Merja KYLLÖNEN

Policy topics Merja KYLLÖNEN is active on

What Merja KYLLÖNEN has said (22)

• 2026-03-24 “Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission 22.5.2026 Written question Regulation (EU) 2021/646 [1] does not permit the permanent deactivation of the emergency lane-keeping system (ELKS), regardless of the driving conditions or the driver's professional status. Therefore, even in winter conditions or for professional drivers, permanent deactivation is explicitly prohibited. While the regulation sets minimum safety requirements, it allows manufacturers to optimise system performance. The development of ELKS implementing regulation was informed by the impact assessment for Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 [2] , which evaluated the potential safety benefits of ELKS, including its effectiveness in reducing lane-departure collisions, while also considering potential drawbacks such as annoyance caused by unnecessary system interventions. The findings of this assessment underscored the importance of designing ELKS in a way that maximises safety benefits while minimising intrusiveness. The drafting of Regulation (EU) 2021/646 involved extensive consultation with representatives from automotive manufacturers, road safety organisations and type approval authorities. These stakeholders provided critical input on the technical specifications of the regulation, ensuring that the requirements for ELKS were both effective and practical, guaranteeing that it leads to practical improvements in road safety. Furthermore, an evaluation of the General Safety Regulation [3] is foreseen for July 2027, to evaluate the effectiveness of safety measures (including ELKS). [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0646. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0190. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/2144/oj/eng.”
  Driving licences
• 2026-02-09 “E-000529/2026 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The rights of indigenous peoples are an integral part of the EU’s human rights policy, as spelled out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Council conclusions on Indigenous Peoples of May 2017 underline the importance of addressing ‘the threats to and violence against indigenous peoples and individuals as well as to human rights defenders’ 1 . The EU is actively engaging in and directly supporting – through dedicated projects – all efforts to enhance the full, effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives and institutions in relevant UN bodies as well as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties. As stipulated in the European Council conclusions of 21-22 March 2024 2 , the EU calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Russia and an end to the persecution of the political opposition, as well as a stop to prosecutions of indigenous people, persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minority communities. On 27 May 2024, the EU decided to adopt a sanctions regime in view of human rights violations and abuses in Russia 3 . Currently, 72 individuals and one entity are sanctioned under this regime. The EU continues to support Russian civil society, human rights defenders and independent media. Trial observation by diplomats has been an important instrument. The Delegation of the EU to the Russian Federation representative observed the first hearing of the trial against Daria Egereva at Moscow City Court on 11 February 2026. 1 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8814-2017-INIT/en/pdf. 2 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/03/22/european-council-conclusions-21-and-22march-2024/. 3 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-against-russia-human-rights/.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022) · EU competences on human rights
• 2026-01-27 “E-000310/2026 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission The Commission refers to its reply to parliamentary question P-2169/25, and to its responses to Petitions No 0837/2019, No 0015/2023 and No 1212/2023, and to its response 1 to the Parliament Resolution 2 of 4 October 2023 on standardised dimensions for carry-on luggage. 1. The Commission acknowledges the potential inconvenience and confusion for passengers which results from the many different hand luggage policies in place at different airlines and for different classes of tickets. The 2023 passenger rights proposal 3 calls for the airline industry to engage fully with other relevant stakeholders to establish common industry standards on the weight and dimension of hand luggage. In 2024, Commission services organised two workshops towards this objective. Common standards are important to provide clarity to passengers. They should take into account both the business perspective and the objective of offering good travel conditions to passengers. 2. The Commission does not see the variations in the rules on the size of cabin baggage as an obstacle to free movement or the functioning of the internal market. However, common standards would improve clarity for consumers and make it easier to compare ticket offers of different airlines. 3. The Commission is looking at possible measures to clarify rules on cabin baggage allowances, including possible standards, as part of the review 4 of the Air Services Regulation 5 . 1 SP(2023)600 https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/spdoc.do?i=60474&j=0&l=en. 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0344_EN.html. 3 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulations (EC) No 261/2004, (EC) No 1107/2006, (EU) No 1177/2010, (EU) No 181/2011 and (EU) 2021/782 as regards enforcement of passenger rights in the Union COM/2023/753 final, recital 14. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14620-Aviation-EU-air-services-rulesrevision-_en. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1008/oj/eng.”
