna process. Its members recently reiterated their commitment ‘to promote more robust quality assurance of transnational education, in line with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), to protect the interests of students’ 1 . It does not translate, however, into a legal obligation at EU level. Council recommendations 2 emphasise the importance of external quality assurance conducted in line with the ESG and by independent quality assurance agencies registered with the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) 3 . Since Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) provides that education is the primary responsibility of Member States, it is for Malta to ensure that its quality assurance system is aligned with the ESG and to address shortcomings to register the Malta Further and Higher Education Authority (MFHEA) with the EQAR. However, based on the EHEA commitments, higher education institutions in Malta, also private colleges, wishing to reassure their partners about educational quality and to facilitate recognition of their qualifications, can seek external evaluation of their programmes by any EQAR registered agency. Professionals seeking to practice a profession in another Member State must apply for the recognition of their qualifications if the profession is regulated in that Member State. In such case, the rules outlined in Directive 2005/36/EC 4 apply, under certain conditions. If the profession is not regulated, there is no obligation to follow a formal recognition process to practice the profession. The problem does not seem related to the application of recognition rules under EU law, but rather to the EQAR refusal to register MFHEA and as such should be addressed on national level in line with Member States’ competences in this area. 1 Tirana Ministerial Communiqué - 2024. 2 Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad, OJ C 444, 10.12.2018, p. 1; Council Recommendation of 12 May 2025 on a European quality assurance and recognition system in higher education OJ C, C/2025/3006, 28.5.2025. 3 The EQAR is the official EHEA register for quality assurance agencies compliant with the ESG. 4 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L255- 30-09-2005, p. 22).”
  Rule of law in Malta
• 2025-04-01 “E-001371/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission In 2017, the Commission de-prioritised activities regarding the application of Article 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 1 on gambling and this continues to apply 2 . There are no sector-specific EU legislation or EU policy on gambling. Member States are free to regulate gambling activities as long as they are in line with the rules established by the TFEU and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). According to the case-law of the CJEU, Member States may restrict games of chance and gambling services where necessary to achieve public interest objectives 3 . Gambling regulation and enforcement thus vary significantly between Member States. In addition and although this legislation is not specific to gambling, providers of online platforms allowing for gambling content on their interfaces are bound by the rules of the Digital Services Act 4 aimed at preventing illegal content and providing safer online environment. The Commission does not see the connection between alleged lack of regulation and enforcement in the gambling market and Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF). In response to the Resolution 5 of the European Parliament, the Commission carried out a mapping study on the application of TPLF in the Member States 6 and will decide on the appropriate next steps. TPLF is also on the agenda of the High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth 7 . The study finds that TPLF is used in various areas of law 8 . Directive (EU) 2020/1828 9 already provides for rules to be followed by Member States that allow TPLF in representative actions on consumer matters covered by the Directive. TPLF is sometimes the only way for harmed consumers to have sufficient resources to take action in court. 1 Article 49 of the TFEU concerns Freedom of establishment and Article 56 Freedom to Services. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_17_5109/IP_17_5109_EN.pdf. 3 Such as on protection of consumers and minors, fight against gambling addiction, combat money laundering, irregularities and fraud. See e.g. following case law: Judgment of 19/07 2012 || SIA Garkalns, C-470/11 || ECR [2012] I-0000. 4 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). 5 European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2022 with recommendations to the Commission on Responsible private funding of litigation. 6 Study available at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamentalrights/civil-justice/civil-and-commercial-law/third-party-litigation-funding-tplf_en. 7 This is an ongoing process, the TPLF was already discussed in the Forum on 27.3.2025. 8 With commercial law, civil law, competition/antitrust and consumer protection law as most frequently used areas. 9 Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on consumer protection and product standards
• 2025-01-22 “P-000258/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission 1. The international joint inspection scheme for the dolphinfish fishery with Fish Aggregating Devices (FAD) is now in force under Recommendation GFCM/46/2023/17 1 . The European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) patrol vessel is deployed in the Strait of Sicily before the start of the fishing season of the FAD dolphinfish fishery to deter such cases of noncompliance. While the Commission received reports of unmarked FADs sighted at sea during this period, it has not received sightings of fishing vessels targeting dolphinfish with FADs outside the authorised period from EFCA or from national control authorities. Should the Commission receive such reports from the Maltese authorities, it would ensure thorough assessment. 2. The Commission considers that the current drafting of paragraph 23 of Recommendation GFCM/46/2023/14 2 and Article 82 of Regulation (EU) 2023/2124 3 is sufficiently clear in prohibiting common dolphinfish fisheries using FADs from 1 January to 14 August 2024. 