Massimiliano SALINI

Policy topics Massimiliano SALINI is active on

What Massimiliano SALINI has said (26)

• 2025-07-09 “P-002795/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission As announced in the Industrial Action Plan for the European automotive sector 1 , the Commission is accelerating work on the preparation of the review of the Regulation setting CO 2 standards for cars and vans 2 . The review will be based on a fact-based analysis, taking into account all relevant technological developments, and the importance of an economically viable and socially fair transition to zero-emission mobility. In this context, on 7 July 2025, the Commission launched a public consultation and a call for evidence, which will be open until 10 October 2025. The call for evidence recalls that getting to the 2035 climate neutrality targets will require a technology-neutral approach, in which efuels have a role to play. The public consultation questionnaire, which covers the evaluation and impact assessment of the CO 2 standards and the parallel review of the Car labelling Directive 3 , includes questions on the role of sustainable renewable fuels and about additional flexibilities for target compliance. The Regulation on CO 2 standards for heavy-duty vehicles 4 was recently revised and entered into force on 1 July 2024. The Commission acknowledges the need to work without delay on the enabling conditions, in particular as regards recharging and refuelling infrastructure and grids, and will focus its efforts on tackling these challenges. 1 COM(2025)95 final. 2 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/631/oj. 3 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1999/94/oj. 4 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1242/oj.”
  Road transport environmental policy · Climate efforts
• 2025-04-23 “E-001616/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission recognises the benefits of combined transport in reducing emissions, congestion, and costs, and actively supports its development through EU policies and funding instruments. However, decisions concerning the reopening of specific routes, such as the Autostrada Ferroviaria Alpina (AFA), to ensure sufficient transport services, remain within the competence of the relevant national authorities. EU’ strategic infrastructure priorities are defined through the TEN-T Regulation 1 and supported by the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), which allocates funding based on alignment with EU transport objectives and demonstrated European added value. The route between Orbassano and Aiton forms part of the TEN-T network along the Mediterranean Corridor of the European Transport Network. As such, it is subject to the obligations set out in the TEN-T Regulation and must achieve compliance with its requirements by 2030. 2. The Commission services have been informally contacted by the Member States concerned in relation to the reactivation of a joint contribution measure to reduce the cost of the Autostrada Ferroviaria Alpina services. 3. The main EU instruments to support workers affected by restructuring are the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF). The former provides anticipatory support for upskilling, reskilling, and inclusive employment initiatives as the latter offers one-off, reactive assistance in major restructuring cases by co-financing active labour market measures aimed at bringing dismissed workers back into sustainable employment as quickly as possible. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1679/oj/eng.”
  EU funding for transportation · EU transport infrastructure integration · EU support of rail transport
• 2025-04-15 “E-001543/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Articles 12(6) and 13(2) of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation 1 (PPWR) require the Commission to adopt an implementing act establishing harmonised labels for consumer waste sorting on the packaging and on waste receptacles. Within the Commission, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) has been mandated to deliver the technical support and evidencebased recommendations for the development of these labels 2 , with a clear objective to come up with a harmonised approach to reduce barriers to the internal market. The prototype does not require the use of text on the packaging labels and the Commission does not support a labelling approach that may cause market fragmentation. The JRC assessed the risk that national translations could cause fragmentation and higher compliance cost for businesses and consumers. The JRC is expected to deliver its recommendations by the end of summer 2025. Based on these, the Commission will prepare a draft implementing act which will be presented for discussion to the newly established Expert Group for Waste which includes all relevant stakeholders from the industry. 1 Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. 2 Interim report: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC135860.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · Circular economy
• 2025-03-21 “E-001215/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission Under Article 43(1)(a) of Directive 2014/23/EU 1 , concessions may be modified during their term without a new procurement procedure where the modifications, irrespective of their monetary value, have been provided for in the initial concession documents in clear, precise and unequivocal review clauses, which may include value revision clauses, or options. Such clauses shall state the scope and nature of possible modifications as well as the conditions under which they may be used. They shall not provide for modifications or options that would alter the overall nature of the concession. In line with Article 291(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the implementation of legally binding Union acts is in the first place the responsibility of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 19(1), second subparagraph, Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law. It is therefore for national courts and review bodies referred to in the Directives on remedies in public procurement 2 to assess the facts and determine whether the contracting authority respected its obligations under EU law. Based on the information provided, it is not possible to assess whether State aid rules are complied with in the present situation. It however belongs to the Member State to assess whether the extension of a concession for a tolled motorway entails new aid and therefore requires a notification to the Commission. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014L0023. 2 Directive 89/665/EEC - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:01989L066520140417; and Directive 92/13/EEC - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31992L0013; as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC - https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007L0066 and Directive 2014/23/EU.”