  EU policy on aviation safety
• 2026-01-27 “E-000311/2026 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission The list of ports included in the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) was revised recently as part of the broader review of the TEN-T framework, reflected in Regulation (EU) 2024/1679 1 . The entry criteria for ports and other nodes go beyond pure traffic-volume considerations. They are detailed in Article 25(4) of the regulation and the TEN-T planning methodology 2 . Article 58 of the regulation allows amendments to the network by means of delegated acts. However, considering the recent revision and the absence of requests for additions from Member States, the Commission currently has no plans for such amendments but is continuously monitoring the situation. The eligibility of ports for funding under the Connecting Europe Facility military mobility envelope relies – inter alia – on their location within the TEN-T and military mobility network. Therefore, for eligibility, non TEN-T ports would need to be included through the means of Article 58, as outlined above. The TEN-T policy promotes a sustainable, safe, efficient and resilient network by – inter alia – improving connectivity, upgrading rail links, reducing dwelling times, and strengthening intermodal capacity. This supports more reliable logistics and supply chains. Almost 75% of goods entering or leaving Europe go through EU ports, making them critical for European supply chains. This is set to be addressed further by the European Ports Strategy and EU Industrial Maritime Strategy. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202401679. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0471.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration · EU funding for transportation
• 2025-11-06 “E-004384/2025 Answer given by Commissioner McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Political Advertising Regulation 1 does not ban political advertising, nor does it regulate its content or impose general monitoring obligations on online platforms. These new rules ensure a level playing field, online and offline, help to protect the integrity of electoral processes and support an open democratic debate. On 8 October 2025, the Commission published Guidelines 2 to support the Regulation implementation. They offer guidance for sponsors and providers of political advertising services, including civil society actors and online platforms. The decisions of some online platforms to discontinue political advertising services in the EU are commercial decisions. The Commission is in contact with stakeholders and Member States to monitor and support the application of the Regulation and will organise an implementation dialogue in 2026 to draw insights from its application. A new stakeholder Expert Group will help monitoring the application of the Regulation. The Commission also announced a revision of the EU public procurement Directives for the second quarter of 2026. As part of this revision, the Commission intends to assess to what extent the definition of contracting authority can be clarified. To prepare this revision, the Commission intends to carry out an impact assessment to ensure that any proposed measure achieves its intended objectives, including simplification. As both the impact assessment and a preparatory open public consultation on policy options are ongoing, the Commission is not in a position at this stage to commit to any possible aspect of its forthcoming proposals. The Commission recently adopted the EU Strategy for Civil Society 3 which aims to further support and empower civil society actors. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/900 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/900/oj/eng. 2 C(2025) 6829 final — Communication from the Commission — Guidelines to support the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising. 3 COM(2025) 790 final – Communication from the Commission – EU Strategy for Civil Society.”
  EU engagement with civil society · Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2025-10-23 “E-004190/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The opinion of the European Chemicals Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee on talc was published on 9 July 2025. This independent group of highly skilled toxicologists recommended a classification of a presumed carcinogen (category 1B) for this substance. The Commission will analyse this opinion to decide whether it is appropriate to subject talc to a harmonised classification as carcinogen category 1B in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 1 . The Commission will consult and benefit from the expertise of the Competent Authorities for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 2 and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) expert group (CARACAL). A first discussion by this group is scheduled in January 2026. Honourable Members of the European Parliament can participate. Depending on the outcome of these discussions, if talc were to be classified, direct consequences would be limited to relabelling and repackaging. If additional regulatory actions for talc at EU level would be triggered, the Commission would take into account socio-economic considerations to identify the most appropriate solution. According to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, the Commission decision on the classification of a substance must be based on robust scientific facts, including the hazardous properties of the substance, and in broad consultation with all parties involved. The process in place ensures that the Commission’s decisions on harmonised classification are evidence-based and scientifically robust. Harmonised classifications of substances take place through delegated acts that are subject to the right of scrutiny of the European Parliament and the Council. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02008R1272-20170101. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20250901.”