3. The fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is a key priority of the Commission. In this context, the Commission started last year an ambitious process for strengthening the Compliance Committee (CoC) of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). This year, the Commission will be pilot testing the compliance tables with all Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-contracting parties (CPCs) aiming to assess the proper implementation of the management measures by all CPCs. In addition, the Commission shares the view that cases of non-compliance detected at sea should be followed up in the CoC. In May 2025, the GFCM intends to organise a dedicated seminar on inspection schemes in Vigo. 1 https://www.fao.org/gfcm/decisions/en/ 2 https://www.fao.org/gfcm/decisions/en/ 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32023R2124”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-01-22 “E-000259/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA’s) research project on diabetes mellitus includes an evaluation of fitness requirements for air traffic controllers and pilots with diabetes. The project will conclude on 12–14 November 2025. The results will not be included in the ARA.MED.330 Medical Assessment Protocol but could instead be the subject of dedicated rulemaking to ensure a uniform level of safety and a harmonised approach. 2. A rulemaking task is expected to update the relevant medical fitness requirements, which will become mandatory for all Member States. EASA will ensure the uniform application of these new requirements through the standardisation process in accordance with Regulation (EU) 628/2013 1 . 3. Based on the research results, the anticipated regulatory update is expected to allow more individuals with insulin-dependent diabetes to become or continue working. Additionally, the study includes an impact assessment to evaluate the practical implications of implementing its recommendations. This assessment will be further refined as part of the upcoming rulemaking task, ensuring that any regulatory changes not only uphold safety standards but also support fair and equitable treatment of diabetic pilots and air traffic controllers across the EU. The Commission supports Member States in preventing and managing non-communicable diseases (NCD) under the Healthier Together EU NCD initiative 2 . Member States are sharing knowledge and best practices on the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes 3 , including Type 1 diabetes, with funding of EUR 53 million from the EU4Health programme 4 . This includes awareness raising activities for healthcare providers and citizens. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0628 2 https://health.ec.europa.eu/non-communicable-diseases/healthier-together-eu-non-communicable-diseasesinitiative_en 3 https://jacardi.eu/ 4 https://health.ec.europa.eu/funding/eu4health-programme-2021-2027-vision-healthier-european-union_en”
  Medical devices
• 2024-12-16 “P-002974/2024 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 1. National building codes define the performance of buildings and civil engineering works and are a national responsibility for setting performance levels and enforcing these regulations. The Eurocodes set no performance requirements but are technical European standards providing a framework for calculating structural design. They are the means to support modernisation and harmonisation in structural design for buildings and infrastructure. Their use is voluntary for Member States and countries outside the EU. In 2014-2015, the Commission performed an enquiry on the implementation of the Eurocodes in the Member States and Norway. The analysis 1 concluded that in 83% of the analysed countries the Eurocodes are implemented; At the same time, faster progress in adoption of national annexes 2 was expected from Malta. 2. In the 2014-2015 enquiry, the National Standards Body of Malta reported that all Eurocodes parts were published as national standards in Malta, their use was voluntary and national annexes to the Eurocodes were not yet published. However, the national annexes on the most important Eurocodes parts were available for public comment. 3. The Commission has long experience in supporting the implementation and practical use of the Eurocodes at the technical level, including through training and capacity building for national authorities, national standards bodies, academia and practitioners. A wealth of information and open-access background documents is available at the Eurocodes website 3 . The Commission will continue to support the implementation and use of the upcoming second-generation Eurocodes 4 , expected to be published in 2027, and remains available to discuss specific needs for support. 1 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2788/854939 2 https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en-eurocodes/eurocodes-national-implementation 3 https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu 4 https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/second-generation-eurocodes”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on consumer protection and product standards
• “Hi, dear colleagues. Sorry for not being there today. I'll be later in Brussels. Yes. First of all, I need to echo a lot of what has been said by colleagues. Indeed there is, I think, a lot of common ground between our views here. I think we have an opportunity to send out a very strong call in this report, and I join a number of items highlighted in the report by Estaras Ferragut, especially the need to have an impact assessment on the effectiveness of some of our measures adopted and on the flagships. I think that's very important to see the effectiveness on the ground of what we are proposing. I join also the call to for the next MFF to have specific provisions for persons with disability. And I think we also need to put more emphasis on a number of issues, for instance, on the role of carers and informal assistance to persons with disability. I think we need to do much more on the empowerment of all the circle of trust and the people who care for persons with disabilities, and I think we need also a strong political call for an EU funded instrument for an employment and skills guarantee, as already highlighted by a number of colleagues. I look forward to an open discussion. I'm on the ground also in Malta. I'm consulting a lot of persons with disabilities and their organisations, and I look forward to a qualitative input to this debate. Thanks a lot.