  EU funding for transportation · EU Competition policy
• 2025-02-13 “E-000689/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to apply the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox 1 . The reinforced small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and competitiveness checks will be applied systematically to all envisaged legislation with foreseeable effects on companies, particularly on small businesses 2 . The proposal for a revision of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) 3 , planned for the fourth quarter of 2025, will respect the Better Regulation requirements. The Commission has been working on the revision of REACH already under the previous mandate. This has allowed the Commission to carry out extensive consultations with stakeholders and a robust analysis of the expected impacts through the procurement of specific studies and the support of the Joint Research Centre and the European Chemicals Agency. In the context of the Chemicals Industry Package and the objective of simplifying rules for the chemicals industry without compromising on safety and environmental protection, the Commission is currently updating the impact assessment accompanying the legislative proposal. The updated impact assessment will focus on simplification and the analysis of impacts on SMEs and competitiveness. Moreover, the Commission will further consult and involve all relevant stakeholders to gather their views and recommendations. For instance, a strategic dialogue on 25 March 2025 and dedicated discussions in an expert group meeting on 3 April 2025 have been organised to gather additional stakeholders’ perspectives. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-andtoolbox_en 2 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on simplification and implementation. COM(2025) 47 final. 3 OJ L 396, 30.12.2006.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you president. Well, in what's left of international law, it's already difficult to agree on the concept of legitimate defence. So you can imagine how difficult it is to agree on the concept of preventive war, which was the reason given for the attack on Iran. I do, however, think that it's actually not that useful for individual heads of state. Heads of state and government express their individual views, which are more than moral, more moral than political with regard to what's going at the international level. However, it does seem to me to be more more useful for European authorities to try and get over their own problem, which is that they don't really have an overarching single remit in terms of defence and foreign policy. We really need to try and get over the deficiencies of in the treaties and try and build a position, a common position, because it's not really all about our individual statements as from individual heads of state and government. Our strength is in the unity of the peoples of Europe. And this goes for economic policy, which is why we have to review some of the pillars of European energy policy, because some of the asymmetries there are causing us massive economic and social problems. And then also in terms of deterrence, we need to talk about common deterrents when we talk about defense policy.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Thank you. Just an initial observation on the electricity market design. It came at a critical stage, and in fact, it was built up rather hastily. The establishing of electricity prices needs to be changed. The marginal cost approach unbalances the final energy cost, skewing it to fossil fuels. And it undermines everything we've done on renewables. So it needs to be decoupled. The alternative would be to commit the public to expensive state aid, whereas this would be a zero cost Amendment on the electricity market design. It would be useful to get an answer from the Commission about whether they're thinking about a genuine impact assessment report involving all stakeholders. This impacts on steel as well. Uh, we've talked about green steel. We've talked about scrap. We've talked about, uh, rules for exports of scrap. But how the commission has said on critical raw materials it's prepared to be self critical. Let's hope so.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you. The direction we're moving in with the chemicals omnibus is something which, in our view, is in line with the demands and needs of the industry and people of Europe. This classification regarding the chemicals industry. Cosmetics, fertilisers. Overall, it seems to be reliable. The package on chemicals, however, is extremely complex as we've just heard. We've seen a rapid drop in investment in the sector. We are just consolidating our existing industry now. We're not innovating, we're not investing in new projects or products. So what were the pillars of the chemicals industry be in the future? As we've just heard, one of the key issues is energy costs, energy security and its cost. We haven't heard anything about prospects where we would have a single European electricity market fully harmonised. The future of ETS, for example, is something which we have to look into. We should be very cautious with the permit system, and auctions for ETS can be used to fund innovation in the chemical sector. Uh, chemical products, hydrogen. Other major projects which can be part of the transition. So a couple of other points. First of all, technical neutrality. Let's not repeat the mistakes we made in the automotive sector. Secondly, classification of substances. Uh, let's let's leave aside this question of generic risk. Let's assess the specific risks of substances so as to ensure that we combine both innovation and safety and security for our citizens. Thank you, Mr. Shim. Thank you, Madam President. Research shows that practically all Dutch people have too much of us in their blood, and I'm sure that applies to other Europeans.