  Chemicals regulation · Classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals
• 2025-05-27 “E-002127/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission In accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2735 (2024), the EU rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial changes in the Gaza Strip and supports unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority, as the EU recalled in its position in view of the 13th EU-Israel Association Council held on 24 February 2025 1 . Following the exchange at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 May 2025, with the support of the majority of Member States, the High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) announced the review of Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement in view of the untenable humanitarian situation in Gaza 2 . The review was presented at the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 June 2025 3 . The Foreign Ministers agreed that the EU’s aim is improving the humanitarian situation on the ground and decided to revert to the discussion at the Foreign Affairs Council on 15 July 2025 if the situation does not improve. On 15 July 2025, as requested by the European Council, the HR/VP presented an inventory of possible follow-up measures for the review of Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the Association Agreement. Discussions are ongoing in the relevant Council working parties regarding the adoption of additional measures against violent settlers, as well as against Hamas/Palestine Islamic Jihad supporters. The recognition of states is the competence of the Member States. The EU will continue to work with international partners towards reviving a political process in view of a two-state solution, including through the Global Alliance for the implementation of the two-state solution. The EU reiterated that a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood is a crucial component of that political process 4 . 1 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6511-2025-INIT/en/pdf. 2 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2025/05/20/. 3 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2025/06/23/. 4 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/qa3lblga/euco-conclusions-27062024-en.pdf.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-03-26 “E-001278/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission As part of the sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia in response to its war of aggression against Ukraine, the assets of the Central Bank of Russia held by central securities depositories (CSDs) in the EU have been immobilised since February 2022 1 . In May 2024, the Council decided to set aside the extraordinary (‘windfall’) profits stemming from Russian immobilised sovereign assets and to use those profits for the benefit of Ukraine 2 . In July 2024, the first financial contribution of EUR 1.5 billion of ‘windfall profits’, accrued since February 2024, has been received from CSDs and has since been disbursed to help Ukraine. In April 2025, a second transfer of EUR 2.1 billion of windfall profits accrued during the second half of 2024 has been received to be used to support Ukraine. Following up on the commitments by the Group of Seven (G7) leaders to make available approximately USD 50 billion (EUR 45 billion) loans by the end of 2024 by leveraging the extraordinary revenues of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets, the EU adopted a new financial assistance package to Ukraine 3 . It consists of an exceptional macro-financial assistance loan of up to approximately EUR 18 billion and a loan cooperation mechanism that will support Ukraine in repaying loans provided by the EU and G7 partners for up to EUR 45 billion. The loan cooperation mechanism is to be financed by extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilised Russian assets. All legally and financially sound options remain on the table to continue pressuring Russia to stop its war of aggression against Ukraine. Any further measures regarding Russian immobilised assets are to be determined by the Council. 1 Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/577 of 12 February 2024 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/577, 14.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/577/oj). 2 Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1470 of 21 May 2024 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/1470/oj). 3 Regulation (EU) 2024/2773 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2024 establishing the Ukraine Loan Cooperation Mechanism and providing exceptional macro-financial assistance to Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/2773, 28.10.2024 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2773/oj).”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term) · EU-Ukraine relations
• 2025-01-29 “E-000390/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission Demographic and societal changes are increasing the need for long-term care (LTC). By 2050, the number of people needing LTC is expected to rise to 37.8 million. The Council Recommendation on access to affordable high-quality LTC 1 and the European Care Strategy 2 , as well as the Demography Toolbox 3 set out a comprehensive policy framework to drive investments and reforms. National implementation reports showcase ambitious policy measures, but also challenges, in particular related to availability of services and workforce. EU initiatives include the State of LTC 4 , a reform-assisting tool, an analytical package focused on workforce, technical support and EU funding. A large-scale partnership under the Pact for Skills 5 contributes to training at least 3.8 million LTC workers by 2030 and a Social