Tiemo WÖLKEN

Policy topics Tiemo WÖLKEN is active on

What Tiemo WÖLKEN has said (30)

• 2026-02-20 “P-000725/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission will publish a Staff Working Document which will inter alia present a costbenefit analysis of the measures included in the Proposal for a European Biotech Act 1 , including the 12-month Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) extension - in line with the requirements of Better Regulation Guidelines of the Commission 2 . 1 COM(2025) 1022 final. 2 SWD(2021) 305 final.”
  Pharma IPRs · Pharmaceuticals regulation in EU
• 2025-11-05 “P-004346/2025 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission prepares impact assessments where the expected economic, social or environmental impacts of the proposal are likely to be significant, for major spending programmes, and where there is a policy choice. In the preparation of the next multiannual financial framework, the Commission has carried out seven impacts assessments supporting 17 legislative proposals and four ex-ante evaluations, in line with the better regulation principles. The Commission’s commitments on better regulation do not mean that an impact assessment should accompany all proposals under ordinary legislative procedure. Presenting statistics on this basis therefore does not give an indication of follow-up to the commitment made in the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making 1 . The Commission is committed to evidence-informed policymaking and prepares its proposals in line with its own principles, consistent with paragraph 17 of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making. When an impact assessment is due, but for urgency reasons it cannot be prepared, the Commission publishes a staff working document presenting all the evidence supporting the proposal within three months of its adoption. Moreover, certain policy proposals do not warrant the preparation of an impact assessment because either the impacts are not expected to be significant or there is no policy choice (for example, when integrating international rules into EU legislation). The staff working documents prepared instead of impact assessments contain the relevant analysis supporting the proposals. All relevant staff working documents are publicly available. The Commission is fully committed to evidence-based policy making, implementing the Interinstitutional agreement. It calls on the co-legislators to do the same and assess the impacts of their substantial amendments to Commission proposals. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2016/512/oj/eng.”
  EU political integration
• 2025-06-04 “P-002235/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission Under EU law, the enforcement of copyright must respect fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression and of information. The Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 establishes a balanced framework for online intermediaries, and their providers are responsible for tackling illegal content and protecting rights such as media freedom. The DSA requires the providers of such online intermediaries to act diligently, objectively and proportionately when applying content moderation, with due regard to freedom of expression and media pluralism. The providers of Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs), such as Google Search, must also mitigate systemic risks, including by adapting moderation processes. Providers of intermediary services may rely on automated means to detect and remove or otherwise restrict illegal content (such as the non-authorised use of copyright protected content), as long as the content moderation meets the requirements of the DSA, including certain additional transparency requirements 2 . The Commission is directly enforcing the DSA vis-à-vis designated VLOSEs and, where necessary, it takes steps to ensure that their providers comply with the Regulation. In addition, the Directive (EU) 2024/1069 3 protects persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings initiated to silence public debate. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng. 2 Article 15 of the DSA requires providers of intermediary services to make publicly available reports on their content moderation, including a description of any use of automated means and any safeguards applied. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj.”