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• “Thank you chair. First of all, thanks to the rapporteur and my colleagues as well for the work on this file. Certainly a very bold draft report from our colleague in our view. Of course, the new NLF needs to respond to our needs to advance environmental. Of course, digital alignment, but also competitiveness. We are living at a time where this assembly has expressed itself, has committed itself very clearly to advancing Europe's competitiveness. And this new NLF needs to be seen in this context as well. We are living at a time of geopolitical uncertainties, a return of tariff talk. And so the new NLF needs to complement our rules and integrate all our efforts to advance a sound business environment and boost consumer confidence. Certainly, this can be done, for instance, by reinforcing our links between European standardisation and international standardisation systems, thereby ensuring that our enterprises are not put at a competitive disadvantage when they compete in the international markets and in the European markets. Also, the NLF can be seen as a clean up and integration exercise, as proposed also by the rapporteur. But I think we need more than a consolidation. We need to go beyond. We can be more ambitious. For instance, we are interested in this NLF, NLF check of new legislation integrating the Commission impact assessment. I also need to point out that more can be done in aligning NLF with the standardization and standardization regulation and the ongoing evaluation being done by the Commission, as highlighted also by the rapporteur and also by a lot of colleagues in our first exchange on the 18th of March.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you chair. Thank you colleagues. Indeed, I compliment and I thank all the colleagues working on this, um, for their availability and their commitment and also the secretariats. There is a lot of common ground from what we have seen from the technical meetings, from the meetings with the members. First of all, the digital product passport. We share a view of a strong and coherent document that includes everything that is a real point of reference. That includes. Also see marking a clear reference document for for market surveillance authorities from standardization bodies and for obviously the producers themselves. We shared also that we need a strong political message for a circular economy to be expressed In the NLF, as clearly shown also in the in the European Commission public consultation, where this was a very strong message by by stakeholders that we need to facilitate remanufacturing and high end recycling of products. Here we care to point out, of course, that we need we are here intending to produce a template. This is what NLF is about. It's a toolbox for all the other legislation. So we need to have flexibility that this all depends on the product category, because of course there is a huge difference between one product to to the other. And we want an NLF, which is flexible and adaptable enough to to be able to produce good results on all the different products. A question which we need to ask in general between all of us in this committee is how wide we want this opinion to be this own initiative.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “You know. I think that our policy should be based on families in Malta. Property prices have increased by 50% in the last five years. This has led to several young couples not being able to get married and have their own family, because it's impossible to buy a property. I also meet couples going through separation after years of paying their loans, they are unable to buy a property each. In this plenary we must focus on solutions. European solutions first. What burdens are replacing on those who are trying to buy property. We cannot burden the construction industry on more expenses. For example, in the previous legislature, we increased tax on cement, on steel, on wood. These are the materials that we need to construct our houses. Therefore, I urge you, there needs to be an audit. Yes, an audit on the laws that we have passed already and how these are affecting the this industry.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “I follow this discussion with a lot of interest. You know, I come from Malta, which is also a member state, where we have our challenges when it comes to corruption and the rule of law. And you should know that in the case of Malta, the government also had a lot of reticence to join EPPO. In fact, one of the arguments put forward by the government's lawyers is the question of sovereignty that you mentioned and that have been mentioned in by the Hungarian government. Finally, thanks also to a lot of public pressure and also from us in the opposition, the government has decided to join EPPO. And let me tell you something. The people who are working in the government authorities, the people who are handling EU funds, they are happy that Malta is now in EPPO. Why? Because you have a partner to fight against corruption. Europe can be your partner to fight against corruption. This is not something that is against Hungary or the Hungarian people. This is something in favour of the Hungarian people in favour of their interests as EU citizens, in favour of their interest as people who pay VAT value added tax. This is the role of EPPO to fight fraud against value added tax. To see that EU funding is well used here in the European Parliament. We are fighting for a European Parliament with strong with the citizens to have funding for our children, for our youth, in educational programmes, for our companies to expand beyond our shores, for our all, our society to grow. And EPPO is our safeguard because it gives a mark of additional safeguard on our money. This is our money, all our money, the Hungarian people's money that we're speaking about. So if I can give you an example from Malta, you know, it's no use speaking about national sovereignty when it's EU money. So I appeal to you. Don't make it too political. Look at the future of the Hungarian people. Because finally, this is what we're speaking about. Their welfare in the educational programs, their welfare in all the EU investments in horizon, in research programs. Voila. That's my $0.05 to this discussion. Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Thank you. Chair. I think there are many societal objectives which we can reach, and I thank in advance all the rapporteurs for their work. However, there is an imperative which I think is identified also in the rapporteurs first draft, that this is public money and public money has to attach with public trust. And when I see this current directive 900 pages, I ask, does it allow SMEs to contest award decisions? For example, sometimes it allows them but at a heavy fees to to contest decision 20,000 50,000 to open a case against award decisions. Does the authorities are the authorities obliged to justify reasons when they use the negotiated procedure, which is a base for all the nepotism and favoritism that the rapporteur mentioned and some of you echoed. No, the directive does not oblige national authorities, local authorities, to justify the reasons for using the simplified procedure. So we need to find a balance for sure. We need to make a legislation which is easy to use for authorities, but public money needs to be attached with public trust. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. First of all, big thanks to MEP Cormann and all our colleagues for the sincere effort in. In these negotiations. It's clear that we are coming from different positions, but we are committed to try to find common ground. And the way we're seeing it, you know, new approach. We speak about new legislative framework because there was an old approach. And new approach must remain an approach which is industry driven, which is not too prescriptive. And NLF is always about providing a template for other legislation to be inspired to fit in. But of course, we need to recognise that cosmetics and telecoms and motor vehicles are totally different sectors. So our model has to provide all the flexibility to adapt to different product Categories, and our understanding is that there is in the in all our work as legislators, in our plenary discussions, in our committee discussions, there are several ongoing continuing commitments for us to increase the competitiveness of our businesses, to keep on. Our commitment to Europe being the best region for consumer protection. But at the same time, we are committing to reducing administrative burdens to producing a more competitive business environment. So now this boils down to the nitty gritty of our legislation. Right. And this is down also to and the left. So now is the moment to put the jigsaw puzzle together and make sure that we have an LWF which promotes competitiveness.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Big thanks for the committee for organising such a quality discussion with thanks to the input of the experts. I'd like to bring something different to what we heard. And maybe only after a consideration as a politician. First, I want to speak as a parent because we heard the scientific presentation here. But I can tell you, um, when you are a parent. I have three, three teenagers, and it's, uh, all of this, basically this worrying picture. You know, today you have a feeling that the that energy drinks are not good for your kids, but it is next to impossible to actually regulate them. So when you find energy drinks available next to schools, when you can buy them at the supermarket, uh, so easily, uh, it's basically impossible to, to control. Now, my experience also dealing with a lot of youths is, as one of the professors just noted, we are bringing up a culture where it is not okay to be tired. And we all know that being tired is part of life, but we are bringing up a generation where being tired is off the cards. Now I want to speak also as a politician, as an MEP. As we have seen, Efsa has an indicator that the three milligrams per kilo is okay. But how can we enforce this? I mean, if a single can has 180mg of caffeine. So I think here we have a big challenge in front of us as MEPs in all this House. We have two perspectives which are basically pleading us to act the single market perspective. Because as we have seen, one of the presentations tells us that you have already ten member states having age limits. And I think we have a health perspective as well, where the treaty tells us that the European Union should be acting in a way to complement the health policies of member states. So my question, rather than a question to the scientists, is a question to all our colleagues. What are we waiting to act? Maybe through at least starting with recommendations that the European Commission is competent to put forward in this field. Thanks a lot.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “And when it comes to the different points. I agree with the rapporteur that there are a lot of convergence on many areas. I think we have a basic understanding of a key, key number of messages that we need to convey on the responsible person there. We need to look also what's happening in other dossiers. On the digital passports, it needs to become the central pillar of all our work in the single market. And it's important also to promote the circular economy. I think we need to do some more work in, in our in our meetings on the speeding up of standardisation, uh, an aspect of uh, international first, when it comes to standards, we need to make sure that our continent remains, uh, our businesses remain in the lead when it comes to international competition. And, of course, we need to be a bit careful on elements of competence in the sense that it's true that this text, it's an own initiative. It can provide us with an opportunity to go into a number of our political wishes. But let's let's be careful on elements of competence. And finally, it will all depend on the wording we use to express wishes and commitments. Thank you.”
  Product passport
• “You know. I think that our policy should be based on families in Malta. Property prices have increased by 50% in the last five years. This has led to several young couples not being able to get married and have their own family, because it's impossible to buy a property. I also meet couples going through separation after years of paying their loans, they are unable to buy a property each. In this plenary we must focus on solutions. European solutions first. What burdens are replacing on those who are trying to buy property. We cannot burden the construction industry on more expenses. For example, in the previous legislature, we increased tax on cement, on steel, on wood. These are the materials that we need to construct our houses. Therefore, I urge you, there needs to be an audit. Yes, an audit on the laws that we have passed already and how these are affecting the this industry.”
  EU housing policy