Dialogue Committee for social services 6 helps improve working conditions in the sector. A toolkit to support informal carers will be launched in 2025. The Commission will continue supporting the implementation of the European Care Strategy and work on creating a more coherent framework for addressing LTC workforce challenges, including facilitating the recognition of skills and qualifications, supporting skills development and career progression, and improving working conditions. The planned social policy initiatives, including Quality Jobs Roadmap, Pillar Action Plan and the Anti-Poverty Strategy, as well as the recently delivered ones, such as Union of Skills 7 , will contribute to this objective and strengthen LTC systems. In 2027, the Commission will prepare a report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022DC0441 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5169 3 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/communication-demographic-change-europe-toolbox-action_en 4 https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2024-10363-50135-75508 5 https://pact-for-skills.ec.europa.eu/index_en 6 https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-decision-setting-european-social-dialoguecommittee-social-services-2023-07-10_en 7 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/union-skills_en”
  EU competences on social policies · Support for families
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues. Europe's automotive industry stands at a crossroad. Our goal to achieve climate neutrality is beyond question. But the path we choose must be guided by reason, innovation and fairness. A blanket ban on internal combustion engines risks doing the opposite. It penalizes technologies rather than emissions, discourages investment in new synthetic and renewable fuels, and weakens the global competitiveness of Europe's Europe's car industry. An industry that employs millions and drives much of our research and exports through progress comes not from banning technologies, but from unleashing innovation across all technologies that reduce carbon. Electric mobility is essential, yes, but so are low carbon fuels, hydrogen hybrid solution, new fuels and continuous efficiency improvements. Climate policy should set targets, not dictate tools. A technological, technologically neutral approach keeps Europe at the forefront of clean mobility. Let us lead with innovation, not prohibition. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Strongest are still here. Thanks for this. I have a couple of questions and remarks because I work lots with maritime industry and ports also. And I think that there's fundamental differences between electricity supply to road vehicles and to maritime vessels. And what was inside my mind is that, was there consultation with ports about this case, or was it only ship owners? I just got a little bit feeling that more ship owners listening. But it's the complexity of this thing that how we compare or do the direct comparability of both sectors, it's not easy. But I think we check out the whole system, the cost structures and the existing operable area where we are. The significant differences exist across also the ports and member states due to diverging energy prices, different infra costs and subsidies, of course. And these differences are structural and should be recognized widely. And also the seasonality and winter conditions, surprisingly, I'm always speaking about the winter conditions. For example, for cruises in Northern Europe significantly impact pricing and the seasonal effect in white. Transparency on seasonal definition and impact is very essential in this case. And also the reassessment of kind of natural monopoly when we are mentioning OPS as a natural monopoly, should be reconsidered as ships retain choice between ports and terminals. And OPS pricing will be part of the commercial strategy of the terminals and the ports. And also the question of that, will the user pay or who will pay the bill in this market? And I think it's not so easy. Maybe I'm so difficult because my former assistant works with maritime sector and this area. But I think it's the strategic understanding and the wide perspective, it's not easy. Thank you.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Thank you, madam chair. Dear colleagues, report on the proposal amending the Miraculous Directive 92/6/EEC as regards exempting certain category N2 electric vehicles from the requirement to install and use speed limitation devices. This is a targeted and proportionate amendment that responds to technological developments in the road transport sector and supports the transition towards cleaner mobility. The current legislation requires vehicles within the scope of the directive to be equipped with speed limitation devices. While this framework has served important road safety objectives for many years, it was designed at the time when electric commercial vehicles did not exist in the form we know today. And as a result, certain N2 category electric vehicles are currently subject to requirements that may no longer be fully justified in light of the technical characteristics and intended use. The commission's proposal seeks to address this issue by introducing a limited exemption for specific N2 electric vehicles. The aim is to remove an unnecessary regulatory burden while maintaining a high level of road safety. As a reporter, I welcome this proposal because it strikes an appropriate balance between safety, innovation and competitiveness. First, road safety remains our primary concern. Any exemption must be carefully defined and supported by evidence demonstrating that it does not create additional risk for other road users. The proposed amendment is narrow in scope and applies