  Search engines (liability) · Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2024-09-18 “P-001758/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Vestager on behalf of the European Commission The Commission can approve public funding at national level under EU state aid rules and in line with the objectives set out in the Chips Act 1 . It has so far approved state aid for the following projects: — STMicroelectronics (ST) in Catania, wafer plant: EUR 730 million 2 investment, with EUR 292 million aid; — ST in Catania, integrated plant: EUR 5 billion 3 , with EUR 2 billion aid; — ST and GlobalFoundries in Crolles: EUR 7.4 billion 4 , with EUR 2.9 billion aid; — European Semiconductor Manufacturing Company 5 in Dresden: EUR 18 billion 6 , with EUR 5 billion aid. Further, the Commission approved state aid for 68 projects in the ‘Important project of common European interest on microelectronics and communication technologies’, with up to EUR 8.1 billion in public funding, which is expected to unlock a total investment of EUR 21.8 billion 7 . The Commission is bound to respect confidentiality and is unable to divulge specifics on other projects that are under assessment. Public support for all projects above and those currently in the pipeline is provided exclusively by Member States. The amount of public funding can only be estimated for the projects where aid has been approved so far, and that is approximately equivalent to one third of the overall committed investment. At EU level, the Commission contributes financially to the Chips Joint Undertaking 8 , with an allocation of EUR 4.175 billion. Under the Chips Joint Undertaking, large enterprises receiving research grants typically match public support, with a private contribution share of at least 50%. Further, at EU level, support is provided to startups through the Chips Fund 9 , with equity amounting to EUR 550 million, which is expected to mobilise over 2.5 billion private investments. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1781/oj 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5970 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2994 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_2447 5 European Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (ESMC) is a joint venture between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) Limited, Robert Bosch GmbH, Infineon Technologies AG and NXP Semiconductors N.V. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_4287 7 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3087 8 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1782/oj 9 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1781/oj”
  State Aid · EU industrial funding
• “I hope you can hear me. At least I heard you. So thank you very much, Professor Edenhofer, for your insights. Um, in your report on removals, the advisory board pointed out that we were seeing the destroying of the Lenssinck must be a prime priority for us in order to enable this reversal. You also pointed towards the necessity of adopting both a strengthened forest monitoring law and soil and the soil monitoring law. Could you elaborate today a bit why both pieces of legislation are so important to reach our natural removal targets? I'm asking this as more and more political, uh, groups and parties and some colleagues tend to think that we could, uh, just drop both laws without any problems. And my second question, uh, continues more or less where Peter just stopped. It is this question is also regarding our upcoming work around the 2040 climate target. In addition to the regretful delay that Commissioner Hoekstra announced in the media last week. Uh, the commission also seems to entertain the idea of including international emissions reductions and possibly removals in the context of the Climate Law amendment. I have a personal view on that, but I would be happy if you could elaborate a bit from the scientific side a bit. What would be your recommendation on the trustworthiness of such credits traded under under article six, especially with the experience of the Clean Development Mechanism? After all, there will there will also be a transfer of a considerable number of old CDM credits into the new 6.4 platform. So I would be really interested in your thoughts about it, and maybe I might change my view after that to a more positive assessment, because I don't think it's a good idea at the moment. Thank you very much for being here with us and already in advance for your answers.”
  Climate efforts
• “Madam president. Commissioner. The automotive industry is a key employer in the European Union. And there's a another issue we have and that's that Many people buy second hand cars. We need to look after the interests of the broad majority of consumers and. Guide them towards, uh, electric cars, because we're not going to meet our climate goals by importing fuel from Saudi Arabia and and so on. We shouldn't be dependent on the fossil fuel countries. The future of mobility is electric. It's the most efficient form of mobility. And I'm sorry, um, synthetic fuels are something that the average citizen would never be able to afford. We're not legislating for Porsche drivers. So thank you very much. There's a great deal to do, but we're on the right track minute.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, chair. In German, and then I'll able to stick to my 2 minutes. First of all, for these SMEs, yes, we know this argument. They're not in the scope, and that's an important point. But let me just very say very clearly, we have worked with member states who are gonna be working with them and not going to the companies themselves. That's an important point as well. And we do recognize that in member states, there are differences, different conditions, sensibilities, and therefore, we're looking at individual country by country conditions. Charging infrastructure at the moment, well, they're not it's not being used enough at the moment. So, there's not much profit being made there. That should lead to concerns as well. 1 of the, items I find, madness really is that, airports aren't able to come up with charging infrastructure. If you can you can charge a a plane, why not a car? I have to look at other member states. In Belgium, you know, there are 100 charging places available and same at the airport. So it is functioning in certain place. You just have to want it to function. Very clearly, as the SMBs, I think we think this is an important proposal, especially to help the secondhand market, especially for those that can't afford a a new car. You need to see this as a package. I think on the 1 hand, you have a look at the production conditions, but also the demand side. We need to provide incentives so that we don't move to a planned economy as sometimes we hear in we hear in this, house. Just 1 more point. This is independence. Mister Heide, you tried wrongly to portray this as being addicted to, China. Just a question to you. How much, oil is produced in your country? I think 5% or whatever. The rest is imported, Iraq, Kazakhstan, other countries. And how much electricity produced in Austria? 90%. So you wouldn't be independent if you want you you would be more independent if you move for to electricity, but I know that you're not gonna understand that. I'd just like to say thank you to everybody. It's been quite controversial. Thanks for the critical remarks. Thanks for discussing. Hopefully, we can come to a compromise that takes on board that obviously we do want to support European companies, but also want to support European citizens, working citizens. So thank you much indeed for the critical honest exchange views. Thank you.”