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you. I think we all got it wrong in this debate. As institutions, we got our priorities wrong. There's a general framework and targets. You normally have that in politics, but we had this new model, which is that politicians were deciding and dictating exactly what technologies should be used. So we've gone from a market economy to dirigisme to a top down approach where we're stifling innovation and we're not able to meet the main challenges. Autonomous vehicles are coming back in the commission proposal to date, but where was it? Throughout the rest of the debate, we were only talking about traditional vehicles, so there are some points in the commission proposal where they do hit the right note. I think intervening now in relation to fines is appropriate and also new forms of technology. I'm also pleased to note that the Commission is saying there will be a revision at the end of this by the end of this year, that it won't be leaving it till 2026. What kind of revision do we want to see? We want it to be ambitious. Yes. And it shouldn't only be moving in one direction. It should be opening up markets so that citizens and businesses can decide what they want, rather than politicians dictating to people what they ought to want, what what they ought to want. So technological freedom.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “(10:22:45 – 10:27:28): And then there's an issue linked to the underlying rules, CBAM discipline to radically restrict that risk of illusion. We think we need to limit, the commission's timelines with regard to certain products. And the idea would be to not use the accelerated procedures to remove certain third countries from the scope. We are well aware that there's the critical situation of a country such as Ukraine. Nevertheless, the commission's proposal is to lengthen uncertain, and the industrial sector and the institutions, in my view, need greater predictability in areas such as this. So for the time being, we think that this proposal cannot be accepted, and it needs to be amended, radically amended, or taken out entirely. Finally, the commission needs to pinpoint clear indicators related to all imports connected to the CBAM measure. In the initial phase in particular, we really need to understand the true positive impact of the measure on our markets. And where there aren't positive effects, we need to think that probably if there aren't positive measures, we would need to a pro positive in impacts, we'd need to suspend the the block that we foresaw to compensate for the advantages of CBAM. So where there aren't advantages, there should be fewer exclusions or a block on these free quotas. Now the second point now, the temporary decarbonization fund. This is a good proposal. In the initial discussion phase on CBAM, we asked not only for intervention on imports, but also on exports. So on the global markets, European producers face significant competition. Nevertheless, the fund takes into account a very reduced field, 25% maximum of revenue from CBAM, and then some have to go, towards administrative activities. Therefore, we think that we need to assess ongoing verification of the measures so as to adapt the economic dimension because for the time being, it will be far below what's expected. Then I'd like to add a point. It's more strategic. The commission has rightly decided to use this measure for, sectors particularly involved in exports, and therefore, there's a this is for an export field. But we need to carry out a more in-depth assessment because if a sector today isn't specifically involved in exports because the products aren't innovative, for example, that's 1 thing. But if the lack of presence on global markets is because of the negative impact of this fund, well, then perhaps they should be included in the use of the temporary decarbonization fund. Now it's quite simple. We need to support exports. That's correct, not only for people who are already exporting, but also for people who don't export for reasons included in the effects that we're talking about. So we've come up with a proposal here that we hope will be the most peaceful possible. Thank you. Thanks, Massimiliano.