only to a specific category of vehicles whose operational characteristics differ from those of conventional heavy commercial vehicles. Second, this proposal contributes to the broader objective of accelerating the deployment of zero-emission vehicles across Europe. This decarbonization of road transport is one of the key challenges facing the European Union. Regulatory frameworks should facilitate rather than unintentionally hinder the uptake of innovative and sustainable technologies. Third, the proposal supports the competitiveness of European industry. Manufacturers investing in electric commercial vehicles need a regulatory environment that reflects technological realities and avoids unnecessary costs or administrative obstacles. Simplifying requirements where they no longer serve their original purpose is an important part of better regulation. At the same time, parliament underlines that any regulatory adaptation must preserve legal clarity, ensure consistent implementation across member states and maintain citizens' confidence in the union's commitment to road safety. Dear colleagues, this proposal demonstrates that European legislation can evolve alongside technological processes. By updating our requirements while maintaining robust safety standards, we can support innovation, strengthen our industrial base and advance our climate objectives. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, budgetary questions can be of extremely complex nature. However, I want with this opinion on the next Multiannual Financial framework and with your help, to send a simple message. That message is exactly the same as the one carried by our colleagues of the Budget Committee. We need a strong European budget to face the many tasks ahead of us. Therefore, this opinion endorses and is built on the proposals made by the Budget Committee of a stronger European budget of EUR Two 7% of GNP, and it does this by reminding the existing shortcomings of our transport networks and stressing the many needs and challenges ahead of us in the world of before the world where last MFF was proposed, transport networks were mostly seen as links of physically creative internal markets and better connected territories. War seemed unthinkable. Therefore, military mobility was acceded to. Budgetary hassling and logistics was just a tool to ensure a smoother circulation of goods. However, the Covid crisis showed us the importance of functioning supply chains and shortcomings were already striking with regards to the objectives that were set in those innocent times. The complaint Completion of the Core and Extend core 20 network is estimated to require an amount of 845 billions of euros over the next 14 years.”
  Size of EU budget
• “President. Commissioner. Connectivity, capacity, cooperation. These are key issues in European traffic development. Transport networks. Infrastructure networks are the backbone of European competitiveness. We need good connections on the ground, underground, in inland waterways, in space and everywhere in between. We also need self-sufficiency and in in fuel production and also infrastructure, IT systems and measures to promote good use of infrastructures. Europe shouldn't give up coordinating its network, and CEF is an important financing tool, and Ten-t is a European network, and it guarantees that all traffic modes cooperate and everybody can move everywhere, all at all times. So we need cooperation also with military mobility. But we should not forget cooperation networks and financing facilities. Thank you.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “This is not only the case for the 500 hotspot for military mobility identified by the Commission. This is the case for all the existing supply chains that runs through the continent. I think there are lots of important things. I have used much more time than the chair already gave me. I think finally I will say that you will see in this draft opinion report that there is a little Nordic flavour to take into account the specificity, specificities and needs of ensuring transport and logistics in Arctic areas. This is no longer a tropism coming from my home region of Kainuu, but also an interest shared by the powerful of this world. Let's show them we share the same interest. I think the Nordic is a key issue at this point. I'm looking forward to work with with all of you on this file and with your all amendments, which are weighted, as Sarah said. Deadline 29th of January. So running fast this week is the end point of our amendments. Thank you.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Thank you, madam chair, dear colleagues. I would like to thank the Rappeters, Sadur Rappeters and their teams for excellent work on this, file already. The Connecting Europe facility is 1 of the European Union's most important investment instruments. Through it, we built transport networks that connect member states, strengthened the single market and support Europe's competitiveness. As a Saudi rapporteur for transport, I welcome the fact that the implementation of the TNT network remains at the core of the program. Europe needs more cross border connections to complemention of missing links and infra that enables efficient and sustainable transport throughout the union. At the same time, we must ensure the right balance between the program's objectives. Security and military mobility are important priorities in the current geopolitical environment. But we must remember that it doesn't happen at the expense of investments in civilian transport infra, the development of railway sports, multimodal terminals and other sustainable transport solutions remains essential for Europe's economic growth and for achieving our climate objectives. I would also like to underline the importance of the cohesion. The development of transport networks must benefit the whole of Europe including peripheral regions and those member states where infra gaps remain significant. European added value must remain the key criterion for allocating funding. Furthermore, we need simpler application procedures, faster decision making and more efficient use of resources. Every euro invested should deliver visible results for European citizens and businesses. The Connecting Europe facility is not merely an infra program, it is investment in Europe's competitiveness, security and unity. Thank you.