  EV charging infrastructure
• “Thank you very much. I realized that I destroyed the microphone, so I hope it works. Um. Thank you for your draft report. It is not easy to come up with a report on such an area where there are such diverse interests at stake. When we read the draft report, we can see room for change and growth. I heard some ideas expressed in your opening statement, and that is a good sign because it means that we can have open, frank discussions move towards our different positions. This is an issue that didn't even occur to anyone six years ago. It is a rapidly evolving area. Now, I don't get the impression from the commission that they're in any hurry to take action here. As such, I believe that our report is the right one at the right time. We in the Parliament can only bring pressure to bear and make a real difference if we secure a broad majority here behind this report. And I think we can get there. We have some 51%. I think if we only get a 51% vote in favour, we'll have spent a lot of time and energy on this, but it won't have any real clout. We need a broad. Majority backing. This is an area where we want to protect culture creators, content creators, and also support development of European AI firms. It is clear that completely free, unregulated AI licensing market will not work. We cannot leave it to market forces alone. We need to strengthen rights. The large rights holders would benefit. They'd have a good legal department.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “On the subject of regulatory fast track incentives and the coordinated approach on environmental assessments, we need to be cautious while reducing administrative. Administrative? Yes, even my daughter thinks so. While reducing administrative hurdles can be beneficial. We must ensure that these projects can be used to circumvent rules. Quality and safety can never be compromised in the name of speed. A fast track procurement must not lead to deregulation and should never impact the quality of robust assessments. And then for us, also very important is the stakeholder involvement. We should make better use of the Critical Medicines Alliance by turning it into a permanent platform. And then um, one last thing. Um, I would like to underline that the speed is not always the best approach. While I understand the ambition to move forward quickly, we must also ensure that we take just a second. That we, um. That we take the necessary time to get this right. So, um, this file has been fast tracked by the Commission and published without any impact assessment. Furthermore, we are still missing the staff working document, which was supposed to be published about a month ago. And on top of the summer break has further limited the time available for in-depth work. So in this sense, I advocate for an extension of the Parliament's timeline in order to have the time needed for a proper internal assessment, consultation and coordination. And I heard before this meeting that the rapporteur might be willing to to address this issue, and this would be very much appreciated. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for fixing the issue. Sorry for, um, uh, the delay here, and I hope you could still hear me. Well.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Honourable president. Thank you.Commissioner. Good to see you here today. And thank you for the proposal. It's always a bit hard to start with a correction, but I'm afraid I have to. The scientific service that your York Scientific advisor, said that 90% is the minimum which we have to achieve by 2040. And beyond that, we could use credits to be more flexible, but incorporating them into the 90% goes against your own scientific services recommendation. That's not the responsibility we have to shoulder, and that's why my group believes that huge use of international loans is not the right way forward. During the last term, you were nominated. Afterwards, there was a hearing, and one question was whether a 90% target were in line with the commission's thinking. And you said, yes, many years ago, and only now, a couple of days before the climate conference, we've got a proposal from the commission, and we've not got enough time for the Parliament and the council to discuss that. That is not aligned with my understanding of democracy. And at the same time, we are faced with the climate crisis. This is not something we've just imagined. Maybe we should use a different term. Maybe we should say we're fighting not against the climate crisis or fighting for the survival of humanity. And then some of the statements we hear today would sound a bit weird. People saying, well, it's about competitiveness. The question isn't is it competitiveness or climate protection? Competitiveness or survival of humanity? And that's what it's really about, which is why it's rather shameful to hear the EPP refusing to vote for an urgency proposal, that we can finally conclude this matter. When the climate emergency was declared in this House, the EPP was not on board. They didn't want to call it a climate crisis. They wanted to call it a climate urgency. And that urgency has come full circle has become a problem. The EP is turning a blind eye to what we have to achieve together. We need an ambitious position in the run up to BLM and that's what we should be working on. As of now. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much, cheers. It's an honor to be here today. Let me say it up front, for my group, for our group, the Clean Corporate Vehicle Regulation is indeed an essential cornerstone of Europe's ambition to lead the transition to zero emission transport. And I'm proud to present our draft report alongside my co-rapporteur Francois Carfon. First, let me address the scope of the regulation. As you all know, corporate vehicles account for 60% of new car registrations and 90% of new van registrations in the European Union, so it's significant. These fleets are not only high mileage, but also enter the second-hand market quickly, making them a powerful tool for accelerating the shift to zero emission mobility also for people who cannot afford a new car, unfortunately. Furthermore, corporate users usually have the financial firepower compared to households, and they're able to take on the upfront cost of an electric vehicle. Nevertheless, we are well aware of the various concerns many stakeholders have expressed regarding the impact, especially on SMEs. We met many of them. So this is why we are sticking with the commission approach. The law will not be binding on any individual company, but it will set targets only at member states level. So this will give the member states the maximum amount of flexibility to create the enabling conditions necessary for the uptake of e-mobility. These targets furthermore will, as the commission proposed, cover large undertakings only. Our proposal exempts essential service vehicles such as ambulances, fire brigade vehicles, and adapted vehicles for persons with disabilities. We recognize that for certain operational profiles, zero emission alternatives are not yet adequate. So moving on to the target set in Annex 1. As we all know in this room, the commission chose to go for the least ambitious option from the impact assessment. We therefore propose for cars a slightly more ambitious number. A very minor increase to 70% share of zero and low emission cars in the new corporate registrations by 2030 with at least 54% being fully electric. For 2035, we aim for 88% zero emission cars in corporate fleets, ensuring that the transition is visible and aligned with our climate neutrality goals. Crucially, we have removed the combined zero and low emission target for 2035, focusing instead on a pure zero emission target. As for vans, in recognition of the fact that this market segment faces some particular challenges, we propose to keep the targets from the commission. On financial support, from discussions with member states and other stakeholders, we have gathered that financial support is the key tool to kick start the shift in corporate fleets. However, this support needs to be understood broadly to include differentiated taxation models. In addition to the climate, as social as democrats, we also want to make this relation a win for Europe's working people and finally make electric driving affordable for the middle and low income households in the European Union. That's why we have included in our report a mandate for the member states to financially support the uptake of former corporate vehicles on the second-hand market as well. Not only will these measures help with affordability, they will also address the issue of residual value for leased vehicles. Finally, in article 6, we introduced a robust framework for monitoring and reporting. So, to conclude, under our proposal, member states must submit draft national plans by February 2028 and every 2 years thereafter. These plans must include an assessment of the national market, a detailed outline of measures, policies to expand charging infrastructure, and the commission will have the right to review these plans and issue recommendations if they are deemed insufficient. All in all, I think we proposed something which is a constructive basis for discussion, but we obviously still believe that this proposal is crucial and is also a part of the whole automotive package we are going to discuss in the next weeks.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach
• “Okay. Thank you very much. Maybe, um, first question to all panelists. So, um, and a more general level, uh, we have heard from, um, all of you, um, that there are still technical challenges and, uh, the economy. Economic challenges are also there and we need to find a way to overcome both. So, and I fully understand that the industry is asking for greater investments, uh, investment certainty, so that we even have a chance to overcome the technical hurdles to have a secure investment case. So, um, but I'm I'm left with a fundamental question, though, given, um, that we have tried this path for decades and decades. Um, what evidence do we have that the remaining technical hurdles can ever be overcome and that c.c.c. can ever become more than than a nice niche solution? So I would love to see it working and in place, but we tried quite a long time already. And then, uh, to the first speaker, I would have a more, um, Precise question. Um, how should we ensure that the losses that that you've very well explained during the different parts of transport and storage, uh, are properly reflected when accounting for the CO2 savings and removals? And if I may also, uh, final question to our last speaker. Um, how would you suggest, uh, to design the obligation scheme for industry to by the removal obligations? Thank you.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “Thank you very much, chair. Um, to answer your first question, um, it's not a 1% cap, right? So this is only for the more problematic, uh, biofuels and for all other fuels. It's the 3% cap. But maybe, uh, vodka will correct me on this. And I can also answer your second question by no one focuses on e-fuels because it's way too expensive for the average European. And we are not here to make policies for the ones who can afford a Porsche. So but now to my questions. Um, on the possibility for car manufacturers, um, to use the fuel credits, uh, for up to 3% of their emissions from 2035, um, in the red three, we already have agreed for 2030 on a target for the whole transport sector of 5.5% advanced biofuels and 1% rfmos. Um, what we know from, from the data today that the lion's share of those amounts is currently being used by road transport. So if member states live up to their legal obligations, and I'm sure they will, uh, we will already have more than 3% biofuels in the fuel mix by 2035. Therefore, neither car manufacturers nor, um, fossil fuel companies will have to make any additional effort to get these credits compared to the business as usual scenario.”