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you. Now we're having a discussion. Uh, about which is quite repetitive in nature. We're trying to insert new elements in order to change the way that we look at the situation, the future of competitiveness in Europe. There are a number of different issues that we've touched upon, for example, the reduction of the of European products on the world market and the and overall, the situation where we have reduction of, uh, of the GDP and at the same time, uh, increase in the United States. But we've spoken about the technical aspects, but the real, real protagonists here are companies manufacturing the culture of companies in Europe. Also, the impact of our omnibus, uh, we've only looked there at the direct results. But it's not just the direct results. It's the relaunching, if you like, of a culture of companies, of entrepreneurial approach, if you like. Looking at the costs and look at the ways of production, electrical energy, the role that it plays there. But we didn't take into consideration something for the ETS, the ETAs for 25 megawatt hours, the cost of that, it's very, very high. Why? Because it's costs that are generated by the financial intermediaries. In other words, you cut from one thing and you create burdens elsewhere. So we have to look at competitivity. It's not just the technical aspect, but it has to we have to look at companies themselves. We need a culture, a company culture, entrepreneurial culture that's boosted in Europe or otherwise. We're going to be condemned to this situation of fragmentation and lack of success.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, this is not the first time, but you've shown that the commission has an approach that we feel very sympathetic to because we it emphasizes the real lag in European industry. 10% or less of production in Germany, 5% less in France. It's in Italy. What is the priority? Recovering investment capacity of industry but industry? But it's too bad. When you look at the budgets and you see that, you look at the balance sheet, we see how are the prices of, um, the price hikes in carbon corresponds to the decrease in investments. So we cannot give up the instruments that we've established to try to have sustainable companies. We need to decrease costs of sustainability, but we need to increase our investments. We have implemented simplification by omnibus. Omnibus and certain reforms are zero cost. The horizontal strategy on the single market seemed to be quite effective, at least in the last mandate. Another type of investment that it might be interesting to develop, that each proposed legislation could have kind of a single market test to check not only how it is adapted vertically, but if it is able to keep a European single market in an effective way. We've got to simplify these processes and support investments so that we don't have to give up the challenge of sustainability like certain parties seem to be advocating.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you. Madam president, we are discussing a change to the legislation that has a very simple aim. We want to ensure decarbonisation of road transport using the best available technology currently on the market. It's not less ambitious. The idea is not to stick rigidly to one example of technology. And I think that's good. This is avoiding the errors of the past. If you look at trade unions and industry, an in-depth market analysis has shown yes, there will be a cost to this change, but the cost will now be less than the cost there would be with the current regulation. And it's the best kind of cost because it's an investment. If you look at the entire life cycle of the fuel or of the vehicle, then you get the proper full calculation if you like. You shouldn't focus exclusively on the emission. So this is taking account of our research and it is a non-punitive approach to decarbonization. So I think this is common sense. This is. The spirit of trying to find an agreement rather than improvising. So I hope it goes well.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much. The plan proposed by the European Commission goes in the direction, in the right direction, with a number of different instruments of a financial nature, nature or infrastructural proposals as well, which will help to reduce the cost of energy. The problem is, however, that many of the different aspects of this different parts, if you like the parts of the programme, are too slow, not speedy enough. What we need are interventions which will take place today for those who are consuming today, particularly in industry, so that they can see the positive effects. Now, the Commissioner has made correct references to the necessity to to decouple in a special fashion the calculation of the price energy produced from fossil fuels and energy produced from renewables as well. So this is part of the discussion as well. The possibility of this particular distinction is something that has to be taken into consideration, but we'll have to look at the impacts of this particular possibility because we find ourselves in very, very difficult and difficult and diverse times as well. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you. Well, we know very well that American tariffs and this provocation Action is not going to help the US industry get started again. When you look at the US economy, the EU economy, the world economy, well, the secret here is the link between the EU and the US says, well, we are about 50% of the global world's value in the economy. So this provocation is that's why, um, the approach that the EU is taking is right when it comes to not responding to this provocation, because in good negotiations, well, the climate's not dictated by the way in which your opponent behaves. It's the conditions we need to have the conditions so that we can work together, and we can build this together and continue what we're doing and in a constructive way. We have shown, um, when we haven't been able to do the same in other areas, such as foreign policy. But we're looking at international trade here And the EU does have a phone number when it comes to that.