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “We are already very far from the objectives set at the time, despite the clear added value of those needed investments. Where each euro invested generates 3.3 more of additional GDP. And those are not only figures. We speak of remote territories being connected of cross border infra, ensuring smoother flow of goods. Modern and safe infra and networks enhancing the journeys of millions of Europeans. Those objectives alone justify investing consistently and ambitiously in our transport networks. But in the world of today, transport networks become more than a tool for growth. It is a strategic asset for resilience and even deterrence. The cohesion of a complex entity is what makes it hold when facing an external and internal shock. We are unfortunately too often reminded by this recently. That is exactly the same for transport networks that altogether form and very sophisticated system, bringing people and delivering goods through complex and myriad of actors and connecting points. Those links and the missing ones are not only nodes that need to be enhanced to insource more connections, smooth connections. There are vital points that shape our resilience. Therefore, we not only need to upgrade existing infrastructure and nodes to ensure smooth flows like we used to do, We also need to assess where our weaknesses are and where we divert the traffic of goods and people? If some of those keynotes were to fail or to be targeted.”
  EU funding for transportation
• “(15:50:28 – 15:53:49): Dear chair, dear commissioner, I will stick to the issue as Finns do. Europe stands at a decisive moment. Our ports, long seen as gateways for trade, must now become engines of transform transformation. The European Union's new port strategy is an important step forward, I think, But its true value will only be realized if it connect it more if we connect it more ambitiously to Europe's broader goals, competitiveness, circular economy development, energy transition, and strategic autonomy. Ports are no longer just logistical nodes. They are industrial ecosystems. They sit at the intersection of supply chains, energy system, and regional economies. And if we treat them merely as infra, we miss their full powerful potential. To strengthen Europe is Europe's competitiveness, our ports must evolve in into innovation hubs. This means investing in digitalization, automation and smart logistics, but also ensuring that regulatory framework enable also rapid experimentation and scaling across borders. A fragmented approach will only slow us down in the global race where speed and integration matters. At the same time, ports are uniquely positioned to accelerate the circular economy. They can become centers for material recovery, recycling and reuse, linking industries that would otherwise remain disconnected. By embedding circular processes into port operations and surrounding industrial clusters, we can reduce waste, cut emissions, and create entirely new value chains. Energy is another critical dimension. Europe's ambition for energy independence depends heavily on what happens in and around its ports. And I think this is strengthening the new role in energy system. It's not just an environmental necessity. It is a geopolitical imperative. But none of this can happen in isolation. The real breakthrough lies in cooperation that goes beyond administer on an administering boundaries across regions, sectors, and even national national frameworks. And, when boards collaborate cities, industries, energy providers, research institutions, we unlock synergies that no single actor could achieve alone. Let me end with this. How do we ensure the transport sector does not operate in a silo, but instead actively facilitates and brings the entire ecosystem, industry, energy, innovation, and policy into this shared transformation. And also, how we could keep those ports inside the financial scope, which are important for military mobility, but not inside the 10 10 t network.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Thank you Mister Chair, dear colleagues, and thanks to you all who organized this important meeting, our dear guests. I think peace and hope for the youngest generation is the big key issue also in Africa when we are speaking about safety and security issues. Here in the Parliament we mostly speak about Ukraine and Russia, and I think we should speak more about Africa also. At the moment we see what is happening in Sudan. It's heartbreaking and we should act more faster than we are doing today. But what is my big question today? Because I really try to understand how we are being a good partner to our African family, because being as an equal partner and really listening to what you want to say to us and what we want to learn and what we want to hear is the key issue. And how do you see what are the right things where we really should focus when we try to change the world better for the next generations, which eager sent us at least for me and Aitik Hilda messages that please help us and see us, hear the voices, the young generation voices. And what would be the message for us today from your point of view? Thank you.”