• “Strategic projects can not and must not be used as a pretext to weaken or bypass existing environmental rules. The content quality and robustness of environmental impact assessments must be preserved in full. So for the S&D Group, it is clear that when it comes to regulatory fast tracking incentives and a coordinated approach to environmental assessments, we need to proceed with caution while reducing unnecessary administrative hurdles can be beneficial. We must ensure that these measures are not used to circumvent rules. Quality, safety and environmental integrity can never be compromised in the name of speed. A fast track procedure must not result in deregulation and must never undermine the quality, credibility or robustness of environmental assessments. For this, I am happy to see that the rapporteur has also included amendments underlining that streamlining shall not lead to lowering the level of, and quality of environmental protection, as well as not affect the content of quality of the environmental impact assessment, something we of course support. So I'm looking forward to working with the rapporteur and the other Co-rapporteurs and would like to thank him for his draft. Again, thanks.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Or should I say chairs? Thanks, colleagues, for having this exchange. I think, uh, it's, uh, very important that we connect the two different political, um, um, levels. I think it's bridging, uh, two, uh, important political gaps in climate policy. First, uh, the gap between an ambitious targets and the regional implementation. And and secondly, the gap between those who design climate policies with the best intents and then those who have to implement it on the ground. So, as said, we believe this conversation should be, um, repeated, uh, because it is very important. But we have to say that, uh, we need to stay on track with our ambitious climate action. But we need solidarity and we need democracy. Uh, when, when, um, fulfilling our targets. So, um, let's look at the uncomfortable reality. Uh, Europe is not ready for climate impacts we are already experiencing. Uh, we are in a world, um, and in Europe, heating up by 1.2 degrees. And we already see the massive, the massive effects of the climate crisis. So what we need is adaptation, not as a complementary policy to mitigation, but as a urgent frontline line priority. So adaptation is what will determine whether communities will survive or thrive or whether they collapse and at the same. So, um, at the same time, adaptation is not enough if you fall behind on our mitigation ambition. So, um, what I would like to, to say for my political group is that we see that we are still in need of being more ambitious, but at the same, same time, we need to find the right social balance. And this is what we will only achieve with the communities together.”
  Climate efforts
• “But what about independent bands or film companies? The small players. So we need to come up with a solution that is in the interests of the most vulnerable, those whose livelihoods are under threat. And who could be exposed to unfair contracts. I see that approach emerge in your report, and I think we can work on fleshing out tangible proposals. But let's remember that we want to make Europe attractive for a company. So we want to find the middle ground here. I'm in favour of UN bureaucratic solutions and helping small companies here.”
  Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• “(09:44:35 – 09:46:34): Thank you very much, chair, and thanks to all experts here. As was already pointed out in the beginning, I think the ETS is a crucial system and a proof that it can work. It is also a very well working system. We have to make sure that the ETS performs in the 20s, obviously aligned with the newly set target for 2040, and ensure clean tech investments remain viable and the industrial jobs of the future are created right here in Europe. I would also second Peter's question. If we change the ETS, how do we make sure that the ones who already invested billions of euros for the transformation to secure jobs also in the future are not the ones who have to pay the price in the end? How do we protect them? Then I would like to raise a question to our second speaker today. Mr. Tanshan, you pointed out correctly that the high energy prices are the main hindrance to the competitiveness of the European chemical industry. Could you explain what share of ETS costs is in your energy costs and how you expect it to develop? According to the data we found, in Czechia, the share of ETS costs in industrial electricity is about 9%. That is certainly substantial, but not the main price driver, especially in the recent geopolitical escalation. In addition, how does the scheme for indirect costs compensation, which your country also applies, affect your energy costs? I would be happy to hear the two answers. Thank you very much.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “So, um, but all the time when we discussed it, the EPP colleagues and Mr. always said trust the market. But apparently that's not enough. So I'm happy to see that insight, that insight on the need for greater social support. And I will also underline Peter's question as a consequence, can we expect your presidency to push for a larger social climate fund for more European funds to invest into charging infrastructure and, for example, socialising schemes for electric cars? And then, in short, instead of putting your hand in the sand and just saying, yeah, well, you know, on the 2040 targets, we have to start a discussion within the member states. I would be happy to hear a bit of confidence that your presidency will make a change. So maybe you can try to explain again how you will make how you want to Want to intend to make the 2040 target a reality and to win, and to convince member states that we need this target to be economically successful. At the same time reaching our climate targets. Thank you very much.”