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. President. What I'd like to thank the minister and the Commissioner for having touched on all the key points when it comes to the future of the steel industry. The Commission's action plan. Is good, but the challenge is going to be implementation, as has been said by the colleagues. I mean, the appropriate trade defence measures. Defining the origin of the product. That's important. We've got this melt and pour rule which will, uh, reduce circumvention, I think. And then the other point relates to green steel using a scrap metal and avoiding it's scrap metals export. And this reopens the discussion on critical materials. This is something that we're discussing in Parliament. And we believe that, uh, ferro Ferroalloy. Scrap is a crucial raw material, so it needs to go on the appropriate list. We also need to adopt measures that are not temporary in nature, but permanent. We need to decouple in a certain way so that we can deal with energy price issues. Decoupling gas and electricity prices would be important, but the last point that I want to mention relates to the United States. We have threats at the moment from the United States, but also from China. And in order to deal with those threats, we need a joint policy to deal with the issues.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• “Thank you. President. Thank you. Commissioner. When it comes to biofuels, there's a long history, much disagreement. Which sometimes debate was designed to better understand it. In other cases, it was decided to limit the powers or scope of the European institutions. We need a framework for biofuels. That's clear. Now. We need a solid instrument. To support some of the main pillars of our agenda, one of which is, of course, or the first of which is decarbonisation, as you said. Secondly, diversification. And thirdly, reduction of the EU's dependency. This is why it's important and useful for us to step up the use of biofuels in the transport sector aviation, maritime but also road transport. Why? For two reasons. First of all, this is an instrument. Which. The effects of which in terms of integration of the farming sector are quite clear. Secondly, because road transport, as we're now seeing with the the revision of the CO2 emissions regulation for light vehicles needs support so as to promote technological neutrality. Biofuels are perfect to achieve this. Why? They're easily available and they don't involve major investment in infrastructure. And in terms of infrastructure, they're part of a circular economy for vehicles. So enormous advantages obviously. We very much hope That's the EU's ability to regulate on. This will enable us to simplify the rules. As we've heard from the commissioner, there is a directive being prepared, and it's important that regulations on atmospheric CO2 shouldn't involve new binding aspects, which.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you, doctor McGuinness, for talking about what ESA does and what some of the future challenges are. We recently heard from the European Commission on the how it's going to work with the possible revision of reach. And briefly, I'd say that we have two main concerns. First of all, introducing in notification and registration obligation not only for constituent substances, in other words monomers, but also for polymers. This is a huge danger for thermoplastics, textile and other sectors of our industry. So we'd like to know a little bit more about that. And the second concern is even a bigger, both from a scientific and industrial point of view, the possible bow extension of the generic approach to risk assessment to a substance assessment. This is not new. The difference between the general risk that a substance has, and then the specific risk assessment of that specific substance. In article 68.2, the Reach regulation does allow for this in a very generic risk for a specific group Cmrs for example. But if you extend this criterion to all substances, the danger will be huge. With Mr. Sigourney, the commissioner, we talked about this in hearings. For example, we've got 10,600 are in use and only 30 are really dangerous. When assessed in context. So if we change the criterion for PFAS, we will be wiping out huge sectors in the health care sector. Renewable energy generation. Semiconductors and so on. So is this is what's going to happen. Because if it is, it's going to have a huge impact on technology and the sector.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you president. The homeless crisis is causing. An unexpectedly large crisis in terms of energy prices, and it's inevitably going to get worse because, quite rightly, the European Union has decided to confirm a reduction in our supplies from Russia. We still import around 14% of our energy from Russia. But in 2027, we're looking to fully move away from Russian supplies. So that means that the crisis in the Straits of Hormuz is going to cause massive problems. Now, there has been a reaction to what's happened, but unfortunately it risks just being a reaction. Accelerate EU has the capacity to increase coordination between member states, but member states are still divided on what they're going to do. That's the genuine problem. A reaction is not enough. We need genuine harmonisation in Europe among member states when it comes to energy. We don't have standard prices now because. The way that energy prices are calculated actually deepens differences between member states. For example, we've decided to reform the ETS. One way of reforming it could be moving the ETS away from electricity generated by power stations. So we need to decide whether we're going to be coordinated on our energy policy. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you. I endorse what was already said by Mrs. Galvez, with whom I share the experience of the Sky and Space Intergroup as well, that we make available to the Polish presidency to implement the main space policies. The minister was just reporting on the great need to increase our capability to integrate data received by us from space in real time crisis management is possible. If the comprehensive data that we get from the different sources like Galileo, Copernicus and Square in future can be used, integrated and in real time. So that's not happening in 2023. There was a pilot project that I presented in conjunction with Mr. Busoi, the chair of the committee then, and that can be used as a benchmark. And then the second aspect of the problem is intervening to support industrial sectors in crisis, such as the automotive sector and using space data here in connectivity. So autonomous driving is a prospect that should be something particularly taken on board here in Europe, not in the United States.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Thank you. Well, the debate on the future of on the automotive future that has been triggered today in the EPP has new characteristics. Um, the commissioner is right. It would have been useful to take account of the calls emerging also from this Parliament last time round on the question of technological neutrality. The Commission. The Commission is adopting a new stance now because the same stance is being expressed by council. So I would ask that in the future the Parliament be listened to more carefully. This debate has been going on for quite some time now, but the fact that the conditions were lacking to be able to achieve the targets defined in the regulation was something which was said very clearly, very clearly here in this House of democracy, well enough documented with data, which was repeated time and time again. Um, but it was said that there hadn't been enough assessment of the impact. So for light vehicles and heavy vehicles, the internal combustion engine has to be able to live alongside electric engines during this period so that this, uh, evolution being promoted always by the European model is brought about in a sustainable way from all points of view. It's no coincidence that the European continent right now is the most sustainable continent in the world, because we've always had this balance between supply and demand with respect and in respect of technological neutrality, and I hope this will happen in the automotive sector as well.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “(14:37:44 – 14:37:45): Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone. It was no mean feat, I think, to negotiate on such a complex regulation. It was a formidable challenge. This happened immediately after the previous round of negotiations and the 2023 vote. And it was very clear that there was a need to adjust the provisions of the regulation. The idea here is to ensure the best possible technical and political alignment of positions to rally behind some changes that will ensure we achieve our primary aim here, which is that we should have a Europe of mobility which is decarbonized as much as possible, and that starts with new light duty vehicles. That's the purpose of this regulation. We've had a lively debate, and one of the key issues has been emission verification methodologies. The verification at the point of discharge is the model which is still in place. There's a zero emission category for electric vehicles. But if you take a life cycle approach, you'd achieve a very different result. An electric vehicle would not be considered zero emission at all. So that methodological issue is crucial. This exhaust pipe approach, if you like, stands, but we try to bring in appropriate changes to be technologically neutral. In order to achieve that, we've introduced a new category of vehicle to compensate for this hypothetical compounding of the error, if you like, that by having the pipe approach, one could run into this problem which I described. You could have a vehicle using exclusively alternative fuels reclassified as zero emission, whereas in environmental terms, it would not be achieving zero emissions at the pipe, but it would be deemed emission neutral overall looking at the life cycle of the product. And there we looked at the possibility of flexibility mechanisms being introduced by the commission. Here, we can look at the way in which alternative fuels are recognized and given value. The availability of alternative fuels is in itself a sticking point. There are two points in the commission proposal: use of flexibility as of 2035. We suggested in the negotiating stage that the flexibility should not kick in as of 2035, but rather