  EU development aid (migration conditionality)
• “Thank you, mister chair, dear colleagues. First of all, I would like to apologize that we were not able to produce a draft base report within this expected timeframe. Perhaps this also reflects the challenge of bringing together the work of 3 big separate committees each approaching the issues from somewhat different starting points and perspectives. That said, I'm confident that through the amendment process, we will be able to find the necessary solutions and finalize a strong overall package. For my part, I approach this work with the intention of being part of the solution rather than be part of the problem or the creation. I look forward to continuing our work together in a constructive spirit and moving the process forward. The starting point of this commission proposal is straightforward. European legislation must remain ambitious, but it must also be efficient, coherent and proportionate. In recent years, we high goal manufacturers, approval authorities and testing bodies have had to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory framework. At the same time, technology has evolved rapidly, particularly into areas of vehicle digitalization, automation and advanced safety systems. The commission proposal seeks to remove unnecessary overlaps, streamline the type approval framework and modernize testing procedures so that they better reflect today's technological realities. The objective is not to weaken safety or environmental protection. Rather, I think it's to achieve the same high standards through simpler, more effective and more practical procedures. In parliament's work on this file, I think we have to focus on key 3 key principles. Simplification must never lead to lower safety requirements or weaker market surveillance. It can be smarter, but not weaker. Citizens must be able to trust that every vehicle placed on the European markets meets the highest standards of safety and compliance. And second, we must strengthen the competitiveness of Europe's automotive industry. They need to know what we are going to do now. And after 10 years, manufacturers are operating in increasingly challenging global environment, reducing administrative burdens, streamlining testing procedures and eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy will help companies focus resources on innovation, cleaner technologies and investments in Europe's future industrial capacity. I wait anxiously your amendments and let's see what happens after that. I'm ready to work for smart, brilliant compromises. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(10:37:28 – 10:40:16): Thank you, madam chair, dear colleagues. As such a rapporteur, I would like to thank the commission, the rapporteur and all stakeholders for their contributions to this important file. The transport sector remains 1 of the largest sources of greenhouse greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. Achieving our climate objectives requires a credible and predictable regulatory framework that supports decarbonization while preserving competitiveness, innovation and jobs throughout the European automotive value chain. In the coming negotiations, I will focus on 5 priorities. First, preserving long term predictability for industry and investors and for the people in Europe. Second, ensuring that emission reductions deliver real environmental benefits while safeguarding Europeans' competitiveness. Third, creating a labeling system that is simple, transparent and useful for consumers and professional users alike. Fourth, upholding the principle of technological neutrality. As my colleague from, Renu, I have supported this idea for a long time. European legislation should set environmental objectives, not prescribe a single technological pathway. Innovation can emerge from multiple solutions and the regulatory framework should remain open to technologies that effectively contribute to emissions reductions. And as a dual use MEP, Zede Tran, I'm interested also about the resilience. So the fifth is to ensuring that resilience becomes an integral part of our assessment of future mobility solutions. De carbonization and resilience must go hand in hand. Europe cannot build a transport system that is environmentally sustainable, but vulnerable to distrust, disruptions in electricity supply or critical infra. We must ask a simple question. If electricity is temporarily or large scale unavailable, how do essential transport services continue to operate? A future legislation should therefore support a diversified and resilient technological ecosystem capable of maintaining mobility, logistics and emergency services under all circumstances. Thank you, madam chair.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Honourable chairman, dear Commissioner, look to the future connect security of supply, transport, mobility and new defence policy to secure Europe. We do not need new European troops. We need smart use of existing powers, smart cooperation with supportive NATO countries. We need technological cooperation, smart use of European taxpayers money, workable security of supply and wider perspective to security policy. Check out Ten-t maps. Build Arctic knowledge, logistical security of supply throughout Europe, check weak links. Analyze and understand dual use also in transport and act wisely. Never lose the connectivity in EU. It is our securities wide backbone. Workable defense needs, smart use of money and resilient basis. Security of supply, transport, energy. Fuels. Food. Water. Healthcare, mental strong people. Resilient Europe new way of defence thinking. Build functional supply chain together with strong old companies. With smart new companies. Together we can solve the problems. And I trust you to lead the forces, Commissioner.”
  EU competences on defence