  EV charging infrastructure
• “Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, indeed. My apologies for not being there today. We have workers union strike in Germany and my flight unfortunately got cancelled. So. But while I'm at it, I would like to express my solidarity with all colleagues fighting for better working conditions. So very quickly, since we finished political discussions on this in December, the technical team has continued its work and it has been very busy. Uh, to close more than 400 articles of the pharma package. And I'm very happy that we can vote on the provisional agreement today or you can. I can't, unfortunately, but I would invite you to support it. Uh, the deal marks a major step towards a fairer, more accessible healthcare system for all EU citizens and a stronger modern pharmaceutical framework. In a nutshell, we can, uh, we came one step closer to a true, uh, European health Union. The regulation includes two new incentives for priority antimicrobials placing the fight against Amr at the forefront. And this was our priority. Uh, by introducing a subscription model as a tool, we aim to further fix market failures by Delinking company revenues from sales volumes of antibiotics, whilst encouraging member states to collaborate and to make the novel product throughout the union available. Transferable data exclusivity vouchers on top will help drive research and innovation for priority antimicrobials by giving the right to 12 additional months of data protection for one authorised product.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “So for for my group, this doesn't seem like a good solution. So if no one has to do any additional efforts and the target for carmakers is lowered, this is not compensation. It's basically a freebie. So are double counting however you want to call it. But maybe I'm wrong and you can enlighten me. That would be great. And then, um, one additional question. If you have calculated the impact of the CO2, uh, cars, um, changes on the ETS price. So if fewer BEVs come, uh, online, more internal combustion engine cars remain on the streets and they need to to refuel at some point. Um, so, um, more Ice cars mean more fuel demand. More fuel demand means a higher ETS to price. So given that we are currently doing anything and everything, like your proposal on the MSR changes to keep the ETS price low so that the whole thing has a chance of political survival. Uh, is this not very counterproductive?”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Did the Commission take on the first general objective from the Sea Regulation, but omitted the much more specific objective to support vulnerable groups? Given that member States would be able to choose to apply for for the funding, either under the new NRP rules or under the current Social Climate Fund regulation, we as sad fear that this incentivizes Member States to not focus their spending on the most vulnerable groups, but instead spread it around to fix general transition challenges, thereby leaving some of the most vulnerable families out in the cold, sometimes literally. The proposal also does not mention the possibility of direct income support. Does that mean this key tool would no longer be admissible under the new procedure either? And luckily, I can't see my time in this context. I would like to remind everyone that the strong focus of these very scarce funds on the most vulnerable groups in society was a precondition for my group to agree on the package deal on the ETS two. And that's why my last question is, why does the Commission see the need to take away support from the most vulnerable households by loosening this conditionality? Thank you.”