immediately. Secondly, the level of availability of alternative fuels should be calculated on the basis of real market data, not the 3% which the commission proposes, but a more ambitious figure given the fact that a significant proportion of alternative fuels will not be used for road transport but for other forms of transport. How do you calculate the percentages for this flexibility mechanism? We have a further proposal on that too. What the commission proposal does is distinguish between class A and class B, category A, category B, depending on RED compliance. What we do is take the provisions of the Renewable Energy Directive, and you can take annex 9 of RED category B, can be included. So we don't see any need for double counting. We don't see any need for a legislative overlap there. We would take those provisions directly. Some additional points, though, before concluding. Intermediate targets. We already saw that there'd be need for an extra 3 years in 2025. We call for something similar for the 2030 intermediate target, and that could be watered down to 5 years. Light duty vehicles, meaning cars and vans, might require some kind of distinction because we're seeing different paces of development for cars and vans in the market. So it might be useful to distinguish between them. And then finally, we feel that the overall package should be consistent. Corporate fleet and buses and other vehicles, the Industrial Accelerator Act, and its provisions cover a lot of these areas. They're made in EU and so on. As for the timeline, NV committee vote at the beginning of November so that the parliamentary process can be concluded by the end of the year. We hope that the discussion will focus on the substance so that we can achieve common ground on something which is of such great industrial and social transcendence for the future. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you. Well, I would echo Mr. Gori's, uh, uh, worries about the future of space because it contains a very correct observation, which is that one of the sectors in which the European Union has provided technological solutions with, in terms of research is space. Now we need to move on to the big investments that can, uh, create a critical mass, both when it comes to the upstream, the downstream access to space. Because of course, there are, uh, rules about launching. And one of the reasons is that we often talk about dual use. And we can we can say we do this because we have space. Dual use is sort of protected by space. The second facet of the question is the sick man of Europe is manufacturing vice president. We are losing 2% of manufacturing in Europe and have been since Covid because of energy costs and competition from emerging markets. Can you, uh, give this European sick man an injection from time to time?”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Thank you. Thanks very much. First of all, for the opportunity to talk about the regulation. And. The EPP and others will negotiate agreements and in divisions on these on the question of this, of the market. That's a huge issue. We have had to increase the fines, period, because the speed of the market is good, but it's not sufficient. And increasing three fold the speed at which people are buying. We would still only have 60% by 2035. So the best we could possibly do is 70%. Then the question is concerning industry. Starting the whole debate from the industry's point of view doesn't work in my view. We should start from the consumer's point of view. If we want to favour an industry of auto of electric cars in Europe, why should we not try to anticipate the flexibilities that could be introduced by 2035? If we start immediately, this flexibility will help our industry immediately, and this could be a good way to achieve our aims. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Oh, yes. I also believe that the EU should take a firm position. We need to stand up and call out the fact that Iran has for years been a violator of international law. But I do appreciate the effort that the European Union is currently engaged in, which is to try and overcome the issues that are caused by the treaties and come up with a position that is, at the very least, coordinated. Thank you.”
  EU-Iran relations
• “(15:34:58 – 15:36:29): Well to judge from the discussion, it's not going to be an easy ride in these negotiations, not only because there are different positions, but because a lot of the arguments which are presented are linked to what has happened in the past and a lot of things which have not allowed us to tackle the true nature of the challenge as it is developing within the EU. We do have a few months. We have a very tight timeline because we have the same of finishing by the end of the year. If we're going to hit that deadline, then we're really going to need to hit the ground running and come up with landing zone proposals very soon. That will be essential in order to come up with realistic solutions. And otherwise, if we don't see that will to find a common landing zone, then I think we can resign ourselves to only engaging in a theoretical task rather than a practical one. But I hope that, thanks to those of you who are willing to enter that spirit. Thank you so much, and thank you for not being like your colleagues who are not used to making compromises.”
  EU political integration