  EU policy on social criteria in public funding
• “Thank you very much. First of all, thank you for being here and for making this exchange possible. It's very valuable for us. And I would have a question to Liana for the AEA. Um, as you have said, our emissions increasingly have to be seen in the context of food and resource production, specifically land use. Um, which brings me to the famous topic of biomass. Last year, the EPA called on US policymakers to, and I quote, urgently ensure that increasing use of biomass does not lead to unsustainable practices in the EU and abroad and improving a more circular and cascading use of biomass components. Um, since then, unfortunately, the trends in the carbon sinks, um, and while making a slight recovery are still not on track to reach our 2030 targets. In fact, the natural things in 2023 were on the same level as 2018, with biomass use being a major hindrance on their recovery. And hence my question would be where do you see the most glaring gaps in the policy framework regarding biomass? How do we need to design the forest and land use targets in 2040? In the 1020, 40 context to avoid making the same mistakes as of 2030? So I think once we have all the experts here, we should. We should not waste our time, but really look at the problems ahead. So if you would have some answers to this, which would be very important for our work in the coming years, that would very much be appreciated. And once again, thanks to all of you for for making the time. And, um, one last thing, especially highlighting how important it is that US agencies work together. And I'm really happy to see that you have enshrined the One health approach, something we, um, in the Parliament tried to defend. And even with the new committee on Sunday, I hope that we can uphold this one health approach, which would be very close to my heart, to my heart so and to the hearts of our group. So thank you very much for underlining this very, very important principle here.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Good morning, Mr. Miklosko. Thanks for being here. And, Peter, thanks for speaking. Four minutes. So you already raised my questions, but I will follow up. No worries. So, um, the minister yesterday, your prime minister in the plenary, uh, called on us to have the courage to deregulate. And he said for a wholesale review of all Green Deal legislation, we need the courage to deregulate. Um, I'm a bit worried, to be honest. Um, how will your presidency, how will the Polish presidency indeed ensure that we will stay true to our climate targets? And as Peter just mentioned, and we totally are aligned with this. Uh, we do have international obligations we have to fulfill. So I would be very happy if you could explain how you plan your presidency, plans to reach the climate targets in. And at the same time, your Prime Minister wants to question all the necessary measures that can get us there. And in particular, Mr. Tusk talked about the ETS two, and he said it will have terribly predictable consequences for lower income households. Honestly, this is quite ironic because my group, every time we discuss the ETS to raise this issue, and we mentioned how difficult it will be for low income households and that the ETS two inherits social and political dynamite.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much, chair, and thanks, Mr. Commissioner. Um, thanks for being here and for the overview. Uh, I would like to underline that patient safety must be our top priority. Uh, past scandals involving, um, dangerous breast implants, for example, and faulty hip implants have shown just how essential a strong European standards are for the approval and certification of medical devices. There are they are they are the reasons that the medical devices regulation and an IVR were introduced in the first place. Right? So at the same time, I agree with you, uh, Commissioner, the MDR and Abdr have created significant challenges for the industry over the years. Duplicate assessments, overlapping reporting obligations, limitations, limited harmonization and oversight, as well as the insufficient use of digital solutions, have led to a heavy administrative burden for both authorities and economic operators. Parliament has recognized these issues for a long time and called for revision in that regard. I welcome the draft proposal. At first reading, it appears to address many of the challenges faced by the industry. However, as always, the devil is in the details, so we must ensure that proposed changes do not undermine patient safety. Instead, we need transparent, balanced and sustainable solutions. Once that's strengthened both European capacity to for innovation and long term provision of healthcare for our citizens. At the same time, I want to stress the importance of getting the timeline right? So we must take the time needed to develop a strong and well-considered Parliament position. A rushed process would severe neither industry nor healthcare professionals using the devices or patients with severe would serve. Obviously, we should not repeat the mistakes made over a decade ago. This time we must get it right for industry and above all for our patients. And five more seconds. I'll have to repeat a point I've raised before on the Critical Medicines Act and on the Biotech Act. It is regrettable that this proposal is once more not accompanied by an impact assessment, something Parliament explicitly asked for just in October 2024. Thank you very much.”
  Medical devices
• “Yeah. Thank you. Chair. Um, Peter and Germany, we we have this saying. Hola, Hola, Hola. So, um, I will not further comment on that, but maybe other groups should think where you stand. So I have a focus on the neck piece. First let me state the positive. Um, because I feel we do not get enough about, uh, of these lately. Uh, I think it is a very good sign that according to the final NPS, the EU is on track to achieve the 2030 climate target of reducing emissions by 55% compared to 1990. Above all. Uh, this means, I think, one thing, uh, the Green Deal, with all its elements and all elements are equally important, is working. Um, this is a strong reminder that we should not give into the scaremongering from the EP and even more far right side of this house. And we should finally stop sabotaging any further progress, decarbonisation and competitiveness. And even the EPP could understand that are not opposite. They go hand in hand. And it is our job to make sure that those who want to sabotage our future. And the future of our children do not get away with claiming they are doing this to protect the economy, because that economy will also die in a world suffering the consequences of climate change.”
  Climate efforts
• “President. Commissioner. Members. We have this sea of biofuels that is going to free us from dependencies. And here we have biofuels coming back round again. And then we're trying also to electrify. But what we really need is sustainable biofuels that we produce in Europe for vehicles that can't be electrified so quickly, ships, military vehicles, etc.. Now, of course, we can import palm oil and soya in order to create another dependency on third countries. And we can also help DeForest the rainforest by doing that. Why? Because the EPP and other parts of this house can't cope with electrification. These commitment issues. Now, it's not something we have time for because it's a climate catastrophe. Big car manufacturers in China, for example, are leading the market because they are electrifying their cars. And that's where we should be going in Europe as well.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “(15:15:51 – 15:18:17): Yeah. Thank you very much. So I could mention many points because there's a lot in the proposal which concerns me, and I don't have to be as diplomatic as my shadow. But I focus on one clear contradiction already between the EPP coordinator and the EPP rapporteur. Peter Lisi was pointing out rightly that we need an incentive for European green steel. But unfortunately, with the draft delivered here by the rapporteur, green steel will not play a role in this market because, Mister Sallini, you designed the exceptions in a way that it will always be better to use green biofuels or green alternative fuels. We all know they are not CO2 neutral. They also have a heavy CO2 footprint. You ignored it in your proposal. Fine. But we have to be honest about the fact they are not CO2 neutral. And I don't understand why we will not help the important European steel industry. We disregard their needs, we simply support the fossil fuel industry. And I think this is a strategic mistake. Your coordinator agrees. And this is why we have to sit down together, work on solutions, but we need to be honest with each other. Everyone has to move. If no side moves, we will not find majorities here, and this would be a very bad outcome for the people working in the European car industry. And I have to say one last sentence to Miss Ant. You may not know, but she is living 30 kilometers away from the largest German manufacturing site for electric vehicles. And it's a shame that you don't support the people in your region working in a factory producing European future mobility. The fact, and I have to say to you here, this is really not good politics. This is slapping the people in your own region in their faces.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “Yeah. Thank you. Chair. Um, Peter and Germany, we we have this saying. Hola, Hola, Hola. So, um, I will not further comment on that, but maybe other groups should think where you stand. So I have a focus on the neck piece. First let me state the positive. Um, because I feel we do not get enough about, uh, of these lately. Uh, I think it is a very good sign that according to the final NPS, the EU is on track to achieve the 2030 climate target of reducing emissions by 55% compared to 1990. Above all. Uh, this means, I think, one thing, uh, the Green Deal, with all its elements and all elements are equally important, is working. Um, this is a strong reminder that we should not give into the scaremongering from the EP and even more far right side of this house. And we should finally stop sabotaging any further progress, decarbonisation and competitiveness. And even the EPP could understand that are not opposite. They go hand in hand. And it is our job to make sure that those who want to sabotage our future. And the future of our children do not get away with claiming they are doing this to protect the economy, because that economy will also die in a world suffering the consequences of climate change.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yeah. Thank you very much, thanks Axel. I'm looking forward to the birth. And I believe that and I have. I believe that we are moving away from the black and white discussion a bit and also said his statement again. We have to do a bit of that, that we are facing this new challenge. In Japan, you can. Use it in the territoriality, I have already seen that we will soon. New logo and it must be sad. YouTube. Image and your region are not available, we are back in a very situation that we must then also not that we will not be technology. I want to go back to another problem in the whole debate and that is the role of artificial intelligence through online copyright. I am now from the investigative journalist service. I have written an article about a gambling company that has gone bad and is in the European Union and this investigative journalist. Research and after publication. This article from various mediums from various countries from the disappearance. That is the journalists. And Google has this article simply with the justification. And not that and unknown about the mechanisms article and have said that the investigative article is plagiarism and keyword and automated system are used to evaluate whether this article is journalistic work journalistic work. And I think we are in exactly the position we said. We need to rely on non-automated systems and upload filters not to decide what you see online or not. And that is why we have to resist the temptation for cross-platform only automatically and in a way that allows you to find things. And I think we have to live and now also on the thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the DMA is one of the best assets we have in our fight against Big Tech. But let's be honest with ourselves. Google, Apple. They're not going to give anything away. They will use all of our weaknesses to implement their unfair trading practices. And in order to get us into a corner and to further strengthen their monopolies. We're talking about AI. That's important, but we are forced to use Google's AI machine without offering alternatives. But while we're all focusing on AI. The open source Android is being closed off from us. That means that there is no way to use alternatives in its stores, and that means that developers are forced into terrible contracts. And Apple did the same thing. But the DMA was a way to have leverage to break up these monopolistic practices. And now we can end this kind of behavior in Google. And we are saying that we will not accept this. It's a clear message from us colleagues.”
  EU rules on digital competition